# A3 3.2 vs A3 2.0



## seb5150 (Jan 7, 2004)

I searched but couldn't find anything comparing the two types of A3's so here's my question:
I have an opportunity to purchase a 2006 A3 3.2 S-line Quattro with 14K miles or a 2007 A3 2.0 S-line DSG with 33K miles, very similar condition and options, same color. Price is about $2500 more for the 3.2. Without starting a flame war, what would you buy?


----------



## tp. (Nov 12, 2009)

i ahve 2.0t
i test driven a 3.2q and i should have bought that in the first place. awd so much better and engine sounds better


----------



## dkenn75 (May 22, 2008)

*Re: A3 3.2 vs A3 2.0 (seb5150)*

If you have the chance to buy Quattro...do it!


----------



## SilverSquirrel (Jul 24, 2006)

*Re: A3 3.2 vs A3 2.0 (dkenn75)*


_Quote, originally posted by *dkenn75* »_If you have the chance to buy Quattro...do it!








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


----------



## abadidol (Mar 1, 2009)

*FV-QR*


_Quote, originally posted by *dkenn75* »_If you have the chance to buy Quattro...do it!


----------



## neu318 (Feb 18, 2003)

*Re: FV-QR (abadidol)*

How much are they asking for the 3.2? I bought my 06 3.2 almost a month ago, it had 16k on it. I got it out the door for $24,200


----------



## Osto (Feb 22, 2009)

Yeah, how much is the 3.2? I paid about $20,000 out the door for a 2006 3.2 with 40k. it was a steal haha


----------



## seb5150 (Jan 7, 2004)

They're asking $28K for the 3.2. I'm sure I can get it for less.


----------



## seb5150 (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: FV-QR (neu318)*

_
Re: FV-QR (abadidol) » « » 4:50 PM 3-4-2010 

How much are they asking for the 3.2? I bought my 06 3.2 almost a month ago, it had 16k on it. I got it out the door for $24,200

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------_

Did you test drive the 2.0 and the 3.2 before you made your purchase?


_Modified by seb5150 at 5:18 PM 3-4-2010_


----------



## neu318 (Feb 18, 2003)

*Re: FV-QR (seb5150)*


_Quote, originally posted by *seb5150* »_
_
Re: FV-QR (abadidol) » « » 4:50 PM 3-4-2010 

How much are they asking for the 3.2? I bought my 06 3.2 almost a month ago, it had 16k on it. I got it out the door for $24,200

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------_

Did you test drive the 2.0 and the 3.2 before you made your purchase?

_Modified by seb5150 at 5:18 PM 3-4-2010_

No I did not but I needed a car soon and didn't want to pass up this deal. I'm very happy with the 3.2


----------



## MisterJJ (Jul 28, 2005)

*Re: A3 3.2 vs A3 2.0 (seb5150)*

Depends on you.
Have you driven front wheel drive vehicles enough to be comfortable with them in your expected driving conditions?
Do you desire above average gas mileage?
Do you want to tune the engine in any way, like simply having it chipped to gain 20-35% more hp and torque?
The more yes, the more I would be inclined to say the 2.0t.


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

*FV-QR*

Do you not mind things like the breaking like the cam follower, therefore destroying the camshaft?
When you floor the gas, do you not mind the front wheel spinning and the car going nowhere?
Do you want some funky power delivery that doesn't give you a linear bandwidth?
Then more yes, the more I would be inclined to say the 2.0t.


----------



## terje_77 (Dec 19, 2005)

*FV-QR*


_Quote, originally posted by *MisterJJ* »_Depends on you.
Have you driven front wheel drive vehicles enough to be comfortable with them in your expected driving conditions?
Do you desire above average gas mileage?
Do you want to tune the engine in any way, like simply having it chipped to gain 20-35% more hp and torque?
The more yes, the more I would be inclined to say the 2.0t.


v.

_Quote, originally posted by *LWNY* »_Do you not mind things like the breaking like the cam follower, therefore destroying the camshaft?
When you floor the gas, do you not mind the front wheel spinning and the car going nowhere?
Do you want some funky power delivery that doesn't give you a linear bandwidth?
Then more yes, the more I would be inclined to say the 2.0t.


This thread's getting interesting...


----------



## tdotA3mike (Feb 5, 2009)

*FV-QR*


_Quote, originally posted by *LWNY* »_Do you not mind things like the breaking like the cam follower, therefore destroying the camshaft? *thats only an issue on the FSI and solved on the TSI. H2 sport is fixing this anyways*
When you floor the gas, do you not mind the front wheel spinning and the car going nowhere? * got us there but it comes down to driving skill as well + 2.0T Q is an option *
Do you want some funky power delivery that doesn't give you a linear bandwidth? * turbo lag? i don't think so not on the K03! the power curve is pretty smooth for turbo * 
Then more yes, the more I would be inclined to say the 2.0t.


the one thing i love about the VR6 is the sound! it kicks the 2.0T's ass in that sense. i have always loved a VR6 and almost got one buttt.....
it was 30% more then the 2.0T i bought (in canada) plus the MPGs would have been pretty bad since i do allot of city driving. 
Another thing i will point out as plus for the 3.2 is no stupid DI valve build up, and no fuel dilution. Also timing chain. (i know the TSI has a timing chain)


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

*Re: FV-QR (terje_77)*

Ha, I was just highlighting the leading questions that were portrayed as neutral questions. Better off showing your bias and say "3.2 all the way" or "2.0 chipped, yeah".


----------



## tdotA3mike (Feb 5, 2009)

*FV-QR*


_Quote, originally posted by *LWNY* »_Ha, I was just highlighting the leading questions that were portrayed as neutral questions. Better off showing your bias and say "3.2 all the way" or "2.0 chipped, yeah".


i like both though. When i got my car the 2.0T made sense (i drove allot of city) now not as much driving period and when i do drive its most highway. I would actually consider swapping my 2.0T for a 3.2. if the price was right.


----------



## AlaskaDG (Mar 12, 2008)

*Re: FV-QR (LWNY)*

Living in a snowy wet place, I wiill vouch for the 3.2 quattro abilities to get from point a to point b with three adult passengers in a quiet, comfortable, safe and uneventful manner, day after day with reasonable gas mileage.
Once you drop off those three passengers, turn off the traction control and kiss gas mileage goodbye, the car turns into an e ticket ride begging for police intervention. Find a deserted back country road full of curves, hills and steep drop offs and the combo of four wheel drive, well tuned (s-line) suspension, sport seats, torque and adrenaline is absolutely amazing. 
I don't know about a 2.0 but I do know that most cars are good at one or the other, great for family or great for fun. My 3.2 Q beats every car I've owned including several Porsches. It's like being Clark Kent and knowing Superman is lurking right under your starched collar! First time I've been completely happy with a car, well except for that grey market UrQuattro.....


----------



## Korgs130 (Jan 13, 2007)

*Re: FV-QR (AlaskaDG)*

The 3.2 is awesome in the snow!


----------



## krazyboi (May 19, 2004)

*FV-QR*


_Quote, originally posted by *AlaskaDG* »_Living in a snowy wet place, I wiill vouch for the 3.2 quattro abilities to get from point a to point b with three adult passengers in a quiet, comfortable, safe and uneventful manner, day after day with reasonable gas mileage.


http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif for OPs "NEEDS"


----------



## awdnyc (May 17, 2006)

*Re: FV-QR (krazyboi)*

I have owned both.
06 2.0T DSG 
06 3.2 quattro
my opinions on the stock configurations:
2.0T
(+)
good fuel economy for performance
feels faster
feels more agile
(-)
sounds like a diesel when idling
burns oil
on hard acceleration its major battle between
torque steer and traction control (this is a deal breaker)
3.2
(+)
engine sound
quattro handling and snow performance
feels more planted on road
(-)
fuel economy
suspension on less than perfect roads
that said, they are both nice cars, each with their own particular
compromises.


----------



## cleanA3 (Jun 23, 2007)

I say the 3.2 , in the long run the resale on the pre 09 will be better. Love mine to death


----------



## MisterJJ (Jul 28, 2005)

*Re: FV-QR (LWNY)*


_Quote, originally posted by *LWNY* »_Ha, I was just highlighting the leading questions that were portrayed as neutral questions. Better off showing your bias and say "3.2 all the way" or "2.0 chipped, yeah".

Haha. I thought about rewritting in a more nuetral way or adding another 3 questions on the 3.2 side, like you did. But then I thought that this way would stir the pot and make it a more interesting discussion. Bingo!
Anyway, the point is that it all depends on the person. While I don't deal with snow, if I did move back to a place with snow I'm sure I would still want my 2.0t. I've driven FWD for 23 years now and am very comfortable with its behaviour. There are tons of others in snowy climates that have FWD and are perfectly fine with it. Heck, vast numbers of people are driving RWD cars with no traction control on the snow all the time and they're not slamming into buildings every 30 feet. BUT... it all depends on YOU! What your comfortable with and what you want and expect from a car. If you've only driven RWD in the snow you'll probably be more than pleased with how a FWD works.
P.S. Regarding the wheels spinning... 80% of that is fixed with really good tires and another 15% percent is fixed by learning the limitations and abilities of your car and using a little skill to work within them.


----------



## gCHOW (May 26, 2006)

*FV-QR*

both cars are hella different... one is turbo but only limited to FWD. the other is a 3.2V6 quattro. totally different power bands and totally different drivetrains.
best advice is to go in and test drive both and see which you like better. of course, the 3.2V6 is a lil more pricier but IMO its worth it since you get the quattro. especially in PDX where it is wet and cold, i'd say get the quattro for day trips up to mt hood!!!


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

*Re: FV-QR (MisterJJ)*


_Quote, originally posted by *MisterJJ* »_P.S. Regarding the wheels spinning... 80% of that is fixed with really good tires and another 15% percent is fixed by learning the limitations and abilities of your car and using a little skill to work within them.
Same with the 3.2 quattro, it is not like you are driving a video game in the snow where the car just goes where you point it. There are still little quirks in the quattro system in which you have to trick so that it pre-engages the rear wheel instead of losing traction in the front and then shifting torque to the rear.
I've driven FWD forever and in a few situations where I encountered troubling understeer situations, my instinct has been to grab the handbrakes and pull the tail out. It must be from all the playing trying to provoke oversteers in cars that only plows.


----------



## RedLineRob (Feb 8, 2009)

if you plan on just driving it then get a 3.2, but if you want to mod the car get a 2.0T there is so many parts for the 2.0T, and the 2.0T s are lighter, and with a simple ECU upgrade your almost making as much power as a 3.2

try to get a newer 2.0T with quattro


----------



## seb5150 (Jan 7, 2004)

Great replies! I'm going to drive both over the weekend and then make a decision. I've also found a 2008 A4 2.0 S-line Quattro w/MT that I want to take a look at. 


_Modified by seb5150 at 10:32 AM 3-5-2010_


----------



## gCHOW (May 26, 2006)

*Re: (seb5150)*


_Quote, originally posted by *seb5150* »_Great replies! I'm going to drive both over the weekend and then make a decision. I've also found a 2008 A4 2.0 S-line Quattro w/MT that I want to take a look at. 

nice! keep in mind with the A4 quattro you get the quattro system but at a cost of additional mechanical losses.


----------



## tdotA3mike (Feb 5, 2009)

*FV-QR*


_Quote, originally posted by *gCHOW* »_
nice! keep in mind with the A4 quattro you get the quattro system but at a cost of additional mechanical losses.


huh? an A4Q will be torson (real) quattro,,,


----------



## ndifadvokit (Nov 20, 2008)

*Re: FV-QR (tdotA3mike)*


_Quote, originally posted by *tdotA3mike* »_
huh? an A4Q will be torson (real) quattro,,,

exactly, so with this so called "real" quattro you have an awd system that is always engaged and always draining power due to the mechanical losses of extra parts moving whereas with haldex you only get those mechanical losses when power actually is turned on to the rear wheels.


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

*FV-QR*


_Quote, originally posted by *tdotA3mike* »_
huh? an A4Q will be torson (real) quattro,,,

Yeah, Full time AWD, FTW.


----------



## Rogerthat (Oct 23, 2005)

*Re: A3 3.2 vs A3 2.0 (seb5150)*

I think the 3.2 might be more reliable in the long run. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## cleanA3 (Jun 23, 2007)

Cant go wrong with the 3.2 , I have two of them and i love them both


----------



## FreeGolf (Sep 18, 2003)

3.2Q. no doubt about it.


----------



## trucaliber (May 13, 2009)

*Re:*

3.2-Q or 2008.5 2.0T-TFSI
I have an 09 with TFSI and quattro and it's a perfect combination. TFSI adds a ton of fixes to very annoying issues seen on the 2.0t-FSI engines. Swapped the timing-belt for a chain, beefed up cam follower/HPFP and oil filter moved up top. A lot of







removed, compared to my 06 2.0t A4.


----------



## krazyboi (May 19, 2004)

*FV-QR*

3.2T is the way to go


----------



## neu318 (Feb 18, 2003)

*Re: FV-QR (krazyboi)*


_Quote, originally posted by *krazyboi* »_3.2T is the way to go










I wish I had the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


----------



## FreeGolf (Sep 18, 2003)

*Re: Re: (trucaliber)*


_Quote, originally posted by *trucaliber* »_3.2-Q or 2008.5 2.0T-TFSI
I have an 09 with TFSI and quattro and it's a perfect combination. TFSI adds a ton of fixes to very annoying issues seen on the 2.0t-FSI engines. Swapped the timing-belt for a chain, beefed up cam follower/HPFP and oil filter moved up top. A lot of







removed, compared to my 06 2.0t A4.

unfortunately 2009+ 2.0tq with sport package and nav is like 39k-42k.... thats b8 a4 avant money... might as well just go for that then. imo.


----------



## trucaliber (May 13, 2009)

*Re: Re: (FreeGolf)*


_Quote, originally posted by *FreeGolf* »_
unfortunately 2009+ 2.0tq with sport package and nav is like 39k-42k.... thats b8 a4 avant money... might as well just go for that then. imo.

Apple-to-apples. Drop the s-line and navi and you'll save 4-6k. How many people keep their stock sport-suspension? I already have a garmin, and planned on getting coilovers, driver's seat and wheels no matter what packages I settled with. Fortunately, I found my 09 2.0tq for under 30k last aug. Should be a bit cheaper by now.


----------



## FreeGolf (Sep 18, 2003)

i prefer oem navigation. i hate it when gadgets clutter the interior. for a family car i would retain the oem suspension and go with euro sline springs.


----------



## BrandonF (Mar 16, 2010)

*Re: FV-QR (awdnyc)*


_Quote, originally posted by *awdnyc* »_I have owned both.
06 2.0T DSG 
06 3.2 quattro
my opinions on the stock configurations:
2.0T
(+)
good fuel economy for performance
feels faster
feels more agile
(-)
sounds like a diesel when idling
burns oil
on hard acceleration its major battle between
*torque steer and traction control (this is a deal breaker)*
3.2
(+)
engine sound
quattro handling and snow performance
feels more planted on road
(-)
fuel economy
suspension on less than perfect roads
that said, they are both nice cars, each with their own particular
compromises. 

I hate the traction control too, but i have found a solution, turn it off.


----------



## Xymox (Jul 1, 1999)

*Re: FV-QR (awdnyc)*

I definitely would have gotten a 3.2Q if it came in manual. No manual, no go. I had a DSG A3 loaner for over a week and it's just not for me.


----------

