2.0T A4 vs 3.2 (6 cyl) A4

[Irish311]

Hey guys -- just looking for some unbiased feedback regarding people's experience between the 2.0T and the 3.2 A4.

I'm thinking about upgrading my 2005.05 2.0T to a 6 Cyl 3.2 A4 (dealer has a lot of stock and is willing to deal) and I wanted to get some feedback about the A4 with a 3.2 engine.

Thanks in advance!

[astris]

I'm sure everyone is going to say this, but....

why not just spend $500 on a chip. You will be faster than the v6 and get better gas mileage. Other than the engine, not really any difference in the cars.

I'm sure the 3.2 is a great engine, but its so easy to make the 2.0t faster and for cheaper. If you are extremely opposed to minor mods then get the 3.2. Otherwise the 2.0t all the way.

[jsamans]

There are some negatives to a chipped 2.0t...but in the end it comes down to fairly subjective factors.

First off is your warranty. That's important to some, not so much to others. But I guarantee if there is a problem with your chipped car that will cost thousands of dollars to fix, Audi is going to discover that it is chipped and not cover it. Period. Chip companies IMO mislead consumers by telling them that ECU modifications are undetectable. They are always detectable if you dig deep enough, and if there are thousands of dollars on the line, believe me, Audi will dig deep enough. If you think you are going to be able to "pull a fast one" on the people who design, develop, and build these cars from the ground up, you are in for a rude awakening god forbid anything goes wrong with the car. It should be noted though, that problems related to "chips" are somewhat rare.

The next downside is driveability. A lot of people think turbo 4 cylinder engines feel "sporty" -- but others find them to be a little chinzy feeling and herky-jerky. Totally subjective there, but make sure you drive both before you make a decision. The 3.2 is rock solid feeling, impeccably smooth, and is deceptively fast...in the same way that the S4 is. You don't get the "feeling" that you are going fast like you do in a turbo car, but if you look down at the speedometer you will find that you are.

Another issue somewhat related is the available power. Chip tuners advertise the PEAK hp and torque numbers, but the NA V6 has more power available more of the time than a chipped turbo car. Not to mention that there is no turbo lag in the V6. The power is there when you want it. This translates to better driveability and more available power and torque under normal circumstances...i.e. around town, every day driving. That's why Audi uses the 3.2 in the A6 and the base A8, and not tuned 2.0t's.

A chipped 2.0t will come close to a stock 3.2, and maybe even surpass it in some things, but certaintly not in all areas. I reliably run 6.1-6.2 second 0-60's in my stock 3.2 (my best is 6.07 seconds) on all season tires -- with no powerbraking at launch. And according to owners of the 3.2 A6 and the 4.2 A6 and S4 -- the naturally aspirated engines don't even open up all the way until after about 10K miles. I don't even have 7K on my car yet. The bottom line here is that the 3.2 outperforms a chipped 2.0T in everything except maybe straight line acceleration from a stop, and even there the difference is fairly minor.

I'll give a chipped 2.0t a few tenths of a second in 0-60 for a smoother, better driving, better-sounding car (subjective) and a 100% intact warranty. If you absolutely have to mod your car, you can do exhaust and suspension upgrades just fine to a 3.2, weight reduction...and SpeedTuning offers a chip that bumps power up to 280hp for the 3.2. That will absolutely beat anything but the most heavily modded 2.0T, if bench racing is important to you. Having driven a stock 3.2 for the past 9 months, I don't really feel like it needs more power though. The car feels just right.

It really comes down to what you are after. There is no doubt that the 2.0t with a chip is a great value. And if you like tuning, no question it is the Audi to get.

Remember that Audi wouldn't sell any 3.2's if a mere $500 chip really made the more fuel-efficient, much less expensive 2.0t an all-around better car.

[theswami]

I'm about to chip my A4 2.0T and frankly I hope the chip improves my driving experience. After coming from V6s and V8s to the 2.0T, it isn't the power that I miss as much as the smoothness of the available power. The 2.0T is just plain rough and doesn't respond to my accelerator as quickly as I would like it to. Apparently the chip will improve this. I feel like the 2.0T is at its limits whenever I hit the gas.

My vote will always go to a normally aspirated engine with more cylinders. If money isn't an object and the times are close, I'm not sure why you would choose the smaller engine.

IMO, don't listen to opinions (including mine) of people who have not driven both within hours of each other. You can read the words and use them to give you something to think about but wait to hear from people who have driven both.

Most important, get a trail program for your car. Drive it for a while then drive it to your dealer and step into the V6 with a similar tranny and take it on a similar drive (open road and stop and go traffic). I would think that is much better than any opinions you'll get here.

[Audi 138]

That was a pretty good write up.. Although I love my 2.0T and will love it even more when I get the chip... The 3.2 is a spectacular engine!! You just get that feeling that you have some balls when driving it and the throttle response is awesome.. But like he said.. There pros and cons for both engines.. The 2.0 is also gonna be alot cheaper in the long run in price of car, gas and possibly insurance..

[jsamans]

One thing I forgot to mention is that the 3.2 will have much better resale value down the road, if you are buying and not leasing.

[theswami]

Originally posted by jsamans
One thing I forgot to mention is that the 3.2 will have much better resale value down the road, if you are buying and not leasing.

Why would the resale be better?

[AudiGuy666]

Originally posted by jsamans
There are some negatives to a chipped 2.0t...but in the end it comes down to fairly subjective factors.

First off is your warranty. That's important to some, not so much to others. But I guarantee if there is a problem with your chipped car that will cost thousands of dollars to fix, Audi is going to discover that it is chipped and not cover it. Period. Chip companies IMO mislead consumers by telling them that ECU modifications are undetectable. They are always detectable if you dig deep enough, and if there are thousands of dollars on the line, believe me, Audi will dig deep enough. If you think you are going to be able to "pull a fast one" on the people who design, develop, and build these cars from the ground up, you are in for a rude awakening god forbid anything goes wrong with the car. It should be noted though, that problems related to "chips" are somewhat rare.

The next downside is driveability. A lot of people think turbo 4 cylinder engines feel "sporty" -- but others find them to be a little chinzy feeling and herky-jerky. Totally subjective there, but make sure you drive both before you make a decision. The 3.2 is rock solid feeling, impeccably smooth, and is deceptively fast...in the same way that the S4 is. You don't get the "feeling" that you are going fast like you do in a turbo car, but if you look down at the speedometer you will find that you are.

Another issue somewhat related is the available power. Chip tuners advertise the PEAK hp and torque numbers, but the NA V6 has more power available more of the time than a chipped turbo car. Not to mention that there is no turbo lag in the V6. The power is there when you want it. This translates to better driveability and more available power and torque under normal circumstances...i.e. around town, every day driving. That's why Audi uses the 3.2 in the A6 and the base A8, and not tuned 2.0t's.

A chipped 2.0t will come close to a stock 3.2, and maybe even surpass it in some things, but certaintly not in all areas. I reliably run 6.1-6.2 second 0-60's in my stock 3.2 (my best is 6.07 seconds) on all season tires -- with no powerbraking at launch. And according to owners of the 3.2 A6 and the 4.2 A6 and S4 -- the naturally aspirated engines don't even open up all the way until after about 10K miles. I don't even have 7K on my car yet. The bottom line here is that the 3.2 outperforms a chipped 2.0T in everything except maybe straight line acceleration from a stop, and even there the difference is fairly minor.

I'll give a chipped 2.0t a few tenths of a second in 0-60 for a smoother, better driving, better-sounding car (subjective) and a 100% intact warranty. If you absolutely have to mod your car, you can do exhaust and suspension upgrades just fine to a 3.2, weight reduction...and SpeedTuning offers a chip that bumps power up to 280hp for the 3.2. That will absolutely beat anything but the most heavily modded 2.0T, if bench racing is important to you. Having driven a stock 3.2 for the past 9 months, I don't really feel like it needs more power though. The car feels just right.

It really comes down to what you are after. There is no doubt that the 2.0t with a chip is a great value. And if you like tuning, no question it is the Audi to get.

Remember that Audi wouldn't sell any 3.2's if a mere $500 chip really made the more fuel-efficient, much less expensive 2.0t an all-around better car.

Poor aguments. A chipped 2.0T will pull on the 3.2 . That is the bottom line. Not to mention is will get better gas mileage. And tuners are right when they say the flash in undetectable. They wont find it unless they are looking for it . And btw , thats what stock programs are for .I just had my warrenty expire on my 03 1.8T that was chipped with APR for at least half the total milage on the car and not one problem with the dealer. And yes , multiple issues with the car itself , but never once did the dealer even hint towards a chip being the problem.

$500 makes it as fast as the V6 and you save thousands on the car itself. I dont see why anyone would go with the 3.2 . IMO , its either 2.0T , or S4 .

[jsamans]

Originally posted by theswami
Why would the resale be better?

Well for one thing it is a more expensive car to begin with. Also, it is unlikely to have been modded and driven outside of spec. Most 3.2's are fairly loaded...3-4 years down the road a loaded A4 with the 6 cylinder engine will hold its value better, imo.

[DoThisMyWay]

I know this isn't the same scenario but I have a 3.0 and an APR'd 2.0T and before the 2.0T I had a 24v VR6. I'll take my APR'd 2.0T over both of those engines any day. Some days I'll drive the 3.0 and once I start driving, I wish I drove the 2.0T. Like everybody’s says, it's about personal preference. I’m sure the 3.2 is a very nice engine but the 2.0T is so much fun, especially chipped.

[Fobia]

i would say 2.0 or s4 too, your write seems i dont know, kinda byasst, but i dont know, you can tell me if im wrong, but that is what i am thinking atm

[Tanner]

The 3.2L is definetly smoother but the 2.0T isn't all that bad either, it's a nice little engine that's got a nice torque curve.

The 2.0T doesn't have that "herky-jerky" really, turbo lag - it is pretty hard to notice compared to the 1.8T. Floor it in mid range RPM and off you go, very very little turbo lag comared to the 1.8T.

Now I never test drove the 3.2L but if you've never driven both of them - do so. You're going to be driving it for a while so pick the one you like and go from there. Everybody here has their own opinions.

Though if Audi put the new 3.2L from the Roadjet in the A4 now that would be sweet. 300hp!

[Quartz05]

I drove both before buying my 2.0T. This in spite of my dealer actually trying to dissuade me from doing so, ever so gently, by saying "I really don't push people to buy the 3.2 because for the money the difference just isn't that noticeable."

Still, I insisted, and ya know what? He was right. Sure, you can tell you're going from one car to another, but when you factor in the price difference it wasn't a hard decision to make. The 2.0T is one sweet-ass motor, for sure. APR is now up to 260HP on their 93 octane program, which is officially more than a stock 3.2. And for as minimal as the turbo lag is (and it really is less noticable than any other turbocharger I've ever encountered) I kinda like it. I like it the same way I used to like the way the secondaries kicked in on an old 4-barrel carb, or the way the short intake runners popped open on Toyota's original variable intake 1.8.

As for the warranty issues with a chip, I spoke to my dealer about it. They were pretty upfront and honest and the message I got was that if you go with somebody known and reputable (APR, GIAC, Revo) they're not going to care because the ECU mod isn't going to break the car.

Oh, and the thing about trade-in value is silly. A 3.2 costs more. It will depreciate at the same rate as a 2.0 which means at the end of the day it will be worth more in absolute dollars but you also will have lost more in the process. Six o' one...

Insurance on the 2.0 is cheaper.

My advice, based solely on what my own intentions are - stay with the 2.0, drive it for 2 years and trade it for an S4.

[bhvrdr]

Originally posted by AudiGuy666
Poor aguments. A chipped 2.0T will pull on the 3.2 . That is the bottom line. Not to mention is will get better gas mileage. And tuners are right when they say the flash in undetectable. They wont find it unless they are looking for it . And btw , thats what stock programs are for .I just had my warrenty expire on my 03 1.8T that was chipped with APR for at least half the total milage on the car and not one problem with the dealer. And yes , multiple issues with the car itself , but never once did the dealer even hint towards a chip being the problem.

$500 makes it as fast as the V6 and you save thousands on the car itself. I dont see why anyone would go with the 3.2 . IMO , its either 2.0T , or S4 .

2nd.

People are getting 5.9 0-60 times even with a POS tip tranny in the chipped cars. 5.6 seconds or better should be the norm for the 6-speed. The powerband on the 2.0T is INCREDIBLY large even compared to the V6. It has the power way down low and the top end on my car only drops about 7hp from 5500rpm to 6500rpm.

For major warranty work, simply have your car returned to your tuner and the true OEM program reloaded onto the ECU. Problems solved. Chip no longer on the car.

The 2.0T is lighter than the 3.2. Less weight equals better handling.

cheers! Mike

[theswami]

Originally posted by jsamans
Well for one thing it is a more expensive car to begin with. Also, it is unlikely to have been modded and driven outside of spec. Most 3.2's are fairly loaded...3-4 years down the road a loaded A4 with the 6 cylinder engine will hold its value better, imo.

Because a car is more expensive does NOT mean it will hold its value better. You pay more so of course it will be worth more later but that doesn't mean that it HELD its value. If you look at the value over a period compared to purchase price and I bet the % is very similar for a 2.0T as a 3.2.

Why would a fully loaded 3.2 hold it's value better than a fully loaded 2.0T?

You do realize that 99% of people do not modify their cars. Maybe 80% of the people here do but most owners keep the engines stock. Are you saying that someone looking to buy a used A4 will say, oh, I don't want the 2.0T because they are often modded my the owners and driven out of spec.

I thought there was some logic behind your reason that the 3.2 wil hold its value better but the points above are meaningless in terms of how they affect depreciation %.

[RE5PECT]

id go 2.0T anyday over 3.2....unless your not modding...if your not at all, go with the 3.2

[jsamans]

Originally posted by bhvrdr
2nd.

People are getting 5.9 0-60 times even with a POS tip tranny in the chipped cars. 5.6 seconds or better should be the norm for the 6-speed. The powerband on the 2.0T is INCREDIBLY large even compared to the V6. It has the power way down low and the top end on my car only drops about 7hp from 5500rpm to 6500rpm.

For major warranty work, simply have your car returned to your tuner and the true OEM program reloaded onto the ECU. Problems solved. Chip no longer on the car.

The 2.0T is lighter than the 3.2. Less weight equals better handling.

cheers! Mike

Yeah, but there is so much more to it than just 0-60 times... If you want to mod and you want to drag race, as I said in my original post, the 2.0T is the way to go. That said, however, 0.1 to 0.3 seconds difference 0-60 is a very tiny margin anywhere except on paper (or the internet).

The 3.2 offers a level of smoothness, a drivability, an exhaust note, etc. that a modified 2.0T could never have. You really have to drive one. It is simply a better driving car, unless your only criteria is the fastest 0-60 time. And if all you want is the fastest 0-60 times, you can certaintly do a lot better for $45K than an Audi of any type.

That's why you would want the V6...not so you can win every race at every stop light, but because it is a smoother, better sounding, better driving engine -- in most people's opinion. And it's stock.

[bhvrdr]

I agree the 3.2 has a better engine note and feels smoother. The exhaust note is great as well stock for stock, but not on a modified 2.0T. Of course modified for modified the exhaust note is also nicer IMO. I dont drag race but I do autocross and enjoy good track days and mountain runs and the 2.0T fits that bill very nicely due to it being lighter. Both are really nice cars. I think the v6 models will be much better when we see the 300hp FSI. I just couldnt drop another 6 grand for better smoothness but less performance potential. Many could and do and I dont fault them, especially if they are going to stay stock. cheers! Mike

[Quartz05]

Good thread, and all good points. In the end it really comes down to esoterics. Some prefer the silky six, others prefer the ferocious four. Count me in the latter group. I guess there's just a little more boy racer in us. :)

Oh, and for what it's worth I just looked it up and the weight difference between a 2.0T QM and a 3.2 Tip is 199 lbs.

Anyway, I like how the Mazda folks put it:

Zoom zoom

[chubbychynk]

2.0T or S4 no doubt. If you want a V6 wait til Audi comes out with a better one like VW.

[igo380]

2.0T much better than the 3.2 in the A4. Drove both, even not chipped liked it better.

3.2 in the A3 is better exectuted than in the A4, imo. Not sure why, could be the transverse mounting? Ligher weight car?

[Andrew A4]

I'm in the market for a new B7 2.0T and wouldn't even consider the 3.2 even though i did like the smoothness of the engine. Why? Because i don't worry about chips and warranties because its easy to get back to stock programming and many dealers don't even care. I know one dealer here in SoCal where I had my moderately modded B5 A4 go in for warranty work and servicings and they never said a thing except for when the guy brought my car up and made a comment about my boost gauge hitting 21-22psi. :)

I'll opt to save the $6,000 and add on full exhaust, suspension, tint, some stereo gear, and perhaps a bigger turbo. My buddy has a GT28RS sitting in his garage collecting dust and it has my name on it. hehe.

[Irish311]

Guys, really, thanks for all of the input. This really turned out to be a great string. It really helped.

[10 tenths]

Originally posted by Irish311
Hey guys -- just looking for some unbiased feedback regarding people's experience between the 2.0T and the 3.2 A4.

I'm thinking about upgrading my 2005.05 2.0T to a 6 Cyl 3.2 A4 (dealer has a lot of stock and is willing to deal) and I wanted to get some feedback about the A4 with a 3.2 engine.

Thanks in advance!

If the dealer has a lot of 3.2 in stock and is willing to deal, that should answer your question! I love my chipped 2.0t

[jessefrank]

Although my only experience with Audi engines is the 3.0 vs 1.8T; If you live at elevation as I do in Colorado, the Forced Induction engined car rules. The elevation sucks so much out of a N/A car.
That with the lower initial price, lower insurance, better mpg and much better tuning possibilities sealed the deal on the smaller turboed engine for me.

[dan671]

2.0t or s4 the 2.0 might be a roughter ride but its still an audi and isnt that bad

[FINA4]

I've driven now 1800 miles with my 2006 3.2 V6 6spd manual. Before that I had 2004 1.8T with Revo KO4 etc. Here are my thoughts about 3.2:

+ Very fast off the line
+ Smooth and linear power curve
+ Engine note
+ Doesn't care if it's 90'F outside
+ No need to worry about boost leaks
- Not so much fun
- On freeway speeds missing the torque
- More gas when doing spirited driving
- More expensive

I've been really happy with the 3.2 but sometimes I miss that torque you get when you hit the full boost.

But when driving "nicely" the 3.2 FSI V6 gets a great mileage. I just came from Vegas today. I had 4 adults and a baby in the car and trunk full of luggages. I averaged 25.1mpg which I think is really good number considering the load in the car.

Depending on your targets, either one is a great choice. I did the whole nine yeards with my 1.8T and it was fun while it lasted but I'm done with the modding now.

It would be interesting to see how 2.0T+chip manual vs. 3.2 manual would do. My 1.8T with KO4 had a little bit more power than chipped 2.0T but the 3.2 feels definately faster than my 1.8T with KO4.