A4 — 2.0 4-cylinder or 3.2 6-cylinder

I am buying a 2006 A4, after months of looking at cars, choosing between two at a dealership.

The one is a 3.2 V6, 31,000 miles, black leather interior, with the darker metallic gray exterior like Dolphin Gray.

The other one is a 2.0T 4-cylinder, 21,000 miles, light silver exterior and light gray leather interior.

I much prefer the driving experience of the V6, smoothness at idle, better acceleration and power. I do not really care for the steering wheel vibration feel of the 4-cylinder [every 4 I have driven had that].

I much prefer the light silver and gray combination of the 4-cylinder car over the dark gray and black of the other. The dark gray would show dirt much more [I drive a mile of gravel to get to the highway] and the black interior would be much hotter in the summer. There is 10,000 miles difference, and the two are priced within $500 of each other.

I am advised that the 3.2 powered cars are harder to sell now due to fuel prices. I am getting 1.9 interest from Audi finance as part of a promotional program to move lease cars. That is very nice and certainly applies to either car.

I am prone to over analysis at times. I drove each car twice, feeling that the power/vibration issue was my overriding issue. After coming home, I think that maybe subsequent ability to resell/trade later when I can afford going to an A6 would make the 2.0 car a better choice, with its 4-cylinder and lower miles.

I realize this is not a decision someone else can or should make for me, but I am wondering if anyone here sees some aspect of this that I am not aware of at this time.

I know that there has been the comment about chipping the 4-cylinder, but I imagine that does not take away the vibration.

The silver car is really beautiful, and would look beautiful more easily.

Discuss....

Honestly the best car for you should be based on two things:

1 - when you're in the driver's seat, in which car are you happier?  By that I mean not only based on the driving experience, but the ergonomics as well.  99% of your experiences with your own car occur from the driver's seat, so that's where you should weigh the majority of your decision.  Since you didn't specify transmissions, I'm assuming that each car has the same transmission (both tip autos, or both manuals), so that's probably a wash.  I can tell you that in an Audi, a six-cylinder with a manual transmission is a great and fun combination.

2 - what are your intentions for the car, in terms of length of time you'll own it, number of miles you drive per year, any plans for modifying the car, etc?  The turbo fours are known for oil sludge issues (the 1.8T for sure, although the newer 2.0T I don't know) and for having more mechanical issues (although that may be because most of the four cylinder owners mod their cars and stress them well beyond OEM spec).  The sixes get great mileage and are smooth and (despite what all the turbo guys say) they aren't slow cars.  They're not rockets, but they certainly acquit themselves very nicely.  The sixes are more of a pain to work on than the fours are, due to less space underhood and more parts in there, but they seem to be fairly bulletproof.  My 2.8 30v has 151k miles on it, pulls nice and smooth, and gets well over 30mpg on the highway.

Overall though, if you're just going to be cruising the car, driving distances, and not much into modifying for power, go with the 3.2 - it's still going to get good mileage on the highway, it'll have more power for passing (even in my 2.8, I rarely have to downshift to fourth to pass someone), and as you've already seen, it's smoother and silkier at idle and driving.  The four is peakier and less powerful and the car will be working harder than the six in the same conditions.  However, if you have plans to modify the car, the 2.0T can be made significantly more powerful very easily, and with some money invested, can surpass the power of the 3.2 without too much trouble.  Just remember that when you mod, you open yourself up to problems that the engine in stock trim may not worry about.  I'm also assuming that as part of your financing package, a warranty will be offered, and mods may void some or all of that.

Both cars are automatic transmissions, and they will be covered by the Audi certified used car warranty. I do intend to keep it a long time.

Sounds like your minds already made up on the 3.2 and you want someone to tell you to get it. I wouldnt even worry about resale valve.  Id be willing to be they both will have about the same resale valvue 10 years from now. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: dankhound

Sounds like your minds already made up on the 3.2....

No.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dankhound

....and you want someone to tell you to get it.

No.


By a long time, I don't mean ten years. I am meaning more like four to five years.

Go with the 3.2 because it probably has more options then the 2.0. Grey, l hate grey!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Everybody drives either a blk or grey car, it looks more like an Army.
 
Good Luck

if your leasing the car.. go with the 3.2... the only reason I see that you would get a 2.0 is if your going to mod it.. and if your leasing it, you can't... 3.2 is faster then a 2.0 at stock and a lot more reliable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kingman

Go with the 3.2 because it probably has more options then the 2.0. Grey, l hate grey!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Everybody drives either a blk or grey car, it looks more like an Army.

Good Luck

The two cars have identical features, except the 2.0 car has an opening in the back seat through which you could slide a pair of skis.

If you had the chance to drive a chipped 2.0T, youd pick that without a doubt.  I promise.  It would be a more spirited driving experience (boost) and it can be very economical too.  Youd have so much more useable power at low/mid rpm's compared to the 3.2 while getting as good or most likely better mpg.  As far as "options" they are about the same with an exception of a couple things like wood/aluminum trim and wheel style.  Stock for stock, take the 3.2.  A chip is only $500 though, or roughly $350 for a used chipped ECU.  Totally worth it imo.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Carlos10704

if your leasing the car.. go with the 3.2... the only reason I see that you would get a 2.0 is if your going to mod it.. and if your leasing it, you can't... 3.2 is faster then a 2.0 at stock and a lot more reliable.

I am not leasing, I am buying.

My next comment is not directed at you, but at the sense I get from reading many threads here that the great thing about the 4-cylinder is that you can modify it to have as much power as the 6-cylinder. So....why not just buy the 6 and void the trouble? ...and if you can get more from a 4, then maybe the answer is to get the 8.

It reminds me of a comment I got years ago from a mason, as he compared block walls to poured walls. He said the advantage of block walls is that you can tuckpoint them. The reality is that block walls, by virtue of their nature, may require mortar joint repair, hence....require tuckpointing. It is irrelevant that you can't tuckpoint a poured wall because they don't require repair. It seemed a feeble thing to say about block walls.

I don't see what issue there is in a 6-cylinder that has few mods available when the 6-cylinder does not require them.


I am interested in your reliability remark. What further thoughts do you have on that? Thank you for your reply....again, the block wall thing is not at you. OK? :-)

quote:

ORIGINAL: onepoint8tee

If you had the chance to drive a chipped 2.0T, youd pick that without a doubt. I promise. It would be a more spirited driving experience (boost) and it can be very economical too. You'd have so much more useable power at low/mid rpm's compared to the 3.2 while getting as good or most likely better mpg. As far as "options" they are about the same with an exception of a couple things like wood/aluminum trim and wheel style. Stock for stock, take the 3.2. A chip is only $500 though, or roughly $350 for a used chipped ECU. Totally worth it imo.

Would your remark about spirited also apply to the auto trans cars?

Isn't a big concern that while on warranty I could not have a chip? I would not want to void my Audi Certified warranty by doing that.

What happens to others here in that regard?

oh well in that case... If I were you, I'd get that 2.0t. I bought a 3.0 and wish I would have bought a 2.0... don't get me wrong I love my car.. it kills 3-series Bimmers all the time in races.. but I am no competition to cars that have been performance modded... If your going to mod and race go with 2.0... if your going to cruise and be luxurious then get the 3.2

^^^ Agreed. Drive the 2.0T, its no slouch. The 3.2 is nice but whats not to like about better gas mileage. The 2.0T will have better resale value even with the auto trans.



UpstateNYA4 I'm still baffled by how your car has 151k and gets 30mpg

quote:

ORIGINAL: Carlos10704

oh well in that case... If I were you, I'd get that 2.0t. I bought a 3.0 and wish I would have bought a 2.0... don't get me wrong I love my car.. it kills 3-series Bimmers all the time in races.. but I am no competition to cars that have been performance modded... If your going to mod and race go with 2.0... if your going to cruise and be luxurious then get the 3.2

Interesting what you say about the 3-series BMW's. While doing web searches, I found an article that compared an A4 to a 3-series, supposedly sporting configurations, saying that the BMW was the better choice. I have driven them and just don't find them to be that impressive. No visceral connection like I have had with the Audi.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bigsnowdog
Would your remark about spirited also apply to the auto trans cars?

Isn't a big concern that while on warranty I could not have a chip? I would not want to void my Audi Certified warranty by doing that.

What happens to others here in that regard?

Yeah, I drive a chipped A4 with tiptronic and its plenty spirited.  Not as much as a manual, but being able to manualy shift in tip mode helps.  I work at the dealer and I can tell you, we dont care about chips.  A chip will make your turbo work a little harder and thats about it.  You wont have any problems with a new car.  A lot or research goes into the development of a chip, its designed to keep the turbo in its efficiency range.  The only way a dealer is going to know if youre chipped is if you have a boost gauge.  I dont think chip dealers even put a decal on the ECU case anymore since its all done through the OBD port on newer cars.  Most chip makers offer a loader or programable feature into your CC controls to chose between stock and chipped modes whenever you want. Your car will be well out of its waranty when problems arrise that could possibly be associated with higher boost levels, like a small boost leak or something.  If I bought a new 2.0t, getting chipped would be the first thing on my list.  240ish hp and almost 300 tq is something to smile about.  Especially when you are achieving it at half the rpm's the 3.2 takes to make similar power.  The tq difference should be the main difference and is what will put the **** eating grin on your face.
 
 

One thing I haven't seen here is engine weight.  The 2.0 is lighter, resulting in improved weight bias which translates into other areas in a good way. 

I'm not sure on this one, but maybe someone who knows can correct/elaborate - but would an APR snub mount help the engine vibration feeling?
 
As for why mod a 4-cyl. when the 6-cyl. already has more power, the reason is because you can mod the 4-cyl. so that it has WAY MORE POWER than the 6-cyl.. Plus like someone mentioned, the 4-cyl. engine is lighter, so the car has better f/r balance; and even modded, the 4-cyl. will probably get consistently better fuel mileage. Even if all you do is chip the 2.0T, you'll be equal or better than the 3.2 for power (I'm not sure what the stock power is on the 3.2 - anyone?) and still be getting better mileage, and slightly better handling characteristics. Added onto all that, you said you like the color combination on the 2.0T better, and it costs about $500 less than the 3.2 - so I'd suggest you get the 2.0T and then spend the extra $500 on a chip, and you're set.
 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Trey25
 
UpstateNYA4 I'm still baffled by how your car has 151k and gets 30mpg

 
The 2.8 isn't fast, but it lasts FOREVER.

The great point to many of us here on AF about the turbo four is that it's easily modified.  That's not to say the 2.8, 3.0, and 3.2 sixes are undesirable.  It's just that many of us as enthusiasts like to look at the purchase of a car not as the endgame of a process, but as the beginning.  The six-cylinder cars just don't offer much in the way of modifying potential without dropping serious (as in thousands of) dollars, whereas the turbo four can be bumped up quite a bit for far less.  For me (and I think many on here would agree), modifying a car is more of a hobby than anything else.  In my own history, it's not that my 300ZX necessarily HAD to have a ton more power, or handle far better than it did - it was already good at that stuff.  But I enjoy modding cars, and so I went whole-hog on it anyhow.  On my Audi, being a 2.8, I'm not going to go full-bore like that.  My needs and priorities have changed and although I'm going to mod my car, it's not so much for ballistic-missile power.  But from the sounds of what I've read in this thread, you're more of the type that will be happier with the 3.2.  It's the way I'd go if I was buying the car today (which really is the way I was when I bought mine in November 06).  What you want the car for will be better provided by the six-cylinder model.  And yes, it'll be more reliable that way.  The turbo four has a lot more heat to contend with, which tends to bake hoses and plastic pieces, so you have that much more potential for problems.  Plus, if you're not up for heavy modding, the power of the 3.2 will satisfy you much more than that of the 2.0 (I think it's around a 50-55hp difference or so) - something that you'll definitely notice.

Trey, believe me, I have no clue.  I can tell you that the two prior owners maintained this thing like the crown jewels (and I have the service records, right back to the original window sticker, to prove it), which I also do, but even so, I'd think that by now, something would have to give and I'd be losing some of that efficiency.  But I sh*t you not, this thing is ridiculous.  I went to Syracuse (about 70 miles north of me) a few weeks ago, and the round trip, including bombing around in town, added up to around 185 miles, and cost me less than half a tank, despite the in-city driving of about 45 miles and the highway cruising at 72ish mph.  I don't wanna screw myself over by talking lol, so I'm gonna shut up now, or I'm afraid the next trip I take I'm gonna end up with big-block mileage and a CEL indicating four blown O2 sensors, a crappy MAF, and a SAP leak:)

My 12v has 127,325-ish miles, and I get 30-33mpg on the highways

I knew I wasn't the only 2.8er getting good mileage in the 30s (I didn't realize the 12v was pulling it too though), but I know what Trey25 is talking about.  You wouldn't expect a car like this, with a pretty substantial curb weight, short gearing (3000RPM at ~70mph), awd, and a V6 to pull that kind of mileage.  My Z was a little heavier (maybe an extra 200lbs or so), slightly shorter geared, and even on the non-turbo engine my mileage was far worse.  On the twin-turbo setup, forget about it, but I didn't care at that point - with that kind of boost, mileage be damned:)  But for these cars to pull such high mileage with all the factors you'd think would counter it, I must say I'm very happy and not about to bitch about it.  

Just in reading this thread it tends to confirm how the 4-cylinder will have higher resale value, since most seem to want it. Having said that, I wonder who buys the 8-cylinder A4's such as I saw at this dealer.

Although the color of body and interior is really a quite different issue than engine, they are significant, too. The 20K vs 30K odometer reading difference is a big piece of value, also. The 20K car looked just like new under the hood, and it had not been detailed. The 30K had been detailed under the hood and did not look as good as the as-received look of the 20K car.

I think I am now leaning toward the 2.0 car. On the flip side of that, an earlier poster talked about the experience as perceived from the driver's seat as being the important one. For me, that chooses the 3.2, as it was much smoother and much quicker. To be fair, however, I have an extensive history with 4-cylinders in MG, Triumph, and Austin Healey cars, so the 4 is not a stranger to me. Part of my problem, I realize, is that I really wanted an A6, but did not think I could afford an A6 in the condition that I would find acceptable, and these opportunities will yield very nice, late model cars. A 2006 A6 with 20-30K would have been enormously more money. The 3.2 A4 is kind of like a little A6, at least in feel.

The odd thing is that I am normally a very decisive person; view the facts, analyze, decide. This situation departed from that.

I appreciate everyone's input and look forward to hearing more, as the day is young. I don't have to decide until morning, when I speak to the dealer on the phone.

Please continue.... :-)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TorsenTaxi

One thing I haven't seen here is engine weight. The 2.0 is lighter, resulting in improved weight bias which translates into other areas in a good way.

What is the actual weight difference between the 2.0 car and the 3.2 car in 2006 model year?

i'd go with the naturally aspirated engine. i don't like to wait when i floor it from a stop.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bigsnowdog

quote:

ORIGINAL: TorsenTaxi

One thing I haven't seen here is engine weight. The 2.0 is lighter, resulting in improved weight bias which translates into other areas in a good way.

What is the actual weight difference between the 2.0 car and the 3.2 car in 2006 model year?

 
2006 A4 2.0T quattro = 3,549 lbs.
2006 A4 3.2 quattro = 3,649 lbs.