# Anyone clock S3 0-60 ? (stock)



## troeg (Dec 3, 2014)

Curious if anyone has timed their S3 from 0-60 (stock) and what numbers you ended up with? I've heard that the A3 and S3 numbers are comparable, is this accurate?


----------



## Revolver1966 (Mar 30, 2014)

Never heard they're comparable, but that's relative I suppose. In real world terms they likely are but on paper you're looking at 4.5 vs 5.2-5.5.


----------



## troeg (Dec 3, 2014)

The disparity between the launch control stated 0-60 time (4.7s) and what I've seen in videos without launch control seems strange. It's like 4.7 vs 5.7 .. 

Video for reference.


----------



## VWNCC (Jan 12, 2010)

OP, another poster has done it, please see link below:

http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?7146175-0-60-stock-4-57-sec-S3

Basically,

4.6 s with launch control vs. 5.6 s without launch control, very much in line with the above video.

The maker of that video has also tested the A3 2.0TQ and got as fast as 5.9 s.

Therefore, yes, without launch control, the 0-60 time for the S3 Is faster, but not much faster than the A3 2.0TQ.


----------



## CbutterK (Feb 27, 2015)

VWNCC said:


> OP, another poster has done it, please see link below:
> 
> http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?7146175-0-60-stock-4-57-sec-S3
> 
> ...


Yeah, it was really surprising to find such a huge difference between Launch control vs not on the S3. But that difference is less on an A3, due to the different launch rpms. A3 on LC pegs at about 3200rpms, where the S3 pegs at 4100 rpms.

I did not have the chance to clock it stock, but with GIAC stage1 91 Octane tune, taller tires(245/35/19 so reads slower), 104 degree ambient temp, 2 way average back to back, my S3 did 5.38 in comfort mode no Launch control, and 4.17 in dynamic mode with launch control. measured on my P3 VIDI. Difference of 1.21 seconds!!!!


----------



## frakseno (Jun 2, 2015)

Road & Track says 4.4s.


----------



## FLtrooper (Jul 16, 2012)

I noticed a video of a 8V A3 Quattro with only a Neuspeed power module doing a 4.9 0-60.


----------



## troeg (Dec 3, 2014)

Hmm..that is somewhat disheartening for what you end up paying for the car over an A3 2.0t.


----------



## FLtrooper (Jul 16, 2012)

troeg said:


> Hmm..that is somewhat disheartening for what you end up paying for the car over an A3 2.0t.









I assume a proper tune could yield a 4.5? Or maybe quicker?


----------



## Revolver1966 (Mar 30, 2014)

A tuned S3 will hit it in 3.8 or so but a modded A3 Quattro is gonna be the best bang for buck.


----------



## steve111b (Jun 2, 2011)

There is a French TV show (RPM) which tested an A3 quattro. Among the top cars of the year they picked the Golf, among the worst the A3. The first problem is the brakes - very long stopping distance. The brakes appear to be the same as in a Golf, but the A3 is bigger. Next there is excessive body roll when driven through a slalom. They do a brake, swerve, lane change at 80 km/hr which produces a long stopping distance. The real problem occurs when the speed is increased to 90 km/hr. The ABS, ESP, and poor brakes combine to produce an extremely long stopping distance where the brakes seem to give out before coming to a complete stop.

The S3 has bigger brakes, better tires, lower suspension, and mag ride.


----------



## seymore15074 (Jul 23, 2007)

troeg said:


> Hmm..that is somewhat disheartening for what you end up paying for the car over an A3 2.0t.


This!



Revolver1966 said:


> A tuned S3 will hit it in 3.8 or so but a modded A3 Quattro is gonna be the best bang for buck.


This!



steve111b said:


> The S3 has bigger brakes, better tires, lower suspension, and mag ride.


Well, the mag ride is extra money so that's not so much of an advantage. Maybe it could be consider discounted as compared to retrofitting it to an A3 (assuming that is possible).


----------



## Revolver1966 (Mar 30, 2014)

A person who doesn't know their stuff can (and many likely have) pay $45K+ for a loaded A3 at retail with markups etc. A person can (and has) pay $45K for a nearly-loaded S3. The A3 & GTI lose their edge once they get loaded out IMO.


----------



## Xanlith (Apr 19, 2014)

Revolver1966 said:


> A tuned S3 will hit it in 3.8 or so but a modded A3 Quattro is gonna be the best bang for buck.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cz1aaVtmumQ

3.15 0-60 apparently with APR stage 1. I dont have enough miles on mine to test my Unitronic Stage 1.5+ tune yet.


----------



## Revolver1966 (Mar 30, 2014)

Xanlith said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cz1aaVtmumQ
> 
> 3.15 0-60 apparently with APR stage 1. I dont have enough miles on mine to test my Unitronic Stage 1.5+ tune yet.


He must have been going down a hill!


----------



## CbutterK (Feb 27, 2015)

Revolver1966 said:


> He must have been going downhill!


His car is a UK 3 door hatchback S3, which is the lightest variant of the S3 lineup. And their stock motor starts off at a higher HP/TQ number I believe, due to the secondary injectors on their intake manifold. + I think he might have been running shorter than stock size tires too. But still... Pretty damn fast! The best I can manage on my S3 is a 4.17 on my P3 VIDI, but I know it's reading slower due to my taller tire diameter 25.8" vs stock 25". Compensating for the slower reading, it's still close to 3.9, nowhere close to 3.15. Anyway, on the topic of A3 vs S3 value. For the extra $5K you pay for S3 Prestige vs A3 Prestige, you get internally stronger motor, bigger turbo, Bigger brakes, Magride, Flat bottom steering wheel with paddles, S3 badges, better resale value, Exclusivity, and perceived status. The cost to mod them are basically the same. A3 makes one stage less power than S3, meaning the A3 stage 3 will be similar to S3 stage 2, etc. So ultimately for the same money spent on mods, S3 will always be faster. And 2-4 years from now, I bet the trade in value will favor the S3, so the total cost of ownership may not be $5K difference IMHO.


----------



## Revolver1966 (Mar 30, 2014)

CbutterK said:


> His car is a UK 3 door hatchback S3, which is the lightest variant of the S3 lineup. And their stock motor starts off at a higher HP/TQ number I believe, due to the secondary injectors on their intake manifold. + I think he might have been running shorter than stock size tires too. But still... Pretty damn fast! The best I can manage on my S3 is a 4.17 on my P3 VIDI, but I know it's reading slower due to my taller tire diameter 25.8" vs stock 25". Compensating for the slower reading, it's still close to 3.9, nowhere close to 3.15. Anyway, on the topic of A3 vs S3 value. For the extra $5K you pay for S3 Prestige vs A3 Prestige, you get internally stronger motor, bigger turbo, Bigger brakes, Magride, Flat bottom steering wheel with paddles, S3 badges, better resale value, Exclusivity, and perceived status. The cost to mod them are basically the same. A3 makes one stage less power than S3, meaning the A3 stage 3 will be similar to S3 stage 2, etc. So ultimately for the same money spent on mods, S3 will always be faster. And 2-4 years from now, I bet the trade in value will favor the S3, so the total cost of ownership may not be $5K difference IMHO.


Yep! Option-for-option, the GTI, Golf R and S3 are $5K apart in the U.S. Unless people are discussing loaded vs loaded (which aren't equivalent in some ways). The A3 will always be the boring, entry-level Audi. Period. Once used, it will be an A3. Those are bought by much different people than those buying a used S3. People cross-shopping a used 320i, CLA250 and possibly a new Acura. S3s will hold their value for the exact reason no A- model Audi has impressed me: they're just "meh". The base A3 is so basic once you option it up, it costs $42K. The reality is: are you willing to spend $3K more for the car? It's not like the GTI/R (where sacrifices must be made such as no 2-door or sunroof on R while GTI has those options) when choosing the performance option. Hence my shift to an S3 after being a determined R buyer. 
3rd option: If you don't care about a sunroof, a Golf R may be a good look.


----------



## jsausley (Dec 2, 2011)

Even if the S3 is $3k more, it'll be worth $6k more or more when you're ready to sell.


----------



## VWNCC (Jan 12, 2010)

jsausley said:


> Even if the S3 is $3k more, it'll be worth $6k more or more when you're ready to sell.


That depends. It might be true in private sale, but definitely not if you trade the car in after 5-10 years. 

While there is not much data for the A3/S3, one can simply look at the blackbook resale values of A4 vs. S4. The values get closer and closer with ownership.

Also, the cost of ownership is also very tricky. I don't know about the US, but here in Canada, the rate difference between the A3 and S3 is big. Also, if you add in factors like fuel consumption and insurance cost difference, the price differential between A3 and S3 only gets bigger and bigger.

So even though the S3 might be 3-4k more expensive on paper in Canada (vs. the S-line equivalent with same equipment including FBSW, sportseat and etc...), the overall cost in ownership might make it double that over 10 years.


----------



## twenzel (Jan 20, 2011)

lmao people who think the only difference between an A3 and S3 is the 0-60 time. lol!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## troeg (Dec 3, 2014)

twenzel said:


> lmao people who think the only difference between an A3 and S3 is the 0-60 time. lol!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


There is plenty of difference between the two, this thread was just to see if anyone had gathered or heard any information regarding the validity of the close times. That's all.


----------



## Revolver1966 (Mar 30, 2014)

VWNCC said:


> That depends. It might be true in private sale, but definitely not if you trade the car in after 5-10 years.
> 
> While there is not much data for the A3/S3, one can simply look at the blackbook resale values of A4 vs. S4. The values get closer and closer with ownership.
> 
> ...


Kind of. The old model S3 and other S/RSs use/used naturally aspirated or larger engines. Being a turbo 2.0T of the same generation, AWD and similar tires (assuming nobody skimps on tires), the running cost should be fairly close for the new MQB car. Tuning improves mpg as well.


----------



## BlueAudi (Dec 10, 2014)

frakseno said:


> Road & Track says 4.4s.


How is it that 0-60 is faster than 5-60?

Shouldn't 0-60 be equal to 0-5 plus 5-60???


----------



## VWNCC (Jan 12, 2010)

Revolver1966 said:


> Kind of. The old model S3 and other S/RSs use/used naturally aspirated or larger engines. Being a turbo 2.0T of the same generation, AWD and similar tires (assuming nobody skimps on tires), the running cost should be fairly close for the new MQB car. Tuning improves mpg as well.


Well, based on official stat, the difference in fuel efficiency between the A3 2.0TQ and S3 is roughly 5%.

Given the price of gasoline up here and depending on how much one drives, you are looking at typically $2000 dollar difference in 10 years due to fuel cost alone.

Insurance cost difference, unfortunately, I do not have any official numbers, but let's say 10% difference, and depending on one's premium rate, then it would be another $2000-4000 dollar difference in 10 years.

So total cost difference is now $4000 (price difference between an S3 and an equivalent S-line, Canadian spec) + $2000 (fuel) + $2000 to 4000 (insurance) = $8000 to $10000 over 10 years. The real price difference between two products is often quite a bit higher than the initial purchase price difference.


----------



## Revolver1966 (Mar 30, 2014)

BlueAudi said:


> How is it that 0-60 is faster than 5-60?
> 
> Shouldn't 0-60 be equal to 0-5 plus 5-60???


5-60 is always slower than 0-60 because of a few things. The main cause is 0-60 isn't launching from 0mph-at-idle. Revs are held at 4K using launch control. At 5 mph you're launching from like 2K RPM with less grip.
This number is much closer to real world "0-60 launches" because they're usaually "slow to 60" unless one is dumping the clutch or using launch control at each stop light.


----------



## 91BaseGuy (Mar 15, 2015)

"Car and Driver" used launch-control to get a 4.4 second time for a stock S3. Their test of an A3 2.0 quattro was 5.6 seconds. So there's your best comparison, from the same source, using the same testing equipment and procedures.

Yes, in the real world, without resorting to launch control, the S3 is a poor stoplight drag weapon. But on the role, and in more real-world driving situations (i.e., not foolish stoplight drags), the S3 will rip the guts out of an A3 quattro (not to take anything away from the A3, which is a very nice and quick car in its own right).


----------



## VWNCC (Jan 12, 2010)

91BaseGuy said:


> "Car and Driver" used launch-control to get a 4.4 second time for a stock S3. Their test of an A3 2.0 quattro was 5.6 seconds. So there's your best comparison, from the same source, using the same testing equipment and procedures.
> 
> Yes, in the real world, without resorting to launch control, the S3 is a poor stoplight drag weapon. But on the role, and in more real-world driving situations (i.e., not foolish stoplight drags), the S3 will rip the guts out of an A3 quattro (not to take anything away from the A3, which is a very nice and quick car in its own right).


Autobytel also tested both the S3 and A3 using the same source and procedure.

Without the use of launch control, the S3 got 5.7s whereas the best time they got for the A3 was 5.9s. That's probably the best comparison for real-world situations. In real world driving situations, rarely would people use launch control. 

Up to typical highway speed limits, the S3 is faster, but isn't that much faster and I definitely wouldn't call that ripping the guts out of an A3. On a track, however, I probably wouldn't doubt that it would.


----------



## s3u4ic (Sep 27, 2014)

So in my personal tests I had a hard time even breaking 5.0 secs.

When I finally tried launch control I shaved off .5 secs. I didn't quite get the 4.4 that R&T got, but 4.5 is just fine for me.


----------



## Revolver1966 (Mar 30, 2014)

The real benefit of the S3 to me is being able to just buy the car, tune it and have performance similar to an R8/911/C6 Corvette. 
If one doesn't care about that or enjoys tuning the hardware as well as software, an A3 will be fine. Some people feel it is worth it to pay more for the quad exhausts with the loud mode, the more aggressive appearance (the A3 is pretty plain and needs all the help it can get, IMO...some like that simple/boring/understated look), paddle shifters, adjustable dampers, etc.
Anything that can realistically get 28+ mpg is enough for me. Living in an area with nice driving roads would make an S3 enticing and dealing with stop-and-go traffic daily would make an A3 the practical choice.
One car I'll call out for being a horrible value all around is the 1.8T FWD A3. Just buy a Golf or a Buick.


----------



## VWNCC (Jan 12, 2010)

Revolver1966 said:


> The real benefit of the S3 to me is being able to just buy the car, tune it and have performance similar to an R8/911/C6 Corvette.


Totally.



Revolver1966 said:


> If one doesn't care about that or enjoys tuning the hardware as well as software, an A3 will be fine. Some people feel it is worth it to pay more for the quad exhausts with the loud mode, the more aggressive appearance (the A3 is pretty plain and needs all the help it can get, IMO...some like that simple/boring/understated look), paddle shifters, adjustable dampers, etc.


Well, I don't think an S line A3 look plain in anyway. Also, depending on region, the S line gets FBSW, paddle shifters, and adjustable dampers as well.



Revolver1966 said:


> Living in an area with nice driving roads would make an S3 enticing and dealing with stop-and-go traffic daily would make an A3 the practical choice.


Yes.



Revolver1966 said:


> One car I'll call out for being a horrible value all around is the 1.8T FWD A3. Just buy a Golf or a Buick.


This is so true...people have asked me whether they should go for the 1.8T FWD A3 and I have always told them to just buy a Golf, it is a much better value. This is again, our opinion only. There might be some people who don't care about drive train but like the interior styling of the A/S3 over the golf.


----------



## Revolver1966 (Mar 30, 2014)

VWNCC said:


> Totally.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Teens and retirees are probably the target for that 1.8T. Forgot to mention the S-Line! Heard somewhere it is about $45K for one though. Even so it would probably be a great choice for someone who lives in a congested area with high fuel & running costs/taxes that are to the point where it punishes sporty car purchases.


----------



## VWNCC (Jan 12, 2010)

Revolver1966 said:


> Teens and retirees are probably the target for that 1.8T. Forgot to mention the S-Line! Heard somewhere it is about $45K for one though. Even so it would probably be a great choice for someone who lives in a congested area with high fuel & running costs/taxes that are to the point where it punishes sporty car purchases.


Again, depends on the market. For Canada for instance, the S-line package is a standalone package that is available to the middle (progressiv) and high trim (tecknik). It gives the body kits, FBSW with paddleshifters, sportseats, S-line suspension, gunmetal 18" alloy. Taking that package will make the car ~$4000 cheaper than an equivalent S3 with the same options.

For example, a progressiv A3 S line is ~$4000 cheaper than the progressive S3 and the key differences are the higher power output, bigger brake, quad exhaust, the rear lip spoiler, the chrome grille.

I think for 2016, the US will get to do this as well as AoA has changed the packaging. So the starting price of the S-line is not going to be more expensive than the base S3 like in 2015.


----------



## Revolver1966 (Mar 30, 2014)

VWNCC said:


> Again, depends on the market. For Canada for instance, the S-line package is a standalone package that is available to the middle (progressiv) and high trim (tecknik). It gives the body kits, FBSW with paddleshifters, sportseats, S-line suspension, gunmetal 18" alloy. Taking that package will make the car ~$4000 cheaper than an equivalent S3 with the same options.
> 
> For example, a progressiv A3 S line is ~$4000 cheaper than the progressive S3 and the key differences are the higher power output, bigger brake, quad exhaust, the rear lip spoiler, the chrome grille.
> 
> I think for 2016, the US will get to do this as well as AoA has changed the packaging. So the starting price of the S-line is not going to be more expensive than the base S3 like in 2015.


Ahh. This makes much more sense now! You guys also got the R with the nice media system.


----------



## ronparr (Jun 27, 2014)

*French test vs. Car and Driver*



steve111b said:


> There is a French TV show (RPM) which tested an A3 quattro. Among the top cars of the year they picked the Golf, among the worst the A3. The first problem is the brakes - very long stopping distance.


Car and driver compared the stopping distances (70-0) of the A3 Quattro, BMW 228i, and MB CLA250 4Matic. The A3 stopped in 156 feet, which was he shortest of the 3.

http://www.caranddriver.com/compari...ng-performance-data-and-complete-specs-page-5

They also tested the GTI and found that it went from 70-0 in 159 feet, i.e., three feet longer than the A3.

http://www.caranddriver.com/volkswagen/gti

Car and driver got 160 feet for their S3 test:

http://www.caranddriver.com/audi/s3

For roadholding, the A3 turned in 0.94g (best the BMW and Mercedes), while the GTI turned in 0.91.

Either the Euro cars are specced differently, or there was something odd about that French test. It's possible that they stop from a different speed and that this produces different results.

Edit: A lot could be explained by the tires. C&D tested with summer tires.


----------



## DoctorFoot (Jul 12, 2014)

Had an A3... Was a boring peice of s***t car, yes it was "fair" in acceleration, but that's it... Changed for an S3... Nothing comparable even if my S3 is still stock .Jugging a car by a 0-60... Pffffff. And then speaking about real world 0-60 w/o LC, who really does 0-60 all day anyway. When I'm doing a 0-60, I used the LC, my car is always on dynamic and the ESC always in sport... Punch that gas pedal on the highway and then take a good curve... That's more real life my to me.. And say goodbye to that poor A3... Changing was the best choice I made


----------



## VWNCC (Jan 12, 2010)

DoctorFoot said:


> Had an A3... Was a boring peice of s***t car, yes it was "fair" in acceleration, but that's it... Changed for an S3... Nothing comparable even if my S3 is still stock .Jugging a car by a 0-60... Pffffff. And then speaking about real world 0-60 w/o LC, who really does 0-60 all day anyway. When I'm doing a 0-60, I used the LC, my car is always on dynamic and the ESC always in sport... Punch that gas pedal on the highway and then take a good curve... That's more real life my to me.. And say goodbye to that poor A3... Changing was the best choice I made


Hm...you are comparing a 2015 S3 with a 2012 A3.....

The 2015 A3 2.0T is much much better than the 2012 A3's 2.0T...

:banghead:


----------



## steve111b (Jun 2, 2011)

ronparr said:


> there was something odd about that French test.
> 
> Edit: A lot could be explained by the tires. C&D tested with summer tires.


Thanks for passing on the information ronparr, very insightful. You are correct, it is about the tires. The French TV show is based in Quebec, so they used a North American car. I checked the Audi website and discovered that they are selling the top of the line quattro with all weather tires.

All weather tires are snowflake/mountain (winter) with a compromise in design which allows them to be used all year round. This is the first time that I have heard that a car maker has installed all weathers from the factory. I doubt this occurs in the US.

So for Canadian buyers, check to see which tires are fitted on the car.

I will get the numbers for the A3 and the Golf, so we can see how the all weather tires degrade performance in the summer.


----------



## ronparr (Jun 27, 2014)

Most cars in the U.S. ship with all-weather tires. Exceptions would be high performance cars or cars that are configured with sports options. If I remember correctly, summer tires were a no cost upgrade for certain configurations of the 2015 model year A3, but it appears that they are now available only as an 800 upcharge after you spend another 800 for the sport package.

The base S3 ships with summer tires in the U.S.


----------



## steve111b (Jun 2, 2011)

It might be helpful to go over the tires one can use.

Summers - In Canada only a handful of drivers use Summer tires (in the summer). No one should use Summers in a Candian winter.

Winters - These tires have a snowflake/ mountain symbol embossed on the tire. In Ottawa about 3/4 of drivers install Winters for the snowy weather. For the other 3 seasons they use all season tires.

All seasons - This is a three season tire in Canada. As the temperature drops all seasons are not soft enough to grip well on the colder road surfaces. Mud and snow tires are all season tires.

All weathers - Fairly recent addition, they have the snowflake/mountain symbol. Unlike all seasons these tires have better grip (more like a Winter) in the winter and can be used all year round.

Most testing has compared all seasons with Winters. I have never seen all seasons compared to all weathers.


----------



## ronparr (Jun 27, 2014)

Thanks very much for this information. I may have confused all-weather and all-season.


----------



## Revolver1966 (Mar 30, 2014)

steve111b said:


> Thanks for passing on the information ronparr, very insightful. You are correct, it is about the tires. The French TV show is based in Quebec, so they used a North American car. I checked the Audi website and discovered that they are selling the top of the line quattro with all weather tires.
> 
> All weather tires are snowflake/mountain (winter) with a compromise in design which allows them to be used all year round. This is the first time that I have heard that a car maker has installed all weathers from the factory. I doubt this occurs in the US.
> 
> ...


Back to square 1! 
The GTI gets all season tires, most cars sdo actually.. Only the a performance pack GTI & (possibly) S3 have summers tores stock. Are these different than all weather?


----------



## steve111b (Jun 2, 2011)

I looked on the tire rack site and I found no all weather tires. The only all weather tires I have heard of are the Nokian WRG3 and the Hancook optima 4S. It is possible that all weather tires are sold in Canada and not in the US.

The law in Quebec (and BC) requires all cars to install snowflake/mountain winter tires between December and March. If a driver leaves Winters on over the summer they will wear quickly. The all weather tire is a snowflake/mountain winter tire that can be left on all year round (complies with the Quebec law) and will wear less than a normal Winter over the summer.

As I said earlier this is a Canadian situation (legal requirement in Quebec, BC) and does not apply to the US. Audi may feel that selling a car with all weather tires makes things easier (no need for a second set of tires -$ and storage). New cars in Canada are sold with all season tires.


----------



## Revolver1966 (Mar 30, 2014)

steve111b said:


> I looked on the tire rack site and I found no all weather tires. The only all weather tires I have heard of are the Nokian WRG3 and the Hancook optima 4S. It is possible that all weather tires are sold in Canada and not in the US.
> 
> The law in Quebec (and BC) requires all cars to install snowflake/mountain winter tires between December and March. If a driver leaves Winters on over the summer they will wear quickly. The all weather tire is a snowflake/mountain winter tire that can be left on all year round (complies with the Quebec law) and will wear less than a normal Winter over the summer.
> 
> As I said earlier this is a Canadian situation (legal requirement in Quebec, BC) and does not apply to the US. Audi may feel that selling a car with all weather tires makes things easier (no need for a second set of tires -$ and storage). New cars in Canada are sold with all season tires.


Most stuff is all season here. Never had a car that came with summers. Only high performance cars do. Contintental DWS and Michelin Pilot Sport A/S3s are very popular here.


----------



## steve111b (Jun 2, 2011)

The TV show RPM tested the golf 1.8 FWD and the A3 2.0 quattro.

0 - 100 km/hr Golf 8.5 A3 6.9
80 - 120 km/hr Golf 5.6 A3 4.6
100km/hr - 0 Golf 36.6 metres A3 39.4 metres (about 10 feet longer)

They do a panic stop and lane change at the same time. Both Golf and A3 stopped a similiar distance as a heavy SUV.
However the A3 was worse than the Golf. The distances were so long they went past the cones they use to mark the stopping distance. Tough to say how much worse the A3 was but I would say 1 to 2 car lengths.

From what I know the A3 was worse because of the all weather tires (18's). Golf had all seasons (17's).


----------



## Revolver1966 (Mar 30, 2014)

steve111b said:


> The TV show RPM tested the golf 1.8 FWD and the A3 2.0 quattro.
> 
> 0 - 100 km/hr Golf 8.5 A3 6.9
> 80 - 120 km/hr Golf 5.6 A3 4.6
> ...


Ahh so all weather and all season are different! Makes sense!


----------



## ronparr (Jun 27, 2014)

Currently in the U.S., the top of the line gas A3 ships with 18" 225/40 all seasons. The upgrade is 19" 235/35 summer tires.


----------

