2.0T vs 3.2 Regrets???
04-25-2007, 08:21 PM
#33
I don't want to be a d!ck, but someone has to. I'm going to call BS, only because
I just don't think that's realistic. It's entirely possible that when the stars align the motor is achieving that for brief stints but honestly I don't think there's anyway that <b>consistently</b> that car is turning in those numbers.
Nothing personal, you understand. I'd love to be proven wrong if you have the 2nd trip meter set to run all the time and could post a screenshot. Mine hasn't reset yet and it says 23mpg for the life of the car, but I do more city driving than highway and have a 6spd manual/2.0t.
Nothing personal, you understand. I'd love to be proven wrong if you have the 2nd trip meter set to run all the time and could post a screenshot. Mine hasn't reset yet and it says 23mpg for the life of the car, but I do more city driving than highway and have a 6spd manual/2.0t.
04-25-2007, 10:17 PM
#35
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,057
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last time I filled up, miles to empty was 420
Granted I drove up the hill to my house and it dropped to 405...but that's still pretty good.
Seriously...what possible reason would I have to lie?
The difference is that with the tiptronic, my 3.2 stays very low in the rev range, as long as I don't drive "spiritedly". As I mentioned, if I drive fast all the time, stop light to stop light (etc.), I easily drop to below 20 mpg.
The thing with the 2.0t, the manual, is that to get the performance, you have to keep a close eye on your revs, and keep them pretty high (above 3250 at least, it seems). That eats gas. The 3.2 gets along just fine at a much lower RPM range. I don't pop up to over 3000 unless I stomp on it.
Seriously...what possible reason would I have to lie?
The difference is that with the tiptronic, my 3.2 stays very low in the rev range, as long as I don't drive "spiritedly". As I mentioned, if I drive fast all the time, stop light to stop light (etc.), I easily drop to below 20 mpg.
The thing with the 2.0t, the manual, is that to get the performance, you have to keep a close eye on your revs, and keep them pretty high (above 3250 at least, it seems). That eats gas. The 3.2 gets along just fine at a much lower RPM range. I don't pop up to over 3000 unless I stomp on it.
04-26-2007, 02:28 AM
#37
Audiworld Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: 2.0T vs 3.2 Regrets???
per your concern about the longevity of the turbo motor, i had a b5 1.8tqm for over eight years without any real maintainence issues. but towards the last year of ownership, things started to break down probably because of wear and tear and the long socal commutes. fwiw, i sold the car to my audi mechanic who bought it for his wife. moved up to a 2.0tq avant. the 1.8/2.0 turbo engine is considered one of audi most reliable engines. they use it across their model lineup in europe from the a3 to the a6.
i guess your decision comes down to this: if you really can't live with the vibrations of the turbo, get the 3.2. otherwise, the fuel economy is a bit better and the track record of audi's turbo speaks for itself. but...
if the difference in your case between the turbo and the 3.2 is only $2500, then jump on it. typically, when i was looking for our car, the difference was closer to $3000-$4000.
your deposit should transfer between the two cars. if this 3.2 is sitting on the lot, your dealer will be chomping at the bit to sell it. hope this helps.
i guess your decision comes down to this: if you really can't live with the vibrations of the turbo, get the 3.2. otherwise, the fuel economy is a bit better and the track record of audi's turbo speaks for itself. but...
if the difference in your case between the turbo and the 3.2 is only $2500, then jump on it. typically, when i was looking for our car, the difference was closer to $3000-$4000.
your deposit should transfer between the two cars. if this 3.2 is sitting on the lot, your dealer will be chomping at the bit to sell it. hope this helps.
04-26-2007, 04:07 AM
#38
AudiWorld Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Greenville, PA
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree 100%
My 3.2 has been great with no problems. The smoothness and the exhaust note sold it for me. With the automatic it was much more responsive from a dead stop. My impression in driving the 3.2 feels like I got more for the money. I have only driven the 2.0 a few times but I am very pleased with the 3.2 and would do it again without hesitation.
04-26-2007, 04:11 AM
#39
AudiWorld Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Greenville, PA
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm getting similiar MPG
On many trips my 3.2 will get between 30 to 32+ MPG. I have seen the trip computer show 450 miles to fill up. The 3.2 tiptronic quattro get better mileage than my 3.0 CVT. The 3.2 has 35 more HP and it feels it. I am amazed how high the MPG can get and I'm also amazed how low it can go around town. I live in a small town, no 4 lanes at all just stop signs and traffic light. The mileage for in town only is in the mid to upper teens.
