New Audi A4 revealed!

"gbnews" > wrote in message
...
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> The new Audi A4 has been revealed officially. Read more about it
> >>>> at:
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.audi4u.net
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> If this is what the next A4 is going to look like, I'm glad I
> >>> have a current one. Because that's hideous! What in the world are
> >>> they thinking with that design?!?! (Is Chris Bangle now
> >>> moonlighting for Audi as
> > well?)
> >>> Not since the latest Camry have I seen a design so bland, yet
> >>> simultaneously so ugly...
> >>>
> >>> Rob
> >>> 2002 A4 3.0Q
> >>> 2005 TT 3.2 DSG (as of tomorrow)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> I remember people saying that about the new A4 - B6 after owning a B5
> >>
> >> It looks stunning if you ask me, and I'm sure in real life it will
> >> be even better
> >
> > I'm confident that it's not a B6 ownership-inspired bias that
> > leads me to my conclusion about the new design. As I feel exactly the
> > same way about the new A6 -- a model I've never owned in any
> > iteration. And, generally speaking, I'm not a person who must always
> > have the "better" possession. IMO, this new design, like that of
> > the new A6, simply lacks the grace
> > and elegance of a car purporting to be a European luxury sports
> > sedan. While it certainly looks athletic enough, so do most Nissans
> > and Mazdas. And I'm afraid that if one were to slap a Nissan or Mazda
> > badge on this "new & improved" A4, few people would question it's
> > origin. Because, aside from the ghastly grill, this A4 has the
> > appearance of a mainstream Japanese car -- in fact, it merely looks
> > like a late-90's Mazda 626 with added bulk.
>
> To be fair, I think your commenting on something that can only be felt in
> the flesh. I used to think the Mazda RX8 was a lovely looking TT beater
> until I seen/sat in one at the motor show, my feelings for it just went
down
> hill there on.

Fair enough. Pictures, stat sheets and the like don't always jibe
perfectly with in-the-flesh reality. Similar to your earlier sentiments
about the RX-8, I was initially quite impressed with the Nissan 350Z. But
upon sitting in one, the highly "plasticky" interior curbed my enthusiasm --
as $30k+ (with options) cars should not remind one of cars costing half as
much.

> > 2005 TT 3.2 DSG (today is delivery day!)
> ^^^^
> Hope you enjoy!

Thanks for the kind words. I'm pretty excited!

"Pete" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ronny" > wrote in message
> > Whats a 2005 TT, I thought we were in 2004, this would make it 2004
TT,
> or
> > am I missing somthing?
>
> It's a designation of "model year", as opposed to an actual year of
> manufacture. Next year models generally appear about half way into the
> current calendar year.
>
> A 2005 model year may have different equipment, colors, and options
> compared to a 2004 model year, even though both were manufactured in 2004.
> It's a marketing tactic that's been used by auto makers for years, at
least
> in the US.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Pete
>
>
>

A must be a US thing

Cheers Pete

In message >
"ronny" > wrote:

> A must be a US thing

Indeed. The US consumers seem to expect a car to be updated every year.
I believe that the body styles used to be changed annually - such that a
'57 car would look different to (than?) a '58, which would be different
to (than?) a '59.

As for the next year's model coming out part way throught the previous
year - this is just a result of the manufacturers' race to be the first
to market with the new model. It's not really much different to the
September issue of a magazine hitting the shelves at the beginning of
August!

--
Peter Bell (Note Spamtrap - To reply, replace 'invalid' with 'bellfamily')

"Peter Bell" > wrote in message
...
> In message >
> "ronny" > wrote:
>
> > A must be a US thing
>
> Indeed. The US consumers seem to expect a car to be updated every year.
> I believe that the body styles used to be changed annually - such that a
> '57 car would look different to (than?) a '58, which would be different
> to (than?) a '59.
>
> As for the next year's model coming out part way throught the previous
> year - this is just a result of the manufacturers' race to be the first
> to market with the new model. It's not really much different to the
> September issue of a magazine hitting the shelves at the beginning of
> August!
>
> --
> Peter Bell (Note Spamtrap - To reply, replace 'invalid' with
'bellfamily')

We couldnt get away with it over here, a car registered in 2004 would be a
2004 model, We also have a number plate year system which i'm sure you know
about, I just found it strange someone saying they are taking delivery of a
2005 car and theres still nearly 4 months of 2004 left

In message >
"Ronny" > wrote:

> We couldnt get away with it over here, a car registered in 2004 would
> be a 2004 model,

Ah, but it does happen over here. My wife's A2, delivered in July 2002
on an 02 registration is actually a '2003' spec. model. If you check
the VIN coding you'll find that one of the characters relates to the
'model year', and it is very common for this to change part way through
a year.

We tend to rely too heavily on registration year, and that may mislead
someone over the actual specification of the car. For instance, someone
recently came across a few unregistered S3s, which are now (being?) sold
and registered with '54' plates. Now, as far as I am aware, S3
production ceased towards the end of 2003. So, are these cars really
2004 models? Of course not. They are 2003 cars which have, in all
probability, sat around in a field for the best part of a year.

> We also have a number plate year system which i'm sure you know about,

Yes - I think I know about it!

> I just found it strange someone saying they are taking delivery of a
> 2005 car and theres still nearly 4 months of 2004 left

Indeed.

--
Peter Bell (Note Spamtrap - To reply, replace 'invalid' with 'bellfamily')

Ronny wrote:

> Whats a 2005 TT, I thought we were in 2004, this would make it 2004 TT, or
> am I missing somthing?
>
> If you bought the car on Jan 1st 2005 and it was registered on that day then
> you would have a 2005 car.
>
> Is this some wierd american science?

Technically, in the US, any model of car released after January 1 of
year N can be called an (N+1) model. I purchased my "2003" Passat in
November of 2002.

--
Mike Smith

I think they got their inspiration from the new Caddy's and Chrysler 300's.


"+ Rob +" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "webmaster_audi4u" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Hi,
>>
>> The new Audi A4 has been revealed officially. Read more about it at:
>>
>> http://www.audi4u.net
>>
>
> If this is what the next A4 is going to look like, I'm glad I have a
> current one. Because that's hideous! What in the world are they thinking
> with that design?!?! (Is Chris Bangle now moonlighting for Audi as well?)
> Not since the latest Camry have I seen a design so bland, yet
> simultaneously
> so ugly...
>
> Rob
> 2002 A4 3.0Q
> 2005 TT 3.2 DSG (as of tomorrow)
>
>

For most of my lifetime the US automakers worker on a three year cycle with
minor changes yearly and a major change every three years.

As for the model years they operated on a Sept-July calendar. The "1971"
models usually came out in Sept 1970. Sometimes if there was a mid-year
change or a new model it came out as the following year's model.


"Peter Bell" > wrote in message
...
> In message >
> "ronny" > wrote:
>
>> A must be a US thing
>
> Indeed. The US consumers seem to expect a car to be updated every year.
> I believe that the body styles used to be changed annually - such that a
> '57 car would look different to (than?) a '58, which would be different
> to (than?) a '59.
>
> As for the next year's model coming out part way throught the previous
> year - this is just a result of the manufacturers' race to be the first
> to market with the new model. It's not really much different to the
> September issue of a magazine hitting the shelves at the beginning of
> August!
>
> --
> Peter Bell (Note Spamtrap - To reply, replace 'invalid' with
> 'bellfamily')

> We used to get license (registration) plates annually also that were a
> different color combination every year and by the end of the year were so
> rusted you could barely read the numbers!

ps
Each state had (and still has) a different plate design/color and numbering
scheme

> We couldnt get away with it over here, a car registered in 2004 would be a
> 2004 model, We also have a number plate year system which i'm sure you
> know
> about, I just found it strange someone saying they are taking delivery of
> a
> 2005 car and theres still nearly 4 months of 2004 left
>
>

I bought my daughter's '01 A4 "new" in 2003. The title says '01, the
warranty started in '03 (when it was put in service) We call these cars
"leftovers", you get a new car with a new car warranty at a used car price
and yes, they did put a new battery in it before delivery.


>
> We tend to rely too heavily on registration year, and that may mislead
> someone over the actual specification of the car. For instance, someone
> recently came across a few unregistered S3s, which are now (being?) sold
> and registered with '54' plates. Now, as far as I am aware, S3
> production ceased towards the end of 2003. So, are these cars really
> 2004 models? Of course not. They are 2003 cars which have, in all
> probability, sat around in a field for the best part of a year.
>
>> We also have a number plate year system which i'm sure you know about,
>
> Yes - I think I know about it!
>
>> I just found it strange someone saying they are taking delivery of a
>> 2005 car and theres still nearly 4 months of 2004 left
>
> Indeed.
>
> --
> Peter Bell (Note Spamtrap - To reply, replace 'invalid' with
> 'bellfamily')