Chrysler PT Cruiser 2002 vs Audi A3 2004
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.1 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: | 121 HP | 140 HP | |
| Torque: | 300 NM | 320 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.1 seconds | 9.7 seconds | |
|
Audi A3 is a more dynamic driving. Chrysler PT Cruiser engine produces 19 HP less power than Audi A3, whereas torque is 20 NM less than Audi A3. Due to the lower power, Chrysler PT Cruiser reaches 100 km/h speed 2.4 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.9 | 5.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.5 l/100km | 6.0 l/100km | |
|
The Audi A3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Chrysler PT Cruiser consumes 1.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Audi A3, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Chrysler PT Cruiser could require 210 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Chrysler PT Cruiser consumes 1.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Audi A3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 57 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 820 km in combined cycle | 1000 km in combined cycle | |
| 1010 km on highway | 1190 km on highway | ||
| 760 km with real consumption | 910 km with real consumption | ||
| Audi A3 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 380'000 km | 420'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 7 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | 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. Audi A3 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.39 m | 4.29 m | |
| Width: | 1.71 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.42 m | 1.42 m | |
| Chrysler PT Cruiser is 10 cm longer than the Audi A3, 5 cm narrower the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 370 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1120 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 11.1 meters | 10.7 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Chrysler PT Cruiser is 0.4 metres more than that of the Audi A3, which means Chrysler PT Cruiser can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`000 | 1`940 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | low | high | |
| Audi A3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Chrysler PT Cruiser has serious deffects in 135 percent more cases than Audi A3, so Audi A3 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 3200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Chrysler PT Cruiser has
|
Audi A3 has
| |