|
|
Post by bryan on Aug 23, 2017 20:19:36 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Martin on Aug 23, 2017 21:18:37 GMT
It is bonkers.
According to German media, then man behind Audi's new naming system, sales boss Dieter Voggenreiter, to be relieved of duty. More to do with poor sales in China, but interesting all the same.
|
|
|
|
Post by LandieMark on Aug 23, 2017 21:41:59 GMT
To be fair, a lot of manufacturers have unintelligible naming systems. This does seem especially silly.
|
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Aug 23, 2017 23:53:35 GMT
I blame Tesla
|
|
|
|
Post by Big Blue on Aug 24, 2017 1:49:03 GMT
As I'm currently using an A3 with 85kW and the same engine can be had in varying outputs I can see why some differentiation needs to be made but the log book does that.
|
|
|
|
Post by michael on Aug 24, 2017 5:55:01 GMT
This is nothing new. BMW and Mercedes have had badges that suggest their rank rather than capacity for years, makes sense to do something like this.
|
|
|
|
Post by ChrisM on Aug 24, 2017 7:34:25 GMT
Volvo started something like this a few years back... originally the number after the "T" or "D" incidated the number of cylinders but now it's related to power output.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2017 8:37:58 GMT
As Michael says, it's just extending what BMW at al have been doing for some years.
How we'll miss the days of the 2.0 GLS, with all the baggage (and pigeon-holing) that these things carried!
|
|
|
|
Post by PG on Aug 24, 2017 10:02:13 GMT
This is nothing new. BMW and Mercedes have had badges that suggest their rank rather than capacity for years, makes sense to do something like this. True. But BMW and Merc started with a sensible naming convention and then just bastardised it to suit their aims. So people sort of knew what was going on. But Audi have started from year zero - so all punters will now be utterly confused. |
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Aug 24, 2017 10:08:35 GMT
As Michael says, it's just extending what BMW at al have been doing for some years. How we'll miss the days of the 2.0 GLS, with all the baggage (and pigeon-holing) that these things carried! +1 |
|
db
New Member
Posts: 6 
|
Post by db on Aug 24, 2017 13:07:56 GMT
As Michael says, it's just extending what BMW at al have been doing for some years. How we'll miss the days of the 2.0 GLS, with all the baggage (and pigeon-holing) that these things carried! +1 +1 and easy to say it is just semantics but.......... BMW and Mercedes sell 320d and C220CDI's around 2 or 3 to 1 to 318d or 200CDI's. For Audi it is the other way round with the 150 odd bhp 2.0TDI being the top seller. Cars offered on the used car locators shows this. Therefore for most buyers of 2.0 premium saloon by default are thinking 320d or C220CDI. 'Audi A4 2.0TDi (150) you say............sounds about right. Where do I sign?' That's circa £1,000pu Audi and is missing vs BMW/Mercedes. Although given a lot of buyers seem to be making buying decisions on a badge, I think they should have come up with something a little easier to follow. You can't argue the BMW/Mercedes nomenclature is a lot more elegant. |
|
|
|
Post by Ben on Aug 24, 2017 13:09:49 GMT
I get their reasoning (that engine capacity means squat these days), but that's a bizarre way to go about doing it.
Like, why does it start at 30? And why are there gaps in the power ratings?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2017 15:23:04 GMT
+1 and easy to say it is just semantics but.......... BMW and Mercedes sell 320d and C220CDI's around 2 or 3 to 1 to 318d or 200CDI's. For Audi it is the other way round with the 150 odd bhp 2.0TDI being the top seller. Cars offered on the used car locators shows this. Therefore for most buyers of 2.0 premium saloon by default are thinking 320d or C220CDI. 'Audi A4 2.0TDi (150) you say............sounds about right. Where do I sign?' That's circa £1,000pu Audi and is missing vs BMW/Mercedes. Although given a lot of buyers seem to be making buying decisions on a badge, I think they should have come up with something a little easier to follow. You can't argue the BMW/Mercedes nomenclature is a lot more elegant. Presuming that people can't or won't argue around here is perhaps unwise!
Actually, I think I prefer something slightly baffling but linear to fibbing about engine size. But that's just me.
Welcome, btw.
|
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Aug 24, 2017 16:47:53 GMT
I look forward (or not) to the group test of the Merc C350d versus the BMW 435d and the Audi A5 55 TDI. Zose amuzink chermans viz zer imaginatif names ja?
Actually it won't be because it will be the "Mercedes C350d AMG-Line Premium Pack" vs the "BMW 435d xDrive Gran Coupe MSport" and the "Audi A5 Sportback 55 TDI Quattro S-Line Black Edition"
Suddenly Ferrari Portofino seems ok....
|
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Aug 24, 2017 16:51:17 GMT
The principal makes sense to me, just not sure on the execution. The numbers used don't seem to really relate to the power output. I guess it will make more sense in the future as more hybrid or pure electric models come to market.
|
|
|
|
Post by michael on Aug 24, 2017 20:25:05 GMT
Worse than all this car badge stuff is that GCSEs are now rated 1-9 with a 9 being an A+.
|
|
|
|
Post by alf on Aug 31, 2017 10:56:48 GMT
It seems logical to me, and always nice to be able to assess the other's power before a TLGP.
I'll get my coat...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2017 6:40:06 GMT
I look forward (or not) to the group test of the Merc C350d versus the BMW 435d and the Audi A5 55 TDI. Zose amuzink chermans viz zer imaginatif names ja? Actually it won't be because it will be the "Mercedes C350d 4Matic AMG-Line Premium Pack" vs the "BMW 435d xDrive Gran Coupe MSport" and the "Audi A5 Sportback 55 TDI Quattro S-Line Black Edition" Suddenly Ferrari Portofino seems ok.... You missed a bit. |
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 1, 2017 9:31:34 GMT
Drat.
|
|
|
|
Post by grampa on Sept 1, 2017 14:15:12 GMT
As long as it has a Mercedes, a BMW or Audi, irrespective of anything else the masses will blindly blind which ever three they have an irrational preference to one of the three.
|
|
