I don't think you can change the mileage. What may happen is that you would be forced to purchase the vehicle upon the expiration of the lease because it would not make economic sense to walk away from the car and pay the mileage penalty.
The lease company will ask what the mileage is at the end of the lease, but I don't think they check the mileage. Usually, they much prefer that you keep the car.
Yes, you can get a different rate based on higher mileage. BMW tends to increase residual by a 1-2% based on a raise from 10 or 12k miles to 15k miles. Late in the lease you can buy miles at a reduced rate too...12-15 cents a pop.
If audi usa is like bmw, they want the car back. they'll resell it as a marked-up certified pre-owned.
I lease for four reasons: 1. I get bored around 24 months and enjoy 12 months of shopping/anticipation 2. I can legitimately write off a percentage of the cost for business 3. My annual mileage is typically around 11K or so 4. I get bored around 24 months.
I would not recommend leasing for anyone who will routinely put more than 15K miles on their car per year.
Also, contrary to rumor otherwise, there is potential for equity in a lease. My residual due (were I to buy the car) currently is well below the private sale value of the car, and at least $2000-$3000 below trade-in value. I can play the card any way I want. Being a convenience-leaning type (fiscally lazy perhaps), I'll probably trade and leave a couple grand on the table. I have no time nor initiative to futz around with buyers and paperwork...
If you use the car soley for business purposes, you can basically deduct the entire cost to operate.
I use it partially, and lease, which means using the standard mileage rate applied to the actual percetage of miles accrued "on the job" so to speak.
If you own the vehicle as opposed to leasing, you can calculate the standard mileage rate and the actual expense and use whichever method gives you the larger deduction.
Or words to that effect. "I'm not a CPA; I only play one on TV..." Reality is I let our tax guy figure it out.
For me, reasons #1 and #4 trump all others. New cars: me likey muchly.
I agree. The free scheduled maintenance, with "scheduled" being the key word, is not as big a deal as the car makers want you to believe. I think the "free maintenance" claim has more of a psychological effect. It puts most people (myself included) at a higher comfort level when buying an expensive German car.
I had a 2002 330Ci which came with 3yr/36,000mile free maintenance. I owned it for 3 years. Per BMW's service schedule, the program only consisted of 2 oil changes and the Service 1 at 30,000 miles. I thought their oil change interval was ridiculously long, so I paid for an oil change every other 7,500 miles. Yes, the program also included brake pads and wiper blades. But the brake don't usually wear out within 36,000 miles. I got one set of free wiper blades during my entire ownership.
The tires were the biggest wear-and-tear item on that car, with the rear tires needing replacement once a year, and the front once every two years.
Brakes on 3 series cars, according to my SA, wear out usually within 24-26k miles. The 4 yr/50k mile service would cover two brake visits.
I've had three oil changes on my car and I haven't even reached 40k miles. And yeah, tires are an issue. I just wore through my 3rd set this weekend (at the track) - luckily those are under a different warranty with tirerack.
And the free service can make a huge difference when you consider how much some competitors charge for basics. I looked into a Lexus IS350 and with a salesperson's help we estimated total service costs at about $2000 (not including tires0 in the first 50,000 miles. Considering an IS350 with sport package - impossible to find - is more expensive than the e90 I bought (by a good 4k), that added 2k in service costs makes the car even less attractive.
located near Studio City, CA (also handles Ferrari and Porsche). None of their A3's had markups; at least 10 - 20 2.0 T's and one 3.2 T Quattro w/ sticker of $39K - had "Premium" option). Service department closed on weekends and short hours on weekdays.
Just car sit-in for now (waiting on 2007s' for test drive); 2.0 T had cozy nicely-trimmed interior, but wide center console cramps the leg space.
I've been burned too many times by 1st year models, including "made overseas before it got here" cars, so I'm waiting to see what A3 reliability reports have to say.
Will also be interested in seeing how the A3's brother, the VW GTI, does in its first year, especially since VW's new president seems serious about getting VW out of the quality hole it dug itself into.
I also need to find out whether I can get "thicker" tires on the A3, as one poster here commented the current ones do not deal well with rough roads (Philly potholes, etc.).
what is everyone's source for saying Audi is dropping it's free maintenance deal. I haven't seen any reliable information posted as to the source of that idea.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Audi will honor free service on all 2006 models. The changes are for 2007. They are dropping the 4/50, but will pay for the first 5000 mile sythetic oil change on 07 models.
It'll be interesting to see if in '07, a normally suspended A3 Quattro shows up. The Audi dealer I visited felt the current sport suspension didn't work all that well on LA roads. Then again, if Governator Ah_Nuld's bond prop goes thru, we'll get some new roads!
Not sure I understand, ccd1. Dealer I visited had a '06 3.2 Quattro on lot, for $39K. Did the reviews suggest anything had changed from '06 to '07? Or are reviewers calling the '06 an '07 by mistake?
I don't know where you guys got this notion from, but there are several A3 3.2 quattros at my local Audi dealership. The one that caught my eye is in the fantastic red color, which really flatters the S-line package. (The S-line is standard on all 3.2's)
Don't know why, but all the A3s in the dealers around me (DC) seem to be either silver or dark grey. Not crazy about either color personally. I like the deep red (ganett in Audi-speak), but that is a special order color.
I'm pricing out a A3 3.2 with the Open Sky System, sat. radio, bluetooth, bi-xenon lights and special order color (garnett). With destination charges ($720), MSRP is just over $38k. Could be flexible with the color for a good price on the car.
Personally, I think the second panel for the back seat is needless. If I regularly used the rear seats for passengers, I'd get a bigger car. I like the wheels on that come with the performance package, but the package is pricey and I would never want the performance tires that come with the wheels. The ride on this car is firm enough without making it any worse. I also don't like how tires like these wear or having to get tires for winter. Only aftermarket change I'd be inclined to make is tinting the windows, which I would do on any car that doesn't have a trunk. It's also great for killing the glare of headlights from cars behind you at night.
Still looking around and haven't gotten down to the business of bargaining hard for this car, but have seen a thread at another forum indicating that A3s can be had for $750 over invoice. Even at $750 over invoice, this car as spec'd by me is over $36k. A pricey proposition no matter how you look at it, IMHO.
It's all about maximizing the profit: 1. tie one thing to another in a package, especially if it is not related and make them exclusive to the package. This way if you want item 1, you need to get item 2. 2. Make related items as parts of different packages. This way you need to get two packages. 3. Make simplifications in the lineup, however artificial. This way you have to jump in big increments between options that make sense to you (either a stripper or fully loaded with half the crap you didn't really want).
Since in this segment there is a large "must have" factor for some options, people are inclined to pay for extras they don't want just to get what they want.
However, no quattro on 2.0T falls into "plain stupidity" category, since it may be an actual dealbreaker (I can't afford 3.2, I will not buy FWD). I am sure, if asked, Hans or Jurgen will tell us big elaborate story, but I just think they simply don't get it. Period.
Hmmm, I don't follow. The way I would configure an A3 2.0T would be with Sport Package, Power (Memory) Seats, Convenience Package, Bluetooth, CWP, Xenons, Open Sky, and maybe NAV (and maybe AWD were it offered). The problem here is that I cannot have the Power Seats (Memory or otherwise) with the Sport Package, and I can have EITHER the Xenon Headlights OR the Convenience Package (with or without Bluetooth).
What that means to Audi is that they are not going to be able to wrangle an extra grand (or two in the case of the AWD) from me IF I decide to get the A3 in spite of its configuration shortcomings. It seems to me that they are leaving potential profit on the table, not only because there are options that folks want that they cannot have at any money AND because some folks will seriously shop (and probably buy) elsewhere as a result.
Have to relate this story. Called Audi and asked about the "pearl effect" paint as in what am I paying for? The answer is that the car changes color depending on the angle of the sun as the light hits the car with this paint. I just burst out laughing. White, black and red are beginning to look very good to me.
And there is at least one option Audi doesn't have in the 3.2, the option to get the regular suspension. The S-line suspension is a deal breaker for some customers.
There are only certain colors the dealers can order for their stock, which accounts for few very variations out there. The Moro, Garnet and Dakar are customer-order colors only, according to the web site.
Personally, I prefer paint without any mica at all. Pretty hard to find in this day and age! White will work just fine, though.
I can't imagine not wanting the sport suspension in a car like this, but that's me. I'll take all the road-glue I can get, which is why I'd be looking to Audi over VeeDub in the first place!
As I said before, all the cars in my area seem to be silver and dark grey, nothing else. Tried to get my wife interested in white, but she wants black if the choices are white, black and bright "ticket me" red. Don't understand why colors like white and black seem to be so rare.
I'm with you on the suspension, but not everyone wants something that firm. For me the combo of the sport suspension and quattro made the 3.2 feel like it was glued to the road. I really liked it.
A metallic paint will reflect light and the color will change when the sunlight hits it. 2 Audi colors that can really change in sulight are the Oyster Gray and Akoya Silver. They look totally different in bright sunlight. They aren't A3 colors, but sunlight can make a big difference in how you perceive metallic colors.
You should be smart enough to know that metallic paint costs more as there are more steps in the paint process. So if your bursting out laughing at your dealer, you should know what may happen when you ask a stupid question.
Most every car high-line company out there charges extra for metallic paints. Walk over to your local Porche dealer, and they'll hit you up for as much as $3000 just for a metallic paint color. So $475-750 is not out of line. BMW & MB charge the same if not more.
Actually, since the domination of clear-coating in automotive painting, the process is exactly the same for "enamels" and metallics. The only differences are amount and type of mica in the basecoat. Obviously, a no-mica paint contains zero mica and therefore no flake whatsoever. I prefer it. But it still requires the same number of process steps as a metallic.
"Pearl" requires an intermediary step. There is a base coat for color, a translucent pearl coat with flake, and the clear coat.
So in reality, there is a justification for charging some premium for pearl coats because of the extra processing involved. To me $750 seems easily twice what it should be worth, but YMMV.
Other than the fact that adding mica to the paint costs a tad more, there is no particularly good reason why standard metallics should warrant a premium. In fact, greater care would have to be exercised with a non-mica paint given the greater tendency toward orange-peel and other surface imperfections of today's water-based applications; things the metallics tend to help hide!
Porsche does in fact charge $3K for some paint finishes. When you're Porsche, you can do that...
It is interesting that some pearl effects (like Lava Grey) are $400 some dollars and others are $750. I would think that all pearl effect paint jobs would cost the same amount, but that is not the case. The color I like (garnet) would be $750.
I still think that this car should come with more standard colors than red, white and black. Also, the pearl effects would be more palatable if they were all in the $400 range.
The A3 3.2 is an expensive car. You could option this car to over $40k. Even scaling back my options to sat radio, standard color (Black, the wife's preference. I think the car would look good in white) the sky system and xenon lights, the car is just under $37k MSRP.
I agree with both of your points. The car is more expensive than I would like and lacks a few amenities that should be standard on a car like this. Nothing major, just iritating.
But I keep coming back to the car for the reason you point out: there isn't anything out there like it. It has more cargo space than a sports car, quattro, DSG, and the dual nature of the car between drive and sports mode...no there isn't.
On the personal side, my wife and I are going from a 4Runner to this car. It's just the two of us plus some pets. I see this car as something I can use like the truck, just on a smaller scale and one HECK of a lot more fun.
I took her to the dealership and she literally refused to sit in the car. After test driving some other cars, she agreed to sit in the car, but refused to go for a test drive. She told me to get what I want because I do all the driving. She has NO IDEA what this car is really like.
To expand on expensive, the closer I can get the car to $35k with a few options the more comfortable I get with the price of the car, the closer the car comes to $40k with options, the less comfortable I am with the price of the car. Basically, I think this car would be an attractive package with metallic paint (or more non-metallic paint colors), sky system, xenon lights and sat radio for $35k.
Wale, we must be on the same wavelength, because you make the car $2k cheaper and that is almost exactly where the car prices out (except for the metallic paint).
Wale, what are your roads like in your area? Are they glass smooth? Well maintained? Wish ours were...
Maybe answer is for Audi or somebody to adapt the VW Airshock suspension to A3 as option, thus letting driver jack up for good ride, hunker down for race track reflexes (There's already kit for Subaru WTI).
Meanwhile, I wonder what VW GTI will do to A3 sales? Hunch is VW dealers, given their first big hit in years, will do best to mark GTIs' up to where the A3 looks like absolute bargain!
Does anyone have a A3 with the bluetooth option, but wo/o the navigation system? Love to hear some opinions about it. I don't see why a cell phone with wireless ear piece wouldn't work as well.
Kurt, I'm a fairly open-minded fellow, but I really think your whining about roads and suspensions is misinformed and misplaced. I ride the same kinds of roads you do, because they're under the jurisdiction of the same agencies as yours: CalTrans and typical local California oversight, county or city. Unless of course I've read things wrong and you're not actually down south. I can't get enough road-glue, as I said before, and eagerly apply it as conditions safely allow. I have never flatted a rim, lost a tire or even scrubbed a fascia on the open road (or surface street) anywhere from Medford to Anaheim Hills.
This car is a handling car. The reason to look to it in the first place is for driving. It is more about the recreational aspect than the transportation; for those who like to drive for the sake of driving. The handy configuration is merely icing on a sweet treat cake of serious substance. If all you are looking for is a smaller 5-door with either FWD or AWD, there are other choices that will cost less, ride softer and get you from A to B just fine.
The idea that the car either in standard or even sport trim will not stand up to your roads is wholly ludicrous. Your comfort level is a whole 'nother story. You must suit your boot so to speak, but the car itself has no deficiencies in that regard.
"I don't see why a cell phone with wireless ear piece wouldn't work as well."
Having the ear piece still requires that you fuss with the phone itself on a regular basis. With the Bluetooth option, the car and its controls are interfaced to the phone and as such you get to keep your eyes on the road and your hands on the cars' controls longer.
wale bate, The 170 sprouted at least 6 big potholes after one major rainstorm that had cars zigging and zagging trying to miss 'em, including me. My car survived one hit at 60 mph because of its heavy tires (lo pros would have ruined the wheel). Local roads near me are no better. If that's whining, so be it! The poster from Philly has worse to deal with (I know, I lived there) - is he whining as well about his Quattro experience?
I hope in '07 Audi realizes _some_ potential Quattro owners would like a little less harshness and better ability to cope with bad stuff, especially on a 1400 mile trip now and then!
If not, fine. As you say, there are other choices.
I'm just trying to understand how it works. Audi was no help. I know the car syncs with the phone and that there is some level of display on the dash. I don't know what appears there or how it is controlled. The rep said something about the stalks on the steering wheel.
If it is user friendly w/o the navigation system, then I am all for anything that keeps my eyes on the road. I just don't understand the mechanics of its use well enough to form any opinion about it.
Short of adjustable height and firmness shocks, I don't see this happening. The 3.2 is a S-line car whose which is only 22 ponies shy of the turbo-charged 4 cylinder S3.
I understand the desire for a more comfortable ride. I go over bumps right now and wonder how much harsher they will feel in the A3. But you are essentially asking this car to be something other than what it is.
This car straddles the line, handling and driving wise, between a car you could tolerate driving every day and one so stiffly sprung that it only belongs on a track. Step out of the A3 and into just about anything that could be classified as its competition and you immediately realize the compromises made by those cars for comfort that simply are not made in the Audi.
While I have nits in other areas, I applaud Audi for having the guts not to compromise the handling of this car with softer springs. That suspension is going to cost Audi customers and I have to believe they knew that and still went ahead with the S-suspension without any softer options.
Thanks, ccd1. I still may check it out but am waiting for some reliability feedback (Powers and CU come up blank on this one).
What's sad is virtually every other AWD car offers a choice of suspensions (Dodge Caliber's the latest addition). Not Audi, for whatever reason they have.
If they sell every A3 Quattro they bring over, that vindicates their theory. Are there waiting lists for the Quattros?
Comments
The lease company will ask what the mileage is at the end of the lease, but I don't think they check the mileage. Usually, they much prefer that you keep the car.
If audi usa is like bmw, they want the car back. they'll resell it as a marked-up certified pre-owned.
Lease rates change based on mileage.
I lease for four reasons:
1. I get bored around 24 months and enjoy 12 months of shopping/anticipation
2. I can legitimately write off a percentage of the cost for business
3. My annual mileage is typically around 11K or so
4. I get bored around 24 months.
I would not recommend leasing for anyone who will routinely put more than 15K miles on their car per year.
Also, contrary to rumor otherwise, there is potential for equity in a lease. My residual due (were I to buy the car) currently is well below the private sale value of the car, and at least $2000-$3000 below trade-in value. I can play the card any way I want. Being a convenience-leaning type (fiscally lazy perhaps), I'll probably trade and leave a couple grand on the table. I have no time nor initiative to futz around with buyers and paperwork...
Same deal available in Palo Alto, CA
The deal may work, but the dealership is scum central, from previous experience.
Rector's not so bad. They got their start as a Caddy shop! I doubt the same folks own it though...
I use it partially, and lease, which means using the standard mileage rate applied to the actual percetage of miles accrued "on the job" so to speak.
If you own the vehicle as opposed to leasing, you can calculate the standard mileage rate and the actual expense and use whichever method gives you the larger deduction.
Or words to that effect. "I'm not a CPA; I only play one on TV..." Reality is I let our tax guy figure it out.
For me, reasons #1 and #4 trump all others. New cars: me likey muchly.
I had a 2002 330Ci which came with 3yr/36,000mile free maintenance. I owned it for 3 years. Per BMW's service schedule, the program only consisted of 2 oil changes and the Service 1 at 30,000 miles. I thought their oil change interval was ridiculously long, so I paid for an oil change every other 7,500 miles. Yes, the program also included brake pads and wiper blades. But the brake don't usually wear out within 36,000 miles. I got one set of free wiper blades during my entire ownership.
The tires were the biggest wear-and-tear item on that car, with the rear tires needing replacement once a year, and the front once every two years.
I've had three oil changes on my car and I haven't even reached 40k miles. And yeah, tires are an issue. I just wore through my 3rd set this weekend (at the track) - luckily those are under a different warranty with tirerack.
And the free service can make a huge difference when you consider how much some competitors charge for basics. I looked into a Lexus IS350 and with a salesperson's help we estimated total service costs at about $2000 (not including tires0 in the first 50,000 miles. Considering an IS350 with sport package - impossible to find - is more expensive than the e90 I bought (by a good 4k), that added 2k in service costs makes the car even less attractive.
Can you click on my name and shoot me an e-mail?
Thanks,
kyfdx
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
You've got mail!
Just car sit-in for now (waiting on 2007s' for test drive); 2.0 T had cozy nicely-trimmed interior, but wide center console cramps the leg space.
I'm trying to find out about any changes in the A3s for '07, but so far no luck
Will also be interested in seeing how the A3's brother, the VW GTI, does in its first year, especially since VW's new president seems serious about getting VW out of the quality hole it dug itself into.
I also need to find out whether I can get "thicker" tires on the A3, as one poster here commented the current ones do not deal well with rough roads (Philly potholes, etc.).
The Audi dealer I visited felt the current sport suspension didn't work all that well on LA roads.
Then again, if Governator Ah_Nuld's bond prop goes thru, we'll get some new roads!
The upcoming Q7 & RS4 to be released in May/June will be the first 2007 Audi models.
:confuse:
Personally, I think the second panel for the back seat is needless. If I regularly used the rear seats for passengers, I'd get a bigger car. I like the wheels on that come with the performance package, but the package is pricey and I would never want the performance tires that come with the wheels. The ride on this car is firm enough without making it any worse. I also don't like how tires like these wear or having to get tires for winter. Only aftermarket change I'd be inclined to make is tinting the windows, which I would do on any car that doesn't have a trunk. It's also great for killing the glare of headlights from cars behind you at night.
Still looking around and haven't gotten down to the business of bargaining hard for this car, but have seen a thread at another forum indicating that A3s can be had for $750 over invoice. Even at $750 over invoice, this car as spec'd by me is over $36k. A pricey proposition no matter how you look at it, IMHO.
1) only 3 colors (black, white and red) which are not provided at additional charge
2) no Ipod connection without the $2k navigation system
3) no passenger side power seat
4) No Xenon Headlights with the Sport Package (unless you want to forego the Convenience / Bluetooth packages.
5) No power (or memory) seats for the Sport Package.
6) No AWD (Haldex or otherwise) with the 2.0T engine.
7) No manual transmission with the 3.6 VR6.
To say that some of the above items (from both lists) is a bit arbitrary and capricious is being kind.
Best Regards,
Shipo
1. tie one thing to another in a package, especially if it is not related and make them exclusive to the package. This way if you want item 1, you need to get item 2.
2. Make related items as parts of different packages. This way you need to get two packages.
3. Make simplifications in the lineup, however artificial. This way you have to jump in big increments between options that make sense to you (either a stripper or fully loaded with half the crap you didn't really want).
Since in this segment there is a large "must have" factor for some options, people are inclined to pay for extras they don't want just to get what they want.
However, no quattro on 2.0T falls into "plain stupidity" category, since it may be an actual dealbreaker (I can't afford 3.2, I will not buy FWD). I am sure, if asked, Hans or Jurgen will tell us big elaborate story, but I just think they simply don't get it. Period.
2018 430i Gran Coupe
Hmmm, I don't follow. The way I would configure an A3 2.0T would be with Sport Package, Power (Memory) Seats, Convenience Package, Bluetooth, CWP, Xenons, Open Sky, and maybe NAV (and maybe AWD were it offered). The problem here is that I cannot have the Power Seats (Memory or otherwise) with the Sport Package, and I can have EITHER the Xenon Headlights OR the Convenience Package (with or without Bluetooth).
What that means to Audi is that they are not going to be able to wrangle an extra grand (or two in the case of the AWD) from me IF I decide to get the A3 in spite of its configuration shortcomings. It seems to me that they are leaving potential profit on the table, not only because there are options that folks want that they cannot have at any money AND because some folks will seriously shop (and probably buy) elsewhere as a result.
Dumb!
Best Regards,
Shipo
2018 430i Gran Coupe
And there is at least one option Audi doesn't have in the 3.2, the option to get the regular suspension. The S-line suspension is a deal breaker for some customers.
Personally, I prefer paint without any mica at all. Pretty hard to find in this day and age! White will work just fine, though.
I can't imagine not wanting the sport suspension in a car like this, but that's me. I'll take all the road-glue I can get, which is why I'd be looking to Audi over VeeDub in the first place!
I'm with you on the suspension, but not everyone wants something that firm. For me the combo of the sport suspension and quattro made the 3.2 feel like it was glued to the road. I really liked it.
You should be smart enough to know that metallic paint costs more as there are more steps in the paint process. So if your bursting out laughing at your dealer, you should know what may happen when you ask a stupid question.
Most every car high-line company out there charges extra for metallic paints. Walk over to your local Porche dealer, and they'll hit you up for as much as $3000 just for a metallic paint color. So $475-750 is not out of line. BMW & MB charge the same if not more.
"Pearl" requires an intermediary step. There is a base coat for color, a translucent pearl coat with flake, and the clear coat.
So in reality, there is a justification for charging some premium for pearl coats because of the extra processing involved. To me $750 seems easily twice what it should be worth, but YMMV.
Other than the fact that adding mica to the paint costs a tad more, there is no particularly good reason why standard metallics should warrant a premium. In fact, greater care would have to be exercised with a non-mica paint given the greater tendency toward orange-peel and other surface imperfections of today's water-based applications; things the metallics tend to help hide!
Porsche does in fact charge $3K for some paint finishes. When you're Porsche, you can do that...
I still think that this car should come with more standard
colors than red, white and black. Also, the pearl effects would be more palatable if they were all in the $400 range.
The A3 3.2 is an expensive car. You could option this car to over $40k. Even scaling back my options to sat radio, standard color (Black, the wife's preference. I think the car would look good in white) the sky system and xenon lights, the car is just under $37k MSRP.
OTOH, there ain't much out there like it, once you get the Quattro, the 3.2 and the S-line bits together. Not much at all, really.
But I keep coming back to the car for the reason you point out: there isn't anything out there like it. It has more cargo space than a sports car, quattro, DSG, and the dual nature of the car between drive and sports mode...no there isn't.
On the personal side, my wife and I are going from a 4Runner to this car. It's just the two of us plus some pets. I see this car as something I can use like the truck, just on a smaller scale and one HECK of a lot more fun.
I took her to the dealership and she literally refused to sit in the car. After test driving some other cars, she agreed to sit in the car, but refused to go for a test drive. She told me to get what I want because I do all the driving. She has NO IDEA what this car is really like.
Wale, we must be on the same wavelength, because you make the car $2k cheaper and that is almost exactly where the car prices out (except for the metallic paint).
Maybe answer is for Audi or somebody to adapt the VW Airshock suspension to A3 as option, thus letting driver jack up for good ride, hunker down for race track reflexes (There's already kit for Subaru WTI).
Meanwhile, I wonder what VW GTI will do to A3 sales? Hunch is VW dealers, given their first big hit in years, will do best to mark GTIs' up to where the A3 looks like absolute bargain!
This car is a handling car. The reason to look to it in the first place is for driving. It is more about the recreational aspect than the transportation; for those who like to drive for the sake of driving. The handy configuration is merely icing on a sweet treat cake of serious substance. If all you are looking for is a smaller 5-door with either FWD or AWD, there are other choices that will cost less, ride softer and get you from A to B just fine.
The idea that the car either in standard or even sport trim will not stand up to your roads is wholly ludicrous. Your comfort level is a whole 'nother story. You must suit your boot so to speak, but the car itself has no deficiencies in that regard.
Having the ear piece still requires that you fuss with the phone itself on a regular basis. With the Bluetooth option, the car and its controls are interfaced to the phone and as such you get to keep your eyes on the road and your hands on the cars' controls longer.
Best Regards,
Shipo
The poster from Philly has worse to deal with (I know, I lived there) - is he whining as well about his Quattro experience?
I hope in '07 Audi realizes _some_ potential Quattro owners would like a little less harshness and better ability to cope with bad stuff, especially on a 1400 mile trip now and then!
If not, fine. As you say, there are other choices.
I'm just trying to understand how it works. Audi was no help. I know the car syncs with the phone and that there is some level of display on the dash. I don't know what appears there or how it is controlled. The rep said something about the stalks on the steering wheel.
If it is user friendly w/o the navigation system, then I am all for anything that keeps my eyes on the road. I just don't understand the mechanics of its use well enough to form any opinion about it.
I understand the desire for a more comfortable ride. I go over bumps right now and wonder how much harsher they will feel in the A3. But you are essentially asking this car to be something other than what it is.
This car straddles the line, handling and driving wise, between a car you could tolerate driving every day and one so stiffly sprung that it only belongs on a track. Step out of the A3 and into just about anything that could be classified as its competition and you immediately realize the compromises made by those cars for comfort that simply are not made in the Audi.
While I have nits in other areas, I applaud Audi for having the guts not to compromise the handling of this car with softer springs. That suspension is going to cost Audi customers and I have to believe they knew that and still went ahead with the S-suspension without any softer options.
What's sad is virtually every other AWD car offers a choice of suspensions (Dodge Caliber's the latest addition). Not Audi, for whatever reason they have.
If they sell every A3 Quattro they bring over, that vindicates their theory. Are there waiting lists for the Quattros?