Tell me everything about 2000-2002 Audi S3's
- Thread starter Gaygle
- Start date
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
Not then but Audi have just released a 5 door S3.
I've considered an S3 before. I would get an pre-tax blag year. Don't see the differences being significant enough to warrant the extra tax. And its not from affordability that I won't, I just won't play the governments game.
They do seem quite expensive for what they are though. My wife would like a Cupra R which AFAIK is pretty similar (apart from the psuedo 4WD) and they seem much cheaper.
They do seem quite expensive for what they are though. My wife would like a Cupra R which AFAIK is pretty similar (apart from the psuedo 4WD) and they seem much cheaper.
[TW]Fox;12198645 said:Wow, 100k? Thats 'stupid' mileage
Yes, when they're looking for one around 60k. Around that mileage you could be getting in to turbo problem territory too, depending on how it's been driven.
Not everyone likes driving cars that have been to the moon and back.
Are Audi's not very dependable and well built then? I'd have assumed a new shape A3 would be in fine condition at 100k miles? After all they are only what, 4 years old?
Would you honestly pick an 8 year old A3 previous shape over a 4 year old current shape 'becuase its done 100k oh no?'
You seem a bit backward, I trust you realise an A3 is a little better built than a 1982 Ford Granada, where 100k meant 'oh no'? It's just a number.
Would you honestly pick an 8 year old A3 previous shape over a 4 year old current shape 'becuase its done 100k oh no?'
You seem a bit backward, I trust you realise an A3 is a little better built than a 1982 Ford Granada, where 100k meant 'oh no'? It's just a number.
The 225 S3 has slightly better performance from the engine, generally there isn't much in it as you say.
An S3 is "blokish" as well! Try explaining to her an S3 is more likely to go wrong due to most being modified, turbos going, cam belt going, etc
For the 2.0T you would have to stretch to about 10k, there is the odd bargain about that appear for this price but sell quickly.
The 3.2 will probably be slightly more expensive to run than an S3 (assuming its a post 2001 S3).
Both IIRC are in the highest tax band (3.2 has CO2 emissions of 256g/km which puts it firmly in the highest tax band whereas the S3 is just into it). Insurance wise the 3.2 is Group 18 but I found it cheaper to insure than a S3 (probably due to the insurance companies perception of the S3 vs what is effectively a normal A3 qith a big engine). Fuel wise well the S3 will probably return 30mpg, the 3.2 simply won't (mine didn't). As soon as you push the 3.2 your mpg will drop into the teens (and even lower when pushing hard). Reliability wise well my 3.2 spent more time in the garage (all under warranty) than it did on my drive. This was mainly electrical related (which is most likely a problem with this specific car rather than a range wide one).
IMO I would say with a budget of 9k a 3.2 will not be the best option. Its terrible fuel consumption (and this is going from experience) is what would put me off despite the attractive price.
The 2.0T is an option although for 9k I don't think you will have many choices. Fox's suggestion of the TT is probably the best so far. All the advantages of the A3 tied up in a more attractive package. (although you will end up paying a premium for this).
[TW]Fox;12199121 said:
Yes, if one of my specifications was a car around 60k miles.
People don't want to drive cars with high mileage, I wouldn't like looking down and seeing 100k+ on my trip. Then again some people don't care, but those people wouldn't be driving the likes of S3's. Also a major effort to sell on again.
I also wouldn't enjoy replacing the turbo and getting a front respray due to lots of stone chips from motorway miles
Thats the most awesome thing I've read all week
Are you saying the sort of person who would drive a car with 100k on it (Apparently only a certain sort of person does this?) wouldnt want an S3?
What happens to all the 100k S3's then? Surely most of them by now are on 100k given they are all 98-02 cars. Do they all get scrapped at 100k becuase 'the sort of person who wants a 100k car wouldnt be driving the likes of S3's'?
Someone on here has a 110k S3. Glitch in the Matrix?
This is the only legitimate concern of a higher mileage vehicle and it's down to people with opinions like yourself. I mean you'd spend thousands more on a car, or compromise on the sort of car you want, to avoid 'looking down and seeing 100k on the trip'. Its hilarious but I'm glad its the case, makes them good buys.
Yea, far better to spend £2-3k more on the car.
I genuinelly cannot beleive you would chose an 8 year old car with 60k over a 4 year old car with 100k though. Thats just ridiculous, what do you think 4 years wont have done to a car that a staggering extra 40k will?
Had a Mk4 Golf GTI with the lower boosted 150 engine (and few other things different from the s3 210 one) no problems at 190k miles, even on the original clutch (although did have some stonechips...)
What did she choose in the end?
I've just bought an A3 sportback 2.0Tfsi and it seems to fit the bill for what your missus requires, mine has leather, sat nav and bluetooth and comes with Audis DSG system, performance is good (0-62 in 6.8), and it even fits in a half decent tax bracket (187g/km) (£210 for the year). Mine (at least to me) does not look bland, much better than the older ones anyway and it cost me short of £11k.
I'm 100% happy with my purchase
I've just bought an A3 sportback 2.0Tfsi and it seems to fit the bill for what your missus requires, mine has leather, sat nav and bluetooth and comes with Audis DSG system, performance is good (0-62 in 6.8), and it even fits in a half decent tax bracket (187g/km) (£210 for the year). Mine (at least to me) does not look bland, much better than the older ones anyway and it cost me short of £11k.
I'm 100% happy with my purchase
