Audi A3

rjlaero

Base Price for 3.2 DSG Quattro A3:

$33,980 (plus 720 destination)


Cold Weather: 700
Sat. Radio: 350
Open Sky: 1100
Bi Xenon: 800
Navigation: 1,950
Bluetooth: 435
Metallic Paint: 450
18 inch wheels: 1,000
Premium Leather: 800

wale_bate1

Where'd you get that?

Thanks.

kyfdx

Wow!!

If that is right... $9K extra for DSG, 3.2 V-6 and Quattro....

I'm sure a higher level of standard equipment, as well... but, shewwwwww!!!

wale_bate1

It also means going about $38K with the stuff I'd option.

For another $17K, I can have a new S4 Avant just the way I want it. Oh my.

I suppose I could always surrender to my geriatric onslaught and get an IS350...

kyfdx

Can you get an A4 Avant 2.0T Quattro? I bet that would under $40K, completely loaded...

I'd be tempted to go that directions... Don't you get the Torsen Quattro with the A4, instead of the Haldex? (or did I just mix those two up?).

regards,
kyfdx

wale_bate1

You got 'em right. You know, after reading a bit on the Haldex, aside from the obvious disadvantage of FWD bias, it seems to be the more impressive system.

No, I really think if I'm going to go up to the A4 platform, then I'm gonna shoot the wad and get a real Thunderbolt Grease Slapper. It may not be sensible per se, but I think if I'm going to get serious muscle, I ought to do it while I still have reaction times under the ICU inductee levels.

rjlaero

A 2.0T DSG loaded with everything including Navigation is about $34,500. The same 3.2 Quattro w/ Navi will be about 39k. $4500 is a resonable difference. It appears that the V6 will have things like leather and the bose 6CD as standard equiptment.

And the 3.2 DSG Quattro is supposed to have an S Line package as standard equiptment. So it should look pretty sweet.

kyfdx

Well... see.. I really like that new 2.0T engine... It would be plenty for me... I just have to have Quattro with it...

The old 1.8T was just too doggy, especially with Quattro...

I'd take the A3 with 2.0T and Quattro... if that isn't available (and it isn't), I think I'd rather have the A4 2.0TQ, than pay out for the 3.2Q A3..

The S4 isn't even a speck on the horizon for me... Before we'd get that, I'm sure my wife would have us in an A4 3.2Q convertible....

Shewww... I'm all A'd and Q'd out..

wale_bate1

"...I think I'd rather have the A4 2.0TQ, than pay out for the 3.2Q A3..."

That, my friend, may be the exactly the insight that becomes the King's horse's shoe's nail.

Charge!

blueguydotcom

Wow, so with 18s, xenons and a moonroof it's over 37k! My god they're on crack.

Sigh...that blasted european delivery 330i is calling my name again. Argh.

miniguy

Went in and ordered the wifes new A3, with every option they have, it came out to $35,235, but we got it for $33.5. My one question they didn't know the answer to, do we have to order Bluetooth, it didn't show up on the order system they had supposedly, so maybe on of you guys know. We got the Bose and the Nav system, so does it come with that, or the Premium package?

Also, for a factory order they're telling me that it won't be in till January, that seems kind of long for a car without a waiting list. It only took me 4 months to get my Cooper S in 2002, and they were quite a bit more popular.

rjlaero

Just like S4's and other high performance cars, not everybody can afford a 3.2 DSG Quattro A3. But I have no doubt Audi will have no problem selling every one of the 3.2's as they'll be somewhat limited production.

A 330i is no cheap alternative to anything. BMW's pricey options will have your checkbook working overtime.

dino001

Your're right A4 is Torsen, A3 is Haldex. No comparison IMHO. 38K+ for A3 3.2 with Haldex is simply insane if you consider alternatives. Contentwise (i.e "stuff") , loaded A4 2.0T, 325, not to mention Acura or upcoming Saab 9-3 Aero Wagon are better deals.

The ony excuse one may have is "I don't like larger cars" or "I really like the styling", or "I just have to have DSG". It is legitimate, just outside of "value" department.

blueguydotcom

A 330i is no cheap alternative to anything. BMW's pricey options will have your checkbook working overtime.

Actually it is. 330i with metallic paint, leather, sport, xenons, 18s, moon, comfort access via ED is 36-36.5k.

BTW, it's not a matter of affording the car, it's a matter of value. A 3.2 DSG A4 with everything shouldn't top 35k, imho. Audi priced the aA3 2.0 about 2k too high but the 3.2 is a good 4k too high starting. It's a fun car but not a car worth almost 40k loaded.

shipo

Speaking of the Saab 93 SportCombi, I was driving around at lunch yesterday checking out the area surrounding the new offices that my current main client just had us move in to. As it turned out there was a Saab dealership right next to the bank that I was headed toward, so I stopped in. The good news is that they have a Fusion Blue 93 SportCombi due in next Saturday equipped with a 5-Speed Manual, Premium Package, Sun Roof, Cold Weather Package, and Roof Rails, and assuming that they haven't sold it before then (their other inbound SportCombis have automatic trannies and are all sold), I’ve been invited back for a test drive.

So, what's the rub? I just bought a Razr last week and the Saab isn't scheduled to have BlueTooth anytime in the 2006 model year.

A couple of comments:
1) Assuming that the Saab 93 Sedan has a similar amount of interior space as the SportCombi (excepting rear of the back seats of course), it seems that when compared to the A3, the Saab has more overall interior room (head, shoulders and hips), however, the leg room (my biggest issue as my kids ride in back and like lots of leg room) seems to be substantially greater in the A3.
2) As previously mentioned, the A3 has (or will very shortly have) BlueTooth as an option (although according to some sources it's a standard feature).
3) I think I like the dashboard and console layout and instrumentation of the A3 better, however, I will have to wait for my test drive for a more definitive comparison.
4) The front seat area in the A3 has a more cockpitish feeling than the more spacious feel of the Saab. I'm not saying one is better than the other here, they are just different. I'm thinking that due to the AWD capabilities of the A3, the console is higher up to make room for the drive train, and that is probably what makes the difference.
5) The A3 has a 6-Speed manual, the SportCombi is only a 5-Speed manual, I prefer the 6-Speed.

I'll keep y'all posted.

Best Regards,
Shipo

dino001

2.0T comes with 5 speed and Aero comes with 6 speed manuals. 2.0T beats A3 on price/content, Aero probably on performance/content (lots of "stuff" standard). Aero will beat 3.2 Q DSG on price. I suspect similar reliability (or lack thereof), unless Audi makes huge progress, which we will see.

But... it's a Saab - acquired taste for some and no AWD at all. We all are preaching the same thing: get me 2.0 Quattro, lower price slightly and you have a blockbuster. Will they listen? Of course not.

I suspect it is like previous BMW 318it or MB 230: nobody really wants it except some Hans or Jurgen in the headquarters. So the rest simply goes along and hopes it will die on its own. If they can put some sticks into between the spokes (like overpricing the car), it is even better. Hans/Jurgen will be fired for "wrong concept" and everybody can go back to sleep with their sedans

radfahren

Why does Audi not import diesel motors to the US? With the recent increase in fuel costs it seems it may be worth considering. Just returned from Germany and renting the A3 Sportwagon 2.0TDI. Great car and the fuel mileage was fantastic. We got 100 Km on 5.5 liters consistently. I'd really like to have this motor here in the US. Import?

dino001

It's all about emission certification. Europe has totally different than US. I don't remember which is which, but one puts emphasis on Nitrogen emission, another on Sulfur. Translation: what is acceptable in Europe would not pass US (and vice versa) in diesel technology. Diesel-propelled passenger cars are banned in some states (CA, NY?).

Another problems is that higher mpg savings are offset by diesel fuel being generally more expensive than regular gasoline (except some freak periods of some supply disruptions). In Europe diesel fuel is 20-40% cheaper than gas.

Diesel engine is also more expensive to manufacture (high compression ratios require more massive heads) and maintain. It pays off by longevity, but who cares about that when most people in US drive their cars for less than 5 years?

Therefore, it is really a wash in US, unlike in Europe where system is set up to prefer diesels, especially in larger than compact category. In US it is sort of same false economy as hybrid are now (lower at the pump, higher everywhere else).

rjlaero

You have to compare apples to apples. Not 2wd drive cars to Quattro. DSG automatics to cheaper manuals. BMW charges you $1200 for Servotronic steering, it's standard in the A3.

You can run the tab to $48,000 for an all wheel drive 255hp 3 series with navi, automatic, active steering, and every option. So it's all relative in the options you pick out. You can get the 340hp V8 quattro S4 w/ navi and almost every option for 54-55k.

wale_bate1

I don't thnk they're that far off, frankly. I'd say $1500-$2000 or so as far as list price goes. What actual sale will be we shall see.

But dino pegged me. Not "must have" at all, but seriously compelling: styling inside and out is hard to match IMO, size is perfect and bigger is definitely not better for me (how I ended up looking at the car in the first place), and I'm very hip to this DSG thang.

blueguydotcom

You have to compare apples to apples. Not 2wd drive cars to Quattro.

Well I prefer RWD. Quattro is a massive step backward for me but I would be willing to put up with it in the lighter 2.0T A3. There is only one advantage to Quattro - it's not FWD.

DSG automatics to cheaper manuals.

Prefer a manual anyway. Shrug, so again this is not a bonus.

BMW charges you $1200 for Servotronic steering, it's standard in the A3.

I'd rather avoid BMW's active steering as long as humanly possible. Call me old fashioned but I don't want electric steering and servos.

You can run the tab to $48,000 for an all wheel drive 255hp 3 series with navi, automatic, active steering, and every option. So it's all relative in the options you pick out.

Precisely. I wrote exactly what I want - leather, moon, xenons, sport. Don't want FWD, automatics, navi, AWD, servotronic steering.

For my money the 37-38k of an A3 with the equipment i want - xenons, moon, leather, sport is way overpriced for a car that has a lesser drivetrain and far less agility.

You can get the 340hp V8 quattro S4 w/ navi and almost every option for 54-55k.

That's random. wouldn't touch an S4 for 30k, let alone 50k. Not my kinda car. Overweight, wrong wheel drive, poorly balanced, poor driving position, poor gas mileage and an all around yucky car, imho.

Holding out for a 2.0T quattro..ideally priced sub 30k. Add in the required options, push the price to 32k and I can stomach paying that much for a VW product.

miniguy

Check out a Jetta GLI, with all options, it's only about 2k cheaper than the Audi, and you can definitely tell where the 2k went in the interior, plus the A3 looks better on the outside too.

But an R36 Jetta Wagon...Hmm, rumor has it that the R32 is going to Europe and we're getting the Passat/Toureg/Cayenne 280HP engine in the Golf R36, stretch for a Jetta? Plus the wagon version wouldn't look like a Corolla.

rjlaero

Can't see how "quattro" is a massive step back for anybody. But that's up to you.

Rear wheel drive BMW's are quite fun to drive in good weather, but take your RWD car on the back roads and twisties, or @ 70 MPH down the freeway when it's pouring down raining, and it won't be a massive step back in keeping your car glued to the road. And for those people who live in snow, slush, and crappy weather for 6 months of the year, it ain't a "massive" step back for them.

You're obviously a BMW guy and hate Audi products from your S4 bashing as well. The 4.2 S4 is one of the highest rated and regarded high performace cars by the automotive community & press. The M3 is a fine car in it's own right I give credit wherever it's due. BMW makes some very sweet cars. Sorry you think the S4 is "yucky".

shipo

Hmmm, I'm guessing that I must be a bit twisted as well. Why? I live in snowy and hilly New Hampshire and I prefer RWD over AWD as well. Any day, year round, rain or shine, snow or slush, give me a capable RWD car (and winter tires for the snowy months) and I'll be as happy as can be. Fortunately for the A3, I'm probably going to need to buy a car before the 1-Series BMW makes it over to our side of the pond, assuming that it ever does.

Best Regards,
Shipo

wale_bate1

RWD would be my preference as well, if there were a wagon out there I could stomach. The E90 sure as hell ain't it. Why BMW insists on bringing the wrong motor and gumming it with AWD here in the States I'll never know.

As for back roads and freeway cruising at 70 in inclement weather, I do it now in RWD in perfect ease, comfort and control. Eagle F1 GS-D3s are all it takes.

No, Quattro is a step backward for me, but I don't see many other tolerable options out there right now. Straight FWD is out of the question, especially over 200hp. I've been there before.

As for BGDC's BMW thang, he thinks the steering in my car isn't up to snuff, and it's the most tossable little monster out there, so I take the S4 comments with a large boulder of salt. :P

Mullholland Dr., pink slips, my new S4 Avant, his 330, rain, shine or Santa Ana firestorm; his butt is toast.
:shades:

blueguydotcom

You are correct. the S4 would spank a 325/330i. I just don't like the A4's seating position, steering, etc. I'm not buying for what's the ultimate. Just for what I like.

We'll see as I may still end up in an A3 2.0. I'm deeply in love with Audi's 2.0T. Flipside I'm not totally crazy about the e90 330i but I like it more than everything else under 50k that I've driven.

A3, GTI and Mazdaspeed6 are still on the radar. IS250/350 is a longshot (being a bland buick clone isn't the problem...it's the lack of a manual).

kyfdx

One word: California...

If you are automatically excluded from 20% of the new car market, you just aren't going to bother with it...

When California allows diesels, we'll see a lot more of them..

regards,
kyfdx
Host-Prices Paid Forums
(not in California)

andys120

I've driven my E39 in pouring rain at speeds up to 80 w no problems on numerous occasions.

That "bad in rain and snow" stereotype goes back to the 60s when BMWs came with semi-trailing arm suspensions and were in fact dicey on slippery pavement. It doesn't apply to newer cars with modern suspensions, tires, ESP, TC, ABS etc.

Like Shipo I have no problems driving in winter with a set of good snows on my Fiver.

wale_bate1

CA isn't alone. We've a handful of other states that follow our emissions tack. Have y'all noticed that '06 TTs aren't available for CA and its emissions confederates? At least that's what the website said when I tried to use the configurator last week.

Should be interesting down the road so to speak. Based on emissions I doubt CA restrictions will change, regardless of sulphur levels, which makes more diesel availability tough. But the predicted trend for Europe (again based on emissions) is toward direct injected petrol engines with forced induction, and away from diesel. With the surge in prices, there may be consumer pressure for diesel though, and that should lead to some delightful Sacramento posturing...

RWD: I drove my '65 Olds 98 convertible from Bay Area to Lake Tahoe ski resorts and back on many snowy occasions. No biggie!

allhorizon

The joke about the CA and New England Diesel car emissions regulations is of course, that you can buy an extended-cab Diesel pick-up as your family car, which pollutes 3 times as much as the worst high-sulfur Diesel car - no problem. Also, US Diesel cars contribute almost nothing to pollution - simply because there are few of them, and they are outnumbered by almost unregulated (by European standards), extremely polluting trucks and busses. A look at this as well as the latest SUV fuel consumption regulations shows all of it is written from an extreme, protectionist viewpoint that ultimately hurts the US customer in terms of oil import dependence and pollution.

Both particulate and NOx emissions can be and have been dealt with in modern Diesel cars that run on low-Sulfur Diesel. I fear VW/Audi can only introduce them in high-selling cars in 2006/07 when the US Sulfur regulations change - probably not in cars like the A3 or the Golf. Looking at their latest non-registration of outgoing models and engines, it is quite clear that they are counting pennies and have set a fairly high sales limit at which point they think conformation testing and registration becomes profitable.

Let's hope that the twin charge engines are successful and make their way here, quickly.

sunilb

My one question they didn't know the answer to, do we have to order Bluetooth, it didn't show up on the order system they had supposedly, so maybe on of you guys know.

My understanding is that bluetooth is standard after 08/05, or so.

lovea3

Does anyone know the specs. for the Bose sound system. The manual says it is a 215-watt system, but what does that mean in terms of each speakers and the subwoofer?? Also, would getting an aftermarket amplier be a good idea to improve the sound quality, although it says it alreadys has a 225-watt bose amplifier.

dbt

There's a quote in this month's R&T [in the Letter from Japan]: "The ride of the Volkswagen Golf GTK with European sports suspension is too choppy in the city. [With] the DSG transmission ... when combined with a turbocharged engine, current settings are a little too sensitive under stop-and-go driving conditions."
Seeing as though the GolfGTK should be pretty similar to the A3 (right?), what are owners' impressions of the A3 in stop-and-go in the US?

Thanks.

dl7265

Saw a couple on the lot today in Dallas that had the stand alone Bluetooth, ukn production date, but they are on the street now..it was $435.00? or something.

on the foul weather RWD question , ive driven a E46 323i and now 325i E90 RWD and even with the runflats they stick to the road like glue, better than any FWD ive owned. A 83 T Bird with no traction control ect might be different..

DL

wale_bate1

Really depends on how high you want to crank it without experiencing distortion. I run a 1983 Peavey Commercial Series 100w amplifier at home through 1987 Infinity bookcase speakers (re-coned once) in both the family room and living room, and that can handle Haydn, Hiroshima and Van Halen with ease and delightful accuracy. Each channel also runs through a digital reverb unit, so I can vary the "room size" at will, but that's another story completely!

I would say for most who aren't interested in stereo wars on the boulevard on a Friday night, a 200+w system, be it Bose, HK, ML or even a couple different Delcos will peform to expectations.

The knock on Bose has never been distortion, but rather frequency response; "no highs, no lows, must be Bose. Hogwash mostly, but not entirely; an average to above-average ear will most likely be completely satisfied. Automotive audio is one of the best marketing gimmicks to ever come along, says I. ;-]

For dedicated brand audiophiles, YMMV, of course.

miniguy

I ordered a new A3 over the weekend and they're telling me that delivery will be in January, does anybody else think that's a little long? That's 90 days.

billherrmann

...figure about 10 weeks

bouldermax

I have an 06 A3 w/ bluetooth, but I have yet to upgrade to a bluetooth phone, because I still have unresolved questions, as you will see. Earlier today, my Audi salesguy (Ryan) came by my office in a 2007 RS4 (yes, you read correctly) and a Treo 650 (T-Mobile) to try a little test with my A3. BTW, the RS4 is a preproduction car and is AMAZING, but I am getting off track.... The RS4 has the exact same Nav head unit as my A3, but with a difference. Ryan showed me on the RS4 how the Nav system allows you to make calls (using the Nav controls), display call info, phonebook, etc. WITHOUT a cradle. Then, we used the same phone on my A3, and Bluetooth works (voice commands, etc.), but the Nav does NOT display any info, and all Nav controls are disabled. Ryan says the same issue occurs with the S4. Also, according to Ryan, the 2006 A6 Nav/bluetooth seems to work just like the new RS4. So.....anybody know what the deal is? Can the software on my Nav be upgraded to give me the same functionality as the RS4/A6, or do I have to use a cradle in order to get the Nav to work? And, if I get a cradle, will I get all the functionality that I saw today in the RS4? Arrgghh.....I just want a RAZR and NO CRADLE with full Nav functionality!

mapin

That's frustrating, looks like they disabled features on the A3 nav/bluetooth software. Let us know if you ever find anything out about that.

Another question that's concerned me is whether the bluetooth will be able to be upgraded to version 2.0 in the near future, or if you are stuck with whatever version it has now (1.2?). There's only two bluetooth 2.0 phone out on the market now that I'm aware of (sony ericsson K750 and W800), but that is likely to start changing in the next year or so.

mann9

3$8, 380 for everything I want but that puts it smack in the midst of other autos.
Still find this car to be sweet , even though not an Audi fan at all. Living out eastern LI where there are enough Audis on the road it always looks like a moving dealer supply lot roaming town to town. Now driving a G-35, which here is rare still which does make it nice,. might be better to wait for the next change or the future CX-35?

jtname

Is there any web site where I can down load the Audi A3 owners manual? I just wanted to take a look at it before buying the car.
Thanks, Justin

stikshift

yes it is. I just ordered and bought one in california.

jtname

where and how

dewey

Audi's shooting brake concept:

http://www.germancarfans.com/news.cfm/newsID/2051011.006/audi/1.html

This car is a "Beaut". If these are the styling cues for the new generation of A3s then I cant wait to see the new re-skinned A3 . Unfortunately , I will have to wait another 7 years and may become a bit impatient in counting the next 2,555 days until I see new one, so instead I hope the new A4 in 3 years will resemble the styling cues of the "braking concept".

I

wale_bate1

Little stunner, ain't it?

I like the elvoving grille a whole lot more than the current Audi cue. On the Brake it's getting smaller and seems much better integrated to me. I don't need the chrome though.

dewey

The size is perfect! Audi introduction of such a vehicle in N. America is dependent on the success of the A3 ! So far based on what I read the A3 is not doing too badly when compared to Audi expectations(though their expectations were quite low) !

The A3 is selling like hotcakes or should I say like Bratwurst in Europe!

andys120

The grille looks larger to me Wale, perhaps because there isn't even a blacked out cross-piece to mount a license plate to. That's completely impractical and would have to be changed for production.

I once got a Warning Ticket for running w/o a front plate.

Rumors I've seen peg the Shooting Brake as the replacement for the current TT, not the A3.

FWIW a little nit pick, it's not a "Braking concept", since it has nothing to do with
braking, it's a "brake concept" as in shooting brake ( a kind of cross between a
gran turismo and a station wagon.)

wale_bate1

No, no, no, friend Andy! That cross-piece is an eye-sore and must be mitigated. Just from a structural standpoint, if that piece is actually bumper continuation and therefore required structurally, it doesn't have to sit flush with the grille but could hide nicely right behind the uprights so not to confuse the surface. My opinion is that the current design, such as on the A3, is in part marred by that bit, which fails to integrate, as well as by the overall size of the opening. It's bugged me since day one on an otherwise outstanding family of beautiful cars. Just an opinion, but I think they could've done better.

This rhino-treatment:

just doesn't look as clean and coherent to me as this:


The chrome though doesn't do much for me at all. Matte black? Or maybe stainless mesh? Oooo, yeah, now we're talking!

Dear Audi: one A3 replacement grille in stainless mesh please, and hide the bumper!
:shades:

wale_bate1

I thought the Brake was just a variant for the TT? No?

I love it, but not at the expense of the coupe and roadster...

andys120

My guess is that you're right, it's a variant and they'll continue the roadster and the coupe. In fact I've seen sketches of the next gen coupe but I don't recall where.