Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Audi A3

1212224262744

Comments

  • wale_bate1wale_bate1 Member Posts: 1,982
    I did too, and I want to say Motor und Sport, but I can't remember for certain. As I remember it I liked that a lot too!
  • bknybkny Member Posts: 2
    I've been interested in the A3 since I first heard about it. I think it would be a great car for me given its exciting drive and hatchback utility, along with a good touch of luxury. It's also at just about my max price range. As a result, its at the top of my list. However, the only thing that keeps me from taking the plunge is the reliability. I've found it difficult to really get a sense of the reliability of audi. The general word on the street is that if I buy an audi, I should be ready to visit my dealer at least once a month for one thing or another. Reading the forums on audi A3 problems isn't really that helpful either because I'm sure there is a reporting bias. All the people that have a good reliable car are not posting on that forum. Currently we have an '03 Accord. I really like it because it hasn't given us any problems at all as expected. I have read the reliability reports as well and am well aware that the A3 will not be as trouble free as the accord, but exactly how much worse should I expect?? Does anyone have any better ideas of where I can look or do you guys have any better advice. Thanks!
  • kurtamaxxguykurtamaxxguy Member Posts: 677
    as it's a very interesting car, though it's having a few too many first year glitches for me to jump into now (the electrical stuff is worrisome). Also not having a front bumper suggests any parking bumps and bangs will be very expensive to fix.

    As for the Brake, reminds me of a BMW roadster, and noted the 300C influenced gun slit windows.
  • 452820452820 Member Posts: 6
    As in your case, I had a 02 Accord which had given me no problem whatsoever. But I sold it and bought the A3. I have been driving it for a month and 1000 miles. So far I have not had any problems. I actually was not aware of Audi's reputation for poor reliability before I bought the car. So when I found out about the issue I was quite worried as you are. But then when I looked at the JD Power ranking for initial quality I think BMW, MB, and Audi are neck and neck. Long-term dependability does make you worry a little more, but nothing is known for sure about these 2006 model yet. One thing I noticed when reading the Audi owner's manual is how much more complex the car is relative to the Accord. There are an order of magnitude more things that can go wrong and I am sure that some of them will. I suppose that this is like using the transparency versus the laptop for presentation.

    I found an interesting article from the Business Week that talks about Audi's push for better quality. I hope it indicates better things to come.

    http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_11/b3924003.htm

    The A3 surely is more fun to drive than the Accord.
  • kurtamaxxguykurtamaxxguy Member Posts: 677
    there are many less dealers for Audi than most other brands, and the car's complexity pretty much mandates a dealer service department. Breakdowns on some roads will entail a 100-200 mile tow to the closest dealer.

    Good business week article, BTW, thanks. Glad to hear Audi is trying, though right now electronics glitches and an archaic dealer network are big headaches. Even in S.California, Audi dealers are few and far between and most seem nothing more than sales kioquses (the one "full size" dealer I've found is owned by an ultra high pressure outfit that proved pure misery to visit).
  • omipomip Member Posts: 1
    Has anyone put some better tires on the A3?

    I really like this car other than the fact that it appears to have greater understeering than, say, a Mazda3. And I'm wondering if better tires would help with the problem.
  • andys120andys120 Member Posts: 23,370
    I owned a '98 A4 Avant 2.8 for almost five years, bought as a CPO w about 56k.
    It turned out to be the most reliable car I ever owned and was only out of service for an unscheduled repair once in the whole five years and 70k miles I had it. That was because some chipmunks had shorted out the wiring for the A/C, hardly the car's fault.

    You may not do as well with a new A3 but there's an excellent chance you can do even better since you are buying it new. Don't worry, be happy, drive Audi. :)

    2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93

  • dc_davedc_dave Member Posts: 52
    Anyone see the new 3.2L A3 Quattro S-Line yet? I would like to know the list of standard equipment on the 3.2 Quattro S-line. It seems like Audi is keeping a tight lip on this one. I wish I could be on-line for the live chat on Thursday but I've got class (darn grad school). Can someone please ask if we will ever get either an S3 or better yet an RS3 in the US? :blush:

    Dave in VA
  • allhorizonallhorizon Member Posts: 483
    I really like this car other than the fact that it appears to have greater understeering than, say, a Mazda3. And I'm wondering if better tires would help with the problem.

    Almost all published reviews I have seen in the US were with the all weather tires, so yes, summer tires (even the ones it comes with if you chose them) definitely help! So does the available sport suspension, which is usually not tested in reviews I have seen, either. Drive it in that combination and come back and let us know if you think it has lower g-forces or more understeer than a Mazda3 - I think, not.

    The next step up would be a stiffer rear sway bar, which is a very inexpensive mod.
  • allhorizonallhorizon Member Posts: 483
    Anyone see the new 3.2L A3 Quattro S-Line yet? I would like to know the list of standard equipment on the 3.2 Quattro S-line. It seems like Audi is keeping a tight lip on this one.

    It has pretty much everything you can think of standard (including DSG automatic, AWD, sport suspension, body kit). Some things are optional (more here). Your dealer should be able to give you all the details.

    It's a great toy for someone who doesn't mind spending a lot of money, and prefers the form factor over, say, the TT or a Porsche Boxter or a BMW, or what not.

    You can get a lot of it (and have more space) in a $10K or so less Legacy GT wagon. I know it is in a niche by itself, but considering the AWDs drive train loss, you get only marginal more power than the 2.0TFSI. For the money, I'd rather risk chipping the latter, would add a front LSD, and have more power available. Or better, wait until AoA realizes that there are no more than a 1000 buyers a year for this car, and offers the 2.0TFSI with Haldex quattro...
  • thebody5thebody5 Member Posts: 20
    Hey, go buy your legacy gt waton, but its not and audi and not build anything like and Audi. Slam the door on and Audi and slam the door on the legacy and see which one sounds more solid. This is a lot of car for the money. You get 50 more horsepower and more torque out of the 3.2L. think of it as a TT 3.2 with a hatchback body. Going to a great car, and I think dealers will have a hard time keeping them in stock. And it will be a while before we see a 2.0T in quattro. Too close of a price gap between the 3.2 and 2.0T. Only about 4k different and you get quattro and a better engine and DSG that is a no brainer.
  • blueguydotcomblueguydotcom Member Posts: 6,249
    Too close of a price gap between the 3.2 and 2.0T. Only about 4k different and you get quattro and a better engine and DSG that is a no brainer.

    But you also get a lot of worthless garbage on the 3.2 - automatic, heavier enginer (and less powerful than a chipped 2.0), bunch of silly S-line parts. All told the 3.2 seems like a massive rip off. Configured with just a sky roof and xenons the darned thing is more exepensive than a 330i with sport, leather, moon, xenons via euro delivery. I can't fathom paying 35-36k for an A3. That's too much for a car of that caliber. 31-32k is reasonable LOADED.
  • wale_bate1wale_bate1 Member Posts: 1,982
    "I can't fathom paying 35-36k for an A3..."

    I can. But we all know about my priorities, eh?

    I can see it, though. I want the Quattro, or else I might as well shop Acura or VW, and I'm taking DSG anyway (zoom, zoom), I'm not likely to chip anything, though I like the idea of the petit plant with bigger bang. S-line bits? The appearance package junk you can keep, but I'm opting for a sport suspension anyway. Sky roof yes, HIDs only if they're packaged with something I really want.

    They've still got my attention, but if the lease rates from Audi remain as they have been, that could tear the transaction...
  • ivan_99ivan_99 Member Posts: 1,681
    Throw in a nice European Delivery like…MB, BMW, Volvo, and you may have something there.

    I’d prefer the Turbo Quattro as well…
  • allhorizonallhorizon Member Posts: 483
    Hey, go buy your legacy gt waton, but its not and audi and not build anything like and Audi.

    I think I would go and buy the AWD Legacy GT 2.5T if I didn't already have a largeish AWD wagon. Subarus are very reliable, but, unfortunately, their real world mileage is often not as great as you would expect from a turbo 4. At any rate, that's just one AWD competitor of the A3 - everyone has their own priorities and as a result, it is at times amazing which cars are cross-shopped. I think I have pretty much given up on the idea of a Forester XT, but for the longest time that one was for example in the running for me.

    This is a lot of car for the money. You get 50 more horsepower and more torque out of the 3.2L.

    My point was that you don't get all of that because of the added drive train loss of the AWD. Also, numerous dynos have shown that the 2.0TFSI stock produces quite a bit more hp than listed (with the argument that a smaller number helps Audi justify the price difference to the 3.2). The real world difference to the wheels is likely no more than 20hp - for a car that is substantially (nose-) heavier and guzzles a lot more gas.

    And it will be a while before we see a 2.0T in quattro.

    If you are right, and many people buy the 3.2, that could very well be. And vice versa.

    Too close of a price gap between the 3.2 and 2.0T. Only about 4k different and you get quattro and a better engine and DSG that is a no brainer.

    If my math is right there is a $6000.00 difference between the base 3.2 and the 2.0TSFI with DSG and sports package (which includes leather and other things). The street price difference is likely even more, since the 2.0TFSI can be bought at least $1000 below MSRP, and it will be a while before the same is true for the 3.2. $7K for AWD (a $1500-$2000 value), the marginally better V6, and some little doodads I don't need...
  • audiable3audiable3 Member Posts: 2
    I may close on an Audi A3 without Bluetooth. My question is like 'bouldermax' had: is there any point in ordering a cradle for an A3 without Bluetooth prep?

    What I am asking is better understood if I explain. I know that in my area, the Bluetooth A3s have not yet arrived. Soon, but I have a chance to get one at a fair price that is already on a lot and marked a little down. I have decided not to wait. I really would not mind having a *nice* *integrated* cradle for my phone if it gave me many of the same features as the wireless, cradle-less Bluetooth would.

    So, does it? If I get an Audi phone cradle, will my nav and my dash display tell me it's the phone? Etc?

    Thank you for your responses. Quite frankly, my dealer(s) do not know if it will or if it will not.

    Regards,
    AudiAble3
  • thebody5thebody5 Member Posts: 20
    I would advise you not to mess with a phone with a cradle. if you want a phone to work in the car get a bluetooth car and phone. The only phone that will work with the car with just the cradle and no bluetooth in the car is the v60 audi motorola, which they are having major problems with because the phone does not have the E-911 progaming. I guess all new phones that are new activation have to have this, and nothing audi has right now would do that. So unless you have bluetooth car and phone nothing is going to work for you. Hope this will help you.
  • thebody5thebody5 Member Posts: 20
    A3 2.0T with DSG and sport is $29k, A3 3.2L with about the same type of equipment is $33,940 base price which includes(17" all season tires, front fog lights, sline front and rear bumper, sport suspension, power sports seat for driver, bose sound system with 6 cd changer, convience package). The A3 2.0T with DSG and the same equipment is a 31k car, even at at a 1000 off sticker its a 30k, so a 4k gap. I would rather have quattro an a front wheel drive. Of course I live in the northeast so that makes a big difference. If I lived down south might be a different story. But still think the 3.2 is a great buy for the money
  • dc_davedc_dave Member Posts: 52
    Anyone catch the live chat today? I missed it but was wondering if there was any talk about the A-3 S-line, S3 or RS3?

    Dave in VA
  • rrswitchrrswitch Member Posts: 2
    That's intersting that those problems occured (sorry for jumping backward and replying to a post from Oct. 11th, guys) since the Treo and Audi are supposed to be working together to sync car/mobile phone.

    Side question... what city are you in where your dealer had an RS4? I understand that it was preproduction... I'm still curious to know what city.
  • rjlaerorjlaero Member 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 Member Posts: 1,982
    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:
  • allhorizonallhorizon Member Posts: 483
    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.
  • blueguydotcomblueguydotcom Member Posts: 6,249
    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.
  • blueguydotcomblueguydotcom Member Posts: 6,249
    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?
  • billherrmannbillherrmann Member Posts: 108
    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.
  • thebody5thebody5 Member Posts: 20
    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.
  • dc_davedc_dave Member Posts: 52
    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:
  • blueguydotcomblueguydotcom Member Posts: 6,249
    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 Member Posts: 1,681
    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 Member Posts: 6,164
    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.

    2018 430i Gran Coupe

  • ivan_99ivan_99 Member Posts: 1,681
    I was going under the hypothetical situation where a 2.0T Quattro was available…only a dream.
  • allhorizonallhorizon Member Posts: 483
    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?
  • thebody5thebody5 Member Posts: 20
    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 Member Posts: 1,982
    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 Member Posts: 590
    Better mileage, rarely if ever driving in bad weather.

    Although Tahoe could be tempting.
  • wale_bate1wale_bate1 Member Posts: 1,982
    Two words:

    Folks Wagon.
    ;)
  • blueguydotcomblueguydotcom Member Posts: 6,249
    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.
  • allhorizonallhorizon Member Posts: 483
    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...
  • allhorizonallhorizon Member Posts: 483
    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 Member Posts: 1,681
    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.
  • blueguydotcomblueguydotcom Member Posts: 6,249
    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 Member Posts: 1,681
    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 Member Posts: 6,164
    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.

    2018 430i Gran Coupe

  • blueguydotcomblueguydotcom Member Posts: 6,249
    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 Member Posts: 1,982
    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 Member Posts: 1,681
    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 Member 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 Member Posts: 6,164
    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.

    2018 430i Gran Coupe

  • dhanleydhanley Member 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.