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

A3 3.2 vs 2. FSI vs 2.0TDi MPG?

Discussion in 'A3/S3/Sportback (8P Chassis)' started by imported_hornet_basher, May 6, 2005.

  1. imported_hornet_basher
    Offline

    imported_hornet_basher Guest

    [May 6, 2005]
    Time to change the car and get a (used)replacement in a month or two.

    Got a 210 S3 at the momement, over the last 10k or so it has avereraged 28.4 mpg on the DIS (seams to be quite accurate if I get the calculator out and check it) thats on 75% A/B roads and 25% motorway. Wifey's the main user and does a round trip of 35 miles on A and B roads every day for work.

    I'd like to go for the 3.2 but think her work commute on busy A and B roads could be dire for the mpg!!

    So it boils down to mpg and service interals and cost.

    so what are the real world mpg's on these tree engines?
    /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
    #1
  2. Ads

    Ads

    [Sep 20, 2014]

  3. Japper
    Offline

    Japper Ibis S3 Fan Club

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,495
    Likes Received:
    0
    [May 6, 2005]
    [ QUOTE ]
    Time to change the car and get a (used)replacement in a month or two.

    Got a 210 S3 at the momement, over the last 10k or so it has avereraged 28.4 mpg on the DIS (seams to be quite accurate if I get the calculator out and check it) thats on 75% A/B roads and 25% motorway. Wifey's the main user and does a round trip of 35 miles on A and B roads every day for work.

    I'd like to go for the 3.2 but think her work commute on busy A and B roads could be dire for the mpg!!

    So it boils down to mpg and service interals and cost.

    so what are the real world mpg's on these tree engines?
    /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Real world on the TDI would be around the 45mpg.

    2.0FSI ( Non Turbo ) would be around mid 30's at a guess, and according to this forum you would be good to better 22mpg as an average with the 3.2 v6 motor.
    #2
  4. brandona4
    Offline

    brandona4 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2005
    Messages:
    239
    Likes Received:
    0
    [May 6, 2005]
    If you're commuting. Definately the 2.0T.
    #3
  5. Amchlolor
    Offline

    Amchlolor Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2005
    Messages:
    5,604
    Likes Received:
    3
    [May 6, 2005]
    [ QUOTE ]
    If you're commuting. Definately the 2.0T.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Now now,he didn't ask about the 2.0T and he didn't ask for opinions either.
    The man wants MPG figures.

    I'm getting 43ish mpg from my Tdi,which is around 6 mpg worse then the older tdi engine in my A4.

    God knows why...
    You'd think a 16 valve engine,in a lighter car,would be more efficient than an 8v engine in a heavier car,but that's evidently not the case.

    My A4 was mercilessly caned as well,coz I hated it.
    I'm treating my A3 with far more restraint.

    Not a big deal,but strange all the same. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/noidea.gif
    #4
  6. TDI-line
    Offline

    TDI-line Uber Post Whore

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    9,055
    Likes Received:
    37
    [May 6, 2005]
    I got around 17 MPG from my 3.2, with similiar driving to yourself.
    #5
  7. richy
    Offline

    richy Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    892
    Likes Received:
    0
    [May 6, 2005]
    bout the same at you TDI...

    but i hate these threds.. makes me sick sometimes..
    #6
  8. imported_Spin140
    Offline

    imported_Spin140 Guest

    [May 6, 2005]
    I average about 43/44mpg getting @ 490/500 miles per tank filling up just before reserve with relatively short journeys.
    #7
  9. imported_RedSportback
    Offline

    imported_RedSportback Guest

    [May 6, 2005]
    On a run if 27 miles to work i'm getting an average of around 47 to the gallon, mixture of A roads and back roads. If i boot it it drops to about 42 if I go with the flow then it will get me about 53.
    #8
  10. skempster
    Offline

    skempster Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2005
    Messages:
    103
    Likes Received:
    0
    [May 6, 2005]
    I had a 2.0 courtesy car in place of my 2.0T once. Found I did worse fuel economy in the non-turbo because I was having to push the engine because the mid-range was, by comparison, a bit flat. Depends what you are used to obviously...
    #9
  11. wilko
    Offline

    wilko Top Gear

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2005
    Messages:
    725
    Likes Received:
    0
    [May 6, 2005]
    Personally I have been told that the 2.0 TDI is better than the 2.0 FSI for fuel ecc, ride, etc, etc... personally i get around 40-45MPG the most I've see was 53MPG but that was tickling the pedal going 45MPH in 5th!! I get approx 470 mile per tank, and most of my journeys are 25 miles long (to and from work - on A/B roads). But i find if you give it a good drive at the start of your journey the MPG actually goes up rather than down! GREAT STUFF! As for the DIS reading it's not far off, mines probably about 0.5 out.. which ain't bad!
    #10
  12. Amchlolor
    Offline

    Amchlolor Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2005
    Messages:
    5,604
    Likes Received:
    3
    [May 6, 2005]
    [ QUOTE ]
    Personally I have been told that the 2.0 TDI is better than the 2.0 FSI for fuel ecc, ride, etc, etc...

    [/ QUOTE ]

    I regularly drive a colleagues 2.0 FSI.
    There is nothing to recommend that engine over the TDI.
    You'd have to be the most vehement diesel hater to go for the FSI over the TDI.
    The only thing you can say is that's quieter at tickover.
    The TDI is quicker,just as refined once past tickover and returns a good bit more mpg.
    Nuff said really.
    #11
  13. RacingTeatray
    Offline

    RacingTeatray Freezing in Moscow

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    249
    Likes Received:
    0
    [May 6, 2005]
    Does the 3.2 really drink fuel that badly?

    I'm about to replace my TQ with either an S3 or a 3.2 - haven't decided which yet.

    I find the TQ averages 31mpg pretty consistently and I'm not particularly light-footed. Certainly we managed to get from London to Leeds and back last weekend on a tankful. I imagine S3s give similar consumption but I was really hoping a 3.2 wouldn't be much worse than 25-26 in average driving?
    #12
  14. lilya
    Offline

    lilya Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2005
    Messages:
    65
    Likes Received:
    0
    [May 6, 2005]
    I've got a 2.0 FSI and I really enjoy it. Admittedly you have to get above 3500 rpm to make it really go. I don't really notice this however, because if I want to accelerate fast I'll rev it high. In and around town I find it quite relaxing that at low revs it isn't screaming off.

    The life time mpg for the car (dis memory 2) is 37.5mpg. On a 200 mile motorway drive last sunday at approx. 85mph it averaged 39.6mpg according to dis. On the drive to work (25miles on the M6 across Thelwell Viaduct at no more than 60mph) it easy averages 45mpg. I get approx 450 miles to the tank by running it until dis reckons 0 miles are left go.
    #13
  15. DAF
    Offline

    DAF Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2004
    Messages:
    156
    Likes Received:
    0
    [May 6, 2005]
    well cant comment on any other car i drive a 1.9tdi sport 130bhp its got a dragon digital tunit box on and it puts it upto about 160bhp i drive 65 miles round trip to work all m-way and the reading on the dis is between 42 and 53 depending on how i drive..and it got AVS so service intervalls are about 15k on average.
    #14
  16. Rankrotten
    Offline

    Rankrotten Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    0
    [May 6, 2005]
    I'm on first name terms with the young lady at the local Shell garage since buying the 3.2.

    Would never change it for a diesel though. Egads the very thought ... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif
    #15
  17. onianbag
    Offline

    onianbag Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Messages:
    108
    Likes Received:
    0
    [May 6, 2005]
    DIS shows 27 average at the moment on my 3.2 DSG - thats after 10k of average commuting/motorway miles.
    #16
  18. fuzzynapper
    Offline

    fuzzynapper Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    45
    Likes Received:
    0
    [May 6, 2005]
    Don't know about other 3.2 owners.
    My 3.2 dsg is now 5 months old, 6000 miles with about 70% on the M42. The lifetime average is 26.5 mpg which is not a million miles away from what my old S3 did.
    Depends if you have shares in BP.
    #17
  19. imported_jamesgraham
    Offline

    imported_jamesgraham Guest

    [May 6, 2005]
    I've done 396 miles and have 143 left showing on the D.I.S. Thats with a trip to Leeds(From Newcastle) and back .The rest is just short trips. I have averaged 48 MPG since i had the car from new.With nearly 5000 miles on it now.
    A3 2.0 TDI SPORT
    #18
  20. brandona4
    Offline

    brandona4 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2005
    Messages:
    239
    Likes Received:
    0
    [May 6, 2005]
    My 3.2 shows 25mpg after 6k of pretty hard driving!
    #19
  21. gizze
    Offline

    gizze Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Messages:
    615
    Likes Received:
    0
    [May 6, 2005]
    I just don't think you can tell what you are going to get MPG wise out of a car unless you drive it on your regular run.

    However I have always got between Audis official urban and combined figures on the 5 Audis I have owned. And that is enjoying it when I want to and trying to be economical occasionally too.
    #20
  22. brandona4
    Offline

    brandona4 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2005
    Messages:
    239
    Likes Received:
    0
    [May 6, 2005]
    I used to put £20 a week in my old golf 1.8T and i put £40 a week in my A3. so having the 3.2 means i'm about £80 a month worse off. I can live with that, it's well worth the extra!
    #21
  23. yak
    Offline

    yak Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2004
    Messages:
    377
    Likes Received:
    0
    [May 6, 2005]
    About 37mpg, so making about 450 miles per tank (these are just figures I'm trying to convert from litres/100km). Makes it cheaper to use than diesel for me, because of taxes here. Also, unlike what bowfer said, there's certainly reasons to pickup FSI over TDI. That is, unless you want a tractor, which is slower.

    - Yak
    #22
  24. LUGGY
    Offline

    LUGGY New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2004
    Messages:
    29
    Likes Received:
    0
    [May 6, 2005]
    i think i must be very hard with my tdi as im averaging 29 to the gallon round town mainly 15 mile round trips and 35 on a run!!
    i was expexting more when i bougth it but iv only covered 4000 miles so far so still a bit tight
    #23
  25. TDI-line
    Offline

    TDI-line Uber Post Whore

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    9,055
    Likes Received:
    37
    [May 6, 2005]
    35 on a run sounds awful, you should be getting high 50's.
    #24
  26. LUGGY
    Offline

    LUGGY New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2004
    Messages:
    29
    Likes Received:
    0
    [May 6, 2005]
    i am very hard on it on the motorway recently done a 500mile round trip and had to fill up at 450 miles altho i was nailing the pedal all the way!!
    #25
  27. DaveS3Turbo
    Offline

    DaveS3Turbo Sepang Blue S3

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2003
    Messages:
    1,065
    Likes Received:
    1
    [May 6, 2005]
    Yak the 2.0 FSI is no where near quicker than the 2.0 TDi.... I think many people will agree also after driving both.

    Dave
    #26
  28. imported_S_Line
    Offline

    imported_S_Line Guest

    [May 7, 2005]
    If you are comuting def, the 2.0 TDi, a simple upgrade and power is up there with ( Close) Perforamnce with the 3.2 as the amount of low down torque is unbelievable.

    Im sure a good Audi dealer would lend you a 2.0 Tdi for a couple of days for you to compare mpg on your route. ?
    #27
  29. imported_hornet_basher
    Offline

    imported_hornet_basher Guest

    [May 7, 2005]
    Thanks guys, gives me something to think about.

    Looks like the 3.2 is too juicey. 2.0T would be nice,but was not on the list as they are still to shiney,new and exspensive for me.

    so that just leaves the 2.0 fsi or the TDi, or do I just keep the S3 longer?
    #28
  30. DaveS3Turbo
    Offline

    DaveS3Turbo Sepang Blue S3

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2003
    Messages:
    1,065
    Likes Received:
    1
    [May 7, 2005]
    2.0 TDI or S3, not FSI thats my opinion anyways.

    Personally depends on when you have to change and what prices you are looking at.

    Dave
    #29
  31. yak
    Offline

    yak Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2004
    Messages:
    377
    Likes Received:
    0
    [May 7, 2005]
    Dave, yes, many TDI owners here will claim it's faster and such. No one has been able to prove it against clock though. We've had long discussions of this earlier, but lets just show some numbers.

    For hp/kg, you would need 158bhp TDI to be equal to the FSI. This also is shown in 0-100km/h numbers, and so on. The car has a gearbox, which you can use, and which will grant you the powerband to use with N/A engines.

    hornet_basher, anyway, jump from S3 to either will make you disappointed in the engine (both are slower than S3 by big margin), and you will also lose Quattro (as there's no older TDI Quattros).
    #30
  32. Japper
    Offline

    Japper Ibis S3 Fan Club

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,495
    Likes Received:
    0
    [May 7, 2005]
    [ QUOTE ]
    Dave, yes, many TDI owners here will claim it's faster and such. No one has been able to prove it against clock though. We've had long discussions of this earlier, but lets just show some numbers.

    For hp/kg, you would need 158bhp TDI to be equal to the FSI. This also is shown in 0-100km/h numbers, and so on. The car has a gearbox, which you can use, and which will grant you the powerband to use with N/A engines.

    hornet_basher, anyway, jump from S3 to either will make you disappointed in the engine (both are slower than S3 by big margin), and you will also lose Quattro (as there's no older TDI Quattros).

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Without getting into an argument, 0-60 times mean nothing. The 2.0 TDI is faster than the FSI in real world figures, mid range etc. Not a guess but fact.
    #31
  33. cdb2
    Offline

    cdb2 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2004
    Messages:
    711
    Likes Received:
    0
    [May 7, 2005]
    I also enjoy my 2.0FSI. I only do about 7k per year so the diesel never really came into the equation.

    On short journeys to work (5miles) I get around 32 - 37mpg depending on the traffic!

    On longer journeys I've had it up to 45.4mpg at 60mph with cruise control on! Can't seem to improve on that!
    #32
  34. DaveS3Turbo
    Offline

    DaveS3Turbo Sepang Blue S3

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2003
    Messages:
    1,065
    Likes Received:
    1
    [May 7, 2005]
    I wasn't saying the 2.0 FSI isnt't great, but the TDi suited me better.

    Dave
    #33
  35. yak
    Offline

    yak Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2004
    Messages:
    377
    Likes Received:
    0
    [May 8, 2005]
    Japper, out of interest, how do you define "real world figures", if clock doesn't give one? You compare in-gear-accelerations, which don't mean anything? Gearbox was designed to be used, and as both cars need it to be used, we should just throw those "in-gear" numbers to trashcan, since those gears aren't even compareable. Or do we take some 4-gear-automatic vs. 6-gear-manual and start wondering why 6-gear-manual car is so much faster at 4th?

    Japper, in real world, when maximum acceleration is needed, FSI is faster than TDI.
    #34
  36. Japper
    Offline

    Japper Ibis S3 Fan Club

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,495
    Likes Received:
    0
    [May 8, 2005]
    [ QUOTE ]
    Japper, out of interest, how do you define "real world figures", if clock doesn't give one? You compare in-gear-accelerations, which don't mean anything? Gearbox was designed to be used, and as both cars need it to be used, we should just throw those "in-gear" numbers to trashcan, since those gears aren't even compareable. Or do we take some 4-gear-automatic vs. 6-gear-manual and start wondering why 6-gear-manual car is so much faster at 4th?

    Japper, in real world, when maximum acceleration is needed, FSI is faster than TDI.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    One word 'Torque'

    Torque is 'Power' and on the TDI the torque curve is both higher and flatter producing 'power' over a much more usuable range. The FSI produces power a lot further up. Now on a track, or if you really want to cane it all the time then yes you may have a point, but driving the nuts off it while driving your wife , kids, and the mothering law around dosen't quite cut it , dose it !. Also add passengers to the FSI and the TDI and see which one it affects more. I had a clio 16V some years ago and it was quick. Added 3 passengers and a boot of luggage and it wouldn't pull the skin off rice pudding. In gear performance when you suddenly need real power when situations arise suddenly mean the TDI will have pulled away while you drop down a cog in the FSI.

    Oh and BTW, the VAG diesels ( not petrols ) are always underated by VAG, and they always produce around 8-10% more. So TDI is pushing 153bhp.

    I've driven both and many others and NA cars unlesslarge capacity dont suit public driving as well as 'blown' engines either diesel or petrol. It's different on a track of course.

    I'm not saying the FSI is not a great car / engine, and if it suits you better then fine. Your paying for it so you decide, but don't rely on 0-60 figures to quote yours is the fastest.
    #35
  37. h5djr
    Online

    h5djr Well-Known Member VCDS Map User

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2003
    Messages:
    7,520
    Likes Received:
    574
    [May 8, 2005]
    I couldn't agree more Japper. Before I ordered my current 2.0TDI I test drove both first the FSI and then the TDI. Whilst the FSI was OK when it was going fast it had little or no 'go' at the normal range for day-to-day driving. Coming from an A3 1.8T Sport if felt dead - no get up and go what so ever. It was then that I tried the TDI and what a revelation. Just about the same feel as my 1.8T and a real pleasure to drive. Needless to say I ordered the TDI and have never regretted the decision. The only down side would have been that you need to change gear more in the TDI but having opted for the DSG this is no problem at all. It just adds to the fun of driving.
    #36
  38. steeve
    Offline

    steeve Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2004
    Messages:
    981
    Likes Received:
    234
    [May 8, 2005]
    I get about 24 to 25 mpg from my 3.2 on mixed road driving, no motorways in a normal week....
    #37
  39. yak
    Offline

    yak Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2004
    Messages:
    377
    Likes Received:
    0
    [May 8, 2005]
    Japper, this TDI makes more power than advertised applies also to FSI engines, so that's a lame argument. 1,6FSI engines have produced 92kW (instead of normal 85kW) in dynoruns. There's differences in engines, and this means nothing.

    And one word, "torque" doesn't mean power, power means power. The acceleration comes from the power, that's can be integrated from the curve. The bigger the area, faster the acceleration there. So, of course a TDI has more power to use at 2000 rpm. FSI has more power to use at 5000rpm. We're talking about a N/A gasoline engine and charged diesel engine.

    I don't expect to have lots of power at 2000rpm, and why would I? That's why there's a gearbox to use. Likewise you don't expect your diesel to accelerate without all the time changing gears (because you run out of powerband). Having kids or anyone else on the car, why wouldn't you use the gears, like you will use with TDI? You won't get more noise, and you claimed no more power either (you have that little button on your feet to adjust it).
    #38
  40. Japper
    Offline

    Japper Ibis S3 Fan Club

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,495
    Likes Received:
    0
    [May 8, 2005]
    [ QUOTE ]
    Japper, this TDI makes more power than advertised applies also to FSI engines, so that's a lame argument. 1,6FSI engines have produced 92kW (instead of normal 85kW) in dynoruns. There's differences in engines, and this means nothing.

    And one word, "torque" doesn't mean power, power means power. The acceleration comes from the power, that's can be integrated from the curve. The bigger the area, faster the acceleration there. So, of course a TDI has more power to use at 2000 rpm. FSI has more power to use at 5000rpm. We're talking about a N/A gasoline engine and charged diesel engine.

    I don't expect to have lots of power at 2000rpm, and why would I? That's why there's a gearbox to use. Likewise you don't expect your diesel to accelerate without all the time changing gears (because you run out of powerband). Having kids or anyone else on the car, why wouldn't you use the gears, like you will use with TDI? You won't get more noise, and you claimed no more power either (you have that little button on your feet to adjust it).

    [/ QUOTE ]

    I expect this gets lost in translation, but:

    1. You don't drive around at 5000rpm all the time, with the family on board because it DOES create more noise and it DOES become tyresome to them on board and the people in the street.
    2. VAG Diesels constantly make above quoted on different Dynos petrols I dont believe they do.
    3. I have driven both, obvoiusly you have not.
    4. What I have stated is not just a diesel thing, put a A3 1.8T ( MK1 )up against the 2.0FSI and see what's quicker - same 150bhp.
    #39
  41. Japper
    Offline

    Japper Ibis S3 Fan Club

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,495
    Likes Received:
    0
    [May 8, 2005]
    [ QUOTE ]
    [ QUOTE ]
    Japper, this TDI makes more power than advertised applies also to FSI engines, so that's a lame argument. 1,6FSI engines have produced 92kW (instead of normal 85kW) in dynoruns. There's differences in engines, and this means nothing.

    And one word, "torque" doesn't mean power, power means power. The acceleration comes from the power, that's can be integrated from the curve. The bigger the area, faster the acceleration there. So, of course a TDI has more power to use at 2000 rpm. FSI has more power to use at 5000rpm. We're talking about a N/A gasoline engine and charged diesel engine.

    I don't expect to have lots of power at 2000rpm, and why would I? That's why there's a gearbox to use. Likewise you don't expect your diesel to accelerate without all the time changing gears (because you run out of powerband). Having kids or anyone else on the car, why wouldn't you use the gears, like you will use with TDI? You won't get more noise, and you claimed no more power either (you have that little button on your feet to adjust it).

    [/ QUOTE ]

    I expect this gets lost in translation, but:

    1. You don't drive around at 5000rpm all the time, with the family on board because it DOES create more noise and it DOES become tyresome to them on board and the people in the street.
    2. VAG Diesels constantly make above quoted on different Dynos petrols I dont believe they do.
    3. I have driven both, obvoiusly you have not.
    4. What I have stated is not just a diesel thing, put a A3 1.8T ( MK1 )up against the 2.0FSI and see what's quicker - same 150bhp.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Oh and power is derived from 'Torque' not vice versa.
    #40

Share This Page