Audi TT 2002 vs BMW 3 series 2001
| Body: | Cabrio | Hatchback | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
| Engine: | 1.8 Petrol | 1.8 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 180 HP | 116 HP | |
| Torque: | 235 NM | 175 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.5 seconds | 12 seconds | |
|
Audi TT is more dynamic to drive. Audi TT engine produces 64 HP more power than BMW 3 series, whereas torque is 60 NM more than BMW 3 series. Thanks to more power Audi TT reaches 100 km/h speed 3.5 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.2 | 7.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 10.2 l/100km | 8.9 l/100km | |
|
The BMW 3 series is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Audi TT consumes 1.6 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 240 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Audi TT consumes 1.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the BMW 3 series. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 56 litres | 63 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 600 km in combined cycle | 820 km in combined cycle | |
| 810 km on highway | 1050 km on highway | ||
| 540 km with real consumption | 700 km with real consumption | ||
| BMW 3 series gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.04 m | 4.26 m | |
| Width: | 1.76 m | 1.75 m | |
| Height: | 1.35 m | 1.41 m | |
| Audi TT is 22 cm shorter than the BMW 3 series, 1 cm wider, while the height of Audi TT is 6 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 220 litres | 310 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1100 litres | |
|
BMW 3 series has more luggage space. Audi TT has 90 litres less trunk space than the BMW 3 series. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10 meters | 10 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`680 | 1`820 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | high | low | |
| Audi TT has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data BMW 3 series has serious deffects in 80 percent more cases than Audi TT, so Audi TT quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 4800 | 2400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Audi TT has
|
BMW 3 sērija has
| |