Skipton01
Admin Team
In an interesting (if somewhat erroneous) editorial article in the current issue of Audi Driver, a possible contributing factor towards the early demise of the A2 was identified as the car being mis-named!
Basically, the argument goes like this:
People buy Audis based on their heirarchical number system, so an A8 is seen as being superior to an A6, which in turn is better than an A4, which is better than an A3 and hey presto, the A2 sits at the bottom. However, the A2 was not cheaper to buy than many A3s and so it's perceived status led many people and potential buyers to opt for an A3 instead.
The author goes on to say that it should have been given a name which was outside the normal structure, such as the TT for example. This would have reflected its ultra-advanced and sophisticated nature, rather than it's physical stature.
So, what do people think? For my money, they should have stuch with the concept name: AL2, or even just the AL (a lower-case L may have been mistaken for a 1).
Over to you lot!
Cheers,
Mike
Basically, the argument goes like this:
People buy Audis based on their heirarchical number system, so an A8 is seen as being superior to an A6, which in turn is better than an A4, which is better than an A3 and hey presto, the A2 sits at the bottom. However, the A2 was not cheaper to buy than many A3s and so it's perceived status led many people and potential buyers to opt for an A3 instead.
The author goes on to say that it should have been given a name which was outside the normal structure, such as the TT for example. This would have reflected its ultra-advanced and sophisticated nature, rather than it's physical stature.
So, what do people think? For my money, they should have stuch with the concept name: AL2, or even just the AL (a lower-case L may have been mistaken for a 1).
Over to you lot!
Cheers,
Mike