(first posted 8/18/2018) Finds like this one, by S. Forrest, really validate the cohort and enrich CC, because as much as we’d like to go for a stroll and see a first-gen Audi 100 sedan sitting before us, it’s an unlikely occurrence. It helps to spread our efforts over a wider area; just how many of these could be left in North America?
Probably not many. They were a commercial success for the company, newly under VW’s wings, but they weren’t especially durable. But despite its obscurity on this side of the Atlantic, it’s a very historically significant car, setting the stage for Audi’s efforts until this day, even if to look at it, one might not come to such a conclusion. Stylistically speaking, this post-facelift ’73 bears the influence of its former Swabian parent, especially when viewed from the rear and the side: conservative, definitely, but also classy.
From the A-pillars back, it’s a shape that could be mistaken for a W114 Mercedes or a Rootes Arrow series car, among others; get far enough away, and there are shades of the ’66 Chrysler B-body but luckily, the emblem makes the view from the front much less generic. As a car developed in secret (by Benz’s head of advanced design, Dr. Ludwig Kraus) such modesty likely played a role in its acceptance for production by reluctant VW management (just what future development did they have in mind, forbidding this car’s development?).
It’s not a look that brags about technical innovation, but with front-wheel drive and inboard front discs, the 100 wasn’t necessarily orthodox. Vorsrpung durch technik was fifteen years away when the C1 was introduced, and when looking at it, understanding the C3’s self-consciously aerodynamic appearance becomes much easier.
But turbos and Quattro would not have been as likely without this car. The OHV four-cylinder engine, adopted from the Audi F103 (Audi 60, 72, 75, Super 90) had 1.9 liters, and produced 91 fuel-injected, de-smogged SAE net horsepower, validating its high-compression concept, helping make the new Audi an accomplished, nimble tourer which (along with the Saab 99) changed perceptions of front-wheel drive.
Audi F103 Super 90
The 100 was an evolution of the somewhat smaller Audi F103, which was originally the DKW F103 and the last car to carry that name so closely associated with two-stroke engines. When Mercedes obligingly bought/bailed out DKW in 1964, the first order of business was to develop a new four-stroke engine, and rename it as an Audi. This is where the modern Audi lineage started, in 1965. The next order of business was the larger 100.
Outside of Fiat’s small cars, BMC’s flawed creations and a few big Frenchies, front-wheel drive was rarely this widely accepted and of all the cars mentioned, the Audi was the most amenable to traditional sensibilities; it was fresh, but never weird.
The assimilation of NSU and input from Hartmut Warkuss, Claus Luthe and Giugiaro may have redirected successors’ styling efforts to a certain extent, but it was these cars which established the solid technological basis for the water-cooled VWs and Audis we love so much today.
For a nearly unknown entity, it was a truly classy debut, but while Mercedes-inspired panache was the new Audi’s forte, it would take the much larger and more modern 5000 to propel the car to genuine popularity in the US, with many domestic car buyers switching over to the hot new German brand. Of course, we all know how that turned out and spotting an Audi 5000 of any generation is rare enough these days, so the site of this early ’70s curio must have been especially remarkable. Even in Europe, where the C1 has drawn the unfortunate affections of the stance crowd, finding a stock example is a challenge. The owner of this white-on-red example must therefore be credited for taking the slogan on his/hers car’s license plate to heart.
Related reading:
Curbside Classic: 1958 DKW Sonderklasse 3=6 – The Proto Audi
Curbside Classic: Audi Fox/80 (B1) – The Foxy Mother Of The Modern VW/Audi Era
When did Audi and VW become linked? I sort of understand that Dr. Porsche was also behind VW, hence the VW and Porsche link.
With Audi as a luxury division, I don’t understand VW’s forays into the larger car / luxury market.
Would love to understand the VW group story better.
VW took over Auto Union in 1965, but the brand Audi did not exist at the time (althought the name existed – it was one of the defunct parent brands of AU).
Taking over AU effectively meant taking over 2-stroke engine brand DKW (CC article here). While DKW was indeed a more upmarket brand, by that time it had become obvious that 2-stroke engines were a dead end. AU was developing a 4-stroke at the time to fit in its new FWD DKW F102 series, when VW took over, it rebranded the new 4-stroke model (the F103) Audi.
VAG was interested mostly in the engineering and production capacity, and probably was developing the big VW while AU was working on the F103. When the Audi took off, VAG realised it could have a future of its own. And it did! Several years later, VAG also bought NSU and merged it with Audi.
Thanks for that. I never quite grasped how they all came together.
Thanks. I vaguely recall those Porsche Audi ads from back then.
Very nice tidy explanation of a confusing storyline–makes the origins far easier to understand.
Also, I love the “Porsche Audi: A division of Volkswagen” in that vintage ad.
Volkswagen Porsche, Audi. That’s confusing. 🙂
Auto-Union was first bought out by Daimler-Benz in 1958. D-B were developing a replacement for the aging two-stroke engine but failed to see how it could make a profit out of the car and sold the whole thing to VW in 1964. So there’s also a Mercedes angle to this! Early Audis are FWD Benzes, in a way. But there is more.
Like BMW, Auto-Union, made up of four brands (DKW, Wanderer, Audi and Horch) was split by the iron curtain after WW2. In the Bundesrepublik, they were branded DKW and remained so until VW’s takeover. Then, the Audi NSU Auto-Union AG was created when VW bought NSU in 1969. The group was renamed Audi AG in 1985, long after NSU and Auto-Union production ceased.
Auto-Union cars identical to the pre-war DKWs were built in East Germany under the name IFA. The basic Auto-Union layout (2-stroke, FWD, light construction) was used by IFA’s successor, the AWZ Trabant, which soldiered on until 1991 when the factory was bought by… VW. Thus, VW reunited Auto-Union/Audi with its Zwickau-made cousins.
Still in the East, another Auto-Union brand, Horch (the Cadillac to Audi’s Buick in the Auto-Union on the 30s), was initially asked by the Soviets to make a few batches of its pre-war streamlined limos in the late 40s. In 1955, the Horch brand was resurrected into an apparachik-class (Volga/Tatra-sized) car, the Sachsenring P240. The Soviets did not allow the car to be exported and production was cut short.
http://www.powerful-cars.com/images/veb-sachsenring/p240-cabrio-29-001.jpg
The Brazilian-made and somewhat surgically-enhanced VEMAG DKWs, sold until late 1967, making the last DKW a brasilera, as the brand had been switched to Audi everywhere else by 1966.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_AV-RS4GKu2o/TOw3PuXi35I/AAAAAAAAIhQ/8Gwv150KUFs/s1600/Vemag+AVA06.jpg
Audi, you’ve changed, man. You used to be cool. You used to be wild, and yes, more than a little weird back when you was DKW. The 70s turned you kinda square. And then the 80s and 90s turned you into the top FWD competitor to the old master, Mercedes-Benz, who probably didn’t see that one coming. Actually, well done, Audi.
“Audi, you have chaged … ”
Well, and today – at least in my corner of the world – it is every door-to-door salesman’s wet dream …
“Auto-Union cars identical to the pre-war DKWs were built in East Germany under the name IFA. The basic Auto-Union layout (2-stroke, FWD, light construction) was used by IFA’s successor, the AWZ Trabant, which soldiered on until 1991…”
It’s not just the Trabant that goes back to DKW. The same applies to the GDR “Wartburg” passenger cars.
The Wartburg 311, produced from 1956, was further developed from the EMW 309 (formerly IFA F 9). However, this in turn was based on the DKW F 9 model from Auto Union, which was created in 1940.
Basically, the entire passenger car production in the GDR was based on Auto-Union – more precisely: DKW technology.
Wow, great find! We had four of these, two in Germany before we moved and two in California after we moved. I think my favorite was the blue one with the red interior in Germany. However the two we had here seemed much less reliable although my dad took the same care with them that he had with the German ones. I remember a lot of drives all around Europe in the back seat of these and then a bunch more all around the West Coast of the US. Good times and probably why I turned into a big Audi fan (but not so much of the current offerings…) The last one we had was totalled when massively rear-ended at a police-estimated 50mph. The car did well, was smashed flat to the rear bulkhead but the passenger compartment was intact and all the doors still opened. I recall most of ours had vinyl (similar to MB-Tex) but the cloth in that picture looks quite sumptuous, nothing like the cloth that is available in today’s cars.
Blue with red interior? A strange colour combination Jim
Not as odd as one would think. I once owned a 1965 Continental convertible sedan, metallic silver-blue with white top and a dark red (almost maroon) interior. It sure attracted attention. It was factory, too.
I haven’t seen an early 70s Audi in the USA in over 20 yrs., and I haven’t seen an 80s version in between 15 and 20 yrs. I do like the American version with the twin headlamps on each side of the grille.
I’ve been wanting to find a 100 since starting CC, but no luck. They have become exceedingly rare. It’s a milestone car, as this is what really started Audi on the road to compete with its creator, Mercedes.
I was in Austria the year it came out (1969) and it was a huge deal: a new and genuine Mercedes competitor, and a very competent one.
Yes, they were a bit fragile for US use and abuse. But they sold quite well; I remember the Audi dealer opening in Towson in 1969 or 1970, and they sold quite a few. It was popular with early adopters of mid-level premium European brands, like Volvos and such, and a more affordable alternative to the Mercedes.
It was a very handsome car for the times
I agree. It’s a good looking car. I must ask, how can a car like Audi, which is front wheel drive, compete against the likes of Mercedes-Benz, which is rear-wheel drive?
That’s kind of like asking how did a Saab, which was all front wheel drive, compete against a Volvo, which was all rear wheel drive. Or Chevette vs Golf. Or Riviera vs. Toronado. There is (much) more to a car than which wheels are the driven ones.
As it turns out, plenty of MB’s are (and have been for quite some time) now Front Wheel Drive, including their new Great Hope, the CLA. And plenty of Audi’s are All Wheel Drive (as are MB’s).
Audi (traditionally FWD) figures if the car is powerful enough to need Rear Wheel Drive, then it might as well be All Wheel Drive.
Mercedes (traditionally RWD) on the other hand now believes that for a smaller car, a FWD drivetrain makes a ton of sense to free up all kind of interior room, reduce weight, increase economy, and reduce cost.
As much as an Audi fanboi as I have been, I freely admit that M-B can build a great car (and have had them myself), but the question of which wheels were the driven ones did not make one better than another. The only time that question comes up is if the vehicle is not designed well enough to take advantage of the inherent positive traits that either configuration provides.
My suggestion is that you should try some of the better FWD cars that are out there, you may be surprised.
I’m afraid I don’t follow. If you’re going to compete against a rear-wheel drive car, shouldn’t your car be rear-wheel drive as well?
I don’t think so. Is there something that says that a car with rear wheel drive is inherently “better” than one with front wheel drive?
Is there something about one layout that makes it impossible to compete against it while having a different layout? Every other example I posted are competitors to each other with different drive layouts. There are many others. Chrysler 300 vs Ford Taurus. BMW 2series vs Mercedes CLA. Citroen Traction Avant vs just about every other car made prior that model’s introduction…
I don’t think RWD makes a car “better”, but I sure as hell do think a longitudinal engine does. Transverse layouts, with few exceptions, limit engine designs to V6s or I4s which aren’t exactly engines that make me think “luxury!”. They are inherently more difficult and labor intensive to service, especially when they’re being serviced by the luxury dealers, and the result is they’re more disposable.The CLA for example is built exactly like a camcord, it’s just got a three pointed star on the hood, once it’s used up by the original owners, how desirable will it be? A camcord like car with twice the service cost and half the dependability is all they become. 1985+ FWD Cadillacs certainly haven’t fared well on the used car scene and they at least stuffed in a sideways V8.
Before the Golf/Rabbit spawned a bunch of clones, front wheel drive was still considered rather exotic, limited to a few oddball makes like Saab and Audi while being exclusive to Toronados and Eldorados among American cars. So an Audi 100 or Saab 99 could certainly compete against Mercedes, BMW’s, Volvos and even Peugeots. They served a similar niche demographic.
It wasn’t until later when front drive became ubiquitous that people began to miss rear drive handling and realized that the holdouts were right all along. Nowadays you have more choice than ever between front, rear and all wheel drive.
RWD barely competes with good FWD cars, it never could.
I think that BMW’s sports sedan idea had not taken hold by the late 60’s, so FWD Audi’s were not rejected out of hand. Ultimately the AWD quattro made Audi successful in the sports sedan competitions.
Unlike enthusiasts, buyers don’t necessarily care which wheels drive their car.
In the late ’60s, FWD was considered futuristic hardware, associated with cars like the Citroën DS, the first Oldsmobile Toronado, and the NSU Ro80. (As Perry notes, Audi merged with NSU around the time the Audi C1 was new.)
Even the Mini and the BMC 1100/1300 cars were seen as sophisticated and advanced compared to RWD rivals. Every boring car on the road had RWD — the days when FWD was on every low-budget supermini was still some years off. Perry mentions Fiat, but if I’m recalling correctly, their only FWD car of the time was the Autobianchi Primula, followed in 1969 by the Autobianchi Abarth and then in the early seventies the 127 and 128.
Also, while Mercedes in those days definitely had a reputation for thorough engineering, they weren’t exactly cutting-edge in terms of technology. When the C1 was designed, Mercedes was still hanging onto its low-pivot swing axles, Hydra-Matic-style four-speed fluid coupling automatic, and so forth.
The car I envisioned when I wrote that was the Fiat 128, which began production in 1969. A year after the 100, yes, but basically coeval. In any case, you bring up a good point about FWD’s newness at the time.
The Audi ads for this car actually stated that Audi’s front drive was superior for handling because the wheels that steered also pulled the car through corners.
That’s what the admen wrote.
Smart people know it to be true, fastest car thru Moose test, FWD Citroen 9 WRC championships went to Citroen youve been fed BMW propaganda, untill youve driven a well sorted FWD car you really wont know how good they are.
That’s a bit US-centric… FWD was pretty mainstream in late 60s Europe. Aside from those you mentioned, DKW/Audi, BMC’s Mini/1100/Landcrab models, Citroen, Lancia’s Flavia and Fulvia, Panhard, Peugeot’s 204, Renault’s 4 and 16, Simca’s 1100, the Polish FSO Syrena, the East-German Wartburg and Trabant… even German Fords were going FWD by the 60s, as was Honda.
There were also a considerable amount of rear-engined RWD cars from German, British, Italian, French, Eastern European and Japanese makers still available.
The oddity was the US, where only GM offered the Corvair and the Toronado/Eldorado alternatives to the classic RWD layout churned out by the rest of the (rather conservative) American motor industry.
Well I sold these things from 1972 through 1979 we sold them as a reasonable alternative to the Benz. We did not know any better. We promoted the fwd as a benefit not the other way around. They were actually pretty good cars but had no power especially when 1974-75 came around with emission regs. With the a/c on and four people on board you couldn’t get it moving. The Germans didn’t understand a/c.
I owned a nice 1973 100LS 2 door from 1986-1989 and it was not under powered for the job of most commuter cars , mine albeit did not have A/C I was living in Monterey CA at the time . It had a main bearing oil leak though but always performed well MPGs were in the mid 20’s good for an automatic of the 70’s era. I wish I had it back though it took me from San Francisco to Mexico many times over never any mechanical problems other than the inherited leak. I cannot find one anywhere for some reason they were big in Monterey, Carmel, Seaside CA area back then. Great little ride though !
FWD is a great benefit in winter climates especially prior to variations of traction control. The fanbois of RWD will claim handling where the great majority of cars are never even put close to the limit, I’ve never been on a racetrack and never plan to be. Give me FWD any day – much more predictable and tractable in any kind of inclement weather.
A person I used to work with had a white 100LS in the early 80’s. I seemed to ride pretty well, but was badly in need of CV joints and really rattled around corners. I was impressed with the nice interior. We used to drive it to the house to smoke our lunch. Amazing one was found still being driven today, great find.
A very clean design. But I prefer the K70 and the Ro 80.
1973 was also the first year for the Ontario ‘Keep it Beautiful’ plates.
“HYH” would have been a late 1974 issue (new plates still carried the “73” until 1978), so this car may be wearing it’s original plates (plate stays with owner in Ontario, not vehicle).
I still have my 1973 plates on my old Torino, they have been on there for 41 years. I was thinking of doing the Year of Manufacture plates, but I figured these plates have been with the car for most of it’s existence so I decided to keep them. They have become very rare in Ontario since the steel on them often rusted through, versus the current aluminium plates. I had mine restored recently as they were a little sandblasted, but rust free and straight.
On this Audi it’s also possible that the plate owner has had the plates since 1974, and has had them on multiple vehicles since you can transfer from car to car easily. But in my experience, usually people with old plates have owned the car for a long time.
In Ontario, the plate used to go with the vehicle (with exceptions). I remember clearly cars in wrecking yards with their plates still on them. That changed … sometime. I _think_ it was in the late seventies or early eighties, but I really don’t recall.
In any case, it’s an old plate on an old car, and likely it’s the original plate for that car.
And yes, Ontario plates used to rust. I got pulled over by the city police a few years ago, the rear plate was rusted with parts missing (!) and the front was sand blasted. He “trusted” that I would get new plates, and $20 later, I had them. 🙂
You have to pay for replacements in Canada? In Australia, when the plates on my ’84 Suzuki Swift faded to the point of unreadability, and the nice policeman told my daughter they needed replacing, we ordered them online and they came through the mail gratis.
Of course it might have helped that they were from a batch known to have defective paint. Apparently the prisoners ‘did something’ in the paint. 🙂
Yeah, a replacement set of plates costs $20 in Ontario. That’s assuming the renewal tag on the old plate is still there. No renewal tag, then it’s full price. The full price is $70 a year. You cannot get the same letter/number combination, either. Plates go with the owner and are good forever, or until they’re illegible or too damaged to be used. Some people get new plates every time they get a new car.
Different provinces may have different policies. I used to live in Quebec and also in Saskatchewan, but that was ages ago. In Saskatchewan, back then, the plates included liability insurance, and I believe Quebec does now, also.
Also, plates for the Northwest Territories and Nunavut aren’t rectangular, either. They’re shaped like polar bears 🙂
Can’t remember the last time I saw one of these.
hey, i had one of those when stationed in Germany in the 70s. bought it in probably 76, it was maybe a 72 or 73 model. also white but better paint that this one, of course, with blue interior. i thought it was a nice car. peppy, stable, handled well. wife and i drove it down to Valencia, Spain one summer. first front drive i ever had.
These are interesting cars, rare but not unseen even in the midwest, way back when. Historically, I’d think Lancia belongs in the discussion of successful adoption of front wheel drive in the larger/nicer cars category. But then, I have never wittingly seen a 60s Fulvia or Flavia on the American road, although I know they’re out there, possibly in garages or beneath a tree somewhere.
I think Lancia also used an engine-in-front-of transaxle approach, with v-engines to keep things compact. Intuitively (i.e., without any driving experience or facts), it seems pretty impressive that these Audis had such good handling with the engine, as pictured, so far forward as to warrant the offset radiator. The weight up front may explain the choice to have inboard disc brakes, too.
Did the US get Lancias back then? Theoretically they were available in Australia, though I never saw one in the sixties, or indeed a sixties one later. Nowadays of course you see them restored in magazines, but the only sixties Lancia I ever saw was my Corgi toy!
We did, although they never had a big presence in the States and withdrew entirely after the Beta and Scorpion/Monte Carlo.
Inboard brakes at the driven end of a car help ride and handling as there is less unsprung mass than having them at the wheel hubs.
It makes no difference to total weight on the wheels and neither engine placement nor weight distribution have anything to do with choosing them..
The downside to the better handling can be far worse access for maintenance (not always though.. See VW K70 or Citroen 2CV for easy-access inboard pads)
The $2879 1972 Barglefargle Deluxe has the same round rubber tires filled with air that you would find in a $42,000 Merrahgini. WOW!!!
Was there any manufacturer that didn’t run an ad like this at least once between the late 60’s and mid 70’s?
Perhaps a reaction to advertising being unleashed following the very circumspect 50’s and early 60’s when most car manufacturers would drape their competitors cars in car covers and refer to them only as X and Y. IIRC AMC was the first to break the tradition with the X-Ray Comparisons, with the slow, noisy and cramped little “foreign” cars losing out to the “American” (to be fair, I believe the Studebaker Lark also was among those compared @1959).
I remember seeing ads like that in Car and Driver, and wondering how stupid the advertisers thought Americans were. 🙂 I thought they were a national insult.
The brakes on the early 100LS were a service nightmare. They were on top of the discs, right up against the firewall & steering rack.
They had a caliper somewhat like Volvo 140s; each with 3 bleeders. Since (of course) the bleeders were on the tops of the calipers, the bleeders were made extra-long, making it more easy to bleed by feel.
Feel was how to tell if air bubbles had been bled, with the fluid running down the arm & into the face.
Changing pads from the bottom involved faces full of asbestos dust.
Torque from the front brakes (~90% of braking) was on the engine/transmission, held in the front (on a good day) by long rubber mounts from the top. This gave the brakes a “rubbery” feel on a hard stop.
What happened when the mounts failed? Good question- the engine/transmission rotated down & the car usually ran over it.
The rear brakes were pretty useless, much like low-end BMW/Opel, with the useless adjusters. They were more like trailer brakes.
They shared with the contemporary VWs the odd quirk of needing to have the front brake system bled first, opposite of about everything else.
The visual of the motor mounts failing and the whole works coming loose is a fun one.
Like so much else on the 100 other than the body, the inboard brakes were carryovers from the F103. PIA. And dumped, for the C2 1000. Good riddance. I suspect they played a big role in the bad rep the 100 got in the US, as anyone excepts an Audi dealer probably was either reluctant to work on them at all, or charged a huge amount.
I got a ride in one in northern holland back in 76. Am I right in remembering it had a four on the tree shifter?
Alistair
Dad wanted one of these but Mum put her foot down when she saw the price and he bought an Allegro.Nice find they must be pretty scarce in America today
I’m sure I’ve seen one with a column shifter too.
IIRC the engine was based on the Mercedes Benz Diesel iron block it was rather heavy and because of its forward placement contributed much to the under-steer in this car. Another thing that the motor press was criticizing were the rather high rockers. Some people did not care for lifting their feet this high to get in and out of a car.
I recall getting a few rides with my uncle and I liked the space and comfort the Audi 100 LS afforded.
IIRC the engine was based on the Mercedes Benz Diesel iron block it was rather heavy and because of its forward placement contributed much to the under-steer in this car. Another thing that the motor press was criticizing were the rather high rockers. Some people did not care for lifting their feet this high to get in and out of a car.
I recall getting a few rides with my uncle and I liked the space and comfort the Audi 100 LS afforded.
Indeed a rare find. Now let’s look for an Audi 100 LS Coupe.
Sorry, the dude does not abide. These things were junk with a capital J.
I was selling VW-Audi back in ’87 when the VW Fox came out. A young girl dressed like Madonna came around in a white one just like the picture above. Her father had sent her to see what we could give them on a trade-in on a VW Fox. Due to the Fox’s slim margins, my answer was zip, butkus, nada. She got into and left, and I found it in the local pick & pull a couple of years later.
Cool story bro. Doesn’t exactly explain why they were junk.
Plenty of others on here who can. Also the fact that it was worthless as a trade might be clue.
I think the feature car is a 1974 not a ’73. The ’73 had smaller bumpers I believe. Love that 5000!
Here is the ’73 rear bumper. The guards are a different shape than the earlier ones but the bumper is still small. In ’74 the bumper went to the large size.
Hey – a two door sedan! I never knew they came like that.
and they came as a coupe.
We only got Coupe and 4-door saloon in Britain. Always loved seeing the 2-door saloons in mainland Europe, The best looking shape i always thought.
You’re right. It’s a ’74 model.
In September 1973, the entire series underwent several changes for the 1974 model year: The front section was revised, the fenders and hood were made more angular and all models received a plastic radiator grille. At the rear of the sedans there were new, horizontally divided rear lights.
The red car in the advertisement still has the original shape of the fender and hood.
By the way, sedans with halogen twin headlights were also available in Europe. However, they were reserved for the top of the line “100 GL”.
Yes it is a ’74. I’ll change the title.
Does that ever bring back memories. My mother got a new Audi 100 in 1974. I was away at college so I don’t know the thinking behind it other than that the 1968 Plymouth Satellite wagon was traded in. Wasn’t a bad driving car at all but did have quirks. Obvious one is the brakes which I detested. Imagine my surprise when in 1981 I went to do a front brake job for Mom’s car and took the front wheels off. Ended up being traded in for a 1982 320i due to transmission woes. Same transmission woes bit the 320i in 1989. Oh, and it was a lovely mustard yellow color. The bumpers of the featured car belong to 1974.
I looked at buying a biggish Audi once in Donnybrook WA for a trip around the top end of OZ, while the car drove ok it was automatic and would be going thousands of KMs from any parts supply it was only $750 that was the attraction, I declined and bought a $500 Mitsubishi Sigma 5speed manual, it burned oil, but oils cheap and easy to get.
Dad wanted one of these but Mum put her foot down when she saw the price and he bought an Allegro.Nice find they must be pretty scarce in America today
Very nice article. I’m amazed any of these 100’s remain – in the early 80’s, at least in central Ohio, these things had a higher “found on the side of the road” quotient than almost any other car.
I recall seeing these new. Mom bought a new 74 LeMans from Don Ayres Pontiac in Fort Wayne, which had begun selling 2 other little-known lines: Audi and Honda. I knew nothing about either of them. When Mom got a loaner during some service work on the LeMans, I was hoping to try one of the Audis. Silly boy, I did not realize how expensive they were. I was used to small foreign cars being inexpensive. We got a Honda Civic as a loaner instead.
I always really liked the looks of these. A shame about the brakes and other service woes.
Your experience is similar to my introduction to Honda and the Civic. My buddy’s dad cracked up his ’70 Ninety-Eight and received a Civic as a loaner / rental from the Olds emporium that had recently started carrying them. The tiny white car with a black interior was quite a novelty in my world. We were about 11 and spent time in it messing with most of the bits that worked without a key. That included the wipers and radio at minimum. Giving Honda its due, they survived our abuse.
My friend’s dad was over 6′ and pretty big. He couldn’t stand the Civic. He borrowed a Ford pickup from the motor pool at the construction company he worked for until his car was ready, and returned the Civic to the dealer.
A friend of mine had a bluish grey 100 LS new. Very comfortable and pretty interior. A mechanical mess.
Last time I saw an early Audi was 81, and doubly rare as it was a Super 90, rather than a 100.
I have seen scores of Audi 100 horror stories, including the one that the company stopped providing parts support in an effort to get them off the road due to the damage they did to the company’s reputation.
I’ll say this for the 1973 Audi, it’s certainly handsome.
Fantastic-looking cars, though I’ve never seen one on the road (or anywhere else for that matter). Sounds like they lived in that dangerous range of “ambitious technology” without the time and expertise to have made it particularly reliable.
I saw one of these parked on the street in an old photo taken in the early 80’s, but the nose of the car was out of the frame and I could only see from roughly the A-pillar back. It took me quite a while to figure out what i was looking at, as the roofline did indeed look like a W108 or W114 Benz, but the rest of the body did decidedly not, and the general shape of this car had not joined my “mental catalogue”.
Total junkers from new ~ .
When two years old you could buy them for $500 tops in running condition but not for long .
Pick-A-Part Junk Yards were full of them for a while , mostly got crushed 100 % intact .
-Nate
From 1969-71 I had a part-time and summer job working for a large foreign car importer at Baltimore’s Dundalk Marine Terminal. A great job, we got to drive the cars from shipside all over the terminal, then loaded most of them onto tri-level railroad cars for shipping off to distant dealerships. 90% of what we handled were VW Beetles, but I recall in 1970 or so when these first appeared. They had a sticker on the back window that said “Howdy, it’s an Audi”, to introduce the pronunciation.
Anyway, my 19 year old self was not impressed. About the same price as a loaded full size Olds or Buick, but much smaller, with a freaking 4 cylinder to boot! The engine was buzzy and the interior about as luxurious as the stripper Nova I had at the time. Even worse was the Super 90 that looked like it was styled in Soviet Russia. What American would ever buy these.
Have to give Audi credit though, they stuck with it and 15 years later 5000’s were everywhere and were really quite nice. Then, when punched in the gut over the unintended acceleration flap, they again rose from the ashes and are now viable competitors to BMW and Mercedes.
Good idea to have the pronunciation sticker.. In Britain everyone rhymed it with ‘gaudy’ until a TV ad campaign put us right.
By the way.. It’s Jag-you-er.. not Jagwar!
;o)
I owned a 1971 Audi super 90 back in 1976.
I used it once in awhile to pull a small Jaco brand pop-up trailer, think it only had 85 to 90 HP. I thought it was a flimsily made car compared to US cars at the time.
The front CV joints where a real weak point, it had inboard front disc brakes.
The Chicago salt destroyed the under carriage, so I sold it cheap.
Now think it was a rare model imported to the USA. “.few and far between”
only saw one other way back then abandoned at the curb.
Any info would be appreciated?
I had one a 1973 silver grayish coupe with a nice dark blue interior w/automatic transmission I bought in 1986 while stationed in the late Ft Ord near Monterey CA a hotbed of Audi’s back in that day. I bought it from an old German accented man who lived in a boathouse behind his daughter in Seaside CA for $800.00 . It drove but had a bad engine seal and was generally neglected under the hood, leaky exhaust , rotted fuel lines , etc which appeared to fail when I was on the road ! Well the interior was well preserved in the cool Monterey CA weather. It also had the famous battery under the rear seat design which when the alternator failed I went to a place called “Auditorium” in Seaside CA with a name like that how could I go wrong…well the pro’s at Auditorium installed the wrong alternator and charged me a premium price if I recall and the battery started smoking while I was driving back to base on Highway one damn near choking me out it was 11:00PM and no traffic I rolled the widows down and finally got her home. The Audi experts did not want to pay to replace the alternator or my shot battery but they finally did after I would not leave. Great car got me up and down the pacific coast highway up to S.F. and almost down to Mexico . Yet because of engine seal leaks required more and more oil which I kept at least 3 quarts all time. In 89 I had to get a new car for a job which had long distance commutes and the apartment landlords towed it away for being in the visitors spot. I never did know what happened to the old Audi but I sure did enjoy my time with that 1973 100 LS
Audis were good looking cars back then, but they were fragile compared to American made vehicles. Also road salt destroyed them much faster.
I was attending San Jose State the late ’70’s, and a hot car among exchange students was the BMW 2002. BMW was coming on very strong at that time. The Audi 100LS was also very popular as a less expensive alternative. The introduction of the 320i really boosted BMW’s popularity. I was smitten with the Audi Fox and the BMW Bavaria, but never made the move. My brother bought a new 320i in 1980,and put 250,000 miles on it.
These early Audis developed a reputation for fragility and short service life. The “unintentional acceleration” fiasco almost killed off the brand in the U.S. It’s amazing that the company survived, and was able to come back as a popular aspirational design.
I keep looking for Foxes on CL, but haven’t seen one in many, many, many, years. Every once in a while a Bavaria or 320i, will pop up, but I’m (finally!) too smart to think about buying one.
They, along with BMW, did spread the gospel of tasteful design, good driving dynamics, and sensible size with the American public. So they fulfilled their mission.
A fraternity brother had one. Most unreliable car I’ve seen.
I remember them way back when, when they were current or recent and initially at least regarded as a viable option for an upmarket American car, think Buick or maybe even Cad territory. Ironically as I will do nothing but flame domestic cars from the early 70s, the 100LS was much worse.
OK styling for the era, FWD made for good space utilization, but hand grenade reliability. Curiously a friend/neighbor had several when I bought my first BMW, a Bavaria, a basket case really, but with similar styling, size and market target. He kept telling me it was just as good. Except it wasn’t. Looked as good or better on the outside, but they were always down it seemed like, and he was a gearhead too, like myself. And they were slow. Fragile mechanically. Seems like the heads were a problem too, don’t recall if it was the casting or the belt driving it or the valvetrain or what. Even here in Calif where there are lots of old cars, at least the ones the smog laws haven’t claimed, they’ve been gone for years now. Decades maybe. I’ll still see a Bavaria every once in a great while, but a 100LS? Never.
Cars didn’t have the turn the key, do nothing else and expect it to go 100K reliability back then, but the Audi 100LS was extreme in lacking that capability. My friend/neighbor with the Audis? I moved, lost touch, then saw him a couple of years later, driving a BMW Bavaria. He didn’t really say much, just shook his head when I asked about the Audis.
Conceptually they weren’t bad cars, they just broke, early and often.
Years after this posted last and I still havent seen another example since that car in WA and euro cars are not rare here, I saw 3 C6s in one place last month, Tatra finds them one at a time.