* Server response code: 500
We've had a minor breakdown.
We've had a minor breakdown.
The page you were looking for didn't load. Try refreshing the page, or check out our
Last post on Nov 13, 2012 at 11:41 AM
You are in the Audi A3
What is this discussion about?
Audi A3, Wagon
#1783 of 2296 Re: ahh. [kurtamaxxxguy]
Mar 23, 2006 (10:44 am)
The S4 get 340hp from its V-8, the RS4 gets 420hp. The V-8 barely fit into the A4 after a bunch of modifications to make it shorter. I doubt it would ever fit into the A3. Since the "RS" cars are Audi's stupidly fast cars, 350hp is probably close to the max hp you can get out of the 6 cylnder engine.
The 3.2 will have to be a hit before we see any "S" version of the A3. If there aren't enough people to spring for the 3.2, then the S3 and RS3 will never get off the ground. The S3 is hitting european showrooms in the Fall, so figure on the 2008 model year as the 1st possible year of introduction into the US. But I wouldn't count on it.
As a hatch, I think there will always be a limit on what Americans will pay for the car. However...make it a little larger and shape it like its Roadjet concept car and it begins to look like a CUV. You could break a few price barriers with a car like that. There are plenty of CUVs in the $30-40k range like the Nissan Murano and more on the way. The current A3 is too small to pull this off.
I know this is mostly a matter of perception as the lines between a hatch, CUV and small wagon can get very blurry. But Americans will pay more for a CUV than either a small wagon or a hatch. Witness the Infinity FX.
Mar 23, 2006 (2:19 pm)
the Malibu Maxx, if Saab took it over and reworked it with premium interior, an OHV V6 with direct injection, and a more european ride/handling emphasis, could be a viable "Big Brother" to the A3. But it won't happen.
Sadly, Audi's limited focus on the 3.2's market range may prove limiting for the number of buyers they get. A more touring oriented suspension would sell me, but it's not available, period.
Is the current Audi A3 3.2 a hit? Are they flying off dealers lots?
#1785 of 2296 Re: actually.. [kurtamaxxxguy]
Mar 23, 2006 (2:45 pm)
The 3.2s in my area are definitely not flying off dealer lots. My sense is that they move slowly, but is not a big deal since most dealers have only 1 or 2 at any given time.
No one stocks a bunch of these cars. The 2.0s are MUCH more plentiful.
The 3.2 is an S-line in Audi nomenclature which means its intended to be sporty. Hence the choice of suspension. As you go into the "S" and "RS" models, you get more performance that is less suited for daily driving. IOW, the focus becomes more limited as you go to the "S" and "RS". All the more reason not to bring these cars into the US without great demand for the 3.2. Even if these models make it to the US, you can bank on the suspension being as firm as the 3.2 or firmer.
#1786 of 2296 Re: actually.. [ccd1]
Mar 23, 2006 (3:34 pm)
And lower. RS4s ride 1.2" lower than their S4 counterparts, which already ride 5mm lower (IIRC) than the A4 S-line brethren, which ride 10mm lower than their std A4 siblings. They also track a minimum of 2" wider than a typical A4. I'd expect the RS3 to be set up pretty much the same way.
Makes me all sweaty just thinking about it.
We won't see an RS3 here, I don't think. Too bad, says I.
#1787 of 2296 Re: actually.. [wale_bate1]
Mar 23, 2006 (4:21 pm)
I agree that we won't see the RS3.
Now if I was king err...head of AOA, I'd try to sell HQ on the idea of selling the A3 in the US as follows:
A3 2.0 S-Line
However the US, S3 would be a RS3 detuned to 300 hp, sort of halfway between the European S3 and RS3 and would come with no options, just loaded for around $40k (Hey, a guy can dream, can't he?). I'd use my S3 as a showcase for Audi technology and try to get people hooked on the options for purchases of future Audis. This car will never happen, but it would sure stop all complaints that there isn't enough difference between the 2.0 and 3.2 to justify the added cost.
Mar 23, 2006 (5:09 pm)
A 2.0T Q S-line chipped up to 255, though. As long as the base 2.0T was a Q, of course.
Tis a marvelous way with words ye have, ccd1, truly!
Mar 23, 2006 (6:04 pm)
I'd modify the choice by allowing the AE 3.2 S to have option for a touring suspension (charge for it if necessarry - if charge is reasonable I'd cough up) with a little more suspension travel and different springs/valving. Also use the 2.0 wheels and maybe take a _little_ flash out of the interior. Leave out some of the options (reserve 'em for the S).
That would allow Audi to plant a version of their 3.2 at those who would otherwise go Subi, Toyota or others near that price range. The 3.2 S would remain for those who don't want to compromise.
Mar 23, 2006 (7:03 pm)
although one site claimed Mazda had a 5 door with AWD, apparently that's not so. So comp's down to Subi and Mitsubi, I guess.
#1791 of 2296 Re: actually.. [kurtamaxxxguy]
Mar 23, 2006 (8:32 pm)
The comfy suspension would go in the A3 and S-line A3. By the time you get to my 3.2, it's a firm sports suspension all the way. It's not a compromise car
#1792 of 2296 Re: actually.. [ccd1]
Mar 24, 2006 (10:06 am)
Hey, hey, HEY!
Just you keep your "comfy suspension" off of my S-Line 255hp 2.0TQ! Sport suspension or die, says I! Leave the cushy junk on the base model and let them option a lux package.
By the time you get to the 3.2Q, it's the RS's Dynamic Ride Control, a little heavier damping, perhaps some extra bracing and thicker bars for the upgrade. Oh and wider track of course!