BMW 3 series 2003 vs Audi TT 2006
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain and belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 143 HP | 200 HP | |
| Torque: | 200 NM | 280 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.3 seconds | 6.4 seconds | |
|
Audi TT is a more dynamic driving. BMW 3 series engine produces 57 HP less power than Audi TT, whereas torque is 80 NM less than Audi TT. Due to the lower power, BMW 3 series reaches 100 km/h speed 2.9 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.4 | 7.7 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.3 l/100km | 8.9 l/100km | |
|
The BMW 3 series is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification BMW 3 series consumes 0.3 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 45 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, BMW 3 series consumes 0.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Audi TT. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 63 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 850 km in combined cycle | 710 km in combined cycle | |
| 1100 km on highway | 910 km on highway | ||
| 750 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 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: | 380'000 km | 360'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 6 years | 4 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 5 other car models, including Audi A4, Skoda Octavia, Audi A3, 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 TT might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Audi TT 2006 2.0 engine: This engine is often noted for its excessive oil consumption and significant carbon buildup, which primarily affect intake valves and the intake geometry adjustment mechanism. The oil consumption issue can be ... More about Audi TT 2006 2.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.49 m | 4.18 m | |
| Width: | 1.76 m | 1.84 m | |
| Height: | 1.37 m | 1.35 m | |
| BMW 3 series is 31 cm longer than the Audi TT, 8 cm narrower, while the height of BMW 3 series is 2 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 410 litres | 290 litres | |
|
BMW 3 series has more luggage capacity. BMW 3 series has 120 litres more trunk space than the Audi TT. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10 meters | 11 meters | |
| The turning circle of the BMW 3 series is 1 metres less than that of the Audi TT, which means BMW 3 series can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`820 | 1`680 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | average | high | |
| Audi TT has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data BMW 3 series has serious deffects in 225 percent more cases than Audi TT, so Audi TT quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 5400 | 8400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
BMW 3 sērija has
|
Audi TT has
| |