Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Audi A3

1373840424373

Comments

  • rjlaerorjlaero Posts: 659
    +1 on that note.

    Audi has a few pics of the new 3.2 DSG on their website right now. Considering the 3.2 DSG model will have the upgraded S Line package as standard equiptment (which is a $2750 - $3000 option on the A4 and A6's) that makes the 3.2 DSG quattro a pretty good value in my book.

    The Edmuds crowd is full of nitpickers who analyze prices to death. Cars are getting more expensive every day as front wheel drive V6 hondas and toyotas are pushing 30 grand. A loaded up 2WD 150hp Jetta can hit 27 grand. You people need to get real on prices and production costs.
  • wale_bate1wale_bate1 Posts: 1,986
    Somone tell me how a 3.2Q A3 will be on sale here in CA, and yet a 2006 TT 3.2 doesn't meet emissions standards?

    Me no get it. :confuse:
  • I don't think what some of us are doing here is nit-picking. Truth is, people have different priorities when shopping for cars. Like blueguy, I could care less about an S-line package. Sports suspension? Yes. Others love cosmetic details that set a model or special edition apart from the standard look and are willing to pay a lot of money for that.

    Right now, Audi is going full out towards shoppers who like to max out their cars --- engine, AWD, DSG, looks, features --- with the 3.2 A3.

    I am more a guy who looks at the specs, performance, and what I get for the money. If the 2.0TFSI A3 does not receive quattro within the next 9 months or so, I may not buy the A3 but go for the 4-door GTI instead, or buy an entirely different make.

    Time will tell which way Audi can sell more cars, and whether the entire 3.2 thing was worth the effort on this model. Sure, if you don't offer the 2.0quattro initially, you can sell a few more 3.2s initially. In the long run, playing with customers like that leaves nothing but bad taste and may not bring in a penny more to Audi.

    The California emissions questions is interesting in the context that no one has confirmed or denied at this point whether the 3.2 will be FSI - to my knowledge. The new 3.2 in the European Passat (which is also transversely mounted) is FSI.
  • We're in the same boat. I just saw pics of an Aussie guy's Lava Grey A3 2.0T Quattro at Vortex and I'm green with envy. Until that moment I wasn't sure that was exactly the car I'd like to replace my 330i. It is!

    Room, style, a great engine, a good drive system, 4 year warranty...the complete package.

    And totally unattainable in the USA. Yet Australia, a nation with rampant unemployment, a horrid economy and fewer than 25 million people gets this car?! Something is definitely screwy at Audi's HQ.
  • sure sending a letter to Lexus complaining didn't change anything but I'd rather have my voice heard. So Audi got a letter from me requesting they release a 2.0T Quattro. If Australia can get it, why can't we?
  • A Speed Shop, located near my home, has offered to design, build, and install an exhaust system for my 5 week old A3......FREE OF CHARGE!!! The new system would then be a prototype and allow the Shop to duplicate and market it to other A3 owners throughout the region/nation. My dilemma: What effect will the new Exhaust system have on my Factory Warranty? I've called 3 Service Managers from 3 different Dealers. Two Mgrs. advised that an exhaust mod COULD negate my Warranty if engine problems developed. A third ( from a distant Dealer] advised that 'Exhaust mods are very commonplace on Audis and do not present a Warranty problem'. He further stated ' It sounds like you've got a great deal'.
    I would appreciate any experience based comments. Bill H.
  • Well I think all of us would like to see the 2.0 in quattro. Especially at the dealer level here in the northeast. Don't get my wrong the front trac is great and does a good job in the snow and wet conditions. But the main problems here is that Audi wants to have a Sub 30k in their line up that will bring a new segment to the market that they have never had, and the 2.0T does that right now. If you Add quattro 1500-2000 to the car it puts it over that and puts it to close to the 3.2 quattro. And I see people talking about add weight, well no matter what car you add quattro to you are going to be adding weight. The 2.0T is not going to be here any time within the next year. I work for a dealer and we have a whole years worth of productions dates and releases and the 2.0T quattro is not one of them. So don't hold your bearth but do give the 3.2 a fair try, I know you will love the engine especially fitted with the DSG. To any of you who have question out there let me know and I will see what I can do to get answers for you.
  • Where did you see the photos of the new 3.2 Quattro, I only see one small photo on the A3 main page?

    Dave in VA :confuse:
  • If you Add quattro 1500-2000 to the car it puts it over that and puts it to close to the 3.2 quattro

    Quattro would make the car cost 27-28k. That's a far cry from the 34k of the 3.2. Add in sport and you're still under 30k. xenons and it's 31k.
    And I see people talking about add weight, well no matter what car you add quattro to you are going to be adding weight.

    The quattro system adds 150-200 lbs. A hit no doubt but the benefits are immediately obvious...the car will no longer suffer from FWD.

    he 2.0T is not going to be here any time within the next year. I work for a dealer and we have a whole years worth of productions dates and releases and the 2.0T quattro is not one of them. So don't hold your bearth but do give the 3.2 a fair try, I know you will love the engine especially fitted with the DSG. To any of you who have question out there let me know and I will see what I can do to get answers for you.

    The 3.2 is added weight and it's less powerful than a chipped 2.0 so it's a lose, lose. You now have a snout that's more unbalanced, plus the car has less power and worse handling than a 2.0T Quattro. This reminds me of the old VR6/1.8T issue. Drive the cars back to back and you feel that bigger engine as if someone were sitting on the hood. mix a chip into the mix and the V6 becomes just an albatross.
  • ivan_99ivan_99 Posts: 1,676
    Plus, as I always like to point out, if you take either to higher altitudes the 2.0T will deliver the same amount of power, 200hp. At 5280 feet the 3.2 will only be making 215hp (at 7000 it makes around 200hp). Not to suggest everybody is at 5280 feet above sea level.

    If I lived in Denver the only reason I would go for the 3.2 is perhaps it would be more refined (stretching here).
  • dino001dino001 Tampa, FLPosts: 3,522
    I think you're forgetting about AWD, which would be a much more important reason to get 3.2 in Denver, since 2.0T does not offer it. Of course, if you are ready for fork over that outrageous amount of money they ask for.

    2012 BMW 328i wagon, manual and sports package. No. sold in the US: 1. Probably.

  • ivan_99ivan_99 Posts: 1,676
    I was going under the hypothetical situation where a 2.0T Quattro was available…only a dream.
  • Sorry, but with all due respect, this one I can't let go:

    But the main problems here is that Audi wants to have a Sub 30k in their line up that will bring a new segment to the market that they have never had, and the 2.0T does that right now. If you Add quattro 1500-2000 to the car it puts it over that and puts it to close to the 3.2 quattro.

    A 2.0TSI quattro would be well below 30K even with sports suspension, which includes leather. If I understand correctly, market placement in Germany and Australia is such that if you choose quattro on this model, you'll have to take the manual. This may also be related to the first generation DSG, which may not like the added AWD traction. At any rate, it's almost an even exchange: about the same price, whether you chose quattro or DSG. This is likely the best explanation why the US is not seeing this, at the moment - better than fuel tank re-alignment and certification issues, or cost issues. It was deemed that the triple-niche market {hatchback:manual:AWD} was too small in the US.

    And I see people talking about add weight, well no matter what car you add quattro to you are going to be adding weight.

    The weight difference between the DSG FWD and manual AWD is ~130lbs --- and most of that is in the center and over the rear axle, giving the car a better front/rear weight distribution. This is less than 5% and clearly not enough to take away from the cars performance. Add another 60lbs or so for DSG (although currently not available, in this combination).

    The 2.0T is not going to be here any time within the next year. I work for a dealer and we have a whole years worth of productions dates and releases and the 2.0T quattro is not one of them.

    Unfortunately, I have been around long enough to hear that many times. All VW dealers I knew claimed until a few weeks before arrival that the 1.8T Passat 4Motion would never come... Once the 3.2 bombs and the 4-door GTI even as much as threatens to take away sales from the A3, it will come unless sales numbers for the 2.0TSFI drop significantly below expectations. At any rate, as I have said before, this whole thing is a self-fulfilling prophecy that does not look too good for AoA, at the moment.

    So don't hold your bearth but do give the 3.2 a fair try, I know you will love the engine especially fitted with the DSG.

    But almost everyone I know does not want this car with a 3.2. Trying it is not going to make me dish out an extra $6-7K that I don't want to pay, not even speaking about its weight and fuel consumption. I'd rather buy a 170hp Diesel or 1.4l twin-charged TFSI than that engine. I used to be in the minority, but times have changed in the US even for buyers of "upscale" cars. It's time AoA get with the program.

    Last not least, what if I don't want the DSG? How much is AoA trying to shove into my ... mouth?
  • Its great that all of you guys are looking it base prices of the car. The 3.2 is coming with a lot more equipment base than the 2.0T. 2.0T with premium package and cold weather package is (most closely equiped to the 3.2) is 30,035. 3.2 base car is 33,940+700 for cold weather is 34 640. that gives us a difference of about 4600 not 6 to 7k difference. Have you ever driven a tt 3.2? Just think of that car with the A3 body on it. I think its a great car, not that it wouldn't be great to have a 2.0t with quattro. Car would sell like hot cakes! But we have to be real with ourselves, we are lucky to have what we have in our market. The US has not done very well with hatchback type vechiles or wagons at all. So for us to have the A3 here to being with is great.
  • wale_bate1wale_bate1 Posts: 1,986
    Well, I hear ya, and I'm more interested in the 3.2Q and its attendent junk, but I understand completely where these other enthusiasts are coming from. I think Audi is missing a chunk of core audience by not giving the 2.0T a Haldex set up here in the States.

    For a lot of people I think, much of the equipment on the 3.2Q will be superfluous; some of it will be for me. I like the bulk of what I see though, and as I said before, a $36K-$38K tag won't scare me off. The arguments about an A4's pricing for comparison doesn't wash for me: I'd prefer the smaller package handsomely fitted out. Small = good. Bigger = not-as-good. For me.

    If I'm going to accept a bigger car, then I'm going the full Monty and popping for the S4 Avant.

    What I don't understand is buying a FWD Audi... ;)
  • wco81wco81 Posts: 495
    Better mileage, rarely if ever driving in bad weather.

    Although Tahoe could be tempting.
  • wale_bate1wale_bate1 Posts: 1,986
    Two words:

    Folks Wagon.
    ;)
  • Have you ever driven a tt 3.2? Just think of that car with the A3 body on it.

    TT is on a different platform. and the 3.2 is heavier than the 2.0 by a long shot. You're not getting how nose weight is anything but positive. Putting the premium and winter package on the A3 3.2 does not endear many of us to the car as many of us are 2.0T Q people with the sport package. In my eyes the 34-5k is WAY too close to the cost of a e90 330i with sport, leather, comfort, moon, xenons (41k msrp, 35k euro delivery). 30k I can put up with an audi that's a wagon, 34k or higher, there is no way for me to reconcile getting a little wagon over a solid performing sedan.

    think its a great car, not that it wouldn't be great to have a 2.0t with quattro. Car would sell like hot cakes! But we have to be real with ourselves, we are lucky to have what we have in our market. The US has not done very well with hatchback type vechiles or wagons at all. So for us to have the A3 here to being with is great.

    I don't buy the hatchback argument at all. Mazda's moving 7-8k Mazda3s a month. VW sells the golf/GTI and the R32 sold out totally. Not sure of the WRX numbers but i know they move hatches too. There is a market for high performance near-luxury hatches. VW knows this from experience with the R32.
  • I don't buy the hatchback argument at all. Mazda's moving 7-8k Mazda3s a month. VW sells the golf/GTI and the R32 sold out totally. Not sure of the WRX numbers but i know they move hatches too. There is a market for high performance near-luxury hatches. VW knows this from experience with the R32.

    Totally agree.

    Subaru sells about 3000 a month in the Impreza line. Four different models, at that, three different engines (Impreza, Impreza Outback, WRX, STi). Add another 4000 units or so for the Forester (two engines). All of them AWD and competitively priced. What was that again about the high cost of certification?

    If you widen the scope, don't forget about all the Matrices and Scions and Elements and whatnot. That is, there are lots of people out there who don't think there is anything wrong with owning hatchbacks or small wagons. Audi just seems to think none of those owners wants to move up...
  • Its great that all of you guys are looking it base prices of the car. The 3.2 is coming with a lot more equipment base than the 2.0T. 2.0T with premium package and cold weather package is (most closely equiped to the 3.2) is 30,035.

    Thanks for your comments, but I don't think you can honestly say that I am shopping for a base car. The 2.0TFSI with sports package (17" alloys, leather, sports suspension, front fogs, sport seats), cold weather package, and convenience package (not that I have decided on the latter) is $28,635 when I use the Audi configurator. $675 less without the convenience package. Again, considering the fact that the 2.0 can be had $1K under MSRP, a $6-7K difference in street prices, in my books.

    I think what could generate excitement and would truly distinguish the 6cyl. A3 would be the 280 hp, 265 lb-ft 3.6 from the Passat. Seems that in this case, VW knew better where the competition is --- at times when every family car seems to have a version that carries 250+hp --- and how much more you have to offer with the next engine to make it appear like a worthwhile step up.
  • ivan_99ivan_99 Posts: 1,676
    Not that I disagree totally with the concept of hatches being popular, but what is the sale price of these Subaru’s, Golfs etc. I would think, just conjecture here, that the A3 is a higher $ selling vehicle.

    I too think that once you start getting in the 30’s, other things catch my eye…325i; 3 liter inline six…nice.

    3.6L…VW/Audi should take Nissan’s lead with their VQ engine and shove their 3.6L in everything they can; even if the majority doesn’t option it with the bigger engine.
  • Not that I disagree totally with the concept of hatches being popular, but what is the sale price of these Subaru’s, Golfs etc.

    A WRX unlimited lists at 28K+. A Forester XT starts at 28k also. GTIs start in the lows 20s while the R32 sold for over 30k.

    I would think, just conjecture here, that the A3 is a higher $ selling vehicle.

    Nice conjecture but only the Matrix/Vibe/Mazda3 consistently sell for much less than the A3/Forester/WRX/R32s. A 25-30k A3 is right in the mix with the others...
  • ivan_99ivan_99 Posts: 1,676
    Well if those are the prices, I’d expect, or anticipate, that he A3 would be a very good seller.

    I can’t imaging going for a Subaru if I could go for an Audi at a comparable price.
  • dino001dino001 Tampa, FLPosts: 3,522
    It is all priorities. Subaru still has AWD arguably as good or better that Torsen on A4/A6/A8. Audi decided American consumers are not worthy even of Haldex on A3 2.0.

    WRX is also quite a bit faster and with 2.5 turbo lag is now about same as on Audi (i.e. close to none). Granted A3 is nicer inside (just gorgeous), but just take a test-drive in WRX and you may not be so sure anymore.

    2012 BMW 328i wagon, manual and sports package. No. sold in the US: 1. Probably.

  • WRX is also quite a bit faster and with 2.5 turbo lag is now about same as on Audi (i.e. close to none). Granted A3 is nicer inside (just gorgeous), but just take a test-drive in WRX and you may not be so sure anymore.

    Uh, no it's not. The WRX is a mid 6 second car. The A3 is continually tested to run 6.3-6.5 0-60 runs. And the WRX, while fun, is totally boy racer and lacking in any refinement or polish (ditto the Legacy GT 2.5).

    The A3 you can take when you go somewhere nice or stay at a ritz carlton and not feel like you're the schlub. A WRX stands out as a cartoony boy racer car in those places.
  • wale_bate1wale_bate1 Posts: 1,986
    WRX is a serious performer and a value and no two ways.

    I just can't live with the outside. Subie's still in the love it or hate it column in my book when it comes to packaging. On the inside, well, OMG; hello Audi!

    I think my yen for aesthetics (which I will never again deny) would drive me to Audi in an either/or scenario.
  • ivan_99ivan_99 Posts: 1,676
    just take a test-drive in WRX

    Specs certainly seem impressive…just can’t bring myself to drive one. The looks just don’t do it for me (actually turn me off).

    Performance is one of my top requirements, but the looks/styling has to come up to a certain level...otherwise it vetos the whole car (Sub B9, Tribeca is the only Subie that I think looks good)

    So in essence…I’d rather go slower and look good; how much slower is debatable..
  • dhanleydhanley Posts: 1,531
    The thing about the WRX is it's one of those cars that's a blast if you drive it hard, but can be annoying in regular traffic conditions due to the turbo lag, harsh ride, general noisiness, etc. An a3 is more entertaining at 6/10, which is where we spend a lot of our time. Of course, on a track, the subie wins.
  • dino001dino001 Tampa, FLPosts: 3,522
    New WRX has no longer turbo lag (larger engine). Ride is actually better than usually is on Audi/VW's sports package suspensions (I don't know A3, but surely A4, Jetta, or Passat are harsher).

    I drive my old one ('03) wagon (comparable size and room) every day and got used to the turbo lag (again not present in 06), but it is not the best "feature" admittedly. Noise and cheap interior (esp. before '05) are undeniable. But I paid $23.5K for mine (plus accessories), not $28K+ and got AWD in it :P .

    Must admit though - today would probably run back and forth between dealerships and test it back to back.

    By the way - street boy racer - just not fair (STI - perhaps, but not wagon version). And Legacy GT - that's plain malice.

    2012 BMW 328i wagon, manual and sports package. No. sold in the US: 1. Probably.

  • dhanleydhanley Posts: 1,531
    Well,been in the new WRX, still disagree with you about the ride/lag. Nice car, tho.
Sign In or Register to comment.