# A3 Saloon 1.8TFSI Quattro Launches



## Travis Grundke (May 26, 1999)

While we will be receiving the 2.0TFSI Quattro version, the UK gets the 1.8TFSI Quattro version, launched today.

To note: the quattro version is s-tronic only. No manual will be offered.

The Audi UK configurator has the 1.8TFSI Quattro configuration available. A fully spec'd out car comes to around 35.300GBP, including 20% VAT. Without the VAT it comes to 28.240GBP, which converted to USD is around $45,000. 

Adjusting for market acceptance I would expect this to chime in at around $39-$40 USD when it comes to our market - with the 2.0TFSI. This is in line with what a fully loaded A3 8P 2.0TFSI Quattro S-Tronic was.

http://www.totallymotor.co.uk/new-car-news/2013/10/10/audi-launches-new-quattro-models


----------



## BrutusA3 (Jul 10, 2013)

Travis Grundke said:


> While we will be receiving the 2.0TFSI Quattro version, the UK gets the 1.8TFSI Quattro version, launched today.
> 
> To note: the quattro version is s-tronic only. No manual will be offered.
> 
> ...


40K.... That will not fly, unless I am reading *every single option checked off* when you say fully spec'd. 

Anyone ever do a comparison of the Audi A4 UK build to an Audi A4 USA build assume both are equally equipped, the extrapolate pricing?

B.


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

Travis Grundke said:


> Adjusting for market acceptance I would expect this to chime in at around $39-$40 USD when it comes to our market - with the 2.0TFSI. This is in line with what a fully loaded A3 8P 2.0TFSI Quattro S-Tronic was.


Okay, fair enough. So where does the S3 start and end? Still comfortable with a $39,000US starting price?


----------



## Travis Grundke (May 26, 1999)

BrutusA3 said:


> 40K.... That will not fly, unless I am reading *every single option checked off* when you say fully spec'd.
> 
> Anyone ever do a comparison of the Audi A4 UK build to an Audi A4 USA build assume both are equally equipped, the extrapolate pricing?
> 
> B.


Without getting into the nitty gritty, the only tickboxes I did NOT select were for upgraded wheels, power seats, safety nannies and paint: I stuck with the 17"s and the no-charge black. Otherwise, it's an s-line with LED headlamps, navigation, sunroof, alcantara seats, lumbar, upgraded warranty (4 year), phone box, cruise control, etc. Basically - about everything you're likely to get on a US spec model, but again without the nannies like self-park, active cruise control and blind spot assist.


----------



## Travis Grundke (May 26, 1999)

Dan Halen said:


> Okay, fair enough. So where does the S3 start and end? Still comfortable with a $39,000US starting price?


Yeah. Assuming AoA specs the S3 like they do the S4, we'll get "Premium Plus" equipment, s-line exterior, sport seats, Xenon headlamps and the sport suspension as standard. From there add on things like B&O sound, Navigation, LED Headlamps, safety nannies, etc. 

Figure $39k base, $1400 for LED lighting, $2500 for full navigation, $850 for B&O and you're at around $44k for what *I* would consider to be pretty fully equipped. 

I can do without the safety nannies, Audi Phone Box or Audi Connect.


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

Travis Grundke said:


> Figure $39k base, $1400 for LED lighting, $2500 for full navigation, $850 for B&O and you're at around $44k for what *I* would consider to be pretty fully equipped.
> 
> I can do without the safety nannies, Audi Phone Box or Audi Connect.


Yes, yes, yes, and yes. Now I just have to hope they don't ream us on Exclusive paint.


----------



## BrutusA3 (Jul 10, 2013)

Weird I just built one S-line 1.8 Quattro, and the standard wheels were 18's at least how I understood it. Since I do not care about the phone box I did not include, and came out to 32,735 GBP (added in the MMI for 34,230), I assume standard in U.S. would be sunroof and cruise control and leather anyhow. Added 3 other options that I think would be popular (MMI, heated seats and LED), MMI I am not sure if I personally will want it, but anyhoo fun to do:
Equipment: 
Cruise control
225.00 GBP
Fine Nappa leather with S line embossing
795.00 GBP
Heated front seats
260.00 GBP
LED headlights
795.00 GBP
Panoramic glass sunroof
950.00 GBP
Technology package MMI
1,495.00 GBP

What if at the end of the day Audi said no 2.0, and simply did a 1.8T in FWD and Quattro, I find it strange that the 2.0 is not even offered on the UK site.

B.


----------



## caliatenza (Dec 10, 2006)

Travis Grundke said:


> Yeah. Assuming AoA specs the S3 like they do the S4, we'll get "Premium Plus" equipment, s-line exterior, sport seats, Xenon headlamps and the sport suspension as standard. From there add on things like B&O sound, Navigation, LED Headlamps, safety nannies, etc.
> 
> Figure $39k base, $1400 for LED lighting, $2500 for full navigation, $850 for B&O and you're at around $44k for what *I* would consider to be pretty fully equipped.
> 
> I can do without the safety nannies, Audi Phone Box or Audi Connect.


i just want navi, B&O and blind spot assist. LED lighting seems like something i can definetly live without. Isnt Audi Connect supposed to be pretty cool though?


----------



## Travis Grundke (May 26, 1999)

It's amazing how granular you can get with the Euro configurations. Personally, the logistics part of my brain has a hard time understanding how it is in the least bit profitable for the automakers to offer so many tens of thousands of possible permutations. 

The US gets things like Bluetooth, leather, power seats (IIRC), sunroof, pre-sense basic, MMI basic, cruise control as standard. I imagine packages will group safety features together and probably technology feature together to boost the package price (ie: no standalone Nav, but a higher price that will include phone box and audi connect along with Nav).


----------



## Travis Grundke (May 26, 1999)

caliatenza said:


> i just want navi, B&O and blind spot assist. LED lighting seems like something i can definetly live without. Isnt Audi Connect supposed to be pretty cool though?


Audi Connect is essentially a wifi connection for your car and live Google Maps, etc. The upcharge for something like this doesn't interest me, especially the addtional monthly data plan you'll have to buy, but I can see where this might be a big draw, especially in the market they're going after.

My only experience with it is with friends who have recent Audis: they used AudiConnect for the free period you get with the car's purchase, then declined to continue it.


----------



## The DarkSide (Aug 4, 2000)

Do you think they are bringing the adaptive cruise control that works in stop and go traffic? Living in one of the nations top 5 worst cities for traffic it interests me GREATLY.


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

Travis Grundke said:


> Audi Connect is essentially a wifi connection for your car and live Google Maps, etc. The upcharge for something like this doesn't interest me, especially the addtional monthly data plan you'll have to buy, but I can see where this might be a big draw, especially in the market they're going after.
> 
> My only experience with it is with friends who have recent Audis: they used AudiConnect for the free period you get with the car's purchase, then declined to continue it.


I could be okay with it if it's a) bundled with other stuff I require or b) sold individually for a near-nominal cost of entry. I don't travel out of town enough in my car to need it regularly, but it would be neat to be able to buy a pre-paid SIM and use it on a whim.


----------



## VWNCC (Jan 12, 2010)

*1.8T Quattro*

I think AoA should just scrap the whole idea of 2.0T for the A3.

The 1.8T quattro can already do 0-100 in 6.8s vs. 7.3s for the FWD version. This already matches with the last generation of 2.0T A3.

To reduce cost, just offer the A3 with 1.8T and steal more market share from the CLA.


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

That would add prestige to the S3, too, if it were to become the only trim level with the 2.0T.


----------



## caliatenza (Dec 10, 2006)

Travis Grundke said:


> Audi Connect is essentially a wifi connection for your car and live Google Maps, etc. The upcharge for something like this doesn't interest me, especially the addtional monthly data plan you'll have to buy, but I can see where this might be a big draw, especially in the market they're going after.
> 
> My only experience with it is with friends who have recent Audis: they used AudiConnect for the free period you get with the car's purchase, then declined to continue it.


having google maps right there in the navi would be really nice. Out here in CA they are really strict about not using phones when driving to do bassically anything so using navigation on my phone isnt really something i can do.


----------



## VWNCC (Jan 12, 2010)

Dan Halen said:


> That would add prestige to the S3, too, if it were to become the only trim level with the 2.0T.


In addition to that, it would separate out the A3 and A4 a bit better as well.

Like, if AoA doesn't want to sell an A3 <30k because they are worried about cheapening the brand, launching the 1.8T quattro as the base car makes the most sense.

It is definitely quick enough, it has AWD so it has an edge over the CLA and does not overlap with the VW 1.8T FWD products.


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

Interesting idea. I'm not really against the "if you want FWD, buy a VW" idea. Ergo, make all Audis quattro. I realize the A3/S3 will still be primarily FWD cars due to the Haldex-based quattro front bias, but it's still AWD.

... or, let the front-drive A3 overtake the front-drive A4, thereby giving Audi some breathing room with A3 packaging relative to the A4 price of entry.


----------



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

Another thing to consider is that the current B8 A4 is at the end of its product cycle. A new clean sheet redesign (B9) is only a year or two off. Audi could easily be positioning the A3 so it sits correctly in a long term portfolio, meaning the next generation A4 could start in the mid-to-upper $30's and still leave room for the A6, starting at $43k 

"Base" price 
8v A3 - $29.9
B8 A4 - $33.8
B9 A4 - $36 +\-
C7 A6 - $43.1

This puts a nice $5-6k gap between each model.


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

That's what I expect to happen.


----------



## Travis Grundke (May 26, 1999)

I'm with Dan - I don't really think that Audi, like Mercedes, is much concerned about cannibalization of the A4 / C-Class at this point in time. 

The B9 A4 should be in the US sometime in 2015, unless rumors about delays due to redesigns hold true. 

If you're going to have cannibalization, better it be from your own product line.


----------



## caliatenza (Dec 10, 2006)

Travis Grundke said:


> I'm with Dan - I don't really think that Audi, like Mercedes, is much concerned about cannibalization of the A4 / C-Class at this point in time.
> 
> The B9 A4 should be in the US sometime in 2015, unless rumors about delays due to redesigns hold true.
> 
> If you're going to have cannibalization, better it be from your own product line.


the new C class will be at about the same price point that it is now (starting at around $36k). That is a big enough gap between it and the CLA. MB isnt worried about canbalization. What they are banking on is the CLA driving people into the showrooms and then people realizing for about $5-6k more they can go with a RWD C class. I doubt Audi, like you said, is worried either. There will be a big enough gap between the A3 and A4; maybe not initially, but eventually there will be.


----------



## VWNCC (Jan 12, 2010)

p.r.walker said:


> Another thing to consider is that the current B8 A4 is at the end of its product cycle. A new clean sheet redesign (B9) is only a year or two off. Audi could easily be positioning the A3 so it sits correctly in a long term portfolio, meaning the next generation A4 could start in the mid-to-upper $30's and still leave room for the A6, starting at $43k
> 
> "Base" price
> 8v A3 - $29.9
> ...


The only thing is there are people saying that the base A3 will be the 2.0T quattro with a starting price of 35k.

I really think AoA will be stupid to do that. They need a base price of ~30k and in order to be competitive, they need the 1.8T quattro as the base car, not the 1.8T FWD.


----------



## BrutusA3 (Jul 10, 2013)

VWNCC said:


> The only thing is there are people saying that the base A3 will be the 2.0T quattro with a starting price of 35k.
> 
> I really think AoA will be stupid to do that. They need a base price of ~30k and in order to be competitive, they need the 1.8T quattro as the base car, not the 1.8T FWD.


Agreed, the most important thing is competitive product. Anyone notice the A4 went up in horsepower again, more ways to separate. I am now envisioning.
1.8t fwd under 30k 
1.8t awd over 30k
Tdi fwd
2.0t s model.

Just makes sense, even if current a3 has 2.0. We are what 6 weeks from the la show and yet to hear the specs on this 2.0t non S Quattro model, seems strange.


----------



## VWNCC (Jan 12, 2010)

BrutusA3 said:


> Agreed, the most important thing is competitive product. Anyone notice the A4 went up in horsepower again, more ways to separate. I am now envisioning.
> 1.8t fwd under 30k
> 1.8t awd over 30k
> Tdi fwd
> ...


This lineup makes the most sense.

The 1.8T quattro also has the torque increased by 12% over the FWD model. The 2.0T quattro just doesn't make sense anymore now that they have done this to the 1.8T.


----------



## Travis Grundke (May 26, 1999)

caliatenza said:


> the new C class will be at about the same price point that it is now (starting at around $36k). That is a big enough gap between it and the CLA. MB isnt worried about canbalization. What they are banking on is the CLA driving people into the showrooms and then people realizing for about $5-6k more they can go with a RWD C class. I doubt Audi, like you said, is worried either. There will be a big enough gap between the A3 and A4; maybe not initially, but eventually there will be.


Exactly. All of the shuffling is very interesting from a product development standpoint: Audi clearly was making room and planning for all of these changes now back during the B8 A4's development stages, which would have been a good three years prior to the 2008 launch. So in many ways the stage was set for everything today about ten years ago. 

Imagine being a product planner and told: here's $2 billion to play with. You need to anticipate consumer demands, government regulations, market competition and unforeseen future technologies now for a product that won't be on the road for 3-5 years. Oh, and by the way, don't screw it up. 

I'm with Caliatenza - the A4 will move upmarket slightly, but probably not be a whole heck of a lot. We'll still see overlap in model ranges like we do now because the trend is moving toward vehicles targeting niches/demographics more than targeting the traditional 'classes' like before.


----------



## Travis Grundke (May 26, 1999)

VWNCC said:


> The only thing is there are people saying that the base A3 will be the 2.0T quattro with a starting price of 35k.
> 
> I really think AoA will be stupid to do that. They need a base price of ~30k and in order to be competitive, they need the 1.8T quattro as the base car, not the 1.8T FWD.


...well, that's all in the name of good ole' fashioned speculation at this point. Officially, Audi stands by their "around $30,000" statement for the moment. We're thinking about recent comments made by Audi of America President Scott Keogh who mentioned that he wants "the right" kinds of customers, not just 'any' customer, and that he believes Audi needs to push up-market in its pricing strategy, not down. IIRC, he's said in the recent past that the sweet spot for a tier one, premium brand is $40,000 and up, so trying to enter the market below $30,000 runs counter to that desire.

I think that more of the speculation is that perhaps Audi of America will drop the 1.8TFSI altogether and adopt the 2.0TFSI across the range of A3 models. Again, this is all a WAG.


----------



## Travis Grundke (May 26, 1999)

BrutusA3 said:


> We are what 6 weeks from the la show and yet to hear the specs on this 2.0t non S Quattro model, seems strange.


Not so odd. I would wait for a big autoshow to announce that information and garner as much press as I could. That, and the LA autoshow puts us at around the three month mark before deliveries start. Just enough time for orders and shipping.


----------



## ChrisFu (Jun 9, 2012)

Travis Grundke said:


> Exactly. All of the shuffling is very interesting from a product development standpoint: Audi clearly was making room and planning for all of these changes now back during the B8 A4's development stages, which would have been a good three years prior to the 2008 launch. So in many ways the stage was set for everything today about ten years ago.


Wow do you ever give Audi WAY too much credit with that statement! :laugh:

If you look at the entire model-bloat syndrome that has afflicted every single OEM, if Audi truly had any foresight they would have never succumbed to this stupidity and abandoned the B5 A4 size sedan vehicle in the first place.

Instead, they are playing catch up to MB who has delievered their competition (in less than a year) to a car Audi debuted at an auto show almost 3 years ago!


----------



## Waterfan (Aug 9, 2012)

VWNCC said:


> I think AoA should just scrap the whole idea of 2.0T for the A3.
> 
> The 1.8T quattro can already do 0-100 in 6.8s vs. 7.3s for the FWD version. This already matches with the last generation of 2.0T A3.
> 
> To reduce cost, just offer the A3 with 1.8T and steal more market share from the CLA.


Is it a downside that some people will say "the 1.8T is the same engine as a basic Jetta" or "The Jetta GLI has the 2.0T"?

Otherwise, it's not a bad idea, except that the possible perception that "Audi gets less than VW" might damage their premium positioning.

They have to certify an engine+quattro configuration anyway, it might as well be the 2.0T combo instead of the 1.8T. Not sure how much cost is saved when both engines are already designed and built to fit the MQB platform. (the 2.0T can't be significantly more expensive to build.)

Anyway, just my random thoughts.


----------



## Waterfan (Aug 9, 2012)

VWNCC said:


> Like, if AoA doesn't want to sell an A3 <30k because they are worried about cheapening the brand, launching the 1.8T quattro as the base car makes the most sense.
> 
> It is definitely quick enough, it has AWD so it has an edge over the CLA and does not overlap with the VW 1.8T FWD products.


This is a VERY interesting idea.

Will the 1.8T quattro be competitive with the CLA from a fuel economy perspective?


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

Waterfan said:


> Is it a downside that some people will say "the 1.8T is the same engine as a basic Jetta" or "The Jetta GLI has the 2.0T"?
> 
> Otherwise, it's not a bad idea, except that the possible perception that "Audi gets less than VW" might damage their premium positioning.
> 
> ...


I think the VW concern is a valid one. I suspect Audi will market the car in a way that doesn't particularly encourage the average buyer to compare it to a Jetta, but you'll probably invite some such complaints if the Jetta and A3 both use the 1.8T. The Audi version will likely have some tech bits that the VW version doesn't, so that's one mark in favor of the Audi. If they were to make the 1.8TQ the base vehicle, I think they'd invite less criticism than if they made the 1.8T front-driver the base car. Really, I like the idea of using the 1.8T motor as the base motor, with quattro standard by default. At that point, you really can't compare the two cars, despite the 1.8T motor being in both cars.


----------



## Waterfan (Aug 9, 2012)

Dan Halen said:


> I think the VW concern is a valid one. I suspect Audi will market the car in a way that doesn't particularly encourage the average buyer to compare it to a Jetta, but you'll probably invite some such complaints if the Jetta and A3 both use the 1.8T. The Audi version will likely have some tech bits that the VW version doesn't, so that's one mark in favor of the Audi. If they were to make the 1.8TQ the base vehicle, I think they'd invite less criticism than if they made the 1.8T front-driver the base car. Really, I like the idea of using the 1.8T motor as the base motor, with quattro standard by default. At that point, you really can't compare the two cars, despite the 1.8T motor being in both cars.


Fair points.

On a side note, the majority of buyers in this segment probably don't care if the car is FWD, RWD or AWD, they just want an upscale badge with upscale features/tech with attractive(subjective) looks.

In this way the 'quattro only' limitation might be a negative selling point for anyone who does not want or appreciate the extra cost and complexity of AWD. I subscribe to "more options are better than fewer options" philosophy, so maybe this view is biased. And as you say FWD 1.8T A3 invites (unfair) comparison to Jetta.

Interesting discussion...


----------



## Travis Grundke (May 26, 1999)

Waterfan said:


> Fair points.
> 
> On a side note, the majority of buyers in this segment probably don't care if the car is FWD, RWD or AWD, they just want an upscale badge with upscale features/tech with attractive(subjective) looks.
> 
> ...


This is like the BMW RWD debate: I would argue that 90% of BMW owners could care less of the car were FWD, RWD or AWD. They don't even know the difference. Heck, at this point, the majority of Subaru buyers probably don't even care that their cars are AWD (and they're eating Volkswagen's lunch in North America, BTW).

At this point in the game consumers are less interested in power trains and horsepower, more interested in ambiance, fuel efficiency and technology. Like it or not, that's the direction the market is headed. To BMW's credit they move with the trends much more quickly than Audi. Remember the uproar over the first X5 and X3 from the brand purists claiming that BMW had lost its way? Arguably BMW is in a far better position today because they have a very broad product range that adapts very quickly. Audi is about 5-7 years behind BMW in that regard, but changing quickly.


----------



## Waterfan (Aug 9, 2012)

Travis Grundke said:


> This is like the BMW RWD debate: I would argue that 90% of BMW owners could care less of the car were FWD, RWD or AWD. They don't even know the difference. Heck, at this point, the majority of Subaru buyers probably don't even care that their cars are AWD (and they're eating Volkswagen's lunch in North America, BTW).
> 
> At this point in the game consumers are less interested in power trains and horsepower, more interested in ambiance, fuel efficiency and technology. Like it or not, that's the direction the market is headed. To BMW's credit they move with the trends much more quickly than Audi. Remember the uproar over the first X5 and X3 from the brand purists claiming that BMW had lost its way? Arguably BMW is in a far better position today because they have a very broad product range that adapts very quickly. Audi is about 5-7 years behind BMW in that regard, but changing quickly.


Except that the BMW US brand is "The Ultimate Driving Machine" and RWD absolutely supports that brand position. Audi only half-heartedly exaults their Quattro heritage.

Other than that nuance, I agree with you completely.


----------



## Travis Grundke (May 26, 1999)

Waterfan said:


> Except that the BMW US brand is "The Ultimate Driving Machine" and RWD absolutely supports that brand position. Audi only half-heartedly exaults their Quattro heritage.
> 
> Other than that nuance, I agree with you completely.


I'm just glad that BMW dumped that horrible "Joy" marketing campaign that they intended to replace "The Ultimate Driving Machine" with a few years back. Whomever signed off on that move deserved to be fired, with extreme prejudice.

The BMW "UDM" slogan is exceptional. I think Audi is still trying to find theirs in North America because "Truth in Engineering" just doesn't sit right to me.


----------



## Waterfan (Aug 9, 2012)

Travis Grundke said:


> I think Audi is still trying to find theirs in North America because "Truth in Engineering" just doesn't sit right to me.


It doesn't work for me either. I might even go so far as to say Audi does not really have a brand identity in the US.

Maybe they should "double-down" on the AWD/Racing heritage, both past(rally) and present(24h Le Mans) and phase out the FWD configurations (and make sure VW is equipped to handle some of these FWD customers in their top of the line models). If you're going to be a premium brand, then BE a premium brand, let someone else take your less-desirable FWD business.

This, at least, would be an improved brand position (dare I say 'vastly'?). Comparisons between MB/BWM/Audi would be less easy since Audi could always say "we are priced like this due to the superior real world performance of AWD". They would be the go-to brand for Subaru owners "graduating" into a premium brand. etc, and so forth.


----------



## Rudy_H (Jul 6, 2012)

Travis Grundke said:


> At this point in the game consumers are less interested in power trains and horsepower, more interested in ambiance, fuel efficiency and technology. Like it or not, that's the direction the market is headed.


This is quite true. I see more and more friends saying the samething, as in 'why do you want to spend all that money on your S4 if you can't use it?' 

So very true, here in Ontario, we cruise at 130-140 km/h in a 100 km/h zone => driving conditions permitting. The second you do 150 km/h and get caught...

http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/about/bill203.shtml

1) Car is impounded 
2) $10,000 fine
3) License suspended

What's the point of having any power? For this car I am driving now, I was totally intrigued to hit the track. Personal life has kept me busy and this was a part of my life for literally the first year owning it, now just don't have time.

This is what kind of has me back at Audi too...comfy interior, gadgets to make life easier, and though my heart still pumps when you watch the speedo slip from 100 km/h to 160-170 km/h...the second I get caught...

As for FWD vs AWD vs RWD - that's another thing. It comes down to traction. Again a thing here in Ontario which is a bit of an issue. I am more swayed towards AWD, only because winter has been a pain with RWD and a somewhat lightweight coupe over the rear tires. FWD? Torque steer? See 'Stunt Driving', accelerating too fast can be considered 'Stunt Driving' if you pick the wrong cop on the wrong day...


***this is my problem, and why I have still a ?3 - the guy I have been the past 15+ yrs driving says S3!!! The 'mature adult' in me says A3...lame...mind you I don't think I will be opting for the nanny options, and if I could replace the 7" display with my own tablet and tie it in, I would be WAY MORE HAPPY.


----------



## The DarkSide (Aug 4, 2000)

Rudy_H said:


> This is quite true. I see more and more friends saying the samething, as in 'why do you want to spend all that money on your S4 if you can't use it?'
> 
> So very true, here in Ontario, we cruise at 130-140 km/h in a 100 km/h zone => driving conditions permitting. The second you do 150 km/h and get caught...
> 
> ...


I visited Toronto a few years ago and when I saw the sign I was all. 

I will say though, even though our laws here in the states arent nearly as bad... I don't speed or drive nearly as hard as I did in my early 20's. I sold my motorcycle earlier this year - one of the primary reasons is there just aren't many good places to ride it fast and hard in the DC area. At least not with out risking life and limb.


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

My stage one GLI is really already enough to cut up and take charges, so an S3 will be at the top end of "smart" for me. RS3 would be cool, sure... but there's just no need.

I would like to take advantage of the S3 for HPDE and such, though.


----------



## Cyncris (Aug 12, 2012)

Dan Halen said:


> My stage one GLI is really already enough to cut up and take charges, so an S3 will be at the top end of "smart" for me. RS3 would be cool, sure... but there's just no need.
> 
> I would like to take advantage of the S3 for HPDE and such, though.


You should grab that GLI and take a short road trip on down to see us next month for our HPDE:
http://www.audiclubga.com/DrivingSchoolatAtlantaMotorsportsPark-90


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

I wish I could, but I'm already in deep enough for the trip I'm taking next month. There's no way in the world that I can pull that off.

How often does ACGA have such events? I'll surely make one in the future.


----------



## Cyncris (Aug 12, 2012)

We have the HPDE's at least once a year. We have other driving events 3-4 times a year.
There is a possibility that we will do a Cherohala skyway drive in February.
We are going to Savannah, GA in March
In May we have our largest event (last year was 117 people) http://quattrodemayo.com/ Where we have 4 days of drives including Tail of the Dragon.
In August, we have another drive that usually intersects Helen, GA somewhere.

Our HPDE is typically toward the end of the year. We are also frequently invited to Roebling road raceway with the Porsche club and to Road Atlanta with the BMW club throughout the year.


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

Good to know- thanks! I think the Georgia delegation is really the only group in the southeast doing much of anything cohesive. I'd like to get on board with the TN group and help get some things going, but I don't have much business taking additional things on right now.


----------

