# What the...? 2015 Audi A3 Pricing Announced; A3 starts at $29,900



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

http://fourtitude.com/news/Audi_News_1/audi-america-announces-pricing-2015-a3-sedan/

Uhm... about to step away from the desk, but saw this come across my Google Alerts feed. Dafuq?

*Edit by George. I just posted a link to our iteration of the PR from Audi.*


----------



## MaX PL (Apr 10, 2006)

Interesting...
I hope it means that the s3 stays below $40, perhaps starting around $38k.


----------



## tclky (Aug 22, 2012)

Isn't that base price around what was expected? I'd like to see the price for the Quattro and what additional features come bundled with it.


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

Yes, $29,990 is just about where we expected to see the base car. That speculation waned a bit in recent weeks as some quotes from Keogh led some of us to reconsider that guess, but it looks like they held strong at coming in under $30,000.

With this base price, I have a very, very solid feeling we're looking at a sub-$40,000 base on the US S3. Winning!

... that said, I'm still left wondering if this is actually real. That's not exactly a well-known source, frankly.


----------



## VeeDubDriver (Oct 1, 2001)

It is official: http://audiusanews.com/newsrelease....-announces-pricing-its-all-new-2015-a3&mid=16


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

Thanks, George! So now I'm wondering... why'd they release pricing so quickly? Starting to get worried about the CLA?


----------



## v6er (Dec 18, 2000)

All I gotta say is bring on the S3


----------



## p.r.walker (May 31, 2000)

I was hoping for a bit more info, but what I find it more interesting that they are confirming the cabriolet for the US and that the sportback isn't coming until calendar 2015

... It will be joined later in 2014 by the recently announced Audi A3 Cabriolet, A3 TDI clean diesel, the high-performance S3 sedan and in early 2015, the A3 Sportback e-tron® gasoline electric hybrid (PHEV).


----------



## DaLeadBull (Feb 15, 2011)

Dan Halen said:


> Yes, $29,990 is just about where we expected to see the base car. That speculation waned a bit in recent weeks as some quotes from Keogh led some of us to reconsider that guess, but it looks like they held strong at coming in under $30,000.
> 
> With this base price, I have a very, very solid feeling we're looking at a sub-$40,000 base on the US S3. Winning!
> 
> ... that said, I'm still left wondering if this is actually real. That's not exactly a well-known source, frankly.


Umm, this has me confused. If the A3 starts at 29,990 and includes xenons, leather etc as standard then what does that do the GTI and similarly if the S3 comes in at below 40k, what the point in a Golf R? :screwy:

Unless VW plans to cut the price of GTI/Golf R too?

I don't know the price seems too good to be true.


----------



## ChrisFu (Jun 9, 2012)

> All engines are mated to the standard 6-speed S tronic® transmission, which provides the driver immense shifting flexibility and driving pleasure with smooth, dynamic acceleration and virtually no interruption to the power flow.


All engines, which immediately before listed the4 1.8L

Does this indicate a FWD 1.8L that is not a CVT?


----------



## DaLeadBull (Feb 15, 2011)

DaLeadBull said:


> Umm, this has me confused. If the A3 starts at 29,990 and includes xenons, leather etc as standard then what does that do the GTI and similarly if the S3 comes in at below 40k, what the point in a Golf R? :screwy:
> 
> Unless VW plans to cut the price of GTI/Golf R too?
> 
> I don't know the price seems too good to be true.


So the base price of 29,990 correlates to the 1.8T I'm assuming, what kind of power does that put out? I thought the base price was for the 2.0T.


----------



## mike3141 (Feb 16, 1999)

ChrisFu said:


> All engines, which immediately before listed the4 1.8L
> 
> Does this indicate a FWD 1.8L that is not a CVT?


U.S. A3s have always been either S-tronic or manuals. Audi uses CVTs on A4s and A6s.


----------



## mike3141 (Feb 16, 1999)

DaLeadBull said:


> So the base price of 29,990 correlates to the 1.8T I'm assuming, what kind of power does that put out? I thought the base price was for the 2.0T.


The 2.0T comes on the quattro-equipped A3 and S3. The 1.8T FWD is the base model.


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

DaLeadBull said:


> Umm, this has me confused. If the A3 starts at 29,990 and includes xenons, leather etc as standard then what does that do the GTI and similarly if the S3 comes in at below 40k, what the point in a Golf R? :screwy:
> 
> Unless VW plans to cut the price of GTI/Golf R too?
> 
> I don't know the price seems too good to be true.


Being a fellow MQB brother to the S3, I have to imagine the Golf VII R will come down a bit as well.


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

DaLeadBull said:


> So the base price of 29,990 correlates to the 1.8T I'm assuming, what kind of power does that put out? I thought the base price was for the 2.0T.


1.8T should be roughly 180HP, I believe. The UK car shows 180PS, which is nearly one-for-one with brake horsepower. We may see some emissions-related stuff that knocks it down a bit, but frankly, I don't think they can knock it down much if they want to stay competitive. I know Audi generally under-rates their motors, but the general public they're hoping to lure with a $29,900 price won't know that.


----------



## Travis Grundke (May 26, 1999)

So, it looks like Audi is really going for the value play over Mercedes by including a substantial amount of standard kit in the A3: panoramic roof, Xenon+LED head and tail lamps, leather, pre-sense basic, bluetooth, etc. 

This is a great way to keep packaging simple. No doubt we'll have separate Navigation ($2,500-$3,000) that will probably come bundled with a few other items, B&O sound will probably be individual at around $850, LED headlamps will probably be around $1,400. I imagine an s-line/sport package will be another $1,300-$1,500.

My guess is that the 2.0T Quattro model will start at $33k, the TDI will be between $33-$34 and the S3 at $38-$39k. 

Obligatory comment: give me my manual transmission!!


----------



## Boosted 01 R (Feb 10, 2013)

Thats a pretty good base price, wonder what we will see in Canada 29K would be nice lol, but I'm guessing around 32k-33k


----------



## aodmisery (Aug 31, 2013)

*colors?*

im new to audi so pardon my noobiness  but does audi only include 3 colors in there paint scheme (white, red and black) and you must pay more for other colors? realy want the blue they have.


----------



## mike3141 (Feb 16, 1999)

The "free" paint is non-metallic. The metallic colors are usually about $500 more.


----------



## aodmisery (Aug 31, 2013)

mike3141 said:


> The "free" paint is non-metallic. The metallic colors are usually about $500 more.


but the "free" paint only comes in those 3 colors red, white and black? they dont have a non metallic blue?


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

In recent times, that's been correct.


----------



## caliatenza (Dec 10, 2006)

i am guessing Audi wanted to upstage BMW a bit today....nice work with the pricing . The press release also states the LED DRL's will be standard; does that mean the Xenon's are standard too?


----------



## davewg (Jul 30, 2001)

Interestingly, I went back to the Audi US site earlier today to look through gallery pictures. 

There was a 'build' button that I swear wasn't there yesterday. It didn't go anywhere, but maybe they plan to roll out the configuration tool soon?


----------



## mike3141 (Feb 16, 1999)

caliatenza said:


> The press release also states the LED DRL's will be standard; does that mean the Xenon's are standard too?


Yes.


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

caliatenza said:


> i am guessing Audi wanted to upstage BMW a bit today....nice work with the pricing . The press release also states the LED DRL's will be standard; does that mean the Xenon's are standard too?


Believe so. It's worth noting that the xenon units don't seem to have LED turn signals. What I've seen shows filament turn signals, and they're just not nearly as trick as the turn signals shared with the running light bar in the full LED units.



davewg said:


> Interestingly, I went back to the Audi US site earlier today to look through gallery pictures.
> 
> There was a 'build' button that I swear wasn't there yesterday. It didn't go anywhere, but maybe they plan to roll out the configuration tool soon?


I've seen that for several weeks now when I search for the A3 in the search bar on their site. I keep trying, in vain, to get it to actually do something. LOL

On that topic, has anyone else had issues getting audiusa.com to load in the last day or so?


----------



## caliatenza (Dec 10, 2006)

glad that xenons are standard, one less thing to pay for . Any reason why the prices for the 2.0 and S3 werent released also? I guess Audi is waiting for the LA auto show...


----------



## brennok (Jun 5, 2007)

Dan Halen said:


> Being a fellow MQB brother to the S3, I have to imagine the Golf VII R will come down a bit as well.


It could almost make sense to leave the R where it is price wise. There is still plenty of space between a 40K base S3 and a 33k base R. 

For me I am only looking at the S3 because I know it comes with the S-tronic, and there is no guarantee the next R will be offered with the DSG. I don't know that I really want to wait another year past the S3 without any confirmation of a DSG option in the R. If it were up to me I would just get the S3 sportback, but Audi didn't give me that option.


----------



## BrutusA3 (Jul 10, 2013)

Finally. Not surprised at all. Makes complete sense, now what will the 2.0t Quattro run?... Normally Quattro is what an 800 upgrade, but this will also have a bit bigger engine, are we talking like 32,900 a $3000 difference and will they also include some other features.

I am surprised by the standard inclusion of the LED DRL. Can anyone tell me what "full led lights" mean? I am assuming they replace the bi-xenon part of light with led. I totally thought the led drl would be optional so this is wicked cool.

**** I am pumped, now bring the build site up and get us info on the Quattro model running and we are good.

B.


----------



## caliatenza (Dec 10, 2006)

carscoops had this to add:

"We contacted an Audi spokesperson who confirmed that the base price is indeed for the 1.8-liter TFSI engine, which in U.S. specification will produce 170hp. He also added that the A3 Sedan series "will go on sale in the spring of next year. The $29,900 price does not include D&H – that’ll be $895. We have not announced the final hp numbers on the 2.0 L motor as of now."


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

caliatenza said:


> glad that xenons are standard, one less thing to pay for . Any reason why the prices for the 2.0 and S3 werent released also? I guess Audi is waiting for the LA auto show...


I'm still wondering why this base price was even released. This is very uncharacteristic of Audi's price disclosure habits for new models in recent years, seeing as the A3 is still four to five months out by most estimates. Maybe they'll surprise us with the release like they did today with the price; who knows.

Even if they release S3 pricing on the same generous timeline, we're another three months or so out from seeing that, assuming the summer 2014 guess for the release is on the mark. I'd like to hope they're going to surprise us and move the entire launch timeline up, but I'm remaining realistic.


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

BrutusA3 said:


> Finally. Not surprised at all. Makes complete sense, now what will the 2.0t Quattro run?... Normally Quattro is what an 800 upgrade, but this will also have a bit bigger engine, are we talking like 32,900 a $3000 difference and will they also include some other features.
> 
> I am surprised by the standard inclusion of the LED DRL. Can anyone tell me what "full led lights" mean? I am assuming they replace the bi-xenon part of light with led. I totally thought the led drl would be optional so this is wicked cool.
> 
> ...


Correct. The xenon projector is omitted in favor of the multi-reflector LED setup. There won't be a single bulb anywhere in the headlamp.


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

brennok said:


> It could almost make sense to leave the R where it is price wise. There is still plenty of space between a 40K base S3 and a 33k base R.
> 
> For me I am only looking at the S3 because I know it comes with the S-tronic, and there is no guarantee the next R will be offered with the DSG. I don't know that I really want to wait another year past the S3 without any confirmation of a DSG option in the R. If it were up to me I would just get the S3 sportback, but Audi didn't give me that option.


I thought the R had crept more than that. Has it not?

Maybe not in a two-door configuration, I guess...


----------



## brennok (Jun 5, 2007)

Dan Halen said:


> I thought the R had crept more than that. Has it not?
> 
> Maybe not in a two-door configuration, I guess...


the 12/13 was just shy of $33 base and $35 with Nav if I remember correctly here. I believe the new R has had another bump in price overseas, but I think it is supposed so still be mid 30s base. Since they don't offer many options, I could see a fully loaded R just at or above the price of the base S3 especially considering the difference in power.


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

brennok said:


> the 12/13 was just shy of $33 base and $35 with Nav if I remember correctly here. I believe the new R has had another bump in price overseas, but I think it is supposed so still be mid 30s base. Since they don't offer many options, I could see a fully loaded R just at or above the price of the base S3 especially considering the difference in power.


Yeah, I imagine that's probably a fair assessment. I can't see a Golf R topping $40,000.


----------



## caliatenza (Dec 10, 2006)

Dan Halen said:


> I'm still wondering why this base price was even released. This is very uncharacteristic of Audi's price disclosure habits for new models in recent years, seeing as the A3 is still four to five months out by most estimates. Maybe they'll surprise us with the release like they did today with the price; who knows.
> 
> Even if they release S3 pricing on the same generous timeline, we're another three months or so out from seeing that, assuming the summer 2014 guess for the release is on the mark. I'd like to hope they're going to surprise us and move the entire launch timeline up, but I'm remaining realistic.


I am thinking its cause of the BMW 2 series launch today. I think Audi wants to upstage BMW a little and also the CLA is selling very well; why not show buyers what they could have for the same price as the CLA, a car that has much more standard.


----------



## Travis Grundke (May 26, 1999)

caliatenza said:


> I am thinking its cause of the BMW 2 series launch today. I think Audi wants to upstage BMW a little and also the CLA is selling very well; why not show buyers what they could have for the same price as the CLA, a car that has much more standard.


That's my take as well - it was to steal BMW's thunder, considering BMW dumped a ton of specifics about the 2-series, from packaging to pricing and timelines. The fact that Audi is still withholding the HP figures on the 2.0TFSI leads me to believe there's still some infighting within corporate related to pricing, packaging and positioning.


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

caliatenza said:


> I am thinking its cause of the BMW 2 series launch today. I think Audi wants to upstage BMW a little and also the CLA is selling very well; why not show buyers what they could have for the same price as the CLA, a car that has much more standard.


I imagine that's the case. They're really not going to save much face with just a $29,900 figure and no additional information, though. They need to be on the horn to Györ asking the tough questions. They need to do everything they can to not miss another day of opportunity. 

Maybe their benchmark is to beat BMW to market, in which case the current timeline could stand. Maybe they aren't the least bit concerned about Mercedes and their CLA. But they should be, IMO.


----------



## davewg (Jul 30, 2001)

Dan Halen said:


> I imagine that's the case. They're really not going to save much face with just a $29,900 figure...
> 
> ...Maybe they aren't the least bit concerned about Mercedes and their CLA. But they should be, IMO.


Car and Driver posted the following on their website
http://blog.caranddriver.com/audi-a...cing-gets-ridiculously-close-to-clas-sticker/

The end of the article, which is largely a restatement of the press release as this (italics are theirs, not mine)

_Audi’s pricing announcement should make the entry-luxury rivalry all the hotter, although many will note that Mercedes seems to win out in the bang-for-your-buck department (on paper, and in the most literal sense)._

I don't really understand this comment; if the A3 and the CLA 250 are priced virtually the same does not the A3 have more standard features (leather, sunroof, xenon). How in the world does that make the Merc a better bang for the buck. Need to see/hear pricing for the quattro, and I like others wonder if a Golf R starts to make a little more sense (especially given the 5 door availability).

I don't need the cachet of Audi, but it would be nice for all the reasons mentioned elsewhere to have one over a VW.


----------



## FractureCritical (Nov 24, 2009)

davewg said:


> Car and Driver posted the following on their website
> http://blog.caranddriver.com/audi-a...cing-gets-ridiculously-close-to-clas-sticker/
> 
> The end of the article, which is largely a restatement of the press release as this (italics are theirs, not mine)
> ...


And I think that this is the real reason Audi popped the top on the pricing so soon. the CLA is selling like hotcakes and they at least want tho be on the consumer radar, if they can't yet be in on the action. 

I think Audi realized they kinda screwed the pooch on the A3 with the delayed release. Their two biggest competitors have sparkly fresh new product (the new 3 series, the new CLA and the fairly drastically refreshed E class) while Audi has what is a mildly touched-up 5 year old A4 and a shockingly old 8 year old A3 (if you could even find them, which you can't). The BMW 2 series isn't on the same radar as it's a coupe, and will likely compete against the A5 (yes, I said it, not the A3 cabrio, if it shows up before the next US president) 

for what it's worth, I've been calling the sub-30k starting price since the beginning. The big question for me is going to be what the option packages are going to be. MB is going funky with matte paint, and BMW is staying true to the cause with manual transmissions. what's Audi got?


----------



## tclky (Aug 22, 2012)

FractureCritical said:


> ....for what it's worth, I've been calling the sub-30k starting price since the beginning. The big question for me is going to be what the option packages are going to be. MB is going funky with matte paint, and BMW is staying true to the cause with manual transmissions. *what's Audi got*?


I consider the DSG and panoramic sunroof good features included in the base price. I also like the clean look of the A3's dash as well as its exterior styling. For me, the most desirable option is the all wheel drive system. A nice to have would be a wide angle rear view camera to help backing out of parking spaces when surrounded by monster sized SUVs that obstruct your view of oncoming cars. In Europe you can only get this bundled with parking assist which I don't want. I'm hoping that Audi USA will offer it as a standalone option or bundled with the nav system. Otherwise I'll go the aftermarket route for it.


----------



## Rudy_H (Jul 6, 2012)

davewg said:


> Car and Driver posted the following on their website
> http://blog.caranddriver.com/audi-a...cing-gets-ridiculously-close-to-clas-sticker/
> 
> The end of the article, which is largely a restatement of the press release as this (italics are theirs, not mine)
> ...


You have to read the whole article.

The A3 is :

1) Smaller
2) Less powerful
3) very similar options
4) ~same price

So in all honesty I kind of lost respect for Car and Driver, or well never gained any. Similar mentality 'we need big cars, with a whole lot of horsepower, and better yet we need SUV's in every driveway'.


----------



## Rudy_H (Jul 6, 2012)

Boosted 01 R said:


> Thats a pretty good base price, wonder what we will see in Canada 29K would be nice lol, but I'm guessing around 32k-33k


I have to agree, would even say $33-34k unfortunately starting...though being Canadian we will likely pay $40k and we will be too polite not to buy it. 
IMO, add $4-5k to all pricing compared to American pricing


----------



## JOES1.8T (Sep 8, 2003)

Dan Halen said:


> I'm still wondering why this base price was even released.


I am not an automotive news expert, but I am willing to bet with the other competitors reporting their numbers in with their sales and probably someone in cooporate office putting a boot in someone's arse to get things moving and quit proscrastinating.


----------



## FractureCritical (Nov 24, 2009)

tclky said:


> I consider the DSG and panoramic sunroof good features included in the base price. I also like the clean look of the A3's dash as well as its exterior styling. For me, the most desirable option is the all wheel drive system. A nice to have would be a wide angle rear view camera to help backing out of parking spaces when surrounded by monster sized SUVs that obstruct your view of oncoming cars. In Europe you can only get this bundled with parking assist which I don't want. I'm hoping that Audi USA will offer it as a standalone option or bundled with the nav system. Otherwise I'll go the aftermarket route for it.


this is one of those "yes, but" things. 

the AWD won't be in that base price, it'll be optional and it'll be around $3k becuase Audi will (likely) bundle it with the bigger motor. DSG will only appeal to the people who got shafted by the lack of the stick. 95% of car shoppers think DSG is a store where you buy shoes. they jsut watn something with two pedals that doesn't annoy them.

the pano roof is nice for some, but I can't tell you how many people I know who don't like the pano becuause the sunshade isn't truly opaque. making it obligatory will turn some people away.

All in all, the new A3 is nice, but it's not a wow, and it's similar enough to the A4 that I think at lot of people will forego a highly optioned A3 for a stripper A4.


----------



## BrutusA3 (Jul 10, 2013)

davewg said:


> Car and Driver posted the following on their website
> http://blog.caranddriver.com/audi-a...cing-gets-ridiculously-close-to-clas-sticker/
> 
> The end of the article, which is largely a restatement of the press release as this (italics are theirs, not mine)
> ...


I think at the end of the day they are looking at engine specs/tranny, which is usually what car mags care more about, not which car has a sunroof.
A3: 1.8T 170HP / have not heard tq numbers, but guessing around 180
CLA: 2.0T 208 HP / 258 tq
A3: 6sp
CLA: 7sp

Comparably equipped CLA is 36,955 (assuming you add on the $1500 leather option instead of the fake leather, which likely most people might not even notice).

I think the 2.0T quattro model hit around 33k, but is an extra 3G without anything beyond quattro and slightly bigger engine be the value people are looking for. IMO the quattro model needs to beat the CLA on pricing even if it is AWD vs FWD.

Right now only option I would add are the heated seats, so I am happy with the standard package so far....but wouldn't it be wicked cool if they gave a $500 option to get a manual :laugh:

B.


----------



## DaLeadBull (Feb 15, 2011)

FractureCritical said:


> All in all, the new A3 is nice, but it's not a wow, and it's similar enough to the A4 that I think at lot of people will forego a highly optioned A3 for a stripper A4.


I very much disagree, I would much rather have a loaded A3 than a base A4. There is no point in getting a base level Audi imo because at that price range a lot of better cars are available from "lesser" brands. If I were to buy an Audi I will only buy an S or RS model, getting a A model is pointless and only appeals to the "brand whores".


----------



## VWNCC (Jan 12, 2010)

Rudy_H said:


> I have to agree, would even say $33-34k unfortunately starting...though being Canadian we will likely pay $40k and we will be too polite not to buy it.
> IMO, add $4-5k to all pricing compared to American pricing


It better not be more than 33k.

The previous gen A3 started at ~27.9k in the US while the A3 started at ~34k for Canada. HOWEVER, the Canadian "base" A3 was much better equipped with bi-xenon, sunroof, and etc... standard.

Since the base US A3 sedan will already be so well equipped this time around and is only ~2k more than the previous model. I can't see the Canadian "base" A3 having an increase in price as they probably can't pack many more standard features (vs. the US) to justify the price increase.


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

Rudy_H said:


> You have to read the whole article.
> 
> The A3 is :
> 
> ...





BrutusA3 said:


> I think at the end of the day they are looking at engine specs/tranny, which is usually what car mags care more about, not which car has a sunroof.
> A3: 1.8T 170HP / have not heard tq numbers, but guessing around 180
> CLA: 2.0T 208 HP / 258 tq
> A3: 6sp
> ...


Yeah, I completely understand C&D's rationale in this case. The standard features on the A3 are nice, if not unexpected in this class, but they're not going to sway a journalist's opinion when you have such a gap in power figures. I don't put much stock in a journalist's opinion, though, so I'm not too put off by their statements.

I don't think it should be tough for the higher-power 2.0TQ to beat the CLA on price, option for option. And like you said, then you're looking at AWD vs. FWD, where Audi gets the nod in that comparison. Really, I don't think we'd be having a lot of this conversation if Audi had gone with the 2.0T across the line and had left the 1.8T in Europe. Merc would probably still have a slight edge on paper, but the real-world differences would be nearly negligible, IMO. I imagine the decision was between a 2.0T base with a lower standard equipment level or a 1.8T base with what we're getting. 

I'll go ahead and call it now- they went the right way. The base cars in either brand aren't meant for any of us posting on these forums. They're meant for those who count cupholders and bitch about the cruise control stalk being too confusing to use (I wish I could make this stuff up; the A5 Jetta got slammed in IQS rankings because of this). These are the people who will be wooed by a glass roof and leather seats more than HP figures (forget TQ; they don't even know what that is). They'll lose sales to Mercedes on badge alone, but I have to believe they know that and have accounted for that reality in their projections. For the value proposition customers, I absolutely believe Audi will prevail. I also believe they'll have a higher percentage of "base" cars available for sale at any given time because their base car doesn't need anything more, while you have to nickel and dime the Mercedes to make it really appeal to a wider audience.



JOES1.8T said:


> I am not an automotive news expert, but I am willing to bet with the other competitors reporting their numbers in with their sales and probably someone in cooporate office putting a boot in someone's arse to get things moving and quit proscrastinating.


Yeah, it does seem, at least slightly, to be a desperation move. Every day earlier than the end of March that they can have a steady supply streaming in is critical. I fully expect the A3 and 228i will be more consistently cross-shopped than the A3 and CLA, despite the 228i being short two doors. Audi already screwed the pooch on having something out to combat the CLA, and now they're at risk of BMW getting cars on the lots sooner than we see the A3.



FractureCritical said:


> this is one of those "yes, but" things.
> 
> the AWD won't be in that base price, it'll be optional and it'll be around $3k becuase Audi will (likely) bundle it with the bigger motor. DSG will only appeal to the people who got shafted by the lack of the stick. 95% of car shoppers think DSG is a store where you buy shoes. they jsut watn something with two pedals that doesn't annoy them.
> 
> ...





DaLeadBull said:


> I very much disagree, I would much rather have a loaded A3 than a base A4. There is no point in getting a base level Audi imo because at that price range a lot of better cars are available from "lesser" brands. If I were to buy an Audi I will only buy an S or RS model, getting a A model is pointless and only appeals to the "brand whores".


While I don't necessarily think the A-cars only appeal to brand whores, I do agree with the Bull otherwise. In many cases, I'd prefer to buy the base or near-base car in the next tier as opposed to the loaded car in a lower tier. The A3 is vastly different from "many cases," though. The fit and finish in this car is said to be on par with the C-segment A6, and the A3 is an A-segment car. That's just unheard of. I expect that we'll see a similar push for the A4 with the B9, but we're not able to buy the B9 now. So as the market will stand in March, the A3 should be worlds ahead of the A4 we can currently buy. Give it a couple years and the tables will turn, sure.

That doesn't even address the point that I've made in the past- the barge-ification of the A4. I don't need that kind of space, and I don't care to lumber about in such a large car on the daily. I realize there will be some who intend to seriously consider the A3 but will see the benefit of the additional space in the A4. Cool, and more power to them; but I don't expect that many of those cases will be due to feeling that the A4, in base form, is better than an A3 with an extended level of equipment at a similar price. The B8 is getting a bit long in the tooth these days.


----------



## mike3141 (Feb 16, 1999)

FractureCritical said:


> the pano roof is nice for some, but I can't tell you how many people I know who don't like the pano becuause the sunshade isn't truly opaque. making it obligatory will turn some people away.


I don't think we know what the shade for the pano roof is yet...it could be a solid panel.


----------



## davewg (Jul 30, 2001)

Dan Halen said:


> Yeah, I completely understand C&D's rationale in this case. The standard features on the A3 are nice, if not unexpected in this class, but they're not going to sway a journalist's opinion when you have such a gap in power figures. I don't put much stock in a journalist's opinion, though, so I'm not too put off by their statements.


I agree with you, and the other responses, to my original posting of what C&D said. I don't agree with their assessment either (and certainly didn't intend to imply that), as I don't believe it really considers the full picture either. If I'm buying a car I might consider their assessment/opinions on a particular model as information entering my thought process leading to a buying decision, but never as the final word of car A or car B. There are to many intangibles, and ultimately what works for each person is different. That's why its good to have these choices.



Dan Halen said:


> I'll go ahead and call it now- they went the right way. The base cars in either brand aren't meant for any of us posting on these forums. They're meant for those who count cupholders and bitch about the cruise control stalk being too confusing to use (I wish I could make this stuff up; the A5 Jetta got slammed in IQS rankings because of this). These are the people who will be wooed by a glass roof and leather seats more than HP figures (forget TQ; they don't even know what that is). They'll lose sales to Mercedes on badge alone, but I have to believe they know that and have accounted for that reality in their projections. For the value proposition customers, I absolutely believe Audi will prevail. I also believe they'll have a higher percentage of "base" cars available for sale at any given time because their base car doesn't need anything more, while you have to nickel and dime the Mercedes to make it really appeal to a wider audience.


I could not have said this better myself, and agree completely.




Dan Halen said:


> In many cases, I'd prefer to buy the base or near-base car in the next tier as opposed to the loaded car in a lower tier. The A3 is vastly different from "many cases," though. The fit and finish in this car is said to be on par with the C-segment A6, and the A3 is an A-segment car. That's just unheard of. I expect that we'll see a similar push for the A4 with the B9, but we're not able to buy the B9 now. So as the market will stand in March, the A3 should be worlds ahead of the A4 we can currently buy. Give it a couple years and the tables will turn, sure.


Again, this hits the nail on the head. Each successive model from MB, BMW and Audi seems to out do the prior generation next model up. Look at the C-Class. Its going to look and feel a whole lot nicer than the E-Class until it has its next upgrade. These cars have become so comoditized that now I'd rather buy a newer gen "lesser" model then the current gen next class up. 



Dan Halen said:


> That doesn't even address the point that I've made in the past- the barge-ification of the A4. I don't need that kind of space, and I don't care to lumber about in such a large car on the daily. I realize there will be some who intend to seriously consider the A3 but will see the benefit of the additional space in the A4. Cool, and more power to them; but I don't expect that many of those cases will be due to feeling that the A4, in base form, is better than an A3 with an extended level of equipment at a similar price. The B8 is getting a bit long in the tooth these days.


Yes. See my last point. I for one am not cross shopping or comparing a loaded A3 to a base A4. I'm at a price point that I need to hold to, and am more likely to cross shop at that price point for features, feel, quality and other intangibles. To me that makes it A3 v Golf R, not A3 v A4.


Speaking off those intangibles, for me one of them has become the online community. I was swayed to our Durango partly because the online community was more robust than our other choice (GM Lambda platform).


----------



## BrutusA3 (Jul 10, 2013)

All good points. I think as much as "us" on these forums have a strong opinion about what should be offered and how they should do it, at the end of the day sales wins out. "we" are only a tiny part of the buyer out there. Read any auto enthusiast forum and there are countless cries for manual, or wagon, etc... but do the sales support this, unfortunately no :-(.

Anyhoo, beyond what has been reported the Pano roof, LED, leather, pre-sense basic, what else are we getting standard (not mentioning Bluetooth as I think this is like saying the car comes with a steering wheel, puh-lease)?

smart-key
17" wheels
basic MMI with Pop-out screen

They better announce the 2.0T quattro info soon, hope it is not waiting for the LA show.

This winter will be very interesting to see some comparos with the CLA and A3 in the U.S.

B.


----------



## kalvnhobbz (Nov 21, 2006)

Wait, does this mean the only 5-door hatchback we're getting in the US is the eTron?


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

kalvnhobbz said:


> Wait, does this mean the only 5-door hatchback we're getting in the US is the eTron?


For the foreseeable future, yes.


----------



## ChrisFu (Jun 9, 2012)

kalvnhobbz said:


> Wait, does this mean the only 5-door hatchback we're getting in the US is the eTron?


Yeah, where have you been!


----------



## FractureCritical (Nov 24, 2009)

Dan Halen said:


> While I don't necessarily think the A-cars only appeal to brand whores, I do agree with the Bull otherwise. In many cases, I'd prefer to buy the base or near-base car in the next tier as opposed to the loaded car in a lower tier. The A3 is vastly different from "many cases," though. The fit and finish in this car is said to be on par with the C-segment A6, and the A3 is an A-segment car. That's just unheard of. I expect that we'll see a similar push for the A4 with the B9, but we're not able to buy the B9 now. So as the market will stand in March, the A3 should be worlds ahead of the A4 we can currently buy. Give it a couple years and the tables will turn, sure.
> 
> That doesn't even address the point that I've made in the past- the barge-ification of the A4. I don't need that kind of space, and I don't care to lumber about in such a large car on the daily. I realize there will be some who intend to seriously consider the A3 but will see the benefit of the additional space in the A4. Cool, and more power to them; but I don't expect that many of those cases will be due to feeling that the A4, in base form, is better than an A3 with an extended level of equipment at a similar price. The B8 is getting a bit long in the tooth these days.


And I don't necessariy disagree with you, but in terms of options, Any premium car is for brand whores, (I'll toss myself in there). If you want a highly optioned car with fancy widgets and LED headlights, and talkie-navi-touchscreen thinges, well, we live in a world where you can get that on a Kia or even a Corolla. People buy the brand. And for the 'smarter' average consumers capable of basic math, the A4 is 1/3 better than the A3, just becuase the badge on the trunk said so, and you know it.

We both beaten the horse to death: Audi does not give a crap about enthusiasts. They give a crap about people who drive Camrys. (never mind that the damn V6 Camry isn't that far in the rear view of an S4 on the local highway, in terms of power) Quite frankly, there are more of them than there are of us, and they are far more easily seperated from their money. More power to Audi for the beigeification of the brand.


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

FractureCritical said:


> And I don't necessariy disagree with you, but in terms of options, Any premium car is for brand whores, (I'll toss myself in there). If you want a highly optioned car with fancy widgets and LED headlights, and talkie-navi-touchscreen thinges, well, we live in a world where you can get that on a Kia or even a Corolla. People buy the brand. *And for the 'smarter' average consumers capable of basic math, the A4 is 1/3 better than the A3, just becuase the badge on the trunk said so, and you know it.*
> 
> We both beaten the horse to death: Audi does not give a crap about enthusiasts. They give a crap about people who drive Camrys. (never mind that the damn V6 Camry isn't that far in the rear view of an S4 on the local highway, in terms of power) Quite frankly, there are more of them than there are of us, and they are far more easily seperated from their money. *More power to Audi for the beigeification of the brand.*


Sage.


----------



## caliatenza (Dec 10, 2006)

i cannot wait to see the A3/S3 at the LA auto show though! I am sure its gonna look even better in person . I hope to God Audi gets the pricing right on the 2.0TFSI and the S3...


----------



## gizmopop (Feb 6, 2000)

FractureCritical said:


> All in all, the new A3 is nice, but it's not a wow, and it's similar enough to the A4 that I think at lot of people will forego a highly optioned A3 for a stripper A4.


That assumes that the A4 is still the same price when the A3 sedan shows up here. The current A4 has been around since 2008 (getting a facelift in 2012).


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

gizmopop said:


> That assumes that the A4 is still the same price when the A3 sedan shows up here. The current A4 has been around since 2008 (getting a facelift in 2012).


It will be, at least for a short time. I think the estimate I've seen thrown around is late 2015 for the B9's arrival, so... probably 18 months of overlap at a minimum. That is, assuming they don't arbitrarily up the price of the aging B8 "just because"...


----------



## KnockKnock (Jun 30, 2005)

FWIW, much of the perceived bang for buck the CLA might have over the base A3 is mitigated by the fact that it's 240lbs heavier. The A3 might give up .3s on a 0-60 run, but should gain back in nimbleness/sportiness/handling. We all know how much performance changes when that big buddy gets into the passenger seat.


----------



## caliatenza (Dec 10, 2006)

um did anyone read that car and driver article, it said the S3 isnt coming till early 2015....i hope thats a typo...


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

caliatenza said:


> um did anyone read that car and driver article, it said the S3 isnt coming till early 2015....i hope thats a typo...


Yeah, no way. The way the press release was worded, though, I'm surprised they're the first to make that mistake.


----------



## kevlartoronto (Jun 10, 2012)

Well this segment is going to heat up very quickly indeed. Not only did Merc beat Audi and BMW to the punch the 4 matic version of the CLA will probably be out before the A3 arrives. And as I understand it, the 2 series gran coupe will arrive at the beginning of 2015.


----------



## Diggz92 (May 18, 2013)

The base price and the standard options is a nice little bundle. 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk


----------



## Waterfan (Aug 9, 2012)

Travis Grundke said:


> That's my take as well - it was to steal BMW's thunder, considering BMW dumped a ton of specifics about the 2-series, from packaging to pricing and timelines. The fact that Audi is still withholding the HP figures on the 2.0TFSI leads me to believe there's still some infighting within corporate related to pricing, packaging and positioning.


Probably not less than 210hp/258tq since this is the mk7 GTI base engine spec for US. (220/258 for the Performance Pack GTI (+
R brakes, +LSD)


----------



## nickjs1984 (Jul 30, 2009)

Waterfan said:


> Probably not less than 210hp/258tq since this is the mk7 GTI base engine spec for US. (220/258 for the Performance Pack GTI (+
> R brakes, +LSD)


Actually, if you look at this write up from Audi magazine, page 17, you'll see they listed the 2.0T horsepower at 220 in the graphic there: http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/e169972e#/e169972e/17 Based on this, I'd assume we'll be seeing the matching 258 lb ft of torque? Unless the art department is just making things up...


----------



## lotuselan (Apr 9, 2008)

DaLeadBull said:


> I very much disagree, I would much rather have a loaded A3 than a base A4. There is no point in getting a base level Audi imo because at that price range a lot of better cars are available from "lesser" brands. If I were to buy an Audi I will only buy an S or RS model, getting a A model is pointless and only appeals to the "brand whores".


I'm thinking A4 Quatro just to get a manual.


----------



## Travis Grundke (May 26, 1999)

lotuselan said:


> I'm thinking A4 Quatro just to get a manual.


Funny you should say this - I just got a lead on a 2013 A4 2.0TFSI 6MT loaded, including Sport Package (a must to make the A4 enjoyable to drive, IMO) for ridiculous money. I'm seriously contemplating it at the moment.


----------



## Travis Grundke (May 26, 1999)

nickjs1984 said:


> Actually, if you look at this write up from Audi magazine, page 17, you'll see they listed the 2.0T horsepower at 220 in the graphic there: http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/e169972e#/e169972e/17 Based on this, I'd assume we'll be seeing the matching 258 lb ft of torque? Unless the art department is just making things up...


Great catch. I just looked that over and I would put good money on 220hp being the legitimate number. I'm also not surprised to see the S3 rated at 280hp, down from 296hp.

In some conversations I've had with folks at AoA there is a long of hand-wringing about CAFE requirements, which according to them is *one* of the reasons for going S-Tronic only (better mileage figures). If I were betting, I would also say that the 1.8TFSI is there to help CAFE averages, along with downrating the S3 to 280hp. I'd also bet that's to help better distance the future RS3.

Like Dan, I'll put it on the line now: those HP figures will be the official ones for our market.


----------



## kevlartoronto (Jun 10, 2012)

Travis Grundke said:


> Great catch. I just looked that over and I would put good money on 220hp being the legitimate number. I'm also not surprised to see the S3 rated at 280hp, down from 296hp.
> 
> In some conversations I've had with folks at AoA there is a long of hand-wringing about CAFE requirements, which according to them is *one* of the reasons for going S-Tronic only (better mileage figures). If I were betting, I would also say that the 1.8TFSI is there to help CAFE averages, along with downrating the S3 to 280hp. I'd also bet that's to help better distance the future RS3.
> 
> Like Dan, I'll put it on the line now: those HP figures will be the official ones for our market.


Well isn't that a depressing commentary. CAFE determines whether or not NA gets the manual transmission? Mpg is also the reason we are having to put up with electric steering as well. UGH!! 

I read an article stating the 2 series gran coupe will have a manual and auto.....


----------



## tclky (Aug 22, 2012)

kevlartoronto said:


> Well isn't that a depressing commentary. CAFE determines whether or not NA gets the manual transmission? Mpg is also the reason we are having to put up with electric steering as well. UGH!!
> 
> .....



Thinking about the USA CAFE standard of 35.5mpg by 2016 increasing to 54.5 by 2025 makes me believe that in the future most of a car maker's fleet will have underpowered gas engines and hybrids. To keep the mpg average up they'll have to either make their higher powered cars much more expensive to limit the quantity sold, put limits on the number of those cars produced, or come up with some really clever technology. I was thinking about keeping my current car another 5 years or so but I'm afraid I'll have much fewer good choices at that time in the sub $40K price range.


----------



## Waterfan (Aug 9, 2012)

nickjs1984 said:


> Based on this, I'd assume we'll be seeing the matching 258 lb ft of torque? Unless the art department is just making things up...


I'd put money on 258 as this is the exact same torque as reported for all mk7 GTI versions for all regions. (FYI the +10hp versions of the GTI PP is a result of increasing the rev limiter by ~+200 rpm. Probably to compensate for the minor additional weight of Golf R brakes and mechanical LSD)


----------



## Waterfan (Aug 9, 2012)

Travis Grundke said:


> Great catch. I just looked that over and I would put good money on 220hp being the legitimate number. I'm also not surprised to see the S3 rated at 280hp, down from 296hp.


There are many that believe the slightly lower hp numbers are because they rate the engines on 87 or 91 Octane and/or for the variable amounts of seasonal ethanol in the US (you can't find 93 in CA for example and many states increase ethanol % in the winter). 93 Octane is apparently more universally available ROW and makes 296hp easily.


----------



## Waterfan (Aug 9, 2012)

tclky said:


> Thinking about the USA CAFE standard of 35.5mpg by 2016 increasing to 54.5 by 2025 makes me believe that in the future most of a car maker's fleet will have underpowered gas engines and hybrids. To keep the mpg average up they'll have to either make their higher powered cars much more expensive to limit the quantity sold, put limits on the number of those cars produced, or come up with some really clever technology. I was thinking about keeping my current car another 5 years or so but I'm afraid I'll have much fewer good choices at that time in the sub $40K price range.


Audi could easily comply if they were more serious on capitalizing on their diesel reputation. They should offer a Diesel Quattro A3 (with the existing 184hp 2.0TDI), and a Hi-output Diesel "S3 TDI" (with the ~200hp TDI)


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

Waterfan said:


> There are many that believe the slightly lower hp numbers are because they rate the engines on 87 or 91 Octane and/or for the variable amounts of seasonal ethanol in the US (you can't find 93 in CA for example and many states increase ethanol % in the winter). 93 Octane is apparently more universally available ROW and makes 296hp easily.


That would handily explain why they have a reputation of under rating the US cars. The ECU mapping may not be as different for the US as the discrepancy implies.


----------



## Waterfan (Aug 9, 2012)

Dan Halen said:


> That would handily explain why they have a reputation of under rating the US cars. The ECU mapping may not be as different for the US as the discrepancy implies.


Exactly. Not so much they are "detuned" but that that must be specifically tuned on the assumption lower quality fuel will be used (ie. less than 93 octane)

And/or because they know the US has a problem with cars that require anything other than 87, so they map it for 87, have to pull some timing in order to do so, and lose ~10% peak hp in the process. But marketing a car with 280 hp that can run on 87/91/15%EtOH is MUCH easier than marketing a 296hp car that REQUIRES 93.


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

Waterfan said:


> Exactly. Not so much they are "detuned" but that that must be specifically tuned on the assumption lower quality fuel will be used (ie. less than 93 octane)
> 
> And/or because they know the US has a problem with cars that require anything other than 87, so they map it for 87, have to pull some timing in order to do so, and lose ~10% peak hp in the process. But marketing a car with 280 hp that can run on 87/91/15%EtOH is MUCH easier than marketing a 296hp car that REQUIRES 93.


I wish that could be decided by an option code at the time of order placement.


----------



## Waterfan (Aug 9, 2012)

Dan Halen said:


> I wish that could be decided by an option code at the time of order placement.


But for everything else there is APR/GIAC/UM/etc.  (warranty concerns notwithstanding)

EDIT: offering more than 1 power configuration probably causes some extra BS certification requirements/fees in the US. So they probably can't afford to provide the option. And imagine the ticky-tack warranty claims when they tune it to 93 but the owner puts 87 in it anyway and claims "it's down on power".


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

Oh, no doubt. It would never fly.


----------



## Bamm1 (Oct 17, 2013)

Waterfan said:


> But for everything else there is APR/GIAC/UM/etc.  (warranty concerns notwithstanding)
> 
> EDIT: offering more than 1 power configuration probably causes some extra BS certification requirements/fees in the US. So they probably can't afford to provide the option. And imagine the ticky-tack warranty claims when they tune it to 93 but the owner puts 87 in it anyway and claims "it's down on power".


Ford recommends premium fuel (91/93 OCT) for the best performance in the Focus ST. But Ford has done some adaptive ECU programming that allows for the use of 87 Octane fuel. Aftermarket tuners are reporting slightly lower boost, some timing reduction, etc. when 87 Octane is used. Ford’s factory literature states that when using 87 Octane fuel the engine is down 9 horsepower (~3.6% reduction) coming in at 243 HP. The torque rating remains unchanged at 270 ft-lbs. If AoA goes with 280 HP for the US market that puts the US S3 at ~5.4% less than the ROW (except Australia). If EtOH content, winter vs. summer blend, 91 OCT, ACN91, 93 OCT, etc. are the issue I don’t see why AoA could not go the same route as Ford. Report power based on ACN91 (if AoA goes with the standard ”premium fuel requirement” that would be the worst). But then program the ECU to allow for adaptation (boost, timing, etc.) based on the fuel type used (93 OCT, summer blend, etc.). They could even use it as a marketing tool for the folks that post on forums such as these (I can see the threads now). No manual will be offered so throw us a power bump bone………………


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

BrutusA3 said:


> I think at the end of the day they are looking at engine specs/tranny, which is usually what car mags care more about, not which car has a sunroof.
> A3: 1.8T 170HP / have not heard tq numbers, but guessing around 180
> CLA: 2.0T 208 HP / 258 tq
> A3: 6sp
> CLA: 7sp


I feel Audi is at a serious disadvantage with the 6spd Stronic. It seem to be the same DQ250 that's been around since 2003. It might have been revolutionary, but with even their budget model getting a 7 spd DQ200, and all slushbox going 8-9 spd. It is time to revamp the DQ250 so that it can have a overdrive gear. Right now, it can have a close ratio gearing or an overdrive gear, but not both. Maybe they could thrown in a lighter duty 7spd DQ500


----------



## mike3141 (Feb 16, 1999)

If I'm not mistaken 6th gear on the DSG has always been an overdrive gear:

Ratios:

1st: 3.46
2nd: 2.15
3rd: 1.46
4th: 1.08
5th: 1.09
6th: 0.92

5th and 6th use a different differential gear:
1st-4th: 4.12
5th-6th: 3.04


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

mike3141 said:


> If I'm not mistaken 6th gear on the DSG has always been an overdrive gear:
> 
> Ratios:
> 
> ...


it isn't true overdrive gear since it still revs relatively high at highway speed (as opposed to the lumbering sub 2000 rpm new overdrive gears are doing, hence you see close to 40mpg in many new gas engine cars, almost making the VAG TDI cars moot). The 6 spd DSG are geared so that they reach 155mph at the engine's max hp in 6th gear.

These crazy new OD transmissions can't even reach the top speed in top gear and next to top gear.


----------



## Cyncris (Aug 12, 2012)

LWNY said:


> it isn't true overdrive gear since it still revs relatively high at highway speed (as opposed to the lumbering sub 2000 rpm new overdrive gears are doing, hence you see close to 40mpg in many new gas engine cars, almost making the VAG TDI cars moot). The 6 spd DSG are geared so that they reach 155mph at the engine's max hp in 6th gear.
> 
> These crazy new OD transmissions can't even reach the top speed in top gear and next to top gear.


I see what you are saying but _*technically*_ it is a true overdrive because the drive shaft is turning more revolutions than the engine is.
I would much rather have a usable top gear as opposed to what they put in many of the cars now. The 6th gear on my A4 is useless below 80mph. The engine doesn't make enough torque to hold a 70mph speed going up and down hills without really putting your foot in it.
On fairly flat trips I have tried with the car in Drive, sport and manual. I get about 29mpg in drive, and 32 in sport and manual. Most of that difference being that it will not shift into 6th until you are above 80 which is about the bottom edge of where the engine makes enough torque to keep that same speed without having to lug it really bad.


----------



## JOES1.8T (Sep 8, 2003)

*Info from factory sales rep.*

Hey guys dont know if this has been posted or not in the forum or thread, but thought I would share. I received this information from my Audi Military Sales Program Rep. which these are the sales guys/gals who work directly with the factory and sell US Spec vehicles to military members who are physically stationed overseas at invoice price. This is what he had to say:



Mr. Morley said:


> Hi Alex,
> I just wanted to let you know that we’ve just heard from Audi that specs / pricing for the new A3 will be released next Jan / Feb time.


Also he briefly answered one of my questions that the Quattro version shouldn't be more than $1500 to $2k more than the FWD model. <--- this is his estimate based off his experience working with MAS.


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

JOES1.8T said:


> Hey guys dont know if this has been posted or not in the forum or thread, but thought I would share. I received this information from my Audi Military Sales Program Rep. which these are the sales guys/gals who work directly with the factory and sell US Spec vehicles to military members who are physically stationed overseas at invoice price. This is what he had to say:
> 
> 
> 
> Also he briefly answered one of my questions that the Quattro version shouldn't be more than $1500 to $2k more than the FWD model. <--- this is his estimate based off his experience working with MAS.


Yep. That matches well with a March release date. Audi typically doesn't release pricing information more than several weeks before the launch, so that's why I was so surprised to see something last week. With this announcement now nearly a week behind us, it's obvious it was nothing more than an attempt to divert attention from BMW's spotlight. So thanks, BMW, for helping us finally get some information out of Audi, scant as it may be.

:laugh:


----------



## tclky (Aug 22, 2012)

JOES1.8T said:


> ....
> 
> Also he briefly answered one of my questions that the Quattro version shouldn't be more than $1500 to $2k more than the FWD model. <--- this is his estimate based off his experience working with MAS.


That's reasonable if it also includes the 2.0L engine.


----------



## The DarkSide (Aug 4, 2000)

Travis Grundke said:


> Great catch. I just looked that over and I would put good money on 220hp being the legitimate number. I'm also not surprised to see the S3 rated at 280hp, down from 296hp.
> 
> In some conversations I've had with folks at AoA there is a long of hand-wringing about CAFE requirements, which according to them is *one* of the reasons for going S-Tronic only (better mileage figures). If I were betting, I would also say that the 1.8TFSI is there to help CAFE averages, along with downrating the S3 to 280hp. I'd also bet that's to help better distance the future RS3.
> 
> Like Dan, I'll put it on the line now: those HP figures will be the official ones for our market.


I'm pretty disappointed in the drop to 280hp.. however if the car can get a trap speed of 104-106 in the 1/4 then I won't really care what they say the HP is. (For ref i've seen TTS hit 103-105 in mag reviews).


----------



## Travis Grundke (May 26, 1999)

For those wondering what the potential size of this market will be, Mercedes moved 4,895 CLA Class vehicles in October. 

This is going to be a huge segment, and if the initial pricing and packaging announced last week for the A3 is anything, Audi ought to be able to capture a very healthy portion of the market.


----------



## FractureCritical (Nov 24, 2009)

Travis Grundke said:


> For those wondering what the potential size of this market will be, Mercedes moved 4,895 CLA Class vehicles in October.
> 
> This is going to be a huge segment, and if the initial pricing and packaging announced last week for the A3 is anything, Audi ought to be able to capture a very healthy portion of the market.


keep in mind that MB's only other option under the E Class was a miserable polished turd in the form of the C Class, and they still sell over 6 thousand of them every month. The CLA fills a gaping hole in the MB portfolio. Audi has the much better A4, and they're lucky to push that amount. I think we're looking at a really good start for the A3 at 1800-2000 units per month, maybe, and likely only after some ramp-up due to marketing and visibility on the road, and also likely due to stealing showroom traffic from the A4.

Around here, the CLA in a grocery store parking lot sells the CLA better than any marketing campaign. It most looks like the $100k CLS and nothing else. The A3 looks like the A6, the A4, and the A8... pretty much every sedan Audi makes. To the uninitiated, it looks most like the A6 until the the A6 pulls up.


----------



## caliatenza (Dec 10, 2006)

FractureCritical said:


> keep in mind that MB's only other option under the E Class was a miserable polished turd in the form of the C Class, and they still sell over 6 thousand of them every month. The CLA fills a gaping hole in the MB portfolio. Audi has the much better A4, and they're lucky to push that amount. I think we're looking at a really good start for the A3 at 1800-2000 units per month, maybe, and likely only after some ramp-up due to marketing and visibility on the road, and also likely due to stealing showroom traffic from the A4.
> 
> Around here, the CLA in a grocery store parking lot sells the CLA better than any marketing campaign. It most looks like the $100k CLS and nothing else. The A3 looks like the A6, the A4, and the A8... pretty much every sedan Audi makes. To the uninitiated, it looks most like the A6 until the the A6 pulls up.


okay, the C class is definetly not a miserable polished turd....thats a little disingenous.


----------



## ProjectA3 (Aug 12, 2005)

Audi will be rolling at a $50million+ ad campaign soon enough for the A3. This car will be made known before it goes on sale.
Dealers will also be getting demo's and loaner cars before they go on sale to help start sales before you can actually buy one.


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

ProjectA3 said:


> Audi will be rolling at a $50million+ ad campaign soon enough for the A3. This car will be made known before it goes on sale.
> Dealers will also be getting demo's and loaner cars before they go on sale to help start sales before you can actually buy one.


I get the feeling this thing is going to hit us much sooner after LA than many of us expect or realize.


----------



## tclky (Aug 22, 2012)

ProjectA3 said:


> Audi will be rolling at a $50million+ ad campaign soon enough for the A3. This car will be made known before it goes on sale.
> Dealers will also be getting demo's and loaner cars before they go on sale to help start sales before you can actually buy one.


Good news about the dealer demos.


----------



## brennok (Jun 5, 2007)

tclky said:


> Good news about the dealer demos.


Definitely. It will give me a chance to look the car over to makes sure I really want the S3. 

Pick wonder if they will get S3 demos also or if we will have to wait till summer.


----------



## ChrisFu (Jun 9, 2012)

Travis Grundke said:


> For those wondering what the potential size of this market will be, Mercedes moved 4,895 CLA Class vehicles in October.


MB leapfrogged Audi to this segment first...how many buyers that would have bought/considered the A3 pulled the trigger on the CLA because the A3 is late to market.


----------



## dmorrow (Jun 9, 2000)

ChrisFu said:


> MB leapfrogged Audi to this segment first...how many buyers that would have bought/considered the A3 pulled the trigger on the CLA because the A3 is late to market.


I agree. Seems like we have been talking about and looking at prototypes for years when the CLA seemed to come from nowhere. An easier sell when your main competition hasn't shown up and won't for months.


----------



## Waterfan (Aug 9, 2012)

ChrisFu said:


> MB leapfrogged Audi to this segment first...how many buyers that would have bought/considered the A3 pulled the trigger on the CLA because the A3 is late to market.


Probably almost all of them:laugh:. Audi has a lot of ground to make up when they FINALLY get here.


----------



## caliatenza (Dec 10, 2006)

Waterfan said:


> Probably almost all of them:laugh:. Audi has a lot of ground to make up when they FINALLY get here.


to be fair, i have yet to see a CLA on the road here in Central CA. I am not doubting that its selling well, just havent seen one yet. My friend in Fresno, CA (heart of the Central Valley) said he has only seen a couple at most...


----------



## Pretarion (Jun 13, 2003)

caliatenza said:


> to be fair, i have yet to see a CLA on the road here in Central CA. I am not doubting that its selling well, just havent seen one yet. My friend in Fresno, CA (heart of the Central Valley) said he has only seen a couple at most...


Give it time. It will take a few months to see the volume of cars to flood the population in your city. Pretty soon you will see one very frequently. Take for instance, the Lexus Is250/350, the new body style came out and I have yet to see one on the road. But you compare this to the last generation IS, I have actually seen one on each corner of an intersection I was stopped at. It is pretty sad to look at each direction of traffic and see the same vehicle. No room for individuality. That is what I am afraid of with the new A3 and their marketing plan. I have a feeling this vehicle will be as very much popular as the CLA or Lexus IS.


----------



## caliatenza (Dec 10, 2006)

Pretarion said:


> Give it time. It will take a few months to see the volume of cars to flood the population in your city. Pretty soon you will see one very frequently. Take for instance, the Lexus Is250/350, the new body style came out and I have yet to see one on the road. But you compare this to the last generation IS, I have actually seen one on each corner of an intersection I was stopped at. It is pretty sad to look at each direction of traffic and see the same vehicle. No room for individuality. That is what I am afraid of with the new A3 and their marketing plan. I have a feeling this vehicle will be as very much popular as the CLA or Lexus IS.


actually i saw the new IS fairly quickly, that too around here where i live, you really dont see new cars quickly. It also helps the new IS is selling with some good discounts, especially in southern california, where pretty much everyone in the state goes to buy their cars.


----------



## Travis Grundke (May 26, 1999)

A few months back we discussed how Audi was going to approach this market: were they going to push and charge a premium, trying to match Mercedes, or were they going to go for the value play and add content? Based on the press release last week it looks like they've gone the content route. Audi is betting that the majority of buyers won't care about the horsepower difference on the base model, and they're also looking for the advantage in the refinement of the 1.8TFSI over Merc's 2.0 in the CLA. I think that was the smart play. 

The base A3 has substantially more equipment than the equivalent Merc and this is where you're going to see Audi leveraging the economies of scale in MQB to their advantage. Heck, a base A3 will *look* better than a base CLA by the very nature of the xenons and LED DRLs coming standard. 

The competition is great for all of us: a few months back BMW announced the 320i to be a stop-gap model to help them compete with the CLA and A3. Frankly, the 320i, optioned with a manual transmission and M-Sport package at around $35k is probably one of the best values around. Audi has clearly been waiting for Mercedes to announce packaging and pricing and is now gauging the market before finalizing packaging and specifications. I expect there to be a severely pitched battle in this space between all three major players and that's great news for all of us. 

The CLA is a much more polarizing vehicle than the A3. As a result Mercedes might find the market for it somewhat limited. The A3 has much broader appeal and over the long haul I would put money on the A3 being the better seller. 

The big wildcard is BMW. I suspect that the 2-series will do substantially better than the 1-series ever did, and especially so when the 2-series Gran Coupe appears late next year/early 2015. If you guys want a laugh, head over to the BMW forums and listen to the griping about how BMW is losing this horse race because they're moving too slowly in the market.


----------



## Waterfan (Aug 9, 2012)

caliatenza said:


> to be fair, i have yet to see a CLA on the road here in Central CA. I am not doubting that its selling well, just havent seen one yet. My friend in Fresno, CA (heart of the Central Valley) said he has only seen a couple at most...


Saw a silver one here in Ventura County yesterday.


----------



## Leke (Jul 29, 2013)

Dan Halen said:


> I get the feeling this thing is going to hit us much sooner after LA than many of us expect or realize.


I have the same feelings. If Twitter and Instagram are anything to go by, I think we'll be seeing the first reviews of the S3 sedan rolling in any time now.. My Flipboard feed is littered with posts from journalists mentioning they drove the car in France and Monaco - some even posted some nice pics.


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

I see. I guess I'm on the wrong social media feeds. LOL

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Leke (Jul 29, 2013)

^ Haha, don't worry. I'm not on social media at all, I just have Flipboard aggregating anything and everything that has the phrase "Audi S3" in it. I should really get rid of it - the constant tease is making the wait seem so much longer.:banghead:


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

Travis Grundke said:


> The CLA is a much more polarizing vehicle than the A3. As a result Mercedes might find the market for it somewhat limited. The A3 has much broader appeal and over the long haul I would put money on the A3 being the better seller.


The CLA is polarizing in the sense that people either love the mini CLS or hate the melted look, but the guys who loves it will definitely get it. While the A3 has people in the camp of 'nice' or 'another audi that looks just like the others'. I am not sure the 'nice' people will fight their way to the showroom to order their A3.

The BMW 1 series was more polarizing, people either were neutral (or only talked about its performance aspect) or really didn't like it, and their sales figures showed.


----------



## caliatenza (Dec 10, 2006)

i found these:




























i really like the Grey, makes the car look very distinguished and classy. I'd go with Grey on this car for sure .


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

I'll just leave this here again. 










Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## davewg (Jul 30, 2001)

Dan Halen said:


> I'll just leave this here again.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah, that works. How long till I can start the "its time to replace the Yukon" conversation?? 23 months and counting...


----------

