dmg11eng Posted September 28, 2005 Report Share Posted September 28, 2005 Hi all, First post on the A3 forum, time for another company car and I'm defecting from the Golf GTi camp. I can have a 3.2 Quattro of 2.0TFSi Quattro. To me, it seems the 2.0 offers marginally less performance, more fuel economy, with a considerably lower retail price. Opinions please from all you owners out there, sensible, and cheaper cost seems to be the 2.0, is the 3.2 that much better, opinions/experiences please???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrzed Posted September 28, 2005 Report Share Posted September 28, 2005 I would go for the 2.0. Never driven one cos it'S not available over here but all the tests I've read comparing the 3.2 and the 2WD 2.0 have rated the 2.0 as being better balanced. Also depends if you want DSG or manual. There's no DSG for the 2.0Q...right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarMad Posted September 28, 2005 Report Share Posted September 28, 2005 If its going to be a company car. The 3.2 will kill you in tax. However the 2.0 T FSI Quattro will be much better in tax and only a little slower. But if you want the lowest tax possible go for the 2.0 T FSI DSG as it has the lowest tax and best fuel economy of the lot at 187 C02 as opposed to 211 for the 2.0 T Quattro and a lot more for the 3.2. If you want a review on the car click this link. I have the 2.0 T FSI DSG and its a great motor. CarMads Audi A3 Sportback 2.0 T FSI DSG review. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmg11eng Posted September 28, 2005 Author Report Share Posted September 28, 2005 The way in which my company car scheme works, the tax doesn't affect me. Only considerations are P11D price and running costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simonl Posted September 28, 2005 Report Share Posted September 28, 2005 [ QUOTE ] First post on the A3 forum [/ QUOTE ] Welcome to the dark side i'm going the other way. 3.2 to GTI. Shame about your GTI, are you happy to see the back of it or a wee bit gutted! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmg11eng Posted September 28, 2005 Author Report Share Posted September 28, 2005 I'm a lot gutted, but only keep cars for 4-5 months so a quattro for the winter will be fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autobahn Posted September 28, 2005 Report Share Posted September 28, 2005 Test drove a 2.0T quattro after having had a 3.2 for a year. Result - ended up changing a couple of weeks ago for another 3.2 but this time with s-line kit. The 2.0T had plenty of poke but ultimately just didn't have the grunt or seemless power of the 3.2. Also found the brakes on the 2.0T weren't as good. The 3.2 is heavy but as an ultimate long distance cruiser it is the better bet IMO. Whilst on paper the difference in performance is negligable out on the road it seemed more noticable. Wouldn't knock the 2.0T, great car but in the end the noise of the 3.2 won through. The 2.0T will always have the fuel advantage though, just depends on your milage and who's paying... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoofboy Posted September 28, 2005 Report Share Posted September 28, 2005 autobahn, most 2.0T owners are averaging around 30mpg, what have you averaged in your 3.2? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autobahn Posted September 28, 2005 Report Share Posted September 28, 2005 Previous one averaged around 26mpg mixed driving (although the majority was town work so I was fairly happy). Always used super unleaded, definate edge in performance and around 20-30 more miles to the tank. New one has been averaging slightly less but with less than 1000 miles on the clock it should improve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeDesmo Posted September 28, 2005 Report Share Posted September 28, 2005 I'd get the 3.2, I've never been one for turbo engines prefer N/aspirated and 6cyl is the perfect no (other than 12) not that I'm biased you understand. But would think the 2.0 is more economical, my 3.2 averages around 23mpg - but it sounds better than any 4cyl. "Ain't no replacement for displacement" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simonl Posted September 29, 2005 Report Share Posted September 29, 2005 The problem with the 3.2 is that if you want to drive gracefully, it still punishes you at the pumps. Whereas the 2.0T won't. Still a great car though and i will miss that growl... but always loved hearing a turbo whistling at me more! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slimbloke Posted September 29, 2005 Report Share Posted September 29, 2005 [ QUOTE ] But would think the 2.0 is more economical, my 3.2 averages around 23mpg - but it sounds better than any 4cyl. [/ QUOTE ] I couldn't agree more! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyo Posted October 9, 2005 Report Share Posted October 9, 2005 If its only a short term meeting go for the 3.2, its smooth and relaxed when you want it to be and when the need arises drop it down a few gears and the power is there to overtake quickly. 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