Decision Made - A3 3.2 instead of S3

Spook

Spook

Registered User
Joined
Mar 19, 2006
Messages
222
Reaction score
1
Points
18
Location
UK
I've seen and read everything that's been said so far about the new S3, and noted in particular the disappointment expressed by those who put deposits down and have now cancelled their order. I've certainly seen nothing to convince me to spend £30k plus on a 4-cylinder engined car, no matter how well it might handle.

I have therefore taken the plunge and put a deposit down on a November 2005 A3 3.2 S-Line DSG with 12,000 miles, Misano Red, full black leather, all the toys and a peachy V6 engine, for £21,500.

Sounds like good value to me. Discuss :)
 
does it come with sat nav for 21.5k ?
 
No, Symphony II, but RNS-E is first on the list for retrofit... ;)
 
Does a november 2005 S-Line have the exterior styling kit included? or was that before it was included in the S-Line model?
 
Was that the Sport or Sportback you bought? I paid about £20k (you never really know exactly when you have a PX) for an 05 with nothing like as a high a spec, by the sound of it. So IMO you have done really well - enjoy!:racer:
 
good choice in model :)

instant power from the 3.2 from tickover ;)
its a real sleeper at the lights :)
 
Should have gone for a 2.0t quattro and a remap. :thumbsup:

Significantly quicker than the 3.2, handles better than the 3.2, much more economical than the 3.2, cheaper to buy than the 3.2, Holds its value better than the 3.2 and its also cheaper to insure than the 3.2.

None of the above is much good though if your not keen on 4 pots
 
co55ie said:
Should have gone for a 2.0t quattro and a remap. :thumbsup:

Significantly quicker than the 3.2, handles better than the 3.2, much more economical than the 3.2, cheaper to buy than the 3.2, Holds its value better than the 3.2 and its also cheaper to insure than the 3.2.

None of the above is much good though if your not keen on 4 pots
Click to expand...
It's not that I'm not keen on 4-pots (most of my cars over the years have been 4-cyl) it's just that there comes a time when a guy needs a change, y'know.

That, and the fear that that the 2.0t will rightly or wrongly come to be regarded as "the poor man's S3"

(Stand by to be flamed, Spook....:))
 
You cant have DSG on an S3 either .

Spanking VAG 3.2 litre powered cars is good fun :whip: :p
 
Spook said:
That, and the fear that that the 2.0t will rightly or wrongly come to be regarded as "the poor man's S3"
Click to expand...

I think that award has allready been given out to the 3.2 owners the poor souls that they are :yahoo:

The 2.0T Q is the thinking mans A3 :think: :yes:
 
audi upgrades
Spook said:
It's not that I'm not keen on 4-pots (most of my cars over the years have been 4-cyl) it's just that there comes a time when a guy needs a change, y'know.

That, and the fear that that the 2.0t will rightly or wrongly come to be regarded as "the poor man's S3"

(Stand by to be flamed, Spook....:))
Click to expand...

Image removed, I have hotlinking enabled and it was showing the wrong image.
 
co55ie said:
Significantly quicker than the 3.2, handles better than the 3.2, much more economical than the 3.2, cheaper to buy than the 3.2, Holds its value better than the 3.2 and its also cheaper to insure than the 3.2.

None of the above is much good though if your not keen on 4 pots
Click to expand...

come on cossie, can't let all that slide, some of those are a little far fetched surely? :laugh:

significantly quicker? where.

Handles better, probably give you that one. But neither are that good.

much more economical, come on netiher are diesels only about 20% difference.

cheaper yup, saying nothing ;)

Hold its value better? three or four magazines show them as equal or the 3.2 as better for retained value.

insurance yes but marginal it's only single pounds per month,


come on though guys this isn't a 3.2 vs 2.0T arguement is it,


sorry Spook, good choice, welcome fella, you'll enjoy it,
:racer:


p.s.
I've just done the Symphony to RNS retro fit, easy work, and well worth it IMHO

.
 
I'm afraid I'll have to join in the debate here as this Wednesday I hope to take delivery of a brand new A3 2.0T FSI quttro Special Edition Sportback 5dr costing 22k.

Misano Red, it includes leather seats, Symphony II, Bose, Armrest, Cruise, heated seats and 20 18' spoke alloys.

On the downside I say goodbye to my '02 S3

I could have gone with the 3.2 but have to concur with Cossy's diagnosis.

I don't feel I'm getting a poor man's alternative. It's straight down to the chip shop on Thursday and then, after a discreet remap, I'll be quicker than standard 3.2s, S3s and TTs, luxuriant in my suite of optional extras and laughing in my rear view mirror.

P.S. No need to praise me as I feel smug enough already!
 
da3m said:
come on cossie, can't let all that slide, some of those are a little far fetched surely? :laugh:

significantly quicker? where.
much more economical, come on netiher are diesels only about 20% difference.

.
Click to expand...

The standard 3.2 is only marginally quicker through the gears than a standard
2.0T when the 2.0T is remapped it really is significantly quicker its got equal power a hell of a lot more torque and the car weighs less. Absolutely no problem showing a new shape R32 a clean pair of heals the other day and he was trying for all he was worth. I would imagine the remapped 2.0T has simlar performance to an S3 without any of the lag or harshness that has been reported of the S3 engine.

Since remapping I am getting an average over the last 1,000 miles of 32mpg in a variety of different driveing conditions and I dont drive the car like a pussy either.


I honestly think you would be surprised at just how nippy the 2.0T becomes when remapped. When refereing to the engine being remapped to around 250bhp on a golf Gti Evo magazine claimed the car delivery became quite fierce. :respekt:
 
co55ie said:
The standard 3.2 is only marginally quicker through the gears than a standard
2.0T when the 2.0T is remapped it really is significantly quicker its got equal power a hell of a lot more torque and the car weighs less. Absolutely no problem showing a new shape R32 a clean pair of heals the other day and he was trying for all he was worth. I would imagine the remapped 2.0T has simlar performance to an S3 without any of the lag or harshness that has been reported of the S3 engine.

Since remapping I am getting an average over the last 1,000 miles of 32mpg in a variety of different driveing conditions and I dont drive the car like a pussy either.


I honestly think you would be surprised at just how nippy the 2.0T becomes when remapped. When refereing to the engine being remapped to around 250bhp on a golf Gti Evo magazine claimed the car delivery became quite fierce. :respekt:
Click to expand...

You sure know how to get a man excited Cossie, can't wait till Wednesday when my 2.0T fluzie gets delivered.
 
Just to add to the debate,I (and some colleagues here) would happily look at a 2.0T,but none of us would entertain the 3.2
All cite the ridiculous MPG and some,including me,feel the 3.2 is a bit too 'old school' technology,compared with the 2.0T.
Bit of a bygone age,if you like.
 
when you consider a subaru Sti has about 265bhp and you would be lucky to get an average MPG of 20 you really cant compain at 250bhp and 32mpg at all.


This is what sold me the 2.0T Q in the first place affordable and usuable performance.
 
MushroomMan said:
I don't feel I'm getting a poor man's alternative. It's straight down to the chip shop on Thursday and then, after a discreet remap, I'll be quicker than standard 3.2s, S3s and TTs, luxuriant in my suite of optional extras and laughing in my rear view mirror.

P.S. No need to praise me as I feel smug enough already!
Click to expand...

:haha:

like it m8 talkin about blowin ur own trumpet :moa:
 
bowfer said:
Just to add to the debate,I (and some colleagues here) would happily look at a 2.0T,but none of us would entertain the 3.2
All cite the ridiculous MPG and some,including me,feel the 3.2 is a bit too 'old school' technology,compared with the 2.0T.
Bit of a bygone age,if you like.
Click to expand...
Not all that "old school", surely?

OK, so the 3.2 isn't FSI, but that's brand new technology. If you were talking about pushrods and 2 valves per cylinder on the V6, I might agree that it's past it.

And IMHO 25mpg for 250bhp ain't a bad trade-off for the turbine-like smoothness and sound that only a 6 cylinder can provide. I know which engine I'd rather listen to ;)
 
I am sure you will enjoy your new car Spook. Who cares what others think your happy with your choice and thats all that matters . The V6 does sound nice especially with a decent exhaust.

Are you going to take up smoking a pipe when you take delivery ?
 
co55ie said:
I am sure you will enjoy your new car Spook. Who cares what others think your happy with your choice and thats all that matters . The V6 does sound nice especially with a decent exhaust.

Are you going to take up smoking a pipe when you take delivery ?
Click to expand...
See if you can spot it as I overtake you.

And never forget that old saying: "old age and treachery will always overcome youth and skill".

Now, where did I put that Sanatogen.....
 
co55ie said:
The standard 3.2 is only marginally quicker through the gears than a standard
2.0T when the 2.0T is remapped it really is significantly quicker its got equal power a hell of a lot more torque and the car weighs less. Absolutely no problem showing a new shape R32 a clean pair of heals the other day and he was trying for all he was worth. I would imagine the remapped 2.0T has simlar performance to an S3 without any of the lag or harshness that has been reported of the S3 engine.

Since remapping I am getting an average over the last 1,000 miles of 32mpg in a variety of different driveing conditions and I dont drive the car like a pussy either.


I honestly think you would be surprised at just how nippy the 2.0T becomes when remapped. When refereing to the engine being remapped to around 250bhp on a golf Gti Evo magazine claimed the car delivery became quite fierce. :respekt:
Click to expand...
Yep, agree all the way, I showed clean pair of heels to a TT the other day, he came up behind all aggresive looking, and then he wasn't!!, I caught the badge at the next roundabout when he turned off..............3.2 hehehe
 
Its a case of you pays your money and you makes your choice.
Neither are bad cars and different people look for different things. The one I chose, I would (if buying another new A3) choose again.
Its really down to as long as your happy with the car you choose it doesnt matter what other people think. JUST ENJOY
 
Don't worry Spook, at least you'll be able to overtake all the Grandads in their suped-up Rover 600s.

Actually, I did consider the 3.2 but I'm a serial chipper and the 2.0TFSI kinda felt right and, yes I confess, I didn't fancy paying extra for less power!!
 
johnmv55 said:
Yep, agree all the way, I showed clean pair of heels to a TT the other day, he came up behind all aggresive looking, and then he wasn't!!, I caught the badge at the next roundabout when he turned off..............3.2 hehehe
Click to expand...

How did you catch the badge at the *next* roundabout? :whistle2:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
S3 - Have I made the right decision?
Replies
41
Views
5K
RPB
RPB
B
Final decision made on S3 8P handling mods
Replies
10
Views
3K
baderlfc
B
Young un
S3 interior decision?
Replies
15
Views
1K
JESSER S3
JESSER S3
lil_coz
Hardest decision of my life
Replies
14
Views
1K
andykn
A
D
Centre accessorie instead of armrest
Replies
5
Views
850
Khufu
Khufu
Top
Back