10 Cars We Don't Get in US

https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/ent...in-america/ss-BBH2AdX?ocid=spartandhp#image=1

"Unlike a conventional supercharger, which is powered via a pulley attached to the crankshaft, Audi’s electric unit is spooled by a 7-kW DC motor essentially taking the place of a turbocharger’s turbine. The motor is connected to the compressor via a shaft, and it’s neither exhaust-driven like a turbocharger nor crank-driven like a supercharger. It can spin up to 70,000 rpm in less than a quarter of a second."

They're all superchargers. Originally superchargers were belt driven; later, the exhaust driven ones were distinguished by the name turbosupercharger.

I would call the Audi unit an electrosupercharger.

We've yet to meet a great sports sedan that wasn't made better by a clutch pedal.

Click to expand...

BS. Many modern torque converter automatics in today's hyper-computer-controlled cars can easily put the lie to that, not to mention DSG.

It's time to put to rest the old saw about "stick shifts are better!". I'm sure someone out there thinks carburetors are better, too--so? We don't see article and forums bemoaning computerized engine control. For a good reason.

adam1991 said:

BS. Many modern torque converter automatics in today's hyper-computer-controlled cars can easily put the lie to that, not to mention DSG.

It's time to put to rest the old saw about "stick shifts are better!". I'm sure someone out there thinks carburetors are better, too--so? We don't see article and forums bemoaning computerized engine control. For a good reason.

Click to expand...

Soo true. But it was a lot easier to tune when we had carbs and the only electronics were for the ignition. Hotter cam, more fuel, headers, done. The only reason we have full computer control is for gas mileage and emissions.

The problem is to define "better." It's manifestly clear that numbers-wise, automatics are far superior to manual shifting. No question. But for most drivers, "better" is a lot more subjective. So it's perfectly fine for a person, or an editorial staff, to say they have never seen a car that wasn't improved by a manual. It's their personal feeling about driving that they are communicating.

Whether that means squat to anyone else is another story, of course. But just because automatics are demonstrably technically better in many, many objective and empirically measured ways does not mean they are the right choice for every single driver. Enthusiasts come in many flavors. Some are willing to trade off performance numbers for a certain feel. Others don't give a rat's ass about anything but numbers. It's all good.

The only one of the bunch that really interests me is the California.

Even if it was sold right now, I wouldn't get one. But, in say 10 years, when kids are out of the house, it would be great for a weekend getaway.

I've always liked the concept of the "Westie", but don't want to deal with an underpowered 30-40 year old vehicle on a road trip.

adam1991 said:

They're all superchargers. Originally superchargers were belt driven; later, the exhaust driven ones were distinguished by the name turbosupercharger.

I would call the Audi unit an electrosupercharger.

Click to expand...

Or an superduperelectrosupercharger. :}