3.2 un-restricted top speed?

[vagman]

I had a 170 TDi for a few months and whilst it never let me down once, I quickly tired of it.

The diesel clatter was so tedious and such a turn off.

The 3.2 in the TT is silky smooth and with S-tronic (nee DSG) in Sport mode it is blisteringly fast.

 

[steve184]

Well it has a damn sight more torque and thats a fact! And yes id say the reducing 0-60 by nearly half a second is worth 15-20bhp

 

[normski]

Well it has a damn sight more torque and thats a fact! And yes id say the reducing 0-60 by nearly half a second is worth 15-20bhp

Well reducing the 0-60 on mine by 0.5 would take a good 50bhp extra, so perhaps you are selling DSG short...if you really believe it is quicker than manual.

I still don't see why having more torque than a 3.2 makes it more capable...one assumes the ultimate test of a car's performance is how long it takes to get from A to B, which on a trip of even a couple of miles would leave you embarrassingly behind if both cars were driven enthusiastically...

No doubt it takes a great deal more skill to drive a 3.2 than a 170 diesel without hitting flat spots, but as the 3.2 is perhaps more of an enthusiasts car than the 170, that is ideal...

And who are "They"?

 

[Wes G]

How exactly does a 170 have more`useable power than a 3.2??? Correct me if I`m wrong but all 3.2 are Quatro ar`nt they??? Maybe I`m wrong? I have never seen a non Quatro 3.2 anyway. So with that in mind I would say you can use All the power in the 3.2 (up to the speed limit) like wise if the 170 is Quatro the same would apply? Sorry but I dont see how it has any more `useable` power...I have had both cars,both with DSG and both with Quatro...both are great cars,its all down to personal prefferance,just cant see the sense in some of the comments...oh and no effence intended:icon_thumright:

 

[Amchlolor]

I also couldn't give a monkeys about top speed.
I actually wish car gearing was as easy to change as bike gearing.
On my bkes,I always change the sprockets to sacrifice some of the daft top speed for acceleration at lower speeds.
100mph is more or less my self-imposed speed limit in a car.
I won't do over that on the motorway (instant ban) and the scottish roads I drive on are rarely long enough to get over that before a corner anyway.
Mind you,my car takes 26 seconds to get to 100mph.

It's more tectonic than tiptronic... ;-)

Basically,I'd gladly sacrifice barstool bragging rights about top speed for better acceleration at real-world speeds.

 

[steve184]

exactly bowfer and thats what i'm trying to say about diesels - they are much more suited at being quick in real world speeds - where a 3.2 and 250bhp is pretty much useless - if you were to drive that normally up to about 4000rpm (like a diesel) you will be lucky to have 150bhp at your disposal id guess!

 

[Amchlolor]

exactly bowfer and thats what i'm trying to say about diesels - they are much more suited at being quick in real world speeds - where a 3.2 and 250bhp is pretty much useless - if you were to drive that normally up to about 4000rpm (like a diesel) you will be lucky to have 150bhp at your disposal id guess!

The power available is only as good as the driver too.
I only have 140bhp,maximum,at my disposal.
Yet I regularly manage to humble people in cars like S3's,S4's and other much higher powered motors.
Seems to me a fair proportion of drivers of high-powered vehicles simply don't use the power they have.
The same phenomena can be found in the bike world.
People buy powerful bikes but cannot or will not use the power.
So smaller bikes are able to humble them.
It's become so daft that 1000cc bikes with 160bhp on tap are fitted with switches that reduces the power to that of a 600cc.
So buy a 600cc !
Sorry,but I'd much rather use 100% of the available power 100% of the time.
Which is why I've never had a car that produces more than 150bhp and never felt the need to have one either.

(beat a bloke in a ****** Caterham the other day,in my wife's 86bhp Clio...what is the point ? )

 

[normski]

exactly bowfer and thats what i'm trying to say about diesels - they are much more suited at being quick in real world speeds - where a 3.2 and 250bhp is pretty much useless - if you were to drive that normally up to about 4000rpm (like a diesel) you will be lucky to have 150bhp at your disposal id guess!

The 3.2's max torque is available between 2,500 and 3,000 revs (320nm)...and its max 247bhp @ 6,300 revs, so it has got slightly less torque (170 has 350nm) available for a hole 250 rpm less range (1750-2500 for the 170), while the 170's BHP bottoms out at 4,200 rpm.

The upshot...the 3.2 is quicker 0-60 than the 170 by at least 1.5 secs...faster 50-70 in all gears I can find figures for...quicker 0-100 and standing 1/4 by some margin.

If this all translates to you as the 3.2 being useless, and you doubt that when two drivers of equal skill in the two cars, the 3.2 would leave the 170 way behind, then you have finally lost the plot...

Yes you like your 170, yes it has a lot of torque, yes it doesn't sound half as nice as a 3.2, yes it is sucks less juice...but I know what any performance driver would choose if the cost didn't matter.

The original post some 9 months ago (why was this thread resurrected) was a guy asking how fast a 3.2 would go un-restricted...wtf has the flexibility of a 170 when driven well within the limits got to do with anything?

I assume that everyone who owns an S3 has wasted their money too, because they don't use its full power...well let me re-assure you, driving either a 3.2 or S3 slightly reserved will still leave a 170 behind...

 

[Wes G]

This thread is just turning into a row about one person trying to express his car is better than others...both cars are very different but both very good...like we all keep saying its all about what you prefer as an individual.

 

[s3rob]

I don't think there would be a problem with acknowledging the 170 is a nice car (which it is) if some of their owners didn't actually believe that it's better/more usable/faster in everyday traffic than a 3.2. (which it isn't).

 

[Amchlolor]

I assume that everyone who owns an S3 has wasted their money too, because they don't use its full power

I do think this actually,yes.
It's total overkill.
As with hugely powerful bikes,you show me anyone who says they drive a vehicle with this sort of power flat out anything close to even 50% of the time,never mind more,and I'll show you a liar,IMO.
You say that a 3.2 is as fast as on part-throttle as a 170,but that's admitting you spend your time driving around on part throttle.
So why bother with the increased running costs ?
I'd imagine the 3.2 uses vastly more fuel on part throttle than a 170 diesel on full throttle too so,again,what's the point ?
Why not rag the **** out of a lower powered car instead and enjoy the money you save ?
Just because you can ?
It's all a bit vulgar really,but there will come a time when cars like this are consigned to the past.
It wouldn't bother me if we were all legislated into 40bhp electric cars,I can find fun in driving low power cars no problem at all.
As long as it makes a difference to the planet,I'm all for it.
Power is fun,but anyone who can only have fun with power is daft.

 

[mattyboy199]

0-160 in 30 seconds might be possible with this http://www.hpamotorsports.com/product_turbo_ft400.htm

That is so cheap in comparison to the UK market of what it would cost. Half it & add 5% for exchange rate flucturation. CRAZY !

 

[normski]

I do think this actually,yes.
It's total overkill.
As with hugely powerful bikes,you show me anyone who says they drive a vehicle with this sort of power flat out anything close to even 50% of the time,never mind more,and I'll show you a liar,IMO.
You say that a 3.2 is as fast as on part-throttle as a 170,but that's admitting you spend your time driving around on part throttle.
So why bother with the increased running costs ?
I'd imagine the 3.2 uses vastly more fuel on part throttle than a 170 diesel on full throttle too so,again,what's the point ?
Why not rag the **** out of a lower powered car instead and enjoy the money you save ?
Just because you can ?
It's all a bit vulgar really,but there will come a time when cars like this are consigned to the past.
It wouldn't bother me,I can find fun in driving low power cars no problem at all.

1. You don't need to drive the 3.2 or S3 flat out to fly everywhere...
2. I would think, if like me, that a lot of owners use the full power of the car in accelerating to their desired speed, or in overtaking or whatever. Not even you, by your own admission use your 170 to its full potential because quite sensibly you have drawn the line on what top speed you are going to allow yourself to do.
3. Driving at lets say 80 percent acceleration in a 3.2 or S3 would be a lot preferable to me than ragging the **** off a 170 (with the lovely noise that goes with it...lol) to achieve the same amount of progress.

To sum up, I can drive my car to the max and have much better performance than a 170, or I can drive it in a slightly reserved manner and still achieve the performance you can in a 170, but in refinement without thrashing the **** off it. I pay for this privilige, through fuel and the initial purchase price, and I reap the rewards by being able to drive it in varying ways and still get effortless perfromance in a car that in my mind is more special, because they aren't quite as common.

I don't see owners of the "hot" versions slating 170 or 140's, yet it comes flying back the other way.

You have made your choice and we have ours, but for some thoughtless chap to come out with a statement like "the 3.2 is useless and the 170 is a better performing car" is indicative of his general posts anyway...

I would have loved a 170 A3 four months ago, and if I had one now I would still love it I am sure...but I made a different choice...why do 170 owners keep trying to tell us we were wrong?

 

[Amchlolor]

why do 170 owners keep trying to tell us we were wrong?

Dunno,you'd have to ask them,I've only got a 140 !
They're wrong to say you're wrong,because there is no wrong.
Only opinions.
I've always been of the opinion that you should only go for more once you are using 100% of what you have.
150bhp does me 90% of the time and that's better than 100% more power 20% of the time (if you follow that,sorry..)

I hear 'noise' being mentioned a lot in connection with 3.2's and S3's too.
Usually when discussing blowing a month's mortgage payment on some product by Milltek or suchlike.
Sorry,but noisy cars grip my ****.
By all means pay through the nose for the performance you rarely use,but putting a noisy zorst on your car is infliciting your choice on other people.
I've noticed S3 owners on here seem to be a flashy lot.
Noisy zorts and bright colours.
Very 'look at me,notice me,notice my car,notice it's an S3'
Is there any need for it ?

 

[normski]

Dunno,you'd have to ask them,I've only got a 140 !
They're wrong to say you're wrong,because there is no wrong.
Only opinions.
I've always been of the opinion that you should only go for more once you are using 100% of what you have.
150bhp does me 90% of the time and that's better than 100% more power 20% of the time (if you follow that,sorry..)

I hear 'noise' being mentioned a lot in connection with 3.2's and S3's too.
Usually when discussing blowing a month's mortgage payment on some product by Milltek or suchlike.
Sorry,but noisy cars grip my ****.
By all means pay through the nose for the performance you rarely use,but putting a noisy zorst on your car is infliciting your choice on other people.
I've noticed S3 owners on here seem to be a flashy lot.
Noisy zorts and bright colours.
Very 'look at me,notice me,notice my car,notice it's an S3'
Is there any need for it ?

I'm sorry Bowf, but I use 100% of the performance of my car until I reach the speed I am going to cruise at...unless around town when driving with your foot to the floor to 30mph just makes you look like a ****, whether you are in a 140 or an RS4.

You apparently use 100% of your power until you reach your limit, which is apparently 100mph, so 38 short of where your car could take you, so clearly if you believe your own argument and aren't hypocritical at all, you need to chop it in for a Micra or something.

As for the S3 boys ramming it down your throat, don't read the S3 threads mate, most of them are clearly marked...I certainly haven't ever turned round and said "your car's ***** cuz it ain't an S3" nor have I seen anyone on here do the same...most of the S3 owners appear to be enthusiasts for cars and Audi's period, not just their own. Nor do any of them appear opinionated beyond reason...

 

[normski]

Must have missed this one earlier...

I only have 140bhp,maximum,at my disposal. Yet I regularly manage to humble people in cars like S3's,S4's and other much higher powered motors. Seems to me a fair proportion of drivers of high-powered vehicles simply don't use the power they haveavailable power 100% of the time.

More mature people driving the more powerful cars? Or maybe they don't bother because they know their car can out perform yours (obviously not Steve184's though), or perhaps they are happy to drive a lovely car sedately...surely that's up to them...

Sorry,but I'd much rather use 100% of the available power 100% of the time.
Which is why I've never had a car that produces more than 150bhp and never felt the need to have one either.

(beat a bloke in a ****** Caterham the other day,in my wife's 86bhp Clio...what is the point ? )

So surely if you stop at 100mph mate, you are completely contradicting yourself...you have plenty of mph left, why the heavens aren't you using it...

And as for doing a Caterham in your Mrs Clio...well done mate....and the Caterham was flat out too, ****** hell Bowfer well done mate....not for a second was the Caterham driver being sensible, appreciating that there is a time and a place...

 

[rowansbank]

And as for doing a Caterham in your Mrs Clio...well done mate....and the Caterham was flat out too, ****** hell Bowfer well done mate....not for a second was the Caterham driver being sensible, appreciating that there is a time and a place...

Or was it just a Bowfer wind-up?

 

[C_Audiboy]

Caterhams are ridiculously fast up to 100MPH and are virtually welded to the road...... maybe he wasn't going for it?

Or was it just a Bowfer wind-up?

Doh!!! Almost had me there!!!

 

[steve184]

don't remember ever saying a 3.2 was slower than a 170 diesel.... i was just meaning driven sedately the 3.2 would be no faster - being that sedate driving is what 90% of driving is about given speed limits, etc (unless you have a racing track in your back garden of course!) i kinda think its gone a bit off topic this thread (gradually)

 

[Mo]

^^^ LOL ! I pity your wives/girlfiends.......you know who you are !!

 

[normski]

don't remember ever saying a 3.2 was slower than a 170 diesel.... i was just meaning driven sedately the 3.2 would be no faster - being that sedate driving is what 90% of driving is about given speed limits, etc (unless you have a racing track in your back garden of course!) i kinda think its gone a bit off topic this thread (gradually)

Mate, read your own posts....as I believe you made two claims...one that the 170 has better performance in the real world...and the second that the 3.2 is useless

But we'll leave it there shall we?

 

[Amchlolor]

Or was it just a Bowfer wind-up?

Nope,no wind up.
He was evidently some mid-life crisis donkey that doesn't really know how to use his car.
He was trying,for sure.
Of course,the wife's Clio was all over the place,but that's a different argument.

I subscribe to the 'it's not what you have,it's how you drive it' school of thought I'm afraid.
I've zero respect for tootlers in flash cars.

 

[unkle]

Thank **** its friday...

 

[newbiecrg]

well my S3 is limited as the manufacturer say but on the digital speedometer (which seems more accurate) I reached sometimes 162mph with 200-150rpm to reach redline... Didn't go further because not enough "safe" visibility on motorways.... This was in normal motorway not in an incline or anything. Given a nice piece of lenghy tarmac the S3 is quite fast, I did not notice any engine cut or anything I backed off myself. You should see the fuel consumption on the DIS though.... lolol

Pedro

 

[Staz]

Well this thread has certainly generated some heat! I've just joined it now cos I've been away.

Any time anyone mentions speed it's always followed by people mentioning the speed limit. Can't anyone ask a simple question anymore without being almost accused of breaking the limit?!

If you believe it's not safe to break the limit here then suggesting driving to germany to test it out is a bit of a contradiction. It's not much safer there. There only difference is they have better lane discipline. But you're still likely to have some lorry or old fart pull out on you. I can assure you of that.

But anyway, I tested my car not long after I had got it, with the standard 197bhp and got it to 153mph on my garmin. Someone pulled out on me so I never got to find out the limit. It definately had more to give. I dare say an unlimited 3.2 could top 160. I will eventually try mine now it's chipped too.

And anyone starts moaning, yes it is on the autobahn, and my eyes are wide open at all times

 

[Amchlolor]

But anyway, I tested my car not long after I had got it, with the standard 197bhp and got it to 153mph on my garmin. Someone pulled out on me so I never got to find out the limit. It definately had more to give.

LOL !
Dream on.
There's more posturing on this thread than at a male model convention.

 

[Staz]

LOL !
Dream on.
There's more posturing on this thread than at a male model convention.

Bowfer I only meant 1 or 2 mph more!

 

[Amchlolor]

No offence,but,apart from assumption,what proof do you have that Garmin's speedo function is accurate ?
People often mention their GPS speed readings,but I've never actually seen anything that states how accurate they are.
I used a Tom-Tom Europe a few weeks ago and I thought it's speedo function was rubbish,so I ignored it.

Edit - I found some independent test saying that a certain Garmin tested was found to be as much as 6% inaccurate.It could,COULD,mean your Garmin's 153mph is actually nearer 144mph (which is far more believable from 197bhp and a not particularly aerodynamic car).

 

[Staz]

No offence,but,apart from assumption,what proof do you have that Garmin's speedo function is accurate ?
People often mention their GPS speed readings,but I've never actually seen anything that states how accurate they are.
I used a Tom-Tom Europe a few weeks ago and I thought it's speedo function was rubbish,so I ignored it.

Edit - I found some independent test saying that a certain Garmin tested was found to be as much as 6% inaccurate.It could,COULD,mean your Garmin's 153mph is actually nearer 144mph (which is far more believable from 197bhp and a not particularly aerodynamic car).

I agree with you bowfer but the car is rated by audi as having a top speed of 147mph and every car I've had has been able to beat the manufacturer’s stated top speed.

GPS speedo accuracy is more dependent on the electronics used to work out the speed from your change of position. All GPSs are accurate to within 20 meters (with a constant signal) it is easy to work out your speed from that. Inaccuracies could arise from the 20 metre error of course:

Lets say you car is a position 0, but your gps thinks you are at position -20 (20 metres behind you) then 1 second later you are 44 metres further forward (by travelling at 100mph) and your gps thinks you are at +64 the gps will think you have travelled 84 metres in 1 second, i.e. 190mph! That's more than 6% error of course.

BUT on an open stretch of motorway (autobahn!) your signal is going to be a lot better so the accuracy will be better. Plus by maintaining that speed for longer periods there is no room for error. In the same scenario as above over a time of 1 minute the error would be less than 1mph. And the longer and faster you travel the less that potential 20 metre error would affect your estimated speed.

But yes bowfer I agree that it's not 100% accurate but it's certainly not 6%. And I know there was more to give.

I have no reason to lie or exaggerate dude, it's not like I'm trying to break any records. But your opinions are always welcome :icon_thumright:

 

[Amchlolor]

every car I've had has been able to beat the manufacturer’s stated top speed.

I don't see how you can possibly reliably claim that.
Manufacturers' claimed top speeds are measured using hyper-accurate measuring devices.
Presumably,you've only ever measured the top speeds of your cars using the speedo or,latterly,GPS ?
Both of which have a far greater chance of error than the methods used by the manufacturers' methods.
Manufacturers also often 'cheat' to obtain the best possible figures.
Inflated tyre pressures,minimal fuel loads,folded in (or even removed) wing mirrors and wipers,taped off sharp edges etc.etc.

So you'll forgive me for taking your claims a bit sceptically.

 

[normski]

LOL !
Dream on.
There's more posturing on this thread than at a male model convention.

And plenty of hypocrites...knocking people who don't drive at 155mph all the time needing to downgrade their vehicle, only to drive their own way short of top speed, etc. etc.

As for SATNAV accuracy, I use cars with calibrated speeometers and other calibrated equipment, and so far with Garmin and TomTom, I have found that at the 155+mph mark, the SATNAV speed is about three to four mph out, and the SATNAV can't update quick enough to reflect your location as well as when you are doing say 100mph, which is probably what causes this slight error.

No where near as inaccurate as normal speedos though...

And as for manufacturers top speeds, there doesn't seem to be much rhyme or reason to it...we can get 160+ out of our 530i's, but only 155 on our 335i's, both of which are "limited" to 155.

The scooby Sti's we have are supposedly good for 158, but we can't anywhere near that...

 

[Wes G]

Staz1000 & Nornski, why are you even bothering,have you not learnt from this that the `diesel` owners are never wrong...us petrol owners MUST be lying as we have nothing better to do??? Was going to imput some figures from my garmin but cant be ***** as it will only be incorrect?

 

[Amchlolor]

Staz1000 & Nornski, why are you even bothering,have you not learnt from this that the `diesel` owners are never wrong...us petrol owners MUST be lying as we have nothing better to do??? Was going to imput some figures from my garmin but cant be ***** as it will only be incorrect?

I'm sure no-one's lying,but that doesn't mean they're not mistaken.
Some of the claims are good for a laugh though.

 

[treblesykes]

has bowfer ever been test to see if he is %100 accurate?

 

[Amchlolor]

has bowfer ever been test to see if he is %100 accurate?

I can down 16 pints and still take 12 women to orgasm (don't need satnav to take them there either).
See,it's easy to claim stuff !

;-)

 

[[Dave B]]

I can down 16 pints and still take 12 women to orgasm...

That's diesel performance for ya....

 

[normski]

So Bowfer, when are you downgrading your car to something you can use all the power on?

 

[Amchlolor]

So Bowfer, when are you downgrading your car to something you can use all the power on?

Downgrading ?
Downgrading ?
Taking the bus is preferable to driving my piece of crap !

Seriously,as I stated above somewhere,around 150bhp is enough for me to feel that I am able to use 100% of it a lot of the time.
I rarely wish I had more,I could easily live with less.
One can have a lot of fun driving cars with a lot less.
Give me a Prius and I'll try and embarrass owners of more powerful cars with a smile on my face !

 

[normski]

Downgrading ?
Downgrading ?
Taking the bus is preferable to driving my piece of crap !

Seriously,as I stated above somewhere,around 150bhp is enough for me to feel that I am able to use 100% of it a lot of the time.
I rarely wish I had more,I could easily live with less.
One can have a lot of fun driving cars with a lot less.
Give me a Prius and I'll try and embarrass owners of more powerful cars with a smile on my face !

OMG, Bowfer compromising?

At last you are going for the line of using all of your power "a lot of the time" instead of "all of the time", glad you finally realise that us lowly 3.2 and S3 owners don't have to be at 100 percent power all of the time to enjoy our cars...

And there I was thinking you were a hypocrite...lol

 

[Staz]

Can any mods out there answer this:

If you post a question about the performance of petrol is it possible to block all the diesel peeps so they don't always have to put their 10 pence in?



prius shmius by the way