Audi, truly one of the best...

Home  \  European Imports  \  Audi, truly one of the best...

Amongst others Audi was never too loud with their models, but kept in shadow and just concentrating on building really good cars, unlike others who made spectacle out of every single model they put in mass production. Interesting is, how many innovations Audi made. They for example first put FWD, which today is used in 90% of cars made. They innovated 4WD which had (until they innovated it) very bad efficiency level. Wankel’s engine was first put in Audi. They almost always came first with new materials for chassis, etc. Last year they won 24h of Le Mans with diesel, even though there is opinion that VW has primate on diesel field. They keep their work quiet and show the results at the end. I like it. Audi certainly is not my favorite make, but still there can be no denying that they are amongst the best of the best. What do you think?

posted by  ngluvakov(euro)

have you seen the latest Audi A6 tv advert???

posted by  True_Brit

Where did you get that info?....I'm sure Citroen was the first to have FWD back in the fifties....:thumbs:

posted by  Cliffy

well, i can deffinatly say FWD wasnt put in place by audi, so i think ill agree with you!!!:laughing:
i suppose he meant 4WD/AWD?

posted by  True_Brit

Usually I'd have said that's what he meant, too, however, he said that it's used in 90% of cars made....which FWD probably is, but AWD certainly isn't. He also then went on to talk about Audi and AWD in another statement, which also suggests this :thumbs:

posted by  Cliffy

did you know the name AUDI has 2 different meanings!!!!
1) Auto Union Deutschland Ingolstadt,,,which Ingolstadt in Bavaria was (or still is?) the HQ and
2) Audi is latin for the founders family name "Horch" which mean Hark in german!

posted by  True_Brit

I knew about the Auto Union thing, but not number 2! :thumbs:

posted by  Cliffy


posted by  True_Brit

Cliffy, thousands of posts, still you know little about car history. Today it's easy to find out anything. Why haven't you searched net, before you posted? Read this, it's from Audi's homepage:
"DKW F 1 Roadster
The 1931 DKW F 1 was the car that introduced front-wheel drive to the mass-produced car for the first time. (Compact power train with its twin-cylinder two-stroke engine, 600 cc, 18 bhp.)."

here's link: /front_wheel_drive.html

posted by  ngluvakov(euro)

I think most audis are overpriced pieces of crap. My honest opinion. You get much more in competing models for the same or less.

posted by  Bronxie

If you really believe in what you say, O.K., but based on what? I would love to hear about your car comparing methods. I think that you can get South Korean Chevy cheap, but that is because S. Korean Chevy doesn't have R&D part. You must overprice your car a bit if you want to have funds for R&D. That's the price for progress. Original Chevy isn't as cheap as S. Korean, think about why. Generally, car companies try not to overprice their cars, because that would only help their competition to become more selling company. I think that they pay very much of attention to price. It is just question of what do you seek in car, what are your needs. If your needs are fulfilled with less than Audi is giving, then it is normal to say that you don't need Audi or any similar car. Personally, I would never buy Audi, but I can't say that it is no good. I am not executive type of man. Only present model I wouldn't say no to is A3! Sexy little car with soul!

posted by  ngluvakov(euro)

How about before you try telling me I know nothing about car history, you read some of my 8,000 posts......:screwy:

It's debatable as to whether Audi was the first manufacturer to introduce FWD, as Citroen used it on the type-C between 1919 and 1934 (I was a little out with the dates that I provided earlier), and given that your infor was direct from Audi (bias maybe?) and mine was from independent research by TV journolists...I'm swayed towards my info. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but I researched both manufacturers history and as such, am just posting my personal observations!

Oh, and for the record, most of your "knowledge" on cars apears to come straight out of a book of off the Internet.....word by word....coincidence?

posted by  Cliffy

When I was working on some small article that needed to be sent to Auto Bild about six months ago, I researched Audi's history. No matter how you get the info, more matters whether it’s right or wrong. Even so if you are right, isn't it good to see how many innovations Audi made? Don't they have much? Never mind about FWD.

Oh, and for the record, I never use other people's words as mine. When I post citation, it is clearly visible...

posted by  ngluvakov(euro)

So not only is the your above statement about me knowing little about car history incorrect, but you say that you yourself researched Audi's history a while ago, which would suggest that you didn't know much about it before your research...:banghead:

And you also appear to be attempting to backtrack a little, too...

posted by  Cliffy

I don't think they are horrible cars. I think there are better cars for the money in the same competing classes.

EXAMPLE: 2006 audi tt 1.8 liter comes with fwd standard as a coupe or roadster, costing 33000 and 35000 respectively...180 hp, turboed and all. Pretty damn slow 0-60...estimated at about 7.8 secs.

Compare that to the 2006 bmw z4. It doesn't come as a coupe, but the roadster is the same 35000. Much faster (est. 0-60 is 6.2) and more powerful. RWD. Not to mention, BMWs handle and drive much better than audis IMO.

ANOTHER EXAMPLE: 2007 audi s4 sedan. PROS: AWD. CONS: expensive.

BMW 335i sedan: They're coming out with AWD one but let's just say the base one. CONS: rwd as opposed to awd PROS: Costs 9,000 less than the s4.

BOTH are just as fast as one another.

Mind you, the s4 is supposed to be the equivalent of the BMW M motorsports division of BMW, so this is shocking how much more Audi charges for a car that essentially only has AWD as an advantage. You can bet that when BMW comes out with the AWD 335i sedan, it will only cost about 2k more. So effectively, you can say audi charges 7k more for a car that's pretty much the same no matter how you cut it.

I think the standard equipment is about the same. Also I have watched over 2 dozen comparison test videos and read many articles comparing audis to BMWs and it is always the same consensus: The audi may be faster (like the rs4) but the BMW is definitely a better drive.

I am using BMW as an example because it's their main competitor.

I could tell you how the a6 costs you tons if you want some of the luxury features you could get in a lexus es350 or acura tl for 10-15k less.

AND you may say the acura and lexus are fwd, well, sadly so is the a6 unless you want to fork over an extra 4 grand for the quattro.

Basically, if you're looking for a luxury car, audi will nickel and dime you on everything. And if you're looking for a luxury sports car that's really fast, BMW is just better.

posted by  Bronxie

History is history, you either know it or you don’t. You are right Cliffy. But still… Don’t take this personally, I don’t have intention to offend you. – After 8000 posts on forum that discusses about cars, you should have some experience. If not about the inventing FWD, then at least researching information you see on CF, to see if it is right or not. Never mind.
I think that very few people here lead constructive discussion, others just say: “You are wrong” without giving the facts why they think so (not referring to your last post here Cliffy). It is no wonder why people here end with no constructive thought about thread they started when we all try to go further from it like this example thread (including this post). You end up with 8000 posts, of which most are defending from someone or attacking someone.
I’m sorry Cliffy if I offended you. I take all my offensive (to you) words and parts in this post, before you even point out which one you don’t agree with, so you don’t need to quote me after this and tell me that I am wrong. Let’s continue discussion which started this thread. O.K.?

posted by  ngluvakov(euro)

posted by  ngluvakov(euro)

I know you don't want me to quote you again but I will anyway, lol. I took offence to your original statement that I don't know much about the history surrounding cars. I'm by no means an expert, but history in cars is not just about antique or classic cars, or indeed the operating or mechanical systems surrounding them (such as the FWD system), infact, it's everything concering them that isn't about either the present day, or the future of them. You simply took one example, of which it's actually debatable as to whether I was wrong in the first place!

As for the post count, I have to make alot of posts that maybe I wouldn't make if I was a standard member, it's just how it goes unfortunately. I do suggest you do a search on me though, as your statements about me are false!

posted by  Cliffy

BTW Audi didnt make the first Wankel-powered car, NSU did. Granted a few years later VW bought NSU and merged it with Audi (Auto Union), but the first Wankel was put in an NSU, not an Audi. I did a paper on Wankel last year.

If you dont believe me, heres some linkage:

Back on topic, I love Audi's. They are certainly great cars. My family has owned two Audi's (1997 A4 1.8T and a 2003 A4 Cab 3.0) and several VW's (I only remember the 1989 Jetta). Gotta love the Quattro too.


posted by  StiMan

is it me or are you comparing a faster car in a different class to one another???
clearly, the z4 is in a different class, plus theres one reason the tt is slower, its an 1800 where as the z4 is 2000-3000cc! as for the price, im guessing its dollars???

whereas, here in europe, the bog standard tt has a 2 litre engine, 200bhp, 6 speed box and a 150mph top speed for £23,860.00 and a bmw z4 of similar qualities can be had for the same price! (which also is slower than the tt!!! by 1/2 seconds to 60mph),4638,1156_2318_ _bs-WjQ%253D%2540bb-RTg1X1JP%2540bm-WjRSMQ%253D%253D%2540sit-bmwuk,00.html< br /> ml

posted by  True_Brit

A How are the tt and z4 in a different class? They're both sport luxury roadsters. Clearly they are 100% competing models. I don't even know HOW you could say they are not in the same class. Audi made the tt to compete with the z4 directly.

And I know why it's slower. That's my point. Their prices are exactly the same but the z4 is much faster. Mind you, the z4 has a 3.0l engine 215hp standard. The tt has a 1.8l turbo 180hp standard. Z4 is rwd and tt is crappy ass fwd.

I don't get your point man.

Also the new coupe isn't out here yet so I was comparing 06 models.

posted by  Bronxie

Well, you can't just look at that from simplest point of view. 180 hp/1800cm^3=100 hp/l and the other one (z4) 215hp/3000cm^3=71.66hp/l :), now, if we want to be more specific, then we have to go much further and divide base engine displacement with mass (1000kg) and multiply it with ratio of hp/l and then we get the result (which engine would better pull/push 1000kg), and all the ratios on hand so we can compare and argue forever :) Then if you want to see which car would go faster, you must divide first ratio with its own mass. Then you get other ratio. You must consider moment of inertia that will tell you how much of that power is actually grip, and so on... You can never be sure if you are right or not. We all have different standards. Maybe you all are right. You choose car you seem to like, not the one that has been stated as "Best buy". Who knows, maybe best car is the car in which you had your first kiss. But, the fact is, I believe no emotion. I take in consideration factors that I need in my every day drive and then divide them with price, so I get personalized ratio that I need to have when I am deciding for a car.
:stupid: (refernig to my tripping)

posted by  ngluvakov(euro)

Well, without doing any numbers, the z4 IS faster.

Curb weight for audi is 2987

Curb weight for the z4 is 3020

Clearly the weight gain doesn't make up for the power descrepancy.

posted by  Bronxie

sorry, i was just babbling on, it was late night and i was knackered!
anyway, saying all that, i dont really like the TT!!!!

posted by  True_Brit

Me niether. I drove a 1.8-litre TT when I worked at the garage and I was very disappointed with it. The styling was ok but the performance was somewhat lacking!

posted by  Cliffy

The bad part is that even the 3.2l quattro are slower than the z4 si.

The new tts look sweet and I have high hopes for them, but then again, audi would have to make some SERIOUS changes to come close to where BMW is at. They are JUST coming out with the a5 coupe. Shows how behind they are.

posted by  Bronxie

they should do a RSTT, with the 4 litre v8:laughing:
instead of the FSi V6 they have

posted by  True_Brit

They need to do the following:

- Replace stupid (r)s4 with an (r)s5 coupe. There's no m3 sedans are there? For good reason.

- Get rid of the STUPID s4 avant. Nobody in the states wants an UBER SPORTS WAGON. That's a european thing.

- The point in the rs division? Just make your S division better and there will be no need for an RS. I could see if we were talking about porsches here, (which don't even have a second level high performance division) but these are audis. A proper S division will be more than enough for any potential RS buyers.

This is all the shit that drives up the cost of audis.

posted by  Bronxie

theres this car programme in england called 5th gear, on next monday, theyre going to pitch the Audi TT quatro (new one) against the new
BMW Z4M coupe round a race course!
id like to see the outcome because the advert of it showed the bmw doing a really fast drift round a corner!!!

posted by  True_Brit

Oh please...the M would demolish it!!! That's not even a fair comparison lol. They should compare the z4 si to the tt. That'd be cool to see :D

posted by  Bronxie

id say its a sort of fair comparison, its the 3.2 v6 version

posted by  True_Brit

The TT 3.2l is 250hp v6. The z4 Si is 3.0l 255hp i6. The z4 M is 330hp 3.2l MONSTER. That's why it's just not a fair comparison lol.

posted by  Bronxie

I agree. Wasn't Audi going to stick the V8 in the TT? If so, that would be a fair competition! :laughing:

posted by  Cliffy

ah, i see, i thought they upped it a little bit, 250bhp does seem a little weedy compared to what can be done to that 3.2 v6!
all i know, is, thats what cars they will use!!!!

posted by  True_Brit

I hope so. It would be awesome if they gave it a nice rwd instead of that crappy fwd on old TTs. The quattro and v8 together would be too heavy on a TT I'm guessing.

posted by  Bronxie

too right, unless the whole car (body panels, chassis etc etc) was made from aluminium or carbon:laughing:
which would mean, in the end, that youd be buying a tt with bentley money!

posted by  True_Brit*

The new tt roadster is on there. Looks really good but it is keeping the same 3.2l 250hp engine.

posted by  Bronxie

It's funny actually, a couple of years ago on CF I read that in the states the TT had RWD before AWD. I obviously said about it being FWD to start with, but whoever it was who said this was sure it had RWD. Whoever finds the thread in question gets loads of e-doughnuts....:laughing:

posted by  Cliffy

did it have RWD??? i thought it was only FWD and AWD available!!!

posted by  True_Brit

In the UK it was initially FWD, then AWD became standard. I'm not too sure about the US, although what Bronxie says kind of makes me think it was the same over there. I honestly don't remember what the outcome of that other thread was :laughing:

posted by  Cliffy

The 1.8 comes standard with FWD, quattro as an option. The 3.2l comes standard with quattro.

No outgoing audis in the states have RWD. All are FWD or quattro.

posted by  Bronxie

I don't think we have any FWD TT's in the UK, I think all of them are AWD now!

posted by  Cliffy

Did you guys get the new redesigned ones yet?

posted by  Bronxie

already out!!!
about a month ago i believe

posted by  True_Brit

Here they are just being shown at the LA auto show. I expect them to be out in early spring.

posted by  Bronxie


The new Audi TT 3.2 Quattro is pretty fast.
Faster than your Boxster
Faster than the Cayman
Faster than the Z4si

.............Audi TT 3.2 Quattro............BMW Z4si...............Porsche Cayman
Base Price:....$40,000.......................$40,795.....................$49,400
Power:..........250 bhp.......................255 bhp.....................245 bhp
0-60:............5.1 sec........................5.5 sec......................5.3 sec
1/4 mile:.......13.7 sec......................14.0 sec.....................13.9 sec
Skidpad:......... .93g........................... .93g......................... .90g

On the track during the Road and Track test, they said:
...the TT gets down the road quicker and easier than the Cayman. Try as it might, he Cayman can't keep up...
Advantage, Quattro.

And....someone trying to be me?

posted by  My Life, My Era

glad you pointed it out, i was trying to find somethig alike but gave up in the end!!!

posted by  True_Brit

1. A lot of things are faster than my boxster. If I wanted speed I'd get a shelby gt500 (lol like I'd ever want one of those)

2. I've checked many articles that all say it's 0-60 is around 5.9, and this makes sense, considering the older TT with the SAME engine, boasted that 0-60 time.

Yep...most places say about 5.5-5.7.

Think your info is way off.

Actually I know it's way off because you are saying the cayman is 0-60 in 5.3...when it's really like 5.8, even says that. 5.3 is territory for the cayman S

posted by  Bronxie

oh well, im not bothered with the exact 0-60 time aslong as it does near enough the same as the competitors and it moves!

posted by  True_Brit

Porsche commonly underestimates its vehicles. Before magazine performance tests were given, Porsche estimated the Carrera GT would do 0-60 in about 4 seconds...yeah sure.

Check the most recent issue of Road and Track. Road and Track is notorious for not powershifting or using any other abusive methods to achieve a faster time, so I have no doubt about the TT's acceleration. Check it out. Audi has adjusted the weight distribution and the AWD system...probably why the new TT was able to achieve faster times with the similar engine.

And I wasn't saying the TT was superior to your Porsche because of its acceleration advantage. I was just pointing things out...bitch.

posted by  My Life, My Era

Well, if most places are usng powershifting then it eliminates the variable doesn't it? It only becomes a variable if some places do and some don't.

Even if the porsche times are off which I don't see why they would be considering porsche has nothing to hide, the cayman would not be that fast, that's just too fast. My car has the same engine as the cayman and weighs less (the 06 makes 5hp less actually) and it doesn't go that fast or nearly that fast.

Porsche weight distribution in the boxster is near perfect :D

posted by  Bronxie

I don't know what you're getting at, but let me break it down for you since you don't know crap.

Road and Track does not powershift or use any other abusive methods to increase acceleration times. Therefore, performance numbers quoted by Road and Track are reliable and considered to be achievable.

Power-Shifting: A method of shifting used with manual transmissions to increase acceleration.
The method relies on keeping the engine at full throttle while balancing the clutch pedal to where the clutch is engaged but shifting is possible. Then at the desired shift point (redline or earlier), the gear is shifted to the next higher gear without fully disengaging the clutch. Using this method can severely damage the transmission.<-----Road and Track doesn't do this, other magazines never know with them.

Porsche has always been very conservative with its performance figures. Duh! Almost every dope interested in Porsche knows that. You're a Porsche owner, research the brand. If you review what Porsche predicts of their cars and what the cars actually do, you'll notice that Porsches 0-60 times are always slower than what is achieved in a road test of their vehicle.

I know, you don't know crap about cars. But that's hardly an excuse for the arrogant response and the way you ignored one of the facts of life: RESULTS WILL VARY.

The Cayman and your Boxster may carry the same engine, but the Cayman is much more stiff than your Boxster. Maybe this causes the increase in acceleration over the Boxster? Either way, are you calling me a liar? Calling Road and Track a liar? Why would Road and Track post wrong performance numbers? You've changed Bronxie, you didn't used to be such a bitch.

The Cayman hasn't been tested much, but the two test so far have similar 0-60 figures.

Car and Driver: Cayman 0-60: 5.5 seconds
Road and Track: Cayman 0-60: 5.3 seconds

You may not be able to comprehend variance and you clearly cannot grasp the fact that acceleration is determined by more than just weight and engine output.

....but maybe the Cayman's engine is underrated. Porsche underrated the horsepower of the Carrera GT.

posted by  My Life, My Era

The 1st and 2nd gears in the Cayman are shorter than that of the Boxster.

posted by  DSMer

Why so snappy? I know what powershifting is, I was saying that if everyone else does it, then you can take their times for what they are, because that variable is thereby eliminated. Right or wrong?

I admitted Porsche is conservative, but that time you gave for the cayman was too fast even for conservatives. I don't just check porsche site for info. I use a lot and their numbers for it, which they made a video of, weren't even that fast.

I am not saying you're a liar. Chill a lil'.

I had reasonable doubts as to your info. being accurate, I mean shit, it's not like I LOSE anything if you are right, if anything it just means my car is faster than it is claimed to be, which is a good thing.


posted by  Bronxie

Chill? I am the definition of chill. I use colors to clarify my speech, not to define my tone. I am, and will always be.......relaxed

You don't drive a Cayman. You drive a Boxster. Maybe you missed these:

Your Boxster is as quick as its performance tests proved it to be, but not as quick as the performance test proved for the Cayman.

Cayman does not equal Boxster.

posted by  My Life, My Era

Now you're just being a dumb ass.


hence, I responded, "if you are right, then that only means it is better for me."

I wasn't referring to what you were saying specifically about the cayman.

CONTRADICTION: So the performance tests of my car are accurate, YET the ones the cayman are NOT accurate because porsche supposedly is conservative with their tests. Nice.

Thanks for making it obvious that you're the real bitch in this discussion. As if there was any doubt :thumbs:

posted by  Bronxie

Yes, and you previously said that you agreed. Sorry I misunderstood your response. My thinking was that since you previously agreed to this....nevermind...wasting my time on this motherf*cka.

Dude. No.

My opinion was that the performance test performed AWAY FROM PORSCHE are accurate.

Hence the 5.3-5.5 achieved by the magazines are accurate for the Cayman and the 5.9-6.3 achieved by the magazines are accurate for the Boxster.

posted by  My Life, My Era

Your Message