I couldn’t disagree more if my life depended on it. MB and BMW have enjoyed a strong brand image for many years, coupled with a design philosophy that allows alot of people to be able to immediately identify the brand; that’s a part of the strong brand image which Audi failed to achieve for a long time. For example, yank all badging off an old BMW and you still immediately know it’s a BMW. Yank all badging off a pre-big-grill Audi, and the fact is 99% of folks would have a hard time telling you what it is. Audi’s new design changes all that, for better or for worse. Love it or hate it you will definitely notice it and come to know it’s an Audi, and that’s exactly what the madmen of Stuttgart wanted.

The car was based on the Audi Forschungsauto – Research Car – which was introduced at the German Autoshow in 1978-79. The final form of the Audi 100 differed very little from that car.

The Audi 100 truly represented a masterpiece of design. This may have been the first time that a manufacturer (with the possible exception of the Mercedes W126) paid attention to minute details in design for reasons other than pure aestetics. Weight was kept to a minimum to save fuel – plastic wheelcaps, small spare tire, aluminum, no ornamentation, etc. and every detail was subjected to the aerodymnamic windtunnel. The idea was to reduce wind drag to reduce noise and save on gas. Form following function was the dictating mantra at the time. At a time where such cars as the Ford Taunus or Granada where the norm in design – cars that barely are remembered today, the Audi was beautiful and timeless – just like the Audis of today.

I would disagree that most cars today follow the Audi’s proportions. The Audi set a trend at the time, along with the Ford Sierra, but today’s cars are simply the design of changing tastes. What does the new Toyota Camry have in common with the simple lines of th Audi? Nothing, other than having four tires, an engine, a trunk, etc.

It’s easy to criticize 25 years later. I miss the author’s point.

See, I didn’t really touch on the whole issue of quality. (Actually, I did, but that paragraph didn’t survive my initial efforts to get a 1200-word piece down to 800 words.) I actually really like Audis. I’m not sure the overall tone of my piece conveyed that adequately. But facts are facts, and Audi’s early quality-control problems are well known.

I still want an early-80s 4000, though. Doesn’t even have to be a Quattro.

This was also the first vehicle that caused people to flat out ignore the “fix engine light” because it was always on, for no reason.

I actually got my drivers license in a 1985 model.

Alas, as gas prices continue to ratchet upwards we’ll see more and more of the ford focus hatchback body styles where passenger space takes precedence over all else.

I don’t agree with snout-bashing the current look. Audi fans like me want a little bit more intensity from their designs. I’m glad they’ve added some ‘tude with this current line-up, though the design could definitely be improved on.

I admit I’m not a purist. I like new ideas, even if sometimes they’re wonky.

http://www.leylandp76.com/clubs/uk/leyland_p76_supers.jpg

A8
http://www.cgauto.com/images/autoreview/lrg/99601041990001LRG.jpg

A4
http://www.carseek.com/car_images/a4_p.jpg

But more to the point of the editorial, the styling has certainly influenced numerous other sedans. The proportions of beltline and greenhouse, hood-trunk-roof length, and front and rear overhangs always appealed to me. For some reason it seems difficult for designers to get all of them right in a given sedan. Cars where they are not right, as in the seriously malproprortioned Chrysler 300C, stand out as different *because* the proportions are so out of synch.

Mustang51D, I couldn’t agree more. I owned a B5 S4 for a while and loved the car. While it was reliable in giving me a headache (in the shop quite frequently), I still love that car. An instant classic in my mind, though underrated.

http://www.bmworg.ru/img/cars/e28_misc.jpg

The original Audi 5000 (I was fortunate enough to buy a used one [simply beautiful inside and out], but unfortunate enough to not financially handle being nickel and dimed to death on repairs….), the late ’80’s BMW 5 series, the mid-90’s MB E-series, the Chrysler 300C, and I would venture to say even the late ’90’s Accord. Most stuff todays is just plain fugly…with the exception, perhaps, of the Mazda6 or the new E series.

The typ 44 and 4A that came after were both designed for LONG engine blocks because they both came with 5 cylinder engines which is the longest engine block ever cast by audi. The belt drive I5 034 block makes a 077 belt drive V8 look short and the 079 chain drive V8 look diminuitive. Audi has receded their front end overhangs as much as possible over the years and they are about to go even shorter. The B5 A4 was intended for nothing longer than an inline 4… the B6 S4 can only fit the V8 because it has a rear chain drive and no accessories on the front of the block. It is rumored that the B8&C7 will share a new platform with a shorter front overhang achieved by a redesign of the transmission’s configuration. I’m not clear on exactly how this is possible while keeping the torsen differential.

(Depending on your viewpoint, Earl and Bangle being notable exceptions…)

The designers serve many, many masters. From the souless suits who choose the product mix and priorities, to the engineers who have to figure out how to build it, to the assembly teams who have to figure out how to put it together, to the beancounters who determine that if you can save 5 minutes of line assembly time with a less-than-beautiful piece, then that’s what you get.

There are some hugely talented folks who create outlandish, beautiful and wonderful design studies for their employers. Which are then quickly homogenized from an Elise to an Elantra by a focus group.

If the ‘focus group’ doesn’t kill a novel/interesting design, then it will surely be castrated by the most obscene “C-word” in corporate America:

The Committee.

Regardless of my hatred of Bangle-ized BMWs, the fact remains that they are recognizable, and, more importantly, they do sell.

As I get older I dislike the new Audis. Does anyone like the A6?

I was hoping to have something pithy to post here, but I really couldn’t think of any zingers…

I recall advertising from ’70’s upon the release of the Triumph TR-7 as it being the ’shape of things to come’, which actually turned out be partially true. Since 1975, think about how many cars have had the design characteristic of the high trunk, low nose, “wedge shape” as BL described it.

Some, like the 5000 had a more blocky interpretation of that design ethic, but largely adhered to it. Ditto, the original Taurus, the GM A cars, the Benz 190’s Isuzu Piazza…

The wedge shape makes a lot of sense obviously, which is why it has survived this long. The second-gen Taurus with the whole ovoid design motif tried to break out of the wedge philosophy. I don’t know this for a fact, but I’ve often thought the sloping deck lid had to kill trunk capacity.

If you want to see a big butt, look at the 3rd gen GM J bodies, or the 4th gen F bodies, the Pontiacs in particular. If you’re Sir Mix-a-Lot, that’s not a bad thing…