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

S3 to A3 2.0 TFSI...is it a downgrade?

Discussion in 'A3/S3/Sportback (8P Chassis)' started by hwmin, Apr 12, 2005.

  1. hwmin
    Offline

    hwmin New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2003
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Apr 12, 2005]
    This has become such a dilemma! I have been driving the S3 (210 bhp) for 4 years now. After reading all the wonderful reviews on the new A3, the desire to change is mounting, daily.

    No question it's a step down performance wise, but the 4 door and bigger interior on the new A3 is a big incentive, let alone the new look and the DSG gearbox.

    Has anyone gone from S3 to the 2.0 TFSI? How would you rate the overall performance and handling?

    Better yet, if given a choice between the 2.0 TFSI and the 3.2 Quattro, what would be your choice, assuming petrol cost is not a factor? I am just curious on how you would rate the performance and handling between the two models.

    Thanks very much!
    #1
  2. Ads

    Ads

    [Sep 16, 2014]

  3. Cupramax
    Offline

    Cupramax Uber pimp meister

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    457
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Apr 12, 2005]
    I've gone from a Leon Cupra R which is basically S3 running gear minus the 4wd to a Sportback 2.0T Quattro and am well pleased with it. Its only slightly slower than the Leon was but the power spread is much wider than the 1.8T engine so you really dont notice it. Its almost like driving a normally aspirated car in fact. As you say, the new body is a lot roomier inside. I drove a 3.2 for a day on test drive as well and although it sounded fantastic the car felt very front heavy to me so I opted for the 2.0T. To be honest you'd be pushed to notice the difference as there's only half a second to 60 between them.... plus there are remaps appearing now for the 2.0T giving 3.2 performance.
    #2
  4. brandona4
    Offline

    brandona4 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2005
    Messages:
    239
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Apr 12, 2005]
    I've driven both and think the 3.2 kicks ass. The 2.0T is sweet, but not blistering. If petrol isn't a factor, you'd be nuts not to go for a 3.2.
    #3
  5. nervus
    Offline

    nervus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2004
    Messages:
    1,191
    Likes Received:
    46
    [Apr 12, 2005]
    If it's performance your after then why don't you get a diesel with a superchip??? They keep up with chipped 2.0 FSIT's no problem.
    #4
  6. Eeef
    Offline

    Eeef Lord of War

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2004
    Messages:
    1,607
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Apr 12, 2005]
    [ QUOTE ]
    If it's performance your after then why don't you get a diesel with a superchip??? They keep up with chipped 2.0 FSIT's no problem.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Awww ****, there goes the neighbourhood... [​IMG]
    #5
  7. JaminBen
    Offline

    JaminBen Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2005
    Messages:
    532
    Likes Received:
    2
    [Apr 12, 2005]
    hwmin, have you searched this A3 8P forum? There are lots of threads that have dealt with 2.0T vs 3.2, with lots of great information and individual input.
    #6
  8. Cupramax
    Offline

    Cupramax Uber pimp meister

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    457
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Apr 12, 2005]
    Whats the C02 got to do with it or are you saying Audi are showing different weights? if so I cant see them???
    #7
  9. DavidR
    Offline

    DavidR Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    1,297
    Likes Received:
    1
    [Apr 12, 2005]
    The weights listed on the pricelists are those used to work out C02 calculations and tax implications (apparently)...
    #8
  10. nicks3
    Offline

    nicks3 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    319
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Apr 12, 2005]
    Fuzzynapper. I am contemplating changing my remapped S3 to the 3.2 quattro sportline and prhaps you could give me a quick comparsion to the 2 cars that would help me. I was waiting from the new S3 but am getting fed up of waiting so am thinkg of 3.2q until the S3 has been launched.
    #9
  11. fuzzynapper
    Offline

    fuzzynapper Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    45
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Apr 12, 2005]
    Nicks3,
    I too got fed up waiting for the new S3 , so opted for the 3.2 S-Line.
    Starting with looks- the 3.2 is similar in ‘aggressive’ looks as the S3 was, particularly with the larger wheels & brake disks on the 3.2.
    The suspension on the 3.2 whilst sporting is not the bone crusher it was on the S3. (My head used to hit the roof if I hit the speed bumps too quick)
    The brakes, helped by the bigger disks are much better on the 3.2, and do not fade as much as the old ones.
    As I mentioned earlier I do miss the kick back when the turbo kicked in on the S3 – especially on motorways when going from 6th to 5th gear and seeing Chav Boy in his Corsa disappear into the distance. Saying that the 3.2 has a great power band throughout the revs, more-so above 4000 revs, and if a throaty rasp floats your boat, you do get a good growl with the 3.2.
    I spend a lot of my time in the car, ok the 3.2 is more thirsty, but if your not heavy with your right foot you can average 26-28 mpg normal, with 30mpg on the motorway (keeping within the law).

    The above are just my own views, everyone has a different opinion.
    For the best comparison take out a 3.2 and the 2.0TFSI from your local stealer and see for yourself, but you must try the DSG - you don't need a pipe & slippers to have it !!!!
    Don’t know where you are in the East Mids, so am I, and deal with Audi in Lincoln, Leicester & Derby, and are all dying for your business.

    Roll on the new S3...... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ok.gif
    #10
  12. hwmin
    Offline

    hwmin New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2003
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Apr 12, 2005]
    Thanks for all the feedback. I'm leaning towards the 3.2. After driving and modding the 1.8T engines since '97 (from A4 to S3), I just don't feel like going through the same routine again with the 2.0T, albeit its potential. Having said that, the 3.2 N/A set up will for sure help curb that mod itch and at the same time provide adequate power when needed.

    I only wish the dealer here in Hong Kong would get their act together and launch the car soon.
    #11
  13. jungle
    Offline

    jungle Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2004
    Messages:
    288
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Apr 12, 2005]
    [ QUOTE ]
    [ QUOTE ]
    [ QUOTE ]
    If it's performance your after then why don't you get a diesel with a superchip??? They keep up with chipped 2.0 FSIT's no problem.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Awww ****, there goes the neighbourhood... [​IMG]

    [/ QUOTE ]

    What do you mean?

    /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/noidea.gif

    [/ QUOTE ]

    don't be naughty nervus
    #12
  14. imported_kkline
    Online

    imported_kkline Guest

    [Apr 12, 2005]
    In last months Audi Driver Mag an A3 2.0TQ manual with a superchip produced performance figures that are not far off the S4.

    0-60 -> A3 2.0t=5.8sec, S4=5.5sec, A3 3.2=6.3sec
    0-80 -> A3 2.0t=8.5sec, S4=8.4sec, A3 3.2=10.4sec

    The superchip upgrade is rated at 244hp@6183rpm and 235ft/lbs@2572rpm. Quite conservative considering what MTM apparently has on the way.

    The 3.2 is way off the mark of a chipped 2.0t.
    #13
  15. Mark_N
    Offline

    Mark_N Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2005
    Messages:
    250
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Apr 12, 2005]
    Blah, blah, blah... When I grow up I'll not use such foul language and offense....
    #14
  16. jungle
    Offline

    jungle Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2004
    Messages:
    288
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Apr 12, 2005]
    [ QUOTE ]
    Nervus would you ever shut your face ya little pigs prick.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Gentlemen, start your engines....

    /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/10_1_114.gif
    #15
  17. nervus
    Offline

    nervus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2004
    Messages:
    1,191
    Likes Received:
    46
    [Apr 13, 2005]
    Something i said Mark_N?
    [​IMG]
    #16
  18. nicks3
    Offline

    nicks3 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    319
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Apr 13, 2005]
    Thanks fuzzynapper I apprecite your thoughts. So after living with both cars for a while, is there much performance differnece between the remapped S3 and the 3.2?
    #17
  19. nicks3
    Offline

    nicks3 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    319
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Apr 13, 2005]
    amd 270bhp...so you realy think the 3.2 is as quick if not even quicker in everyday use than a remapped s3? That would be very good!!
    #18
  20. DavidR
    Offline

    DavidR Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    1,297
    Likes Received:
    1
    [Apr 14, 2005]
    [ QUOTE ]
    amd 270bhp...so you realy think the 3.2 is as quick if not even quicker in everyday use than a remapped s3? That would be very good!!

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Ah, that old chestnut again... 270bhp from a remap on an s3... I think not. 250ish is more realistic which puts in on a par with the 3.2... If you figure the 3.2 produces more power consistently at the top end compared with the turbo engine the differences may not be as huge as you might imagine...
    #19

Share This Page