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

a3 3.2Q or 2.0T FSI??? Help needed.

needadvice Nov 1, 2007

  1. needadvice

    needadvice New Member

    3
    0
    1
    Hi guys,

    I'm new to this forum and could do with a bit of expert advice…

    I'm looking at buying an A3, and want to treat myself to something good. As such, I've narrowed the choice down to either a 3.2Q or a 2.0TFSI (both DSG).

    If I'm honest, my heart is telling me to go with the 3.2Q. The bhp and torque are just so tempting! Only problem is, my head is telling me to go for the 2.0T FSI due to, as I'm sure you've guessed, the dreaded fuel economy. Is there anyone out there who could give me any recommendations/advice as to which to go for?

    I've just accepted a new job that will involve me driving around 55 miles (pretty much all motorway) to and from work each day (as in roughly 27 miles each way - averaging about 80-85 mph). That means I'll be doing about 275 motorway miles per week. Are there any 3.2Q or 2.0T FSI owners that could give me a steer on how much that is going to cost me in fuel? If there's not much difference between the two then I think I'll go the whole hog and get the 3.2Q. If it works out at being quite a bit different then I'll probably head towards the 2.0T.

    I've reached a bit of a stale-mate on this one, so any help would be much appreciated!

    Cheers,
    Simon.
     
  2. Wes G

    Wes G Member

    444
    3
    18
    Welcome to AS:icon_thumright: ...On average I get about 280 miles from a tank of fuel in my 3.2, I use mine around town alot more than you would do by the sound of it, on a run I have had 350 on a tank driving like Ms daisy:lazy: ... the DIS tells me that on average over the 18 odd months I have had it I have got 25 mpg & on runs 34 max. I love the 3.2 but if I had to do lots of miles I would have gone for the 2L...and a remap. Or even dare I say it a 170 tdi. Good luck with the car hunt:icon_thumright:
     
  3. Savage

    Savage Savage

    68
    0
    6
    I have a very similar commute to work as you and was in the same situation as you are now, about 5 months ago. I opted for the 2.0T. On an average trip to work I get ~ 32-33mpg. That's doing 80+ combined with 15 mins town driving. What with all the trips I do in the evenings and at weekends I get an average of ~350 miles per tank (at least until the light comes on).

    On a long motorway trip I managed to get about 400 miles before the light came on.
     
  4. needadvice

    needadvice New Member

    3
    0
    1
    Thanks very much both - very useful!! Any more advice from other owners would still be much appreciated.

    Getting 280ish miles out of a tank in the 3.2 would end up costing me about £240 a month, and as much as i'd love to, on top of what i'll be paying for the car i'm not sure i can afford that! (Gutted!!)

    Savage - did you test drive both the 3.2 and the 2.0T? If so, how did you find they compare? Are you happy with the 2.0T? I'm looking for a car that puts a big fat smile on my face when you put your foot down - does the 2.0T tick that box? (Not had the chance to test drive either myself yet - but plan to very soon).

    Thanks again for all the help - and thanks for the welcome to the board!
     
  5. C_Audiboy

    C_Audiboy Vroom Vroom

    822
    0
    16
    I had a 2.0T Quattro and on a mixture of motorway and town driving I only averaged around 25MPG. I was not impressed by the economy of the 2.0T, but then I had a quattro too.....

    The 2.0T drives very well though, with lots of torque and very little lag. A remap makes things even better. It'll never sound as good as a 3.2 though.

    Also the 2.0T is a much lighter engine and I've heard a few people say the 3.2 effects the handling as it feels a bit heavy.
     
  6. Wes G

    Wes G Member

    444
    3
    18
    I cant imagine that there would be a huge difference speed wise,the only ways they differ is the way they deliver the power... its all really down to which one you personally prefer, I`d have a go in both and go from there, however if fuel economy is a big issue then I would avoid the 3.2, much as I like it ,is is a heavy,thirsty old thing:sorry: but I`m just addicted to the noise:jump:
     
  7. Wes G

    Wes G Member

    444
    3
    18
    Wow...I didnt realise the 2L T with quatro was as thirsty as that, it makes the 3.2 not seem too bad if a 2L T is similar???:o.k:
     
  8. KRL

    KRL Member

    521
    2
    16
    I have driven both. To me there is not such a big difference in the performance of the engines. In fact I don't think either engine would feel noticeably faster than the other on a test drive. The 2.0T delivers its power in a very linear fashion which makes it feel much more like a 6 pot rather than a 2 litre blower.

    The one thing you will miss on the 2.0T is the glorious sound of the V6. That simply can't be beaten by a 4 pot. Also you can have quattro and DSG on on the 3.2 which is a big bonus.

    Its a difficult choice. Personally I'd opt for the 2.0T for the economy, tuning potential and less tax costs.

    I recently did a plot of my engines performance with VAG-COM, see here if you like:

    http://www.audi-sport.net/vb/showthread.php?t=46234
     
  9. Savage

    Savage Savage

    68
    0
    6
    My 2.0T is FWD, I really don't need 4WD with the driving I do. I didn't test drive the 3.2 as I had ruled it out on MPG by that point and I really fancied a turbo car again. I enjoy driving the car, it does put a smile on my face everytime I get into it and I know that if I can convince the Mrs tuning is a good idea, I'll be able to see a decent increase for very little hassle.
     
  10. Wes G

    Wes G Member

    444
    3
    18
    If you were to buy a pre 06 reg then you could avoid the high tax...if you opted 3.2, but as above there is not much diff" in performance, Go have a good blast in both!!!:hubbahubba:
     
  11. RGBArgee

    RGBArgee Guest

    0
    0
    0
    We get around 30mpg out of hours, drops to 27 if pushed! If you are considering 3.2 look at Car Tax too... It's in the big band, Quattro 2.0T is also higher than the FWD with same engine!!!:music: R
     
  12. markwiggy

    markwiggy Third Gear

    1,132
    94
    48
    20T every time for me, 3.2 to thirsty and nose heavy. On the type of run you will be doing you should see 30-35mpg easy, my 20T quattro would do 35 on the motorway. Must say though drove a 20T DSG before I got mine and did not like it there was a time delay after putting your foot down and anything happening, quite un-nerving when you wanted power coming out of a bend, and it was not turbo lag. It may of just been that car though???
    Anyway good luck !!

    Mark
     
  13. needadvice

    needadvice New Member

    3
    0
    1
    Cheers for all the help guys - it's all very useful!

    I'm getting more and more tempted by the 2.0T now, probably with DSG rather than Quattro.

    Can anybody tell me if the 2.0T FSI Sport or S-line have the paddles on the steering wheel?
     
  14. mfspen

    mfspen Member

    577
    10
    18
    On steady motorway driving the 2.0T is surprisingly economical. At a constant 70mph in 6th, mine does ~36mpg. This drops to ~34mpg at 80mph.

    Expect 3-4mpg lower for Quattro.
     
  15. KRL

    KRL Member

    521
    2
    16
    Yes both have the padles on the steering wheel. All S tronic/DSG equiped cars do.
     
  16. Twizzler

    Twizzler Active Member

    481
    32
    28
    KRL

    I think you will find the paddles are an option and are dependant on the steering wheel specified.
     
  17. KRL

    KRL Member

    521
    2
    16
    Really?

    I thought all DSG cars came with:
    Steering wheels
    - 3-spoke leather with gear change controls

    As standard.
     
  18. -Ju-

    -Ju- Well-Known Member VCDS Map User Audi S3

    2,037
    267
    83
    I always thought they came with paddles, but a mate recently bought a brand new A4 3.0TDi Avant with DSG and that turned up without the paddles!!
     
  19. killa_z

    killa_z Couped Out

    180
    0
    16
    3.2 owner here, dont regret the choice i made AT ALL, dont think you would either

    but then again, if petrol consumption is an issue for you, then dont buy!
     
  20. dbm

    dbm Active Member

    615
    163
    43
    I have a 3.2 with DSG and get 25-26 mpgs pretty consistently. This is with a mix of motorway and very spirited driving. If I pootle about then I can get 27-28 out of the car. For me, I had to have both DSG and Quatro, so the 3.2 was the only option. Interestingly, the 3.2 is more fuel efficient with DSG, whilst from memory the 2.0T is ever so slightly less. Not that that makes any real difference in a comparison between the two.

    Personally, I love my 3.2 DSG and wouldn't compromise on anything else, even an S3 wouldn't have the specific mix of capabilities that I want. Bottom line is try both with decent length test drives and see what you think.

    Dan
     
  21. dbm

    dbm Active Member

    615
    163
    43
    Nit pick - you can't get an A4 with DSG, only conventional automatic or CVT.

    Cheers,
    Dan
     
  22. magnus911

    magnus911 R8GGA

    453
    1
    16
    3.2 owner here...came from a car which gave me 45+ mpg and now do mostly town driving and average around 18...

    Don't regret it at all though. Driven the 2.0T and the extra money I spend on petrol is more than worth it. I love the sound and the torque and I had to have quattro and DSG.

    I hope you make the right choice!
     
  23. mitch78

    mitch78 Active Member

    2,350
    4
    38
    :thumbsup:
     
  24. jasaudi

    jasaudi Member

    144
    0
    16
    I would have to say the 3.2 with DSG is a superb car, beautiful to drive and the DSG is great fun when you want to go manual and let it rip. I have found very few problems with it changing automatically when on manual mode if any!!

    I would however suggest that given what you have said you want the car for which is a lot of motorway driving etc then I would actually got with the 2.0 Quattro as it will give you better economy than a 3.2 but less than a non quattro but will give you better road holding in the wet/bad road conditions. The 2.0 DSG will give you better fuel economy and acceleration than the Quattro
     
  25. baldrick

    baldrick Member

    49
    11
    6
    I have gone from a V6 Alfa 156 2.5 to a 2.0TFSI DSG A3 Sportback.

    Driven the same the Alfa gave 24mpg the A3 26mpg. Which really was a surprise. Forget the government figures (the Alfa 24mpg the Audi 36mpg) in real life driving there isn't much difference.

    I would imagine the difference between the 3.2 and 2.0T are nothing like as big as you might think especially if you take advantage of the power of both.

    So IMHO it comes down to which handles better (the 3.2 is a heavier car), do you want quattro and if the V6 sound is that much better.

    I have been pleasantly surprised with the sound of the 2.0T under power compared with tha Alfa. Obviously the Alfa sounded great but the Audi isn't too far behind, particularly the bark when changing gear full throttle :)

    For me the 3.2 wasn't an option as it is a company car.

    Cheers
    baldrick
     
  26. baldrick

    baldrick Member

    49
    11
    6
    Regarding the DSG I find it only changes for me in manual mode when I am being lazy, i.e. the revs have dropped too low and it changes.

    In spirited driving I will always change down way before the computer thinks it should take over and change up just before the rev limiter demands an auto change.

    So I tend to use it in manual mode for the open road and auto mode when in traffic. If you are in auto mode and approach a roundabout and want to force it to change down you can still use the paddles to override the auto and it will stay in manual mode for something like 8-10 seconds if you don't change gears again.

    Cheers
    baldrick
     

Share This Page