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

Audi A3

1…3132343637…44

Comments

  • ccd1ccd1 Member Posts: 140
    The A3 3.2 isn't a track car. That would be the S3 or the RS3. The A3 is a street car which combines performance with sophistication. On the track, only performance matters and there are other cars that will get performance that matches or exceeds the A3 for far less money.
  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    "You guys are funny. If you are dedicated RWD aficionados, you simply shouldn't be looking at Audis, which are some of the best FWD vehicles in the world, and also offer AWD. If you can only find fun in RWD - wrong manufacturer."

    Trust me, if RWD was my ONLY criterion upon which I'm basing my next car buying decision, I would be looking exclusively at things like the 3-Series, the Miata or even the S2000. The fact is that Audi has dumped lots of goodness into the A3 and currently it is at the top of my list in spite of the fact that the 2.0T model (the one that fits my current needs the best) is only FWD. So, what's number two? Probably the MX-5 Miata.

    Best Regards,
    Shipo
  • wale_bate1wale_bate1 Member Posts: 1,982
    Well, let's try to be serious here for a bit, allhorizon: what compact/subcompact RWD 5-door sold in the US would you suggest?

    Give me a list, if you will please, of new compact RWD 5-doors or subcompact RWD 5-doors readily available here in the States, and I will pursue them with vigor and vim!

    I added the G35 coupe to my personal mix just to have a RWD option to play. I don't even want a coupe! I spent years in FWD vehicles only to rediscover the elevated fun factor via a return to RWD. I'm not alone, obviously, as RWD offerings in general have been on the rise in almost all classifications.

    The acceptance of Audi as a prospect for me, is based in very large part on the compromise of considering AWD, in which I think they have no equal. The fact that they can put the whole package together so nicely helps a great deal, but it is still a compromise. I don't even like the look of the 1-series, but I would take it in a heartbeat over an A3 were it here.

    Given the chpice, a true RWD option would take my check without question.

    FWD need not apply ever again...
  • kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Member Posts: 1,798
    as the Message on the Lutz Blog was loud and clear; "Build more RWDs; sedans, hatches, whatever - just build them or get them from Europe!"

    Then again, a recent canadian snow traction test had the RWD's mostly going all over the place. FWD did a little better, AWD did the best of all.

    Can anyone who has driven the A3 in snow relate how the car did?

    If I had smooth, uncongested roads, and S.Calif summer style weather all year round, RWD would be my choice as well.
  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    I don't consider the Canadian test even remotely valid as they didn't use the same tires on all of the cars, just what happened to come from the factory (plus a set of winter tires for two of the cars). The last "Apples-to-Apples" test that I know of was done by Car and Driver back in 1999 and used two E320s and two A6s, each with a set of factory All-Season tires and a set of identical Winter tires. The results were very different than the Canadian test.

    Best Regards,
    Shipo
  • esfesf Member Posts: 1,020
    I meant in base price, not with options.

    By the way, online, the A4 clearly has more of an advantage than that if the cars have comparable options.

    Also, if you're pitting the A4 against a rear wheel drive BMW, make it a front wheel drive A4. That's like comparing a 330xi to an A4 FronTrak. It makes no difference in what drivetrain it is as long as it's two wheel, because this is purely about pricing, not driving.
  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    "Also, if you're comparing it to a rear wheel drive BMW, compare it to a front wheel drive A4. That's like comparing a 330xi to an A4 FronTrak."

    Sorry, that argument doesn't wash. In anything other than accelerating up a steep hill in the snow, the RWD BMW is every bit the match for an AWD Audi, not so the other way around. For many folks who want a sporty sedan they'll either consider a RWD BMW or an AWD Audi, front drivers need not apply.

    Best Regards,
    Shipo
  • esfesf Member Posts: 1,020
    I cannot express to you how amazing my A3 2.0T has been in the snow... of course, I have DSG. That helps- it is an amazing thing where it is an automatically shifting manual (but all of you know that :D)

    It's better than my S4 Cabriolet (with quattro?) in the snow.

    Also, it has incredible gas mileage for a luxury hatch, and they're somewhat rare here, so many Audi drivers give me the thumbs-up ;).
  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    "I cannot express to you how amazing my A3 2.0T has been in the snow..."

    I have absolutely no problem believing that, over the years I've had two Audis and two VWs, and all four FWD cars were great in the snow. That having been said, the best car that I've ever driven in the white stuff was my snow tire shod RWD 530i. Go figure. ;-)

    Of course all five cars in question had three pedals under the dash. For my tastes, needs, wants and desires, no Automatic transmission regardless of how advanced, is even remotely on my radar screen. ;-)

    Best Regards,
    Shipo
  • dl7265dl7265 Member Posts: 1,381
    How portly is that Cabriolet ? and what is the weight distribution ? And im sure the S has wicked performance tires on it. IM not surprised the A3 even FWD would have some advantage.

    DL
  • dl7265dl7265 Member Posts: 1,381
    Ah , well I recall when FWD began becoming popular and were touted for the superior bad weather traction. I owned a '83 5.0 T-Bird and let me tell you it was down right dangerous to drive in foul weather. However, technology, tires, traction control ect has progressed a ton since then.

    Now, for well over a decade Ive driven 10 hours daily my work vehicle which is low Gov bid, RWD. And have attended a annual driving school. As Blue pointed out there will never be a FWD vehicle that's appropriate for Pursuit driving ;)

    I do conclude that Audi/VW does the best job in the industry of masking the torque steer. Perhaps enough for us to own one as a second vehicle.

    DL
  • blueguydotcomblueguydotcom Member Posts: 6,249
    Amen...FWD might as well not exist in an A4/3 series comparo. No enthusiast I know is going to opt for FWD over RWD.
  • allhorizonallhorizon Member Posts: 483
    - package

    I think we are all here because VW/Audi are great in putting together an excellent package - if it were not for the sparsity of the AWD availability...

    - lack of AWD

    don't even get me started on that one. I would buy a 2.0TFSI quattro A4 over the FWD A3. I also find the 3.2 engine as is outdated, too heavy, and it is a gas guzzler. I am hoping that either VW or Audi will bring over an FSI 3.2 AWD, or, even better, an 2.0TFSI AWD. The S3 may come with a beefed up turbo engine, but will likely exceed $40k - which is more than I want to spend on this toy.

    They really make it hard for us to get 5-door hatchback/small wagons with AWD that remain true to the virtues of their lower-end FWD brothers (leightweight, good fuel consumption, reasonable price).

    I will wait until summer, when the 5-door GTI comes out, and then see what the rumor mill has to offer as alternative.

    Perhaps I'll end up with the A4 (TorSen) quattro, after all. With sports suspension and an ECU upgrade, it can't be all that bad...
  • ccd1ccd1 Member Posts: 140
    Can't say much about the A3 in particular, but I've driven a FWD Prelude and a 4Runner in snow. FWD as OK, but just OK. Not my choice for snow. I've tried my 4Runner with and without 4WD. It is undriveable in the snow without it (RWD car) and just fine with 4WD. Based on this most unscientific survey, 4WD or AWD is my choice for snow.

    As for mileage, the gas mileage of the 3.2 is disappointing. I'm surprised they didn't try to improve gas mileage with FSI or something else. The S3 and RS3 are so performance oriented that gas mileage is secondary, but not so with the 3.2, at least IMHO.
  • kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Member Posts: 1,798
    Does it use direct fuel injection? Or the older port injection scheme?

    The 2.0 T drivfetrain is very impressive wrt overall performance for its class.
  • dl7265dl7265 Member Posts: 1,381
    The S3, if it were to arrive stateside seems to be an odd niche. Other words, a blown 2.0 with 26 more HP than the 3.2 V6, at a premium price. The NA market usually associates power with Cubes ( see dodge hemi) . Might be a hard sell....

    DL
  • andres3andres3 Member Posts: 13,729
    Loses 5 horses and 5 lb/ft of torque compared to the 3.2 6 cylinder on the A4? Same engine right? Why did they lose that all important extra 5 horses?
    '15 Audi Misano Red Pearl S4, '16 Audi TTS Daytona Gray Pearl, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
  • ccd1ccd1 Member Posts: 140
    AOA might wait until the 3.2 liter FSI engine is available which is reported to produce just under 300 hp for its S3. Personally, I think that would fit better into Audi's A3 product line.
  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    "Loses 5 horses and 5 lb/ft of torque compared to the 3.2 6 cylinder on the A4? Same engine right? Why did they lose that all important extra 5 horses?"

    Nope, not even close. The A3 engine is the VW VR6 narrow angle "Inline Vee" engine while the V6 in the Audi A4 is a true Audi engine and a true V6 as well. FWIW, I've driven both (in 2.8 liter guise) and I much preferred the VR6 over the Audi V6. I'm thinking another back-to-back test drive is in order. ;-)

    Best Regards,
    Shipo
  • kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Member Posts: 1,798
    Yup, that newer motor sounds like an excellent addition for the A3 Quattro or FWD models.

    Apparently Audi is reducing number of models and options for next year, to make it easier for dealers to manage their inventory and reduce customer confusion. They may also eliminate low -selling models such as the A3 with cloth seats.
  • ccd1ccd1 Member Posts: 140
    Limiting options is probably good for the 2.0T as the option packages are confusing and frustrate attempts to get certain things on the car.
  • colorwolfcolorwolf Member Posts: 2
    Can someone elaborate the 3.2 V6 engine we have in the A3?
    I'm in the market of buying the A3 and is considering the V6
  • allhorizonallhorizon Member Posts: 483
    wikipedia is your friend.
  • kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Member Posts: 1,798
    as well as a referenced VW white paper suggests that VR6 engine, while having many advanced features, is __not__ direct injection.

    Wikipedia also notes the engine's currently used in the A3 Mark II (I guess that is what is being sold now?) as well as many other VW models.
  • allhorizonallhorizon Member Posts: 483
    The 3.2VR6 in the Euro Passat, and the 3.6VR6 in the US Passat are FSI.

    The 3.2VR6 in the current TT, A3, and R32 are not FSI.
  • colorwolfcolorwolf Member Posts: 2
    Would that make a big difference having FSI or not?

    Although I think I would have to stick with the 3.2 V6 they are offering right now if I want the Quattro :cry:
  • kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Member Posts: 1,798
    FSI's newer approach to fuel injection helps the engine have a broader range of torque and use fuel more efficiently.

    Is that important for a car designed mainly for sport driving? If the current A3 Quattro does what you want, it isn't.
  • user1000user1000 Member Posts: 1
    Looking for opinions:

    I was going to wait for the 2007 lineup and order my A3...as opposed to ordering a 2006 now.

    How are the options going to be reduced/simplified for next year (I plan to order a 3.2 DSG with just about every option)?

    Any opinions on NOT waiting until 2007 (am patient so time is not a factor, just want to make sure that everything I want to order now can be ordered in 2007 (or equivalent options).
  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    I've been quietly waiting to see what 2007 brings as well. My issue (as many of y'all have heard me say ad-nauseum) is the inability to order an A3 2.0T Sport Package, the Convenience/Bluetooth Package AND Xenon headlights. Given that both cars on either side of the 2.0T SP in the A3 lineup (i.e. the A3 2.0T Premium Package and the A3 3.2 S-Line) can be ordered with Bluetooth and Xenons, I'm really hoping that Audi corrects this for 2007.

    Best Regards,
    Shipo
  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    As I'm not even remotely interested in getting an Automatic transmission on an A3, I've never bothered to "Build" one on Audi's web site before now, and what I discovered sort of shocked me.

    I configured a 2.0T as like for like as possible next to a 3.2 and found that Audi is getting a whopping $6,765 premium for the addition of the VR6 engine, the Haldex AWD system and some bits of trim. Admittedly the difference would shrink to $5,285 if I had optioned the DSG on the 2.0T, however, given that I have an intense dislike for Automatic trannys, the nearly $7,000 difference stands.

    A couple of other things I noticed:

    1) The 3.2 has a "Premium Leather Seats" option for $800. What's the difference between those and the standard leather seating?
    2) The Bi-Xenon headlights cost $650 on the 2.0T and $800 on the 3.2. The caption says just "Bi-Xenon" for the 2.0T but "Bi-Xenon Adaptive" for the 3.2. Are the "Adaptive" headlights like the ones found on the new 3-Series that kind of turn in the direction of the front wheels?

    Best Regards,
    Shipo
  • ccd1ccd1 Member Posts: 140
    I'm not happy with Audi's pricing either, but let's be fair. In terms of price differences, you compare similarly equipped vehicles. It does not matter whether you value the equipment or not.

    Therefore you start with a 2.0 with DSG because the 3.2 is only available with DSG. While the comparison is not perfect because you cannot exactly duplicate the options on the 3.2 in the 2.0, the difference is approximately $4835. Your figures are off by over $2k!

    The standard leather seats are leather surfaces which means that the entire seat is not leather. And you are correct, the adaptive xenon lights turn in the direction of the front wheels. Probably a worthwhile feature for twisting roads and worthless for most highways.
  • ccd1ccd1 Member Posts: 140
    I think the option packages will be simplified for the 2.0. There isn't anything to simplify for the 3.2 as there are no packages for that car. I don't expect many changes for the 3.2 in 2007. If you are going to load the car with just about every option, you probably won't see many changes at all. But I'm told the factory switches over to 2007 models in April/May, so you might as well wait and see what changes there are. If you get the 2007 ordering/pricing info as soon as it is available, you might be able to choose between 2006 and 2007 models.

    Personally, I'm going to wait and see how many 3.2s are sitting on lots comes late Summer and Fall. I'm betting there will be a few with options close to what I want and dealers willing to discount. All the dealers in my area seem to order the same car: 3.2 in dark grey or silver, sky system, sat radio, bluetooth xenon lights and CWP. The only things they don't commonly order is the performance package (bigger wheels and perf tires)and navigation system.
  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    "While the comparison is not perfect because you cannot exactly duplicate the options on the 3.2 in the 2.0, the difference is approximately $4835. Your figures are off by over $2k!"

    Forgetting for a moment the argument that I have about not paying for something that I do not want (something that I have an intense dislike for actually), I did post the following:

    "Admittedly the difference would shrink to $5,285 if I had optioned the DSG on the 2.0T..."

    The two cars that I configured that showed that difference were both like for like, ... Errr, wait a minute... Does the 3.2 come with the Premium Audio with the Bose and CD Changer? If it does then there is at least part of the difference because I didn't configure the 2.0T that way (don't want/need the changer and am not impressed with the Bose speakers).

    Best Regards,
    Shipo
  • wale_bate1wale_bate1 Member Posts: 1,982
    Did I miss the sport suspension in your 2.0T config? Standard on the 3.2. Don't know if you figger'd that in, Shipo. It's a must have for me.

    $2K over what it should be. I'm sticking with my story here... ;)
  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    Yeah, it's the Sport Package (suspension included) that's the central point of my #^@&~, ummm, errr, issues with Audi. The sad fact is that if you opt for the SP, then you can either have Bluetooth OR Xenon headlights. :confuse:

    Best Regards,
    Shipo
  • wale_bate1wale_bate1 Member Posts: 1,982
    I know, I know, and I try to be sympathetic with your plight old bean, but since neither option is of any importance to me, my sympathy is soley that of a fellow generally-frustrated-with-the-industry shopper! ;)

    Audi certainly is an odd duck. Way cool, but odd.

    BTW, I believe the Mrs. is now firmly on track to pursue the A8 at the end of her "mini"van lease. Way the heck too big for my tastes, but I won't object to being chauffered in such a conveyance. A two Audi family? Perhaps.
  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    "I know, I know, and I try to be sympathetic with your plight old bean, but since neither option is of any importance to me, my sympathy is soley that of a fellow generally-frustrated-with-the-industry shopper!"

    Is that sorta like me commiserating with a fellow enthusiast who would love to drive an S2000 only to be denied because it cannot be had with an automatic transmission? ;-)

    Best Regards,
    Shipo
  • ccd1ccd1 Member Posts: 140
    The 3.2 does come with Premium Radio and Bose speakers. The easiest way to do the comparison is to go to the Specs page and identify all the things that are standard on the 3.2 which are optional on the 2.0. Neither the Sports Package nor the Premium Package have everything that is on the 3.2. I chose the Premium Package for my comparison, but you could make an argument for the Sports Package. Opting for the Sports Package would raise the difference to around $5k.
  • dl7265dl7265 Member Posts: 1,381
    What would it cost for you to try the DSG ? Now a real automatic thats whats in your GDC ;)

    DL
  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    Funny! :D

    The strange thing is that I don't actually mind the Automatic in the DGC, then again, it's a minivan which would kind of defeat the whole purpose of a manual gearbox anyway. :-/

    The problem is "Once a stick driver, always a stick driver." My 530i will have been gone a full year as of a week from tomorrow, and yet I'm still accidentally slamming on the brakes every now and again by hitting the brake pedal with my left foot whilst it's in search of a clutch pedal. The sad (well, not really) fact is that my body wants to shift, and if I was to even so much as step inside of a DSG equipped A3 I'm afraid that my left leg and right arm might could well leave me. ;-) Seriously though, I am not opposed to taking a test drive with the DSG just to get a feel for how far Automatic transmission technology has come, that having been said, ain't no way I'll order one built that way. :shades:

    Best Regards,
    Shipo
  • ccd1ccd1 Member Posts: 140
    I saw the sales data release by Audi for Jan/Feb. for a new model like the A3, there are no sales figures from the prior year. Does anyone know how A3 sales are doing against projections for both the 2.0 and 3.2???

    Just using AutoTrader thru this site, dealers appear to have a very good inventory of 2.0s and there is no problem locating 3.2s either. One local dealer has put a 3.2 on sale over a week ago and it still has not moved.

    I don't see any aggressive pricing in my area yet, but I'm beginning to wonder if that is on the horizon or whether it is still too soon to tell.
  • kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Member Posts: 1,798
    Does the A3 sell better in specific regions of the USA?
    If so, which regions?
  • dl7265dl7265 Member Posts: 1,381
    I know what you mean. :( Driving 8 hours a day in my "company car" and switching back and forth im allways reaching in the wrong place for window lifts, clutch, havc control's ect...

    BTW, to stay on topic do you know if the A3 has that annoying delay valve on their manual's like the 3er has ?

    DL
  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    I've never heard any reports of Audi using a CDV on any of their cars... Here's hoping! ;-)

    Best Regards,
    Shipo
  • dl7265dl7265 Member Posts: 1,381
    Great news ! Thanks !

    Dl
  • carquerycarquery Member Posts: 35
    I've been following this chat for awhile and am very interested in the A3 as my next car. I live in CT and have found the AWD to be very handy in the winter. The FWD A3 seems to get very respctable mileage, but I haven't read anything on the AWD model. If anyone has any real world results, that would be great. I do 70% of my driving in the city.

    Thanks!
  • kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Member Posts: 1,798
    (and Audi owners feel free to correct me) many cars have adaptable transmissions and brakes that actually "learn" and self adjust themselves over a given period of driving. Gradual break-in gives these systems a better chance to do their job and make sure your vehicle will run trouble free.

    Take care of your car, and your car will take care of you!
  • kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Member Posts: 1,798
    "Under the hood, a larger Oettinger turbocharger helps boost output of the 2.0-liter four-cylinder to 295 hp and 317 pound-feet of torque, which shaves 0-to-60-mph acceleration to less than 6 seconds."

    This is from a today's Edmunds article about a german Afterparts specialist, Oettinger, who has developed a bunch of performance, tuner add ons for A3's. The article did not say when those parts will be available in the USA.
  • spektrespektre Member Posts: 80
    I can see slapping that puppy into the quattro 2.0T, but that much power through just the front wheels on this side of the pond is going to be a bit much to handle :surprise:
  • kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Member Posts: 1,798
    Dodge SRT-4, Chevrolet Impala SS, etc. are FWD and over 300 Hp. Biggest problem seems to be torque steer, which can be controlled with equal halfshafts and proper tire choice.

    As Audi builds race cars, they should have no trouble getting a High HP motor working in a FWD'er.

    But agreed an AWD platform would be better for the ever increasing HP many american Drivers and all auto journalists crave.

    Fantasy time; Would 500+ Hp be too much for an A3 Quattro? If Audi built it, would drivers buy it?
Sign In or Register to comment.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles