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

which one 2.0T fsi or 3.2

Discussion in 'A3/S3/Sportback (8P Chassis)' started by cejsmith, Apr 18, 2006.

  1. cejsmith
    Offline

    cejsmith Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    40
    Likes Received:
    0
    I've decided to get a A3 , my budget is under £20k and for that I can get a 2.0T or a 04 3.2 .

    Which one should I get????

    I can get 2.0T with either quattro or DSG and 3.2 with both.

    Can any one tell me if there is any major differences in MPG etc.

    Thanks
    #1
  2. TDI-line
    Offline

    TDI-line Uber Post Whore

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    9,055
    Likes Received:
    37
    All depends on whether you go for the 2.0 T with quattro or dsg, the quattro will always eat a little more fuel, but imo would be worth it. The 2.0 T DSG would be the most frugal out of the 3.

    As for the 3.2, expect around 18-20 MPG around town, but has beautfiul smooth engine with a V6 roar.
    #2
  3. johnmv55
    Offline

    johnmv55 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2004
    Messages:
    247
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best to drive em both and make your own mind up,I did.
    All you will get asking questions like this here is confused, although saying that, the banter gets amusing!
    Have a look at Audi.co.uk for official mpg figures
    #3
  4. cejsmith
    Offline

    cejsmith Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    40
    Likes Received:
    0
    what do you get in general driving out of your 2.0t quattro?
    #4
  5. Dandle
    Offline

    Dandle Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2005
    Messages:
    852
    Likes Received:
    1
    My 2.0TQ started off pretty bad in the MPG stakes(22-24). But now its got 1600miles on it its just started returning about 26mpg thats without it going near a motorway and giving it a bit of stick now and then(30 miles a day).
    The average since it was new is about 24.5mpg but that will go up with time. I was a bit worried when it was low as it was the same as the 3.2 guys were getting. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif
    #5
  6. d3fy
    Offline

    d3fy Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2005
    Messages:
    1,412
    Likes Received:
    1
    mine is up also to around 26mpg with 33 on the motorway journeys
    #6
  7. johnmv55
    Offline

    johnmv55 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2004
    Messages:
    247
    Likes Received:
    0
    [ QUOTE ]
    mine is up also to around 26mpg with 33 on the motorway journeys

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Same here......
    #7
  8. cejsmith
    Offline

    cejsmith Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    40
    Likes Received:
    0
    so it looks like the 2.0T is about the same as my S2000, is the 3.2 much worse?
    #8
  9. d3fy
    Offline

    d3fy Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2005
    Messages:
    1,412
    Likes Received:
    1
    i bet 24mpg for the 3.2
    #9
  10. slimbloke
    Offline

    slimbloke Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    298
    Likes Received:
    0
    you don't buy the 3.2 if you are concerned about MPG... you buy it for so many other things, but never MPG
    #10
  11. onianbag
    Offline

    onianbag Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Messages:
    108
    Likes Received:
    0
    yep 24 average on 3.2, but agree that you dont want to be worrying about it. sounds like there isn't too much difference between the 2. personally i would stick with the 3.2 for DSG&quattro
    #11
  12. powerplay
    Offline

    powerplay Grrrr

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    182
    Likes Received:
    0
    Personally I chose the 3.2Q over the 2.0T. didn't really like the DSG, prefer manual control hands down.

    The 3.2 is smoother, torquier and more relaxing to drive. If you're in traffic, just stick it in 6th from 30mph and you have no worries. If you want to get moving quickly, you need quattro especially in the wet, with all that power to put down.

    Mpg wise my 3.2 returns about 23 for slow stop-start traffic, 26-28 for average motoring between 30 and 50mph, 30-33 for 60-80mph motorway and 27-29 for 80+mph.

    I'm perfectly happy with that!
    #12
  13. onianbag
    Offline

    onianbag Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Messages:
    108
    Likes Received:
    0
    not that it matters but the 3.2 is a nice badge too, 2.0TFSi doesnt say much - but with the 3.2 you get comments like 'holy sh*t - how'd they get a 3.2litre engine in that!'
    #13
  14. slimbloke
    Offline

    slimbloke Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    298
    Likes Received:
    0
    true... even my local car wash comments on it, and I get stopped in petrol stations and asked about it regularly... don't think that would happen with a smaller diesel version.
    #14
  15. johnmv55
    Offline

    johnmv55 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2004
    Messages:
    247
    Likes Received:
    0
    [ QUOTE ]
    Personally I chose the 3.2Q over the 2.0T. didn't really like the DSG, prefer manual control hands down.

    The 3.2 is smoother, torquier and more relaxing to drive. If you're in traffic, just stick it in 6th from 30mph and you have no worries. If you want to get moving quickly, you need quattro especially in the wet, with all that power to put down.

    Mpg wise my 3.2 returns about 23 for slow stop-start traffic, 26-28 for average motoring between 30 and 50mph, 30-33 for 60-80mph motorway and 27-29 for 80+mph.

    I'm perfectly happy with that!

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Here we go!!

    "The 3.2 is smoother, torquier and more relaxing to drive."
    er, no, its not that clear cut actually, what you need to remember is the 2.0T is at the very start of its life span, so Audi knowing they need to increase hp with every new model (S3 for example) hold the power back electronically (ECU) to give the engine a 4/5 year life span, what this then enables you to do is "chip it", in std form the 3,2 delivers 236lb/ft of torque against the 2.0T's 207lb/ft, but in "chipped" form the 2.0T's torque rises to 300lb/ft, which is about 27% more than the 3.2's.....................
    #15
  16. cejsmith
    Offline

    cejsmith Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    40
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ok I think I'm sold on the 3.2 ( I can get more car for my money), is there any handling differences between the 3,2 sport and the S line?
    #16
  17. The911SC
    Offline

    The911SC Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2003
    Messages:
    1,035
    Likes Received:
    1
    I had the 3.2; drove the 2.0T against it and the 3.2 is the choice imo but MPG wise, the 2.0T should be the better bet.
    I got about 24-26mpg on a motorway run..But its worth it for that sound!..
    Get the S Line if you can.. bigger wheels, half leather as standard, perforated wheel and gearnob, rs6 style wheels and a roof spoiler (on some!)..
    #17
  18. powerplay
    Offline

    powerplay Grrrr

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    182
    Likes Received:
    0
    [ QUOTE ]

    Here we go!!

    "The 3.2 is smoother, torquier and more relaxing to drive."
    er, no, its not that clear cut actually, what you need to remember is the 2.0T is at the very start of its life span, so Audi knowing they need to increase hp with every new model (S3 for example) hold the power back electronically (ECU) to give the engine a 4/5 year life span, what this then enables you to do is "chip it", in std form the 3,2 delivers 236lb/ft of torque against the 2.0T's 207lb/ft, but in "chipped" form the 2.0T's torque rises to 300lb/ft, which is about 27% more than the 3.2's.....................

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Here we go?

    Just stating how I see things after test driving both models.

    Its probably true what you say, the 2.0T is more tunable and has more potential, but the question is about the standard model you can buy, and what the differences are between the two.

    Sure, you can throw money at any engine and increase performance in a multitude of ways, but the question is not about which model will perform better with after-marked mods, is it?
    #18
  19. johnmv55
    Offline

    johnmv55 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2004
    Messages:
    247
    Likes Received:
    0
    [ QUOTE ]
    [ QUOTE ]

    Here we go!!

    "The 3.2 is smoother, torquier and more relaxing to drive."
    er, no, its not that clear cut actually, what you need to remember is the 2.0T is at the very start of its life span, so Audi knowing they need to increase hp with every new model (S3 for example) hold the power back electronically (ECU) to give the engine a 4/5 year life span, what this then enables you to do is "chip it", in std form the 3,2 delivers 236lb/ft of torque against the 2.0T's 207lb/ft, but in "chipped" form the 2.0T's torque rises to 300lb/ft, which is about 27% more than the 3.2's.....................

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Here we go?

    Just stating how I see things after test driving both models.

    Its probably true what you say, the 2.0T is more tunable and has more potential, but the question is about the standard model you can buy, and what the differences are between the two.

    Sure, you can throw money at any engine and increase performance in a multitude of ways, but the question is not about which model will perform better with after-marked mods, is it?

    [/ QUOTE ]



    Well it may be, after all everybody is different in what they want out of a car at purchase, and also looking into the future.
    Some like the 3.2, some like the 2.0T, personally I like the 2.0T, I drove them back to back, I didn't like the feel of the extra weight at the front in the 3.2, I didn't like the way the 2.0TDSG spun wheels around roundabouts, and I also knew in the future a lot of firms would be tuning the 2.0T and the gains for £500 (65bhp and 100ft/lbs of torque are quite cheap by comparrison of getting the sane from the 3.2), I also knew the S3 would be a 2.0T which should say something, So I would say YES the after market mods were important to me.

    #19
  20. steeve
    Offline

    steeve Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2004
    Messages:
    906
    Likes Received:
    202
    I picked the 3.2 and have no regrets, driving steadily I can average 28 to 30, but start using the performance and it obviously drops. Doesnt bother me I dont do too many miles anyway. But I personally dont want a modified car. I get all that performance with no worries about losing warranty or having something non standard.
    You pays your money and you takes your choice.
    Dont listen to us, go drive one of each then pick what YOU want.
    #20

Share This Page