BMW 3 series 2003 vs Audi A3 2008
| Body: | Coupe | Hatchback | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 143 HP | 200 HP | |
| Torque: | 200 NM | 280 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.3 seconds | 7.1 seconds | |
|
Audi A3 is a more dynamic driving. BMW 3 series engine produces 57 HP less power than Audi A3, whereas torque is 80 NM less than Audi A3. Due to the lower power, BMW 3 series reaches 100 km/h speed 2.2 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.4 | 7.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.3 l/100km | 8.8 l/100km | |
|
The BMW 3 series is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification BMW 3 series consumes 0.2 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 30 litres more fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, BMW 3 series consumes 0.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Audi A3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 63 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 850 km in combined cycle | 760 km in combined cycle | |
| 1100 km on highway | 980 km on highway | ||
| 750 km with real consumption | 620 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: | 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 | 10 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Volkswagen Passat CC, Volkswagen Beetle, Audi TT | |
| 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: | 4.49 m | 4.29 m | |
| Width: | 1.76 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.37 m | 1.42 m | |
| BMW 3 series is 20 cm longer than the Audi A3, width is practically the same , while the height of BMW 3 series is 5 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 410 litres | 370 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1104 litres | |
|
BMW 3 series has more luggage capacity. BMW 3 series has 40 litres more trunk space than the Audi A3. | |||
| 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`895 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | average | above average | |
| Audi A3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data BMW 3 series has serious deffects in 265 percent more cases than Audi A3, so Audi A3 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 5400 | 6200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
BMW 3 sērija has
|
Audi A3 has
| |