# Clarkson on the 3.2 Quattro



## ays128 (Oct 28, 2006)

First time poster - Hello!

http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/articl ... _1,00.html

3.2 guys arent gonna like this one.


----------



## Iceman (Jul 3, 2004)

Like i always have said, Audi had never put in the old 3.2 VR6 engine.
Why not right from the start the 265 hp 2.0 turbo engine instead of the 3.2 VR6 in the Quattro version.

Hans.


----------



## treborwen (May 24, 2006)

> It sounds like Iâ€™m having a downer on this car, and thatâ€™s probably unfair. It looks fantastic and I think youâ€™d be proud to own such a thing. The engine is good, too, and the quality of fit and finish is wonderful.


Ahhh bless

[email protected] :evil:


----------



## YELLOW_TT (Feb 25, 2004)

Good old Clarkson loved the first bit about the A44


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

> *Jeremy Clarkson: *
> 
> Which brings me, quite naturally, to the new Audi TT. I reviewed the 2 litre front-wheel-drive version a few months ago and I liked it very much. So youâ€™d expect me to rave about the much faster four-wheel-drive V6 Iâ€™ve been using this past week.
> 
> ...


----------



## John C (Jul 5, 2002)

Thanks Rebel, I was struggling to click the link and read it for myself, what a team player you are. :roll: :wink:


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

John i'm a athleth (runner).... i hate teamsport's :wink:


----------



## kmpowell (May 6, 2002)

Rebel said:


> John i'm a athleth (runner).... i hate teamsport's :wink:


I'm not sure what a 'athleth' is, but there is no need to digress any further Rebel, because we had all worked out ages ago that you like to go "solo".


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

Thx Mister Powell, i indeed like to go solo when it comes to thinking.
There are too many people following each other already on this earth.
And point two, i don't give a sh*t what you or other people think abouth me.
I'm a member because i like to read some info, and share the same passion abouth the MK2 (!) And not to make friends or looking for a lover, or anything like that. :lol:

If i didn't follow my "solo" instinct, i proberly would be working for some boss, or would be living in some little "euro-disney-resort" house :lol:

But on Topic,

I think Jeremy his quality's abouth car's, is proberly a little bit better than the most off us over here, so i think that some parts from the article will be thrue.


----------



## John C (Jul 5, 2002)

aye, hurshky burshky, waant some ilishit weed?


----------



## T3 (Sep 24, 2006)

I'll be interested to see how many 3.2 owners will jump to the defence once again here. Funny that. They always seem to be on the back foot. (not opinion, just statistical, which means hopefully I'll escape anything directed this way.)


----------



## Speed Racer (May 21, 2006)

T3 said:


> I'll be interested to see how many 3.2 owners will jump to the defence once again here. Funny that. They always seem to be on the back foot. (not opinion, just statistical, which means hopefully I'll escape anything directed this way.)


Clarkson changes his mind repeatedly. He is also swayed by public opinion more than most journos. If you don't agree with Clarkson, wait a few days. An opinion on something that you don't own is carefree. He loves the Alfa, but admists owning one would be one terrible experience.


----------



## squiggel (May 16, 2006)

Rebel said:


> And itâ€™s the same story with handling. Of course the V6 has four-wheel drive, which affords you a lot more grip, but curiously the front-driver is more rewarding and actually better to drive. It certainly is if you spec it up with the optional electromagnetic suspension, without which the V6 felt â€" dare I say it â€" a little crude and jiggly


Got to agree with his jiggly suspension comment, at higher speeds.

Wish i had mag ride... :?


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

so his only complaint was the 20T with MR was 'less jiggy' than the 3.2 without. Is this not more of a review on MR than the car :roll:

and what was point of the first page?


----------



## T3 (Sep 24, 2006)

Speed Racer said:


> T3 said:
> 
> 
> > I'll be interested to see how many 3.2 owners will jump to the defence once again here. Funny that. They always seem to be on the back foot. (not opinion, just statistical, which means hopefully I'll escape anything directed this way.)
> ...


Well I have to agree with Clarkson on the subject of Alfa. In fact I think most people agree with him most of the time. Im not saying always, but MOST of the time. And this is one of them.


----------



## tehdarkstar (Jul 24, 2006)

I like the way he concluded that every slow driver is a psycopath murderer... :lol: :lol:


----------



## piper (Nov 5, 2006)

tehdarkstar said:


> I like the way he concluded that every slow driver is a psycopath murderer... :lol: :lol:


The thing I don't like about the 2.0tt is you can't gt eh power down without spinning the wheels. Unlike the 3.2!


----------



## tehdarkstar (Jul 24, 2006)

piper said:


> tehdarkstar said:
> 
> 
> > I like the way he concluded that every slow driver is a psycopath murderer... :lol: :lol:
> ...


And what has it got to do with psycopath murderers?


----------



## Aerialcamera (Mar 7, 2003)

What about resale values, the Alfa would be a nightmare surely, also from what I hear reliability is a joke. Anyway I have had 1 MK1 and now aMk2 V6 and have they are both great, the feel of the V6 is wonderful, the Mk2 has a great growl when floored, its so smooth and responsive, after having 4 quattros I would never return to front wheel drive.
Finally its well know what Clarkson thinks about TT'2, what are his qualifications exactly can someone remind me please..... He also needs to think maybe that one of his clever off the cuff comments can wipe thousands of pounds value of someones motor who has worked hard to get it.


----------



## tehdarkstar (Jul 24, 2006)

Aerialcamera said:


> What about resale values, the Alfa would be a nightmare surely, also from what I hear reliability is a joke. Anyway I have had 1 MK1 and now aMk2 V6 and have they are both great, the feel of the V6 is wonderful, the Mk2 has a great growl when floored, its so smooth and responsive, after having 4 quattros I would never return to front wheel drive.
> Finally its well know what Clarkson thinks about TT'2, what are his qualifications exactly can someone remind me please..... He also needs to think maybe that one of his clever off the cuff comments can wipe thousands of pounds value of someones motor who has worked hard to get it.


I don't think that the Brera is more desirable at all. According to Evo, it's a joke to drive and according to me the looks are not for everybody. I don't like it.

I don't think that any comments Clarkson make will make any difference on your resale values and he is welcome to give his opinion, whatever it is. I don't believe it will change the fun you're having with your car.


----------



## mjbTT (Nov 11, 2006)

Brera - Hairdressers car.

I like Clarkson - he just needed the Alfa to fall back on - couldn't possibly suggest a 2.0T TT was the best use of Â£25K could he!!


----------



## CamV6 (Oct 26, 2003)

kmpowell said:


> Rebel said:
> 
> 
> > John i'm a athleth (runner).... i hate teamsport's :wink:


 :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

You read my mind :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Dotti (Mar 9, 2003)

I love the way Clarkson always writes things up  . The very detailed words and build up and then BANG! [smiley=drummer.gif] . Bring back TOP gear! FAST 8)  Jeremy [smiley=iloveyou.gif]  :wink:


----------



## nutts (May 8, 2002)

I don't own a MK2, but having had the opportunity to rag the balls off the 3.2 & 2.0T in both manual & S Tronic forms back to back... I have to say I loved the 3.2 much much much more than the 2.0T. It's all down to personal opinion at the end of the day... no-one should EVER buy a car based on someone elses personal opinion 

What I want from the 3.2 isn't obviously what Clarkson wants... and that's ALL you can conclude from his comments.


----------



## TheLaird (Nov 17, 2006)

I think Clarkson's article is easy to mis-interpret. If he had driven a 3.2 with S-Tronic and magnetic ride he would probably have liked it as much as the 2.0 TFSI - see http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,12529-2218598_1,00.html
His only valid criticism of the 3.2 would then be that it's not good value when compared with the 2.0 FSI - a point made by several other reviewers in the motoring press.
Personally I think it's horses for courses etc. I'm glad I've ordered a 3.2 and I'm glad I specified S-Tronic and magnetic ride - no matter what nob-head Clarkson says [smiley=argue.gif]


----------



## Samy (Oct 26, 2006)

> And then we get to the gearbox. It was a standard six-speeder and it was the first gearbox Iâ€™ve come across since the mid-1980s that just wouldnâ€™t behave itself. To get first gear you had to go into second gear first, then shove it forwards hard. Failure to do this resulted in no gear at all, or â€" on two occasions â€" much to the consternation of the chap behind me, reverse.


Had anyone with a manual gearbox had this experience - any regrets?


----------



## Janker (Oct 27, 2006)

Must confess Samy - it wasn't the best manual I've ever driven - felt very... 'French' to me..

DSG is great so I'm not fussed!


----------



## ezzie (Jul 2, 2004)

Having opted for the manual, initially thought I made a mistake and ought to have gone for s-tronic. However, having repositioned the seat height, gear changing has become much smoother and the box is absolutely fine.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

i dont have a problem getting a gear - its the 'snatch' going into second that anoys the hell out of me.

I have it sorted - DSG on order. :lol:


----------



## ezzie (Jul 2, 2004)

Toshiba said:


> i dont have a problem getting a gear - its the 'snatch' going into second that anoys the hell out of me.
> 
> I have it sorted - DSG on order. :lol:


To avoid the snatch just ignore 1st gear all together. I never use it now.


----------



## markrbooth (Sep 25, 2006)

ezzie said:


> Toshiba said:
> 
> 
> > i dont have a problem getting a gear - its the 'snatch' going into second that anoys the hell out of me.
> ...


Agreed. I only use it for hill starts (just in case), otherwise 2nd provides more than enough grunt.


----------



## TT Hopeful (Oct 7, 2006)

I like Clarkson, I think he's funny in an 'embarrasing but amusing, old, bigoted uncle you only see at the occassional family get-together' kind of way! :lol:

He is very opinionated and does seem to let this rule his thinking when it comes to cars. I mean, just take his views on 'America' and all things 'American' as seen in his interview with Jonathan Ross the other night!

Don't forget, he is an old man and thats bound to get in the way of him making objective, constructive comments all the time.

Personally I think the 3.2 is a better car but that is just my opinion and why I decided to buy the 3.2. I could have bought the 2.0 (obviously, seeing as its cheaper!) but I preferred the 3.2 when I test drove it and I just think that its better all round. However, I do still think that the 2.0 is good value for money compared to the 3.2 but I'm not prepared to sacrifice quattro for 2WD. I am surprised that he said the 2WD handled better, maybe he had a faulty 3.2? Or maybe that just shows how good mag ride is? :?


----------



## jam225 (Jun 24, 2003)

Clarkson is a [email protected] in my opinion, as usual he drivels on for ages about bu99er all to do with the car he is reviewing and then casts some sweeping generalisations about the car he has just driven for the past few days.

Having driven both the 2.0T and the 3.2 I can honestly say that they are both hugely impressive cars in their own right. Whether one is better than the other is purely subjective and not worth the debate.

Now on the other hand if there was a 2.0T version kicking out 265bhp then I might have a different view.......... :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

when does your V6 land :wink:


----------



## Samy (Oct 26, 2006)

jam225 said:


> Clarkson is a [email protected] in my opinion, as usual he drivels on for ages about bu99er all to do with the car he is reviewing and then casts some sweeping generalisations about the car he has just driven for the past few days.
> 
> Having driven both the 2.0T and the 3.2 I can honestly say that they are both hugely impressive cars in their own right. Whether one is better than the other is purely subjective and not worth the debate.
> 
> Now on the other hand if there was a 2.0T version kicking out 265bhp then I might have a different view.......... :lol: :lol: :lol:


Well you would hope its a better car for the extra 5 grand!


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

No its 3k for a bigger engine and quattro.

The other 2k is spec/trim.


----------



## TT2 Brilliant Red (Nov 1, 2006)

Â£3k. What dealer do you use!!!!!!!!!

Follow this link, which will take you to the Audi UK site:

http://www.audi.co.uk/audi/uk/en2/new_c ... tions.html

and I think you will find it's Â£4660.


----------



## markrbooth (Sep 25, 2006)

TT2 Brilliant Red said:


> Â£3k. What dealer do you use!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Follow this link, which will take you to the Audi UK site:
> 
> ...


Research before you post such rubbish. Tosh was merely saying that the real price difference is Â£3k for quattro and a bigger engine. This is after accounting for the upgrade costs on the 2.0T for standard items on the 3.2. Eg, full leather and 18" wheels.


----------



## Wallsendmag (Feb 12, 2004)

markrbooth said:


> TT2 Brilliant Red said:
> 
> 
> > Â£3k. What dealer do you use!!!!!!!!!
> ...


Dont forget the full leather and light styling pack and decent wheels :wink:


----------



## Samy (Oct 26, 2006)

markrbooth said:


> TT2 Brilliant Red said:
> 
> 
> > Â£3k. What dealer do you use!!!!!!!!!
> ...


 :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## TT2 Brilliant Red (Nov 1, 2006)

But you can't assume that everybody wants full leather.

Secondly your only option is the additional Â£4660. Unless you know of someone who has just had the engine and 4wd!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## DonaldC (May 7, 2002)

I posted a while back on the cost of difference between a basic but decent spec 2.0 and 3.2. Have a look at the thread below:

http://www.********.co.uk/ttforumbbs/viewtopic.php?t=66232&highlight=

The gist of the article is below:-



> was wondering how much different would be the costs between a reasonable and identical spec 2.0TFSI and the 3.2 V6:-
> 
> 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
> ...


I think the V6 does look good value... :wink:

Donald


----------



## T3 (Sep 24, 2006)

why does it always come down to money?
Money was irrelevant when I chose my 2.0TT

and the above post just proves how much better I think the 2.0TT is.
If you want value, you're looking at the wrong brand/ model etc...
How about a Vauxhall...


----------



## T3 (Sep 24, 2006)

kidding about Vauxhall ( or as we call it Opel)


----------



## TT2 Brilliant Red (Nov 1, 2006)

I think the 2.0T is a far better proposition.

For the following reasons:

Reviews only have a Rizzla paper between them.

2.0T is far easier to modify to obtain massive gains on standard.

Lets take a step back and look at what cars have been iconic in the Audi brand. The Rallying in the 80's - power came from a turbocharged engine. The RS2 - turbocharged engine. The first RS4 - turbocharged engine.

And last but not least - why buy a car when the engine is going to be dated in a few months. Even VW have started replacing the 3.2's with 3.6's.


----------



## DonaldC (May 7, 2002)

T3 said:


> why does it always come down to money?
> Money was irrelevant when I chose my 2.0TT
> 
> and the above post just proves how much better I think the 2.0TT is.
> ...


 [smiley=sleeping.gif]

You know what...money was also irrelevant to my decision. I chose because I wanted quattro which made more sense to the roads I travel in Scotland, especially the ones I take my mountain bike to! How 'the' above post proves how much better the 2.0 is a stupid remark. I posted the thread link so the quote could be viewed in context. There has been a lot of discussion for months and in this thread about cost of difference between the models and I thought people might find the info and thread useful in their decisions and debate. Obviously it has helped you so I'm very glad!

I stand by my statement that the V6 can be considered good value within the context of my post! It would be quite easy to start a thread on the general waste of money and poor value of all cars, even/especially vauxhalls!

Less of the attitude.... :wink:

Donald


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

TT2 Brilliant Red said:


> . Even VW have started replacing the 3.2's with 3.6's.


Utter rubbish - i have an email from audi that states the 3.6 will not be replacing the 3.2 and my 2nd TT order is based on this email. The 3.6 doesn't fit in the TT. 3.6 in a rep car means nothing.

Reviews have not been paper thin, the only thing they say is the 20T is a better package (MONEY) but the test cars they get from Audi come all spec's up so its easy to say get the 20T when its been spec to the same level as a V6. :?

The fact is, the difference for the bigger, more powerful and faster engine along with 4WD is <3K.


----------



## moore11 (Oct 1, 2006)

TT2 Brilliant Red said:


> I think the 2.0T is a far better proposition.
> 
> For the following reasons:
> 
> ...


AUDI ARE NOT REPLACING THE 3.2. THEY ARE BRINGING OUT THE RSTT. THE 3.2 WILL REMAIN THE FLAGSHIP TT BELOW THE RSTT, THAT IS DEFINITE FOR AT LEAST THE NEXT 2-3 YRS. THE 2.0T IS A GREAT CAR, WE ALL LOVE IT, BUT IT IS SLOWER THAN THE 3.2, DOESN'T HAVE QUATTRO, NO CHROME PIPES, NO CHROME HEADLIGHTS AND NO V6 SNARL, ALL FOR ONLY A FEW EXTRA GRAND. THE R32 GOLF IS BETTER THAN THE GTI. THE ONLY REASON CLARKSON ADVISED THE 2.0T WAS BECAUSE IT IS CHEAPER, FOR CRYING OUT LOUD, CLARKSON ALSO SAID IN THE SAME ARTICLE THAT THE ALFA BRERA WAS MORE DESIRABLE THAN THE TT.... WHAT UTTER RUBBISH!!!! THE BRERA WOULDN'T PULL YOU OUT OF BED. CLARKSON IS ALWAYS CONTROVERSIAL. IN THE FINAL PARAGRAPH HE ADMITS THAT HE ISN'T "HAVING A DOWNER" ON THE 3.2V6 AND THAT THE ENGINE IS VERY GOOD. IT IS A POINTLESS DISCUSSION ANYWAY, THE SAME HAPPENED WITH THE MKI TT, WHICH WAS BETTER THE 225/240 TURBO TT's OR THE 3.2DSG? THEY WERE BOTH GOOD.


----------



## tehdarkstar (Jul 24, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> Reviews have not been paper thin, the only thing they say is the 20T is a better package (MONEY) but the test cars they get from Audi come all spec's up so its easy to say get the 20T when its been spec to the same level as a V6. :?


Tosh, you know that that remark is not entirely true. Many magazines like Evo and Autocar have tested both models and have prefered the 2.0T because it is lighter, NOT because moneywise it was a better package. A magazine like Evo couldn't give a damn to money, as they put Porsches 911 Turbo against Subaru Impreza.

Now, I do believe the 3.2Q is a good value. I would have gone for it if I liked the 3.2 engine and quattro, but as it happens I prefered the lighter car with FWD. It is ALL down to personal preferences and driving style. The price difference between the two cars is so minimal that as I was spending Â£32.5K in my 2.0T I could easily have added another Â£3K and got the bigger engine if I wanted to, in the same spec.

The 3.2, other than the bigger engine and quattro does come with some very attractive features that are options on the 2.0T like bigger wheels, leather, heated seats, the lighting styling pack and etc, and it also comes with a few things that you can't have on the other model, which are the enhanced brakes, phantom black front grille and exhaust pipes on each side, so it is an appealing package.

I said it before in another thread and I will repeat myself here: Audi has made two great cars for two very distinct audiences:

2.0T: the car is lighter, more agile, easier to point at bends, very "chuckable", easily tunable, more dramatic power distribution.
3.2Q: the car is heavier, safer, smoother power distribution accompanied by the good soundtrack, better for cruises and relaxed driving.

What gets me pi$$ed off is that every week I see threads in here with people slating the 2.0T for being FWD and people slating the 3.2Q for being heavier. Well, THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT CARS FOR DIFFERENT AUDIENCES! When we get that we will understand that people like me DIDN'T WANT QUATTRO NOT EVEN IF IT WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE 2.0T BECAUSE IT MAKES THE CAR HEAVIER AND LESS FUN TO DRIVE (according to my concept of fun to drive). Also people that bought the 3.2Q didn't want the spec model for their reasons which will be all valid for their way of thinking.

If I was thinking about money when I bought my car, I would have bought an A4 S-Line Special Edition that my dealer was offering at about Â£3K off the list price, but then I would have compromised my enjoyment and fun for money. Neither the 2.0T or the 3.2Q are good values. They are expensive unpractical cars for people that want to satisfy their inner children and my inner child doesn't think about good value.


----------



## FDXmiguel (Oct 22, 2006)

The man knows what he is talking about...all very valid points  DITTO

If you ask me after driving both I think I wouldnt mind ordering the 2 and use them for different situations...I think most of us would so this whole discussion is irrelevant :lol:

If the difference between the 2 was more than Â£10k like here in Portugal (bigger engines more taxes) I think u wouldn't have this discussion :lol:


----------



## piper (Nov 5, 2006)

Everyone is correct is stating itâ€™s all down to personal preference. Iâ€™ve personally owned a few Audi cars and really miss the Quattro system. My A3 I have at the moment is FWD and due to the amount of torque the car generates you just canâ€™t get the power down. I personally hate the way the wheels spin and canâ€™t wait to get back in to a sure-footed Quattro. Which is bassically what influenced my choice of car.

You canâ€™t take anything away from the 3.2 or the 2.0 as stated earlier they are very different cars. What they do have in common is they great fun and look great.


----------



## Samy (Oct 26, 2006)

piper said:


> Everyone is correct is stating itâ€™s all down to personal preference. Iâ€™ve personally owned a few Audi cars and really miss the Quattro system. My A3 I have at the moment is FWD and due to the amount of torque the car generates you just canâ€™t get the power down. I personally hate the way the wheels spin and canâ€™t wait to get back in to a sure-footed Quattro. Which is bassically what influenced my choice of car.
> 
> You canâ€™t take anything away from the 3.2 or the 2.0 as stated earlier they are very different cars. What they do have in common is they great fun and look great.


Wheels spin? Traction control comes as standard on the TT so you won't be getting that.


----------



## markrbooth (Sep 25, 2006)

Samy said:


> piper said:
> 
> 
> > Everyone is correct is stating itâ€™s all down to personal preference. Iâ€™ve personally owned a few Audi cars and really miss the Quattro system. My A3 I have at the moment is FWD and due to the amount of torque the car generates you just canâ€™t get the power down. I personally hate the way the wheels spin and canâ€™t wait to get back in to a sure-footed Quattro. Which is bassically what influenced my choice of car.
> ...


I'm sorry to say I've NEVER driven/owned a front wheel drive car whose traction control system 100% tamed a tight exit from a roundabout in 2nd gear.


----------



## jdmave (Sep 3, 2006)

I'm just glad to be getting a MK2 TT and enjoying life

Best Regards

Jdmave


----------



## Speed Racer (May 21, 2006)

Does the 2.0T exhibit any torque steer under hard acceleration? As I recall, the GTi had extreme torque steer in an episode of Top Gear.


----------



## piper (Nov 5, 2006)

traction control won't stop wheel spin; fact. It helps!


----------



## tehdarkstar (Jul 24, 2006)

Speed Racer said:


> Does the 2.0T exhibit any torque steer under hard acceleration? As I recall, the GTi had extreme torque steer in an episode of Top Gear.


I haven't noticed any torque-steer. It does have wheel-spin, though.


----------



## Speed Racer (May 21, 2006)

tehdarkstar said:


> Speed Racer said:
> 
> 
> > Does the 2.0T exhibit any torque steer under hard acceleration? As I recall, the GTi had extreme torque steer in an episode of Top Gear.
> ...


So did the GTi at launch with Stig at the wheel. Lost at least a 1,000 miles of rubber in the first 50 feet!


----------

