Potomac-Greg

... at this point and time, the failure of US cars to be saleable in Europe has as much to do with quality (not just reliability but true engineering quality) as with trade barriers.

The failure of European cars to sell here, in my opinion, is due more to legal issues (DOT, NTSB and other standards) than with the quality of the cars.

So, assuming that there was mutual protectionism, it seems to me that the Europeans used the trade barriers to protect and nurture the development of great cars, while the US protection merely allowed profitability with questionable quality.

Potomac-Greg

I wish I had time to read more than one "grain of salt."

Definitely

amazed when I told him it was the 4.2. He says they are very highly regarded over there.

Le Chef

"I don't know why CAR doesn't like any US cars, British standards for car reliability seem incredibly low. It seems they'll drive anything that doesn't need repairs more often then once per tank of gas."

I guess this like the "fact" that Americans drive sardine cans suspended on marshmallows that need the Exxon Valdez towed behind them, and 14 cupholders to function in a satisfactory manner. Oh an I forgot Americans' obsession with poor taste and acres of chrome...

STEVE2.7T

The big difference between the Audis we buy in the US and the Audis sold in the UK is that the vast majority of UK Audis are FWD and powered by 1.8 engines (whether its an A4 or an A6) and if you step up to an A8 it will probably be a 2.8 FWD !!! So when the magazines test Audis they test these models. Our high end 2.7t's and 4.2's Quattros came with alluminium suspension from the begining but CAR was criticising the handling and suspension of the non quattro A6 back when I got my car (2000). With Gas at $4 a gallon, punative taxes on company provided cars, plus 17.5% sales tax how many of us would be running our cars in the U.K.?

TheBrit

Remember the old "Mirrors, signal, manouver" routine? BMW drivers seem to have their own unique variation;

Mirrors: Looking at self, adjusting hair
Signal: Make circle with thumb and forefinger. Wave rapidly up & down
Manouver: Erratically and wildly with no consideration for others.

TheBrit

Any comparative review of Audi/BMW usually states that the Audi is well built, handsome and has better interiors but the BMW is more of a driver's car. Audi usually get pulled to pieces over lack of driver feedback, and BMW usually gets praise for the ability to oversteer it...

I think that because so much testing is done by track-practiced RWD fanatics, they just don't know how to drive a Quattro to it's full advantage (it is something you have to learn), so don't know how to get the most out of it. Top Gear (the TV show) once did a piece "proving" that Quattro gave you no advantage over RWD or FWD cars in "everyday" conditions. IIRC, they took an A4 Quattro, Alfa 156(?) and a 3-series and placed an obstacle in the middle of a bend on a dry road and went swerving round it.

The oh-so scientific results were that the FWD Alfa hit the obstacle, the Audi understeered and just missed the obstacle and the BMW was able to be deftly oversteered round with a dose of opposite lock to completely miss the obstacle. So there you have it, BMWs are safer in everyday driving. If you have an obstacle placed just-so in the road. And you're a track-trained and well practiced driver with a lots of RWD experience. And hardly any AWD experience. And it's dry. Ahem, very conclusive.