Ask the Car People.SM


Audi A3 Test Drive - What Do You Think?

22 messages,  Last post on Oct 24, 2006 at 9:28 PM

You are in the Audi A3 Forum.

What is this discussion about? Audi A3, Car Buying, Sedan, Wagon

Messages Page 2 of 3

#3 of 22 thoughts.. by kurtamaxxxguy

May 10, 2006 (11:35 pm)

fourrings, was your test Audi equipped with performance tires? Just a change in tires could change how the car rides...some mags have commented the A3 gets really loud with performance rubber.
 
European Car seems to be echoing Car and Driver, which said pretty much the same.
 
I wonder if the 3.2, which Audi told me uses the R32 engine and drive train, with Audi mods, more QC, and interior, was Audis' quick way to offer drivers an A3 Quattro without extensive re-engineering?
 
Incidently, The VW R32 sold out very fast here and apparently remains in high demand with little depreciation.
 
Perhaps the Golf Mk6, due soon, will spawn the A3 Quattro using Audi's latest technology.

#4 of 22 Re: thoughts.. [kurtamaxxxguy] by shipo

May 11, 2006 (6:46 am)

Replying to: kurtamaxxxguy (May 10, 2006 11:35 pm)
I think it highly unlikely that the car fourrings drove had performance tires on it. Why? Because the Premium Package only comes with All-Season tires. I do find it odd though that he (or she) claimed that the car was firm riding and noisy. I found the non-Sport Package car that I drove to be too soft in its ride, and none of the three A3s that I've driven were at all what I would call noisy.
 
Best Regards,
Shipo

#5 of 22 Driving impressions by mazda6s

Apr 10, 2005 (5:41 pm)

Well, I drove the A3 yesterday. It was a base model, no options. We took it on a windy road in the foothills, a perfect place to test drive this car. The sales guy really liked to push it, thought I'm sure we were never near it's limits. I never thought I would say this, but I like the 2.0T engine. This is the first turbo engine that I have ever been able to say that about. It's very responsive and whatever turbo lag is there is not an issue with me (a first for me). Handling is impressive, with a very tight feel to the car overall. The 6-speed manual seems geared just right for the engine, much like I observed with the last generation Jetta with VR6 and 6-speed manual. I like the interior (mostly), controls, and base stereo. Now, the downside. The center console armrest must be folded up when driving the manual. The sliding armrest in the new Jetta is a much better design and I don't know why they didn't just use it in the A3 too. There's a big blank rectangular area in the center of the instrument cluster where the computer info would be (base model doesn't have it). The base model has a cheap plastic gearshift knob and plastic steering wheel with no radio controls, just like the new Jetta VE. You have to get the Sports Package or Premium Package to upgrade this. The Convenience Package (with trip computer) is only available if you order a car. You can't get the Sports Package without leather. I could go on but you get the idea.
So, the bottom line for me is that I wouldn't buy this car due to the equipment and options packaging. If it was just for the power train, I'd go for it. Now, if the new Jetta GLI is equipped like the last gen Jetta GLI, I'd be interested in that.

#6 of 22 Re: Driving impressions [mazda6s] by corvette

Apr 10, 2005 (6:53 pm)

Replying to: mazda6s (Apr 10, 2005 5:41 pm)
You might like the Legacy GT, it also didn't feel like a turbo when I was driving it (stick shift version), just a really powerful car.

#7 of 22 Re: Driving impressions [corvette] by mazda6s

Apr 11, 2005 (9:54 pm)

Replying to: corvette (Apr 10, 2005 6:53 pm)
Well, I drove the Legacy GT, but unfortunately it was an auto as that was all they had at the time. I might blame it on the transmission, but I didn't like the engine much. The turbo lag is very obvious with the auto trans.

#8 of 22 Re: thoughts.. [shipo] by absoludely

Sep 05, 2006 (8:28 am)

Replying to: shipo (May 11, 2006 6:46 am)
from the reviews i've been reading, it seems that the reason for the increased road noise was due to the all season tires, and the performance tires would actually work better.
 
i test drove an '06 premium packaged a3 yesterday myself and noticed that going over bumpy roads, there is quite a bit of road noise. however, since i've been driving a lowered prelude on 18" wheels, the noise hardly bothers me at all

#9 of 22 Truly a difference btw OPENSKY and NON-OPENSKY? by absoludely

Sep 05, 2006 (9:32 am)

was wondering if someone could clear up 2 things.
 
1) does the opensky really reduce the headroom in the a3?
 
2) does the opensky really increase wind noise noticeably when traveling at highway speeds?
 
thanks in advance.

#10 of 22 Re: Truly a difference btw OPENSKY and NON-OPENSKY? [absoludely] by tslbmw

Sep 07, 2006 (1:23 pm)

Replying to: absoludely (Sep 05, 2006 9:32 am)
Yes, Opensky does reduce headroom. If you're 6' or taller, your head will touch the sunshade.
No, I drove both (one with and one w/out) and didn't notice any change in wind noise.
 
I bought an 06 A3 2.0T DSG w/Opensky & Sport package back in March and honestly the biggest problem with Opensky is the stupid latch/clip for the sunshade that is poorly made and has broken three times already. Other than that, 7500 miles and the car has been flawless.
 
Happy shopping.

#11 of 22 Test Drives and Pricing by ccd1

Feb 18, 2006 (5:58 pm)

Test drove the A3s, both the 2.0T and the 3.2. I MUCH preferred the 3.2. The 2.0T in sport mode was fine, but the 3.2 in sport mode was an entirely different animal. The car just wanted to fly. I also preferred that the 3.2 comes pretty much loaded, while you have a myriad number of options with the 2.0T. The other thing I liked about the 3.2 is that it isn't a turbo. The 2.0 has a high boost turbo and I wonder how long it will last. I tend to keep my cars a long time.
 
Compared to the Volvo V50, the Audi is more of driver's car while the Volvo struck me as a better all weather car and had a little more space. It also had some nice touches (in terms of convenience) that were missing from the Audi, like the flap to hold groceries.
 
While I prefer the Audi, the issue gets back to price. The Volvo dealer would deal on price (to the tune of $3k) which makes the car around $5k cheaper than the A3 3.2. Not sure the Audi is worth that kind of difference.

#12 of 22 Re: Test Drives and Pricing [ccd1] by joemale

Feb 18, 2006 (6:38 pm)

Replying to: ccd1 (Feb 18, 2006 5:58 pm)
I honestly thought the 2.0 was equally fun to drive.
THe 3.2's added weight didn't give it any noticeable
boost in power, almost the opposite.
Of course, anyone considering them should test drive
them both. I was set to spend more, but chose the 2.0
and didn't feel I was compromising AT ALL.

Messages Page 2 of 3

To POST a message, please Sign In.

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement