2.0T vs. 3.2 comparison graph.
05-05-2008, 03:25 PM
#27
AudiWorld Super User
Thread Starter
Agreed.
If the 1.8T was a manual and the 2.8 was automatic.
Comparing both automatics the performance specs for 2001 are nearly identical. Comparing both sticks the 2.8 was 0.5s quicker to 60. So comparing a stick 1.8T to an automatic 2.8 puts the 1.8T a full second faster to 60.
Back in 2001 the automatics were not nearly as good as they are now, so for consistancy it's easier for me to only compare automatic performance.
The 2.8 had a 20HP and 60 lb-ft advantage over the 1.8T and admittedly the 1.8T puts up strong performance numbers for being at a deficit.
Fast-forward to today the 3.2 has 50HP advantage, but a 15 lb-ft disadvantage on the 2.0T. Again comparing automatics I'll still bet the performance difference between B8 engines will be greater than the difference between B5 engines with the 3.2 coming out ahead...admittedly not by a staggering amount.
Comparing both automatics the performance specs for 2001 are nearly identical. Comparing both sticks the 2.8 was 0.5s quicker to 60. So comparing a stick 1.8T to an automatic 2.8 puts the 1.8T a full second faster to 60.
Back in 2001 the automatics were not nearly as good as they are now, so for consistancy it's easier for me to only compare automatic performance.
The 2.8 had a 20HP and 60 lb-ft advantage over the 1.8T and admittedly the 1.8T puts up strong performance numbers for being at a deficit.
Fast-forward to today the 3.2 has 50HP advantage, but a 15 lb-ft disadvantage on the 2.0T. Again comparing automatics I'll still bet the performance difference between B8 engines will be greater than the difference between B5 engines with the 3.2 coming out ahead...admittedly not by a staggering amount.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
a3socal
Audi A3 / S3 / RS 3
7
08-09-2005 05:34 AM
998M
S4 (B6 & B7 Platforms) Discussion
24
10-31-2004 11:50 AM
