520

I hear you brother!

Timmay

Makes no difference in terms of what?

Timmay

V8 M3.....hmmmmm

notawagon

Configure your A3 3.2 S line with DSG and 3 or 5 doors....<ul><li><a href="http://ak4-uk.audi.co.uk/entry.do?next=carlinea3&amp;save_url=http://www.audi.co.uk//newcars/carbuilder/savecarnew.jsp">http://ak4-uk.audi.co.uk/entry.do?next=carlinea3&amp;save_url=http://www.audi.co.uk//newcars/carbuilder/savecarne

April

You've got to not only certify stuff, but then you have the logistics and overhead of stocking parts for all those variables. The cost to do this for a low margin car in an unproven market just doesn't make sense.

It was enough of a headache dealing with people cross-shopping Passats and A4s and A6s. But at least you could make some money there. The last thing dealers want (and they have a huge say once the basic car gets here) are too many choices with an unproven car. At one point we had over 25 different steering wheels just for the A6!!!!!

It would be nice if we could have more choices (I want a stick V6), but the upside is that we pay less per horsepower and options on Audis, than almost any other market in the world. Ponder this: it looks the RS4 will be in the mid to upper $70K range. A Porsche Cayman is slower in many instances, and yet when comparbly equipped to a base RS4, costs the same or even more. Heck! The average transaction price on a MINI is around $26K to $27K before tax and fees. We get 200hp and they get 160.

notawagon

Thanks and I understand all that. I have been in the business for many years also and have seen great ideas and mistakes. For example, if you get an A4 with all the sportiest options, you will still have flat seats and no DSG. If you get a BMW 325 with Sports package, you get fantastic seats.
I received a survey a few months ago. It said they noticed I visited the Audi website and built an A3. It asked we if I bought it and if not, why? It asked if Quattro for example was important and how about a V6? It also asked what I thought about the 5-door configuration. It asked about options I would like to see. I'm sure you can guess how I responded. I thought this was a great step in the right direction and the S-line, DSG, and Quattro is a perfect response. If only they had gone one step further. At least they asked....

April

The 5 door stick 2.0tq was the closest to being 50/50. The 3 door DSG VR6q had the worst, along with the 3 door TDI (heavy engine).

notawagon

I may be getting older and may have fallen a step or two behind, but I love my cars and knew I read this im multiple reliable sources. In 3 separate Car and Driver new Golf platform articles and four references, the first about the A3 5-door, the second about the much heavier VW GLI 4-door sedan, and the most recent about the pending US release of the VW GTI 3-door. Finally I dug out my A3 5-door brochure. The magazine specs are as tested and published figures. The magazine further states all the versions share the same platform and wheelbase of 101.5. The A3 brochure actually lists it as 101.4 but that's only a hair shorter. Perhaps your info citing a longer wheelbase was comparing last year's Golf platform to this year's. So if the 3-door and 5-door 3.2 S-line have the same wheelbase, lets look at the Audi website to confirm how much weight we save. I'll check for weight distribution.<ul><li><a href="http://www.caranddriver.com">http://www.caranddriver.com</a</li></ul>

April

Using European info, because both the Golf and A3 have been out in their current forms for a while there. As seen on this page, AoA doesn't do a very good job of providing accurate info, so I do not immediately trust American magazines.

"While it rides on the same wheelbase as the A3 three-door (and the VW Golf, which also shares the same platform, running gear and most drivetrain combinations), the Sportback's body is unique. The rear end has been lengthened by 68mm, to create an extended load floor."

http://www.drive.com.au/editorial/article.aspx?id=9852&amp;vf=1

That longer rear means more weight out back. Yes, it's more weight, but it helps counterbalance that heavy nose. Just like a cat without a tail would be a lighter cat, a cat with a tail, is generally much more agile.

I took my A3 to the last Alfa driving school, and there was a manual 1.8t Passat wagon (stock) also attending. We swapped cars at one point. The Passat was much easier to rotate in medium and higher speed corners where you could use the momentum to get the back end to swing. It was much harder to do in the A3 - even with the longer 5 door chassis instead of the 3 door. That is supported by reviews of European GTis, where they say the back end is lively, but it won't really step out.

In the Sportback (our 5 doors), the 2.0t Front Trak DSG cars have a 60/40 front to rear weight distribution. The manual has 59/41 f/r.

Casting about on various sites, I come up with:

European base weights for the 3 door A3 are 2810lbs or 3020lbs for the DSG.

The Sportback weighs around 3240 with a manual tranny.

Of course there bound to be options in various markets that don't make those numbers a direct comparison, but it's the best I can come up with for the moment.

notawagon

So the current US A3 brochure says the car has a 101.4 wheelbase, and Car and Driver lists test data with manufacturer posted specs for the A3 5-door, GLI 4-door sedan, and GTI 3-door and makes it a point to also specifically highlight that all the new Golf platforms share the exact 101.5 wheelbase and you are saying it is not true? Why would they make that up? If that is the case, will a GLI be the best track choice with all that weight out back?