The ESP is active unless you turn it off. So, you've been using it the entire time Nam. Just tap the ESP button on your dash and you'll see the "slippery car" light up on your dash showing that the traction control is off. If you get too much wheel spin the ESP will automatically engage again though. Probably to save our @sses or something. LOL

Cheers!

Chef

 

i know how to turn it on/off, it's always off for me, but i'm just wondering does it make a big difference if it's ON?

 

if you have the car, it surely cant hurt to try it...right?

 

Do you turn it off every time you start your car or did you code it to always be off?

Mine has been on everytime we raced. Maybe I'd do better with it off??? Maybe that and 20lbs is what would put me a nose up?

 

Considering a 3.2? My recommendation is to consider something else. Three reasons: overweight, overpriced, and underpowered.

The 3.2 could have been a terrific car except for these reasons:

*With Quattro, the 3.2 weighs more than a 5-series Bimmer (which is a much better car IMO). Punch the throttle and grow old waiting for the revs to climb. Nothing much happens below 4 grand.

*With its 60/40 front-to-rear weight distribution the 3.2 has terminal understeer. The steering is too slow and the standard all-season P6's are truly crappy tires. Ride quality isn't the greatest either; in fact for the last few years most Audis have had rock-hard suspensions and the A3 is no exception (my beloved '98 E36 M3 outgunned the 3.2 in every facet of performance and still managed to have a suspension that didn't beat you up. Even with H&R coilovers, the M3 had superior control and decent ride quality).

*If in fact this car can hit 60 in under 6 seconds (as is claimed by both Audi and Car and Driver in a recent test), it sure doesn't feel like it. Its tepid performance off the line just kills my affection for this car, and makes me doubt the sub 6 second claims.

*Be prepared for "new model" problems. My car has been in the shop several times with fuel system problems, erroneous fault lights, problems with the "broken sky" sunroof (broken latch, creaking noises when the sunroof is opened), and a few other minor irritants. Basically, my 3.2 is a rolling beta test. Fortunately, my DSG tranny has been trouble-free (so far)--other 3.2 owners haven't been as fortunate. My next car will have 3-pedals, btw.

*Value (or lack thereof). The 3.2 is basically a VW Rabbit on steroids. Weak steroids. True it has the trick tranny, but so will many other VW/Audi products in the coming months and years. If memory serves, the 3.2 also has a more sophisticated rear suspension than the base Golf/Rabbit, which is nice, but still doesn't make the 3.2 to-die-for. But, the most painful aspect of this for me is when I think of other cars I could have purchased for the same (or less) money: Infiniti G35 Sedan or Coupe; Nissan 350Z; BMW 325is (only a little more dough would get me into a 330i); Subaru WRX STI; and a Honda S2000. If I'd been willing to drive a used car more options would have been available: Boxster, E46 M3, Audi S4, and C5 Corvette for example. With the possible execption of the 325 is, a base Boxster, and maybe the G35 Sedan, every other car I mentioned would eat the 3.2's lunch and would be more entertaining to drive.

A final word of caution: don't be seduced by the car's good looks, beautiful cabin, good ergonomics and excellent fit and finish--the A3 3.2 stands out for these reasons and credit is due. Unfortunately, this vehicle does not have the soul of a true driver's car. For that to happen it would need 50 more HP, better stock tires, better steering feel, quicker steering, less front-end weight bias, firmer and more linear brakes, lauch control (or better yet, a good 6-speed manual), less body roll, and a more compliant ride (BMW- type compliant as opposed to Buick-compliant). I would also prefer RWD, but since I now live in the Rockies, AWD is a necessity.

So there you have it. If I hadn't needed AWD, and didn't hate FWD, the A3 2.0 with a manual tranny, aftermarket software, and a rear swaybar would have been a better choice. VW/ Audi's turbocharged 4-banger is a great motor with lots of torque throughout the powerband.

Good luck with your decision.

 

sounds to me that if the a3 is to be considered, the 2.0T is the way to go, or else look into a different car...

 

I too am considering an A3 - both the 3.2 and 2.0.

I heard Audi will offer a 2.0 Quattro at some point in '07. I also heard the awd system in the 3.2 and 2.0 is not true Quattro, rather a less sophisticated set up due to the transversely mounted motor.

Can someone confirm if this is true?

If it is, one more strike against the 3.2 and contemplated 2.0 Quattro, as they are/will charge for an inferior system and badge it "Quattro".

 

everything i've heard points to the 2.0T never being available in Quattro form in the US. Where did you hear otherwise? if it's a reliable source i'd be tempted to wait it out.

 

I work for an audi dealership in San Francisco. The 07 A3 will NOT have available quattro. It will have the optional "s" line package... suspension/interior/nav/rims. i'm new to the forums but if anyone has any questions about the new audis just go ahead and pm me.

 

The A3 is based on the VW Golf platform/chassis, i.e., transverse mounted engine. All other Audi's have longitudinally mounted engines (front to back). The four wheel drive system on the A3 3.2 is closer to the 4MOTION system on VW (by default most of the torque is driving the front wheels) rather than the QUATTRO system (by default 50/50 front/rear torque split).

The A3 3.2 engine is not an Audi engine, but rather a VW VR6 engine. Compare it against the A4 3.2 engine. No FSI.

As UncleSpud points out, the A3 3.2 is just too heavy. The bigger engine and the "Quattro" adds 331lbs over the 2.0T. It loses the nimbleness that one would expect of cars of that size. Audi's in general are overweight.

With an ECU reflash, a 2.0T can easily beat a 3.2 in dry conditions. When comparably equipped, the difference between the two is approximately $5000~$6000. So is the AWD worth that much for daily driving? You have to decide.