# TT MK 2 Remap



## jameslunn (Nov 14, 2004)

Hi Guys,

I dont know if any one has covered this one yet, but, do you think the AMD Golf GTI 2.0 turbo remap (extra 50bhp) would work on the MK2 2.0T straight out of the box?

Cheers

James


----------



## BAMTT (Feb 22, 2004)

I don't see any reason why not, and would guess it would give the V6 a run for its money as well


----------



## jam225 (Jun 24, 2003)

And light up the front wheels at every greasy / wet junction and roundabout :roll:

I'm running a MK5 GTi at the moment and the traction with the std 200bhp is pants in the wet compared to my old 225TT

Now if there was a 2.0T quattro version of the MK2 that would be a different story 8)


----------



## akeene (Dec 2, 2002)

that's probably why they arent releasing the Quattro 2.0T now, i would certainly be more serious about the lighter 2.0T if i could have the quattro as i know it is easily remapped to 250bhp while still within it's tolerances.


----------



## jameslunn (Nov 14, 2004)

I'd have to agree, the reviews seem to rate the 2.0t over the 3.2 with regards to weight and handling. Couple it with a remap and quattro.... hello. If you look on the AMD website you can take the 2.0T to stage 4... 300bhp... + Quattro = very interesting. Give a Cayman a run for its money!

Cheers

James


----------



## BAMTT (Feb 22, 2004)

I suppose this is why they did'nt the 2.0T with Quattro to keep a clear distinction


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

jameslunn said:


> Hi Guys,
> 
> I dont know if any one has covered this one yet, but, do you think the AMD Golf GTI 2.0 turbo remap (extra 50bhp) would work on the MK2 2.0T straight out of the box?
> 
> ...


The car will not be able to put the power down and will be like a clown car. 250bhp and front wheel drive dont mix.


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

Once you add quattro, would the 2.0T still feel clearly nimbler than the V6?

Audi know exactly what they are doing, to the annoyance of all of us. I think the A3 2.0Tq is a fantastic car - feels very light abd but better balanced than even my TDI. So imagine that in a new TT chassis.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Karcsi said:


> Once you add quattro, would the 2.0T still feel clearly nimbler than the V6?
> 
> Audi know exactly what they are doing, to the annoyance of all of us. I think the A3 2.0Tq is a fantastic car - feels very light abd but better balanced than even my TDI. So imagine that in a new TT chassis.


With the Std 200bhp engine chipped to 250bhp it will feel different to the v6. Turbo cars just feel different to non turbo cars. im happy with the v6 its not mental power and the car has been designed to take the v6 engine so the handling will work this time. Im not going to bother chipping it just leave it as is.

I dont think 200bhp for the 20T quattro is enough personally. 250bhp feels like a good number and the if it can be chipped to 300bhp we are getting somewhere. Cant see it happening, but you never know. (at 250, its still less that a chipped 225  )


----------



## jam225 (Jun 24, 2003)

AFAIK the new S3 is getting 260 from a 2.0T, surely Audi will drop this version into a TT. If it was available from launch I know its the model that I would have went with


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

but do you not think this is kinda strange that the existing engines put out more power than the new ones. 250/60bhp from a chipped TT is lame.

You can chip a 180 to about 240ish with the SKN chip :?


----------



## piloTT (Jan 19, 2004)

So the Mk1 225 usually has a chipped power of around 265bhp and the mark 2 will have a around 250bhp and an extra 40lb/ft. bearing in mind that the mk 2 is a lighter car, anyone care to antisipate how the 2 will compare? 0-60 for the remapped mk2 2.0T compared to Mk2 3.2? Would have thought must be very similar to a Golf GTi with the same engine and a remap. Dont have the figures at hand but I would have thought the power to weight ratio Mk1 remap, Mk2 2.0T remap would be about the same.


----------



## Nick225TT (Oct 13, 2004)

piloTT said:


> So the Mk1 225 usually has a chipped power of around 265bhp and the mark 2 will have a around 250bhp and an extra 40lb/ft. bearing in mind that the mk 2 is a lighter car, anyone care to antisipate how the 2 will compare? 0-60 for the remapped mk2 2.0T compared to Mk2 3.2? Would have thought must be very similar to a Golf GTi with the same engine and a remap. Dont have the figures at hand but I would have thought the power to weight ratio Mk1 remap, Mk2 2.0T remap would be about the same.


Remember the 2.0T (200bhp > 250 with remap) is using a K03 sized turbo and is thus restricted in terms of tuning.

A soon as they put a K04 turbo on this engine then 300+ should be possible


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

piloTT said:


> So the Mk1 225 usually has a chipped power of around 265bhp and the mark 2 will have a around 250bhp and an extra 40lb/ft. bearing in mind that the mk 2 is a lighter car, anyone care to antisipate how the 2 will compare? 0-60 for the remapped mk2 2.0T compared to Mk2 3.2? Would have thought must be very similar to a Golf GTi with the same engine and a remap. Dont have the figures at hand but I would have thought the power to weight ratio Mk1 remap, Mk2 2.0T remap would be about the same.


golf is 7.3/4 0-60 where the TT unmapped is 6.2ish so its going to be way faster (if it could user the power) id guess -1sec maybe more.


----------



## Nick225TT (Oct 13, 2004)

Toshiba said:


> piloTT said:
> 
> 
> > So the Mk1 225 usually has a chipped power of around 265bhp and the mark 2 will have a around 250bhp and an extra 40lb/ft. bearing in mind that the mk 2 is a lighter car, anyone care to antisipate how the 2 will compare? 0-60 for the remapped mk2 2.0T compared to Mk2 3.2? Would have thought must be very similar to a Golf GTi with the same engine and a remap. Dont have the figures at hand but I would have thought the power to weight ratio Mk1 remap, Mk2 2.0T remap would be about the same.
> ...


The VXR Astra has the same problem. A fat torque curve and plenty of horses but lacks traction hence 6.2 sec to 60. Not slow! but more more wouldn't bring this down as the TC system would just rein the power in.


----------



## bmx (May 25, 2003)

Toshiba said:


> piloTT said:
> 
> 
> > So the Mk1 225 usually has a chipped power of around 265bhp and the mark 2 will have a around 250bhp and an extra 40lb/ft. bearing in mind that the mk 2 is a lighter car, anyone care to antisipate how the 2 will compare? 0-60 for the remapped mk2 2.0T compared to Mk2 3.2? Would have thought must be very similar to a Golf GTi with the same engine and a remap. Dont have the figures at hand but I would have thought the power to weight ratio Mk1 remap, Mk2 2.0T remap would be about the same.
> ...


golfs 0 to 60 is 7 seconds flat, the book quotes 0 to 62 in 7.2 seconds. the golf weighs 150kg less than a 225 tt. so i would say watch out if you had a standard 225 TT.


----------



## Nick225TT (Oct 13, 2004)

The A4 2.0T now has 220 bhp on the S-line model. This matches the new Golf GTI (220) in power.

MkII Will be left behind in the power stakes at this rate by the time it launches.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

bmx said:


> Toshiba said:
> 
> 
> > piloTT said:
> ...


Think you're missing the point. The way i read the question is 'what will happen to the performance of the MKII TT 20T' that has a Std 0-60 time of 6.5 once its chipped up to 250bhp. As i said above id be guessing -1sec ie 5.5 mark. (mabe wrong its a pure guess).

As for 225 against a gti i have done it before and he got a better start than i did, but i had no problem out running him. Once above 60 the gap open up even quicker. At 60 id guess i was 7-8 maybe more car lengths in front. and yes it was dry.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Nick225TT said:


> The A4 2.0T now has 220 bhp on the S-line model. This matches the new Golf GTI (220) in power.
> 
> MkII Will be left behind in the power stakes at this rate by the time it launches.


Golf is 197bhp unless vw hasnt bothered updating their website.
same on what car and auto express websites too.


----------



## ezzie (Jul 2, 2004)

The GTi does indeed have 197bhp.

There's a 30th anniversary Golf GTi concept with a 2.0T 230bhp engine, but as yet no official confirmation of production (though apparently likely to be produced early next year).


----------



## Nick225TT (Oct 13, 2004)

Toshiba said:


> Nick225TT said:
> 
> 
> > The A4 2.0T now has 220 bhp on the S-line model. This matches the new Golf GTI (220) in power.
> ...


I was looking at the 30th Edition model +30bhp not 20 as mentioned earlier


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Thats one ugly car WTF. I'm sure that just a show car and no plans have been made to release. Why is it not 240 like the leon? I dont understand all the different bhp levels for the same engine. TT or audi is the top of the range so why does the leon get a sportier engine than the flag ship range?

Madness.


----------



## der_horst (Apr 29, 2006)

jam225 said:


> AFAIK the new S3 is getting 260 from a 2.0T, surely Audi will drop this version into a TT.


i've read it'll have 272 bhp. but i still hope they wont put it in the TT, as the model that would get it is the TTS. and for this model it would be ridiculous. if the 260bhp-number is correct that's 30bhp more than a GTI. for an S-model TT?!



Nick225TT said:


> MkII Will be left behind in the power stakes at this rate by the time it launches.


that's what i though when i read that the 'top model' will have 250bhp. that's the lowest power per liter performance they could manage and they want to challenge cars like a nissan 350z that's way cheaper but offers >300bhp or a cayman that's more expensive and also way better equipped.

i like their new strategy to challenge these cars but with the currently available engines i can't see how this strategy could prevail.


----------



## Nick225TT (Oct 13, 2004)

272bhp from a 2.0T engine isn't bad going. 
However, 250bhp from a 3.2 sucks these days :x the engine is short of at least 40bhp to stay competitive.



> Thats one ugly car WTF. I'm sure that just a show car and no plans have been made to release.


True it wouldn't win any beauty competitions, but VW (VAG) have a 230bhp engine lying about. Maybe the lack of potent V6 is why we won't see a potent 4pot for some time.


----------



## ezzie (Jul 2, 2004)

der_horst said:


> .... or a cayman that's more expensive and also way better equipped.


I presume you didn't mean this, as the cayman has 5hp less @245hp, climate, 18", leather seats, heated seats are all extra. Same spec Cayman as the 3.2Q is at least 33% more. Fair point about the 350z, but sports cars are not just measured by power. The details, quality of materials and design of the nissan is a world away from the TT.

Having said all the above - Audi launching the new TT with Golf engines is just plainly unsatisfactory. When the first TT was launched, the bottom engine of the range, the 180hp version took at least 18 months to appear in the rest of the vw range. While this time round, the 2.0 is already available in a skoda.


----------



## der_horst (Apr 29, 2006)

ezzie said:


> I presume you didn't mean this, as the cayman has 5hp less @245hp, climate, 18", leather seats, heated seats are all extra.


you're right, i was talking about the cayman S. and yes, it's expensive, but that's one of the competiting cars audi told us they wanted to battle with the new TT. i'm not listing it because i think it's equivalent, it was their idea 



ezzie said:


> The details, quality of materials and design of the nissan is a world away from the TT.


sure, that's why i'm not posting in a nissan forum 
but if they manage to offer such an engine in that price range and do that even for the entry level model audi should be able to counter that.



ezzie said:


> While this time round, the 2.0 is already available in a skoda.


the V6 has also come around quite a bit...

the problem is the plattform imo. i don't understand why they've chosen the current golf plattform as it's running out anyway. model year 2008 will be based on a brand new one, so why not already start it with this prestige project? something tells me the 3.6l v6 from the us-passat will fit in the new plattform without problems...


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Nick225TT said:


> 272bhp from a 2.0T engine isn't bad going.
> However, 250bhp from a 3.2 sucks these days :x the engine is short of at least 40bhp to stay competitive.
> 
> 
> ...


250 without a turbo/super charger is not bad. not good either.

beauty - its taken a massive beating from the ugly stick! :lol: needs a better colour and better wheels and better engine and better handling. in fact better car. :?


----------



## der_horst (Apr 29, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> 250 without a turbo/super charger is not bad.


does any brand have a 3.2l engine with less power in any recent car model?


----------



## ezzie (Jul 2, 2004)

The just announced Freelander II has a 3.2 petrol with 230hp.

doesn't bolster the TT's image but factually correct :wink:


----------



## der_horst (Apr 29, 2006)

i'm sure we'll find something even worse in the truck department, but that wasn't really the league i meant 
let's narrow it down to non-diesel cars, no jeeps or beyond


----------



## Nick225TT (Oct 13, 2004)

ezzie said:


> The just announced Freelander II has a 3.2 with 230hp.
> 
> doesn't bolster the TT's image but factually correct :wink:


Not really comparible as that will be tuned for low down torque not ultimate bhp. Look at Honda and Renault with there 2.0 engines ~200bhp without charging.


----------



## ezzie (Jul 2, 2004)

der_horst said:


> i'm sure we'll find something even worse in the truck department, but that wasn't really the league i meant
> let's narrow it down to non-diesel cars, no jeeps or beyond


Fair enough 

Alfa GT 3.2 v6 240hp
bmw 630i 254hp
z4 3.0 231hp
300c 3.5v6 250hp
crossfire 3.2v6 215hp
s-type&xj 3.0 240hp
merc sc 320 218hp
morgan v6 3.0 223hp

obviously there are ones also with more power such as

honda nsx 3.2v6 276
alfa brera v6 3.2 260 (though very heavy)

Don't get me wrong, I think they ought to have produced a 3.2FSi with 10% better economy and power.


----------



## der_horst (Apr 29, 2006)

i'll take a closer look at that list later when i have more time at my hands, but i'm pretty sure that most models mentioned above are also available with engines with higher bhp per liter outcome.

630i 254hp
s-type&xj 3.0 240hp

if my maths skills don't let me down here they have more bhp per liter than the TT. also the year of release might be interesting. if a car is on the marked for e.g. 5 years the engine design is usually that old as well. but we're talking about a new model here.

anyway, i'm not sure that this battle for the worst bhp per liter victory is what audi was aiming for when they equipped the car. that we're talking about this now is not a good sign for a model that its makers call a sports car. i think we can agree on that, right?


----------



## ezzie (Jul 2, 2004)

Indeed.


----------



## der_horst (Apr 29, 2006)

short counter-list of cars that are imo targeting the same audience:


```
2006 Subaru Impreza WRX STi:      300 bhp (2457 ccm)
2005 BMW 130i M Sport:            265 bhp (2996 ccm)
2006 BMW M3 Coupe:                333 bhp (3246 ccm)
2005 BMW Z4 Roadster:             265 bhp (2996 ccm)
2006 Alfa Romeo Brera V6 Q4:      260 bhp (3195 ccm)
2006 Mitsubishi Lancer Evo IX MR: 286 bhp (1997 ccm)
2006 Nissan 350Z:                 300 bhp (3498 ccm)
2007 Opel GT:                     260 bhp (1998 ccm)
```
yes, the M3 is more expensive, i just listed it as it's a 3.2l as well  
the rest of the cars are either in the same price range or cheaper than the TT 3.2.

and one noticable appearance, just to show what other brands we're facing in the 200-250 bhp class of the current TT engines:

2006 Toyota Corolla Compressor: 215 bhp (1794 ccm) 0-60: 6.7s

come on audi, show us a bit of 'foursprung' with your next try, the upcoming TTS!


----------



## bmx (May 25, 2003)

2006 subaru impreza sti is 277bhp, not 300


----------



## ezzie (Jul 2, 2004)

Good list 

When I considered buying a new sporty car, my first choice was the Cayman. They stupidly priced it above the boxster citing more power (but now the boxster will have the same engines and still be much cheaper). They also handicapped the power so as not to tread on the 997's tyres. Something which I suspect Audi is also doing before they launch the A5 next year. So now only left with one choice either the BMW 3-series coupe (looks too much like the saloon - which is more common than Mondeos these days) or the Z4 coupe (less practical and more of an acquired taste). I never considered any of the Japanese, french or anything else for that matter and I suspect many people in the market for the TT will also have similar lists.


----------



## der_horst (Apr 29, 2006)

bmx said:


> 2006 subaru impreza sti is 277bhp, not 300


maybe, but the wrx sti got 300bhp:

http://www.subaru.com/shop/overview.jsp ... d=overview


----------



## der_horst (Apr 29, 2006)

ezzie said:


> When I considered buying a new sporty car, my first choice was the Cayman.


personally i have a problem with the cayman, as i don't like the new porsche design in general, i.e. everything they made after wiedeking was the boss, starting with the 996. the upcoming models look much more like the 993, so in the future i might change my mind again.

and the cayman S is, apart from the design issue, also too expensive for me. the boxster was the car that started the new porsche look, so i dislike it for that already but it's also a chick-car imo 



ezzie said:


> I never considered any of the Japanese, french or anything else for that matter


i must admit i don't cherish them either. that's why i had so great expectation in the new TT as i was sure it'd top not only their price but also their power so that i'd get a great combo of design and performance.


----------



## bmx (May 25, 2003)

der_horst said:


> bmx said:
> 
> 
> > 2006 subaru impreza sti is 277bhp, not 300
> ...


that must be a yankee doodle model. the UK WRX STI is 280 ps which is 277bhp

http://www.subaru.co.uk/IMGGB/WWW/Subar ... endocument


----------



## Nick225TT (Oct 13, 2004)

How about the new Boxster engine

"The 2.7-litre 'flat' six now produces 245bhp to see the Boxster from 0-62mph in 6.1 seconds and top out at 160mph."

Makes the 3200cc TT engine look a bit weedy.

Also the Boxster S's engine is increased in size to 3.4 litres, and power is up to 295bhp.

Come on Audi you can do better........


----------



## der_horst (Apr 29, 2006)

i just hope it's not too late yet for audi to do something 

the TTS is probably already doing it's test drive somewhere, the plans for the TTRS should be finalized soon if they want to keep the 2008 release date and apart from that i don't think audi will get the permission to come up with new engines for the golf plattform.

so if they didn't do anything revolutionary in these two models you'll be able to predict the future engines by watching the upcoming golf models and adding a few weeks to their release dates.

on the other hand: if it still takes them till the end of 2007 before it's clear that there wont be fascinating engines coming for the TT a used S4 should be in the same price range as a new TTS by then...


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

:lol:

Thet've not even said when the 20T Quattro model is due nevermind the fabled RS or S model. I wouldnt hold your breath.


----------



## der_horst (Apr 29, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> Thet've not even said when the 20T Quattro model is due nevermind the fabled RS or S model.


and they wont unless its release day is totally clear. even for the things coming in the next few months they havent said an official word, so if you really wait for their press release you can as well check the showroom of your dealer for new models.



Toshiba said:


> I wouldnt hold your breath.


/me turns i tad more purple


----------



## Nick225TT (Oct 13, 2004)

Toshiba said:


> :lol:
> 
> Thet've not even said when the 20T Quattro model is due nevermind the fabled RS or S model. I wouldnt hold your breath.


Where will these models sit the range?

1) TT-RS (Q) :?: 
2) TT-S 2.0T (Q) (272bhp)

3) TT 3.2 V6 (Q) (250bhp) 
4) TT 2.0T (Q) (220-230bhp) :?: 
5) TT 2.0T (fwd) (197bhp)
6) TT 2.0 Diesel (fwd) (170bhp) :?:

The Quattro 2.0T can't have to many ponies or this will make the 3.2V6 a pointless option in terms of performance. 
Reviews of the 3.2 and the 2.0 have favoured the smaller capacity car despite it lacking 50bhp and 4wd.

My guess would be for only 220bhp for the 2.0T Q


----------



## der_horst (Apr 29, 2006)

Nick225TT said:


> The Quattro 2.0T can't have to many ponies or this will make the 3.2V6 a pointless option in terms of performance.


why do you think it will get more than the fwd model? sure, the golf gti anniversary engine with 230bhp would be a good idea, but that TT-model would be more agile than the 3.2l 250bhp as you already said.

so as long as the current 3.2l engine is in place i don't think they can update any of the lower models.

from that perspective it's not only an awkward choice for the 'top model' but also for the entire product range of TT engines. some kind of bidirectional bottleneck


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

der_horst said:


> Nick225TT said:
> 
> 
> > The Quattro 2.0T can't have to many ponies or this will make the 3.2V6 a pointless option in terms of performance.
> ...


No it wont the MKII was design for/with the V6 engine in mind so i dont see where you get that assumption from.

Golf - who cares its a golf, its crap. if you want a hot FWD car get a focus with that fantastic V5 engine. 230bhp engine is just a mild remap of the existing 197 thing. plus whos confirmed its going to ever see the light of day and it look horible to boot.


----------



## der_horst (Apr 29, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> No it wont the MKII was design for/with the V6 engine in mind


if it was why couldn't the engineers fit the 3.6l V6 in it yet? R36 is still on hold due to that problem 



Toshiba said:


> so i dont see where you get that assumption from.


which one? that they can't offer a 230bhp 2.0l engine while the 3.2l 250bhp engine is destined for the top model? how do you explain a customer that the only difference will be 2l more fuel consumption per 100km, a handfull of bucks you'll have to spend and a bit more weigth while the acceleration and probably even the top speed are the same?


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

der_horst said:


> Toshiba said:
> 
> 
> > No it wont the MKII was design for/with the V6 engine in mind
> ...


The one that weighs more than the moon and give no more power?? doesnt that kinda go against your other point below? :lol: 
Maybe the limit is more to do with DSG than the engine?



der_horst said:


> Toshiba said:
> 
> 
> > so i dont see where you get that assumption from.
> ...


The one that says IT will be 230bhp. dont recall saying it cant be made to produce 230bhp. Already have a 220bhp version my guess is it will be that one.


----------



## der_horst (Apr 29, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> The one that weighs more than the moon and give no more power??


nope, the 3.6l would be the first one to be able to reach 300bhp out of the box and i doubt that these 400ccm will add as much weight as the 1.2l + 2 cylinders from the 2.0l->3.2l



Toshiba said:


> The one that says IT will be 230bhp.


ah, ok, that one's not from me.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

ok, how would this engine 'fit' in the TT?

how would they mount it..
which way does this engine mount in other cars?
which way do engines mount in a TT?

All said and dont do you not think if the 3.6 was the way forward it would not be in the TT from launch? why do you think thay have not gone 3.6?


----------



## der_horst (Apr 29, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> how would they mount it..
> which way does this engine mount in other cars?
> which way do engines mount in a TT?


hey, i'm not an engineer (at least not for cars), ask them 



Toshiba said:


> why do you think thay have not gone 3.6?


first of all the idea was afaik older than the TT. the first R36 rumors started way before the TT reslease, so they could have started to do the needed modifications in time. and when they see it doesn't fit that might be the perfect time to think how they could come up with an competitive engine as it's obviously possible for other manufacturers to do that and get way more power from even smaller engines.

audi and vw just seem so extremely restrictive with 90% of their engines. i can't help it but the 3.2l looks like a big waste of space to me


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

I dont think the 3.6 will ever appear. I think we WILL get a FSI 3.2 and MAYBE a 3.2 with a turbo.

3.6 is an old cast iron engine and has minimal performance dfference.

Im going to chip my 3.2 should be good for 270. if the RS version appear i'll just trade up IF its worth it.


----------



## Nick225TT (Oct 13, 2004)

Toshiba said:


> ok, how would this engine 'fit' in the TT?
> 
> how would they mount it..
> which way does this engine mount in other cars?
> ...


Isn't one of the reasons why thw 3.2TT hasn't got FSI is that room was very tight and they couldn't/wouldn't develop it to fit before launch. That would have liberated 5-6bhp and improved economy.



> why do you think it will get more than the fwd model? sure, the golf gti anniversary engine with 230bhp would be a good idea, but that TT-model would be more agile than the 3.2l 250bhp as you already said.


The Quattro models will usually cost more and be better spec'd than the fwd models and customers will expect a bhp premium if they are to be left lighter in the wallet department. Remapping the 197 up to 220bhp costs nothing at the factory, but delivers extra cash in sales, Audi aren't going to miss this trick.

Audi could have remapped the 225>240bhp (QS) years ago but didn't go down this route because it would outperform the 3.2V6. This engine is holding the range back.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Nick225TT said:


> Audi could have remapped the 225>240bhp (QS) years ago but didn't go down this route because it would outperform the 3.2V6. This engine is holding the range back.


So why did the do it?

V6 motoring and 4pot turbos are totally different. Im not sure the bhp is the reason.


----------



## der_horst (Apr 29, 2006)

Nick225TT said:


> Audi could have remapped the 225>240bhp (QS) years ago but didn't go down this route because it would outperform the 3.2V6. This engine is holding the range back.


that's also the way i see it. said but true.



Toshiba said:


> V6 motoring and 4pot turbos are totally different. Im not sure the bhp is the reason.


but don't you think that V6 buyers usually expect to have something better than the 4pot engine? i'm not against the V6, i'd love to buy one actually, but not if a 4 cylinder engine is way faster (e.g. if the TTS gets 272 bhp).


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

but your guessing the TTS will be a four pot. :wink:

The V6 is better than the 4pot. even chipped upto lets say the same 250bhp for the sake of it id still rather have the V6 and the deep rumble with press and go rather than a turbo'd 4pot.


----------



## der_horst (Apr 29, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> but your guessing the TTS will be a four pot. :wink:


i'm not guessing it, i fear it might be.



Toshiba said:


> id still rather have the V6 and the deep rumble with press and go rather than a turbo'd 4pot.


i'd want that as well, but not if the 4pot is the faster and more agile engine that offers much better handling due to the saved weight and superior performance.

that's why i'd love to see a V6 in the TTS passing the 300bhp but only the german mag autobild is still speaking of this engine, the others seem to have zeroed in on the 2.0l. if they'd plan to deliver a powerful V6 i would just ignore the current 3.2l engine and save you all my bitching posts about it


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

ok but as we std the V6 is the daddy. Not sure i agree that the 4pot will be faster. i cant believe Audi will bring out the RS with a 4pot it makes no sense. let just wait and see. Clearly we dont KNOW what WILL happen and we seem to be doing the same lap over and over again....a turbo'd v6 will make all the difference.


----------



## der_horst (Apr 29, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> i cant believe Audi will bring out the RS with a 4pot


the TTS. for the TTRS i think they can't use a 4 cylinder as that engine would probably blast into pieces before the targeted 350bhp are reached


----------



## Nick225TT (Oct 13, 2004)

Toshiba said:


> Nick225TT said:
> 
> 
> > Audi could have remapped the 225>240bhp (QS) years ago but didn't go down this route because it would outperform the 3.2V6. This engine is holding the range back.
> ...


They did it after 6 years because the 225 version would no longer pass emissions testing hence the 190, and to shift numbers at the end of the products life. Every car manufacturer does it. Did it with the old S3 from 210bhp up to 225.

Its also cheaper and easier to tune a turbo engine than a naturally aspirated engine. Look at the 1.8T all the way from 150-240bhp from Audi, and 265-270 from a 3rd party tuner.

To get 272bhp from the 2.0T isn't going need a rocket scientist or deep pockets. K04 turbo and better intercooling. If you want an exta 75bhp from the 3.2 your going to need an engine rebuild in exotic materials withstand around 8500rpm.

Thats why my money is on a 4 pot TT-S @ ~ 272bhp and a larger capacity V6 for the RS version with 300+


----------



## der_horst (Apr 29, 2006)

der_horst said:


> short counter-list of cars that are imo targeting the same audience:
> 
> 
> ```
> ...


just stopped by to add this one:


```
2006 Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution IX FQ-360:      366 bhp (1997 ccm)
```
not bad for 2 liters, but remarkably ugly


----------



## Whitter45 (Sep 21, 2005)

Just reading this post and its easy to get carried away with power figures etc but what Audi have took into consideration is how to market the TT and its engines

Turbos are back in favour after many years of unreliabilty (90's)

The TT is a sports car so most people will tune it to some degree - whether it be a remap or go much further

So giving the 2.0T 200 BHP or 250 with a remap gives the same figure as the V6

With the car being within the excutive sports car criteria there will be some demand for N/A hence the 3.2 V6

This then puts it agianst the 350Z, SLK, Porscahe, Z4 all with 6 pot engines

Thus there is also a great demand for the V6 but for people who are into tuning and modifying sports cars the turbo route is best

Starting at 200 is a great idea. firstly 2WD can handle this

It then allows for audi to introduce Quattro and then maybe allow for more power

They seem to have learnt from the Mk1 where the more powerful 225 and 180 where relased first then went for the 150

This way 200BHP is relaesed first then 230 with 4WD and then allows 260+ for the sport model

This is all just my opinion and I can see why people think Audi have done it the wrong way. But at the end of the day some highly paid people have researched the market and given audi what they see as the best method to crack the market with the Mk2

Iin this day in age there are alot of poeple who buy the TT for the looks and badge rather than out right performance


----------



## scoTTy (May 6, 2002)

Whitter45 said:


> The TT is a sports car so most people will tune it to some degree - whether it be a remap or go much further


Less than 1% of current TT's are modded so I doubt it. :wink:

p.s. I think there's a typo on the 5th word of the quote. Shouldn't it end with a y instead of an s ? :wink:


----------



## Radioactiv (Jun 16, 2006)

Warning newbie alert!

I'm not a TT owner but my next car WILL be a Mk2. I am a little disapointed with the current models 2.0l and 3.2Q, but I think I understand Audis thinking.

Audi TT product meeting (many months ago), my speculation!

Hans - we need to have a top of the range model.
Guntter - ok but anything less than the 3.2 will be seen as a retrograde step.
Hans - any better engines available that will work
Guntter - no, and we can't put back the Mk2 release as the Mk1's nearly 8 years old. 
Hans - ok go with the current 3.2 and we will change it later.

Hans - we also need a cheaper model. 
Guntter - ok how about using the 2.0t from the upcoming GTI Golf.
Hans - great idea. But we cannot give it quattro as it will be too expensive and cloud the distinction between the two models.
Guntter - ok. Maybe we can add a 2.0l quattro model with more bhp to the line up when we update the 3.2. Hay, we can call it the Sport.
Hans - Ya, and we can call the updated 3.2 the RS.
Guntter - ok Hans, thats the roadmap done for the next 3 years - fancy a pint?

Someone said on the post that the 3.2 is causing a bottleneck in the possible models that Audi can offer, I also think that this is the case. The 3.2 engine cannot be a big seller compared to the other engines that Audi produce, so its probably low down the list for an update ie FSI and more bhp. With the ever increasing contraints on emmisions, I think Audi will take the turbo/supercharging route with the 3.2.

I think i'm going to wait for either an updated 3.2 with FSI or a 2.0Q model with 250bhp, however the wait is going to kill me!


----------



## Nick225TT (Oct 13, 2004)

Audi have already put FSI on their longitudinal 3.2V6 in the A4. (256ps) Rumour has it that the FSI intake on the 3.2 transverse engine wont fit under the bonnet of the Golf/A3/TT platform. I canâ€™t see Audi releasing an up rated version of this engine without FSI technology (bit like the corporate grill on a new model), so we may have to wait until they fix the problem.


----------



## R6B TT (Feb 25, 2003)

Going back to the original point - I was discussing this with Adam at AmD a couple of weeks ago.

In theory, the GTi remaps *should* work, but the tuners need to get their hands on a TT 2.0 to check whether anything else has been changed on the ECU - additional security which will need to be circumvented for example.


----------



## ChrisC (Jul 6, 2006)

They could also be doing the sensible thing in just releasing a minimal engine / transmission / drive train line up to reduce the number of combinations and therefore the possible post release issues. Hence they are releasing the car with two know engines, that are well proven in the platform.

My perfect option would be a 230ish BHP 2.0T Quattro, so I am waiting. I hate FWD cars. I am not a fan of the VR6 engine, the 3.2 is a long stroke 2.8, and long stroke is not normaly a good thing.

A manufacture builds tolerance into its engine components, so a 200bhp engine will be built for reliability at 250bhp. Therefore upping the boost on a turbo engine is rarely a problem (as long as its done properly), however the closer you get to the design limits (or over the design limits) the less reliable the engine becomes. so it is rare for a manufacture to just up the bhp without improving the engine internals. Also don't forget this also applies the the drive train, gearbox and suspension components and brakes.

I used to modify cars, now I a firm believer in if you want a faster car, buy one. Split blocks, stripped clutch plate bolts, snapped diff pins, gearboxes x 3, drop gear failures. each of these faults caused damage to the engine, and I am not including the time I made mistakes building/rebuilding the engine, taught me this lesson.


----------



## scoTTy (May 6, 2002)

Agreed but there's modifying and modifying.

I'm a believer in tinkering to extract the spare that the manufacturers always leave for those that don't warm up/cool down, service properly, do regular oil changes, use good fuel, etc etc but when it comes to the bigger stuff, I do wonder why people don't just buy a faster car.

Ultimately it's of course their choice. I just don't understand it sometimes. :wink:


----------



## der_horst (Apr 29, 2006)

scoTTy said:


> I do wonder why people don't just buy a faster car.


because audi doesn't offer one (yet)? 

but i agree. tuning might be tempting if you see what ranges audi covers e.g. with a 2.0l turbo just by adjusting small details like the loading pressure, but in the end you just waste money. nobody is going to pay you the extra costs once you try to sell the car and you will even get problems selling it if you don't find an enthusiast.

if i had the choice of buying a used stock TT and a remapped one i'd always choose the stock model as i can be sure the other one has been used by some speed freak who pushed it to the limit and beyond.

but as i said some pages ago, it's a good indicator for an unsatisfying offer of stock engines that so many people come to think about remapping. audi is losing money here as i'm sure most people wouldn't go the remap route but buy their favourite engine from audi if they'd just offer it.


----------

