Prepare for Confusion as Audi Changes its Badging System (Again)

It seems confusing because we're used to something, and we usually feel unconfortable with changes. But think about it, those guys must know what they're doing, worked on terabytes of data about the market and had endless workshops to make those decisions.

But yeah... seems very confusing at first :lol:
 
RodolphoPNeto
But think about it, those guys must know what they're doing, worked on terabytes of data about the market and had endless workshops to make those decisions.
Click to expand...

You would think that an important part of all that careful planning and data analysis would be not to confuse the consumers, you know, the ones that are supposed to buy the damned things.
 
Just think, you could go out to buy a 310hp (BMW) 435 and end up coming home with a 120hp (Audi) A4 35 by mistake. Or go for a 100hp (Mercedes) A160 and pick up a 100hp (Audi) A1 30.

And basically the BMW 430 rival is now an Audi A545, the Mercedes E220 rival is now an Audi A640, and if you want to match an AMG S65, you'll need a BMW 760 or an Audi A870.

It's totally simple...
 
Goruk

Click to expand...

I spotted that yesterday - apparently due to the dwindling sales in China, one of his areas of responsibility, and not connected to this new number... thing.
 
At least they've given us a key. Still, I wish the numbers on the back of German cars was actually related to something about the car. Power seems like a useful differentiator between different engines, so why not just put that on the back? For instance, take the output in bhp (because it's a bigger number than kW) and round it to the nearest 10 or so, and drop the 0. So the A3 with 148 bhp would be the A3 15. It's still silly, but at least it's based in the car's statistics rather than those of the marketing department.
 
This is way more confusing than Infiniti's Q system of naming. I much prefer the old system but with the power output in BHP added as well.
 
Audi A380, please.

Liquid
The only one which isn't a real road
Click to expand...

A870 linked The Shire to Nippondenso, until the Great Renumbering of 1620, because Pilgrims stole the route logs and burned them at Plymouth Rock.
 
Last edited:
Eunos_Cosmo
No it isn't. Infiniti has the worst naming scheme I can even think of.
Click to expand...
Really?
Q30 - C-segment hatch
QX30 - C-segment crossover SUV
Q50 - D-segment saloon
QX50 - D-segment crossover SUV
Q60 - D-segment coupe
QX60 - E-segment crossover SUV
Q70 - E-segment saloon
QX80 - Colossal SUV

Aside from the fact that the QX60 should be a QX70, I don't see the problem there.
 
At least with Audi the model type is specified in the alpha of the alpha numeric. With Infiniti, there is zero intuitive way of understanding it aside from the X to denote suv-thing.
 
Eunos_Cosmo
At least with Audi the model type is specified in the alpha of the alpha numeric. With Infiniti, there is zero intuitive way of understanding it aside from the X to denote suv-thing.
Click to expand...
It's the same with Audi though - if not marginally worse.

I mean, "A" could mean literally any bodystyle except crossover:
A1 - hatchback
A2 - (not currently used)
A3 - hatchback, estate, convertible, saloon
A4 - saloon, estate, convertible
A5 - coupe, convertible
A6 - saloon, estate
A7 - coupe, 'sportback' coupe
A8 - saloon

While Q, like Infiniti's X, means crossover/SUV - although it can now mean coupe crossover too:
Q1 - (not currently used)
Q2 - coupe crossover
Q3 - crossover
Q4 - coupe crossover
Q5 - crossover
Q6 - (not currently used)
Q7 - SUV
Q8 - coupe SUV

And then there's S, which is used to mean "more power" on all of the above, so again, every single bodystyle. This leads to the awkwardness of "A" becoming "S", but "Q" becoming "SQ". And then there's RS, which is used to mean "even more power", and that's put on hatchbacks (RS3), saloons (RS4), estates (RS6) and crossovers for the even more awkward RSQ3. And then it has the TT and R8 which don't fit anywhere - but it's still happy to put the S and RS badges onto the TT. But not at the beginning, like all the others! No, it's TTS (no space) and TT RS (with space).

To be honest, that all seems a lot more complex than Infiniti's Q for hatchback or saloon/coupe, QX for crossover, and small (30), medium (50, 60), large (70) and huger (80). Perhaps the relevance of the blue, black and red "S" at the end could be a bit more obvious though, and something that could be represented without having to hunt for colour tags..


Still. a BMW 2 Series could be anything, even an MPV, while Mercedes' S, C, SL, CL, SLC and CLS is quite clearly an inside joke that no-one else understands. Thank goodness it ditched the CLC.
 
Famine
Really?
Q30 - C-segment hatch
QX30 - C-segment crossover SUV
Q50 - D-segment saloon
QX50 - D-segment crossover SUV
Q60 - D-segment coupe
QX60 - E-segment crossover SUV
Q70 - E-segment saloon
QX80 - Colossal SUV

Aside from the fact that the QX60 should be a QX70, I don't see the problem there.
Click to expand...

The fact that you mentioned "C/D/E segments" is exactly why we get these terrible model names.

Sure, "XY 200 Sport", "TD-98 RS" or "N153PQ" doesn't mean anything more than calling it "Mongoose", "Ortona", or "Villoresi" but words are a bit more imaginative than the other, in my opinion. Especially when the automotive world is getting even more detached from the driving experience and the products becoming colder and more autonomous.

Just because this habit has gone on for years doesn't mean it's not a tenacious cancer.
 
Last edited:
Pupik
The fact that you mentioned "C/D/E segments" is exactly why we get these terrible model names.
Click to expand...
It's a fairly uniform designation that avoids any quibbles about what's a full-size car if something 18 feet long isn't, and how much of a family you can fit into it.

Nobody actually uses them for names. Except for, out of sheer irony, Infiniti, which had an EX E-segment saloon and was about to introduce a DX D-segment saloon and a CX C-segment hatchback when Citroen, the only other manufacturer to ever use them for names, pointed out that it still owned AX, BX and CX and Infiniti could sod off. Which is why Infiniti is now Q-number.

And while Infiniti uses "3" designations for C-segment hatchbacks, like Audi, BMW uses a "3" designation for a D-segment saloon/estate and Citroen (again) uses "3" for a B-segment hatchback. Of course for a D-segment BMW "3" rival, Infiniti uses "5", Audi uses "4", Citroen used "5", Mercedes uses "C", Jaguar uses "E" and Lexus uses "I" - but then the E-segment Mercedes is an "E" as it should be, while the BMW is a "5", the Infiniti is a "7", the Audi is a "6" - as was the Citroen - and the Lexus is a "G", while the Jaguar is an "F". As for BMW's "7", well that's obviously Audi's "8", Lexus's "L", Mercedes' "S" and Jaguar's "J".


Luckily we do have the uniform designations for the vehicle classes, because picking through that load of cobblers would send any rational person scurrying for the mogadons.
 
Famine
Lexus uses "I"
Click to expand...
Lexus is another brand whose names make sense for some cars (LS = Luxury Saloon, LC = Luxury Coupe, GS = Grand Saloon) and then is a complete Engrish nightmare with others (IS = Intelligent Sport, RX = Radiant Crossover). And I still can't think of the NX without first thinking of a small Nissan targa-roofed coupe.

That said, new model introductions aside, it has at least kept the same designations consistent. An LS has always been an LS, an RX always an RX. And their numerical follow-ups are relatively easy to follow. Some are accurate (500, 350) while others refer to powertrains developing a capacity-equivalent in terms of power and torque (500h, 200h). Even if that seems a little confusing, there are at least fewer to choose from than there are with Audi...

This latest Audi system is on a whole other level of unfathomability though. Totally agree that Infiniti's system makes way more sense - as does Mercedes (which now looks quite sensible next to Audi). BMW could stand to be better - the odd/even for saloons/coupes makes sense, but also then having odd numbers for hatchbacks and crossovers (1-series, X3, X5 etc) gets a bit silly. And don't get me started on the slide away from numerics that referred to capacity rather than being a general indicator of one model to the next. Cadillac's three-letter designations confuse me too, though admittedly I'm less familiar with those.

I definitely prefer names as a general rule. It's funny how the premium brands habitually go for numbers, which conceptually align them with basic consumer goods, while mainstream brands like Ford, Renault, Vauxhall etc choose names, more like you'd expect from luxury goods.
 
homeforsummer
I definitely prefer names as a general rule. It's funny how the premium brands habitually go for numbers, which conceptually align them with basic consumer goods, while mainstream brands like Ford, Renault, Vauxhall etc choose names, more like you'd expect from luxury goods.
Click to expand...

Imagine if Rolls-Royce started to use output numbers for their cars.

They'd all be called Rolls-Royce Adequate.
 
homeforsummer
I definitely prefer names as a general rule. It's funny how the premium brands habitually go for numbers, which conceptually align them with basic consumer goods, while mainstream brands like Ford, Renault, Vauxhall etc choose names, more like you'd expect from luxury goods.
Click to expand...
I wonder if that's an indicator of where Volvo and Mazda pitch themselves? Although I'd expect Mazda to be outrageously bad at naming cars - it's terrible at numbering them, with its 2-based crossover badged as a 3, its 3-based crossover badged as a 5, and a D-segment car badged as a 6, while the tiny car with the 2/crossover 3 interior is also badged as a 5.

But then it does name cars in Japan, with the Carol, Demio, Axela, Atenza and Roadster. And it's had Familia, Premacy, Scrum, Flair, Capella, Verisa and Cosmo. Not forgetting the daftness of Xedos or, the one no-one can ever forget, Bongo.


Interestingly, Alfa Romeo went from names to numbers and back to names.
 

Latest Posts

Back