BMW 3 series 2001 vs Audi A3 2004
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain and belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 143 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 200 NM | 200 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10 seconds | 9.7 seconds | |
|
Audi A3 is a more dynamic driving. BMW 3 series engine produces 7 HP less power than Audi A3, the torque is the same for both cars. Due to the lower power, BMW 3 series reaches 100 km/h speed 0.3 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.9 | 7.8 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.2 l/100km | 8.6 l/100km | |
|
The Audi A3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification BMW 3 series consumes 0.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Audi A3, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the BMW 3 series could require 15 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, BMW 3 series consumes 0.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Audi A3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 63 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 790 km in combined cycle | 700 km in combined cycle | |
| 1030 km on highway | 1000 km on highway | ||
| 680 km with real consumption | 630 km with real consumption | ||
| BMW 3 series gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Audi A3) 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: | 380'000 km | 350'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 6 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 9 other car models, including Volkswagen Passat, Volkswagen Golf, Seat Altea, Seat Leon | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Audi A3 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.26 m | 4.29 m | |
| Width: | 1.75 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.41 m | 1.42 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. BMW 3 series is 3 cm shorter than the Audi A3, 1 cm narrower, while the height of BMW 3 series is 1 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 310 litres | 370 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1100 litres | 1120 litres | |
|
Audi A3 has more luggage space. BMW 3 series has 60 litres less trunk space than the Audi A3. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Audi A3 (by 20 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10 meters | 10.7 meters | |
| The turning circle of the BMW 3 series is 0.7 metres less than that of the Audi A3, which means BMW 3 series can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`820 | 1`905 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | low | above average | |
| Audi A3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data BMW 3 series has serious deffects in 30 percent more cases than Audi A3, so Audi A3 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 2200 | 3200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
BMW 3 sērija has
|
Audi A3 has
| |