| Archive for The Motor Forum talking cars since 2006 |
| simonp |
A3 Sportback 3.2 (not driven)As above not driven, but has anyone else? Caught an earful of one powering up the road the other day and it sounded very nice. Just wondering what they were like? |
||||||
| Matt |
Twelfth had a 3-door with this engine and spoke very highly of it. In fact, the trend for moonboots seemed to evolve when he had it!
I think they're smart looking cars, especially American spec S-Lines, which have black roofs. |
||||||
| Martin |
I drove one 3 years ago and wasn't desperately impressed.
My very vrief summary, was that it felt like you were driving a large saloon, but with a really poor ride. A bit dull. |
||||||
| Dr. Hfuhruhurr |
Re: A3 Sportback 3.2 (not driven)
Like a Golf R32, would be my guess. |
||||||
| Blarno |
Re: A3 Sportback 3.2 (not driven)
Like an R32, but less 'drug dealer' Brian Harvey, erstwhile East 17 member has one. Says it all to me! (Apologies to Badman Monkey!) |
||||||
| Martin |
Re: A3 Sportback 3.2 (not driven)
I wouldn't be so sure. Not that your statement was full of confidence 
|
||||||
| PR |
Re: A3 Sportback 3.2 (not driven)
I'd be surprised (and disappointed) if a Golf R32 felt like any kind of A3. I've not driven an A3 3.2 quattro but have done plenty of miles in a 2.0T DSG S-Line Sportback and 2.0 TDI DSG Sport. I enjoyed neither of them. The adjective that I think sums up both of them is 'inert'. Driving them was a simple input = outcome process. You know - push the accelerator, the car acclerates. Turn the steering wheel, the car steers. You never feel even remotely involved in what's going on. The controls are light and completely lacking any sense that they might have been set up to be pleasurable to use, with a special mention going to the nasty steering, which is poorly weighted and confidence-sappingly inconsistent in its response. Both cars also had the Audi concrete ride that fails to deliver a payoff in terms of keen handling or an enthusiasm for cornering. I know that the same basic ingredients can be mixed into something much more tasty, as I don't have a bad word to say about the Golf GTI Mk5. |
||||||
| Martin |
That's just what I was going to say, in my more detailed response...... | ||||||
| Nice Guy Eddie |
Re: A3 Sportback 3.2 (not driven)
I always knew you were a man of exceptional taste Piers |
||||||
| Martin |
The GTI was my second choice when I got the 130. The biggest problem was that it looked so plain, something the more recent special editions solve. I think the next GTI will be a fantastic car as long as it drives as well, as the vastly improved interior quality and improved looks move it a clear step forwards. | ||||||
| Nice Guy Eddie |
I saw my first Mk6 on Saturday. It was straight out of the showroom which is why the first thing that caught my eye was how clean it was. I then spent about 5 seconds thinking that there was something odd about that Mk5 when it eventually dawned on me that it was a MK6. It may therefore be a little too similar to my car to change it for another Gti next year. | ||||||
| Martin |
Did you get chance for a poke around inside? | ||||||
| Dr. Hfuhruhurr |
This rumoured GTI-R sounds more your thing, if it happens. |
||||||
| cbeaks1 |
I had a look at one last week. A silver 140 TDi GT with the 18" wheels.
Externally it looks far better than the pics suggest. Not radical at all, but very solid looking, and it looks lower and wider than you might expect. The crease along the sides works well, the paint was excellent, and the wheels very nice too. It was parked next to a silver 5 door Astra and in comparison it looked expensive, solid, and somehow more modern. Maybe that is just familiarity. The interior is fine, but I can't see what all the fuss is about. The alcantara seats were very pleasant, but, not being a plastics expert, I don't really buy the 'high quality soft touch' stuff. I wouldn't say it was any better than my Fiesta save for the fact that it is very black, which looks posher than the sort of blacky, greyblue in my car. The stereo and HVAC stuff is fine, but very generic VW and no better than a MkIV as far as I could make out. Good steering wheel, now I think about it. Not blown away by any means but I can see why, as a static object, it would be a desirable beast. Maybe when they are everywhere on the roads the evolutionary design will blend in, but whilst it is rare I like it. It was already proving popular on the car scheme of the customer I was visiting. No idea about how it drives sadly. |
||||||
| Dr. Hfuhruhurr |
Car did a longish test on one at the launch - drove it through Germany, Poland and the Czech Republic. The comment that stood out was the optional electronically adjustable suspension is a must-have, because in Comfort mode it delivers a superb ride without compromising the handling, whereas the non-electronic suspension is closer to the Normal setting, which isn't as good. They also recommended the 1.4 TFSI engine over the diesel, and weren't blown away by DSG, which sounds about right. |
||||||
| the other ct |
Nice Guy Eddie
|
||||||
| Twelfth Monkey |
Hard to argue with the criticisms levelled at the A3, but I think the engine was epic, and found it very well-made and a pleasure to sit in.
Being passengered in my brother's R32 shows how bad the ride really was though. Nonetheless I have more than a little residual affection for it, and always look carefully at 3.2s when I see them. Which is not very often. |
||||||
| Dr. Hfuhruhurr |
The thing that always kept my enthusiasm for the A3 firmly in check, is that it is just a Golf in a pretty frock, whereas most other Audis are standalone models that aren't cloned off generic VAG platforms. I could never see the attraction of an A3 over a Golf (or Leon or Octavia, for that matter), whereas other models in the range make a far more persuasive case for themselves, not least your own very fine chariot.
What makes it worse is that the A3 is always about half a model-cycle behind the Golf, so a Mk 5 based A3 is even less appealing now the Mk 6 Golf is on sale. |
||||||
| scamper |
Are A3's that more expensive than Golf's these days? I always thought the A3 was a tarty Golf but there was a huge difference in both image, quality, performance and handling between a mark 4 Golf Gti and a Mark 1 A3 Sport, to make it worth the extra.
There is a difference again between a Mark 2 A3 and a Mark 5 Golf regarding materials, build quality and image. I also thought the driving experience was much the same, until you got to the performance models. |
||||||
| Dr. Hfuhruhurr |
I don't think I'd have used the word "huge", TBH. And by most accounts, the best driving car on that platform was the Leon Cupra.
And there's the problem - the Golf GTI was better, which can't have been what Audi wanted or intended. |
||||||
| Nice Guy Eddie |
I am still surprised that they never brought out an RS3 to drag up the image of the rest of the range.
With the Audi using materials that are of a far higher quality then some of the suspect plastics in my car I'm amazed they can sell it for what they can. The Golf MK5 was only changed so quickly as they failed to make a profit as the build costs were so high. I doubt that the actual purchase price after discount etc is that different to compensate between the two models. |
||||||
| Dr. Hfuhruhurr |
Funny, I would have said your Golf looks way nicer than any A3 I've seen ... | ||||||
| ALF |
A3 3.2's have sometimes idly appealed to me because after a few years the arguments about them just being overpriced Golfs are turned on their head - the V6 lump means values plummet, wheras Golfs have always had this certain thing about them that hold values very high as they are loved by everyone from yoofs to old ladies. An A3 3.2 quattro appeals to me, quite a lot, and a lot more than a Golf GTi for thousands more. There is a lovely one near me with what I think is some kind of official bodykit, there is also a new S3 sportback which looks incredible - huge shame it has not got the 3.2 or 3.6 lump in it 
|
||||||
| cbeaks1 |
According to Auto Express (take from that what you will) the Mk6 Golf's range topper will be the R20T rather than R32 or 36. 270 PS 2.0 T-FSI for about £25000. Looks like if you want lots of cylinders in a small package your time is running out. | ||||||
| Parm |
Mrs. Parm quite fancies the new Golf, but a 1.4-SE with a few choice extras (+ DSG as she only drives autos) is ~ 18K!!! That's far too much IMO. So I am trying to convince her to get a used Mk-V GTi instead. She likes Audis too, so a used 2.0-T Sportback DSG might be another option (well spec'd '06 plates are ~ 12k), but I reckon the GTi is the better all rounder. | ||||||
| ALF |
Indeed - a crying shame, these sorts of cars are lovely to drive/own and they are dying out
|
||||||
| Frank Bullitt |
In my regular searches of the approved Audi web site, it's become apparent there are a number of A3 3.2 Sportback's out there at really good prices, 2.0T's can also be good value; more so than the equivalent Golf although I suspect the Golf GTI is better than the 2.0TFSI-S Line and yes, I have tried the latter but not the former).
3.2's tend to be well-FG'd and if you want DSG and quattro it's the only option (or was until the recent facelift of the A3). For £12K on a '05 they start to look more reasonable, especially when you hunt the classifieds and realise by avoiding approved Audi you can save £2,000. However, beware; they fall into the highest tax band and post March '06 cars will mean you get an annual shafting. |
||||||
| cbeaks1 |
My only experience of that engine is a brief test of a 3.2 New TT. It might be worth the tax shafting for the noise alone, never mind the pace. | ||||||
| Guitar Zero |
Has the R36 been canned then ? | ||||||
| Stuntman |
I'm rather hoping that a detuned version of the 2.5 litre turbocharged 5-cylinder engine that will power the forthcoming TTRS, will find its way into a Mk6 Golf. | ||||||
| cbeaks1 |
According to this lot: http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news...fs-ready-to-turn-up-the-heat.html |