Have you proved anything? Well, after reading your posts in this thread, you've proved one thing to me. It's got nothing to do with cars, though...
Did you know they sell a BMW 328xi Coupe in this backwards country?
Have you proved anything? Well, after reading your posts in this thread, you've proved one thing to me. It's got nothing to do with cars, though...
👍
xi Coupe? Cool...
Calculated deductions. How do I know a lada is crap even though Ive never driven one? Oh and the fact that GM and ford are having to import european models, as their own are so dismal, and I have driven fords and vauxhalls, and the latter is absoluetly nothing to rave about. Therefore I deduct that they must be desperate.
You do work for Audi, don't you?
The scary part is I think he doesn't. He has an obsession with Audi like I do with disliking 30-year-old Swedish cars that are still being sold as new.
Seriously? Wow. Has he actually driven any?
Probably not. He writes like he's twelve; I sort of feel like he may have been in one once, and it was probably an A8, which is where he gets his grandiose opinions of the brand.
I wasnt wrong as such, it depends on how you percieve the figures. As a percentage toyota make more profit per vehicle than BMW which had led to the confusion.
PovertyDoes anyone know the percentage, or the actual figure? I heard that toyota now makes more profit per vehicle than BMW does. Anyone can confirm this? I dont like toyota but if its true props to them.
thanks
OsnabrueckToyota doesn't make more per vehicle than BMW, although they're doing very well against their competitors in the profit-per-unit battle.
Where Toyota may match BMW is the percentage of profit against the actual retail cost of the vehicle. However, since BMWs on average are much more expensive, their profit margin is proportionally larger.
Also, it's worth noting that Toyota's Lexus division laggs behind BMW in per unit profitability.
Link - http://www.germancarzone.com/showthread.php?t=11137Povertythanks
AUPYou will not post any material that is knowingly false, misleading, or inaccurate.
First of all, no one denied (at least not in here) that there were still hot hatches. Just that there wasn't plenty that met your criteria, which there wasn't. You didn't prove any wrong at anything. Secondly, no you didn't prove that Audi's are better than Caddies or Jaguars. If anything I proved that the XJ is better than the A8 by psting proof that it's won the car of it's year for it's class several years and by different sources. You haven't posted a single thing that says that the A6 range is better than the S-Type range, or the A8 range is better than the XJ range. You just posted a couple of reviews that suited your opinion and now you think that has the argument won for you? As Scaff said, anyone can play the car review game and find reviews that favour one car over another in a competetive selection of cars. A few reviews don't say which car is best, they say which car the reviewer liked the most under the short span of time the review took place. A review is usefull ofcourse, and some of the more descriptive reviewers can really give you a mental image of what the car actually is like, but individual reviews do not define what is the best car overall. If several sources all says "that car is the best car in is class for 2006" on the other hand, that's a damn good sign that that car is better than the other car. You'll happily use a review to say this is better, but you'll overlook a car winning best in it's class. That is because your heavilly, heavilly biased and you can't hide it. So again, you didn't prove anyone else wrong.Ive proven that there are still hot hatches, and that audi's are better than caddies and jaguars.
Now the following is a rather serious question that I would like answered directly by yourself Poverty.
At 11.11am (GMT) this morning you posted the following...
...in which you clearly state that as a percentage Toyota make more profit per vehicle than BMW. No ambiguity here, you have clearly stated this as fact. Which is why I was rather surprised to find the following discussion on germancarzone.com...
Link - http://www.germancarzone.com/showthread.php?t=11137
...a discussion that took place between 9.10am and 9.41am (GMT) this morning, now Osnabrueck quite clearly is not specific about this, in fact saying that Toyota may match BMW as a percentage of profit.
So in the hour or so between the conversation on germancarzone.com and you posting here, you managed to turn a maybe into a fact. In which case can I draw your attention to the following part of the AUP..
...and ask for a very considered explanation from you, regarding what would appear to be a clear AUP violation.
You took a speculation that Toyota may match BMW and turned it into a definite Toyota do beat BMW.
I await your reply with interest
Scaff
If you know it then why the need to ask the question again, and after getting a reply that was speculative about it (at best) did you then post it as fact here?nothing complicated, easy explanations. Its because I KNOW that toyota makes a higher percentage than BMW, as I actually read the article on german car fans, thing is I cant find the thread. Infact in another thread some guys were talking about it offtopic, and the only reason why I didnt post it on here is because people wouldnt believe it.
Sorry but I still see no evidence at all that Toyota make more per unit (either as a monitory value or percentage of profit), I see you asking a question, getting a reply and then changing that reply when you post here.Now that your a member of there and see what the community is like would you take their discussion as evidence that what I was saying wasnt pulled out of thin air?
No not every forum is as demanding about accuracy as we are, but a lot are. Those that are not are generally a poor source of acurate information. The degree to which a person is challenged about the accuracy of information also depends on how it is presented, if it is presented as fact you should cite sources (you may have noticed I always do or an able to provide them without procrastination), if you can't then post it as opinion or speculation rather than fact.P.S the same situation applies to the new mini for which I said it had more than the advertised 175hp. I got told on scoobynet that it makes more power than advertised, its just that I have no real proof, but I had no reasons to doubt what they guy was saying. Not every forum is as anal about sources as this site where you are challeneged at every turn.
Now now Poverty, stop being a child. Once again you make a comment "The A8 is better than the XJ" with nothing to back that up. I wouldn't mind if you made it clear that that was only in your opinion. But the bottom line is, here in the UK the XJ has outsold the A8 since 2002. The XJ has also won over 10 best car awards. And I can provide proof for each and every one of them. But then again, why should I.im not complaining and you havent proved that the jag is better than the A8. So it won a british award, no surprise there, its just amusing that this luxury car of the year doesnt even feature in their comparos that much yet its winning awards... Talk about bias.
The A8 is better than the XJ.
Now now Poverty, stop being a child. Once again you make a comment "The A8 is better than the XJ" with nothing to back that up. I wouldn't mind if you made it clear that that was only in your opinion. But the bottom line is, here in the UK the XJ has outsold the A8 since 2002. The XJ has also won over 10 best car awards. And I can provide proof for each and every one of them. But then again, why should I.
That seems to be your attitude, even on the few occasions you actually haev something to back your point up, you fail to post it unil after someone has asked and after you;ve got all defensive over it.
and I can also provide more sources where the A8 has won awards, along side the rest of the audi range.
Then please do!
Thank god half term is soon over.
Jaguar S-type comes last out of 8 cars in american comparo. In the car and driver comparo with the XJ that I posted earlier the Jag got beat by the merc, audi and beemer.
http://www.caranddriver.com/compari...5-lexus-gs430-vs-2006-mercedes-benz-e350.html
Now for a motortrend comparo. This is from 2004, and the Audi A8 comes in first beating the s-class and 7er and the XJ. The XJ came in joint last with the 7er.
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/luxury/112_0409_luxury_sedan_comparison
Please show me a source where it said the Unintended acceleration was false even though there were reports on recalls.The thing about americans is that its never their fault. Its like the guy who is suing nissan because his car didnt have a reversing camera and he ran over his kid, when it was him in the first place that never specced. Go read up about the fake unintented accerlation fiasco before you keep spouting what a media machine had you to believe.
Also I dont see why a high performance car should be more likely to break out in fire than a normal car. How did you come to that conclusion?
You mean unintended acceleration?Please show me a source where it said the Unintentional breaking was false even though there were reports on recalls.
You mean unintended acceleration?
In the 1980's, Audi, a car manufacturer from Ingolstadt, Germany came to the USA with the idea of placing all wheel drive on a sports car. Within three years, they extended this revolutionary idea to sedans geared toward the mainstream market. After approximately two years, the idea caught on, fueled by unanimously rave reviews from the automotive press, excellent word of mouth, and prices below those of BMW and Mercedes. Progress occurred and the cars improved. Some of them did not have all wheel drive, instead equipped with a front wheel drive system, and used three speed automatics of a proprietary design. These automobiles, in the series called the Audi 5000 would soon haunt the image that Audi worked so hard building.
In February of 1986, Mrs. Bradosky, a mother with a six year old son pulled her Audi 5000 automatic into her garage; it accelerated out of her control and killed the young boy. Her initial memory of the accident when told to the police for their reports: as she pulled into the garage, she saw her son and attempted to slam on the brakes, but instead hit the gas and killed her young boy. The investigation was closed, at least until the CBS series "60 Minutes" offered the mother an interview. (James, 3)
60 Minutes
After her incident broadcast,"60 Minutes" contacted Mrs. Bradosky and paid her a sum of money to appear on the show in a segment devoted to the Audi 5000 and its tendencies to accelerate unintentionally. She immediately changed her story from that which she gave the police, to a story in which she hit the brakes and the car kept accelerating uncontrollably. (James, 3)
On November 22, 1986, 60 Minutes broadcast a segment focusing only on the Audi 5000 and provided approximately 25 minute of misleading and one-sided data intended to sway the belief of the public toward the side that felt that Audi was building killer cars. (Internet source) Throughout the segment, they provided heard wrenching footage of Mrs. Bradosky telling about how her 5000 automatic accelerated beyond her control despite pushing the brake pedal as hard as she could.
Audi of America was contacted and offered an interview for the show. Believing that "60 Minutes" would allow them to broadcast the slanderous nature of these accusations, they readily accepted the invitation and provided an interview. However, on the night of the broadcast, 60 Minutes portrayed the company to be one that did not care about the problem and did not give an equal amount of time to Audi to refute the data provided to the public. (James, 4)
As a demonstration of the potential danger of this car, 60 minutes planned to show a 5000 automatic accelerating out of control to prove that this does occur, and that the driver is not to blame. They were unable however to show that it happened the way that the victims claimed, so they rigged the test car with vacuum pumps and lines to the automatic transmission and filmed the car in this state. They also left out the fact that they were forced to alter the state of the car in their broadcast and the public was left with the view that this was a killer car. (Proven, 12)
Due to this broadcast, the reports of unintended acceleration incidents skyrocketed. They rose from 400 reports in the second half of 1986 to 1800 in the same period of 1987. Also, the sales of Audi's immediately declined, and what was promising to be a series of record sales years became the years that nearly bankrupted the company. (James, 5)
The Sales
Continually since 1980, Audi's sales volume was growing each year, in 1983 it climbed to 47,000 and in 1986, they reached their highest sales volume in history, over 74,000. It looked to be a very good market for this new automobile company in the United States. However, despite this trend, and due to the increased awareness of unintended acceleration, in only two years, 1988, sales had plummeted to only 22,943 cars. (James, 5)
Since 1988, Audi has introduced cars that led the industry in technical advancements and in safety. The press consistently hailed the products as a benchmark in the industry, however, with the aftermath of unintended acceleration, the sales remained dismal.
Only today, in the period from 1996 to 1998, have sales truly been increasing. Much of this is due to a completely new product line fronted by a new entry level sedan. Some sales increase can be attributed to the public forgetting the UA scandal and accepting Audi automobiles as benchmarks for their respective classes.
The Response
Throughout the 1970's, customers logged complaints of UA incidents against every automotive manufacturer. Audi 5000 automatics however had the highest rate of complaints (What People, 5). The largest factor of this high complaint rate apart from the awareness caused by "60 Minutes" is that the pedals are offset two inches toward the left when compared to the typical American car (What People, 7). Immediately questioning the safety of their own cars, Audi engaged in an investigation and searched for any possible mechanical causes for this occurrence. They came to a possible conclusion, and in 1983, issued a voluntary recall regarding the possibility of the front floor mats becoming stuck under the accelerator and inhibiting control of the pedal. They installed screws in the floor that would hold the mats down, however, the complaints kept increasing. Their second recall installed a spacer in the brake pedal assembly to raise the pedal above the plane that the gas pedal existed on. Again, this made no difference. Audi instated third recall that installed another spacer, further raising the brake pedal. A final recall was necessary. They recalled all of the 5000 models equipped with automatic transmissions and installed a device that locked the transmission lever in park unless the brake pedal was engaged. (James, 6)
This reduced the report numbers, however, it did not solve the problem. Consumers still filed reports with their state governments, and following the 60 Minutes broadcast, the National Highway Transportation Association, NHTSA, launched a formal investigation.
Government and Audi Probe the Problem
Throughout the 1970's and 1980's, NHTSA constantly dealt with the issue of unintended acceleration in nearly all auto manufacturers in the world. In the 1980's the problems increased, especially for Audi. This prompted a special investigation into the causes of the UA that seemed to plague the 5000. They investigated for any manufacturing defects or mechanical failures. They purchased from the owners all cars that experienced the problems. On all cars salvaged, there were no problems with the brake systems, or any of the other several possible causes of UA (Proven, 10).
Every situation stumped NHTSA as they found no conclusions that support UA existing the way that the drivers claimed that it did. All drivers claimed to have stepped firmly on the brake pedal, yet the car somehow overcame the power of the brakes and still accelerated out of control.
Tests performed by Road and Track in 1986 repeatedly showed that no matter how much throttle was used, the engine simply was unable to overpower the brakes (Proven, 7). It is a simple fact of automobile production that the brakes have more power capabilities than the engine. This is true of all production cars, and even more so in the higher performance variants. If the drivers of the 5000 truly were holding down the brake pedal, and the engine still could accelerate the car to any degree, nevermind accelerate out of control, then that would suggest massive brake system failure. This however was not found, as mentioned above as all cars were found mechanically functional with no major systems damaged.
Along with NHTSA, Audi performed its own investigation into the cause of UA. Audi throughout history strived to become the safest car manufacturer on the planet, and the possibility that one of its cars could have such an incredible flaw intrigued them and caused them to have a genuine interest in the solution. They began finding the same data that was being found by NHTSA as well. No mechanical faults could be found and only one solution was left. Pedal misapplication was the conclusion of both Audi and NHTSA.
Exoneration
So, with both Audi and NHTSA in agreement over the cause of UA, NHTSA formally exonerated Audi regarding all charges of negligence. The findings said that in nearly all cases of supposed unintended acceleration, the driver mistakenly hit the gas pedal instead of the brakes and subsequently lost control of the car.
Audi immediately launched an advertising campaign announcing these findings. Unfortunately, they did not have much influence over the buying public, and by 1995, Audi sales had dropped below 15,000 cars. Fortunately, with the introduction of a new line of cars, with nothing in common with the older 5000, UA has been all but forgotten in the public collective mind (James, 10).
So while the government found that nothing was wrong with the automobiles produced by Audi, the public refused to believe this finding and continually punished this innocent company for nearly a decade. Today, Audi is enjoying record sales and in Europe, sales of the Audi A4 have surpassed those of the BMW 3 series for the first time in history. Truly, this company has succeeded in saving its name and has cleaned up its image in the public.
http://members.aol.com/daserde2/libel.htmlYou could have just looked it up on wikipedia you know.
You do realize that is most likely an owner's LP640 who did that, don't you?
you do realise that magazine is auto motor und sport dont you. They are arguably the most thorough and indepth car magazine in the world. For the LP640 lap to count around the 'ring the car would have to be a manufacturer stock model.Therefore it isnt a customers car, and why would it be.
Yes, sorry. I got ahead of myself. Fixed now.![]()
you do realise that magazine is auto motor und sport dont you. They are arguably the most thorough and indepth car magazine in the world. For the LP640 lap to count around the 'ring the car would have to be a manufacturer stock model.Therefore it isnt a customers car, and why would it be.
Except that LP640s are not sold with spoilers like that, and are not optional equipment, so explain why the lap counts. And I know they are one of the best magazines, however, that doesn't mean they won't use a customer vehicle.
Besides, if that's the time I think it is, it's not very good considering Valentino set a faster time without a spoiler. Besides, AutoCar set a faster time with a 6.2 Murcielago than AutoSport did with a LP640. I think I have reason to question the car and it's time either way.
EDIT*
Poverty, what you said is false on what I underlined because I checked, and any lap time can be counted. What you're referring to is the production lap time. However, like I said, I will question times of this car when another magazine acquired a faster time with a 6.2, and when Valentino did it faster than that.