Tuning A3's

[Jacobfox]

So...My dad got rid of his Evo (having problems with his back, and the roads near my house are as bad as they come in the USA) and got an A3 3.2 with the DSG. Does anyone know of any good audi tuners in northern cali because he wants to chip the engine.

 

[Militant-Grunt]

http://www.ecstuning.com/stage/edpd...Audi&model=A3&submodel=Quattro&engine=V6 3.2L
http://www.ecodetuning.com/

Great sites for audi tuning.
APR only has a chip for the 2.0T, your dad should've gone for the 2.0T, just because of the higher potential and cheaper tuning.

 

[MadCow809]

3.2 isnt exactly good for tuning... like what Militant-Grunt siad.. he should have gone for the 2.0T... its aloter cheaper to modify and alot more potential than the 3.2.

and i can tell that ur dad is gonna be very disappointed with the 3.2 quattro, its a piece of shit when u compare it with the EVO's AWD. Ive driven both cars and currently own a subaru, the quattro system that they use on the 3.2 just isnt as nice as subaru or mitsubishi's 4wd sys.

 

[Raven18940]

I like quattro, but with typical audi understeer you have to be really patient with the throttle. Chipping a NA engine just won't give the umph you would get from a turbo. Perhaps a sports intake and exhaust to enhance the driving experience. 250 hp is plenty of power to have fun.

 

[the Interceptor]

3.2 isnt exactly good for tuning... like what Militant-Grunt siad.. he should have gone for the 2.0T... its aloter cheaper to modify and alot more potential than the 3.2.

Maximum hp I've seen for the 2.0T = 300 hp
maximum hp I've seen for the 3.2 = 542 hp

Yes, it's harder to get more hp from an NA than from a turbo, but you can't say the 3.2 has got no potential.

Regards
the Interceptor

 

[Raven18940]

3.2 isnt exactly good for tuning... like what Militant-Grunt siad.. he should have gone for the 2.0T... its aloter cheaper to modify and alot more potential than the 3.2.

Maximum hp I've seen for the 2.0T = 300 hp
maximum hp I've seen for the 3.2 = 542 hp

Yes, it's harder to get more hp from an NA than from a turbo, but you can't say the 3.2 has got no potential.

Regards
the Interceptor

Very true, but it won't be anywhere near as simple as getting a chip. I'm not surprised the 2.0T hasn't made big hp yet, it's still relatively unknown, where the 3.2 is tried and proven.

 

[sandor_]

3.2 isnt exactly good for tuning... like what Militant-Grunt siad.. he should have gone for the 2.0T... its aloter cheaper to modify and alot more potential than the 3.2.

Maximum hp I've seen for the 2.0T = 300 hp
maximum hp I've seen for the 3.2 = 542 hp

Yes, it's harder to get more hp from an NA than from a turbo, but you can't say the 3.2 has got no potential.

Regards
the Interceptor

Very true, but it won't be anywhere near as simple as getting a chip. I'm not surprised the 2.0T hasn't made big hp yet, it's still relatively unknown, where the 3.2 is tried and proven.

german 3.2's kick ass. certainly, if it isnt blown, you need to do it yourself, but you have >33% more displacement, therefore you have a much higher performance ceiling for the 3.2. furthermore, even though it might cost more to get the 3.2 blown running at 300 hp, i bet it will have substantially greater longevity over a 2.0T @ 300 hp.

 

[youngwarrior]

I like quattro, but with typical audi understeer you have to be really patient with the throttle. Chipping a NA engine just won't give the umph you would get from a turbo. Perhaps a sports intake and exhaust to enhance the driving experience. 250 hp is plenty of power to have fun.

lol but you drive a FWD car.

And its not a real quattro car it uses a haldex setup.

 

[youngwarrior]

3.2 isnt exactly good for tuning... like what Militant-Grunt siad.. he should have gone for the 2.0T... its aloter cheaper to modify and alot more potential than the 3.2.

Maximum hp I've seen for the 2.0T = 300 hp
maximum hp I've seen for the 3.2 = 542 hp

Yes, it's harder to get more hp from an NA than from a turbo, but you can't say the 3.2 has got no potential.

Regards
the Interceptor

Very true, but it won't be anywhere near as simple as getting a chip. I'm not surprised the 2.0T hasn't made big hp yet, it's still relatively unknown, where the 3.2 is tried and proven.

german 3.2's kick ass. certainly, if it isnt blown, you need to do it yourself, but you have >33% more displacement, therefore you have a much higher performance ceiling for the 3.2. furthermore, even though it might cost more to get the 3.2 blown running at 300 hp, i bet it will have substantially greater longevity over a 2.0T @ 300 hp.

audi's have forged pistons from stock, and there are 500hp 2.0T running about. The 2.0T will run 300hp easy on stock internals. Oh and there are 700hp 3.2s running about.

 

[Raven18940]

I like quattro, but with typical audi understeer you have to be really patient with the throttle. Chipping a NA engine just won't give the umph you would get from a turbo. Perhaps a sports intake and exhaust to enhance the driving experience. 250 hp is plenty of power to have fun.

lol but you drive a FWD car.

And its not a real quattro car it uses a haldex setup.

This might shock you, but I have driven other cars. :shock: Don't know much about "real" quattro or this haldex setup, but I'll take your word for it.

 

[sandor_]

3.2 isnt exactly good for tuning... like what Militant-Grunt siad.. he should have gone for the 2.0T... its aloter cheaper to modify and alot more potential than the 3.2.

Maximum hp I've seen for the 2.0T = 300 hp
maximum hp I've seen for the 3.2 = 542 hp

Yes, it's harder to get more hp from an NA than from a turbo, but you can't say the 3.2 has got no potential.

Regards
the Interceptor

Very true, but it won't be anywhere near as simple as getting a chip. I'm not surprised the 2.0T hasn't made big hp yet, it's still relatively unknown, where the 3.2 is tried and proven.

german 3.2's kick ass. certainly, if it isnt blown, you need to do it yourself, but you have >33% more displacement, therefore you have a much higher performance ceiling for the 3.2. furthermore, even though it might cost more to get the 3.2 blown running at 300 hp, i bet it will have substantially greater longevity over a 2.0T @ 300 hp.

audi's have forged pistons from stock, and there are 500hp 2.0T running about. The 2.0T will run 300hp easy on stock internals. Oh and there are 700hp 3.2s running about.

whether the # is 300 or 700, the premise remains the same, a 3.2 @ a given boost rating is likely to have greater longevity than a 2.0 @ the same boost.

 

[bone]

3.2 isnt exactly good for tuning... like what Militant-Grunt siad.. he should have gone for the 2.0T... its aloter cheaper to modify and alot more potential than the 3.2.

Maximum hp I've seen for the 2.0T = 300 hp
maximum hp I've seen for the 3.2 = 542 hp

Yes, it's harder to get more hp from an NA than from a turbo, but you can't say the 3.2 has got no potential.

Regards
the Interceptor

Very true, but it won't be anywhere near as simple as getting a chip. I'm not surprised the 2.0T hasn't made big hp yet, it's still relatively unknown, where the 3.2 is tried and proven.

german 3.2's kick ass. certainly, if it isnt blown, you need to do it yourself, but you have >33% more displacement, therefore you have a much higher performance ceiling for the 3.2. furthermore, even though it might cost more to get the 3.2 blown running at 300 hp, i bet it will have substantially greater longevity over a 2.0T @ 300 hp.

audi's have forged pistons from stock, and there are 500hp 2.0T running about. The 2.0T will run 300hp easy on stock internals. Oh and there are 700hp 3.2s running about.

whether the # is 300 or 700, the premise remains the same, a 3.2 @ a given boost rating is likely to have greater longevity than a 2.0 @ the same boost.

are u sure? the bigger the parts are, the more stress the linkages and bearings have to take

boost is a pressure, not a quatity, so at the same pressure, i think the smaller one will live longer....

on the other hand, the bigger they are, the more play they can use, limiting wear

same conclusion like a lot of the times: what do i know

 

[sandor_]

3.2 isnt exactly good for tuning... like what Militant-Grunt siad.. he should have gone for the 2.0T... its aloter cheaper to modify and alot more potential than the 3.2.

Maximum hp I've seen for the 2.0T = 300 hp
maximum hp I've seen for the 3.2 = 542 hp

Yes, it's harder to get more hp from an NA than from a turbo, but you can't say the 3.2 has got no potential.

Regards
the Interceptor

Very true, but it won't be anywhere near as simple as getting a chip. I'm not surprised the 2.0T hasn't made big hp yet, it's still relatively unknown, where the 3.2 is tried and proven.

german 3.2's kick ass. certainly, if it isnt blown, you need to do it yourself, but you have >33% more displacement, therefore you have a much higher performance ceiling for the 3.2. furthermore, even though it might cost more to get the 3.2 blown running at 300 hp, i bet it will have substantially greater longevity over a 2.0T @ 300 hp.

audi's have forged pistons from stock, and there are 500hp 2.0T running about. The 2.0T will run 300hp easy on stock internals. Oh and there are 700hp 3.2s running about.

whether the # is 300 or 700, the premise remains the same, a 3.2 @ a given boost rating is likely to have greater longevity than a 2.0 @ the same boost.

are u sure? the bigger the parts are, the more stress the linkages and bearings have to take

boost is a pressure, not a quatity, so at the same pressure, i think the smaller one will live longer....

on the other hand, the bigger they are, the more play they can use, limiting wear

same conclusion like a lot of the times: what do i know

ignore me this morning :?

i meant to stick with my original argument, that regardless of the actual horsepower, whether it be 300 or 700, a 3.2 engine is more likely to have greater longevity than a 2.0. ie, to achieve 700 hp, a 2 l will receive more stress than a 3.2 l.