# chipped 2.0t vs stock 3.2



## asylum (Jan 11, 2000)

Has anyone had a chance to compare a chipped 2.0t vs stock 3.2 (both A3's obvioously). Just curious as to how well a chipped 2.0t A3 holds up to a 3.2 A3


----------



## meesh. (Apr 1, 2004)

*Re: chipped 2.0t vs stock 3.2 (asylum)*

my chipped a3 feels a lot faster the the 3.2 quattro did. significantly faster. but the only comparison i have is from test driving the 3.2, i didnt race one if thats what you're asking.


----------



## asylum (Jan 11, 2000)

*Re: chipped 2.0t vs stock 3.2 (meesh.)*


_Quote, originally posted by *meesh.* »_my chipped a3 feels a lot faster the the 3.2 quattro did. significantly faster. but the only comparison i have is from test driving the 3.2, i didnt race one if thats what you're asking.

Im just asking for any input at all......Im curious about this!


----------



## 3dr A3 3.2 (Dec 28, 2004)

Come on, someone set this up please. Video would be nice as well.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

chipped 2.0t would take it considering that a chipped 2.0t can eat up an R32.
Dave


----------



## zakurie (Oct 6, 2004)

Based on my testdrive of the 3.2:
The 3.2 has much more linear power, and gets up to speed without you knowing it. The DSG is super smooth with this set-up, but doesn't feel as responsive.
The 2.0T chipped is much lighter on its feet, more agile, and all in all, it feels much faster.


----------



## Nuvolari (Jun 22, 2004)

Perception plays an overwhelming role in such a comparison, if you do it yourself, back to back. Reality may be far from that perception.
The turbo, once kicking in, will make the 2.0T *feel* faster while it may not really *be* faster. The linear power (more specifically: torque) development on the 3.2 will make it feel less dramatic but more predictable, more cultivated.
We can only answer this question by doing a side-by-side under safe conditions, and with full awareness (and disclosure) of the specs of both cars.


----------



## asylum (Jan 11, 2000)

*Re: (Nuvolari)*

anybody else??????


----------



## chrisddo (Mar 17, 2001)

*Re: (asylum)*

I feel the same. The peaky low-end power of the 2.0T is really deceptive and makes it feel much faster thatn it is. I have a funny feeling the A3 3.2 will crush a 2.0T out of the dig (quattro) and from there the race will be pretty even once both cars get rolling. It was the same when I first got my 1.8T Jetta. With mods and software the torque felt like a tons of bricks but once I got on the track I was being beaten by lowly Civics with half the power and a third of the torque. Obviously the weight was a foresight because no matter how punchy the torque felt it was still a pig. I perfected my launches and did hundred of runs but in the end I learned that internet racers had swelled my ego and that torque was not the tall talel end to all things. Who knows though..Quattro is heavier an so is the V6 itself. Perhaps our beefy midrange will pull on it. Otherwise, the 3.2s throttle response is awesome and the soundtrack is simply sublime and my A3's pounding torque is oh so fun...Let's get some videos going! Cheers.


----------



## meesh. (Apr 1, 2004)

from a dead stop, i think the 3.2 would take a chipped 2.0t. **** i cant even launch my car because of traction issues i've been having. but from roll, i think the 2.0t will get the 3.2.


----------



## judgegavel (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: (meesh.)*

Um the chipped 2.0T will have considerably more power and HP without the significant drivetrain loss of quattro (even though its not really quattro), I dont think it would even be close. http://****************.com/smile/emthdown.gif


----------



## A4Kevin (May 4, 2005)

This is a ridiculous thread.


----------



## whizbang18T (Nov 17, 2000)

agreed ... just race & find out ... this reminds me of the 1.8t vs vr6 threads back in the day on tex ... lol


----------



## asylum (Jan 11, 2000)

*Re: (chrisddo)*


_Quote, originally posted by *chrisddo* »_I feel the same. The peaky low-end power of the 2.0T is really deceptive and makes it feel much faster thatn it is. I have a funny feeling the A3 3.2 will crush a 2.0T out of the dig (quattro) and from there the race will be pretty even once both cars get rolling. It was the same when I first got my 1.8T Jetta. With mods and software the torque felt like a tons of bricks but once I got on the track I was being beaten by lowly Civics with half the power and a third of the torque. Obviously the weight was a foresight because no matter how punchy the torque felt it was still a pig. I perfected my launches and did hundred of runs but in the end I learned that internet racers had swelled my ego and that torque was not the tall talel end to all things. Who knows though..Quattro is heavier an so is the V6 itself. Perhaps our beefy midrange will pull on it. Otherwise, the 3.2s throttle response is awesome and the soundtrack is simply sublime and my A3's pounding torque is oh so fun...Let's get some videos going! Cheers.









Yeah but this thread isnt about comparing the A3 to a different car (as your comparison of your mk4 vs a civic on the track). This is about the same car but with different engine/drivetrain combo!
I dont know....I might be a little on edge....looking for an ego boost and something to boost my confidence that I made a good choice buying an A3 2.0t which is replacing an mk3 GTI VR6 turbo with 400+whp (I know, I know...2 totally different cars which is why I still have my modded BT SRT4 to feed my thirst for speed)


_Modified by asylum at 10:06 PM 1-9-2006_


----------



## Audiggity (Oct 19, 2005)

I own the 2.0T (not chipped), and I've driven the 3.2 Q. Everyone is right; the 2.0T FEELS faster, but it may not actually be faster. 
Sorry, I don't know anyone with a 3.2 around here, otherwise I'd post a video. I can't imagine a stock 3.2 could beat a chipped 2.0T, that's my vote. 
A bi-turbo 3.2 Q A3 with 500+ horsepower on the other hand...


----------



## RyanA3 (May 11, 2005)

*Re: (A4Kevin)*

Kevin don't be sad. The #'s show that the 3.2 beats the 2.0.
Everyone can make their claims. Great.
Yes I drove the 3.2 and it doesn't FEEL as quick. But of course it's deceptive. B/c we're used to the turbo. 
We shall see soon enough. Spring time is right around the corner and so are "track days"!

edit: the one chance I had with an R32 was not a clean fight so I can't comment, but yes, they pull. Don't forget that a 250hp with an exhaust and another odd mod or two will total 275 or so? That next to an A3 chipped with 245. I would say the 275hp modded 3.2 = about 225 at the crank. The 245hp modded 2.0 equals about the same 225. And now you can factor in traction. Hmmm.

(just estimating, I'm not a dyno-wizard.)


_Modified by RyanA3 at 10:18 PM 1/9/2006_


----------



## Audiggity (Oct 19, 2005)

Despite my attempts, I am not a wizard either.


----------



## asylum (Jan 11, 2000)

*Re: (RyanA3)*


_Quote, originally posted by *RyanA3* »_
edit: the one chance I had with an R32 was not a clean fight so I can't comment, but yes, they pull. Don't forget that a 250hp with an exhaust and another odd mod or two will total 275 or so? That next to an A3 chipped with 245. I would say the 275hp modded 3.2 = about 225 at the crank. The 245hp modded 2.0 equals about the same 225. And now you can factor in traction. Hmmm.
_Modified by RyanA3 at 10:18 PM 1/9/2006_

so what happens when you have a chipped 2.0t with TBE and Intake running about the same (approx [email protected] the crank)?







I dont want this thread to become well if you add this and this mod to this car it will be faster but if you this and this to the other car.......it will never end. When you start modding more and more, any car could be made faster than another car. My original question was about a chipped 2.0t vs stock 3.2. Lets not turn this into a 2.0t with 15 mods vs a 3.2 with 18 mods thread


----------



## Nuvolari (Jun 22, 2004)

_Quote »_My original question was about a chipped 2.0t vs stock 3.2

Is there only one chipped 2.0T? I thought there were at least a few versions out, with differing hp/torque numbers. If I am right, which version do you mean?


----------



## 3dr A3 3.2 (Dec 28, 2004)

*Re: (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_chipped 2.0t would take it considering that a chipped 2.0t can eat up an R32.
Dave


Links, video, facts?
Ben.


----------



## 3dr A3 3.2 (Dec 28, 2004)

*Re: (Nuvolari)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Nuvolari* »_
Is there only one chipped 2.0T? I thought there were at least a few versions out, with differing hp/torque numbers. If I am right, which version do you mean?

Yes, there are several purveyors of modified engine management software. However, theay are all *pretty close* to each other.

Regarding the original question, it would be fair to pit a DSG remapped TFSI to a DSG 3.2. Apples to apples.


----------



## chrisddo (Mar 17, 2001)

*Re: (3dr A3 3.2)*

I know, from frequenting the track, that stock R32s (driven well) can do high 13s and magazines have driven it to 5.9 and lower 0-60s as well. Autotech's 2.0T GTI (lighter than our A3s) with software, turboback, and several other mods was tested by a magazine at 5.9 for its 0-60 and a 13.9 1/4. So the power in these cars is very comparable when the 2.0T is chipped with an exhaust. But that is spending the 500 on software and 1000+ on a turboback to get to that power zone. I love my A3...I have software and some other mods and it feels quick as hell. But I'm realistic and won't discount the potential of those 3.2s simply because people keep saying how their 2.0Ts kill 350Zs and Mustangs on all these threads. I think it will be a good race despite people thinking a chipped 2.0T will rape the 3.2. Cheers!


----------



## 3dr A3 3.2 (Dec 28, 2004)

Definitely a close race. Traction would be the greatest variable, especially from a standing start. 
Chris, how is your remap with DSG? ESP off, do you get a lot of wheel spin?


----------



## ibsnowedin (Dec 15, 2005)

*Re: (3dr A3 3.2)*

u guys are making me miss my 3.2Q







i have a 2.0T on order now... i may switch back to a 3.2Q don;t know yet....

But yea the 3.2 feels slow but i had to put a speed warning on it when i go pass 80km/h becuase it goes up in speed sooo fast that u don't notice that u are going that fast until u look down at the meter. Also the 3.2 picks up speed at low rpms... if u drive it between 2k to 3.5k rpm it still picks up speed like a monster.


----------



## judgegavel (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: (3dr A3 3.2)*


_Quote, originally posted by *3dr A3 3.2* »_Definitely a close race. Traction would be the greatest variable, especially from a standing start.

Traction obviously goes to the 3.2, but I dont think it offsets the added weight, lower HP and tq, and of course the added drive train loss of power.Now from a roll the 3.2 would not have a figthing chance.
As for the 0-60 time, I'm thinking a chipped 2.0T (without exhaust)would be under 5.9 (not by much), as unchipped DSG is doing @ 6.4.
Where were those times printed/posted.


_Modified by judgegavel at 9:38 AM 1-10-2006_


----------



## A4Kevin (May 4, 2005)

*Re: (judgegavel)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ibsnowedin* »_u guys are making me miss my 3.2Q i have a 2.0T on order now... i may switch back to a 3.2Q don;t know yet....

But yea the 3.2 feels slow but i had to put a speed warning on it when i go pass 80km/h becuase it goes up in speed sooo fast that u don't notice that u are going that fast until u look down at the meter. Also the 3.2 picks up speed at low rpms... if u drive it between 2k to 3.5k rpm it still picks up speed like a monster. 

What options did you get?


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (chrisddo)*


_Quote, originally posted by *chrisddo* »_I know, from frequenting the track, that stock R32s (driven well) can do high 13s and magazines have driven it to 5.9 and lower 0-60s as well. Autotech's 2.0T GTI (lighter than our A3s) with software, turboback, and several other mods was tested by a magazine at 5.9 for its 0-60 and a 13.9 1/4. So the power in these cars is very comparable when the 2.0T is chipped with an exhaust. But that is spending the 500 on software and 1000+ on a turboback to get to that power zone. I love my A3...I have software and some other mods and it feels quick as hell. But I'm realistic and won't discount the potential of those 3.2s simply because people keep saying how their 2.0Ts kill 350Zs and Mustangs on all these threads. I think it will be a good race despite people thinking a chipped 2.0T will rape the 3.2. Cheers!

That's nice but the 3.2 A3 weighs 250lbs more than an R32. 
For reference:
2004 R32 6MT 3409
2006 A3 3.2 DSG 3660
2006 A3 2.0t DSG 3329
2006 A3 2.0t 6MT 3263
Wow . . . . just realized the 3.2 is 400lbs heavier than my car. 
Dave


----------



## asylum (Jan 11, 2000)

*Re: (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_
That's nice but the 3.2 A3 weighs 250lbs more than an R32. 
For reference:
2004 R32 6MT 3409
2006 A3 3.2 DSG 3660
2006 A3 2.0t DSG 3329
2006 A3 2.0t 6MT 3263
Wow . . . . just realized the 3.2 is 400lbs heavier than my car. Some of you guys are saying that the quattro system and the power of the 3.2 with give the 3.2 cars an advantage but its not like a chipped 2.0t falls behind a 3.2 in hp or torque. From a dig, Im sure the 3.2q cars will have an advantage but their added drivetrain loss and added weight will otherwise give the advantage to the chipped 2.0t
Dave

Now with that being said you guys dont think that a chipped A3 2.0t (fwd) with pretty much the same or more power than the 3.2q A3 will be just as quick or faster?


_Modified by asylum at 10:30 AM 1-10-2006_


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (asylum)*


_Quote, originally posted by *asylum* »_
Now with that being said you guys dont think that a chipped A3 2.0t (fwd) with pretty much the same or more power than the 3.2q A3 will be just as quick or faster?

I've said all along, the 2.0t is faster when chipped. . . . I'd almost venture to say that it'd be dead even if not faster than the 3.2 from a stop . . . . that weight + drivetrain loss really hurts it and the turbo is really underrated, even in stock form.
Dave


----------



## asylum (Jan 11, 2000)

*Re: (crew217)*

Im sure that once the aftermarket tuners figure out the FSI setup better, there will be many performance parts available for the 2.0t that will get the hp up in a hurry. Many will argue that doing a turbo setup on the 3.2 will blow a modded 2.0t out of the water but as far as Im concerned, we should leave that out of this conversation because of the cost of properly doing a 3.2 turbo setup.....it doesnt come cheap!


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (asylum)*


_Quote, originally posted by *asylum* »_Im sure that once the aftermarket tuners figure out the FSI setup better, there will be many performance parts available for the 2.0t that will get the hp up in a hurry. Many will argue that doing a turbo setup on the 3.2 will blow a modded 2.0t out of the water but as far as Im concerned, we should leave that out of this conversation because of the cost of properly doing a 3.2 turbo setup.....it doesnt come cheap!

For $8k on top of the price of a 3.2 DSG . . . I'd get a diff car with a stock higher powered engine and better suspension / chassis.
http://www.hpamotorsports.com/...0.htm
Dave


----------



## asylum (Jan 11, 2000)

*Re: (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_
For $8k on top of the price of a 3.2 DSG . . . I'd get a diff car with a stock higher powered engine and better suspension / chassis.
http://www.hpamotorsports.com/...0.htm
Dave

$8k for a non intercooled setup with 360hp?







and $12k for the 400hp setup?


----------



## mrsleepguy (May 3, 2005)

*Re: (asylum)*


_Quote, originally posted by *asylum* »_
$8k for a non intercooled setup with 360hp?







and $12k for the 400hp setup?
















Hey Mario,
Watch it, this guy knows entirely everything!








Your wife still have a smile on her face when she stretches the right foot? http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 


_Modified by mrsleepguy at 8:12 AM 1-10-2006_


----------



## asylum (Jan 11, 2000)

*Re: (mrsleepguy)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mrsleepguy* »_
Hey Mario,
Watch it, this guy knows entirely everything!








Your wife still have a smile on her face when she stretches the right foot? http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

_Modified by mrsleepguy at 8:12 AM 1-10-2006_

http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
Are you still in Canada or have you left yet?








The A3 is quick but it doesnt have the power that we are used to. Mind you its still stock!


----------



## ibsnowedin (Dec 15, 2005)

*Re: (A4Kevin)*


_Quote, originally posted by *A4Kevin* »_
What options did you get?


2.0T 6MT, Lava Grey, black leather, Sport package, OpenSky, bi-xenons, sound, 17" wheels, convenience, BT, Cold Weather. 
not bad 47k on the road, still alot of money..
They said it will take 3 months to get it or sooner.
i may stick with that and slap a revo chip in it later on. 


_Modified by ibsnowedin at 9:10 AM 1-10-2006_


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (ibsnowedin)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ibsnowedin* »_

2.0T 6MT, Lava Grey, black leather, Sport package, OpenSky, bi-xenons, sound, 17" wheels, convenience, BT, Cold Weather. 
not bad 47k on the road, still alot of money..
They said it will take 3 months to get it or sooner.
i may stick with that and slap a revo chip in it later on. 

_Modified by ibsnowedin at 9:10 AM 1-10-2006_

i wonder if you're actually going to get the bixenon, conv, sport packages you ordered


----------



## A4Kevin (May 4, 2005)

*Re: (ibsnowedin)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ibsnowedin* »_2.0T 6MT, Lava Grey, black leather, Sport package, OpenSky, bi-xenons, sound, 17" wheels, convenience, BT, Cold Weather. 
not bad 47k on the road, still alot of money..
They said it will take 3 months to get it or sooner.
i may stick with that and slap a revo chip in it later on. 

Dont worry, You uncle can afford it...I kid I kid.







Seriously though. Martin over at Halifax AutoSport is a Revo dealer. He is a great guy and will take care of the software for you.


----------



## ibsnowedin (Dec 15, 2005)

*Re: (A4Kevin)*


_Quote, originally posted by *A4Kevin* »_
Dont worry, You uncle can afford it...I kid I kid.







Seriously though. Martin over at Halifax AutoSport is a Revo dealer. He is a great guy and will take care of the software for you.

yea i was there 3 weeks ago to get the 3.2 dyno'ed to see what it is really pushing..

_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_
i wonder if you're actually going to get the bixenon, conv, sport packages you ordered


i hope so, i asked them about that because i couldn't select it on the web, and they told me they can get it.i also saw it on the order sheet it had the bi-xenons and conv as options with the sport-package.

Also i asked them if they were going to get any 2.0TQs or anything on that line but the only thing they have coming in thats new for 2007 is the Q7 and the RS4.. all the way up to the October production line.


----------



## mrsleepguy (May 3, 2005)

*Re: (asylum)*


_Quote, originally posted by *asylum* »_
http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
Are you still in Canada or have you left yet?








The A3 is quick but it doesnt have the power that we are used to. Mind you its still stock!

Yup still here, and staying. My research site has been changed to Calgary.....








The chip will help (ours was chipped). But, your right. Maybe its time to step up to an X50'ed porsche.


----------



## RyanA3 (May 11, 2005)

*Re: (asylum)*


_Quote, originally posted by *asylum* »_My original question was about a chipped 2.0t vs stock 3.2. Lets not turn this into a 2.0t with 15 mods vs a 3.2 with 18 mods thread









I understand.
I think it would be a very good contest.... Stock 3.2 vs. 2.0T chipped. The 2.0T would have at least a better chance if it had good tires.


----------



## A4Kevin (May 4, 2005)

ibsnowedin. Do you have the dyno graph from your 3.2?


----------



## Nuvolari (Jun 22, 2004)

*Re: (asylum)*


_Quote, originally posted by *asylum* »_Im sure that once the aftermarket tuners figure out the FSI setup better, there will be many performance parts available for the 2.0t that will get the *hp* up in a hurry. 

"hp up in a hurry" requires rpm up in a hurry.
You mean torque, not hp.


----------



## asylum (Jan 11, 2000)

*Re: (Nuvolari)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Nuvolari* »_
"hp up in a hurry" requires rpm up in a hurry.
You mean torque, not hp.

no I didnt mean it literally....I meant it as there will be many parts (upgrades) that make power on the 2.0t once the aftermarket figures out the FSI setup just like the 1.8t did. It was a lot easier and cheaper to make a 1.8t faster than it was to make a 2.8 VR6 faster. All Im saying is once the aftermarket figures out the FSI setup there will be lots of parts available for the 2.0t


----------



## judgegavel (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: (RyanA3)*


_Quote, originally posted by *RyanA3* »_
I understand.
I think it would be a very good contest.... Stock 3.2 vs. 2.0T chipped. The 2.0T would have at least a better chance if it had good tires.

You mean like coopers.


----------



## Pannikattk (Nov 9, 2001)

*Re:*

Hands down, the chipped 2.0t would have the edge. The numbers don't lie people. The 3.2 A3 is quite the porky little fella. 
Overweight, overpriced, and underpowered (for its weight at least).


----------



## mhr (Nov 30, 2005)

This really is an amusing thread.
Regardless of the answer, bias is so obvious it pollutes everything people say.
And there is NOTHING porky about the 3.2.








...back to your regular programming.


_Modified by mhr at 1:16 PM 1/10/2006_


----------



## RyanA3 (May 11, 2005)

*Re: Re: (Pannikattk)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Pannikattk* »_ The numbers don't lie people. 

What are you talking about?
*
2.0T
0-60 mph in seconds: 6.7 (DSG); 6.9 (6-speed manual)
Top track speed: 130 mph*

3.2L
0-60 mph in seconds: 5.9 (DSG)
Top track speed: 130 mph*
*


----------



## eltonsi (Mar 17, 2005)

There are a lot of numbers being thrown out right now. But from my testing with my old A3 APR chipped. I would be lucky to get around 6.8 on a good run. Wheel spin is a major problem, with traction control off, I can sometimes manage to minimize it and get a good sub 7.0 run 0-100km. And that's with Falken tires not the crappy P6.
I have seen a lot of numbers by different brands anywhere from 5.9 - 6.5 for their chips. But they have also claimed 250+ HP to the wheels, but once you put it on a dyno, it tells a different story.
I have not driven a 3.2Q yet, but I highly doubt a chipped 2.0T will out run a 3.2Q. And don't even go to the mod this mod that area... Put a decent turbo in the 3.2Q and it will smoke the 2.0T any day. Too bad not a lot of us have a 30k lying around after purchasing the car...


----------



## RyanA3 (May 11, 2005)

*Re: (eltonsi)*


_Quote, originally posted by *eltonsi* »_There are a lot of numbers being thrown out right now. But from my testing with my old A3 APR chipped. I would be lucky to get around 6.8 on a good run. Wheel spin is a major problem, with traction control off, I can sometimes manage to minimize it and get a good sub 7.0 run 0-100km. And that's with Falken tires not the crappy P6..

eltonsi!!!! long time!
I have broken 6 seconds many times. I'll try to take some video this week.


----------



## asylum (Jan 11, 2000)

*Re: (eltonsi)*


_Quote, originally posted by *eltonsi* »_I have seen a lot of numbers by different brands anywhere from 5.9 - 6.5 for their chips. But they have also claimed 250+ HP to the wheels, but once you put it on a dyno, it tells a different story.
I have not driven a 3.2Q yet, but I highly doubt a chipped 2.0T will out run a 3.2Q. And don't even go to the mod this mod that area... Put a decent turbo in the 3.2Q and it will smoke the 2.0T any day. Too bad not a lot of us have a 30k lying around after purchasing the car...

First of all....who has claimed [email protected] from an only chipped 2.0t???? 250 crank hp yeah but not whp. 
Second of all....like we've said already lets leave turbo charging a 3.2l out of this debate until BT setups start appearing for the 2.0t!


----------



## Pannikattk (Nov 9, 2001)

*Re: (eltonsi)*


_Quote, originally posted by *eltonsi* »_ 250+ HP to the wheels, but once you put it on a dyno, it tells a different story.


The chip manufacturers don't quote 250 to the wheels...it's at the crank. Take APR for instance...sounds a lot more attractive to quote crank #'s for sales purposes. 
http://goapr.com/Audi/products....html
I've been driving chipped dubs since 97, so trust me on this one.


----------



## AudiHVParts (Oct 27, 2005)

*Re: (mhr)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mhr* »_This really is an amusing thread.
Regardless of the answer, bias is so obvious it pullutes everything people say.


My daddy can beat up your daddy


----------



## Tarik D (Oct 13, 2005)

*Re: (Pannikattk)*

That EMCS technolgy is pretty cool. I really like the power options.
For $600 it seems like a notable upgrade. Would installing the chip alone (no exhaust, etc) provide a good HP upgrade FEEL? I don't race, but it's nice to have the extra umph. I was used to my WRX - wonder if this chip could match a stock WRX in pulling power...


----------



## mhr (Nov 30, 2005)

*Re: (AudiHVParts)*


_Quote, originally posted by *AudiHVParts* »_My daddy can beat up your daddy

Yup, my point exactly.


----------



## Pannikattk (Nov 9, 2001)

*Re: Re: (RyanA3)*


_Quote, originally posted by *RyanA3* »_
What are you talking about?
*
2.0T
0-60 mph in seconds: 6.7 (DSG); 6.9 (6-speed manual)
Top track speed: 130 mph*

3.2L
0-60 mph in seconds: 5.9 (DSG)
Top track speed: 130 mph*
*

What I'm talking about is the subject of this thread...a CHIPPED 2.0t vs a stock 3.2:
Chipped 2.0T - (approx) 252hp - 303tq
Weight - DSG: 3329
manual: 3263
Stock 3.2 - (direct from Audi) 250hp - 236tq
Weight - DSG: 3660
So again I'll say...the numbers don't lie. The 2.0t clearly has the edge. Less weight to move, and less drivetrain loss. 
A few years back, a good friend and I put a similar comparison to the test. A chipped 1.8t vs a stock 225 TT. At similar HP and tq numbers, the lighter car with FWD was simply quicker.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: Re: (Pannikattk)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Pannikattk* »_
What I'm talking about is the subject of this thread...a CHIPPED 2.0t vs a stock 3.2:
Chipped 2.0T - (approx) 252hp - 303tq
Weight - DSG: 3329
manual: 3263
Stock 3.2 - (direct from Audi) 250hp - 236tq
Weight - DSG: 3660
So again I'll say...the numbers don't lie. The 2.0t clearly has the edge. Less weight to move, and less drivetrain loss. 
A few years back, a good friend and I put a similar comparison to the test. A chipped 1.8t vs a stock 225 TT. At similar HP and tq numbers, the lighter car with FWD was simply quicker. 

Ryan doesn't know what he's talking about anyways. He switches from saying that his car is faster to then quoting numbers that would indicate that the 3.2 is faster. 
I guess the driver vs driver argument is out since DSG can allow any assclown to shift like Michael Schumacher . . . in the end . . . . who cares? I'm waiting for this 2.0t vs 3.2 debate to end so the next stupid 2dr GTI vs 4 dr A3 argument will begin.
Dave


----------



## asylum (Jan 11, 2000)

*Re: Re: (Pannikattk)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Pannikattk* »_
Chipped 2.0T - (approx) 252hp - 303tq
Stock 3.2 - (direct from Audi) 250hp - 236tq



thats a big difference in torque #'s


----------



## A4Kevin (May 4, 2005)

3.2 0-100
http://s62.yousendit.com/d.asp...2Q2EF


----------



## Pannikattk (Nov 9, 2001)

*Re: Re: (asylum)*


_Quote, originally posted by *asylum* »_
thats a big difference in torque #'s

Yes it is








and the reason why I wouldn't shell out 4-6k more for a porkier, slower car. I'll probably be getting myself an A3 2.0T when I pay off my GTI this July. Would be nice to have 2 dubs at my disposal in the driveway








I'm mostly a lurker in this forum right now...but can't help putting in my 0.2 at times


----------



## judgegavel (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: Re: (Pannikattk)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Pannikattk* »_
What I'm talking about is the subject of this thread...a CHIPPED 2.0t vs a stock 3.2:
Chipped 2.0T - (approx) 252hp - 303tq
Weight - DSG: 3329
manual: 3263
Stock 3.2 - (direct from Audi) 250hp - 236tq
Weight - DSG: 3660
So again I'll say...the numbers don't lie. The 2.0t clearly has the edge. Less weight to move, and less drivetrain loss. 
A few years back, a good friend and I put a similar comparison to the test. A chipped 1.8t vs a stock 225 TT. At similar HP and tq numbers, the lighter car with FWD was simply quicker. 

Exactly, end discussion. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## RyanA3 (May 11, 2005)

*Re: Re: (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_Ryan doesn't know what he's talking about anyways. He switches from saying that his car is faster to then quoting numbers that would indicate that the 3.2 is faster. 

I hear you. I'm only quoting Audi's website. 
But seriously... who cares how much the car weighs DAVE. The 0-60 #s are 0-60mph, they are the tested #s. Do you have a reason to say they are inaccurate. Did you run 0-60 with both cars?
Once again.
2.0T 6.7 (DSG)
3.2L 5.9 (DSG)
Notice there are no *'s saying. Since the 3.2L is heavier, these #'s are misleading...
Yes I can be quoted as stating the 3.2 doesn't "FEEL" as quick. But I never stated that it's slower in reality.

MY car could be faster, who knows. OCT chip + full Milltek. I think MAYBE I can pull a 5.5 second 0-60. 



_Modified by RyanA3 at 4:50 PM 1/10/2006_


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: Re: (judgegavel)*


_Quote, originally posted by *judgegavel* »_
Exactly, end discussion. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif
















So it's settled . . . . chipped 2.0t DSGs can reach poland faster than 3.2 dsgs








Dave


----------



## judgegavel (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: Re: (crew217)*

no you need awd for the ice.


----------



## radcoup (Sep 12, 2005)

*Re: Re: (judgegavel)*

Most of this debate assumes the track is a quarter miler. How bout some autocross or road course comparisons ??
It'll be awhile until the season starts up but I would guess 2.0T for autocross and 3.2 for a 2-3 mile road course.
2.0T for autocross since the track is very short, not enough time for the turbo to get hot and lighter weight.
3.2 for the road course because the exit speeds should be better and more useable HP.
Anxious to see some lap times on both cars. Should be fun. I doubt either one could ever touch a well prepped WRX wagon, short of spending over $5k, but still would be fun to see the A3 out there dueling with some BMW's.
Quatermiler ? Go buy a stang. Thats what they are made for.


----------



## chrisddo (Mar 17, 2001)

*Re: (Tarik D)*

Petethegreat on the AudiWorld forums claims that, with APR, AWE exhaust, and pullies, he is doing "My car pulled 250 HP 260 Ft lbs trq. to the wheels for the best run" and he came from a B6 S4 and claims his A3 is faster. Go figure.


----------



## mrsleepguy (May 3, 2005)

*Re: Re: (radcoup)*


_Quote, originally posted by *radcoup* »_Most of this debate assumes the track is a quarter miler. How bout some autocross or road course comparisons ??
It'll be awhile until the season starts up but I would guess 2.0T for autocross and 3.2 for a 2-3 mile road course.
2.0T for autocross since the track is very short, not enough time for the turbo to get hot and lighter weight.
3.2 for the road course because the exit speeds should be better and more useable HP.
Anxious to see some lap times on both cars. Should be fun. I doubt either one could ever touch a well prepped WRX wagon, short of spending over $5k, but still would be fun to see the A3 out there dueling with some BMW's.
Quatermiler ? Go buy a stang. Thats what they are made for.

In this case scenario, it really doesn't matter too much about the torque numbers as we are comparing a turbo car against a normally aspirated one. In autocross or wherever decrease and increase in throtle is occuring, the normally aspirated car will always have the upper hand. Assuming the hp and moreso the torque numbers are relatively close. Turbo cars generally have lag.....normally aspirated cars don't therefore seconds are gained when throttle is applied re hella better throtle response. Also, the powerband on turbo cars is more vilent than non turbo cars, thus when traction is an issue(in corners), the normally aspirated car will have further advantage. 
That said, as Mario kind of hinted at earlier, torque wins races (strip) assuming the cars have identical suspension/traction. So, the turbo will win here.


_Modified by mrsleepguy at 6:13 PM 1-10-2006_


----------



## eltonsi (Mar 17, 2005)

*Re: (asylum)*


_Quote, originally posted by *asylum* »_
First of all....who has claimed [email protected] from an only chipped 2.0t???? 250 crank hp yeah but not whp. 


Let's put it this way... APR claimed 250 at crank, my dyno came up to be 207HP at crank, and someone else had about 210 or around that area. And that is no where close to 250 of the 3.2.

_Quote, originally posted by *RyanA3* »_eltonsi!!!! long time!
I have broken 6 seconds many times. I'll try to take some video this week.

Yeah still haven't decided what to get... 3.2Q, 2.0T, WRX, STi, Mini w/ Works... Just got the insurance cheque today... so hopefully, I'll make up my mind soon.
Would love to see some videos Ryan.


----------



## asylum (Jan 11, 2000)

*Re: (eltonsi)*


_Quote, originally posted by *eltonsi* »_
Let's put it this way... APR claimed 250 at crank, my dyno came up to be 207HP at crank, and someone else had about 210 or around that area. And that is no where close to 250 of the 3.2.

what dyno was that on??? How is that when many stock cars are showing between [email protected] wheels?


----------



## RyanA3 (May 11, 2005)

*Re: (asylum)*


_Quote, originally posted by *asylum* »_what dyno was that on??? How is that when many stock cars are showing between [email protected] wheels?

'
lol
all this car has is a cat back and k/n filter! at the wheels!


----------



## asylum (Jan 11, 2000)

*Re: (RyanA3)*


_Quote, originally posted by *RyanA3* »_
'
lol
all this car has is a cat back and k/n filter! at the wheels!









so Im pretty sure with software its gonna be more than 210


----------



## RyanA3 (May 11, 2005)

*Re: (asylum)*

yup yup. righto. 230-245 to the wheels would be sweeeet.


----------



## asylum (Jan 11, 2000)

*Re: (RyanA3)*


_Quote, originally posted by *RyanA3* »_yup yup. righto. 230-245 to the wheels would be sweeeet.

that would be more than 250 crank hp!


----------



## chrisddo (Mar 17, 2001)

*Re: (asylum)*

Your max torque /w a catback gets pushed over that far? Even with a chip it still peaks at 3500 and stock it peaks at 2500 or so. My car gained almost 50WHP in the midrange and almost 40WHP peak with my software & a K&N on a dyno. But it still hits peak torque right before 3500.


----------



## eltonsi (Mar 17, 2005)

*Re: (asylum)*


_Quote, originally posted by *asylum* »_
what dyno was that on??? How is that when many stock cars are showing between [email protected] wheels?



It was on a mustang. 
The thing a lot of us don't realize is that chipping doesn't necessarily mean you gain peak HP. By moving the curve at certain points will make the car feel faster. Torque also has a lot to do with that too. 
asylum, it seems to me that you have made up your mind and just looking for ppl to agree with you. I have owned an A3 chipped and did a fair share of tracking before you were even on the A3 forum. I loved the 2.0T engine, I'm not putting it down or anything. But I'm just telling you what I have personally experienced with my APR A3 and there is nothing to argue about there.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (eltonsi)*


_Quote, originally posted by *eltonsi* »_
It was on a mustang. 
The thing a lot of us don't realize is that chipping doesn't necessarily mean you gain peak HP. By moving the curve at certain points will make the car feel faster. Torque also has a lot to do with that too. 
asylum, it seems to me that you have made up your mind and just looking for ppl to agree with you. I have owned an A3 chipped and did a fair share of tracking before you were even on the A3 forum. I loved the 2.0T engine, I'm not putting it down or anything. But I'm just telling you what I have personally experienced with my APR A3 and there is nothing to argue about there. 

mustangs don't measure crank hp . . . . they do wheel hp . . . . 12% seems to be the correction factor for a mustang dyno. If it measured 207 whp, then it is approx 235 crank hp.
Dave


----------



## carygott (Nov 8, 2005)

*Re: (ibsnowedin)*

I have a new A3Q arriving in a few days
I'm sure I will want to give it some extra power. Who are good companies to go to for chips?
thank you
cary gott
[email protected]
A3Q morro/beige all options except 18"


----------



## AudiHVParts (Oct 27, 2005)

*Re: (carygott)*


_Quote, originally posted by *carygott* »_I have a new A3Q arriving in a few days
I'm sure I will want to give it some extra power. Who are good companies to go to for chips?
thank you
cary gott
[email protected]
A3Q morro/beige all options except 18"

I don't know if there are any programs out for the 3.2 yet. At least not the north american A3 version. Not sure if the R32, euro A3 or TT software would work.


----------



## asylum (Jan 11, 2000)

*Re: (eltonsi)*


_Quote, originally posted by *eltonsi* »_
It was on a mustang. 

asylum, it seems to me that you have made up your mind and just looking for ppl to agree with you. I have owned an A3 chipped and did a fair share of tracking before you were even on the A3 forum. I loved the 2.0T engine, I'm not putting it down or anything. But I'm just telling you what I have personally experienced with my APR A3 and there is nothing to argue about there. 

Just because Im new to the A3 forums doesnt mean Im new to cars! Its not that Ive made up my mind and just looking for people to agree with me. This just reminds me of when the 1.8t first came out and the big debate was about the 1.8t vs the VR6. Im going by "claimed" hp #'s because we are comparing "claimed" 250-260 crank hp for a "chipped" 2.0t to a "claimed by vw and audi" 250 crank hp 3.2.
Mustang dynos usually dyno at a lower # (and As was mentioned above....they do measure hp @ the wheels) At 207, my guess is that if that was a dynojet dyno, it would have been around the 220whp mark which would be about 250-260hp at the crank which would be in line with what the various chip manufacturers claim. Ive never seen a stock 3.2 dyno although Im sure many have been on the dyno. Maybe someone can find out what a 3.2 dynos at whp.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (carygott)*


_Quote, originally posted by *carygott* »_I have a new A3Q arriving in a few days
I'm sure I will want to give it some extra power. Who are good companies to go to for chips?
thank you
cary gott
[email protected]
A3Q morro/beige all options except 18"

Chips do very little for NA applications. That being said, the best chip for the R32 was done by REVO. Since there haven't been any real changes between the R32 3.2 engine and the A3 3.2 aside from a slight modification of the intake manifold, I wouldn't be surprised if they come out with their software shortly. That being said, don't expect gains of more than 10hp.
Dave


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (asylum)*


_Quote, originally posted by *asylum* »_
Mustang dynos usually dyno at a lower # (and As was mentioned above....they do measure hp @ the wheels) At 207, my guess is that if that was a dynojet dyno, it would have been around the 220whp mark which would be about 250-260hp at the crank which would be in line with what the various chip manufacturers claim. Ive never seen a stock 3.2 dyno although Im sure many have been on the dyno. Maybe someone can find out what a 3.2 dynos at whp.

errr not really . . . . you just use a lower correction factor.
Dave


----------



## A4Kevin (May 4, 2005)

*Re: (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_
Chips do very little for NA applications. That being said, the best chip for the R32 was done by REVO. Since there haven't been any real changes between the R32 3.2 engine and the A3 3.2 aside from a slight modification of the intake manifold, I wouldn't be surprised if they come out with their software shortly. That being said, don't expect gains of more than 10hp.
Dave

AMD seems to be the tuner of choice for the UK folks. 
http://www.amdtechnik.com/prod...tid=4


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (A4Kevin)*


_Quote, originally posted by *A4Kevin* »_
AMD seems to be the tuner of choice for the UK folks. 
http://www.amdtechnik.com/prod...tid=4

Not really . . . if you do a bit of reading on AW, you'd realize that AMD has very inflated claims that don't show up on a dyno. Call me crazy but i think that had some bearing on their distributor in the US being pulled.
Dave


----------



## A4Kevin (May 4, 2005)

From UK forums like audisport.net they seem to be quite popular


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (A4Kevin)*


_Quote, originally posted by *A4Kevin* »_From UK forums like audisport.net they seem to be quite popular

Why bother reading euro forums when you have a NA engine? There are differences in programming and equipment you know? 
Dave


----------



## A4Kevin (May 4, 2005)

The euro forms give a good idea as to what is to come. The diff between the UK 3.2 and NA 3.2 wont be that different.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (A4Kevin)*


_Quote, originally posted by *A4Kevin* »_The euro forms give a good idea as to what is to come. The diff between the UK 3.2 and NA 3.2 wont be that different.

Um, just read an R32 forum or a TT forum. Same engine.
Dave


----------



## 3dr A3 3.2 (Dec 28, 2004)

*Re: (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_
Chips do very little for NA applications. That being said, the best chip for the R32 was done by REVO. Since there haven't been any real changes between the R32 3.2 engine and the A3 3.2 aside from a slight modification of the intake manifold, I wouldn't be surprised if they come out with their software shortly. That being said, don't expect gains of more than 10hp.
Dave


A remap for the 3.2 does, in fact, quite a lot. It changes the way the engine behaves, making it noticeably more agressive. It changes throttle response, making it even more keen. It also slightly reduces fuel consumption.
In the US, look for REVO's remap, or have a custom remap done specifically for your car.
EDIT: forgot to add that the remap done on my car @ AmD in Bicester (Oxfordshire) netted almost 10% increased torque and horsepower, and yes the results given by AmD's MAHA brake dyno were verified on an independant dyno, in France.



_Modified by 3dr A3 3.2 at 11:33 PM 1-11-2006_


----------



## A4Kevin (May 4, 2005)

*Re: (3dr A3 3.2)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_
Um, just read an R32 forum or a TT forum. Same engine.
Dave

man you will argue about anything wont you.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (A4Kevin)*


_Quote, originally posted by *A4Kevin* »_
man you will argue about anything wont you.

you make it easy


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (3dr A3 3.2)*


_Quote, originally posted by *3dr A3 3.2* »_

A remap for the 3.2 does, in fact, quite a lot. It changes the way the engine behaves, making it noticeably more agressive. It changes throttle response, making it even more keen. It also slightly reduces fuel consumption.
In the US, look for REVO's remap, or have a custom remap done specifically for your car.
EDIT: forgot to add that the remap done on my car @ AmD in Bicester (Oxfordshire) netted almost 10% increased torque and horsepower, and yes the results given by AmD's MAHA brake dyno were verified on an independant dyno, in France.

_Modified by 3dr A3 3.2 at 11:33 PM 1-11-2006_

That's good but a lot of the US versions have had very shady dynos. Their main office in Jersey City supposedly closed down awhile ago as well. They were claiming something like +30hp for the B6 S4 and IIRC on the dyno, it actually lost power.
In some of their past dynos, it has been stated that intake temps for the vehicle were significantly lower than those of their stock dyno run.
Dave


----------



## A4Kevin (May 4, 2005)

*Re: (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_
you make it easy

Nice....


----------



## carygott (Nov 8, 2005)

*Re: (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_
Chips do very little for NA applications. That being said, the best chip for the R32 was done by REVO. Since there haven't been any real changes between the R32 3.2 engine and the A3 3.2 aside from a slight modification of the intake manifold, I wouldn't be surprised if they come out with their software shortly. That being said, don't expect gains of more than 10hp.
Dave

why do chips do little for a NA engine 3.2 ??
has anything to do that there is no turbocharger?


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (carygott)*


_Quote, originally posted by *carygott* »_
why do chips do little for a NA engine 3.2 ??
has anything to do that there is no turbocharger?

yep . . . NA engines benefit very little from chips because there is no "boost" to turn up . . . only real adjustment is by increasing timing and adjusting the A/F ratios. Only case where you will get huge gains on an NA engine is if it has been severly detuned from the factory which the 3.2 has not. A highflow cat with reasonably sized exhaust and programming to take advantage of it is probably one of the best things you can do for the 3.2. Even then, the priceerformance ratio is pretty crappy. 
A lot of the chips for the 3.2 will "sharpen" throttle response by making the pedal much more sensitive to inputs. It may give you the feeling of an increase in performance but most of the time, the butt dyno is incorrect. 
There have actually been several NA chips that have "felt" quite fast, but when put on the appropiate dyno with a stock baseline, they show a loss in HP and/or torque.
Dave


----------



## mixmaster-mo (Jul 5, 2005)

*Re: (crew217)*

We just need to stop talking about numbers, stop jumping to conclusions, and just get a race going. If both cars have DSG, then the race resulsts would be fair since it's pretty hard to screw up a shift with DSG. One race, one result, end of story.


----------



## 3dr A3 3.2 (Dec 28, 2004)

*Re: (carygott)*


_Quote, originally posted by *carygott* »_
why do chips do little for a NA engine 3.2 ??
has anything to do that there is no turbocharger?

A significant amount of boost created by the turbine of a turbocharged car is vented to atmosphere. Reduce the amount of wasted boost and cylinder pressure rises, producing more torque.

Dave, numbers don't lie. AmD stated 9% and I got a little more. Their numbers (taken from a brake dyno) were verified by an inertia dyno 275chp.
I also heard AmD didn't do well in the 'states. Neither did Citroen, but it doesn't stop them being WRC world champs.
Back to topic: with more and more 3.2s coming to NA, it's just a matter of time before we see video. My money (who's up for a bet?), beween a remap-only TFSI DSG and a bone-stock 3.2 DSG is on the VR6. That's in the dry. Come rain or snow, the fwd simply won't stand a chance.


----------



## MisterJJ (Jul 28, 2005)

*Re: (mixmaster-mo)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mixmaster-mo* »_One race, one result, end of story.



Hahaha. That's funny. After the race the arguments will just start! The topics will be:
Different tires would change things.
There would be different results with different chips.
The surface condition of road makes a difference.
The effect of air temp on turbo/non-turbo engines.
Which driver weighed more.
If only we had launch control.
And of course, whether DSG is an "automatic" or not.


----------



## Pannikattk (Nov 9, 2001)

*Re: (MisterJJ)*


_Quote, originally posted by *MisterJJ* »_

Hahaha. That's funny. After the race the arguments will just start! The topics will be:
Different tires would change things.
There would be different results with different chips.
The surface condition of road makes a difference.
The effect of air temp on turbo/non-turbo engines.
Which driver weighed more.
If only we had launch control.
And of course, whether DSG is an "automatic" or not.









lol...so true!


----------



## judgegavel (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: (3dr A3 3.2)*


_Quote, originally posted by *3dr A3 3.2* »_Dave, numbers don't lie. 
Back to topic: with more and more 3.2s coming to NA, it's just a matter of time before we see video. My money (who's up for a bet?), beween a remap-only TFSI DSG and a bone-stock 3.2 DSG is on the VR6. That's in the dry. Come rain or snow, the fwd simply won't stand a chance.

If numbers dont lie, why dont you believe them.

Chipped 2.0T - (approx) 252hp - 303tq
Weight - DSG: 3329
manual: 3263
Stock 3.2 - (direct from Audi) 250hp - 236tq
Weight - DSG: 3660
I would take that bet, with the added weight, far lower tq., and larger drivetrain loss the 3.2 would have NO chance. NO chance, your only fooling yourself Ben.










_Modified by judgegavel at 11:41 AM 1-11-2006_


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (3dr A3 3.2)*


_Quote, originally posted by *3dr A3 3.2* »_

Dave, numbers don't lie. AmD stated 9% and I got a little more. Their numbers (taken from a brake dyno) were verified by an inertia dyno 275chp.


Yep but 95% of the owners on this forum are from NA and get no benefit from AMD's crappy software and support in the US. Not to mention, you have a full milltek.
Dave


----------



## eltonsi (Mar 17, 2005)

The 207 was after the conversion. So it's not at wheels.
As for "claimed" HP, I find Audi's claimed HP a lot more believeable than most chipped companies claimed HP. Someone Dynoed a stock 2.0T and it was very close to 200HP (crank). While APR or Revo has yet to give the 250HP they promised.


----------



## Giancarlo (Aug 10, 2000)

*Re: (eltonsi)*

How about diferrent gearing for the 3.2 and the 2.0T??


----------



## AudiHVParts (Oct 27, 2005)

*Re: (MisterJJ)*


_Quote, originally posted by *MisterJJ* »_
And of course, whether DSG is an "automatic" or not.









DSG = automatic
duh, everyone knows that


----------



## judgegavel (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: (eltonsi)*


_Quote, originally posted by *eltonsi* »_The 207 was after the conversion. So it's not at wheels.
As for "claimed" HP, I find Audi's claimed HP a lot more believeable than most chipped companies claimed HP. Someone Dynoed a stock 2.0T and it was very close to 200HP (crank). While APR or Revo has yet to give the 250HP they promised.

Elton, find someone who actually knows what theyre doing to dyno your car then. Every dyno I ve seen says your 100% off stock A3 is dynoing at 190-200 whp. Case in point is Kevins that Ryan posted above, done at AWE, if your not getting a better dyno run then a car with just a K&N and a cat back, then either someone cheated you (on your APR) you are not really chipped, APR is a complete scam or your car wasnt dynoed correctly.








Your doing nothing for this debate except posting misinformation. 
http://****************.com/smile/emthdown.gif 


_Modified by judgegavel at 4:47 PM 1/11/2006_


----------



## MisterJJ (Jul 28, 2005)

*Re: (AudiHVParts)*


_Quote, originally posted by *AudiHVParts* »_
DSG = automatic


Don't EVEN go there! We've already got one active thread on this that is at least related to it. No reason to hijack this one. Sheesh, one sarcastic comment and they come out of the woodwork!


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (MisterJJ)*


_Quote, originally posted by *MisterJJ* »_
Don't EVEN go there! We've already got one active thread on this that is at least related to it. No reason to hijack this one. Sheesh, one sarcastic comment and they come out of the woodwork!

because you like to instigate **** 
Dave


----------



## Turbo4S (Aug 19, 2005)

*Re: (ibsnowedin)*

I love threads like this.


----------



## Rogerthat (Oct 23, 2005)

*Re: chipped 2.0t vs stock 3.2 (asylum)*

are we there yet?


----------



## asylum (Jan 11, 2000)

*Re: chipped 2.0t vs stock 3.2 (Rogerthat)*


----------



## vuyodaddy (Nov 8, 2005)

*Re: chipped 2.0t vs stock 3.2 (asylum)*

I drove a GLI the other day and it was real fast. So it's settled then.


----------



## chrisddo (Mar 17, 2001)

*Re: chipped 2.0t vs stock 3.2 (vuyodaddy)*

How about me pulling on APR and Revo chipped A3 DSGs with my poospeed software...yaaaay. There.


----------



## 3dr A3 3.2 (Dec 28, 2004)

*Re: (judgegavel)*


_Quote, originally posted by *judgegavel* »_
If numbers dont lie, why dont you believe them.

Chipped 2.0T - (approx) 252hp - 303tq
Weight - DSG: 3329
manual: 3263
Stock 3.2 - (direct from Audi) 250hp - 236tq
Weight - DSG: 3660
I would take that bet, with the added weight, far lower tq., and larger drivetrain loss the 3.2 would have NO chance. NO chance, your only fooling yourself Ben.









_Modified by judgegavel at 11:41 AM 1-11-2006_

JG, take my bet. (you have pm) 
Do we have a volunteer with a Chipped DSG A3, to meet at a 1/4 mile track with a Stock DSG 3.2? I'm curious, Let's get this done.
PS: JG, I am in no way shape or form fooling myself... I do realize that if the 3.2 wins, it will be by a very very narrow margin. I also realize that the 3.2 Q and the fwd TFSI are completely different driving experiences.


----------



## 3dr A3 3.2 (Dec 28, 2004)

*Re: (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_
Yep but 95% of the owners on this forum are from NA and get no benefit from AMD's crappy software and support in the US. Not to mention, you have a full milltek.
Dave

That is precisely why I suggested he find a company to remap his car specifically (which is what I did), and not load a standard program. Eip are working on software that will control the intake and exhaust cams' phasing (a first afaik), so I'd wait for that additional tuning to become the norm.
Regarding my exhaust, it's a resonated cat-back, nowhere near their "full system". Besides, the 10% tq and hp gains were Before exh&int mods, as was stated earlier.


----------



## judgegavel (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: (3dr A3 3.2)*

Ben you have pm back.
As I mentioned in the PM, I think a stock 2.0t vs. a stock 3.2 at a roll would be a better comparison (edge going slightly to the 3.2) at least there the numbers are close in comparison when factoring in tq/wgt/DT loss. 
As for the bet, as soon as I get a local 3.2, get my summer tires on, and we can get an open track, I have the chipped 2.0t, it will have to wait till spring I think. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
Any stock 3.2's in the NY-NJ-PA area up for it.


_Modified by judgegavel at 8:32 AM 1-12-2006_


----------



## RyanA3 (May 11, 2005)

*Re: (judgegavel)*


_Quote, originally posted by *judgegavel* »_As for the bet, as soon as I get a local 3.2, get my summer tires on, and we can get an open track, I have the chipped 2.0t, it will have to wait till spring I think. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

this will def happen. we have 3 chipped dsg A3 2.0s in the local club already. 2 more are 6spd. We'll have about 15 R32s at the GTG this Sat. And a few TTs.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (RyanA3)*


_Quote, originally posted by *RyanA3* »_
this will def happen. we have 3 chipped dsg A3 2.0s in the local club already. 2 more are 6spd. We'll have about 15 R32s at the GTG this Sat. And a few TTs.

mcipko? no wonder why you organize these things


----------



## scotchy (Oct 2, 2005)

*Re: (crew217)*

Googled mcipko to see what you meant.....lol
_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_
mcipko? no wonder why you organize these things


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (scotchy)*


_Quote, originally posted by *scotchy* »_Googled mcipko to see what you meant.....lol









lol, i'm surprised google actually came up with something.
Dave


----------



## 3dr A3 3.2 (Dec 28, 2004)

From a roll eh? Ok, how about from a 100mph roll then? I'm sure the 3.2 would do well there as well. Otherwise forget it...


----------



## judgegavel (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: (3dr A3 3.2)*

Oh you mean the oh so common and usefull 100mph roll








And I'm glad youve given up on the 2.0t chipped vs.3.2 stock debate.










_Modified by judgegavel at 12:10 PM 1-12-2006_


----------



## 3dr A3 3.2 (Dec 28, 2004)

*Re: (judgegavel)*


_Quote, originally posted by *judgegavel* »_Oh you mean the oh so common and usefull 100mph roll








And I'm glad youve given up on the 2.0t chipped vs.3.2 stock debate.









_Modified by judgegavel at 12:10 PM 1-12-2006_

















Dude, you're the one who's pulling "from a roll" out of his a**







.
Seriously, where does this "from a roll" stuff come from? Are you realizing the Q's added weight might actually give it an advantage?
PS: where I'm from (and where these cars are made), 
_Quote, originally posted by *judgegavel* »_Oh you mean the oh so common and usefull 100mph roll








 is a zillion times more common, and useful, than a 20mph roll...








luv'ya man


----------



## RyanA3 (May 11, 2005)

*Re: (3dr A3 3.2)*

YOU AREN'T GOING TO BELIEVE THIS...
We just got a new member on the DVAGonline site. Local Audi car club.
Guess what he has..
http://www.dvagonline.com/viewtopic.php?p=875#875
wiley635 
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 1:13 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
DVAG Noobie Joined: 12 Jan 2006 Posts: 1 Location: Philadelphia 
Make me an offer. Perfect condition, includes Pirelli P6 225/45's. I am looking to upgrade to a winter tire/wheel package. I'll get a picture posted soon.
wiley635
_________________
06 A3 3.2Q S-line
Philly
LOOKS LIKE THE SHOW IS ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## A4Kevin (May 4, 2005)

Remember your video camera.


----------



## RyanA3 (May 11, 2005)

*Re: (A4Kevin)*


_Quote, originally posted by *A4Kevin* »_Remember your video camera.


----------



## judgegavel (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: (3dr A3 3.2)*

My roll comment was only to equate the stock vs. stock, and the traction advantage the quattro would have from a dead stop.
I'd think it would be quite close even at say 5mph.
As for top end (100+), that a different story here in the staes,as both are electronically governed here at 130 mph so it wouldnt be much of a race. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## mixmaster-mo (Jul 5, 2005)

*Re: (RyanA3)*


_Quote, originally posted by *RyanA3* »_YOU AREN'T GOING TO BELIEVE THIS...
We just got a new member on the DVAGonline site. Local Audi car club.
Guess what he has..
http://www.dvagonline.com/viewtopic.php?p=875#875
wiley635 
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 1:13 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
DVAG Noobie Joined: 12 Jan 2006 Posts: 1 Location: Philadelphia 
Make me an offer. Perfect condition, includes Pirelli P6 225/45's. I am looking to upgrade to a winter tire/wheel package. I'll get a picture posted soon.
wiley635
_________________
06 A3 3.2Q S-line
Philly
LOOKS LIKE THE SHOW IS ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


NICE!!! 
btw, isn't the GTG on the 21st? That's NEXT weekend, not this weekend. 
I look forward to smoking this guy.


----------



## Giancarlo (Aug 10, 2000)

*Re: (judgegavel)*

Hey, if you are going to take both cars out there, why not do both!! from a roll and from a dead stop. 
Although from a stop I think it's easier to control an even race, right? reaction times should play less of a role in a dead stop than a roll race right?
Will the race be done at sea level? I imagine that in a higher altitude scenario it would really make a difference right?


----------



## RyanA3 (May 11, 2005)

*Re: (Giancarlo)*

Guadalajara Jalisco















I think we should have a GTG at your place!
SWEET!


----------



## forma (Nov 22, 2005)

*Re: (ibsnowedin)*

Quote, originally posted by crew217 »
i wonder if you're actually going to get the bixenon, conv, sport packages you ordered

i hope so, i asked them about that because i couldn't select it on the web, and they told me they can get it.i also saw it on the order sheet it had the bi-xenons and conv as options with the sport-package.
how did they do that? i thought it has something to do with the electrical harness that prevents the bi-xenons and the homelink transmitter from existing together along with the sport suspension or something like that (since you can get bi-xenons and convenience with the premium package). anyway, did you get a solid confirmation from the dealer who received official confirmation from audi?
my car has a built date of next week and if sport/bi-xenons/conv can be done now, i sure would like to explore the possibility of having my order revised..... http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (forma)*


_Quote, originally posted by *forma* »_Quote, originally posted by crew217 »

my car has a built date of next week and if sport/bi-xenons/conv can be done now, i sure would like to explore the possibility of having my order revised..... http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

I wouldn't try changing it . . . . it's very possible that his order will get kicked out and delayed.
Dave


----------



## Giancarlo (Aug 10, 2000)

*Re: (RyanA3)*

You guys are welcomed to come down and visit anytime, it is a nice city, and maybe a just a little different than Tijuana and all the border cities/towns.


----------



## vdubbin0. (Aug 7, 2004)

*Re: (Giancarlo)*

I have an R32 and id be curious to line up next to a chipped 2.0T chipped
just to be curious to see how i would fair.
The R32 isnt a straight like car anyways, but it would be fun to see the outcome.
Any A3's in Grand Rapids Michigan ??


----------



## threethirteen (Mar 12, 2004)

*Re: (vdubbin0.)*

i'de still take the 3.2 with the quattro...there's not comparison...but then i would be stuck with that damned dsg garbage...so it's a tough choice...


----------



## A4Kevin (May 4, 2005)

*Re: (threethirteen)*


_Quote, originally posted by *threethirteen* »_i'de still take the 3.2 with the quattro...there's not comparison...but then i would be stuck with that damned dsg garbage...so it's a tough choice...

There is nothing garbage about the worlds most advanced transmission.


----------



## Tarik D (Oct 13, 2005)

*Re: (A4Kevin)*

DSG=garbage?








It's THE fastest shifting system on a production car. Faster than your primative stick and clutch.


----------



## 3dr A3 3.2 (Dec 28, 2004)

Let's keep this "chipped 2.0T DSG vs bog-standard 3.2 DSG". Thank you. 
And if someone could run against the R32, it would help out the R32 forum as well.


----------



## vdubbin0. (Aug 7, 2004)

*Re: (3dr A3 3.2)*


_Quote, originally posted by *3dr A3 3.2* »_Let's keep this "chipped 2.0T DSG vs bog-standard 3.2 DSG". Thank you. 
And if someone could run against the R32, it would help out the R32 forum as well.

I agree, I have an R32 but ive always like the A3, and now that they have the
3.2 coming out i thought about getting one but not sure about the DSG.
I'll keep my eye out to run up against a chipped 2.0T


----------



## 3dr A3 3.2 (Dec 28, 2004)

*Re: (vdubbin0.)*

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


----------



## Giancarlo (Aug 10, 2000)

*Re: (3dr A3 3.2)*

Has anyone been able to do the side to side test?


----------



## Mr K (Aug 7, 2002)

*Re: (Giancarlo)*

This thread brings up a good debate and discussion on whether to get the 2.0 or 3.2q. In my heart, I want the 3.2 with quattro. It just seems like a nice to have AWD plus all the luxo goodies. But logically, how often would the AWD actually engage and be put to use? Maybe 5% if you live in bad-weather country? For drag racing, I could see the AWD being useful for launches, but again, how often would you do that? For me, never.
It seems like the 2.0t chipped would be the logical choice for most people: similar power, more torque, lighter, better mileage, cheaper. I'm curious if the A3 2.0 has a limited-slip diff, or if one will be available in the aftermarket. The MkV GTI doesn't have one and that is disappointing. 
Can anyone with experience driving both in autocross/racing/track conditions describe the differences in driving experience between the quattro and FWD A3? Since the 3.2q operates like FWD most of the time, I just don't see the advantage unless you are driving it hard or in the snow/ice. Someone sell me on the 3.2q!! TIA. Jim


----------



## 3dr A3 3.2 (Dec 28, 2004)

*Re: (Mr K)*

Jim, the only thing that can sell you on the Q is a nice long, HARD test drive. I feel Q is great, even in perfectly dry and grippy conditions: where I'd be power-on understeering with the fwd, I'm power-on neutral or oversteering. That alone makes it worth it _to me_. 
Before long, we'll be seeing a Torque Biasing Differential for the fwd tranny. That will be fun! But it still won't be the same as having power at all wheels...
I'm in little doubt the chipped 2.0T will beat the stock 3.2 in the 1/4mile (if the fwd benefits from perfect traction conditions), but ultimately, Quattro is fun, enjoyable, and useful every time you drive enthusiastically http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif .


----------



## Nuvolari (Jun 22, 2004)

Mr. K, 
I own a 3.2 q since about 1800 miles now. I have driven (and still drive almost daily) the 2.0T on test drives. While I'm not pushing the new cars, I am now pushing mine on occasion, which is mostly when taking off, and particularly, when taking off into a turn.
I still remember the screaching tires of my friend's 2.0T when we raced each other to see how they compare. Full-throttle the 2.0T while you are making a turn, it will be worse. The 3.2 q just leaps like a wildcat, with just a split second of screach (obviously, until the rear wheels get traction).
That alone is worth it to me. Gas mileage is far better with the (unchipped) 2.0T, and to get at least near acceptable levels, I drive mine very calm most of the time now. Except those fun bursts here and there--and then I know I got the right drive train. All this is dry, SoCal weather.


_Modified by Nuvolari at 11:37 PM 2/1/2006_


----------



## judgegavel (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: (Mr K)*

Mr. K
I came from an AWD WRX (more like real quattro than Haldex) to a 2.0t, I definitely had my reservations about going back to fwd. So while I understand and experienced Bens and Nuvos points about the pluses of AWD in the dry, one big minus is the DT loss. I can honestly say the only time I've missed having AWD was in a snowstorm in VT, not that it didn't handle itself well, but I could not have the fun I once had in the WRX. AWD definitely has an objective advantage in the snow, that being said awd vs fwd on dry is much more subjective, each has positives and negatives, and one isnt necessarily better than the other.
What drew me to the A3 was the 2.0t engine, I'm a huge fan of 4cyl turbos, and this engine is quite remarkable and incredibly powerful. I was very disappointed when I found it would not be available in quattro, my dream was for 2.0t/DSG/Q (torsen). In retrospect I am so happy it wasn't available. After driving a 3.2, and a number of spirited drives in an A4 2.0tQ I realized that the AWD and extra weight saps the incredible power of this engine, that needs to be made up for by adding the 3.2 6cyl. But to me the 3.2Q is not the same A3 that I fell in love with, the 2.0t, hell its not even as fun as the R32. I really find the 2.0t to be much more nimble and fun to drive. The 3.2 is a great car but really misses the level of the 2.0t in that respect. JMHO
But everyone will have their own opinion, desires, and needs. Test drives (spirited if possible) really are the only way to figure out what you like and which you really want. You really cant go wrong with any Audi (especially an A3). http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif








But do realize a chipped 2.0t will decimate a stock 3.2.











_Modified by judgegavel at 10:15 AM 2-2-2006_


----------



## Nuvolari (Jun 22, 2004)

*Re: (judgegavel)*


_Quote, originally posted by *judgegavel* »_
I came from an AWD WRX 

That's so rice. And gay.









_Quote, originally posted by *judgegavel* »_
I really find the 2.0t to be much more nimble .... The 3.2 is a great car but really misses the level of the 2.0t in that respect. JMHO.

Well, I think I debunked that myth here: http://forums.fourtitude.com/zerothread?id=2405170


_Quote, originally posted by *judgegavel* »_But do realize a chipped 2.0t will decimate a stock 3.2.









Not that I doubt it, but it has yet to be proven.


----------



## Mr K (Aug 7, 2002)

*Re: (Nuvolari)*

I am torn with going back to FWD or not. I used to drive a 2000 Jetta VR6 and in spirited driving, I just got sick of the "plowing" effect of FWD in turns. Supposedly, the new MkV platform with IRS minimizes a lot of the understeer. What are other's opinions/experiences? My current car has AWD with about a 35/65 torque split F/R and I love the neutral handling. I've test driven the new GTI but I didn't drive it hard.
Yes, the 2.0t is one heck of an engine because the power comes on immediately with no perceptible lag at all. And the torque is awesome. I gotta go drive both cars again. Thanks for the feedback. Jim


----------



## Tarik D (Oct 13, 2005)

*Re: (Nuvolari)*

Nothing gay about a 227hp turbo WRX that will eat A3's anyday. I have a very soft spot for WRX's, so keep them out of this discussion


----------



## asylum (Jan 11, 2000)

*Re: (Nuvolari)*

Quote, originally posted by judgegavel » 
I really find the 2.0t to be much more nimble .... The 3.2 is a great car but really misses the level of the 2.0t in that respect. JMHO. 

_Quote, originally posted by *Nuvolari* »_
Well, I think I debunked that myth here: http://forums.fourtitude.com/zerothread?id=2405170


That doesnt say the 3.2 is more nimble than the 2.0t. Judgegavel says he finds the 2.0t to be more nimble and you respond to that by posting a link to a thread that talks about a race between your stock 3.2 and your cousins stock 2.0t







What did you expect with 50 hp more and AWD?


----------



## AUTODYNAMICA (Nov 10, 2003)

*Re: (asylum)*

Hello everybody
Most important thing here is the altitude, i am from Mexico city, our city's altitude is 7500 ft. non turbo models loss arround 30% horsepower. 2.0T can beat very easy a 3.2 there, that´s why i just moved to a city at sea level, cars feels very powerfull here.
Thanks


----------



## judgegavel (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: (Nuvolari)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Nuvolari* »_Well, I think I debunked that myth here: http://forums.fourtitude.com/zerothread?id=2405170

You certainly did not, please read the definition of nimble perhaps it was not taught in ABS school.








Heres a link if you dont own a dictionary:
http://www.wordreference.com/definition/nimble
Nimble=quick and light, not fast.


----------



## Nuvolari (Jun 22, 2004)

*Re: (judgegavel)*


_Quote, originally posted by *judgegavel* »_
You certainly did not, please read the definition of nimble perhaps it was not taught in ABS school.








Heres a link if you dont own a dictionary:
http://www.wordreference.com/definition/nimble
Nimble=quick and light, not fast.


I give you credit for knowing your first language better than my first language.
Now that I know what nimble means, I need to ask, which of the two elements, quick and light, is your operative word. I give you the light. Quicker it is not. Or are you trying to tell me I also don't know what quick means?


----------



## judgegavel (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: (Nuvolari)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Nuvolari* »_Now that I know what nimble means, I need to ask, which of the two elements, quick and light, is your operative word. I give you the light. Quicker it is not. Or are you trying to tell me I also don't know what quick means?









How many times do you need to be pwn3d in a single thread.
The fact that you dont understand english is not an excuse.
I normally get paid to teach but heres another freebie (thats something thats for free)
quick does not equal fast
heres a definition:
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=quick 
anything else I can teach you today sir.


----------



## A4Kevin (May 4, 2005)

Botom line Mr K. Test drive both an pick the best for you. I was in the same boat and after extensive testing ended up ordering a 3.2. For me it was the best overall. 
I love the 2.0t powerplant but am not a fan of FWD especially in my neck of the woods given that I am looking ar 20cm of snow as we speak.
I had a chipped GTI and loved it but the damn front tire spin drove me nuts.
If there was such a thing as a 2.0TQ SLine there would be no contest.
Good luck.


----------



## Nuvolari (Jun 22, 2004)

*Re: (judgegavel)*


_Quote, originally posted by *judgegavel* »_
How many times do you need to be pwn3d in a single thread.
The fact that you dont understand english is not an excuse.
I normally get paid to teach but heres another freebie (thats something thats for free)
quick does not equal fast
heres a definition:
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=quick 
anything else I can teach you today sir.

Just one other question, professor. Is this "pwn3d" another one of your typos, or am I supposed to understand your balderdash?

Your source: (adj) quick, speedy (accomplished rapidly and *without delay*)
.....................................................................................


----------



## mixmaster-mo (Jul 5, 2005)

*Re: (Nuvolari)*

He says pw3d cuz he's l33t. If j00 don't know l33t sp34k then judge pwns j00!!
w00t


----------



## judgegavel (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: (Nuvolari)*

Guess you over looked this one
(adj) agile, nimble, quick, spry (moving quickly and lightly)
l4m3r











_Modified by judgegavel at 12:40 AM 2/3/2006_


----------



## MisterJJ (Jul 28, 2005)

*Re: (mixmaster-mo)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mixmaster-mo* »_He says pw3d cuz he's l33t. If j00 don't know l33t sp34k then judge pwns j00!!
w00t



LOL. If j00 d0nt kn0w w47 1337 m34ns th3n j00 4r3 t3h ub3r n00b.


----------



## Tarik D (Oct 13, 2005)

*Re: (MisterJJ)*

You know, after a brisk drive back from the gym tonight, I noticed one thing about the 2.0T that none of my other turbos had - SMOOOOOOTHNESS. Whatever, 2.0T/3.2Q...
All I know is that little engine is as smooth as silk. Nice!


----------



## 3dr A3 3.2 (Dec 28, 2004)

*Re: (judgegavel)*


_Quote, originally posted by *judgegavel* »_Mr. K

I really find the 2.0t to be much more nimble and fun to drive. The 3.2 is a great car but really misses the level of the 2.0t in that respect. JMHO
But everyone will have their own opinion, desires, and needs. Test drives (spirited if possible) really are the only way to figure out what you like and which you really want. You really cant go wrong with any Audi (especially an A3). http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif








_Modified by judgegavel at 10:15 AM 2-2-2006_

The "nimbleness" is an extremely valid and pertinent point. A fwd 2.0T (we can't get manual fwd 2.0T in France







) or even a DSG 2.0T is a LOT more nimble and light on its feet than a Quattro 2.0T or a Quattro 3.2. Have you ever driven a 911 C2 and a 911 C4 back to back? That's pretty much the same difference... 
The A3 2.0T fwd IS the Gti of A3s. The 3.2 is more of a big heavy gun... Try both and see which is best for you. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
Ben.


----------



## Nuvolari (Jun 22, 2004)

mixmaster, judgegavel, JJ,
versteht ihr 'hose riechen'? das koennt ihr mir mal.


----------



## MisterJJ (Jul 28, 2005)

*Re: (Nuvolari)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Nuvolari* »_mixmaster, judgegavel, JJ,
versteht ihr 'hose riechen'? das koennt ihr mir mal.

Verstehen Sie "Kuß meine pastenartigen weißen Hinterteile"?


----------



## judgegavel (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: (Nuvolari)*

Entschuldigung ich mein Deutscher ist rostig, da ich keine Gelegenheit zum Verwenden sie habe.
Ist das das beste, das Sie Verlierer tun können? Sie müssen wirklich aufwachsen.
Sie sind ein l4m3r.
pwn3d wieder.








For those of you who dont speak German, as this is an American site, Nuvo was just pwn3d again.










_Modified by judgegavel at 12:29 PM 2/3/2006_


----------



## mookieblaylock (Sep 25, 2005)

*Re: (MisterJJ)*

neither of these cars are motorcycle fast,,,one will beat another by a car length or 2. Nice road trip cars though. So smooth at 80 mph and 100 comes up in a few seconds. Wake me when the r36 arrives, and only if it is 350+ horse power


----------



## asylum (Jan 11, 2000)

*Re: (mookieblaylock)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mookieblaylock* »_neither of these cars are motorcycle fast,,,one will beat another by a car length or 2. Nice road trip cars though. So smooth at 80 mph and 100 comes up in a few seconds. Wake me when the r36 arrives, and only if it is 350+ horse power 


I didnt buy the A3 for its speed


----------



## dplxy (Sep 26, 2004)

*Re: (asylum)*


_Quote, originally posted by *asylum* »_

I didnt buy the A3 for its speed

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


----------



## Tcardio (Mar 19, 2009)

*Re: (dplxy)*

Settle this old thread once and for all!


----------



## 2.0TProjekt (Feb 2, 2009)

*Re: (tcardio)*


_Quote, originally posted by *tcardio* »_Settle this old thread once and for all!

2nd


----------



## eltonsi (Mar 17, 2005)

I did. The 3.2 will get the jump, then 2.0T will eventually catch up and past a stock 3.2.


----------



## MK2 1.8T GUY (Oct 18, 2002)

*Re: (eltonsi)*

I cant say whether one is faster than the other but i will find out once the damn snow melts. I have a friend with a stock 3.2 and we'll settle it once and for all!
That being said, i was told by the previous owner of my car (who i found on here coincidentally) that when he traded it in to the dealer i bought it from it was chipped (APR). I cant tell as i have not driven a stock one - what i am wondering is would the dealer have re-flashed to factory settings? How else can i figure out if its chipped?


----------



## 3lfk1ng (Apr 10, 2008)

*Re: (MK2 1.8T GUY)*

Chipped 2.0 > Even a chipped 3.2
Lighter engine, more power. Nuff said.
Even experienced the difference at the Audi Driving experience alongside Brungold.


----------



## kirk180 (Jul 28, 2006)

*Re: (MK2 1.8T GUY)*


_Quote, originally posted by *MK2 1.8T GUY* »_I cant tell as i have not driven a stock one - what i am wondering is would the dealer have re-flashed to factory settings? How else can i figure out if its chipped?


I had it on my last GTI...so it's been a while. But I'll try to explain it based on what I remember.
Just turn the key to power the car. You don't wanna start the car...just turn the key half way until the power is on. Then I believe you hold the cruise control button in for about 5 seconds and see if the check engine light starts to blink. If you see the check engine light start to blink, then you know you're still reflashed/chipped. It's a piece of cake and only takes a few seconds to check. Slower blinks are one program, and the double blinks are another. Not sure how your application is set up. You may have more than just two programs (APR and the stock). But still...just hold in the cruise button and see if the check engine light starts to blink. That's all. Get in, close the doors, turn the key half way (to get power but not actually turn over to start), and then hold in the cruise. If I'm not making any sense, then perhaps you can go to APR's webpage. I'm pretty sure they describe how to do it there. I'm sure there's plenty of threads here on the tex talking about it too. 
Good luck. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 



_Modified by kirk180 at 11:32 PM 1-3-2010_


----------



## SilverSquirrel (Jul 24, 2006)

*Re: (kirk180)*

My 2 cents having owned my a3 quattro 3.2 for six months now...
It really is 2 cars in one. With the DSG in D, it is a gentle, smooth commuter, with less than wonderful gas mileage. No problem taking the kid to daycare, and you can put your foot into it if needed.
Shift it into S, or use the paddles, and it becomes as much fun as a 2.0t stick, for those times when you need to work out your inner boy racer, and want to burn up some ga$ in a hurry. 
But even with haldex, its still not as smooth in the corners as my old Torsen car. transitions from power to braking and vice versa are uncivilized compared to the Torsen AWD. But that makes it fun, I suppose.
The old Torsen car was much more neutral in the snow (packed snow w/ice here and there) and easy to power slide, control, and do donuts etc. The haldex A3 is less predictable, and the whole deal where it needs to slip a bit before going to the rear wheels unsettles the car, so it feels squirrly and less predictable than w/torsen. Goose the throttle and the front breaks away and you have to correct, so its more fwd like. 
With the torsen, you can late brake, turn in later, power on, and go right around. The haldex A3 gets squirrely, and the traction control steps in.
Next storm, no traction control. FYI this is with Ws-60's, 205/55/16. The Old Torsen CQ, I had Ws-50's (discontinued, but more open tread than Ws-60's) in 185/65/15. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## dj age one (Jun 2, 2000)

*Re: (SilverSquirrel)*

my opinion on it.
2.0t won for me. I test drove both and considered both. the 2.0t quattro was faster then the 3.2 but not as smooth. the extra fuel econ and tuneability was the deciding factor.
BUT I live at high altitude. might not be the same at sea level but up here a 2.0T will smoke a 3.2.
After I flashed it (revo and S3 intercooler), me and my brother went to the drag strip (he has a 04 R32 w/revo).. 
I went 15.0 using launch control, he went 15.6 (mind you it was a hot day at 5,500 ft alt)
I'm sure his R32 is lighter then the A3 3.2. so to me clear winner is the 2.0t


----------



## yankees25 (Sep 29, 2007)

*Re: (2.0TProjekt)*

Sooo - Automobile Magazine settled it for us 3 years ago. APR chipped 2.0t GTI was faster than the R32, but the R32 was faster on the track.
http://www.automobilemag.com/f....html


----------



## Tcardio (Mar 19, 2009)

*Re: (yankees25)*

^^^woot


----------



## Gryphon001 (Apr 25, 2008)

*Re: (tcardio)*

Minor detail... but I wish they'd included what program they were running for the APR chip.
Mine on the 93 octane did 222Whp last summer and it was a crappy day to be putting it on the dyno... Too hot, too humid and no fan for the intake.
Minor detail, but I wish they mentioned it. I am assuming that they were posting the Whp figures since stock is waaay below 200, but that is still reasonable Whp figures all things considered. Very interesting article indeed, especially when you look at the weight difference... Holy crap that AWD adds a lot of pounds.


----------



## wall man (Jan 2, 2008)

*Re: (SilverSquirrel)*

According to the article they used the 93 program.


_Quote, originally posted by *SilverSquirrel* »_My 2 cents having owned my a3 quattro 3.2 for six months now...
It really is 2 cars in one. With the DSG in D, it is a gentle, smooth commuter, with less than wonderful gas mileage. No problem taking the kid to daycare, and you can put your foot into it if needed.
Shift it into S, or use the paddles, and it becomes as much fun as a 2.0t stick, for those times when you need to work out your inner boy racer, and want to burn up some ga$ in a hurry. 
But even with haldex, its still not as smooth in the corners as my old Torsen car. transitions from power to braking and vice versa are uncivilized compared to the Torsen AWD. But that makes it fun, I suppose.
The old Torsen car was much more neutral in the snow (packed snow w/ice here and there) and easy to power slide, control, and do donuts etc. The haldex A3 is less predictable, and the whole deal where it needs to slip a bit before going to the rear wheels unsettles the car, so it feels squirrly and less predictable than w/torsen. Goose the throttle and the front breaks away and you have to correct, so its more fwd like. 
With the torsen, you can late brake, turn in later, power on, and go right around. The haldex A3 gets squirrely, and the traction control steps in.
Next storm, no traction control. FYI this is with Ws-60's, 205/55/16. The Old Torsen CQ, I had Ws-50's (discontinued, but more open tread than Ws-60's) in 185/65/15. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

Just wondering, would the HPA Controller make a good difference?


----------



## SilverSquirrel (Jul 24, 2006)

*Re: (wall man)*


_Quote, originally posted by *wall man* »_
Just wondering, would the HPA Controller make a good difference?


There have been some good threads on this forum regarding the Haldex upgrade controller.
Personally, id love to try it out first hand. But the $$ is too steep.
IMHO the car should have come from the factory with more aggressive center diff, but the idea was to have "quattro" with better mileage of fwd, so its always a tradeoff.


----------



## eltonsi (Mar 17, 2005)

*Re: (wall man)*


_Quote, originally posted by *wall man* »_

Just wondering, would the HPA Controller make a good difference?


Are you talking about the HPA DSG upgrade, or the Haldex controller upgrade? The both make significant improvements. The Haldex controller alone is set to sport mode by default, and that's already a big upgrade from stock. With the haldex switch (HPA makes one), you can go to race mode which is marginally more aggressive than sport mode.


----------



## NY_Avant (Jan 10, 2009)

*Re: (eltonsi)*

I just had mine (2.0T Quattro) flashed with Revo stage 1 and the top end power is what I was looking for 80-120 comes really fast. It is the one area my 3.2 Q was always lacking( and the good MPG)


----------



## wall man (Jan 2, 2008)

*Re: (eltonsi)*


_Quote, originally posted by *eltonsi* »_
Are you talking about the HPA DSG upgrade, or the Haldex controller upgrade? The both make significant improvements. The Haldex controller alone is set to sport mode by default, and that's already a big upgrade from stock. With the haldex switch (HPA makes one), you can go to race mode which is marginally more aggressive than sport mode.

I was wondering about the Haldex controller upgrade.


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

*Re: (NY_Avant)*


_Quote, originally posted by *NY_Avant* »_I just had mine (2.0T Quattro) flashed with Revo stage 1 and the top end power is what I was looking for 80-120 comes really fast. It is the one area my 3.2 Q was always lacking( and the good MPG)








How do you know if you didn't get the 3.2 flashed? And wouldn't the sudden surge in turbo boost upset the car's balance in low traction situations so much that even quattro can't help you?


----------



## NY_Avant (Jan 10, 2009)

*Re: (LWNY)*


_Quote, originally posted by *LWNY* »_How do you know if you didn't get the 3.2 flashed? And wouldn't the sudden surge in turbo boost upset the car's balance in low traction situations so much that even quattro can't help you?
my 3.2Q did have Revo also, plus Intake and Milltek catback, and no there is no sudden boost, just a nice smooth delivery of power, the difference is not it is always available


----------



## SilverSquirrel (Jul 24, 2006)

*Re: (NY_Avant)*

Hey, Frank... been meaning to ask you how much better the mpg is with the 2.0T quattro vs. the 3.2 ... 
and also, any noticeable difference with the newer haldex generation, now that we have snow?


----------



## NY_Avant (Jan 10, 2009)

*Re: (SilverSquirrel)*


_Quote, originally posted by *SilverSquirrel* »_Hey, Frank... been meaning to ask you how much better the mpg is with the 2.0T quattro vs. the 3.2 ... 
and also, any noticeable difference with the newer haldex generation, now that we have snow?
Mix of city and freeway driving 3.2Q around 19-20 combined mpg, same driving 2.0T 24-25 combined mpg, definitely feels better in dry with the new Haldex and in snow not as squirelly (had to use that word lol) but I can honestly say I feel like it handles better then my B8 A4 avant in snow

__
Image uploading. Refresh page to view


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

*FV-QR*


_Quote, originally posted by *NY_Avant* »_definitely feels better in dry with the new Haldex and in snow not as squirelly (had to use that word lol) but I can honestly say I feel like it handles better then my B8 A4 avant in snow

__
Image uploading. Refresh page to view










So is it less squirelly with the Gen IV HPP?


_Quote, originally posted by *NY_Avant* »_I just had mine (2.0T Quattro) flashed with Revo stage 1 and the top end power is what I was looking for 80-120 comes really fast.[/img]
 Were there any bicycles on the road?


_Modified by LWNY at 5:24 PM 1-6-2010_


----------



## NY_Avant (Jan 10, 2009)

*Re: FV-QR (LWNY)*


_Quote, originally posted by *LWNY* »_So is it less squirelly with the Gen IV HPP?

 yep less squirrelly and no there weren't any bicycles, I was on the freeway I84 to be exact in CT , in an undisclosed location


----------



## SilverSquirrel (Jul 24, 2006)

*Re: (NY_Avant)*


_Quote, originally posted by *NY_Avant* »_Mix of city and freeway driving 3.2Q around 19-20 combined mpg, same driving 2.0T 24-25 combined mpg, definitely feels better in dry with the new Haldex and in snow not as squirelly (had to use that word lol) but I can honestly say I feel like it handles better then my B8 A4 avant in snow

__
Image uploading. Refresh page to view


















So sounds like a solid 25% improvement in mpg, like 375 miles or more on a fillup? and the haldex is getting better right from the factory. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
I wonder if, given the right pieces and parts, the gen 4 Haldex would swap in onto the rear diff. of my 06. hmmm..... 


_Modified by SilverSquirrel at 4:44 PM 1-6-2010_


----------



## dj age one (Jun 2, 2000)

*Re: (SilverSquirrel)*


_Quote, originally posted by *SilverSquirrel* »_








So sounds like a solid 25% improvement in mpg, like 375 miles or more on a fillup? and the haldex is getting better right from the factory. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
I wonder if, given the right pieces and parts, the gen 4 Haldex would swap in onto the rear diff. of my 06. hmmm..... 

_Modified by SilverSquirrel at 4:44 PM 1-6-2010_

these things have tiny tanks..
I average 22mpg in town... but I fill up around 270 miles because its marking empty. takes about 12 gallons. DIS says 5-10 miles remaining.


----------



## LEWXCORE (Jul 7, 2007)

*FV-QR*

I think this topic has been beaten to death enough. There's been tons of threads including this one, and they all go like this:
HAY guyz 2 audi a3 racecars one with v6 one with turbo...who are winner?
3.2 quattro wins for 2 gears from 0 mph, then chipped fwd 2.0t pulls after that and there is no chance for the 3.2 liter to catch up. 
U sir R RRong! v6 sound more nice!! quattro good in snow
NO U STUPID SIR!! Turbo more fun!! better gas mileage!!!!!
?
say the same thing over again
?
cam follower
?
?
archive.


----------



## eltonsi (Mar 17, 2005)

You forgot the...
If I add a turbo in the 3.2, I would own any 2.0T...
Not my 1000hp 4 banger! ...
You still don't have quattro! ...
Yeah, I have a 2.0TQ! ...
You still have a slush box!
So do you!
(3rd Person) You both suck, real enthusiasts drive with 3 pedals! ...
But my slush box is not automatic because it doesn't have a torque converter!...
Anything without a clutch is auto!
But it does have a clutch, wait, it has TWO clutches! ...
...
...
...


----------



## LEWXCORE (Jul 7, 2007)

*FV-QR*

lol, I totally neglected the transmission argument... good catch sir.


----------



## SilverSquirrel (Jul 24, 2006)

*Re: FV-QR (LEWXCORE)*


_Quote, originally posted by *LEWXCORE* »_lol, I totally neglected the transmission argument... good catch sir.

Well, some of us are a bit new to this A3 game. Im just trying to catch up, and educate myself. 
I read your build thread. You are clearly lowering yourself by even reading this thread, let alone posting. So have you found out how much boost a 2.0 can handle before grenading?















btw i was over-boosting 944 turbos when you were still in diapers, son..... and porsche was even kind enough to put a boost gauge on the instrument panel where it belongs.


----------

