From: kokerj@jec326.its.rpi.edu (James Matthew Kokernak)
Subject: Re: 1990 Audi 100 SUCKS !!!!!!!!!!!!e+10
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 20:17:53 GMT

In article <mills.725036435@amber.athena.lkg.dec.com> mills@athena.lkg.dec.com (George Mills) writes:
>SROWELL@ESOC.BITNET writes:
>>I think the US gives Audi a bad press (oh by the way although I live in
>>Germany I am English) - it reminds me of the furore a few years ago when
>>one of your TV programmes 'discovered' that Audi 100s had a tendency to
>>surge backwards all of a sudden 'for no reason'. Apparently the problem
>>was traced to the fact that the foot pedals in the Audi were smaller than
>>standard US feet were used to, and people were stamping on the accelerator
>>rather than the brake. That 'publicity' did Audi a lot of harm in the US
>>when it was really a user problem (having big feet). I do not remember
>>hearing any similar stories in Europe (perhaps it's a matter of media
>>power?).
>
>That's bull. It was the AUDI-5000 automatic hear and there was something
>very wrong with that car. I saw a few "special programs done" (yes,
>by the media) it was very convincing something was wrong with the car.
>So what, even if it was the peddles, THAT CAR KILLED people.
>

   Have you ever driven a 5000? If you did, you'd notice that
the storage rack obstructs the view of the pedals. The 60 Minutes report
was slanted to shock an amaze the incredibly neutotic American public, as
are most of their stories. There is a racecar driver that endorses Audi,
I can't remember his name, but he's one of the biggies. He brought one of
those 5000s out on the track, got on it full throttle, and slammed on the 
brakes at 60 or 70 mph, while keeping full throttle. The stopping distance
was 2 feet more than a "normal" stop. Given the margin of error, it is 
safe to say that accelerator position and engine speed had nothing to do 
with stopping distance. Thanks to people like you though, Audis keep
a low resale value and those of us that base our opinions about cars on
fact and (personal)experience can purchase them quite cheaply.

>>Finally, I would like to point out that VAG (the Volkswagen-Audi-Group)
>>are not some amateur organisation that pumps out dodgy cars. They are also
>>responsible for Porsche 944s and will probably take over the 911 production
>>as well (if the German press is to be believed)...
>
>>I don't believe you can damn a manufacturer for producing a dodgy car (do
>>you remember the Pinto?)
>
>The AUDI fox wasn't much better.
>
>>Simon
>
>I owned several VWs and an 87 4000cs quatro. All drove nice.
>All, always in the shop, all keeping my wallet very empty.
Why did you own several then?

>The VW's are now rated as worst (not low, worst) in reliability by
>JD-powers. If I had money to burn I might buy another, because they are
>fun to drive (no question) but most of us don't.
>

Not quite correct. If I remember the report correctly, it had nothing to
do with reliability, it had to do with customer satisfaction with dealers
when it came to fixing problems with new cars. Essentially VW service 
and warranty hassles ranked it lowest.
 
>P.S. At reputable dealer it cost $1000.00 for muffler system (after 3 years)
>     and $800.00 for brakes for the quatro. Insurance is exteremly high also.
>     Some of these things are not AUDI/VWs fault. It's just the way it is in
>     the US.

You could have done the brakes yourself in an afternoon for $200. One of
us has money to burn, and it's not me.
Newsgroups: rec.autos.tech