Audi A3 or VW Golf

ccookieman

Hi
I have the option of an audi A3 or a VW Golf both in either 1.9 Diesel or a 1.6 petrol. What would you prefer.

For Forks Sake

ccookieman wrote: »

Hi
I have the option of an audi A3 or a VW Golf both in either 1.9 Diesel or a 1.6 petrol. What would you prefer.

Year/Price/Spec/etc etc????

All things being equal, a nice spec A3 with the 1.9TDi

GTE

For Forks Sake wrote: »

Year/Price/Spec/etc etc????

All things being equal, a nice spec A3 with the 1.9TDi

This.

richardsheil

bbk wrote: »

This.

I know the OP didn't suggest it but what about the 2.0 Tdi 140BHP model?

Seems like a cracker to me.

Nissan doctor

ccookieman wrote: »

Hi
I have the option of an audi A3 or a VW Golf both in either 1.9 Diesel or a 1.6 petrol. What would you prefer.

They are both the same car so it comes down to which one has the engine/spec/price that best suits your needs IMO.

GTE

richardsheil wrote: »

I know the OP didn't suggest it but what about the 2.0 Tdi 140BHP model?

Seems like a cracker to me.

I'd say it would be a nice engine but I wonder about the reliability of those. I hear so much about failing parts of the newer TDI's.

If the 1.9 is old enough then he would have a very good car in terms of that.

sean1141

either in diesel. 1.6 petrol are a crap engine

si_guru

Diesel.. more relaxed driving and easier overtaking.

Nissan doctor

sean1141 wrote: »

either in diesel. 1.6 petrol are a crap engine

The 1.6 single cam engine in those is vastly more reliable then the newer 16v engines.

djPSB

What would the difference be in price for motor tax be between a 1.4 and a 1.9 TDI????

sean1141

around 400

teednab-el

Surely the vw golf can't be compared as being the same car as the Audi A3. They have similar characteristics but the Audi is a better built and finished car, it has to be, sure why is it a dearer car to buy than the golf?

Top Dog

djPSB wrote: »

What would the difference be in price for motor tax be between a 1.4 and a 1.9 TDI????

Will depend on the year registered - if they're emmissions based there may not be much difference at all

sean1141

teednab-el wrote: »

sure why is it a dearer car to buy than the golf?

so badge snobs can buy an octavia with a small boot . there might be a small bit of difference in build quality on the interior but very little. the important bits are all the same

Top Dog wrote: »

Will depend on the year registered - if they're emmissions based there may not be much difference at all

i keep forgetting about the 08+ tax system

mccabecc

I think if You want to have solid car and want to pay less than take Skoda/Vw, they are cheaper and you shouldn't see too much differencein build quality, maybe some interior things will be better in Audi but still i don't it's worth it.

Leonard Hofstadter

bbk wrote: »

I'd say it would be a nice engine but I wonder about the reliability of those. I hear so much about failing parts of the newer TDI's.

If the 1.9 is old enough then he would have a very good car in terms of that.

The 2.0 TDI PD is a crap engine. Oil pumps, turbos etc all go wrong (The oil pump can stop working in them:eek:). The 1.9 TDI is much, much better.

The newer 2.0 TDI CRs are reliable by modern diesel standards. It probably won't be as good as the venerable 1.9 TDI, but it's far superior to the older 2.0 TDI PD.

Nissan doctor

teednab-el wrote: »

Surely the vw golf can't be compared as being the same car as the Audi A3. They have similar characteristics but the Audi is a better built and finished car, it has to be, sure why is it a dearer car to buy than the golf?

Good to know there are still people being sucked in by marketing.

It isn't a comparison, they ARE the same car, same engines, gearboxes, suspension, brakes, electrics and all other mechanicals. Only difference body design and specs.

And to further dissapoint you, the Seat Leon and Skoda Octavia are the same car too, as are several other VAG group cars.

They are all made by the same company, the price difference is purely down to marketing, Audi is market as the 'premium' brand, VW the every day, Skoda the economy and Seat the sporty

The german brands strive on badge snobs who would be happy to pay a premium just to have 4 rings on their grill instead of a VW badge.

-Chris-

IMHO they actually drive quite differently, both from a handling point of view and from a "driving experience". I'd think it's definitely worth driving both so you can see which you prefer.

teednab-el

Nissan doctor wrote: »

Good to know there are still people being sucked in by marketing.

Nissan doctor wrote: »

Good to know there are still people being sucked in by marketing

The german brands strive on badge snobs who would be happy to pay a premium just to have 4 rings on their grill instead of a VW badge.

They are paying a premium because the Audi is a superior class car not another Audi wannabe like a VW or Skoda. Car looks and style alone are enough to merit investment never mind extras and hi specs. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with VW or Skoda but they will always come second when comparing them to an Audi. They are the next best thing to it simple as.

EPM

teednab-el wrote: »

They are paying a premium because the Audi is a superior class car not another Audi wannabe like a VW or Skoda. Car looks and style alone are enough to merit investment never mind extras and hi specs. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with VW or Skoda but they will always come second when comparing them to an Audi. They are the next best thing to it simple as.

I had to LOL.

Bar better perceived quality the run of the mill models are identical. You have really fallen for the marketing. I test drove most of the VAG cars in my price range and there was little between any of them bar the Audis feeling higher quality.

GTE

-Chris- wrote: »

IMHO they actually drive quite differently, both from a handling point of view and from a "driving experience". I'd think it's definitely worth driving both so you can see which you prefer.

I agree. Even taking a look at the older Octavia and its sister car the mark 4 Golf. The Skoda had drum brakes on the rear when the Golf had all discs. And when the Golf got a suspension upgrade in 2002ish I wouldn't be surprised if the Skoda took a while longer to avail of that gear.

I would say there are a few little differences like that between them. They would have the same basic chassis and engines but I think I read somewhere that the Skoda 2.0 common rails in the Suburb are not the newest ones that you would get in the Passat, at least not straight away anyway.

The differences are probably more so between a VW/Skoda and an Audi then a VW and a Skoda.

A lot of that is speculation on what I saw with the braking systems but I don't see the sense in VAG having the exact same components fitted across their various makes and models. The same basic platform with different suspensiony bits as an example makes much more sense. Having said that being based on the same chassis would keep a fair chunk of similarity there between them.

teednab-el

EPM wrote: »

I had to LOL.

Bar better perceived quality the run of the mill models are identical. You have really fallen for the marketing. I test drove most of the VAG cars in my price range and there was little between any of them bar the Audis feeling higher quality.

That's your opinion and I gave you mine. I have driven all types and I prefer the Audi by a mile.

Nonoperational

While I agree that they are essentially the same car, I particularly dislike the Leons interior. So much so that it stopped me buying one.

Nissan doctor

teednab-el wrote: »

They are paying a premium because the Audi is a superior class car not another Audi wannabe like a VW or Skoda. Car looks and style alone are enough to merit investment never mind extras and hi specs. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with VW or Skoda but they will always come second when comparing them to an Audi. They are the next best thing to it simple as.

:eek:


Just as an aside, would you prefere an Audi a4 or a Seat exeo?

teednab-el

Nissan doctor wrote: »

:eek:


Just as an aside, would you prefere an Audi a4 or a Seat exeo?

Audi A4

PaulKK

teednab-el wrote: »

Surely the vw golf can't be compared as being the same car as the Audi A3. They have similar characteristics but the Audi is a better built and finished car, it has to be, sure why is it a dearer car to buy than the golf?

Because it has 4 little rings on the grill.

spiggotpaddy

Nissan doctor wrote: »

The 1.6 single cam engine in those is vastly more reliable then the newer 16v engines.

just curios, what is the weak points on the twin cam?

teednab-el

PaulKK wrote: »

Because it has 4 little rings on the grill.

If 100 people were offered the choice of choosing between an Audi A3 or Golf? You would have a ratio of 70:30 going for the Audi. And Why?

Because the Audi is a nicer looking and much nicer finished car. VW's look average and nothing to cheer about. Its nothing to do with just the rings on the grill. Yes they have the same engines and parts etc. but VWs are not as well finished and a well finished and nice looking car is a must for me.

PaulKK

teednab-el wrote: »

If 100 people were offered the choice of choosing between an Audi A3 or Golf? You would have a ratio of 70:30 going for the Audi. And Why?

Because the Audi is a nicer looking and much nicer finished car. VW's look average and nothing to cheer about. Its nothing to do with just the rings on the grill. Yes they have the same engines and parts etc. but VWs are not as well finished and a well finished and nice looking car is a must for me.

I'd take a Highline Golf before a crap spec A3 anyday.
I'd also definitely have a Highline Passat over a crap spec A4 too.

As is often said, looks are subjective, but I definitely think the Passat is a nicer looking machine than the bland A4, the finish in my opinion is comparable.

A good spec golf is much nicer looking than a boggo A3 too:

Nissan doctor

teednab-el wrote: »

Audi A4

But they are also the same car, in fact, some of the machinery and robots that build the a4 were moved to spain and now build the exeo so build quality is identical. The only difference is the head and tail lights.

The exeo is also better specced for the price then the a4.

So given that you say you would buy the audi because its a better built car, not for the badge then obviously you'd now choose the Seat exeo as its identical, in every way, but cheaper?

Or do you think, as with the golf etc, that VW have hired people to put all the same parts toghether a little bit arseways so they can charge more for the Audi?




On an aside, You have to hand it to the VAG group for how they market though.

They sell Audi's which are almost all identical to VW's but at higher prices by convincing people they are getting a 'premium' product. Then at the oposite end of the scale, sell countless Skodas by actually telling you that your getting an identical car to a VW but for LESS money.

IMO, to those with a brain and no interest in impressing anyone else with a badge, when chosing a normal VAG group car, it comes down to which one you prefare the styling of or which one is cheaper as there is no quality or reliability difference between them.

PaulKK

Nissan doctor wrote: »

..by actually telling you that your getting an identical car to a VW but for LESS money.

IMO, to those with a brain and no interest in impressing anyone else with a badge, when chosing a normal VAG group car, it comes down to which one you prefare the styling of or which one is cheaper as there is no quality or reliability difference between them.

I agree, and i like most vag stuff. I would never buy a new run of the mill audi, i just dont think they are worth it when there are such viable alternatives in the other marques. Some of the higher end stuff however

Nissan doctor

spiggotpaddy wrote: »

just curios, what is the weak points on the twin cam?

Numerous sensor failures,
Prone to burning valves or wearing valve guides below 100k,
Auxiliary belt tensioner failures,
Common for the plastic timing belt guide rollers to fail,
Coilpacks fail constantly(although thats a general VAG problem)
Blocked egr valve pipes and crank breather pipes, especially is the have low mileage.


Thats just the most common engines issues that come to mind....

Nissan doctor

PaulKK wrote: »

I agree, and i like most vag stuff. I would never buy a new run of the mill audi, i just dont think they are worth it when there are such viable alternatives in the other marques. Some of the higher end stuff however

Absolutely, the likes of RS4's, RS6's etc(real ones that is:P) are a different kettle of fish, but they are specialist non mass market cars and have very little to do with the Audi's that 95% of people drive.

Thats like saying that a fiat panda is comparable to a Ferrari enzo...sure they are made by the same company:P

freestyla

PaulKK wrote: »

I'd take a Highline Golf before a crap spec A3 anyday.
I'd also definitely have a Highline Passat over a crap spec A4 too.

As is often said, looks are subjective, but I definitely think the Passat is a nicer looking machine than the bland A4, the finish in my opinion is comparable.

A good spec golf is much nicer looking than a boggo A3 too:

+++++

What comes to lower class Golf mk5 or mk6 makes more sense than new Audi.. design taste aside but I know that maintainance should be cheaper in overall (not sure in Ireland tho?)

Audi upper classes A6 and A8 are the real Audis imo. Lower classes would always chose Golf, Skoda or even Seat.

stevenmu

bbk wrote: »

I don't see the sense in VAG having the exact same components fitted across their various makes and models. The same basic platform with different suspensiony bits as an example makes much more sense. Having said that being based on the same chassis would keep a fair chunk of similarity there between them.

The sense is that it hugely reduces the costs of design, engineering, production and supply. They can design components once, make sure they work together properly, and use them across a range of cars. If they have to redisgn a component for each car, they then have to redesign the other components it works with and verify that they all work. They can bulk manufacture whatever bits they still make themselves, bulk order the ones they don't, with fewer far more efficient production lines, rather than having to support multiple smaller lines. They can distribute components between the different brands as needed, if one plant has a shortage and another has an oversupply they can move parts between them.

I've had two Seats. Most of the components that aren't immediately visible had VW labels, many even had the revered 4 rings of Audi. When I had to replace a few bits and pieces I went to the scrapyard and pulled the exact bits required out of Skodas, VWs and Audis. When my Leon snapped it's timing belt and the engine ate itself, my mechanic pulled one out of a MkV Golf and slotted it right in.

They are almost exactly the same cars.

freestyla

freestyla wrote: »

. Lower classes would always chose Golf, Skoda or even Seat.

What ?

freestyla

RoverJames wrote: »

What ?

my bad english.. I ment rather these cars than A3 or A4.

KilOit

A3 is one of the best looking hatches imo but they are over priced and very similar to golfs under the bonnet but the a3 is a gorgeous build and feels really solid, have one myself and love it but don't get the 1.6 engine in either go for the TSI engines they're rockets.
Can't go wrong with either car if you got the the spare cash get the a3 but if bit of a budget get the Golf, it just comes down to preference and expendable cash.

Leonard Hofstadter

KilOit wrote: »

A3 is one of the best looking hatches imo but they are over priced and very similar to golfs under the bonnet but the a3 is a gorgeous build and feels really solid, have one myself and love it but don't get the 1.6 engine in either go for the TSI engines they're rockets.
Can't go wrong with either car if you got the the spare cash get the a3 but if bit of a budget get the Golf, it just comes down to preference and expendable cash.

I'm sorry but they are NOT a 'gorgeous build'.

They feel expensively made inside, that is true, but they are actually no better made than their supposedly less premium stablemates.

Silicone damped grab handles and soft feeling plastics do not make a car well built. Don't get me wrong, I like a nice interior as well, but there is a complete difference between an expensive feeling interior and a well made car.

A few expensive plastics does not change the fact that they are prone to all the problems a VW Golf/Seat Leon/Skoda Octavia etc is prone to, such as a/c compressors, gearboxes (on certain engines, such as the 1.6), EPC etc.

coolbeans

KilOit wrote: »

A3 is one of the best looking hatches imo but they are over priced and very similar to golfs under the bonnet but the a3 is a gorgeous build and feels really solid, have one myself and love it but don't get the 1.6 engine in either go for the TSI engines they're rockets.
Can't go wrong with either car if you got the the spare cash get the a3 but if bit of a budget get the Golf, it just comes down to preference and expendable cash.

Ah would ya go 'way. It's a frilly Golf. End of! If you're prepared to spend silly money on extra damping on tactile surfaces and the ego massage, in some circles at least, of the four rings that's your prerogative but don't go telling me that like for like an A3 is any better Golf where it actually matters.
They're built the same and they're made of the same stuff. An A3 just costs more cos it's got a better image.

Actually, technically the currrent A3 is a significantly worse car than the Golf for the simple reason that it's been around since the Flood. I've seen new A3s this year and I can only conclude that the owners were prepared to pay a SERIOUS premium for a badge as the rest of the car is so outdated compared to the Golf.

A further observation; most A3 owners haven't a clue about cars. Not a clue.

captainspeed

captainspeed wrote: »

they are prone to all the problems a VW Golf/Seat Leon/Skoda Octavia etc is prone to, such as a/c compressors, gearboxes (on certain engines, such as the 1.6), EPC etc.

Evens you are pulling the air con compressor bit from EPMs valuation thread :pac:

pajo1981

coolbeans wrote: »

SERIOUS premium for a badge as the rest of the car is so outdated compared to the Golf.

+1

The A3s interior looks like something from 10 years ago- complete with battlestar galactica centre console.

KilOit

coolbeans wrote: »

Ah would ya go 'way. It's a frilly Golf. End of! If you're prepared to spend silly money on extra damping on tactile surfaces and the ego massage, in some circles at least, of the four rings that's your prerogative but don't go telling me that like for like an A3 is any better Golf where it actually matters.
They're built the same and they're made of the same stuff. An A3 just costs more cos it's got a better image.

Actually, technically the currrent A3 is a significantly worse car than the Golf for the simple reason that it's been around since the Flood. I've seen new A3s this year and I can only conclude that the owners were prepared to pay a SERIOUS premium for a badge as the rest of the car is so outdated compared to the Golf.

A further observation; most A3 owners haven't a clue about cars. Not a clue.

haha what are you ranting about, i basically said it's the same under the bonnet and any difference is purely cosmetic, imo the a3 is far far better looking car and interior is gorgeous to me, go re read it before you go on some fanboy rant again :rolleyes:

EPM

RoverJames wrote: »

Evens you are pulling the air con compressor bit from EPMs valuation thread :pac:

Lol

scico rocks

The A3 is gorgeous. The Golf is a Golf - boring!

sean1141

teednab-el wrote: »

If 100 people were offered the choice of choosing between an Audi A3 or Golf? You would have a ratio of 70:30 going for the Audi.

so why is there about 3 times as many golfs on the road as there are a3's?

EPM

scico rocks wrote: »

The A3 is gorgeous. The Golf is a Golf - boring!

Shiny badge alright...

sean1141

sean1141 wrote: »

so why is there about 3 times as many golfs on the road as there are a3's?

Same reason there is loads of new Meganes out there. The price I imagine.

coolbeans

KilOit wrote: »

haha what are you ranting about, i basically said it's the same under the bonnet and any difference is purely cosmetic, imo the a3 is far far better looking car and interior is gorgeous to me, go re read it before you go on some fanboy rant again :rolleyes:

To be fair I don't know how you can call me a fanboy when you own an A3, prattle on about its "gorgeous build" :rolleyes: and saw fit to pay a premium for a car that really does not merit it. You're the fanboy I think

teednab-el

sean1141 wrote: »

so why is there about 3 times as many golfs on the road as there are a3's?

Because people cant afford the A3 I guess. If they could I'm sure its the A3 they would go for. No brainer.

bazz26

teednab-el wrote: »

Because people cant afford the A3 I guess. If they could I'm sure its the A3 they would go for. No brainer.

Oh dear. Maybe they just wanted better value for their money.