# All the 3.2 hype - a test drive.



## Tarik D (Oct 13, 2005)

I was pretty pissed off when, after having just purchased my 2.0T, 3.2Q's started showing up on dealer lots. The dealer told me they weren't due for some time, so I bought the "lesser" model instead.
So, I enjoy my 2.0T because it's a nice car, but it wasn't what I wanted, especially since I came from a WRX with AWD.
And now we're shopping a car for my wife -so this is my opportunity to get the car I wanted. Great!
Well...
Yesterday, for chits and giggles I decided to take a 3.2 out for a drive at the local dealership. It's slick and sexy and has the optional wheels and it screams S-Line. I'm impressed, right?
Not!
Sounded good when I started it.
Felt very familiar.
Then I turned out of the parking lot. Man what weirdness/dissapointment - you can feel all that AWD stuff churning away under you. Just a whole bunch of friction! The entire drivetrain felt very sluggish and heavy to me, and worst of all, very unrefined as an AWD system. It's drivetrain delay and unresponsiveness was overwhelming after driving a WRX that had such a seamless, smooth AWD system.
And then I got on it on the freeway ramp. What? This is supposed to be more powerful than my 2.0T? No way in hell. Torquier? No. Faster? No. Who's trying to convince that the 3.2Q is faster? The numbers might say one thing, but my butt-dyno, after having driven an A3 for 6 months is telling me something very different.
It did handle very well on the offramp and it felt well planted on bumpy turns. Not planted enough for my taste though.
Then I flipped through the gears the way I do on my own DSG. Something about it felt delayed and clumsy. Maybe it was the drivetrain again.
All I can say is I'm even happier now with my 2.0T, and more confused about what to buy the wife.
This car was $38k and some change before taxes/fees.
Considering the overall driving experience behind the wheel of my WRX wagon was superior, I'm at a loss on a truly positive opinion on the car. 
We're shopping AWD hatch/sport wagon options and after having built this 3.2 up so much in my head for months, I'm sadly, bitterly dissapointed.
Kudos to you if you have it. The AWD is great to have in the hills and snowy areas. But at that price, I think I'd rather get out and throw my snow chains on if need be. The engine and drivetrain are a dissapointment. I expected more.
The 2.0T engine is butter. Pure, silky butter that delivers, almost in anticipation of your input. The suspension seemes tighter and more responsive on my 2.0T.
The only thing I'm missing is the S-Line look (I'm working on that) and AWD. The rest is not convincing me this car is worth all that extra $.
Congrats if you own a 3.2. Nice car. 
But if I was shopping A3's, the 2.0T wins...and this time the 3.2Q's are on dealer lots!


----------



## buddahvw (May 4, 2004)

*Re: All the 3.2 hype - a test drive. (Tarik D)*

interesting to hear, nice write-up


----------



## ProPedderKustoms (Feb 20, 2004)

The sounds a little bit biased to me. I have test driven both the 2.0t and 3.2q and I decided on the 3.2q. The difference isn't big but it IS there. Also, the drivetrain is absolutely top notch; not sure what you are talking about. It's okay though...I'm glad you are SO happy with your 2.0t. ;-)


----------



## buymenow00 (Feb 5, 2006)

*Re: All the 3.2 hype - a test drive. (Tarik D)*

I agree. I test drove both and the 3.2Q did not feel as nimble...and my butt dyno said it wasn't as fast either. While I'm definitely struggling with the FWD transition...I still think I got the right car for me now. 2.0T Quattro would win hands down though!


----------



## A4-A6-A4-A3 (Nov 25, 2005)

*Re: All the 3.2 hype - a test drive. (Tarik D)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Tarik D* »_Man what weirdness/dissapointment - you can feel all that AWD stuff churning away under you. Just a whole bunch of friction!

Astounding.


----------



## Tarik D (Oct 13, 2005)

*Re: All the 3.2 hype - a test drive. (A4-A6-A4-A3)*

I have driven the WRX, STI, EVO, Carrera S4, Audi S4...many vehicles with AWD systems. I am sure the A3 system is top notch, but it does not impress me. Not that it doesn't work (because I did mention it does handle well), but something about how it distributes power to the wheels seems off. Way off, and I consider myself an AWD true fan. It may take some time to get used to, but that's not the way I felt about the other AWD systems I've driven. The others are instant, feedback is instant and understood and there seems to be no "lag" in the way the drivetrain hooks up to the transmission/engine. There also seems a lack of connection to the ground on hard acceleration through a turn.
Furthermore, the difference in power between the 3.2 and 2.0T is so marginal, and the AWD system in the 3.2 seems so "frictional" (I truly don't know how to describe it) - it really seems as fast, or possibly even slower (gulp, I said it) than the 2.0T.
The 2.0T has a way of delivering power on command that the 3.2 didn't, and that seems odd considering the 2.0T is the one with the turbo and possible lag.
I'm not cutting the car down-like I said, it's an effective machine and a fun drive, but when compared to the 2.0T, it's substandard based on it's price-point and overall feel. Maybe this stems back to the whole Haldex versus Torsen discussion. In my opinion, a hands-down, top-notch, no-compromise AWD system in this car would have sold it, despite it's large, heave and somewhat unresponsive engine.
My opinion is Audi has over-complicated things with the A3 in general.
We all want the 2.0T in Quattro.
We all want an AWD system like Subaru (allowing you to allocate more than 50% bias to the rear).
We all want a fast and reliable transmission (I love my DSG but I have reservations based on it's short life so far).
Again, just my opinion, but at over $40k OTD, I expected a real difference between the two A3's currently available in the US market.


----------



## rektek (Dec 21, 2004)

*erveryone has one*

I test drove both at least 2-3 times over a 2 month period before buying. I also just came off a 2-day track event with mixed rain and dry and I'm still happy with my 3.2 decision. Btw, there were 3 a3's at the event...2 3.2's and a chipped 2.0t.
There's no doubt I would love a 2.0t with quattro, but here's a question for all you 3.2 quattro bashers. If the haldex is junk in our 3.2's, what makes it any better in a 2.0t? All the complaints about weight, drag, etc still apply do they not? Just curious. I've accepted it takes more to move my heavier quattro a3.
The single reason I did not get the 2.0t was that I'm a lousy driver and could not get power to the ground even in a stock a3. Straightline performance from a roll is no doubt the 2.0t's forte. IMHO the 3.2, with its awd, stock power, s-line looks was worth every penny of the $4000 more I paid for the config I wanted.
Damn, still wish I had a 2.0t engine.


----------



## skotti (Sep 27, 2005)

*Re: All the 3.2 hype - a test drive. (Tarik D)*

I've had the opportunity to drive 2 A4s with 2.0T/Quattro, as loaners. I have the same opinion about the Quattro- not a smooth ride at all. I know everyone is hot to trot for an A3 2.0T w/ Quattro- if it were to ever show up, I'd ignore it.
Just my opinion...


----------



## Grisnjam (Feb 17, 2006)

*Re: All the 3.2 hype - a test drive. (Tarik D)*

http://www.motortrend.com/feat...n_r32


----------



## dougman (Sep 1, 2002)

*Re: All the 3.2 hype - a test drive. (Grisnjam)*

I don't know what you mean by "3.2 hype", as every magazine so far has singled out the 2.0T as a better buy. My dealer even steered me away from the 3.2, saying the 2.0 was more fun, tossable, etc.
I think a lot of the difference in the feel of the cars comes down to sheer weight.
I think discussions like this are difficult. Everyone on here has spent $25K - $40K on a new car. Think they won't chime in on why theirs is a better choice for them?
I ended up ordering a 3.2. However, I WILL say this:
- the 2.0T was an instant charmer. I had to drive the 3.2 for almost an hour before I fell for it.
- all the attributes you mention on the A3 2.0T are even more so on the VW GTI. If I backed down to the 2.0, I definitely would have just waited for a four-door GTI this summer.
The only reason I could see for getting the 2.0T over the GTI was styling (which is subjective, of course), and interior material quality. Take a close look at the specs--the GTI actually has a little more room, not less.
In any case, we should not be arguing over what's better, a GTI, an A3 2.0T, or a 3.2Q. They are all so close that we should call ourselves clan-mates, and spend our time justifying our allegiance over the purchases of cars from lesser engineers!


----------



## KnockKnock (Jun 30, 2005)

*Re: All the 3.2 hype - a test drive. (skotti)*

I too test drove an A4 2.0TQ. Liked the handling, the stability around corners, the balance, the ability to just stomp and go. But I also noted the lack of oomph compared to the A3 2.0T. I also perceived the quattro in action. Just the sense (sound/vibration) that something mechanical was constantly happening at all four corners, instead of just up front. From what I understand, the Haldex in the A3 would suffer none of that unless the fronts started slipping. In other words, most of the time it's not in quattro mode. So I'm not sure how to reconcile that with the Tarik review.

_Quote, originally posted by *skotti* »_I've had the opportunity to drive 2 A4s with 2.0T/Quattro, as loaners. I have the same opinion about the Quattro- not a smooth ride at all. I know everyone is hot to trot for an A3 2.0T w/ Quattro- if it were to ever show up, I'd ignore it.
Just my opinion...


----------



## WombatStew (Apr 11, 2006)

The A3 chassis (just like the Golf) just deals much better with the lighter-weight 2.0T than with the 3.2 VR6, that's what it boils down to IMHO.
That and the fact that the 2.0T is such a nice engine. If it was not so good, then there would definitely be more arguments for the 3.2, but as it is the difference in performance is not so significant as to offset the difference in weight balance on the chassis.
The fact it's so good is also why we 2.0T owner all wished it also came as AWD, it's just too powerfull for the front wheels alone to handle .
However my dream scenario would indeed be a good AWD system with RWD bias, that and a well tuned suspension and the 2.0T A3-DSG would be pretty close to perfection, and for what I have read the Haldex diff used on the 3.2Q may not be that 'good AWD' system.


----------



## A4Kevin (May 4, 2005)

I love my 3.2. Even if the haldax system isn't the best AWD system out there, for me it is still better that front wheel spin. My experience was the exact opposite. I test drove both and the 3.2 felt much more sure footed.
Enjoy your 2.0t. If there was such thing as 2.0tQ we wouldn’t be having this discussion and everyone would disregard the haldex shortcomings. Don’t feel that you have to justify your decision just be happy with what you have.



_Modified by A4Kevin at 2:40 PM 4/11/2006_


----------



## someguy123 (Sep 30, 2005)

Too bad the 3.2 isn't FSI though. That's what I'm disappointed about. It's a new Audi for crying out loud.


----------



## grew (Jan 31, 2006)

*Re: (someguy123)*


_Quote, originally posted by *someguy123* »_Too bad the 3.2 isn't FSI though. That's what I'm disappointed about. It's a new Audi for crying out loud.

They didn't make it and FSI engine because it would have to be DOT certified. which is really expensive. Considering they based on the 3.2 TT wheelbase and such the cost to certify was really low. Its all about managing costs. They don't make that much money off the car so they are trying to keep the costs low. For the same reasons the didn't bring the 2.0tq to the US


----------



## A4Kevin (May 4, 2005)

Couldn't fit the FSI powerplant in the chassis.


----------



## Tarik D (Oct 13, 2005)

*Re: (A4Kevin)*

The "hype" was really my own hype. I built the 3.2Q up as a vastly different vehicle than the 2.0T. I was sorely dissapointed to find 3.2Q's on the lots only a month after purchasing my 2.0T, so it was natural my next car would be the 3.2Q, but the test drive didn't impress me. 
That said, the comments on the GTI hold valid and we may simply hold out for a GTI or a 4-door GTI. Gotta test drive that next.
And since I'm an AWD gooroo, at least when I think of AWD, I think of something much different than what I felt...


----------



## bluely (Dec 5, 2001)

*Re: (grew)*


_Quote, originally posted by *grew* »_They didn't make it and FSI engine because it would have to be DOT certified. which is really expensive. Considering they based on the 3.2 TT wheelbase and such the cost to certify was really low. Its all about managing costs. They don't make that much money off the car so they are trying to keep the costs low. For the same reasons the didn't bring the 2.0tq to the US

Isn't the 3.2 FSI already here in the new A6? Are DOT certifications per powertrain or per car? Also, the mkI TT uses the mkIV GTI platform. I don't know what difference that makes for certification, but that TT doesn't share wheelbase with the A3.


----------



## Tarik D (Oct 13, 2005)

*Re: (bluely)*


_Quote, originally posted by *bluely* »_
Isn't the 3.2 FSI already here in the new A6?

I thought so too.


_Modified by Tarik D at 4:06 PM 4-11-2006_


----------



## bluely (Dec 5, 2001)

*Re: (bluely)*


_Quote, originally posted by *bluely* »_Isn't the 3.2 FSI already here in the new A6?

Answering my own question, it looks like the 3.2 in the A6 is a V6, not the VR6. The Passat appears to have FSI in a VR, but that's a bigger engine. (3.6).


----------



## mookieblaylock (Sep 25, 2005)

*Re: All the 3.2 hype - a test drive. (Tarik D)*

it'a apples and oranges but the 3.2 is a better car than the 2.0 t for my purposes. But when these come out the 4x4 hatch food chain will have expanded 
espada








evo X


----------



## dplxy (Sep 26, 2004)

*Re: All the 3.2 hype - a test drive. (Tarik D)*

i came from wrx aswell
test drove both 3.2 with dsg and 2.0t 6speed
got myself 2.0t with 6speed
i mean the rush that 2.0 gave me is awesome
3.2 Q is great, but is just missing s'th
s'th only turbo can give u http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Tarik D (Oct 13, 2005)

*Re: All the 3.2 hype - a test drive. (mookieblaylock)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mookieblaylock* »_
evo X









I'm really liking the new Evo. Supposedly will come with a DSG/sequential gearbox like the A3 too


----------



## A4-A6-A4-A3 (Nov 25, 2005)

*Re: (A4Kevin)*


_Quote, originally posted by *A4Kevin* »_If there was such thing as 2.0tQ we wouldn’t be having this discussion and everyone would disregard the haldex shortcomings.

Ain't that the truth!


----------



## ProPedderKustoms (Feb 20, 2004)

Here's one more thing: the 3.2 just has more luxury and "nicities" that the 2.0t has. To me, the 3.2 is just a nicer vehicle than the 2.0t no matter what packages you get from the factory. Look at the body work, the nice power-standard driver's seat, etc etc. Sure you could all these things onto a 2.0t but it wouldn't be from the factory and you might hurt your resale [although none of us really plan on selling our cars anytime soon].


----------



## bluely (Dec 5, 2001)

*Re: (ProPedderKustoms)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ProPedderKustoms* »_Sure you could all these things onto a 2.0t but it wouldn't be from the factory and you might hurt your resale 

Or you could wait a few months for the 2.0 s-lines to arrive.


----------



## ProPedderKustoms (Feb 20, 2004)

Ya but no AWD!!! So close, yet so far...
:-(


----------



## RyanA3 (May 11, 2005)

*Re:*

I think the dsg felt more at home with the 3.2. But yes it feels heavier, naturally. And not as quick.


----------



## judgegavel (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: All the 3.2 hype - a test drive. (Tarik D)*

Tarik D: wonderfull write up, you captured my exact impressions, I was also simalrly disapointed with my test drive of the A4 2.0TQ for much of the same reasons (- the DSG complaint of course, which was actually the biggest disapointment I had with the 3.2). Bottom line for me was neither gave me that smile my A3 2.0T does when I step on the gas and unfourtunately I think it would be lost even on a 2.0T with quattro, there is just do much drivetrain loss, but I still miss awd on those snowy days, lucky the are few and far between. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 


_Modified by judgegavel at 11:17 PM 4/11/2006_


----------



## judgegavel (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: (bluely)*


_Quote, originally posted by *bluely* »_
Isn't the 3.2 FSI already here in the new A6? Are DOT certifications per powertrain or per car? Also, the mkI TT uses the mkIV GTI platform. I don't know what difference that makes for certification, but that TT doesn't share wheelbase with the A3.

Yea, and I dont think there will be a VR6 3.2 FSI, I thought the 3.2 VR6 was being essentially repaced with the 3.6 FSI in the Passat, although the TT release info goes against that idea.


----------



## Nuvolari (Jun 22, 2004)

*Re: All the 3.2 hype - a test drive. (dplxy)*


_Quote, originally posted by *dplxy* »_the rush that 2.0 gave me is awesome
3.2 Q is great, but is just missing s'th
s'th only turbo can give u http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

I think that is a big part of what it boils down to. The 2.0T FEELS faster, while the 3.2 IS faster. The NA V6 power is more linear, which I personally prefer together with the lack of traction loss when applying that bigger power--again something that may make the 2.0T FEEL faster (like in "wow, I got the wheels spinning").
We are all creatures of habit, and what we are used to is what we like better than something that is new and may have a learning curve that we haven't peaked yet.
I'm happy for every driver who likes his car better than the other's car. It would be terrible if it were the other way around.


----------



## feels_road (Jan 27, 2005)

*Re: (someguy123)*


_Quote, originally posted by *someguy123* »_Too bad the 3.2 isn't FSI though. That's what I'm disappointed about. It's a new Audi for crying out loud.

I agree 100%. The 3.2 FSI VR6 (e.g., available in the Euro Passat) is the narrower-angle design like the 3.6. I think it should fit. The R32 is not getting it, either. The Mk6 may get the 3.6, in 2008.


----------



## dan-phx (Dec 13, 2005)

*Re: All the 3.2 hype - a test drive. (Nuvolari)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Nuvolari* »_
I think that is a big part of what it boils down to. The 2.0T FEELS faster, while the 3.2 IS faster. The NA V6 power is more linear, which I personally prefer together with the lack of traction loss when applying that bigger power--again something that may make the 2.0T FEEL faster (like in "wow, I got the wheels spinning").
We are all creatures of habit, and what we are used to is what we like better than something that is new and may have a learning curve that we haven't peaked yet.
I'm happy for every driver who likes his car better than the other's car. It would be terrible if it were the other way around.









Thanks for saving me the effort to type all that Arno. My sentiments exactly.


----------



## judgegavel (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: All the 3.2 hype - a test drive. (Nuvolari)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Nuvolari* »_
I think that is a big part of what it boils down to. The 2.0T FEELS faster, while the 3.2 IS faster. 

Until it chipped than its the other way around, well except for the feelings.


----------



## ProPedderKustoms (Feb 20, 2004)

Then again, the game may change once there is a chip available for the 3.2 Even if you have a 2.0t w/ 270hp, how are you gonna get that to the payment? Maybe on the highway, but I'll say "bye bye" at the starting line!


----------



## chucchinchilla (Dec 25, 2004)

*Re: (ProPedderKustoms)*

Nice write up. I thought the same thing when I drove it. All it made me want to do is get a 2.0T w/S-line package..guess i'll have to wait on that one.


----------



## bdh-vdub (Apr 2, 2001)

*Re: (ProPedderKustoms)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ProPedderKustoms* »_Then again, the game may change once there is a chip available for the 3.2 Even if you have a 2.0t w/ 270hp, how are you gonna get that to the payment? Maybe on the highway, but I'll say "bye bye" at the starting line!

The classic debate. Ultimately it all boils down to personal preference. I also test drove the 2.0T A3 and 3.2 A3. I ended up buying an A4 2.0T Q 6MT. I definitely liked the 2.0T A3, and I think it is a very nice car, but even in the test drive it reminding me too much of my B5 1.8T Passat with the front wheels struggling to get traction. I promised myself that I wouldn't go with a high horsepower FWD car again. It's just too aggravating for me, especially with the snowy winters we have here in NE Ohio. 
I thought the 3.2 A3 was very nice, but the price was a little too steep for me. I may have bought one if the price was a few grand less. No matter what Audi you end up buying, you are getting a really nice car regardless. You can't make a bad decision, IMO. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Tarik D (Oct 13, 2005)

*Re: (ProPedderKustoms)*

I agree with Arno on this issue of "feel". The WRX/Turbo guys, myself included, are used to non-linear power and the power rush that comes with turbos. When I put my foot down on the 3.2, it felt very slow to respond-the 2.0T has a way of snapping you back as it takes off. 
At any rate, coming off a superb AWD system like Subarus, I was building the 3.2Q's system to be as responsive and nimble, but I'm glad it wasn't - otherwise I'd be another $40k in debt today on a new 3.2Q








I think we'll look at the Saabaru wagon, Subaru wagon and the GTI and others I haven't thought of yet (if anyone can recommend any other AWD hatches/wagons let me know!).
My wife wants an auto. We want AWD for the ski trips. We want a wagon/hatch for versatility. Slim pickins in this country...
If the 3.2Q wasn't so expensive, I'd be able to overlook all I felt (or didn't feel) on my test drive and jump on it...anyhow, two A3's in the driveway...that's just silly!


----------



## Tarik D (Oct 13, 2005)

*Re: (ProPedderKustoms)*

wtf - double post.
sorry.


----------



## yam (Jul 18, 2005)

Seems like the A4 2.0TQ is the best option for you.


----------



## A4Kevin (May 4, 2005)

*Re: (Tarik D)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Tarik D* »_I agree with Arno on this issue of "feel". The WRX/Turbo guys, myself included, are used to non-linear power and the power rush that comes with turbos. When I put my foot down on the 3.2, it felt very slow to respond-the 2.0T has a way of snapping you back as it takes off. 
At any rate, coming off a superb AWD system like Subarus, I was building the 3.2Q's system to be as responsive and nimble, but I'm glad it wasn't - otherwise I'd be another $40k in debt today on a new 3.2Q








I think we'll look at the Saabaru wagon, Subaru wagon and the GTI and others I haven't thought of yet (if anyone can recommend any other AWD hatches/wagons let me know!).
My wife wants an auto. We want AWD for the ski trips. We want a wagon/hatch for versatility. Slim pickins in this country...
If the 3.2Q wasn't so expensive, I'd be able to overlook all I felt (or didn't feel) on my test drive and jump on it...anyhow, two A3's in the driveway...that's just silly!










What kind of driving did you do to 'fee' the AWD? I done feel/hear anything from my system. Strange.


----------



## judgegavel (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: (yam)*


_Quote, originally posted by *yam* »_Seems like the A4 2.0TQ is the best option for you.

Thats kinda an interesting point (if you mean an avant) if the 2007 A4 comes with DSG, I really cant see anyone cross shopping an A4 2.0T avant and the A3 3.2, and picking the A3.


----------



## bdh-vdub (Apr 2, 2001)

*Re: (Tarik D)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Tarik D* »_ I think we'll look at the Saabaru wagon, Subaru wagon and the GTI and others I haven't thought of yet (if anyone can recommend any other AWD hatches/wagons let me know!). 

The Legacy GT is a fine choice. But some compromises have to be made. No HIDs, no traction control, a ho-hum interior. 
Naturally, I would recommend the A4 Avant if you really want a AWD wagon/hatch, but of course I am biased.


----------



## kayaker10 (Jan 10, 2006)

*Re: (ProPedderKustoms)*

I have a power seat in my 2.0T. Came with it!


----------



## Nuvolari (Jun 22, 2004)

*Re: (judgegavel)*


_Quote, originally posted by *judgegavel* »_
Thats kinda an interesting point (if you mean an avant) if the 2007 A4 comes with DSG, I really cant see anyone cross shopping an A4 2.0T avant and the A3 3.2, and picking the A3.

Meet me, and you've seen one. The DSG won't change the fact that the 2.0T Avant is a much heavier car. Nice comfy ride vs. the A3, but a huge difference in responsiveness to throttle. I was so between the A4 2.0T Avant and the A3, and look what I got.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (Nuvolari)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Nuvolari* »_
Meet me, and you've seen one. The DSG won't change the fact that the 2.0T Avant is a much heavier car. Nice comfy ride vs. the A3, but a huge difference in responsiveness to throttle. I was so between the A4 2.0T Avant and the A3, and look what I got.

Yep and the 2.0t A3 has a huge diff in throttle response because it's 400lbs lighter than the 3.2 A3








Dave


----------



## Tarik D (Oct 13, 2005)

*Re: (Nuvolari)*

I didn't know the A4 2.0T Quattro Sedan/Avant has/will come with DSG. Is this true?


----------



## bdh-vdub (Apr 2, 2001)

*Re: (Tarik D)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Tarik D* »_I didn't know the A4 2.0T Quattro Sedan/Avant has/will come with DSG. Is this true?

No, it does not. Maybe someday, but not in the near (1-2 year) future, AFAIK.
The tiptronic slushbox in the A4 is definitely inferior to the DSG tranny in the A3. I wanted AWD with manual trans, which obviously is why I went with the A4. If you are looking to get an auto, DSG is a big plus for the A3.


----------



## turboracerman (Jul 6, 2004)

*Re: (bdh-vdub)*

can anyone compare these to the r32? Or is it basically the same?


----------



## judgegavel (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: (Nuvolari)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Nuvolari* »_
I was so between the A4 2.0T Avant and the A3, and look what I got.

Right but that wasnt DSG vs. DSG, I would have chose the same if your talking tip or 6MT A4 vs DSG 3.2 A3. And as Dave points out if throttle response and weight is your main concern/ buying point, the 2.0T A3. is vastely superior to the 3.2.


----------



## judgegavel (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: (bdh-vdub)*


_Quote, originally posted by *bdh-vdub* »_
No, it does not. Maybe someday, but not in the near (1-2 year) future, AFAIK.
.

I thought it was almost certain the 2007 A4 would be DSG, maybe thats just a bad rumor.


----------



## Der Meister (Mar 19, 2002)

*Re: All the 3.2 hype - a test drive. (Tarik D)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Tarik D* »_
I'm really liking the new Evo. Supposedly will come with a DSG/sequential gearbox like the A3 too









Well, Mitsubishi cars are having a tough time at the box office. They might not even be in the US in a couple years from what I've read.
Here's what we know:
- the stock 2.0T is putting out something more than 200hp (maybe 220-225?)
- the 3.2 is at 250hp (haven't heard of it putting out more than that)
- Quattro adds almost 200 lbs to the car, and a little more weight on the nose
So it shouldn't be terribly surprising that you wouldn't be overwhelmed by the 3.2 coming from the already sublime 2.0T.
I recently had a A4 2.0T Quattro loaner, and it definitely felt heavier but fun to drive during our rains.


----------



## KnockKnock (Jun 30, 2005)

*Re: (judgegavel)*

A blurb in Automobile Magazine shows the (hot) A4 in its next version. Due in early CY 2008, moved engine back 4" (front wheels pushed forward), rear-biased Torsen Quattro, 7spDSG. Looks great. I'll probably want it







if I get my A3 this summer, then in 3-5 yrs, it'll be well into the marketplace....


----------



## Nuvolari (Jun 22, 2004)

*Re: (judgegavel)*


_Quote, originally posted by *judgegavel* »_
as Dave points out if throttle response and weight is your main concern/ buying point, the 2.0T A3. is vastely superior to the 3.2. 









Let me take a look here.
I see nimble 3329 lbs with 200hp on the 2.0T. That equals 16.6 lbs/hp
The 3.2 weighs a portly 3660 lbs, propelled by 250hp. That equals only 14.6 lbs.
Which one, did you say again, was vastly superior?


----------



## Tarik D (Oct 13, 2005)

*Re: (Nuvolari)*

Nerd


----------



## Nuvolari (Jun 22, 2004)

*Re: (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_
Yep and the 2.0t A3 has a huge diff in throttle response because it's 400lbs lighter than the 3.2 A3








Dave

..............








3660 - 3329 = 400???
For the lbs/hp ratio, see above.
Huge difference? Yeah, right. To its disadvantage.


----------



## Tarik D (Oct 13, 2005)

*Re: (Nuvolari)*

331 lbs, plus or minus that slim figure


----------



## mhr (Nov 30, 2005)

*Re: (judgegavel)*


_Quote, originally posted by *judgegavel* »_Thats kinda an interesting point (if you mean an avant) if the 2007 A4 comes with DSG, I really cant see anyone cross shopping an A4 2.0T avant and the A3 3.2, and picking the A3.

Are you serious?? It's called packaging. I got the A3 for the size and the other things it offers in its package. A4 doesn't offer that. It can't.


----------



## .:R2theT (Sep 7, 2005)

*Re: (turboracerman)*


_Quote, originally posted by *turboracerman* »_can anyone compare these to the r32? Or is it basically the same? 

This whole thing reminds of the R32 vs. chipped GTI debate I have seen. Yes, the R32 weighs quite a bit more than the GTI but comes with 4motion(Haldex) and quite a few other niceties. It is a no brainer for me. I wouldn't drive a GTI after having owned the R32. No way!
So does the 3.2 A3 weigh more?..yes. Does it cost more?..yes. So yes it might not feel as "nimble" as the 2.0t. 
But the 3.2 does come with Quattro(Haldex) and a lot of the packages that the 2.0 folks are paying extra for. Personally, I love the feel and sound of a naturally aspirated VR6. Plus, the 3.2 is S-line!
For me, in the North, the AWD is a must. People don't give the Haldex much respect but I love it. For most driving conditions all your power is up front, but when a wheel starts to slip and you feel the car start to go out from under you the Haldex kicks in and you are righted again. I love my R32 and I am quite sure I will love our 3.2l A3 when it reaches these shores.


----------



## judgegavel (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: (mhr)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mhr* »_
Are you serious?? It's called packaging. I got the A3 for the size and the other things it offers in its package. A4 doesn't offer that. It can't.

Duh than I guess you wouldnt be cross shopping them RIF.







Oh and besides size what exactly does the A3 3.2 have that the A4 (if it had DSG) cant come with.


_Modified by judgegavel at 7:28 AM 4/13/2006_


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (.:R2theT)*


_Quote, originally posted by *.:R2theT* »_
This whole thing reminds of the R32 vs. chipped GTI debate I have seen. Yes, the R32 weighs quite a bit more than the GTI but comes with 4motion(Haldex) and quite a few other niceties. It is a no brainer for me. I wouldn't drive a GTI after having owned the R32. No way!
So does the 3.2 A3 weigh more?..yes. Does it cost more?..yes. So yes it might not feel as "nimble" as the 2.0t. 
But the 3.2 does come with Quattro(Haldex) and a lot of the packages that the 2.0 folks are paying extra for. Personally, I love the feel and sound of a naturally aspirated VR6. Plus, the 3.2 is S-line!
For me, in the North, the AWD is a must. People don't give the Haldex much respect but I love it. For most driving conditions all your power is up front, but when a wheel starts to slip and you feel the car start to go out from under you the Haldex kicks in and you are righted again. I love my R32 and I am quite sure I will love our 3.2l A3 when it reaches these shores.

The 3.2 A3 weighs 200lbs more than the R32. You definitely notice it when turning. DSG feels like sluggo off the line compared to a manual R32. Suspension is softer as well and doesn't feel as taut as the R32. Exhaust note is severely muted to that of the R32.
I liked the 3.2 + haldex package in the R32. The A3 3.2 was a letdown. 
Dave


----------



## dougman (Sep 1, 2002)

*Re: (crew217)*

Yes, but getting an A3 3.2 to match a MkV R32 will be fairly easy since they have the same platform and are basically the same cars underneath.
Spring swap for R32 parts; VAG-COM drop in steering assist, and an aftermarket exhaust pretty much brings the A3 3.2 to R32 spec. And if you don't believe the MkV R32 is superior in performance, check out the TopGear video.
I would have bought the R32 if it were available with 4 doors.
I also have some overlayed torque, hp, and torque/wt and hp/wt graphs that, I think, really show the difference in feel between the two cars. The torque/wt of the 2.0T is higher than the 3.2 up until almost 5000 RPM. The big differences occur from 5000-6500 RPM where the 2.0 drops off (for boost limit, unless it's chipped), and the VR6 keeps climbing.
I'll post those graphs. The performance margins for straight-line acceleration are indeed small. But I still ordered a 3.2, but it's all about feel and experience (exhaust note was a big part of it for me). And I'm in New Hampshire, so AWD is a big deal.
That said, I would have had a hard time deciding between a A3 2.0T Quattro S-Line and the car I did end up ordering.
They're both great cars.


----------



## mookieblaylock (Sep 25, 2005)

*Re: (judgegavel)*


_Quote, originally posted by *judgegavel* »_Thats kinda an interesting point (if you mean an avant) if the 2007 A4 comes with DSG, I really cant see anyone cross shopping an A4 2.0T avant and the A3 3.2, and picking the A3.

some trendy gen xers or yers or whatevers probably shop body style first and dig the whole hatch thing and see the A4 avant as a housewife or junior exec wannabe mobile and would steer clear regardless of drive train. While the enthusiast might put emphasis on absolute #s. So given that comparison some would take the 3.2 and a3(8p) board would laugh in there general direction.


----------



## judgegavel (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: (mookieblaylock)*

Your all missing the point I said cross shopping. Most people I know who were looking at the A3 were cross shopping with the A4, now of course a few did not. I'm not saying if there is a DSG A4 avant that no one will buy a 3.2 A3 (of course there are a few who just want a hatch), I'm saying if someone's cross shopping (which I would think would be the vast majority) with an A4 avant I cant see much of a reason to pick the A3 (aside from style, but then why are you even looking at the A4). Also the A4 2.0t and the A3 3.2 are so close in price, and even most 3.2 owners will admit if the 2.0T A3 came in quattro they would have chosen that even at the same price. I dont think you will find one 2.0T A3 owner, who would have chosen a fwd 3.2 A3 (if it existed) over their 2.0T. My whole point is that if the A4 comes with DSG I think the A3 3.2 sales will be pretty much destroyed.


----------



## A4Kevin (May 4, 2005)

I looked at the B7 A4 Avant to replace my B6 A4 Sedan but felt that the B7 lost the 'sportwagon' the B6 had. Dunno just me. I like the 'coupeish' lines of the A3 and it had to be AWD in my neck of the woods. 
The SLine package does alot for the A4 though. With the 2.0t you are pretty much the same price as the A3 3.2.



_Modified by A4Kevin at 7:13 AM 4/13/2006_


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (dougman)*


_Quote, originally posted by *dougman* »_Yes, but getting an A3 3.2 to match a MkV R32 will be fairly easy since they have the same platform and are basically the same cars underneath.
Spring swap for R32 parts; VAG-COM drop in steering assist, and an aftermarket exhaust pretty much brings the A3 3.2 to R32 spec. And if you don't believe the MkV R32 is superior in performance, check out the TopGear video.

Had the 2.0t GTI they tested been chipped, I'd be willing to bet that it would close down the 2 second diff in lap times between the two cars. You also have to remember that the US A3 3.2 does not get the EU 345mm brakes found on the EU A3 3.2 and the EU MKV R32

_Quote »_I also have some overlayed torque, hp, and torque/wt and hp/wt graphs that, I think, really show the difference in feel between the two cars. The torque/wt of the 2.0T is higher than the 3.2 up until almost 5000 RPM. The big differences occur from 5000-6500 RPM where the 2.0 drops off (for boost limit, unless it's chipped), and the VR6 keeps climbing.

Actually germancarfans used to have factory power/tq charts up on their website (link is fubar'd) and when comparing a stock 2.0t and 3.2 the torque and hp curves are remarkably similar. Of course when chipped, the 2.0t torque curve is much more robust and hp is increased significantly . . . and you're only driving 2 wheels, not four. 

_Quote »_I'll post those graphs. The performance margins for straight-line acceleration are indeed small. But I still ordered a 3.2, but it's all about feel and experience (exhaust note was a big part of it for me). And I'm in New Hampshire, so AWD is a big deal.
 I live in upstate NY and FWD is not an issue with all the hills and snow that we get. Then again, I'm anal about keeping winter tires with more than 6/32nds of treaddepth.

_Quote »_That said, I would have had a hard time deciding between a A3 2.0T Quattro S-Line and the car I did end up ordering.

 No doubt in my mind . . . . I would choose the 2.0t quattro.


----------



## Nuvolari (Jun 22, 2004)

*Re: (crew217)*

You may want to be a bit more selective with the sources you quote. They said "The torque/wt of the 2.0T is higher than the 3.2 up until almost 5000 RPM." I would think they meant the numbers are to the advantage of the 2.0T.
I call BS. If you want to compare weight of cars per lbft of torque, the 3.2 wins again:
2.0T: 3329 lbs; 207 lbs/ft torque; *16.1 weight/torque*
3.2: 3660 lbs; 236 lbs/ft torque; *15.5 weight/torque*

Then you claim somewhere else that "DSG feels like sluggo off the line compared to a manual R32."
I don't know how you are dreaming this up and I could not disagree more. It feels to me that you don't know how to drive a DSG car.


----------



## abt cup (Aug 1, 2000)

*Re: All the 3.2 hype - a test drive. (judgegavel)*


_Quote, originally posted by *judgegavel* »_Until it chipped than its the other way around, well except for the feelings.









Even when chipped the power on a 2.0t drops off in the top end. Its still using the same KO3 sport on the 1.8ts and suffers the same way above 5500 rpms.
The 2.0t will pull first...but once into 3rd...bye bye turbo.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (Nuvolari)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Nuvolari* »_You may want to be a bit more selective with the sources you quote. They said "The torque/wt of the 2.0T is higher than the 3.2 up until almost 5000 RPM." I would think they meant the numbers are to the advantage of the 2.0T.
I call BS. If you want to compare weight of cars per lbft of torque, the 3.2 wins again:
2.0T: 3329 lbs; 207 lbs/ft torque; *16.1 weight/torque*
3.2: 3660 lbs; 236 lbs/ft torque; *15.5 weight/torque*

Then you claim somewhere else that "DSG feels like sluggo off the line compared to a manual R32."
I don't know how you are dreaming this up and I could not disagree more. It feels to me that you don't know how to drive a DSG car.









#1 if you don't think the 2.0t makes more than what it's rated at, then you're being ignorant.
#2 most of the comparisons we're talking about have to do with chipped 2.0ts versus a 3.2
#3 the 3.2 has to power 4 wheels, not only two and has significantly more DTL
#4 Yes the DSG 3.2 does feel more sluggish off the line than an R32. Go drive both back to back, they feel completely different. I bet that 200lb difference has something to do with it








And yes, you know how to drive DSG because you have no skills . . . . except for trying to blend in with pre-pubescent girls with your "SO HAWT" license plate








Dave


----------



## Nuvolari (Jun 22, 2004)

Cheap shooter.


----------



## ProPedderKustoms (Feb 20, 2004)

*Re: (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_#1 if you don't think the 2.0t makes more than what it's rated at, then you're being ignorant.
#2 most of the comparisons we're talking about have to do with chipped 2.0ts versus a 3.2
#3 the 3.2 has to power 4 wheels, not only two and has significantly more DTL
#4 Yes the DSG 3.2 does feel more sluggish off the line than an R32. Go drive both back to back, they feel completely different. I bet that 200lb difference has something to do with it








And yes, you know how to drive DSG because you have no skills . . . . except for trying to blend in with pre-pubescent girls with your "SO HAWT" license plate








Dave

Crew217, have you actually OWNED an R32 and a A3 3.2q?? I don't think so....but I HAVE. I completely agree with Nuvolari on this one...you are just not right. And yes, I know how to drive a stick and a DSG. Nice try...go ahead, come back and "shoot me down" with some other derogatory remark about the 3.2.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (ProPedderKustoms)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ProPedderKustoms* »_
Crew217, have you actually OWNED an R32 and a A3 3.2q?? I don't think so....but I HAVE. I completely agree with Nuvolari on this one...you are just not right. And yes, I know how to drive a stick and a DSG. Nice try...go ahead, come back and "shoot me down" with some other derogatory remark about the 3.2. 

sorry but opinions from people who weigh down their R32s with unnecessary pounds of audio equipment don't count.








If you're telling me that 200lbs isn't noticable, then you obviously aren't very much in tune with your car.
Dave


----------



## MylesPH1 (Aug 6, 2000)

*Re: (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_ #3 the 3.2 has to power 4 wheels, not only two and has significantly more DTL 

Well.. remember with Haldex, the rear wheels are only driven when the front wheels slip, correct? So DTL isn't a big factor here.
As an A4 quattro owner, I fully agree that the extra weight of the drivetrain can be felt and that it could be bothersome for some... but after owning AWD, I would have a very difficult time going back to FWD. FWD is definitely lighter, and you can easily feel the difference in transitions, but quattro puts the power down in a way I would never want to give up.
All these L.A. A3 guys that do canyon runs, I'd like to see your cars in action sometime, they do seem ideal for that...


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (MylesPH1)*


_Quote, originally posted by *MylesPH1* »_
Well.. remember with Haldex, the rear wheels are only driven when the front wheels slip, correct? So DTL isn't a big factor here. 

All depends on how much slip is present. The gen2 haldex units kick in more than the old gen1 units so expect it to be active sooner. IIRC it was something like 15 degrees of unequal rotation and it would begin to lockup. That is easily achieved in an aggressive start. 
Dave


----------



## judgegavel (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: All the 3.2 hype - a test drive. (abt cup)*


_Quote, originally posted by *abt cup* »_
Even when chipped the power on a 2.0t drops off in the top end. 

Really, with what chip, mine certainly doesnt.


----------



## abt cup (Aug 1, 2000)

*Re: All the 3.2 hype - a test drive. (judgegavel)*


_Quote, originally posted by *judgegavel* »_Really, with what chip, mine certainly doesnt.









Lol...your must be different then.








Run a 3.2...and you'll see that it does.










_Modified by abt cup at 11:56 AM 4-13-2006_


----------



## Tarik D (Oct 13, 2005)

*Re: All the 3.2 hype - a test drive. (abt cup)*

This is good. 
Keep it comin'!


----------



## eltonsi (Mar 17, 2005)

*Re: (Nuvolari)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Nuvolari* »_Cheap shooter.

Dave's just jealous cause you get all the girls.


----------



## Tarik D (Oct 13, 2005)

*Re: (eltonsi)*

LOL.








Just drove by the same dealer where I test-drove the 3.2. They've got a black R32 with 35k miles. Asking $32k+some change. Holy crap those things are keep their value.








I might have to go test drive it to put this whole debate to rest








When are they coming out with a new R32/AWD GTI?
My patience for the 'cool' cars to land on this side of the pond is growing short.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (eltonsi)*


_Quote, originally posted by *eltonsi* »_
Dave's just jealous cause you get all the girls.









I'm sure the girls were all over you when you dozed off and totaled your A3 by smacking into a curb








I can hear it now . . . . they were screaming . . . "OMGGGGGGG that was SOOOOOO HAWT!!!!"








Dave


----------



## abt cup (Aug 1, 2000)

*Re: (Tarik D)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Tarik D* »_LOL.








Just drove by the same dealer where I test-drove the 3.2. They've got a black R32 with 35k miles. Asking $32k+some change. Holy crap those things are keep their value.









I might have to go test drive it to put this whole debate to rest








When are they coming out with a new R32/AWD GTI?
My patience for the 'cool' cars to land on this side of the pond is growing short.

Lol...the R32 resale is







.
We're not getting the Mk 5 version of the R32. We're suppose to get the R*36* in 08...I think.


----------



## .:R2theT (Sep 7, 2005)

*Re: (abt cup)*


_Quote, originally posted by *abt cup* »_
Lol...the R32 resale is







.
We're not getting the Mk 5 version of the R32. We're suppose to get the R*36* in 08...I think. 

Actually, there is talk, at least VW seems to be taking a poll through Vortex, for which version of the MKV R32 to bring over this next year.
But the resale on the MKIV R32 is staying high. Limited production. Last of the MKIV's. A $40,000 vehicle for $30,000...did I mention I have one for sale!


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (abt cup)*


_Quote, originally posted by *abt cup* »_
Lol...the R32 resale is







.
We're not getting the Mk 5 version of the R32. We're suppose to get the R*36* in 08...I think. 

Can't fit the 3.6 into the current body and you're wrong.
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=2531469
Dave


----------



## ylwghost (Sep 30, 2004)

The R3*6* is likely a wash .. having problems getting the drivetrain to fit.
Notice how there are no 2.0T + Haldex + DSG cars? Well BrogWarner (provider of DSG) has just recently released info on their AWD systems .. 
(this is all speculation) But the whole "not wanting to certify the 2.0T+ Haldex" thing doesn't make sence .. considering they can offer Haldex across the whole "A" VAG chassis line now.
Why wait? .. because IMO, Audi will ditch Haldex (notice the TT test mule crash anyone?)
& go with BorgWarner's AWD system that will work with DSG & the 2.0T
VAG is catching on that their chassis' are best suited with a lighter turbo-charged engine ... at least this justifies why there are no VR6GTI's
DSG (er "S_Tronic") is obviously going to stay around for a while ... it makes sence that VAG will use BorgWarners AWD systems too.
--and when it does .. there will be no excuse for not having an AWD Turbo A3 (especially the TT)


----------



## judgegavel (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: All the 3.2 hype - a test drive. (Tarik D)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Tarik D* »_This is good. 
Keep it comin'!
















BTW Tarik best thread ever


----------



## ylwghost (Sep 30, 2004)

*Re: (MylesPH1)*


_Quote, originally posted by *MylesPH1* »_Well.. remember with Haldex, the rear wheels are only driven when the front wheels slip, correct? So DTL isn't a big factor here.

Actually .. DTL is generally just a dyno number anyway.
--permanent AWD requires less torque (by not dragging its wheels everywhere) .. the trick is getting a permanent AWD system to be light enough to where you can compensate in other areas .. like a lighter turbo charged engine that sheds weight of the front bumper (I believe QuattroIV is ~160lbs)
Heres the thing.. Haldex does not permanently drive the rear wheels; so its generally not only dragging its rear wheels (eating up torque) .. its also dragging around the weight of AWD (while lacking many benifits of Quattro that all add up to make the extra ~160lbs worth it)
Semi AWD would be fine .. but only if it would weight less than Quattro
-the lighter 2.0T would help (still being on a lighter chassis than the A4) but when you add the weight of the 3.2 / the weight of DSG / and the weight of Haldex .. everything tends to balance out (hence the existance of this thread)


----------



## ylwghost (Sep 30, 2004)

*Re: (Tarik D)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Tarik D* »_I agree with Arno on this issue of "feel". The WRX/Turbo guys, myself included, are used to non-linear power and the power rush that comes with turbos.

(sorry I'm in this thread late)
I agree with you both as well:
AWD has many benifits; but the weight tends to wash them out for some.
The answer is Turbo ... why?
--allows for a lighter/ smaller displacement engine that help VAG cars turn-in better with less understeer
--allows for better fuel consumption (to comphensate for the weight of AWD)
--allows tuners to crank up the boost! (and actually let all that power hit the ground)


----------



## A4Kevin (May 4, 2005)

I read 2008 will bring a quattro version of the 2.0t TT.


----------



## ylwghost (Sep 30, 2004)

*Re: (A4Kevin)*


_Quote, originally posted by *A4Kevin* »_I read 2008 will bring a quattro version of the 2.0t TT.


Which would consitant with the MKI TT
-what also would be consitant is that VAG will then share the drivetrain with other's of the same chassis (can't see how the A3 would not get it)
1 year is also likely enough time for Audi to switch teams from Haldex to BorgWarner


----------



## abt cup (Aug 1, 2000)

*Re: (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_
Can't fit the 3.6 into the current body and you're wrong.
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=2531469
Dave

That's not what the guys at the VW design lab said.








I said..."I think" on the R36.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (abt cup)*


_Quote, originally posted by *abt cup* »_
That's not what the guys at the VW design lab said.








I said..."I think" on the R36.









You sir, are the carrier of misinformation . . . 
this thread has been stickied for over a month on the MKV forum
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=2463254
Dave


----------



## ProPedderKustoms (Feb 20, 2004)

*Re: (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_sorry but opinions from people who weigh down their R32s with unnecessary pounds of audio equipment don't count.








If you're telling me that 200lbs isn't noticable, then you obviously aren't very much in tune with your car.
Dave

You are really immature. I just remembered why I don't post on these web forums very often...
Thanks for your "contribution". This is my last post....jeez.


----------



## eltonsi (Mar 17, 2005)

*Re: (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_
I'm sure the girls were all over you when you dozed off and totaled your A3 by smacking into a curb








I can hear it now . . . . they were screaming . . . "OMGGGGGGG that was SOOOOOO HAWT!!!!"








Dave

Come on Mike Tyson, that line is getting old. I want a new one!








The funny thing is... There were 3 girls who drove by ("hawt") and they asked if I needed a lift. And their comment was, "Audi must make good cars, after the stop sign and the hydrant, the front of the car is barely dented."









_Quote »_
You are really immature. I just remembered why I don't post on these web forums very often...
Thanks for your "contribution". This is my last post....jeez. 

No need to get offended. Nothing is really personal even though it does seem that way sometimes. We all just having a little fun here. Men need to let their immature side out once in awhile, and a forum is the best place to let us go wild without getting some serious injuries.












_Modified by eltonsi at 8:02 AM 4-14-2006_


----------



## judgegavel (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: (eltonsi)*


_Quote, originally posted by *eltonsi* »_No need to get offended. Nothing is really personal even though it does seem that way sometimes. We all just having a little fun here. Men need to let their immature side out once in awhile, and a forum is the best place to let us go wild without getting some serious injuries.








_Modified by eltonsi at 8:02 AM 4-14-2006_

Amen el.
People who get offend on internet forums, and dont understand the levity of members posts have deep rooted problems. My professional opinion is they really need to seek some help, stop worrying about others opinions, and go to therapy to gain some self esteem.


----------



## ylwghost (Sep 30, 2004)

*Re: (judgegavel)*


_Quote, originally posted by *judgegavel* »_Amen el.
People who get offend on internet forums, and dont understand the levity of members posts have deep rooted problems. My professional opinion is they really need to seek some help, stop worrying about others opinions, and go to therapy to gain some self esteem.


Amen judge. (must be good friday or something)
--wait until your cars become ~10yrs old (like the B5 forum); y'all should be happy of the level of maturity in this thread.


----------



## Tarik D (Oct 13, 2005)

*Re: (judgegavel)*


_Quote, originally posted by *judgegavel* »_
...People who get offend on internet forums, and dont understand the levity of members posts have deep rooted problems. ....

Werd.








We're all just having some good old fashioned silly fun







Relaaaaax


----------



## MylesPH1 (Aug 6, 2000)

*Re: (ylwghost)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ylwghost* »_
Actually .. DTL is generally just a dyno number anyway.
--permanent AWD requires less torque (by not dragging its wheels everywhere) ..)..

Everything you said is agreed upon and understood - except what do you mean by "dragging the wheels"? The extra weight of the driveline components are a given, but are you saying that there is actually any significant resistance from the undriven wheels because of those undriven parts? Why bother with having them ever disconnect, if it weren't beneficial?
Personally, I prefer the Torsen quattro system, in terms of how it delivers the available power. But the main selling point of the Haldex has always been it's improved gas mileage from disengaged rear drive wheels in steady state cruising..


----------



## abt cup (Aug 1, 2000)

*Re: (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_You sir, are the carrier of misinformation . . . 
this thread has been stickied for over a month on the MKV forum
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=2463254
Dave

Haha...omfg..."carrier"!!


----------



## ylwghost (Sep 30, 2004)

*Re: (MylesPH1)*


_Quote, originally posted by *MylesPH1* »_what do you mean by "dragging the wheels"? The extra weight of the driveline components are a given, but are you saying that there is actually any significant resistance from the undriven wheels because of those undriven parts? Why bother with having them ever disconnect, if it weren't beneficial?

I can't answer the 1st question completely .. I can only see that the *significant* resistance would only come into play with momentum changes (& haldex generally does assist under heavy acceleration)
-so in that regard .. it may even go in favor of Haldex (but to counter that .. do you think there is any significant DTL with permanent AWD when cruising at a steady pace)
--my point was that the DTL argument tends to be a wash--
However the real reason Haldex disconnects is because it does not work well with the ABS system. (and predominately stays disconnected to prevent even more of the on/off dynamic that may upset the cars balance)
--Haldex is to provide some of the benefits of permanent AWD (i.e. cornor-exit grip)
But it lacks the benefit of being neutrally balanced for whatever the driver may throw at it. 
-AWD is all about cornor-entry drifts & cornor-exit grip (A Haldex car is pretty difficult to initiate a drift at cornor-entry .. as it needs to be treated like a FWD car) (its possible ..however)
-And unless modified ..Haldex lacks the benefit of AWD braking.. if one is to rev-match under braking
I am going on a tangent here with the Haldex vs. Torsen .. my general point is that if you have the weight of AWD.. it needs to be compensated in other areas (and the best answer is a smaller displacement turbo)
the 2.0T vs 3.2H argument tends to be a wash as well.
-the 3.2 has the benefit of cornor-exit grip (but is dulled down by the weight .. especially at cornor-entry)
if there was a 2.0TH was in the picture however .. there would be a clear winner (in which everyone should agree)


_Modified by ylwghost at 11:24 AM 4-14-2006_


----------



## Rogerthat (Oct 23, 2005)

just went to the grocery store and was fliping through May's issue of Car & Driver *"Is Small BIG Again?"*and guess what i found on page 119.
















































just adding to the fire.










_Modified by Rogerthat at 8:36 PM 4/15/2006_


----------



## Nuvolari (Jun 22, 2004)

*Re: (Rogerthat)*

You scanned the whole article at the grocery store?


----------



## Rogerthat (Oct 23, 2005)

*Re: (Nuvolari)*









yeh


----------



## someguy123 (Sep 30, 2005)

0-60 in 5.8 seconds, that's pretty good.
However, 19 mpg for city?








Is that supposed to be expected? I didn't know it was that bad.


_Modified by someguy123 at 10:13 PM 4-15-2006_


----------



## Nuvolari (Jun 22, 2004)

*Re: (someguy123)*

19 in the city? You wish!
You'd have to drive like my deceased grand mother to get close to 19.
The 3.2 is not known for frugality.


----------



## Tarik D (Oct 13, 2005)

*Re: (Nuvolari)*

Thanks for scanning.
My sentiments exactly.


----------



## A3DSG (Mar 22, 2006)

*Re: (2.0T versus 3.2Q)*

I promise all of you that if a dealer gave all potential R32 or 3.2Q buyers a test drive in a chipped 2.0T, that's all they would ever sell! 
A chipped 2.0T STOMPS both, gets better mpg, and is still $10,000 cheaper.
I'll have hard time seeing them in my rearview crying about those 2 or 3 extra options I don't have.


----------



## judgegavel (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: (A3DSG)*


_Quote, originally posted by *A3DSG* »_I promise all of you that if a dealer gave all potential R32 or 3.2Q buyers a test drive in a chipped 2.0T, that's all they would ever sell! 
A chipped 2.0T STOMPS both, gets better mpg, and is still $10,000 cheaper.
I'll have hard time seeing them in my rearview crying about those 2 or 3 extra options I don't have.


No there are many who cant handle the power, and rather pay more for less.


----------



## A4Kevin (May 4, 2005)

It seems like the 2.0t crowd that has something to prove. Congratulations your chipped car is faster. Most of us who have the 3.2 bought it for more reasons then 0-60 bragging rights.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (A4Kevin)*


_Quote, originally posted by *A4Kevin* »_It seems like the 2.0t crowd that has something to prove. Congratulations your chipped car is faster. Most of us who have the 3.2 bought it for more reasons then 0-60 bragging rights. 

keep on telling yourself that the extra 400lbs is worth it








Dave


----------



## A4Kevin (May 4, 2005)

You are exactly correct I chose the 3.2 because of the extra 400lbs.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (A4Kevin)*


_Quote, originally posted by *A4Kevin* »_You are exactly correct I chose the 3.2 because of the extra 400lbs.

you always liked em fat!
Dave


----------



## A4Kevin (May 4, 2005)

On a side note. The price of the GTI is quite high. In Canadian $$ is starts at 30k. Where as the A3 is 32. Surprised they are so much.


----------



## Rogerthat (Oct 23, 2005)

*Re: (A4Kevin)*

who has bought there car b/c of 0-60 # ?
not i
there is one thing for certain that we all are deeply in LOVE with our A3s. we all chose are car for our own reasons being 2.0/3.2 open sky/nav gti/a3 fwd/Q ect ect............who cares>>>>>>>we shouldnt put each other down for it. but there is nothing wrong with a little Tug Of War.
















as for chipping i dont see myself doing that anytime soon. the car feels great,,,,,,,maybe in 3 or 4 years Ill do that and have a whole new experience.


----------



## A4Kevin (May 4, 2005)

Amen Rogerthat.


----------



## A3DSG (Mar 22, 2006)

*Re: 2.0T versus 3.2Q*

My previous rides were an A4 B5 and a fire-breathing Jag S. The Jag was all about performance and staying at the dealership, and the B5 was comfort and safety. I can't tell you all the reasons I bought the A3 2.0T or how many cars I read about, but I can tell you I was disappointed by the New MINI(I've owned 3, old), SVX, S4 Quatro, Acura, Mercedes, 350Z, and 30 or 40 others I drove at the Test Drives and at the dealerships. Then I drove the 2.0T, traded in both cars and bought one immediately. The 3.2Q came out right after that - mine felt faster. Then my wife bought me a chip flash for Christmas. This is something Audi should have offered initially - it's a whole different car. Shifts are smoother, MPG is higher, and performance is much better than the 3.2!!! This is the best $450 option I've ever had on any of the cars I've owned.
My comments weren't meant to be "in your face" or provacative. That's just the way it is.


----------



## someguy123 (Sep 30, 2005)

*Re: (A3DSG)*


_Quote, originally posted by *A3DSG* »_I promise all of you that if a dealer gave all potential R32 or 3.2Q buyers a test drive in a chipped 2.0T, that's all they would ever sell! 
A chipped 2.0T STOMPS both, gets better mpg, and is still $10,000 cheaper.
I'll have hard time seeing them in my rearview crying about those 2 or 3 extra options I don't have.


I wonder how you'd do in the winter or on the track, compared to the 3.2Q?
Aren't 3.2 owners buying them just for the S-line & Quattro, of course they would love the 2.0TQ, if it came here.


_Modified by someguy123 at 11:08 AM 4-16-2006_


----------



## rektek (Dec 21, 2004)

*Re: (someguy123)*

I don't give a rat's &^*!$ about bragging rights. I don't see many 3.2's bragging here, it's more like defending (defending $, lbs, haldex, etc). I paid $4200 more for my 3.2 equiped the way I wanted. By the time I chip, body kit and buy 18's with stickies, it would be no more than 2k up. 2k for haldex quattro...sure I'll take it. As for weight, the A3 replaces a car that was 1600lbs heavier.
I know I enjoy the hell out of my 3.2, especially on the track. My last front wheel drive was my 85 gti. Great car, but I'm over it. I have no interest buying a fwd if an awd model is available. If I wanted to feather the gas to get a good launch, I'd pull the 69 z28 out of the garage.
Take it easy and enjoy what you have.


----------



## A3DSG (Mar 22, 2006)

*Re: (someguy123)*

I seriously think the chipped 2.0T would easily take the 3.2Q on dry Autocross or rally. Winter here in Houston means that the temp dips way down into the 60s. I think it snowed 3 years ago, but honestly driving in the snow in many places, the Quatro wins hands down. I just wish they'd offer 2.0 QT.
I thought you guys got all the neat Euros before we did...


----------



## .:R2theT (Sep 7, 2005)

*Re: (someguy123)*


_Quote, originally posted by *someguy123* »_
I wonder how you'd do in the winter or on the track, compared to the 3.2Q?
Aren't 3.2 owners buying them just for the S-line & Quattro, of course they would love the 2.0TQ, if it came here.

_Modified by someguy123 at 11:08 AM 4-16-2006_

That is just it. I live in Minnesota and I will not live without some type of AWD. I have loved the Haldex on my R32 and I love the refinement of the A3. So win-win for me.
These are not tracking cars. These are wagons, not sports cars! But I do have plenty of mods planned: chip, exhaust, EuroMirrors, wheels, air intake. I suppose I could eventually find myself putting a supercharger or turbo on mine.
Again, this really all comes down to what you prefer and what you can afford. If a 2.0t Quattro was available we would have considered it, but mostly for fuel economy. I still really like the 3.2l VR6. I like the tone and the raw power. If anything, with the added weight we will have in the A3, it becomes more of a challenge to find those extra HP and release them to the wheels.
But I'll say it again...this is the same argument that has been going on betweeen R32 and GTi owners since the R32 came out.
"but with a chip mine is faster" Great...enjoy your chip!
"but I don't need 4motion(Haldex)" Great...I do!
"but mine only cost $$$" Great...I can afford it!
Enjoy what you have.


----------



## A3DSG (Mar 22, 2006)

*Re: (.:R2theT)*

wurd.


----------



## judgegavel (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: (.:R2theT)*


_Quote, originally posted by *.:R2theT* »_But I'll say it again...this is the same argument that has been going on betweeen R32 and GTi owners since the R32 came out.


Not quite, while considering DT loss and real HP, the 1.8T is no where near the 3.2 stock, yes a chip makes it close, but it debatable. The 2.0T is almost on the level of the 3.2 unchipped, chipped its far superior. So it really not the same argument.










_Modified by judgegavel at 4:26 PM 4/16/2006_


----------



## vertigo (Feb 16, 1999)

*Re: All the 3.2 hype - a test drive. (Tarik D)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Tarik D* »_I was pretty pissed off when, after having just purchased my 2.0T, 3.2Q's started showing up on dealer lots. The dealer told me they weren't due for some time, so I bought the "lesser" model instead.
So, I enjoy my 2.0T because it's a nice car, but it wasn't what I wanted, especially since I came from a WRX with AWD.
And now we're shopping a car for my wife -so this is my opportunity to get the car I wanted. Great!
Well...
Yesterday, for chits and giggles I decided to take a 3.2 out for a drive at the local dealership. It's slick and sexy and has the optional wheels and it screams S-Line. I'm impressed, right?
Not!
Sounded good when I started it.
Felt very familiar.
Then I turned out of the parking lot. Man what weirdness/dissapointment - you can feel all that AWD stuff churning away under you. Just a whole bunch of friction! The entire drivetrain felt very sluggish and heavy to me, and worst of all, very unrefined as an AWD system. It's drivetrain delay and unresponsiveness was overwhelming after driving a WRX that had such a seamless, smooth AWD system.
And then I got on it on the freeway ramp. What? This is supposed to be more powerful than my 2.0T? No way in hell. Torquier? No. Faster? No. Who's trying to convince that the 3.2Q is faster? The numbers might say one thing, but my butt-dyno, after having driven an A3 for 6 months is telling me something very different.
It did handle very well on the offramp and it felt well planted on bumpy turns. Not planted enough for my taste though.
Then I flipped through the gears the way I do on my own DSG. Something about it felt delayed and clumsy. Maybe it was the drivetrain again.
All I can say is I'm even happier now with my 2.0T, and more confused about what to buy the wife.
This car was $38k and some change before taxes/fees.
Considering the overall driving experience behind the wheel of my WRX wagon was superior, I'm at a loss on a truly positive opinion on the car. 
We're shopping AWD hatch/sport wagon options and after having built this 3.2 up so much in my head for months, I'm sadly, bitterly dissapointed.
Kudos to you if you have it. The AWD is great to have in the hills and snowy areas. But at that price, I think I'd rather get out and throw my snow chains on if need be. The engine and drivetrain are a dissapointment. I expected more.
The 2.0T engine is butter. Pure, silky butter that delivers, almost in anticipation of your input. The suspension seemes tighter and more responsive on my 2.0T.
The only thing I'm missing is the S-Line look (I'm working on that) and AWD. The rest is not convincing me this car is worth all that extra $.
Congrats if you own a 3.2. Nice car. 
But if I was shopping A3's, the 2.0T wins...and this time the 3.2Q's are on dealer lots!

(1) Why did you buy a car you didn't really want to buy?
(2) Now it sounds like you're just trying to convince yourself you didn't make a mistake by buying a car you didn't really want to buy.
(3) Your butt-dyno needs a tune up. The 3.2 is faster.


----------



## .:R2theT (Sep 7, 2005)

*Re: (judgegavel)*


_Quote, originally posted by *judgegavel* »_
Not quite, while considering DT loss and real HP, the 1.8T is no where near the 3.2 stock, yes a chip makes it close, but it debatable. The 2.0T is almost on the level of the 3.2 unchipped, chipped its far superior. So it really not the same argument.









_Modified by judgegavel at 4:26 PM 4/16/2006_

HP-wise you may be right. I have not seen any dyno's from either a 2.0 or a 3.2 but you may be right. But if HP is your only concern then you might consider the 2006 Suburu STI: very sporty, AWD and, best of all, 300 HP. 
It just seems to me that the 2.0t and 3.2l are just totally different cars. A person who says the 2.0t is such a better value could just as easily get a GTI, couldn't they? Now that would be a vaiue!


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)




----------



## .:R2theT (Sep 7, 2005)

*Re: (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_

















You forgot "Make the A3 vs. GTI wars stop!"


----------



## judgegavel (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: All the 3.2 hype - a test drive. (vertigo)*


_Quote, originally posted by *vertigo* »_
(3) Your butt-dyno needs a tune up. The 3.2 is faster.

If your talking butt dyno your in the minority on that opinion.


_Modified by judgegavel at 5:45 PM 4/16/2006_


----------



## judgegavel (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: (.:R2theT)*


_Quote, originally posted by *.:R2theT* »_ But if HP is your only concern then you might consider the 2006 Suburu STI: very sporty, AWD and, best of all, 300 HP. 

Never said HP was my only concern (nor would anyone I think) but it is important, like Tarik I'm coming from a WRX, the three things I learned from it were:
1) Subaruas interiors are unacceptable.
2) AWD is overrated.
3) 4cyl. turbos are the perfect engine for me.










_Modified by judgegavel at 5:44 PM 4/16/2006_


----------



## Tarik D (Oct 13, 2005)

*Re: (judgegavel)*


_Quote, originally posted by *judgegavel* »_
Never said HP was my only concern (nor would anyone I think) but it is important, like Tarik I'm coming from a WRX, the three things I learned from it were:
1) Subaruas interiors are unacceptable.
2) AWD is overrated.
3) 4cyl. turbos are the perfect engine for me.









_Modified by judgegavel at 5:44 PM 4/16/2006_

Amen. Thank you.


_Quote, originally posted by *vertigo* »_
(1) Why did you buy a car you didn't really want to buy?
(2) Now it sounds like you're just trying to convince yourself you didn't make a mistake by buying a car you didn't really want to buy.
(3) Your butt-dyno needs a tune up. The 3.2 is faster.

1. You don't know me, nor all the circumstances that led to the purchase of my car.
2. I offered up my _OPINION _of the 3.2 after a test drive. Take it or leave it.
3. I don't regret the purchase of the 2.0T. In fact, I'm happier knowing I didn't wait/spend more for an "eh" $40k+ car wth an "eh" awd system and "eh" engine. Just my *opinion*...take it or leave it.
4. Don't worry. My butt-dyno is perfectly calibrated.


----------



## rektek (Dec 21, 2004)

*Re: (Tarik D)*

if awd is so overatted, then why are so many people wanting the 2.0tq? just curious...if the 2.0t was available in quattro (haldex not torsen, be realistic) and it weighed and cost a little more......would many of you still have chosen fwd?


----------



## rektek (Dec 21, 2004)

*Re: (A3DSG)*

where are you getting 10k difference? comparing a base 2.0 to a loaded 3.2? please stop your misinformation.


----------



## Christopher463 (Jul 16, 2005)

*Re: (rektek)*


_Quote, originally posted by *rektek* »_if awd is so overatted, then why are so many people wanting the 2.0tq? 

Queers.

_Quote, originally posted by *rektek* »_if the 2.0t was available in quattro (haldex not torsen, be realistic) and it weighed and cost a little more......would many of you still have chosen fwd?

FWD FTW.


----------



## Nuvolari (Jun 22, 2004)

*Re: All the 3.2 hype - a test drive. (judgegavel)*

Vertigo said "(3) Your butt-dyno needs a tune up. The 3.2 is faster. "
To which judgegavel replied

_Quote, originally posted by *judgegavel* »_
If your talking butt dyno your in the minority on that opinion.

To which I reply: if your butt dyno tells you the 2.0 is faster, then your butt dyno is off or you are in denial, or both. Probably both.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: All the 3.2 hype - a test drive. (Nuvolari)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Nuvolari* »_
To which I reply: if your butt dyno tells you the 2.0 is faster, then your butt dyno is off or you are in denial, or both. Probably both.









Shouldn't you be out trying to scam some 13 year old girls since you're SO HAWT?
Dave


----------



## judgegavel (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: All the 3.2 hype - a test drive. (Nuvolari)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Nuvolari* »_Vertigo said "(3) Your butt-dyno needs a tune up. The 3.2 is faster. "
To which judgegavel replied
To which I reply: if your butt dyno tells you the 2.0 is faster, then your butt dyno is off or you are in denial, or both. Probably both.









No, how many testaments have we seen here in comparisons of the 3.2 to 2.0T that people say the 2.0T feels faster (butt dyno) that would be the vast majority. Thats not saying it is faster (thats why we use real dynos), no **** stock for stock the the 3.2 is a little faster, but a turbo feels faster and that would be the point.








Again I apologize in advance if the confusion is from you lack of understanding of english Nuvo.










_Modified by judgegavel at 11:28 PM 4/16/2006_


----------



## eltonsi (Mar 17, 2005)

*Re: (A3DSG)*


_Quote, originally posted by *A3DSG* »_I promise all of you that if a dealer gave all potential R32 or 3.2Q buyers a test drive in a chipped 2.0T, that's all they would ever sell! 
A chipped 2.0T STOMPS both, gets better mpg, and is still $10,000 cheaper.
I'll have hard time seeing them in my rearview crying about those 2 or 3 extra options I don't have.


Your promise is broken. Owned a chipped A3, bought a 3.2Q.
And I still have my doubts about this, "chipped 2.0T faster than 3.2Q" belief. No one has any concrete evidence, nor have I seen one chipped 2.0T go under 6.0 sec from 0-60, mine certainly was no where close to that. Only one way to find out... Will give the results in about 2 weeks.
I do agree with A4Kevin that the 2.0T crowd do seem like they need to defend their choice and feel the need for the 3.2Q to bow down to the almighty 2.0T engine. While the 3.2Q acknowledges the greatness of the 2.0T engine and rarely do we say we have a superior engine. 
Use some common sense here guys, neither side will back down. We just spent a freaking fortune (more so for the 3.2) on this car, it is the BEST car for that owner for whatever reason.


----------



## judgegavel (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: (eltonsi)*


_Quote, originally posted by *eltonsi* »_And I still have my doubts about this, "chipped 2.0T faster than 3.2Q" belief. No one has any concrete evidence

No concrete evidence, how about a comparison of the hp and torque numbers especially considering the extra weight and DT loss, thats pretty concrete, your in denial. Nuvo even said in his stock for stock comparison that he barely beat out a stock 2.0T







. Ive killed many of R on the road, are you going to tell me the 3.2 with that weight is faster than an R.

_Quote, originally posted by *eltonsi* »_
Your promise is broken. Owned a chipped A3, bought a 3.2Q. 

Everyone knows when you smash up your car its tainted, and just cant buy the same combo again. So your case is special.







And APR doesnt count









_Quote, originally posted by *eltonsi* »_I do agree with A4Kevin that the 2.0T crowd do seem like they need to defend their choice and feel the need for the 3.2Q to bow down to the almighty 2.0T engine. 

This thread started by Tarik simply stating that on his test drive of the 3.2, he felt between the DT loss the poor AWD system (compared to the WRX) he was very disappointed. This was a similar review to what I experienced and many others I've talked to. Tarik isnt trying to justify anything, he would have easily posted a glowing review of the 3.2 if he liked it, has consistently posted that he regrets not getting AWD, and wished his 2.0T had it (infact this is where him and I completely disagree). But weather your comparing it to a WRX, R32 or the A3 2.0T the car just comes up short, for many, but that just an opinion.
I have to disagree with A4kevins, and your feelings, or counter it, I feel at least in most comparison thread, 3.2 owners need to justify why they spent so much on a car just for AWD, a system(haldex) that many dont like, and a couple of extra bells and whistles. The simple fact when comparing the 2.0T engine with the 3.2 is your comparing a new generation engine with and old generation, and sorry no need to bow down buts its simple numbers they are too close stock for stock. Chipped the 3.2 can not compare.


_Modified by judgegavel at 8:13 AM 4/17/2006_


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (judgegavel)*


_Quote, originally posted by *judgegavel* »_
Everyone knows when you smash up your car its tainted, and just cant buy the same combo again. So your case is special.







And APR doesnt count










What was even more ironic was the tire thread he posted a few days before his accident talking about how great the falken 512 all seasons are and how great they grip the road








*sigh* . . . i guess he won't be buying those again either since he slid his car into a curb








Dave


----------



## A4Kevin (May 4, 2005)

*Re: (judgegavel)*

I think the fastest 0-60 time I have seen for a chilpped 2.0t was 5.6. This was a Superchipped quattro version. 
I remember there was a Neuspeed sportback in a mag a few months ago. Cant remember the details.
As for justifing my purchase of the 3.2 I feel that even though there is a bit of a price bump for the 3.2 FOR ME, I think it offers greater value. Even in its stock form its pretty loaded with features not to mention the refinement of the vr6, awd, and sline pack. I remember someone doing a comparison a few months back and after some options were added to the base 2.0t to bring it up to the features avialable on the base 3.2 the price was getting pretty close. 
As said earlier, if all of us were looking for value we would mot have bought these cars. We all paid alot of scratch for a hatchback and there are greater values out there especially in the FWD department. Lets just enjoy these things and quit trying to one up each other. 
When the day comes we will all have S3s and all of us will be completely insane for shelling out even more for a hatch. Sign me up!


----------



## A4Kevin (May 4, 2005)

Dave. I was considering a set of Falken - ST115. Do you have any experience with them? If so I would like to hear some opinions before I buy.


_Modified by A4Kevin at 6:36 AM 4/17/2006_


----------



## a3lad (Aug 6, 2005)

my stock 2.0T is faster than a chipped 1.8T.. and that says a lot, as we all know the mighty 1.8t is the holy mother of fast















i dont need no stinking 6 cylinders


----------



## yam (Jul 18, 2005)

The 3.2Q Rulez!!!
page 4 owned.


----------



## A4Kevin (May 4, 2005)

2nd that!


----------



## jakko (Sep 30, 2005)

I concur!
ownage x3


----------



## Christopher463 (Jul 16, 2005)

Page 5 is always worthless.


----------



## yam (Jul 18, 2005)

haha
yam Owned


----------



## a3lad (Aug 6, 2005)

*Re: (yam)*


----------



## ylwghost (Sep 30, 2004)

*Re: (judgegavel)*


_Quote, originally posted by *judgegavel* »_No concrete evidence, how about a comparison of the hp and torque numbers especially considering the extra weight and DT loss, thats pretty concrete, your in denial.

DT loss is not concrete at all ... it is a dyno number (otherwise you should bring up real-world torque loss with FWD)
-Haldex is using torque / traction / & tire wear all more effeciently than FWD (tire wear helps make up the difference in fuel consumption).
It is just the same arguement as 1.8T vs. 2.8 (regarding A4's) & 1.8T vs. VR6 ... 
all I can say about that is .. *"where did all the VR6 GTI's go?"*
A chipped 2.0T may in fact go around a course *faster*... but for many, pushing the car around the bends is the most rewarding.
-you are using the VAG low-end torque to the fullest in having AWD (allowing you to grip @ cornor-exit)
All I can say is that I have no interest in taking my dads DSG A3 out through the caynons .. or up to the mountains (over my quattro manual) 
-If a weekend toy is not feasible; yet you still like to carve through the caynons, romp up to the mountains.. and you live in a place where there is no clear seasonal changes ... the benifits of AWD far outweigh the need for a lighter weight freeway sprinter.
I can imagine how some of you feel when you are asked if your Audi is a Quattro .. Having a yellow A4 reguarly prompts the question "is that an S?"
--this last time it was asked by an R32 owner at the top of Stunt Rd. ..
I told him it was "just a A4 .. 1.8" . . . he asked "Quattro?" .... "oh, your having fun too" (which is the truth)
-tire spin can take away all the fun out of pushing you car to its limits (because the limits are lower before, during, & after the turn)
So what are you getting for the extra $2k? (higher limits to push)


----------



## eltonsi (Mar 17, 2005)

*Re: (judgegavel)*


_Quote, originally posted by *judgegavel* »_
No concrete evidence, how about a comparison of the hp and torque numbers especially considering the extra weight and DT loss, thats pretty concrete, your in denial. Nuvo even said in his stock for stock comparison that he barely beat out a stock 2.0T







. Ive killed many of R on the road, are you going to tell me the 3.2 with that weight is faster than an R.

No, I do not consider that as concrete evidence. One thing I have learned from all this is... claimed HP means absolutely nothing at all. I can "claim" to kill some 911 Turbos out there too. That doesn't mean anything. As I said, I will find it out for myself in a few weeks. Until then, feel free to say that I'm in denial or whatever.

_Quote, originally posted by *judgegavel* »_
This thread started by Tarik simply stating that on his test drive of the 3.2, he felt between the DT loss the poor AWD system (compared to the WRX) he was very disappointed. This was a similar review to what I experienced and many others I've talked to. Tarik isnt trying to justify anything, he would have easily posted a glowing review of the 3.2 if he liked it, has consistently posted that he regrets not getting AWD, and wished his 2.0T had it (infact this is where him and I completely disagree). But weather your comparing it to a WRX, R32 or the A3 2.0T the car just comes up short, for many, but that just an opinion.

Don't think I'm targeting at Tarik or anyone in particular. Just a mere general observation that the 2.0T crowd feels the need to put down the 3.2 to make themselves feel better.

_Quote, originally posted by *judgegavel* »_
I have to disagree with A4kevins, and your feelings, or counter it, I feel at least in most comparison thread, 3.2 owners need to justify why they spent so much on a car just for AWD, a system(haldex) that many dont like, and a couple of extra bells and whistles. The simple fact when comparing the 2.0T engine with the 3.2 is your comparing a new generation engine with and old generation, and sorry no need to bow down buts its simple numbers they are too close stock for stock. Chipped the 3.2 can not compare.

Same could be said about the GTI vs A3. You are paying more for some "bells and whistles". We bought the 3.2 because we like it. We like the haldex. We like the s-line kit. We like how the VR6 sounds. We don't need to justify anything. We bought the car for ourselves, not to please anyone else.

_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_What was even more ironic was the tire thread he posted a few days before his accident talking about how great the falken 512 all seasons are and how great they grip the road 
*sigh* . . . i guess he won't be buying those again either since he slid his car into a curb 


These cheap shots are getting a little annoying. It was an accident, had nothing to do with the car nor the tires. It was absolutely my fault after a long trip. Now give it a rest.
And no, I don't need to go back to the Falkens, I got Pzero Rossa on the 3.2. Think I'll be ok with them, at least util the treads are still there.


----------



## judgegavel (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: (ylwghost)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ylwghost* »_
DT loss is not concrete at all ... it is a dyno number (otherwise you should bring up real-world torque loss with FWD)

DT loss is quite concrete, I'm not talking from exact HP number but torque, the DT torque loss is still far worse for AWD, also if were doing a torque comparison the difference with a chipped 2.0T vs. a stock 3.2 is even larger than the HP dif.









_Quote, originally posted by *ylwghost* »_-Haldex is using torque / traction / & tire wear all more efficiently than FWD (tire wear helps make up the difference in fuel consumption).

Ok this is one of the most hilarious statements I've seen yet. If your looking at it from an operating cost perspective, you will have to change the tires (as long as the fwd is properly rotated) just as often as awd, fronts always wear faster (of course more so in fwd, but Hladex is fwd system most of the time anyway) but with awd you will have to keep all tires within 2/32nds of each other all you will **** up the AWD, so there that. Plus Haldex fluid also needs to be changed every 15K mi. On top if this remember the 3.2 is 400lbs heavier (hmm wonder what effect that will have on the tires). Bottom line is you exaggerated estimate of tire wear, does absolutely nothing to make up the difference in fuel consumption, in fact with the added weight and the fact that you need to keep the tires so close, the tire cost will probably be more.

_Quote, originally posted by *ylwghost* »_-you are using the VAG low-end torque to the fullest in having AWD (allowing you to grip @ cornor-exit)

Yes but you dont have nearly as much low end torque with the 3.2 compared to the 2.0T, thats where the larger difference is.









_Quote, originally posted by *ylwghost* »_It is just the same argument as 1.8T vs. 2.8 (regarding A4's) & 1.8T vs. VR6 ... 
all I can say about that is .. *"where did all the VR6 GTI's go?"*

Its not because a chipped 1.8T will only get you to about the same power as a 3.2, the 2.0T is almost there stock especially when you equate the DT loss and weight, a chip gives it close to 50 more lbs of torque than the 3.2.

_Quote, originally posted by *ylwghost* »_So what are you getting for the extra $2k? (higher limits to push)

Extra $2k, and evenly equipped (although that can not be done exactly) would be $4k more min.


----------



## tbvvw (Jun 19, 2002)

Amazing how this thread is identical to many 20th AE GTI vs. R32 threads ~2 years ago. 
Just enjoy what you have!


----------



## judgegavel (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: (eltonsi)*


_Quote, originally posted by *eltonsi* »_
No, I do not consider that as concrete evidence. One thing I have learned from all this is... claimed HP means absolutely nothing at all. I can "claim" to kill some 911 Turbos out there too. That doesn't mean anything. As I said, I will find it out for myself in a few weeks. Until then, feel free to say that I'm in denial or whatever.

HP claims are BS I agree, its the torque difference as I mentioned above that you need to pay attention to, a chipped 2.0T is getting around 50 more lbs of torque than a 3.2, than theres the extra weight and DT loss to factor, against the added grip, sorry it will not add up to 50 more lbs.










_Quote, originally posted by *eltonsi* »_Don't think I'm targeting at Tarik or anyone in particular. Just a mere general observation that the 2.0T crowd feels the need to put down the 3.2 to make themselves feel better..

And see I think its the exact opposite (although not with you) 3.2 crowd needs to put down the 2.0T to make themselves feel better about paying $4k more for a car that winds up being not as fast (when the 2.0T gets chipped) and IMHO and many others not as fun. Some have gone to the exxtent of saying that without quattro the 2.0T isnt even a real Audi on AW.










_Quote, originally posted by *eltonsi* »_These cheap shots are getting a little annoying. It was an accident, had nothing to do with the car nor the tires. It was absolutely my fault after a long trip. Now give it a rest.
And no, I don't need to go back to the Falkens, I got Pzero Rossa on the 3.2. Think I'll be ok with them, at least until the treads are still there.

El, get a sense of humor.


----------



## A4Kevin (May 4, 2005)

My stock 3.2 is faster then your stock 2.0t.








I paid more then you and feel great about it.
Based on what you guys are saying the chipped 2.0t is not far off the 0-60 times of an S4. I guess those folks REALLY wasted their money hey?
This is ridiculous.



_Modified by A4Kevin at 2:11 PM 4/17/2006_


----------



## a3lad (Aug 6, 2005)

*Re: (A4Kevin)*


_Quote, originally posted by *A4Kevin* »_My stock 3.2 is faster then your stock 2.0t.









oh yeah?!
well.. if my stock 2.0t and your stock 3.2q fall into a pool of molten magma yours would sink faster! 
neener neener


----------



## A4Kevin (May 4, 2005)

*Re: (a3lad)*


_Quote, originally posted by *a3lad* »_
oh yeah?!
well.. if my stock 2.0t and your stock 3.2q fall into a pool of molten magma yours would sink faster! 
neener neener
















Actually neither would sink because magma is molten rock under the earths crust whereas lava is exposed molten rock. It is impossible to fall into it if it is not exposed.


----------



## eltonsi (Mar 17, 2005)

*Re: (judgegavel)*


_Quote, originally posted by *judgegavel* »_
And see I think its the exact opposite (although not with you) 3.2 crowd needs to put down the 2.0T to make themselves feel better about paying $4k more for a car that winds up being not as fast (when the 2.0T gets chipped) and IMHO and many others not as fun. Some have gone to the exxtent of saying that without quattro the 2.0T isnt even a real Audi on AW.









Dude, go back and read this thread, name me one poster from the 3.2 crowd who has indicate or implied anything negative about the 2.0T engine? We all acknowledge that the 2.0T is one of the best engines out there. And some of us including myself, even said we would have bought a 2.0TQ if it was available. 

_Quote, originally posted by *judgegavel* »_ 
El, get a sense of humor.









It's funny the first 2nd or 3rd time... the 4th, 5th, 6th... gets really old quick. Perhaps I would find some humor in it if I know that my insurance isn't going to sky rocket to $5k+ a year.


----------



## ylwghost (Sep 30, 2004)

*Re: (judgegavel)*


_Quote, originally posted by *judgegavel* »_the DT torque loss is still far worse for AWD, also if were doing a torque comparison the difference with a chipped 2.0T vs. a stock 3.2 is even larger than the HP dif. 

I am just saying _I_ wouldn't be concerned with these dyno numbers (because they dont factor in the fact that driven wheels require less torque than non-driven wheels ... & AWD has many effeciencies that tend to balance out what the dyno says (to a degree)

_Quote, originally posted by *judgegavel* »_Yes but you dont have nearly as much low end torque with the 3.2 compared to the 2.0T, thats where the larger difference is. 

Wow; you have an impresive dyno graph .. but you can not use it where it matters most (IMO) 
-I am talking from a power-band prospective (in relation to other manufactures .. i.e. the SIs powerband is better suited for a FWD car) .. when you down-shift in a VAG car, you are generally putting it right into the range where torque peaks (now take this situation through a cornor)
where the 2.0T driver is *****footing; *trying to retain traction* ..Quattro driver is *trying to break traction* (huge difference in driving dynamics)

_Quote, originally posted by *judgegavel* »_Ok this is one of the most hilarious statements I've seen yet.

--It is less humorous with permanent AWD (evenso.. you can't tell me those with re-flashed 2.0Ts are not exagerating uneven tire wear by lighting up the fronts through all of 1st gear)
-and the 400lbs is made up with both engine and drivetrain differences
(and a 3.2 in a FWD would mean better front tire wear) more weight / less torque = less spin (and we know a 2.0Tq vs. a 2.0T would not even be an arguement)

_Quote »_Extra $2k, and evenly equipped (although that can not be done exactly) would be $4k more min. 

This type of logic actually goes in favor of the GTI (so there is nothing to brag about here)
I am not positive on how these are optioned out ... but quattro is _supposed_ to be a 1600 option.
-and the V6 has always had unique differences that make it impossible to match up (i.e. having a clutch, brakes, & transmisison built with more power in mind)
So when you are comparing a re-flashed 2.0 to a stock 3.2; you are dealing with 1 car that is built for less power than it actually has vs. a car that came from the factory balanced (which is important to some)
but prodominately (I assume) the 4k you mention is getting you AWD & a body kit .. IMO it is better to have that 4k wrapped into the price up-front; rather than having to spend the same or more by correcting the FWD chassis with an LSD & coil-overs .. & then wanting to put on and paint a body kit.
-and if you are going that route you should have gotten a GTI (IMO)


----------



## Tarik D (Oct 13, 2005)

*Re: (a3lad)*

This has become very entertaining for me. Thank you.
That said, judge-g is on the mark - I offered up my opinion. That is all








I have nothing to prove since I'm not racing, competing, showing or flaunting my car. It gets me to work. It gets me home. It is....a car to me. I have raced cars for many years, own a Ducati that would give an Enzo a run for it's money, etc. I didn't buy my A3 to prove anything. It's a great wagon/hatch with luxury, performance and style to boot.
But as a consumer, this 3.2/2.0T debate is about bang for the buck. 
*If* I felt the additional expense of the 3.2Q was a worthwile expense, I'd own one by now! 
If you own a 3.2Q, good for you. It's a beautiful car


----------



## eltonsi (Mar 17, 2005)

*Re: (Tarik D)*

Bang for buck, 2.0T wins hands down no question.


----------



## ylwghost (Sep 30, 2004)

*Re: (judgegavel)*


_Quote, originally posted by *judgegavel* »_theres the extra weight and DT loss to factor, against the added grip, sorry it will not add up to 50 more lbs. 


Not on the freeway at least .. but I would rather have a car that has higher limits to push (in that regard; grip is far too important to sacrifice in favor of torque)(especially for the who are not into racing S4's on the freeway ..)
-there is a reason FWD cars are not commonly given anything more than ~200hp (there is a point where you lose traction at the limits without serious chassis correction .. and who likes to break traction in a FWD car?)


----------



## ylwghost (Sep 30, 2004)

*Re: (eltonsi)*


_Quote, originally posted by *eltonsi* »_Bang for buck, 2.0T wins hands down no question. 


Bang for buck; the GTI wins hands down (if that is ones logic)


----------



## judgegavel (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: (eltonsi)*


_Quote, originally posted by *eltonsi* »_
Dude, go back and read this thread, name me one poster from the 3.2 crowd who has indicate or implied anything negative about the 2.0T engine? We all acknowledge that the 2.0T is one of the best engines out there. And some of us including myself, even said we would have bought a 2.0TQ if it was available. 
.

This is carrying over from other threads

_Quote, originally posted by *ylwghost* »_
Bang for buck; the GTI wins hands down (if that is ones logic)

Well now your comparing apples and oranges.









_Quote, originally posted by *ylwghost* »_
I am just saying _I_ wouldn't be concerned with these dyno numbers (because they dont factor in the fact that driven wheels require less torque than non-driven wheels ... & AWD has many efficiencies that tend to balance out what the dyno says (to a degree)

See you dont even know your DT's here, you must remember the A3 is Haldex not Torsen, the 3.2 is driving as a fwd car unless it loosing traction. So the dyno numbers are going to be dead on, in a comparison.

_Quote, originally posted by *ylwghost* »_--It is less humorous with permanent AWD (even-so.. you can't tell me those with re-flashed 2.0Ts are not exaggerating uneven tire wear by lighting up the fronts through all of 1st gear)


Yes I can, your completely wrong, see you falling into a misconception here, I almost never light up my tires (occasionally on a very hard launch, but thats about it), nor do most 2.0T drivers I know (chipped or unclipped) I know how to accelerate, even though I do drive very hard. The reason that most think the 2.0T light up is more do to the crappy P6's it comes with than anything, a good set of tires does wonders.

_Quote, originally posted by *ylwghost* »_-and the 400lbs is made up with both engine and drive-train differences
(and a 3.2 in a FWD would mean better front tire wear) more weight / less torque = less spin (and we know a 2.0Tq vs. a 2.0T would not even be an argument)

Really, so tire spin is the only major reasons tires wear







Weight has far more to do with tire wear the tire spin, do you think every 2.0T is driving around doing burnouts.









_Quote, originally posted by *ylwghost* »_This type of logic actually goes in favor of the GTI (so there is nothing to brag about here)

Again we are * comparing A3's*, a GTI comparison is going to get into many more subjective differences, let keep on topic here.

_Quote, originally posted by *ylwghost* »_So when you are comparing a re-flashed 2.0 to a stock 3.2; you are dealing with 1 car that is built for less power than it actually has vs. a car that came from the factory balanced (which is important to some)









yea some who dont know cars and probably not posting on auto forums

_Quote, originally posted by *ylwghost* »_ IMO it is better to have that 4k wrapped into the price up-front; rather than having to spend the same or more by correcting the FWD chassis with an LSD & coil-overs .. & then wanting to put on and paint a body kit.
-and if you are going that route you should have gotten a GTI (IMO)

First off the 3.2 does not come with a body kit, it comes with a different rear and front bumper, grill and a few other things, I would not call this a body kit though (much more tasteful than that)
But on the second part you dont think coil-over are better than any OE sport suspension.










_Modified by judgegavel at 6:43 PM 4/17/2006_


----------



## rektek (Dec 21, 2004)

*Re: (judgegavel)*

Not that anyone cares....but my gripe is that the 3.2 is always getting b*&^%%tch slapped and i feel the need to clarify and defend. Please show me a post where the 3.2 owners are bashing the 2.0t. That's right, seems to be the other way around. It's gone even as far as personal attacks. I come to these forums to learn from others to better my ride, not to feel bad about my purchase (which I don't for a minute). I certainly did not buy my a3 because I was being frugal or practical.
Take it to the dyno, street, track or whatever. Until then, all this talk means nothing.


----------



## vertigo (Feb 16, 1999)

*Re: All the 3.2 hype - a test drive. (Nuvolari)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Nuvolari* »_Vertigo said "(3) Your butt-dyno needs a tune up. The 3.2 is faster. "
To which judgegavel replied
To which I reply: if your butt dyno tells you the 2.0 is faster, then your butt dyno is off or you are in denial, or both. Probably both.









Option #3: His head is stuck up his butt dyno and can't find its way out.


----------



## ylwghost (Sep 30, 2004)

*Re: (judgegavel)*


_Quote, originally posted by *judgegavel* »_Well now your comparing apples and oranges. 
 
FWD vs. AWD is more apples to oranges ... 2.0T GTI vs. 2.0T A3 is more like arguing the price:quality amongst 2 apples

_Quote, originally posted by *judgegavel* »_See you dont even know your DT's here, you must remember the A3 is Haldex not Torsen, the 3.2 is driving as a fwd car unless it loosing traction. So the dyno numbers are going to be dead on, in a comparison.

what do you mean "see"?.. the benifit isn't going to be the same as Torsen .. but the point still remains that the rear wheels are there to help out (Haldex is still using torque more effeciently under hard launches)

_Quote, originally posted by *judgegavel* »_I know how to accelerate, even though I do drive very hard. The reason that most think the 2.0T light up is more do to the crappy P6's it comes with than anything, a good set of tires does wonders.


See; you need to *****foot the thing, & you still have the tires to blame
-tire technology does just as much wonders for AWD cars too
Only with AWD, one can run a decent set of all-seasons through the snow & through the caynons (and don't have to *****foot around)

_Quote, originally posted by *judgegavel* »_Again we are comparing A3's, a GTI comparison is going to get into many more subjective differences, let keep on topic here.

So you would rather defend a car that only has subjective differences
-But fail to see objective advantages when a car has a NA V6 & semiAWD

_Quote, originally posted by *judgegavel* »_ yea some who dont know cars and probably not posting on auto forums

No; some who actually look at the long term benifit (and don't believe the risk is worth the reward ... especially when the reward is limited to wrong wheel drive & an open differential)
-and also those who care about the re-sale value (which you could kiss good bye if the 2.0Th becomes available)(especially after GTI's flood the market)


----------



## Christopher463 (Jul 16, 2005)

*Re: (ylwghost)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ylwghost* »_ 
those who care about the re-sale value (which you could kiss good bye if the 2.0Th becomes available)(especially after GTI's flood the market)

What does a 2.0T running on Hydrogen have to do with anything? Where did that even come from?


----------



## someguy123 (Sep 30, 2005)

*Re: (eltonsi)*


_Quote, originally posted by *eltonsi* »_I do agree with A4Kevin that the 2.0T crowd do seem like they need to defend their choice and feel the need for the 3.2Q to bow down to the almighty 2.0T engine. While the 3.2Q acknowledges the greatness of the 2.0T engine and rarely do we say we have a superior engine. 
Use some common sense here guys, neither side will back down. We just spent a freaking fortune (more so for the 3.2) on this car, it is the BEST car for that owner for whatever reason.









/thread


----------



## judgegavel (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: (ylwghost)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ylwghost* »_ 
FWD vs. AWD is more apples to oranges ... 2.0T GTI vs. 2.0T A3 is more like arguing the price:quality amongst 2 apples

They are both A3's, thats the point of the whole thread, hell the whole forum.









_Quote, originally posted by *ylwghost* »_ what do you mean "see"?.. the benefit isn't going to be the same as Torsen .. but the point still remains that the rear wheels are there to help out (Haldex is still using torque more efficiently under hard launches)

Yes but in the chipped comparison, 50lbs less torque, sorry awd is not going to make that up. And the 3.2 cant do hard launches NA 3.2 only comes DSG with no Launch control.


_Quote, originally posted by *ylwghost* »_ So you would rather defend a car that only has subjective differences
-But fail to see objective advantages when a car has a NA V6 & semiAWD

No I like to keep the thread on topic, bringing the GTI in is like arguing why Subarus AWD is much superior to haldex, or why Audi quality is superior to VW it just doesnt belong in the thread. And I see the advantages of AWD (sorry just not the 3.2 though), I just think they its way over emphasized.

_Quote, originally posted by *ylwghost* »_ See; you need to *****foot the thing, & you still have the tires to blame
-tire technology does just as much wonders for AWD cars too
Only with AWD, one can run a decent set of all-seasons through the snow & through the caynons (and don't have to *****foot around)

Dont misinterpret what I say, I never *****foot it, but I do know what my car can and cannot do. I dont need AWD do make me think I can drive, I know I can. And sorry but the P6's are just lame tires.
JMHO but all-seasons shouldn't be run on anything (aside from a mini van) including an awd car, I swapped winters and summer on my WRX (if I didn't my Jetta with winters was better in the snow) and all my cars.







if your running any all-season your compromising and probably have no idea what your car is capable of.


_Modified by judgegavel at 8:22 PM 4/17/2006_


----------



## judgegavel (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: (Christopher463)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Christopher463* »_
What does a 2.0T running on Hydrogen have to do with anything? Where did that even come from?


----------



## ylwghost (Sep 30, 2004)

*Re: (judgegavel)*


_Quote, originally posted by *judgegavel* »_JMHO but all-seasons shouldn't be run on anything (aside from a mini van) including an awd car, I swapped winters and summer on my WRX (if I didn't my Jetta with winters was better in the snow) and all my cars. if your running any all-season your compromising and probably have no idea what your car is capable of.

Just as people call them "no-seasons" .. often times we have no seasons in southern california
-Also given the fact that housing is so expensive; it is not feasible to have the room for multiple sets of good rubber (nor is it feasible to swap rubber depending on the day/drive)(nor will good rubber solve all the issues I have with FWD)

_Quote, originally posted by *judgegavel* »_No I like to keep the thread on topic, bringing the GTI in is like arguing why Subarus AWD is much superior to haldex, it doesnt belong in the thread. And I see the advantages of AWD (sorry not the 3.2 though), I just think they are over emphasized.

OT maybe: I just think it is hypocrytical to be arguing the "bang-for-buck" POV (as far as an enthusiast stand-point ..its the same engine/drivetrain ; cheaper cost)(just taking the arguement to the extreme to demonstrate falicies)
--IMO there is definatley a bigger bang in having an AWD Audi (granted it is not turbo). Generally Americans view owning a FWD Audi simular to owning a V6 Mustang in Europe (you are paying a premium for it .. why skimp on the options; especially when it is a chassis correction)
---with that said; the A3 is a new chassis w/ good suspension geometry .. but there is the reality that FWD Audi's do not hold their re-sale value as well as Quattro's do
Now this is your point .. AWD *should* be a chassis correction (especially with a nose heavy FWD VAG car)
-but in this case, the 3.2 adds to the need for a chassis correction (which washes out the benifit *for you*)
-but if you had a different driving style / environment .. it just may be worthwhile


----------



## kayaker10 (Jan 10, 2006)

*Re: (ylwghost)*

This thread has been an interesting read. I fall on the 2.0 side due mainly to the price point of each car, the 2.0 vs 3.2. I'd suggest it is a bit early to judge the resale value of the 3.2 greater (as a percentage of purchase price) over the 2.0. I have a feeling the as Audi updates the 3.2 that current owners may suffer a little in the resale value. With a different 6 cyl likely in the relatively near future, the 3.2 could suffer has being perceived as outdated (even with the awd) as compared to the newer 2.0 turbo. Which I don't see as lilkely to be viewed as yesterdays technology. That said, they are both sweet rides. My issues with the 2.0 is keeping the wheels firmly planted when acelerating aggresivley. Until warmer temps prove my tires capable of being more sticky, I am reluctant to chip it due to not being able to take full advantage of the torque gains.


----------



## A4Kevin (May 4, 2005)

If the 2.0t was available with haldex AWD would those of you with FWD buy it even though it is heavier and a crappy AWD system?

http://download.yousendit.com/F909DAC500218BDD 


_Modified by A4Kevin at 7:03 PM 4/17/2006_


----------



## Christopher463 (Jul 16, 2005)

Even if the 2.0T were available right now with AWD as a no-cost option, I would go with FrontTrak.
And that video was not entertaining at all. Why would you do that?


----------



## A4Kevin (May 4, 2005)

I found the vid on line thought it was kinda funny. Sorry you were not entertained.


----------



## judgegavel (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: (ylwghost)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ylwghost* »_OT maybe: I just think it is hypocrytical to be arguing the "bang-for-buck" POV (as far as an enthusiast stand-point ..its the same engine/drivetrain ; cheaper cost)(just taking the arguement to the extreme to demonstrate falicies)

I didnt bring up the bang-for-buck aspect, it was just a counter four that hysterical claim that tire longevity would make up for (or help make up for) the poorer gas milage of the 3.2 (which I never brought up to begin with). My only point is that I completely agree with Tarik's review.

_Quote, originally posted by *ylwghost* »_
Just as people call them "no-seasons" .. often times we have no seasons in southern california
-Also given the fact that housing is so expensive; it is not feasible to have the room for multiple sets of good rubber (nor is it feasible to swap rubber depending on the day/drive)(nor will good rubber solve all the issues I have with FWD)

Whatever your reasons, the fact that your arguing the merits of AWD while running all-season, completely discredits you IMHO. Good summers/winters do *much* more for handeling than AWD could ever do, your only as good as whats touching the road

_Quote, originally posted by *A4Kevin* »_If the 2.0t was available with haldex AWD would those of you with FWD buy it even though it is heavier and a crappy AWD system?

Thats an excellent question, (and I dont think Haldex is crappy, I would just prefer Torsen if I was going to get awd), It would depend on how much weight it added and how it actually drove. If it was like the 3.2 I would probably choose the fwd though.

_Quote, originally posted by *Christopher463* »_Even if the 2.0T were available right now with AWD as a no-cost option, I would go with FrontTrak.

See my point would be even if the 3.2 was available in a front track even with the S-Line pkg as a no cost option, I would never take it.


_Modified by judgegavel at 10:16 PM 4/17/2006_


----------



## A4Kevin (May 4, 2005)

I really cant believe you guys dislike the 3.2 this much. Forget about the cost. You guys have done a great job picking apart the purchases us 3.2 owners have made. I thought we were all in the same 'Audi boat'. 



_Modified by A4Kevin at 7:34 PM 4/17/2006_


----------



## Rogerthat (Oct 23, 2005)




----------



## rektek (Dec 21, 2004)

*Re: (A4Kevin)*

I say bs. Where did all the people go that swore a 2.0t q would be in the garage if it was available?


----------



## judgegavel (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: (rektek)*


_Quote, originally posted by *rektek* »_I say bs. Where did all the people go that swore a 2.0t q would be in the garage if it was available?

They must have test driven a 3.2.


----------



## Christopher463 (Jul 16, 2005)

*Re: (rektek)*


_Quote, originally posted by *rektek* »_I say bs. Where did all the people go that swore a 2.0t q would be in the garage if it was available?

It seems they died. We will mourn their incesant whining. We, as strong and sane Audi owners must move on and continue about our daily lives even in the absence of constant complaining. Their posts will be missed. Alas, I'm off to read the next post about lack of manual on the 3.2.


----------



## Nuvolari (Jun 22, 2004)

*Re: (judgegavel)*


_Quote, originally posted by *judgegavel* »_...the DT torque loss is still far worse for AWD,...
[then says, in the same post:] 
but Hladex is fwd system most of the time anyway
[to top it off with this old myth:] On top if this remember the 3.2 is 400lbs heavier 


To make this clear, I don't mind all the typos of a person who's day job is to be a school councelor and who has a much better command of English than I have, but I'm wondering about his brain performance.
How can a DT "that is FWD most of the time anyway" (in other words, not engaged), have a "torque loss that is far worse"? Is that BS or BS?
You be the judge.
And, for Pete's sake, stop making a fool out of yourself by repeating another math-loser's statement of 400 lbs delta. I'll make it clearer this time and do the math for you. 3660 lbs (3.2) is 331 lbs more than 3329 lbs (2.0 DSG), not 400.


----------



## jeffgingras (Dec 18, 2000)

*Re: (rektek)*


_Quote, originally posted by *rektek* »_I say bs. Where did all the people go that swore a 2.0t q would be in the garage if it was available?

Still waiting for mine!


----------



## yam (Jul 18, 2005)

*Re: (jeffgingras)*

Moving on to Audiworld, where they won't hurt my feelings for getting a quattro...















j/k its all good, as long as we're happy driving what we got.


----------



## feels_road (Jan 27, 2005)

*Re: (jeffgingras)*

_Quote, originally posted by rektek »
I say bs. Where did all the people go that swore a 2.0t q would be in the garage if it was available?_ 

_Quote, originally posted by *jeffgingras* »_Still waiting for mine!
 
Same here. A3, GTI, R20T, whatever. 
I have said it before, I'd rather buy a 2.0T quattro A4 than the 3.2A3. Why? Because the 2.0TFSI is a great modern engine that is lighter than the 3.2 with incredibly good mileage, a very flat torque curve, and a very inexpensive upgrade potential, for those who want to go that route. And having had TorSen quattro for 6 years (and AWD in other cars like Subarus before then), I can honestly say that I prefer AWD even under very good driving conditions, more so under bad conditions, and prefer TorSen for daily driving over Haldex (which may be better in extreme winter conditions).


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (Nuvolari)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Nuvolari* »_
To make this clear, I don't mind all the typos of a person who's day job is to be a school councelor and who has a much better command of English than I have, but I'm wondering about his brain performance.
How can a DT "that is FWD most of the time anyway" (in other words, not engaged), have a "torque loss that is far worse"? Is that BS or BS?

Even though it's un-coupled, you're still rotating the extra driveaxles and diff. 

_Quote, originally posted by *Nuvolari* »_
And, for Pete's sake, stop making a fool out of yourself by repeating another math-loser's statement of 400 lbs delta. I'll make it clearer this time and do the math for you. 3660 lbs (3.2) is 331 lbs more than 3329 lbs (2.0 DSG), not 400.









No you dolt, the 2.0t 6MT is 3260 and that is 400lbs less than the 3.2







Sheesh . . .
Dave


----------



## Entourage (Apr 30, 2000)

*Re: All the 3.2 hype - a test drive. (Tarik D)*

Um. VWAG aka Volkswagen / Audi make the best AWD system put on any vehicle.
Quattro baby. You cant touch it with a 10' pole. 
You either had a bad day of driving, a bad car or a combination of both. 
But the 3.2l motor is a sweet motor and the AWD system is faaaar from this: 
_Quote »_Man what weirdness/dissapointment - you can feel all that AWD stuff churning away under you. Just a whole bunch of friction! The entire drivetrain felt very sluggish and heavy to me, and worst of all, very unrefined as an AWD system. It's drivetrain delay and unresponsiveness was overwhelming after driving a WRX that had such a seamless, smooth AWD system.


I'm sorry to hear you had a bad experience!


----------



## bdh-vdub (Apr 2, 2001)

*Re: (judgegavel)*


_Quote, originally posted by *judgegavel* »_ Good summers/winters do *much* more for handeling than AWD could ever do, your only as good as whats touching the road 

Not quite. While tires are an important part of the equation, it won't really matter what tires you are running if you're trying to power through a curve on a FWD vehicle. 
I know. I had a heavily modded B5 Passat with sport suspension, 17 inch wheels and ultra-high performance Z rated tires. While all those aftermarket parts helped make the Passat a much better handling car, it was still very easy to see where FWD fails (understeer, torque steer) when pushing the car to it's handling limits. The 2.0T FWD A3 suffers from the same inherent weaknesses.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (bdh-vdub)*


_Quote, originally posted by *bdh-vdub* »_
Not quite. While tires are an important part of the equation, it won't really matter what tires you are running if you're trying to power through a curve on a FWD vehicle. 
I know. I had a heavily modded B5 Passat with sport suspension, 17 inch wheels and ultra-high performance Z rated tires. While all those aftermarket parts helped make the Passat a much better handling car, it was still very easy to see where FWD fails (understeer, torque steer) when pushing the car to it's handling limits. The 2.0T FWD A3 suffers from the same inherent weaknesses.

I'd have to disagree with you regarding the torque steer. The B5 passat had pretty much even length driveshafts and the 8 CA multilink suspension pretty much killed any torque steer. There is a bit of torque steer on the A3 with DSG, but on the A3 6MT, it is unnoticable . . . again, partly having to do with close to equal-length driveshafts.
Dave


----------



## judgegavel (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: (Nuvolari)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Nuvolari* »_
To make this clear, I don't mind all the typos of a person who's day job is to be a school *councelor* 

As usual Nuvo you make a fool out of your self again, misspelling simple words in a post when your trying to correct them is sad, seriously go post on a site in your native language too much gets lost for you here in translation. Or try going back to school (not ABS school though). No-one can make a real living as an ABS (or soon to be Alfa dealer, oooh they are going to sell like hot-cakes







)







If thats too much there is a spell check you know.
Dave made my point about everything else

_Quote, originally posted by *bdh-vdub* »_
Not quite. While tires are an important part of the equation, it won't really matter what tires you are running if you're trying to power through a curve on a FWD vehicle. 

Disagree with you there about the torque steer as-well, but was looking at it more from the AWD point of view, if your running crap all-seasons on an awd car dont start trumpeting that your car handles great through corners, your only as good as your weakest part, and IMHO from a true drivers perspective all-season do-not cut it no matter what wd you have, and are very weak.

_Quote, originally posted by *Justin-R32* »_Um. VWAG aka Volkswagen / Audi make the best AWD system put on any vehicle.
Quattro baby. 

Right but just so you know (and this is not my opinion, just facts and rumors) the Haldex system in the A3 is not the quattro thats come on every other Audi (well it does on the TT), and many (mostly Torsen quattro owners) question if it should even be called quattro. It also isn't built by Audi or in Germany at all, but in Japan. And is used by a number of other car co.. Current rumor says that with the problems they are having connecting it with DSG, they will be switching all Haldex based platforms to a Borg Warner system by next year.


----------



## A4Kevin (May 4, 2005)

Anyone have any details on the proposed Borg Warner AWD system? It is the 'i-Trac' system?


_Modified by A4Kevin at 6:37 AM 4/18/2006_


----------



## jakko (Sep 30, 2005)

*Re: (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_No you dolt, the 2.0t 6MT is 3260 and that is 400lbs less than the 3.2







Sheesh . . .

Would make more sense to compare similar transmissions which is what nuvo is doing.
Also, what's up with all the nastiness in this tread? Nuvo has helped quite a few people in this and other audi forums and doesn't deserve the kind of disrespect you guys are showing him.


----------



## judgegavel (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: (jakko)*


_Quote, originally posted by *jakko* »_
Would make more sense to compare similar transmissions which is what nuvo is doing.
Also, what's up with all the nastiness in this tread? Nuvo has helped quite a few people in this and other audi forums and doesn't deserve the kind of disrespect you guys are showing him.

Um if you look hes the one that started being disrespectful, bring up and misspelling my occupation, questioning and trying to discredit me with half-assd and misinformation.








Hes also one of the first 3.2 owners that came on here and AW dissing the 2.0T, with this better than 2.0T owner attitude. Before that it was happier times, we all got along.







Although he has been alot better in the past couple months, the above post is what we've come to expect from him in the past.
The only time I've seen him be helpful is when hes trying to sell a car.


_Modified by judgegavel at 10:03 AM 4-18-2006_


----------



## rektek (Dec 21, 2004)

*Re: (judgegavel)*

name change....
audi wine club
name change again...
some think the a3 is not an audi at all. manufacturing moved to south of the border vw plant and renamed golf ext


----------



## A4Kevin (May 4, 2005)

The A3 is built in Ingolstadt Germany.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (jakko)*


_Quote, originally posted by *jakko* »_
Would make more sense to compare similar transmissions which is what nuvo is doing.
Also, what's up with all the nastiness in this tread? Nuvo has helped quite a few people in this and other audi forums and doesn't deserve the kind of disrespect you guys are showing him.

Look at his post . . . he was singling me out since I was the one who first pointed out that his car is 400lbs heavier than MY car . . . 
Either way, nuvo has never really provided any technical info at all. It's quite funny how he gets away with bashing the 2.0t FWD and nobody notices . . . probably because most of his sentences are so poorly constructed that half the time you have to decipher what he's talking about








Dave


----------



## Nuvolari (Jun 22, 2004)

*Re: (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_
Even though it's un-coupled, you're still rotating the extra driveaxles and diff. 

You are right and I stand corrected. I didn't think it through.

_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_No you dolt, the 2.0t 6MT is 3260 and that is 400lbs less than the 3.2







Sheesh . . .
Dave

I don't know what a dolt is, but if it is something negative, which I assume, it is you who is the dolt, if you compare a 6MT with a DSG. You might as well compare a cracker box Kia with the 3.2. Then you could brag with even more weight advantage. 331 is an honest number.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (Nuvolari)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Nuvolari* »_
I don't know what a dolt is, but if it is something negative, which I assume, it is you who is the dolt, if you compare a 6MT with a DSG. You might as well compare a cracker box Kia with the 3.2. Then you could brag with even more weight advantage. 331 is an honest number.

Oh please, I've been quite open about owning a 6MT . . . not to mention I never said that the 2.0t DSG is 400lbs lighter. If you don't think weight matters, go drive an S8 and try telling me that you can manuver it around as well as an A3.
Dave


----------



## Tarik D (Oct 13, 2005)

*Re: (crew217)*

I've noticed the 2.0T bashing for some time as well. I never gave a crap. I still don't. But when you're talking about 2 nearly identical cars, so close in performance, I tend to think the bashing has more to do with personal attitude than real auto performance. As I said many times, the 3.2Q is an excellent car. Not for me, but an excellent machine nontheless. I always notice how the 3.2Q owners can't ever say the same about the 2.0T. http://****************.com/smile/emthdown.gif Ehhh, pffft!


----------



## Nuvolari (Jun 22, 2004)

*Re: (judgegavel)*


_Quote, originally posted by *judgegavel* »_
As usual Nuvo you make a fool out of *your self* again, misspelling simple words in a post when *your* trying to correct them is sad, seriously go post on a site in your native language too much gets lost for you here in translation. Or try going back to school (not ABS school though). No-one can make a real living as an ABS (or soon to be Alfa dealer, oooh they are going to sell like hot-cakes







)







If thats too much there is a spell check you know.
Dave made my point about everything else

Disagree with you there about the torque steer *as-well*, but was looking at it more from the AWD point of view, if *your* running crap all-seasons on an awd car dont start trumpeting that your car handles great through corners, *your* only as good as your weakest part, and IMHO from a true *drivers* perspective all-season *do-not* cut it no matter what wd you have, and are very weak.

Right but just so you know (and this is not my opinion, just facts and rumors) the Haldex system in the A3 is not the quattro thats come on every other Audi (well it does on the TT), and many (mostly Torsen quattro owners) question if it should even be called quattro. It also isn't built by Audi or in Germany at all, but in Japan. And is used by a number of other car co.. Current rumor says that with the problems they are having connecting it with DSG, they will be switching all Haldex based platforms to a Borg Warner system by next year.

So I made a fool out of myself? 
And if you were any helpful at all, you would have offered the correct spelling of your profession. Do you know it? Please share, so I can learn at least that from you.
You and I ran into each other a few months ago, when I noticed that almost every single post of yours was negative, dissing this and dissing that. Where someone is right, I tell them. Where someone is wrong, they'll hear from me. You heard from me--and obviously didn't like it. I'll tell you what. This is your chance to rant off on me. Have a blast. But you'll be by yourself. I'm making this my final post to you, and you may call me anything you like, unchallenged. Most of your insults go by me ineffectively anyway, since I don't have enough command of this language.
Instead of wishing you a nice day, I wish you may find some happiness in your life.


_Modified by Nuvolari at 1:04 PM 4/18/2006_


----------



## jakko (Sep 30, 2005)

*Re: (Tarik D)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Tarik D* »_I always notice how the 3.2Q owners can't ever say the same about the 2.0T. 

I'm willing to bet that most 3.2 owners here would've purchased a 2.0Q if they had the choice. I know I would have. The 2.0 is an amazing engine, probably one of the best, if not THE best engine ever created of its size. In the end though, I'm one of those people that can't justify buying an audi without quattro (even if it's not torsen) which pretty much left only one option.


----------



## A4Kevin (May 4, 2005)

*Re: (jakko)*


_Quote, originally posted by *jakko* »_
I'm willing to bet that most 3.2 owners here would've purchased a 2.0Q if they had the choice. I know I would have. The 2.0 is an amazing engine, probably one of the best, if not THE best engine ever created of its size. In the end though, I'm one of those people that can't justify buying an audi without quattro (even if it's not torsen) which pretty much left only one option.

I couldn't agree more jakko. I would definitely have prefered a 2.0t but the quattro was a deal breaker, even if it is haldex based. Maybe we will see an S3 with a 2.0t and some form of AWD. I will be first in line to trade my 3.2.
This back and forth bashing is getting a little old. Lets all try and take the high road.


----------



## eltonsi (Mar 17, 2005)

*Re: (A4Kevin)*


_Quote, originally posted by *A4Kevin* »_
This back and forth bashing is getting a little old. Lets all try and take the high road.

The 2.0T can't handle the high road without Quattro/Haldex.


----------



## bdh-vdub (Apr 2, 2001)

*Re: (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_I'd have to disagree with you regarding the torque steer. The B5 passat had pretty much even length driveshafts and the 8 CA multilink suspension pretty much killed any torque steer. There is a bit of torque steer on the A3 with DSG, but on the A3 6MT, it is unnoticable . . . again, partly having to do with close to equal-length driveshafts.


I didn't mean to imply that the torque-steer on my B5 Passat was intolerable or unmanageable. I agree that VAG did a great job with the multilink suspension in making the B5 very neutral in handling for a FWD car. But it was there. It was unmistakable. All things being equal, I'd rather have no torque steer than "some" torque steer.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (eltonsi)*


_Quote, originally posted by *eltonsi* »_
The 2.0T can't handle the high road without Quattro/Haldex.

















and you can't handle your car without haldex








Dave


----------



## Tarik D (Oct 13, 2005)

*Re: (crew217)*

So, to summarize. 6 pages and we can dilute the discussion to this:
*We need the Audi A3 2.0T Quattro with Torsen.*
Are you listening....Audi.....?







http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Nuvolari (Jun 22, 2004)

*Re: (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_
Oh please, I've been quite open about owning a 6MT . . . not to mention I never said that the 2.0t DSG is 400lbs lighter. If you don't think weight matters, go drive an S8 and try telling me that you can manuver it around as well as an A3.
Dave

Dave,
I know weight matters. If the 331 lbs, that a 3.2 weighs over a 2.0T with the same tranny, is too much, then the 3326 lbs of the 2.0T are too much as well. There are significantly lighter cars.
You may have compared a 6MT, but when ppl post "the 3.2 is 400lbs heavier than the 2.0T, than that is an apples vs. orange comparison. That was my point. Thank you for clarifying your position.
Later


----------



## tbvvw (Jun 19, 2002)

*Re: (Tarik D)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Tarik D* »_So, to summarize. 6 pages and we can dilute the discussion to this:
*We need the Audi A3 2.0T Quattro with Torsen.*
Are you listening....Audi.....?







http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

...and with a choice of 6sp and DSG.


----------



## KharatosGTI (Feb 21, 2006)

40k ........ ? Why not buy a 330 ........ ?
*runs like hell* BYE ~~~
I'm just messing around, don't take offense.


----------



## dandle (Sep 14, 2005)

*Re: (judgegavel)*


_Quote, originally posted by *judgegavel* »_Right but just so you know (and this is not my opinion, just facts and rumors) the Haldex system in the A3 is not the quattro thats come on every other Audi (well it does on the TT), and many (mostly Torsen quattro owners) question if it should even be called quattro. It also isn't built by Audi or in Germany at all, but in Japan. And is used by a number of other car co.. Current rumor says that with the problems they are having connecting it with DSG, they will be switching all Haldex based platforms to a Borg Warner system by next year.

You sure about your facts? The Haldex diff is built in Landskrona, Sweden. Im not getting into the arguement of if its better than Torsen because I personally don't believe it is but it is lighter and does give you AWD in adverse conditions. Its a good solution to a small base platform like the 8P. Don't forget that it cant be that bad if its used on all Volvo AWD cars inc the XC90, some fords and also the Bugatti Veyron(although I imagine in this application the rears are powered until slip is detected, still the same basic system though). 


_Modified by dandle at 2:02 PM 4-18-2006_


----------



## Entourage (Apr 30, 2000)

*Re: (judgegavel)*

Didnt know the A3 was Haldex. 
Even so, owning my R32 for 2 years now, Haldex is no slouch and it's limit are very very high with a capable driver of course.
Perform the Haldex mod and you have one powerful puppy on your hands. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## dandle (Sep 14, 2005)

*Re: (Justin-R32)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Justin-R32* »_Perform the Haldex mod and you have one powerful puppy on your hands. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

There is no mod out for the current Gen2 Haldex the controller change only works on gen 1 systems like the old R32. Although there is something called Gen 2 Pre-x Haldex which pre-empts the engagement of AWD before its needed based on the driving style. Sadly this is only fitted to some Volvo models at the moment.


----------



## Entourage (Apr 30, 2000)

*Re: (dandle)*

http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
Good info. Thanks for clearing that up.
Unfortunately, the A3 is one VWAG product that I really dont know much about. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## A4Kevin (May 4, 2005)

There is a gen 2 haldex upgrade in the works.


----------



## ylwghost (Sep 30, 2004)

*Re: (judgegavel)*


_Quote, originally posted by *judgegavel* »_ My only point is that I completely agree with Tarik's review.


Right; a review about a *test drive* . . .
--over speed bumps and offramps (woohoo .. hail the 2.0T)
The reality is that the 3.2q has higher limits (and is quicker to begin with)(regardless of what someone's dynobutt tells them)
There is no attraction for me to take my dads A3 out on Angeles Crest or up to Mammoth ... The reality is that the 2.0T may seem limitless to you; however the chassis is not (you are a fool to think tires are the only answer you need)
--the 3.2 has a more powerful engine & has a factory chassis correction ... the chassis correction is why people are shelling out extra money up-front (how many 200+hp factory FWD cars are there that have an open differential) (only using the braking system to act as an LSD) ... sorry but you can swap out your tires & you will still be limited as to how hard you can push it through a turn (and would you rather lose traction in the WRX or your FrontWack A3? ... spare me how much it humors you that an AWD car with all-seasons has higher limits than your FWD A3 with specific rubber)(I don't believe you don't remember how fun it was to try & break traction with the WRX, and being able to control the power slide ... not with your A3; you went to a lower class buddy)
The 3.2 has a more powerful engine & a much needed chassis correction ... you may need to push it really hard to tell the difference; but it is in a higher class (and would be much more desired for a nice Sunday drive through the malibu canyons)
--This may come as a surprise .. but these 3.2 owners can give a schit what your dynobutt tells you; or even if it is faster ~80% of the time after a re-flash ... what matters to them is the ~20% of the time that allows for a completely different, & more appealing, driving dynamic)
get over it (the 2.0T is only 1 variable ... the drivetrain makes more difference than the extra weight from the 3.2)
--tell me you wouldn't have gotten a 2.0Tq if it was offered (don't knock those who didn't settle on a limited drivetrain) (price & 'go-cart feel' isn't a factor for everyone; especially when you are paying a premium to import a foreign car)




_Modified by ylwghost at 2:26 PM 4-18-2006_


----------



## judgegavel (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: (Nuvolari)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Nuvolari* »_
So I made a fool out of myself? 
And if you were any helpful at all, you would have offered the correct spelling of your profession. 

counselor not councelor


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (ylwghost)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ylwghost* »_

The reality is that the 3.2q has higher limits (and is quicker to begin with)(regardless of what someone's dynobutt tells them)


Yes it has higher limits . . . . limits that can be achieved with a $13k turbo kit . . .








I think the point is that the 2.0t can be easily modded to surpass the 3.2 for a lot less money. A chip easily pushes the 2.0t over the 3.2 in terms of acceleration. 
I was able to take two testdrives of the 3.2 . . . one was an extended 25 mile one by myself where I did push the 3.2 and it was just not my cup of tea. I felt that the quick steering response that I loved about the 2.0t was not there. The car just felt like it was 400lbs heavier when changing directions, braking & etc. BTW, the 3.2 gained 400lbs but they still kept the same 312mm rotors on it instead of giving it the 345mm brakes with better caliper that is found in EU . . . . that says something. 
BTW the one I went on the extended with had contisportcontact2s whereas my car is still running on stock P6s. 
I'm not going to disagree that AWD has advantages, but as you pointed out, haldex is not torsen . . . and the main advantage of the 3.2 is exit grip. For me, I'm not going to be pushing the car beyond 7/10ths except for maybe a driver's event . . . and that's why i saw no reason to get a 400lb heavier car with a not-so-great motor. I absolutely loved the TT 3.2 DSG when I drove it . . . not so much with the 3.2 A3 since the suspension, brakes and added weight aren't really setup for the same type of driving that I was able to do in the TT.
Dave


----------



## ylwghost (Sep 30, 2004)

*Re: (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_Yes it has higher limits . . . . limits that can be achieved with a $13k turbo kit . . . 
I think the point is that the 2.0t can be easily modded to surpass the 3.2 for a lot less money. 


While the engine is one thing (one which few even disagree with); the drivetrain is another (and IMO more important variable)(of which I was refering to having higher limits)
-while haldex may not be the best; it is still a needed correction .. it frees the front wheels from doing some of the chores.
This thread should be "the 2.0T is a better buy!"
-but those who have bought the more capable car really care less
-and those who are _really_ looking for a better buy would go for the GTI (sorry for bringing that up in the "A3 forum")(but those who are really buying for the 2.0T didn't need the 4 rings ... and if it is about class/quality.. . then fine; but the Haldex equiped car has higher limits which *for some* is well worth paying ~1600 for) 
(& they likely have no problems paying the extra ~2400 in options for their classy ride)
I am in no way dissing the A3 2.0T ... hell, I talked my dad into buying one (and there is very little torque steer in these recent generation Audi's)(but IMO it still feels like it is missing something ..its like being in the front row when you could be on center stage)


----------



## judgegavel (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: (ylwghost)*

Before I begin take the all-season off your car so you can know what it actually can and cant do, before you start bragging how you power through turns, and go on your weekend cruises with your precious quattro.

_Quote, originally posted by *ylwghost* »_The reality is that the 3.2q has higher limits (and is quicker to begin with)(regardless of what someone's dynobutt tells them)

Ok its faster not quicker, go to the dictionary an look this one up if your confused. Higher limits, exactly what are your specifics, this is a very vague statement.

_Quote, originally posted by *ylwghost* »_There is no attraction for me to take my dads A3 out on Angeles Crest or up to Mammoth ... The reality is that the 2.0T may seem limitless to you; however the chassis is not (you are a fool to think tires are the only answer you need)

Who wants to drive their Dads car, maybe if you actually owned an A3 (either model) you could actually bring something to this thread. But making references to a car your Dad owns, and one you've probably never driven, makes you see like your doing nothing but trolling here.









_Quote, originally posted by *ylwghost* »_The 3.2 has a more powerful engine & a much needed chassis correction ... you may need to push it really hard to tell the difference; but it is in a higher class (and would be much more desired for a nice Sunday drive through the malibu canyons)

Thats quite subjective (aside from the 3.2 being a more powerful engine) and most people who have driven both would not agree.)

_Quote, originally posted by *ylwghost* »_--This may come as a surprise .. but these 3.2 owners can give a schit what your dynobutt tells you; or even if it is faster ~80% of the time after a re-flash ... what matters to them is the ~20% of the time that allows for a completely different, & more appealing, driving dynamic)


So they like having the slower car ~80% of the time







your right that does surprise me. 

_Quote, originally posted by *ylwghost* »_--tell me you wouldn't have gotten a 2.0Tq if it was offered (don't knock those who didn't settle on a limited drive-train) (price & 'go-cart feel' isn't a factor for everyone; especially when you are paying a premium to import a foreign car)

Well, as I said before (if you read through all the posts) I would have had to see how the 2.0TQ came out, if it was like the 2.0T FWD, certainly, if it was anything like the 3.2, noway. The car does not have close to the same feel, it feels overweight and slow. I've owned both AWD and FWD cars, you obviously need AWD to keep your self in all-seasons, and not lose control, I do not.


----------



## .:R2theT (Sep 7, 2005)

*Re: (dandle)*


_Quote, originally posted by *dandle* »_
There is no mod out for the current Gen2 Haldex the controller change only works on gen 1 systems like the old R32. Although there is something called Gen 2 Pre-x Haldex which pre-empts the engagement of AWD before its needed based on the driving style. Sadly this is only fitted to some Volvo models at the moment.

Haldex is supposed to have a "HPP-like" module out for Gen2 out later this year.


----------



## Biggie_Robs (Aug 8, 2005)

*Re: (ylwghost)*

_your FrontWack A3?_ 
_I am in no way dissing the A3 2.0T ..._
I'm having a hard time reconciling these two quotes from you.


----------



## eltonsi (Mar 17, 2005)

*Re: (judgegavel)*


_Quote, originally posted by *judgegavel* »_

Who wants to drive their Dads car, maybe if you actually owned an A3 (either model) you could actually bring something to this thread. But making references to a car your Dad owns, and one you've probably never driven, makes you see like your doing nothing but trolling here.










Under that logic, you shouldn't comment on the 3.2 since you don't own one.


----------



## grew (Jan 31, 2006)

*Re:*

I'm not even bashing the 3.2L engine... IF the 3.2 came in a 6MT i would have bought that. The simple fact was that I find the only way to have fun in a car is with a manual transmission. what it boils down to is FWD cars are just more dependant on the driver. any idiot can drive an AWD car somewhat competantly.


----------



## ylwghost (Sep 30, 2004)

*Re: (Biggie_Robs)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Biggie_Robs* »_your FrontWack A3? 
I am in no way dissing the A3 2.0T ...
I'm having a hard time reconciling these two quotes from you. 

 
Just ignore that spelling error then


----------



## A4Kevin (May 4, 2005)

*Re: Re: (grew)*


_Quote, originally posted by *grew* »_ any idiot can drive an AWD car somewhat competantly.

What kind of a jackass statement is that?


----------



## judgegavel (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: Re: (A4Kevin)*


_Quote, originally posted by *A4Kevin* »_
What kind of a jackass statement is that?

A true one


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (eltonsi)*


_Quote, originally posted by *eltonsi* »_
Under that logic, you shouldn't comment on the 3.2 since you don't own one.









I'll remind him to total his A3 next time I see him








. . . . but i don't think that'll steer him any closer to a 3.2








Dave


----------



## ylwghost (Sep 30, 2004)

*Re: (judgegavel)*


_Quote, originally posted by *judgegavel* »_Who wants to drive their Dads car, maybe if you actually owned an A3 (either model) you could actually bring something to this thread. But making references to a car your Dad owns, and one you've probably never driven, makes you see like your doing nothing but trolling here. 

Trust me .. I have driven my dads 2.0 harder than Tarik's _test drive_ you are so eager to agree with.
--how is anything I have stated trolling? (I have given balanced arguements on both sides)
IMO this thread needed an *unbiased* POV (sorry it is so painful for you)

_Quote, originally posted by *judgegavel* »_So they like having the slower car ~80% of the time your right that does surprise me. 

like you said _slower_ is subjective (and that statement was in reference to a re-flashed 2.0T) ... you may like the go-cart feel for freeway sprints; others may not like to finese the throttle with a less capable drivetrain (and don't think just because one *has to* finese the throttle makes one a better driver ... it does not prove you know the limits of a more capable car)(eventhough you very well may)


----------



## ylwghost (Sep 30, 2004)

*Re: Re: (grew)*


_Quote, originally posted by *grew* »_what it boils down to is FWD cars are just more dependant on the driver. any idiot can drive an AWD car somewhat competantly.

"More dependant on the Driver?"
--please break this down for us (love to hear your explaination)
(sounds completly ironic considering Haldex is dependent on the drivers inputs)
You are a fool to think that AWD does not have limits (Judge .. I am talking about the limit at which will send you spinning off the road)
--A driver who knows the limits of a more capable AWD car can certainly get into a less capable car, and exploit those limits (with finese of course)


----------



## Tarik D (Oct 13, 2005)

*Re: (ylwghost)*

Speedbumps and freeway onramps?








My test-drive was thorough and took me from bumpy city streets, to the freeway to a two-lane divided highway and back to the city. 15+ minutes worth, and trust me, I didn't leave with the grin I left with after I drove the 2.0T...or the 330i, or the Carrera, or the Boxster, or the S2000, or the STI...etc. 
It doesn't take a week-long trip to another state to get a feel for what a car can/can not do. 15 minutes of my brilliant driving skills is all that's needed


----------



## judgegavel (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: (ylwghost)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ylwghost* »_IMO this thread needed an *unbiased* POV (sorry it is so painful for you)

No opinion is unbiased, and personally I feel your lack of knowledge of both vehicles is nothing but a waste of time in this thread (but that JMHO). I and others know our 2.0T's and can point out why we dont like the 3.2 as we know the chassis and how our cars feel to us, obviously that goes for the 3.2 owners as well. So while we disagree, I know they know what they are talking about, and while I may not agree with their opinions I do respect them. You obviously dont know the engines, or the chassis, and obviously have some naive pro awd agenda, so your opinions here are tainted at least to me.


----------



## judgegavel (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: (Tarik D)*

Tarik D, I wouldnt worry about his comments, at this point hes just being a troll.


----------



## A4Kevin (May 4, 2005)

*Re: Re: (judgegavel)*


_Quote, originally posted by *judgegavel* »_
A true one









Man you really take the cake brother. I guess you are much more skilled these days since getting rid of your WRX.




_Modified by A4Kevin at 4:33 PM 4/18/2006_


----------



## Tarik D (Oct 13, 2005)

*Re: Re: (ylwghost)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ylwghost* »_
You are a fool to think that AWD does not have limits (Judge .. I am talking about the limit at which will send you spinning off the road)
--A driver who knows the limits of a more capable AWD car can certainly get into a less capable car, and exploit those limits (with finese of course)

FWIW-I've seen FWD Civics eat RWD and AWD race-prepped cars alive on the track. I was once very biased to avoid FWD cars as "performance" cars. But with the new generation engineering that's out there, FWD cars can offer some very capable handling results...maybe not the A3, but other cars do...Integra is one that comes to mind...AWD doesn't solve your handling errors. I've also seen (right in front of me on the track) an AWD STI lose control while I trailed with the exact same car...driving skills, driving skills


----------



## eltonsi (Mar 17, 2005)

*Re: (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_
I'll remind him to total his A3 next time I see him








. . . . but i don't think that'll steer him any closer to a 3.2








Dave

Seriously, S.T.F.U. already... 

It's funny the first few times... the 6th, 7th, 8th time is getting old. And I already expressed my displeasure on the accident and these one liners from you in this thread, Dave.
This is my 1st serious accident in 15 years of driving. Making fun out of someone's misfortune is uncalled for. You have contributed so much to this forum, and I respect you for that. Now start acting your age. And no, adding a smiley face at the end doesn't make it OK when I specifically said I was getting annoyed by what you said.


_Modified by eltonsi at 4:43 PM 4-18-2006_


----------



## A4Kevin (May 4, 2005)

Tarik, do you have any pics of your Ducati?


----------



## A4Kevin (May 4, 2005)

*Re: (eltonsi)*


_Quote, originally posted by *eltonsi* »_
Seriously, S.T.F.U. already... 

It's funny the first few times... the 6th, 7th, 8th time is getting old. And I already expressed my displeasure on the accident and these one liners from you in this thread, Dave.
This is my 1st serious accident in 15 years of driving. Making fun out of someone's misfortune is uncalled for. You have contributed so much to this forum, and I respect you for that. Now start acting your age. And no, adding a smiley face at the end doesn't make it OK when I specifically said I was getting annoyed by what you said.

_Modified by eltonsi at 4:43 PM 4-18-2006_

Seems like the common theme on this thread eltonsi. Put people down to make themselves look better.
I agree with you, Dave is very knowledgeable. If he'd only use his powers for good instead of evil.




_Modified by A4Kevin at 4:51 PM 4/18/2006_


----------



## ylwghost (Sep 30, 2004)

*Re: (judgegavel)*


_Quote, originally posted by *judgegavel* »_No opinion is unbiased, and personally I feel your lack of knowledge of both vehicles is nothing but a waste of time in this thread (but that JMHO). I and others know our 2.0T's and can point out why we dont like the 3.2 as we know the chassis and how our cars feel to us, obviously that goes for the 3.2 owners as well. So while we disagree, I know they know what they are talking about, and while I may not agree with their opinions I do respect them. You obviously dont know the engines, or the chassis, and obviously have some naive pro awd agenda, so your opinions here are tainted at least to me.

nice attack counselor.
-glad you finally respect the 3.2 owners opinions (although it is _obvious_ you are the only one in this forum who knows enough to be the "judge")


----------



## grew (Jan 31, 2006)

*Re: (A4Kevin)*

Can we sticky this thread? I dont' want to forget it.....


----------



## Rogerthat (Oct 23, 2005)

*Re: (grew)*

whats up *grew* whatcha up to? hows the car? yah Im loving mine to. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif me? ah nothing here just hanging out................i thought this thread could *take a break* and have a laugh at this.


















_Modified by Rogerthat at 5:07 PM 4/18/2006_


----------



## ylwghost (Sep 30, 2004)

*Re: (judgegavel)*


_Quote, originally posted by *judgegavel* »_Tarik D, I wouldnt worry about his comments,

Who said he is worried? .. 
I agree whole-heartedly that the 3.2 tends to dull out most of the advantages it theorically should. (but am not so quick to say that it has no advantage)
(I should not have to defend my merits) However I am quite familiar with many VAG chassis' ... and know how much they suffer from extra weight over the front bumper
-the A3, which I do have experience driving among other 2.0T cars,.. is very simular in size & weight to my B5 ... I did not buy the 2.8 for a reason.
Just as mentioned; this thread this strikingly simular to the 20thAE vs. R32 threads (just as it is simular to the 1.8T vs 2.8) (Quattro vs. FrontTrack) .. it has all be beaten to death.
--do things change? .. certianly; the engines have improved just as both drivetrains have (but the truth is that it has still remained pretty consistant)
Go in a A4 forum and tell the 2.8quattro owners they made the wrong decision ... the 1.8T FrontTrack is lighter & has more potential!
--generally; if Americans want a commuter car with good fuel economy & passanger room that is classy & is a 'decent' handler .. you go to Lexus or Acura & get something with a more ideal powerband for FWD, & with more options (FWD Audi's are only popular where they are domestic ... because they are not paying a premium to import)
--so don't flaunt your pro lightwieght agenda on those who want a car with substance; that has low grunt & plenty of traction (you'd be a better "judge" in an Honda forum)


----------



## judgegavel (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: (Rogerthat)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Rogerthat* »_whats up *grew* whatcha up to? hows the car? yah Im loving mine to. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif me? ah nothing here just hanging out................i thought this thread could *take a break* and have a laugh at this.

















_Modified by Rogerthat at 5:07 PM 4/18/2006_

Oh no how will Kit get to the middle east to save Michael without awd.


----------



## ylwghost (Sep 30, 2004)

*Re: Re: (Tarik D)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Tarik D* »_FWIW-I've seen FWD Civics eat RWD and AWD race-prepped cars alive on the track. I was once very biased to avoid FWD cars as "performance" cars. But with the new generation engineering that's out there, FWD cars can offer some very capable handling results...maybe not the A3, but other cars do...Integra is one that comes to mind...AWD doesn't solve your handling errors. I've also seen (right in front of me on the track) an AWD STI lose control while I trailed with the exact same car...driving skills, driving skills 



Great point:
Honda comes to mind because it is lighter than an Audi could ever be
-Handling is mainly dependent on the chassis .. some need less of a correction than others (VAG cars.. well, anything that helps to make them nimble yes ... but they still weigh plenty and have a nose-heavy balance --- in which AWD has been Audi's niche that has kept them in the game with the RWD competition)
Your point about the STI spinning out clearly proves statements like "grew's" very ignorant .. .


----------



## judgegavel (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: (ylwghost)*

At this point your like a broken backstreet boys album that skips, the only thing youve proven is your lack of knowledge of the A3, that fact that you dont know enough about cars to run proper tires, that you need awd to feel like a real driver, that you obviously dont like Daddy's car, and you like to troll the A3 forum to stir up **** you obviously know little about.







And if you think its the same argument, or its been argued to death, then dont get involved.











_Modified by judgegavel at 8:40 PM 4/18/2006_


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (ylwghost)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ylwghost* »_

Go in a A4 forum and tell the 2.8quattro owners they made the wrong decision ... the 1.8T FrontTrack is lighter & has more potential!

The problem with your analogy is that the 2.0t is nothing like the 1.8t. It is extremely linear with very very very little lag. The 1.8t vs 2.8L debates really had more content to deal with . . . the 1.8t was gutless until 3.25krpm, the 2.8L had little top end. 
Dave


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: Re: (ylwghost)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ylwghost* »_
Your point about the STI spinning out clearly proves statements like "grew's" very ignorant .. .

Not really, the STI gets a huge lump of torque at around 3-3.5k . . . . if the driver is too aggressive with the throttle, he can easily lose control. 
Dave


----------



## Rogerthat (Oct 23, 2005)

*Re: (judgegavel)*


_Quote, originally posted by *judgegavel* »_
Oh no how will Kit get to the middle east to save Michael without awd.
















i should have suspected someone would twist that around.


----------



## mookieblaylock (Sep 25, 2005)

*Re: (judgegavel)*


_Quote, originally posted by *judgegavel* »_ you dont know enough about cars to run proper tires,
_Modified by judgegavel at 8:40 PM 4/18/2006_

dude he explained that. All seasons the only way to go on the west coast


----------



## judgegavel (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: (mookieblaylock)*

All Seasons are never the only way to go, if you care at all about how your car handles, they are a poor-mans compromise at best..








And why would living in CA be an explanation, is there some bizarre weather patterns I'm unaware of that it snows in the summer in some remote part of California.











_Modified by judgegavel at 10:26 PM 4/18/2006_


----------



## Tarik D (Oct 13, 2005)

*Re: (A4Kevin)*


_Quote, originally posted by *A4Kevin* »_Tarik, do you have any pics of your Ducati?

Did someone say Ducati?








ONE wheel drive people! *ONE WHEEL DRIVE!!! *


----------



## mookieblaylock (Sep 25, 2005)

*Re: (judgegavel)*


_Quote, originally posted by *judgegavel* »_ poor-mans compromise at best..








_Modified by judgegavel at 10:26 PM 4/18/2006_

that's funny,,,and your driving the compromised car you putz


----------



## Entourage (Apr 30, 2000)

*Re: Re: (grew)*


_Quote, originally posted by *grew* »_I'm not even bashing the 3.2L engine... IF the 3.2 came in a 6MT i would have bought that. The simple fact was that I find the only way to have fun in a car is with a manual transmission. what it boils down to is FWD cars are just more dependant on the driver. any idiot can drive an AWD car somewhat competantly.

That is so not true. 
If anything, AWD makes idiot drivers feel invincible. 
Also, driving an AWD vehicle is totally off the charts when comparing it to a FWD vehicle. Obviously they have different characteristics and driving an AWD car and not having the knowledge needed to drive it properly, can get a driver in trouble. 
http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## judgegavel (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: (mookieblaylock)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mookieblaylock* »_
that's funny,,,and your driving the compromised car you putz









Really now is that the best you could come up with, so I guess thats you admitting your wrong and know nothing about tires or west coast weather.








JMHO but I think despite the awd, the 3.2 is the compromised car, but at this point it been argued to death.


----------



## A4Kevin (May 4, 2005)

*Re: (Tarik D)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Tarik D* »_
Did someone say Ducati?








ONE wheel drive people! *ONE WHEEL DRIVE!!! *
































Beautiful! I hope to get rid of my Buell and pick up a Monster.


----------



## Entourage (Apr 30, 2000)

*Re: (Tarik D)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Tarik D* »_Speedbumps and freeway onramps?








My test-drive was thorough and took me from bumpy city streets, to the freeway to a two-lane divided highway and back to the city. 15+ minutes worth, and trust me, I didn't leave with the grin I left with after I drove the 2.0T...or the 330i, or the Carrera, or the Boxster, or the S2000, or the STI...etc. 
It doesn't take a week-long trip to another state to get a feel for what a car can/can not do. 15 minutes of my brilliant driving skills is all that's needed










No offense but after the above post, I am now convinced that you have no idea what you are talking about. 
Have you had extensive seat time in any of these cars or just a half hour or so test drive, because if not, your "opinion" is fairly worthless because while you can get a basic feeling for a car while driving it for a short period of time, with most cars, it takes hours upon hours of driving, to get a TRUE feeling for the capabilities of a car...especially a "sporty car".
A 330 and an S2000 really aren't "fun" cars... (Let me finish...)
A BMW 330 is a nice handling cruising car. It is, by no means, a "FUN" car when you compare it a true "Fun car to drive". IE: (I will keep this German) VW R32, AUDI S4 ( *2.8TT or the current V8* ) BMW M3, M5, M Coupe, you get my point.
The S2000 is a fun car when it is being driven on a track by a driver who knows how to actually drive a high strung 4 cylinder. (If you, generally speaking, have had extensive seat time behind an S2000, then you will know what I am speaking of.) It is by no means, in any sense of the definition, a *fun* car to drive under normal circumstances. (Again, if you have had extensive seat time behind an S2000, then you will know exactly what I am talking about. 
Tarik, I do not know you from a hole in the wall, but just from reading some of your posts, you are coming off as a pompous, arrogant and a self proclaimed driving expert







, but[b from your posts in this thread, it really sounds like you have no real idea as to what you are talking about. 
I'm sorry if you think I am attacking you due to personal reasons or that I am disrespecting you, because I am not. If anything, you are disrespecting yourself by coming off the way you do. I don't see the need or reasoning behind you acting like an arrogant a$s.








BTW: It takes a lot more then 15 minutes to learn how to drive an STI properly, to learn its capabilities, it's limits, etc. 
Word of advice: If you are going to try and come off as a self-proclaimed automotive driving expert, then I suggest you do the research to actually be able to not only sound like you know what you are talking about, but be able to back up what you are saying. 
Example: In your opinion, what really makes a BMW 330 (any model) or an S2000 so fun to drive and please tell us all *how* you came to your conclusions. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
Justin http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## A4Kevin (May 4, 2005)

I have ~3000kms on my 3.2 now and it feels more 'loose' now. It seems to rev more freely and the sound has definitely changed. 
I have heard that it take quite a while to break in the V6.


----------



## Entourage (Apr 30, 2000)

*Re: Re: (Tarik D)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Tarik D* »_
*FWIW-I've seen FWD Civics eat RWD and AWD race-prepped cars alive on the track.* I was once very biased to avoid FWD cars as "performance" cars. But with the new generation engineering that's out there, FWD cars can offer some very capable handling results...maybe not the A3, but other cars do...Integra is one that comes to mind...AWD doesn't solve your handling errors. I've also seen (right in front of me on the track) an AWD STI lose control while I trailed with the exact same car...driving skills, driving skills









and I guarantee that those FWD Civics had more power, slicks, etc and/or better drivers. 
You cant compare equally equipped, (as far as power is concerned, let's say 500hp for each car.) FWD, RWD and AWD vehicles on a race track, specifically a drag strip since this is what you were referring to.
With *equal*drivers, a 500HP AWD car vs a 500hp FWD car, (Civic for example) the FWD car is going to get romped off the line by the AWD car and just about the only way the FWD car will end up winning that race is if that car is setup for high boost once it hits a certain RPM in a certain gear, (Let's say mid RPM range in third gear and let's say that the FWD car has a 2-step boost setup.) because even with slicks, that 500hp FWD is going to spin all the way thru it's first 2 gears at the minimum. If it's a 2 step and he hits high boost once he gains optimal traction, therefore making most of his power in a higher gear which therefore would give him the advantage on the top end vs the AWD car which is making most of his power on the lower end of the spectrum, the FWD car might end up winning the race... at the very end of it. 
Tarik, I know it seems like I am picking on you now, but it's nothing personal. I am just adding my 2 cents into this thread (good thread BTW) and trying to put in some good, correct information for the masses.
Again, nothing personal!








http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
Justin


----------



## Entourage (Apr 30, 2000)

*Re: (eltonsi)*


_Quote, originally posted by *eltonsi* »_
Seriously, S.T.F.U. already... 

It's funny the first few times... the 6th, 7th, 8th time is getting old. And I already expressed my displeasure on the accident and these one liners from you in this thread, Dave.
This is my 1st serious accident in 15 years of driving. Making fun out of someone's misfortune is uncalled for. You have contributed so much to this forum, and I respect you for that. Now start acting your age. And no, adding a smiley face at the end doesn't make it OK when I specifically said I was getting annoyed by what you said.

_Modified by eltonsi at 4:43 PM 4-18-2006_

http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
BTW: You should never start a sentence with "And". Just an FYI. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
Just breaking your chops







.... trying to put some "funny" into this thread and lighten it up a little bit!


----------



## Entourage (Apr 30, 2000)

*Re: (judgegavel)*


_Quote, originally posted by *judgegavel* »_At this point your like a broken backstreet boys album that skips, the only thing youve proven is your lack of knowledge of the A3, that fact that you dont know enough about cars to run proper tires, that you need awd to feel like a real driver, that you obviously dont like Daddy's car, and you like to troll the A3 forum to stir up **** you obviously know little about.







And if you think its the same argument, or its been argued to death, then dont get involved.










_Modified by judgegavel at 8:40 PM 4/18/2006_

Hey William, please correct me if I am wrong, but are you or anyone in this thread, stating that really good tires on a FWD car will compensate for the car being FWD and handle as well or better then an AWD vehicle? (Again, correct me if I am wrong, but I could have sworn I have seen that posted several times in this thread.)
http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
Justin


----------



## Entourage (Apr 30, 2000)

*Re: (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_
The problem with your analogy is that the 2.0t is nothing like the 1.8t. It is extremely linear with very very very little lag. The 1.8t vs 2.8L debates really had more content to deal with . . . the 1.8t was gutless until 3.25krpm, *the 2.8L had little top end.* 
Dave

Um. The 2.8L VR6 was/is well known for having it's Top End Power (Highway/Autobahn Monster). So... what exactly are you talking about?


----------



## Entourage (Apr 30, 2000)

*Re: (judgegavel)*


_Quote, originally posted by *judgegavel* »_All Seasons are never the only way to go, if you care at all about how your car handles, they are a poor-mans compromise at best..










Quoted for the MF'in Truth!!! Finally! Words of Wisdom, Truth and Experience!! http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## A3inAZ (Nov 23, 2005)

*Re: (Justin-R32)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Justin-R32* »_ http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
BTW: You should never start a sentence with "And". Just an FYI. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
Just breaking your chops







.... trying to put some "funny" into this thread and lighten it up a little bit!









You can start a sentence with "And" if you took anything above high school english (or read a lot). I know, I know, I'm a geek.


----------



## Entourage (Apr 30, 2000)

*Re: (A4Kevin)*

Yes you are correct.
The VR6 motor (in any configuration) is known for the fact that it gains more power the more it is driven. For example: Your 3.2L will make more power at 7,000miles then when she did at 1,000 miles. (Break it down into Kiliometers ya damn Canuck.







)
Yes, this holds true for every motor every built, the "so-called" break in period for any motor, but this specfically holds true for the *VR**6*
http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (Justin-R32)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Justin-R32* »_
Um. The 2.8L VR6 was/is well known for having it's Top End Power (Highway/Autobahn Monster). So... what exactly are you talking about?









We're talking about the 2.8L 90degree V6. Audi forum remember?








Dave


----------



## Entourage (Apr 30, 2000)

*Re: (A3inAZ)*


_Quote, originally posted by *A3inAZ* »_
You can start a sentence with "And" if you took anything above high school english (or read a lot). I know, I know, I'm a geek.









Well, if you want to get technical, that all depends on the type of English you are reading or writing. I am sure you know what I am talking about, so there is no need to type it out.








For anyone else who would like to know, let me suggest: http://www.google.com or better yet http://www.ask.com


----------



## judgegavel (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: (Justin-R32)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Justin-R32* »_A BMW 330 is a nice handling cruising car. It is, by no means, a "FUN" car when you compare it a true "Fun car to drive". IE: (I will keep this German) VW R32, AUDI S4 ( *2.8TT or the current V8* ) BMW M3, M5, M Coupe, you get my point. 

I would have to agree with you on the 330, but I would also take the M3 off that list (never drove the M coupe, though), just not enough torque with the BMW's (M5 aside). I also think the M5 and S4 (B6 and B7, not B5) while fun power wise, do not fall into the same category as the others (both A3's included) as far as handling go, they just feel too big IMHO. To those I would add (keeping it Euro specific, but available in this country) the GTI (1.8T chipped and MKV), and to a lesser degree the Cooper S, and Saab 9-3 Aero.
But that being said, I've never found Tarik to come off pompous at all, and while a 30 min. test drive is not ideal it can give you a very good perspective of a car if done right, and know what your looking for. This is especially the case if your comparing two similar models of the same car, if you do have extensive wheel time behind one, as in the case of comparing the 2.0T and 3.2. He would know what he expects and likes about his A3, so the differences would be much more noticeable than if he were just driving them back to back, or came into the dealership cold. This would be true with any car when comparing different wersions of the same model.

_Quote, originally posted by *Justin-R32* »_BTW: It takes a lot more then 15 minutes to learn how to drive an STI properly, to learn its capabilities, it's limits, etc.

Thats true with every car, although the STI even more-so.


_Modified by judgegavel at 9:44 AM 4/19/2006_


----------



## Entourage (Apr 30, 2000)

*Re: (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_
We're talking about the 2.8L 90degree V6. Audi forum remember?








Dave

Sorry.








I'm not used to posting in the Audi forums a lot. Please forgive me. 
If it counts, I'm looking at buying a newS4 (V8 baby!!!







) if that counts for anything.








BTW: I like this forum. I might make a home here. You guys have some good debates here. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Entourage (Apr 30, 2000)

*Re: (judgegavel)*


_Quote, originally posted by *judgegavel* »_
I would have to agree with you on the 330, but I would also take the M3 off that list (never drove the M coupe, though), just not enough torque with the BMW's (M5 aside). I also think the M5 and S4 (B6 and B7, not B5) while fun power wise, do not fall into the same category as the others (both A3's included) as far as handling go, they just feel too big IMHO. To those I would add (keeping it Euro specific, but available in this country) the GTI (1.8T chipped and MKV), and to a lesser degree the Cooper S, and Saab 9-3 Aero.
But that being said, I've never found Tarik to come off pompous at all, and while a 30 min. test drive is not ideal it can give you a very good perspective of a car if done right, and know what your looking for. This is especially the case if your comparing two similar model of the same car, if you do have extensive wheel time behind one, as in the case of comparing the 2.0T and 3.2. He would know what he expects and likes about his A3, so the differences would be much more noticeable than if he were just driving them back to back, or came into the dealership cold. This would be true with any car when comparing different models.
Thats true with every car, although the STI even more-so.


http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif















Good information and debating going on in this thread.
As far as Tarik, maybe I am a little sensitive today. (I've only slept 8 hours in the past 3 days.







) But again, I did say it was nothing personal, just an opinion I had formed from this thread, which again, could be due to me being a little sensitive today. LOL


----------



## A4Kevin (May 4, 2005)

Of all the forums. This is by far the best one. I love the debate as well so long as it doesnt go to the level of bashing each other or each others purchase decision.


----------



## dougman (Sep 1, 2002)

*Re: (crew217)*

Nope; the A3 3.2 is based on the VR6, which is a 15-degree V, single-head design. It is the successor to the 2.8L VR6. So we ARE talking about the VR6, not the 90-degree longitudinal unit used in the A4 and A6 platform.


----------



## A3inAZ (Nov 23, 2005)

*Re: (judgegavel)*


_Quote, originally posted by *judgegavel* »_I would have to agree with you on the 330, but I would also take the M3 off that list (never drove the M coupe, though), just not enough torque with the BMW's (M5 aside). I also think the M5 and S4 (B6 and B7, not B5) while fun power wise, do not fall into the same category as the others (both A3's included) as far as handling go, they just feel too big IMHO. To those I would add (keeping it Euro specific, but available in this country) the GTI (1.8T chipped and MKV), and to a lesser degree the Cooper S, and Saab 9-3 Aero.
But that being said, I've never found Tarik to come off pompous at all, and while a 30 min. test drive is not ideal it can give you a very good perspective of a car if done right, and know what your looking for. This is especially the case if your comparing two similar models of the same car, if you do have extensive wheel time behind one, as in the case of comparing the 2.0T and 3.2. He would know what he expects and likes about his A3, so the differences would be much more noticeable than if he were just driving them back to back, or came into the dealership cold. This would be true with any car when comparing different wersions of the same model.
Thats true with every car, although the STI even more-so.

_Modified by judgegavel at 9:44 AM 4/19/2006_


a Saab is more fun than an M3 handling wise?























































































_Modified by A3inAZ at 7:13 AM 4/19/2006_


----------



## judgegavel (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: (dougman)*


_Quote, originally posted by *dougman* »_Nope; the A3 3.2 is based on the VR6, which is a 15-degree V, single-head design. It is the successor to the 2.8L VR6. So we ARE talking about the VR6, not the 90-degree longitudinal unit used in the A4 and A6 platform.

No if you follow the thread (I know at this point thats pretty hard) they *were* talking about the A4 in refrence to the 2.8L.


----------



## Entourage (Apr 30, 2000)

*Re: (dougman)*


_Quote, originally posted by *dougman* »_Nope; the A3 3.2 is based on the VR6, which is a 15-degree V, single-head design. It is the successor to the 2.8L VR6. So we ARE talking about the VR6, not the 90-degree longitudinal unit used in the A4 and A6 platform.

Another *VR**6* fan. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (dougman)*


_Quote, originally posted by *dougman* »_Nope; the A3 3.2 is based on the VR6, which is a 15-degree V, single-head design. It is the successor to the 2.8L VR6. So we ARE talking about the VR6, not the 90-degree longitudinal unit used in the A4 and A6 platform.

why don't you try reading the thread before jumping in with your incorrect comment? Sheesh . . . 
Dave


----------



## judgegavel (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: (A3inAZ)*


_Quote, originally posted by *A3inAZ* »_

a Saab is more fun than an M3 handling wise?






















































































_Modified by A3inAZ at 7:13 AM 4/19/2006_

No its more fun, because of its torque vs. weight. Thats not to say I'd rather own one, or prefer it, cause I wouldnt.










_Modified by judgegavel at 10:27 AM 4/19/2006_


----------



## bdh-vdub (Apr 2, 2001)

*Re: (A3inAZ)*


_Quote, originally posted by *A3inAZ* »_a Saab is more fun than an M3 handling wise?






















































































A lot of this goes back to the "feeling" of a car versus how it actually performs on the track. Mostly it all boils down to personal preferences. The 2.0T A3 *feels* light, nimble and tossable and due to the turbo motor might actually *feel* faster than it is. Some people prefer the more nimble feel and proclaim that it is the "better handling car" or "more fun" when in fact on a autocross track or skidpad or slalom it might actually fare worse than say, a 330i or A4 Q and yes, even the 3.2 A3. 
So, a lot of this is distinquishing between two different things: how a car "feels" when you drive it, and the type of cold, hard numbers it will generate on a track. 
That said, it would be interesting to see how a chipped 2.0T would do against the 3.2 in an autocross situation. The 2.0T should be faster on the straightaways, but the 3.2 should have the advantage in the turns. 



_Modified by bdh-vdub at 9:13 AM 4-19-2006_


----------



## A3inAZ (Nov 23, 2005)

*Re: (bdh-vdub)*


_Quote, originally posted by *bdh-vdub* »_A lot of this goes back to the "feeling" of a car versus how it actually performs on the track. Mostly it all boils down to personal preferences. The 2.0T A3 *feels* light, nimble and tossable and due to the turbo motor might actually *feel* faster than it is. Some people prefer the more nimble feel and proclaim that it is the "better handling car" or "more fun" when in fact on a autocross track or skidpad or slalom it might actually fare worse than say, a 330i or A4 Q and yes, even the 3.2 A3. 
So, a lot of this is distinquishing between two different things: how a car "feels" when you drive it, and the type of cold, hard numbers it will generate on a track. 
That said, it would be interesting to see how a chipped 2.0T would do against the 3.2 in an autocross situation. The 2.0T should be faster on the straightaways, but the 3.2 should have the advantage in the turns. 
_Modified by bdh-vdub at 9:13 AM 4-19-2006_

i agree to a certain extent, however, an M3 is a "fun car." i have a MINI Cooper S which a lot of people equate with the "fun car" term. my boss has an M3. the M3 is more fun IMHO. the saab may very well be more fun (i haven't driven one), i just found it curious, that's all.


----------



## tbvvw (Jun 19, 2002)

*Re: (judgegavel)*


_Quote, originally posted by *judgegavel* »_
I would have to agree with you on the 330, but I would also take the M3 off that list (never drove the M coupe, though), just not enough torque with the BMW's (M5 aside). I also think the M5 and S4 (B6 and B7, not B5) while fun power wise, do not fall into the same category as the others (both A3's included) as far as handling go, they just feel too big IMHO. To those I would add (keeping it Euro specific, but available in this country) the GTI (1.8T chipped and MKV), and to a lesser degree the Cooper S, and Saab 9-3 Aero.
_Modified by judgegavel at 9:44 AM 4/19/2006_

Last year I spent 2 days at the BMW perf driving school at their SC facility. (my brother bought a new M3) I guarantee you that if you experienced the same passenger-seat excitement I did, with a pro race car driver behind the wheel of both an M3 and M5...you would retract everything you wrote above. M3 - not enough tq? Sorry! M5 - too big? Sorry! One year later I still have an ear-to-ear smile about those few hours in both those cars! I know it's just YHO...but it's wrong. Not flaming...just telling it the way it is.


_Modified by tbvvw at 12:40 PM 4-19-2006_


----------



## someguy123 (Sep 30, 2005)

*Re: (judgegavel)*


_Quote, originally posted by *judgegavel* »_I would have to agree with you on the 330, but I would also take the M3 off that list (never drove the M coupe, though), just not enough torque with the BMW's (M5 aside). I also think the M5 and S4 (B6 and B7, not B5) while fun power wise, do not fall into the same category as the others (both A3's included) as far as handling go, they just feel too big IMHO.

How can you say the M3 does not have enough torque when it can out accelerate the S4 in almost every condition?


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (someguy123)*


_Quote, originally posted by *someguy123* »_
How can you say the M3 does not have enough torque when it can out accelerate the S4 in almost every condition?

The B6 B7 S4s are 4000lbs+ pigs.
Dave


----------



## jetta1.8tbee (Aug 29, 2005)

*Re: All the 3.2 hype - a test drive. (Tarik D)*

haha, maybe the one you drove is a display model, not supposed to be driven.. or you forgot to release the e-brake?








comeon man, its 3.2L + quattro.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: All the 3.2 hype - a test drive. (jetta1.8tbee)*


_Quote, originally posted by *jetta1.8tbee* »_haha, maybe the one you drove is a display model, not supposed to be driven.. or you forgot to release the e-brake?








comeon man, its 3.2L + quattro.









you should drive a 2.0t and you'll see exactly why 2.0t owners don't think the 3.2 is worth it.
Dave


----------



## jetta1.8tbee (Aug 29, 2005)

*Re: All the 3.2 hype - a test drive. (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_you should drive a 2.0t and you'll see exactly why 2.0t owners don't think the 3.2 is worth it.
Dave

well if i get an A3, i will get the 2.0T not because it's lighter or what, just because it's 1k cheaper than the 3.2L
yes, i am a poor college guy.


----------



## A4Kevin (May 4, 2005)

1k cheaper?


----------



## A3inAZ (Nov 23, 2005)

*Re: (A4Kevin)*


_Quote, originally posted by *A4Kevin* »_1k cheaper?

he should've clarified. "poor community college guy"

j/k


----------



## Grisnjam (Feb 17, 2006)

*Re: (A3inAZ)*


_Quote, originally posted by *A3inAZ* »_he should've clarified. "poor community college guy"

j/k









I think he menas it is more than 1k cheaper ....


----------



## dougman (Sep 1, 2002)

*How about some data?*

I know that this thread has degenerated a bit; here's my attempt at a productive contribution.
Here are torque and speed curves for stock 2.0T engine and the 3.2 engine overlaid onto the same graph (from Audi data):








No surprises. Then I divided each by weight. I used DSG weights for both cars--3329 lb and 3660 lb. Please don't question my moral integrity if I used data from a source that you don't endorse (I used the Audi website specs).
I used HP/wt rather than the more usual lb/HP so that it would be easier to visualize:








This is very interesting. Up to 5000 RPM, the two curves are so close they're almost on top of each other. The 3.2 doesn't really have an advantage until 5000 RPM. If the gearing is appropriately adjusted, that would easily explain a faster 0-60 time with similar 1/4 mile times.
But I still like the 3.2 better and that's what I ordered.v








A normally aspirated engine's power output is controlled by RPM and throttle position. A turbo adds in the factor of time (exhaust flow). I just can't ever seem to fall in love with a turbo engine, but that's just me.
Back to work.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

Dougman: your 2.0t graph is a bit off . . . . many people have reported dynoing and getting much higher results than Audi/VW have rated the 2.0t engine at. 
Estimates of what true stock HP/TQ for the 2.0t have been around 225hp 240ft/lbs
Dave


----------



## Tarik D (Oct 13, 2005)

*Re: (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_Dougman: your 2.0t graph is a bit off . . . . many people have reported dynoing and getting much higher results than Audi/VW have rated the 2.0t engine at. 
Estimates of what true stock HP/TQ for the 2.0t have been around 225hp 240ft/lbs
Dave

Like he said, he took the #'s off Audi's site.


----------



## jetta1.8tbee (Aug 29, 2005)

*Re: (A4Kevin)*


_Quote, originally posted by *A4Kevin* »_1k cheaper?

10k


----------



## Tarik D (Oct 13, 2005)

*Re: (jetta1.8tbee)*

$1k, $10k...what's a few bucks among friends








Assuming the graph is even marginally correct -it proves exactly what I suspected. No big difference in how much or the manner in which the power is produced. In fact, torque tops out faster (and in a more linear distribution) on the 2.0T. Torque and HP curves are almost identical until the 3.2 takes off with HP beyond 5k rpm. But since we know torque, not HP, turns the wheels, I'll put a smiley here








Very interesting. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## judgegavel (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: (someguy123)*


_Quote, originally posted by *someguy123* »_
How can you say the M3 does not have enough torque when it can out accelerate the S4 in almost every condition?

While this is true, although I hope you mean straight line not slalom, the M3 has an anemic 262lbs-ft of torque for a car that weighs close to 3,600 lbs, that something for me that you can feel, or I should say cant feel. The car is without question fast but that does not equal fun. Not to start this up but its similar to why the 2.0T is in my opinion more fun than the 3.2.


----------



## mhr (Nov 30, 2005)

Why do you guys need to constantly reassure yourself that your selection of the 2.0 was ok? And what about bashing the 3.2Q really helps that? Schadenfreude? And what makes 3.2Q owners think that their cars are better than 2.0s??
Just love your cars, it's ok. 
There are people in this thread who claim to be "counselors" and such, but I take it they're not well accustomed to crafting arguments.
There is so much talking out of both sides of one's mouth in this thread -- it's astounding. First, it's "feel" to support this, then "hard numbers" to support that, and then rejection of those same things for being to subjective or too objective when someone else brings it up.








And this applies to all the owners and nonowners out there.
Who really cares?
This thread has really made me wonder what's going on with this board. Pretty worthess self congruatulation -- on both side -- and flaming.
Waste o' time.


_Modified by mhr at 1:21 PM 4/19/2006_


----------



## ylwghost (Sep 30, 2004)

*Re: (judgegavel)*


_Quote, originally posted by *judgegavel* »_All Seasons are never the only way to go, if you care at all about how your car handles, they are a poor-mans compromise at best..








And why would living in CA be an explanation, is there some bizarre weather patterns I'm unaware of that it snows in the summer in some remote part of California.










You are being so ignorant to this:
Today .. it is 85 (for example); and I am still only a short drive from the snow.
--most of the drive will be dry roads . . but when I get up there summer tires would be worthless (and vice versa)
--same situation in the late summer months; only substitute snow with fire/gravel roads (if you live even remotely spontaneous life there will be a constant mix of driving)
I understand the importance of good tires ... it is just not _as_ important as it is for those with a torquey FWD car (ask yourself why)
--also; tire technology has progressed to the point where you are just being ignorant (all-seasons are becoming more & more common to your dismay ... which means a lot is continually being invested regarding the technology)
Further; shared living is very common .. many lack space to store another set of wheels (just something to consider)(and there is no *need* to run stock 15 or 16's in the winter) 
--will specific treads allow Quattro to grip even better? (obviously)(in which we all consider if time slips are involved) ... but even with all-seasons, I am not breaking traction unless intentionally (in which a Quattro car is more predictable to handle with the tires broken loose)
If I had your car .. sure (I would *need* a good set of both wet & dry tires); but still wouldn't be able to drive where I enjoy it the most.
So where you are trying to discredit me by making it sound I don't know what the F' I am talking about .. (despite always being important) all I am saying is that tires are *more *important when the front 2 wheels are doing all the work.
I am not suggesting to anyone they should compromise on tires .. I am only saying that it is not always feasible to have the right treads if you like a mix of driving.
*You are obviously ignorant to 4x4ing as well* ..
unless you have a trail rig .. you are generally going to be running some type of all-terrains (especially when 80% of the driving is done on streets)
--would your rock summer performance tires on the Wrangler becuase 80% of your driving is on dry asphalt? (same thing for those who rock mudd tires on a daily driver) ... you wouldn't flame them; you would flame the ones that compromise with all-terrains!

p.s. I like how you put your car in an analogy with an S4 & M3 
(because torque & weight means everything... right "judge?")


_Modified by ylwghost at 2:45 PM 4-19-2006_


----------



## A4Kevin (May 4, 2005)

E46 M3, Arguably, one of the best coupes ever produced for balance and performance but alas not good enough for some.


----------



## MylesPH1 (Aug 6, 2000)

*Re: (Tarik D)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Tarik D* »_
Did someone say Ducati?








ONE wheel drive people! *ONE WHEEL DRIVE!!! *
































Hey is that FWD or RWD?


----------



## A4Kevin (May 4, 2005)

Now that beast^^ requires some drivin' skillz.


----------



## dougman (Sep 1, 2002)

*Re: (mhr)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mhr* »_Who really cares?
This thread has really made me wonder what's going on with this board. Pretty worthess self congruatulation -- on both side -- and flaming.
Waste o' time.

_Modified by mhr at 1:21 PM 4/19/2006_

I was feeling that way too! But didn't you think my graphs were cool? I put them there hoping to reward people like you!


----------



## das hund gti (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: All the 3.2 hype - a test drive. (crew217)*

All I have to say is....
this is a great forum!!! I check it everyday and enjoy the humor. 
Why cannot we all be happy with what we have, and not worry about what we cannot have. I am looking at an S3. Yes, I am one that said would buy the A3 w/2.0t and Q drive. But I cannot have it. I have had BMW VW, BTW FWD, RWD, now want to try AWD. I have driven everything from GT3, NSX to cheap cars on the track. There is no perfect car. BTW also driven an STI modded on the track, cool car. But all cars you have to change your driving style. And also, I also think an experienced driver can tell in 30 min how a car handles. 
So enjoy your cars, for I do!!!


----------



## .:R2theT (Sep 7, 2005)

*Re: All the 3.2 hype - a test drive. (das hund gti)*


_Quote, originally posted by *das hund gti* »_
I am looking at an S3. 


Really. Are you having one imported?


----------



## judgegavel (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: (ylwghost)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ylwghost* »_
You are being so ignorant to this:
Today .. it is 85 (for example); and I am still only a short drive from the snow.
--most of the drive will be dry roads . . but when I get up there summer tires would be worthless (and vice versa)
--same situation in the late summer months; only substitute snow with fire/gravel roads (if you live even remotely spontaneous life there will be a constant mix of driving)

I think your the one being ignorant here.
What about in between, sorry but your running around on a compromise. JMHO but if you care about handling so much you shouldn't compromise. I can recommend a bunch of good winters (or winter specific all-seasons) that are as good if not better than most other all-seasons on dry roads, but I would still switch to summers in the summer. The handling of an all-season does not even come close. I swapped tires on my WRX to (the first year I didn't) and the difference was night and day in both winter and summer, I'll even go as far as to say my Jetta was better in the snow with winters than my WRX with all-seasons. Why, better braking as-well as well as close to if not better traction. If your doing any substantial snow driving you have to run winter tires, awd or not, otherwise your being very careless with your car.

_Quote, originally posted by *ylwghost* »_Further; shared living is very common .. many lack space to store another set of wheels 

Your probably right there if I didn't have room (or couldn't find some) to store a set of tires, I really wouldn't be worried about any of this crap, or probably own an Audi for that matter.










_Quote, originally posted by *ylwghost* »_I understand the importance of good tires ... it is just not _as_ important as it is for those with a torquey FWD car (ask yourself why)

While I can see your point if it was *only* about traction, tires more importantly effect *breaking * which sorry to inform you your amazing awd does nothing for. If your doing any sort of serious driving your putting yourself and others at harm by not using the proper tires, and sorry all-seasons are only the proper tires if your going for a leisurely drive to the store (with no snow), or cruising down the hwy doing 55, of course I cant see why one would be be so enamored with how awd is powering through turns, or getting traction on a hard launch if that were the case.









_Quote, originally posted by *ylwghost* »_discredit me by making it sound I don't know what the F' I am talking about .. 

Your doing that on your own, dont blame me.









_Quote, originally posted by *ylwghost* »_*You are obviously ignorant to 4x4ing as well* ..
unless you have a trail rig .. you are generally going to be running some type of all-terrains (especially when 80% of the driving is done on streets)
--would your rock summer performance tires on the Wrangler because 80% of your driving is on dry asphalt? (same thing for those who rock mud tires on a daily driver) ... you wouldn't flame them; you would flame the ones that compromise with all-terrains!

And if thats what your doing, your not compromising.







. I'm not flaming, but I would certainly criticize someone who was talking about how there 4x4 powers out of a turn on all-terains, that would be idiotic.

_Quote, originally posted by *ylwghost* »_p.s. I like how you put your car in an analogy with an S4 & M3 
(because torque & weight means everything... right "judge?")

I didn't, I actually said they weren't in the same class, but the definition of the class was "fun to drive". S4 and M3 are much nicer and faster than either A3's, but I would not classify them as fun to drive cars (of course this is very subjective), that is more reserved IMHO (and most) for smaller car with allot of torque for their weight, go brush up on your reading skills I listed a few cars in this class, that most would agree on.









_Modified by judgegavel at 8:35 PM 4/19/2006_


_Modified by judgegavel at 8:39 PM 4/19/2006_


----------



## claud (Feb 12, 2006)

*Re: (judgegavel)*

You guys are running this into the ground. Its real simple. You want a fast stock Audi that can eat an E90 330i, and you have the coin, get the 3.2Q. You want to save money on purchase and gas, but with the right chip you are so fast you can't hardly keep from peeing all over yourself, go for the 2.0T. You may have traction problems, but that's a good thing. See!!!! Simple!!


----------



## Nuvolari (Jun 22, 2004)

*Re: How about some data? (dougman)*

))Dougman,
you may want to consider redrawing your graphs. Maybe stretch the vertical units (you can tweak them to influence the appearance, you know







).
For some real-world information, check this out: http://forums.fourtitude.com/zerothread?id=2405170


----------



## ylwghost (Sep 30, 2004)

*Re: (judgegavel)*


_Quote, originally posted by *judgegavel* »_While I can see your point if it was only about traction, tires more importantly effect *breaking* which sorry to inform you your amazing awd does nothing for.

This is coming from a former WRX owner?
-weight hurts braking; true.
But if you are actually able to use the all-wheel torque & traction to the fullest advantage (through rev-matching under braking) you would know that your statement is false! (AWD in fact has an advantage in braking over a FWD car .. for those who are competent enough to drive one)(it has also much to do with balance and composer)
---my car brakes fine with all-seasons (as I see many squirrely FWD cars with no ABS, run out of room & have to use the shoulder to avoid hitting my car)

_Quote, originally posted by *judgegavel* »_And if thats what your doing, your not compromising. , and I'm not flaming, but I would certainly criticize some one who was talking about how there 4x4 powers out of a turn on all-terains, that would be idiotic.

What? Of course ... if someone was actually stupid enough to believe the drivetrain has more effect on handling than the *chassis*! (not even considering the fact that generally a 4x4's system is built for articulation; and often with crippled cornering dynamics by locking diffs)
-the only reason Audi's have been able to compete with the RWD competition is because Quattro offers a chassis correction that keeps them competitive in fair conditions / while giving the chassis an advantage in poor conditions. (do you think your A3 is an exception?)(sorry but the 2.0 can only take you so far without a serious chassis correction)

_Quote, originally posted by *judgegavel* »_go brush up on your reading skills I listed a few cars in this class, that most would agree on.

...coming from one who puts (in bold) a misspelled word within the same post.
You have made it obvious that you couldn't handle the WRX; and had to move on to a less capable car (what are you exactly a "judge" of?)



_Modified by ylwghost at 8:25 PM 4-19-2006_


----------



## A4Kevin (May 4, 2005)

*Re: (claud)*


_Quote, originally posted by *claud* »_You guys are running this into the ground. Its real simple. You want a fast stock Audi that can eat an E90 330i, and you have the coin, get the 3.2Q. You want to save money on purchase and gas, but with the right chip you are so fast you can't hardly keep from peeing all over yourself, go for the 2.0T. You may have traction problems, but that's a good thing. See!!!! Simple!!

Ding.


----------



## rwbassoc (Mar 1, 2003)

*Re: All the 3.2 hype - a test drive. (Tarik D)*

Enjoyed your write-up but I did not notice the issues you mentioned when I test drove an A3 3.2Q. I on the other hand could not wipe the smile off my face and thought the car was incredibly refined and I'm driving a Torsen AWD W8 Passat. Nonetheless, I need to drive the 2.0T DSG as I was not impressed with the MFD hwy mileage with the 3.2 as it was only 2 or 3 mpg better than the W8! I should note this dealer uses 87 octane gas which is really lame. This should not be the case when someone wants to test drive an Audi. I told them to let me put my own gas in it for the test. 
What have you seen for pure hwy and also overall mileage with your A3? I would welcome anyone else who cares to comment with their 2.0T or 3.2Q also.


----------



## judgegavel (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: (ylwghost)*

How many times must you get pwn3d.

_Quote, originally posted by *ylwghost* »_But if you are actually able to use the all-wheel torque & traction to the fullest advantage (through rev-matching under braking) you would know that your statement is false! (AWD in fact has an advantage in braking over a FWD car .. for those who are competent enough to drive one)(it has also much to do with balance and composer)

Wrong, wrong, wrong, my god you are really have no idea what your talking about, rev-matching will do nothing in the snow or rain, if your not getting traction from your tires.







With allseasons you are not getting anywhere near good traction compared to the right season tire. 

_Quote, originally posted by *ylwghost* »_
This is coming from a former WRX owner?
-You have made it obvious that you couldn't handle the WRX; and had to move on to a less capable car (what are you exactly a "judge" of?)

Wow you are so mature is this suppose to be some sort of dig, and actually my A3 is far more capable at this point than my WRX was. I also realized I didn't need awd to make me feel like I could drive, I actually could.







Sorry you cant.

_Quote, originally posted by *ylwghost* »_
---my car brakes fine with all-seasons (as I see many squirrely FWD cars with no ABS, run out of room & have to use the shoulder to avoid hitting my car)

In snow, no way







, and go try summers and see how much better it stops in the rain or dry.
Have you ever even driven a car with winters in the snow or summers, your quite delusional you know.
Go post in the tire forum saying you have awd and see no reason to swap tires and see how many people rip you apart.







You have allot to learn.


----------



## ylwghost (Sep 30, 2004)

*Re: (judgegavel)*


_Quote, originally posted by *judgegavel* »_How many times must you get *pwn3d*....
Wow you are so mature is this suppose to be some sort of dig

reading comprehension & misspelled words in one post . . .
_mature _& _pwn3d _in the other..

_Quote, originally posted by *judgegavel* »_Wrong, wrong, wrong, my god you are really have no idea what your talking about, rev-matching will do nothing in the snow or rain, if your not getting traction from your tires.







With all-seasons you are not getting anywhere near good traction compared to the right season tire. 

In this situation you want to ease of the throttle until you regain traction(otherwise you are dumb and you either don't know the limits of your car; or are pushing it too hard where you are not familiar, and run out of room) .. I don't see how using a subtle combination of both engine braking & ABS will not be better than soley using your brakes? (given you can actually do seamless rev-matching; light pressure on the brakes @ 4k rpms is much better than heavy brakes while coasting)
-like I said composer & balance will also help until you regain traction (which will come earlier with AWD)
Lets see who doesn't know what the F' they are talking about ..

_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_Back in the ’80s the Audi Quattros dominated the race track with their unbelievable ability to brake late when entering the corners. This ability was a result of the rear axle staying engaged under full braking allowing for a combined mechanical and frictional stopping force to be applied across all 4 wheels. The Competition Haldex Controller offered from HPA mimics this by keeping the rear axle fully engaged while under braking. Where the stock Haldex and HPP units release the rear axle into a free wheel situation as the brakes are applied, the Competition unit keeps the rear axle engaged, generating additional mechanical force to assist in slow down and maintain dynamic chassis balance. 
... The experienced driver will benefit from the additional chassis control afforded by the equal deceleration rates of the front and rear axle. This allows the driver’s input to dictate the vehicle dynamics under braking, corner entry and exit rather than falling victim to the abrupt disengagement of the rear axle. This added stability and control translates directly to faster lap times; making the Competition Controller a must for the competitive driver.


for those who are interested where Haldex technology is going..
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=2523282

_Quote, originally posted by *judgegavel* »_Go post in the tire forum saying you have awd and see no reason to swap tires and see how many people rip you apart.







You have allot to learn.

What is it exactly that you have a problem with? (because I made a statement along the lines that tires are more important when the front 2 wheels are doing all the work?)
If I wasn't happy with lap times .. or felt that I am not getting enough traction; tires are the 1st thing I would look into upgrading
--but the truth is that generally Quattro has more than enough traction ... I don't have a problem with this (even with the pathetic all-seasons)..

_Quote, originally posted by *kayaker10* »_My issues with the 2.0 is keeping the wheels firmly planted when acelerating aggresivley... 

(with a very similar output to a stock 2.0T) the only time I have spun all 4 (4season) tires is on gravel & snow .. when intentional
-but after a BT swap, I will have to remember this thread once i have the *need *for even better traction. (p.s. have fun *****footing around)


_Modified by ylwghost at 8:01 PM 4-19-2006_


----------



## judgegavel (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: (ylwghost)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ylwghost* »_In this situation you want to ease of the throttle until you regain traction(otherwise you are dumb and you either don't know the limits of your car; or are pushing it too hard where you are not familiar, and run out of room) 
-but after a BT swap, I will have to remember this thread once i have the *need *for even better traction. (p.s. have fun *****footing around)

So whose talking about *****footing now.








Oh btw, slowing down isn't stopping, easing off the throttle is going to do you allot of good when you need traction and have to stop in snow/ice for something in front of you







You have no concept of driving in snow or ice do you.
Not to mention you had no solution to combat the added stopping power of summers, in dry or wet.

_Quote, originally posted by *ylwghost* »_What is it exactly that you have a problem with? (because I made a statement along the lines that tires are more important when the front 2 wheels are doing all the work?)


No the opinion that you think because you have awd thats an excuse that its fine for you to run all-season, and its not a compromise. Then you start a flame war cause I pointed out how hypocritical and wrong that is.
Listen it obvious your a trolling awd fanboi who knows little about the A3 (either models), and likes to pick arguments you have little knowledge on, but you cant cant come in here posting how great your awd powers through turns and then say you run all-seasons and expect to be taken seriously.









And if we get to 10 pages Tarik wins a surprise.










_Modified by judgegavel at 11:39 PM 4/19/2006_


----------



## judgegavel (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: (mhr)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mhr* »_This thread has really made me wonder what's going on with this board. Pretty worthess self congruatulation -- on both side -- and flaming.
Waste o' time.

_Modified by mhr at 1:21 PM 4/19/2006_

Thats why you can make the choice to read and post and get involved or not, you chose to join right in, you cant get more hypocritical than that.








Hes right guys, theres no room for arguing or sharing opinions on an internet car forum, what were we thinking.








But honestly I think some great issues were raised, some good debate, some very bad debate, all in all this was a great thread..... for the first four pages or so.

















_Modified by judgegavel at 12:32 AM 4/20/2006_


----------



## ylwghost (Sep 30, 2004)

*Re: (judgegavel)*


_Quote, originally posted by *judgegavel* »_No the opinion that you think because you have awd thats an excuse that its fine for you to run all-season, and its not a compromise. Then you start a flame war cause I pointed out how hypocritical and wrong that is.


Hypocritical & wrong? 
-My point is that the 3.2q has more capabilities that will not necessarily be exploited when test-driving cars for ones wife.
-My point regarding tires is that *some compromise* (same as those who rock-crawl TJ's on weekends) *has to be taken* (if one wants to take advantage of the go-anywhere anytime benifit in having the 3.2.(especially where winters consist of being 1 week in the 80's; & the very next being nearly flooded)(all while having b1tchin drives on various surfaces)
-My point is that that it is much more difficult to compromise traction with a torquey FWD car.


_Quote, originally posted by *judgegavel* »_
So whose talking about *****footing now.








Oh btw, slowing down isn't stopping, easing off the throttle is going to do you allot of good when you need traction and have to stop in snow/ice for something in front of you







You have no concept of driving in snow or ice do you.


I said "in this situation" (that you hypothetically brought up)
-YOU must have no experience if you can't realize the need to re-gain traction before you can actually stop! (I said if you were caught in that situation .. you are likely doing something stupid)(it has yet to happen to me in my 2 years exploiting the potential of my crappy all-seasons)(perhaps it will happen someday .. but that will be in a different thread)
All I am saying is who are *you *to think the A3 2.0T is everything to everyone? ... and that there is no benifit in going with a trim that has a much needed chassis corrrection 
(in which I have honestly felt when physically driving the 2.0T DSG)
Do I have nice things to say about that car? .. (obviously since I was the one who recommended the car to begin with / and also in being there for that 'test-drive' / then later taking it out on my own to exploit its capabilities against my quattro manual back-to-back)
Does this mean the car is not good for you? (that is not what I am saying ... )(it is the perfect car for my dad who is an F1 fan; & digs the DSG technology... it is perfect for *his *purposes)(but you better believe if he didn't just get the Grand Cherokee he would have gotten the Quattro!)
What reason do you have to come on a web forum and try to take the wind out of someones sails for getting only a 'slightly better' car?
-it is still better. [/thread]
p.s. smiley faces are not a good compromise for poor debate skills


----------



## 03 Hemi to 06 A4 (Nov 17, 2005)

*Re: (crew217)*

sorry dave but the S4 is
Curb weight (lbs.):
manual, quattro: 3825
thats from audiusa.com
granted its a fat ****in pig
and unlike alot of what ive read im not gonna start chiminig in with stupid comments, im not naming any names.


----------



## judgegavel (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: (ylwghost)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ylwghost* »_
Hypocritical & wrong?

I was referring to your idiotic tire comments. As for all the other misinformation you've been properly corrected by me and others. 
If you still have issue with Tariks review of the 3.2 and question his test drive specifications ignore him and me and refer to the article from Car and Driver that Rogerthat posted on page 3 it has basically the same complaints we and many others have. But this debate has been over since like page 7.









_Quote, originally posted by *ylwghost* »_All I am saying is who are *you *to think the A3 2.0T is everything to everyone? ... and that there is no benefit in going with a trim that has a much needed chassis correction 
(in which I have honestly felt when physically driving the 2.0T DSG)

I never said its anything to anyone (except myself, and still not everything), but the much need chassis correction as you call it, is complete BS, hell the chassis was designed to be a fwd car. JMHO but the 3.2 doesn't feel right to me and many others (ie. C&D), I feel its more because the 3.2 engine and extra weight than anything else. And while I do like awd very much, I dont quite think its this miracle must have invention that you pray to, and I dont think it comes off well on the 3.2.

_Quote, originally posted by *ylwghost* »_What reason do you have to come on a web forum and try to take the wind out of someones sails for getting only a 'slightly better' car?

Unfortunately it a fact of life when you give an opinion someone is bound to get offended, but that is never the intention. Maybe you should write C&D and find out why they put out a magazine thats doing the same. That being said its a free world and only you can make up your own mind, but that goes for everyone else to.

_Quote, originally posted by *ylwghost* »_p.s. smiley faces are not a good compromise for poor debate skills

How do you know you haven't tried them yet.







































_Modified by judgegavel at 1:30 AM 4/20/2006_


----------



## Entourage (Apr 30, 2000)

*Re: (ylwghost)*

I have a question about Judge and his former WRX.
I keep seeing off the cuff comments about this former WRX and how he could not handle it, etc. etc. 
Was this car super modified? What mods? 
A stock WRX, while not the most powerful machine on the road is fairly simple to drive under normal conditions. I would even go as far as saying, just about anyone could drive a stock WRX normally in any kind of weather without having any real problems. 
*Keep in mind I have extensive driver training so my driving skills might be way different then a normal Joe Smoe. But I am just giving my opinion here.**
I've driven 2 WRX's, one was bone stock... down to the tires and it was cake to drive. Even with pushing the stock WRX to it limit's, it was fairly easy to control. (i could get into details about my full opinion on the stock suspension, but that's too much to type. I am already typing another book in this thread. LOL )
The Modified WRX, I couldn't tell you each and every mod he had, but I do know he had a different suspension, wheels, exhaust, and he was pushing more boost. (Don't know the motor mods.) I drove that car, ball$s to the wall and while I enjoyed the extra power he had over a stock WRX's anemic power, I also enjoyed his new suspension which was a worlds over difference. The only bad thing I had to say about the modded WRX is the stock brakes could not handle the added power. After several hard stops, the brakes started to fade horrifically, to the point where a normal person would stop driving the car. (But I'm not normal. LOL )
When I was done with his car, the brakes were almost gone and they were completely and utterly wasted. Needless to say, he had to replace his brakes the next day. (Brakes pads were gone. I literally destroyed his pads. LOL
So my point is, even a modded WRX is fairly easy to drive, as long as you are a competent driver. So I don't understand why I keep seeing Judge couldn't handle his WRX??















Now, the STI on the other hand, is a different monster. You need skills to *properly* drive that car under full load. (That's why you hear about so many crashed STI's, it's because people with little to no real driving experience/skills buy the car and because it has 300hp, AWD and the acclaimed uber super car Subaru, people think they are invincible. WRONG!








Ah, sorry if I went off on typing rampage.
So, Judge, can you answer my question about your former WRX?
Also, does anyone in here who keeps talking about handling characteristics, etc. etc. have any real driving experience/skills? (I am not looking for someone to say, "well I have been driving for 10 years and that alone gives me all the skills and experience I need." WRONG. I am looking for someone to step up and say that they have at least some nice track time behind their belt and driving school, etc. )
Just looking to see who has that kind of experience and who doesn't....friendly conversation. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Entourage (Apr 30, 2000)

*Re: (judgegavel)*

Let me also add this, while I agree that you can not compare ultimate performance with dedicated snow tires and All-Season Tires, you CAN buy really good All-Season Tires which actually are very good in all types of conditions.
I had Ultra High Performance All-Season tires (i forget the brand) on my '01 GTI VR6 and not only were they awesome in the snow, but they were also very good in the rain and dry conditions. I put a lot of miles on those tires, normal commuting, Mountain Runs, Drag Racing, Auto-X and some Road Racing track days. Those tires NEVER did me wrong. Never. 
Now granted, they weren't your normal All-Season tire that most people purchase for their vehicles. But they were All-Season's and again, they never did me wrong and handled every situation I put them in phenomenally!
Now granted, if I would have put UHP Snow Tires on the GTI, then she would have been much better in deep snow. Granted if I would have put UHP tires on the GTI for summer, then she would handled different better. 
But that is why you buy those season specific tires. 
Right now, I have Ultra High Performance *Summer* Tires on the R32 and not only due to the AWD system, but also with the tires, she handles like dream in wet and dry conditions. 
I have even driven the R32 on these same tires in light snow and ice (and there are very specific warning labels on each tire to NOT drive in any type of snow and/or ice!!) and I had no issues... BUT, I attribute this to my driving skills and the AWD. I also once pulled out of driveway in 1.5" of snow with these same tires and with a little peddle work, I got the car out. Again, I credit that to my driving skills and the AWD.
So my points are: Yes, you can buy really good All-Season tires and if you have the proper knowledge, experience and skills. you can drive your vehicle in just about any condition. 
*Examples of good All Season Tires:*
Pirelli PZero Nero M&S (Ultra High Performance All-Season)
*








Surveyed Averages 2 97% 8.3 8.6 8.6 8.7 9.0 8.7 7.3 6.0 6.3 8.6 8.6 8.2 8,069,763 miles driven combined. 








Kumho ECSTA ASX (Ultra High Performance All-Season)








5 93% 8.1 8.1 8.2 8.0 8.6 8.1 7.0 6.1 6.3 8.3 8.2 8.0 4,795,296 miles driven combined.







.*

Here, I did some quick research for you guys regarding tires:
UHP All Season Tires for the 2006 Audi A3 2.0Thttp://www.tirerack.com/tires/Compa...ing=WR&speed_rating=YR&RunFlat=None&x=79&y=13http://www.tirerack.com/tires/Compa...ing=WR&speed_rating=YR&RunFlat=None&x=79&y=13
View all Tires for 2006 Audi A3 2.0T
UHP All Season Tires for the 2006 Audi A3 3.2L
View all Tires for 2006 Audi A3 3.2L
Hope this helps!
Justin http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 



_Modified by Justin-R32 at 9:51 AM 4-20-2006_


----------



## A4Kevin (May 4, 2005)

*Re: (Justin-R32)*

All seasons are designed to operate accross a broad temperature range. When the temp dips too low the compound used to make all season tire hardens which results in loss of traction. No awd will help in this situation. 
For some of us in the northern climates where it gets pretty cold the only option is tires designed for the season.


----------



## judgegavel (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: (Justin-R32)*

All excellent points, Justin-R32, but the only one trying to flame me about driving a WRX, and saying I cant handle one is ylwghost, he obviously has very little knowledge on this subject (as-well as many others involving cars) I over looked the ignorant flame at the time. But agree with you 100% (although I would never call a WRX power anemic, unless your comparing it to an STI) anyone could drive it, its awd after all







.
But to answer your question, my performance mods at its height were still fairly simple: Greddy Evo Catback, Perrin CAI, STI fuel injectors, Unorthodox Racing Pulley, 17" STi BBS rims with Summer tires in summer







, along with a ton of exterior/interior things, but no need to mention as they had no bearing on performance. Never dynod it but it was probably around 260-280hp, next step to get it over 300 would have been a bigger turbo, but never got around to it. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif








As for the tire issue, if you look (its hard to follow in the graph, doesn't line-up) and know tire racks numbers (which I do very well) both those tires are incredibly weak in certain areas, the PZeros are horrid in the snow and ice for example. Just so you know IMHO if in the TR is not above 8 in a certain area, it a huge weakness of the tire, if its not above 8.5 in areas you need its a compromise. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 



_Modified by judgegavel at 10:07 AM 4/20/2006_


----------



## ylwghost (Sep 30, 2004)

*Re: (Justin-R32)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Justin-R32* »_I have a question about Judge and his former WRX.
I keep seeing off the cuff comments about this former WRX and how he could not handle it, etc. etc. 
Was this car super modified? What mods? 


It doesn't matter if it was STI spec ... as long as he is making comments like this ....


_Quote, originally posted by *judgegavel* »_I think your the one being ignorant here...
While I can see your point if it was only about traction, tires more importantly effect breaking which sorry to inform you your amazing awd does nothing for.

That shows me he is unfamiliar with the capabilities of his former car. (perhaps I read it wrong?)(poor reading comprehension again?)

_Quote, originally posted by *Justin-R32* »_So my point is, even a modded WRX is fairly easy to drive, as long as you are a competent driver. So I don't understand why I keep seeing Judge couldn't handle his WRX?? 


The WRX is even more predictable (than Quattro) to drive above 9/10ths on a loose surface ... Quattro's differentials are more open & dynamic which make it turn better on the road; but it can also throw you through tricky under/over/under-steering cycles if there is not consistant traction.
-All AWD systems are pretty unique; & handle better than others in different situations (to make general statments regarding the fact that many people can drive them all pretty competently is one thing ... but not everyone can exploit these cars to their fullest benifit)(modded or un-modded)
-The Judge's comment about permanent AWD doing nothing for braking made it apparent to me that he was not familiar with the full benifit of his former car.


----------



## judgegavel (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: (ylwghost)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ylwghost* »_
-The Judge's comment about permanent AWD doing nothing for braking made it apparent to me that he was not familiar with the full benefit of his former car.

It doesn't, your talking about slowing down, which yes awd helps ever so slightly, I'm talking about stopping in quick situations. Take any AWD with all-season's vs. any FWD car with summers (similar weights and brakes of course) your going to tell me the AWD car will have better skid pad results.







Now same situation on a snow or ice covered road again which will have the better brake results. Every-time it will be the specific season tire in its rightful condition over the all-season no matter what wheel drive.









_Quote, originally posted by *ylwghost* »_
-All AWD systems are pretty unique; & handle better than others in different situations (to make general statments regarding the fact that many people can drive them all pretty competently is one thing ... but not everyone can exploit these cars to their fullest benifit)(modded or un-modded)

Right, and running all-seasons, no-one can exploit these cars or fwd/rwd for that matter to their fullest benifit, thats my point.
You can keep the flames comming though, best thread ever.











_Modified by judgegavel at 1:07 PM 4/20/2006_


----------



## ewongkaizen (Apr 19, 2002)

*Re: (ylwghost)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ylwghost* »_
The WRX is even more predictable (than Quattro) to drive above 9/10ths on a loose surface ... Quattro's differentials are more open & dynamic which make it turn better on the road; but it can also throw you through tricky under/over/under-steering cycles if there is not consistant traction.
-All AWD systems are pretty unique; & handle better than others in different situations (to make general statments regarding the fact that many people can drive them all pretty competently is one thing ... but not everyone can exploit these cars to their fullest benifit)(modded or un-modded)
-The Judge's comment about permanent AWD doing nothing for braking made it apparent to me that he was not familiar with the full benifit of his former car.

I have NEVER driven an AWD car and am by no means a "skilled driver" of any type.
I do own and "wheel" a modded 4Runner with dual "torsens" in the axel diffs.
I have NOT read this complete thread either.
As an engineer Id thought I chime in and state that I agree with ylwghost that AWD can in fact contribute to braking.
This contribution to braking is well studied and if I recall correctly a few seasons ago a number of F1 teams (yes Formula 1) were using DIFFERENTIALS and axles in the FRONT of the car to take advantage of this effect. Obviously AWD is banned in F1 so the axles were not driven - but they were attached to the wheels and entered the "nose" of the car where they presumably were attached to a diff (which is the only reason to go through all the trouble).
I dunno why the diffs dissapeared after a few races - it might have been banned via a "rules clarification" or it may have turned out to not have been worth the weight cost. The fact that it was tried at ALL indicates that there was some percieved merit.


----------



## A4Kevin (May 4, 2005)

"Back in the 80s the Audi Quattros dominated the race track with their unbelievable ability to brake late when entering the corners. This ability was a result of the rear axle staying engaged under full braking allowing for a combined mechanical and frictional stopping force to be applied across all 4 wheels."


_Modified by A4Kevin at 10:29 AM 4/20/2006_


----------



## Christopher463 (Jul 16, 2005)

What you can do, in simple terms, is just put summer/performance tires up front, in an AWD car of course, and put all-seasons or winters in the back.... if the fronts slip, the rears will catch...see how it works? Perfect for any condition.


----------



## ewongkaizen (Apr 19, 2002)

*Re: (A4Kevin)*


_Quote, originally posted by *A4Kevin* »_"Back in the 80s the Audi Quattros dominated the race track with their unbelievable ability to brake late when entering the corners. This ability was a result of the rear axle staying engaged under full braking allowing for a combined mechanical and frictional stopping force to be applied across all 4 wheels."

I'll use my 4Runner as an example.
Later models (I had an 88/89) had rear antilock brakes as an option.
In the 4Runner the speed detector was a tooted ring in the rear differntial and toothed sensors on each front wheel.
There was a note in the car brochure that the anti lock brakes did not "function" in 4WD.
The 4WD in the 4Runner (its a truck intended for off road use) is a LOCKED center differntial.
Clueless types would ask how to turn on the antilock brakes in 4WD.
DOH - you dont NEED rear antilock brakes in 4WD - if you did you are in so much trouble antilock wont help you - why?
The front and rear axles are LOCKED - the drive shaft speeds are the SAME (or you broke something) front and rear.
(assmuing open diffs) the ONLY way there could be a wheel speed difference between the rear diff and at least one front wheel was if one rear wheel was in the air (zero traction) and one front wheel was in the far less traction - in which case you were already stuck becuase with open diffs you were not moving.
Even with Torsens you would be stuck - unless you used the hand brake / light brake trick. In either case you wouldnt want rear anti lock fouling up driver tricks.
To extrapolate with the Audi - one problem on gravel (assuming a RWD car) is that its very easy to LOCK the front wheels up and the rear wheels keep churning. In a corner this can translate quickly into oversteer. Somtimes this effect is desired and modulated by the driver. Sometimes its "worked around" by the driver.
The AWD means that if the front wheels "lock up" - the REAR WHEELS DO TOO! This is becuase the drive train connects everything (to varying degrees depending on differntials etc but there is still mechanical effect).
Today this could be exploited via anti lock brakes and computer algorithms.... but back then - the hardware (computing speed, sensors, pumps and valves) were not readily available.
There are further explotations that can be take inf a "torsen" type diff is used - as a Torsen (or weismann) will actually transfer torque BEFORE the wheel actually starts to slip... (dot ask em to explain - Ive read Carrol Smiths explanation a zillion times and I still dont really understand it).


----------



## bdh-vdub (Apr 2, 2001)

*Re: (judgegavel)*

Judge, I finally figured out what the problem is....


----------



## ewongkaizen (Apr 19, 2002)

*Ref F1 and front diffs*

Torsens are neat devices.
Weismann's even more so.
They do not bias axle speeds, they bias TORQUE.... very neat.
So - in a clssical sense - the drive shaft goes to the diff via the ring gear. The diff splits the TORQUE.
In the case of the torsen - the torque gets distributed as the "max" that each wheel can take BEFORE spinning. Yes BEFORE spinning.
A clutch pack diff as far as I know allows a "speed differential" between the shafts - not a torque split. 
So some people in F1 wanted to be able to brake later into the trun - later means more speed right?
As Judge points out - braking force is limited by the tire contact patch.
When braking in a turn - one wheel is loaded more than the other.
What a torsen diff in F1 will do is to allow the car to transfer braking force from the lightly loaded wheel (that is trying to lock) to the heavily loaded wheel by slwoing down the heavily loaded wheel's rotational torque.... 
(come to think about it it may have been in a time period when anti lock brakes were banned in F1 - this is anti lock braking effects without having anythign to do with brakes)


----------



## ylwghost (Sep 30, 2004)

*Re: (judgegavel)*


_Quote, originally posted by *judgegavel* »_It doesn't, your talking about slowing down, which yes awd helps ever so slightly, I'm talking about stopping in quick situations

AWD will also have the benifit of stability & composer in panic situations (as well as effectively using 4 wheel torque w/ engine braking in combination to the ABS)
--weight is not everything my friend
Have you lost control in your A3 yet? (can't tell me it is easier to re-cover than your WRX; now is it?)


_Quote, originally posted by *judgegavel* »_Take any AWD with all-season's vs. any FWD car with summers (similar weights and brakes of course) your going to tell me the AWD car will have better skid pad results.

apples & oranges


----------



## KnockKnock (Jun 30, 2005)

*Re: braking (ewongkaizen)*

Hi Everyone. Just thought I'd post because it's not everyday you get a chance to be on Page 10!

_Quote, originally posted by *ewongkaizen* »_As an engineer Id thought I chime in and state that I agree with ylwghost that AWD can in fact contribute to braking.
This contribution to braking is well studied and if I recall correctly a few seasons ago a number of F1 teams (yes Formula 1) were using DIFFERENTIALS and axles in the FRONT of the car to take advantage of this effect.

I'm not convinced on this braking thing, but have an open mind. That it was fully studied and not implemented isn't an explanation. Explain it to me in physics terms. Why would AWD stop a car faster than FWD? In a modern car with ABS, full braking applies the maximum stopping power at each wheel. This runs the force right up to the point where static friction is lost. How can having a driven wheel, which is designed to provide more forward turning force help, when the brake rotor/pad can slam the wheel right down to it's traction limit? I don't see people downshifting into 1st gear and modulating the clutch to bring a car to a perfect stop - so I'm not seeing how having 4 wheels driven helps in a stop.
In a dynamic race, I can see how having four driven wheels, going off-throttle, would give you two more (rear) wheels with drag, and that drag would mean there's less work for the brakes to do, which means they may not fade as fast. So having two fewer wheels driving would be similar to how a car with a normal automatic transmission often goes through brakes faster because there's less engine-braking. But this gets really wishy-washy and compromised by the fact that you put more wear on the drivetrain than on your brakes.
Anyway, overlooking the flaming and all, what's with AWD braking? Are we talking about dynamic curvy stuff over the course of a race? Or are we talking 70-0 straight-line. If I don't hear a good explain'o, I think we could at least agree that there wouldn't be any difference in the latter, with maybe a little noise given to the weight-balance, or added weight. But all things being equal, AWD vs. FWD braking...?


_Modified by KnockKnock at 11:20 AM 4/20/2006_


----------



## limesparks (Apr 15, 2004)

_Quote, originally posted by *mhr* »_This thread has really made me wonder what's going on with this board. Pretty worthess self congruatulation -- on both side -- and flaming.
Waste o' time.


Nah, this is a good debate. The flaming isn't so bad... Just a long read if you haven't been following, which could be tough at this point to catch up. Still the best A3 board on the net, IMHO.







*sparx*


----------



## judgegavel (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: (bdh-vdub)*


_Quote, originally posted by *bdh-vdub* »_Judge, I finally figured out what the problem is....


















Ahhh!








_Quote, originally posted by *ylwghost* »_Have you lost control in your A3 yet? (can't tell me it is easier to re-cover than your WRX; now is it?)

No I haven't, but of course it would not be, unless you were talking on snow or ice when the WRX had the crappy all-seasons, and the A3 had its winters.

_Quote, originally posted by *ylwghost* »_apples & oranges

How do you figure







, if thats to hard a comparison what if they were both awd, how much would your breaking improve then (probably the same, but at least its apples to apples for your sake), enough I would trust, that if your soo concerned about performance it would be well warranted to swap tires and not compromise your ride.









_Quote, originally posted by *Christopher463* »_What you can do, in simple terms, is just put summer/performance tires up front, in an AWD car of course, and put all-seasons or winters in the back.... if the fronts slip, the rears will catch...see how it works? Perfect for any condition.

Well one big reason (besides the fact that you wouldn't get the ideal benefits for all four wheels) why that wouldn't work would be with awd you have to have the same tires on all four wheels as-well as them being within 2/32 tread of each other, (every tire make/model is a different size based on it individual tread pattern), if the wheels are different sizes it can wind up having a very negative effect on the differential.


_Modified by judgegavel at 3:03 PM 4/20/2006_


----------



## uberR32 (May 4, 2004)

*Re: Ref F1 and front diffs (ewongkaizen)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ewongkaizen* »_Torsens are neat devices.
Weismann's even more so.
They do not bias axle speeds, they bias TORQUE.... very neat.
So - in a clssical sense - the drive shaft goes to the diff via the ring gear. The diff splits the TORQUE.
In the case of the torsen - the torque gets distributed as the "max" that each wheel can take BEFORE spinning. Yes BEFORE spinning.
A clutch pack diff as far as I know allows a "speed differential" between the shafts - not a torque split. 
So some people in F1 wanted to be able to brake later into the trun - later means more speed right?
As Judge points out - braking force is limited by the tire contact patch.
When braking in a turn - one wheel is loaded more than the other.
What a torsen diff in F1 will do is to allow the car to transfer braking force from the lightly loaded wheel (that is trying to lock) to the heavily loaded wheel by slwoing down the heavily loaded wheel's rotational torque.... 
(come to think about it it may have been in a time period when anti lock brakes were banned in F1 - this is anti lock braking effects without having anythign to do with brakes)

I rarely come across people on the tex who fully understand the difference between a torque biasing diff and a speed biasing diff. So








Anyway, I'd be shocked if a torsen would help an ABS car stop faster. Stopping faster than ABS would require a computer controlled threshold braking, with no wheel slip and 3 torsen diffs. And I'd be shocked if a torsen equipped car didn't stop in a longer distance because it's carrying a good bit more weight. Weight is the enemy of speed (and corners).


----------



## ewongkaizen (Apr 19, 2002)

*Re: braking (KnockKnock)*


_Quote, originally posted by *KnockKnock* »_ Why would AWD stop a car faster than FWD? 

In not taking the positon that an AWD car would stop in a shorter distance than a FWD car or even a RWD car...
I was trying to point out that there ARE some positive effects that an AWD car might have over a non AWD car in terms of braking.
As I posted - my recollection was that the front torsen braking effect was probaly during the "no ABS allowed" era of F1.

Modern ABS works on a "speed sensing" case. The computer looks at the SPEED each wheel is turning and then applies a complex algorithm an applies brake pressure to each wheel - hopefully up to the point of lockup but not over the point of lockup...
The other post about the early Quattro success was as far as I can recall was PRIOR to the availability of ABS.
In fact ABS in conjuction with acceleratomer sensors can be used to implement a " stability control" algorithm as well. 
(There was a case where a college intern at GM wrote some code in the existing GM ECU to implement stability control for Caddilac. Needless to say it worked better than what they were developing and was essentally "free" (it used parts that were already in the car). Thye of couse had to "hire" him so he couldnt take his knowlege elsewhere post school)
The advantage that AWD has is that there is some mechanical connection between all the wheels and that with TORSENS this connection can be exploited to transfer TORQUE to other wheels. 
ABS cant do that. 

When braking on "loose surfaces" - there is an advantage to be had where you want the wheels to be "spinning" as just before lockup speeds - ie the contact patch transfer the max TORQUE that it can to the car. Torsens sense torque. ABS senses wheel speed.
To quote Carrol Smith - a spinning wheel tends to stay spinning. That also means that a locked wheel tends to stay locked.


----------



## ylwghost (Sep 30, 2004)

*Re: Ref F1 and front diffs (uberR32)*


_Quote, originally posted by *uberR32* »_
Anyway, I'd be shocked if a torsen would help an ABS car stop faster. Stopping faster than ABS would require a computer controlled threshold braking, with no wheel slip and 3 torsen diffs. And I'd be shocked if a torsen equipped car didn't stop in a longer distance because it's carrying a good bit more weight. Weight is the enemy of speed (and corners).

3 torsen diffs would mean more weight, no?
-and more importantly than weight; balance is the alli to speed (& corners)
All of these cars use EDL (electronic differential lock) in lue of heavier LSD's.
-Mechanical Torsen happens to work seamlessly with EDL/ABS because it allows the front and rear axles to spin @ their natural variance around corners (while ABS/EDL works independently at each wheel to get the most effecient use of traction)(all while keeping the car balanced above 9/10ths)


----------



## ylwghost (Sep 30, 2004)

*Re: braking (ewongkaizen)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ewongkaizen* »_
In not taking the positon that an AWD car would stop in a shorter distance than a FWD car or even a RWD car...
I was trying to point out that there ARE some positive effects that an AWD car might have over a non AWD car in terms of braking.


True. But it is mainly about composer during these extremes (which allow you to both recover easier & also hold more speed)
-RWD has the steering wheels & driven wheels independent (which is an advantage over FWD)


----------



## ewongkaizen (Apr 19, 2002)

*Re: Ref F1 and front diffs (uberR32)*


_Quote, originally posted by *uberR32* »_Anyway, I'd be shocked if a torsen would help an ABS car stop faster.

I dunno the answer to that.
Now a WEISMANN - thats a differntial!
That car IMHO WOULD be faster and stop better....as far as bench racing goes.
In case people on this thread dont know - a WEISMANN diff is the torsen to the next level - its a NORMALLY LOCKED diff. 
Think of it as a Detroit Locker that unlocks and becomes a torsen in the corners. THAT has significnat braking and corner exit advantages.... at 9/10ths and up...
Dont ask where you can get one - as far as I know they havent existed since the 70's and the CanAm era.


----------



## ewongkaizen (Apr 19, 2002)

*Re: braking (ylwghost)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ylwghost* »_But it is mainly about composer during these extremes (which allow you to both recover easier & also hold more speed)
-RWD has the steering wheels & driven wheels independent (which is an advantage over FWD)

No argument with me on that point.
I'll take a "slower" car that allows me to be relaxed at 9/10th than a "faster" car that spanks the driver for the slighest lapse of attention...
Reminds me of the whole John Boyd research into why the MiG 15 - a fighter that was superior (on paper) to the USA F-86 was instead shot out of the sky at a 10:1 ratio.... it was a superior plane but demanded so much of its pilot that the pilot couldnt react fast enough.


----------



## MylesPH1 (Aug 6, 2000)

*Re: (bdh-vdub)*


_Quote, originally posted by *bdh-vdub* »_Judge, I finally figured out what the problem is....



















OH MY GOD that's awesome, a lumber A3 needs Haldex though...
And as far as AWD braking goes, this talk about diffs is enlightening... but just to clarify, the Haldex does NOT engage during braking, so while there is some inertia in your favor, there is no engagement to prevent the locking we're discussing, correct? Right? Please???


_Modified by MylesPH1 at 4:21 PM 4-20-2006_


----------



## judgegavel (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: (MylesPH1)*


_Quote, originally posted by *MylesPH1* »_ but just to clarify, the Haldex does NOT engage during braking, so while there is some interia in your favor, there is no engagement to prevent the locking we're discussing, correct? Right? Please???

Yes, and excellent point. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Nuvolari (Jun 22, 2004)

*Re: (MylesPH1)*


_Quote, originally posted by *MylesPH1* »_
OH MY GOD that's awesome, a lumber A3 needs Haldex though...

No, what it needs is a lumber support


----------



## judgegavel (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: (Nuvolari)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Nuvolari* »_
No, what it needs is a lumber support









Its a premium, I have a power lumber support, but its only on the driver side.


----------



## ewongkaizen (Apr 19, 2002)

*Re: (judgegavel)*


_Quote, originally posted by *judgegavel* »_Yes, and excellent point. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

Im not intimate with the A3's Quattro setup.
Ive been able to surmise that the CENTER diff on the A3 quattro is a Haledex unit.
I am going to *assume* that A3 diffs on the Quattro are both open.
My understanding of Haledex is that it is esentially a "clutch pack" type limited slip.
However - instead of the traditional "spring" to set the clutch pack preload, the preload on the clutch pack is controlled by an external to the Haledex component.
Its possible that the external unti is powered by a "georotator" pump and is hydrulic in nature - with the hydrulic pressure against the clutch pack controlled by a "shuttle" valve (like the old CIS fuel injection).
Or it could be an electrical selinoid.
I really dont know on the A3.
In either case - this allows some sort of computer control of the center diff clutch pack preload - which means one can externally and continiously alter the front/rear bias of the differential.
NOW also bear in mind that clutch packs can in fact "wear out" and that in general it behooves one to mimimize clutch pack wear - if only to cut down on maintence (Pro Racing is a different story).
SO....
Is JudgeGavel implying that the Haledex unit is desigend to "disengage" under braking? 
That would imply that under braking the Haledex is designed to permit speed differentials between the front and rear drive shafts?
Sounds like a ton of engineering effort when there are no major ill effects to leaving the Haledex in some sort of 50/50 split mode...
In particular - there are wear effects of re-engaging the Haledex clutch packs after the shafts are spinning at different speeds - you have to "slip" the cluch to get the shaft speeds to match again. As far as I know there is no syncho ring in the Haledex - but Ive never disassembled a Haledex.
Please enlighten me


----------



## MylesPH1 (Aug 6, 2000)

*Re: (ewongkaizen)*

This much I know, and please allow for a general understanding, having no formal engineering background... but what I know for sure, is that the Haldex is disengaged in most driving conditions - 100% to the front, until there is some slip detection, and then the Haldex engages the rear wheels. What percentage this can vary I don't know. So it isn't a 50/50 split in most conditions, unlike the Torsen based quattros ( or in some cases, 40/60 ), so I'd be surprised if Haldex engaged under most braking conditions....


----------



## judgegavel (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: (ewongkaizen)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ewongkaizen* »_Is JudgeGavel implying that the Haledex unit is desigend to "disengage" under braking? 

From everything I've read that is infact the case, but give the credit to MylesPH1 for stating it first. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Entourage (Apr 30, 2000)

*Re: (Christopher463)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Christopher463* »_What you can do, in simple terms, is just put summer/performance tires up front, in an AWD car of course, and put all-seasons or winters in the back.... if the fronts slip, the rears will catch...see how it works? Perfect for any condition.

You're kidding right? Right?!
If you are serious, why would anyone go through that trouble?


----------



## Entourage (Apr 30, 2000)

*Re: (MylesPH1)*

You are correct. But as I stated before, with the Gen1 Haldex, you can modify the unit to be in your "most awesome" handiling range. 
As someone else stated. a Gen2 package is currently being worked on.
BTW: This thread is awesome. Hands down, in my 6 years of being on the 'Tex, going through multiple types of Volkswagens and their forums, this is one of the best discussions I have had not only the chance to partcipate in, but witness.
Kevin and Judge, going back to page 9...both excellent posts. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif to everyone who posted in this thread.
10 freaking pages!







http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 


_Modified by Justin-R32 at 5:33 PM 4-20-2006_


----------



## A4Kevin (May 4, 2005)

*Re: (judgegavel)*


_Quote, originally posted by *judgegavel* »_
From everything I've read that is infact the case, but give the credit to MylesPH1 for stating it first. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

You would have to upgrade the controller to keep the rear engaged. Hopefully we will see and application for Gen2 soon.
http://www.hpamotorsport.com/p...x.htm


----------



## judgegavel (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: (Justin-R32)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Justin-R32* »_As someone else stated. a Gen2 package is currently being worked on. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 


Yes latest issue of European Car has a quick blurb:
[/img]


----------



## ylwghost (Sep 30, 2004)

*Re: (MylesPH1)*


_Quote, originally posted by *MylesPH1* »_This much I know, and please allow for a general understanding, having no formal engineering background... but what I know for sure, is that the Haldex is disengaged in most driving conditions - 100% to the front, until there is some slip detection, and then the Haldex engages the rear wheels. What percentage this can vary I don't know. So it isn't a 50/50 split in most conditions, unlike the Torsen based quattros ( or in some cases, 40/60 ), so I'd be surprised if Haldex engaged under most braking conditions....


Correct: Haldex disengages under braking because it does not work seamlessly with ABS/EDL (once engaged.. the front & rear differentials are locked not allowing for the natural variance between the front & rear axles) (whereas Torsen will only lock ~60% & not inhibit ABS to work independently at each wheel)
--The new Haldex upgrade somehow gets around this; but I am not sure what other ill-effects it may bring (I believe you are sacrificing ABS.. which is good for the track; bad for daily driving)(ABS/EDL eat up your brakes under heavy track use)


----------



## ewongkaizen (Apr 19, 2002)

*Re: (ylwghost)*

thanks for the education.
Info I had on Haldex was back when it was "invented" about 10 years ago - before it appeared in any production cars... looks like it has a rather unique and specific application...
Sounds like I gots to brush up on me AWD drivetrain configurations


----------



## Entourage (Apr 30, 2000)

*Re: (judgegavel)*


_Quote, originally posted by *judgegavel* »_
Yes latest issue of European Car has a quick blurb:
[/img]









Ahhh. Good stuff!!!! http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## A4Kevin (May 4, 2005)

Bump. (Dont want this thread to die)


----------



## buickgn (Apr 20, 2006)

*Re: (A4Kevin)*

We haven't argued about tires in a few hours







so I figured I'd stir up that pot a little bit.
The starting point of every suspension design is the tires, and their inherent characteristics; slip angle, grip, contact patch. Therefore all this arguing about having the best tires possibly for any given situation is kind of moot. While more grip is always better the cars suspension was designed to possess the best kinematics for the OEM tire (camber curves, spring rates, damping rates, etc) thats why there are so many different spring combinations out there (from the factory) for these cars to accomodate all of the different combinations of sprung and unsprung weights (equipment packages/wheels). So while having a sticky summer tire is ideal in terms of grip generated, it is not neccesarily fully exploiting the cars potential, it may in fact be harming it due to the fact that the suspension wasn't designed for the amount of grip available (excessive wear or heat in the tires due to too steep camber curves, etc). Is this a big difference? I'm not sure, but people on here seem to be talking about 9/10's + type driving so I would think at that point it might be. My point is that the idea of an ideal tire is not entirely possible for a street car. Sorry if that was dry and boring, I'm an engineer I can't help myself











_Modified by buickgn at 11:07 AM 4/21/2006_


----------



## ewongkaizen (Apr 19, 2002)

*Re: (ewongkaizen)*

BTW - tons of info on the Haldex link.
http://www.haldex-traction.com/
Now I want to know if I can add one on to the front drive shaft of my 4Runner (to get AWD)


----------



## uberR32 (May 4, 2004)

*Re: Ref F1 and front diffs (ylwghost)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ylwghost* »_
3 torsen diffs would mean more weight, no?
-and more importantly than weight; balance is the alli to speed (& corners)

HUH? You can't rewrite the laws of physics, not even to settle a Votrex argument. If you believe your agument, put enough brick in your trunk to achieve 50:50 "balance" and do some brake tests.

_Quote, originally posted by *ylwghost* »_
All of these cars use EDL (electronic differential lock) in lue of heavier LSD's.
-Mechanical Torsen happens to work seamlessly with EDL/ABS because it allows the front and rear axles to spin @ their natural variance around corners (while ABS/EDL works independently at each wheel to get the most effecient use of traction)(all while keeping the car balanced above 9/10ths)

EDL is part of ABS, and it only works on throttle application below ~25 MPH. It's basically crap, unless you're stuck in snow and trying to get out. Your comment about Torsen would correctly apply to the A3, if it had a Torsen diff anywhere.
[edit] page 11 pwnage










_Modified by uberR32 at 1:22 PM 4-21-2006_


----------



## ylwghost (Sep 30, 2004)

*Re: (buickgn)*


_Quote, originally posted by *buickgn* »_The starting point of every suspension design is the tires, and their inherent characteristics; slip angle, grip, contact patch. Therefore all this arguing about having the best tires possibly for any given situation is kind of moot. While more grip is always better the cars suspension was designed to possess the best kinematics for the OEM tire (camber curves, spring rates, damping rates, etc) thats why there are so many different spring combinations out there (from the factory) for these cars to accomodate all of the different combinations of sprung and unsprung weights (equipment packages/wheels). So while having a sticky summer tire is ideal in terms of grip generated, it is not neccesarily fully exploiting the cars potential, it may in fact be harming it due to the fact that the suspension wasn't designed for the amount of grip available (excessive wear or heat in the tires due to too steep camber curves, etc). Is this a big difference? I'm not sure, but people on here seem to be talking about 9/10's + type driving so I would think at that point it might be. My point is that the idea of an ideal tire is not entirely possible for a street car. Sorry if that was dry and boring, I'm an engineer I can't help myself 

Thats an interesting point (. .mainly because one has been flaming me for running tires that originally were fitted with the chassis)
-eventhough I am sure many will disagree (I assume there is an assumption factored in that tires will be swapped-out eventually); but it explains why I haven't felt the need to blame my OE tires on the cars performance








Further: When one is comparing the 3.2q with the 2.0T; one HAS to be talking about performance above 9/10ths (that is what they are paying for).
-You don't by an Exige based on how it performs during your morning commute.
Since I obviously have a "pro AWD agenda" .. here are some analogies:
-The 2.0T is like sitting in the front row; whereas the 3.2q is like being on stage
-The 2.0T is like a boombox; but the 3.2q is like surround sound
-The 2.0T is like doing it missionary style everyday; instead of changing it up & going at it doggy style every now & then (hey; when you got to live with them everyday .. may as well not limit yourself)


_Modified by ylwghost at 11:55 AM 4-21-2006_


----------



## ylwghost (Sep 30, 2004)

*Re: Ref F1 and front diffs (uberR32)*


_Quote, originally posted by *uberR32* »_HUH? You can't rewrite the laws of physics, not even to settle a Votrex argument. If you believe your agument, put enough brick in your trunk to achieve 50:50 "balance" and do some brake tests.

I was saying 3 torsen diffs would mean even more wieght (which would be fine once you upgrade the brakes & add more boost to compensate)(I said up-front; weight tends to wash out some benifits)
--and bricks are going to do nothing to help stabalize the cars composer by using torque to slow the rears through engine braking (bad analogy http://****************.com/smile/emthdown.gif)

_Quote, originally posted by *uberR32* »_Your comment about Torsen would correctly apply to the A3, if it had a Torsen diff anywhere.

 
A statement was made regarding the A4's AWD (bringing it into the conversation)
-I was discribing how Torsen works well with ABS while Haldex does not (and needs to disengage under braking)


----------



## judgegavel (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: (buickgn)*


_Quote, originally posted by *buickgn* »_We haven't argued about tires in a few hours







so I figured I'd stir up that pot a little bit.
The starting point of every suspension design is the tires, and their inherent characteristics; slip angle, grip, contact patch. Therefore all this arguing about having the best tires possibly for any given situation is kind of moot. While more grip is always better the cars suspension was designed to possess the best kinematics for the OEM tire (camber curves, spring rates, damping rates, etc) thats why there are so many different spring combinations out there (from the factory) for these cars to accomodate all of the different combinations of sprung and unsprung weights (equipment packages/wheels). So while having a sticky summer tire is ideal in terms of grip generated, it is not neccesarily fully exploiting the cars potential, it may in fact be harming it due to the fact that the suspension wasn't designed for the amount of grip available (excessive wear or heat in the tires due to too steep camber curves, etc). Is this a big difference? I'm not sure, but people on here seem to be talking about 9/10's + type driving so I would think at that point it might be. My point is that the idea of an ideal tire is not entirely possible for a street car. Sorry if that was dry and boring, I'm an engineer I can't help myself









Ok that is one of the most retatrded posts that was not by ylwghost in this whole thread, suspensions arent designed around OEM tires hell you can get at least 5 different make/model tires on the 2.0T alone.







If you have the sport package you have the option of picking summer or all-season even.
ylwghost: I've pwn3d you like twenty times in this thread. You've shown time and time again that your a n00b who know almost nothing about cars. I or someone else has shot you down on every BS point you tried to make to back yourself up. Seriously havent you had enough yet troll, your not even making any argument now your just trying to flame and piss people off.










_Modified by judgegavel at 8:09 PM 4/21/2006_


----------



## A4Kevin (May 4, 2005)

The P6s on mine have to go.


----------



## judgegavel (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: (A4Kevin)*


_Quote, originally posted by *A4Kevin* »_The P6s on mine have to go.


But your suspension was designed around them.


----------



## buickgn (Apr 20, 2006)

*Re: (judgegavel)*

For someone who has complained so much about people flaming and bashing u sure were quick to do the same esp when u gave absolutely nothing to back up your statement of me being "retarded"... It's a shame too cuz I agreed with most of your previous posts too
I admit I do not have a lot of specific knowledge to the A3 in terms of what tires come with what cars. From the A3 material I have here it seems that all the 2.0's come with basically 2 tires; summer and AS of the same size (which would give 3 different tires total beween the 2.0 and 3.2). While the summer tires would give more grip they are only installed on a car that has a specific suspension setup (sport trim). That suspension is tuned to the specifics of the tire, to give the optimal roll rate and camber curves to make the tires perform as well as possible, ie "get the maximum performance" out of the tires so in that case, yes the AS's would be a poor compromise. I come from a few years experience working with Formula SAE (think SCCA A-mod), and that is what I am basing these statements on. I wasn't trying to sound retarded just pointing out that, unless the car is being corner balanced, has the suspension aligned, and swaybars adjusted before every mountain blast, or beer run, you're not getting the most out of your tires or car. To summarize, are there better tires available than OEM? absolutely, is there a point that the stock suspension and alignment cannot fully exploit the benefits of expensive sports tires, I would think so as well.



_Modified by buickgn at 11:58 PM 4/21/2006_


----------



## judgegavel (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: (buickgn)*


_Quote, originally posted by *buickgn* »_For someone who has complained so much about people flaming and bashing u sure were quick to do the same esp when u gave absolutely nothing to back up your statement of me being "retarded"... It's a shame too cuz I agreed with most of your previous posts too


Sorry, but it was nothing personal. Its not meant to be a flame just to emphasize how moronic I think your post was. Wouldn't need to back it up, because I'm sorry it is such a poor idea. The simple fact that the sport comes with the option of all-seasons or HP summers with no adjustments in the suspension throws your idea right out the window. The simple fact that even one particular model of any kind (A/S, summer, winter) of tire can differ tremendously from another, as far as breaking, handling, contact patch, etc., etc. again throws your idea right out the window. The factories use what ever tire they get the best deal on that week and have in stock. On the A3 2.0t alone I've seen over 6 different tires from three different brands, and 3 different classes come as OEM tires. On the A3 in Europe the car can come in three different tires sizes (for three different rims sizes), which complicates your theory even further. Manufactures absolutely do not design their cars suspension around one specific tire, it would make absolutely no sense and would be far to tedious. What they do do is design it around one specific wheel size (thats overall circumference of the wheel), this is why they give recommendations in the manual about + & - tire sizing, besides it also having a negative aspect on your spedo/odo.


----------



## A4Kevin (May 4, 2005)

*Re: (judgegavel)*


_Quote, originally posted by *judgegavel* »_

But your suspension was designed around them.









lol


----------



## ewongkaizen (Apr 19, 2002)

*Re: (A4Kevin)*


_Quote, originally posted by *A4Kevin* »_
lol

If the suspension thread on vwvortex is right - that (suspension tued to tires) might not be as "off base" as one might think.
What the suspension thread was findign was that the springs (and possibly dampers - cant recall) actually DIFFER based on the option packages chosen.
Crazy I know.
Definatley against common sense with respect to TPS (Toyota Production System) precepts.
But not really a surprise.


----------



## dougman (Sep 1, 2002)

*Suspensions around tires or vice-versa*

At the risk of being called "retarded", "stupid", "moronic" or any of another put-downs I've seen on this thread, I will chime in based on my experience designing suspensions using both computer simulation AND testing on the track at an OEM auto manufacturer.
There IS a degree of optimization that is done on a suspension based on the type of tire that is most likely being specified. That does NOT mean the car's handling falls apart when the tire is changed, but there are compromises made. For example, low-profile, sticky tires are much more sensitive to wheel hop or axle tramp (read some of the 20th anniversary GTI's on this topic). The usual solution is changing bushing rates for fore-aft compliance of the suspension. Unsprung weight also determines the natural frequencies of up-down and fore-aft motion; good suspension engineers work hard to keep these natural frequencies away from the common 55-70 mph freeway cruise speeds.
And yes, greater levels of grip create greater deflections in the suspension, which in some cases, can cause camber deflections which lessen the effectiveness of low-profile tires (which are much more sensitive to camber angle). There are static camber curves (the camber of the tire as it goes up and down in suspension travel), but more important are the dynamic camber curves, which take into account the forces on the contact patch which deflect the bushings.
Bottom line: stickier, lower-profile tires work better when paired with stiffer bushings on the suspension to reduce compliance. Auto OEM's, however, don't do that on base suspensions because of the negative impact to impact harshness. Good OEM's make that a part of "sport" suspension packages, rather than simply changing springs, dampers, and roll bars.
When we made our final choices of suspension parameters, we were always careful to check it out with the tires that were currently planned to be shipped with the car. ANYTIME marketing decided to change specified tires, we ALWAYS had to sign off with a little bit of testing. No, we did not optimize the suspension again, but we DID try to make the suspension work best around the tires that were most likely going to ship with the car.
By the way, it's braking, not "breaking", and you're for "you are", not "your", and too, not "to". No big deal unless you're standing on a soapbox with your theories...


----------



## judgegavel (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: Suspensions around tires or vice-versa (dougman)*









_Quote, originally posted by *dougman* »_There IS a degree of optimization that is done on a suspension based on the type of tire that is most likely being specified. That does NOT mean the car's handling falls apart when the tire is changed, but there are compromises made. For example, low-profile, sticky tires are much more sensitive to wheel hop or axle tramp (read some of the 20th anniversary GTI's on this topic). 
 
Not to pick you apart but, but while your are correct in what you say, it makes no sense in regards to this debate, low-profile tires arent a different type of tire they would be a different size. Going with a different size rim is of course going to effect how a tire performs, and how the suspension reacts. But we are talking about comparing types of tires here, not different sizes.









_Quote, originally posted by *dougman* »_By the way, it's braking, not "breaking", and you're for "you are", not "your", and too, not "to". No big deal unless you're standing on a soapbox with your theories...









Um' this is the internet, I'm on no soap box and dont pretend to be, but seriously there are tons of spelling mistakes in these posts if your going to get preachy about it, perhaps you should take a little more time to see if your theory/post actually even applies to the debate, instead of getting caught up in pointing out someones spelling and grammar mistakes.


----------



## buickgn (Apr 20, 2006)

*Re: Suspensions around tires or vice-versa (judgegavel)*

Dougman thanks for the insight into the production side of things, and Judge I agree that marketing and economics make a lot more decisions about tires than the engineers would prefer.(I know from experience







) In racing (at least at the level that I worked on where there wasn't a F1 sized budget for tens of different tires available) you design the suspension around one particular tire compound and size, and then allow for enough adjustability to tune for different compounds or rain tires. In production cars, the cars are unquestionably designed with a bigger envelope i.e. a bigger range of sizes, grip etc. I can't imagine how you would design a suspension without at least some idea of the rough characteristics of the tire, without that there would be no idea how that car will handle before the prototype, and with the limited suspension adjustability in these cars there would be very little you could do besides playing with damping sways and springs to try to make up for the handling (which would compromise ride, something most manufacturers are very hesitant to do). Again because this is a road car it's not dialed in to the razor's edge to be the most perfect suspension possible for one tire and one tire only, I obviously didn't mean that, but I was trying to say that there may be a drop off point with the stock suspension. As far as this goes 
_Quote, originally posted by *judgegavel* »_
The simple fact that the sport comes with the option of all-seasons or HP summers with no adjustments in the suspension throws your idea right out the window. 

If you would have read further on I basically agreed with you by saying that here was a compromise being made, and it was not the ideal tire for the suspension set up.


----------



## dougman (Sep 1, 2002)

*Re: Suspensions around tires or vice-versa (judgegavel)*

I never pick apart spelling on the internet---but it seemed appropriate given the way you were tearing into someone without much of a basis. It doesn't help your automotive credibility to call slowing down "breaking"--that's not a typo.
The degree of suspension optimization we're discussing is completely relevant when talking about performance tires vs. all-seasons--which is how this whole discussion steered in this direction. Yes, I have been keeping up with the thread. My post applies to the thread every bit as much as your last attack (which was the same topic--suspension optimization around tire choices) does...
I watch these threads for two reasons: to learn from people who know more than I do, and to have fun. I think those are the principles that keep message boards like this one great. There's a difference between spirited debate and being a d*ck...


----------



## judgegavel (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: Suspensions around tires or vice-versa (dougman)*


_Quote, originally posted by *dougman* »_The degree of suspension optimization we're discussing is completely relevant when talking about performance tires vs. all-seasons--which is how this whole discussion steered in this direction. Yes, I have been keeping up with the thread. My post applies to the thread every bit as much as your last attack (which was the same topic--suspension optimization around tire choices) does...

It doesn't, when you cite as your example low profile sticky tires , in this debate both tires would be the same profile and the same size. Low profile all-season would be just as prone to wheel hop. 
As far as spelling goes, yes I'm horrible, I also typed that waiting for my morning coffee to brew, still has nothing to do with the subject and pointing it out is just being a little bi+ch.







And my so called "tearing" was still on subject and quite warranted, I wasn't going out of my way to be a d*ck, like you happen to be. I apologies to buickgn if he was offended by my post in anyway, it just seems to me allot of people are suddenly posting in this thread that never ever post on the A3 boards, and at this point just seem to be stirring up **** for no reason, just for sh*ts and giggles I guess.


_Modified by judgegavel at 12:36 PM 4/22/2006_


----------



## buickgn (Apr 20, 2006)

*Re: Suspensions around tires or vice-versa (judgegavel)*

Judge, I wasn't offended it takes a lot more than that to offend me (I'm a fellow NY'er). As far as people being new posters, you're gonna have that when you're only in the second model year of a car...I wasn't trying to stir up sh*t anymore than anyone who posts any kind of an opinion on a internet foum, there's always going to be people who will argue a thread to death over someone's personal opinion. I thought I had a different point of view, and I wanted to share it, because otherwise whats the point of this forum even being here? I've been a lurker here for a while because I'm buying a car in a few months and the A3 is currently on top of my list, and seeing what real owners who drive these cars every day think about them, and the subtle things that u grow to love or hate after a few thousand miles that you might not even notice during a 30 minute test drive. I know how easy it is for people to grow to hate a new poster if they come out of the box arrogant and holier than thou. that's why I've been trying to be respectful and try to explain things as completely as possible. P.S. my apologies for being the proverbial fart in church on this thread


----------



## judgegavel (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: Suspensions around tires or vice-versa (buickgn)*

I understand that, and I'm sorry if I singled you out. New posters should always feel welcomed here, its just at this point I think this thread should be left to die. Both sides of the issue have been argued to death here, and at this point its way off topic. If anything I hope you can see both 2.0T owners and 3.2 owners are very passionate about their cars. I'm going on 17K mi., and love absolutely everything about my 2.0T A3, that being said if it wasn't available I would have definitely choose the 3.2 as my car.


----------



## buickgn (Apr 20, 2006)

*Re: Suspensions around tires or vice-versa (judgegavel)*

Agreed, and if anything I'm excited by how passionate everyone is, My grand national was stolen, and the past 3 years I've driven a very unpassionate honda accord so I'm looking forward to having something that I'm willing to spend hours reading a message board about (which kinda sad because I'm already doing it)


----------



## dougman (Sep 1, 2002)

*Re: Suspensions around tires or vice-versa (buickgn)*

Hell, if I knew you were a New Yorker, buickgn, I wouldn't have jumped to your defense!
If you are OK, then so am I. My post was primarily based on my desire to see new people encouraged to post rather than discouraged. Everyone takes "feedback" differently and it's nice to see you have the old NY "callous" (the useful one).
I agree with Judgegavel, RIP this thread.


----------



## ylwghost (Sep 30, 2004)

*Re: Suspensions around tires or vice-versa (dougman)*


_Quote, originally posted by *dougman* »_
I watch these threads for two reasons: to learn from people who know more than I do, and to have fun. I think those are the principles that keep message boards like this one great. There's a difference between spirited debate and being a d*ck...
















I could not agree more.
-yet I forget how up-tight one can get, gaurding over their _e_territory.
great thread http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 


_Quote, originally posted by *judgegavel* »_I'm going on 17K mi., and love absolutely everything about my 2.0T A3, that being said if it wasn't available *I would have definitely choose the 3.2 as my car. *


_Quote, originally posted by *judgegavel* »_Both sides of the issue have been argued to death here, and at this point its way off topic.

Glad that you see it NOW










_Modified by ylwghost at 11:19 PM 4-22-2006_


----------



## judgegavel (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: Suspensions around tires or vice-versa (ylwghost)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ylwghost* »_Glad that you see it NOW









Never said I hated the car, just that I like the 2.0T better.







A3 still the best car on the road under $40K.


_Modified by judgegavel at 6:56 AM 4/23/2006_


----------

