A3 3.2 V6 quattro or 2.0T FSi quattro?
Discussion
What a great position to be in. The 2.0T is a great engine but... a 3.2 petrol is always nice, but especially crammed into a nice little A3.
I've no experience of these but I have driven the Mk1 TT 225 (1.8t...) and Mk1 TT 3.2 both with manuals.
The 3.2 was, no question, pretty epic. The whole car felt closer to a Porsche and less like a jumped up fancy pants golf. That is due to sound, response, feel, delivery, and so on. The 3.2 engine felt big enough to be exciting but (though I only had a 20 minute drive alone) never felt like it defined the car or overwhelmed it with its weight or capacity.
The 1.8T on the other hand felt very adequate, in a VW/Audi kind of way. It was as quick, and the car handled no differently, but... thrilling it wasn't. Effective for sure, but I don't think that I would really get excited about my own car were it powered with such a 'sensible' engine.
I used to look at TT 3.2 drivers and feel sorry for them, "you naive idiot you know the four cylinder turbo is just as fast and has better MPG?" However now I look at them with renewed enthusiasm and feel they've made a much wiser choice.
Still a big step to take when you know it's the least sensible of the options (esp in a recession).
I've no experience of these but I have driven the Mk1 TT 225 (1.8t...) and Mk1 TT 3.2 both with manuals.
The 3.2 was, no question, pretty epic. The whole car felt closer to a Porsche and less like a jumped up fancy pants golf. That is due to sound, response, feel, delivery, and so on. The 3.2 engine felt big enough to be exciting but (though I only had a 20 minute drive alone) never felt like it defined the car or overwhelmed it with its weight or capacity.
The 1.8T on the other hand felt very adequate, in a VW/Audi kind of way. It was as quick, and the car handled no differently, but... thrilling it wasn't. Effective for sure, but I don't think that I would really get excited about my own car were it powered with such a 'sensible' engine.
I used to look at TT 3.2 drivers and feel sorry for them, "you naive idiot you know the four cylinder turbo is just as fast and has better MPG?" However now I look at them with renewed enthusiasm and feel they've made a much wiser choice.
Still a big step to take when you know it's the least sensible of the options (esp in a recession).
Kane_ said:
If your budget is 15k top have a look at Mk5 R32s, even the ones you see at 17-18k can be haggled and the handling is much better.
The only difference in respect of handling in the A3 is that it has slightly different (firmer) spring/damper rates.......both cars ideally need KW V3 or Koni FSD/Eibach Pro-Kit to get the best out of them. The 8P build quality and interior is superior to the MkV too.
Pentoman said:
What a great position to be in. The 2.0T is a great engine but... a 3.2 petrol is always nice, but especially crammed into a nice little A3.
I've no experience of these but I have driven the Mk1 TT 225 (1.8t...) and Mk1 TT 3.2 both with manuals.
The 3.2 was, no question, pretty epic. The whole car felt closer to a Porsche and less like a jumped up fancy pants golf. That is due to sound, response, feel, delivery, and so on. The 3.2 engine felt big enough to be exciting but (though I only had a 20 minute drive alone) never felt like it defined the car or overwhelmed it with its weight or capacity.
The 1.8T on the other hand felt very adequate, in a VW/Audi kind of way. It was as quick, and the car handled no differently, but... thrilling it wasn't. Effective for sure, but I don't think that I would really get excited about my own car were it powered with such a 'sensible' engine.
I used to look at TT 3.2 drivers and feel sorry for them, "you naive idiot you know the four cylinder turbo is just as fast and has better MPG?" However now I look at them with renewed enthusiasm and feel they've made a much wiser choice.
Still a big step to take when you know it's the least sensible of the options (esp in a recession).
true, thanks for the comments, I agree, I am looking for something that is more than the sensible option, 3.2 is the way forward. I will hopefully be test driving a 2.0T next week along with a 3.2I've no experience of these but I have driven the Mk1 TT 225 (1.8t...) and Mk1 TT 3.2 both with manuals.
The 3.2 was, no question, pretty epic. The whole car felt closer to a Porsche and less like a jumped up fancy pants golf. That is due to sound, response, feel, delivery, and so on. The 3.2 engine felt big enough to be exciting but (though I only had a 20 minute drive alone) never felt like it defined the car or overwhelmed it with its weight or capacity.
The 1.8T on the other hand felt very adequate, in a VW/Audi kind of way. It was as quick, and the car handled no differently, but... thrilling it wasn't. Effective for sure, but I don't think that I would really get excited about my own car were it powered with such a 'sensible' engine.
I used to look at TT 3.2 drivers and feel sorry for them, "you naive idiot you know the four cylinder turbo is just as fast and has better MPG?" However now I look at them with renewed enthusiasm and feel they've made a much wiser choice.
Still a big step to take when you know it's the least sensible of the options (esp in a recession).
baz1985 said:
Kane_ said:
If your budget is 15k top have a look at Mk5 R32s, even the ones you see at 17-18k can be haggled and the handling is much better.
The only difference in respect of handling in the A3 is that it has slightly different (firmer) spring/damper rates.......both cars ideally need KW V3 or Koni FSD/Eibach Pro-Kit to get the best out of them. The 8P build quality and interior is superior to the MkV too.The only mods I am thinking about are Milteks at the moment for the 3.2. How much would these handling mods set me back?
Consultant said:
Pentoman said:
What a great position to be in. The 2.0T is a great engine but... a 3.2 petrol is always nice, but especially crammed into a nice little A3.
I've no experience of these but I have driven the Mk1 TT 225 (1.8t...) and Mk1 TT 3.2 both with manuals.
The 3.2 was, no question, pretty epic. The whole car felt closer to a Porsche and less like a jumped up fancy pants golf. That is due to sound, response, feel, delivery, and so on. The 3.2 engine felt big enough to be exciting but (though I only had a 20 minute drive alone) never felt like it defined the car or overwhelmed it with its weight or capacity.
The 1.8T on the other hand felt very adequate, in a VW/Audi kind of way. It was as quick, and the car handled no differently, but... thrilling it wasn't. Effective for sure, but I don't think that I would really get excited about my own car were it powered with such a 'sensible' engine.
I used to look at TT 3.2 drivers and feel sorry for them, "you naive idiot you know the four cylinder turbo is just as fast and has better MPG?" However now I look at them with renewed enthusiasm and feel they've made a much wiser choice.
Still a big step to take when you know it's the least sensible of the options (esp in a recession).
true, thanks for the comments, I agree, I am looking for something that is more than the sensible option, 3.2 is the way forward. I will hopefully be test driving a 2.0T next week along with a 3.2I've no experience of these but I have driven the Mk1 TT 225 (1.8t...) and Mk1 TT 3.2 both with manuals.
The 3.2 was, no question, pretty epic. The whole car felt closer to a Porsche and less like a jumped up fancy pants golf. That is due to sound, response, feel, delivery, and so on. The 3.2 engine felt big enough to be exciting but (though I only had a 20 minute drive alone) never felt like it defined the car or overwhelmed it with its weight or capacity.
The 1.8T on the other hand felt very adequate, in a VW/Audi kind of way. It was as quick, and the car handled no differently, but... thrilling it wasn't. Effective for sure, but I don't think that I would really get excited about my own car were it powered with such a 'sensible' engine.
I used to look at TT 3.2 drivers and feel sorry for them, "you naive idiot you know the four cylinder turbo is just as fast and has better MPG?" However now I look at them with renewed enthusiasm and feel they've made a much wiser choice.
Still a big step to take when you know it's the least sensible of the options (esp in a recession).
baz1985 said:
Kane_ said:
If your budget is 15k top have a look at Mk5 R32s, even the ones you see at 17-18k can be haggled and the handling is much better.
The only difference in respect of handling in the A3 is that it has slightly different (firmer) spring/damper rates.......both cars ideally need KW V3 or Koni FSD/Eibach Pro-Kit to get the best out of them. The 8P build quality and interior is superior to the MkV too.The only mods I am thinking about are Milteks at the moment for the 3.2. How much would these handling mods set me back?
A Milltek cat-back will set you back about £500. Go for the resonated one as the non-res is very very noisy. It will sound outstanding but you will lose the subtlety of the understated q-car that the A3 3.2 really is.
Other mods I'd consider would be ARBs and a better Haldex controller (£500) if you want to reduce the understeer.
Other mods I'd consider would be ARBs and a better Haldex controller (£500) if you want to reduce the understeer.
I run a 3.2 2004 A3 DSG, I too looked at the 2.0T's when buying and just found them bland in the sense of having the normal 2.0T four pot sound and it seemed to lack sole.
The V6 is really flexible and with the DSG box it is ultra smooth. I run the car as my daily drive so it takes a pounding with the miles, covering 170 ish miles per day (half A/B roads half motorway). I get a good 30-32 mpg with sensible driving and if I feel the need to push on quickly then it returns a respectable 24-27 mpg.
Road tax is high but I look at it from the point of view that it's a little more individual then the vast majority of A3's on the road. In terms of understeer, it does feel from time to time a little heavy on at the front but not much more than a TDI.
I used it last year for leading a run for the TVR Car Club over the Welsh mountains and it was surprisingly quick and at no point did it feel like the car was understeering any more than any other hatch out there.
The V6 is really flexible and with the DSG box it is ultra smooth. I run the car as my daily drive so it takes a pounding with the miles, covering 170 ish miles per day (half A/B roads half motorway). I get a good 30-32 mpg with sensible driving and if I feel the need to push on quickly then it returns a respectable 24-27 mpg.
Road tax is high but I look at it from the point of view that it's a little more individual then the vast majority of A3's on the road. In terms of understeer, it does feel from time to time a little heavy on at the front but not much more than a TDI.
I used it last year for leading a run for the TVR Car Club over the Welsh mountains and it was surprisingly quick and at no point did it feel like the car was understeering any more than any other hatch out there.
i own a Golf r32 now used to own a 1.8T cupra ... love it to bits the noise is amazing and the handeling is different class . im sure the a3 3.2 will be more or less the same car. The v6 is gutsy dont let any1 kid u on ... i get 24 mpg around the town but can get 32 mpg on the motorway doing 75-80. Hope tats of any help.
jasong1987 said:
i own a Golf r32 now used to own a 1.8T cupra ... love it to bits the noise is amazing and the handeling is different class . im sure the a3 3.2 will be more or less the same car. The v6 is gutsy dont let any1 kid u on ... i get 24 mpg around the town but can get 32 mpg on the motorway doing 75-80. Hope tats of any help.
cheers for the infoAuditdi said:
As the 2.0T will be tuned and therefore have similar bhp to the 3.2 I would choose the 2.0T any day of the week.
I'm driving a 2.0T, manual, quattro next week but interested in a DSG + quattro car so 3.2 is my only option if I want this combo as I am looking at 55 & 06 plate carsAuditdi said:
As the 2.0T will be tuned and therefore have similar bhp to the 3.2 I would choose the 2.0T any day of the week.
Unless the 2.0 is a quattro and AFAIK that is not available with DSG (except maybe new S3?) it will wheelspin & torquesteer everywhere, particularly in the wet and especially if it's DSG with FWD (DSG clutch take-up is not very progressive). The 3.2 gets it's power down with no fuss or drama in any condition and is deceptively quick for real-world motoring.
catso said:
Auditdi said:
As the 2.0T will be tuned and therefore have similar bhp to the 3.2 I would choose the 2.0T any day of the week.
Unless the 2.0 is a quattro and AFAIK that is not available with DSG (except maybe new S3?) it will wheelspin & torquesteer everywhere, particularly in the wet and especially if it's DSG with FWD (DSG clutch take-up is not very progressive). The 3.2 gets it's power down with no fuss or drama in any condition and is deceptively quick for real-world motoring.
Auditdi said:
catso said:
Auditdi said:
As the 2.0T will be tuned and therefore have similar bhp to the 3.2 I would choose the 2.0T any day of the week.
Unless the 2.0 is a quattro and AFAIK that is not available with DSG (except maybe new S3?) it will wheelspin & torquesteer everywhere, particularly in the wet and especially if it's DSG with FWD (DSG clutch take-up is not very progressive). The 3.2 gets it's power down with no fuss or drama in any condition and is deceptively quick for real-world motoring.
The S3 is the one to have. I would still go for the 2.0T over the 3.2 v6
Auditdi said:
Auditdi said:
catso said:
Auditdi said:
As the 2.0T will be tuned and therefore have similar bhp to the 3.2 I would choose the 2.0T any day of the week.
Unless the 2.0 is a quattro and AFAIK that is not available with DSG (except maybe new S3?) it will wheelspin & torquesteer everywhere, particularly in the wet and especially if it's DSG with FWD (DSG clutch take-up is not very progressive). The 3.2 gets it's power down with no fuss or drama in any condition and is deceptively quick for real-world motoring.
The S3 is the one to have. I would still go for the 2.0T over the 3.2 v6
catso said:
Auditdi said:
Auditdi said:
catso said:
Auditdi said:
As the 2.0T will be tuned and therefore have similar bhp to the 3.2 I would choose the 2.0T any day of the week.
Unless the 2.0 is a quattro and AFAIK that is not available with DSG (except maybe new S3?) it will wheelspin & torquesteer everywhere, particularly in the wet and especially if it's DSG with FWD (DSG clutch take-up is not very progressive). The 3.2 gets it's power down with no fuss or drama in any condition and is deceptively quick for real-world motoring.
The S3 is the one to have. I would still go for the 2.0T over the 3.2 v6
baz1985 said:
catso said:
Auditdi said:
Auditdi said:
catso said:
Auditdi said:
As the 2.0T will be tuned and therefore have similar bhp to the 3.2 I would choose the 2.0T any day of the week.
Unless the 2.0 is a quattro and AFAIK that is not available with DSG (except maybe new S3?) it will wheelspin & torquesteer everywhere, particularly in the wet and especially if it's DSG with FWD (DSG clutch take-up is not very progressive). The 3.2 gets it's power down with no fuss or drama in any condition and is deceptively quick for real-world motoring.
The S3 is the one to have. I would still go for the 2.0T over the 3.2 v6
Gassing Station | Audi, Seat, Skoda & VW | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff