<center><img src="http://pictureposter.audiworld.com/57797/dscf0015.jpg"></center><p>the equipment on it.
This car has:
Open Sky
Cold Weather
Bi-xenon with Adaptive
Metallic Paint.
MSRP of $37,740

First impression:
The wheels look much better in person than on the pictures plus I was surprised to see them polished. It looks really good with the silver.
The car looks mean (Especially with the Bi-Xenon; it gives it mean looking eyes), athletic, anything you expect from the S-Line package.
Turn the key and well......Droooooool!
The exhaust is not as pronounced as the TT 3.2, but keep in mind that this car has a longer cabin than the TT, but the exhaust sound is almost identical.
The seats are the sport seats and are powered.
You feel very comfortable.
The interior is that same as a Sport 2.0 along with the Convenience Package.
This car has the changer since the Bose is standard on the 3.2.
I like the door sills that say S-Line.

You take off and man is this car quick!!
It definitely feels faster than the already quick and awesome 2.0T and this car is so freaking smooth!!
Handling is great, however the suspension could have used a little more tuning.
To hear that engine rev up is just "orgasmic"..seriously it is, especially when you down shift.
The braking is on par with the rest..excellent.

Over all it is a great car, and I personally would get it, even at that price tag.
It is worth every penny plus with the low availibility...not every one will have on.

<center><img src="http://pictureposter.audiworld.com/57797/dscf0016.jpg"></center><p>It does look mean...

<center><img src="http://pictureposter.audiworld.com/57797/dscf0017.jpg"></center><p>It does look a little different than the 2.0T

<center><img src="http://pictureposter.audiworld.com/57797/dscf0019.jpg"></center><p>Just like the 2.0T

+ as Phil says . . "ugly wheels"

I don't know about this one. Then again, silver never looks impressive in pictures. For 37k I'd be expecting a bit more . . . at least a manual for christssakes.

Gotta love living in NA.

Dave

<center><img src="http://pictureposter.audiworld.com/57797/dscf0020.jpg"></center><p>by this!

b/c they look like cheap hubcaps in that pic! will there be other wheel options with the s-line package?

<center><img src="http://pictureposter.audiworld.com/57797/074__scaled_600.jpg"></center><p>These in 18" for $1,000

Allocation will be scarce...

Those standard wheels are a big aesthetic mistake. Having to buy the 18s (which look super, IMHO) for an extra grand kinda woke me up. The S-Line package isn't just subtle, it's AWOL!

A4mative

all that weight upfront must mean mega understeer

Not that bad.

So we can have a better idea of the price difference?
As I understand from your description, it looks like a Sport Packaged 2.0T, plus the Convenience Pack., plus the Bose option, plus the aero package.
What's the real money difference between the two than?

- what is the EPA gas mileage on the sticker ?

- are these wheels 18" version of euro winter rim ? (I do like them BTW)

- what tires (summer, all seasons) ?

- is the suspension lower/stiffer than sport pkg 2.0 T ?

- any interior differences between 2.0 T sport ?

Power seat
V6
QUATTRO!!!
And of course the S-Line package that makes the car much more athletic!!
Bi-Xenon with Adaptive. (You can only get bi-xenon on the 2.0T; of course this is an option on the 3.2 as well).

When you look at it, if you get a 2.0T DSG with Sport, convenience and Bose, you are looking at $29,595 base Vs $33,980 for the base price of the 3.2Q that does include Bose standard and would also get the S-Line package over the 2.0T.
Not a bad deal if you ask me!

Gas mileage: 21/ 27
Wheels are 17".
All season tires with 17"; performance tires with 18"
About the same suspension set up.
Same interior except for the S-Line badging on all door sills.

$1,000 when ordered from the factory.

since that is what the other S-Line models have.

...with money to burn.

Although I do like the S-line front end and rear valence. Definitely adds the right touch of aggressiveness to the car's exterior.

Probably because of the angle of the picture.

Too bad you aren't nearer, or I'd pop over for a spin :-D

No steering wheel, seats, start button on the RS4. Makes that hefty $70k base pricetag seem less worthy.<ul><li><a href="http://forums.audiworld.com/s4b7/msgs/16682.phtml">http://forums.audiworld.com/s4b7/msgs/16682.phtml</a</li></ul>

<center><img src="http://pictureposter.audiworld.com/57797/dscf0018.jpg"></center><p>

you would need to spend around $55K. That's for a car about to go out of production if it hasn't already. Most BMW sources suggest pricing will be in the mid-60K range for the E90.

for a car you won't buy. "No start button??? OMG!". The seats and steering wheel are something that Audi traditionally takes away from our market. No big suprise, and I certainly doubt it will push buyers away.

I was living in Midland, Tx at the time and went back to France in 1982.

It sure doesn't seem to be that fast and the fact that AoA is cutting out a lot of the items that differentiate the RS4 from the S4 . . . doesn't seem to be worth the 70k pricetag.

Dave

<center><img src="http://pictureposter.audiworld.com/88350/imgp5192.jpg"></center><p>I'm in Mississauga, Ontario, Canada.

You have to be kidding...
Suspension, brakes, wheels, steering, 300lbs lighter!
What the hell do you want more???
And again, it is $66k base not $70k.

I rounded up . . . so sue me.

IMO the RS4 is pretty but not worth the price tag.

Dave

3.2 has 250 hp and 236 ft.-lbs. with 91 octane, APR claims 246hp and 282 ft.-lbs for the 2.0.

i'm assuming 3.2 is heavier, and quattro could slow is down a bit. hhhmmm? i think it would be close.

be getting a V6 A3 or RS4. Simple as that :-D

IMHO, it doesn't make another person's choice to desire or purchase that very item, invalid.

As someone once said, opinions are like a55holes, everyone got one etc etc

;-P

i would like to see it race a 3.6 fsi turbo rs3 :)

I think a chipped A3 2.0T would rip up a 3.2. A lot of power is lost in the awd. I guess can try to line up with a 3.2 TT Q or an R32 at the next GTG. I know it's not the same but it would be fun.

As far as wheels are concerned. I think the 18"s are beautiful and far superior to the excal.

However, I would regret getting EITHER wheel.

1. I would rather walk then drive with the excalibur wheels on my car.
2. I would rather rake leaves than clean the 18"s!

If ours shows up tomorrow (a few other NJ dealers got theirs today) I'll see how they stack up, if we can get a hold of it.. Stage I REVO A3 and stage II REVO A3 w/ full turbo back exhaust cars in house :)

We are taking the kids (2 &amp; 4) to Disneyland again. (We have 12 month passes) I'm in San Diego.

We won't be taking the TT. We will be taking the wife's van. (I'd rather drive the TT for the 90 mile drive)

(If I had a A3 3.2, we would take that) We will see if that happens.

The situation reminds me of when I bought my TT in 2001. I put a deposit down in 2000, waited 13 months for my order to come in.

Does that mean almost TT ride, or better than a Honda Accord?

(Details please) :)

...but the APR chip might not fare that well. I honestly believe the Neuspeed chip would fare much much better. My A3=pulled away from 2 APR DSG A3s.

Have fun in mouseworld ! :-)

my salesman was promoted last month to sales manager . . . had a nice chat with him yesterday when i was getting the car serviced.

the A3 quattro looks great!
i have one ordered, morro and all options, except wheels, too busy
The DSG is so kool, I bought it for the trans and quattro

thanks for posting the pix AlexTTQ

Apr makes clames of 252hp with 93 octain gas. I dont know if its true. But that would help a 2.0t alot in the higher gears.

A rolling start at about 40-50 mph would be the best test. Not as much spining the tires and more raw power.

Grrrr. I want to race!!!!

If a sales manager does that, they should be fired. The first cars of any model are a scarce resource that should be used to enhance the dealership - a good manager does not roll over and give away the store :-)

Reminds me of General Motors economics. "Yes, we lose money on every car we sell, but we make it up in volume." LOL!

laps on a track ?

I think 0-60 times would come down to grip. If the 2.0T was running race rubber it might have enough to get a good launch. It would be fun to head out to the drag strip and time it.

As to a track I think the 3.2 would post faster lap times. The turbo would heat up after a few laps. Also the awd would allow for faster speeds on sweepers and out of the corners.

Nothing even close to the Honda...

I know a AWD would take a front wheel dive with the same hp any day. The AWD would be able to deliver the power more Efficiently without loss of traction. It would pull away coming out of the turns.

But I was thinking of a street race, or a race that would have a rolling start. Kinda like AWD v 2.0t at a light or on the freeway.

we're getting the right damping rates for the springs.

And we got a 3.2 in at the dealer today, once Its PDI's if this is a demo car I think its going ot be fairly easy...

..take it for what it's worth as we all have DSG A3s so all three cars are EXACT minus that mine is Neuspeed and the 2 are APR. We did "Off the Line" as well as several highway runs where the APR chip hits the speed limiter in BOTH cars (despite what APR says about it being removed) I wanted the ECMS option so bad and would of switched in a heartbeat if the APR felt better but alas it does not compare to Neuspeed's software despite what anyone says about their "weak sauce" stuff. Neuspeed's is simply smoother and faster throughout the majority of the rev range.

I've already extended the invitation for a friendly meet and greet with ANY APR chipped A4s or A3s in the area to test these chips as I am confident the Neuspeed will pull away just as it did the last 2. Not a knock on APR at all as most will be content and feel that it's perfect for them..But for me the 2.0T software is not as good, in my opinion of course, as the NS in this case.

IME German cars are usually very well balanced, unlike American cars with big engines, and tiny drums...

AWD is *not* as efficient as front wheel drive, typically drivetrain loss is much larger on AWD, (e.g. less efficient) due to increased drivetrain mass and gearing (additional friction).

Assuming both cars have adequate traction the front wheel drive will always win, and that's without even taking weight into consideration.

Which sucks I was looking for some easily adapted rotors to use with some boxster calipers :)

what dealership are you referring to.

21/27mpg (city/hwy) = 11.2/8.8 L/100K (city/hwy)

Does that math work?

Call Bob Bollick if you are interested. It looks GREAT!

Glad I bought the GLI pedals...looks so much better.

looks mean.

any idea on what a lease would run on one of thems?

weak