phaeton

Well I would buy the VW badge anyday over the Audi but I'm a VW "Fruitloop" Enthusiast

Although there are some things Audi does better eg TT, R8 (A8/S8 for the more sportiness over Phaeton), some of the S & RS series of cars.

Now I would be seriously tempted by the Skoda equivalent of whatever VW its against.

Also these days, very slowly SEAT, Skoda, VW & Audi have different design languages so it depends on your bank account, what design you like.

Obviously the more you spend in the VW Group the better eg the Quality and Prestige.

Curb Zone

 

Yannis

Lol , i 'm not mad.

Even if two cars share the same platform that doesn't mean that they are the same.
My brother has a 2007 Audi A3 and compared to the VW Golf the build quality (including paint , exterior plastic parts, seats , air con , cd player ect.) is at least one step above.
If you sit in both cars the difference is very clear.

Of course if we compare a brand new model like the Passat with (soon to be replaced) Audi A4 , it's obvious that the Passat will have better safety features , more interior space ect. but the luxury feel , the build quality and the attention to detail in the Audi are still superior.

Mirage77

I do see your point Kowalski, and for the same issue I ruffled a little of Martinbo's feathers about the A3 vs. GTI debate...

Some may see it as a waste of money paying so much more for the A3 (believe me, the price premium here for the A3 2.0T is so much more), but I do see the merits of an Audi. The A3's interior is remiscent of its more expensive brothers. It shares its gauges with the A6, its air-conditioning controls with the rest of the Audi lineup and of course, its quality is top-notch.

Whereas for the GTI, its lineage includes the sensible affordable family car, the Golf, and the Jetta. It feels like a less premium product than the A3. I have heard of many GTI owners experiencing rattles in their cars, as well as minor problems with the electronics etc, so from what I see the Golf does have more problems than the A3. I've heard nothing from the A3 camp at all, there have been no reliability problems.

Still, I was at the Audi dealer a while ago, and for what they were asking for in price, the car simply wasn't a worthy proposition. The car's plastics just felt a little softer and its gauges/controls more tactile and fancy, but it had less supportive seats and didn't feel anymore well-built than the GTI.

If you ask me, given a million dollars, I'd still pick a GTI over a A3 SB 2.0TFSI.

Centurion

Same here. Although I like the A3 I have and will always be negative too hatchbacks priced at over 30k. In this GTI vs A3 debate I stand behind the GTI. But in general you get what you pay for, for the 6k more you get a much better interior, better reliability and heck even better design.

Merc1

Oooh a meaty thread.

Well I'm not so sure I buy that and Audi is better "built" than a VW. What I do know or at least seem to see as the differences between the two is that Audis have better materials and finishes. This is on top of VW's what are already better than most other cars in their respective classes, but in actual physical build I'd say it is pretty much the same between an A3 and a GTI. Of course an A6 or A8 is built better than a Passat or Jetta, so don't get me wrong here.

As far as why buy this or why buy that? I'm going to use Choleric' earlier post to break this one out.

There is absolutely no real differenc between a Ford and a Mercury. Mercury has to be the most redundant brand on the U.S. market at this point. The only reason it isn't killed off is because Lincoln dealers couldn't survive without it. Mercurys are nothing more than Fords with better grilles and more interior chrome. Now the Lincoln variant usually has a higher quality interior (ugly as hell though!), pretty much like what you get when going from a VW to an Audi. Lincoln, like Audi shares much of (actually) all of their engines with Ford, so Audis are more exclusive in that regard overall since Audis and VWs don't have the same engines up and down their respective lines like Lincolns and Fords do. What is worse yet is that Lincoln doesn't even tune their version for more power.


Different look, thats it. Everything else is the same, right down the interiors minus a precious few trim items. You guys might not remember or know about Plymouth, but it was pretty much like Mercury. Thank goodness they killed it off.


This used to be a valid point in my old Lexus vs MB wars on different site, but now Lexus is seperate car in chassis and engine in most cases. The only exception as far as their cars go is the ES350 which is pretty much a nicer Camry right down the few extra hp it gets from the same engine. Now Lexus SUVs are another story, all of them are nothing but Toyotas in drag especially the new LX model, now the LX570...a Toyota Land Crusier in drag.


Somewhat the same case as Lexus. Infinitis used to be nothing more than Nissans in drag. The Senta/G20, Maxima/I30/I35, Cedric-Gloria/our first generation M45, but now things have changed. All Infiniti car models are seperate cars except in the case of the G35/G37 which shares its chassis with the Nissan 350Z, but you wouldn't know it unless someone told you. Their trucks are a mix and match, the FX is a on the Z platform, while the QX56 is nothing more than a Nissan Armada with a big ole grille and wood trim, just like the Lincoln Navigator is a Ford Expedition with a big ole grille and better leather and wood trim. No difference in build quality, read- both brands are cheaply made compared to Lexus. Infinitis unlike Lexuses seems to have same rough edges Nissans have, while what little roughness there might be in a Toyota (arguable there is none) is buffed and thubbed away in a Lexus.


Acuras are nothing more than fancy Hondas and/or rebadges of cars you guys in Europe know as Hondas. Acura wonders why they can't sell the RL here in the U.S. no one wants a 50K Accord-based luxury car!

__________________________________________________ __

Then also here in the U.S. there is the luxury car dealer vs regular car dealer factor in play when deciding between Audi and VW. Especially Audi and VW. VW dealers are consistantly ranked the worst going while Audi's are rated pretty much at the opposite end of the scale. Same thing with Lexus dealers vs Toyota dealers. Toyota buyers love their relaibility and all but they don't love their dealers. We all know how Lexus buyers feel about their dealers. Never seen a group of people so happy about a freaking dealership!

I personally want a Jetta so I'd go for a Jetta GLI over the A3 and also because I don't really care for hatchbacks.

Lastly we really don't know (without sawing the cars in half) what VW takes out of their cars underneath or what components are of lower grade compared to the Audi. Ditto for all companies that share platforms/chassis etc. Apart from things like suspension pieces done in aluminum in the expensive car compared to steel in the cheaper one, what else do they alter to get the same chassis down the VW prices? A pretty good example of this was what Chrysler did to the old W210 E-Class platform to turn it into the LX cars (300/Magnun/Charger), which is where I remember reading that about the suspension on the Chryslers were done in iron compared to aluminum for the Benzes. Cheaper seat frames, etc. etc. Ford did some of the same things when they took the Volvo S80's platform and made it into the 500...now new Taurus. Something has to give somewhere, anyone have any internal documents...lol???

M

Giannis

Well said! Actually it's the basic and only main answer to Kowalsi's question, which i may add, have asked to myself a million times! So thanks Kowalski for bringing it up!

In the same way, why buy a Volvo when you can get a Mondeo, since both cars have the same platform? Well, the answer is obvious...

The Emperor

...Mondeo is a better car!

Giannis

Yeah, right...
That's why a base S60 cost's more than 20.000eur more than a Mondeo here

Curb Zone