View Full Version : Which would you choose and WHY?
bcramer
08-25-2008, 02:39 PM
Hey everyone!
Here is my dilemma...I have the opportunity to purchase either a 2.0tq Avant or 3.2q Avant both automatics both 2007 with very similar mileage. The only problem is I cannot easily test drive either myself because they are several hundred miles from where I live.
Gas mileage is important, but from what I've been able to tell, the differences between the 2.0t and 3.2 can be or are negligible. Correct me if I'm wrong!
Potential Performance Plans:
**I will not be touching the suspension on either car except for perhaps an RS4 sway bar. If that is possible/recommended to do on a car without the OEM sport suspension.
2.0t:
- Chip for sure.
- Maybe Exhaust...
3.2:
- I'm not too sure what performance mods are out there yet or their price tags... I wouldn't be looking to spend anymore than what a chip/exhaust on the 2.0t would cost.
Now that you know what's up which would you recommend to me and why? Thanks all!
cstarky15
08-25-2008, 02:43 PM
2.0 if you wanted to mod. 3.2 you will have to do a custom exhaust, no chip and wouldn't be worth it. I say 2.0t becuase once you get the chip it will be alot more fun. What are the colors?
muffinman
08-25-2008, 02:52 PM
a 2.0T with a chip can keep pace or beat a stock 3.2 while getting better gas mileage
also, please at least *consider* getting OEM sport suspension if you don't plan on getting coilovers.. OEM sport suspension + RS4 sway will be light years beyond stock. Buy nonsport if you enjoy the driving dynamics of a 40' yacht and looking like a monster truck
drexplode
08-25-2008, 03:07 PM
2.0T FTW! I average ~25/26 MPG city, and 30-31 hwy.
Geoffafa
08-25-2008, 03:16 PM
you will regret not buying the 2.0t
akasch
08-25-2008, 03:41 PM
The 3.2 is just not really worth the extra money because with only $1000 tops you can achieve the same power all while getting better gas mileage. But if you don't like the feel of a turbo then go with the n/a engine
bcramer
08-25-2008, 03:43 PM
Thanks for the responses everyone!
Both are silver. The 3.2q is fully loaded except Sport Suspension and TI package. The 2.0t comes with premium package.
Can anyone comment that has driven both? I have driven the 2.0tq and really ejoyed the way it drove even without a chip. I am curious as to how it compares to the 3.2 as far as the power curve. I know the 3.2 will be linear...but that doesn't say much for the actual driving experience.
bcramer
08-25-2008, 03:52 PM
The 3.2 is just not really worth the extra money because with only $1000 tops you can achieve the same power all while getting better gas mileage. But if you don't like the feel of a turbo then go with the n/a engine
That's kind of the catch 22 I find myself in right now. It seems as though the 2.0t has a lot more going for it... [confused]
volcomic
08-25-2008, 03:54 PM
Thanks for the responses everyone!
Both are silver. The 3.2q is fully loaded except Sport Suspension and TI package. The 2.0t comes with premium package.
Can anyone comment that has driven both? I have driven the 2.0tq and really ejoyed the way it drove even without a chip. I am curious as to how it compares to the 3.2 as far as the power curve. I know the 3.2 will be linear...but that doesn't say much for the actual driving experience.
2.0T is way more fun to drive. The 3.2 is actually very smooth, and is pretty quick, but even an un-chipped 2.0T feels faster than the V6. A 2.0T with chip and exhaust is a blast. Oh and Avants FTMFW!
rnp614
08-25-2008, 04:06 PM
I agree with the rest. A chipped 2.0T FEELS fast even though it doesnt look great on paper. Its a blast to drive and I wouldnt trade it for a 3.2.
I agree with the rest. A chipped 2.0T FEELS fast even though it doesnt look great on paper. Its a blast to drive and I wouldnt trade it for a 3.2.
x2
B7A4Sport
08-25-2008, 04:18 PM
All that needs to be said is:
2.0T FTW! [:D] Promise you won't be disappointed man. While it may not matter a whole lot to you, I test drove sedans in both 2.0T and 3.2, both auto, and there was no question I wanted the 2.0.
masteroc
08-25-2008, 06:49 PM
I have driven both (my family actually owns both atm) and although the 2.0T is a little more fun to drive and feels almost as powerful as the 3.2, the 3.2 still has a more linear power feel to me at least. Both are great engines so it is really just if you want to mod or not.
Bart-Man
08-25-2008, 07:04 PM
I have driven both (my family actually owns both atm) and although the 2.0T is a little more fun to drive and feels almost as powerful as the 3.2, the 3.2 still has a more linear power feel to me at least. Both are great engines so it is really just if you want to mod or not.
yup.
My first turbo car, i always thought "no replacement for displacement"
yes it takes time to spool the turbo, but the 3.2 felt laggy also.
I went with the 2.0 it just feels crisper and more peppy.
gervi
08-25-2008, 07:59 PM
2.0T!, the 3.2 simply does not have a big enough advantage in power over the 2.0T, like already stated previously. As well when chipped you will be making abit more or as much as the 3.2 while getting better mileage.
Turn10
08-25-2008, 08:00 PM
2.0 T is more fun, I picked the 2.0. When you hear the turbo kick in on the 2.0 it makes it worth it. I am also going to chip mine soon as well. From what I have heard from others on the forum I would recommend a APR 93 (only what I have heard).
333Inlinesix
08-26-2008, 11:57 AM
Don't forget that for the most part the 3.2 will be more reliable, if that's a major concern to you in the long run.
bcramer
08-26-2008, 01:10 PM
Don't forget that for the most part the 3.2 will be more reliable, if that's a major concern to you in the long run.
I assume that's because it is naturally aspirated?
I have heard that the blocks on the 3.2 have been known to be rather weak. I'm guessing that if this is true it shouldn't be an issue for me as I do not plan to mod the car. Especially because after further research there really aren't any big gains to be had unless I spend huge $$$.
Can anyone comment on the gas mileage of the 3.2? Everyone here always reports on their 2.0t's which seem to be around high 20's combined highway/city.
I assume that's because it is naturally aspirated?
I have heard that the blocks on the 3.2 have been known to be rather weak. I'm guessing that if this is true it shouldn't be an issue for me as I do not plan to mod the car. Especially because after further research there really aren't any big gains to be had unless I spend huge $$$.
Can anyone comment on the gas mileage of the 3.2? Everyone here always reports on their 2.0t's which seem to be around high 20's combined highway/city.
i do most of my driving in and around the city with 3.2 and trip computer says i get ~22.8, i have a manual though, on longer highway trips ive seen the computer say 27+ but never above 30. i usually shift ~3000 rpm and rarely shift above 4000 or so. if you have more questions about 3.2 avant let me know, family has both 3.2 manual and auto. love them both.
at the end of the day i don't think you can make a wrong decision. i would just go to a local dealer test drive a 2.0 & 3.2 back to back and see which engine you prefer. good choice on an avant [up]
bcramer
08-26-2008, 02:51 PM
i do most of my driving in and around the city with 3.2 and trip computer says i get ~22.8, i have a manual though, on longer highway trips ive seen the computer say 27+ but never above 30. i usually shift ~3000 rpm and rarely shift above 4000 or so. if you have more questions about 3.2 avant let me know, family has both 3.2 manual and auto. love them both.
at the end of the day i don't think you can make a wrong decision. i would just go to a local dealer test drive a 2.0 & 3.2 back to back and see which engine you prefer. good choice on an avant [up]
Thanks for the response G18! I was hoping to see a little better mpg numbers than that...but what can ya do? Glad to hear that auto is liked as well as the manual. Also, [up] to you for being down with the Avants as well!
Do you happen to know what the mpg is like for the auto you're family has? I tend to drive with a heavy foot...but that might just be because I have a little NA 4-banger right now.
muffinman
08-26-2008, 03:14 PM
bcramer - where in washington are you located?
cleaver
08-26-2008, 03:33 PM
I recently joined this board after a searching for and finding a 2007 3.2 Avant.
Having come from a reflashed Legacy 2.5GT wagon and a 330i I felt the 2.0T was down on power. I also had a bad experience with the Subaru (my first bad one after 12 years with Subarus) and no longer wanted anything to do with a turbo. You do have to wait for the power (not too bad with the 2.0T) and if you chip or reflash you compromise your warranty. The 3.2 is very smooth and VERY torquey, and gets very reasonable mileage (the Legacy's mileage was dismal and the 330i's was stellar). I wasn't prepared to like the 3.2 since it weighs 300 pounds more than the Legacy and has less power & torque, but the instantaneous response of the normally aspirated motor combined with the 6 gears (I have an automatic) is surprising and very satisfying.
The V6 sounds terrific, but there are almost no mods available (there are tons for the 2.0T). I do feel the suspension is a bit soft, but it was hard enough to find a 2007 3.2 Avant; finding an S-line would be almost impossible.
That's my 2 cents; good luck with your decision.
muffinman
08-26-2008, 03:40 PM
I recently joined this board after a searching for and finding a 2007 3.2 Avant.
Having come from a reflashed Legacy 2.5GT wagon and a 330i I felt the 2.0T was down on power. I also had a bad experience with the Subaru (my first bad one after 12 years with Subarus) and no longer wanted anything to do with a turbo. You do have to wait for the power (not too bad with the 2.0T) and if you chip or reflash you compromise your warranty. The 3.2 is very smooth and VERY torquey, and gets very reasonable mileage (the Legacy's mileage was dismal and the 330i's was stellar). I wasn't prepared to like the 3.2 since it weighs 300 pounds more than the Legacy and has less power & torque, but the instantaneous response of the normally aspirated motor combined with the 6 gears (I have an automatic) is surprising and very satisfying.
The V6 sounds terrific, but there are almost no mods available (there are tons for the 2.0T). I do feel the suspension is a bit soft, but it was hard enough to find a 2007 3.2 Avant; finding an S-line would be almost impossible.
That's my 2 cents; good luck with your decision.
no doubt the 3.2 is very smooth and the instantaneous power is awesome, but if you think the V6 is torquey, you obviously haven't been inside a chipped 2.0T (285 ft. lb. of torque in a lighter car... you do the math) and the turbo lag is minimal. you don't necessarily compromise your warranty if you know what you're doing (IE: don't go in with you Revo switch plugged into your OBD port with giant Revo decals on your engine cover)... just switch it back to stock program and unless the dealership does some MAJOR probing, they don't know that you are chipped.
bcramer
08-26-2008, 03:52 PM
bcramer - where in washington are you located?
I'm in the Sammamish/Issaquah area.
no doubt the 3.2 is very smooth and the instantaneous power is awesome, but if you think the V6 is torquey, you obviously haven't been inside a chipped 2.0T (285 ft. lb. of torque in a lighter car... you do the math) and the turbo lag is minimal. you don't necessarily compromise your warranty if you know what you're doing (IE: don't go in with you Revo switch plugged into your OBD port with giant Revo decals on your engine cover)... just switch it back to stock program and unless the dealership does some MAJOR probing, they don't know that you are chipped.
That is exactly why I am torn!
Vito Roma
08-27-2008, 07:50 AM
cant beat turbo!!
bcramer
08-27-2008, 10:51 AM
cant beat turbo!!
That sounds like a 1.8t nevar loses statement...[:D]
supamannn99
08-27-2008, 09:18 PM
...uh i have a 2.0t and i get 18 mpg :(
volcomic
08-27-2008, 09:31 PM
...uh i have a 2.0t and i get 18 mpg :(
Do you drive like an ass (like I do), have a torn DV, or both? hahaha
Thanks for the response G18! I was hoping to see a little better mpg numbers than that...but what can ya do? Glad to hear that auto is liked as well as the manual. Also, [up] to you for being down with the Avants as well!
Do you happen to know what the mpg is like for the auto you're family has? I tend to drive with a heavy foot...but that might just be because I have a little NA 4-banger right now.
mileage for the auto is roughly the same ~22.6 overall.
one thing that i would recommend though regardless of engine choice is sports suspension. i recently had a 2.0SE loaner that did not have sports suspension and there was a very noticeable difference as im sure others will agree.