Audi A4: suspension damage after only 35K
#21
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Audi A4: suspension damage after only 35K
On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 10:58:40 -0700, Ignasi Palou-Rivera
<ipalourivera@yahoo.com> wrote:
>dizzy <dizzy@nospam.invalid> writes:
>> On 3 Apr 2004 18:14:23 -0800, chris-google@pobox.com (Chris Campbell)
>> wrote:
>>
>>>This car has only 35,000 miles on it, supposedly comes from a company
>>>with performance heritage,
>>
>> Who says those purveyors of FWD crap have a "performance heritage"?
>
>You can say whatever you want about current-day Audis but to deny
>their heritage is just uninformed or dumb. Don't you consider the
>pre-War Auto Unions or the 80's Ur-Quattro very much part of a
>"performance heritage"?
Um, no.
<ipalourivera@yahoo.com> wrote:
>dizzy <dizzy@nospam.invalid> writes:
>> On 3 Apr 2004 18:14:23 -0800, chris-google@pobox.com (Chris Campbell)
>> wrote:
>>
>>>This car has only 35,000 miles on it, supposedly comes from a company
>>>with performance heritage,
>>
>> Who says those purveyors of FWD crap have a "performance heritage"?
>
>You can say whatever you want about current-day Audis but to deny
>their heritage is just uninformed or dumb. Don't you consider the
>pre-War Auto Unions or the 80's Ur-Quattro very much part of a
>"performance heritage"?
Um, no.
#22
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Audi A4: suspension damage after only 35K
DTJ wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 10:58:40 -0700, Ignasi Palou-Rivera
> <ipalourivera@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>dizzy <dizzy@nospam.invalid> writes:
>>
>>>On 3 Apr 2004 18:14:23 -0800, chris-google@pobox.com (Chris Campbell)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>This car has only 35,000 miles on it, supposedly comes from a company
>>>>with performance heritage,
>>>
>>>Who says those purveyors of FWD crap have a "performance heritage"?
>>
>>You can say whatever you want about current-day Audis but to deny
>>their heritage is just uninformed or dumb. Don't you consider the
>>pre-War Auto Unions or the 80's Ur-Quattro very much part of a
>>"performance heritage"?
>
>
> Um, no.
Hmmm... then you're pretty much an idiot, then. I've never owned an
Audi (and may never, but who knows) but to flat out deny cars that
revolutionized racing because you don't like them is ignorant.
nate
--
go dry to reply.
http://www.toad.net/~njnagel
> On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 10:58:40 -0700, Ignasi Palou-Rivera
> <ipalourivera@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>dizzy <dizzy@nospam.invalid> writes:
>>
>>>On 3 Apr 2004 18:14:23 -0800, chris-google@pobox.com (Chris Campbell)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>This car has only 35,000 miles on it, supposedly comes from a company
>>>>with performance heritage,
>>>
>>>Who says those purveyors of FWD crap have a "performance heritage"?
>>
>>You can say whatever you want about current-day Audis but to deny
>>their heritage is just uninformed or dumb. Don't you consider the
>>pre-War Auto Unions or the 80's Ur-Quattro very much part of a
>>"performance heritage"?
>
>
> Um, no.
Hmmm... then you're pretty much an idiot, then. I've never owned an
Audi (and may never, but who knows) but to flat out deny cars that
revolutionized racing because you don't like them is ignorant.
nate
--
go dry to reply.
http://www.toad.net/~njnagel
#23
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Audi A4: suspension damage after only 35K
Kenneth Crudup wrote:
> In article <73da2590.0404091022.23058721@posting.google.com >,
> beelzebubba@hotmail.com (Jonesy) says:
>
>
>>Three cheers for i-Drive, huh?
>
>
> I couldn't care less about the BMW/Audi part of this argument, but
> anyone who can't figure out I-Drive is just plain dumb.
>
Personally, whether it's intuitive or not, the whole concept of I-drive
is somewhat unsettling to me. IMHO the functions of a car should be
controlled by switches, relays, and wires, and if the wiring harness
gets too unwieldy, perhaps it is time to think about cutting back on the
gewgaws.
nate
--
go dry to reply.
http://www.toad.net/~njnagel
> In article <73da2590.0404091022.23058721@posting.google.com >,
> beelzebubba@hotmail.com (Jonesy) says:
>
>
>>Three cheers for i-Drive, huh?
>
>
> I couldn't care less about the BMW/Audi part of this argument, but
> anyone who can't figure out I-Drive is just plain dumb.
>
Personally, whether it's intuitive or not, the whole concept of I-drive
is somewhat unsettling to me. IMHO the functions of a car should be
controlled by switches, relays, and wires, and if the wiring harness
gets too unwieldy, perhaps it is time to think about cutting back on the
gewgaws.
nate
--
go dry to reply.
http://www.toad.net/~njnagel
#24
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Audi A4: suspension damage after only 35K
On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 21:20:27 -0400, Nate Nagel
<njnagel@toadliquor.net> wrote:
>>>Don't you consider the
>>>pre-War Auto Unions or the 80's Ur-Quattro very much part of a
>>>"performance heritage"?
>>
>> Um, no.
>
>Hmmm... then you're pretty much an idiot, then. I've never owned an
>Audi (and may never, but who knows) but to flat out deny cars that
>revolutionized racing because you don't like them is ignorant.
>
>nate
Nate, with all due respect, your assumptions about my views are
incorrect. The question was whether the reader considers ... part of
a performance heritage. I don't. That is not to say they were not.
That is only a comment on how I feel about them.
Since I have no knowledge of the vehicles he speaks of, how would I
consider them part of anything?
My point was that just because he considers them to be something
special, does not mean that everyone does, for whatever reason.
Further, I have nothing against them, but the idiots who sit here and
bitch about Honda, which is pretty much the finest engineered vehicle
in the world IMO, and state that this "super high quality" Audi breaks
motor mounts under ANY conditions, are totally ing clueless. If
any vehicle has enough torque to break motor mounts, it either has too
much torque or the quality of the motor mounts is lacking. Period.
You don't engineer a plane with great engines and forget to engineer
the wings which hold the engines.
So, again, with all due respect, you interpreted my comments in a way
that was not intended.
<njnagel@toadliquor.net> wrote:
>>>Don't you consider the
>>>pre-War Auto Unions or the 80's Ur-Quattro very much part of a
>>>"performance heritage"?
>>
>> Um, no.
>
>Hmmm... then you're pretty much an idiot, then. I've never owned an
>Audi (and may never, but who knows) but to flat out deny cars that
>revolutionized racing because you don't like them is ignorant.
>
>nate
Nate, with all due respect, your assumptions about my views are
incorrect. The question was whether the reader considers ... part of
a performance heritage. I don't. That is not to say they were not.
That is only a comment on how I feel about them.
Since I have no knowledge of the vehicles he speaks of, how would I
consider them part of anything?
My point was that just because he considers them to be something
special, does not mean that everyone does, for whatever reason.
Further, I have nothing against them, but the idiots who sit here and
bitch about Honda, which is pretty much the finest engineered vehicle
in the world IMO, and state that this "super high quality" Audi breaks
motor mounts under ANY conditions, are totally ing clueless. If
any vehicle has enough torque to break motor mounts, it either has too
much torque or the quality of the motor mounts is lacking. Period.
You don't engineer a plane with great engines and forget to engineer
the wings which hold the engines.
So, again, with all due respect, you interpreted my comments in a way
that was not intended.
#25
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Audi A4: suspension damage after only 35K
DTJ wrote:
>
>
>I haven't driven an Audi V6, so I can't comment on the "comparatively
>speaking" part. However, my 95EX Accord can easily outperform pretty
>much everything on the road at any speed. Now, you have to realize
>that this is a statement of what I have seen. This means with DRIVERS
>that I have seen. I have blown away Mustang GTs in my car. Obviously
>
>
It doesn't count when the cars you're racing are actually parked on
the side of the road, or is using cruise control. The other driver
needs to be *driving* for a race to count.
Since a 1995 Honda Accord represents the cutting edge of automotive
performance, maybe you should try your highway speed theory this May in
Nevada.
http://www.silverstateclassic.com/
Vic
1997 A4 2.8q
2000 Mustang GT
#26
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Audi A4: suspension damage after only 35K
On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 19:30:47 GMT, Victor DiMichina
<jthet@earthlink.net> wrote:
>DTJ wrote:
>
>>I haven't driven an Audi V6, so I can't comment on the "comparatively
>>speaking" part. However, my 95EX Accord can easily outperform pretty
>>much everything on the road at any speed. Now, you have to realize
>>that this is a statement of what I have seen. This means with DRIVERS
>>that I have seen. I have blown away Mustang GTs in my car. Obviously
>>
>It doesn't count when the cars you're racing are actually parked on
>the side of the road, or is using cruise control. The other driver
>needs to be *driving* for a race to count.
There are remedial English classes for people like you. Try one, you
just may learn enough to get out of grade school.
<jthet@earthlink.net> wrote:
>DTJ wrote:
>
>>I haven't driven an Audi V6, so I can't comment on the "comparatively
>>speaking" part. However, my 95EX Accord can easily outperform pretty
>>much everything on the road at any speed. Now, you have to realize
>>that this is a statement of what I have seen. This means with DRIVERS
>>that I have seen. I have blown away Mustang GTs in my car. Obviously
>>
>It doesn't count when the cars you're racing are actually parked on
>the side of the road, or is using cruise control. The other driver
>needs to be *driving* for a race to count.
There are remedial English classes for people like you. Try one, you
just may learn enough to get out of grade school.
#27
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Audi A4: suspension damage after only 35K
Nate Nagel <njnagel@toadliquor.net> wrote in message news:<4075f4f2_4@newsfeed.slurp.net>...
> Kenneth Crudup wrote:
> > In article <73da2590.0404091022.23058721@posting.google.com >,
> > beelzebubba@hotmail.com (Jonesy) says:
> >
> >
> >>Three cheers for i-Drive, huh?
> >
> >
> > I couldn't care less about the BMW/Audi part of this argument, but
> > anyone who can't figure out I-Drive is just plain dumb.
> >
>
> Personally, whether it's intuitive or not, the whole concept of I-drive
> is somewhat unsettling to me. IMHO the functions of a car should be
> controlled by switches, relays, and wires, and if the wiring harness
> gets too unwieldy, perhaps it is time to think about cutting back on the
> gewgaws.
Abso-freakin'-lutely. The concept is dumb from start to finish, and
has very little to do with DRIVING. As in "the ultimate DRIVING
machine."
> Kenneth Crudup wrote:
> > In article <73da2590.0404091022.23058721@posting.google.com >,
> > beelzebubba@hotmail.com (Jonesy) says:
> >
> >
> >>Three cheers for i-Drive, huh?
> >
> >
> > I couldn't care less about the BMW/Audi part of this argument, but
> > anyone who can't figure out I-Drive is just plain dumb.
> >
>
> Personally, whether it's intuitive or not, the whole concept of I-drive
> is somewhat unsettling to me. IMHO the functions of a car should be
> controlled by switches, relays, and wires, and if the wiring harness
> gets too unwieldy, perhaps it is time to think about cutting back on the
> gewgaws.
Abso-freakin'-lutely. The concept is dumb from start to finish, and
has very little to do with DRIVING. As in "the ultimate DRIVING
machine."
#28
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Audi A4: suspension damage after only 35K
Nate Nagel <njnagel@toadliquor.net> wrote in message news:<4075f4b0_4@newsfeed.slurp.net>...
> DTJ wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 10:58:40 -0700, Ignasi Palou-Rivera
> > <ipalourivera@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>dizzy <dizzy@nospam.invalid> writes:
> >>
> >>>On 3 Apr 2004 18:14:23 -0800, chris-google@pobox.com (Chris Campbell)
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>This car has only 35,000 miles on it, supposedly comes from a company
> >>>>with performance heritage,
> >>>
> >>>Who says those purveyors of FWD crap have a "performance heritage"?
> >>
> >>You can say whatever you want about current-day Audis but to deny
> >>their heritage is just uninformed or dumb. Don't you consider the
> >>pre-War Auto Unions or the 80's Ur-Quattro very much part of a
> >>"performance heritage"?
> >
> >
> > Um, no.
>
> Hmmm... then you're pretty much an idiot, then. I've never owned an
> Audi (and may never, but who knows) but to flat out deny cars that
> revolutionized racing because you don't like them is ignorant.
DTJ, an idiot? Wow, you're the first person to ever think that!
</sarcasm>
His singular opinion on what constitutes a racing pedigree is funny.
But Honda drivers are often a little soft in the head when it comes to
discussions about cars. After all, he thinks his Accord is some sort
of performance machine, LOL!
I love it when the Honda boys spout like "Performance/dollar" or
"HP/normally-aspirated liter" like those things actually mean anything
to anybody but other soft-in-the-head Honduh owners. Next thing you
know, they'll start up with the Consumers Reports crap.
--
Jonesy "Owned a Honda, once - that's all it took."
> DTJ wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 10:58:40 -0700, Ignasi Palou-Rivera
> > <ipalourivera@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>dizzy <dizzy@nospam.invalid> writes:
> >>
> >>>On 3 Apr 2004 18:14:23 -0800, chris-google@pobox.com (Chris Campbell)
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>This car has only 35,000 miles on it, supposedly comes from a company
> >>>>with performance heritage,
> >>>
> >>>Who says those purveyors of FWD crap have a "performance heritage"?
> >>
> >>You can say whatever you want about current-day Audis but to deny
> >>their heritage is just uninformed or dumb. Don't you consider the
> >>pre-War Auto Unions or the 80's Ur-Quattro very much part of a
> >>"performance heritage"?
> >
> >
> > Um, no.
>
> Hmmm... then you're pretty much an idiot, then. I've never owned an
> Audi (and may never, but who knows) but to flat out deny cars that
> revolutionized racing because you don't like them is ignorant.
DTJ, an idiot? Wow, you're the first person to ever think that!
</sarcasm>
His singular opinion on what constitutes a racing pedigree is funny.
But Honda drivers are often a little soft in the head when it comes to
discussions about cars. After all, he thinks his Accord is some sort
of performance machine, LOL!
I love it when the Honda boys spout like "Performance/dollar" or
"HP/normally-aspirated liter" like those things actually mean anything
to anybody but other soft-in-the-head Honduh owners. Next thing you
know, they'll start up with the Consumers Reports crap.
--
Jonesy "Owned a Honda, once - that's all it took."
#29
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Audi A4: suspension damage after only 35K (no X-post)
DTJ wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>It doesn't count when the cars you're racing are actually parked on
>>the side of the road, or is using cruise control. The other driver
>>needs to be *driving* for a race to count.
>>
>>
>
>There are remedial English classes for people like you. Try one, you
>just may learn enough to get out of grade school.
>
>
The best reply you can come up with is based on my typo? I guess
that's about all the imagination one could expect from an Accord driver.
Vic
1997 A4 2.8q
2000 Mustang GT
....and a few others.
#30
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hate, Envy and Angst: The Accord Owner belches about Audi A4: suspension damage after only 35K
On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 22:37:08 GMT, DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 16:43:59 GMT, Cam Newton (ccnewto@rogers.com)
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 12:52:54 GMT, DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 10:14:45 +0100, Peter Bell <peter@invalid.org.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Ah, the difference between a Honda I4 and an Audi V6. They require very
>>>>different driving style. The Honda engine will have all of its power at
>>>>the top end, with very little torque (comparatively speaking) at lower
>>>
>>>I haven't driven an Audi V6, so I can't comment on the "comparatively
>>>speaking" part. However, my 95EX Accord can easily outperform pretty
>>>much everything on the road at any speed. Now, you have to realize
>>>that this is a statement of what I have seen. This means with DRIVERS
>>>that I have seen. I have blown away Mustang GTs in my car. Obviously
>>>the drivers were idiots to get beaten by a Honda. The point is that
>>>my car, which is rather old at 150,000 miles plus, still out performs
>>>the majority of driver-vehicle combinations I come across. So even if
>>>the Audi does have more torque at low revs, I don't see why it
>>>matters. A Ferrari has the ability to go faster than my car, I
>>>presume, yet they generally don't.
>>>
>>>As far as saying the Honda has ALL of its power at top end, that is
>>>not even close to being true. My car is almost never in first gear,
>>>as second has more than enough torque from a stop. I can easily
>>>accelerate whenever the tach is above 2000 RPMs, where you state the
>>>Audi has power at 1500 - not a huge difference.
>>
>>You are in the wrong group. Here, a Honda is the second or third car
>>on the driveway. Go to the alt.autos.honda NG. There is room there for
>>you now.
>
>You are an idiot. I am responding to a post in rec.autos.driving.
>Have you heard the expression "go yourself?"
No I have not.
All 'expressions' are mathmatical in nature so if your 'go
yourself' statement is a true expression, what does it equal?
How about 'I am an idiot'?
You should have just bought the Audi instead of coming here and being
an ***.
>On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 16:43:59 GMT, Cam Newton (ccnewto@rogers.com)
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 12:52:54 GMT, DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 10:14:45 +0100, Peter Bell <peter@invalid.org.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Ah, the difference between a Honda I4 and an Audi V6. They require very
>>>>different driving style. The Honda engine will have all of its power at
>>>>the top end, with very little torque (comparatively speaking) at lower
>>>
>>>I haven't driven an Audi V6, so I can't comment on the "comparatively
>>>speaking" part. However, my 95EX Accord can easily outperform pretty
>>>much everything on the road at any speed. Now, you have to realize
>>>that this is a statement of what I have seen. This means with DRIVERS
>>>that I have seen. I have blown away Mustang GTs in my car. Obviously
>>>the drivers were idiots to get beaten by a Honda. The point is that
>>>my car, which is rather old at 150,000 miles plus, still out performs
>>>the majority of driver-vehicle combinations I come across. So even if
>>>the Audi does have more torque at low revs, I don't see why it
>>>matters. A Ferrari has the ability to go faster than my car, I
>>>presume, yet they generally don't.
>>>
>>>As far as saying the Honda has ALL of its power at top end, that is
>>>not even close to being true. My car is almost never in first gear,
>>>as second has more than enough torque from a stop. I can easily
>>>accelerate whenever the tach is above 2000 RPMs, where you state the
>>>Audi has power at 1500 - not a huge difference.
>>
>>You are in the wrong group. Here, a Honda is the second or third car
>>on the driveway. Go to the alt.autos.honda NG. There is room there for
>>you now.
>
>You are an idiot. I am responding to a post in rec.autos.driving.
>Have you heard the expression "go yourself?"
No I have not.
All 'expressions' are mathmatical in nature so if your 'go
yourself' statement is a true expression, what does it equal?
How about 'I am an idiot'?
You should have just bought the Audi instead of coming here and being
an ***.