Detailed review/comparison of 2009 A4 3.2 loaner
08-22-2009, 07:34 AM
#1
AudiWorld Super User
Thread Starter
Detailed review/comparison of 2009 A4 3.2 loaner (WARNING: LONG)
Here's my latest installment in a series of informal reviews. Some of you may remember my other detailed reviews of B7 and B8 A4 sedans and Avants:
- Aruba Blue
- Gray Interior w/ standard printed/textured aluminum trim
- Tiptronic
- Multi-Function Steering Wheel
- Dash nipple (no Navigation, standard audio)
Some representative photos of this car (ACTUAL CAR NOT SHOWN):
This car has almost 4,000 miles on it but the light gray interior looks worse for wear from loaner duty. Here are some of the highlights and differences I noted between my 2.0T Avant and this 3.2 sedan:
Exterior:
Likes:
- Aruba Blue is a fantastic hue, and the wife praised the color a few times. I still prefer Sepang Blue myself since Aruba is a too little light for me, but I can't deny that it is a pretty color.
- Integrated "duck tail" rear spoiler is a nice touch, and looks great from rear 3/4 angles, though it doesn't have a pronounced rise or lip from the side profile.
- Wheels look like they are relatively easy to clean (fewer nooks than I'm used to, and nothing to give you hand cramps).
Dislikes:
- I miss the S-line side sills the most, and the S-line's faux mesh rear diffuser. What I don't miss is cleaning that honeycomb pattern every other week (+1 for standard rear bumper design).
- Mildly undersized-looking tires (I can't believe they are 245's! They look a lot smaller than the sidewall numbers indicate, probably because of the rounded shoulders and narrower tread face, compared to the squared off tread blocks on my 2.0T's 255's).
- 4x4 look of standard suspension (compounded by above tires not filling wheel arches laterally too).
- Overly ornate (spider-like?) center cap in wheels. I prefer the traditional look of 5 bolt holes with a simple center cap design.
Undecided:
- Polished exhaust tips probably look neat when clean, though they are filthy at present and are more of a dull satin gray finish. The rolled lip makes the outlet diameter appear smaller than my Avant's 80mm wide tips. I think my Avant's slash cut tips look more aggressive, but there's no doubt the rolled, polished lips on the 3.2 look more finished and refined.
- Gloss black grill; on one hand, it's very handsome as a standalone piece. But when juxtaposed with the flat black plastic (fake) intake scoops by the foglights, the overall composition fails. On my own car, I do like how the flat graphite grill is similar to the S-line chin spoiler/lip in color and texture, making for a more harmonious arrangement.
Other comments:
After living with an Avant for 9 months, the subtle differences in the sedan's exterior styling are immediately apparent to me. I knew the sedan and Avant taillight assemblies have different part numbers, but I never realized how different they are in design too.
Sedan:
Avant:
For example, the horizontal wedge/bar thingie in front of the 3 main bulbs is thinner on the Avant, and the sedan's taller/thicker wedge/bar houses a much larger surface area for a reflector. This larger bar is suspended inside the lens with 4 support arms, while the Avant's bar appears to "float" (anchored to the central edge of each lens half). In addition, the reverse lights on the Avant are sandwiched by a reflector field above and below (that also wraps around to the side where the parking light lives), while the sedan's taillight has a lower waistline, without a reflector panel above the reverse light (or leading around the side to the parking light). In fact, I think an entirely different bulb illuminates for the Avant's rear foglights (in a different part of the lens). The sedan's taillights are slightly canted skyward too, as the trunk gently slopes toward your knees (when facing it from the rear). The little bumper lip at the bottom edge of the trunk is thinner on the sedan too. There are probably 100 minute differences like this that I'm still discovering every hour. I don't know why, but I just assumed that most everything below the waist or shoulder line would be the same on a sedan vs. Avant.
Interior:
Likes:
- Wife liked the light gray interior, and the lighter color (combined with lighter headliner color) really makes for a more inviting and airy cockpit. It doesn't show dust like the black interiors do either (hurray!).
- Came back to the car after it sat outside for 7 hours, and it wasn't even hot inside! The A/C cooled things off in a matter of minutes after I evacuated the hot air inside the cabin, and the light-colored seating surfaces were never hot to the touch.
- The retracting hooks inside the trunk on the underside of the parcel shelf rock.
- Cargo net in the trunk is pretty neat. My Avant's net doesn't have the extra fold-over pocket or waist eyelets to hang from the parcel shelf hooks.
- The slightly smaller (fake) MMI screen makes for crisper text display. My 2.0T's (Nav-equipped) MMI text by comparison is a little larger but at the same time a little softer around the edges.
- Standard stereo has plenty of thump, though the overall sound lacked the depth and clarity of the B&O. Not unacceptable for a factory system though, and I liked having the 3-band equalizer to customize the sound (my B&O only has 2 bands!). The B&O does a much better job with higher frequency (treble) reproduction though.
Dislikes:
- While the gray interior was pleasing on the eyes, it already looked very soiled to me, and would be a PITA to keep clean. The light-colored doors collect shoe scuffs, and the seats attract ballpoint pen marks, makeup smudges, and newsprint fingerprints. I'd be afraid to wear blue jeans in this interior on a daily basis.
- I missed the thigh extenders on this car's standard (non-sport) seats, and definitely missed the lateral and side bolsters when going around corners. I see what Markcincinnati means when he said he felt like he was slipping and falling out of his loaner car's seats. That's the same sensation I get in this car. It doesn't feel unsafe, but it is unnerving if you're used to the sport seats and you end up having to brace yourself via other means (left foot on floor, elbow on door, etc.)
- I can't believe how narrow (short) the rear glass is. It's just a thin horizontal slit in the rear view mirror. I did not expect the Avant's rear glass to be noticeably taller than the sedan's. The sedan's trunk is either very tall, or the roof line slopes a lot right before the glass begins (or it's both).
- Monocolor DIS between gauges = eh. The DIS' background illumination is very bright too (so the red text is always swimming in a field of faint pink instead of pitch black). My TT's monocolor DIS has better contrast, but lower pixel density and resolution.
- "Fake" MMI has choppy transition animation (vs. smooth animations with true MMI on Nav-equipped cars), but this is a niggle.
- No Open Sky sunroof. Sedan's "innie" design takes up some headroom (the headliner scallop cutouts for your head always feel a little weird to me), and the sunroof seems to BOOM (wind buffeting) sooner and louder than the Avant's sunroof (which has a completely different wind deflector design that seems to utilize panty hose--this design tends to transform the wind noise into a still noticeable but more pleasant hissing sound).
- I see what everyone is complaining about on the trunk's flimsy plastic hinge covers. Seems like the hinge design wastes a lot of interior space too.
- Standard 4-spoke steering wheel is kind of blah to me, and I missed the paddle shifters. I do like how Audi used a darker gray leather on the steering wheel (and shifter ****) to better hide soil marks from driver's grubby fingers. The texture was noticeably more slick than my black sport steering wheel though, and I don't know if that's because the sport steering wheel uses a more grippy satin-like material, or because the previous loaner drivers all went through the McDonald's drive thru. My car has almost 3 times as many miles as this loaner, and its steering wheel is as dry and chalky as day one.
- When you open the driver's door, you're not greeted by the spaceship sound of the 2.0T's fuel pump priming. I kind of missed this sound on the 3.2.
- Booooo! No metal skid plate (just textured plastic) at the bottom edge of the trunk opening like the Avant.
Undecided:
- Dash nipple. Once I got used to it, the non-Nav MMI **** is not so bad. I do like how it mirrors the MMI screen interface more directly because it's on the same plane/axis as the vertical screen. I still prefer how my car's controller falls to hand (without having to reach) right in front of the armrest though. It's not a right vs. wrong comparison, just "different."
- Standard (non-sport) seats did feel a littler more gooey under my tush, but I really need to test comfort on a longer drive to reach a verdict.
- Standard metal trim on dash and doors appealed to wife (I think she prefers this to my brushed aluminum trim); It's just "ok" to me, and I think in this interior color a nice warm wood would be a better combination. The light gray + metal trim is a little too cold and robotic for me, with little contrast.
- Smell. The 3.2's leather interior has an odor that is distinctly different than my S-line Alcantara interior. It's not the classic "new car smell" but it's very noticeable upon opening any door and I swear it's almost like a cologne or perfume (not your usual overtones of supple dead animal hide). It's very possible that someone smoked in the car and then used an air freshener, so this is not a very valid assessment. Wife liked it, but I am undecided (I need to smell another B8 A4 with leather interior to make sure this car wasn't an anomaly). My interior scent is less intense and the 3.2's is "sweeter" to me. That is probably a result of my car's scent fading over time or my nose getting used to it. Or the fact that there's just less leather in my car compared to one with all-leather seating surfaces.
Other comments:
I locked myself in the back seat when testing rear headroom, due to the child-proof locks being enabled. It's my own fault but it was still annoying when it happened.
Motoring:
Likes:
- 2 more cylinders are FUN!!!
- Motor sings a sweet song (at better frequencies too).
- Unstressed V6 is smoother than caffeinated 4-banger when pushed.
- 3.2 is a very eager and willing dance partner (though with the standard suspension, sometimes felt like a football player on ice skates)
- B8 3.2's exhaust is quieter and more mellow than B7 3.2's louder muffler tuning.
- Indicated fuel economy was decent (yes I reset it to measure my driving style).
- No 60 MPH steering shimmy.
- 17" tires are quieter and gobble up bumps better than my 19's. However I'm surprised they still transmit a lot of usable feedback for a less aggressive all-season design.
Dislikes:
- WTF is up with the steering vibration when turning the wheel at idle or parking lot speeds? It felt like the power steering pump was straining. Is this what the other 50% of the steering vibration threads are about? Definitely unacceptable. It felt like a vibrating game controller joystick at times.
- Pitch and dive when accelerating and braking is of course increased with standard suspension. There is more chassis movement than I like, but the car never felt squirmy or unsafe at speed. Extra body roll is quite noticeable during slalom maneuvers though. All you have to do is turn the steering wheel a few degrees left or right, and the car abruptly leans like a kayak. Steady state body roll ain't too bad once the car has settled into a corner, but bumps and transitions can be unsettling as the car precariously wallows and leans in response.
- Throttle linkage (or drive-by-wire calibration if there isn't a physical linkage) is a bit jerky from a stop. I haven't been able to determine the exact conditions or causes, but sometimes I can pull away smoothly, and other times I accelerate casually from a stop and it feels like the parking brake was left on and then suddenly releases. Maybe the hill-hold feature is more sensitive than my car, or needs adjustment? This happens on flat ground too though.
Undecided:
- Brakes, are these the same as on the 2.0T? I thought they might be bigger (like Audi does on the 3.2 TT vs. 2.0T TT), but they feel about the same. I now wonder if the extra weight of the V6 is contributing to the additional nose dive I'm experiencing when braking the 3.2 loaner (and it's not just the softer suspension alone).
- The steering ratio or boosting is somehow different than my car's. I don't know if it's because this car doesn't have ADS, but I thought the 3.2 would feel like my 2.0T in the "Auto" steering mode and it doesn't. Feels more like a C6 A6 when tooling around a parking lot. Maybe it's the additional weight over the front wheels again.
Other comments:
This may surprise people (and I'm somewhat embarrassed to admit this, being a car nut), but when I hopped into the loaner car I paid no attention to the badging or dual exhaust and never noticed that I had been given a 3.2. I drove all the way from the dealership to my office and not once did I realize I was driving a 3.2--I just assumed it was the cheaper 2.0T. (Hey, it's a loaner car, right? Why would the dealer pay the extra lease cheddar and spring for the V6? Unless perhaps the 3.2's weren't selling and they converted those loitering on the lot to loaner duty.). It wasn't until I got out of the car at my office that I noticed the dual exhaust and discovered that I had just been driving the 2.0T's big brother. It was amazing how the 2 cars felt so similar to me, at least when cruising around town in rush hour traffic. Now, V6 owners shouldn't take this as a slight to the 3.2, because I didn't really push or test the car on my drive to work, I just made a relaxing commute to my office and to my mind and senses, the experience was similar enough to the 2.0T (again, only at part throttle around town) that I just didn't think to question what was under the hood (I promise the same wouldn't have happened had I been driving a 4.2 V8, LOL). Plus, I was probably busy fiddling with the stereo presets and constantly making minute adjustments to my seats and mirrors along the way. But here's where it gets interesting. Once I knew I had the mighty V6, I of course changed my driving habits to explore its limits on my drive home. This wasn't my first time driving the 3.2, as I had wrung a few out at the Audi Driving Experience. But back then, I didn't have Audi's redesigned 2.0T to compare it with back-to-back. After doing some casual testing (not instrumented by any means) with standing starts, passing acceleration in various gears, etc. I came away with mixed feelings. On the one hand, the 3.2 has a broader sweet spot and I found myself having more fun in gears and RPMs that are just dull in the 2.0T. The V6 has more reserve and doesn't break a sweat or complain when climbing RPMs, where the 2.0T takes on this gritty, grainy persona and lets you know when its heart rate is a little higher than it prefers. But in terms of perceived real-world performance, the 3.2 left me feeling a little confused. I expected a little MORE of the tangible good stuff (oomph) when you put your foot down, but all I got was drama-free acceleration that didn't really push me into my seatback any more than my lowly 2.0T. I might have actually been moving slightly quicker/faster, but the V6 didn't feel (or sound) as urgent as the 2,0T, and it didn't feel like I was pulling any more G's when really getting on it (in most situations). However, it did seem to carry its momentum better and wanted to continue charging when the 2.0T normally seems to struggle against some invisible wall or headwind (it will continue getting louder but it doesn't feel like much is happening at the wheels). The 3.2 was smooth like butter throughout the RPM range and never felt wheezy (like the 2.0T sometimes does) at higher RPMs, but I never actually stretched its legs at super high speeds (unsafe on public roads), where I know the 2.0T falls down and the 3.2 keeps on pulling. Anyway, I can't help thinking about how similar both motors feel 75% of the time in normal driving conditions (credit to Audi and their tuning of the 2.0T, with no implied dishonor or disrespect for the 3.2). Their different personalities really don't reveal themselves until you're past half-throttle or doing any kind of spirited driving. In some instances, I'd say the 2.0T is more "fun" because of that early torque peak and more urgent soundtrack. In other instances, I prefer the song of the 3.2, and its confidence-inspiring, predictable thrust. The 3.2 is Lexus-like in smoothness, and sounds very relaxed even at full roar (at least in this application--the 3.2 sounds like a beast in the Mk2 TT, and as mentioned before, has a much louder exhaust note in the B7 3.2). I honestly can't say I like or dislike one motor more than the other, they really are just different strokes for different folks. It's just a shame Audi A4 buyers don't have a choice anymore.
In summary, I can try and characterize the demeanor of piloting each motor in the following terms:
Conclusion:
Again, there's no winners or losers here. Driving other cars just helps put things in perspective for me, and sometimes the experience ends up reinforcing my existing beliefs and preferences and other times it challenges my assumptions and helps me grow to better understand and appreciate what else the world has to offer. Hopefully some of you learned something new from my post too.
- What I learned from my test drive of a 2009 A4 2.0T (get comfortable, this is a long review)
- So here are my initial impressions thus far, after 700 miles...
- Driving a B7 loaner while TT is in for service, my detailed comparison w/ B8 inside...
- Short(er) review of 2008 (B7) A4 2.0T Avant (loaner)
- Aruba Blue
- Gray Interior w/ standard printed/textured aluminum trim
- Tiptronic
- Multi-Function Steering Wheel
- Dash nipple (no Navigation, standard audio)
Some representative photos of this car (ACTUAL CAR NOT SHOWN):
This car has almost 4,000 miles on it but the light gray interior looks worse for wear from loaner duty. Here are some of the highlights and differences I noted between my 2.0T Avant and this 3.2 sedan:
Exterior:
Likes:
- Aruba Blue is a fantastic hue, and the wife praised the color a few times. I still prefer Sepang Blue myself since Aruba is a too little light for me, but I can't deny that it is a pretty color.
- Integrated "duck tail" rear spoiler is a nice touch, and looks great from rear 3/4 angles, though it doesn't have a pronounced rise or lip from the side profile.
- Wheels look like they are relatively easy to clean (fewer nooks than I'm used to, and nothing to give you hand cramps).
Dislikes:
- I miss the S-line side sills the most, and the S-line's faux mesh rear diffuser. What I don't miss is cleaning that honeycomb pattern every other week (+1 for standard rear bumper design).
- Mildly undersized-looking tires (I can't believe they are 245's! They look a lot smaller than the sidewall numbers indicate, probably because of the rounded shoulders and narrower tread face, compared to the squared off tread blocks on my 2.0T's 255's).
- 4x4 look of standard suspension (compounded by above tires not filling wheel arches laterally too).
- Overly ornate (spider-like?) center cap in wheels. I prefer the traditional look of 5 bolt holes with a simple center cap design.
Undecided:
- Polished exhaust tips probably look neat when clean, though they are filthy at present and are more of a dull satin gray finish. The rolled lip makes the outlet diameter appear smaller than my Avant's 80mm wide tips. I think my Avant's slash cut tips look more aggressive, but there's no doubt the rolled, polished lips on the 3.2 look more finished and refined.
- Gloss black grill; on one hand, it's very handsome as a standalone piece. But when juxtaposed with the flat black plastic (fake) intake scoops by the foglights, the overall composition fails. On my own car, I do like how the flat graphite grill is similar to the S-line chin spoiler/lip in color and texture, making for a more harmonious arrangement.
Other comments:
After living with an Avant for 9 months, the subtle differences in the sedan's exterior styling are immediately apparent to me. I knew the sedan and Avant taillight assemblies have different part numbers, but I never realized how different they are in design too.
Sedan:
Avant:
For example, the horizontal wedge/bar thingie in front of the 3 main bulbs is thinner on the Avant, and the sedan's taller/thicker wedge/bar houses a much larger surface area for a reflector. This larger bar is suspended inside the lens with 4 support arms, while the Avant's bar appears to "float" (anchored to the central edge of each lens half). In addition, the reverse lights on the Avant are sandwiched by a reflector field above and below (that also wraps around to the side where the parking light lives), while the sedan's taillight has a lower waistline, without a reflector panel above the reverse light (or leading around the side to the parking light). In fact, I think an entirely different bulb illuminates for the Avant's rear foglights (in a different part of the lens). The sedan's taillights are slightly canted skyward too, as the trunk gently slopes toward your knees (when facing it from the rear). The little bumper lip at the bottom edge of the trunk is thinner on the sedan too. There are probably 100 minute differences like this that I'm still discovering every hour. I don't know why, but I just assumed that most everything below the waist or shoulder line would be the same on a sedan vs. Avant.
Interior:
Likes:
- Wife liked the light gray interior, and the lighter color (combined with lighter headliner color) really makes for a more inviting and airy cockpit. It doesn't show dust like the black interiors do either (hurray!).
- Came back to the car after it sat outside for 7 hours, and it wasn't even hot inside! The A/C cooled things off in a matter of minutes after I evacuated the hot air inside the cabin, and the light-colored seating surfaces were never hot to the touch.
- The retracting hooks inside the trunk on the underside of the parcel shelf rock.
- Cargo net in the trunk is pretty neat. My Avant's net doesn't have the extra fold-over pocket or waist eyelets to hang from the parcel shelf hooks.
- The slightly smaller (fake) MMI screen makes for crisper text display. My 2.0T's (Nav-equipped) MMI text by comparison is a little larger but at the same time a little softer around the edges.
- Standard stereo has plenty of thump, though the overall sound lacked the depth and clarity of the B&O. Not unacceptable for a factory system though, and I liked having the 3-band equalizer to customize the sound (my B&O only has 2 bands!). The B&O does a much better job with higher frequency (treble) reproduction though.
Dislikes:
- While the gray interior was pleasing on the eyes, it already looked very soiled to me, and would be a PITA to keep clean. The light-colored doors collect shoe scuffs, and the seats attract ballpoint pen marks, makeup smudges, and newsprint fingerprints. I'd be afraid to wear blue jeans in this interior on a daily basis.
- I missed the thigh extenders on this car's standard (non-sport) seats, and definitely missed the lateral and side bolsters when going around corners. I see what Markcincinnati means when he said he felt like he was slipping and falling out of his loaner car's seats. That's the same sensation I get in this car. It doesn't feel unsafe, but it is unnerving if you're used to the sport seats and you end up having to brace yourself via other means (left foot on floor, elbow on door, etc.)
- I can't believe how narrow (short) the rear glass is. It's just a thin horizontal slit in the rear view mirror. I did not expect the Avant's rear glass to be noticeably taller than the sedan's. The sedan's trunk is either very tall, or the roof line slopes a lot right before the glass begins (or it's both).
- Monocolor DIS between gauges = eh. The DIS' background illumination is very bright too (so the red text is always swimming in a field of faint pink instead of pitch black). My TT's monocolor DIS has better contrast, but lower pixel density and resolution.
- "Fake" MMI has choppy transition animation (vs. smooth animations with true MMI on Nav-equipped cars), but this is a niggle.
- No Open Sky sunroof. Sedan's "innie" design takes up some headroom (the headliner scallop cutouts for your head always feel a little weird to me), and the sunroof seems to BOOM (wind buffeting) sooner and louder than the Avant's sunroof (which has a completely different wind deflector design that seems to utilize panty hose--this design tends to transform the wind noise into a still noticeable but more pleasant hissing sound).
- I see what everyone is complaining about on the trunk's flimsy plastic hinge covers. Seems like the hinge design wastes a lot of interior space too.
- Standard 4-spoke steering wheel is kind of blah to me, and I missed the paddle shifters. I do like how Audi used a darker gray leather on the steering wheel (and shifter ****) to better hide soil marks from driver's grubby fingers. The texture was noticeably more slick than my black sport steering wheel though, and I don't know if that's because the sport steering wheel uses a more grippy satin-like material, or because the previous loaner drivers all went through the McDonald's drive thru. My car has almost 3 times as many miles as this loaner, and its steering wheel is as dry and chalky as day one.
- When you open the driver's door, you're not greeted by the spaceship sound of the 2.0T's fuel pump priming. I kind of missed this sound on the 3.2.
- Booooo! No metal skid plate (just textured plastic) at the bottom edge of the trunk opening like the Avant.
Undecided:
- Dash nipple. Once I got used to it, the non-Nav MMI **** is not so bad. I do like how it mirrors the MMI screen interface more directly because it's on the same plane/axis as the vertical screen. I still prefer how my car's controller falls to hand (without having to reach) right in front of the armrest though. It's not a right vs. wrong comparison, just "different."
- Standard (non-sport) seats did feel a littler more gooey under my tush, but I really need to test comfort on a longer drive to reach a verdict.
- Standard metal trim on dash and doors appealed to wife (I think she prefers this to my brushed aluminum trim); It's just "ok" to me, and I think in this interior color a nice warm wood would be a better combination. The light gray + metal trim is a little too cold and robotic for me, with little contrast.
- Smell. The 3.2's leather interior has an odor that is distinctly different than my S-line Alcantara interior. It's not the classic "new car smell" but it's very noticeable upon opening any door and I swear it's almost like a cologne or perfume (not your usual overtones of supple dead animal hide). It's very possible that someone smoked in the car and then used an air freshener, so this is not a very valid assessment. Wife liked it, but I am undecided (I need to smell another B8 A4 with leather interior to make sure this car wasn't an anomaly). My interior scent is less intense and the 3.2's is "sweeter" to me. That is probably a result of my car's scent fading over time or my nose getting used to it. Or the fact that there's just less leather in my car compared to one with all-leather seating surfaces.
Other comments:
I locked myself in the back seat when testing rear headroom, due to the child-proof locks being enabled. It's my own fault but it was still annoying when it happened.
Motoring:
Likes:
- 2 more cylinders are FUN!!!
- Motor sings a sweet song (at better frequencies too).
- Unstressed V6 is smoother than caffeinated 4-banger when pushed.
- 3.2 is a very eager and willing dance partner (though with the standard suspension, sometimes felt like a football player on ice skates)
- B8 3.2's exhaust is quieter and more mellow than B7 3.2's louder muffler tuning.
- Indicated fuel economy was decent (yes I reset it to measure my driving style).
- No 60 MPH steering shimmy.
- 17" tires are quieter and gobble up bumps better than my 19's. However I'm surprised they still transmit a lot of usable feedback for a less aggressive all-season design.
Dislikes:
- WTF is up with the steering vibration when turning the wheel at idle or parking lot speeds? It felt like the power steering pump was straining. Is this what the other 50% of the steering vibration threads are about? Definitely unacceptable. It felt like a vibrating game controller joystick at times.
- Pitch and dive when accelerating and braking is of course increased with standard suspension. There is more chassis movement than I like, but the car never felt squirmy or unsafe at speed. Extra body roll is quite noticeable during slalom maneuvers though. All you have to do is turn the steering wheel a few degrees left or right, and the car abruptly leans like a kayak. Steady state body roll ain't too bad once the car has settled into a corner, but bumps and transitions can be unsettling as the car precariously wallows and leans in response.
- Throttle linkage (or drive-by-wire calibration if there isn't a physical linkage) is a bit jerky from a stop. I haven't been able to determine the exact conditions or causes, but sometimes I can pull away smoothly, and other times I accelerate casually from a stop and it feels like the parking brake was left on and then suddenly releases. Maybe the hill-hold feature is more sensitive than my car, or needs adjustment? This happens on flat ground too though.
Undecided:
- Brakes, are these the same as on the 2.0T? I thought they might be bigger (like Audi does on the 3.2 TT vs. 2.0T TT), but they feel about the same. I now wonder if the extra weight of the V6 is contributing to the additional nose dive I'm experiencing when braking the 3.2 loaner (and it's not just the softer suspension alone).
- The steering ratio or boosting is somehow different than my car's. I don't know if it's because this car doesn't have ADS, but I thought the 3.2 would feel like my 2.0T in the "Auto" steering mode and it doesn't. Feels more like a C6 A6 when tooling around a parking lot. Maybe it's the additional weight over the front wheels again.
Other comments:
This may surprise people (and I'm somewhat embarrassed to admit this, being a car nut), but when I hopped into the loaner car I paid no attention to the badging or dual exhaust and never noticed that I had been given a 3.2. I drove all the way from the dealership to my office and not once did I realize I was driving a 3.2--I just assumed it was the cheaper 2.0T. (Hey, it's a loaner car, right? Why would the dealer pay the extra lease cheddar and spring for the V6? Unless perhaps the 3.2's weren't selling and they converted those loitering on the lot to loaner duty.). It wasn't until I got out of the car at my office that I noticed the dual exhaust and discovered that I had just been driving the 2.0T's big brother. It was amazing how the 2 cars felt so similar to me, at least when cruising around town in rush hour traffic. Now, V6 owners shouldn't take this as a slight to the 3.2, because I didn't really push or test the car on my drive to work, I just made a relaxing commute to my office and to my mind and senses, the experience was similar enough to the 2.0T (again, only at part throttle around town) that I just didn't think to question what was under the hood (I promise the same wouldn't have happened had I been driving a 4.2 V8, LOL). Plus, I was probably busy fiddling with the stereo presets and constantly making minute adjustments to my seats and mirrors along the way. But here's where it gets interesting. Once I knew I had the mighty V6, I of course changed my driving habits to explore its limits on my drive home. This wasn't my first time driving the 3.2, as I had wrung a few out at the Audi Driving Experience. But back then, I didn't have Audi's redesigned 2.0T to compare it with back-to-back. After doing some casual testing (not instrumented by any means) with standing starts, passing acceleration in various gears, etc. I came away with mixed feelings. On the one hand, the 3.2 has a broader sweet spot and I found myself having more fun in gears and RPMs that are just dull in the 2.0T. The V6 has more reserve and doesn't break a sweat or complain when climbing RPMs, where the 2.0T takes on this gritty, grainy persona and lets you know when its heart rate is a little higher than it prefers. But in terms of perceived real-world performance, the 3.2 left me feeling a little confused. I expected a little MORE of the tangible good stuff (oomph) when you put your foot down, but all I got was drama-free acceleration that didn't really push me into my seatback any more than my lowly 2.0T. I might have actually been moving slightly quicker/faster, but the V6 didn't feel (or sound) as urgent as the 2,0T, and it didn't feel like I was pulling any more G's when really getting on it (in most situations). However, it did seem to carry its momentum better and wanted to continue charging when the 2.0T normally seems to struggle against some invisible wall or headwind (it will continue getting louder but it doesn't feel like much is happening at the wheels). The 3.2 was smooth like butter throughout the RPM range and never felt wheezy (like the 2.0T sometimes does) at higher RPMs, but I never actually stretched its legs at super high speeds (unsafe on public roads), where I know the 2.0T falls down and the 3.2 keeps on pulling. Anyway, I can't help thinking about how similar both motors feel 75% of the time in normal driving conditions (credit to Audi and their tuning of the 2.0T, with no implied dishonor or disrespect for the 3.2). Their different personalities really don't reveal themselves until you're past half-throttle or doing any kind of spirited driving. In some instances, I'd say the 2.0T is more "fun" because of that early torque peak and more urgent soundtrack. In other instances, I prefer the song of the 3.2, and its confidence-inspiring, predictable thrust. The 3.2 is Lexus-like in smoothness, and sounds very relaxed even at full roar (at least in this application--the 3.2 sounds like a beast in the Mk2 TT, and as mentioned before, has a much louder exhaust note in the B7 3.2). I honestly can't say I like or dislike one motor more than the other, they really are just different strokes for different folks. It's just a shame Audi A4 buyers don't have a choice anymore.
In summary, I can try and characterize the demeanor of piloting each motor in the following terms:
3.2:
High-pedigree, effortless performer that is at home cruising the boulevard with refined, luxuriously smooth manners, but can trot and gallop with ease and composure when asked, though don't expect much drama or adolescent excitement while doing so--everything happens in a very civilized manner.
2.0T:
More like a younger, wild Mustang (sorry for another horse reference) that is raw, darty, and sometimes feels like it's being whipped when asked to obey new or unfamiliar commands, but the end result is more sensory stimulation and feedback, making for a spicier and more engaging driving experience that challenges the "more is always better" mantra. (And no, I don't whip horses!)
High-pedigree, effortless performer that is at home cruising the boulevard with refined, luxuriously smooth manners, but can trot and gallop with ease and composure when asked, though don't expect much drama or adolescent excitement while doing so--everything happens in a very civilized manner.
2.0T:
More like a younger, wild Mustang (sorry for another horse reference) that is raw, darty, and sometimes feels like it's being whipped when asked to obey new or unfamiliar commands, but the end result is more sensory stimulation and feedback, making for a spicier and more engaging driving experience that challenges the "more is always better" mantra. (And no, I don't whip horses!)
Conclusion:
Again, there's no winners or losers here. Driving other cars just helps put things in perspective for me, and sometimes the experience ends up reinforcing my existing beliefs and preferences and other times it challenges my assumptions and helps me grow to better understand and appreciate what else the world has to offer. Hopefully some of you learned something new from my post too.
Last edited by BMWBig6; 11-07-2009 at 05:01 AM.
08-22-2009, 09:25 AM
#2
AudiWorld Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Highlands Ranch, CO.
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excellent read!
I wish there were more informative views like this around here and more often.
I like that you didnt notice the upgrade to the 3.2 initially as it certainly made for a more honest approach to the comparison.
I'll be back to reread this one later.
Cheers
I wish there were more informative views like this around here and more often.
I like that you didnt notice the upgrade to the 3.2 initially as it certainly made for a more honest approach to the comparison.
I'll be back to reread this one later.
Cheers
08-22-2009, 09:26 AM
#3
AudiWorld Senior Member
I have the same problem with the steering wheel vibrating when maneuvering in a parking lot or standing still. Isn't there a TSB that corrects this?
Regarding the interior trim, the light gray leather only has the darker walnut finish wood available. Only beige interiors get the lighter almond ash trim... which I happen to have in my car. The hologram aluminum trim is cheap looking overall, and it looks more out of place in the beige cars. Brushed aluminum would be a better choice overall, but likely costs more, so it isn't standard.
Regarding the interior trim, the light gray leather only has the darker walnut finish wood available. Only beige interiors get the lighter almond ash trim... which I happen to have in my car. The hologram aluminum trim is cheap looking overall, and it looks more out of place in the beige cars. Brushed aluminum would be a better choice overall, but likely costs more, so it isn't standard.
08-22-2009, 03:01 PM
#4
AudiWorld Super User
Thread Starter
The wife just came home after taking the loaner car to the store. I asked her how she liked it, and she said she hated it. "Too loosey goosey, it's floaty, and when you push the gas, nothing happens for a minute." I asked her to clarify what she thought was "loosey goosey" and she replied "All of it, the steering, the way it drives. Your car is not like this." Her review is a lot more concise. Maybe I should edit my original post and just replace my review with her shorter version LOL. 
08-22-2009, 03:11 PM
#5
AudiWorld Super User
Thread Starter
Regarding the interior trim, the light gray leather only has the darker walnut finish wood available. Only beige interiors get the lighter almond ash trim... which I happen to have in my car. The hologram aluminum trim is cheap looking overall, and it looks more out of place in the beige cars. Brushed aluminum would be a better choice overall, but likely costs more, so it isn't standard.
Last edited by BMWBig6; 08-24-2009 at 11:41 AM.
08-23-2009, 11:27 PM
#7
A real good read !
I think that the missing performance that you was expecting was probably there. In a N/A car the acceleration can be very constant resulting in a lack of perceived thrust. I had this on my 390bhp S4. It's so continuous the body can not simply recognise the acceleration as we can only detect changes in acceleration. Since the 2.0T has a more distinct power band, as the turbo spools up etc it feel faster. I think if you ran them side by side you'd notice the difference.
The good news is you're still happy with your own car !
I think that the missing performance that you was expecting was probably there. In a N/A car the acceleration can be very constant resulting in a lack of perceived thrust. I had this on my 390bhp S4. It's so continuous the body can not simply recognise the acceleration as we can only detect changes in acceleration. Since the 2.0T has a more distinct power band, as the turbo spools up etc it feel faster. I think if you ran them side by side you'd notice the difference.
The good news is you're still happy with your own car !
Trending Topics
08-24-2009, 06:33 AM
#9
AudiWorld Member
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Amherst, Ohio
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great review! Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts. I had a similar opportunity to compare a 3.2 Tip against my 2.0T MT. In the two weeks prior to my taking delivery of my car, I was given a B8 loaner configured exactly the same as the one in your review, right down to the interior/exterior color combo. I echo many of your comments when it comes to the differences between the engines. I came to really appreciate the smooth, linear (and powerful) acceleration of the 3.2, and I came away with an appreciation for how well the Tip performs (and this from a dyed-in-the-wool manual transmission guy). I just passed through the break-in period in my car, and I am amazed at the "push you back in your seat" acceleration, coupled with great handling provided by the Sport Package -- a significant improvement over my dearly-departed 2006 2.0T non-sport B7. On the entrance ramp to I-90 this morning on the way to work, it was as if Captain Kirk had just intoned "Warp speed, Mr. Sulu!" Before I knew it, I was passing through 80 mph and had to decelerate to blend in with the traffic. In the 2.0T, the power is more raw as you suggest, and your equine analogy is apt. Particularly after noticing how the car seems to stumble in the hands of someone not used to such a torquey turbo, I find that it takes some finesse (and practice) with the accelerator pedal to achieve smooth accelaration through the power band, but the effort is well worth it.
