Milo Posted August 3, 2005 Report Share Posted August 3, 2005 Has anyone had a test drive in a B7 3.2 FSI? How does it compare to the 3.0 (other than 36 PS more power)? Also, in the A4 it is offered in 2 guises for almost identical money: 3.2 FSI Quattro Manual 3.2 FSI Multitronic (FWD) Which of these would you get? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisan Posted August 3, 2005 Report Share Posted August 3, 2005 [ QUOTE ] 3.2 FSI Quattro Manual 3.2 FSI Multitronic (FWD) Which of these would you get? [/ QUOTE ] Quite honestly, neither. Personally I don't think there is a market for the 3.2, certainly not one that's well spec'ed. If you use the configurator, and add on a few nice bits, you are soon into S4 territory. I think there are two (petrol) choices in the B7 range. 2.0TFSI, or S4. I've not heard or read a bad word about the 2.0T FSI. (fingers crossed) Just my 2'penneth worth. Cheers, Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UBM Posted August 3, 2005 Report Share Posted August 3, 2005 He might be right Milo. However, if you are considering the cab with a 3.2, this is a different matter. As we all know at the moment there are several choices, of which the 3.0L is a perfect combination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisan Posted August 3, 2005 Report Share Posted August 3, 2005 The other way to look at it is, how much more performance are you getting over the 2.0T FSI for the money. Probably not enough, along with increased fuel consumption and insurance costs. Don't get me wrong, I am a big fan of V engines. Every car I've had in the last 18 years has had a V engine. My Capri 3.0L Ghia being the first Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lmmlmmam Posted August 3, 2005 Report Share Posted August 3, 2005 [ QUOTE ] Don't get me wrong, I am a big fan of V engines. Every car I've had in the last 18 years has had a V engine. My Capri 3.0L Ghia being the first Chris [/ QUOTE ] Hope going back to a 4 doesn't turn out to be a dissapointment. I reckon the 2.0TFSi is a bit overhyped at the moment. The 3.2FSi is meant to be a similar improvement over the 3.0 as 2.0TFSi is over 1.8T. Therefore for the cab at least I reckon the 3.2FSi will be the more suited engine. Unfortunately apparent economics will dictate that the 2.0TFSi is more popular even though new purchase price aside the actual difference in running costs will be very small. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nbritt Posted August 3, 2005 Report Share Posted August 3, 2005 I test drove a 3.2 A4 B7 before buying a 2.0T. It drove very well with lots of performance(noticeably more than the 2.0T) and a lovely sounding V6 engine. I would definitely prefer it over the 2.0T, however was over my budget if I included some must haves like BOSE, Leather seats, etc... It all depends what you want ,the 2.0T makes more sense if you are doing lots of miles. But if you want that extra grunt and like V6's the 3.2 is the car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daz Posted August 3, 2005 Report Share Posted August 3, 2005 I drove a 3.2 A6 and the engine was very lively - in the wet quattro was definately required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chav Posted August 3, 2005 Report Share Posted August 3, 2005 [ QUOTE ] It all depends what you want ,the 2.0T makes more sense if you are doing lots of miles. [/ QUOTE ] This is an urban myth. I used to get 350 miles from a tank in my 1.8T s-line. I can now get 450+ miles from a tank in my 3.0 cab. I think a small engine, which is constantly revving higher, needs a very careful right foot to stop you using too much juice. With the 3.0, how you drive doesn't seem to make as much difference to economy. They must have a very careful right foot when they are publishing the economy figures for the turbo engines I reckon. My 3.0 is currently saving me money every month (2000-3000+ miles/month, varies) At 90mph in the s-line, it was about 4000rpm. In the 3.0, its 2500rpm. This must help with reliability too, as the engine is doing much less work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nbritt Posted August 3, 2005 Report Share Posted August 3, 2005 I thought the combined mpg for the 2.0T was considerably better than the 3.2. Circa 35mpg for the 2.0T and about 26 for the 3.2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chav Posted August 3, 2005 Report Share Posted August 3, 2005 [ QUOTE ] I thought the combined mpg for the 2.0T was considerably better than the 3.2. Circa 35mpg for the 2.0T and about 26 for the 3.2 [/ QUOTE ] Yep, that's what the stats said against my 3.0 vs the 1.8T as well. But I've regularly got 450+ miles from my tank for the last 6-12 months or so. Got 505 miles from the tank before last ...80mph roof down all the way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nbritt Posted August 3, 2005 Report Share Posted August 3, 2005 Thats not bad at all, and I must say lovely looking car too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loddrik Posted August 3, 2005 Report Share Posted August 3, 2005 They're both Audi's so they are both shite, right Chav? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chav Posted August 3, 2005 Report Share Posted August 3, 2005 [ QUOTE ] They're both Audi's so they are both shite, right Chav? [/ QUOTE ] *** REPLY DELETED ON BEHALF OF LIVERPOOL CITY COUNCIL *** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milo Posted August 4, 2005 Author Report Share Posted August 4, 2005 I was just pondering the merits of the 3.2 over the 2.0T FSI. Because of my mileage claim rates (I'm not going into that again ) the 3.2 actually works out cheaper to run than the 2.0T even when you take into account the slightly higher insurance premium. So, the additional expense for me is purely the purchase price. In the saloons and avants the 3.2 is about £5,400 more than the 2.0T which is rather a lot. A large chunk of this is because the 3.2 is not available in FWD manual though. You either have to go for Quattro or Multitronic which is effectively adding a £1500 premium so you are not comparing like for like. I still have the price list from 2003 when I bought mine. Surprisingly the basic 1.8T was £19,860 and the basic 3.0 Quattro was £24,890 so there was a £5,000 difference back then as well! Anyway, I was thinking about engine choices for the new cab. If you want a silky smooth V6 it means you're going to have to plumb for the 3.2 in Quattro or Multitronic guise at a premium of about £5,400 over the 2.0T. I reckon that is going to push the discounted (assume 9%) cost of a 3.2 s-line cab to around £31k before any options. By the time you add on paint, BOSE and heated seats as a minimum you're well over £32k Given that with a 9% discount I could get a new 3.0 s-line cab with metallic, BOSE and heated seats for £29,300, that is a hell of a hike and for me, too much to stomach. Once it passes the £30k barrier it becomes much harder to convince Mrs M never mind pay for it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milo Posted August 4, 2005 Author Report Share Posted August 4, 2005 By the way (I'm going to hijack my own thread ), there are a few of us meeting for a mini meet on Saturday afternoon (cheers Omi ). The list of attendees so far is: [ QUOTE ] Omi Insurance_Jon MrMe (Chris) Milo (Michael) JimDiesel (Jim?) djbs4 (Dave) Drewcam (Drew?!) Shark_90 [/ QUOTE ] It will be a chance to get a first glimpse of MrMe's new 645 as well as Jon's yellow peril so there's at least 2 good reasons to make it Anyway, Scotch Corner services at 2 PM this Saturday (6th). PM me if you have any queries or catch up with this thread. Anyway, back to the merits of the 3.2! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GCab Posted August 4, 2005 Report Share Posted August 4, 2005 Something new to consider is weight. As I've ranted about before, the weight distribution of the 2.5 V6 TDI made it very nose heavy and it was this, rather than diesel clatter or whatnot, that made me change to a 1.8T. Admittedly I added quattro as well, but overall the effect has been to vastly improve balance and handling. Clarkson's view of the S4 cab is similar, in terms of weight and handling - a heavy lump at the front combined with heavy door reinforcement and floor pan to strengthen a roofless car, adds to suboptimal handling. Now a B7 will have better suspension and weight distribution (engine was moved back, I think) but do consider the weight of a 3.2 FSI as well as the power. For all I know it isn't an issue - perhaps it's a modern aluminium engine like the 3.0 and someone can point this out ? All I know is that a colleague of mine with a 3.2 DSG TT (non FSI) was stunned by the weight of the thing - he has to keep his tyres at something ludicrous like 42 fore and 35 aft to avoid it lurching nose-first into corners. As I say, the 3.2 FSI may be different, but an extra cylinder is still an extra cylinder so I would imagine there is an engine weight issue. Just something to think about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chav Posted August 4, 2005 Report Share Posted August 4, 2005 Weight is a very valid point. The 3.2 is a lightweight engine though. See here... Weight/Balancing thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GCab Posted August 4, 2005 Report Share Posted August 4, 2005 Ooo, I missed that - good analysis Chav Interesting point re. keeping fuel tank filled for balance purposes ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lmmlmmam Posted August 4, 2005 Report Share Posted August 4, 2005 [ QUOTE ] Clarkson's view of the S4 cab is similar, in terms of weight and handling - a heavy lump at the front combined with heavy door reinforcement and floor pan to strengthen a roofless car, adds to suboptimal handling. [/ QUOTE ] Everything is suboptimal, S4Cab included. But, the S4 Cab is least suboptimal handling Audi cab I've experienced. Yes the S4 is heavy but there are reasons. For instance the front suspension is quite different (more links to improve wheel location). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UBM Posted August 4, 2005 Report Share Posted August 4, 2005 I'm supposed to keep my tyres at 42 all round but have not checked for ages.....note to self...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now