A3 2.0TFSI or A3 3.2

R

Rashio

Registered User
Joined
Jan 9, 2005
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
Points
1
hi,
i am looking to get the new audi A3 but i am abit unsure about which model to get?
i know the A3 3.2 is faster 0-60 and probably has more torque
but i am not quite sure which 1 to go for?
i mean is there any really advantage to getting the 3.2 over the 2.0T or even the other way around?
which has the greater tuning capabilities?
also what are the differences(internal & external) between the 2 cars? apart from the engine /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
what have most peolple here gone for? if u were looking between the 2? and why did u get that model over the other?

thanks /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
 
I thought about it and went for the 3.2, I suppose the fuel consumption on the 2.0T will be better, but I was enticed by the Dark Side! (250 BHP)
I think the interior is the same on both, you pays your money and makes your choice. I would guess that the Turbo will always be easier to tune though but be careful about warranty. Have a test drive in each and let us know what you find! Save a bit of money on the 2.oT too.
 
Greetings

Although it has yet to arrive I opted for the 2.0 TFSI.

Still early days for the new engine but the first tuners are showing re-map numbers of 250 BHP and an impressive 360 NM. Further down the line you can rest assured that new & larger turbo options will be available (since the engine is identical to the new Golf GTI).

This being my company car it meant I could add quite a bit of extras compared to a 'standard' 3.2 and showing off superior performance with a £800 chip investment.

One advice - if you aim to boost performance I would choose a non DSG solution since it appears that increased torque may cause problems with the gearbox.

Good luck with whatever option you go with /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Kenneth
 
Problem is, the TFSI is only available as a front wheel drive DSG or as a Quattro manual. You can't have quattro DSG with the TFSI, which you can with the 3.2. So deciding which gearbox / drivetrain you want is a priority.

If you can live with traction problems and you want the lightest, most "playful" possible configuration, the go for a TFSI DSG (FrontWD).

If you want a torquier, more noble, engine and more sure-footedness, then go for a 3.2 in either DSG or manual.

I tried the TFSI DSG:
- nice engine, very linear
- amazing gearbox but it's still an "automatic",
- not as "magical" as the 3.2 and traction out of slow corners is lackluster at best.
And so I ordered a 3.2 Q manual.

Voilà...
 
thanks for your replys
i have a test drive of a 3.2 on thursday so i will let u know how it goes but i just got thinking about the 2.0T when i left the dealers garage and started wondering which would be best.
i had a feeling that DSG would be a problem when tuning so which ever model i get i aint getting 1 with DSG.

so if i get a 2.0T and got it remapped would it have the some pull ans speed as a 3.2?

and getting the 3.2 remapped, does it make a big difference like with the 2.0T?

thank you
 
Armand,
what has been said above is right and I'll add my 2p worth:

2.0 TFSI will always be only £500 away (with a chip) from the perf of the 3.2 BUT by then you would have a "modified" car with everything it implies, to name a few warranty issue and insurance. However that also mean that if you're "bored" with it after awhile £500 will give new life into your car and I really mean new life as I've tried std and chipped S3's and they are very different.

Regarding perf of the 3.2 against a chipped TFSI, I really dont kknow but I think it would be the same with a 3.2 against a Chipped S3.
I am sure some people will argue it but the 3.2 is about the same as a chipped S3 with 265bhp. people who've been and driven my car (completely std) can tell you it is the case.
the reason being that one is NA with a lot of displacement and the other is FI making two different bhp and torque curves (for the sake of argument the S3 handles better)

a chip on the 3.2 (£500 also) will "only" give you about 10 to 15 bhp and Nm

other things very important:
- if you really want to modify the car to get very big power outputs then the 3.2 will always be more tunable/powerful but then you're talking a lot of dosh!! I am talking 400+bhp
- they are 2 very different engine technically hence you drive them differently. NA or FI is a question only you will be able to answer
- the sound of the 3.2 is very very pleasant to hear below 5000rpm. you'll never tire of it

only my opinion of course!
 
[ QUOTE ]
so if i get a 2.0T and got it remapped would it have the some pull ans speed as a 3.2?

[/ QUOTE ]

Far from being an expert on the issue but looking at a comparison between a standard and chipped TFSI it looks to me like the increased power will surface in the higher revs with the low end being near identical. In other words you should experience a very nice shove when you floor it.

kf20turbo-200ps-280nm.gif


Unfortunately I cant find a similar graph for the 3.2 in standard version - would be interesting to compare.

The chipped TFSI produce 360 NM (280 NM standard).

Ken
 
here you go for the 3.2 with and without a chip:
 
It would be the same I think
mpg on the 3.2 is bad though!
 
Problem is that if u use the extra power of the tuned 2.0T then, fuel economy will drop, possibly below the 3.2, power costs either way. The other issue is the throttle response, a turbo won't react with the same immediacy as a 3.2, whilst it takes a while to spin up to speed. From experience turbo's feel quicker as you go from nothing to big shove in the back once the boost comes in. A 3.2 would respond quicker, but you would get a smoother acceleration. Running costs would be similar.
 
Dont forget the brakes. If you are going to chip it to 250bhp you should have some more stopping power. The 3.2 already has superb brakes.
 
woow! with all those info you now just have to test drive both and let us know
so what's your initial feeling?

remember my 3.2 is for up for sale....... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/angel.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
 
Yeah, I just ordered a 3.2 and it cost me an arm and both legs... But I will end up with a 6 cylinder: smoothness and power, with instant throttle response.

If I were to do it over I would look into a slightly used 3.2: you get to drive the nuts off it immediately (instead of waiting until it's broken in) and if you're lucky you pick one up lowered, with a body kit and wheels!

All of these TFSI vs 3.2 threads always end the same way: the enthusiast goes with the 3.2 and is very happy, or the economy-minded goes with the TDI and is happy. Leave the TFSI for the VW Gti /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
 
Interesting... If I'm reading this correctly the chipped 2.0 TFSI will produce more torque than that of a chipped 3.2. That I hadn't expected.

Ken
 
well it depends a lot on the tuner..... and its honesty
the graphs for the 3.2 look like somehting measured not the one for the TFSI (a bit too clean - that should tell you something)
I have had mine on a dyno but dont have it on a file.
I will try and reconstruct it when I can and then will post it
Steph
 
[ QUOTE ]
kkline said:
Dont forget the brakes. If you are going to chip it to 250bhp you should have some more stopping power. The 3.2 already has superb brakes.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is something that's always bothered me. Why do you need bigger brakes? The only reason you would need bigger brakes is if the weight of the car increases, or you intend to use the top end of the new power range i.e. the extra 5~10 mph over and above what i guess is already 140mph ish. The car was designed to stop from 140mph downwards so why the new brakes? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif
 
done it!
to see the torque curve (and calculated hp) click on the attachment
 
[ QUOTE ]
Eeef said:
[ QUOTE ]
kkline said:
Dont forget the brakes. If you are going to chip it to 250bhp you should have some more stopping power. The 3.2 already has superb brakes.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is something that's always bothered me. Why do you need bigger brakes? The only reason you would need bigger brakes is if the weight of the car increases, or you intend to use the top end of the new power range i.e. the extra 5~10 mph over and above what i guess is already 140mph ish. The car was designed to stop from 140mph downwards so why the new brakes? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily true; brakes can make a huge difference in shrugging the speed off quickly. A nissan Micra will go 100mph; but it wont stop as quickly as a big braked car.
Large capable brakes inspire more confidence and get less hot, have a larger surface area of brake to disk etc so are always worth the money; you ask any of the modified S3 brigade!..
 
[ QUOTE ]
The911SC said:
[ QUOTE ]
Eeef said:
[ QUOTE ]
kkline said:
Dont forget the brakes. If you are going to chip it to 250bhp you should have some more stopping power. The 3.2 already has superb brakes.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is something that's always bothered me. Why do you need bigger brakes? The only reason you would need bigger brakes is if the weight of the car increases, or you intend to use the top end of the new power range i.e. the extra 5~10 mph over and above what i guess is already 140mph ish. The car was designed to stop from 140mph downwards so why the new brakes? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily true; brakes can make a huge difference in shrugging the speed off quickly. A nissan Micra will go 100mph; but it wont stop as quickly as a big braked car.
Large capable brakes inspire more confidence and get less hot, have a larger surface area of brake to disk etc so are always worth the money; you ask any of the modified S3 brigade!..

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, but it's not a neccesity and your stopping performance won't be any worse or less safe then prior to the remapp.
 
My take as I'm looking at both.

Engines - if you like to tinker the TFSI is the choice of the enthusiast. Within a year or so you are bound to see 260bhp and 260lbft - S3 chipping started at 240 and development took it soon upto 265. Lots of tuners have still to release their version. You also have a much wider power band/flat torque curve to play with.

Performance - the TFSI will be a quicker car. It starts 65kg lighter than the 3.2. I also think the 3.2 will suffer in the mid range. My old R32 was a pain power wise when overtaking - for day to day driving my old chiped S3 was better.

Handling - the car will also be nimbler than the 3.2

You cant have DSG and Quattro - Thats OK as the DSG doesnt seem to like too big an increase in Torque.

Resale - my dealer keeps trying to push the 3.2 down my throat with amazing discounts. He admits the 3.2 is becoming a struggle to shift and is the runt of the litter. Nowhere near as keen to deal on the TFSI. You need a big upfront discount on the 3.2 if you go that route.

My summary - for the person that prefers the civilised drive with a nice engine note, go for the 3.2 - after discount. The enthusiast should take the TFSI and after chip enjoy a quicker more responsive car.

Jonathan
 
thanks for your help
all i need to do now is get a test drive of bother cars and see what i think, which is on thrusday so i will see what i like then /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

well actually u are right the dealer keeps on pushing the 3.2 at me and not the 2.0T, he says he can give me the 3.2 for £21000 with is about £4000 saving but i guess i just will have to see what both are like, but to be honest i think i am now leaning more towards the 2.0T

thanks
 
[ QUOTE ]
Chins said:
Engines - if you like to tinker the TFSI is the choice of the enthusiast.

[/ QUOTE ]
disagree both with you and JaminBen.
not one engine is more for an enthusiast than the other. both engine are good imho

[ QUOTE ]
Chins said:
Within a year or so you are bound to see 260bhp and 260lbft - S3 chipping started at 240 and development took it soon upto 265. Lots of tuners have still to release their version.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yep but then again you would have to convince yourself of the reality of the figures claimed... I am sure, i can find a tuner to show better figure on the 3.2 with a single remap... That would not mean them to be the reallity

[ QUOTE ]
Chins said:
You also have a much wider power band/flat torque curve to play with.

[/ QUOTE ]
disagree again. a NA V6 will have a much flater torque curve than any 4cyl turbo where you have to "wait" for turbo to speen

[ QUOTE ]
Chins said:
Performance - the TFSI will be a quicker car. It starts 65kg lighter than the 3.2. I also think the 3.2 will suffer in the mid range. My old R32 was a pain power wise when overtaking - for day to day driving my old chiped S3 was better.


[/ QUOTE ]
the V6 is about the same as a chipped S3 with 265bhp. the S3 feels quicker but isn't. This also confirms that a NA engine is more responsive

[ QUOTE ]
Chins said:
Handling - the car will also be nimbler than the 3.2


[/ QUOTE ]
I agree that the suspension setup of the 3.2 is not great but I dont think the TFSI will be much better, but sure the weight of the 3.2 does not help.
a non quattro chipped TFSI would struggle in corners against a 3.2 though unless it has a proper traction control

[ QUOTE ]
Chins said:
You cant have DSG and Quattro - Thats OK as the DSG doesnt seem to like too big an increase in Torque.


[/ QUOTE ]
DSG is said to be best of both worlds though...

[ QUOTE ]
Chins said:
Resale - my dealer keeps trying to push the 3.2 down my throat with amazing discounts. He admits the 3.2 is becoming a struggle to shift and is the runt of the litter. Nowhere near as keen to deal on the TFSI. You need a big upfront discount on the 3.2 if you go that route.

[/ QUOTE ]
There I could agree, but only time will tell

[ QUOTE ]
Chins said:
My summary - for the person that prefers the civilised drive with a nice engine note, go for the 3.2 - after discount. The enthusiast should take the TFSI and after chip enjoy a quicker more responsive car.

[/ QUOTE ]
well no! but hey each to their own /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/beerchug.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
StephV6 said:

[ QUOTE ]
Chins said:
Within a year or so you are bound to see 260bhp and 260lbft - S3 chipping started at 240 and development took it soon upto 265. Lots of tuners have still to release their version.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yep but then again you would have to convince yourself of the reality of the figures claimed... I am sure, i can find a tuner to show better figure on the 3.2 with a single remap... That would not mean them to be the reallity

[ QUOTE ]
Chins said:
You also have a much wider power band/flat torque curve to play with.

[/ QUOTE ]
disagree again. a NA V6 will have a much flater torque curve than any 4cyl turbo where you have to "wait" for turbo to speen





My major concern is over the power curves you actually show for the 3.2. Take a look at Sportec's for example and they show nothing like the gains or anything like that flat a torque curve. If you get an extra 10lbft over a lot of the range and a 15lbft for a narrow part your doing well IMHO. Why is it that tuners such as AMD will quote Power and Torque increases on Turbo cars, but on a N/A only power. Two of the biggest tuners Oettinger and Abt dont even offer remaps for the 3.2 MTM offers no increase either. Why is that, if its such a tunable engine, then there is money to be made and they would jump in feet first. The curve on this page show a 10% increase in power - 25bhp, again AMD and Sportec are around 15bhp.

The size of the turbo on the A3 is not very laggy. Look as well at manufacturers figures and how broad and flat it is.

Jonathan
 
[ QUOTE ]
Chins said:

Resale - my dealer keeps trying to push the 3.2 down my throat with amazing discounts. He admits the 3.2 is becoming a struggle to shift and is the runt of the litter. Nowhere near as keen to deal on the TFSI. You need a big upfront discount on the 3.2 if you go that route.

Jonathan

[/ QUOTE ]

Can I ask what you call a big discount, are you saying that audi are subsidising dealer margins on the 3.2?
 
Seems Audi sent out a few extra 3.2's. Some are 04 spec, but without haggling the sticker on the window says £3k off, so expect about 3.5-4k, might be pre reg though.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Chins said:
Seems Audi sent out a few extra 3.2's. Some are 04 spec, but without haggling the sticker on the window says £3k off, so expect about 3.5-4k, might be pre reg though.

[/ QUOTE ]

to be an 04 spec they will have had to have been sitting around for 6 months plus by now. Only seen that price on ex demo cars. Which dealer has the deal?
 
Aylesbury for sure - speak to Guy, but looking on Audi's web site there seemed to be a few of the same spec the other week. Also look at the number of 3.2's Sytners have to shift.

Jonathan
 
I drove the 3.2 before i settled for a 2.0 fsi, mainly because the 3.2 was showing an average of 16mpg after a fairly (some hard miles, some easy)drive of about 30 miles, I was certain I could feel the extra weight of the 3.2 on the fornt of the car as well, now, If I decide on another Audi A3, I reckon I would go the way of the 2.0fsi turbo, you would go some way to getting the best of both worlds I think, and a chipped 2.0tfsi would probably end up with as much midrange as the 3.2
 
Maybe send an email to the variuos tuners asking if they can give you an idea as to when software would be available for the 2.0t. If you are planning on chipping the car it may help to find out when it will be available. I seem to remember reading somewhere that the 2.0FSI engines use multiple 'ecu's' which are making it quite a challenge to tune.

The 1.8 has been around for years and the tuners are just now getting all the bugs worked out of the software. As with other tuned cars you will likely have to upgrade the clutch as well to handle the added HP. Not as easy as a simple software upgrade.

For me I will have a 3.2 in my garage as soon as they are available in Canada.

All of our problems would be solved if Audi would just build a S3 Sportback.....:)
 
Correction to my previous post, The 2.0TFSI produces 207 lb/ft of torque, the 3.2 produces 236lb/ft, a properly tuned 2.0TFSI would make a great deal more midrange torque than the 3.2. I think you would be looking at an increase of about 50lb/ft taking it above the 3.2 to 257ish lb/ft
 
just wondering but the old model of the A3 in the 3.2, did anyone manage to add a supercharger or a turbo to the engine?
and if so what were the output figures?
and would it be possible to add it to the new model?
what was reliability like?

because i was speaking to some people with civic type-R's and they have supercharged their cars and said engine reliability was fine, so just wondering if anyone has tried anything like this before?

not that i am thinking about doing it to the new A3, right now, maybe later on in the future /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif
 
Based on Oettinger's website, 2.0T tuned can produce 230 PS @ 5000-6000 rpm, 249 lb-ft @ 2000-4000 rpm. While 3.2 produce 250 PS @ 6300 rpm, 236 lb-ft @ 2500-3000.

Weight of A3 3.2 will be 65 heavier which I think its not much. I think there are so many factors to concern really apart from the figures. You have to test drive it and compare. IMO, I usually drive in the city so I think 2.0T will suit me better.

In the long drive, I like the smoothness of V6 and low rev when you are crusing.

It is depends on what you want from the car .....

 
I can see both sides of this and I have an A4 1.8T(190ps) and the 3.2Q V6 so I drive both (sort of) regularly. Its true the Tfsi is not the same as the old 1.8T but very similar when in homogenous mode. The 3.2 is much more torquey and gives huge punch in off the line acceleration and mid range grunt that only extra capacity gives you. The turbo once spinning is very responsive but can bog down and catch you out if you need to put your foot down in a different gear.
Smoothness; its the V6; no comparison. the Turbo engines are quite noisy and dont sound great when worked (but then, thats just feel).
Fuel consumption; Its the turbo every time. On a run mine gives 34 ish; the V6 26..
Tuning; the Turbo will be far more tweakable (but not necessarily more powerful overall) than the V6.

I drove an S3 back to back with the v6 when I bought and I wanted the extra refinement the new model gives plus that great howl from the motor. It seemed quicker too but then again, it was a std 225 S3 I tried and I still Love the S3 big time...

At the end of the day its a choice thing. Extra 10 hp can make little or no difference on the road but I can see the appeal of both options.

(Personally, if you can get 4K off a V6, then I would get that!!).
 
[ QUOTE ]
Chins said:


My major concern is over the power curves you actually show for the 3.2. Take a look at Sportec's for example and they show nothing like the gains or anything like that flat a torque curve.

[/ QUOTE ]
I've shown two graphs one from a german tuner with TUV approval (can't do fairer than that) and one which is from my car at AMD's Rolling Road. Now you can dispute the numbers of my car (and I would agree as like every tuner it shows nice numbers) but not the shape of the curve

[ QUOTE ]
Chins said:
If you get an extra 10lbft over a lot of the range and a 15lbft for a narrow part your doing well IMHO. Why is it that tuners such as AMD will quote Power and Torque increases on Turbo cars, but on a N/A only power. Two of the biggest tuners Oettinger and Abt dont even offer remaps for the 3.2 MTM offers no increase either. Why is that, if its such a tunable engine, then there is money to be made and they would jump in feet first. The curve on this page show a 10% increase in power - 25bhp, again AMD and Sportec are around 15bhp.

[/ QUOTE ]
I never said it was any easy to tune such engine. You're right that a NA will be harder to tune than the turbo, however what i said is with a remap on each car at best for both you'll get about the same number 265bhp.
then I would rather have (that is personal) a 65 kg heavier NA V6 at 265bhp rather than a turbo 4cyl at 265bhp.

[ QUOTE ]
Chins said:
The size of the turbo on the A3 is not very laggy. Look as well at manufacturers figures and how broad and flat it is.

Jonathan

[/ QUOTE ]
I believe you that it's not very laggy. thing is with the NA there is no lag at all
but hey like I said each to their own /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif, some people love the shove of the turbo others the throttle response of the NA.
I had a 2.0 Turbo before with 200bhp (not audi) and it was quick and sometimes I miss that turbo kick-in-the-butt feeling, but the 3.2 is, for me, more rewarding
I attach the graph of the same german tuner with TUV approval on their chip for the TFSI. as you say the torque curve is quite flat but high in revs it loses a bit to the NA hence the power being higher. if the turbo could keep on going after say 6000rpm then it would be another story
 
I fell for the 3.2 after the test drive, its a lovely sounding beast. The beautiful growl is addictive and instantly feels more special than a 4 cy engine. It has power al the way through the rev range, can cruise smoothly and silently without effort or squirt the highly responsive throttle and it shifts, a lot of fun! It will even crawl in traffic in 3rd gear without touching the accelerator. A strong torquey engine. The only downer is the fuel consumption. But i still love it!

Go for the 3.2 /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif , but suppose i am biast!
 
just wondering are there an companies which are starting to upgrade the turbos on the 2.0T yet?
it is just that like the 1.8T, people are looking at 300-350bhp, so would it not be better getting a 2.0T over the 3.2 cause you maybe able to upgrade the turbo later on and see a better performance but then again i guess you could add a supercharger to the 3.2 later on, well actually i guess a 2.0 upgraded turbo will be better on the insurance then a 3.2 supercharger,
i am just rambling on now sorry
 
dont know about changing the turbo yet. I think you would have to wait a long time before that comes into play
and if you compare with S3's yes the figures you said should be about ok but that would involve a lot of mods and dosh
at that stage insurance should be the least of your problems, me thinks

regarding the 3.2 you have 2 choices:
- supercharger. nice and easy but wont give you much more than 340bhp. however, for the same power, a supercharge 3.2 V6 should hold it together better than a full blown turbo of 2.0l, i mean reliability wise. I have a friend in the states who has a supercharger on his X5 4.6l and everything works just fine
- single or twin turbos. there you get massive power gains. check HPA (in states) and HGP (in Germany), they got the Golf R32 (same engine as the A3) to 560bhp. EIP (in the states) got the R32 to 600bhp!
but at that kind of power you're talking about a very special car and an awfull amount of money!

tbh when I got mine I thought about twin turbos. but then I think that a supercharger would be better. you'll still get good reliability and very good perf without the probs of a turbo also known as heat rejection and lag.

a few links:
VF engineering for the superchargers
http://www.vf-engineering.com/index.htm
check what they say about dif between turbo and supercharger. obviously they're biaised but still good info.
they also have the A3 but from what i understand they dont have much room under the bonnet in comarison to the R32

eip:
http://www.eiptuning.com/eip/r32_turbo_systems_01.html

hgp: for the R32 and the single turbo A3 3.2
http://www.hgp-turbo.de/index.html

hpa (states' version of HGP): for the R32
http://www.hpamotorsport.com/r32.htm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
A3 Sportback - 2.0TFSi or 3.2 V6
Replies
52
Views
13K
Sarah's A3
Sarah's A3
scott_johnson
A3 3.2 or Jag XJR??
Replies
11
Views
2K
discostu49
discostu49
P
A3 3.2 or E46 330Ci Sport?
Replies
0
Views
977
paul_b
P
I
a3 3.2 dsg or an s4 ?
Replies
27
Views
3K
n3cr0
n3cr0
Justo-S3
A3 2.0 TDI or 3.2 quatro s line
Replies
11
Views
934
screechmr2
screechmr2
Top
Back