
The Audi A3 2.0T and Volkswagen GTI are like identical twins separated at birth. When they finally come together we see they both look different and are good at different things, but there's a discernible link between the two that can't be denied. In this case, it's the engine. Both the entry-level A3 and hot-hatch GTI use Volkswagen's turbocharged 2.0L four-cylinder with FSI direct injection. The turbo-four produces 200 horsepower at 5,100 rpm, and 207 ft-lbs. of torque at a very low 1,800 rpm.
Since the same heart is pumping power down the drivelines of these two vehicles, how different can they really be? Styling and packaging aside, does the Audi A3 drive like a four-door Volkswagen GTI?

Let's first talk about that engine, since any praise or criticism we give it can be applied to its application in both vehicles. Volkswagen has become very good at mass-producing turbocharged engines, and the 2.0T FSI benefits from the company's years of practice. We like the beefy torque curve that makes the motor feel stronger than its displacement suggests. You can spin the wheels at will with the ESP turned off, point the car and shoot, and pass without breaking a sweat (often without downshifting). Make no mistake, though, the 2.0T FSI in both applications is a small engine in a relatively heavy car. It can take you right up to the edge of exhilaration, but remains well mannered and tractable when asked to run errands.

Audi and Volkswagen have each found areas where their version can differentiate itself. Volkswagen, for instance, uses a tube that runs along the left side of the engine to pump some extra decibels back into the cabin. This creates a much louder aural experience in the GTI than the A3. It's a small addition to the GTI (some have argued pointless), but creates a major difference in how the car is experienced from behind the wheel.

Our GTI also has the optional 18-inch Hufeisen alloy wheels wearing summer performance tires. Combine those with stiffer springs and firmer damping and the Volkswagen definitely feels like a sport compact compared to the Audi.
Despite offering a sportier ride than the A3, the GTI is not the sportiest ride in town. It still has a bearable around town demeanor that soaks up bumps well, but that also contributes to a fair amount of body roll. The GTI is a tall two-door (See Dr. Woo's comment on this), which means it tends to lean in corners to a degree that might make you lift off the gas. The Euro-spec model, which sits .6 inches lower than our own GTI, no doubt feels more buttoned down. Depending on your inclination, however, this may or may not be a bad thing. Most of us on the Autoblog staff appreciate a nice ride that than can carve corners when called upon, although one or two of us are always carving and could care less about soaking up potholes.

The A3's handling, meanwhile, feels more like that of a luxury car than a sport compact. Our tester came equipped with 17-inch alloys, also wearing summer performance tires, so we hardly felt as if the A3 had much less grip than the GTI, at least in around town driving. The A3 also sits significantly lower than the GTI, which helped to offset the lean produced by its more compliant ride. What can be said is that the A3 trades some of the GTI's sharpness for a ride that's remarkably smooth yet very controllable. We felt the A3 shined particularly well on the highway where it absorbed road irregularities and rolled over potholes like they weren't there, effectively behaving like a car with a much longer wheelbase.

Volkswagen GTI shifter
We wish we could have gotten these two with the same transmission, but instead the A3 divides the 2.0T's power with a traditional six-speed manual while the GTI uses the company's six-speed Direct Shift Gearbox, or DSG. Volkswagen/Audi has already hinted at replacing all of its automatics with DSG transmissions, so these may be our only two options before too long.

Audi A3 stick
Commenter verdegrrl noted that the A3's clutch is tricky to operate smoothly, and we couldn't agree more. It's not very firm and the uninitiated will be surprised at how quickly the gears engage, which results in some nice jumps and bucks when taking off from a standstill. This isn't a short-throw shifter either, so the effort to change gears is a longish arm motion. Mechanically speaking, the Audi's stick and clutch were the car's biggest weak points.
The DSG in the GTI, however, works like a charm every time. In automatic mode it's shifts are quicker and less perceptible than those in an actual automatic transmission, so we couldn't agree more with a Volkswagen decision to replace all auto shifters with DSGs in the future. It truly is a better automatic than an automatic.

Volkswagen GTI paddle shifter
The DSG is also remarkable in manual mode, despite this reviewer's distaste for most types of manumatic-type trannies. The DSG is no auto posing as a manual, however. For those who've never had the opportunity to "row" your own gears via DSG, the experience is quite satisfying and unusual. With most manuals there is a lag between shifts where the tachometer's needle is in free fall for a split second. There is no lag with a DSG, so instead of falling, the needle whips down to match the next gear's rotating speed. Completely absent, however, is the lurch one expects with every shift. Volkswagen includes two paddles mounted on the steering wheel to control upshifting and downshifting the DSG, the location of which versus mounting them on the steering column is still a big debate among enthusiasts.

Which of these cars is better than the other is also still an unsettled debate, as the comments left on the two previous parts of this review (1, 2) indicate. Some go for the GTI's sportier character while others want the Audi's sophistication. All seem to enjoy how much utility each vehicle offers and the superlative 2.0T FSI engine. What we've learned is that the Audi A3 2.0T and Volkswagen GTI are really as different as they are the same. For each variation between the two you can find something else in common. If we had to choose, though, we'd go with the A3 over the GTI. An extra pair of doors and an Audi badge for the around the same price seems like a pretty good deal to us.













Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
MikeW @ Jul 3rd 2006 5:47PM
Hey VW where are the twincharger engines?
Charlie @ Jul 3rd 2006 5:51PM
I could not agree with your decision more. Sure the GTI is a great car, but it just costs too much for what it is. The GTI should be less luxury and more no-frills. Leave the luxury to Audi.
Eric @ Jul 3rd 2006 6:04PM
Kudos to your comment about the paddle shift buttons.. They are infact buttons with little flaps of plastic to act as a "paddle" They do not feel like they are sturdy, and for me they were a clear let-down.
Additionally they may be harder to use than a manumatic stick. I imagine they can be tough to keep track of when you're putting some lock on the steering wheel.
Simon @ Jul 3rd 2006 6:46PM
I agree with the comment number 3 above on the paddle gear shifters. I do think they would be tough to keep track of when your putting alot of lock on the steering wheel, especially if you are trying to park in a tight spot and you are shunting back a forth.
Delicron @ Jul 3rd 2006 7:35PM
I disagree on several points.
For one, I believe the paddle shifters are placed in a perfect area, and are what they are, glorified buttons (every paddle shifter is indeed an electronic button, not a mechanical lever). As well, I even like their engagement and feel. If you are quickly shuffle steering, then you can use the tiptronic shifter on the console, since you can use both intermittently if you have to (I own a DSG GTI pretty much exactly equipped as the tester here, with the only difference being that mine happens to be white). I have done this on several occasions, since turning sharply precludes the paddles use. The Tiptronic lever is just as useful and intuitive to use. However, in straightline and light steering use, they are excellent ways to keep track of your shifting and gear selection.
As for the GTI itself as compared to the Audi, I feel there is a large descrepancy in Canada (where I am located) in the prices between the two vehicles. The base A3 is atleast $3000 more expensive than my fully loaded GTI (sans NAV system). This seems like alot of money and lost options just to get an Audi badge and two more doors (don't get me wrong, I love Audi as much as the next person). And as for the doors, the four-door GTI will be available in August, so that doesn't seem like much of an excuse anymore...
verdegrrl @ Jul 3rd 2006 8:39PM
Something to ponder for all who are waiting for the 4 door GTI - I drove both the sunroof (Oepn Sky) version A3 and one without. When pitching into the turn or recovering from one, you could really feel the extra weight up high. Now I can only imagine this is the case for the GTI, and even more so once you factor in the taller roofline. So a stiffer suspension is probably how to counter some of that.
Also keep in mind that Bluetooth, Open Sky, and sleek integrated roof rails are available on the A3, but not the GTI. Certain A3 packages offer alloy shifter paddles. It's the little details all over the car that add up to the difference in prices - and not everyone notices or appreciates them, so to them I say to not "waste" the money.
Charlie, I've heard rumours of a Club Sport edition that is stripped out with wind up windows, no stereo, no xenons, less sound deadening, etc, is being considered. Now they'll probably upgrade the power, suspension, and brakes, so it won't be any cheaper, but it will be a more "pure" driving experience for those who prefer to wear a heair shirt when they drive;-) It is likely to come late in the model cycle though, well after the R32.
For those who are looking for GTI on a budget, buy the new Rabbit and upgrade selectively from there.
Twincharging was just introduced last year. It's very complex. Given our longer warranties (much of the rest of the world gets 12 months to 24 months) and propensity for people to chip the cars and try to get the warranty to cover related failures, I think they are going to test it for a while in other markets first. Manufacturers are on the hook for major emissions related items for up to 8 years or 80,000 miles, so this may be another aspect that could delay things. Here's a link for those unfamiliar with the system: http://www.autozine.org/technical_school/engine/tech_engine_3.htm
As for the tricky clutch, it is tricky. Treat it like you would most any highly strung exotic car, and you'll do fine. That means a tiny blip of the throttle as you release the clutch, and then catch it as the revs fall. Not something everyone will figure out, or care to employ. Drove a new BMW 330 Sport, and the clutch felt like it was perfectly honed and oiled - but you couldn't feel where the clutch began to bite. You just had to pay attention to engine revs and how quickly you were taking off. So I guess that's the opposite extreme. The A3's clutch felt a bit gritty in action after that, but very direct. DSG is the logical way to go for most folks until VAG figures out a way to make the drive-by-wire throttle and clutch play together better.
bgdc @ Jul 4th 2006 2:42AM
I drove both of these cars really hard on several visits. In the end the A3 with dsg and sport package felt better and more planted - the lower center of gravity played a big part in my decision. The GTI felt tall and wobbly, even with the 18s.
If I had to choose, it'd be the A3. An A3 2.0 with quattro would have won my purchase but alas the A3 in AWD form is only available with the 3.2 engine and a huge price tag. In the end the I opted for a different car altogether. The A3 2.0 is a great package and with AWD it would have been in my garage...I simply can't live with a FWD car.
strangway @ Jul 4th 2006 5:53AM
So what odd feature do the VW and Honda have in common? Besides manufacturing cars that both delight teenagers, and ultimately result in the revocation of their licenses.
According to Car and Driver, the Civic Si has "a tuned air intake that tunnels out of the engine compartment, into the fender area, and back to the intake manifold." It *amplifies* the sound of the intake.
The GTI also has a pipe that transmits intake sounds right up to the cabin. There is some debate as to whether the tube is connected to the turbocharger or not. And for some reason, Japanese GTI's lack this.
Nevertheless, we seem to have a trend here. Rumor has it, the BMW Z4 has such a system as well. For years, aftermarket shops have made a killing selling loud obnoxious exhausts. Now cars are being built with stock intake amplifiers to delight or annoy their drivers. From what I've read, some GTI owners are swapping their noise-transmitting pipe with an A3 pipe that doesn't, and vice-versa.
If I worked for a major car manufacturer, I'd rig a microphone in the engine bay (cheap lo-fi Radio Shack bit should do it), and link it up to the stereo. If you want to hear the engine, just flip a switch, and the speakers play an aria that only a ricer could love. If you've got a headache, activate the CD player, and it cuts out the engine sound, playing whatever wussy music it is that soothes the pain of your migraine. Aaaahhhh, Cliff Richard!
Just a thought.
Christian J @ Jul 4th 2006 1:09PM
I read that the A3 2.0T was currently one of the worst handling cars tested by Road and Track: Toyota Prius and Scion xB handlign and no joke. Exactly what am I getting with the base 2.0T for that kind of $$$$?
Certainly not getting a sniff of Audi's handling heritage. Golf+leather=A3.
Andy @ Jul 4th 2006 2:35PM
this is more in response to the first post in the series but applies to them all...
I find this review rather lame. It the end it basically come down to the badge on the car. As you said in the first post that you would rather take the audi keys because of what other people would think. I find this quite pathetic and having no place in a review.
that being said I have to agree with the handling remakr above me.... The Audi is nice for its 4 door convenience for some people but as far as sporty goes the GTI is in another league AND it has massive luxury. Its a very nice car and obviosuly over engineered for a typical VW in its range.
Either way you cant lose with that 2.0T FSI, its brillant
verdegrrl @ Jul 4th 2006 3:10PM
Keep in mind the demographics: The A3 attracts a much wider range of people (female as well as male, older and well as younger, wealthy multi-car owners as well as limited budget owners) than the GTI, which attracts primarily young males to whom it is an only car. That makes the A3 a bit harder to define, while the basic mission of the GTI shines through loud and clear.
bgdc/#7,
The MK V platform does not come in 2.0T and QTR with DSG in any market. It simply does not exist - for whatever reason. Since 80% of all of those cars sold in North America are sold as DSG, it doesn't make sense to offer a niche (A3) within a niche (A3 QTR/manual), when the certification costs are so large and the volume of cars are so low (10,000 a year or so).
Christian J/#9,
Is Road and Track your car bible? They tested a car on the mind bogglingly bad Pirelli all season tires. ( http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=3&article_id=2396&page_number=3 ) The largest improvement you can make to the car is to swap out the tires or order it up with the sport rubber. As it is, most people never tap into more than 20% of a car's handling prowess on a daily basis. With the appropriate shoes, the A3 squirts through traffic just as well as the GTI - the guys here on Autoblog noted.
Andy/#10,
There is a marked difference in the cars beyond the badge, but it's not always something easy to pin down. I had a Jetta as a loaner while my car was being serviced. Granted a few trim items are different, but the front interior was basically the GTI. Quality isn't nearly that of the A3's. The look, the layout, the feel, the way the buttons actuate, all a bit downmarket from the A3. Not a lot, but you can tell. The taller roofline of the GTI most certainly effects center of gravity, so although it may have the sportier feeling suspension it also needs that suspension to keep the mass which is located up higher than the A3, under control.
As for the sound, here's a stock A3 getting wrung out on greasy pavement:
http://homepage.mac.com/verdegrrl/.Movies/Highway1.mov
Personally I prefer the VR6 by a country mile, but the 2.0T sounds decent in either form.
bgdc @ Jul 4th 2006 3:51PM
verdegrrl wrote"bgdc/#7,
The MK V platform does not come in 2.0T and QTR with DSG in any market. It simply does not exist - for whatever reason. Since 80% of all of those cars sold in North America are sold as DSG, it doesn't make sense to offer a niche (A3) within a niche (A3 QTR/manual), when the certification costs are so large and the volume of cars are so low (10,000 a year or so)."
Actually the A3 2.0 Quattro does exist (the DSG part is something I can do without as I've only owned manuals) all over the world - just not in the lame USA. I A3 quattro 2.0s all over europe this April and i've seen pics of them in Australia.
Here's the UK:
http://www.ciao.co.uk/Audi_A3_Sportback_2_0T_FSI_Quattro_Sport__5678084
Australia:
http://www.drive.com.au/new-cars-for-sale/audi/a3/2_dot_0+tfsi+quattro+ambition+sportback/pg1/@spg415/results.html
The 2.0T is easily chipped to put out 250 hp/300 ft-lbs torque. With a quattro system that'd be a fun, fast running little car - much better than the 3.2 A3.
verdegrrl @ Jul 4th 2006 4:57PM
bgdc/#12,
Note that I said "WITH DSG". I repeat, "The MK V platform does not come in 2.0T and QTR WITH DSG"!!!!! Since they sell 80% of 10,000 cars here with DSG, that leaves 2000 stickshift cars a year. Quattro adds a minimum of $1750 to the price tag. Now the fuel tank on that car is different as well, and requires redesign or at the very least, re-certification and testing. Given the tiny volume of cars, that's going to add another $2000 to car at minimum, and that's with AoA eating a huge portion of the cost and spreading some to the TT, which uses a wider version of a similar chassis - but at present is not slated to get Quattro with the 2.0T.
So would you spend an additional $2750 on top of the base MSRP of $25,340 (2007), to give you a base price before options of $28,000 and change? How many people do you think would jump on that band wagon? That's right, not very many for what is not a halo car for the brand. AoA has a limited budget and the dollars spent in certifying and stocking parts for that version can be used in any other number of ways that will pay off for the brand in a larger way.
We enthusiasts have one set of priorities, but the factory has a totally different wider and longer reaching perspective. Whether it's the right one or not, can often be questioned, but in this case I can completely understand why they chose what they did. Remember that the stick in the A3 is not the most refined manual transmission around.
Personally I would prefer to have the VR6 A3 with a stick since that is a far more charismatic engine than the admittedly wonderful 2.0T, but we don't appear to be getting that either - and that includes the new R32 which will come in 2 door DSG guise only.
http://www.topgear.com/drives/A2/B6/roadtests/16/01.html
Michael Karesh @ Jul 4th 2006 7:37PM
About the same price? Hardly. As I noted in a comment on an earlier installment, the price difference is about $5,000 after you adjust for features.
I created a site to make such comparisons easy:
http://www.truedelta.com/prices.php
I've driven the A3 and Jetta GLI, but unfortunately not close together. If anything I preferred the handling of the A3--as long as it was equipped with the Sport Package. That makes a large difference. The R&T car did not have this package. I'd personally like sharper handling than either car provided.
epilonious @ Jul 5th 2006 9:18AM
Verdegrrl & BGDC
Take the fanchild bickering back to VW-Vortex. Kthx.
And besides, VW/Audi/USA has always made their money in the US by forcing a premium on strange option packages and then upcharging "slightly" for what seems like a more logical/desireable setup.
How else do you explain all those base new golf's in 1999 with crank windows... but power-locks, keyless entry and a security system?
"But it's just $1000 more for power everything!"
verdegrrl @ Jul 5th 2006 3:47PM
epilonious
I think BGDC and I are having a perfectly valid discussion about marketing and content - especially in context of this article. A lot of people don't know the reasoning behind why a manufacturer offers packages one way vs another.
As for the power package being a stand-alone item, when I worked for the dealer, we actually had some very odd people (former/current VW owners) who professed to not trust power windows and wouldn't buy a car with them - so this was one car we had to offer them. Since that was a option matrix already available in other markets, it was easy to just order up some cars in that configuration.
VWoA places an order with VAG each year for a certain number of cars - and specifies what option packages they think will sell best. In the case of the Golf, the overall sales volume was so low I think they didn't wanted the extra expense (yes, VAoA "buys" the cars from VAG) of a custom options matrix. They did include ABS, side airbags, tilt and telescoping wheel, etc.
Hopefully the Rabbit will be what the bargain hunters want.
Beerdog @ Jul 5th 2006 3:50PM
The Audi looks like a tur* next to that GTI
Dr. Woo @ Jul 5th 2006 4:48PM
epilonious
Take the extremism and nitpicking back to wherever you came from.
If I could have afforded an A3 6-speed with a Sport package, I would have gone for it. As it was, I was looking for a base-model GTI 6-speed. No options. Is the Audi a superior car? The price, Audi's ownership experience, Audi quality, and more attractive (relatively) styling would suggest it is. I think so.
epilonious @ Jul 7th 2006 9:11AM
Calling me names doesn't change the fact that there were lots of caps and exclamation points and essays about the peculiarities of option pricing which may change from dealer-to-dealer, country-to-country, state-to-state.
And besides, all auto enthusiasm is extremism... I doubt I'd be able to mention the words "Mazda3" or "Civic Si" without a massive explosion about torque curves, fuel efficiency, styling preference, or the visceral need for heated mirrors and 10 speakers.
VerdeGrrl. My complaint with the Golf is that it didn't come without a keyless entry system. Honestly, I think a security system that can be reprogrammed with a diagnostic computer is much less trustworthy than a set of window motors. a 1999 Golf I had inherited ended up costing more than a new car because it kept dropping $600 parts and the final nail in the coffin was, in fact, the security system which had started to arm after the car was running.
VWUSA seemed to be more interested in making money through confusing packages that tried to get people to pay $19-$20K for a Golf/Jetta ("oh, if you want the power windows or cruise control with a gas engine, that's a GLS, so you'll have to get the sunroof too"). Unfortunately it took a while for that money to filter back down to training their dealer and servicing network... or properly reprimanding dealers who tried to pull stunts like "oh, your car is an owner transfer, the warranty is halved... and you're at 30,010 so we won't be able to fix the trunk-latch or power-steering pump.
And the Rabbit won't be a bargain. If VWUSA was interested in cool bargain cars, they'd have bought some of the Polos years ago rather than waiting 3 years to finally buy the Mark V's and make strange commercials with swedish actors pretending to be german.
supercars @ Sep 26th 2006 3:45AM
VW Golf GTi looks better. I'll always prefer an Golf to an Audi.