# 1.8T FWD better driver than 2.0T Quattro?



## HX_Guy (Oct 11, 2001)

There's a short and quick review of the 2015 Audi A3 in the newest issue of Motor Trend in which they say...

"Having had a chance to sample the 220-hp A3 2.0T Quattro, I can say without a doubt that the base FWD A3 1.8T is the better driver. 
Sure, its turbocharged I-4 with 170 hp and 200 lb-ft of torque won't get the A3 up and going as quickly as the larger 2.0-liter, but it makes for a much more engaging driving experience. What the little turbo-four lacks in power, it makes up in pep. With shorter gearing in the standard six-speed dual-clutch auto, a lower curb weight, and sharper steering than the 2.0T, the 1.8T is downright fun in town and on tight, twisty back roads."

Thought was the both interesting and surprising. Anyone test drive both back to back? Do you agree, disagree?


----------



## VWNCC (Jan 12, 2010)

HX_Guy said:


> There's a short and quick review of the 2015 Audi A3 in the newest issue of Motor Trend in which they say...
> 
> "Having had a chance to sample the 220-hp A3 2.0T Quattro, I can say without a doubt that the base FWD A3 1.8T is the better driver.
> Sure, its turbocharged I-4 with 170 hp and 200 lb-ft of torque won't get the A3 up and going as quickly as the larger 2.0-liter, but it makes for a much more engaging driving experience. What the little turbo-four lacks in power, it makes up in pep. With shorter gearing in the standard six-speed dual-clutch auto, a lower curb weight, and sharper steering than the 2.0T, the 1.8T is downright fun in town and on tight, twisty back roads."
> ...


Totally disagree. The added grip with the quattro alone makes the 2.0TQ better.


----------



## Lpforte (Aug 2, 2011)

VWNCC said:


> Totally disagree. The added grip with the quattro alone makes the 2.0TQ better.


Agreed. Better steering? Unless they are using different systems/steering ratios I don't see how that could be the case. The 2.0T engine is marginally heavier than the 1.8T, so with the quattro the weight distribution should actually be better even if the vehicle is a bit heavier overall. Their own instrumented tests show that 2.0T has better lateral acceleration and practically no difference in braking distance. Over a second difference in 0-60, 1/4 mile, etc. is significant. If the 1.8 was better on twisty roads like they say, I would think it would at least be reflected as such in the figure 8 test. I haven't heard any reviewer or person trying out these cars recommend the 1.8T over the 2.0T for performance/driving fun. Motortrend claims the 2.0T has sluggish steering, what?


----------



## livestrong191 (Nov 18, 2013)

As an owner of a 2015 A3 1.8L it is a lot of fun to drive. I came from rear wheel drive 2008 C350 and the double glutch in the 1.8 makes gear changing quick and smooth. Do not miss the mercedes C350 at all and loving the Mpg on the Audi


----------



## lotusrich (May 4, 2014)

I test drove the 2.0T and was impressed with it (they didn't have the 1.8T yet) but I went for the 1.8T with sport suspension because it is 190 lbs lighter and had a noticeably larger trunk. With the type of driving I do I would hardly ever need the Quattro and I don't want the weight penalty affecting fuel economy.


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

lotusrich said:


> I test drove the 2.0T and was impressed with it (they didn't have the 1.8T yet) but I went for the 1.8T with sport suspension because it is 190 lbs lighter and had a noticeably larger trunk. With the type of driving I do I would hardly ever need the Quattro and I don't want the weight penalty affecting fuel economy.


The EPA rating is actually better on the 2.0T- by one mile on the highway, I believe.


----------



## lotusrich (May 4, 2014)

Dan Halen said:


> The EPA rating is actually better on the 2.0T- by one mile on the highway, I believe.


It seems the 2.0T is one mile per gallon better in the city which I find surprising given the weight disadvantage.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymake/Audi2015.shtml


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

City... I knew as soon as I typed highway, it would be city.


----------



## mike3141 (Feb 16, 1999)

Lpforte said:


> Agreed. Better steering? Unless they are using different systems/steering ratios I don't see how that could be the case.


They're using identical steering ratios.. However the power assist may be different.


----------



## DavidCz1992 (Apr 9, 2014)

lotusrich said:


> I test drove the 2.0T and was impressed with it (they didn't have the 1.8T yet) but I went for the 1.8T with sport suspension because it is 190 lbs lighter and had a noticeably larger trunk. With the type of driving I do I would hardly ever need the Quattro and I don't want the weight penalty affecting fuel economy.


What issues about fuel economy are you talking about? Your driving a four cylinder sedan whose engine is almost identical to a Jetta's. that comment is laughable. Surprised that you went with that with the weather you guys get up north


----------



## lotusrich (May 4, 2014)

DavidCz1992 said:


> What issues about fuel economy are you talking about? Your driving a four cylinder sedan whose engine is almost identical to a Jetta's. that comment is laughable. Surprised that you went with that with the weather you guys get up north


When I put my order in there was nothing published about the fuel economy of the two models and I assumed that the lighter vehicle with the smaller engine would have better mileage. I was wrong and will have to console myself that the 1.8 was cheaper to buy. Gas is quite a bit more expensive in Canada than the US. 
I live near Vancouver where it snows once or twice a winter- FWD with snow tires does just fine and way better than 4WD with all-season tires.


----------



## Trumpet Rider (Apr 19, 2014)

HX_Guy said:


> There's a short and quick review of the 2015 Audi A3 in the newest issue of Motor Trend in which they say...
> 
> (Snip) Anyone test drive both back to back? Do you agree, disagree?


Yes and yes -agree that is. Both moi and my spouse liked the 1.8 FWD better than the 2.0 Quattro. I've no doubt that for '90th percentile driving' -ie, no snow, seven/tenths back-road bombing- the lighter, more agile 1.8 FWD will be no slower than the 2.0 Quattro. In capable hands, it may even be quicker...


----------



## VWNCC (Jan 12, 2010)

Trumpet Rider said:


> I've no doubt that for '90th percentile driving' -ie, no snow, seven/tenths back-road bombing- the lighter, more agile 1.8 FWD will be no slower than the 2.0 Quattro. In capable hands, it may even be quicker...


No offense, but what you said is not really possible.


----------



## VWNCC (Jan 12, 2010)

lotusrich said:


> When I put my order in there was nothing published about the fuel economy of the two models and I assumed that the lighter vehicle with the smaller engine would have better mileage. I was wrong and will have to console myself that the 1.8 was cheaper to buy. Gas is quite a bit more expensive in Canada than the US.
> I live near Vancouver where it snows once or twice a winter- FWD with snow tires does just fine and way better than 4WD with all-season tires.


They let you order Shiraz Red with S line? I thought you couldn't get Shiraz red with S line.

I was in the same boat as you until I found out 2 things:

1) 2.0T Quattro has better mileage than 1.8T FWD.

2) Jetta 1.8T and Golf VII 1.8T are almost 10k cheaper. I couldn't justify getting the A3 unless it has Quattro.


----------



## Trumpet Rider (Apr 19, 2014)

VWNCC said:


> No offense, but what you said is not really possible.


Yes it is. Some hands are more capable than others....


----------



## lotusrich (May 4, 2014)

VWNCC said:


> They let you order Shiraz Red with S line? I thought you couldn't get Shiraz red with S line.
> 
> I was in the same boat as you until I found out 2 things:
> 
> ...


When I went to the Audi Canada site online I couldn't order Shiraz Red with S line trim but when I was in the dealership they had a different configurator (if that is a word) and it was possible. My car isn't due until July so it isn't set in stone yet- I might hear back saying it isn't possible.
I know what you are saying about the Jetta and Golf but to me the Audi A3 was worth the additional cost as I love the look of both the exterior and interior. And, yes, probably owning the Audi brand as well.


----------



## VWNCC (Jan 12, 2010)

lotusrich said:


> When I went to the Audi Canada site online I couldn't order Shiraz Red with S line trim but when I was in the dealership they had a different configurator (if that is a word) and it was possible. My car isn't due until July so it isn't set in stone yet- I might hear back saying it isn't possible.
> I know what you are saying about the Jetta and Golf but to me the Audi A3 was worth the additional cost as I love the look of both the exterior and interior. And, yes, probably owning the Audi brand as well.


If you had tested both the 2.0T and 1.8T and found that you liked the 1.8T more, I wouldn't be making the following recommendation, but since you have only tested the 2.0T.... I highly recommend you test drive the 1.8T before you decide. You are making your decision based on the 2.0T, so when you get your 1.8T, you might be disappointed by its lower power output and poorer traction, especially you are in Vancouver where it rains a lot.

Try to test drive when there is heavy rain and test them back to back before you make your final decision. Then there wouldn't be any regret.

You might want to test drive the 19" wheels + S line suspension setup too, since you probably tested the 18" + standard suspension in the 2.0T before, the ride on the 19" + S line suspension is a lot harsher and you might not like it.

Also, have you considered the GLI 30-year special edition? It will be like 2-3k cheaper than the 1.8T Sline and comes with a lot more things for the price like Nav, rearview camera, an even bigger trunk (seems like you care about this) and a more powerful engine.....

Remember...the 1.8T does 0-100km/hr in 7.7s.....the GLI 2.0T does 6.5s......the A3 2.0T does 6.2s......the 1.8T is a lot slower (not saying it isn't sufficient, but relatively speaking)....not sure if you have an upper ceiling in your budget....but a non Sline 2.0T is a better buy than a 1.8T Sline when they are priced relatively similarly.


----------



## lotusrich (May 4, 2014)

VWNCC said:


> If you had tested both the 2.0T and 1.8T and found that you liked the 1.8T more, I wouldn't be making the following recommendation, but since you have only tested the 2.0T.... I highly recommend you test drive the 1.8T before you decide. You are making your decision based on the 2.0T, so when you get your 1.8T, you might be disappointed by its lower power output and poorer traction, especially you are in Vancouver where it rains a lot.
> 
> Try to test drive when there is heavy rain and test them back to back before you make your final decision. Then there wouldn't be any regret.
> 
> ...


Thanks for taking the time to give me great advice and I am thinking about what you said.
I am not too concerned about the suspension and 19" wheels though giving too harsh a ride as I am used to my Lotus Elise which harsher than almost any other car. 
Thanks again.


----------



## VWNCC (Jan 12, 2010)

lotusrich said:


> Thanks for taking the time to give me great advice and I am thinking about what you said.
> I am not too concerned about the suspension and 19" wheels though giving too harsh a ride as I am used to my Lotus Elise which harsher than almost any other car.
> Thanks again.


You are very welcome. I had the exact same debate before I ordered mine so I fully understand what you are going through right now.


----------



## phospher5 (Jun 21, 2012)

fail ........... just plain no to that article


----------



## GLI_M3 (Jun 10, 2003)

We test drove the 1.8 and 2.0 back to back. We liked the feel of the 1.8 better. The 2.0 is rear biased Quattro and did not care for how it drove. Also, for us, we take frequent trips with suitcases and the 2.2 cubic ft bigger trunk in the 1.8 was helpful. Each of us have our own context for decisions.......for us, the 1.8 matched up better. This, by the way, is our 4th A3, and 8th Audi.


----------



## T1no (Sep 22, 2012)

GLI_M3 said:


> We test drove the 1.8 and 2.0 back to back. We liked the feel of the 1.8 better. The 2.0 is rear biased Quattro and did not care for how it drove. Also, for us, we take frequent trips with suitcases and the 2.2 cubic ft bigger trunk in the 1.8 was helpful. Each of us have our own context for decisions.......for us, the 1.8 matched up better. This, by the way, is our 4th A3, and 8th Audi.


you mean front bias ?


----------



## ChrisFu (Jun 9, 2012)

T1no said:


> you mean front bias ?


rear biased...as compared to 100% FWD


----------



## FractureCritical (Nov 24, 2009)

ChrisFu said:


> rear biased...as compared to 100% FWD


Iv'e driven both and I kinda have to agree that the FWD is the better driver. Maybe it's just that MQB by design strays towards the bread-and-butter Golf/Passat/etc vehicles that are primarily intended to be FWD, or maybe it's that the Haldex system just isn't as good as real quattro, but the balance is there, and the intrusiveness of the reactive haldex system isn't there.


----------



## steve111b (Jun 2, 2011)

FractureCritical said:


> maybe it's that the Haldex system just isn't as good as real quattro, but the balance is there, and the intrusiveness of the reactive haldex system isn't there.


I can think of a couple of things that may be causing the quattro to get poor reviews. My 8P quattro came with a stiffer/lowered suspension and for the most part, I am unaware of the Haldex working. Perhaps a stiffer suspension is a better match for the Haldex. 

There is a Haldex jerk that occurs when it engages as the car is rolling slowly in 1st gear. I am not annoyed by it, but I can see someone being unhappy on a test drive. I believe Audi has made an effort to get around the 1st gear jerk (on the 8P) by not letting the car into 1st very often. If the car is rolling at a walking speed it will only go down to 2nd gear. If the car rarely allows 1st to occur, it doesn't give much opportunity for a jerky 1st gear engagment of the Haldex. And of course if the car only drops down to 2nd, it will make the 1.8 (which likely gears down to 1st much easier) appear more peppy and responsive. I was annoyed when I figured out the car wasn't dropping down to 1st, but then the benefits of the quattro far outweigh the drawbacks. And yes, a complete dead stop allows the Haldex to engage without any problems.

So the question becomes has an 8P quattro driver done the test between the 1.8 and the 2.0?


----------



## GLI_M3 (Jun 10, 2003)

Perhaps a bit of apples and oranges but I had a 2013 Golf R that I traded on my 981 Porsche Cayman but I did have that as a reference point when test driving the A3 1.8 and 2.0. The A3 2.0 clearly felt different than the Golf R Haldex..........



steve111b said:


> I can think of a couple of things that may be causing the quattro to get poor reviews. My 8P quattro came with a stiffer/lowered suspension and for the most part, I am unaware of the Haldex working. Perhaps a stiffer suspension is a better match for the Haldex.
> 
> There is a Haldex jerk that occurs when it engages as the car is rolling slowly in 1st gear. I am not annoyed by it, but I can see someone being unhappy on a test drive. I believe Audi has made an effort to get around the 1st gear jerk (on the 8P) by not letting the car into 1st very often. If the car is rolling at a walking speed it will only go down to 2nd gear. If the car rarely allows 1st to occur, it doesn't give much opportunity for a jerky 1st gear engagment of the Haldex. And of course if the car only drops down to 2nd, it will make the 1.8 (which likely gears down to 1st much easier) appear more peppy and responsive. I was annoyed when I figured out the car wasn't dropping down to 1st, but then the benefits of the quattro far outweigh the drawbacks. And yes, a complete dead stop allows the Haldex to engage without any problems.
> 
> So the question becomes has an 8P quattro driver done the test between the 1.8 and the 2.0?


----------



## Waterfan (Aug 9, 2012)

FractureCritical said:


> Iv'e driven both and I kinda have to agree that the FWD is the better driver. Maybe it's just that MQB by design strays towards the bread-and-butter Golf/Passat/etc vehicles that are primarily intended to be FWD, or maybe it's that the Haldex system just isn't as good as real quattro, but the balance is there, and the intrusiveness of the reactive haldex system isn't there.


Listening to the Golf R (mk6) guys, I'm convinced a more aggressive Haldex calibration (like HPA's Race or Comp) that makes better use of the AWD platform would put the 2.0T Quattro heads and shoulders above the 1.8T FWD in terms of driving dynamics. The downside is more 'drag' on the driveline and minor loss of mpg (~1-3?)

http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?5638536-HPA-Motorsports-Haldex-Gen-4-“Competition”-Controller-for-Golf-R


----------



## bobsmith872 (Apr 15, 2014)

Why would the 1.8T have "sharper steering" than the 2.0T?


----------



## kendrickhphoto (Jan 26, 2012)

bobsmith872 said:


> Why would the 1.8T have "sharper steering" than the 2.0T?


Less weight up front and a lighter rear end making it feel different than the 2.0 Quattro. 

I have a bit of experience in this arena so I thought I'd chime in. 

I had a 2010 GTI that I traded in on a 2013 Golf R. I traded the R in for a 2014 S4 with the sport diff. I also was able to be a part of the A3 driving experience. I was able to drive a base 1.8T and a Prestige 2.0T on the auto cross type course they had set up and I pushed it as hard as I could for the small course that they had. 

I can say that the 1.8 had a little more bite on turn in than the 2.0 but that was it. The 2.0 felt a lot like my R with the HPA competition controller, Audi stepped up the game with the programming on the Gen 5 Haldex to say the least. I was easily able to rotate the rear end around hard corners. It's not on par with the S4 40:60 split AWD but I wouldn't expect it to be since they are two different animals. I would 100% go with the 2.0 and that is exactly what my fiancé is going with when we get married this year.


----------



## VWNCC (Jan 12, 2010)

kendrickhphoto said:


> Less weight up front and a lighter rear end making it feel different than the 2.0 Quattro.
> 
> I have a bit of experience in this arena so I thought I'd chime in.
> 
> ...


I agree, there is no way I'd take the 1.8 over the 2.0.

In my opinion, the 2.0TQ had much better traction and gave better road feel. I like it a lot more than the 1.8. I guess it depends on where you live. Here up north, quattro is the way to go, especially when the 1.8 has slightly worse mileage. The only thing I miss about the 1.8 is the trunk space. But if I were to get a FWD car, I'd much rather get the GLI edition 30, better engine, more features, more space, and cheaper.


----------



## itr_1211 (Apr 1, 2014)

VWNCC said:


> I agree, there is no way I'd take the 1.8 over the 2.0.
> 
> In my opinion, the 2.0TQ had much better traction and gave better road feel. I like it a lot more than the 1.8. I guess it depends on where you live. Here up north, quattro is the way to go, especially when the 1.8 has slightly worse mileage. The only thing I miss about the 1.8 is the trunk space. But if I were to get a FWD car, I'd much rather get the GLI edition 30, better engine, more features, more space, and cheaper.


Rear trunk space is the only trade off, but no biggy. Once the snow hits this is where the 2.0 shines


----------



## VWNCC (Jan 12, 2010)

itr_1211 said:


> Rear trunk space is the only trade off, but no biggy. Once the snow hits this is where the 2.0 shines


Totally.


----------



## GLI_M3 (Jun 10, 2003)

It depends on your criteria and personal context for decisions. I get into the same debate on the Porsche forums when I say that my 981 Cayman 2.7L is the best, overall and balanced performer and I do not need the Cayman S. For me, and my personal criteria of overall balance the 2.7L with PDK works best. My qualifications to make that judgement call? I previously owned a 2008 Cayman S (Gen 1), and 2012 Cayman R both of which were 6MT, and now the 981 Cayman 2.7L. So, while we can debate 1.8 vs. 2.0, FWD vs. Quattro, Haldex et al, one's opinion when based on specific criteria at least to me, has real merit. Oh, and to further clarify....... in order of preference with the Porsches, it is the 2014 981 2.7L, 2008 Cayman S (3.4), 2012 Cayman R (3.4, LSD, sport suspension, more hp....et al). Yes, I actually found that for best balanced driving in the Gen 1 Caymans, the 08 CS fit my criteria better than the CR.


----------



## VWNCC (Jan 12, 2010)

GLI_M3 said:


> It depends on your criteria and personal context for decisions.


I agree. If I lived in Florida like you, my preference might have been different. With snow up north here...the choice is much easier....


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

GLI_M3 said:


> Yes, I actually found that for best balanced driving in the Gen 1 Caymans, the 08 CS fit my criteria better than the CR.


I'd likely call BS if you said otherwise. :laugh:


----------



## chrisMk6TDi (Dec 10, 2011)

I agree 100% with the reviewer, I test drove both back to back (2.0T first) and found the 1.8T felt more fun, the 2.0T was definitely quicker but the 1.8T just had better driving character, call me crazy.


----------

