which one 2.0T fsi or 3.2

[cejsmith]

I've decided to get a A3 , my budget is under £20k and for that I can get a 2.0T or a 04 3.2 .

Which one should I get????

I can get 2.0T with either quattro or DSG and 3.2 with both.

Can any one tell me if there is any major differences in MPG etc.

Thanks

 

[TDI-line]

All depends on whether you go for the 2.0 T with quattro or dsg, the quattro will always eat a little more fuel, but imo would be worth it. The 2.0 T DSG would be the most frugal out of the 3.

As for the 3.2, expect around 18-20 MPG around town, but has beautfiul smooth engine with a V6 roar.

 

[johnmv55]

Best to drive em both and make your own mind up,I did.
All you will get asking questions like this here is confused, although saying that, the banter gets amusing!
Have a look at Audi.co.uk for official mpg figures

 

[cejsmith]

what do you get in general driving out of your 2.0t quattro?

 

[Dandle]

My 2.0TQ started off pretty bad in the MPG stakes(22-24). But now its got 1600miles on it its just started returning about 26mpg thats without it going near a motorway and giving it a bit of stick now and then(30 miles a day).
The average since it was new is about 24.5mpg but that will go up with time. I was a bit worried when it was low as it was the same as the 3.2 guys were getting. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif

 

[d3fy]

mine is up also to around 26mpg with 33 on the motorway journeys

 

[johnmv55]

[ QUOTE ]
mine is up also to around 26mpg with 33 on the motorway journeys

[/ QUOTE ]

Same here......

 

[cejsmith]

so it looks like the 2.0T is about the same as my S2000, is the 3.2 much worse?

 

[d3fy]

i bet 24mpg for the 3.2

 

[slimbloke]

you don't buy the 3.2 if you are concerned about MPG... you buy it for so many other things, but never MPG

 

[onianbag]

yep 24 average on 3.2, but agree that you dont want to be worrying about it. sounds like there isn't too much difference between the 2. personally i would stick with the 3.2 for DSG&quattro

 

[powerplay]

Personally I chose the 3.2Q over the 2.0T. didn't really like the DSG, prefer manual control hands down.

The 3.2 is smoother, torquier and more relaxing to drive. If you're in traffic, just stick it in 6th from 30mph and you have no worries. If you want to get moving quickly, you need quattro especially in the wet, with all that power to put down.

Mpg wise my 3.2 returns about 23 for slow stop-start traffic, 26-28 for average motoring between 30 and 50mph, 30-33 for 60-80mph motorway and 27-29 for 80+mph.

I'm perfectly happy with that!

 

[onianbag]

not that it matters but the 3.2 is a nice badge too, 2.0TFSi doesnt say much - but with the 3.2 you get comments like 'holy sh*t - how'd they get a 3.2litre engine in that!'

 

[slimbloke]

true... even my local car wash comments on it, and I get stopped in petrol stations and asked about it regularly... don't think that would happen with a smaller diesel version.

 

[johnmv55]

[ QUOTE ]
Personally I chose the 3.2Q over the 2.0T. didn't really like the DSG, prefer manual control hands down.

The 3.2 is smoother, torquier and more relaxing to drive. If you're in traffic, just stick it in 6th from 30mph and you have no worries. If you want to get moving quickly, you need quattro especially in the wet, with all that power to put down.

Mpg wise my 3.2 returns about 23 for slow stop-start traffic, 26-28 for average motoring between 30 and 50mph, 30-33 for 60-80mph motorway and 27-29 for 80+mph.

I'm perfectly happy with that!

[/ QUOTE ]

Here we go!!

"The 3.2 is smoother, torquier and more relaxing to drive."
er, no, its not that clear cut actually, what you need to remember is the 2.0T is at the very start of its life span, so Audi knowing they need to increase hp with every new model (S3 for example) hold the power back electronically (ECU) to give the engine a 4/5 year life span, what this then enables you to do is "chip it", in std form the 3,2 delivers 236lb/ft of torque against the 2.0T's 207lb/ft, but in "chipped" form the 2.0T's torque rises to 300lb/ft, which is about 27% more than the 3.2's.....................

 

[cejsmith]

Ok I think I'm sold on the 3.2 ( I can get more car for my money), is there any handling differences between the 3,2 sport and the S line?

 

[The911SC]

I had the 3.2; drove the 2.0T against it and the 3.2 is the choice imo but MPG wise, the 2.0T should be the better bet.
I got about 24-26mpg on a motorway run..But its worth it for that sound!..
Get the S Line if you can.. bigger wheels, half leather as standard, perforated wheel and gearnob, rs6 style wheels and a roof spoiler (on some!)..

 

[powerplay]

[ QUOTE ]

Here we go!!

"The 3.2 is smoother, torquier and more relaxing to drive."
er, no, its not that clear cut actually, what you need to remember is the 2.0T is at the very start of its life span, so Audi knowing they need to increase hp with every new model (S3 for example) hold the power back electronically (ECU) to give the engine a 4/5 year life span, what this then enables you to do is "chip it", in std form the 3,2 delivers 236lb/ft of torque against the 2.0T's 207lb/ft, but in "chipped" form the 2.0T's torque rises to 300lb/ft, which is about 27% more than the 3.2's.....................

[/ QUOTE ]

Here we go?

Just stating how I see things after test driving both models.

Its probably true what you say, the 2.0T is more tunable and has more potential, but the question is about the standard model you can buy, and what the differences are between the two.

Sure, you can throw money at any engine and increase performance in a multitude of ways, but the question is not about which model will perform better with after-marked mods, is it?

 

[johnmv55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Here we go!!

"The 3.2 is smoother, torquier and more relaxing to drive."
er, no, its not that clear cut actually, what you need to remember is the 2.0T is at the very start of its life span, so Audi knowing they need to increase hp with every new model (S3 for example) hold the power back electronically (ECU) to give the engine a 4/5 year life span, what this then enables you to do is "chip it", in std form the 3,2 delivers 236lb/ft of torque against the 2.0T's 207lb/ft, but in "chipped" form the 2.0T's torque rises to 300lb/ft, which is about 27% more than the 3.2's.....................

[/ QUOTE ]

Here we go?

Just stating how I see things after test driving both models.

Its probably true what you say, the 2.0T is more tunable and has more potential, but the question is about the standard model you can buy, and what the differences are between the two.

Sure, you can throw money at any engine and increase performance in a multitude of ways, but the question is not about which model will perform better with after-marked mods, is it?

[/ QUOTE ]



Well it may be, after all everybody is different in what they want out of a car at purchase, and also looking into the future.
Some like the 3.2, some like the 2.0T, personally I like the 2.0T, I drove them back to back, I didn't like the feel of the extra weight at the front in the 3.2, I didn't like the way the 2.0TDSG spun wheels around roundabouts, and I also knew in the future a lot of firms would be tuning the 2.0T and the gains for £500 (65bhp and 100ft/lbs of torque are quite cheap by comparrison of getting the sane from the 3.2), I also knew the S3 would be a 2.0T which should say something, So I would say YES the after market mods were important to me.

 

[steeve]

I picked the 3.2 and have no regrets, driving steadily I can average 28 to 30, but start using the performance and it obviously drops. Doesnt bother me I dont do too many miles anyway. But I personally dont want a modified car. I get all that performance with no worries about losing warranty or having something non standard.
You pays your money and you takes your choice.
Dont listen to us, go drive one of each then pick what YOU want.