Thanks Mike. I have a Cannondale medium mountain bike and conceded that I would need to get a roof rack. Thats pretty cool it will fit inside if needed.
Scott ang Gregg....that was almost my concern when I test drove my current 2005 (B6 A4 1.8 Quattro 6M). I am expecting a new child and I needed something roomier than my 2 door BMW. G35x and Acura were tested as you guys did. Luckily I test drove the Audi last and you know the outcome.
If you love, and I mean love driving a car and love the responsiveness of a car on the road, then you can not compare neither the TL or G35 to the A4. Space wise, they win the battle hands down. But then again, how many days or even hours on a daily basis you will be driving your boys. If is not a lot, then don't sacrifice such a ride for only what I see as a small price to pay to drive excellence.
Greg, you will have plenty of room for your daughter....my nephew is 17, 6 feet tall and weights 190, I drive him to football practice each weekend and it is not a big deal. You have no idea how much better built the Audi is compare to those two cars. Trust me there are very nice, but they just don't compare.
Lastly, some will argue that the power on the A4 does not come close the the G35 or TL. Trust me, I only have 170hp on my 1.8 A4, but none of those cars ever put a smile on my face when I pushed them during the test drives. I live in NJ, and drive a lot in NYC, we are having one of the worst winters and I never felt so confident in driving in such conditions right now that I am driving the A4.
I dont' want my love for German bias to influence you guys ultimate decision, but consider that you are making quite an investment (or as I call it, a big expense), you want at least to be fully and truly content when you drive it...don't settle, go with your heart.... trust me, I followed mine and each night I try to sleep "faster" so that I wake up sooner to drive my A4 :>)
I caught the tail end of this thread. I have a 97 A4, and with the seats folded down, I can put in two bikes with the front wheels off. This is one thing I love about the A4, which is a strike against the G35 (I'm currently shopping for a new car in this category).
Thanks for your impassioned defense of the Germans! I have owned two Passats, a Jetta and a Volvo comprised of lots of German gear...so can confirm these cars have a great personality!
As noted, I drove the G35 a few times, and it is not by mistake that it won every serious magazine comparison against the the TL, the BMW 300 series, the (B6) A4 and assorted also-rans, and made the Car & Driver 10-Best two years running. It's a kick to drive...(298 hp! RWD!)...but, for me, in terms of that balance of ride/handling and overall performance, the Audi suits me best.
I neglected to mention, I am 6'2", and that's a key reason the A4 rear seat is nonfunctional for at least one passenger/victim in my family. Does your nephew ride in front or back? If in back...where is the seat set?
Scott...my boys are just 8 and 12, but the 12 year old is already about 5'2" and his knees were touching the front-passenger seatback when in the rearmost position. I could certainly get away with this for two or three more years, but I'm not one to turn cars over in that time frame (the Volvo in our family is now 10 years old!)
The 2006 Passat is going to be even bigger than the B5, which, with its transverse-mount engines has always provided surprisingly ample passenger and trunk volume. As the new Jetta moves into the outgoing Passat's place in the space lineup, the Passat edges close to A6 room and comfort. It may just be worth the wait, even if the styling seems a bit overplayed...
I know, isn't it insane that the G35 doesn't have fold-down rear seatbacks? It's got a big trunk (quite a bit more than either the A4 or the TL) and it would be a great place for bikes with fold-downs.
You've been a big help. After reading your comments, I can't wait to test drive. I'll check back in after I do, maybe next week.
I'm biased toward Audi. I love my B5. I haven't driven the B7 or G35 yet, but I suspect the following analogy will hold true for me (like on the SAT test):
A4 is to G35 as iPod is to Dell - A Dell music player may have good specs and reliability, but it's hard to get excited about it.
I think Infiniti decided for some crazy reason that people would prefer reclining back seats to fold-down ones. Get this -- I downloaded the owner's manual for the G35, and it tells you not to recline the backseats when the car is moving! Apparently, the reclining seats are for those frequent occasions when you have passengers who want to relax in your car while the car is parked. Very useful feature, eh?
By the way, did you definitely decide against the A4 after your boys tried the back seats? I carry adults in the back seat of my 97 A4 fairly often. They usually stop complaining after losing consciousness due to being compressed in the tight quarters back there. Seriously, although it's not roomy, people seem to be reasonably comfortable back there. Are you tall? This would make the seat behind you pretty cramped.
By the way, have you definitely given up on the A4 after having your boys test drive the back seat?
do you think the lighting package is worth $1400 when you can buy xenons alone for a couple hundred? the auto dimming rear view mirror is nice but i could flip it up for 800 bucks. I've never had auto dimming side mirrors and the memory adjustment shouldnt be a big deal since ill be the only one driving. i dont know what this adaptive headlight stuff is either?> all opinions welcome/
I could be wrong but I believe the "adaptive headlights" are similar to those on the Lexus that follow the road so as you turn so they illuminate futher up the curve than normal headlights.
The dimming mirrors are a great feature especially when an SUV is following behind you.
Strange thing on the G35 is that the outside mirrors are not included in the memory package, maybe it's just me but I find that odd.
Actually they swival.I took a drive after dark.Recommened ! Anyways the salesperson jerked the steering wheel violently and the head lights followed. Another feature is the mirrors power fold. Maybe not such a big deal, But in my case I have the single bay garage doors and it would prevent a mishap in close quarters. And for those that frequent auto car washes most recommend that you fold the mirrors in. Worth $1400?hmm hard call..
I don't understand why many vehicles don't have the folding seats.I belive on the BMW I was told once that it decreased the regidity.. hmm It is an extra cost option tho.
As for the reclining seats in motion , that is probably more lawyer talk since the deaths that have occurred from seat belt plunging ,although I did not think in the G back seat they reclined that far.
Wasn't Infiniti the company that years ago had the commercials with that (rather fey) English dude who was trying to pass it off as a European car? His shtick so turned me off. It was like getting a call about refinancing my mortgage from "Jack Smith" (no S, that's what he said) who was obviously from India ("please Mr. Simpson, do not feed my god peanuts") which I don't care about and I told him I was born in Thailand but I wasn't going to talk to him until he told me his real name. He insisted it was Jack Smith. More like Jack S. and I hung up. Anyway. . ., just waiting for my B7 to be built. . . .
I've had my B7 for three weeks - not much night driving. I like the xenons - my first owner experience with them but not my first experience with high performance headlights. I still remember my Cibie, Marchal, Carello set-ups back in the '70s and 80s. I had Silverstar bulbs in my Passat and they helped but don't compare to true xenon lights. I can't say that the night driving I have done has benefited from the adaptive/swiveling lights - for me it is a gimmick that will not mean much; certainly not 99% of the time going down the road. Given the way engine bays are all buttoned up these days, I wouldn't begin to try a self install, or pay someone to install, light units - just my personal bias. The package does include the rain sensing wiper feature - I got used to that on the Passat and like it. Also, the memory seats were required for me with a 5'3" wife and my 6'1" frame. So, the step up to xenons and features and benefits of the package made $en$e to me.
have you had a chance to figure your fuel mileage yet ? Salesperson has a 05 1.8QTip and said he's getting 280miles per tank Which figures about 17mpg ! said he's not happy. He did mention he's using 87 fuel. Perhaps thats the cause. At least hes honest.
I've got the 2.0 Q manual and my mileage, with less than 500 on the odo, is about the same as my B5.5 GLX Passat 5 speed. I'm still getting used to the 6th gear - sometimes forget its there. My one way commute is 25 miles, half two lane with three or four stop lights at speed of 35mph and half freeway at 75mph. To work is more downhill and always better than going home. I got approx 28mpg this morning. About 26mpg last night. I can "game" the mileage by taking it out of gear on several downhill sections. I use 91 or 93 octane.
msrp 36745 i bought it for 34400 (100 over invoice) 2.9% financing too cant wait to pick it up and take it home
im not sure if i should pick it up tom. its supposed to snow and its gonna get filthy. but i really wanna take it out in the snow. so we'll see. gd luck everyone
Please let me us where you got a deal like this. I've talked to two Washington, D.C.-area dealers about custom ordering a 2.0, and both have said that they won't take anything less than full MSRP for an order.
Did you buy the A4? Where did you order it from and how did you get that price? Was it an internet order or a local dealer? I am planning on getting the A4 convertible FWD, need the FWD for the occasional snow we get in ST. Louis. The sport package was nice,bit a little bumpy on the ride. I was considering the V6, but would the 1.8 instead of the 3.0 give me enough get up and go?
"My concerns about Audi have nothing to do with the cars being overpriced. Using MSRP as a benchmark, alone, the Audi is usually a higher value than its competition.
"However, therefore, notwithstanding, take a fully optioned A6 3.2 and comparably configure a BMW 530 and the Audi will be $54K the Bimmer $57K. If we all bought cars in cash, the Audi wins on two fronts it is less money apples to apples PLUS it is (today) the only one with AWD."
Using the quoted $ 38,245 MSRP as a guide, the dealer says my monthly payment for 36 months (15,000 miles/year) would be $ 586 including tax. Well, I went to the bmwusa.com website and did a payment estimate on a 2005 BMW 330xi with an MSRP of $ 38,145 and got a estimate of $ 454 monthly for 36 months (10,000 miles/year). The difference is $ 132 and couldn't be just the tax. Assuming a 10% tax, the BMW would even be less than $ 500.
My question: is Audi Finance charging its customers more (than BMW, at least) to lease its cars, or is the difference due to the extra 5,000 miles per year?
As you perhaps can quite readily see, I have been "on this" for several months now. The lease programs from the finance arms (available on the web) are approximations -- but they are key marketing tools that the manufacturers use. I presume the number of hits on auto configurators would tell the companies that the configurator's "estimate monthly payment" sections are interrogated regularly and frequently.
Having said that, I would also suspect that Audi reviews BMW's and Volvo's and. . .well you get the picture.
That leasing and financing account for the majority of automobile acquisitions(from Audi, leasing alone represents ~43% of the sales of their cars) leads me to believe that Audi Financial is either presenting its leasing terms with higher money factors (interest by another name) and/or lower residuals (the % of MSRP after time has passed: e.g., 36, 39, 42 months, etc).
In any case, EVEN if you are buying in cash and even if you are paying full sticker -- the lesson to be learned (using BMW and Audi in this example) is that if you configure an Audi and a BMW with similar content, the Audi will cost less than the BMW, but the payments for the Audi will be higher.
If you configure the cars based more on an attempt to match MSRP's the Audi will have a higher content than the BMW and the BMW will be even less money still.
OK, so those who simply write a check in full for the car are the "winners" eh? Well, hold on a moment. Although the adage "buy what appreciates, rent what depreciates" is approximately accurate, people do buy cars for CASH; and, even though few people consider their cars an investment to MAKE money, no one wants their 30, 40, 50, 60,000 dollar (or more) car to depreciate more rapidly than a "comparable car."
So, if you buy the notion that part of the price delta between the Audi and the BMW is due to residual value, the comparison of the $54,000 Audi to the comparable BMW shows the BMW is $57,000 ($3K more, right?)
But if the Audi depreciates faster (which all evidence points to) than the BMW, after a certain number of months, the BMW buyer (no matter how the car was "financed") will have an "asset" that is worth more. So, if you are leasing, the payment is lower for the BMW; if you are buying the retained asset value is greater after "X" months on the BMW.
This decision (by Audi to charge higher interest and to more rapidly devalue their cars) is, IMHO, an indication that Audi has, in part, lost its [marketing] edge.
With better and better products coming out all the time (by Audi, BMW, Acura, Volvo, VW, etc etc etc) and with Audis stated goal to increase US market share, this "marketing scheme" seems to me to be either counter-intuitive or possibly arrogant.
I just don't get it.
I actually would pay a little bit more for an Audi, I have been so impressed by their cars and the way I have been treated. But the "credibility" gap is so wide at this point, I can no longer say Audi is in the lead for my buying dollars.
And, because cars are so emotional, I can only repeat this pains me.
Actually, the dealer here in NC gave me a price around $550....Up north with basically the same things included it was $420...granted, I do have to put an extra $1000 down.. But even with less down it was cheaper. I think sometimes people can really help you when they really want to. After telling the NC dealer of my planned purchase, he gave me a newer rate....$480, and that was with increased mileage...I reckon that with the 10K per yr, it will go down to near $440... Will I take the offer..prolly not, I don't like to get played... Plus the dealer up north has my deposit, had the car rerouted, but then had to go and pick it up b/c it went to the wrong dealer. If the NC dude had told this before, I would already have been driving the dang B7. Word to the wise..don't mess over the stubborn young black engineer. I'll take a slight loss in cash before I allow myself to get played... Money can always be had...your dignity on the other hand....
Anyone interested in the new A4 should read this: http://www.audiworld.com/features/tests/b7a4.html Also, did anyone read the new Car and Driver about the new BMW 330i? 0-60 in 5.6 and 1/4 mile 14.3. The new BMW with standard xenons is estimated at $37,000. OUCH.
Went for some test drives today -- G35x, A4 2.0, and A4 3.2. The test drives were too short, did not take the same route (started from different places), and the last one (3.2) was disrupted by rush hour traffic. But here were my impressions.
The G35x drives beautifully. I see why it is winning comparison tests. Acceleration, steering, brakes are great. But I was especially impressed by the smoothness of the automatic transmission. Being used to stick, I was afraid I'd hate automatic (I need to switch so that my wife will learn to drive). But the G35x seemed to shift when I would have done so, and more smoothly than I could ever do myself. Yes, it's a bit less fun, but it wasn't bad at all.
The A4's are also very nice, but I don't think they drive quite as well. In most respects they were fine, but I was more keenly aware of the automatic transmission, especially on the 3.2. It could be the difference in course, or that I was not driving as smoothly - I'll need to retest - but there was a herky-jerky aspect to the shifts. Could be that my foot was not calibrated to the accelerator - the throttle is very responsive on the 3.2 A4. Has anybody else noticed this?
The 4-cylinder 2.0 sounds rough; the 6-cylinder is much smoother. Although the A4's don't have the acceleration of the G35x, I found the acceleration of both models adequate for normal driving.
I was overwhelmed by the quality of the interior of the A4, and similarly put off by that of the G35. The interior of the 2005.5 A4 makes my 1997 A4 look like a jalopy that was customized by an amateur. I'm not sure what the dash is made of, but it makes the new A4 feel extremely luxurious. The seats are amazing and supportive, totally different from my 97 A4, in which I use a pillow to support my lower back.
The interior G35x feels downright cheap by comparison, although seen alone it is probably passable. If you don't look, the G35x feels like a very expensive car.
Giovanni, I have no idea what they were and I'm not sure I would understand if he told me. What I know is that I'm paying more money for a car that is priced lower, and it makes me mad at Audi. My two previous Audi's were purchased, so it was only now that I have a chance to compare apples to apples. Mark's earlier post alerted us to this practice and I can tell you right now, I'm not going to take it sitting down. Nothing had been signed yet, so I can get my down payment back. The Bimmer 330xi seems to be a much better choice now.
I hate to quote so I won't but in regard to the comment about Audi devaluing their cars.....
While they can artificially inflate a residual to move units. Why would that make this common practice? To turn Audi into VW? The market dictates what a vehicle will be worth after a given period of time through supply and demand. Demand stems from a lack of supply for a product that is highly sought after. This demand can come from either the end user (customer) that wants to experience this vehicle or the broker (car dealer) at a later date that finds it profitable to sell late models of this make.
Let's say Audi states after 3 years the A6 or pick any model for that matter. Is worth more than what the market will bear. Audi dealers will be flooded with these cars come end of lease term. Then what??? lose substantial dollars at the expense of moving units?
I think GM does a good job showing what a manufacturer has to do to retain 32% North American market share at any cost...deep...deep discounts!!! Then a car thats worth next to nothing or not on the road after five years time.
What it boils down to is build it and they will come!!! Build a better car then the competition. Have you seen the press on the new BMW 3? Cover of every magazine in the industry due to rave reviews about the driving experience!!! Not content! not price point!
IMHO Audi is finally starting to do this but only recently. Continue to refine your brand then capatilize on it. Luxury cars are not intended for the masses, the ultimate part of appeal is exclusivity.
I am not seeing 3 year old Audi's (at my Audi dealer) on sale for 50% of their 2005.5 costs.
Heck right now I am looking on my local dealer's website - and they are listing a 2003 1.8T turbo quattro - not even certified - for a list price of $31,300.
Granted perhaps it is really low miles - but it is still 2.5 years old (fine let's say 2) and while I don't have the full specs on the car - I just seem to think that their asking price isn't plummeting as much as their lease residuals are.
They seem to want it both ways.
(And I spoke with an Audi dealer recently who basically agrees that Audi isn't doing their dealers or customers any favors by the way they are valuing cars and pushing their lease rates. He admitted himself the issue of the bmw 5 series costing more but leasing for $100 less)
Those who argue that artificially propping up the residuals are just delaying the day of reckoning are -- absolutely correct. I also agree that there is some evidence that the Audis have held their values somewhat higher than we might expect. And, finally, I also agree if you build a better product that these kinds of things will sort themselves out.
But the reality of the situation collides with the logic (even though I support, understand and to a certain extent represent that logic) -- if your similarly priced and mostly equivalent product can be obtained for less money, most folks will go for the lower priced product.
The state of Indiana was criticized last year for outsourcing "accounts payable" processing to India. It was said that this outsourcing put Indiana residents, US citizens out of work. Shame on the government of Indiana, right?
The facts, however, are that Indiana could increase the benefits that a state could provide back to the taxpayers by having the clerical and administrative work outsourced. The net effect, the Indian firm provided a reasonably close approximation of services for a significant savings. This outsourcing benefited more people than were harmed by losing their jobs -- the economic concept this roughly represents is "comparative advantage." Of course, it goes without saying that if you were one of the folks who had lost his/her job you don't see the comparative advantage.
Similarly, if you consider the 330xi and the A4 quattro to be reasonably equivalent, and priced at retail similarly, you will tend to vote with your dollars for the lowest cost car.
Loyalty, perceived differences, and other factors may make you willing to pay more for one than the other, but even then, there is a declining attractiveness as the price of the #2 choice lowers.
If I told you I wanted the A4 quattro but would consider the BMW 330xi as a substitute (but value the Audi 5% higher as measured by monthly payment, for example or depreciation if I am paying cash) there is a point that a lower price for the BMW will overcome my objections.
This works generally when comparing things or services that are able to be substituted. Ice cream generally is not a substitute for Filet Mignon; but if you're really hungry and don't have much money and the Ice cream is really cheap, you might rationalize the cost of the calories is so low that you will indeed substitute Ice cream for steak.
With the possible exception of my wife who appears willing to equivocate an Audi TT with a Cadillac SRX, most people look at "similar" competitive vehicles. If you are looking for a mini van, it is unlikely you will consider an Audi A8. However, it might be an interesting experiment if the A8's price were to be reduced to the approximate price of the mini van.
Where all of this is going, is to underscore the notion that economic decisions are made by people one at a time without regard to the overall economic "law" that may or may not be "broken."
If brand A and brand B are competing for our dollars and are close enough to each other -- most of the time, the "market" (the individual) will go for the lower priced item.
I see the value in the Audi at MSRP when compared with the BMW -- but the acquisition cost of the BMW, if it is lower, may make me value the BMW sufficiently to actually vote for it with my dollars.
This behavior even further raises the intrinsic value of the BMW and hence it probably does retain a higher portion of its MSRP than the competition.
Building better products does not in and of itself garner more sales or protect the manufacturer from the need to discount. Nor does discounting necessarily erode the brand's perceived value. I'll cite but one example: Sony. When I was growing up we went from a society that valued RCA TV's to one that respected and eventually desired and demanded "Sony Trinitrons." Those who had Sony's were known to have spent more but had obtained a better product. The ravages of time and competition and Sony's own plan for greater market share encouraged and allowed them to put their TV's first in high end stores, then in specialty departments, finally in mass retailer stores. To this day, discounted or not, Sony has retained much of its "luster" and perceived quality and value. Yet, "everyman" can now consider a Sony TV, not just the well to do.
Cars have become, up to a point, commodities -- possibly that point is even as high as $50,000 or higher. That is, there are many cars that are in that "high mid-price" -- no longer is a $50,000 car the "object of desire" for the middle class. If they want such a car, there are many choices and many ways to make such a purchase a reality.
The marketing of Audis cars, rather than the products per se, is my issue with them at this point. I would get an A6 over an Infiniti, for example if the cars could be evaluated by my criteria (and perhaps yours) to be both equivalent products and a higher or better value (which does NOT necessarily mean lower priced).
The "invisible hand" (Adam Smith) is at work, plain and simple.
You guys are all forgetting one thing here, Audi has the newest line up on the luxury market right now. BMW especially has to lower there prices to move out the old 3's, just like Audi did at the end of the year with the 2005 special edition and the 2005 models. I do believe if you look at those numbers the Audi was cheaper than the BMW at that point. Do you think that when the 3's are available this summer the lease prices with look so great? I don't think so. We will see price go back in line to where they were months ago. Nobody wants to get old product. You don't go into the supermarket and buy the steak that was two days ago do you? no you buy the one the they just put on the shelf.
I have actually drive all three cars on the same course with was a dynamic driving course at a driving school. After driving all three cars the G35x is very sloppy in the solomon part of the course first turn is fine but once you get the body rolling it get really slopp. The A43.2 is a lot tighter and you don't get that body roll. As for the tranny, I think you really need to look again because Audi by far as the smoothest tranny on the markety
I'm sorry I used a specific example and that the example I used could be accurately characterized as an outgoing model.
It is possible to equivocate the new Audi A6 3.2 with a new Infiniti M35x (with the Journey and Technology packages). It is possible to get the Audi and the Infiniti (both new cars) to approximate content parity and/or price parity.
The Infiniti has higher content, higher residual, higher ratings from more than one car journal, a reputation for somewhat to significantly better reliability and is more powerful and has a basic warranty that is 20% longer than the Audis. It is also over $100 per month less expensive on a lease with similar terms.
If you cannot equivocate these two cars, that makes this an entirely moot discussion. On the other hand, if you can grant that these two cars are targeting the same customer (the same demographics, generally), Adam Smith's comparative advantage [sic] kicks in and the Infiniti wins.
I have some small difficulty equivocating the two cars -- for example the Infiniti V6 is close to the Audi V8 in terms of its objective numbers and subjective feel -- so if that were my only criteria, the Infiniti would be even higher in value than the Audi.
But I have another, non-objective difficulty -- and that is I remain significantly loyal to Audi for a variety of reasons spanning some 27 cars since 1976 (my wife and I combined, that is). Moreover, I have never owned a Japanese car, and despite my Sony story in the previous post, it is territory that I have not yet fully reconciled myself to accept.
As each test drive passes and each lease program is laid out, the comparative advantage of the Infiniti chips away at my loyalty to Audi.
Who knows, with a change in Audi Financial's lease programs, I may yet again re-up for another Audi. None of the half-dozen or so cars that are vying in this product category are BAD CARS and now for the first time ever, practically, I can have my choice of a car without the four interlocking rings that has competent AWD. The market via the competition's products has changed dramatically over the past 5 or 6 months and promises even more competition will be here before the harvest.
My comments using BMW were examples only -- the fact that the numbers work comparing the new Audis to the "old" BMW's and the new Infinitis (as just two examples) is only secondarily relevant to my thesis.
Again, sorry if I led you to believe I was unaware of the age of the products I was using to make my point. BTW, the pricing favors the Acura RL SH-AWD over the Audi A6 3.2 also -- FWIW.
6-7pm PT/9-10pm ET. Drop by for live chat with other members. Hope you can join us!
kirstie_h
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name. 2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h) Review your vehicle
I don't drive automatics, so this rules out the Infinity and Acura challenge. Maybe in another 10 years when I'm peering at the half-century mark and they've made more progress I'll consider it. The SMG/DSG styles I would definitely consider. I guess with the stability control packages the safety factor of driving a manual, especially in winter, has reduced dramatically, but still, I'm not quite dead yet!
I'm also trying to hold off on getting any really large vehicle, but I amd starting to find that my 2000 323i Sport Package is starting to get a bit small for cottage trips with the family all loaded up. So, its into the land of wagons, and with an eye to getting to that cottage all year round I'm leaning to AWD from my preferred rear wheel (previous cars include Rx-7, Miata and of course a slew of motorbikes). Competitors here are the outgoing 325xi wagon, Jaguar X-Type 3.0 SportWagon (supposedly a manual is a no-cost option) and I guess the Passat (had a 95 VR6 prior to the BMW). Anything else fit this description - I think all the Volvos are auto except maybe the R trim levels.
The new cars aren't quite here yet (Toronto), but my Passat salesman is now an Audi only guy and will call me in a week or two when he has a demo 2.0T Avant 6-speed available to try out. I'm considering getting this configuration (pretty much fully loaded, premium, lights, sport, etc - love memory seats as I have them in the BMW) and not waiting for the 3.2 manual later this year if the performance is right - should be a little better than the 323i which has around 172 hp. Of note, on a dyno day we got to see that BMW and Honda don't measure HP the same way - an Integra GSR with supposedly almost the same HP from the factory ended up down 30 hp at the wheels compared to my car - no wonder the underpowered 330i does so well in acceleration tests.
One thing I am wondering about from current/prior A4 owners is just how good the turbo cars are on the low end. I'm assuming with the larger, relatively high compression engine the new car will make much better torque at the low end, but can I count on this when clawing my way up the incredible incline for the cottage entrance in winter, or would this be a case where the 3.2 auto (or manual) would be better suited? My wife's Mini Cooper S (supercharged) won't make it up that hill in the rain unless you turn off the traction control or it dies halfway up.
One of my friends actually bought the G35 AWD sedan last year on my recommendation, since he wanted an automatic anyway and didn't mind the interior. I love the Audi interiors and spend a lot of commute time inside my car so this is really important to me, more so than a grille change. BMW seems to be going backward in this regard as far as I can see from the 5 series and the pics of the new 3 (no wagon in the new body for a while anyway). I'm eagerly waiting to see how the new car handles after having been spoiled by my BMW for nearly 6 years - all accounts of the new suspension and steering make me hopeful it will bridge the gap with the BMWs dynamics, as well as adding its own AWD charm, especially on snow days!
BTW, Mark, equivocate is probably not the word you're searching for - equivalence maybe?
equivocate: v : be deliberately ambiguous or unclear in order to mislead or withhold information [syn: beat around the bush, tergiversate, prevaricate, palter]
Pretty sure this is not what you're trying to do ;-).
Just a thought, but last time i checked the infiniti does not include scheduled maintenance. I think that cost adds up overtime. Also most people lease these cars, so a longer warranty for most people is not and issue. I do understand your point. But you have to look at the value with Audi. AWD is great but it is not quattro, there is a reason quattro(not AWD) has been banned from most major racing series.
S'alright, my writing 'style' leaves much to be desired. I think there must be at least 6 or 7 commas in one sentence in my last post! Guess I never learned anything from all the ROS all over my papers as a kid (Run On Sentence). Besides, I can state unequivocally that I've read and appreciated a lot of your posts on this thread, which is a lot more than anyone can say about me.
However, if anyone wants to hop in with experience with the turbo fours and steep snowy inclines at low speed and the tractability of that engine with a manual I'd be happy to listen to that too.
I have the turbo 4 (225 TT) and with LM-22 blizzaks there was endless traction. I actually couldn't believe how well that car handled in the snow, I was absolutely amazed.
I have the 2.0 with a manual and I'm very impressed with the torque. No snow experience because I haven't wanted to get it dirty and hopefully no more snow will fall in south west CT. Here is an experience I had Tues night: exit freeway, downshift to get the grunt to make the light and come up on the right side of another A4. He doesn't want me to get in front of him and nails it. We snake along in typical Rt 35 traffic to the state line when we get some space and can open it up a little. I notice the other A4 is a 04 or 05 "S4". I was able to maintain the distance between us from a rolling start with a nice 5, 3,4 shift - he really didn't pull away. I liked how my car reacted. The 2.0 sounds like a 4 banger, as opposed to my former Passat GLX 2.8 5 speed, but the A4 is definitely quicker and has better low end
Mark my main issue with your points may simply be the language. I firmly do not believe Audi's "marketing" arm sets the lease rates. The marketing for an automobile manufacturer is very different from that of other industries. The bulk of marketing's responsibilities is to generate "hype" by such things as driving events, media ads including but not limited to commercials and the promo materials you often see at the dealerships as well as the overall feel and estetics of it's dealer network. Not setting it's corporate lease standards. Have you been inside a remodeled or newer Audi dealership facility with Audi lounge, plasma TV and espresso bar? Most manufacturers products are often times at the mercy of price erosion over long periods. Manufacturing paper clips and automobiles are not one in the same. Price erosion in the auto industry for a particular model occurs over the life cycle, that typically being a five year period. At the end of this period is when you see a competitive lease program, but often times not before. To move excess or days of inventory and not before. Audi may in fact be reaching it's targeted sales goals.
I read on another post how Audi nets about 1k per unit(car), while VW loses $11 per. What was not disclosed I believe was if this is net operating gain or inclusive of Audi/VW finance. They are not one in the same.
What I would like to see is data which shows exactly where Audi Finance's leasing unit generates it's revenue. By model and term. Then get the same data from BMW and compare on a per unit basis. Should Audi generate significantly more revenue the BMW or MB then you have a bone to pick with Audi's lease programs. If they do not then price gouging as you suggest would be an incorrect assessment.
Your points are well said and well taken. In these forums, most of us put forth ideas, conjecture, opinions and -- hopefully -- facts whenever possible.
I have been extrapolating and generalizing when I discuss my OPINION that the component of Audis current strategy that troubles me the most seems to be a derivative of a marketing strategy. Marketing has to deal with sales, promotion and I carry the notion to include how one prices its products to achieve certain goals. Perhaps accounting/finance sets the programs in motion to assure retaining $1,000 per car margin. I only know what I read here and in the Audi article (not the one where I was interviewed) in BW.
Audi's products are certainly subject to our debate in terms of their performance, quality and competitiveness.
Actually I am pleasantly surprised that people have not challenged my assertion that Audi has actually been a leader in the premium market for years in part due to their ability to differentiate themselves by virture of quattro.
The Audi brand has been (to me at least) worth MORE historically because of quattro and during the time when very few competitive cars offered AWD, Audis regularly outperformed and provided higher value than their German competition (perhaps for a time, they -- Audi -- did not consider the Japanese to be THAT much competition, especially in their home market and more broadly, Europe.)
For years, more than 10 for certain, the Audi version of a competitor's offering almost always outperformed when price was a factor.
I mentioned earlier my friend who bought a 530 -- for the same price my A6 was a 4.2 model, not the presumed apples to apples car, the middle A6, the 2.7T.
For BMW money, it USED to be that you could step up a model in the Audi line, or step down your cost of ownership (regardless of the form of that ownership leasing, financing or cash).
For many of us, the extra performance and safety that quattro provided was virtually a no-brainer, it was, seemingly free. When the 530 was $49,999 and the A6 4.2 was $50,000 you could get both a V8 plus quattro. I never understood why Audi did not "attack" BMW on the grounds of value + performance that such a comparison as I just made represents or at least suggests.
Now, today, all the other guys are available -- in some models at least -- with AWD. One of Audis differentiators has been dealt a body blow. The other primary advantage "value" has also been dealt a punishing blow. The other guys apparently have made their cars more affordable just when Audi apparently has the confidence to raise their cost of ownership/acquisition. The other guys seem to be following the pattern of Sony.
Sony TV's were the premium TV's at premium prices, as the competition heated up, Sony -- without scrapping their perceived market position -- lowered their prices and began distributing their products at mass retailers.
I am not suggesting a lock-step approach for / by Audi -- no no no. I am suggesting that now is the time to gain market share by doing two things: improve the products (which I submit has been and is continuing as we speak); then, just as the competition begins to encroach on your territory, slowly begin to price the cars to retain the price advantage (at first) increase market penetration and then increase prices to be competitive with "the other" premium AWD products that are coming on line.
The Audi A6 and the BMW 5 series are the competing models from their respective manufacturers. Not until the past 6 - 9 months has the Audi been MORE expensive -- to lease -- than a higher MSRP'd BMW -- on a similar lease program.
If a marketing manager, brand manager or whatever, is aware of the pricing differences that are there TODAY and how this is a flip flop of what was out there just YESTERDAY, I would think he/she should be raising the roof.
If the new 5 series w/AWD comes out in typical BMW fashion it will be thousands more than the Audi that is apparently "comparable." If the BMW acquisition cost rises as it has done in the past, the Audi will "be of higher value." But assuming that the BMW retains its "top dog" status (so says the editors and customers) Audi will have to determine how to maintain or regain its differentiation since the AWD card will have been "called."
Audi needs market share in the US -- better said it wants and needs to INCREASE market share here.
This current go to market approach has simply confused and frustrated me (and others of the faithful, including dealers -- from the BW article not just personal observation.)
Check out the perception of how Lexus came to market and how it was able to gain penetration and share vs its immediate German rival Mercedes. Revisit the Sony Trinitron introduction to the US, a country that previously thought RCA TV's were the pinnacle.
If this isn't marketing, I don't know what other broad MBA course of study this could more comfortably relate to.
Audi, BMW, Mercedes, Acura, Lexus, Infiniti, Volvo, Jaguar, Cadillac, VW (Phaeton for certain) are all vying for YOUR premium car dollars. The playing field has been, if you are Audi, leveled since your adversaries all now offer your former secret weapon -- AWD.
Danger Will Robinson, Danger! I am rooting for Audi but there are now, IMHO, comparable cars, competitive cars and the main differentiation beside my preference for a particular style or loyalty to brand is today in the presentation of these cars in all and every way possible -- I just put this "presentation" under a giant umbrella I call, "marketing."
Love the debate, if it isn't marketing strategy that I am troubled with -- please educate me.
Ok, for all of those tired of hearing the "Audi Financial/Marketing" Argument(yeah, I've heard it on Audiworld.com and Fourtitude.com as well), 2morrow I pick up my B7. I'm terribly excited...Dolphin Gray/Ebony awats me with the Premium Package... The cold weather this morning makes me happy I got the Cold Weather Package because sittin in the company truck on the way to Lowe's was FREEZING, in CHARLOTTE, NC!! But, as the sun came through, I'm happy for that sun roof.... And then as I saw a CAMRY on 20" rims....I'm happy I have my COOL, but CONSERVATIVE 17" All-seasons!!! YEah mann, can't wait!
Comments
DL
If you love, and I mean love driving a car and love the responsiveness of a car on the road, then you can not compare neither the TL or G35 to the A4. Space wise, they win the battle hands down. But then again, how many days or even hours on a daily basis you will be driving your boys. If is not a lot, then don't sacrifice such a ride for only what I see as a small price to pay to drive excellence.
Greg, you will have plenty of room for your daughter....my nephew is 17, 6 feet tall and weights 190, I drive him to football practice each weekend and it is not a big deal. You have no idea how much better built the Audi is compare to those two cars. Trust me there are very nice, but they just don't compare.
Lastly, some will argue that the power on the A4 does not come close the the G35 or TL. Trust me, I only have 170hp on my 1.8 A4, but none of those cars ever put a smile on my face when I pushed them during the test drives. I live in NJ, and drive a lot in NYC, we are having one of the worst winters and I never felt so confident in driving in such conditions right now that I am driving the A4.
I dont' want my love for German bias to influence you guys ultimate decision, but consider that you are making quite an investment (or as I call it, a big expense), you want at least to be fully and truly content when you drive it...don't settle, go with your heart.... trust me, I followed mine and each night I try to sleep "faster" so that I wake up sooner to drive my A4 :>)
Thanks for your impassioned defense of the Germans! I have owned two Passats, a Jetta and a Volvo comprised of lots of German gear...so can confirm these cars have a great personality!
As noted, I drove the G35 a few times, and it is not by mistake that it won every serious magazine comparison against the the TL, the BMW 300 series, the (B6) A4 and assorted also-rans, and made the Car & Driver 10-Best two years running. It's a kick to drive...(298 hp! RWD!)...but, for me, in terms of that balance of ride/handling and overall performance, the Audi suits me best.
I neglected to mention, I am 6'2", and that's a key reason the A4 rear seat is nonfunctional for at least one passenger/victim in my family. Does your nephew ride in front or back? If in back...where is the seat set?
Scott...my boys are just 8 and 12, but the 12 year old is already about 5'2" and his knees were touching the front-passenger seatback when in the rearmost position. I could certainly get away with this for two or three more years, but I'm not one to turn cars over in that time frame (the Volvo in our family is now 10 years old!)
The 2006 Passat is going to be even bigger than the B5, which, with its transverse-mount engines has always provided surprisingly ample passenger and trunk volume. As the new Jetta moves into the outgoing Passat's place in the space lineup, the Passat edges close to A6 room and comfort. It may just be worth the wait, even if the styling seems a bit overplayed...
--G.
You've been a big help. After reading your comments, I can't wait to test drive. I'll check back in after I do, maybe next week.
I'm biased toward Audi. I love my B5. I haven't driven the B7 or G35 yet, but I suspect the following analogy will hold true for me (like on the SAT test):
A4 is to G35 as iPod is to Dell -
A Dell music player may have good specs and reliability, but it's hard to get excited about it.
By the way, did you definitely decide against the A4 after your boys tried the back seats? I carry adults in the back seat of my 97 A4 fairly often. They usually stop complaining after losing consciousness due to being compressed in the tight quarters back there. Seriously, although it's not roomy, people seem to be reasonably comfortable back there. Are you tall? This would make the seat behind you pretty cramped.
By the way, have you definitely given up on the A4 after having your boys test drive the back seat?
The dimming mirrors are a great feature especially when an SUV is following behind you.
Strange thing on the G35 is that the outside mirrors are not included in the memory package, maybe it's just me but I find that odd.
I don't understand why many vehicles don't have the folding seats.I belive on the BMW I was told once that it decreased the regidity.. hmm It is an extra cost option tho.
As for the reclining seats in motion , that is probably more lawyer talk since the deaths that have occurred from seat belt plunging ,although I did not think in the G back seat they reclined that far.
DL
Anyways for comparison:
1997 trunk 13.7 cubic feet 05.5 13.4
1997 interior 87.7 cubic feet 05.5 103.5 cubic feet.
1997 QAuto 3450lbs 05.5 QAuto 3583lbs
DL
I had Silverstar bulbs in my Passat and they helped but don't compare to true xenon lights.
I can't say that the night driving I have done has benefited from the adaptive/swiveling lights - for me it is a gimmick that will not mean much; certainly not 99% of the time going down the road.
Given the way engine bays are all buttoned up these days, I wouldn't begin to try a self install, or pay someone to install, light units - just my personal bias.
The package does include the rain sensing wiper feature - I got used to that on the Passat and like it.
Also, the memory seats were required for me with a 5'3" wife and my 6'1" frame.
So, the step up to xenons and features and benefits of the package made $en$e to me.
DL
I'm still getting used to the 6th gear - sometimes forget its there.
My one way commute is 25 miles, half two lane with three or four stop lights at speed of 35mph and half freeway at 75mph.
To work is more downhill and always better than going home. I got approx 28mpg this morning. About 26mpg last night.
I can "game" the mileage by taking it out of gear on several downhill sections.
I use 91 or 93 octane.
beige interior
premium
lighting
cold weather
17s
headlight washers (they really try to milk you)
msrp 36745
i bought it for 34400 (100 over invoice)
2.9% financing too
cant wait to pick it up and take it home
im not sure if i should pick it up tom. its supposed to snow and its gonna get filthy. but i really wanna take it out in the snow. so we'll see. gd luck everyone
I would consider 100-500 over a great deal.I would probably be doing well in TX to get 1k off.
DL
DL
After entering your zip code, click on the "Car Research" link in the center or on the left of the screen.
Liquid blue metallic
Sport
Premium
Cold Weather
Xenon
Tire pressure monitor
Rear sunshades (motorized)
Navigation
MSRP = 38,245
Sale price = $ 37,700
--Arriving in 4 weeks. Zoommmmmmmmmmmmmmm
"My concerns about Audi have nothing to do with the cars being overpriced. Using MSRP as a benchmark, alone, the Audi is usually a higher value than its competition.
"However, therefore, notwithstanding, take a fully optioned A6 3.2 and comparably configure a BMW 530 and the Audi will be $54K the Bimmer $57K. If we all bought cars in cash, the Audi wins on two fronts it is less money apples to apples PLUS it is (today) the only one with AWD."
Using the quoted $ 38,245 MSRP as a guide, the dealer says my monthly payment for 36 months (15,000 miles/year) would be $ 586 including tax. Well, I went to the bmwusa.com website and did a payment estimate on a 2005 BMW 330xi with an MSRP of $ 38,145 and got a estimate of $ 454 monthly for 36 months (10,000 miles/year). The difference is $ 132 and couldn't be just the tax. Assuming a 10% tax, the BMW would even be less than $ 500.
My question: is Audi Finance charging its customers more (than BMW, at least) to lease its cars, or is the difference due to the extra 5,000 miles per year?
What was the base cap cost, cap cost reduction, residual and money factor do you know? That payment seems quite high.
Having said that, I would also suspect that Audi reviews BMW's and Volvo's and. . .well you get the picture.
That leasing and financing account for the majority of automobile acquisitions(from Audi, leasing alone represents ~43% of the sales of their cars) leads me to believe that Audi Financial is either presenting its leasing terms with higher money factors (interest by another name) and/or lower residuals (the % of MSRP after time has passed: e.g., 36, 39, 42 months, etc).
In any case, EVEN if you are buying in cash and even if you are paying full sticker -- the lesson to be learned (using BMW and Audi in this example) is that if you configure an Audi and a BMW with similar content, the Audi will cost less than the BMW, but the payments for the Audi will be higher.
If you configure the cars based more on an attempt to match MSRP's the Audi will have a higher content than the BMW and the BMW will be even less money still.
OK, so those who simply write a check in full for the car are the "winners" eh? Well, hold on a moment. Although the adage "buy what appreciates, rent what depreciates" is approximately accurate, people do buy cars for CASH; and, even though few people consider their cars an investment to MAKE money, no one wants their 30, 40, 50, 60,000 dollar (or more) car to depreciate more rapidly than a "comparable car."
So, if you buy the notion that part of the price delta between the Audi and the BMW is due to residual value, the comparison of the $54,000 Audi to the comparable BMW shows the BMW is $57,000 ($3K more, right?)
But if the Audi depreciates faster (which all evidence points to) than the BMW, after a certain number of months, the BMW buyer (no matter how the car was "financed") will have an "asset" that is worth more. So, if you are leasing, the payment is lower for the BMW; if you are buying the retained asset value is greater after "X" months on the BMW.
This decision (by Audi to charge higher interest and to more rapidly devalue their cars) is, IMHO, an indication that Audi has, in part, lost its [marketing] edge.
With better and better products coming out all the time (by Audi, BMW, Acura, Volvo, VW, etc etc etc) and with Audis stated goal to increase US market share, this "marketing scheme" seems to me to be either counter-intuitive or possibly arrogant.
I just don't get it.
I actually would pay a little bit more for an Audi, I have been so impressed by their cars and the way I have been treated. But the "credibility" gap is so wide at this point, I can no longer say Audi is in the lead for my buying dollars.
And, because cars are so emotional, I can only repeat this pains me.
http://www.audiworld.com/features/tests/b7a4.html
Also, did anyone read the new Car and Driver about the new BMW 330i? 0-60 in 5.6 and 1/4 mile 14.3. The new BMW with standard xenons is estimated at $37,000. OUCH.
The G35x drives beautifully. I see why it is winning comparison tests. Acceleration, steering, brakes are great. But I was especially impressed by the smoothness of the automatic transmission. Being used to stick, I was afraid I'd hate automatic (I need to switch so that my wife will learn to drive). But the G35x seemed to shift when I would have done so, and more smoothly than I could ever do myself. Yes, it's a bit less fun, but it wasn't bad at all.
The A4's are also very nice, but I don't think they drive quite as well. In most respects they were fine, but I was more keenly aware of the automatic transmission, especially on the 3.2. It could be the difference in course, or that I was not driving as smoothly - I'll need to retest - but there was a herky-jerky aspect to the shifts. Could be that my foot was not calibrated to the accelerator - the throttle is very responsive on the 3.2 A4. Has anybody else noticed this?
The 4-cylinder 2.0 sounds rough; the 6-cylinder is much smoother. Although the A4's don't have the acceleration of the G35x, I found the acceleration of both models adequate for normal driving.
I was overwhelmed by the quality of the interior of the A4, and similarly put off by that of the G35. The interior of the 2005.5 A4 makes my 1997 A4 look like a jalopy that was customized by an amateur. I'm not sure what the dash is made of, but it makes the new A4 feel extremely luxurious. The seats are amazing and supportive, totally different from my 97 A4, in which I use a pillow to support my lower back.
The interior G35x feels downright cheap by comparison, although seen alone it is probably passable. If you don't look, the G35x feels like a very expensive car.
I intend to repeat the test drive more carefully.
While they can artificially inflate a residual to move units. Why would that make this common practice? To turn Audi into VW? The market dictates what a vehicle will be worth after a given period of time through supply and demand. Demand stems from a lack of supply for a product that is highly sought after. This demand can come from either the end user (customer) that wants to experience this vehicle or the broker (car dealer) at a later date that finds it profitable to sell late models of this make.
Let's say Audi states after 3 years the A6 or pick any model for that matter. Is worth more than what the market will bear. Audi dealers will be flooded with these cars come end of lease term. Then what??? lose substantial dollars at the expense of moving units?
I think GM does a good job showing what a manufacturer has to do to retain 32% North American market share at any cost...deep...deep discounts!!! Then a car thats worth next to nothing or not on the road after five years time.
What it boils down to is build it and they will come!!! Build a better car then the competition. Have you seen the press on the new BMW 3? Cover of every magazine in the industry due to rave reviews about the driving experience!!! Not content! not price point!
IMHO Audi is finally starting to do this but only recently. Continue to refine your brand then capatilize on it. Luxury cars are not intended for the masses, the ultimate part of appeal is exclusivity.
There is one flaw to your point.
I am not seeing 3 year old Audi's (at my Audi dealer) on sale for 50% of their 2005.5 costs.
Heck right now I am looking on my local dealer's website - and they are listing a 2003 1.8T turbo quattro - not even certified - for a list price of $31,300.
Granted perhaps it is really low miles - but it is still 2.5 years old (fine let's say 2) and while I don't have the full specs on the car - I just seem to think that their asking price isn't plummeting as much as their lease residuals are.
They seem to want it both ways.
(And I spoke with an Audi dealer recently who basically agrees that Audi isn't doing their dealers or customers any favors by the way they are valuing cars and pushing their lease rates. He admitted himself the issue of the bmw 5 series costing more but leasing for $100 less)
But the reality of the situation collides with the logic (even though I support, understand and to a certain extent represent that logic) -- if your similarly priced and mostly equivalent product can be obtained for less money, most folks will go for the lower priced product.
The state of Indiana was criticized last year for outsourcing "accounts payable" processing to India. It was said that this outsourcing put Indiana residents, US citizens out of work. Shame on the government of Indiana, right?
The facts, however, are that Indiana could increase the benefits that a state could provide back to the taxpayers by having the clerical and administrative work outsourced. The net effect, the Indian firm provided a reasonably close approximation of services for a significant savings. This outsourcing benefited more people than were harmed by losing their jobs -- the economic concept this roughly represents is "comparative advantage." Of course, it goes without saying that if you were one of the folks who had lost his/her job you don't see the comparative advantage.
Similarly, if you consider the 330xi and the A4 quattro to be reasonably equivalent, and priced at retail similarly, you will tend to vote with your dollars for the lowest cost car.
Loyalty, perceived differences, and other factors may make you willing to pay more for one than the other, but even then, there is a declining attractiveness as the price of the #2 choice lowers.
If I told you I wanted the A4 quattro but would consider the BMW 330xi as a substitute (but value the Audi 5% higher as measured by monthly payment, for example or depreciation if I am paying cash) there is a point that a lower price for the BMW will overcome my objections.
This works generally when comparing things or services that are able to be substituted. Ice cream generally is not a substitute for Filet Mignon; but if you're really hungry and don't have much money and the Ice cream is really cheap, you might rationalize the cost of the calories is so low that you will indeed substitute Ice cream for steak.
With the possible exception of my wife who appears willing to equivocate an Audi TT with a Cadillac SRX, most people look at "similar" competitive vehicles. If you are looking for a mini van, it is unlikely you will consider an Audi A8. However, it might be an interesting experiment if the A8's price were to be reduced to the approximate price of the mini van.
Where all of this is going, is to underscore the notion that economic decisions are made by people one at a time without regard to the overall economic "law" that may or may not be "broken."
If brand A and brand B are competing for our dollars and are close enough to each other -- most of the time, the "market" (the individual) will go for the lower priced item.
I see the value in the Audi at MSRP when compared with the BMW -- but the acquisition cost of the BMW, if it is lower, may make me value the BMW sufficiently to actually vote for it with my dollars.
This behavior even further raises the intrinsic value of the BMW and hence it probably does retain a higher portion of its MSRP than the competition.
Building better products does not in and of itself garner more sales or protect the manufacturer from the need to discount. Nor does discounting necessarily erode the brand's perceived value. I'll cite but one example: Sony. When I was growing up we went from a society that valued RCA TV's to one that respected and eventually desired and demanded "Sony Trinitrons." Those who had Sony's were known to have spent more but had obtained a better product. The ravages of time and competition and Sony's own plan for greater market share encouraged and allowed them to put their TV's first in high end stores, then in specialty departments, finally in mass retailer stores. To this day, discounted or not, Sony has retained much of its "luster" and perceived quality and value. Yet, "everyman" can now consider a Sony TV, not just the well to do.
Cars have become, up to a point, commodities -- possibly that point is even as high as $50,000 or higher. That is, there are many cars that are in that "high mid-price" -- no longer is a $50,000 car the "object of desire" for the middle class. If they want such a car, there are many choices and many ways to make such a purchase a reality.
The marketing of Audis cars, rather than the products per se, is my issue with them at this point. I would get an A6 over an Infiniti, for example if the cars could be evaluated by my criteria (and perhaps yours) to be both equivalent products and a higher or better value (which does NOT necessarily mean lower priced).
The "invisible hand" (Adam Smith) is at work, plain and simple.
It is possible to equivocate the new Audi A6 3.2 with a new Infiniti M35x (with the Journey and Technology packages). It is possible to get the Audi and the Infiniti (both new cars) to approximate content parity and/or price parity.
The Infiniti has higher content, higher residual, higher ratings from more than one car journal, a reputation for somewhat to significantly better reliability and is more powerful and has a basic warranty that is 20% longer than the Audis. It is also over $100 per month less expensive on a lease with similar terms.
If you cannot equivocate these two cars, that makes this an entirely moot discussion. On the other hand, if you can grant that these two cars are targeting the same customer (the same demographics, generally), Adam Smith's comparative advantage [sic] kicks in and the Infiniti wins.
I have some small difficulty equivocating the two cars -- for example the Infiniti V6 is close to the Audi V8 in terms of its objective numbers and subjective feel -- so if that were my only criteria, the Infiniti would be even higher in value than the Audi.
But I have another, non-objective difficulty -- and that is I remain significantly loyal to Audi for a variety of reasons spanning some 27 cars since 1976 (my wife and I combined, that is). Moreover, I have never owned a Japanese car, and despite my Sony story in the previous post, it is territory that I have not yet fully reconciled myself to accept.
As each test drive passes and each lease program is laid out, the comparative advantage of the Infiniti chips away at my loyalty to Audi.
Who knows, with a change in Audi Financial's lease programs, I may yet again re-up for another Audi. None of the half-dozen or so cars that are vying in this product category are BAD CARS and now for the first time ever, practically, I can have my choice of a car without the four interlocking rings that has competent AWD. The market via the competition's products has changed dramatically over the past 5 or 6 months and promises even more competition will be here before the harvest.
My comments using BMW were examples only -- the fact that the numbers work comparing the new Audis to the "old" BMW's and the new Infinitis (as just two examples) is only secondarily relevant to my thesis.
Again, sorry if I led you to believe I was unaware of the age of the products I was using to make my point. BTW, the pricing favors the Acura RL SH-AWD over the Audi A6 3.2 also -- FWIW.
http://www.edmunds.com/townhall/chat/townhallchat.html
6-7pm PT/9-10pm ET. Drop by for live chat with other members. Hope you can join us!
kirstie_h
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h)
Review your vehicle
I'm also trying to hold off on getting any really large vehicle, but I amd starting to find that my 2000 323i Sport Package is starting to get a bit small for cottage trips with the family all loaded up. So, its into the land of wagons, and with an eye to getting to that cottage all year round I'm leaning to AWD from my preferred rear wheel (previous cars include Rx-7, Miata and of course a slew of motorbikes). Competitors here are the outgoing 325xi wagon, Jaguar X-Type 3.0 SportWagon (supposedly a manual is a no-cost option) and I guess the Passat (had a 95 VR6 prior to the BMW). Anything else fit this description - I think all the Volvos are auto except maybe the R trim levels.
The new cars aren't quite here yet (Toronto), but my Passat salesman is now an Audi only guy and will call me in a week or two when he has a demo 2.0T Avant 6-speed available to try out. I'm considering getting this configuration (pretty much fully loaded, premium, lights, sport, etc - love memory seats as I have them in the BMW) and not waiting for the 3.2 manual later this year if the performance is right - should be a little better than the 323i which has around 172 hp. Of note, on a dyno day we got to see that BMW and Honda don't measure HP the same way - an Integra GSR with supposedly almost the same HP from the factory ended up down 30 hp at the wheels compared to my car - no wonder the underpowered 330i does so well in acceleration tests.
One thing I am wondering about from current/prior A4 owners is just how good the turbo cars are on the low end. I'm assuming with the larger, relatively high compression engine the new car will make much better torque at the low end, but can I count on this when clawing my way up the incredible incline for the cottage entrance in winter, or would this be a case where the 3.2 auto (or manual) would be better suited? My wife's Mini Cooper S (supercharged) won't make it up that hill in the rain unless you turn off the traction control or it dies halfway up.
One of my friends actually bought the G35 AWD sedan last year on my recommendation, since he wanted an automatic anyway and didn't mind the interior. I love the Audi interiors and spend a lot of commute time inside my car so this is really important to me, more so than a grille change. BMW seems to be going backward in this regard as far as I can see from the 5 series and the pics of the new 3 (no wagon in the new body for a while anyway). I'm eagerly waiting to see how the new car handles after having been spoiled by my BMW for nearly 6 years - all accounts of the new suspension and steering make me hopeful it will bridge the gap with the BMWs dynamics, as well as adding its own AWD charm, especially on snow days!
BTW, Mark, equivocate is probably not the word you're searching for - equivalence maybe?
equivocate: v : be deliberately ambiguous or unclear in order to mislead or withhold information [syn: beat around the bush, tergiversate, prevaricate, palter]
Pretty sure this is not what you're trying to do ;-).
That's the problem when you write without a net!
Much appreciated.
I wish to equate not equivocate.
Doh!
However, if anyone wants to hop in with experience with the turbo fours and steep snowy inclines at low speed and the tractability of that engine with a manual I'd be happy to listen to that too.
New A4 lease MSRP FWD $31,370.00 $3336 down $349 per month total payments $15,900.00
BMW 5 series lease MSRP 43,270.00 $2500 down,$449 per month total payment $18,664.00
Audi your not listening.....
DL
Here is an experience I had Tues night: exit freeway, downshift to get the grunt to make the light and come up on the right side of another A4. He doesn't want me to get in front of him and nails it. We snake along in typical Rt 35 traffic to the state line when we get some space and can open it up a little. I notice the other A4 is a 04 or 05 "S4". I was able to maintain the distance between us from a rolling start with a nice 5, 3,4 shift - he really didn't pull away. I liked how my car reacted.
The 2.0 sounds like a 4 banger, as opposed to my former Passat GLX 2.8 5 speed, but the A4 is definitely quicker and has better low end
I read on another post how Audi nets about 1k per unit(car), while VW loses $11 per. What was not disclosed I believe was if this is net operating gain or inclusive of Audi/VW finance. They are not one in the same.
What I would like to see is data which shows exactly where Audi Finance's leasing unit generates it's revenue. By model and term. Then get the same data from BMW and compare on a per unit basis. Should Audi generate significantly more revenue the BMW or MB then you have a bone to pick with Audi's lease programs. If they do not then price gouging as you suggest would be an incorrect assessment.
I have been extrapolating and generalizing when I discuss my OPINION that the component of Audis current strategy that troubles me the most seems to be a derivative of a marketing strategy. Marketing has to deal with sales, promotion and I carry the notion to include how one prices its products to achieve certain goals. Perhaps accounting/finance sets the programs in motion to assure retaining $1,000 per car margin. I only know what I read here and in the Audi article (not the one where I was interviewed) in BW.
Audi's products are certainly subject to our debate in terms of their performance, quality and competitiveness.
Actually I am pleasantly surprised that people have not challenged my assertion that Audi has actually been a leader in the premium market for years in part due to their ability to differentiate themselves by virture of quattro.
The Audi brand has been (to me at least) worth MORE historically because of quattro and during the time when very few competitive cars offered AWD, Audis regularly outperformed and provided higher value than their German competition (perhaps for a time, they -- Audi -- did not consider the Japanese to be THAT much competition, especially in their home market and more broadly, Europe.)
For years, more than 10 for certain, the Audi version of a competitor's offering almost always outperformed when price was a factor.
I mentioned earlier my friend who bought a 530 -- for the same price my A6 was a 4.2 model, not the presumed apples to apples car, the middle A6, the 2.7T.
For BMW money, it USED to be that you could step up a model in the Audi line, or step down your cost of ownership (regardless of the form of that ownership leasing, financing or cash).
For many of us, the extra performance and safety that quattro provided was virtually a no-brainer, it was, seemingly free. When the 530 was $49,999 and the A6 4.2 was $50,000 you could get both a V8 plus quattro. I never understood why Audi did not "attack" BMW on the grounds of value + performance that such a comparison as I just made represents or at least suggests.
Now, today, all the other guys are available -- in some models at least -- with AWD. One of Audis differentiators has been dealt a body blow. The other primary advantage "value" has also been dealt a punishing blow. The other guys apparently have made their cars more affordable just when Audi apparently has the confidence to raise their cost of ownership/acquisition. The other guys seem to be following the pattern of Sony.
Sony TV's were the premium TV's at premium prices, as the competition heated up, Sony -- without scrapping their perceived market position -- lowered their prices and began distributing their products at mass retailers.
I am not suggesting a lock-step approach for / by Audi -- no no no. I am suggesting that now is the time to gain market share by doing two things: improve the products (which I submit has been and is continuing as we speak); then, just as the competition begins to encroach on your territory, slowly begin to price the cars to retain the price advantage (at first) increase market penetration and then increase prices to be competitive with "the other" premium AWD products that are coming on line.
The Audi A6 and the BMW 5 series are the competing models from their respective manufacturers. Not until the past 6 - 9 months has the Audi been MORE expensive -- to lease -- than a higher MSRP'd BMW -- on a similar lease program.
If a marketing manager, brand manager or whatever, is aware of the pricing differences that are there TODAY and how this is a flip flop of what was out there just YESTERDAY, I would think he/she should be raising the roof.
If the new 5 series w/AWD comes out in typical BMW fashion it will be thousands more than the Audi that is apparently "comparable." If the BMW acquisition cost rises as it has done in the past, the Audi will "be of higher value." But assuming that the BMW retains its "top dog" status (so says the editors and customers) Audi will have to determine how to maintain or regain its differentiation since the AWD card will have been "called."
Audi needs market share in the US -- better said it wants and needs to INCREASE market share here.
This current go to market approach has simply confused and frustrated me (and others of the faithful, including dealers -- from the BW article not just personal observation.)
Check out the perception of how Lexus came to market and how it was able to gain penetration and share vs its immediate German rival Mercedes. Revisit the Sony Trinitron introduction to the US, a country that previously thought RCA TV's were the pinnacle.
If this isn't marketing, I don't know what other broad MBA course of study this could more comfortably relate to.
Audi, BMW, Mercedes, Acura, Lexus, Infiniti, Volvo, Jaguar, Cadillac, VW (Phaeton for certain) are all vying for YOUR premium car dollars. The playing field has been, if you are Audi, leveled since your adversaries all now offer your former secret weapon -- AWD.
Danger Will Robinson, Danger! I am rooting for Audi but there are now, IMHO, comparable cars, competitive cars and the main differentiation beside my preference for a particular style or loyalty to brand is today in the presentation of these cars in all and every way possible -- I just put this "presentation" under a giant umbrella I call, "marketing."
Love the debate, if it isn't marketing strategy that I am troubled with -- please educate me.