New Audi A4 revealed!

If this is what the next A4 is going to look like, I'm glad I have a current one. Because that's hideous! What in the world are they thinking with that design?!?! (Is Chris Bangle now moonlighting for Audi as well?) Not since the latest Camry have I seen a design so bland, yet simultaneously so ugly...

Rob

2002 A4 3.0Q 2005 TT 3.2 DSG (as of tomorrow)

simultaneously

I remember people saying that about the new A4 - B6 after owning a B5

It looks stunning if you ask me, and I'm sure in real life it will be even better

Ronny

I agree, I thought the current A4 was a big improvment on the older shape but it was still to soft and bulky looking. This new one looks nice and mean. Lovely car.

back looks exactly like a Volvo S60.

Now there's a face only its mother could love...

I'm confident that it's not a B6 ownership-inspired bias that leads me to my conclusion about the new design. As I feel exactly the same way about the new A6 -- a model I've never owned in any iteration. And, generally speaking, I'm not a person who must always have the "better" possession. IMO, this new design, like that of the new A6, simply lacks the grace and elegance of a car purporting to be a European luxury sports sedan. While it certainly looks athletic enough, so do most Nissans and Mazdas. And I'm afraid that if one were to slap a Nissan or Mazda badge on this "new & improved" A4, few people would question it's origin. Because, aside from the ghastly grill, this A4 has the appearance of a mainstream Japanese car -- in fact, it merely looks like a late-90's Mazda 626 with added bulk.

Rob

2002 A4 3.0Q 2005 TT 3.2 DSG (today is delivery day!)

To be fair, I think your commenting on something that can only be felt in the flesh. I used to think the Mazda RX8 was a lovely looking TT beater until I seen/sat in one at the motor show, my feelings for it just went down hill there on.

^^^^ Hope you enjoy!

Whats a 2005 TT, I thought we were in 2004, this would make it 2004 TT, or am I missing somthing?

If you bought the car on Jan 1st 2005 and it was registered on that day then you would have a 2005 car.

Is this some wierd american science?

Ronny

It's a designation of "model year", as opposed to an actual year of manufacture. Next year models generally appear about half way into the current calendar year.

A 2005 model year may have different equipment, colors, and options compared to a 2004 model year, even though both were manufactured in 2004. It's a marketing tactic that's been used by auto makers for years, at least in the US.

Cheers,

Pete

Fair enough. Pictures, stat sheets and the like don't always jibe perfectly with in-the-flesh reality. Similar to your earlier sentiments about the RX-8, I was initially quite impressed with the Nissan 350Z. But upon sitting in one, the highly "plasticky" interior curbed my enthusiasm -- as $30k+ (with options) cars should not remind one of cars costing half as much.

Thanks for the kind words. I'm pretty excited!

A must be a US thing :)

Cheers Pete

Indeed. The US consumers seem to expect a car to be updated every year. I believe that the body styles used to be changed annually - such that a '57 car would look different to (than?) a '58, which would be different to (than?) a '59.

As for the next year's model coming out part way throught the previous year - this is just a result of the manufacturers' race to be the first to market with the new model. It's not really much different to the September issue of a magazine hitting the shelves at the beginning of August!

'bellfamily')

We couldnt get away with it over here, a car registered in 2004 would be a

2004 model, We also have a number plate year system which i'm sure you know about, I just found it strange someone saying they are taking delivery of a 2005 car and theres still nearly 4 months of 2004 left :)

Ah, but it does happen over here. My wife's A2, delivered in July 2002 on an 02 registration is actually a '2003' spec. model. If you check the VIN coding you'll find that one of the characters relates to the 'model year', and it is very common for this to change part way through a year.

We tend to rely too heavily on registration year, and that may mislead someone over the actual specification of the car. For instance, someone recently came across a few unregistered S3s, which are now (being?) sold and registered with '54' plates. Now, as far as I am aware, S3 production ceased towards the end of 2003. So, are these cars really

2004 models? Of course not. They are 2003 cars which have, in all probability, sat around in a field for the best part of a year.

Yes - I think I know about it!

Indeed.

Technically, in the US, any model of car released after January 1 of year N can be called an (N+1) model. I purchased my "2003" Passat in November of 2002.

-- Mike Smith

I think they got their inspiration from the new Caddy's and Chrysler 300's.

For most of my lifetime the US automakers worker on a three year cycle with minor changes yearly and a major change every three years.

As for the model years they operated on a Sept-July calendar. The "1971" models usually came out in Sept 1970. Sometimes if there was a mid-year change or a new model it came out as the following year's model.

ps Each state had (and still has) a different plate design/color and numbering scheme

I bought my daughter's '01 A4 "new" in 2003. The title says '01, the warranty started in '03 (when it was put in service) We call these cars "leftovers", you get a new car with a new car warranty at a used car price and yes, they did put a new battery in it before delivery.