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

3.2 Q DSG or gti mk5

Discussion in 'A3/S3/Sportback (8P Chassis)' started by trekbiker, Jan 20, 2008.

  1. trekbiker
    Offline

    trekbiker Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2004
    Messages:
    421
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Jan 20, 2008]
    Looking for a new(used) car within the next week or two.

    I've had a 3.2 manual TT before/ and driven a mk5 gti (both non and modded). Got a budget of about £13k. has anyone on here owned both of the above and got any impartial advice please?

    Majority of my driving is motorway, although for the next 6 weeks i will be driving the M25 on a friday afternoon, so start/stopping will almost certainly be on the cards!

    Thanks!
    #1
  2. Ads

    Ads

    [Sep 21, 2014]

  3. SteveTDCi
    Offline

    SteveTDCi Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2005
    Messages:
    1,388
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Jan 20, 2008]
    For traffic the DSG, running cost's on the 3.2 are going to be more than the Golf. The A3 is a nicer car though, I've just swapped a Diesel golf for diesel A3 but with DSG. You would also find an A3 for 13k, The Gti, I think you will struggle, and what you will find would be a leggy import. Most GTi's start around 14k upwards.
    #2
  4. trekbiker
    Offline

    trekbiker Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2004
    Messages:
    421
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Jan 20, 2008]
    Steve. Prices are not a world apart TBH. I am viewing a 54 plate GTi fully loaded 50k later this week, and its up for slightly less than a 04 plate 3.2 DSG , both leather/nav etc. (however, it was also about 5k less new!)
    Running costs definitely less in the Veedub, and depreciation could also be an issue.
    #3
  5. SteveTDCi
    Offline

    SteveTDCi Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2005
    Messages:
    1,388
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Jan 21, 2008]
    I wouldn't worry about depreciation at that time of life they would have both shed most of there money. If you could afford the fuel costs I would go for the 3.2. Have you considered the 2.0 TDi ?
    #4
  6. RobinA3
    Offline

    RobinA3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    1,785
    Likes Received:
    25
    [Jan 21, 2008]
    If you find a Mk5 GTI for £13k then it will be a proper rough dog of a car!

    I'd go for diesel if you do high mileage as the 3.2 will bankrupt you unless you are uber loaded!
    #5
  7. trekbiker
    Offline

    trekbiker Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2004
    Messages:
    421
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Jan 21, 2008]

    robin- mileage not huge, no more than average per annum.
    There are quite a few Mk5 for about the 13k mark, you'd be surprised. I missed a 55 plate with 52k(a bit high) but it had leather and nav. sold to first person for 12.5k, i was 2nd in list to view it. 2 days later i missed a 56 plate with leather, 12k 1 owner which went for 15k, again to the first view, an hour before i was due to leave and go across the pennines to view it.

    Patience is a virtue- howeverm i really need to get into something by the weekend. i have 2 more viewings planned, so fingers crossed!
    #6
  8. unkle
    Offline

    unkle Beer God

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,243
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Jan 21, 2008]
    IMHO that sounds either a bit rough or a bit dodgy, sold my mk5 GTI with only 18" monzas, Parking Sensors and the winter pack for £17k just before xmas, very nice car though.

    Id personally go for a Leon FR TDI, sporty enough to have fun with but frugal enough for those motorway miles. The GTI isnt too bad MPG wise and has excellent handling, its quite thrashable but at the same time its ok round town too but then again theres Road Tax and Insurance to think about as well.

    Ive never owned a 3.2 but I cant imagine it either being cheaper on fuel or out handling either of the above, of course it will have a nicer interior and quattro...
    #7
  9. markwiggy
    Offline

    markwiggy Third Gear

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2006
    Messages:
    1,127
    Likes Received:
    92
    [Jan 21, 2008]
    Would go for the GTI if it was me, a much better drive, A3 3.2 is a nicer car but thirsty and nose heavy. Do not see you getting a nice GTi though for 13k. Have you considered a A3 20T Quattro, best of both worlds for me i bought one of these over the GTi in 05 basicly felt I was getting more for my money,just seen one on Auto trader for 13.5k.

    Mark
    #8
  10. Spin140
    Offline

    Spin140 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2005
    Messages:
    2,014
    Likes Received:
    28
    [Jan 22, 2008]
    Agreed, check out the 2.0T.
    #9
  11. trekbiker
    Offline

    trekbiker Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2004
    Messages:
    421
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Jan 23, 2008]
    cheers guys. will perhaps consider the a3 T option!
    #10
  12. Wes G
    Offline

    Wes G Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2006
    Messages:
    440
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Jan 23, 2008]
    Well if you do lots of miles then I would go for the VW, people always slate the 3.2 as being `mega thirsty` and say that it will bankrupt you-however in real life I see my car get the same mpg as my mate new S3`s and also another pal with a 2.0TQ also only gets 26mpg over all, so only a couple better than my 3.2 @ 23mpg (average). If you can find a good GTI then I would take that option but my opinion is that the 3.2 is`nt quite as bad as people make out:icon_thumright:
    #11
  13. rich164h
    Offline

    rich164h Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2007
    Messages:
    53
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Jan 23, 2008]
    Absolutely. I drive my 3.2 DSG for 80 miles every day for my daily commute (a mixture of motorway and b roads) and I've averaged 27.5mpg over the last 85 hours (or at least that's what the DIS is saying - which is 3400 miles which is about right). I don't get the opportunity to thrash it that often and the amount of traffic dictates how fast you can go in rush hour but from what people are saying on here this is often better than what people are getting out of the 2.0T. It really comes down to how and where you drive it TBH.

    Saying that, if I was buying again I definitely wouldn't go for the DSG as it's by far the worst thing about the car, but the 3.2 with the manual would be worse MPG wise. I'd probably go for a manual 2.0T instead. If you're happy with DSG don't discount the 3.2 though.

    Edited to add that I was also considering the GTi when I bought my A3 and the fact that the prices were so similar but the Golf felt so much cheaper inside especially the horrible cloth seats (the leather was a bit better) and the discusting hard plastic dashboard with cheap switch gear really put me off. We literally drove from the Audi garage to the VW one and back to check that we weren't imagining it!! The Golf is a good all round package though with decent handling and a pretty potent engine, but as with all hatchbacks (front wheel drive especially) you can't expect them to be exceptional drivers cars. If that's what you want buy an elise or caterham. If you just want something that's practical but can still put a smile on your face every now and again then you'll not go far wrong with either the golf or the A3. There's not much between them so it's really a case of deciding whether the extra luxury in the A3 is worth the extra weight that it carries over the Golf. If you're normal driving doesn't push the car to the limits where this weight becomes an issue (which on the road isn't really possible in the South East of England anymore) I'd go for the Audi. The only thing to do is to try them both as it's a very personal thing and only you can make the decision.
    #12

Share This Page