A3 purchase
04-21-2006, 11:10 AM
#1
Audiworld Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A3 purchase
I have 96 K on my 2001 225HP TT and am considering A3 3.2 DSG. I need a little more room for bikes, skis and sometimes people. A4 doesn't have the same performance until I get to the gas guzzling S4. I was trying to decide between 06 and 07 MY and then read recent short take in C/D and long term test on Edmunds. Both panned A3 weight and performance (Edmunds tested 0-60 @6.8). Any thoughts from the forum.
04-21-2006, 02:19 PM
#4
New Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Think About an A3 2.0 with a Chip (long)
The article you refer to in Car and Driver got a 0 to 60 time of 5.8 seconds for the 3.2 A3. The factory says that the A3 3.2 does the same sprint in 5.9 seconds. With regard to the stock A3 2.0, I've seen 0 to 60 times for DSG ranging from the high to low sixes.
As far as room goes, the A3 has almost as much room as the previous generation A4. Being the owner of an '04 A4 3.0 slushbox (driven by the wife), and an '06 A3 3.2 DSG, I can tell you that the A3 is a whole lot more entertaining to drive than the A4. That's the good news.
Here's the bad news: IMO, the A3 3.2 is both overweight and overpriced (somewhat underpowered as well). If I didn't need Quattro (I live in the Rockies), I'd have opted for the 3-pedal 2.0 4-banger A3. I'd chip it, add a rear sway bar and pocket the thousands I saved. The 2.0 is a lighter car with a broader torque band, and with performance software you'll have comparable(if not better) performance than the 3.2. Handling will be more crisp too.
Don't get me wrong--the A3 3.2 is a very capable and competent car with much to recommend it, but for the same amount of money you could get into a somewhat slower 325i Bimmer, or for eight grand less get into a new WRX. If you don't mind getting your spine pulverized, you could also get a WRX STI for $33K or so, which will run away and hide from an A3 and almost any other Audi offering in the USA. The Audi is a better built and a more refined car than the Subarus I've mentioned, but it does have slower reflexes.
As for the DSG, it's a matter of personal preference. I enjoy it more than an automatic but less than a traditional manual. Yes, the upshifts and downshifts are smooth and quick, but somehow it's not quite as satisfying without the clutch. Also, there's the awkward off-idle engagement of first gear in the DSG (you have to feather the throttle off the line so you don't lurch forward).
Here are a few final nits to pick with the DSG: it's touted as a manual gearbox, but punch the throttle in the higher gears and the tranny kicks down a gear or two. Also, the DSG automatically upshifts at redline. Here's the rub: how many manual trannies that you're aware of automatically upshift and kick down? How many manual gearbox enthusiasts would want these features?
Also, why is second gear so tall? With beter gearing the 3.2 could be quicker. Finally, should you choose to use the DSG as an automatic, you can plan on being in sixth gear before you're out of your driveway. The Sport (automatic) setting is geared better and is much more satisfying to drive when you want life without paddles.
Again, the 3.2 A3 is a good car with some shortcomings, but if you want to stick with Audis, I'd suggest going with the A3 2.0 or stepping up to an S4.
As far as room goes, the A3 has almost as much room as the previous generation A4. Being the owner of an '04 A4 3.0 slushbox (driven by the wife), and an '06 A3 3.2 DSG, I can tell you that the A3 is a whole lot more entertaining to drive than the A4. That's the good news.
Here's the bad news: IMO, the A3 3.2 is both overweight and overpriced (somewhat underpowered as well). If I didn't need Quattro (I live in the Rockies), I'd have opted for the 3-pedal 2.0 4-banger A3. I'd chip it, add a rear sway bar and pocket the thousands I saved. The 2.0 is a lighter car with a broader torque band, and with performance software you'll have comparable(if not better) performance than the 3.2. Handling will be more crisp too.
Don't get me wrong--the A3 3.2 is a very capable and competent car with much to recommend it, but for the same amount of money you could get into a somewhat slower 325i Bimmer, or for eight grand less get into a new WRX. If you don't mind getting your spine pulverized, you could also get a WRX STI for $33K or so, which will run away and hide from an A3 and almost any other Audi offering in the USA. The Audi is a better built and a more refined car than the Subarus I've mentioned, but it does have slower reflexes.
As for the DSG, it's a matter of personal preference. I enjoy it more than an automatic but less than a traditional manual. Yes, the upshifts and downshifts are smooth and quick, but somehow it's not quite as satisfying without the clutch. Also, there's the awkward off-idle engagement of first gear in the DSG (you have to feather the throttle off the line so you don't lurch forward).
Here are a few final nits to pick with the DSG: it's touted as a manual gearbox, but punch the throttle in the higher gears and the tranny kicks down a gear or two. Also, the DSG automatically upshifts at redline. Here's the rub: how many manual trannies that you're aware of automatically upshift and kick down? How many manual gearbox enthusiasts would want these features?
Also, why is second gear so tall? With beter gearing the 3.2 could be quicker. Finally, should you choose to use the DSG as an automatic, you can plan on being in sixth gear before you're out of your driveway. The Sport (automatic) setting is geared better and is much more satisfying to drive when you want life without paddles.
Again, the 3.2 A3 is a good car with some shortcomings, but if you want to stick with Audis, I'd suggest going with the A3 2.0 or stepping up to an S4.
04-21-2006, 03:32 PM
#7
On a tight track though, the more linear power delivery of the V6 would be very helpful
since it's really hard to lay down power smoothly on the exit of corners with a cliff of torque (it's not even a mountain;-) coming in at around 2000rpms.
That same torque delivery of the 2.0T makes a great street car though.
That same torque delivery of the 2.0T makes a great street car though.
Trending Topics
)
04-21-2006, 06:23 PM
#9
AudiWorld Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Michigan
Posts: 797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you wanna track a car, get a Spec Miata and RACE the thing for the love of God!!!
Get the 2.0t A3. Our family has an A4CVT1.8t and my two liter A3. The A4 is much better on fuel, 32 33mpg versus 27 or so, but the A4 is a comfortable roadie versus my sport A3 as a cool fun to drive street car.
Both cars look damn good in the driveway, and my wife loves her "old" A4 to this day...
PS, I have a Spec Miata for the track, it is such an effin blast it would run rings around an S4 in anything but snow.
Both cars look damn good in the driveway, and my wife loves her "old" A4 to this day...
PS, I have a Spec Miata for the track, it is such an effin blast it would run rings around an S4 in anything but snow.
