which engine?
- Thread starter goon
- Start date
audicruiser
Audi Heaven
It's the narrow angle V6 engine used in all R32's and TT 3.2's. It's not the same engine as used in the A4 etc...
This is what Audi reckon for a 2008 model. 247PS is equivalent to about 250bhp. Seems odd that a heavier A5 3.0 Diesel is quicker!!
Performance: Top Speed (MPH): 155 0-60 (secs): 6.4 Torque (Nm): 320 @ 3000 RPM Torque Imp (lb/ft): 236.03 @ 3000 RPM Cubic Capacity (cc): 3189 Horse Power (PS): 247 Environment: CO2 Emissions (g/km): 228++ Noise Level (dB): 72
Performance: Top Speed (MPH): 155 0-60 (secs): 6.4 Torque (Nm): 320 @ 3000 RPM Torque Imp (lb/ft): 236.03 @ 3000 RPM Cubic Capacity (cc): 3189 Horse Power (PS): 247 Environment: CO2 Emissions (g/km): 228++ Noise Level (dB): 72
audicruiser
Audi Heaven
Not really seeing at the engines probably weigh near enough the same plus the torque of the diesel is near 500nm over the 320nm of the petrol... Gearing is different too.
S3
Performance: Top Speed (MPH): 155 0-60 (secs): 5.7 Torque (Nm): 350 @ 2500 RPM Torque Imp (lb/ft): 258.16 @ 2500 RPM Cubic Capacity (cc): 1984 Horse Power (PS): 261 Environment: CO2 Emissions (g/km): 199++
Hi Paddy...
The Audi figures pasted above speak for themselves. The 2.0TFsi Quattro and Tdi 170 is not far behind at 7 secs to 0-62
Last edited:
i recall the 2.0T quattro's time as being 6.9 sec. half a second is a long time lol. and the TDI quattro is about a second slower again
I doubt a 3.2 would have much trouble showing the upper hand to a standard 2.0TQ, although when re-mapped it would be less clear.
On a matter of accuracy, 247bhp is 250PS - not the other way around!
On a matter of accuracy, 247bhp is 250PS - not the other way around!
Wouldnt say its "total" rubbish, my brothers R32 only just has the legs on my 140tdi!
akash_sky1
Registered User
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2009
- Messages
- 308
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 18
You are correct on the BHP I got it the wrong way around... 228bhp is 230ps.
The issues around performance are fascinating and whilst the figures suggest a 3.2 may be quicker than a 2.0TFsi Q having tried the 2 side by side the 2.0T Q just seems to have the edge in real life with a stopwatch and is much like an S3 to drive in many ways. The 3.2 is way more relaxed and at times seems lethargic.
Interesting comment from Lee about his 140 (or is it 138?) Tdi. The Tdi motors seem to vary a lot in performance and once loosened up really do improve. The 170TdiQ has official figures of 0-60 in 7.9 seconds but I have read somewhere that many actually produce 180-190 (PS or BHP) in standard form and with the lovely torquey engine and Quattro can give the S3 and 3.2V6 a good run for their money.
Now ask yourself why Porsche, Ferrari, BMW, Jag, Aston martin and anything remotely quick don't use a little turbo engine ?? Merc RR, Maerati Lambo Veyron and a 1000 others ??
There is no substitute for cc's and cylinders in the real world. Its not about getting to the next lamp post 1/'3 second quicker than the next guy !! Its about drive-ability, flexibility smoothness and a dozen other factors..
Quote... not sure why the A3 3.2 is so slow in standard form ?.....well i will happily frighten the **** out of you any day in a 3.2...lol And you will not have to sit about waiting reading a book while you wait for the turbo lag to pass so we can get going. we could go down the surrey lanes at 150mph in sport/auto and you could explain to me why you think its slow
Suppose you want a quick bike ? do you see 250cc turbo's about ? or 1200cc Diesels ?? No you see 4cyl 1000cc naturally aspirated super bikes.
I'm surprised Audi went down the 2ltr turbo route, its the cheap option taken by ford/Renault/Mazda etc but its not in line with the rest of the range or other quality manufacturers.
There is no substitute for cc's and cylinders in the real world. Its not about getting to the next lamp post 1/'3 second quicker than the next guy !! Its about drive-ability, flexibility smoothness and a dozen other factors..
Quote... not sure why the A3 3.2 is so slow in standard form ?.....well i will happily frighten the **** out of you any day in a 3.2...lol And you will not have to sit about waiting reading a book while you wait for the turbo lag to pass so we can get going. we could go down the surrey lanes at 150mph in sport/auto and you could explain to me why you think its slow
Suppose you want a quick bike ? do you see 250cc turbo's about ? or 1200cc Diesels ?? No you see 4cyl 1000cc naturally aspirated super bikes.
I'm surprised Audi went down the 2ltr turbo route, its the cheap option taken by ford/Renault/Mazda etc but its not in line with the rest of the range or other quality manufacturers.
Last edited:
Now ask yourself why Porsche, Ferrari, BMW, Jag, Aston martin and anything remotely quick don't use a little turbo engine ?? Merc RR, Maerati Lambo Veyron and a 1000 others ??
There is no substitute for cc's and cylinders in the real world. Its not about getting to the next lamp post 1/'3 second quicker than the next guy !! Its about drive-ability, flexibility smoothness and a dozen other factors..
Quote... not sure why the A3 3.2 is so slow in standard form ?.....well i will happily frighten the **** out of you any day in a 3.2...lol And you will not have to sit about waiting reading a book while you wait for the turbo lag to pass so we can get going. we could go down the surrey lanes at 150mph in sport/auto and you could explain to me why you think its slow
Suppose you want a quick bike ? do you see 250cc turbo's about ? or 1200cc Diesels ?? No you see 4cyl 1000cc naturally aspirated super bikes.
I'm surprised Audi went down the 2ltr turbo route, its the cheap option taken by ford/Renault/Mazda etc but its not in line with the rest of the range or other quality manufacturers.
i like the 3.2 but i'm not buying the "no replacement for displacement" thing.
the reason RR and Merc and Jag use large N/A engines (tho i'd like to point out that most performance derivatives are either turbocharged or supercharged as well) is because if you've dropped 80 large on a car the fuel costs are of minimal consequence. the same can't be said of the owner of a small hatchback particularly in this country where petrol is more valuable than blood.
OK, just looked up the 0-100 figures which are a better indication.
170 TDi=23.1s-
2.0ltr TFSI = 19.6s
3.2 = 14.7s
So the 20ltr is not going to leave a 3.2 standing !! and as for the 170...well..
170 TDi=23.1s-
2.0ltr TFSI = 19.6s
3.2 = 14.7s
So the 20ltr is not going to leave a 3.2 standing !! and as for the 170...well..
Last edited:
since when lol
and it's other things like tax (particularly company car tax) that make a world of difference. the 3.2 was in tax band G i believe. nobody would have bought one if they had to pay £1k showroom tax in the first year and £450 every year after that, plus a huge company car tax
and it's other things like tax (particularly company car tax) that make a world of difference. the 3.2 was in tax band G i believe. nobody would have bought one if they had to pay £1k showroom tax in the first year and £450 every year after that, plus a huge company car tax
Last edited:
Since the last thread on here about MPG ! I get 28mpg running about and 32mpg on a run no problem.
Also i see the weight distribution on the 3.2 is better than the 2.0ltr and the 3.2 puts out 165bhp/ton and the 2.0ltr 139/ton.....the 170 just 114/ton :-(
Sorry but the idea that a 170 is going to eat a 3.2 is laughable especially as the 170 has an asthmatic attack at about 125mph and dies
Also i see the weight distribution on the 3.2 is better than the 2.0ltr and the 3.2 puts out 165bhp/ton and the 2.0ltr 139/ton.....the 170 just 114/ton :-(
Sorry but the idea that a 170 is going to eat a 3.2 is laughable especially as the 170 has an asthmatic attack at about 125mph and dies
Oh come on !! the op said the 3.2 was so slow and even a 20.ltr TFSI would leave it standing.............nothing to do with tax and in any case £450 a year tax is the same as an S3 + 3 fill ups...hardly worth worrying about....and mine is only £240 anyway. !
Last edited:
i'm not, and never was, suggesting what is faster. amongst A3s the 3.2 is obviously the fastest lol.
i like the 3.2 remember? the only thing that stopped me buying one was the timing chain issues.
i like the 3.2 remember? the only thing that stopped me buying one was the timing chain issues.
also i forgot they changed all the tax bands... for a hypothetical brand new 3.2 you'd pay £750 in the first year, and £425 every year after that. for an S3 you'd pay £425 in the first year and £225 after that. that's a fairly big difference.
PaulAr
S3 (8P)
Now ask yourself why Porsche, Ferrari, BMW, Jag, Aston martin and anything remotely quick don't use a little turbo engine ?? Merc RR, Maerati Lambo Veyron and a 1000 others ??
There is no substitute for cc's and cylinders in the real world. Its not about getting to the next lamp post 1/'3 second quicker than the next guy !! Its about drive-ability, flexibility smoothness and a dozen other factors..
Quote... not sure why the A3 3.2 is so slow in standard form ?.....well i will happily frighten the **** out of you any day in a 3.2...lol And you will not have to sit about waiting reading a book while you wait for the turbo lag to pass so we can get going. we could go down the surrey lanes at 150mph in sport/auto and you could explain to me why you think its slow
Suppose you want a quick bike ? do you see 250cc turbo's about ? or 1200cc Diesels ?? No you see 4cyl 1000cc naturally aspirated super bikes.
I'm surprised Audi went down the 2ltr turbo route, its the cheap option taken by ford/Renault/Mazda etc but its not in line with the rest of the range or other quality manufacturers.
What a load of *****....
well put it this way, you've said it's 3 tanks of fuel (more like 4.5). i'd rather the fuel and time on the road, or the extra money on modifications.
i wish Audi hadn't dropped the 3.2, but with the current flawed emissions testing system and tax ratings it was going to happen. it's the same for a lot of engines, and the reason that the next gen S-Class is going to be made available with a 4cyl 2.1 twin turbodiesel.
i don't really think saying that Audi is an inferior marque because they dropped the 3.2 is a valid argument is the point i was trying to make. yes the 3.2 is smoother and sounds nicer, and yes i feel the S3 wasn't as special as i thought it was going to be even tho i'd still buy one if i had the money, but you can see why they did it.
and just for your appeasement, it's faster than a diesel lol
i wish Audi hadn't dropped the 3.2, but with the current flawed emissions testing system and tax ratings it was going to happen. it's the same for a lot of engines, and the reason that the next gen S-Class is going to be made available with a 4cyl 2.1 twin turbodiesel.
i don't really think saying that Audi is an inferior marque because they dropped the 3.2 is a valid argument is the point i was trying to make. yes the 3.2 is smoother and sounds nicer, and yes i feel the S3 wasn't as special as i thought it was going to be even tho i'd still buy one if i had the money, but you can see why they did it.
and just for your appeasement, it's faster than a diesel lol
Last edited:
I dont see 2.0ltr turbo Caymans smoking about ?
that's because they're too fast for your 3.2
AuldReekie
Registered User
I see it's Groundhog day again. 
Just in case anyone is interested in some independant timings...
S3 v 3.2
3.2 v 2.0
slighty different from Paddy's findings,particularly the 0-100mph on the latter comparison.
Right just off to drop //M, AMG, etc... an email and let them know that they are wasting their time with <capacity and turbo engines before they waste anymore money; we have the answer here on ASN.
Just in case anyone is interested in some independant timings...
S3 v 3.2
3.2 v 2.0
slighty different from Paddy's findings,particularly the 0-100mph on the latter comparison.
Right just off to drop //M, AMG, etc... an email and let them know that they are wasting their time with <capacity and turbo engines before they waste anymore money; we have the answer here on ASN.
Interesting posts AuldReekie PArticularly the S3 -3.2 comparison.
Of course Lee and I aren't suggesting our Diseasels are as fast as the S3 (or old 3.2) but in 'real life' motoring they will give them a good run for their money.
That's before you factor in Car Tax and fuel costs.
PA
Of course Lee and I aren't suggesting our Diseasels are as fast as the S3 (or old 3.2) but in 'real life' motoring they will give them a good run for their money.
That's before you factor in Car Tax and fuel costs.
PA
Just having a bit of fun winding up the natives dont ya know !
Oh and by the way.....why not ring Porsche, Ferrari, BMW, Jag, Aston martin Merc RR, Maerati Lambo Veyron and tell them Paul knows better !! Looking forward to the 2.0ltr turbo Ferrari next year and rthe 1.6 turbo roller
winding up the natives dont ya know !Oh and by the way.....why not ring Porsche, Ferrari, BMW, Jag, Aston martin Merc RR, Maerati Lambo Veyron and tell them Paul knows better !! Looking forward to the 2.0ltr turbo Ferrari next year and rthe 1.6 turbo roller
Last edited:
PaulAr
S3 (8P)
I dont see 2.0ltr turbo Caymans smoking about ?
....they will be here before you know it my friend.
Porker dervs and hybrids are just around the corner. Unthinkable not so long ago.
We can wax lyrical about cubes, carbs and character all day long. Its all in the past.
VAG were one of the very few to drop big lumps in hatchbacks, Golf/Raddo VRs.
Now they have moved on.......maybe you should Paddy
The S3 is your friend, get one and I will lend you one of my caps and Techno CDs to help get you in character.
cheers
Paul
Ya know i will get one eventually i expect and then i will just be at your mercy for ever more
PaulAr
S3 (8P)
Just having a bit of fun
Oh and by the way.....why not ring Porsche, Ferrari, BMW, Jag, Aston martin Merc RR, Maerati Lambo Veyron and tell them Paul knows better !! Looking forward to the 2.0ltr turbo Ferrari next year and rthe 1.6 turbo roller
Posh Golf `v` Hypercar Exotica
You crazy goat
Last edited:
akash_sky1
Registered User
Now ask yourself why Porsche, Ferrari, BMW, Jag, Aston martin and anything remotely quick don't use a little turbo engine ?? Merc RR, Maerati Lambo Veyron and a 1000 others ??
There is no substitute for cc's and cylinders in the real world. Its not about getting to the next lamp post 1/'3 second quicker than the next guy !! Its about drive-ability, flexibility smoothness and a dozen other factors..
Quote... not sure why the A3 3.2 is so slow in standard form ?.....well i will happily frighten the **** out of you any day in a 3.2...lol And you will not have to sit about waiting reading a book while you wait for the turbo lag to pass so we can get going. we could go down the surrey lanes at 150mph in sport/auto and you could explain to me why you think its slow
Suppose you want a quick bike ? do you see 250cc turbo's about ? or 1200cc Diesels ?? No you see 4cyl 1000cc naturally aspirated super bikes.
I'm surprised Audi went down the 2ltr turbo route, its the cheap option taken by ford/Renault/Mazda etc but its not in line with the rest of the range or other quality manufacturers.
sorry but thats but thats a load of nonsense! Have you completely missed the current trend in forced induction and reduced capacity engines being followed by pretty much all manufacturers?
If you start at the top of the scale with Mclaren, they've gone with a smaller 3.8 twin turbo V8, whereas the old F1 had a 6.1 v12, which while a bit more powerful was less torquey and had a much narrower power band a long with much higher CO2 emissions.
Porsche do not really use any large capacity engines in their real performance cars either- 911 turbo,GT3 RS etc- there all forced induction or very revving naturally aspirated motor with high BHP/Litre while being relatively small in displacement.
As for your comment about 'not seeing 2.0L turbo caymans kicking about' then you obviously are totally obvlious to Porsche's stated plans of using smaller turbo engines in the Boxter/Cayman range which WILL included 2.0L Turbo direct injection 4 cyl engines? Think you should pay more attention to the motoring media...
Audi themselves have dropped the 4.2 V8 form the S4 in favour of the 3.0TFSI, which again is more efficient and offers BETTER REAL world performance with good top end but also very wide torque spread, which the more peaky 4.2 V8 it replaced did not have. This is contrary to your comment on driveability. A 4.0L twin turbo V8 is also in the pipeline for the next RS6 instead of the 5.2 v10 turbo.
Mercedes, another make you mentiond, have just dropped there 6.2 NA V8 in favour of a smaller 5.5L twin turbo, which again is much torquier, more powerful yet more economical.
The trend is INDUSTRY WIDE- smaller forced induction, replacing larger naturally aspirated engines, from supercars like the MP4-12c to hatchbacks like the Ibiza Cupra 1.4TSI. Even in in the USA Ford Motors are now using 2.0L and 3.5L turbos in place of NA 3.8V6s and larger V8s.
All makers are achieving both better REAL world performance with these smaller forced induction engines yet better economy, and I could name so many more examples of such new engines. I can't believe how oblivious you are to these changes because of your love of one engine, that is admittedly good but outdated, and for a reason.
PaulAr
S3 (8P)
Best post of the thread fella.
Paddy will be along in his S3 soon anyway, he cant avoid the enevitable.
