2002 Audi A3 vs. 2006 Holden Commodore
To start off, 2006 Holden Commodore is newer by 4 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2002 Audi A3. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2002 Audi A3 would be higher. At 5,976 cc (8 cylinders), 2006 Holden Commodore is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2006 Holden Commodore (360 HP) has 256 more horse power than 2002 Audi A3. (104 HP) In normal driving conditions, 2006 Holden Commodore should accelerate faster than 2002 Audi A3.
Because 2006 Holden Commodore is rear wheel drive (RWD), it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, it will be much easier to do with 2006 Holden Commodore. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2002 Audi A3, being front wheel drive (FWD), will offer much better control with better grip. With that said, do keep in mind that many other factors such as speed and the wear on your tires can also have significant impact on traction and control. Let's talk about torque, 2006 Holden Commodore (290 Nm) has 40 more torque (in Nm) than 2002 Audi A3. (250 Nm). This means 2006 Holden Commodore will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2002 Audi A3.
Compare all specifications:
| 2002 Audi A3 | 2006 Holden Commodore | |
| Make | Audi | Holden |
| Model | A3 | Commodore |
| Year Released | 2002 | 2006 |
| Body Type | Hatchback | Sedan |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1896 cc | 5976 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Horse Power | 104 HP | 360 HP |
| Torque | 250 Nm | 290 Nm |
| Fuel Type | Diesel | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Front | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 3 doors | 4 doors |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 5.1 L/100km | 14.4 L/100km |
