[ 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