A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto makers » Audi
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Audi Reliability Unacceptable by US Standards



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 28th 10, 05:14 AM posted to alt.autos.audi
Mike G Cornell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default Audi Reliability Unacceptable by US Standards


Once again, Audis are full of fail.

Audi just cannot seem to pull their head out of their arse when it
comes to reliability. American cars are no great shakes either, seems
the Japanese locked away the secrets when Deming taught them how to do
it.

http://autos.aol.com/article/consume...reliable-cars/


Ads
  #2  
Old October 30th 10, 01:07 PM posted to alt.autos.audi
laurentien
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 53
Default Audi Reliability Unacceptable by US Standards

Dear all,

I have had a BMW 323i 1986 and I never had a problem with it and I
went on the Autobahns now and then and could see why this car is
superior. The perfect young executive car (for a man being single, so
all these Swiss girls who look when drifting on the snow) showing that
he has taste for a real sports car.

I am now the owner of an 1994 Audi 80 1.9 TDi. WE have reached 260 000
km now. More like the stettled down father car (being now director if
not a partner), much more bourgeois but still handling like a sports
car, never failed me in roundabouts at almost any speed. This car
still makes 6.2 L / 100 km (45 mpg) and will reach half a million
kilometers. Very reliable car with sound engine not even rusted.

Even a recently tested Saab 9-3 was not as good as the Audi 80 and you
could see they were made on the same chassis as the Opel Ohmega
(Cadillac CTS in the USA). not rigid enough. Even an Alfa Romeo is now
a much better car than the Saab.

Could not do the same with any Ford or GMC cars even of European
designs.

As far as the Infinity G20 is concerned, it is only a Nissan Primera
in Europe and this car is quite inferior to the Opel Ohmega or Ford
Mondeo.

As far as the first entry Accura is concerned, it is the Honda Accord
in Europe and again it does not ride as nicely as Peugeot 406 or
Renault Laguna.

Audi offers the A4 and S4 which are still very serious cars and will
not fail you unless you take that bad supercharged Audi V6 engine
which seems a new entry with serious mishaps. To build a bad
reputation over Audi full line of products just because of the
problems of that new car is just not rational.

Anyway, I am very disappointed by the importance given to consummers
reports which are not scientific.

>On that same page, 19% of consumers voted that they don't value CR car
>rankings at all.


I would dare say that only 19 % of United-Statians are true and all
the others are wrong.

In that report, they say that the Nissan Versa has a very good
reputation in its trunk version but bad reputation in hatchback, Come
on, this shows quite clearly that people are not very objective. By
the way the Nissan Versa is a Renault Clio.

Bests,

LHR
  #3  
Old October 30th 10, 01:21 PM posted to alt.autos.audi
laurentien
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 53
Default Audi Reliability Unacceptable by US Standards

On Oct 29, 6:27*pm, Mike G Cornell > wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 23:53:37 -0700, Kevin McMurtrie
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >In article >,
> > Mike G Cornell > wrote:

>
> >> On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 20:26:26 -0700, Kevin McMurtrie
> >> > wrote:

>
> >> >In article >,
> >> > Mike G Cornell > wrote:

>
> >> >> Once again, Audis are full of fail. *

>
> >> >> Audi just cannot seem to pull their head out of their arse when it
> >> >> comes to reliability. American cars are no great shakes either, seems
> >> >> the Japanese locked away the secrets when Deming taught them how to do
> >> >> it.

>
> >> >>http://autos.aol.com/article/consume...reliable-cars/

>
> >> >On that same page, 19% of consumers voted that they don't value CR car
> >> >rankings at all.

>
> >> 52% said Highly
> >> 27% said Somewhat
> >> and 19% said Not at all

>
> >> What was the point you were hoping to make by that? *That the other
> >> 81% are wrong?

>
> >It means that nearly 1 in 5 people would not believe that German cars
> >are bad only because CR says so. *I'm one of them. *CR started out as a
> >very scientific magazine but they've dumbed it down and slashed the
> >budget so far that their reports are often pointless, flawed, or
> >misleading. *The in-depth analysis and validation is long gone.

>
> >My only gripe about my Audi is that the Navi/Bose sound system is not
> >worthy of being used to wipe an ass. *Other than that, it's one of the
> >most reliable cars I've owned and it's more fun to drive than anything
> >CR would like.

>
> If you have one and you're happy with it, then perhaps you're one of
> the 20% who is not having problems?
>
> Personally I put a lot of value in CR's reliability assessments, only
> because if I look up the models I've owned over the last 15 years, and
> think of the things that have gone wrong here and there, I can look at
> their charts of what is a known troublespot on each car (red and black
> circle charts) and their surveys seem to have nailed it every time. *I
> have no reason to believe that has changed. *As far as their reviews /
> writing etc I find it to be good, not great. *
>
> Overall they do seem to be the best source of reliability info, and I
> think they know that auto reliability and related is a big reason
> folks look to their magazine, so I don't know why they would allow
> themself to slip in such a critical area.
>
> As far as car brands, I went Lexus with my latest car and I'm
> thrilled.


Well, I think that you should also look for the reports produced in
Europe too.

You will then get a good idea of the car reliabilities trying to
filter all propaganda
that seems to be going on in America,
that seems to overvalue the Japanese cars
and try to push US made cars which are still so poor.

I ave owned a Mazda 323 1988 where the gearbox has broken down
prematurely and the garage did not want to honor the warrantee. The
car went well for 6 years and then started to fall apart.

I know someone who owned a Mazda 626 1990 that was working well for
seven years and then collapsed into a wreck.

I have owned a Toyota Corolla SR5 1985 and this car has had a large
number of fails including, a failed gaz meter, a water pump which was
difficult to replace since we had to find the right month, no road
holding, etc.

My experience with Japanese cars was that they are overestimated.

Hopefully, Chrysler will start making products from the Alfa Romeo
range, being now closer to Audis. Anyway, FIAT have put Chrysler under
the same umbrella than Lancia with a French director, i-e they will
have to make similar cars. One can expect at least some real
sportiness.


LHR
  #4  
Old November 1st 10, 04:59 AM posted to alt.autos.audi
Mike G Cornell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default Audi Reliability Unacceptable by US Standards

On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 05:07:53 -0700 (PDT), laurentien
> wrote:

>Dear all,
>
>I have had a BMW 323i 1986 and I never had a problem with it and I
>went on the Autobahns now and then and could see why this car is
>superior. The perfect young executive car (for a man being single, so
>all these Swiss girls who look when drifting on the snow) showing that
>he has taste for a real sports car.
>
>I am now the owner of an 1994 Audi 80 1.9 TDi. WE have reached 260 000
>km now. More like the stettled down father car (being now director if
>not a partner), much more bourgeois but still handling like a sports
>car, never failed me in roundabouts at almost any speed. This car
>still makes 6.2 L / 100 km (45 mpg) and will reach half a million
>kilometers. Very reliable car with sound engine not even rusted.


If someone told me Audi once made a reliable car I would have no
problems believing it. One of the best cars I ever owned was a mid
1980's BMW.

It just seems many of these german makes lost their reliability focus.
  #5  
Old November 1st 10, 11:10 PM posted to alt.autos.audi
D. LaCourse
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 64
Default Audi Reliability Unacceptable by US Standards

Horse caca. I have a 2003 Audi RS6. Yes, it required shocks (after a
normal driving period), along with brakes (normal wear and tear). But
*nothing* else. I laugh at some of the fairly new cars I see on the
roads, US, Japan, Korean, with one headlight burned out. The Audi
lights (all of them) have never been replaced and I drive *all* the
time with my lights ON. My wife's Lexus: Needed a brake job within
one year of purchase. Was not her fault - something wrong with the
original brakes. HI headlight burned out - Toyota wanted $1400 to
replace (I kid you not). Finally bought a set of normal headlights
(not HI) and had them installed.

I will continue to buy Audi because I have been with them since 1982.
My RS6 is the sixth Audi since then, and I have never had an issue with
*any* of them. My grandsons drive S4s, while my son-in-law still
drives my 2000 A6 4.2 with over 170K on it.

So, go masturbate somewhere else, Troll.

Dave

  #6  
Old November 2nd 10, 05:14 AM posted to alt.autos.audi
Mike G Cornell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default Audi Reliability Unacceptable by US Standards

On Mon, 1 Nov 2010 18:10:51 -0400, D. LaCourse >
wrote:

> My wife's Lexus: Needed a brake job within
>one year of purchase. Was not her fault - something wrong with the
>original brakes. HI headlight burned out - Toyota wanted $1400 to
>replace (I kid you not). Finally bought a set of normal headlights
>(not HI) and had them installed.


>So, go masturbate somewhere else, Troll.


So you'd like us to believe your wife put enough miles on her Lexus in
less than 12 months to exceed warranty? Credibility denied.
  #7  
Old November 2nd 10, 11:07 AM posted to alt.autos.audi
David
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17
Default Audi Reliability Unacceptable by US Standards


> The Audi lights (all of them) have never been replaced and I drive *all*
> the
> time with my lights ON.


That is the International sign of the "I've got a small weaner club".

****.


  #8  
Old November 2nd 10, 03:05 PM posted to alt.autos.audi
D. LaCourse
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 64
Default Audi Reliability Unacceptable by US Standards

On 2010-11-02 06:07:47 -0400, "David" > said:

>
>> The Audi lights (all of them) have never been replaced and I drive *all*
>> the
>> time with my lights ON.

>
> That is the International sign of the "I've got a small weaner club".
>
> ****.


If I was driving with my fog lights on I would agree. But, not with
headlights (on low beam). And why are you so interested in my or
anyone else's weaner <sic>?

Why are you posting anonymously? Afraid? Of what? Scaredy cat!

Dave


  #9  
Old November 2nd 10, 03:27 PM posted to alt.autos.audi
D. LaCourse
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 64
Default Audi Reliability Unacceptable by US Standards

So, Mike and Anonymouse "David", what kind of cars do you drive? Front
wheel drive rice burners? You would **** your pants if you drove a
real car like my RS6 or any of the M machines BMW offers, or any of the
AMGs MB offers.

Dave LaCourse
03 Audi RS6

  #10  
Old November 2nd 10, 05:20 PM posted to alt.autos.audi
David
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17
Default Audi Reliability Unacceptable by US Standards


"D. LaCourse" > wrote in message
news:2010110210270543658-davplac@aolcom...
> So, Mike and Anonymouse "David", what kind of cars do you drive? Front
> wheel drive rice burners? You would **** your pants if you drove a real
> car like my RS6 or any of the M machines BMW offers, or any of the AMGs MB
> offers.
>
> Dave LaCourse
> 03 Audi RS6
>


You will find that, on average, (although you may be lucky), that the newer
cars get, the less reliable they will become as they get older.
I doubt very much a new Audi will be as reliable as the ones you have had. I
used to work for VAG, I do know.

Actually, my BMW has more torque (stock, I know yours is modified) than your
RS6, but less power. It also does twice the m.p.g than your RS6, with half
of the pollution.

Your RS6 comes as four wheel drive and does not lose traction so easily. I
think you would find my BMW more difficult to control than your RS6 when
driven hard.

Yes, those of us with problems (sometimes self-perceived), do tend to
intimidate others, or be more assertive than needed, just as you are now.

regards

David



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
RSC behavior UNACCEPTABLE reggie white Simulators 9 August 30th 05 08:38 PM
2004 Audi A8 Reliability Problems Streetrunner Audi 5 January 4th 05 03:42 AM
Very medicore mech reliability JD Power scores for 2001 Audi A6? [email protected] Technology 4 December 22nd 04 01:34 PM
Audi All Road reliability LIW Audi 2 November 3rd 04 09:39 PM
95 audi 90 reliability? andy Audi 2 November 3rd 04 02:21 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.