phile

All this talk about width reminds me of my recent trip to NYC where I was the middle passenger in the back of a cab (one of those Ford land yachts). Holy crap, the tunnel hump is friggin huge! I don't care how big that car is, no consenting adult could possibly sit in the middle of the back seat comfortable. The tunnel hump was so high and so wide, you weren't just sitting with your legs apart, they were pretty much spread eagle (ok, I'm exaggerating, but not by much).

Hopefully, the TL's girth will benefit the passengers. No point in making a wide car if the damn tunnel hump is just going to prevent 3 passengers from sitting in the back anyway.

RJC RSX

does the new accord have that hump? I know the RSX doesn't, but I think that's because of the rear suspension setup

need4spd_RENAMED

actually I got it at Audiusa.com, the features and spec section for the A4, no need to reply, just wanted to clarify where I got it from.

larchmont

That's beyond interesting. I'm not that surprised.

This was about the grossly incorrect figure for the size of the A4. The number came from an official Audi site!!!

So this means Audi has someone up there punching in numbers on their official site who not only makes mistakes, which is understandable, but who has no concept of what the numbers mean, and doesn't care, and Audi doesn't either. Maybe harsh, but arguably true.

Not that it necessarily means anything, but it just happens to fit completely with my concept of the company.


Obviously, I LOVE stats and data and crap like that. But I've also learned that just because you see a number or whatever on a page, it doesn't mean it's true, no matter how authoritative the source seems to be. Usually it's right, but sometimes it's not. Unfortunately, we have to take alleged "hard facts" with almost the same grain of salt that we take opinions.

There must have been disasters that have occurred because someone looked up a number and the number he found was just a mistake. If there were ever something like a NASA disaster that resulted from this, I wonder if they'd admit it. (BTW I rememeber the military DID admit that a bombing mistake resulted from using an old map.)

Napalm

Larchmont I disagree with you on the width thing. But then again I also disagree for the most part, about the front overhang issue too. Those don't automatically make the care more sporty. My case and point on both these issues is the epitomy(spelling?) of the sports car Ferrari. Take the 360 Modena spyder it's 75.6 inches wide, length is 176.3 (MS Carpoint) and that is definityly a very agile car. The fat ass of a Ferrari has always been a hallmark and you ain't gonna get much sexier than a Modena. Also look at almost all their rear and midship designs have always had a huge front overhang and the damn thing still looks really sporty to me. That's why when I hear people say the TSX or TL isn't a bimmer still just pisses me off. Because of course they're not BMW doesn't own Honda so it will never feel the same. If they feel that strongly about it why are they on an Acura site talking about how price doesn't matter and the performance does. If that's true then buy the fucking Beemer or Bimmer and shut the fuck up! We are here for a reason because we all admire Hondas and Acuras for our own reasons and it good to have healthy criticism of Honda as well we should to get what we want! And that's why I like Larchmont he usually has very good, constructive discussions. But I disagree with him on his width argument, there's alot more than just width that determines how a car feels. Suspension, steering, transmission, tires, wheels, brakes, drag co. just to name a few. The only we can dismiss the ride for us is by taking it for a spin, we will not know how it feels until then. Sorry for the rant!!!!!!

larchmont

Thanks for the post, thanks for the compliment, and thanks for the disagreement.

Except, you aren't really disagreeing with me. Or, at least, I don't disagree with you.

First of all, I was never talking at all about whether a car LOOKS sporty -- just how it FEELS. I think that most of the time I actually did use that word ("feels") to be clear about it, but maybe sometimes I forgot. Anyway, whenver I talked about a car "being" sporty, all I meant was how it feels, not how it looks.

And I didn't say the TL CAN'T be sporty because it's wider -- I said a car that wide WOULD BE HARD-PRESSED to be sporty. And I stand by that, and I would say your example kind of proves the rule, because, look what example you had to give -- a friggin' FERRARI!!!!!! I know you could give other examples too, but..... you get the idea.

And I absolutely agree we won't really know till we try it.

Skyhawk

Having the audiusa.com website open concurrently, it is clearly evident that the quoted width of 76.3" is from the extents of the sideview mirrors! I'd bet 69.5" is the raw body width, but Audi does not have that documented.

So, no, the A4 is not as wide as a Hummer, and the Audi engineers/ marketers/ webdesigners are not a bunch of incompetent misinformed hacks.

need4spd_RENAMED

I thought most cars were spec'd mirror to mirror, I did not believe the 76" dim either.

Most car brochures usually show the dims here when they use pictograms?

larchmont

BTW -- How do you know that?

And, then, what about the 74" figure? What would THAT be?


In any event: There's a standard, well-known system for expressing car widths. It's what everyone's frame of reference is. If they're following a different system than everyone else, that's just as bad as being a bunch of incompetent misinformed hacks.

The main reason for specs is communication -- to tell people something. If they are knowingly using a different language from everybody else, yet dropping it into contexts where it will be assumed to be in everybody else's language even though it's not -- yeah, that's as bad as what you said.

BigBluu

I just read the C/D article - thanks for posting that. I'm new to the board and just want to verify a couple of things with the new TL. So the LSD and Brembo brakes only come with the 6MT? Did I read that correctly?

RJC RSX

yes

Skyhawk

The 74" figure was n4s' misquotation of 76.3" (he was quoting off the top of his head, as I understand it; I was looking directly at the site).

If there is a "standard", please let me know what it is; as an engineer, I much appreciate the drawings Audi provides rather than tabular data which clearly leads to misunderstandings such as this.

Just for grins, someone should measure a TSX from the extents of the side mirrors, and then compare that to the brochure quote. I do not have the brochure in front of me, but (as I recall) I think it gave a "vague" reference as to what constituted width.

I'll just say this: if the TSX brochure says 69.4" (as Edmunds says), then I'll bet that is raw body width (A4 is 69.5"); if it says ~75"+, then it is mirror to mirror. What is disconcerting is that Edmunds does not document what their "width" is.

Regardless, we have a discrepancy in measurement techniques between Edmiunds and Audi and, possibly, others.

I prefer Audi's incontrovertible drawing with fullest width documented to Edmunds (Acura's?) width of the body; I mean, if you are pulling into a tight spot, your widest width will be your limiting factor.

Otherwise, I guess Acura drivers should start removing their sideview mirrors to accurately reflect more "compact" dimensions.

EDIT: I'd appreciate it if all publications would provide both widths, as they each have their respective merits.

larchmont

I think most people would disagree on two counts.

(1) We have enough "numbers" -- we don't need more. Another "width" number would confuse, not help.

(2) There's no confusion or discrepancy in most people's minds -- normally, which unfortunately doesn't cover the Audi situation. As I said, the main reason for having specs is for COMMUNICATION, and for that, it helps to have a "language" that people are used to -- or, at least, they should be able to tell easily what language you're speaking. I'm in the habit of looking at dimension numbers a lot, and everywhere I've ever looked, the numbers have been what you call raw body width. And after a while, once you're used to that "language," the numbers take on a significance of their own -- we FEEL what the numbers mean, almost aside from the numerical significance.

For example, take batting average in baseball. When we hear ".300," the first thing we think isn't "300 hits out of 1000 at bats." We think "Good hitter." If we hear ".350," we think "Great hitter."

If Audi wants to use a "width language" that's different from what is commonly used, aside from the fact that it's a dumb idea to begin with because they're going against the "language" that people have in their minds, they better explain it loud and clear.


I see that Skyhawk likes Audi's system. But, if something exists mainly as a form of communication, and it misleads people, it's a bad form of communication. It should communicate effectively to the average reader. We on this board tend to be better than average in terms of understanding automotive communication. "Need4speed" is WAY, WAY above average -- and HE misunderstood it.


You still want to tell me Audi has a good idea on this?

larchmont

For the heck of it, I took a look myself. It's over here:

http://www.audiusa.com/features_spec...ode-1_,00.html

It's even worse than I thought.

Skyhawk is right in saying that the 76.4" figure clearly includes the mirrors. But, you know what? THEY DON'T GIVE THE USUAL "WIDTH" FIGURE AT ALL! Not that I can find it, anyway. In addition to the 76.4, they give a couple of other widths, neither of which is the "normal" one. People who casually look at this will think the car is unusally wide, or unusally narrow. Virtually nobody would get a correct idea.

You can't expect people to look at diagrams and figures as microscopically as Skyhawk did, or as I just did. The info should be readily understandable, and when there's a well-known system for expressing something, you better take that into account. Audi didn't.

As I said, it doesn't necessarily mean anything, but it does fit with my concept of the company.

Skyhawk

A picture is worth a thousand words; Audi provides the picture demonstrating exactly what each dimension represents. If I want to be really anal here, I'll say Audi never refers to it as "width". All Audi does is draw a dimension line from mirror-to-mirror and give the number.

So maybe your analogy to baseball has some relevance here. If you've been reading "raw body widths" all these years -- without knowing what the figure represents -- and gotten accustomed to "70 inches is as wide as my garage can handle".... well, now you know that your garage is actually accommodating a larger maximum width. Sort of like we used to think 30 homers were great in baseball, but now it takes 45 homers to merit any attention.

What you used to think was 30 is now 45; what you used to think was 70" is actually 76".

I don't know how Audi could more clearly convey their information; on the other hand, the other publications are clearly lacking in communicating what their dimensions represent.

Skyhawk

I did not see larch's most recent response before my previous post; however I had said this in another earlier post:

Skyhawk

Ummm, larch, those "other" dimensions are the "track widths", commonly listed in many automotive publications and manufacturers' brochures/ websites... even Acura provides them for the TSX.

TSX F: 59.6"
TSX R: 59.6"

A4 F: 60.2"
A4 R: 60.1"

EDIT: While I agree the omission of the body width is odd, I think the inclusion of the mirror width is good.

As for track widths, remember, we are not talking about a Camry or a Camry competitor here. A Camry driver will not understand or care, but Acura and Audi think their drivers do.

larchmont

I like how you came back at me with more baseball.



BTW: Thomas Boswell's 99 reasons why baseball is better than football:

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/lege...libvf100.shtml

Skyhawk

Where's George Carlen when you need him?

larchmont

I almost did him too. (Honest!)

Raheel

VTEC will have all the info 00:00 GMT Sept 1

Thats like 6 PM for Central PEOPLE

http://www.vtec.net/forums/one-messa...sage_id=133155