# For those that have owned a 2.0T and 3.2 A3's, which did you like better?



## Dr Chill (Aug 24, 2011)

Have a Stage I 2.0T FWD DSG and thinking about changing to a 3.2L AWD. Is the difference between these two enough to justify selling ours which so far has proven to be a really good car?

Please refrain from commenting unless you have significant wheel time in both.


----------



## Uber-A3 (Feb 23, 2002)

why not add 2.0t quattro?


----------



## lotuselan (Apr 9, 2008)

might as well include the tdi


----------



## TBomb (Sep 23, 2009)

Dr Chill said:


> Have a Stage I 2.0T FWD DSG and thinking about changing to a 3.2L AWD. Is the difference between these two enough to justify selling ours which so far has proven to be a really good car?
> 
> Please refrain from commenting unless you have significant wheel time in both.


I guess it really depends on your reasons for wanting to switch. Is it just because you want AWD?


----------



## Dr Chill (Aug 24, 2011)

Combination of AWD, 6 cyl and no carbon buildup, better resale value, presence of more options like NAV. Just curious how the motor stacks up to a stage I 2.0T. AWD is not the primary reason.


----------



## sfdxsm (Feb 18, 2012)

I had my 2.0t for about a week before I dropped it for 2 days of service. I was given a 3.2 v6 A4 fully loaded as a loaner.

My a3 has Stage 1 APR flash and I will say this; they both move equally. The difference I think is the immediate torque feel from the v6. Off the line, especially with the AWD, the A4 simply launches way better says the butt dyno and pulls all the way through. My chipped A3 has good move but it really needs to hit boost for obvious reasons to get hustling.

I was comparing two different trannys though as my A3 is a 6speed manual and the A4 was an automatic 6speed.

I'd love to feel that v6 with a manual transmission to really compare. I came insanely close to buying a 3.2 A3 before I found mine. There are days where I love having a 3rd pedal and days where I wish I had the DSG.

Maybe someone who's had both for longer than my 2 days can chime in. Maybe find someone with the 1st gen R32 for comparing.


----------



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

i drive an 06 3.2 A3
my wifes car is an 06 Gti 2.0

i have had the A3 only 2-3 months, love it!! not great MPG, but a blast to drive, great exhaust tone. no oil consumption issues.

we have had our GTI for 2.5 years fully loaded up with luggage for a week, and 2 kids, we can still pull over 30mpg in it, it is a blast to drive, not as fast as the 3.2 but the turbo has a whold dif, feel to it, it is a DSG, and kind of a turd off the line until the turbo spols up
uses under 1 qt of oil mer 4k miles


----------



## JDBVR6 (Dec 29, 2006)

I love my chipped 2.0T and its about just as fast if not faster than the 3.2L. I even have a soft spot for the 3.2L because my previous car was a 12v VR6 Jetta. 

The only advantages the 3.2L has over the 2.0T is exhaust sound, Quattro (06-08 models), and maybe better reliability. This is subjective based on ownership experience. 

The 3.2L owners can brag about their features like NAV, Quattro, Open-sky, auto-headlights, powered seats, and etc. When I translate this in my head, all I hear is, _"My A3 gets worse gas mileage, is a heavy pig, weighs-a-ton, has features that make it weigh as much as a boat, is more expensive to repair, and did I mention it's a heavy pig?"_ Lmao!!! :laugh:


----------



## Audilation (Jun 7, 2010)

A4's 3.2 V6 is an FSI engine, different than our A3's VR6 which is volkswagen derived. Plus the A3 comes iwth DSG, A4 does not.


----------



## BalloFruit (Sep 25, 2006)

JDBVR6 said:


> When I translate this in my head, all I hear is, _"My A3 gets worse gas mileage, is a heavy pig, weighs-a-ton, has features that make it weigh as much as a boat, is more expensive to repair, and did I mention it's a heavy pig?"_ Lmao!!! :laugh:


Hmm...
2.0T 2WD DSG = Curb weight: 3329 lbs.
2.0T 4WD DSG = Curb weight: 3461 lbs.
3.2 4WD DSG = Curb weight: 3660 lbs.

So, the adding Quattro adds 148 lbs (4.44% total weight). Adding 2 cylinders adds 199 lbs (5.75% total weight). Heavy pig -- hardly. 

To answer the OP's question. I had a 2.0T for 1.5 yrs prior to my current 3.2Q. I agree with some of the previous comments. A chipped 2.0T feels faster than the 3.2Q, but it really isn't. The 3.2's power delivery is predictable and immediate. The 4WD system makes me feel so planted, there's no doubt that I've got grip. The engine/exhaust note is sublime. The gas mileage isn't too bad (I averaged 26.65 over 20K miles in the 2.0T and 23.06 over 80K in the 3.2Q). Overall, I like the 3.2Q better.


----------



## ceese (Jul 2, 2011)

I own a 3.2 and have a little bit of time in the 2.0T so I'll share my reasons for purchasing a 3.2.

First let me start by saying I like the 2.0 a lot. I think out of the box it feels sportier to drive than the 3.2 even though it has a little less power, it gets great gas miliage and you can really increase the HP pretty inexpensively. The drawbacks are a few of its mechanical issues and the lack of quattro in the earlier models (However this along with its weight are what make it feel a lot more fun to drive stock and on the a dry street). 

My reasons for buying the 3.2 - I wanted Quattro for the winter and after a few days of 8" of snow and going through some heavy rains will never buy a FWD over an AWD again as my daily. There is no comparison in my mind in the drive trains. Growing up with an affection for American Muscle cars I have an affinity for larger displacement engines which tend to have a lot more top end (can reach much higher HP and Torque), sound better (Yes exhaust and engine sounds can increase my driving pleasure) – I’m also of the mindset that larger displacement engines require less maintenance and last longer overall. In addition, I wanted something that I could mod performance over time by starting with air and exhaust and working my way up to forced induction (HPA has a few really great options of forced induction for the 3.2 that allow you to get around 470HP where as 2.0 maxes around 280HP). 

I didn't know it when I bought my car but I love the DSG. I was at the track yesterday and I had just as much if not more fun with the paddles as I would with a manual. I’ve also gotten in the habit of using them during my commute while in Auto mode.

It’s also my understanding that adding a rear sway bar really helps with the under steer and makes the 3.2 feel a lot lighter and better balanced. 

At first glance performance and value for your $$$ seems better with the 2.0 than the 3.2 but even without regular DSG transmission flushes required on the 3.2 the 2.0 still seems to require a lot more costly maintenance as a result of cam follower and other issues.

My only real complaint about the 3.2 is gas mileage which at the moment I’m living with because I love my car. But going from a TDI Passat to a 3.2 A3 the gas mileage hurts a lot and while it’s my commuter car at the moment with gas prices where they are I’ve been considering a second car that I can commute in that gets better mileage and that I don’t cringe with when I parallel park in Seattle.
Would I take a 2.0 FSI over my 3.2? Absolutely not. I think of them as entirely different cars and while the 2.0 is fun to drive it doesn’t have Quattro and has too many mechanical issues for my tastes.

Would I take a 2.0 TFSI Quattro with DSG over my 3.2 – much tougher decision that I don’t really have the answer too without having to make it.

I would however not have to think twice about buying a TDI if they offered a quattro in this country.


To answer your question: Is the difference between a 2.0 FSI over a 3.2 enough to justify trading up? Depending on your driving conditions and your willingness to spend $$ to modify for performance and do you want something fairly rare that is going to be even harder to find in a couple years then the answer is yes beyond a doubt. 

If all you want it is a peppy daily commuter that you do a little performance driving in and are only planning on adding air and chipping then I’d trade up to the DSG Quattro TFSI engine if for nothing else the reliability and Quattro.


----------



## Turn8 (Oct 31, 2008)

I used to own an '08 R32 DSG which I believe, is very similar to the A3 3.2 Q and I now own a '09 A3 2.0T DSG.

It is hard to beat the sound, power, and smooth power delivery of the NA 3.2. With the exception of the fuel consumption (which may or may not be an issue), the 3.2 is simply an awesome powerplant. 
I really enjoyed my R32.

The 2.0T doesn't share the same sound, stock power, or the smooth power delivery, however, it 'feels' just as quick as the 3.2 and gets good gas mileage. It may not be 'as' enjoyable as the 3.2 but, the 2.0T is definitely a nice engine.

My R32 was modified with a VF intake, Borla exhaust, HPA ECU tune, and HPA's DSG tune. Not surprisingly, the car ran great but, I felt I wanted additional power. I quickly found that my options were limited. I could either do engine work (ie camshafts/headwork) or install a turbo kit. Both options, at the time, were too complicated and expensive for my taste. 

This time around, the reason I decided to purchase a 2.0T instead of the 3.2 was simple, I knew I was going to modify my car and it is both easier and cheaper to get more power from the 2.0T. I wanted a Quattro but, I couldn't pass up the deal on my A3.

Which do I like better, well, for me, if the stock power was suitable, I'd pick the 3.2 but, I want more power, I always want more power, or, perhaps its because I can't leave anything alone... anyway for me... 2.0T with Quattro would have been perfect! 



Uber-A3 said:


> why not add 2.0t quattro?


Agreed! 

Mike


----------



## Turn8 (Oct 31, 2008)

BalloFruit said:


> To answer the OP's question. I had a 2.0T for 1.5 yrs prior to my current 3.2Q. I agree with some of the previous comments. A chipped 2.0T feels faster than the 3.2Q, but it really isn't.


I don't know...

I ran my, at the time, bone-stock R32 against a bone-stock, unmodified '09 VW GTI 2.0T. I won the 1/4 mile race as you suggest but, once I was pass the 60ft mark, I didn't pull on him. It was an even race all the way. Had he been chipped and got traction, he would have beat me. 

Mike


----------



## MisterJJ (Jul 28, 2005)

BalloFruit said:


> A chipped 2.0T feels faster than the 3.2Q, but it really isn't.


Some time ago this was heavily debated. Eventually the races were done and it was settled that a chipped 2.0t was faster than a 3.2Q.


----------



## ceese (Jul 2, 2011)

I love this debate....can't count how many times I've seen it on this same forum. I really don't see a lot of 2.0 haters among the 3.2 guys but I do see a lot of it towards the 3.2s.

Up until 2008 they were truly different cars with truly different handling characteristics. As I stated earlier, out of the box I don't think my 3.2 is as fun to drive as a 2.0 because it feels a lot tamer due to the weight and quattro. You can't kick it around as much. However, there is a lot more you can do to a 3.2 than you can't to the 2.0. It just costs a whole lot more for gas and mods and comes down to what you want out of your car. I would have been happy owning a 2.0 they're great cars but for me personally, I'm glad I found a 3.2 exactly the way I would have ordered it. I love the AWD, I like the larger displacement and I'm excited at the thought of installing a supercharger instead of a turbo even though it's less horsepower - it presents the power characteristics I like.

For any 3.2 haters who keep kicking this issue to death and who wants to truly settle the which car is better argument come see me in a 18 months after I get my Haldex controller and Supercharger installed and we'll end this debate once and for all. There are performance as well as marketing reasons why Audi only imported the Quattro from 06 to 08 with a V6.

Or better yet let's start a new debate. Which is better a modified 3.2 or stock RS3. Fully modified both cars will be pushing around 500HP, both cars have almost identical drive trains and AWD controllers. One has a turbocharged inline 5 the other would have a turbocharged V6.

None of it matters...I feel like I'm in second grade in 1977 having the Camaro vs. Trans Am debate right after Smokey and the Bandit I came out. I mean wouldn't you rather the best mod in your car be the driver. Go take some performance driving classes and shut up already.


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

supercharged or turbocharged VR6 are not that uncommon. When I go on the MkIV/V R32 gtg, almost everybody is blown in one way or another. No bags or peek/pokes though. Plus the parking lot is not the destination, just a meeting point to go on rides that I am usually surprised everybody actually made it to the end w/o any car wrapped around something.


----------



## Fellow Gaucho (Aug 3, 2011)

ceese said:


> I love this debate....can't count how many times I've seen it on this same forum. I really don't see a lot of 2.0 haters among the 3.2 guys but I do see a lot of it towards the 3.2s.
> 
> Up until 2008 they were truly different cars with truly different handling characteristics. As I stated earlier, out of the box I don't think my 3.2 is as fun to drive as a 2.0 because it feels a lot tamer due to the weight and quattro. You can't kick it around as much. However, there is a lot more you can do to a 3.2 than you can't to the 2.0. It just costs a whole lot more for gas and mods and comes down to what you want out of your car. I would have been happy owning a 2.0 they're great cars but for me personally, I'm glad I found a 3.2 exactly the way I would have ordered it. I love the AWD, I like the larger displacement and I'm excited at the thought of installing a supercharger instead of a turbo even though it's less horsepower - it presents the power characteristics I like.
> 
> ...


woooo 

Where are the 3.2 haters in this thread? Some are just trying to make valid points, and many have debated whether the point has a lot of validity to it or not. I am sure everyone who has a 2.0 considered the 3.2 or R or something like that at one point.


----------



## TBomb (Sep 23, 2009)

ceese said:


> I love this debate....can't count how many times I've seen it on this same forum. I really don't see a lot of 2.0 haters among the 3.2 guys but I do see a lot of it towards the 3.2s.
> 
> Up until 2008 they were truly different cars with truly different handling characteristics. As I stated earlier, out of the box I don't think my 3.2 is as fun to drive as a 2.0 because it feels a lot tamer due to the weight and quattro. You can't kick it around as much. However, there is a lot more you can do to a 3.2 than you can't to the 2.0. It just costs a whole lot more for gas and mods and comes down to what you want out of your car. I would have been happy owning a 2.0 they're great cars but for me personally, I'm glad I found a 3.2 exactly the way I would have ordered it. I love the AWD, I like the larger displacement and I'm excited at the thought of installing a supercharger instead of a turbo even though it's less horsepower - it presents the power characteristics I like.
> 
> ...


:laugh: Bro you are off your rocker.


----------



## JDBVR6 (Dec 29, 2006)

Not a 3.2L hater at all here. As I said in a previous post, I have a soft spot for the 3.2L because my previous MK4 Jetta was a VR6 (I loved that motor). My Jetta had intake, exhaust, GIAC 93 oct reflash, and autotech 262 cams. All of these mods and the car dynoed at 178whp and 186lb/ft torque. A little over what a 12v VR6 puts out at the crank stock.

With that said my 2.0T when it was bone stock was just as fast, if not a tad bit faster than my old MK4. Now that the motor is chipped with the GIAC 93 oct program, it will absolutely destroy my old Jetta. What makes this even more interesting is the fact that other than the reflash, my car is completely stock engine wise. Last month I was able to dyno the car and it registered 234whp and 265lb/ft torque. That is incredible for a motor with just a reflashed ecu. My VR6 could only dream of making that power without some type of forced induction (Which means lots of $$$$). 

My point is that the VR6 motor needs a plethora of $$$$ invested into it to significantly increase the horsepower output. Any type of bolt on mods to the VR6 are not going to yield large power increases. However, with the 2.0T bolt-on's yield a large gain in power and lets not forget there is always the option to upgrade the turbo to a larger KO4. To whomever said the 2.0T maxes out
at 280hp, this is simply not true when there are MK5 GTI's pushing 400hp. All while still returning near 30mpg. :screwy: Now if you were to go all out on both motors, then of course the 3.2L will in the end make more horsepower than the 2.0T. 


Just thought I'd share my experience with both motors. eace:


----------



## ceese (Jul 2, 2011)

Fellow Gaucho said:


> woooo
> 
> Where are the 3.2 haters in this thread? Some are just trying to make valid points, and many have debated whether the point has a lot of validity to it or not. I am sure everyone who has a 2.0 considered the 3.2 or R or something like that at one point.





JDBVR6 said:


> The 3.2L owners can brag about their features like NAV, Quattro, Open-sky, auto-headlights, powered seats, and etc. When I translate this in my head, all I hear is, _"My A3 gets worse gas mileage, *is a heavy pig, weighs-a-ton, has features that make it weigh as much as a boat, is more expensive to repair, and did I mention it's a heavy pig*?"_ Lmao!!! :laugh:


Maybe I am off my rocker - I'm just tired of this debate over and over again and was making a point - for the most part people have been pretty sensible on this thread

I will argue one point though. A 3.2 naturally aspirated engine is not more expensive to repair than a four cylinder forced induction engine - common sense tells you that. There is a lot less maintenance and a lot less stress put on the engine from day to day. But if you want to talk about a $350 DSG flush every 30k miles lets talk about replacing cam followers every 40k. And you should be flushing your manual transmission every 60k miles if you want to maintain it properly.


----------



## TBomb (Sep 23, 2009)

JDBVR6 said:


> Not a 3.2L hater at all here. As I said in a previous post, I have a soft spot for the 3.2L because my previous MK4 Jetta was a VR6 (I loved that motor). My Jetta had intake, exhaust, GIAC 93 oct reflash, and autotech 262 cams. All of these mods and the car dynoed at 178whp and 186lb/ft torque. A little over what a 12v VR6 puts out at the crank stock.
> 
> With that said my 2.0T when it was bone stock was just as fast, if not a tad bit faster than my old MK4. Now that the motor is chipped with the GIAC 93 oct program, it will absolutely destroy my old Jetta. What makes this even more interesting is the fact that other than the reflash, my car is completely stock engine wise. Last month I was able to dyno the car and it registered 234whp and 265lb/ft torque. That is incredible for a motor with just a reflashed ecu. My VR6 could only dream of making that power without some type of forced induction (Which means lots of $$$$).
> 
> ...


Yep, all good points. Basically, the sky is the limit as long as your bank account can handle it, and all things being equal an engine with greater displacement has more potential for higher power. That being said, the 2.0T (whether FSI or TSI) has the advantage of being designed from the ground up as a forced induction power plant, whereas the 3.2 is obviously designed to be naturally aspirated. This means you can buy an off the shelf kit from APR and put it on over a weekend and make 500 HP (running 100 octane or water/meth) on your TSI all for about $8000 all in. Ask Krazyboi how easy it was to make big power on a forced induction 3.2 build. It's nothing against the 3.2, it just isn't as easy to make significantly more power on an engine that isn't designed for FI.

Now, if we want to get in to some real reasons why the 3.2 is more appealing... Yes, it is a rarer configuration that was only available for a few years. Yes, it was the more expensive and "premium" option car at the time. Yes, the 3.2 sounds like pure sex. Yes, there are advantages to the way the power comes on with a NA car. Yes, it was the only way to get Quattro in an A3 prior to 2009. Yes, it is a more robust engine than the 2.0T FSI...


----------



## SilverSquirrel (Jul 24, 2006)

I think bickering over 3.2 vs 2.0 is silly. The only reason i looked for the 3.2 is because of quattro.

A3s were cheaper than the A4 avant I would rather have bought., but they were out of my budget for the model year/mileage i wanted.

The 3.2 engine was a pleasant surprise, and dsg has grown on me. Always had std. before. 

but can if i did chime in on the debate....

both 3.2 and 2t are nose heavy pigs... 3.2 is heavier, but F/R balance is better by 2% due to quattro and battery in rear... get a gti or r32 if you want lighter.

both have crappy poor excuses for sport seats.

both have ****ty plastic bits and pieces that break with hilarious frequency, and are unreasonably priced to replace, including clips and window switches..

both are a hoot to drive, compared to most cars out there.

If you want crazy 0-60 and track handling, there is a world of better cars to choose from.
:heart:


----------



## ceese (Jul 2, 2011)

SilverSquirrel said:


> I think bickering over 3.2 vs 2.0 is silly.
> If you want crazy 0-60 and track handling, there is a world of better cars to choose from.
> :heart:


Well said - so lets end the debate on one final note with the Squirrel's comments in mind - 

Such as a Subaru STI which for under $40K out of the box will kick the ever living sh!t out of all of our cars both on the road and on the track. But, no matter how hard it tries it will never be either a 2.0 or a 3.2 A3.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not bashing the STI, great cars, but my Audi has character.

:snowcool:


----------



## Tcardio (Mar 19, 2009)

I don't care what peeps have just keep the pics coming and post up some bewbs!


----------



## Fellow Gaucho (Aug 3, 2011)

Can't deny how great the v-6 sounds. This is the reason I am not in a hurry to get an exhaust for my 2.0. 4 cylinders very rarely sound great with an exhaust in my opinion. I think the 3.2 is a solid long term car due to less stressed engine and auto transmission along with diversity quattro can handle.


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

JDBVR6 said:


> Not a 3.2L hater at all here. As I said in a previous post, I have a soft spot for the 3.2L because my previous MK4 Jetta was a VR6 (I loved that motor). My Jetta had intake, exhaust, GIAC 93 oct reflash, and autotech 262 cams. All of these mods and the car dynoed at 178whp and 186lb/ft torque. A little over what a 12v VR6 puts out at the crank stock.
> 
> With that said my 2.0T when it was bone stock was just as fast, if not a tad bit faster than my old MK4. Now that the motor is chipped with the GIAC 93 oct program, it will absolutely destroy my old Jetta. What makes this even more interesting is the fact that other than the reflash, my car is completely stock engine wise. Last month I was able to dyno the car and it registered 234whp and 265lb/ft torque. That is incredible for a motor with just a reflashed ecu. My VR6 could only dream of making that power without some type of forced induction (Which means lots of $$$$).
> 
> ...


If getting 234whp out of the 2.0T is that easy, you thing VAG would not have done it already? Why would Audi re-engineer the whole engine so that they could extract a measly 260hp out of it? It is because a stock 2.0 with its standard parts was not deemed reliable enough to push out 260, 280 or 400 hp out of it. Guys with flash upgrades are not going to bring it back to the dealer for warranty if the engine blows. Engine failure rates could go from 2% to 4%, which seems negligibly low, but that is still 100% increase in failure rate. Car companies are not going to have double the engine failure rate under warranty just so they could brag that it has more power.


----------



## ceese (Jul 2, 2011)

Actually, the engine I'm really looking forward to is the new four cylinder that they'll be shipping in two to three years. Base configuration will be 240HP and it will get over 45MPG. For that kind of MPG and base HP I'll gladly give up my V6.


----------



## JDBVR6 (Dec 29, 2006)

LWNY said:


> *If getting 234whp out of the 2.0T is that easy, you thing VAG would not have done it already? Why would Audi re-engineer the whole engine so that they could extract a measly 260hp out of it? It is because a stock 2.0 with its standard parts was not deemed reliable enough to push out 260, 280 or 400 hp out of it. Guys with flash upgrades are not going to bring it back to the dealer for warranty if the engine blows. Engine failure rates could go from 2% to 4%, which seems negligibly low, but that is still 100% increase in failure rate. Car companies are not going to have double the engine failure rate under warranty just so they could brag that it has more power.*




Yes, it is that easy. The reason why VAG has not done it to a lot of their model line up is because of marketing and product placement. An A3 2.0t is not meant to compete with Subaru STI's and Mitsubishi Evo's. The A3, along with the GTI is a Grand Tourer. It offers performance, luxury, and practicality all in one package. Performance is more of the S3's territory. 

The argument you are trying to make reminds me of the old 1.8T vs VR6 debates back during my MK4 days. First of all, it has already been proven that just reflashing the ecu *WILL NOT* cause an engine failure. My old Jetta was chipped at 65k miles and had absolutely no issues that were in relation to the ecu reflash. I sold that car with 155k on the clock and it was still running strong. My Audi has been chipped since 42k miles and now it is at 59k miles with no problems at all other than the usual FSI issues, which can still happen even if your car is bone stock. The only time I see a reflash doing damage to a motor would be if the owner beat the crap out of it on a daily basis (i.e. not letting the turbo cool after hard driving or not using the recommended fuel octane with the ecu flash program). My buddy has an 07 GTI and has been chipped with APR since his car was at 15k miles and his car is now at 67k with no issues at all. The turbo hasn't even shown signs of pre-mature wear. 

Now to my second point. The reason why Audi did not increase the power output of the 2.0T was so that it would not overshadow the 3.2L. Why would anyone want to buy a 40k car that only has a 10-15hp increase from the lessor model which gets better gas mileage and can be had for much cheaper? Much like what happened with VW's MK4 in 2002, the 180hp 1.8T overshadowed the more expensive 174hp 12v VR6. Their were very minor internal differences between the APP 150hp 1.8T and the AWP 180hp 1.8T. Most of the extra horsepower came from simple adjustments in ecu mapping. 

If you haven't noticed, N/A large displacement motors a beginning to slowly fade out in favor of high powered, small displacement, forced inducted motors. Look at what VW has been doing. They totally dropped the VR6 out of the MK4 models in 2004. The R32's VR6 was replaced with at K04 powered 2.0T. Plus, lets not forget our own A3's in which the 3.2L quattro model was dropped all together in 2009 in favor of the 2.0T quattro. This was simply due to the fact that most buyers opted for the cheaper, more fuel efficient 4-banger. Car companies are offering more high output, small displacement motors to compare with the large displacement motors they are replacing. 

In short, the 200hp limit on the 2.0T is a marketing technique. That motor can run all day long on/with a reflashed ecu with no internal complications.


----------



## RedLineRob (Feb 8, 2009)

i have owned a FWD A3 and now own a Quattro A3 and let me tell you there is a huge difference the car feels way more stable in quatto and planted to the ground, i feel like i can hit turns 2 times faster then i could in my FWD A3


----------



## ceese (Jul 2, 2011)

JDBVR6 said:


> Yes, it is that easy. The reason why VAG has not done it to a lot of their model lineup is because of marketing and product placement. An A3 2.0t is not meant to compete with Subaru STI's and Mitsubishi Evo's. The A3, along with the GTI is a Grand Tourer. It offers performance, luxury, and practicality all in one package. Performance is more of the S3's territory.


No not the STI, but it is designed to compete with the WRX. It's why Subaru increased the HP of the WRX (same engine) after the 3.2 shipped. As far as performance, Audi's key marketing strategy in the U.S. and Canada is about luxury and performance which is why we don't get the base model trim packages here. American perception of Audis is that they are supposed to be fast regardless of the model you buy. Audi shares that perception with BMW who just happens to be Audi’s primary competition in the US.



JDBVR6 said:


> If you haven't noticed, N/A large displacement motors a beginning to slowly fade out in favor of high powered, small displacement, forced inducted motors. Look at what VW has been doing. They totally dropped the VR6 out of the MK4 models in 2004. The R32's VR6 was replaced with at K04 powered 2.0T. Plus, lets not forget our own A3's in which the 3.2L quattro model was dropped all together in 2009 (*Actually dropped in 2008 - CEESE*) in favor of the 2.0T quattro. This was simply due to the fact that most buyers opted for the cheaper, more fuel efficient 4-banger. Car companies are offering more high output, small displacement motors to compare with the large displacement motors they are replacing.


"Look at what VW is doing"...The R32 and the 3.2 A3 went away at the same time - could it be because they share platforms and engines??? It's more than what buyers are opting for or purely a fuel efficiency thing in what is considered their economy cars (yes the A3 is considered an economy car) it also has to do with reducing the number of engines they have to spend $$$ to get approved for import into the US, scaling back on the number of engine designs they have to spend more money engineering and much less of a performance decision. Keep in mind there are also federal mandates to increase fuel efficiency. And, it's a lot cheaper for Audi to design, build and import (although they are building them here now) one engine that they can tune across a variety of platforms than to create several different engines. If there is an engine that is replacing the V6 it is most certainly not the 2.0 it's the inline 5 - i.e. the TTRS and RS3 and Audi of America has actually made this comparison in interviews. As far as doing away with larger power plants - I don't think so. Audi is continuing development on both their V8 and V10 engine line ups. Most of what you are spewing is conjecture, wrong or at the very least only partly right.



JDBVR6 said:


> Now to my second point. The reason why Audi did not increase the power output of the 2.0T was so that it would not overshadow the 3.2L. Why would anyone want to buy a 40k car that only has a 10-15hp increase from the lesser model which gets better gas mileage and can be had for much cheaper? Much like what happened with VW's MK4 in 2002, the 180hp 1.8T overshadowed the more expensive 174hp 12v VR6. Their were very minor internal differences between the APP 150hp 1.8T and the AWP 180hp 1.8T. Most of the extra horsepower came from simple adjustments in ecu mapping.


First the 2.0 that shipped in the 2009 Quattro is a different engine than the 2.0 that shipped with earlier cars. Four years of engineering went into the differences in them. And you're assumption that Audi held that engine back to not overshadow the 3.2 is silly. The engine was tuned with the performance and fuel mileage that they thought worked to best sell the car and compete with cars from other manufacturers – it also had to work within the confines of federal law – Audi seldom maxes out the performance in stock cars – they could have made some cam changes and other relatively simple and affordable changes to the 3.2 to pull out another 30HP if they chose. In addition, chipped the 08 2.0 and naturally aspirated 08 3.2 pace each other - throw a Quattro and 500lbs (Edit - less than 500lbs without the V6 but still a weight difference) on that pre 2009 2.0 engine and even with the additional horsepower it’s going to be overtaxed and feel like a stock imprezza five door to drive. As far as why anyone would want the 3.2, I think several people who bought them have already given their reasons higher up in the thread.

2.0T people, I like your cars, I can find no reason to bash on them -- I’m just bashing on this guy. I wish he’d drop it already and move on or at least go do some real research and not bother us with his silly opinions.

Normally, I’d ignore this sh!t – I must be in a mood today….Go ahead and spew away...this is fun.


----------



## SilverSquirrel (Jul 24, 2006)

In the rest of the world, they the Audi S3. pretty sure its been around a while, and has quattro and more than 200 hp. I read somewhere that motor has stronger pistons and nuts and bolts and stuff, and stronger whatever you call those metal things inside the engine that break sometimes.

Hey, any of you 3.2 guys thought about dropping in a 3.6 VR6 from a passat etc? word on the street is only the innards are bigger, but the block is overall the same dimension.

eace:


----------



## JDBVR6 (Dec 29, 2006)

ceese said:


> No not the STI, but it is designed to compete with the WRX. It's why Subaru increased the HP of the WRX (same engine) after the 3.2 shipped. As far as performance, Audi's key marketing strategy in the U.S. and Canada is about luxury and performance which is why we don't get the base model trim packages here. American perception of Audis is that they are supposed to be fast regardless of the model you buy. Audi shares that perception with BMW who just happens to be Audi’s primary competition in the US.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Listen up, because I am going to say this once and only once because I am not going to get sucked into a mindless internet debate. 


I am only responding to the highlighted statements. 

1) How is what I said silly? :sly: It is indeed fact if you did your own research, hell just look at the recent engine options for upcoming new cars vs their older offerings. The Ford Focus ST which used to have a 5-cylinder turbo motor, the new ST will have a 4-banger turbo. Now let's move to BMW who has dropped the big V10 motor in the M5 for a V8 twin turbo. Let's not forget the E90/E92 M3's that had a V8 in them which is now being replaced by the good old inline-6 again (Not sure if it will be turbocharged or not). These are just a few examples, but there are a plethora more following this same concept. It *IS* because of consumer demand for more fuel efficient cars that auto manufacturers are changing their engine offerings (Economics 101: Demand=Supply). So, the fact that you refuse to except this as anything but true when the facts are practically slapping you in the face makes you look silly. 

Your argument about the 2.0T FSI vs TFSI being different is not worth arguing about. They both made 200hp, end of story.

The part where you talked about a 2.0T FSI vs an Imprezza or whatever made me LOL! :laugh: Not worth my time arguing about that either. 

2) If the 3.2L A3 was such a cash product for Audi, why did they drop it for the 2.0T? Its Business economics 101. Why would a company drop a product that is profitable? The 3.2L A3 was simply not profitable enough for Audi to continue offering it here in the states. Also, people generally bought the 3.2L A3 because from 2006-2008 it was the only A3 available with Quattro. So, if you wanted Quatrro you had to buy the 3.2L A3. If Audi, had offered Quattro on the 2.0T at that time, I would bet $100 bucks that the 3.2L A3 would have been out the door even sooner. This is why Audi never offered the 2.0T with Quattro at the time because they needed an incentive for people to buy the more expensive model. Again, I revert back to the point I made about marketing tactics. Why do you think Audi dropped the VR6 model once they decided to offer the 2.0T with Quattro? They knew it would not be profitable. 


Also, how am I in any way bashing 3.2L owners? I am simply stating facts based on recent evidence and personal experience. Everything I have said thus far is factual and is not being pulled from thin air. :screwy: 

You are the one getting butt-hurt over this topic because you know the facts go against your argument, but you just refuse to acknowledge it. So you try to attack me to divert attention away from your flawed argument. 

With this said I am done with this debate. 

Have an awesome day! :wave:


----------



## JRutter (Nov 25, 2009)

OP - Do you want quattro, but don't want to spend the $$ on a newer 2.0T quattro? Trying to understand what specific feedback/info you are looking for: Lots of variables at play here...

NA and turbo engines feel different. 

AWD and FWD drive trains feel different. 

FWIW, an RS4 owner/instructor that I gave a ride to at the last track event followed up with me to say that he would buy my car if I ever decided to sell it.

I opted for this model because I tow a trailer pretty often and wanted the bigger displacement NA on a small, sporty car. On the other hand, seeing the APR K04 setup, I would be tempted by the 2.0 Quattro today.


----------



## krazyboi (May 19, 2004)

tcardio said:


> I don't care what peeps have just keep the pics coming and post up some bewbs!


:thumbup: Always a good post.

I love the woooooshing of my 3.2T. That is all.


----------



## ceese (Jul 2, 2011)

To quote myself



ceese said:


> Would I take a 2.0 TFSI Quattro with DSG over my 3.2 – much tougher decision that I don’t really have the answer too without having to make it.


----------



## TBomb (Sep 23, 2009)

krazyboi said:


> :thumbup: Always a good post.
> 
> I love the woooooshing of my 3.2T. That is all.


Need video/audio clips ASAP. :thumbup:


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

JDBVR6 said:


> Yes, it is that easy. The reason why VAG has not done it to a lot of their model line up is because of marketing and product placement. An A3 2.0t is not meant to compete with Subaru STI's and Mitsubishi Evo's. The A3, along with the GTI is a Grand Tourer. It offers performance, luxury, and practicality all in one package. Performance is more of the S3's territory.


It is not that easy. Why do you think Audi re-engineered the VW 2.0 engine for the S3...and now are in this weird situation where the new Golf R has an older engine than the GTI? If they could just drop the turbo from the S3 onto the GTI 2.0 engine, they would have done it already, instead of having to go back to the belt driven but much stronger 2.0 from the S3.

Look at the RS3's 2.5 engine. Based almost 100% on VW's 2.5 engine, but redesigned with zero parts in common. You ask yourself, why go through all the effort if they could just put a giant turbo on and squeeze 400hp out of it?



JDBVR6 said:


> The argument you are trying to make reminds me of the old 1.8T vs VR6 debates back during my MK4 days. First of all, it has already been proven that just reflashing the ecu *WILL NOT* cause an engine failure. My old Jetta was chipped at 65k miles and had absolutely no issues that were in relation to the ecu reflash. I sold that car with 155k on the clock and it was still running strong. My Audi has been chipped since 42k miles and now it is at 59k miles with no problems at all other than the usual FSI issues, which can still happen even if your car is bone stock. The only time I see a reflash doing damage to a motor would be if the owner beat the crap out of it on a daily basis (i.e. not letting the turbo cool after hard driving or not using the recommended fuel octane with the ecu flash program). My buddy has an 07 GTI and has been chipped with APR since his car was at 15k miles and his car is now at 67k with no issues at all. The turbo hasn't even shown signs of pre-mature wear.


Again, anecdotal evidence does not prove anything. Even if engine failure goes from 2% to 4%, most of the owners of chipped cars will think chipping did not harm their car. But from the mfg standpoint, that means double the cost for in warranty engine replacement.




JDBVR6 said:


> Now to my second point. The reason why Audi did not increase the power output of the 2.0T was so that it would not overshadow the 3.2L. Why would anyone want to buy a 40k car that only has a 10-15hp increase from the lessor model which gets better gas mileage and can be had for much cheaper? Much like what happened with VW's MK4 in 2002, the 180hp 1.8T overshadowed the more expensive 174hp 12v VR6. Their were very minor internal differences between the APP 150hp 1.8T and the AWP 180hp 1.8T. Most of the extra horsepower came from simple adjustments in ecu mapping.
> 
> If you haven't noticed, N/A large displacement motors a beginning to slowly fade out in favor of high powered, small displacement, forced inducted motors. Look at what VW has been doing. They totally dropped the VR6 out of the MK4 models in 2004. The R32's VR6 was replaced with at K04 powered 2.0T. Plus, lets not forget our own A3's in which the 3.2L quattro model was dropped all together in 2009 in favor of the 2.0T quattro. This was simply due to the fact that most buyers opted for the cheaper, more fuel efficient 4-banger. Car companies are offering more high output, small displacement motors to compare with the large displacement motors they are replacing.


Your point is moot with the introduction of the S3..see above.

The reason for the discontinuation of the 3.2 VR6 is more likely due to the narrow configuration, forcing all kinds of weird ducting between the intake, exhaust duct/valves, preventing newer designs that are required in the lower emission world.

The 2.0T quattro is not much cheaper than the 3.2 quattro.

To be honest, VW was never at the forefront of engine design. Their 2.0 was making a measly 115hp decades ago and was recently re-introduced again with that horsepower number. Almost everybody else was doing 180-240hp out of their 2.0 engine. They probably went with forced induction to get more HP out of their low tech iron blocks (I think the whole industry went with alum engine, except VW (audi is there too)). It is their luck that the tide turned in favor of them with the efficiency thing that is sweeping the industry that everybody is going toward small displacement turbo engines.

Even the Lambo NA engines (Audi RS designs) are squeezing out an extra 10 hp on each iteration (or 2hp/liter), while its italian competitors are really going bleeding edge.


----------



## cooterbo (Sep 27, 2009)

all i got from this thread is compressor + quattro = :thumbup:


----------



## Dr Chill (Aug 24, 2011)

Seems like my innocent little question has opened up a can of worms. I do appreciate all the input, but here is the actual situation I am facing. I am trying to decide if swapping my car for a same year 3.2 with added features of AWD, automatic headlights, rain sensing wipers, navigation, and a year of CPO warranty assuming it is transferable, is worthwhile along with approximately ~$2000 more or less price difference. The 3.2 has 20,000 more mile on it also.

Things of concern about my car are the lack of warranty and future carbon buildup expense. Cam follower done at 52000 miles showed litle wear. It runs flawlessly and has proven to be a keeper so far. I know none of you can decide for me, but the rarity of the v6 and higher resale and warranty are attracting me. 

Maybe I should stop looking at cars for sale instead.


----------



## azoceanblue (Aug 13, 2006)

RedLineRob said:


> i have owned a FWD A3 and now own a Quattro A3 and let me tell you there is a huge difference the car feels way more stable in quatto and planted to the ground, i feel like i can hit turns 2 times faster then i could in my FWD A3


X2 

I have nothing else to add to this debate except, I would own either motor with quattro period. I just happen to like my better mpg (although I am impressed with BalloFruit's 23mpg with his 3.2).


----------



## krazyboi (May 19, 2004)

Dr Chill said:


> Seems like my innocent little question has opened up a can of worms. I do appreciate all the input, but here is the actual situation I am facing. I am trying to decide if swapping my car for a same year 3.2 with added features of AWD, automatic headlights, rain sensing wipers, navigation, and a year of CPO warranty assuming it is transferable, is worthwhile along with approximately ~$2000 more or less price difference. The 3.2 has 20,000 more mile on it also.
> 
> Things of concern about my car are the lack of warranty and future carbon buildup expense. Cam follower done at 52000 miles showed litle wear. It runs flawlessly and has proven to be a keeper so far. I know none of you can decide for me, but the rarity of the v6 and higher resale and warranty are attracting me.
> 
> Maybe I should stop looking at cars for sale instead.


Seeing where you live, I don't think AWD is really necessary, but then having the rain sensing wipers do make sense as well. As stock, I'd prefer the 3.2 b/c of the out of the box fun and less headaches. Depending on the year of vehicle, make sure the mechatronic unit issue is taken care of.


----------



## maverickar15 (Mar 7, 2011)

I live in CO, and there were a few times last year when I thought AWD would have been helpful, but that was at about 11,000 ft in elevation with more than a foot of snow on the road. I still made it with dedicated snow tires, when some trucks were wiggling their tails and/or going upside down.

...and this is coming from a Subaru owner as well. Of course it is more fun in the loose stuff but you don't get the "loose stuff" down there, do you?


----------



## ceese (Jul 2, 2011)

Dr Chill said:


> Seems like my innocent little question has opened up a can of worms. I do appreciate all the input, but here is the actual situation I am facing. I am trying to decide if swapping my car for a same year 3.2 with added features of AWD, automatic headlights, rain sensing wipers, navigation, and a year of CPO warranty assuming it is transferable, is worthwhile along with approximately ~$2000 more or less price difference. The 3.2 has 20,000 more mile on it also.
> 
> Things of concern about my car are the lack of warranty and future carbon buildup expense. Cam follower done at 52000 miles showed litle wear. It runs flawlessly and has proven to be a keeper so far. I know none of you can decide for me, but the rarity of the v6 and higher resale and warranty are attracting me.
> 
> Maybe I should stop looking at cars for sale instead.


In all honesty for me it would be a no brainer with the exception being fuel mileage (it sucks) especially with the rising price of gas – you could easily end up spending as much as $100 more a month on gas depending on your driving habits. I went from a TDI to a V6 and I get almost 1/3 the mileage that I used to – no joke. My Passat got 34MPG on my commute and my A3 gets 15.1MPG on the same commute and it hurts. However, I love my car so much I don’t really care except during the five seconds where I swipe my credit card.

With more powerful, better mileage small blocks these midsized engines are going to get even rarer across all car brands in the next couple years and within the next four will start to be highly sought after regardless of whether its and Audi or a V6 Mustang. They have performance characteristics that a lot of enthusiasts like and that you can't get in larger and smaller engines.

As far as the 20k miles more on the V6, that’s pretty insignificant. You should by the nature of the engines get more miles out of a naturally aspirated larger block engine with fewer mechanical issues than a smaller forced induction engine. This is only an issue depending on how long you are going to keep it.

I could go one, They are both great cars, but I hear you on the CAM follower and other issues which as long as checked regularly are not a big deal – However, I think if you switch the only place you might have any regrets is as the pump and on the plus side you'll like the new switch up, having something that is getting rare, etc.


----------



## JDBVR6 (Dec 29, 2006)

Hell, the A3 is rare period in my area. LOL!


----------



## AlaskaDG (Mar 12, 2008)

Dr. Chill - Having some seat time in both flavors what I found is that I prefered the point-and-go that the 3.2 Quattro gave me. I'm not a big fan of turbo spool although one of my vehicles is indeed a turbo diesel. The 2.0 is a kick-in-the-pants when it comes on but I prefer the immediate pull of the 3.2, especially after modifying it. I also live in a rather wet area of the world and the AWD portion helps with the point-and-go no matter the conditions. I have been blessed with an assortment of front and rear wheel drive vehicle experience and found that the 3.2 Quattro's ability to get up and go without a lot of wheelspin or sideways action has almost eliminated the attention I used to get from our fine police force. My '06 still makes me grin whenever I get into the throttle, curves or messy situation, much to the dissapointment of my teenage sons who were both looking forward to me handing it down.


----------



## TBomb (Sep 23, 2009)

JDBVR6 said:


> Hell, the A3 is rare period in my area. LOL!


You keep saying that man. I swear I see at least one every day on my drive home. It's rare compared to, say a 3 series BMW or an IS250, but not that rare. :thumbup:


----------



## krazyboi (May 19, 2004)

I wish I saw more A3s in Dallas/Houston. They're so rare.


----------



## ceese (Jul 2, 2011)

krazyboi said:


> I wish I saw more A3s in Dallas/Houston. They're so rare.


Not so rare in Seattle where you see them all the time with ZIP car stickers on them.

Zip car sticker = Student driver that thinks they know how to drive just because they've had their license for 20 years.


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

My main criteria was actually the quattro, so 3.2 was the only option. I originally thought, WTF, any model of the A4 could have a quattro option for $1.5k more, why do I have to shell out an extra $10k for a A3's quattro. But that's water under the bridge.

Since the 3.2 (nor the 2.0T) could ever be the Veryron, one tend to focus on other was to get excitement from this car, like going all out in turns, highway exits with their 270 deg loop, 4 wheel drifts in dry, wet or snow.

I think the 2.0T would be better for the Haldex, since with the 3.2, flooring the throttle causes instant response from the engine, which in low grip conditions, might not allow for the Haldex unit to respond fast enough. The 2.0T with its turbo lag, might just give enough of that "where's the power" moment for the haldex to engage before full power is delivered. Of course, one compensate for that in a 3.2 with the throttle.

As for the FWD being good enough in snow conditions, that is not the point. With quattro, you go out and have fun when it is snow outside. We don't just get by. In fact, I had my summer tires this whole winter and had the haldex were not functioning on some instances so I was in FWD mode. I was concerned about hitting the slopes with such setup, so I drove more cautiously and it did the job. But I definitely could not go do the donuts or slides that I usually do in the snow covered parking lots (not that there was much this year).


----------



## BL-2-8P (Aug 16, 2008)

ceese said:


> Well said - so lets end the debate on one final note with the Squirrel's comments in mind -
> 
> Such as a Subaru STI which for under $40K out of the box will kick the ever living sh!t out of all of our cars both on the road and on the track. But, no matter how hard it tries it will never be either a 2.0 or a 3.2 A3.
> 
> ...



go drive a modded 2005-2009 legacy... character of the audi, heart, soul, and balls of the STI.


----------



## ceese (Jul 2, 2011)

BL-2-8P said:


> go drive a modded 2005-2009 legacy... character of the audi, heart, soul, and balls of the STI.


"Character of the Audi" That's a big statment.

Meh. It was on my list of possibilities when I bought my A3 so I've test drove it and wasn't impressed - that's just my opinion. Subaru's are nice cars but not in the same league as Audis when it comes to refinement. Lexus and Acura are closer in that regard. 

Keep in mind these are just my personal opinions and I'm no car reviewer.

I've driven most of the late model Subaru's from the base imprezza wagon up to a fully loaded Legacy sedan (the legacy didn't do anything for me). The STI was fun but uncomfortable and overkill as a daily driver (still can't understand why people who don't track buy them). All in all I think the WRX comes the closest to hitting the nail on the head for me and I wouldn't mind owning one. They did a great job with it. Great power, handles extremely well and comfortable for a daily driver - the suspension is just right, sporty but not too tight for street driving. Also, the seat fits my @ss just perfectly. From a luxury standpoint its boring though. If they brought some of the details from the Legacy such as the carbon fiber interior trim elements and leather seats the price difference between it and an A3 would have made for a harder decision for me. As far as the Legacy goes, for the same money as a fully loaded Legacy I'd much rather have an AWD VW CC or a mid tier A4.

The Subaru I really wanted was the Saabaru 9-2x when it was launched in 2005. It came with the STI steering rack, WRX engine and suspension and most of the refinement of a SAAB. I was disappointed that it didn't sell well and when they killed it even though I wasn't interested in buying one at that point.

As far as character of the Audi, I just can't see it in a Subaru. Mercedes, BMWs, Bentleys even Volvos and if you believe this Mazdas (although subtle) have character - Subarus just don't elicit any sort of emotion for me even though I had an appointment with the Subaru dealer the next day to custom order a WRX when after a year of searching the right A3 finally fell into my lap.

With all of that said. Someone asked me not too long ago what car I'd replace my A3 with if I won the lottery. My response was, "I wouldn't." I would probably add to the stable but the car I'd drive and love the most is my A3. It's exactly the car I want for a myriad of reasons and out of all the cars I've ever owned which include a Mercedes, Porsche 911, Ford Mustang, VWs, etc. - I like my 3.2 the best by far. I've drikin the cool aid and it's color is Lava Gray, Phantom Black, ibis white, suzuka gray, Morning Dew metallic, Sand Beige pearl, Oak Green metallic, Classic Red pearl, Velvet Purple pearl, Palace Blue pearl, Saddle Brown pearl, etc.


----------



## RedLineRob (Feb 8, 2009)

BL-2-8P said:


> go drive a modded 2005-2009 legacy... character of the audi, heart, soul, and balls of the STI.


your trippin man 

A moded legacy has nothing on a STI the STI may have the same 2.5 but it has completely different internals and transmission. 

And iono how a subaru can have the heart and sole of a Audi ? :screwy: more like old engine technology used in a 1990's porschse hahah


----------



## BL-2-8P (Aug 16, 2008)

RedLineRob said:


> your trippin man
> 
> A moded legacy has nothing on a STI the STI may have the same 2.5 but it has completely different internals and transmission.
> 
> And iono how a subaru can have the heart and sole of a Audi ? :screwy: more like old engine technology used in a 1990's porschse hahah


have you driven one? 

and i also said heart and soul of a sti ... character of an audi... i also gave specific years...

i had one, i want another one, i understand this is an audi board, so everyone will be biased (unless youve owned one)

last time i dynod the car before trade in, came in at 274/314 awhp with bolt-ons only, easier to tune, just as plush as the audi. i wont justify it much more, to each their own.


----------



## BL-2-8P (Aug 16, 2008)

ceese said:


> "Character of the Audi" That's a big statment.


one of my good friends car

















same car different wheels










My car









video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJDgGo3ff2c


----------



## ceese (Jul 2, 2011)

Not to bash, but I don't think you get what I'm saying about the character of an Audi vs. a Subaru. Leather, carbon and aluminum trim don't give it character. The character is in the details. Subaru's attention to details in their interiors and exteriors for that matter just arent' there. They are getting better. Although a lot of people hated that the imprezza moved away from the old school rally style, I feel the 08+ body style was much more refined. However, the new Fiat 500 has more character than the Legacy. The refinement and thought they put into every part of that car is very obvious when you get into even the base models.










It's the equivilant of the "German car doors thunk when you close them." The knobs feel solid and turn with purpose. Seats slide smoothly, plastic bits fit together with precision. Subbies just don't have that. As a company, they just don't spend the money, time or have the passion as engineers and designers to hit the level of detail that Audi does even on thier base models.

Check out the stitching on the underside of the fiat 500's wheel and the other little details they took the time to perfect.


----------



## BL-2-8P (Aug 16, 2008)

ceese said:


> Not to bash, but I don't think you get what I'm saying about the character of an Audi vs. a Subaru.



trust me i completely get it... the interior of my a3 is definitely on par with the 2005-2009 subaru legacy

lol - you threw up a picture of a fiat? and not an audi? if your gonna do that, compare apples to apples, things within the same price range...


----------



## ceese (Jul 2, 2011)

BL-2-8P said:


> trust me i completely get it... the interior of my a3 is definitely on par with the 2005-2009 subaru legacy
> 
> lol - you threw up a picture of a fiat? and not an audi? if your gonna do that, compare apples to apples, things within the same price range...


It's hard to tell if that's the best you can come up with or if you are just trying to get my goat or both.

Anyway, In case you really didn't get it. I chose the Fiat with a purpose and explained it already but I'll explain it again this time more succinctly...I intentionally chose to include Fiat precisely because it is cheaper than the Subaru and has a better design, build quality and materials. 

As far as the Legacy vs. A3 interior goes. For one the A3 uses real aluminum where possible on its silver trim pieces - the legacy uses painted plastic. Audi uses a heavier weight and better cuts of leather, Audi covers the DSG shift boot in leather - Subaru doesn't, The A3 mirror compas is behind the glass - Subaru cuts a black box for thier LED. The list goes on right down to the rails Audi's seats are bolted to and the quality of fiber they use in their carpets. I get in a Legacy and I can't help but to see where they skimped - it's like one of those gaudy big plastic boom boxes at Best Buy that say look at me I'm cool but there is no substance when you compare it to a the Bose wave machine sitting three feet away and which like the A3 is understated from an industrial design point of view. Audi is known for their understated Luxury and performance and it's well executed in the A3 and executed even better in their midsize sedans such as the new A4.

If you really think the Legacy interior is as nice as the A3s then your tastes just aren't refined enough to notice the differences and that is in part what Subaru is banking on. 

As I said before and I'll say it again - Subaru makes a great car but it does not have the character of an Audi. I realize that if you aren't just screwing with me that I probably can't convince you nor do I have the desire to spend any more energy trying and you won't ever get me to agree with you so I'll agree to disagree and drop it. I do however love a good friendly debate 

Why do you drive an A3 instead of a Legacy?


Fiat 500 Abarth interior 









Legacy Interior 2009 as you specified









Audi A3 2011 interior









Audi A4 interior 2012


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

ceese said:


> Audi A3 2011 interior


how can you put a A3 circa 2003's interior in the comparision?


----------



## ceese (Jul 2, 2011)

LWNY said:


> how can you put a A3 circa 2003's interior in the comparision?


Curious, what image or model year should I have used and why? He specified the 2009 Legacy so I assumed he is comparing it to the pre 2012 A3 interior.


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

ceese said:


> Curious, what image or model year should I have used and why? He specified the 2009 Legacy so I assumed he is comparing it to the pre 2012 A3 interior.


all years since the 2003 looks the same, so you mind as well put back that pix of the subaru with the giant plastic boombox in the middle of the dash


----------



## BL-2-8P (Aug 16, 2008)

that a3's interior is not base...:bs:


----------



## BL-2-8P (Aug 16, 2008)

BL-2-8P said:


> that a3's interior is not base...:bs:


 base a3 07 










TDI premium a3 12 









a3 
09+sline









2006-2009 legacy was offered in a spec-B package 
06 came with red leather and red leather door cards 
07-09 came with alcantra - similar to what the s-lines are coming with now... 


so i continue to stand with my statement that the interior between the a3 and the legacy 2006-2009 are on par with each other 

i really dont understand why you keep putting pics of a fiat up?  yup looks better than the a3's and the subbies? 

eod...youre gonna be an audi fanboi ... and you'll continue to buy audi the rest of your life...while other folks offer better products 

/im unsubscribing... :thumbup::wave:


----------



## ceese (Jul 2, 2011)

ceese said:


> Anyway, In case you really didn't get it. I chose the Fiat with a purpose and explained it already but I'll explain it again this time more succinctly...I intentionally chose to include Fiat precisely because it is cheaper than the Subaru and has a better design, build quality and materials.
> 
> As far as the Legacy vs. A3 interior goes. For one the A3 uses real aluminum where possible on its silver trim pieces - the legacy uses painted plastic. Audi uses a heavier weight and better cuts of leather, Audi covers the DSG shift boot in leather - Subaru doesn't, The A3 mirror compas is behind the glass - Subaru cuts a black box for thier LED. The list goes on right down to the rails Audi's seats are bolted to and the quality of fiber they use in their carpets. I get in a Legacy and I can't help but to see where they skimped - it's like one of those gaudy big plastic boom boxes at Best Buy that say look at me I'm cool but there is no substance when you compare it to a the Bose wave machine sitting three feet away and which like the A3 is understated from an industrial design point of view. Audi is known for their understated Luxury and performance and it's well executed in the A3 and executed even better in their midsize sedans such as the new A4.
> 
> If you really think the Legacy interior is as nice as the A3s then your tastes just aren't refined enough to notice the differences and that is in part what Subaru is banking on.


----------



## BalloFruit (Sep 25, 2006)

azoceanblue said:


> (although I am impressed with BalloFruit's 23mpg with his 3.2).


 I just entered a new batch of receipts to my spreadsheet. Looks like I dropped a tad bit. Over 89,392 miles, I'm averaging 22.88 mpg.


----------

