You are here: Forums Sedans Ultimate AWD Sports Sedans

Ultimate AWD Sports Sedans

828 messages,  Last post on Oct 03, 2009 at 9:40 PM

You are in the Sedans Forum. Your Hosts are pat & karens

What is this discussion about? BMW 3 Series, Audi A4, Volvo S60 R, Subaru Legacy, Audi S4, Mazda MAZDASPEED MAZDA6, Sedan

#6 of 828 The Audi Dilemma by knr5 Dec 13, 2004 (1:40 am)
Thank you premiumdetail and natethomas for your detailed opinions. I wanted to point out another issue that poses problems if I choose the Audi. I have always admired Audis for their level of fit and finish and, genrally, for their looks. I also don't deny that its AWD system has been around a long time and has proven itself. My problem is that the resale value of Audis is abysmal, making them unsuitable for leasing. At the same time, the reliability of Audis is also very much in question, making an outright purchase not a bright idea! I am certainly not trying to bash Audis, I genuinely wish it made sense to go with the Audi. [I must admit that my brother owns a 2002 Audi S4 Avant and it has been trouble free so far.] Replies to this message: brianc6796 (Jan 22, 2005 3:40 pm)
#7 of 828 Re: The Audi Dilemma by buddhabman Dec 19, 2004 (5:00 am)
The new A4 Avant should be very nice, but as you say it's about a 10K premium fully loaded. The 10K is pretty well spent but it's 10K. You can't go wrong with either one.   I am a big Audi fan as well as a Subie fan. I think someone has to clear up the 4wd history for me. Audi claims they introduced 4wd tech to cars in 1980 in the Quattro Coupe. Subaru says it introduced 4wd tech in the Subaru Leonne 4wd Station wagon in 1971. So who was first? I mean had Audi designed it and not released it on a car until 1980?   http://www.subdriven.com/news/publish/Features/article_237.shtml   http://www.audi.com/com/en/new_cars/driveline_suspension/quattro/- quattro_history/quattro_history.jsp   http://www.spdusa.com/wrx.htm
#8 of 828 Consumer Reports lists A4 on "most reliable" by waygrabow Jan 07, 2005 (6:33 pm)
"At the same time, the reliability of Audis is also very much in question,"   Consumer Reports recently put the Audi A4 on its list of most reliable cars, so their surveys apparently don't agree with this impression.   natethomas- perhaps your superior snow handling in the Subi was due to tires or your driving skill. I find our A4 (with Blizzaks) to be an incredible car driving and stopping in poor traction conditions; almost feels like dry pavement. The dual zone automatic temperature control and heated seats are also appreciated in bad weather. You are correct that the low clearance can be a hindrance in deep snow (then I take the SUV), and the Subi GT, I am sure, has more acceleration.   The Audi and Subaru are both good cars; just depends what features appeal to you most.
#9 of 828 AWD Dilemma by knr5 Jan 08, 2005 (1:58 am)
buddhabman: Since the as per the claims of the respective companies (as found in brochures) Subaru introduced AWD wagons in 1971 and Audi in 1980, I guess Subaru was first to market at least!   waygrabow: I get the Consumer Reports (along with Automobile and AutoWeek). The 2005 Buying Guide does give the A4 an average reliability rating (therby it is not precluded from being recommended). The Subaru Outback gets an above average rating on reliability. Generally AWD vehicles are higher-maintenance items, even Subaru, but the costs (including inconvenience) are significantly higher with the VW group!   Notwithstanding my rationale above, I would have leased an S4 last week if I could have done so. Unfortunately, I am 15-18 months away from a purchase. The dealership had two 2004 S4's (V8) with stick shifts. It had all of the do-dads I like (e.g., premium sound) and none I dislike (I don't care for navigation systems, for example). The MSRP was over 53k but was marked down to 44k! It was VERY attractive for a lease! Maintenance is free for 4 years, 50 k miles!   All this proves that when the product is great, the heart rules the head!
#10 of 828 Re: Audi #1 ? [natethomas] by ped Jan 09, 2005 (6:38 pm)
Replying to: natethomas (Dec 12, 2004 5:55 pm) The GT I looked loaded as close as I could come to my A4 1.8 Quattro 2004 was only a few grand less than the Audi. I paid 30k for a list price of 34,165. It had 300 miles and was certified and free maintanence for 45k. Yes the GT is quicker, 250 hp vs 170 hp but that isn't the whole story. Subs are good but fit, finish, detail, looks, the feel of the car, interio design...need I say more? BEsides in Sept the GT were new and dealers weren't giving much off, so sometimes you go with the better "value." Later...
#11 of 828 by ateixeira Jan 10, 2005 (12:19 pm)
I'd give credit to Subaru for implementing 4WD on a car platform first, and to Audi for AWD.   Subarus came earlier but they had traditional center locking differential-style 4WD, low range even. They jacked up the suspension and even added skid plates. The world's truly first sport utility wagon was the 1973 Subaru Leone 4WD.   Audi pioneered AWD (as opposed to 4WD), though, with a center differential that allowed full-time use of the system even on non-slippery surfaces.   The reality is that both have extensive AWD experience and offer some of the best systems in the world at any price.   Nav is rumored as an option for the GT this year, and I'd expect at least 3-4 additional features in the 2006 Subaru. But if you must have the goodies, Audi offers those for a bit more money. Only you can decide if they're worth it to you.   -juice
#12 of 828 by kevin111 Jan 11, 2005 (10:53 am)
"Consumer Reports recently put the Audi A4 on its list of most reliable cars, so their surveys apparently don't agree with this impression. "   - Good to hear the Audi is making strides. The previous year's CR report on the A4 was below average reliability. Also, many of Audi's other cars are below average in reliability. I am hoping Audi is making strides in improving their whole line. Considering that I have seen a couple of new S4s (did not have a license plat yet) with rear break lights and other lights out (as well as exhaust tail pipes bouncing around). I am still curious about this.
#13 of 828 Subaru is the Japanesse version of Audi by jplyman Jan 12, 2005 (8:51 am)
If you really think about it these to car companies are more a like than most - they are known as non-comformist cars and not the popular car from there country. When you drive one of these cars you also make a statment. I've grown up on Subarus (my dad owns part of dealership) and my first new car was a subbie.. Great car no complaints.... I now drive an A4 and there is a difference in how it feels and I love the looks - subbie is becoming some what more comformist - baiscally it comes down to personal tatse I like rings over the stars and that is me.   You won't go wrong with either car. Replies to this message: knr5 (Jan 12, 2005 10:32 pm)
#14 of 828 Re: Subaru is the Japanesse version of Audi [jplyman] by knr5 Jan 12, 2005 (10:32 pm)
Replying to: jplyman (Jan 12, 2005 8:51 am) I agree with your comments in general. While the similarity between Audi and Subaru stems from AWD, there are other parallels also that we could draw. I felt (some 10 years ago) that Subaru and Saabs were alike in that both were iconoclastic. How was I to know that they would both become more mainstream, and seem to be morphing into one as we speak! I also saw parallels between the German and Japanese marques that may not be as true today. I saw Toyota as being modeled after Mercedes (Solidity), Nissan & Mazda after BMW (Performance), and Honda after Audi (Form follows Function). Some of it was design and some of it was related to the character of the car. Again, just my 2c!
#15 of 828 by ateixeira Jan 13, 2005 (5:57 am)
Subaru has characteristics of Audi (AWD), Porsche (boxer engines), and Saab (general quirkiness).   But not the repair bills.   -juice

You are here: Forums Sedans Ultimate AWD Sports Sedans