# A3 DSG shifts slower than R32 DSG?



## r32nj (Aug 26, 2007)

I just traded my 2008 R32 in towards a 2013 A3 Quattro. The DSG seems to be more sluggish/smooth than the R32. Does this seem normal?

I kind of miss the quick, almost agressive shifting of the R32.


----------



## TBomb (Sep 23, 2009)

r32nj said:


> I just traded my 2008 R32 in towards a 2013 A3 Quattro. The DSG seems to be more sluggish/smooth than the R32. Does this seem normal?
> 
> I kind of miss the quick, almost agressive shifting of the R32.


DSG is somewhat adaptive, so...drive it aggressively for a while and it will start to shift more aggressively. Drive it like a grandma and it will granny shift, not double clutching like it shou...oh wait...sorry. :laugh: Seriously though, it should adapt somewhat to your driving style. I don't believe that they would have completely different software for the DSGs between the R32 and the A3, but I suppose it's possible. If it doesn't adapt eventually then you can always get a DSG flash that will fix you right up :thumbup:


----------



## neu318 (Feb 18, 2003)

r32nj said:


> I just traded my 2008 R32 in towards a 2013 A3 Quattro. The DSG seems to be more sluggish/smooth than the R32. Does this seem normal?
> 
> I kind of miss the quick, almost agressive shifting of the R32.


Get a DSG tune it'll be quicker.


----------



## jay'stig (Nov 8, 2010)

I just purchased a 2009 w/DSG, the former owner was an old man, so its a bit granny-ish, is there a way to reset it and start from scratch? or do you just have to be patient with it?


----------



## TBomb (Sep 23, 2009)

jay'stig said:


> I just purchased a 2009 w/DSG, the former owner was an old man, so its a bit granny-ish, is there a way to reset it and start from scratch? or do you just have to be patient with it?


Possibly with VCDS.

http://wiki.ross-tech.com/wiki/index.php/6-Speed_Direct_Shift_Gearbox_(DSG/02E)


----------



## Maitre Absolut (Aug 5, 2009)

r32nj said:


> I just traded my 2008 R32 in towards a 2013 A3 Quattro. The DSG seems to be more sluggish/smooth than the R32. Does this seem normal?
> 
> I kind of miss the quick, almost agressive shifting of the R32.


what you are experiencing is 3.2L responsiveness vs 2.0T


----------



## TBomb (Sep 23, 2009)

Maitre Absolut said:


> what you are experiencing is 3.2L responsiveness vs 2.0T


Oh god here we go... :facepalm:


----------



## JRutter (Nov 25, 2009)

Has the mechatronic unit and software changed (as in refined, not re-engineered) since 2008?

I've used HPA and United Motorsport DSG tunes. Both are more fun than stock.


----------



## Turn8 (Oct 31, 2008)

I haven't experienced slower shifts in my '09 A3 as compared to my old '08 R32. In my experience, they shift at the same speed, stock and tuned.

Drive it aggressively and see if the shift speed improves.

Mike


----------



## NYCameron (Nov 17, 2010)

for me I think it depends on throttle position

when I drive leisurely, nowhere near full, barely at half throttle, my shifts are slower
but when I put the hammer down, my shifts are super quick

so I think it is adaptive, but not like a memory adaptive type thing where it needs to be reset


----------



## Maitre Absolut (Aug 5, 2009)

TBomb said:


> Oh god here we go... :facepalm:


if i say NA responsiveness vs turbo lag does it make it better 

DSG is best experienced with a naturally aspirated engine


----------



## TBomb (Sep 23, 2009)

Maitre Absolut said:


> if i say NA responsiveness vs turbo lag does it make it better
> 
> DSG is best experienced with a naturally aspirated engine


There is virtually no lag with a K03 turbo, especially when you're at WFO throttle. If you bury your foot, by the time the DSG up-shifts you've built full boost and the turbo is fully spooled. Anyway, I haven't driven a 3.2 with DSG, only ridden in one, so I can't speak from experience as to how fast or aggressive the shifts are, but I know that in my car when I am getting on it, the shifts are plenty quick for me :thumbup:


----------



## Tcardio (Mar 19, 2009)

r32nj said:


> I just traded my 2008 R32 in towards a 2013 A3 Quattro. The DSG seems to be more sluggish/smooth than the R32. Does this seem normal?
> 
> I kind of miss the quick, almost agressive shifting of the R32.


I'm in a pissy mood today so...LET ME REITERATE, A VW GOLF R32 IS NOT AN AUDI A3. A VW GOLF R32 HAS A VR6 ENGINE. AUDI A3 2013 HAS A 2.0T. LET ME SAY IT AGAIN...YOU DRIVE A DIFFERENT CAR:screwy: 

With that said...welcome to the forum.


----------



## davis_449 (Apr 6, 2011)

Maitre Absolut said:


> if i say NA responsiveness vs turbo lag does it make it better
> 
> DSG is best experienced with a naturally aspirated engine


In your opinion. I've driven DSG in both 3.2's (MKV R32 and A3) and A3 2.0T's in stock, stage II, and K04 variants. Stock for stock, it's not much different and after a tune on the TSI, it blows the doors off any feeling the 3.2 has.


----------



## r32nj (Aug 26, 2007)

Davis,

I assume all those mods are warranty voiding, correct? Perhaps something I would consider in a couple years.

I miss a little of the power my R32 had but the 2.0T is still quite nice when I let the revs rise a bit. The 2.0T power is not quite as "instant on" as the R32 but once the 2.0T gets revving it's got quite a nice pull.

I was going to buy an A3 TDI but I happened to decide to test drive the 2.0T Quattro after I couldn't find exactly the A3 TDI that I wanted and I decided I didn't want to give up the power and Quattro for the gas mileage of the TDI.


----------



## ceese (Jul 2, 2011)

Maitre Absolut said:


> what you are experiencing is 3.2L responsiveness vs 2.0T


MA,

At first I always thought you were kidding but now I'm covinced you have V6 envy.

:laugh:


----------



## ceese (Jul 2, 2011)

r32nj said:


> Davis,
> 
> I assume all those mods are warranty voiding, correct? Perhaps something I would consider in a couple years.
> 
> ...


I'm amazed at just how much power they are pulling out of the 2.0t engines these days – it’s truly impressive especially for affordability of the mods. Wasn't true even a couple years ago but it seems that you can put in the same money and get relatively similar performance from both the 2.0T and the 3.2. With that said I believe that feeling is completely subjective. A buddy of mine summed it up really well for me after going from a VR6 golf to a 2010 GTI. "My GTI is faster but it just doesn't feel like it has the balls that my VR6 had, there's just something missing."


----------



## TBomb (Sep 23, 2009)

ceese said:


> MA,
> 
> At first I always thought you were kidding but now I'm covinced you have V6 envy.
> 
> :laugh:


He has a 3.2


----------



## MisterJJ (Jul 28, 2005)

ceese said:


> Wasn't true even a couple years ago but it seems that you can put in the same money and get relatively similar performance from both the 2.0T and the 3.2.


Not really accurate. From day 1 you could spend $500 on a chip for a 2.0t and it would beat a 3.2 and also get much better gas mileage.


----------



## ceese (Jul 2, 2011)

MisterJJ said:


> Not really accurate. From day 1 you could spend $500 on a chip for a 2.0t and it would beat a 3.2 and also get much better gas mileage.


That's an arguement that's been soooo beaten to death and I'm not going there.


----------



## ceese (Jul 2, 2011)

TBomb said:


> He has a 3.2


My bad - mental dyslexia today.


----------



## everfresh59 (Jul 26, 2010)

MisterJJ said:


> Not really accurate. From day 1 you could spend $500 on a chip for a 2.0t and it would beat a 3.2 and also get much better gas mileage.


Chip. Downpipe. Drop. Drive. Drool.


----------



## MisterJJ (Jul 28, 2005)

ceese said:


> That's an arguement that's been soooo beaten to death and I'm not going there.


Not to be argumentive but, there is nothing to argue. Chipped 2.0t beats 3.2. It's been proven. It is a fact so there is nothing to argue about.


----------



## Uber-A3 (Feb 23, 2002)

MisterJJ said:


> Not to be argumentive but, there is nothing to argue. Chipped 2.0t beats 3.2. It's been proven. It is a fact so there is nothing to argue about.


Unless you own a 3.2 and want to argue.


----------



## Tcardio (Mar 19, 2009)

MisterJJ said:


> Not to be argumentive but, there is nothing to argue. Chipped 2.0t beats 3.2. It's been proven. It is a fact so there is nothing to argue about.


Krazyboi 3.2 beats all chipped 2.0t. it's a fact so there is something to argue about


----------



## 2.0T Dan (Aug 14, 2012)

*Reset Tranny w/o Vag?*



r32nj said:


> I just traded my 2008 R32 in towards a 2013 A3 Quattro. The DSG seems to be more sluggish/smooth than the R32. Does this seem normal?
> 
> I kind of miss the quick, almost agressive shifting of the R32.


Hey you could try this, it has worked on many audis. I don't know if it will work with the DSG or S-Tronic tranny but its worth a shot. 

1. Put your key in the ignition and turn ignition to the on position (the position right before you start the car)
2. Hold down the gas pedal pressing the button under the pedal for at least 20 seconds.
3. Let foot off pedal and start car. Be sure that you do no turn ignition off because that will void the reset


----------



## ceese (Jul 2, 2011)

MisterJJ said:


> Not to be argumentive but, there is nothing to argue. Chipped 2.0t beats 3.2. It's been proven. It is a fact so there is nothing to argue about.


OK I went there.

All I ever hear is a modified 2.0T can beat a stock 3.2.

So what you are saying is that a stock 2.0T won't beat a stock 3.2 it needs to be chipped with a downpipe. You're comparing apples to oranges so lets continue - would a chipped 2.0t with a downpipe beat a chipped 3.2 with cold air and exhaust - hmm hard to say? Roughly the same cost for upgrades give or take a few hundred dollars? We're talking maybe another (30HP at the crank) 15HP to wheels on the 3.2 so my guess is they are pretty close even with the additional 500lbs of the 3.2. Keep in mind that the 3.2 is also going to have a lot more top end than the 2.0T so at some point it will deffinitely pull ahead. Throw in a set of Cams like JRUTTER'S car (still less than half the cost of a K04 upgrade) and there is no comparison.

There are some modified 500HP 2.0Ts out there but there are also a few modified 800+HP VR6s out there too - i Know of one pushing 900hp that a guy modified to do low 9 second quarter miles at a drag strip.

The simple truth is that they are different engines with different characteristics - I prefer the characteristics of a V6 over an i4 and am willing to pay the gas tax for those characteristics. IMO it's more fun to drive, accelerates a lot smoother and feels more planted. Want to bring a knife to a fist fight, the next guy will bring a gun and eventually the 2.0t is going to run out of steam and the 3.2 is going to win.

If it makes you feel better to believe that spending a little $$ gives you an edge feel free - two can play at that game.


2004 VW R32 - Rated R





*My personal favorite*



I'm not clueless to the fact that what you are saying is that Audi could have shipped the car that way just don't ignore the fact that Audi could just as easily have shipped the 3.2 with 30 or 40 more horsepower as well. I hope we can finally lay this agrument to rest as its pointless. They're both good engines.

Just so there is no hard feelings by 2015 VAG is supposed to be releasing a turbo charged inline four that will will have 240hp at the crank and get 40mpg on regular gasoline.


----------



## krazyboi (May 19, 2004)

tcardio said:


> Krazyboi 3.2 beats all chipped 2.0t. it's a fact so there is something to argue about


:thumbup:



ceese said:


> There are some modified 500HP 2.0Ts out there but there are also a few modified* 800+HP VR6s out there too - i Know of one pushing 900hp that a guy modified to do low 9 second quarter miles at a drag strip.*


I need to step up my game. Anyone know of good places where I can sell my kidney?


----------



## TBomb (Sep 23, 2009)

ceese said:


> All I ever hear is a modified 2.0T can beat a stock 3.2.
> 
> So what you are saying is that a stock 2.0T won't beat a stock 3.2 it needs to be chipped with a downpipe. You're comparing apples to oranges so lets continue - would a chipped 2.0t with a downpipe beat a chipped 3.2 with cold air and exhaust - hmm hard to say? Roughly the same cost for upgrades give or take a few hundred dollars? We're talking maybe another (30HP at the crank) 15HP to wheels on the 3.2 so my guess is they are pretty close even with the additional 500lbs of the 3.2. Keep in mind that the 3.2 is also going to have a lot more top end than the 2.0T so at some point it will deffinitely pull ahead. Throw in a set of Cams like JRUTTER'S car (still less than half the cost of a K04 upgrade) and there is no comparison.
> 
> ...


The bottom line is the 2.0T and the 3.2 VR6 are both good engines. Both have benefits and drawbacks, and both appeal to different people for different reasons. A lot of the allure of the 2.0T is the ability to unlock a significant boost in power for a small amount of money and effort, while still retaining respectable fuel mileage. A lot of the allure of the 3.2 is the no-nonsense NA engine without any need to modify it to have respectable power, plus it is certainly more reliable than the FSI engine...and that exhaust note...ohhh that exhaust note 

Anyway, trying to keep an even keel here but haters gonna hate...


----------



## ceese (Jul 2, 2011)

TBomb said:


> The bottom line is the 2.0T and the 3.2 VR6 are both good engines. Both have benefits and drawbacks, and both appeal to different people for different reasons. A lot of the allure of the 2.0T is the ability to unlock a significant boost in power for a small amount of money and effort, while still retaining respectable fuel mileage. A lot of the allure of the 3.2 is the no-nonsense NA engine without any need to modify it to have respectable power, plus it is certainly more reliable than the FSI engine...and that exhaust note...ohhh that exhaust note
> 
> Anyway, trying to keep an even keel here but haters gonna hate...


:thumbup::thumbup: Very well said :thumbup::thumbup:


----------



## MisterJJ (Jul 28, 2005)

ceese said:


> All I ever hear is a modified 2.0T can beat a stock 3.2.


If by "modified" you mean simply having the ECU reprogrammed, yes, that is true.



ceese said:


> So what you are saying is that a stock 2.0T won't beat a stock 3.2 it needs to be chipped with a downpipe.


No. I did not say that at all. No downpipe needed. Just reprogram ECU.



ceese said:


> You're comparing apples to oranges so lets continue - would a chipped 2.0t with a downpipe beat a chipped 3.2 with cold air and exhaust - hmm hard to say?


Apples to oranges? I was simply comparing a chipped 2.0t to a 3.2. The chipped 2.0t would cost less than the stock 3.2.



ceese said:


> Roughly the same cost for upgrades give or take a few hundred dollars?


Not even close. I think you had a few too many apples and oranges left over. The chipped 2.0t costs less to begin with. Adding chip, cold air, and exhaust to a 3.2 would cost much more than a few hundred dollars more and then you will have a close to comparable car that still weighs more and gets worse gas mileage. (I think insurance costs more too)

3.2ers need to give up the power/cost argument on this and stick to your impossible to quantify "smooth" and "linear" power schtick.

P.S. In case your wondering... yes, I do most of this just to stir the pot.  Peace bro.


----------



## ceese (Jul 2, 2011)

MisterJJ said:


> P.S. In case your wondering... yes, I do most of this just to stir the pot.  Peace bro.


 Well aware and when in the mood happy to feed it.

Cold air, exhaust and chip are going to run me around $1200 all told but I did get a deal on my cold air and exhaust. Truth is a lot of the people on this forum spend insane amounts of money on the littlest thing - myself included. I was never into the power cost argument - truth be told they are about the same $$ when you take into account what a quattro 2.0T costs. I still end up paying the gas tax on top of that but as I and many others have said we're happy to do it because we like aspects of the V6 better. If I had a longer commute I'd have probably gone with a 2.0T or bought a second car prob. TDI as a daily.


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

Maitre Absolut said:


> if i say NA responsiveness vs turbo lag does it make it better
> 
> DSG is best experienced with a naturally aspirated engine


I have to disagree. Even though DSG is good for both type of engines. It helps the turbo engines much more. When turbos are mated to stick shifts, the lag between the shifts causes the boost to fall, and they bog down once in gear and barely move until they build up boost again. The DSG with its hast alot less lag and will allow its boost to continue into the next gear. Of course, this only occurs on full throttle shift and the DSG shifting at its fastest, otherwise, there will still be slow shift and lost of boost.


----------



## JRutter (Nov 25, 2009)

And don't forget that the only way to get awd for 4 years was to go with the 3.2. I don't know if I could go back to fwd again.


----------



## r32nj (Aug 26, 2007)

The 4WD was the main reason I decided to get the A3 2.0T Quattro as opposed to the A3 TDI. I was all set on the TDI (due to the mileage and my new 60 mile commute every day) but when I drove the Quattro I decided the TDI was too much of a comprimise versus my outgoing R32.

Honestly I never was really sure how often I was "using" the 4WD when driving the R32 but I noticed a difference even on dry pavement when test driving the A3 TDI versus the Quattro. I don't know how much of this was the engines versus the FWD/4WD differences though.

Does noticeable power get directed to the rear wheels during rapid acceleration on dry pavement with the Haldex 4WD system?


----------



## MisterJJ (Jul 28, 2005)

r32nj said:


> Does noticeable power get directed to the rear wheels during rapid acceleration on dry pavement with the Haldex 4WD system?


Depends entirely on tires. Crap tires will slip easily and force power to the rear. Really good tires... no so much.


----------



## JRutter (Nov 25, 2009)

r32nj said:


> Does noticeable power get directed to the rear wheels during rapid acceleration on dry pavement with the Haldex 4WD system?


Yes. Especially in corners. Sticky tires help a bunch, but aggressive cornering is a different experience in FWD, AWD, RWD cars.


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

JRutter said:


> Yes. Especially in corners. Sticky tires help a bunch, but aggressive cornering is a different experience in FWD, AWD, RWD cars.


There is no saving a FWD car in cornering, except if you got one of these











Even then, your inside wheel will just keep on spinning and you will not accelerate to anywhere.


----------



## MisterJJ (Jul 28, 2005)

LWNY said:


>


Famiry purchase?


----------



## davis_449 (Apr 6, 2011)

> OK I went there.
> 
> All I ever hear is a modified 2.0T can beat a stock 3.2.
> 
> So what you are saying is that a stock 2.0T won't beat a stock 3.2 it needs to be chipped with a downpipe. You're comparing apples to oranges so lets continue - *would a chipped 2.0t with a downpipe beat a chipped 3.2 with cold air and exhaust - hmm hard to say?* Roughly the same cost for upgrades give or take a few hundred dollars? We're talking maybe another (30HP at the crank) 15HP to wheels on the 3.2 so my guess is they are pretty close even with the additional 500lbs of the 3.2. Keep in mind that the 3.2 is also going to have a lot more top end than the 2.0T so at some point it will deffinitely pull ahead. Throw in a set of Cams like JRUTTER'S car (still less than half the cost of a K04 upgrade) and there is no comparison.


No, actually, it's _not_ hard for _me _to say. Since you posted a pic a MKIV R32, I can personally refute that. I went on a run with a MKIV R32 (pristine condition, low mileage) and a brand new (at the time) 2007 GTI. Both manual. The FWD GTI was beating the **** of of the MKIV R32 the entire time. The only time he could catch up was in the long curves. Both were close friends, excellent drivers, and it was funny watching my buddy with the MKIV get SO mad that his car was getting it's ass handed to it, even in the high speeds above 100 MPH, by a stock MKV GTI. The 3.2 doesn't have nearly the top end you claim it does. I loved sucking up both my friend in his MKV R32 and my other friend in his 3.2 DSG A3 when I was Stage II. I especially loved beating my buddy with the rare Schrick cam equipped, software tuned MKIV R32 (there goes your cams argument). FYI, his car had


----------



## tp.wannabe.s3 (May 21, 2010)

price on 3.2?
price on 2.0t?

3k price difference?

put 3k into apr k04 kit. get 300+HP

faster than 3.2 for same price


----------



## Maitre Absolut (Aug 5, 2009)

^^your argument is invalid

a 335i can be made faster than an M3 for less money...so what

honestly i never considered buying a 2.0T A3, its just wasn't a fun car for me. Felt too much like an engine made for economy and not performance. Sure the 3.2L is not much faster but it feels much different, hard to explain.

the wifey's Q5 will be 3.2L or 3.0T, won't consider 2.0T there either. just a matter of preference


----------



## tp.wannabe.s3 (May 21, 2010)

A3 2.0 and 3.2 are both standard models. Both provide same interior and exterior options.
sport
sline
blackline


m3 has all m features the 335 does not.
m interior
m suspension
m body kit

so it should be 328 compare to 335 not 335 to M3


----------



## Tcardio (Mar 19, 2009)

ya know, I used to be into horsepower. The problem is that California is so cash strapped that I see the CHP twice daily on my commute and no lie, that;s everyday. They have all white cars now too with stealth lights. They just sit there not wasting any gas and laser everybody. I have officially retired to the onramp club. That's the only place to open it up. I occasionally go to the track but who has time when you have to pay the rent in the Bay Area. I guess in my area, putting horsepower into a car is now just a dick swinging contest as I can't really use it anymore. just my 0.02 and ending it with COOL STORY BRO!


----------



## Uber-A3 (Feb 23, 2002)

tcardio said:


> ya know, I used to be into horsepower. The problem is that California is so cash strapped that I see the CHP twice daily on my commute and no lie, that;s everyday. They have all white cars now too with stealth lights. They just sit there not wasting any gas and laser everybody. I have officially retired to the onramp club. That's the only place to open it up. I occasionally go to the track but who has time when you have to pay the rent in the Bay Area. I guess in my area, putting horsepower into a car is now just a dick swinging contest as I can really use it anymore. just my 0.02 and ending it with COOL STORY BRO!


Ha, that's why I moved out.


----------



## ceese (Jul 2, 2011)

davis_449 said:


> No, actually, it's _not_ hard for _me _to say. Since you posted a pic a MKIV R32, I can personally refute that. I went on a run with a MKIV R32 (pristine condition, low mileage) and a brand new (at the time) 2007 GTI. Both manual. The FWD GTI was beating the **** of of the MKIV R32 the entire time. The only time he could catch up was in the long curves. Both were close friends, excellent drivers, and it was funny watching my buddy with the MKIV get SO mad that his car was getting it's ass handed to it, even in the high speeds above 100 MPH, by a stock MKV GTI. The 3.2 doesn't have nearly the top end you claim it does. I loved sucking up both my friend in his MKV R32 and my other friend in his 3.2 DSG A3 when I was Stage II. I especially loved beating my buddy with the rare Schrick cam equipped, software tuned MKIV R32 (there goes your cams argument). FYI, his car had


----------



## tp.wannabe.s3 (May 21, 2010)

i just built a 2.0t

Price as Built*
$ 40,120


cost more than ur 3.2


----------



## tp.wannabe.s3 (May 21, 2010)

the a4
3.2 vs 2.0 was around 5k cheaper for 2.0t same options

when i was buying in 2006 i was compare prices


----------



## Tcardio (Mar 19, 2009)

ceese said:


> First of all it's not a $14k HPA kit,


I just want to say really look at that 20th Anniversary HPA kit. It's really well done and you are so close, compared to me, to get it done by a real master. I am a fan of Marcel so take it for what it's worth but that kit is really well done and quite a daily driver. That kit with installation is around that price not including tax. I looked at both options. If you want something cheaper, Marcel can still( with a little nudge) make you a 360 kit. Just my 0.02.


----------



## $$Rich$$ (Oct 14, 2005)

I own both,... 06 GTI DSG, and a 06 A3 3.2 DSG

GTI has a fun "queef" sound on 1-2 and 2-3 shifts, less noticable on 3-4 ect..
gti is more slow or laggy off the line. but spools up and pulls hard in 2 sec.

3.2 has equally fast shifts but not the fun queef sound.
3.2 is much more torquey and jerk off the line 
both are fun to drive but they are different.


----------



## Fellow Gaucho (Aug 3, 2011)

r32nj said:


> Does noticeable power get directed to the rear wheels during rapid acceleration on dry pavement with the Haldex 4WD system?


Yes, the decision to put power to the rear is made by a couple factors including traction and throttle input. Not sure if there are other factors. I bet there is though.


----------



## davis_449 (Apr 6, 2011)

> I love the rant - getting a little defensive and ignoring my arguement completely. I'd love to see a 2.0T that could beat the MK4 in that picture. Not going to happen. That car is almost three seconds faster than a RS3 in a quarter mile. In either case I only have your word on the 07 GTI beating a car that had technology that was at least three years older in it. Just so you know though I have no doubt that a 2.0T Golf R will beat a stock MKV R32 as it should since the Golf R replaced the R32 although you can't turn ESP off on the Golf R yet that I know of.
> 
> For the record yes, the 3.2 does have the top end I claimed it does. I already cited three examples of cars with the 3.2 engine that are putting out over 800HP or did you miss that?


So your response is to completely ignore the stock for stock comparison I made and go straight to the 800 HP MKIV you pictured? Awesome. How many of those are running around on the streets? You're right you only have my story, but I had\have plenty more. FYI, the MKV R32 was barely faster than the MKIV, mainly due to DSG (which they did offer on the MKIV in Europe). Watching the camed MKIV and C2 software loaded MKV R32 go head to head was an eye opener. They were pretty much even and my Stage II A3 took them both down from a dig and a roll. To use your own example with the new Golf R, you could tune the engine, DSG, and Haldex as well as throw on an exhaust, intake, and cams and you still wouldn't be able to hang with a Golf R equipped with just ECU tune, exhaust, intake, and a fuel pump. Your last argument is only valid when the car has a **** load of money dumped into it. I just saw a run between an HPA MKIV and a Stage II+ Golf R. The results would make you cry.



> There we go again, when all else fails go for the dollar for dollar arguement. "I know my 2.0T at the end of the day won't really compete with a 3.2 so now I have to find an arguement that makes my car better." I already conceeded the dollar for dollar argument twice or did you miss that. Truth be told though IMO the dollar differences are pretty minor.
> 
> Man debating the merits of the 2.0T vs the 3.2 with some people is like debating the merits of civil unions with a hard core right wing Christian, no way of getting past the emotions and fundamentalist beliefs.
> 
> Tired of stating what I like and don't like about both engines you can reread my previous posts on the matter.


We go to it because it's a _*valid *_argument whether you like it or not. How many people out there do you know that just have $10000 lying around to modify a 3.2L engine? That fact alone makes is a compelling argument and there is a BIG difference in price between modding the two to high HP numbers. I could say the same thing about you 3.2L owners. You just can get past the fact that it's cheaper and easier to mod a 2.0T for reliable HP and so you throw up cars that have way over $10K+ in mods to back up your superiority claims.



> First of all it's not a $14k HPA kit, when I go FI in 18 months it will be a supercharger and it will run me around $7000 for a stage three and put me just shy of 430hp at the crank. No spooling or lag to worry about or any of the other issues associated with Turbos. Plus not only will it deliver power but it will accellerate smoothly and sound freaking awesome. I haven't priced what it would cost to get the same type of HP out of a 2.0T but I'm going to assume it's pretty close if not more since there will be a lot of modifications you will need to make inside the engine to get that kind of power out of an I4.
> 
> At the entry level the 2.0T is dollar for dollar a little cheaper but you start to hit a point of diminishing returns. That's not saying the 2.0T is not a great engine it is. It has some advantages over the 3.2 as the 3.2 has some advantages over the 2.0T. My point is that you make it sound like it's a better all around engine than the 3.2 and it's not. For roughly the same amount of money you get roughly the same performance out of both engines. Do you need to spend more to radically boost the performance of the 3.2 than you do with the 2.0T, yes. However, once you do the 2.0T has a hard time keeping up and at some point will hit a wall that the 3.2 can go well beyond.


Let's go back to your Golf R point from the first paragraph. Considering the FSI in that car has strengthened internals over the FSI that's in the '06-'08 A3\GTI you could throw an APR Stage III kit on it for the same $7000 (no engine building required) and get 400 HP out of it. You obviously have NO experience in these direct injected cars, so I'll just tell you: LAG IS NOT AN ISSUE. My point made above is that dollar for dollar you *don't* get "roughly" the same performance out of both engines until you hit Stage III on a 2.0T. After that, you're right. You can spend more insane money and get 800 HP out of a 3.2L. That just makes you a financial idiot.


----------



## krazyboi (May 19, 2004)

davis_449 said:


> That just makes you a financial idiot.


I agree, I am a financial idiot...but it sure is fun driving my car


----------



## Fellow Gaucho (Aug 3, 2011)

krazyboi said:


> I agree, I am a financial idiot...but it sure is fun driving my car


You have some good sense of humor :laugh:

I wish I had a 3.2 that sounded godly, and then a supercharger or turbo whining in the front (serious)


----------



## tp.wannabe.s3 (May 21, 2010)

i shold have bought the 3.2 when i had chance. haha

i want quattroo in 2006


----------



## davis_449 (Apr 6, 2011)

krazyboi said:


> I agree, I am a financial idiot...but it sure is fun driving my car


Let's face it, 99% of 3.2L owners that participate in threads like this will NEVER take the car to the level you have. I applaud you.


----------



## krazyboi (May 19, 2004)

davis_449 said:


> Let's face it, 99% of 3.2L owners that participate in threads like this will NEVER take the car to the level you have. I applaud you.


Thanks :beer: 

Now...to get a custom intake mani done or not... :what:


----------



## TBomb (Sep 23, 2009)

krazyboi said:


> Thanks :beer:
> 
> Now...to get a custom intake mani done or not... :what:


99.99%


----------



## ceese (Jul 2, 2011)

davis_449 said:


> So your response is to completely ignore the stock for stock comparison I made and go straight to the 800 HP MKIV you pictured? Awesome. How many of those are running around on the streets? You're right you only have my story, but I had\have plenty more. FYI, the MKV R32 was barely faster than the MKIV, mainly due to DSG (which they did offer on the MKIV in Europe). Watching the camed MKIV and C2 software loaded MKV R32 go head to head was an eye opener. They were pretty much even and my Stage II A3 took them both down from a dig and a roll. To use your own example with the new Golf R, you could tune the engine, DSG, and Haldex as well as throw on an exhaust, intake, and cams and you still wouldn't be able to hang with a Golf R equipped with just ECU tune, exhaust, intake, and a fuel pump. Your last argument is only valid when the car has a **** load of money dumped into it. I just saw a run between an HPA MKIV and a Stage II+ Golf R. The results would make you cry.
> 
> 
> We go to it because it's a _*valid *_argument whether you like it or not. How many people out there do you know that just have $10000 lying around to modify a 3.2L engine? That fact alone makes is a compelling argument and there is a BIG difference in price between modding the two to high HP numbers. I could say the same thing about you 3.2L owners. You just can get past the fact that it's cheaper and easier to mod a 2.0T for reliable HP and so you throw up cars that have way over $10K+ in mods to back up your superiority claims.
> ...


Only glanced at this. It was fun but it's friday - Dude you got to learn when to let it go.


----------



## kharma (Jan 2, 2004)

The same debate rages on 'til the end of time... give me a 2.5T over either one


----------



## Uber-A3 (Feb 23, 2002)

kharma said:


> The same debate rages on 'til the end of time... give me a 2.5T over either one


yep, poop on both the VR and the 2.0t


----------



## ceese (Jul 2, 2011)

Maybe I should replace my back seats with a 4.2 V8 or better yet a V12 and have a mid engine A3 with a front bonnet for storage.


----------



## TBomb (Sep 23, 2009)

ceese said:


> Maybe I should replace my back seats with a 4.2 V8 or better yet a V12 and have a mid engine A3 with a front bonnet for storage.


You won't do it :laugh:


----------



## gixerson (Aug 8, 2012)

Problem with discussions like this is, we are human so all different.

What i will say though is peak bhp is useful only for pub braggers and willy wavers, in real world road use AND racing "area under torque" is a far more accurate representation of available power from a motor.

With regards to "my car is faster than yours" again it's absolutely pointless unless your competing in a race series.
The is a guy that comes into the garage that has a Smart for2, he's tuned it to hell and barely a week goes by that it's not delivered to the garage on the back of a truck.

But he'll come into the garage with a huggeeeeeeeee grin on face and stories of beating M3's, 911's tuned Civic's etc etc.
He's not lying, it's just that he picks his race spots very very carefully so there is only 100m till the next traffic light.

Does that mean his 700cc 3 cylinder Smart is faster than a V8 M3?
Well as he beat it in a race you'd have to say yes SOME TIMES.


Another guy has a clapped out Golf, again he comes into the garage grinning from ear to ear with stories of beating exotic cars.
Again he is not lying, he just drives like an absolute arsehole on public roads, to the point where these exotic cars put their and public safety before winning some stupid race with a nutter.


Even on the track driver skill makes more of a difference in lap times than any added BHP can, even if you put the same driver in 2 cars that are exactly the same except the tyres, the tyres will make a monumentally huge difference in lap times.

So comparing 2 entirely different cars, driven by entirely different drivers, with entirely different tyres on public roads is absolutely pointless.


For me personally i test drove several S3's and 3.2's and ended up going for the 3.2 because i preferred it's throttle response.
It's not that the S3 is particularly laggy as FI'd cars go, it's just i enjoy that my previous car was supercharged, my Mrs's car was turbo'd so been there done that and i wanted that instant throttle response and linear power delivery.


Saying that though if you jump from say a Renault 225, Clio 200, BMW M3 etc etc then as far as driver environment and road surface/grip feedback through the driver contact points both the S3 and the 3.2 are shockingly bad in comparison.

Some prefer the more isolated driving response that Audi seem to provide lately, again there is no right or wrong just different, but when i read about racing on the street i can't help but think you've bought the wrong car either way.


----------



## MisterJJ (Jul 28, 2005)

gixerson said:


> ...linear power delivery.


In summary:

There are faster cars out there.
My car is not faster/cheaper/more efficient than yours.
But I got "linear", baby!


----------



## ceese (Jul 2, 2011)

MisterJJ said:


> In summary:
> 
> There are faster cars out there.
> My car is not faster/cheaper/more efficient than yours.
> But I got "linear", baby!


More 3.2 envy. You should see someone about that.


----------



## TBomb (Sep 23, 2009)

ceese said:


> More 3.2 envy. You should see someone about that.


Give me a fuggin break :facepalm:


----------



## ceese (Jul 2, 2011)

TBomb said:


> Give me a fuggin break :facepalm:


That's exactly how I feel.


----------



## gixerson (Aug 8, 2012)

MisterJJ said:


> In summary:
> 
> There are faster cars out there. - *There are ALWAYS faster cars out there*
> 
> ...



As i say we choose our cars to meet our criteria, i tried several S3's and personally i preferred the 3.2L.
If i had preferred the S3 then that's what would be in my garage right now.

There are several reasons i preferred the 3.2L over the S3 the throttle response and linear power delivery are just 2.

It's funny how no matter what car you buy there are always the insecure folks that feel they have to willy wave to feel better about themselves and their decisions.

On the MX5 forums it's the MK1 v the MK2
On the 911 forums it's the aircooled v water cooled
Even on the boating forums i go on it's wind powered v motored

The vast vast majority of folks are able to live happily with their choices and enjoy them, but a small percentage always seem to feel the need to belittle other peoples choices in some attempt to make them feel better about their choices.
I guess that insecurity is something that comes out no matter what the media.

I will say this though, if i wanted a S3 then i would buy a S3.
It's not as though A3's (in any form) are particularly rare or difficult to buy, even in Greece a pretty small country there are currently 150 S3's for sale on just one web site.
The cheapest 2004 S3 (same year as my 3.2) is €7000 which is a fair bit less than i paid for my 3.2L.
So it's not as though those of us that chose a 3.2L did so because a S3 is rare of out of our financial reach.

Be happy with your purchase and enjoy it, if you bought a 3.2 a S3 a RS3 or a bog basic model then as long as your happy with it nothing else matters.
Don't let that insecure little voice in your head tell you otherwise :screwy:


----------



## krazyboi (May 19, 2004)

gixerson said:


> Be happy with your purchase and enjoy it, if you bought a 3.2 a S3 a RS3 or a bog basic model then as long as your happy with it nothing else matters.


:beer:

I wasn't happy w/ my 3.2 so I had to throw a turbo in. (kidding, I was happy about the basic 3.2..just had an opportunity to do something different).

I love how everything ends up being a 2.0T vs 3.2 pissing match out of no where.


----------



## ceese (Jul 2, 2011)

krazyboi said:


> I love how everything ends up being a 2.0T vs 3.2 pissing match out of no where.


That's my new signature quote.


----------



## TBomb (Sep 23, 2009)

ceese said:


> That's my new signature quote.


You do realize you're just as guilty at instigating the pissing matches, right? :thumbup:


----------



## ceese (Jul 2, 2011)

TBomb said:


> You do realize you're just as guilty at instigating the pissing matches, right? :thumbup:


I just feed it - never start it. :laugh:

I could care less either way. I'm happy with my car.

I do feel bad that we hijacked this poor guys thread.


----------



## r32nj (Aug 26, 2007)

Maybe I should just rename the title of the thread now... 

It has been somewhat interesting to read though.

BTW - my shifting does seem to be a bit snappier when I get on the throttle more. Been mostly my boring highway commute since I got the car so not much chance to drive it like I was used to driving the R32 (yet).


----------



## theblue (Aug 16, 2001)

the 3.2 so awesome that they got rid of it.


----------



## gixerson (Aug 8, 2012)

krazyboi said:


> :beer:
> 
> I wasn't happy w/ my 3.2 so I had to throw a turbo in. (kidding, I was happy about the basic 3.2..just had an opportunity to do something different).
> 
> I love how everything ends up being a 2.0T vs 3.2 pissing match out of no where.


I can understand that, both the S3 and 3.2 are nippy to drive and have loads of grip, but bugger me they're boring to drive.
Looked at your thread and was really tempted, problem for me is that the figures just don't add up.
€10k for a turbo kit
€5k to sort out the haldex, DSG, suspension etc
€8.5k what i bought the car for

So i'd be hitting on the door of €25k with everything added together, that's 911, E46 M3 and nearly M3 E90/E92 territory.
911 apart my own personal view is that both the M3's would be a more entertaining drive than even a well sorted S3 or 3.2.


----------



## krazyboi (May 19, 2004)

ceese said:


> That's my new signature quote.


HA! 


theblue said:


> the 3.2 so awesome that they got rid of it.


You're right! They wanted to limit the awesomeness 



gixerson said:


> I can understand that, both the S3 and 3.2 are nippy to drive and have loads of grip, but bugger me they're boring to drive.
> Looked at your thread and was really tempted, problem for me is that the figures just don't add up.
> €10k for a turbo kit
> €5k to sort out the haldex, DSG, suspension etc
> ...


Yes, I did spend lots of money on my car. However, at the time of purchase, I didn't even think about getting into M3/911 territory. I got my car b/c it was a VR, quattro for snow here, and the trunk/hatch space. I came from a MKIV Jetta VR6 w/ no mods, but always knew I needed trunk/cargo space. The 3.2 was just what I needed.

I got pretty much everything on my car while on sale, at cost, or somehow discounted. :thumbup:


----------



## theblue (Aug 16, 2001)

I never understood what the big deal was with the VR6 motors... BMW's straight 6 motors had more power and sound better year for year. Oh yeah, and you get RWD.


----------



## gixerson (Aug 8, 2012)

krazyboi said:


> HA!
> 
> 
> You're right! They wanted to limit the awesomeness
> ...


Wasn't meant as a criticism, your car it's fantastic and a credit to you :thumbup:

Just for me i've been pouring money into my MX5 for the last 10 years or so with mods, supercharger etc yet now it's not really worth anything so it's stung me to the point where i'm going to be a bit more cautious in the future.

As i say no wrong or right just different taste and requirements.
Bloody good job as well as it'd be a boring planet to live on otherwise.


----------



## ceese (Jul 2, 2011)

theblue said:


> I never understood what the big deal was with the VR6 motors... BMW's straight 6 motors had more power and sound better year for year. Oh yeah, and you get RWD.


I'll never bash an inline 5 or inline 6 great motors all the way around. I'll also never bash a beemer for driving experience just some of the clowns (generalization not bashing all M3 owners) that run out and buy M3s that then believe they are Le Mans drivers because they have a 430HP car when they can't corner to save their lives. If I were to buy a second car right now it would be hands down an 1M Coupe if I could find one.

With that said, after being in JRUTTERS car this weekend you'd be hard pressed to convince me that a BMW inline 5 or 6 sounds better or can sound better than a properly tuned VR6 with magnaflow exhaust. This is not an agrument anyone can win without a panel of judges as it is strictly subjective but the exhaust note of V engines and I'll include motorcycles in this as well have a tone and quality that inline engines lack. As far as power that's so broad a generalization that I can't begin to refute it without creating a debate that is unwinnable on either side.

"Oh yeah, and you get RWD." Again, I love RWD cars but if I had to choose Quattro or RWD - Oh yeah, I chose a Quattro A3 over a RWD BMW. I guess that speaks for itself.

From your car list you have some fun BMWs in your stable.


----------



## theblue (Aug 16, 2001)

I can understand wanting true quattro with torque vectoring over RWD, but if you pick haldex lameness over RWD you need professional help.


----------



## JRutter (Nov 25, 2009)

theblue said:


> I can understand wanting true quattro with torque vectoring over RWD, but if you pick haldex lameness over RWD you need professional help.


ok :facepalm:


----------



## Fellow Gaucho (Aug 3, 2011)

theblue said:


> I can understand wanting true quattro with torque vectoring over RWD, but if you pick haldex lameness over RWD you need professional help.


Oh no, here comes the other big argument :facepalm:


----------



## theblue (Aug 16, 2001)

JRutter said:


> ok :facepalm:


A rear wheel drive car with mechanical limited slip will react to what is happening left to right in realtime.

A haldex car doesn't even have a mechanic ability to do this, it can only react to what happened in the past by comparing wheel speed sensors and then sending power to the back or by clamping a brake caliper to stop a wheel from spinning. On top of this the whole system adds a bunch of weight.

That's fine for a poor driver in a straight line, but I'm not seeing an advantage in any way whatsoever.


----------



## Fellow Gaucho (Aug 3, 2011)

theblue said:


> A rear wheel drive car with mechanical limited slip will react to what is happening left to right in realtime.
> 
> A haldex car doesn't even have a mechanic ability to do this, it can only react to what happened in the past by comparing wheel speed sensors and then sending power to the back or by clamping a brake caliper to stop a wheel from spinning. On top of this the whole system adds a bunch of weight.
> 
> That's fine for a poor driver in a straight line, but I'm not seeing an advantage in any way whatsoever.


You clearly don't understand the Gen 4 Haldex system then.


----------



## theblue (Aug 16, 2001)

Fellow Gaucho said:


> You clearly don't understand the Gen 4 Haldex system then.


do tell... what gypsy magic does it have?

EDIT: I take back what I said a little bit. but it's still inferior and has no left to right control that I see beyond caliper grabbing. I have driven older and newer haldex, but still find at track day events and other aggressive driving that there is no substitute for a mechanical rear LSD.



> The LSD used by Haldex 4.0 is also not the mechanical limited-slip differential of old. They swapped the old system LSD for an electronic unit. The eLSD works in much the same way as the LSC, a feeder pump and pressure relief valve are used to control hydraulic pressure on the differential clutch pack. This allows for complete control of the rear differential lock-up without the need to wait for wheel slippage to occur. The system has its own control unit contained in the LSC. This control unit communicates between the vehicle systems to get sensor input for data such as wheel speed, rpms, throttle position, steering wheel input, etc. It also works with anti-lock brake and traction control systems.
> The XWD system can transmit 100 percent of available torque to either the front or rear wheels. However, for those conditions to occur one end of the vehicle would have to lose all traction, like driving on ice for instance. During a standing start the rear wheels are put to use, without the need for any slip to occur. Then under straight-line cruising conditions, to conserve fuel and driveline wear, the torque split to the rear wheels is reduced to a level between 5 and 10 percent. Also up to 85 percent of torque can be transferred by the eLSD between to any single rear wheel if necessary. The system can adjust torque splits based on calculated conditions, such as those that indicate an aggressive lane change manoeuvre, to effectively reduce oversteer or understeer without any wheel slip occurring. In the event that some wheel slip does actually get to occur, the system can react more timely and efficiently than in the past.[6]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haldex_Traction#Fourth_generation_-_2007


----------



## ceese (Jul 2, 2011)

theblue said:


> I can understand wanting true quattro with torque vectoring over RWD, but if you pick haldex lameness over RWD you need professional help.


LOL. I love these no one's going to win, I have to be right and my car has to be better than yours arguments. You do realize that I conceeded your point of RWD cars being fun to drive and even complimented you on your stable of BMWs. I went so far as to acknowledge that if I were to buy a second car today I'd buy a RWD M1 coupe. I grew up on Mustangs and American muscle cars, I love how RWD cars handle. So why are you arguing with me?

Last winter Seattle got caked with 8" of snow overnight. I walked outside and started my car and offered my scraper to my neighbor who was scraping the windshield of her 128i with a tiny scraper and then went back in for 10 minutes while my defrosters did their job. Came back out knocked what snow was left on my windows, looked over at my neighbor who was still scraping the ice off her window and asked her if she thought it was a good idea to take a RWD car out in all that snow. I then headed off to the store passing two stopped busses and an M3 that was driving backwards down the street. When I got home she had gone back inside and left her car where I had last seen it. So now I ask is my AWD really all that lame.


----------



## MisterJJ (Jul 28, 2005)

Fellow Gaucho said:


> Oh no, here comes the other big argument :facepalm:


Now all we need is some of those clowns that claim the DSG is an automatic transmission.


----------



## Fellow Gaucho (Aug 3, 2011)

There's certain cases where one is preferable over the other. Let's just say that 

But don't say the haldex system is a piece of junk, cuz it definitely is not:thumbup:


----------



## theblue (Aug 16, 2001)

I have found a little bit more respect after reading about the clutch packs in the gen IV system. Still, it's the rear left to right where the ability to slip matters most and it doesn't address this.

Also, i drove my lowered 328 convertible through a harsh winter on all seasons before I got my A3 and yeah there was lots of sliding, but I never got stuck because the limited slip kept the power to the ground. 

I also want to give massive credit to the traction system in the A3. My problem has never been getting moving, but I've gotten into ugly situations where the blinky light really help keep the car going the direction I needed. Would I pay more for a haldex car? No. Would I take it for free? Absolutely.

I love threads like this because we get to talk technology and preferences. I don't take anything as a personal attack and hope you guys don't take what I as such either.


----------



## krazyboi (May 19, 2004)

gixerson said:


> Wasn't meant as a criticism, your car it's fantastic and a credit to you :thumbup:
> 
> Just for me i've been pouring money into my MX5 for the last 10 years or so with mods, supercharger etc yet now it's not really worth anything so it's stung me to the point where i'm going to be a bit more cautious in the future.
> 
> ...


This is my first modified car...and I guess I just went all out  

After everything that has gone wrong w/ this car, the time it took till it was back in my hands, and the stupid money I spent, I could definitely say I won't do something crazy like this again.


----------



## ceese (Jul 2, 2011)

r32nj said:


> Maybe I should just rename the title of the thread now...
> 
> It has been somewhat interesting to read though.
> 
> BTW - my shifting does seem to be a bit snappier when I get on the throttle more. Been mostly my boring highway commute since I got the car so not much chance to drive it like I was used to driving the R32 (yet).


I vote for renaming it. Any suggestions on the thread title. Maybe we can get it made a sticky.


----------



## gixerson (Aug 8, 2012)

theblue said:


> do tell... what gypsy magic does it have?
> 
> EDIT: I take back what I said a little bit. but it's still inferior and has no left to right control that I see beyond caliper grabbing. I have driven older and newer haldex, but still find at track day events and other aggressive driving that there is no substitute for a mechanical rear LSD.
> 
> ...


Problem i see here is, someone with some knowledge is stressing an opinion without actually knowing all the facts.

So which type of mechanical LSD is there no substitute for?
On which cars?
On which tracks?
In what conditions?

I could put you in my mates MK2 Escort on a wet track and there would be very few people that would be able to do a lap and still keep it on the asphalt when it has an extremely aggressive LSD setup.
We've found that on some tracks in some conditions fitting an open diff give us a lap time reduction.

EVERYTHING in engineering, car tuning specifically is a compromise.
You can make a judgement call depending on the track, conditions, tyres etc to try and have that compromise more in your favour but it's still a compromise.




theblue said:


> I have found a little bit more respect after reading about the clutch packs in the gen IV system. Still, it's the rear left to right where the ability to slip matters most and it doesn't address this.
> 
> Also, i drove my lowered 328 convertible through a harsh winter on all seasons before I got my A3 and yeah there was lots of sliding, but I never got stuck because the limited slip kept the power to the ground.
> 
> ...


Again what kind of LSD are you talking about.
A TorSen type LSD will be of absolutely no use if one of your wheels is slipping on ice.


----------



## v6quattro (Sep 19, 2012)

Don't get what all the confusion is the V6 quattro is so much better than the 2.0T. The 2.0T is just a giant go cart engine.


----------



## MisterJJ (Jul 28, 2005)

v6quattro said:


> Don't get what all the confusion is the V6 quattro is so much better than the 2.0T. The 2.0T is just a giant go cart engine.


My chipped go cart can whoop your V6. 

But let's get serious here... Android is so much better than iPhone.


----------



## Fellow Gaucho (Aug 3, 2011)

Also, electric cars are environmentally friendly.


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

theblue said:


> I have found a little bit more respect after reading about the clutch packs in the gen IV system. Still, it's the rear left to right where the ability to slip matters most and it doesn't address this.


Why are you raising the issue of left/right wheel torque distribution? That is a separate subject that some cars will have and others will not, independent of whether it is FWD, RWD or AWD. And you are stuck in old school talk. Now it is all about torque vectoring differential. VW already has a LSD that's brake based, not unlike the one Porsche charges you money for.


----------



## MisterJJ (Jul 28, 2005)

Fellow Gaucho said:


> Also, electric cars are environmentally friendly.


Only the ones that don't use batteries.


----------



## MisterJJ (Jul 28, 2005)

r32nj said:


> Maybe I should just rename the title of the thread now...


9mu8 1107T


----------



## v6quattro (Sep 19, 2012)

MisterJJ said:


> My chipped go cart can whoop your V6.
> 
> But let's get serious here... Android is so much better than iPhone.


Seriously doubt it. I'm running an ABT supercharger. Add a blade and you could use your 2.0T to mow lawns.


----------



## JRutter (Nov 25, 2009)

MisterJJ said:


> 9mu8 1107T


:laugh::laugh:



v6quattro said:


> Seriously doubt it. I'm running an ABT supercharger. Add a blade and you could use your 2.0T to mow lawns.


On a MK5 VR6? How awesome is it? I'm seriously tempted by the RUF setup if the cash flow will support it.


----------



## Fellow Gaucho (Aug 3, 2011)

v6quattro said:


> Seriously doubt it. I'm running an ABT supercharger. Add a blade and you could use your 2.0T to mow lawns.


 As tp would say, No pics, not real.


----------



## azoceanblue (Aug 13, 2006)

MisterJJ said:


> Now all we need is some of those clowns that claim the DSG is an automatic transmission.


 "Clown here, I claim the DSG is just an automatic transmission." :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: 

Seriously though, 3.2 vs. 2.0T, came down mpg for me. The only other factor in the debate, is the lack of mods for the 3.2. If the mods were there, well they are, but only for serious $$$, this discussion would be over.


----------



## davis_449 (Apr 6, 2011)

v6quattro said:


> Seriously doubt it. I'm running an ABT supercharger. Add a blade and you could use your 2.0T to mow lawns.


 I'd still take a run at you in my go-cart engine powered A3.


----------



## Uber-A3 (Feb 23, 2002)

davis_449 said:


> I'd still take a run at you in my go-cart engine powered A3.


 same here, with lawn blade attached.


----------



## Uber-A3 (Feb 23, 2002)

v6quattro said:


> Seriously doubt it. I'm running an ABT supercharger. Add a blade and you could use your 2.0T to mow lawns.


 says the new guy with 2 posts. Probably a TP alias.


----------



## v6quattro (Sep 19, 2012)

Uber-A3 said:


> says the new guy with 2 posts. Probably a TP alias.


 Hey mate, give me a break. I've been lurking for a while.


----------



## DG7Projects (Jul 12, 2011)

v6quattro said:


> Hey mate, give me a break. I've been lurking for a while.


 Since you're no longer lurking, pics of your set up, please. :wave:


----------



## v6quattro (Sep 19, 2012)

davis_449 said:


> I'd still take a run at you in my go-cart engine powered A3.


 K04 = As lawnmower engines go :thumbup:


----------



## krazyboi (May 19, 2004)

What power are you putting down? :beer:


----------



## Fellow Gaucho (Aug 3, 2011)

Looks awesome :thumbup:


----------



## v6quattro (Sep 19, 2012)

krazyboi said:


> What power are you putting down? :beer:


 Personally never had it on a dyno but the bird I bought it from said when she first had it installed that it was putting down 350 to the wheels. The only modifications I've made are raising it back to stock height and putting oem wheels back on.


----------



## JRutter (Nov 25, 2009)

That is a beautiful engine bay. :thumbup: Has it been reliable? Do you know if the engine was built or if it is on stock internals? I think that ABT used the German RUF supercharger that Carlicious sells. The blower and air/water intercooler looks the same at any rate. Do want...


----------



## krazyboi (May 19, 2004)

v6quattro said:


> Personally never had it on a dyno but the bird I bought it from said when she first had it installed that it was putting down 350 to the wheels. The only modifications I've made are raising it back to stock height and putting oem wheels back on.


 Picture of bird? ic:


----------



## ceese (Jul 2, 2011)

v6quattro said:


>


 I want and its a two door too.


----------



## v6quattro (Sep 19, 2012)

JRutter said:


> That is a beautiful engine bay. :thumbup: Has it been reliable? Do you know if the engine was built or if it is on stock internals? I think that ABT used the German RUF supercharger that Carlicious sells. The blower and air/water intercooler looks the same at any rate. Do want...


Very reliable. The internals are all OEM at the moment but I've been talking to my mechanic and am considering upgrading the intake manifold and CAMS along with everything that goes with them. We'll be able to run a lot more boost and should be able eek out another 80HP to the wheels if not more. Any more than that and we'll have to start worrying about other components.

I had a chance to drive a bone stock 3.2 this past week for the first time in a couple years. The differences between them are significant to say the least. Aside from the obvious power differences my ABT pulls a lot harder throughout the RPM range. Where a non SC A3 tends to taper off around 5000RPM my ABT auto pulls well into the 6500 RPM range regardless of gear. 

As far as speed differences we pulled out the stopwatch and the stock 3.2 was going from 0 to 100KM in 6.4 and mine was doing it in 4.5 seconds. Next time I'll have to be sure to bring a video camera since it just pulls away from launch.


----------

