Audi - they arent a proper premium car brand really are they?

samsemtex

Just lookin through Audi's range and really they are awfully overpriced when you think about it. Seat Exeo which is the last Audi A4 with minor restyling has just gone on sale. With the exact same 2.0 litre TDI engine that comes on the A4, VAG have suddenly been able to cut the price by €10,000 compared to what they charged for it when it was badged as an Audi.

I'd be pretty pissed off if i bought an Audi A4 2 years ago and i suddenly see it being sold for a fraction of the price, with the same engine, an improved interior(albeit uglified on the outside), etc and badged as a SEAT.

Now i cant imagine Mercedes or BMW going to Mini or Smart and giving them the last C-class/3series and allowing them sell it as one of that brands cars. Then there is also the fact that they share a huge amount of parts with VWs, they share almost all their engines with Skodas, VWs and SEATs and they are front wheel drive. And then there is Audi ride quality *shudders(literally)*. Worst ride quality of any cars and for a car that claims to be a premium brand that makes it even worse.

I really cant see how or why they seem to be rated above of Volvo in terms of luxury/quality. Sure the S/RS models are a step above but the standard Audis which make up 95% of their sales are overpriced VWs and really dont deserve to be in the same category as BMW or Merc or even Lexus.

C.D.

There are real reasons why then can offer it at a lower price- while I don't know the specifics of the cars, I'd imagine the following would still apply:

- It is now a mature platform, any problems or flaws in design would have been ironed out. These include problems which could lead to manufacturing difficulties.

- The significant costs of R+D and the re-tooling of equipment to produce this particular platform have been offset.

-Scale of economies with regard to production.

TBH, it is typical in any industry to pay top dollar for the latest- look at consumer electronics such as computers; they suffer even higher rates of depreciation. What defines a premium brand IMO is how much people are willing to pay for the label due to the perception that is "premium".

unkel

C.D. wrote: »

What defines a premium brand IMO is how much people are willing to pay for the label due to the perception that is "premium".

+1

What generally helps create the perception of "premium" is if the brand have some high end models that are up there with the best. Audi has had cars "up there" for a couple of decades now. So if Audi was taking a €10k (won't be that much tbh) margin on a base A4, they are truly a premium brand.

With the Seat Exeo, VAG is taking the p1ss though imho. It is risky as well because if the general public find out, the Audi brand will be further tarnished. What are the chances of that though? Ford got away with selling the Volvo S40 as semi-premium although it is only a Focus. They weren't so lucky selling the X-type as a full-premium Jaguar. The general public realised it was just a Mondeo. It backfired badly on the Jaguar brand...

alias no.9

samsemtex wrote: »

Now i cant imagine Mercedes or BMW going to Mini or Smart and giving them the last C-class/3series and allowing them sell it as one of that brands cars.

Ever heard of a Ssangyong Chairman? It's a W124 Mercedes E-Class with minor cosmetic surgury.


The W210 Mercedes E-Class became the Chrysler 300C, Dodge Charger and Dodge Magnum.

The R170 Mercedes SLK was reheated as the Chrysler Crossfire.

samsemtex

alias no.9 wrote: »

Ever heard of a Ssangyong Chairman? It's a W124 Mercedes E-Class with minor cosmetic surgury.

The W124 came out in 1985, its not really the same thing and thats a fairly heft cosmetic surgery as far as im concerned.

The W210 Mercedes E-Class became the Chrysler 300C, Dodge Charger and Dodge Magnum.

The R170 Mercedes SLK was reheated as the Chrysler Crossfire.

The 300c is a very different car from the E-class in looks and inside of it. Same goes for the Crossfire. They may be based on the merc models but they are very different cars to look at and drive. The Exeo is clearly recognisable as the old A4. I suppose you are right to an extent but the Exeo takes the piss.

unkel

You've got a point, alias but the crucial difference is there are no overlapping markets in those cars. The Chairman :rolleyes: is clearly a far east exercise only. That car wouldn't even have worked for the Americans

The Crossfire did work a bit for the Americans (not so much here) and the Chrysler takes a few bits from the old Merc parts bin (the diesel engine mainly) but it is a different car altogether. It's relative (but still minor) success in Europe has surprised friend and foe

colm_mcm

hard one to call, Audi have some desirable stuff like the R8, undeniuably posh stuff like the A8, and some very brash stuff like the Q7. the problem is all we see over here is 1.6 FWD A4s and A3s. Personally I don't buy into the Audi thing.

A lot of the technology on Audis is used on every other VW brand.

alias no.9

samsemtex wrote: »

The W124 came out in 1985, its not really the same thing and thats a fairly heft cosmetic surgery as far as im concerned.

Never mind when the W124 was launched, the Chairman went into production pretty soon after the last W124 was built in Stuttgart, a very valid comparrison as far as I'm concerned.

samsemtex wrote: »

The 300c is a very different car from the E-class in looks and inside of it. Same goes for the Crossfire. They may be based on the merc models but they are very different cars to look at and drive.

Maybe they look different and drive different (they don't really drive that different) but they address the 'platform' aspect of your argument.

samsemtex wrote: »

The Exeo is clearly recognisable as the old A4. I suppose you are right to an extent but the Exeo takes the piss.

The Exeo is lazy design. It won't be a sales success. Audi got away with being smaller than the segment with that generation A4 because of it's premium brand status. The Exeo is just too small to compete with the Mondeo.

unkel

alias no.9 wrote: »

Maybe they look different and drive different (they don't really drive that different) but they address the 'platform' aspect of your argument.

The 300c is not built on the W210 platform afaik

alias no.9

unkel wrote: »

You've got a point, alias but the crucial difference is there are no overlapping markets in those cars. The Chairman :rolleyes: is clearly a far east exercise only. That car wouldn't even have worked for the Americans

The Crossfire did work a bit for the Americans (not so much here) and the Chrysler takes a few bits from the old Merc parts bin (the diesel engine mainly) but it is a different car altogether. It's relative (but still minor) success in Europe has surprised friend and foe

In global terms, Seat are a minor regional brand with no presence outside europe. Not that different to Ssangyong. Chrysler lifted entire platforms and drivetrains, hardly minor parts bin stuff. Mercedes do sell cars in Korea and the US.

samsemtex

unkel wrote: »

The 300c is not built on the W210 platform afaik

You are also correct on that one

alias no.9

unkel wrote: »

The 300c is not built on the W210 platform afaik

It's a modified W210 platform.

niceirishfella

Audi ='s Expensive Volkswagon.

pburns

colm_mcm wrote: »

hard one to call, Audi have some desirable stuff like the R8, undeniuably posh stuff like the A8, and some very brash stuff like the Q7. the problem is all we see over here is 1.6 FWD A4s and A3s. Personally I don't buy into the Audi thing.

A lot of the technology on Audis is used on every other VW brand.

Pretty much agree with everything there...

The do make some desireable stuff - I'd be a fan of the Quattro system and top-end stuff like the A8 and R8 are really desirable.

What gets me is the brass-necked cheek lower down in the range. There are plenty of Exeo fans on this board who have shouted me down when I've pointed out how cynical it is. These deluded people think a near decade old platform with sub-Mondeo dynamics is bargain of the century just because it used to have an Audi badge:rolleyes:.

Also, I don't see the point of VAG going off and making loss-leading halo models like the Veyron and (possibly) R8 when they are prepared to throw an old Audi into a gap in the SEAT range or flog the way-outpaced 1.9TDI years after it's sell by date in prestigous exec mobiles like the A4/A6...

And the OP is dead right in saying other marques wouldn't do this. Can you imagine BMW flogging an old, rebadged 3-series as an MG/Rover in the early 90s when they owned that brand? Not in a zillion years...

Matt Simis

Wait... who cars if society deem them a premium brand or not? Let the cars speak for themselves. 1.9TDI FWD A4s and 1.6 A3s are completely disposible and replaceable swill at the end of the day.

R8s, certain S4s, RS4s, RS6s and S8s are not, they are excellent cars each in their own spheres. I couldnt care less if they are a premium badge, no more than I care if Merc or BMW are. Infact, being exclusively a premium badge would limited the marque in scope. I like they fact they can sell a car to "anyone", rich or poor.

unkel

pburns wrote: »

I don't see the point of VAG going off and making loss-leading halo models like the Veyron

The Veyron is not a just a halo car like a Honda NSX, a Nissan GT-R or an Audi R8. The Veyron is the most sublime victory of an enforced vision of performance over engineering realities. The hero here is not VW, Audi or even Porsche. It is not a brand. The true hero is a person and his name is Ferdinand Piëch.

Damien360

unkel wrote: »

The Veyron is not a just a halo car like a Honda NSX, a Nissan GT-R or an Audi R8. The Veyron is the most sublime victory of a vision of performance over engineering realities. The hero here is not VW, Audi or even Porsche. It is not a brand. The true hero is a person and his name is Ferdinand Piëch.

If you watched Top gear last night you would have seen the veyron beating the F1 McLaren on a straight run. The only thing is the McLaren is 15 years old and it did'nt loose by much, even winning off the blocks and holding the lead for a good distance. The veyron is great but not a massive leap forward.

pburns

unkel wrote: »

The Veyron is not a just a halo car like a Honda NSX, a Nissan GT-R or an Audi R8. The Veyron is the most sublime victory of an enforced vision of performance over engineering realities. The hero here is not VW, Audi or even Porsche. It is not a brand. The true hero is a person and his name is Ferdinand Piëch.

i'm sorry but that sounds like JC-influenced fan-boyism of the highest order. The McLaren F1 did it better over a decade before the Veyron came along (and not just 'cos it put up a good fight on TG last night).

unkel

Damien360 wrote: »

If you watched Top gear last night you would have seen the veyron beating the F1 McLaren on a straight run. The only thing is the McLaren is 15 years old and it did'nt loose by much, even winning off the blocks and holding the lead for a good distance. The veyron is great but not a massive leap forward.

I didn't watch top gear and I would take whatever they say with an enormous mountain of salt. What I do know is that there is only one car in the world that anyone can easily drive as their daily driver anywhere and that would have no problem going over 400km/h and accelerating from 0-100km/h in about 2.5s every day. Nothing else comes even remotely close.

unkel

pburns wrote: »

i'm sorry but that sounds like JC-influenced fan-boyism of the highest order. The McLaren F1 did it better over a decade before the Veyron came along (and not just 'cos it put up a good fight on TG last night).

I don't really do TG or JC. See my last post

I quite like the McLaren F1, especially for that superb BMW engine

bazz26

unkel wrote: »

They weren't so lucky selling the X-type as a full-premium Jaguar. The general public realised it was just a Mondeo. It backfired badly on the Jaguar brand...

Jaguar actually boasted at the time that the X-Type used the Mondeo chassis promoting the X-Type as having excellent driving dynamics. Unfortuately though the target buyer of this car didn't want their neightbours knowing they were driving just a posh Mondeo. :rolleyes:

eolair

No doubting they make nice cars, already alluded to here. And no doubt they re-use platforms and parts within the group - as does every other global car brand that wants to remain afloat. What used to distinguish them - arguably less so now on their common models - is the understated high quality design*. What still distinguishes them is the high quality of the interior cabin- at least relative to similarly priced rivals.

Irish punters loses out in two ways - first they de-spec the cars (as do other brands) because of the ridiculous car tax scheme and to maintain profit margins, and secondly they ship weak-assed 1.6 engines that struggle and huff and puff. So for many people, apart from the badge and the exterior, they're missing out on two key features of what makes the car special - and yes that usually makes them poor value.

Their range could also do with sharpening up in a few key areas. The A3 is definitely an aspirational car, but needs to be more dynamic to justify the premium. The A4 is cramped, and the A4 avant is a waste of space, literally. The A6 (saloon and avant) is probably the most rounded, but the S6 is criminally bad - with no justification. Audi have shown they know how to build great handling cars. Others - RS6, A5 and R8 need no comment.

I'd never claim they're the epitome of car handling, performance or any other criteria, but they are pretty nice, and occasionally special. And while Bangle has brought controversial design changes to the industry, Audi brought the TT and the R8 - surely that's worth something?

The reason that Seat jobbie can be sold for half nothing, is that apart from the engine and a few other bits and bobs, the platform is nearly 15 years old. All the bugs have been worked out, all the development money has been paid for many times over. Many of the parts are old favorites from the VAG catalogue - they just have to turn it out for cost+x% and it'll be a nice little earner. Does it devalue the modern A4? No - for two reasons. Anyone who can afford the A4 will still buy one for badge value, and secondly, alot of the advances and small touches in design are only in the oooo . So you get what you pay for - a mid 90s Audi with a fresh (albeit recognisable) skin, or a 21st century car.

* re quality design - I've an 03 A6, with an interior design that originated in the early 90s. Still in 09, the first comment out of any new passenger in the car is usually how nice it is.

As for it being a premium brand, well just ask yourself, would you ever be embarrassed to turn up any where in one?
---
confession - I've owned two A4s and currently reside in an A6

futura123

Audi A5, TTS ....... Premium cars !!!! Audi R8 just exudes sex appeal and greatness

VolvoMan

The Exeo can't be compared to other cars on this thread that use technology from older models. The Exeo basically used the B7 Audi A4 car itself rather than the platform, albeit with the dash from the A4 Cabriolet and the new generation range of engines.

unkel wrote: »

The 300c is not built on the W210 platform afaik

It used a combination of parts form both the W210 platform and the W220 one that was used in the S-Class.

eolair wrote: »

So you get what you pay for - a mid 90s Audi with a fresh (albeit recognisable) skin, or a 21st century car.

The A4 it is based on only came out at the start of this decade.

* re quality design - I've an 03 A6, with an interior design that originated in the early 90s. Still in 09, the first comment out of any new passenger in the car is usually how nice it is.

Your A6 isn't that old, it was only launched in the late nineties if I remember correctly.

unkel

pburns wrote: »

The McLaren F1 did it better over a decade before the Veyron came along

Sorry, just on a re-read of this thread right now. What did the McLaren F1 do better over a decade before the Veyron came along?

VolvoMan

unkel wrote: »

Sorry, just on a re-read of this thread right now. What did the McLaren F1 do better over a decade before the Veyron came along?

Well it got its power without the use of forced induction for one.

unkel

Damien360 wrote: »

If you watched Top gear last night

pburns wrote: »

'cos it put up a good fight on TG last night.

Ok, ok

I'm getting my cousins to send me their copy of the top gear episode so I can watch it for myself before commenting with you TG fans

unkel

VolvoMan wrote: »

Well it got its power without the use of forced induction for one.

But only limited power

A N/A small Honda gets over 200BHP but christ, the sound out of it is so annoying, you'd want to kill it like you want to kill a fly.

The BMW N/A engine is on a completely different level of course and as I said, I would even call myself a fan. But the (daily) performance without a fuss of a Veyron is so far removed from any other production car, it is unreal.

TomMc

unkel wrote: »

Sorry, just on a re-read of this thread right now. What did the McLaren F1 do better over a decade before the Veyron came along?

Better driving position.:D

The modem in the McLaren was pretty neat in its day.

JHMEG

Why did TG load the F1 vs Veyron challenge in favour of the Veyron? Who drag races a mile? Standard measure of a drag race is a quarter mile and by all accounts the F1 was quicker. Ferdinand Peach me hole.

netwhizkid

Audi is in my opinion more of the flagship of Volkswagen than a true premium brand. Don't get me wrong they make good cars and the Tdi's give excellent MPG, however they just don't do it for me in terms of image or exclusivity. The main reason I dislike Audi however is because they are Front Wheel Drive and this drags their entire image down for me. A few of the Quattro models are 4WD but still it does nothing. The A3 is a tossers car and while the owners try hard they still do not have a special car only an overpriced golf. Audi was going in the right direction with the A2 for a while but scrapped it to their detriment. Audis are driven by the middle class who aspire for upper middle class status but don't have it. VW's on the other hand are a much more acceptable car and are solid middle class and make no attempts to hide it, I actually have more respect for the VW badge than Audi.

Mercedes: Well off upper middle & upper class cars. Grey hair is an almost prerequisite to driving one plus a minimum of €1million in Debt. Tweed jackets, younger gold digging wives and much total idiocy abound. You have money but it is not buying you style.

Audi: You try hard and aspire, you very likely have a nice house (but a big mortgage) and were earning €50K+ a year during the boom, possibly a plasterers wife, you bought them with fuel efficiency in mind and that a high price = a good product. Sold well during Housing Mania.

BMW: Your status is secure, BMW's sell to the upper middle class, they sell for their Style, sex appeal and superb driving ability RWD:). 320D are encroaching into Audi territory with the good MPG. BMW sell to everyone from rich desperate housewives to petrol head spoilt teens. The brand is totally solid and innovation and total German precision sees the Munich 3 series lead the pack by a mile far as it packs the punch with superb styling and now super MPG too.

1. BMW
2. Audi
3. Mercedes

samsemtex

netwhizkid wrote: »

BMW: Your status is secure, BMW's sell to the upper middle class, they sell for their Style, sex appeal and superb driving ability RWD:). 320D are encroaching into Audi territory with the good MPG. BMW sell to everyone from rich desperate housewives to petrol head spoilt teens. The brand is totally solid and innovation and total German precision sees the Munich 3 series lead the pack by a mile far as it packs the punch with superb styling and now super MPG too.

1. BMW
2. Audi
3. Mercedes

:rolleyes: - The BMW 3 series and superb styling in the same sentence? Now that is funny. It has to be the blandest car out there today.

talk about falling for the BMW marketing hook, line and sinker. I also dont know how anyone could ever rank Audi ahead of Mercedes...ever. Shocking ride, rough as a dog and noisy VW/Skoda/SEAT engines, FWD and understeery, generally ****, etc. New ones are nice inside alright i suppose.

mcauley

samsemtex wrote: »

:rolleyes: - The BMW 3 series and superb styling in the same sentence? Now that is funny. It has to be the blandest car out there today.

+1 !

pburns

netwhizkid wrote: »

Audi is in my opinion more of the flagship of Volkswagen than a true premium brand. Don't get me wrong they make good cars and the Tdi's give excellent MPG, however they just don't do it for me in terms of image or exclusivity. The main reason I dislike Audi however is because they are Front Wheel Drive and this drags their entire image down for me. A few of the Quattro models are 4WD but still it does nothing. The A3 is a tossers car and while the owners try hard they still do not have a special car only an overpriced golf. Audi was going in the right direction with the A2 for a while but scrapped it to their detriment. Audis are driven by the middle class who aspire for upper middle class status but don't have it. VW's on the other hand are a much more acceptable car and are solid middle class and make no attempts to hide it, I actually have more respect for the VW badge than Audi.

Mercedes: Well off upper middle & upper class cars. Grey hair is an almost prerequisite to driving one plus a minimum of €1million in Debt. Tweed jackets, younger gold digging wives and much total idiocy abound. You have money but it is not buying you style.

Audi: You try hard and aspire, you very likely have a nice house (but a big mortgage) and were earning €50K+ a year during the boom, possibly a plasterers wife, you bought them with fuel efficiency in mind and that a high price = a good product. Sold well during Housing Mania.

BMW: Your status is secure, BMW's sell to the upper middle class, they sell for their Style, sex appeal and superb driving ability RWD:). 320D are encroaching into Audi territory with the good MPG. BMW sell to everyone from rich desperate housewives to petrol head spoilt teens. The brand is totally solid and innovation and total German precision sees the Munich 3 series lead the pack by a mile far as it packs the punch with superb styling and now super MPG too.

1. BMW
2. Audi
3. Mercedes

Ha Ha...

You totally undermine what starts out as quite a good argument with BMW fanboyism.

I agree BMWs have more 'integrity' about their engineering but suffer from a bit of a knobhead image. I like the new C-class especially in sport trim but that grill (like '80s SEC) is a bit ostentateous. I like the fact Audi isn't quite so overtly prestigous, i'd love to love 'em but lower end ones are so cynical and driven by the gullible

-Chris-

netwhizkid wrote: »

The main reason I dislike Audi however is because they are Front Wheel Drive and this drags their entire image down for me.

Can someone explain to me why RWD is a prerequisite for a premium car?

If the Camry was RWD would it have been considered premium?

Is the MINI not a premium supermini because it's FWD?

Are FWD Jags non-premium and RWD Jags premium? Does this make Jag a premium brand or not?

netwhizkid wrote: »

A few of the Quattro models are 4WD

ALL of the Quattro models are 4WD...

netwhizkid wrote: »

but still it does nothing.

It does nothing in terms of... ?

netwhizkid wrote: »

Audis are driven by the middle class who aspire for upper middle class status but don't have it.

So if someone spends €50k on a BMW, they're upper middle class, but if the same person with the same resources spends €50k on an Audi they're middle class aspiring for upper middle class?

netwhizkid wrote: »

Mercedes:...

<insert massive generalisations & BMW fanboyism here>

...superb styling and now super MPG too.

As said above, this section completely destroys your credibility IMHO.

Owen

I've spent the last 8 years in and around premium cars, BMWs, Mercs, Audis, Lexus, even MINI. I wouldn't have an issue calling Audi a premium car, every time I've driven one, and compared it to the scores of BMWs and Mercs I've driven, I've always come away impressed.

And I have to say Audi have it in the styling department currently where other manufacturers are dropping the ball.

gazmc

In Fairness though, just because a car shares a platform it doesnt mean its the same car. It will mean they are around the same size.
Look at the S40/Focus. They share the same chasis and exhaust and a couple of other bits but the drive couldnt be any more different.Obviously the S40 is finished better etc, but it is also a way better drive. This is why your spending an extra 7k or 8k for the s40.

gazmc

Netwhizkid your full of poo!!

Johnny Utah

netwhizkid wrote: »

Mercedes: Well off upper middle & upper class cars. Grey hair is an almost prerequisite to driving one plus a minimum of €1million in Debt. Tweed jackets, younger gold digging wives and much total idiocy abound. You have money but it is not buying you style.

I agree, Mercedes ain't what it used to be!

Anan1

gazmc wrote: »

Netwhizkid your full of poo!!

I'm going to assume, gazmc, that a five-year-old posted this without your knowledge.

Henry Ford III

Audi's top end cars are certainly premium products. Their "cooking" cars are average and represent what's worst about badge engineering.

T-Maxx

The way I see it:

Audi, Benz - old money
BMW - nouveau riche

Johnboy Mac

An Audi is a VW/Skoda/Seat in drag. Or is a VW/Skoda/Seat an Audi in drag?

Johnboy Mac

unkel wrote: »

The Veyron is not a just a halo car like a Honda NSX, a Nissan GT-R or an Audi R8. The Veyron is the most sublime victory of an enforced vision of performance over engineering realities. The hero here is not VW, Audi or even Porsche. It is not a brand. The true hero is a person and his name is Ferdinand Piëch.

Don't see much of the Veyron in the A3,A4,A5,A6,A8,S5,S6,S8 etc never mind VW's, Skoda's or Seat's.

alias no.9

Johnboy Mac wrote: »

An Audi is a VW/Skoda/Seat in drag. Or is a VW/Skoda/Seat an Audi in drag?

Skoda driving drag queens look like Audis but when you drop the handbrake you find out it's really a VW;)

Johnboy Mac

alias no.9 wrote: »

Skoda driving drag queens look like Audis but when you drop the handbrake you find out it's really a VW;)

It's all so confusing ain't it?

peasant

Johnboy Mac wrote: »

An Audi is a VW/Skoda/Seat in drag. Or is a VW/Skoda/Seat an Audi in drag?

Correct me if I'm wrong ...but did any Audi 8 cylinder engine ever make it down the VAG food chain?

Don't think so

Most of the 6 cylinders didn't go that way either

samsemtex

peasant wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong ...but did any Audi 8 cylinder engine ever make it down the VAG food chain?

Don't think so

Most of the 6 cylinders didn't go that way either

95% of Audis sold here arent 6 or 8 cylinders. I must say the A8 is a great car and is a proper luxury barge but i dont think that makes up for the rest of the brand.

Johnboy Mac

peasant wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong ...but did any Audi 8 cylinder engine ever make it down the VAG food chain?

Don't think so

Most of the 6 cylinders didn't go that way either

I think if you review, the original the OP was commenting in particular about the A4 Audi & Seat. Your right I don't recall a 8 cylinder Seat.

Biro

pburns wrote: »

Pretty much agree with everything there...

The do make some desireable stuff - I'd be a fan of the Quattro system and top-end stuff like the A8 and R8 are really desirable.

What gets me is the brass-necked cheek lower down in the range. There are plenty of Exeo fans on this board who have shouted me down when I've pointed out how cynical it is. These deluded people think a near decade old platform with sub-Mondeo dynamics is bargain of the century just because it used to have an Audi badge:rolleyes:.

Also, I don't see the point of VAG going off and making loss-leading halo models like the Veyron and (possibly) R8 when they are prepared to throw an old Audi into a gap in the SEAT range or flog the way-outpaced 1.9TDI years after it's sell by date in prestigous exec mobiles like the A4/A6...

And the OP is dead right in saying other marques wouldn't do this. Can you imagine BMW flogging an old, rebadged 3-series as an MG/Rover in the early 90s when they owned that brand? Not in a zillion years...

It doesn't work like people are thinking. Some bunch of guys in a VW office in Germany aren't sitting around a table deciding what the next Seat and Skoda will look like. Seat guys are deciding that, and they have to put it to the board to suggest that they use the older A4 platform. Seat don't care about Audi, and Audi don't care about Seat. Each company are out for themselves.
It's like Panasonic owning JVC. JVC still have their range of products and still want to get sales going their way, including the potential Panasonic ones.

Biro

Damien360 wrote: »

If you watched Top gear last night you would have seen the veyron beating the F1 McLaren on a straight run. The only thing is the McLaren is 15 years old and it did'nt loose by much, even winning off the blocks and holding the lead for a good distance. The veyron is great but not a massive leap forward.

I'd take that episode with a pinch of salt (or sand) unless you live in a place where temperatures soar way above 40 degrees centigrade. Read the report about that race in the Top Gear magazine and you'll find out a lot more info.
In reality, and back here in more normal climatic conditions, the fact remains that you can set off a McLaren from rest, give it a 10 second head start, then set a Veyron going and the Veyron will reach 200mph first.
That's a fact. Autocar verify the times. The Veyron was designed with a very different design brief than the McLaren F1 was designed with. Both are fantastic in their respective classes.
It's like the McLaren SLR versus the Carrera GT. Chalk and cheese in the execution of very similar pace.