1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

3.2 help required

matt116 Feb 24, 2006

  1. matt116

    matt116 Member

    41
    0
    6
    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. Eeef

    Eeef Lord of War

    1,607
    0
    36
    I think most people don't exceed 25mpg as a rule.
     
  3. onianbag

    onianbag Member

    108
    0
    16
    25 sounds like a good average - for over a year it's hovered around that mark for me
     
  4. matt116

    matt116 Member

    41
    0
    6
    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.
     
  5. RobB

    RobB Member

    317
    0
    16
    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!
     
  6. Eeef

    Eeef Lord of War

    1,607
    0
    36
    2 different beasts to be honest.

    The 3.2 has 2 very good points. The sound /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif 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.
     
  7. dbm

    dbm Active Member

    621
    168
    43
    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
     
  8. onianbag

    onianbag Member

    108
    0
    16
    the other bonus for the 3.2 is you can have dsg AND quattro (if dsg is your thing that is)
     
  9. matt116

    matt116 Member

    41
    0
    6
    thanks for the replies
     
  10. slimbloke

    slimbloke Member

    298
    0
    16
    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
     
  11. simonl

    simonl Member

    273
    1
    18
    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.
     
  12. Amchlolor

    Amchlolor Active Member

    5,604
    4
    36
    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 ?
     
  13. Skittler

    Skittler Redlined

    136
    1
    18
    >> 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 /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
     
  14. god_thats_quick

    god_thats_quick Numptie of the highest order

    2,507
    1
    36
    [ 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 /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

    [/ QUOTE ]

    How about the noise, I take it the 3.2 sounds better than a dyson on full suck? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
     
  15. matt116

    matt116 Member

    41
    0
    6
    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
     
  16. Amchlolor

    Amchlolor Active Member

    5,604
    4
    36
    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 ?
     
  17. simonl

    simonl Member

    273
    1
    18
    I'm with bowfer, 3.2 does sound amazing, but it soon wears off (unlike the mpg)
     
  18. jdp1962

    jdp1962 Grumpy Old Moderator Staff Member Moderator Team V6 TFSI Owners Group Gold Supporter Team Tornado Audi S4 quattro Black Edition s tronic

    8,116
    2,571
    113
    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.
     
  19. powerplay

    powerplay Grrrr

    182
    0
    16
    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! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
     
  20. johnmv55

    johnmv55 Member

    247
    0
    16
    [ 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! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

    [/ 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............
     
  21. onianbag

    onianbag Member

    108
    0
    16
    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.
     
  22. powerplay

    powerplay Grrrr

    182
    0
    16
    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 /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
     
  23. TDI-line

    TDI-line Uber Post Whore Team Floret Silver quattro Audi A3 Black Edition TDi

    9,503
    1,133
    113
    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.
     
  24. d3fy

    d3fy Active Member

    1,412
    1
    36
    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
     
  25. Banwell

    Banwell previously LeeS3

    393
    0
    16
    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.
     
  26. spratty

    spratty New Member

    28
    0
    1
    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.
     
  27. bacardi

    bacardi Active Member

    1,139
    0
    36
    [ 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!)
     
  28. spratty

    spratty New Member

    28
    0
    1
    [ 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 /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
     
  29. RobB

    RobB Member

    317
    0
    16
    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!
     
  30. steeve

    steeve Well-Known Member TeamMisano Team Ibis Audi S3

    2,703
    1,519
    113
    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.
     
  31. imported_S_Line

    imported_S_Line Guest

    0
    0
    0
    [ 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 /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
     
  32. spratty

    spratty New Member

    28
    0
    1
    [ 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 /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

    [/ 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.
     

Share This Page