3.2 or s3

wickyianr1

wickyianr1

Registered User
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
106
Reaction score
0
Points
16
guys got me tax through yesterday £425 for 12 months,and i sat there and thought maybe its time for an s3 so any feedback why i should get an s3 dont get me wrong the 3.2 is a good motor so come on give me some feedback:sadlike:
 
wickyianr1 said:
guys got me tax through yesterday £425 for 12 months,and i sat there and thought maybe its time for an s3 so any feedback why i should get an s3 dont get me wrong the 3.2 is a good motor so come on give me some feedback:sadlike:
Click to expand...

Newer
Faster
More economical
Sharper
Prettier
More tuneable
Its the flagship 8P car
You can get one in warranty.
It has a turbo
etc.....
 
i bought the 3.2 on a whim last year i was really ill the big c i thought what the hell dont get me wrong its a cracking car with dsg but thinking about it i should of done me homework and maybe got an s3.
 
lol - was thinking the same - de ja vu!
But yeah, another for the S3... I think you'll be surprised just how much better it is ;)
 
i just got me tax 425 and sat down and i got thinking thats all just looking at the pro and cons sarah.
 
Ah, there are loads for and against! This could go on and on lol! Must admit, you seem to see S3's everywhere now, getting a bit common???? But sure they will say more folk have taste lol and they may be right! Horses for courses! Sure if I had the money i'd have one but would be worried about things going wrong with turbos etc especially after all my past experiences!

As long as we are all happy drivers!
 
£425 is a couple of gallons a week....Not a lot to pay for what is really..a better car..Anyway...Mine was £225 :)

Actually its £200 more than a S3 which is £4 a week.....less than a gallon..You wait till you get a misfire and it cost you £4300 and its still not fixed....Then i might listen......lol
 
Last edited:
paddy said:
£425 is a couple of gallons a week....Not a lot to pay for what is really..a better car..Anyway...Mine was £225 :)

Actually its £200 more than a S3 which is £4 a week.....less than a gallon..You wait till you get a misfire and it cost you £4300 and its still not fixed....Then i might listen......lol
Click to expand...

hang on that £4300 was for your car a 3.2 haha
misfire on the s3 is cured with spark plugs for £60
doh
 
Yea i know Jamie...just joking :) but all the same £200 a year should not be relevant if your trying to run an Audi 3,2.... especially as it should have been a lot cheaper to buy than an S3 in the first place..

Dont take any notice of me !! I just worked out what a hike in CGT from 10% on AIM investments to 40% is going to cost...car tax is a drip in the Ocean..:)
 
Change to a pre-March 2006 3.2 :)
£245 p.a.
Just bought a '54' plate one of these and picked it up last Wednesday. Haven't had time to post since, the DSG is too addictive!
I had an 8L S3 and that was a very nice car, and I'm sure the 2.0 for pot lump is nice, but 6 cylinders is the only way to go (until I can afford 8 or 10)...

Col
 
col6821 said:
Change to a pre-March 2006 3.2 :)
£245 p.a.
Just bought a '54' plate one of these and picked it up last Wednesday. Haven't had time to post since, the DSG is too addictive!
I had an 8L S3 and that was a very nice car, and I'm sure the 2.0 for pot lump is nice, but 6 cylinders is the only way to go (until I can afford 8 or 10)...

Col
Click to expand...

Welcome Col, nice to see another 3.2 owner! Pics would be good!
 
It needs a polish before pics I think. I'll see what I can do at the weekend, hoping to have the rear windows tinted next week, so may wait until after that...

Col
 
edition said:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/jeremy_clarkson/article1776405.ece
Click to expand...

Jeez thats an old one, Paddy has had this out of the archives at least a dozen times.

Anyway, check this quote out.

".It’s not very nice. It’s harsh when you rev it, and there’s far too much turbo lag when you don’t. "

Then cast your memory back (or not if you watch Dave) to the when he said the MK5 Golfs engine sounded ace.
Well I will tell you they sound the same! and the lag (or spool up) is negligable even when driven back to back, know because I had 2 of them.

So, JC is a legend as far as tongue in cheek journalism goes and his Sunday night japery with his mates is a bit of a laugh.
But his facts are very much opinion/mood based, and his reviews.....errrr...opinion and mood based and flawed.
But we all know that:hi:

As for the R32?
It looks ****, isnt very fast and is a ****** to tune.
All the reasons I looked and didnt buy.


Cheers
Paul


PS - Besides, you are not allowed opinions if you have a barnet like a young Shirlie Temple and wear Tweed jackets with jeans and brogues..
 
Last edited:
In fairness i have only driven a S3 with DSG and that is where it falls down. The tendency for DSG to change into 6th at 1000rpm 1500rpm which is 30-40mph is the problem ...this means its nearly always off cam and off turbo when you want to put your foot down. Having spent the last 2 weeks with a 1.8T A4 with DSG and now with a 2.0T diesel A4 DSG the diesel is streets ahead. The conclusion is the DSG just does not suit turbo's and the 3.2 and diesel engines with bottom end torque are essential because of the tendency to change into 6th if left to its own devises
That said i am sure a manual S3 that is kept on the revs is great.. but then a 3.2 in sport and singing between 5k and 7k revs is huge fun as well :)
 
The 3.2 is a bargain. People are scared of buying big engine cars. Also due to the dull factory styling the A3 3.2 is a lot less cash than the R32. With a 3.2 you get a lot of car for your money.

The S3 is much newer, and significantly more cash. In standard form it's no quicker, and the power delivery is different. Some people prefer more cylinders and some people like a turbo. As it's newer, it's more cash, but you'll be looking at fresher, lower mileage cars.

I'm surprised with these "vs" threads, as surely budget dictates which one you go for.

But if you're buying the car to tune, it's no contest. Tuning a V6 is £££, whereas the S3 can be running 350+bhp for relatively f*ck all.
 
V6Pete said:
I'm surprised with these "vs" threads, as surely budget dictates which one you go for.
Click to expand...

Soo true, for most (inc. me) budget always dictates. Oh I can dream and do.

And yup, S3's can be tuned alot cheaper/easier! We all know that and maybe is the 3.2's anchillies but hey if you wanted a turbo, get the S3!
 
V6Pete said:
I'm surprised with these "vs" threads, as surely budget dictates which one you go for.

.
Click to expand...

Hmm...Sorry but given the choice of a new S3 or 3.2 i would go for the 3.2 and money is not a factor. Audi made a mistake with the S3 by producing a range topper that really wasnt...Had they fitted the 3ltr V6 turbo they eventually put in the S4 they would have had a special car but as it is the S3 does not really deserve to wear the S badge because against a 3.2 it wasnt a significant step forward and as Pete says in std form its not really any quicker. Yes you can tune it but that is a whole new can of worms and the reason Audi produced it in a mild state of tune in the first place is pretty obvious when you look at the trouble people have on these BB's once they try and squeeze a bit more out of it.

I am quite sure that if Audi had used the 295bhp R36 engine in A3 and hung all the S3 bling on it then the turbo lump would not be given a second look.
 
Last edited:
paddy said:
Hmm...Sorry but given the choice of a new S3 or 3.2 i would go for the 3.2 and money is not a factor. Audi made a mistake with the S3 by producing a range topper that really wasnt...Had they fitted the 3ltr V6 turbo they eventually put in the S4 they would have had a special car but as it is the S3 does not really deserve to wear the S badge because against a 3.2 it wasnt a significant step forward and as Pete says in std form its not really any quicker. Yes you can tune it but that is a whole new can of worms and the reason Audi produced it in a mild state of tune in the first place is pretty obvious when you look at the trouble people have on these BB's once they try and squeeze a bit more out of it.
Click to expand...

What I meant is that as the 3.2 was discontinued shortly after the S3 was released, it's effectively it's successor.

If you have £15K+ to spend on a 250+bhp A3, you go for an S3. If you have less, you go for a 3.2.

I completely agree that the S3 isn't significantly better, and it doesn't interest me as a car to purchase in that price range. It would only be if I was looking to buy a car to tune that I would see the S3 as a step forward.
 
paddy said:
Hmm...Sorry but given the choice of a new S3 or 3.2 i would go for the 3.2 and money is not a factor. Audi made a mistake with the S3 by producing a range topper that really wasnt...Had they fitted the 3ltr V6 turbo they eventually put in the S4 they would have had a special car but as it is the S3 does not really deserve to wear the S badge because against a 3.2 it wasnt a significant step forward and as Pete says in std form its not really any quicker. Yes you can tune it but that is a whole new can of worms and the reason Audi produced it in a mild state of tune in the first place is pretty obvious when you look at the trouble people have on these BB's once they try and squeeze a bit more out of it.

I am quite sure that if Audi had used the 295bhp R36 engine in A3 and hung all the S3 bling on it then the turbo lump would not be given a second look.
Click to expand...

Not sure I agree (for a change lol)
Audi have taken weight out of the nose of the S3 to try and make it handle far better. Sticking the 3.6 or even the 3.0 supercharged would have made it a drag car, great in a straight line, but terrible in the twisties.
I think they got it right with the S3, on track it's a pretty exploitable car:

http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=zCf0B-a2vb8

http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=3vCNsmamUmc

http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=tmjsp0E_624

My car was stage 1 GIAC with a panel filter, a sports cat and non res centre with the OEM back box.
It never missed a beat. If it had a heavier engine in the car I just think it wouldn't handle anywhere near as well, and for me the best thing about the S3 is it's honest cross country pace - it may not offer a lot of communication and it may not sounds as nice as something with more cylinders, but it really can torment cars in the leagues above ;)

I think the problem with these n/a cars for me is they way they are designed to appeal to the biggest audience, resulting in an engine with little character outside of the noise it makes... too linear a power delivery for me, the turbo just makes it more fun :D
 
You have to drive a 3.2 and an S3 back to back to understand the difference (manual).
The 3.2 feels like a very capable, nicely made premium small car.
The S3 feels like a hot hatch in camparison.
You simply cant evalaute the 2 based on paper stats.

Like Ive said before, we can wax lyrical about 6 cylinder hatchabacks all day.
VAG (or other marques for that matter) arent interested in making them anymore. The choice has gone.

Whether you think the S3 is worth the money is a debate that will go on and on and on.......ZZzzzz

What you cant deny is that the 3.2 is amazing bang for buck. End of.

Cheers
Paul
 
Last edited:
Jamiekip said:
Not sure I agree (for a change lol)
Audi have taken weight out of the nose of the S3 to try and make it handle far better. Sticking the 3.6 or even the 3.0 supercharged would have made it a drag car, great in a straight line, but terrible in the twisties.
I think they got it right with the S3, on track it's a pretty exploitable car:

http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=zCf0B-a2vb8

http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=3vCNsmamUmc

http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=tmjsp0E_624

My car was stage 1 GIAC with a panel filter, a sports cat and non res centre with the OEM back box.
It never missed a beat. If it had a heavier engine in the car I just think it wouldn't handle anywhere near as well, and for me the best thing about the S3 is it's honest cross country pace - it may not offer a lot of communication and it may not sounds as nice as something with more cylinders, but it really can torment cars in the leagues above ;)

I think the problem with these n/a cars for me is they way they are designed to appeal to the biggest audience, resulting in an engine with little character outside of the noise it makes... too linear a power delivery for me, the turbo just makes it more fun :D
Click to expand...

I do agree but I think you are looking for a degree of poise and balance that most hot hatch drivers wouldn't understand Jamie. In a world of slammed suspension, wheel spacers, oversize wheels and under size tyres, splitters and spoilers that probably dont work and where the looks of a car are far more important than the ultimate drivability ...A few extra kg's up the front is of no consequence on the public road. Its certainly something that has never been a factor in my enjoyment of the car. now if i was doing track days then it would be whole different story but then i wouldnt be swoping S-Line grills for S3 grills or sticking plastic side skirts on it !! I would be junking all that weight as well and trying to get the thing remotely aerodynamic which lets face it...it aint :)
 
The 'S' series in Audi's line is not done by a separate division, it just signifies a sportier version of the current car. The option of throwing on a turbo on the 3.2 is unlikely given that it would have been too niche an engine with no other application besides the R32 (which already is a 'R' car).

What they could have done is tune the 3.2 a bit more and make that into a S3, or throw in the 3.6. It might be slightly nose heavier, but heck, it is a S model, not a all out RS, whom as a separate division, gets free reign on doing whatever they want. They also should probably discontinue the 3.2, like what they are doing with the A4 series here in the colonies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
S3 or 3.2 quattro
Replies
14
Views
5K
Raiden
Raiden
M
3.2 Quattro Or an S3?
Replies
8
Views
974
willowsdad
willowsdad
discostu49
brake discs for s3 or 3.2
Replies
36
Views
8K
DANRS3
DANRS3
I
chipped s3 or a3 3.2 s line dsg ?
Replies
1
Views
939
JeffY
J
Spook
A3 3.2 Q S-Line DSG or New S3?
Replies
5
Views
1K
dbm
dbm
Top
Back