BMW 3 series 2001 vs Audi A3 2004
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 2.0 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing belt | |
| Engine chain usually needs to be replaced less often than the timing belt, but the cost of replacing the chain is usually higher. Chain motors are considered to be more reliable, but noisier and more vibration generating. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 140 HP | |
| Torque: | 330 NM | 320 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.1 seconds | 9.2 seconds | |
| BMW 3 series engine produces 10 HP more power than Audi A3, whereas torque is 10 NM more than Audi A3. Thanks to more power BMW 3 series reaches 100 km/h speed 0.1 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.9 | 5.7 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.8 l/100km | 6.5 l/100km | |
|
The Audi A3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification BMW 3 series consumes 1.2 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 180 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, BMW 3 series consumes 1.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Audi A3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 63 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 910 km in combined cycle | 960 km in combined cycle | |
| 1160 km on highway | 1140 km on highway | ||
| 800 km with real consumption | 840 km with real consumption | ||
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: | 420'000 km | 420'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 9 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including BMW 1 sērija, BMW X3 | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Audi A6, Audi A4 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. BMW 3 series 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`920 | 1`970 | |
| 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 | 3400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
BMW 3 sērija has
|
Audi A3 has
| |