# Why did you choose the 3.2 or 2.0T?



## woppy (Apr 11, 2007)

I know this is a contentious one, but I am really interested in what motivated you all to pick the engine you did.

I realise that price will always be a major factor, but was it also value for money or less carbon emisions?

Added to this the fact that petrol is only going to get more expensive and driving bigger engined cars seems to be getting slightly more socially unacceptable these days.

I have only test driven a 3.2 and originally ordered a 2.0T as all the mags seemed to say this was the more agile rah,rah, rah. I have now changed this for a 3.2, but the cutoff for spec changes will soon be upon me, I want to be comfortable with my decision.

I have always liked bigger lumps (no substitute for cubes and all that), but my present ride is a Golf GTI 1.8T and a classic mini cooper, the mini in particular is great fun to drive even with a 1.3 engine :twisted:


----------



## Wallsendmag (Feb 12, 2004)

7 years driving a turbo so I fancied a change


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

Couldn't afford the 3.2


----------



## exodont (Sep 10, 2006)

Here we go again..... :?


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

OK i'll start. I'll only answer the whys rather than the why nots.

3.2 has a great sound when revved, the power delivery is instant and more linear. Turbos do 'feel' faster (i totally admit it) but its only due to the way they work. 
The 3.2 spec is better
The 3.2 car has Quattro
The MPG is not that bad 32mpg from a V6!!!!
The V6 engine sounds better
The car felt better when i test drove them
The car handling is excellent - dont listen to the mags, the car is spot on not front heavy at all like the MKI was. 
I'd done lots of turbo engines and wanted a V.

If the choice was a 20T with 250bhp vs a V6 with 250bhp and the same spec it would be much harder. Im sure the TTS will muddy the water and split opinion ever further.


----------



## woppy (Apr 11, 2007)

Brilliant, these are the type of comments I was really after.

I didn't want to spark the debate of which is better, rather what the deciding factors were.

As I think someone else has mentioned before, it's not always price, sometimes there are other very valid factors that come into play.


----------



## RichardM (Apr 18, 2007)

I chose mainly on fuel consumption but also the 2.0T I test drove did feel faster and more agile than the 3.2.


----------



## vagman (Sep 6, 2002)

I had two 1.8T's and two 3.2 mkI's and the 3.2's won hands down. 

The same better than criteria, as Tosh confirms above, exists with the mkII.


----------



## sico (Feb 6, 2003)

I went for the 3.2, I had the Focus ST before my new TT and that engine is better than the Golfs, I knew that the 2.0T would be slower than my ST and wanted something comparable/ faster. I was also getting fed up with wheel spin on quick pull aways.

The 3.2 has the same torque as the ST (320NM) and quattro. Feels and sounds sweet.


----------



## Topdown (May 22, 2007)

Went for the 2.0R, Only had the chance to drive a 2.0 but..
Cost to run, (Really peeved about one point into the next road tax band!) :evil: 
Closely followed by cost to buy.
The 2.0 had better reviews to some extent.
2L is quite enough for British road use unless you collect fines or points
on your licence.
I doubt many of you will agree with my last point


----------



## DonaldC (May 7, 2002)

In a nutshell - I wanted the quattro.

However, after analysing the specs and costs between the 2.0 and 3.2, I thought the 3.2 was good value.

I posted this little comparison last year but you might find it useful.

3.2 V6 OTR...................Â£29,285.00.............2.0T FSI OTR Â£24,625.00 
S-Tronic..........................Â£1,400.00...................................Â£1,400.00 
Metallic Paint......................Â£500.00.......................................Â£500.00 
Extended Leather................Â£350.00......................................Â£350.00 
Leather..................................Â£0.00......................................Â£550.00 
18" Turbines.......................Â£350.00....................................Â£1,250.00 
Heated Seats.........................Â£0.00.......................................Â£250.00

TOTAL COST...................Â£31,885.00.........................Â£28,925.00

The difference is Â£2960.00 which is not bad for having the Quattro system and the V6 engine as well as the chrome front lights and smoked rear lights. Almost makes it worthwhile upgrading to the V6 as normally Audi would charge about Â£1500 for the quattro system.

And the V6 also includes an enhanced braking system, phantom black grill and twin exhausts on either side of the rear.

And I agree with Tosh's points as well.

I also think you would be happy with both.

Cheers
Donald


----------



## markrbooth (Sep 25, 2006)

I agree with Donald. As much as I actually wanted the 2.0, I also wanted quattro, full leather, 18" wheels so the price differential made the 2.0 barely worth it.

Also, the missus refuses to ever buy (s)lower spec models. I wanted a Corrado so she insisted on a VR6. She wanted a Clio so it had to be the 172. I wanted a TT so it had to be the 3.2. Nuff said and who am I to complain


----------



## Arne (Dec 13, 2006)

I chose 2.0T because:

- It's a lighter car
- It's easily tuneable to 250 bhp and 360-370 NM for a very reasonable cost
- The fwd is amazing compared to other fwd cars I have driven, and do not "suffer" from the different negative effects most fwd cars do 
- In Norway the 3.2 is way too expencive due to tax system, and even at the same price I do not know which one I would have chosen. I would rather have a chiped 2.0T engine compared to the 3.2 (more bhp if you look at the whole rpm range, and way more torque), but the quatro would have been a "nice to have" option


----------



## sico (Feb 6, 2003)

Arne said:


> I chose 2.0T because:
> 
> - It's a lighter car
> - It's easily tuneable to 250 bhp and 360-370 NM for a very reasonable cost
> ...


My god! I was expecting this to turn into a my car is better than yours thread but there are some really good points being raised here...


----------



## Arne (Dec 13, 2006)

sico said:


> Arne said:
> 
> 
> > I chose 2.0T because:
> ...


A chiped 2.0T (only stage 1 chip) is actually a very fast car. It does have some traction problems (wheelspinn) on fast take-off's, but the chip (program) I have reduces max power and torque on first and second gear a little, so it is not a "major" issue.

Acceleration at higher speeds (even at speeds over 135 mph) are amazing, and top speed is not bad either.... :wink:

Have a look at this picture. It shows my maximum speed on this trip in km/h (second row from bottom, and the number at the far right side) and the digital speedo in the car showed 14 km/h more.....

It's obviously no speed limiter on the 2.0T.....


----------



## blagman (Sep 11, 2006)

What Donald & Tosh Said


----------



## loic (Nov 14, 2006)

I chose the 2.0T because.....

I didn't consider the 3.2 to be worth the extra money.

8,000 miles later, I can't think of one time where the extra power, 'better' noise or part-time 4WD would've made me wish that I'd bought a V6 instead...

The only regret that I have is buying the iPod interface - It's not exactly user friendly [smiley=thumbsdown.gif]


----------



## BAMTT (Feb 22, 2004)

Arne said:


> sico said:
> 
> 
> > Arne said:
> ...


In the rain as well


----------



## Foiel (May 8, 2002)

3.2 or 2.0T .... ? none of them ! I've decided to wait until AUDI launches an engines line up with sense.. The current line up doesn't have any sense at all in my opinion..


----------



## Arne (Dec 13, 2006)

BAMTT said:


> Arne said:
> 
> 
> > sico said:
> ...


The rain startet long after the high speed driving..... :wink: Max speed was set on German autobahn on the way home to Norway after a trip to Nurburgring. On this picture I have reached sweden.

This was in eastern, and just a few minutes after this picture was taken, it started snowing heavily..... :? And that was not very fun on 245/40*18 summerwheels......


----------



## T3 (Sep 24, 2006)

2.0T is faster over the quarter mile where I live. (altitude)


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Thread goes down gill yet again.


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> Thread goes down gill yet again.


Gill my sister in law or a different one Tosh? Didnt know she went down tbh, knew I picked the wrong bl00dy sister. :roll:


----------



## drn (Mar 5, 2007)

I test drove a 3.2 TTC. Thought the sound of the engine was wonderful and acceleration, handling etc very good.

However I live in South East London. Most of my driving is in town and mostly over bloody speed bumps. As such the 2.0 offered better fuel economy and on the occasions when I could get on the open road enough speed and acceleration to make driving a joy instead of a chore. The S-tronic would have been a must whichever I had chosen. The lower tax band helped and the cost difference was also a factor. I would have been stretching myself financially to afford the 3.2.

The various reviews gave the 2.0 a very good write up - in some cases better than the 3.2 , in other cases not. It seemed to me that if the opportunity to enjoy the extra the 3.2 offered was likely to be so limited in my circumstances, then the 2.0 was the better choice.

Hope that helps.

2.0TTC; S-tronic; MFSW; MR; Rear sensor; Brilliant Red; Brilliant Car


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Leg said:


> Toshiba said:
> 
> 
> > Thread goes down gill yet again.
> ...


Gill - dyslexic for hill.
But yes she goes down, hard to swallow im sure, but thats just how it is. No point spitting and shouting about it.


----------



## Aikidoka (Apr 5, 2007)

The clincher for me was the exhausts on either side... I preferred that...

(oh, and the Quattro!)


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> Leg said:
> 
> 
> > Toshiba said:
> ...


Its the gargling afterwards that is quite off putting.


----------



## woppy (Apr 11, 2007)

Thanks everyone for your very objective comments.

I have been lurking in the 'which is better 2 or 3.2' threads and they very nearly but never exaclty answered the questions in my head (those damn voices again!)

I am of the conclusion they are both fine cars, and now I have an extended set of criteria to evaluate.

Cheers guys for your time with this 8)


----------



## CraigyTT (Oct 19, 2006)

Hi Woppy, 
I drove both the 2.0 and 3.2 back to back for 3 days (ie. 6 days in total), and in the end plumped for the 2.0. It wasn't just to do with money - another car I was considering was the BMW 335ci (which would have been about Â£40K after a sensible set of options). I just didn't like the 3.2 as much as I liked the 2.0.
This was confirmed the last time I drove a 3.2 (a DSG roadster): yesterday.

All this stuff is subjective but here's my list:
Things in the 3.2's favour: noise, brakes (which are much, much better), traction: especially in the wet or out of tight corners.
Things in the 2.0's favour: handling, low-rev torque (under 2000), economy, ability to chip it for more power easily later on.

I can comfortably single out one thing from the above that swung it for me:
*On the limit handling.*
The 2.0 had more feel than the 3.2 at the ragged edge. There's no doubt that they are both quick and quite grippy, but when the 3.2 lets go, it tends to do it with all 4 wheels at the same time and is slightly too snappy about it for my tastes. In comparison, the 2.0 will actually often run out of grip at the back before the front, but it communicates that better than the 3.2 IMO, and you can feel your steering/brake/throttle corrections dealing with it.
I come from a background driving elises and IMO the extra weight of the 3.2 makes it harder to feel what's going on. The 2.0 is also no saint in this regard, but it's much better.
BTW - Just for reference, in the dry, I drive everywhere with ESP off. With it turned on all the time the 3.2 would likely be the car I'd choose.

The 2.0 is the first FWD car I've ever driven that didn't suffer from torquesteer (I think because they dialled it out with the E-diff). It also has a surprising amount more traction in the dry than I originally imagined, and the cornering limits of both cars in the dry are very similar.

In the wet the 3.2 is comfortably quicker - but I never drive fast in the wet anyway.

The fact that one car can post >50mpg and on average will do 35mpg while the other has trouble cracking 25mpg is just a bonus.

Craigy


----------



## CraigyTT (Oct 19, 2006)

One thing I forgot to mention: I've done just under 7000 miles in my 2.0 since January and it still puts a smile on my face every time I get in it. Whichever one you end up in, I doubt you'll regret it.



C


----------



## Jace (Jun 6, 2007)

For me it was an easy choice. although i was dissapointed they didnt do the quattro in the 2.0t. I had the 225bhp Quattro TTR before and that was superb.
the 26.5mpg urban and the sound of the engine plus the turbo boost swung it for me. Plus I like the understated dump valve that comes as standard.


----------



## mohan (Mar 15, 2007)

CraigyTT said:


> One thing I forgot to mention: I've done just under 7000 miles in my 2.0 since January and it still puts a smile on my face every time I get in it. Whichever one you end up in, I doubt you'll regret it.
> 
> 
> 
> C


great first post and write up... your comments concure with almost every decent car magazine, and only the 2.0 made it to 'evoness'... which is why i brought a 2.0... and i'm came from a rwd 400bhp m5!


----------



## CraigyTT (Oct 19, 2006)

mohan said:


> CraigyTT said:
> 
> 
> > One thing I forgot to mention: I've done just under 7000 miles in my 2.0 since January and it still puts a smile on my face every time I get in it. Whichever one you end up in, I doubt you'll regret it.
> ...


*snap*... My last car was an e39 5-series as well (only a 523 tho!).

C


----------



## andyd (May 27, 2007)

I always was going to go for the 2.0 as a company car in coupe form after having a test drive through my work, but availablity on the car list out me off as it was going to be a long delay.

The emmissions and tax is very very good on the 2.0 TT for a fairly quick car. Also, despite the power disadvantage to the 3.2 is made consideralby less because of the Power to weight ratio - think its something like 156 per tonne v 173 per tonne and

I have owned 2 x 5 cyl fiat coupe turbos as well as a V6 Alfa GTV before and i really liked the 2.0 which was pretty much quick enough along with lower insurance , better fuel consumption and list price.

Cant beat the sound of a V6, although im afraid to say and Alfa V6 sounds better than an Audi V6 :wink:


----------



## AidenL (Nov 29, 2006)

DonaldC said:


> In a nutshell - I wanted the quattro.
> 
> However, after analysing the specs and costs between the 2.0 and 3.2, I thought the 3.2 was good value.
> 
> ...


Same reasoning for me actually - plus the V6 noise 8)


----------



## philbur (Apr 15, 2007)

In Norway the price difference is GBP 20,000, so it at least makes the decision easy.

Phil


----------



## FinFerNan (Feb 28, 2007)

philbur said:


> In Norway the price difference is GBP 20,000, so it at least makes the decision easy.
> 
> Phil


   

I choose the 2.0 partly on economy/ecology. But also I think the 3.2 needs DSG and overall I still prefer Manual gearbox's in sports cars.

Was very tempted to swap to a 3.2 though


----------



## fut1a (Dec 28, 2006)

The quattro system, the twin exhausts, the sound, and also the saddest factor....everytime I would have seen a 3.2 I would have cringed thinking that ones better than mine :lol:


----------



## AudiYaLikeIt (Dec 20, 2002)

Oh no.....he said the better word.......


----------



## fut1a (Dec 28, 2006)

AudiYaLikeIt said:


> Oh no.....he said the better word.......


Oh no I didn't......I said I would have thought it :lol:


----------



## John C (Jul 5, 2002)

Great thread, rationale for individual preference not 'better than yours' stuff. There is a glimmer of hope for us all.

Me?

Had a 1.8 225 and wanted to keep quattro
Wanted to keep the exhaust on both sides at the back
Wanted a change from 4 pot to V6 for noise reasons. (good move imho)
Deliberately did not test 2.0 for handling as I knew reviews said it was better so I thought the new 3.2 would be better than the old Mk1 so better was better even if it was not best. (get it?)
Rightly or wrongly wanted the 'top of the range' what ever that is!


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

John C said:


> Rightly or wrongly wanted the 'top of the range' what ever that is!


Enjoy it, as long as it will be...
There's a new "top of the range " comming .......TTS 270 HP :wink:


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

This will depend on 'where' Audi place it. News is it will be the middle of the range. Keep up :wink:


----------



## T3 (Sep 24, 2006)

Tosh... Obviously Im not keeping up. Just quickly explain how the TTS will be the " middle of the range"? Is this confirming a TTRS?


----------



## Foiel (May 8, 2002)

.. I can't understand the 270 Hp ( is it confirmed ? ) being in the middle of the range.. the 3.2 then with 250 hp ?...

Audi makes me maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad :evil:


----------



## DonaldC (May 7, 2002)

2.0TFSI with 270BHP and FWD - TTS? :roll:

V6 with unknown BHP and Quattro - TTRS? :wink:

I'm just thinking out loud so don't bite too hard - but does anyone REALLY know? Could be some surprises and some waiting....

Donald


----------



## T3 (Sep 24, 2006)

TTS would never be sans Quattro.


----------



## valleyboy (Apr 4, 2007)

I went for a 3.2 for exactly the same reasons Toshiba stated at the beginning of this thread.

I went for the S Tronic because it is (marginally) quicker, and also because the CO2 emissions (224 grammes/km) come just below the threshold for the pricey tax band (225 grammes/km) all you manual owners will be paying soon !!


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

T3 said:


> Tosh... Obviously Im not keeping up. Just quickly explain how the TTS will be the " middle of the range"? Is this confirming a TTRS?


The range is not ordered around BHP, its COST!!!! :lol:

THE TTS IS TO BE PRICED AT FWD + 2K SO ITS IN THE MIDDLE...


----------



## CraigyTT (Oct 19, 2006)

valleyboy said:


> I went for a 3.2 for exactly the same reasons Toshiba stated at the beginning of this thread.
> 
> I went for the S Tronic because it is (marginally) quicker, and also because the CO2 emissions (224 grammes/km) come just below the threshold for the pricey tax band (225 grammes/km) all you manual owners will be paying soon !!


eh... is there a difference in CO2 numbers between DSG+Manual?

My manual 2.0 TFSI is 183g of CO2/km btw.

C


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

CO2 for the 3.2 Man is 247 - G For Auto its 224 - F

183 is E


----------



## DonaldC (May 7, 2002)

Toshiba said:


> T3 said:
> 
> 
> > Tosh... Obviously Im not keeping up. Just quickly explain how the TTS will be the " middle of the range"? Is this confirming a TTRS?
> ...


But Audi price their Quattro drivetrain at 1.5k pounds so this mid-range spec will only have an uprated turbo engine and some minor spec changes such as alloys - but NO quattro? Its a possibility!

Or they could include the Quattro and possibly other options as standard such as MR (because of its low takeup) and leather and bigger alloys and suddenly it becomes a 31k basic car? Another possiblity?

My reckoning, and one that I posted on months agos is that the range will look something like this:-

2.0 200HP TFSI - 25/26k plus
3.2 250HP V6 - 29k plus
2.0 280HP TFSI - 31/32k plus

The marketeers will drive this outcome, not the enthusiasts or engineers!

Another possibility for the future would be yet another 'halo' offering near the end of its life when possibly higher output 'RS' version appear - probably with standard options for over 40k.

And don't be surprised if the 2.0 and 3.2 HP figures are massaged at some time in their lifetime - possibly another 5-20hp?

I just don't know, but this makes (common and marketing) sense from analysing what Audi and other car manufacturers do to their model and engine ranges.

I'm a little sceptical that anyone 'really' knows, but I'm enjoying the debate no matter what happens. :roll: :wink:

Donald


----------



## T3 (Sep 24, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> T3 said:
> 
> 
> > Tosh... Obviously Im not keeping up. Just quickly explain how the TTS will be the " middle of the range"? Is this confirming a TTRS?
> ...


where do you get your pricing info from?
cause we all know its a virtual impossibility it would be FWD.
No S car has ever been has it? and theres no way they'd price it under the lower power 3.2

Or am I still missing something? Except your poor humour..


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

No humour, I'm not on the wind up this time.

Im meant the price will be 2-3k over the cost of the existing FWD car or 1-2k less than the V6 ie 25+2=29k. Im not saying the car will be FWD. The info was from a dealer who got it from Audi AG - the car is to sit in the middle. However if they do start adding kit as std which they may do, then the price will rocket and will be more than a 3.2 and the top of the range. How many will be prepared to spend say 34k on a base model (by base i mean with no options).

Personally i dont think the TT in any form, even a V8 is worth over 30k base price. I true regret spending 6k on extras, i might as well have pissed it up a wall as i wont see a penny of it come resale. (Xenons, MR, DSG, PDC and BOSE)

I can see the only options adding value being Extended leather and wheels (any, over std fit alloys) ie visually obvious things.


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

Toshiba said:


> Personally i dont think the TT in any form, even a V8 is worth over 30k base price. I true regret spending 6k on extras, i might as well have pissed it up a wall as i wont see a penny of it come resale. (Xenons, MR, DSG, PDC and BOSE)
> 
> .


sorry but why did you bought a TT? 
I think a skoda would safe you a lot off money

You are talking in every thread about re-sale, and options that ain't worth it.

A lot of people and new tt owners ordered just ehir dreamcar, or a car they desire, with the options they desire.
They are not thinking about selling the car.

and also......who would buy a expensive car with no options as second owner?
Some car's won't get solded at all whit the right options

But again Toshiba, if you can live with a boring TT without options for two year's, fine with me.
Maybe it' better to leave the kitchen in your new house next time.
You won't get alle the money back from that kitchen when you sell your house....


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Im not saying dont buy what you want, I'm saying Audi are very clever - they have moved all the std fit items to options in order to (I'm guessing) a) keep the base price low and b) make even more money from people adding them back on.

By all means buy what and as much as you want, but PERSONALY, i regret it.


----------

