2.0T vs 3.2 Regrets???
04-26-2007, 09:18 AM
#42
AudiWorld Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is the mpg difference that significant...
This is a little off the subject, but why is it that everyone is saying there is this huge difference between mpg. 3.2 gets 21 mpg combined and the 2.0T gets 25 a difference of 4 mpg which is pretty close to me and the variance in driving habits make it almost negligible. Especially if only old people drive 3.2s as LAS stated. lol. Get real, you all act like a 2.0T gets the mpg of a Prius.
04-26-2007, 09:20 AM
#43
AudiWorld Super User
MTE is not a good indicator of MPG.
The Miles to Empty changes greatly based on most recent driving characterisitcs. If you come off a higway and fill-up MTE will be artificially high.
Even the built in trip computer is typically 10% high.
Best way to determine MPG is to divide miles driven by gallons at fill-up.
While my belief is that both the 3.2 and the 2.0T can achieve 30 MPG on a 100% 55MPH higway run I think around the city the 3.2 will drop into the high teens.
Even the built in trip computer is typically 10% high.
Best way to determine MPG is to divide miles driven by gallons at fill-up.
While my belief is that both the 3.2 and the 2.0T can achieve 30 MPG on a 100% 55MPH higway run I think around the city the 3.2 will drop into the high teens.
04-26-2007, 09:32 AM
#44
AudiWorld Super User
You have to be aware that mpg spread between all cars is not large, so 4mpg or +19% IS significant.
I used to think along the same lines as you...meh 4mpg isn't so big, but when you realise the spread between worst and best combined mpg totals 44 (36 if you go by 2008 test) you begin to realise every little bit counts. If not in your eyse, then in the eyes of the manufacturer.
In the grand scheme of things gas in the US is relativetly cheap so you are right in that respect...overall cost will not be much higher.
In the grand scheme of things gas in the US is relativetly cheap so you are right in that respect...overall cost will not be much higher.
04-26-2007, 10:02 AM
#45
AudiWorld Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"..overall cost will not be much higher." you said it....
You make an important point, I still don't see at as significant as everyone makes it out to be. Especially in this engines, great arguement in terms of S-4 and some of the higher perfomance cars with lower mpgs. 17.01 or 20.25 same difference overall.
04-26-2007, 10:24 AM
#46
AudiWorld Super User
Exactly. I think it's a perception/marketing tool.
At least in the US. Considering the number of SUVs sold in the US that get far far worse mileage than either of the cars we are discusing. I think you are right, in the US it is not as significant($$$) as some make it out to be, but is useful to sell cars by the manufacturer.
In Eurpoe where gas can be over $8 a gallon a car that has 20% greater fuel economy coupled with someone who drives high mileage could result in decent savings over the life of the car. What may only be a $500/year savings in the US could be a $1500/year savings in Europe.
In Eurpoe where gas can be over $8 a gallon a car that has 20% greater fuel economy coupled with someone who drives high mileage could result in decent savings over the life of the car. What may only be a $500/year savings in the US could be a $1500/year savings in Europe.
04-26-2007, 10:44 AM
#47
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,057
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know, but I just don't care enough to make scientific calculations about it...
MTE might not be the best indicator, however it is an indicator that everyone has easy access to, regardless of the power plant, so it has some validity.
I am very suprised by the great mileage my 3.2 gets. Vis a vis with the 2.0's MPG, I think a lot of it has to do with what I stated in another post. To get the most out of the 2.0 you need to keep your revs higher than those of us with 3.2's need to. This means comparitively worse fuel economy.
Like I said, if I drive with a heavy foot, I easily dip down into the teens around town. But I also find that if I drive with a heavy foot the car really moves quite noticeably. This seems to send out some sort of invisible, pheromone-like signal that attracts every ricer within a 2 mile radius, and it's sort of embarrassing every time I come to a stop to have some doofus kid who still lives with their parents staring at me revving their engine and trying to race.
I am very suprised by the great mileage my 3.2 gets. Vis a vis with the 2.0's MPG, I think a lot of it has to do with what I stated in another post. To get the most out of the 2.0 you need to keep your revs higher than those of us with 3.2's need to. This means comparitively worse fuel economy.
Like I said, if I drive with a heavy foot, I easily dip down into the teens around town. But I also find that if I drive with a heavy foot the car really moves quite noticeably. This seems to send out some sort of invisible, pheromone-like signal that attracts every ricer within a 2 mile radius, and it's sort of embarrassing every time I come to a stop to have some doofus kid who still lives with their parents staring at me revving their engine and trying to race.
04-26-2007, 12:03 PM
#48
AudiWorld Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Exactly. I think it's a perception/marketing tool.
I've been sort of thinking the same thing. By the time I decide to get something new its possible gas may be four or five dollars. I know for me personally that is probably the break point where that 20% becomes significant. I expect Audi will pull ahead of some the other luxury/sport sedans with its 2.0T and 1.8TFSI.
04-26-2007, 03:10 PM
#49
Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
again, people get so caught up in raw HP numbers etc etc
I think the folks who mentioned refinement, hit the nail on the head....It's not just about raw HP or 1/4 mile times etc.
It's really about power delivery, I personally own a modified 2.0T and I love the fat tourque curve on that little turbo motor. But I have driven a 3.2 as well as the S4 and both cars are much more deceptively fast. The turbo allows for that rush/feel of acceleration more than an NA motor, but the 3.2 is so much smoother in the delivery of that power.
It's kind of like comparing a precision scalpel (3.2) to a steak knife(2.0T), both will cut stuff open, but do you prefer the precision of a surgicle grade instrument or more of a raw cutting utensile.
Pass the Steak knife please
would rather eat a cow than a person.
It's really about power delivery, I personally own a modified 2.0T and I love the fat tourque curve on that little turbo motor. But I have driven a 3.2 as well as the S4 and both cars are much more deceptively fast. The turbo allows for that rush/feel of acceleration more than an NA motor, but the 3.2 is so much smoother in the delivery of that power.
It's kind of like comparing a precision scalpel (3.2) to a steak knife(2.0T), both will cut stuff open, but do you prefer the precision of a surgicle grade instrument or more of a raw cutting utensile.
Pass the Steak knife please
would rather eat a cow than a person.
