Quattro vs. Accord, a true story
05-04-2004 | 12:24 AM
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
Quattro vs. Accord, a true story
I speak from experience, albeit high mileage, but that is perhaps even
more important.
I've owned both an Accord and a 90 Quattro. Both cars were 1988 models
and both had about 120K on them. The Accord was butt ugly in my
artistic opinion but it faithfully moved me down the road for 4 years
until it decided to develop an unpredictable massive electrical
failure that would pop up now and then unexpectedly. While it was for
the most part dependable during those 4 years, it lacked any
excitement whatsoever except for the pronounced oversteer it exhibited
if I mashed it in first or second around a sharp turn. The seats were
broken down so you could feel the frame against your thorasic spine.
This proved problematic when I was rearended by a Voyager at low
speed.
I ended up dumping the car for $50.00 when I found my 1988 90Quattro.
I was immediately reminded of what I like about German cars. The
suspension was still tight after all those miles, the seats still
provided support where needed, the body was more solid providing a
quieter ride and it is overall just a better made car. I has a MUCH
better sound system MUCH better back seat and MUCH better handling and
braking characteristics. My biggest complaint is that the normally
aspirated 5 cyl engine is a bit underpowered for the car's weight.
Anyone who thinks that the Quattro system is dead weight except in
snow or on wet pavement either hasn't driven the car, or doesn't know
how to drive except in a straight line. I realize that for kids speed
off the line is important. I was there once. But when I learned how to
drive on winding roads I then realized my priorities were out of
whack. Today, for me, handling characteristics at high speed are much
more important.
Finally, in '02 when we were looking at new cars, my wife an I looked
at the A4 and A6 and accepted the fact that they were out of our price
range. We also testdrove a Passat 4Motion. We then made the obligatory
visit to the Honda dealer and test drove their top of the line Accord.
Boy, what a disappointment after driving the Audi and VW! Since the
4Motion was only about $3K more than the Accord, it it was an easy
decision.
1987 Mercedes 300 SDL
1988 Audi 90 Quattro
2002 Passat 4Motion
more important.
I've owned both an Accord and a 90 Quattro. Both cars were 1988 models
and both had about 120K on them. The Accord was butt ugly in my
artistic opinion but it faithfully moved me down the road for 4 years
until it decided to develop an unpredictable massive electrical
failure that would pop up now and then unexpectedly. While it was for
the most part dependable during those 4 years, it lacked any
excitement whatsoever except for the pronounced oversteer it exhibited
if I mashed it in first or second around a sharp turn. The seats were
broken down so you could feel the frame against your thorasic spine.
This proved problematic when I was rearended by a Voyager at low
speed.
I ended up dumping the car for $50.00 when I found my 1988 90Quattro.
I was immediately reminded of what I like about German cars. The
suspension was still tight after all those miles, the seats still
provided support where needed, the body was more solid providing a
quieter ride and it is overall just a better made car. I has a MUCH
better sound system MUCH better back seat and MUCH better handling and
braking characteristics. My biggest complaint is that the normally
aspirated 5 cyl engine is a bit underpowered for the car's weight.
Anyone who thinks that the Quattro system is dead weight except in
snow or on wet pavement either hasn't driven the car, or doesn't know
how to drive except in a straight line. I realize that for kids speed
off the line is important. I was there once. But when I learned how to
drive on winding roads I then realized my priorities were out of
whack. Today, for me, handling characteristics at high speed are much
more important.
Finally, in '02 when we were looking at new cars, my wife an I looked
at the A4 and A6 and accepted the fact that they were out of our price
range. We also testdrove a Passat 4Motion. We then made the obligatory
visit to the Honda dealer and test drove their top of the line Accord.
Boy, what a disappointment after driving the Audi and VW! Since the
4Motion was only about $3K more than the Accord, it it was an easy
decision.
1987 Mercedes 300 SDL
1988 Audi 90 Quattro
2002 Passat 4Motion
05-04-2004 | 01:22 AM
#2
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Quattro vs. Accord, a true story
>We also testdrove a Passat 4Motion.
I largly agree with you post. However, I'm kind of mystified as to how you
could go from complaining that the 90 Quattro was underpowered to buying a
Passat 4Motion. Neither the 1.8T nor the old Audi V6 do a convincing job of
hauling that vehicle with any authority. It's haevy, heavier than the old B5 A4
(has anyone checked the B5.5 Passat's curb weight aganist the B6 A4?) Having
driven a 2004 Accord sedan I can say that it's much more "lively" than the
Passat, and the auto is better than VW's Tip. However, I find the Passat to
have a more "mature" interior of higher quality, and in terms of grip and ride
quality it is equal to or better than the Accord.
I largly agree with you post. However, I'm kind of mystified as to how you
could go from complaining that the 90 Quattro was underpowered to buying a
Passat 4Motion. Neither the 1.8T nor the old Audi V6 do a convincing job of
hauling that vehicle with any authority. It's haevy, heavier than the old B5 A4
(has anyone checked the B5.5 Passat's curb weight aganist the B6 A4?) Having
driven a 2004 Accord sedan I can say that it's much more "lively" than the
Passat, and the auto is better than VW's Tip. However, I find the Passat to
have a more "mature" interior of higher quality, and in terms of grip and ride
quality it is equal to or better than the Accord.
05-04-2004 | 11:03 AM
#3
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Quattro vs. Accord, a true story
oneactor1@aol.com (Steve Grauman) wrote in message news:<20040504012209.28807.00000849@mb-m28.aol.com>...
> >We also testdrove a Passat 4Motion.
>
> I largly agree with you post. However, I'm kind of mystified as to how you
> could go from complaining that the 90 Quattro was underpowered to buying a
> Passat 4Motion. Neither the 1.8T nor the old Audi V6 do a convincing job of
> hauling that vehicle with any authority.
[Ah, these kids! How short their memories!] The '88 90Q was powered
by the venerable inline 10-valve 5 cylinder - unless it was a 20V
version that put out about as much power as the contemporary turbo.
Neither one likely had any 'authority' as you, no doubt, define it,
but they were both a ball to drive.
--
C.R. Krieger
(BT, DT)
> >We also testdrove a Passat 4Motion.
>
> I largly agree with you post. However, I'm kind of mystified as to how you
> could go from complaining that the 90 Quattro was underpowered to buying a
> Passat 4Motion. Neither the 1.8T nor the old Audi V6 do a convincing job of
> hauling that vehicle with any authority.
[Ah, these kids! How short their memories!] The '88 90Q was powered
by the venerable inline 10-valve 5 cylinder - unless it was a 20V
version that put out about as much power as the contemporary turbo.
Neither one likely had any 'authority' as you, no doubt, define it,
but they were both a ball to drive.
--
C.R. Krieger
(BT, DT)
05-04-2004 | 11:07 AM
#4
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Quattro vs. Accord, a true story
webmaster@napavalleyphotos.com (Earnest) wrote in message news:<cd5b561.0405032024.585490f0@posting.google.c om>...
> I speak from experience, albeit high mileage, but that is perhaps even
> more important.
>
> While it was for
> the most part dependable during those 4 years, it lacked any
> excitement whatsoever except for the pronounced oversteer it exhibited
> if I mashed it in first or second around a sharp turn.
Ummm, unless that Accord had some *serious* suspension modifications,
that was *under*steer, not oversteer. Not that a Quattro won't do it,
too, but at least it turns neutral at speed.
--
C.R. Krieger
(BT, DT)
> I speak from experience, albeit high mileage, but that is perhaps even
> more important.
>
> While it was for
> the most part dependable during those 4 years, it lacked any
> excitement whatsoever except for the pronounced oversteer it exhibited
> if I mashed it in first or second around a sharp turn.
Ummm, unless that Accord had some *serious* suspension modifications,
that was *under*steer, not oversteer. Not that a Quattro won't do it,
too, but at least it turns neutral at speed.
--
C.R. Krieger
(BT, DT)
05-04-2004 | 11:29 AM
#5
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Quattro vs. Accord, a true story
oneactor1@aol.com (Steve Grauman) wrote in message news:<20040504012209.28807.00000849@mb-m28.aol.com>...
> >We also testdrove a Passat 4Motion.
>
> I largly agree with you post. However, I'm kind of mystified as to how you
> could go from complaining that the 90 Quattro was underpowered to buying a
> Passat 4Motion. Neither the 1.8T nor the old Audi V6 do a convincing job of
> hauling that vehicle with any authority. -snip-
Perhaps I wasn't clear. The Quattro is my car, the Passat my wife's.
She isn't a demanding driver. BTW, the 2.6L in the Passat is quite
adequate for most drivers, and it definitely outperforms the 2.2L 5cyl
in my Audi. 130k miles difference may have something to do with that.
The Quattro still outhandles the Passat hands down.
>However, I find the Passat to
> have a more "mature" interior of higher quality, and in terms of grip and ride
> quality it is equal to or better than the Accord.
Which is exactly why we chose to spend the extra money on the Passat.
After riding in our friend's '03 Accord, I'm convinced it was money
well spent. (...if money spent on a new car ever could be money well
spent!)
1987 Mercedes 300 SDL
1988 Audi 90 Quattro
2002 Passat 4Motion
> >We also testdrove a Passat 4Motion.
>
> I largly agree with you post. However, I'm kind of mystified as to how you
> could go from complaining that the 90 Quattro was underpowered to buying a
> Passat 4Motion. Neither the 1.8T nor the old Audi V6 do a convincing job of
> hauling that vehicle with any authority. -snip-
Perhaps I wasn't clear. The Quattro is my car, the Passat my wife's.
She isn't a demanding driver. BTW, the 2.6L in the Passat is quite
adequate for most drivers, and it definitely outperforms the 2.2L 5cyl
in my Audi. 130k miles difference may have something to do with that.
The Quattro still outhandles the Passat hands down.
>However, I find the Passat to
> have a more "mature" interior of higher quality, and in terms of grip and ride
> quality it is equal to or better than the Accord.
Which is exactly why we chose to spend the extra money on the Passat.
After riding in our friend's '03 Accord, I'm convinced it was money
well spent. (...if money spent on a new car ever could be money well
spent!)
1987 Mercedes 300 SDL
1988 Audi 90 Quattro
2002 Passat 4Motion
05-04-2004 | 12:47 PM
#6
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Quattro vs. Accord, a true story
On 3 May 2004 21:24:03 -0700, webmaster@napavalleyphotos.com (Earnest)
wrote:
>I speak from experience, albeit high mileage, but that is perhaps even
>more important.
>
>I've owned both an Accord and a 90 Quattro. Both cars were 1988 models
>and both had about 120K on them. The Accord was butt ugly in my
>artistic opinion but it faithfully moved me down the road for 4 years
>until it decided to develop an unpredictable massive electrical
>failure that would pop up now and then unexpectedly. While it was for
>the most part dependable during those 4 years, it lacked any
>excitement whatsoever except for the pronounced oversteer it exhibited
>if I mashed it in first or second around a sharp turn. The seats were
>broken down so you could feel the frame against your thorasic spine.
>This proved problematic when I was rearended by a Voyager at low
>speed.
>
>I ended up dumping the car for $50.00 when I found my 1988 90Quattro.
>I was immediately reminded of what I like about German cars. The
>suspension was still tight after all those miles, the seats still
>provided support where needed, the body was more solid providing a
>quieter ride and it is overall just a better made car. I has a MUCH
>better sound system MUCH better back seat and MUCH better handling and
>braking characteristics. My biggest complaint is that the normally
>aspirated 5 cyl engine is a bit underpowered for the car's weight.
>
>Anyone who thinks that the Quattro system is dead weight except in
>snow or on wet pavement either hasn't driven the car, or doesn't know
>how to drive except in a straight line. I realize that for kids speed
>off the line is important. I was there once. But when I learned how to
>drive on winding roads I then realized my priorities were out of
>whack. Today, for me, handling characteristics at high speed are much
>more important.
>
>Finally, in '02 when we were looking at new cars, my wife an I looked
>at the A4 and A6 and accepted the fact that they were out of our price
>range. We also testdrove a Passat 4Motion. We then made the obligatory
>visit to the Honda dealer and test drove their top of the line Accord.
>Boy, what a disappointment after driving the Audi and VW! Since the
>4Motion was only about $3K more than the Accord, it it was an easy
>decision.
>
>1987 Mercedes 300 SDL
>1988 Audi 90 Quattro
>2002 Passat 4Motion
I was sticker shocked when looking at a almost fully loaded A4q (no
Bose radio) and compared it against the 4Motion. Having driven Jetta's
for 19 years (two) and one Golf I couldn't look at the same VW symbol
and the steering wheel anymore. We bought the A4. The 4Motion was OK
but the trunk was too small and it is heavier by 500 lbs. But a good
compromise.
wrote:
>I speak from experience, albeit high mileage, but that is perhaps even
>more important.
>
>I've owned both an Accord and a 90 Quattro. Both cars were 1988 models
>and both had about 120K on them. The Accord was butt ugly in my
>artistic opinion but it faithfully moved me down the road for 4 years
>until it decided to develop an unpredictable massive electrical
>failure that would pop up now and then unexpectedly. While it was for
>the most part dependable during those 4 years, it lacked any
>excitement whatsoever except for the pronounced oversteer it exhibited
>if I mashed it in first or second around a sharp turn. The seats were
>broken down so you could feel the frame against your thorasic spine.
>This proved problematic when I was rearended by a Voyager at low
>speed.
>
>I ended up dumping the car for $50.00 when I found my 1988 90Quattro.
>I was immediately reminded of what I like about German cars. The
>suspension was still tight after all those miles, the seats still
>provided support where needed, the body was more solid providing a
>quieter ride and it is overall just a better made car. I has a MUCH
>better sound system MUCH better back seat and MUCH better handling and
>braking characteristics. My biggest complaint is that the normally
>aspirated 5 cyl engine is a bit underpowered for the car's weight.
>
>Anyone who thinks that the Quattro system is dead weight except in
>snow or on wet pavement either hasn't driven the car, or doesn't know
>how to drive except in a straight line. I realize that for kids speed
>off the line is important. I was there once. But when I learned how to
>drive on winding roads I then realized my priorities were out of
>whack. Today, for me, handling characteristics at high speed are much
>more important.
>
>Finally, in '02 when we were looking at new cars, my wife an I looked
>at the A4 and A6 and accepted the fact that they were out of our price
>range. We also testdrove a Passat 4Motion. We then made the obligatory
>visit to the Honda dealer and test drove their top of the line Accord.
>Boy, what a disappointment after driving the Audi and VW! Since the
>4Motion was only about $3K more than the Accord, it it was an easy
>decision.
>
>1987 Mercedes 300 SDL
>1988 Audi 90 Quattro
>2002 Passat 4Motion
I was sticker shocked when looking at a almost fully loaded A4q (no
Bose radio) and compared it against the 4Motion. Having driven Jetta's
for 19 years (two) and one Golf I couldn't look at the same VW symbol
and the steering wheel anymore. We bought the A4. The 4Motion was OK
but the trunk was too small and it is heavier by 500 lbs. But a good
compromise.
05-04-2004 | 01:02 PM
#7
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Quattro vs. Accord, a true story
"Earnest" wrote
> We then made the obligatory
> visit to the Honda dealer and test drove their top of the line Accord.
> Boy, what a disappointment after driving the Audi and VW!
You can say that again.
I actually made a mistake of buying a new (back then) '00 Accord EX-V6.
Back then, it was my first NEW car, and the only thing I was considering
was the reliability record. What a tremendous mistake that was. The
car was incredibly boring to drive (obligatory automatic - no other
choice back then), and it wasn't even all that reliable - poor
manufacturing quality.
Half a year later I drove an A4, and then I really started kicking
myself - what the hell was I thinking with the Accord???
Needless to say, I took a hit and sold the Accord in 2001 and got a new
A4 1.8TQ manual. It's been 3 years now, and I still love everything
about this car. I just wish I had hotten it sooner and skipped the
whole Honda fiasco.
Cheers,
Pete
05-04-2004 | 05:44 PM
#9
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Quattro vs. Accord, a true story
warp2_shadow@yahoo.com (C.R. Krieger) wrote in message news:<a8a578a8.0405040703.4cba3fa8@posting.google. com>...
> oneactor1@aol.com (Steve Grauman) wrote in message news:<20040504012209.28807.00000849@mb-m28.aol.com>...
> > >We also testdrove a Passat 4Motion.
> >
> > I largly agree with you post. However, I'm kind of mystified as to how you
> > could go from complaining that the 90 Quattro was underpowered to buying a
> > Passat 4Motion. Neither the 1.8T nor the old Audi V6 do a convincing job of
> > hauling that vehicle with any authority.
>
> [Ah, these kids! How short their memories!] The '88 90Q was powered
> by the venerable inline 10-valve 5 cylinder - unless it was a 20V
> version that put out about as much power as the contemporary turbo.
> Neither one likely had any 'authority' as you, no doubt, define it,
> but they were both a ball to drive.
As compared to any garden-variety Accord, just about any VAG product
is a ball to drive.
VW diesel pickup, anyone? LOL.
--
Jonesy
> oneactor1@aol.com (Steve Grauman) wrote in message news:<20040504012209.28807.00000849@mb-m28.aol.com>...
> > >We also testdrove a Passat 4Motion.
> >
> > I largly agree with you post. However, I'm kind of mystified as to how you
> > could go from complaining that the 90 Quattro was underpowered to buying a
> > Passat 4Motion. Neither the 1.8T nor the old Audi V6 do a convincing job of
> > hauling that vehicle with any authority.
>
> [Ah, these kids! How short their memories!] The '88 90Q was powered
> by the venerable inline 10-valve 5 cylinder - unless it was a 20V
> version that put out about as much power as the contemporary turbo.
> Neither one likely had any 'authority' as you, no doubt, define it,
> but they were both a ball to drive.
As compared to any garden-variety Accord, just about any VAG product
is a ball to drive.
VW diesel pickup, anyone? LOL.
--
Jonesy
05-04-2004 | 06:19 PM
#10
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Quattro vs. Accord, a true story
webmaster@napavalleyphotos.com (Earnest) wrote in message news:<cd5b561.0405040729.5c4ceadc@posting.google.c om>...
> oneactor1@aol.com (Steve Grauman) wrote in message news:<20040504012209.28807.00000849@mb-m28.aol.com>...
> > >We also testdrove a Passat 4Motion.
> >
> > I largly agree with you post. However, I'm kind of mystified as to how you
> > could go from complaining that the 90 Quattro was underpowered to buying a
> > Passat 4Motion. Neither the 1.8T nor the old Audi V6 do a convincing job of
> > hauling that vehicle with any authority. -snip-
>
> Perhaps I wasn't clear. The Quattro is my car, the Passat my wife's.
> She isn't a demanding driver. BTW, the 2.6L in the Passat is quite
> adequate for most drivers, and it definitely outperforms the 2.2L 5cyl
> in my Audi. 130k miles difference may have something to do with that.
> The Quattro still outhandles the Passat hands down.
The W8 in the Passat really makes it move out. I'd love to see the
Audi 4.2 V8 in the Passat (As a 4Motion, 6sp, Avant) and call it the
R42 Avant. Aww, crap, there's already an S6 Avant.
Anyway, the 2.8L is a decent enough motor. I wonder what the car
would be like if it had 270HP like the TL-S?
--
Jonesy
> oneactor1@aol.com (Steve Grauman) wrote in message news:<20040504012209.28807.00000849@mb-m28.aol.com>...
> > >We also testdrove a Passat 4Motion.
> >
> > I largly agree with you post. However, I'm kind of mystified as to how you
> > could go from complaining that the 90 Quattro was underpowered to buying a
> > Passat 4Motion. Neither the 1.8T nor the old Audi V6 do a convincing job of
> > hauling that vehicle with any authority. -snip-
>
> Perhaps I wasn't clear. The Quattro is my car, the Passat my wife's.
> She isn't a demanding driver. BTW, the 2.6L in the Passat is quite
> adequate for most drivers, and it definitely outperforms the 2.2L 5cyl
> in my Audi. 130k miles difference may have something to do with that.
> The Quattro still outhandles the Passat hands down.
The W8 in the Passat really makes it move out. I'd love to see the
Audi 4.2 V8 in the Passat (As a 4Motion, 6sp, Avant) and call it the
R42 Avant. Aww, crap, there's already an S6 Avant.
Anyway, the 2.8L is a decent enough motor. I wonder what the car
would be like if it had 270HP like the TL-S?
--
Jonesy
