Audi TT 1999 vs BMW 3 series 2000
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.8 Petrol | 3.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain and belt | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 180 HP | 231 HP | |
| Torque: | 235 NM | 300 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.1 seconds | 6.9 seconds | |
|
BMW 3 series is a more dynamic driving. Audi TT engine produces 51 HP less power than BMW 3 series, whereas torque is 65 NM less than BMW 3 series. Due to the lower power, Audi TT reaches 100 km/h speed 1.2 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.2 | 9.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.0 l/100km | 10.0 l/100km | |
|
The Audi TT is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Audi TT consumes 1.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the BMW 3 series, which means that by driving the Audi TT over 15,000 km in a year you can save 210 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Audi TT consumes 1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the BMW 3 series. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 56 litres | 63 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 680 km in combined cycle | 650 km in combined cycle | |
| 870 km on highway | 860 km on highway | ||
| 620 km with real consumption | 630 km with real consumption | ||
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: | 420'000 km | 460'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used, but under equal conditions the average life of a BMW 3 series engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 5 years | 7 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 6 other car models, including Volkswagen Golf, Skoda Octavia, Audi A3, Seat Ibiza, Seat Leon | Installed on at least 6 other car models, including BMW 5 sērija, BMW X5, BMW 7 sērija, BMW X3, BMW Z4 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
| Audi TT 1999 1.8 engine: The engine is considered reliable, with a lifespan from 300,000 km.
The primary causes of unstable operation include air leaks through the crankcase ventilation system, throttle body malfunctions, idle air ... More about Audi TT 1999 1.8 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.04 m | 4.49 m | |
| Width: | 1.76 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.35 m | 1.37 m | |
| Audi TT is 45 cm shorter than the BMW 3 series, width is practically the same , while the height of Audi TT is 2 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 220 litres | 300 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 300 litres | |
|
BMW 3 series has more luggage space. Audi TT has 80 litres less trunk space than the BMW 3 series. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10 meters | 10 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`640 | 2`005 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | above average | below average | |
| Audi TT has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data BMW 3 series has serious deffects in 35 percent more cases than Audi TT, so Audi TT quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 5200 | 6000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Audi TT has
|
BMW 3 sērija has
| |