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

A3 2.0T 3-door

Discussion in 'A3/S3/Sportback (8P Chassis)' started by A4_2point4, Jan 15, 2005.

  1. A4_2point4
    Offline

    A4_2point4 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2004
    Messages:
    28
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Jan 15, 2005]
    Hi,

    Does anyone have a 3-door A3 2.0T, or had a drive in one, or seen a review ?
    There have been many reviews of the 2.0T Sportback, and it seems to be a great car, but I prefer the look of the 3-door, and don't really have any need for the rear doors of the S/B.

    TIA
    #1
  2. Ads

    Ads

    [Dec 28, 2014]

  3. miketweed
    Offline

    miketweed Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2004
    Messages:
    371
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Jan 18, 2005]
    Yep,

    I have a 3dr 2.0T FSI Sport DSG arriving next Thursday. I ordered it in November, before the dealers had one to try, but they got a demo in just before xmas - awesome. I've driven the 3.2Q S line and the 2.0T felt quicker, less need for revs due to the turbo (more torque then the 3.2).

    It got me to 140+mph a damn sight quicker than the sapphire cosworth i used to own!! Also, soon there will be lots of chipping options for the turbo model, 250+bhp easy for £400ish.

    Also, it gives 35mpg on the combined cycle!

    Don't like the sportback (or fat-back as i call it!) for people who think they need an estate car, but are too scared to buy a proper one (S4 Avant) :)

    Mike
    #2
  4. Rashio
    Offline

    Rashio New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2005
    Messages:
    16
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Jan 19, 2005]
    lol ginner,
    i have to say miket it was the other way around for me, i prefer the 3.2 over the 2.0T altho i have to say the 2.0T did feel slightly lighter front end.
    #3
  5. Cupramax
    Offline

    Cupramax Uber pimp meister

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    457
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Jan 19, 2005]
    [ QUOTE ]
    miket said:
    Yep,

    I have a 3dr 2.0T FSI Sport DSG arriving next Thursday. I ordered it in November, before the dealers had one to try, but they got a demo in just before xmas - awesome. I've driven the 3.2Q S line and the 2.0T felt quicker, less need for revs due to the turbo (more torque then the 3.2).

    It got me to 140+mph a damn sight quicker than the sapphire cosworth i used to own!! Also, soon there will be lots of chipping options for the turbo model, 250+bhp easy for £400ish.

    Also, it gives 35mpg on the combined cycle!

    Don't like the sportback (or fat-back as i call it!) for people who think they need an estate car, but are too scared to buy a proper one (S4 Avant) :)

    Mike

    [/ QUOTE ]

    I test drove the 3.2 & 2.0T back to back and prefered the 2.0T. It definately felt more nippy than the 3.2 and a lot lighter at the front. It doesn't have more torque than the 3.2 though so not sure where you got that idea from...

    I went for the Sportback because of the extra space and I have a dog...
    #4
  6. A4_2point4
    Offline

    A4_2point4 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2004
    Messages:
    28
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Jan 19, 2005]
    Thanks for the feedback Mike.

    What was it like in terms of refinement ?
    (I currently have an A4 2.4 V6, which is exceptionally smooth and refined).

    Also, I have read that the sports suspension on the 3-door is a bit too firm, and firmer than that in the Sportback. Interested to know what you thought.
    #5
  7. Rashio
    Offline

    Rashio New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2005
    Messages:
    16
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Jan 19, 2005]
    "too young aren't you Dave..."

    lol Steph /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
    #6
  8. Dave10
    Offline

    Dave10 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2004
    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Jan 19, 2005]
    yup I'm too young...

    /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/beerchug.gif

    I work and get a decent wage from an IT Company.
    #7
  9. miketweed
    Offline

    miketweed Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2004
    Messages:
    371
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Jan 21, 2005]
    Cupramax...

    I stand corrected. 236lbft(3.2) versus 207lbft(2.0T). Maybe it's because the 2.0T develops this max torque from 1800rpm and is 150kg lighter than the equivalent 3.2 (like 2 adult passengers!) it feels stronger and more urgent. The 3.2 may have more peak torque - it just doesn't feel like it! The 3.2 always seems to need a downshift to get a move on (not a problem with DSG though I suppose).
    And it sounds like Audi have put a sock up the intake filter of the 3.2!! The TT3.2 & Golf R32 have fabulous induction roar (and the Golf 2.8 4 motion I used to own), but the A3 3.2 is very dull sounding, even with windows open through a tunnel.

    The sound of a multi cylinder should stir the soul and make you ignore poor fuel consumption, higher running costs, higher insurance, more nickability etc. I think Audi tried to make it tooooo understated to the point where its just dull.

    Still stand by my comments on chipping though. Nowt you can do with the 3.2!

    Ginner: The Sportbacks are cool really, I'm just in denial and trying to pretend to be 21 again. 2 doors rule, 1 for me and 1 for the chick!

    Mike




    #8
  10. miketweed
    Offline

    miketweed Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2004
    Messages:
    371
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Jan 24, 2005]
    Good points.....

    On the kerb weights, I was comparing the 3.2Q DSG (1525kg) with the 2.0T DSG (1370kg) (can't have DSG&Q with the 2.0T unfortunately) perhaps not like for like, but it was the 2 models I was personaly choosing between. So there is a larger weight penalty in this case.

    You're right about light tuning on the 2T, but that is what I meant in that it's cheap and easy to get the extra power output. With variable vane turbos and the like, the lag is very minimal these days.

    I think its fair to compare the 3.2Q & the 2.0T because its the characteristics of the engines related to the new A3 that we are talking about.
    I've read several mags where they say the new sportback sports are better handling than an 8L S3, more stable, better turn in and more balanced. (better brakes too)

    Isn't the new S3 going to be a 250bhp 2.0T??

    Each to their own, its the age old 'blown versus NA' discussion!!

    Mike
    #9
  11. StephaneS
    Offline

    StephaneS Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    379
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Jan 24, 2005]
    [ QUOTE ]
    Good points.....

    On the kerb weights, I was comparing the 3.2Q DSG (1525kg) with the 2.0T DSG (1370kg) (can't have DSG&Q with the 2.0T unfortunately) perhaps not like for like, but it was the 2 models I was personaly choosing between. So there is a larger weight penalty in this case.

    [/ QUOTE ]
    sure the 3.2QDSG wold have 2 major disavandtage against the 2.0TDSG: weight and power loss thru transmission
    the 3.2 would then struggle in the dry but in the wet that would be an other matter

    [ QUOTE ]

    You're right about light tuning on the 2T, but that is what I meant in that it's cheap and easy to get the extra power output. With variable vane turbos and the like, the lag is very minimal these days.

    [/ QUOTE ]
    I agree that late turbo cars do not suffer from lag as much it used to.

    [ QUOTE ]

    I think its fair to compare the 3.2Q & the 2.0T because its the characteristics of the engines related to the new A3 that we are talking about.
    I've read several mags where they say the new sportback sports are better handling than an 8L S3, more stable, better turn in and more balanced. (better brakes too)

    [/ QUOTE ]
    I agree that the new chassis seems better than the older one however after having driven 4 types of S3 (std210, 225, modded to 265 and 290bhp), their suspension setup makes a major difference and maybe the new 2.0T (as much as the 3.2) does not handle as well, hence why I thought that the 2.0T should be compared to the S3 (different chassis but same type of engine).

    [ QUOTE ]

    Isn't the new S3 going to be a 250bhp 2.0T??

    [/ QUOTE ]
    god knows? would make sense though as the S/RS are all turbo (except the S4 of late)

    [ QUOTE ]

    Each to their own, its the age old 'blown versus NA' discussion!!

    [/ QUOTE ]
    yep /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/beerchug.gif definitely and let be honest we wont settle this here, will we?
    track day? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
    #10

Share This Page