AnimaTTor

Haven't seen this when I searched. Hopefully its not a repost:

Does anyone have 0-60 times between a stage-I 2.0T (just the chip) and a stock 3.2? I've read 5.9 to 6.5 seconds for a chipped 2.0T in recent posts. Any updates on this?

Both cars would have quattro and a manual transmission.

Although AoA states a 6.5 0-60 time for the 3.2 manual quattro, some Euro magazines have put it closer to 6 seconds flat.

I'm thinking that a chipped 240+ HP 2.0T will yeild faster straight-line performance due to the lighter curb weight.

Anybody have any data to support this?

Thanks

The Chef.

this was using a Gtimer. I have done about 20 different runs....it very consistent.
I would imagine a 6MT depending on driver can be .1 less...

Either way....its gonna run quicker then a 3.2 stock.....less weight...and on top of that...better fuel mileage...and it costs less..2.0T>*

bhvrdr

MT should shave at least .3 off a tipper.

gk1

2.0T only weighs 80 lbs less than a 3.2

gk1

Maybe .2 with a good driver, and a thorough thrashing of the clutch. Automagics have come a long way

bhvrdr

track comparisons using VBOX type equipment, the tipper has lost anywhere from .3 to over .5 seconds. I was trying to be nice with .3 I see its merits, but being quick isnt one of them. Even in the 6-speed TIP. It's not as easy as being a good MT driver either. The tip has more drivetrain loss through the tranny. It consistently dynos lower as well. Have a look at the 1/4 mile database in my sig as well for the B6.

In interesting VBOX tested run from CandD...

2.0TFSI Quattro 6 speed manual: 0-60 in 7.2 and 1/4 mile in 15.5 at 92mph

3.2 Quattro with TIP: 0-60 in 7.5 and 1/4 mile in 15.7 at 91mph.

The trap speeds don't lie.

cheers! Mike

cheers! Mike

gk1

Which for absolute number will undoubtedly give you a fast 0-60 and 1/4 time, but it's extremely bad for your daily driver. Since they cannnot neutral drop a tip it is simply done with a brake/torque scenerio. Which the tip can take all day long.

The Chef.

80 pounds is 80 pounds.

bhvrdr

Agree, but check out some of the 60ft times. No need to do crazy launces at all.

jsamans

I run anywhere from there to about 6.5 depending on varying factors -- this is using a g-tech and just on streets. It's damn hard to get in a clean run. I've yet to get a full 1/4 mile time, that's just too fast for any street that you can come to a stop on.

The more miles I get on my car the faster it goes -- for the first 5000 miles I couldn't break the 6.6 second barrier, but it is slowly creeping down. Owners of the 3.2 in the A6 and the 4.2 in the S4/A6 say that it takes 12-15K miles for the engine to completely open up and give max performance. I am at about 8K so I am hoping to break the 6 second mark on the all seasons at some point. I guess I problably would with performance tires.

I imagine a manual 3.2 is slightly faster, but I don't expect a huge difference. A tad of drivetrain loss due to the torque converter, but the "S" mode shifts better than I could ever possibly hope to. The Autobild.de tested the manual 3.2 at 6.5 0-100 km/h...but that was with 1040+ extra pounds of weight in the car (including fuel and driver).

I feel that the 3.2 is fairly under-rated by Audi, just like the 2.0T is. I have been suprised at some of my "kills". The 3.2 is extremely strong from about 35 mph on up -- I have beaten cars that I would never be able to take off the line: I absolutely creamed a new Mustang GT up to about 120. Also played with a STi from about 35 to 70 or so -- he got about a half car length on me right away and then just couldn't pull away. Of course both cars would demolish me from a stop.

Overall I couldn't be happier with the stock performance of the 3.2 -- it maintains the solid feel and smoothness of the S4, it has a very refined character, without the "surge" of a turbo. Of course that is subjective, I know a lot of people like the way a small displacement turbo engine feels, but I personally think it's a bit out of place in a $40K sedan.