Audi TT 2006 vs BMW 3 series 2003
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain and belt | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 200 HP | 143 HP | |
| Torque: | 280 NM | 200 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 6.4 seconds | 9.3 seconds | |
|
Audi TT is more dynamic to drive. Audi TT engine produces 57 HP more power than BMW 3 series, whereas torque is 80 NM more than BMW 3 series. Thanks to more power Audi TT reaches 100 km/h speed 2.9 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.7 | 7.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.9 l/100km | 8.3 l/100km | |
|
The BMW 3 series is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Audi TT consumes 0.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the BMW 3 series, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Audi TT could require 45 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Audi TT consumes 0.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the BMW 3 series. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 63 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 710 km in combined cycle | 850 km in combined cycle | |
| 910 km on highway | 1100 km on highway | ||
| 610 km with real consumption | 750 km with real consumption | ||
| BMW 3 series gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Audi TT) have better traction on slippery roads and when climbing hills, better fuel economy, and are less expensive to purchase. On the disadvantage side, FWD cars usually have less towing capacity, poorer acceleration and harder handling. Rear-wheel drive cars (BMW 3 series) have better handling on dry roads, better acceleration, more even weight distribution and more fun to drive. RWD is also better for towing large loads. The cons of rear-wheel drive are less interior and trunk space and more difficulty maneuvering in wet and snowy conditions. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 360'000 km | 380'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 4 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 6 other car models, including Audi A4, Skoda Octavia, Audi A3, Seat Altea, Volkswagen Passat CC | Used only for this car | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Audi TT might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.18 m | 4.49 m | |
| Width: | 1.84 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.35 m | 1.37 m | |
| Audi TT is 31 cm shorter than the BMW 3 series, 8 cm wider, while the height of Audi TT is 2 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 290 litres | 410 litres | |
|
BMW 3 series has more luggage space. Audi TT has 120 litres less trunk space than the BMW 3 series. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | 10 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Audi TT is 1 metres more than that of the BMW 3 series, which means Audi TT can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`680 | 1`820 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | high | average | |
| Audi TT has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data BMW 3 series has serious deffects in 225 percent more cases than Audi TT, so Audi TT quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 8200 | 5400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Audi TT has
|
BMW 3 sērija has
| |