BMW 3 series 1999 vs Audi A3 2000
| Body: | Coupe | Hatchback | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
| Engine: | 1.9 Petrol | 1.8 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain and belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 118 HP | 125 HP | |
| Torque: | 180 NM | 170 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12 seconds | 11.3 seconds | |
|
Audi A3 is a more dynamic driving. BMW 3 series engine produces 7 HP less power than Audi A3, but torque is 10 NM more than Audi A3. Due to the lower power, BMW 3 series reaches 100 km/h speed 0.7 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.2 | 8.7 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.5 l/100km | 8.9 l/100km | |
|
The Audi A3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification BMW 3 series consumes 0.5 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 75 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: | 680 km in combined cycle | 630 km in combined cycle | |
| 910 km on highway | 800 km on highway | ||
| 660 km with real consumption | 610 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 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: | 470'000 km | 480'000 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 also on BMW Z3 | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Seat Leon, Seat Toledo | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.49 m | 4.15 m | |
| Width: | 1.76 m | 1.74 m | |
| Height: | 1.37 m | 1.43 m | |
|
BMW 3 series is larger, but lower. BMW 3 series is 34 cm longer than the Audi A3, 2 cm wider, while the height of BMW 3 series is 6 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 410 litres | 350 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1110 litres | |
|
BMW 3 series has more luggage capacity. BMW 3 series has 60 litres more trunk space than the Audi A3. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10 meters | 10.9 meters | |
| The turning circle of the BMW 3 series is 0.9 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`745 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | below average | above average | |
| Audi A3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data BMW 3 series has serious deffects in 35 percent more cases than Audi A3, so Audi A3 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 2600 | 1600 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 7.7/10 | 7.3/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
BMW 3 sērija has
|
Audi A3 has
| |