Sky InsuranceMonster Motorsport
Results 1 to 32 of 32
  1. #1
    Neutral

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    England
    Posts
    41

    3.2 help required

    A quick question to all 3.2 owners - what is the car like on running costs, also compared to perhaps the 2.0FSi engine. I assume the 3.2 will be more expensive but are we talking low 20's mpg or is it better than I think.

    Many thanks
    Matt

  2. # ADS
    ADS
    Join Date
    Always
    Location
    Global
    Posts
    Many
     
  3. #2
    Eeef's Avatar
    Lord of War

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    South Coast, land of the white man
    Posts
    1,602

    Re: 3.2 help required

    I think most people don't exceed 25mpg as a rule.

  4. #3
    1st Gear

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    108

    Re: 3.2 help required

    25 sounds like a good average - for over a year it's hovered around that mark for me

  5. #4
    Neutral

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    England
    Posts
    41

    Re: 3.2 help required

    Thanks for the replies, just out of interest which is the better buy the 2.0 turbo or the 3.2. I know which is faster but which is the better all rounder and perhaps better to run.

  6. #5
    2nd Gear

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    South East
    Posts
    317

    Re: 3.2 help required

    Average 25mpg across first 5,000 mainly A road and m'way miles. Lowest tank has been about 23 being a mixture of fast B roads and motorway. Highest tank has been 31mpg when it was new, keeping a very light foot and no more than 80mph. Highly unlikely to be repeated!

  7. #6
    Eeef's Avatar
    Lord of War

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    South Coast, land of the white man
    Posts
    1,602

    Re: 3.2 help required

    2 different beasts to be honest.

    The 3.2 has 2 very good points. The sound [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] and the even spread power distribution. If tuning is on the cards then na cards have limited opportunities and generally very expensive for bhp.

    The 2.0T is much more tunable and at the moment >250bhp is easily attainable at moderate costs. Haven't driven the 2.0t myself so i'll leave that for other people, but the power band on forced induxtion cars is generally a lot shorter.

  8. #7
    dbm
    dbm's Avatar
    3rd Gear

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Preston, Lancs
    Posts
    518

    Re: 3.2 help required

    I'm also getting a little under 25mpg with my 3.2 DSG at the moment, doing a mix of M-Way and A-roads.

    Cheers
    Dan

  9. #8
    1st Gear

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    108

    Re: 3.2 help required

    the other bonus for the 3.2 is you can have dsg AND quattro (if dsg is your thing that is)

  10. #9
    Neutral

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    England
    Posts
    41

    Re: 3.2 help required

    thanks for the replies

  11. #10
    1st Gear

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Surrey, UK
    Posts
    298

    Re: 3.2 help required

    One thing I never expected with my 3.2 is how easily I can cruise effortlessly now... I have the option of instant power at any revs or the engine never really going above 1200rpm for tootling around town

  12. #11
    simonl's Avatar
    1st Gear

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    90210
    Posts
    268

    Re: 3.2 help required

    The 2.0T feels like it has as much torque as the 3.2 IMO, it's a very well tuned and well behaved Turbo unit.

  13. #12
    Amchlolor's Avatar
    6th Gear

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Aberdeen
    Posts
    5,602

    Re: 3.2 help required

    2.0T

    90% of the speed of the 3.2,but 30% better on fuel ? (approximation).

    You'd have to have a very good reason to plump for the 3.2,wouldn't you ?

  14. #13
    Skittler's Avatar
    Redlined

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Wokingham, UK
    Posts
    131

    Re: 3.2 help required

    >> You'd have to have a very good reason to plump for the 3.2,wouldn't you ?

    Quattro WITH DSG, that's my reason [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

  15. #14
    Numptie of the highest order

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Crowthorne, England
    Posts
    2,512

    Re: 3.2 help required

    [ QUOTE ]
    >> You'd have to have a very good reason to plump for the 3.2,wouldn't you ?

    Quattro WITH DSG, that's my reason [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

    [/ QUOTE ]

    How about the noise, I take it the 3.2 sounds better than a dyson on full suck? [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

  16. #15
    Neutral

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    England
    Posts
    41

    Re: 3.2 help required

    That sounds good to me, just as i thought but i do agree with all the comments - especially the noise, got to better than the four pot turbo

  17. #16
    Amchlolor's Avatar
    6th Gear

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Aberdeen
    Posts
    5,602

    Re: 3.2 help required

    Good grief,you boys are more worried about how the car sounds than how much more it costs to run ?

    You've obviously got money to burn (literally).

    Isn't depreciation worse on the 3.2 as well ?

  18. #17
    simonl's Avatar
    1st Gear

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    90210
    Posts
    268

    Re: 3.2 help required

    I'm with bowfer, 3.2 does sound amazing, but it soon wears off (unlike the mpg)

  19. #18
    jdp1962's Avatar
    Grumpy Old Man

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Cruising on a mountain of torque
    Posts
    5,691

    Re: 3.2 help required

    It's not just a question of the sound being nicer, though, is it? The reason the 3.2 sounds "nicer" is because six cylinders offer more firing strokes per revolution, are inherently better balanced than four cylinders, and enjoy substantially reduced primary and secondary vibrations.

    Many of those vibrations may not be readily apparent, due to modern techniques for suppressing NVH, but they still exist, at a subliminal level, and they are a primary cause of driver fatigue over a long journey. That's why I'll take a six-cylinder (minimum!) engine over a four, every time.

  20. #19
    powerplay's Avatar
    Grrrr

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    East Sussex, UK
    Posts
    182

    Re: 3.2 help required

    I plumped for the 3.2 over 2.0T. I drove both, the 2.0T first followed by the 3.2.

    The 3.2 is better in every way. you can feel there is a bigger engine in there immediately. It is a much better drive, feels more refined, has buckets more torque at low revs and makes the 2.0T feel a bit ordinary quite frankly.

    And the 3,2 quattro just pi$$es over the 2.0T fwd that I drove for putting power down - the 2.0T spins its wheels and goes backwards if you plant your foot, the 3.2 just goes. Quickly. And from 30mph I can drive in 6th and hardly need to change.

    Of course the 3.2 will be more thirsty but mine is starting to bed down now, done just 2000 miles and the economy is a lot better. Even on just a 5 mile commute through town in traffic I will see 25mpg and depending on how I choose to drive will see over 30 on longer runs.

    Alternatively I can feel some g's and get below 20, but I have the choice! [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

  21. #20
    1st Gear

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Chester
    Posts
    247

    Re: 3.2 help required

    [ QUOTE ]
    I plumped for the 3.2 over 2.0T. I drove both, the 2.0T first followed by the 3.2.

    The 3.2 is better in every way. you can feel there is a bigger engine in there immediately. It is a much better drive, feels more refined, has buckets more torque at low revs and makes the 2.0T feel a bit ordinary quite frankly.

    And the 3,2 quattro just pi$$es over the 2.0T fwd that I drove for putting power down - the 2.0T spins its wheels and goes backwards if you plant your foot, the 3.2 just goes. Quickly. And from 30mph I can drive in 6th and hardly need to change.

    Of course the 3.2 will be more thirsty but mine is starting to bed down now, done just 2000 miles and the economy is a lot better. Even on just a 5 mile commute through town in traffic I will see 25mpg and depending on how I choose to drive will see over 30 on longer runs.

    Alternatively I can feel some g's and get below 20, but I have the choice! [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

    [/ QUOTE ]

    I also drove the 3.2, the 2.0T DSG/FWD, and the 2.0T quattro, I bought the 2.0T quattro, IMO it is a far better car than the 3.2, I could just feel that old heavy golf VR6 engine pushing the front about on the handling.
    Also with the increased MPG of the 2.0T you will soon save the 500 to have it "Revo'ed" then it will have 260bhp and 300ft/lbs of torque at 3000rpm and wave the heavy 3.2 bye bye.
    I did the same test route on all 3 cars, driving what I thought was a good mixture of quick and then somewhat easier over a 20 mile round trip the 3.2 averaged 16mpg and the 2.0TDSG 25mpg, and the 2.0T quattro 23mpg.
    All you have to do really is look what engine the "new S3" is getting............

  22. #21
    1st Gear

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    108

    Re: 3.2 help required

    i wouldnt have thought the gap in economy would be that huge. my average is 25, and in my old s3 it was 26. surely we are only talking peanuts on a weekly basis? me personally was willing to pay extra, have the 4wd and dsg, the sound and the instant performance.

  23. #22
    powerplay's Avatar
    Grrrr

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    East Sussex, UK
    Posts
    182

    Re: 3.2 help required

    I think if I had to commute more than the 60-80 or so miles I do a week at the moment, I might be tempted by something a little more frugal, however I rarely do more than 6-8k a year so whey hey, don't care, I'll take the slightly lower economy but bigger grin [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

  24. #23
    TDI-line's Avatar
    Uber Post Whore

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Peterborough
    Posts
    8,885

    Re: 3.2 help required

    Go for the TDI, you can't beat the purr of this engine as it starts up from cold and effortlessly ticks over like a mini tractor on your drive.

  25. #24
    d3fy's Avatar
    5th Gear

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sheffield
    Posts
    1,411

    Re: 3.2 help required

    I get low 20s on my 2.0T I don't think that there is that much differance, best 33mpg on a long motorway run. my general driving is all town stop start

  26. #25
    previously LeeS3

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    On the wirral...
    Posts
    393

    Re: 3.2 help required

    In d mode and using crusie control where permits, a 60-70 mph journey to work I can get high 20s/low 30s. But a few heavy foot moments can make it low 20s.

    Normal driving returns 25 mpg or lower.

  27. #26
    spratty's Avatar
    Reverse Gear

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Reading, England
    Posts
    26

    Re: 3.2 help required

    I reset my computer when I bought my 3.2 and my average since then is 28.4mpg. Admittedly that is mainly A-road driving, but it's a lot better than I expected.

  28. #27
    5th Gear

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    cambs uk
    Posts
    1,139

    Re: 3.2 help required

    [ QUOTE ]
    Go for the TDI, you can't beat the purr of this engine as it starts up from cold and effortlessly ticks over like a mini tractor on your drive.

    [/ QUOTE ]
    LOL!! friend says mine sounds like a cow moo'ing when its revved!

    The v6 does sound peachy though, there's nothing quite like the sound of 6 cylinders. (Honda VTEC also sounds a bit peachy tho!)

  29. #28
    spratty's Avatar
    Reverse Gear

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Reading, England
    Posts
    26

    Re: 3.2 help required

    [ QUOTE ]
    The v6 does sound peachy though, there's nothing quite like the sound of 6 cylinders. (Honda VTEC also sounds a bit peachy tho!)

    [/ QUOTE ]

    You're not wrong there. I used to have an S2000 and I'm still undecided between which engine sound I prefer.

    Saying that...the tractor sound of a TDi is hard to beat [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

  30. #29
    2nd Gear

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    South East
    Posts
    317

    Re: 3.2 help required

    S2k - fabulous sound, especially when it flies between 6000 and 9000rpm with the roof down. It's a sound that made me change gear far too often. Totally different to my 3.2 obviously, but I love both.

    I know which one I would rather have though if I actually want to get somewhere in the wet without breaking into a sweat everytime I press the accelerator!

  31. #30
    steeve's Avatar
    4th Gear

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    762

    Re: 3.2 help required

    I bought the 3.2 and dont regret it a really nice understated quick car. MPG for me on mixed driving is around 26, I can get it to 16 to 18 but then I can get it up to 30 if I really take it easy. Nice motor.

  32. #31
    imported_S_Line
    Guest

    Re: 3.2 help required

    [ QUOTE ]
    One thing I never expected with my 3.2 is how easily I can cruise effortlessly now... I have the option of instant power at any revs or the engine never really going above 1200rpm for tootling around town

    [/ QUOTE ]

    yep same here [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

  33. #32
    spratty's Avatar
    Reverse Gear

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Reading, England
    Posts
    26

    Re: 3.2 help required

    [ QUOTE ]
    [ QUOTE ]
    One thing I never expected with my 3.2 is how easily I can cruise effortlessly now... I have the option of instant power at any revs or the engine never really going above 1200rpm for tootling around town

    [/ QUOTE ]

    yep same here [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Yeah - you can be really lazy with the gears (if it's a manual) and it's always got power. A great car to drive.

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO

Garage Plus, Vendor Tools vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO