BMW 3 series 1993 vs Audi TT 2002
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.8 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain and belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 102 HP | 180 HP | |
| Torque: | 150 NM | 235 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 14 seconds | 8.4 seconds | |
|
Audi TT is a more dynamic driving. BMW 3 series engine produces 78 HP less power than Audi TT, whereas torque is 85 NM less than Audi TT. Due to the lower power, BMW 3 series reaches 100 km/h speed 5.6 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.4 | 9.1 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.4 l/100km | 10.2 l/100km | |
|
The BMW 3 series is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification BMW 3 series consumes 0.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Audi TT, which means that by driving the BMW 3 series over 15,000 km in a year you can save 105 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, BMW 3 series consumes 0.8 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Audi TT. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 65 litres | 56 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 770 km in combined cycle | 610 km in combined cycle | |
| 1010 km on highway | 820 km on highway | ||
| 690 km with real consumption | 540 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: | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
| 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 | 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: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 6 other car models, including Volkswagen Golf, Skoda Octavia, Audi A3, Seat Ibiza, 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 TT 2002 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 2002 1.8 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.43 m | 4.04 m | |
| Width: | 1.71 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.37 m | 1.35 m | |
| BMW 3 series is 39 cm longer than the Audi TT, 5 cm narrower, while the height of BMW 3 series is 2 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 435 litres | 270 litres | |
|
BMW 3 series has more luggage capacity. BMW 3 series has 165 litres more trunk space than the Audi TT. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10 meters | 10 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`735 | 1`705 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | below average | high | |
| Audi TT has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data BMW 3 series has serious deffects in 390 percent more cases than Audi TT, so Audi TT quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 3600 | 4800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
BMW 3 sērija has
|
Audi TT has
| |