A3 vs B6 A4

[jonsaudi]

My car is at the dealership for some fuel pump recall. So I;m driving an '07 A3 as a loaner. Man...this car is hella fast!! It's a 2.0T fwd S-tronic. I gotta say, my bone stock B6 got nothing against this A3. The torque, the handling, the power, it's all high performance. No wonder these things cost $30k!?! Freakin' turbo lag on B6's...makes me want to chip my car one day soon...

[b6onboost]

yeah...the A3 is much more powerful than the stock 1.8T A4. plus, s-tronic shifts faster and fwd has less drivetrain loss.

but stage 1+ (chip and injectors) on a B6 will let you walk a stock A3. but when you chip a K03 the 'turbo lag', if you can call it that, gets much more noticable.

[diztek]

ya, i would def. consider an a3 if the 2.0t came with quattro.

i took my a3 loaner on a snowboard trip. :-)

[DELUX]

The A3 has a haldex AWD system. I wouldn't buy an Audi without Quattro.

[burner799]

the 2.0t is coming out with quattro isn't it. vaguely remember reading that somewhere on here.

[TSlice]

It will still be a Haldex system, and not the Torsen system that the A4 uses. They call it Quattro, but its really 4Motion borrowed from VW.

[diztek]

id prob. buy the new scirroco over the a3 anyways. ha

[IceMole]

Did you really just say turbo lag when talking about a k03?

[audipotential]

My car is at the dealership for some fuel pump recall. So I;m driving an '07 A3 as a loaner. Man...this car is hella fast!! It's a 2.0T fwd S-tronic. I gotta say, my bone stock B6 got nothing against this A3. The torque, the handling, the power, it's all high performance. No wonder these things cost $30k!?! Freakin' turbo lag on B6's...makes me want to chip my car one day soon...

???
Youre comparing a 170HP 1.8T to a 200 HP 2.0T, Its not really rocket science that the A3 Is faster

I really didnt see much in regards to turbo lag in a stock k03...its so tiny man.

[audipotential]

It will still be a Haldex system, and not the Torsen system that the A4 uses. They call it Quattro, but its really 4Motion borrowed from VW.

Haldex

[Syndromeofadown]

Stage 1+ on a Quattro A4 beats an A3?

Stage 1+ is rated at ~235 HP at the crank - 20% DTL = 190 HP

The 2.0 FSI motor tends to dyno close to 200 WHP on FWD. Race should be won out in the Tq numbers here. Whoever gets ahead in the beginning is going to stay there.

FWD Vs. FWD the A4 would take the A3 though.

[audipotential]

Stage 1+ on a Quattro A4 beats an A3?

Stage 1+ is rated at ~235 HP at the crank - 20% DTL = 190 HP

The 2.0 FSI motor tends to dyno close to 200 WHP on FWD. Race should be won out in the Tq numbers here. Whoever gets ahead in the beginning is going to stay there.

FWD Vs. FWD the A4 would take the A3 though.

Its 200 At the crank.

[Syndromeofadown]

Its 200 At the crank.

VAG Under-rates the 2.0 FSI. I have seen multiple FWD 2.0 FSI cars dyno at 198 WHP.

Thus, where I say The 2.0 FSI motor tends to dyno close to 200 WHP would be true.

[absolutegtr]

VAG Under-rates the 2.0 FSI. I have seen multiple FWD 2.0 FSI cars dyno at 198 WHP.

Thus, where I say The 2.0 FSI motor tends to dyno close to 200 WHP would be true.

I saw a stock A3 dyno 213 Whp....mustang dyno

[woofster]

I spent about a week in an A3 and my first impressions were the same when comparing it to my B6. First thought was: This thing is fast! It picks up very quickly and acceleration even at highway speeds is quite impressive. However, if I had to pick between a brand new A3 or my 6-year-old A4...I'd still take my A4. Physics doesn't lie and although a lighter 200hp car will obviously be faster than a heavier 170hp car, the overall luxurious look, feel and experience of the A4 just can't be equaled.

[audipotential]

I dont believe that the A3 is 250HP at the crank. so a chipped a3 would be like 300 hp????

[audipotential]

VAG Under-rates the 2.0 FSI. I have seen multiple FWD 2.0 FSI cars dyno at 198 WHP.

Thus, where I say The 2.0 FSI motor tends to dyno close to 200 WHP would be true.

If you can give me a valid reason as to why a Car Manu would UNDER-RATE a cars performance by such an amount...then I'll believe it.

[IceMole]

^ not that I'm taking sides but bmw does it for the 335

[audipotential]

I dont see why. They could be losing potential buyers.

[AudiA4Turbo22]

^^ many companies do! i.e. 0-60 times! My MBZ ML500 is rated at 6.7sec, but i've seen many people pull 6.3 easy as well as Road and Track! where as lexus says 5.8 for my Mom's SC430 but she pulls more like 6.4!

[b6onboost]

Simple...its all about perception. You under rate the cheap model 2.0T to entice more people to opt for the more expense 3.2. 200hp vs 255hp makes a 3.2 seem more worthwhile at a 55hp difference. Claim 220hp vs 255hp...and all the sudden the 'perceived' performance gap diminshes.

It only applies to buyers on the margin. Some people can only afford 2.0T, some will always opt for top of the line 3.2, but those in the midde...deciding whether the 3.2 is 'worth it' certainly look at how much more powerful it is compared to the base model.

If you can give me a valid reason as to why a Car Manu would UNDER-RATE a cars performance by such an amount...then I'll believe it.

[jbrown7815]

Simple...its all about perception. You under rate the cheap model 2.0T to entice more people to opt for the more expense 3.2. 200hp vs 255hp makes a 3.2 seem more worthwhile at a 55hp difference. Claim 220hp vs 255hp...and all the sudden the 'perceived' performance gap diminshes.

It only applies to buyers on the margin. Some people can only afford 2.0T, some will always opt for top of the line 3.2, but those in the midde...deciding whether the 3.2 is 'worth it' certainly look at how much more powerful it is compared to the base model.

Exactly.

[Syndromeofadown]

Simple...its all about perception. You under rate the cheap model 2.0T to entice more people to opt for the more expense 3.2. 200hp vs 255hp makes a 3.2 seem more worthwhile at a 55hp difference. Claim 220hp vs 255hp...and all the sudden the 'perceived' performance gap diminshes.

It only applies to buyers on the margin. Some people can only afford 2.0T, some will always opt for top of the line 3.2, but those in the midde...deciding whether the 3.2 is 'worth it' certainly look at how much more powerful it is compared to the base model.

Not only this, but for a turbo charged car, ambient conditions and fuel play a major part in the output of power. If you live somewhere hot, and have shitty fuel (Stupid California Craptane!) then the car will produce lower numbers than a car running in a cooler climate with 93 or even 95 octane. Gives the a good margin of error.

The power rating will also work for buyers who will never chip their cars- example the TT 225. Think they just magically upped the power to show off? A 180 HP 1.8T can make more than 225 HP with a chip and injectors. Does every single Joe off the street know that? No way Jose. This allows them to charge 7-10k more for a car that is slightly upgraded. How much does that really cost them?

[audipotential]

That being said....How does the 3.2 Stack up to what the numbers say? is it higher too?

Simple...its all about perception. You under rate the cheap model 2.0T to entice more people to opt for the more expense 3.2. 200hp vs 255hp makes a 3.2 seem more worthwhile at a 55hp difference. Claim 220hp vs 255hp...and all the sudden the 'perceived' performance gap diminshes.

It only applies to buyers on the margin. Some people can only afford 2.0T, some will always opt for top of the line 3.2, but those in the midde...deciding whether the 3.2 is 'worth it' certainly look at how much more powerful it is compared to the base model.

[AudiA4Turbo22]

I believe that Audi over-estimates their 0-60 times!!! because my A4 was rated with a 0-60mph time of 7.8sec and now with APR 1+ i barely get that!

[b6onboost]

I don't think audi over estimated. As i recall that 7.8 was claimed for a A4 1.8T Fwd manual. Obviously a 1.8T quattro tip is going to be heavier, shift slower, and have a time in the mid-high 8s.

I believe that Audi over-estimates their 0-60 times!!! because my A4 was rated with a 0-60mph time of 7.8sec and now with APR 1+ i barely get that!

[mkaresh]

That being said....How does the 3.2 Stack up to what the numbers say? is it higher too?

I've never heard this. It makes more sense to under-rate the engine in the cheaper car, for the reasons others have given.

The other reason to under-rate is that you can bump the rating in later years without actually doing anything to the engine. The cases I'm aware of this were with Detroit auto makers one-uping each other.

[jonsaudi]

I spent about a week in an A3 and my first impressions were the same when comparing it to my B6. First thought was: This thing is fast! It picks up very quickly and acceleration even at highway speeds is quite impressive. However, if I had to pick between a brand new A3 or my 6-year-old A4...I'd still take my A4. Physics doesn't lie and although a lighter 200hp car will obviously be faster than a heavier 170hp car, the overall luxurious look, feel and experience of the A4 just can't be equaled.

Agreed. The A3 took me by surprise when I first stepped on the gas, I didn't expect such high performance on a small, bone stock hatch. I definitely would still choose my B6 than the A3 for its look and handling...I just wish the B6 had more power than the A3. Chipping my car maybe the first step to the solution...

[DELUX]

Haldex

Whoa whoa whoa.... I never said Haldex was a bad AWD system. I've driven the R32 a few times (Mk4) and I thought it was pretty damn good. I'm just saying that if I'm buying an Audi, I'd like it to have a true Quattro system.

[aaron1085]

A4, definately gets more looks than a hatchback A3, just want the power in my 1.8T