Audi A3 3.2 Quattro

[gaz1234]

my mate has just bought one. performance seems very similar to mine, just wondered what this thing is like?

[pgilc1]

I would have no objections to one - other than they look pretty much like the standard a3, but cost a lot more.

I always think thats audis downfall - buy the 3.2 and people think its the 1.8. Buy a 2.0 litre BMW and people assume its a 3 litre....

[Dr Jekyll]

pgilc1 said:

I would have no objections to one - other than they look pretty much like the standard a3, but cost a lot more.

I always think thats audis downfall - buy the 3.2 and people think its the 1.8. Buy a 2.0 litre BMW and people assume its a 3 litre....

As far as most people are concerned that's an Audi advantage.

[Mustard]

Drinks like a fish and feels bit wooden to drive, quick though and DSG box works well

[pgilc1]

Dr Jekyll said:

pgilc1 said:

I would have no objections to one - other than they look pretty much like the standard a3, but cost a lot more.

I always think thats audis downfall - buy the 3.2 and people think its the 1.8. Buy a 2.0 litre BMW and people assume its a 3 litre....

As far as most people are concerned that's an Audi advantage.

Its no advantage when they're asking to spend maybe 35-40K on say an a6, when it looks like the 2.0 litre.

I nearly bought a 3.0TDI Quattro A6 Le Mans. It just didnt feel special enough to warrant spending £10,000 more than, say the 2.0TDI S Line. When i think a4 or a6, i think 2.0TDI.

[MitchT]

The main problem with Audi is that the engine is connected to the wrong set of wheels. Until this is fixed they will always compare to Volkswagen, rather than the BMW and Merc that they like to think they compare with.

[taffyracer]

pgilc1 said:

I would have no objections to one - other than they look pretty much like the standard a3, but cost a lot more.

I always think thats audis downfall - buy the 3.2 and people think its the 1.8. Buy a 2.0 litre BMW and people assume its a 3 litre....

Can't the same be levelled at BMW though, you can't tell the difference between a 520d or 550i, or a 318d or 335d, the only tell tale signs are the exhausts, personally I buy the car that suits my needs and don't give a toss what others think it is or is not

[pgilc1]

taffyracer said:

pgilc1 said:

I would have no objections to one - other than they look pretty much like the standard a3, but cost a lot more.

I always think thats audis downfall - buy the 3.2 and people think its the 1.8. Buy a 2.0 litre BMW and people assume its a 3 litre....

Can't the same be levelled at BMW though, you can't tell the difference between a 520d or 550i, or a 318d or 335d, the only tell tale signs are the exhausts, personally I buy the car that suits my needs and don't give a toss what others think it is or is not

I think the perception is different with BMW. The perception is if you're driving a 5 series diesel, its at least a 530d, yet in reality the bulk now being sold are 520ds.

Yes, like you, i buy the car that suits me, not what others think it is or not - have an x5 3.0d now and previously a 535d. Maybe i just cant bring myself to spend £40K+ on an audi. Maybe its as someone else said there, its too close to its volkswagen roots.

[Andrew D]

MitchT said:

The main problem with Audi is that the engine is connected to the wrong set of wheels. Until this is fixed they will always compare to Volkswagen, rather than the BMW and Merc that they like to think they compare with.

Not sure which "set" of wheels you regard as correct, as quattro means it's connected to all of them. Which as far as I'm concerned is the best way to go; if BMW deemed the UK worthy of having the X-Drive option on the E92 i'd definately have one.

[anonymous-user]

There are 2 things I don't like about the Audi A3. The appalling ride quality (at least on the sport models) and lifeless steering. Both ruin an otherwise desirable car. Perhaps ironically, the cheaper VW Golf rides and handles much better.

[telecat]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

The A3 uses the Golf chassis doesn't it?? Transverse engine.

[[TW]Fox]

I've driven an A3 3.2.

Was pretty quick, actually - suprisingly so. Engine note was also very nice. Interior wasn't bad but wasn't as good as the E39 in quite a few places.

Handling was a bit so-so, the car felt very nose heavy and the Quattro is a gimmick - it feels like an FWD car.

[carlosvalderrama]

I run an A4 2.8 quattro day to day, and I can confirm that especially with a big V6 it is incredibly nose heavy.

A Bim would be purer and balanced and such and such, but I was never planning on pushing it's limits on the way to the Co-op, so who cares.

I bought it over an equivalent age BMW because it was loads cheaper than an E46 328i for similar spec/miles, and compared to an equivalent cost E36 328i, it was much nicer inside and a lot newer.

All in all I'm happy with my decision, and if he's happy with his, we're all winners.

[jamesson]

Owning both an A3 3.2 and E36 325i and having recently owned a E46 323Ci I can pretty much confirm what everyone else says. The BMWs are much better at handling as the Audi is nose heavy. The A3 also has a stupidly firm ride (as it's the Sport version, I haven't tried a normal one).

However, the noise of the A3 is fantastic and it pulls strongly from minimal revs.

Build quality seems similar to the E46.

Horses for courses, I suppose. I love it, and despite its shortcomings, I prefer it to the BMWs.

[berry100]

All I can say is.....'b***er of' to the Audi forum....

seriously though had 2 audis before my 535d and I can understand the chain of thought that has been banded about for a long time about the BMW being the 'drivers' car....

Did like my previous Audis but the BMW has now got me hooked for a completely different set of reasons to why I liked the Audis.....