I posted this over on fourtitude and was somewhat shocked at how much heavier the 3.2 is over the 2.0t.

2004 R32 6MT 3409
2006 A3 3.2 DSG 3660
2006 A3 2.0t DSG 3329
2006 A3 2.0t 6MT 3263

Explains a lot of what I noticed during the testdrives.

Dave

It is all relative...coming from a Cayenne Turbo, I feel like I am in a lightweight tin can.

Much prefer it though, it is like driving a go-kart.

a V6 engine instead of a 4; a 3.2 litre instead of a 2, Quattro instead of FWD, larger body panels for S-line bumpers (plus rear spoiler), larger mainfold/exhaust system to deal with increased engine size(?). Drivers seat is power so there is the weight for the servo motor, also fog lights, and then the extra weight of the S-line monikors

When you have a larger engine, it will increase the weight of many components (maybe the drive axle?). I'm not sure if the stiffer suspension adds/decreases or is weight neutral.

I guess you could compare the sports A3 vs. standard for a 2.0. Who wouldn't want the extra weight considering the 3.2 is much higher performance than stock 2.0?

Were the wheels/tires identical in all of those comparisons?

Did you look at a FWD A4 vs. an S4? Or even a 3.2 A4 with Quattro?

When the S3 or RS3 is developed (if it is) what weight do you think it will approximate the A3 2.0 or the 3.2? It's going to be the 3.2 and I doubt anyone who doesn't have an axe to grind and is objective is going to say, hey, my A3 2.0 handles a lot better and performs a lot better than an S3!

Yeah, let me get a 2.0 turbo A4 instead of an S4, yeah right! :)

Then, there may be advantages to additional weight, 1) for snow conditions 2) better road huggability in windy road conditions 3) better survivability in an accident.

Disclaimer: There might be other components that explain the greater weight of the 3.2 that I have not identified. Such as a the rear differential.

That extra weight doesn't necessarily help in a crash considering the drivetrain components are designed to fall underneath the car.

"road huggability"? You're kidding me right? That has more to do with suspension . . . hell the 3.2 might hug the road so well that it goes off of it :-P

What real performance advantages? It seems like the extra hp / tq in the 3.2 is mainly there to make up for all the extra weight.

Dave

I'm talking about a front end collision, I rather have a 3.2L or a larger engine in general.

Road huggability in terms of WIND. and WIND shear. Read.
I'll take a Quattro on rails anyday over a FWD.

I'm not arguing for the extra performance advantages of the greater weight! I'm responding to your hint that a 2.0 handles better than a 3.2 I drove both before deciding on a 3.2.

I mentioned that the greater weight, given it's a larger engine size, and having AWD, makes the 3.2 a safer car in the event of an accident, or very windy/wet driving conditions (holding everything else constant).

In actuality, with Quatro it will handle better in ALL driving conditions. But then I'm not looking to do stock car racing on my daily commute. I do that with the wifes Golf on weekends :)

Sorry, but your claim that added weight from driveline components that are designed to break-away helps during an accident is bull.

Now if the extra weight were used to reinforce the chassis, I'd agree with you.

Dave

Scion tc = 160hp + 3000lbs

Mazda 3 = 160hp + 2900lbs

MINI = 168hp + 2700lbs

Civic Si = 197hp + 2900lbs

Subaru WRX wagon = 230hp + 3250lbs

BMW 325xi = 215hp + 3737lbs

Volvo V50 awd turbo = 218hp + 3500lbs

Scion tc = 160hp + 3000lbs 18.8 lbs / hp

Mazda 3 = 160hp + 2900lbs 18.1 lbs/hp

MINI = 168hp + 2700lbs 16.1 lbs/hp

Civic Si = 197hp + 2900lbs 14.7 lbs/hp

Subaru WRX wagon = 230hp + 3250lbs 14.1 lbs/hp

BMW 325xi = 215hp + 3737lbs 17.3 lbs/hp

Volvo V50 awd turbo = 218hp + 3500lbs 16.1 lbs/hp

A3 3.2 DSG AWD = 250hp + 3660lbs 14.6 lbs / hp

A3 2.0t DSG = 200hp + 3329lbs 16.645lbs / hp

A3 2.0t 6MT = 200hp + 3263lbs 16.3lbs / hp

R32 6MT = 250hp + 3409lbs 13.6 lbs / hp

Chipped A3 2.0t DSG = ~245hp + 3329lbs 13.6lbs / hp

Chipped A3 2.0t 6MT = ~245hp + 3263lbs 13.3lbs / hp

Dave, what do you conclude from this?

Scion tc = 164ft lbs @ 4000rpms

Mazda 3 = 150ft lbs @ 4500rpms

MINI supercharged = 155ft lbs @ 4000rpms

Civic Si = 139ft lbs @ 6100rpms

Subaru WRX = 235ft lbs @ 3600rpms

BMW 325xi = 185ft lbs @2750

Volvo V50 turbo = 235ft lbs @ 1500rpms

A3 2.0T = 207ft lbs @ 1800rpms

A3 3.2 = 236ft lbs @ 2800rpms

you might be better off. After all the car that decellerates the slowest in a crash, is usually the one that places less stress on the occupants. Now that is assuming the passenger cage is properly designed:) It's why large SUVs usually do well in crashes with (smaller) cars :-(

400lbs more and it still uses the same front brakes as the 2.0t.

Dave

avoiding or lessening the impact of a crash.

Dave

based on new information on SUV's and crash findings with tipping of vehicles

rush hour.

Going back from upstate NY to home in CA . . . . huge shift in driving styles . . .

Dave

It flipped it in the air 5 times and rolled... was only going 65km/h dodged a car that was in the middle of the road and hit some gravel and then lost control and hit a ditch and it went into the air and traveled for about 25 yards and flipped and rolled 5 times.

http://forums.fourtitude.com/zerothread?id=2374195

Either way, 320 lbs isn't going to make any difference in a crash like this (but the larger engine up front probably will) and Audi/VW are some of the safest cars in the world.

Drive safely

cars pulling into that slot in front of you ;-) Very prevelant in areas with high concentrations of recently landed immigrants who are used to being tightly packed. If you keep backing off to maintain the distance, you'll be going slower and slower as everybody cuts in front.

****less, you can easily imagine things . . .

Dave

Ya driving in CA kinda sucks because there are so many uninsured immigrants or illegal aliens without driver's licenses that can't drive.

Then there's the 80mph "slow" lane . . . .

Dave

I don't care where somebody comes from, the laws of physics are universal :-)

Driving the Alfa in SoCal never made me nervous per se, but here in NorCal, it's another story. Very glad the A3 is so highly rated in safety.

ya that's what driving in indonesia is like . . .

Dave

What was your source of weights? My A3 3.2 showed 3580 on local scale used for material trade. This is still porky but not quite as bad. Fuel light had been on for about 10 miles.

My vehicle came with documentation that indicated that it had 3188lbs . . . . that was probably the weight of the vehicle with an empty tank of gas . . . similar to what you weighed your car at.

Dave

Courtesy of bass biker . . .

Stock car . . . vag-com dyno . . . crank hp & tq.
<img src="http://home.comcast.net/~jimwagner/hpchart.jpg">

Bhvdr got similar #s too when he converted his stock dyno with the standard quattro correction factors . . .

looks like 226hp, 240tq

Dave<ul><li><a href="http://forums.audiworld.com/a4b7/msgs/29880.phtml">http://forums.audiworld.com/a4b7/msgs/29880.phtml</a</li></ul>

Actually human factors engineering studies were done in Europe showing people slow down when the see lines on the road, it's a natural response. That's why they have them in "turn abouts" in London.

I was going to say the same myself!!!

"You know, I should've gone with the 2.0T: It's lighter, more powerful, and doesn't have that annoying Quattro thing (which really isn't Quattro anyway). And the 3.2 is soooo rough and raspy, not to mention overpriced. About the only thing the 3.2 has going for it is power lumbar support."

Although if you're gonna talk smack, better bring some proof.

This is meant to be purely technical.

Dave

3637lbs for the RS4<ul><li><a href="http://www.rsportscars.com/eng/cars/audi_rs4.asp">http://www.rsportscars.com/eng/cars/audi_rs4.asp</a</li></ul>

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v714/bhvrdr/APR-B7a4_dyno_actual.jpg">

The above is the APR stock and modified dyno run. Stock the car made 185whp and 185wtq. That would mean the QUATTRO car only lost 7.5% to the wheels if we based the number on the Audi quoted 200chp. cheers! Mike

transpires on the Maha at AMS;-)

<ul><li><a href="http://forums.audiworld.com/s4/msgs/1957552.phtml">http://forums.audiworld.com/s4/msgs/1957552.phtml</a</li></ul>

to stand in front of when it's running full speed :) That sucker puts out some serious wind, and uses some serious electricity;) See large silver box extending down from the roof in front of car. Yes, it has a filter:)

<img src="http://pictureposter.audiworld.com/3127/rs4dyno.jpg">

My 06 2.0T premium/cold has power lumbar

The U.S. Spec RS4 specifications haven't been released yet. That weight is for Europe. Believe me the U.S. Version will weigh more!

Example: The 3.2 DSG S-line Sportback in Europe weighs 3,450lbs. and ours weighs 3660... Please tell me what the added 210lbs is???

"Then, there may be advantages to additional weight, 1) for snow conditions 2) better road huggability in windy road conditions"

I disagree wholeheartedly. sure, extra weight can be 'justified' if it comes with some desired/enhanced functionality...but as pointed out elsewhere it is the one factor that is *always* hurting the dynamics of a car: accel, braking, transient response, steady state response, fuel economy. Quattro system is no different, it's a compromise, but in this case a pretty compelling one.

sleet and snow and rain and wind (the condition I pointed out that you were unable to dephicer and didn't include in 3) but most SANE people do not.

And anyone with half a brain would rather be in a heavier car in case of impact. There is a relationship between vehicle weight and survivability.

Some of you goofballs on this forum are playing too many video games and blowing your basilar membranes out with iPods and that's while driving like speed racer and not showing any awareness for safety.

Most people buying Audi's factor in safety. We're not all 20 year old single guys looking to "trick out" our cars. Jesus, you guys are a real piece of work (but when I was 20 I was doing the same thing with BMW's but we didn't have M and S cars back then either! :-)

hence pointing out your examples 1) and 2).

Safety is another issue altogether; weight can come into play there too, but it *shouldn't* be on the top of the list of safety selection criteria. anybody who knows a little about physics/cars should know this. Structural design, passive safety equipment, driving aids, etc. all play a huge part too. A car with extra 300# due to quattro will *NOT* be more impact-safe compared to the lighter non-quat equivalent (assuming same everything else).

Back to the first point....I realize raw performance isn't the be-all and end-all. this isn't the SCCAForums website after all, but most folks who post on AW are enthusiasts and therefore discussions centered around a *performance-oriented bias* shouldn't be a surprise to anyone,should it????