# 2.0T Performance



## coley (Oct 2, 2006)

How are the new owners of the 2.0TFSI's finding the performance? 

As good as you expected?

Is the handling as good as you expected?

How does it compare to the 3.2?

I have only driven the 3.2 which i obviously found superb to drive.

The saleman stated before i ordered that he had been to the Nurburgring with Audi and the 2.0T was as quick around the circuit as the 3.2 ?

Do you think this is true?

0-60 times do not always paint the true picture of a cars performance and 30-70, 50 -70 etc times are usually more realistic in normal day to day driving. I have been unable to find any such performance figures for the 2.0T or the 3.2 except 0 to 62 times for the TT.

Comments would be much appreciated.


----------



## Necroscope (Apr 9, 2006)

Your about to open up one of the biggest cans of worms on this forum. :lol:

BUT thats what its all about. Just wait a couple of mins for Rebel and Tosh to start. Ow and Leg


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

Coley, why do you want to hear, that the 2.0 TFSI is the better car from the both? 
All the car-magazines did already told this to the world.......for god's sake.... were we're you last months? In prison at Guantanamo Bay ???


----------



## Necroscope (Apr 9, 2006)

Not what i was expecting, but good enough for when the 3.2 quattro boys get home from the pub :lol:


----------



## markrbooth (Sep 25, 2006)

You can't seriously expect someone who just spent more than Â£25,000 on their new pride and joy to say, "yup, I like it but feel crap I didn't go for the 3.2." Why don't you just drive them both yourself and post your feedback here. I know you don't want to pay more for the 3.2 if the 2.0 is just as good but different people like different characteristics so go decide for yourself or wait 6 months for interweb opinions.

You want noise, cool pipes, style, safety in the wet? Go for the 3.2. You want to spend less, like turbos, and want 'sensible' running economy? Go for the 2.0T.

Personally, there are no 2.0T demos round here but I prefered the Golf GTi to R32 and I used to own a Corrado VR6. Although the R32 sounded better and was faster, the GTi was more fun (for me) even if it kept wheel spinning flooring it in 2nd off roundabouts. I still went for a 3.2 TT though so make what you want of that


----------



## BMW330Ci (Apr 7, 2006)

Coley,

The thread below has scans of this months Autocar, this has 30-50 50-70 times etc on about 6th/7th scanned page.

This was a 3.2 test.

I won't comment on what a 2.0 would be, as I haven't seen the figures.

http://www.********.co.uk/ttforumbbs/viewtopic.php?t=70829


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

*3.2-V6*


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Topgear review/test drive mag says the 3.2 is the one to have.

20T is like having a ticket to cheap seats at the Oscars - ok you can go, but nobody cares. If you're going to bother turning up, turn up in and sit at the front with a smile on your face know you are in the right place - the best seat in the house!


----------



## rob-tt (Apr 18, 2006)

Just picked mine up today!   

2.0T S-Tronic

First impressions:

WOW! It goes! Acceleration v quick and responsive. Some previous posts suggested the S-Tronic gearbox wasnt responsive but being used to Automatic BMW's as I am, it seems v keen to show itself off the way a sports car should. Top marks Audi. It always takes a while to learn how best to "work" the pedal on a diiferent automatic car so I'm v impressed so far.

Great sound from the exhaust on accelerating too.
10/10
Pics to follow


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

Toshiba said:


> 20T is like having a ticket to cheap seats at the Oscars - ok you can go, but nobody cares. If you're going to bother turning up, turn up in and sit at the front with a smile on your face know you are in the right place - the best seat in the house!


Tosh why sit in the seats at the front........ if you could be the star on the stage??????????

You just put your hands together for the new star in town.....*The MK2 2.0 TFSI *

Winner off the :

**** Best engine off the year 2004 ****

**** Best engine off the year 2005 ****

Enjoy your seat Tosh ....


----------



## ChinsVXR (Apr 14, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> Topgear review/test drive mag says the 3.2 is the one to have.
> 
> 20T is like having a ticket to cheap seats at the Oscars - ok you can go, but nobody cares. If you're going to bother turning up, turn up in and sit at the front with a smile on your face know you are in the right place - the best seat in the house!


Tosh,

Please point me to the part of the review where they say the 3.2 is the one to have in topgear?



> But it's not that simple. You can't get the quattro all-wheel-drive system with the 2.0 engine. You have to trade up to the 3.2-litre V6. Oddly, despite the extra power (250bhp plays 200), the 3.2 feels barely any quicker. That's because of the extra weight of the two extra cylinders and the rear half of the drive system.
> 
> So the quattro is notably quicker out of tight corners because of its extra traction, but otherwise the 2.0 will keep up, and the little bro' also feels more agile through S-bends. Of course, the V6 has a sweeter engine sound, but not a truly classic one.
> 
> So most of the time I'd find it hard justifying the extra price. The 3.2 is Â£29,285, the 2.0 Â£24,625.


Isnt Test Drive the mag that you get free at service stations with a packet of Polo's?


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Rebel said:


> **** Best engine off the year 2004 ****
> 
> **** Best engine off the year 2005 ****


Best for what?

its not the fastest EVEN in the hot hatches market never mind the others - both the stunning 5 cylinder Focus and VXR Astra engines are better?
Best - MPG, who give a damn either way?
Best - Colour?

Best - only in terms of VW paid us the most to have it given it the honors. Focus engine wipes the floor with it.

Lets keep a small grip on reality :roll:


----------



## ChinsVXR (Apr 14, 2006)

After running a reality check, Tosh's only reference to the 3.2 being recomended over the 2.0T is Test Drive Magazine.

So well respected was the magazine, it gone under :lol:


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

I never mentioned test drive mag, i said tops gears review/test drive mag - i don't know the full/correct name, was reading it today.

Whatcar from memory said 3 of the 4 people who tested the car, liked the 3.2 better.

Audi driver - 3.2 also.

Autoexpress doesnt commit to either

cant think of any others.


----------



## Dotti (Mar 9, 2003)

Here we go yet again!


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

I have a car with the 20T in- its nothing special at all.


----------



## coley (Oct 2, 2006)

I just want to know what the 2.0T owners think about the performance of their new car and basically are they as good as they expected.

I have only driven the 3.2 so the reason for the comparison. If i could get a ride in the 2.0T i would, but no dealers have them as demos. Not wanting a 'mine is better than yours' argument.

I have seen several road tests, but the real road tests are the people that buy them and use them on a daily basis. i'm always a bit sceptical about magazine tests as they are usually a bit biased either way depending on what 'sweetners' they have been given before hand by the manufacturers in my opinion.

I have been a member of several car forums before, it would appear that some members on here have a problem when an opinion is asked which then results in unfounded and unnecessary remarks .

In my opinion for what its worth the cost of a vehicle does not always mean it is better, you have to weigh up the pro's and con's of each model and then it a personal choice and decision. I made my choice on value for money, advice from the dealers and road tests (if not always a reliable source). I could afford both models so cost not an issue for me.

Mark, once i do receive my car, i will be more than happy to be honest and post if i felt that i had made the wrong decision and not gone for the 3.2 but either way we are not talking life for death, its a CAR :!:


----------



## ChinsVXR (Apr 14, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> I never mentioned test drive mag, i said tops gears review/test drive mag - i don't know the full/correct name, was reading it today.
> 
> Whatcar from memory said 3 of the 4 people who tested the car, liked the 3.2 better.
> 
> ...


Ive got Audi driver, doesnt say that at all. In fact the editor prefered the 2.0T - he does state that other of his colleagues liked the 3.2. Ive got the What cars reviews and apart from some current TT owners talking about the new car without driving it, Ive not seen that comment.

In the end, though as others have pointed out, it what flicks your personal switch, not what journos think


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

20T people are not going to say the other car/engine is better - they will and do cherry pick the comment/s they believe justifies their position.

No review will be correct, its based on an opinion - trust only yourself. Dealers do have 20T but you will have to drive to them. Get on the phone and find a car to drive.


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

http://www.ukintpress.com/engineoftheye ... ous04.html


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

1999 - VW 110bhp PDI :lol:

I'm sure VW havent paid for both this and the 20T to win the award.

Rebel - you can admit it to me, you know you've made a mistake and it just an over expensive hot hatch. its like a pair of oakleys with one lens missing - ok, it kinda is a pair of oakleys, but its just got one of the key elements missing 

International Engine of the Year 2004: Toyota Hybrid Synergy Drive - :lol: i also need one of these too :roll:


----------



## LazyT (Apr 13, 2006)

Rebel- is that a picture of your special friend?


----------



## LazyT (Apr 13, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> Rebel said:
> 
> 
> > **** Best engine off the year 2004 ****
> ...


The 2.0T was voted best small engine (4-banger) for 2004 & 2005. He conveniently forgot to include that part. :lol:


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

LazyT said:


> Rebel- is that a picture of your special friend?


Jealous? :lol:

No it's from a oscar-winner...
Ask Tosh, he knows everything abouth movie's...and oscar's


----------



## LazyT (Apr 13, 2006)

Rebel said:


> LazyT said:
> 
> 
> > Rebel- is that a picture of your special friend?
> ...


Terribly so. That isn't a picture of Tosh is it? It's about time you two kissed and made up. :wink:


----------



## Gav150ttr (Sep 11, 2003)

Toshiba said:


> Topgear review/test drive mag says the 3.2 is the one to have.
> 
> 20T is like having a ticket to cheap seats at the Oscars - ok you can go, but nobody cares. If you're going to bother turning up, turn up in and sit at the front with a smile on your face know you are in the right place - the best seat in the house!


Â£30K cheap seats???


----------



## Gav150ttr (Sep 11, 2003)

Toshiba said:


> Topgear review/test drive mag says the 3.2 is the one to have.
> 
> 20T is like having a ticket to cheap seats at the Oscars - ok you can go, but nobody cares. If you're going to bother turning up, turn up in and sit at the front with a smile on your face know you are in the right place - the best seat in the house!


Â£30K cheap seats???


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Cheap is a relative term.

But yes TTs are cheap - they cost less now than they did when they came out if you take into account inflation.


----------



## vanos (Aug 25, 2006)

I'm new in this forum and although i find it very good, entertaining and informative, it's very sad that you go on with this engine vs engine...

the only thing you accomplish is making the ones that have ordered 2.0T sad/mad and also the other way round, making 3.2 drivers sad/mad

give up!


----------



## Wolverine (Dec 22, 2002)

vanos said:


> I'm new in this forum and although i find it very good, entertaining and informative, it's very sad that you go on with this engine vs engine...
> 
> the only thing you accomplish is making the ones that have ordered 2.0T sad/mad and also the other way round, making 3.2 drivers sad/mad
> 
> give up!


It all sounds like good-natured banter to me :wink:


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

What goes around comes around.

Two people, both 20T to be owners ChrisVXR and Rebel, at every turn are saying or posting that 20T is a better engine. Comments to the effect 3.2 to be owners have wasted their money are common. Else the 20T is a drivers car and the 3.2 is a pipe a slippers car etc etc ( else high performance in banner)

FWD is better than 4WD, FWD turns in better or FWD feels better :roll:

While most of it is playfull banter it does get boring i agree. Most people who have ordered the 20T have done so from a cost point of view, where as most people who have ordered the 3.2 have do so out of choice.

Look at it this way - it gives the my colour,wheels,options threads a break.


----------



## ChinsVXR (Apr 14, 2006)

I'd liken it to football and some of us are here to educate the deluded.

Just because youve spent so much money on your Team (read 3.2), doesnt mean its the best (read Chelsea). You might excell in some area (read looks, style), but might just miss that final bit of polish (read old engine in need of replacement, midrange poke and agility).

In this case "Less is indeed More"

:lol:

Jonathan


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

So much so, you need to remap it to be any good or keep up (read as steroids) :lol:


----------



## Wolverine (Dec 22, 2002)

I sold my 3.2 DSG 2 years ago and now I'm hankering after the new TT. Now, how can I stealth it past the missus...  :wink:

The value-for-money motor is _definitely_the 2.0. If the 3.2 had been around the 280BHP mark then there'd be a more convincing argument for the extra Â£6K. As it is, I'd unquestionably choose the 2.0 with full leather (I've never liked the "shammy leather" feel of Alcantara). I'd even stick with the 17" rims as again the upgrade cost is just silly and I actually think they're the nicest design... This is all IMHO so keep the flames down 

In fact the only other option I'd choose would be heated seats (well, winter is on the way).

Now, what colour to have :roll:


----------



## TSCN (May 23, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> So much so, you need to remap it to be any good or keep up (read as steroids) :lol:


 :lol: :lol: :lol:



ChinsVXR said:


> I'd liken it to football and some of us are here to educate the deluded.
> 
> Just because youve spent so much money on your Team (read 3.2), doesnt mean its the best (read Chelsea). You might excell in some area (read looks, style), but might just miss that final bit of polish (read old engine in need of replacement, midrange poke and agility).
> 
> ...


And who buys a TT because it's good value for money? You want good value for money by a VW Fox.


----------



## TSCN (May 23, 2006)

TSCN said:


> Toshiba said:
> 
> 
> > So much so, you need to remap it to be any good or keep up (read as steroids) :lol:
> ...


Apologies - meant to quote Wolverine there not ChinsVXR.

Tom


----------



## markrbooth (Sep 25, 2006)

Wolverine said:


> If the 3.2 had been around the 280BHP mark then there'd be a more convincing argument for the extra Â£6K.


I thought the difference was exactly Â£4660?



Wolverine said:


> As it is, I'd unquestionably choose the 2.0 with full leather (I've never liked the "shammy leather" feel of Alcantara).


Down to Â£4160



Wolverine said:


> In fact the only other option I'd choose would be heated seats (well, winter is on the way).


Down to Â£3910



Wolverine said:


> I'd even stick with the 17" rims as again the upgrade cost is just silly and I actually think they're the nicest design... This is all IMHO so keep the flames down


This is your deal saver as my wife would rather have a hysterectomy than have those wheels on our drive so down to Â£3010 for me. Â£3k for 4WD and some arguably nicer detailing and coupled to a two week delivery time for a 3.2 ..........we obviously chose the 3.2. I did actually want a 2.0T but will be more than happy with the 3.2. It's only money!


----------



## Wolverine (Dec 22, 2002)

markrbooth said:


> ...This is your deal saver as my wife would rather have a hysterectomy than have those wheels on our drive so down to Â£3010 for me. Â£3k for 4WD and some arguably nicer detailing and coupled to a two week delivery time for a 3.2 ..........we obviously chose the 3.2. I did actually want a 2.0T but will be more than happy with the 3.2. It's only money!


You're mounting a persuasive argument... Can I borrow it for the missus :roll: :lol:


----------



## markrbooth (Sep 25, 2006)

Wolverine said:


> markrbooth said:
> 
> 
> > ...This is your deal saver as my wife would rather have a hysterectomy than have those wheels on our drive so down to Â£3010 for me. Â£3k for 4WD and some arguably nicer detailing and coupled to a two week delivery time for a 3.2 ..........we obviously chose the 3.2. I did actually want a 2.0T but will be more than happy with the 3.2. It's only money!
> ...


No problem. My missus wanted a 3.2 manual from the start and I wanted the 2.0T DSG. Look what I ended up getting *sigh*

It will still be fabulous though and I'm looking forward to great traction in the wet. I recently drove my racing slick shod Clio 172 down some moist back roads and it was like driving on a skid pan. Just got it traded in before a MAJOR service and tyres


----------



## Trax (Aug 11, 2006)

The debate has gone on for eons, and to be honest, no one is right, its your money your spending, so buy the car you want.

I have chosen the 3.2, as I wanted a car to compare to the M3 we just sold. I did look at the 2.0, but after adding the options that the 3.2 has above it, the price difference drops, and you still have a 2.0 litre motor.

Plus the 4wd, I have never driven one, but thought long and hard about wanting one, and seems as most high performance cars seem to have it, it seems a sensible option.

Yes the 2.0 is nearly as fast as the 3.2, nearly as nimble, and therefore better value for money, I like most people here, dont drive on the limit, and if I do its only occasionally. So having the lazy, more torquee better peformance, the 3.2 is better.

There is no doubt about it, the 3.2 is the better car, but some might prefer its little brother, there no harm in that.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

ps its xenons 

When's the car due?


----------



## Trax (Aug 11, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> ps its xenons
> 
> When's the car due?


Never was good at spelling, spent too much time chasing the girls at school. :wink:

The car is due first week in December, didnt order it from Audi though, got a cheaper deal at the wifes work with RBS, it includes full maintenance aswell.

Carnt wait, just bought a mini cooper for work to tie us over. Love the little thing, its great, definately a keeper.


----------



## Scooby-Doo (Sep 29, 2006)

Its not 2.0TFSI v 3.2V6, its Â£28,000 v Â£31,000. If you're spending this sort of money then +Â£ 3000 for quattro and V6 is no contest.
When I bought my TT190 2WD in Sept 05 it listed at about Â£22,500 with optional 17" alloys,it had standard leather and hot seats.The V6 listed at just below Â£30,000.
Audi's pricing of the new TT 2WD is something of a rip off compared to the MKI, which makes the new V6 something of a bargain(New car a bargain- I wish).


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

Very interesting comparison. So the 2.0T is not value for money at all?


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

The cars 24k, but if you match the spec the difference is reduced.

How many 3.2s are std - bet most are around the 33k or so.


----------



## Scooby-Doo (Sep 29, 2006)

Its not 2.0TFSI v 3.2V6, its Â£28,000 v Â£31,000. If you're spending this sort of money then +Â£ 3000 for quattro and V6 is no contest.
When I bought my TT190 2WD in Sept 05 it listed at about Â£22,500 with optional 17" alloys,it had standard leather and hot seats.The V6 listed at just below Â£30,000.
Audi's pricing of the new TT 2WD is something of a rip off compared to the MKI, which makes the new V6 something of a bargain(New car a bargain- I wish).


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

The old 190FWD was already close to the spec of the V6. The lack of kit on the 2.0T is a neat way of hiding the real cost.


----------



## ChinsVXR (Apr 14, 2006)

Scooby-Doo said:


> Its not 2.0TFSI v 3.2V6, its Â£28,000 v Â£31,000. If you're spending this sort of money then +Â£ 3000 for quattro and V6 is no contest.
> When I bought my TT190 2WD in Sept 05 it listed at about Â£22,500 with optional 17" alloys,it had standard leather and hot seats.The V6 listed at just below Â£30,000.
> Audi's pricing of the new TT 2WD is something of a rip off compared to the MKI, which makes the new V6 something of a bargain(New car a bargain- I wish).


Where do you get your numbers from. The 2.0TFSI is under Â£25k list and as you can already see on this forum, some people are very happy with a basic spec. So the rip off Audi only actually costs Â£2k more than your old shape and due to the advances in what your getting, its more than worth the premium - sure you were not ripped off as well :?: More power, lighter weight, better chassis, better looking, better fuel economy, need more :?: . Thats not to say the V6 isnt good value, as it is very good and worth every penny.

Jonathan


----------



## Gav150ttr (Sep 11, 2003)

Toshiba said:


> Cheap is a relative term.
> 
> But yes TTs are cheap - they cost less now than they did when they came out if you take into account inflation.


the point is if i wanted a 3.2 engine then i would have ordered one, i did not so i ordered a 2.0T. both are very good cars!


----------



## Scooby-Doo (Sep 29, 2006)

I get my figures from Audi

Basic 3.2 OTR Â£ 29285
Basic 2.0Tfsi OTR Â£ 24625
+18" alloys+hot leather Â£ 1900

Â£26525

So if my calculators working Â£29285-Â£26525 ===Â£2760

Seems pretty straightforward to me, even less than Â£3K


----------



## markrbooth (Sep 25, 2006)

ChinsVXR said:


> Scooby-Doo said:
> 
> 
> > Its not 2.0TFSI v 3.2V6, its Â£28,000 v Â£31,000. If you're spending this sort of money then +Â£ 3000 for quattro and V6 is no contest.
> ...


He was merely stating like for like spec costs produces a difference of Â£3k so that's the relative cost on the 4WD and a faster engine. Surely you've done the same comparison by adding on the leather heated seats and wheels?

Adding on common extras like Bose, multi-fuction wheel, cruise, iPod, bluetooth takes you to about Â£28k and Â£31 respectively.


----------



## T3 (Sep 24, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> Topgear review/test drive mag says the 3.2 is the one to have.
> 
> 20T is like having a ticket to cheap seats at the Oscars - ok you can go, but nobody cares. If you're going to bother turning up, turn up in and sit at the front with a smile on your face know you are in the right place - the best seat in the house!


sometimes the cheaper seats have better views.


----------



## T3 (Sep 24, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> What goes around comes around.
> 
> Two people, both 20T to be owners ChrisVXR and Rebel, at every turn are saying or posting that 20T is a better engine. Comments to the effect 3.2 to be owners have wasted their money are common. Else the 20T is a drivers car and the 3.2 is a pipe a slippers car etc etc ( else high performance in banner)
> 
> ...


I dont believe most people chose on cost.
I didnt. Johannesburg is 1700m (+-)above sea level. Up here, the 2.0 will be as quick as the 3.2 (fact) and at half the fuel bill.
Quattro is the only point.


----------



## vul3ck6 (Sep 26, 2006)

This is a never ended story, I like the 2.0T, because it's good for the company tax charge, and I drive in the city quite a lot, I don't think I will need four wheels drive. Honestly, you have to be really bad luck (or you live in Scotland) driving under heavy snow, and I have X5 anyway....no worry!!!

I want a bargain fun car, so no sat nav and all the options except parking sensor (parking in the city, also I love my car) and cruise control (long distance journey heaven). I never drive a manual car so auto is basic stardard equipment for me.

The last thing, please don't say driving a bigger engine or manual car is true driver, all I know that I am a good driver, never race my car in the busy residential area (quite a lot idiots do), or showing off the speaker with some awful music.


----------



## markrbooth (Sep 25, 2006)

T3 said:


> Toshiba said:
> 
> 
> > What goes around comes around.
> ...


Good point and very relevant for certain buyers. Me, I'm 7 metres above sea level and went for the 3.2


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Still comes back to MOST are purchased on a cost basis.


----------



## T3 (Sep 24, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> Still comes back to MOST are purchased on a cost basis.


Still disagree. I say its about intention, not cost, and the only exception is if your intention is based on cost....


----------



## exodont (Sep 10, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> While most of it is playfull banter it does get boring i agree. Most people who have ordered the 20T have done so from a cost point of view, where as most people who have ordered the 3.2 have do so out of choice.


You seem to be making assumptions here for which you have no evidence. Like others in this thread, I too had no financial constraints to consider. I chose the 2.0T engine because it suits my style of driving better. Don't judge others by your own standards.


----------



## saint (Dec 6, 2002)

All depends on how you want your power delivered.

And Rebel - that article you posted says "2.0t gives V6 a run for it's money" does not stated it beats it. Close but you don't win coming in 2nd place.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Ok so if you have 27k to spend which model will you pick?
If you have 35k to spend which model will you pick?

Car markers always do this, make an entry car, and a top of the range car. (do top of the range cars ever get rated above bottom of the range - no, not normally)

If the range had 3 cars - 20FWD/200 204WD/250 V64WD/250 the issue may well be different. However thats 2008, not now. Sports coupes just arnt FWD, so what choice do we have :?

If cost is no option get the V6 at 29k and add the 2k super changer and you are well over 300bhp, else do the 300bhp conversion Karens doing.


----------



## markrbooth (Sep 25, 2006)

T3 said:


> Toshiba said:
> 
> 
> > Still comes back to MOST are purchased on a cost basis.
> ...


Ok, here's a guy with an economics degree. People base their desicions on maximising their utility whether that be social or economic. Everyone derives utility differently but here it comes down to examples like below.

1. that car is so effing gorgeous I have to have it (3.2)
2. that car is as fast as the more expensive version (2.0)
3. that car costs more so it therefore must be better (think diamonds) - (3.2)
4. that car is top of the range (3.2). "What car you got?" "TT" "Cool, the quattro?" "No the entry level 2.0T"
5. I need a turbo at 10,000ft (2.0)
6. I need quattro in 10ft of snow
7. The expensive model just isn't worth thte extra (2.0)
8. I can only afford the 2.0T so there is no decision to be made (2.0)

These examples are purely utility decisions that different people will use when forming their purchase decision and are in no way meant to start a flame war. For reference, I wanted a 2.0T but the missus pulled rank (she earns the most!) so we're getting a 3.2.

And her main utility decision? Point 4!!!!!


----------



## coley (Oct 2, 2006)

I started the post, what i wanted and thought i had asked was views on the performance on the 2.0TFSI from new owners not a comparision contest between the two models. 

I wish i had never mentioned the 3.2 now :?

Everybody is missing the point :!:


----------



## vul3ck6 (Sep 26, 2006)

I just wonder.............I thought the 3.2Q will only come with leather heated seats, chrome front light, 10 spok alloy wheels, black shiny grill, quattro. Don't you need to pay other options to the 3.2 one........ or they only charge on the 2.0T one, just wondering............ :lol:


----------



## saint (Dec 6, 2002)

Toshiba said:


> Still comes back to MOST are purchased on a cost basis.


Why are we not all driving Aston Martins & placing orders for the R8?


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

markrbooth said:


> T3 said:
> 
> 
> > Toshiba said:
> ...


1. by the time you've added the wheels and twinpipes they look the same-ish.
2. 20T is not as fast as the V6 even when chipped - but does that mean people with 3.2 cant mod theirs?
3. its not a FWD hot hatch wanna be, its a 4WD coupe with a v6 growl
4. you know thats the first thing they will ask after colour.
5. you're tall - does it have head room?
6. whats snow - try the wet.
7. correct, its worth more.
8. save harder, get a real one and stop being cheap.


----------



## Gav150ttr (Sep 11, 2003)

coley said:


> I started the post, what i wanted and thought i had asked was views on the performance on the 2.0TFSI from new owners not a comparision contest between the two models.
> 
> I wish i had never mentioned the 3.2 now :?
> 
> Everybody is missing the point :!:


I have had the 2.0T 2 weeks now and i am very happy with the performance and the overall drive/looks of the car and i think you would struggle to find much else better. IMO.

I have had the 150FWD, 3.2DSG & 225Q and i have to say that they are all good. The only reason i did not want the 3.2 this time was that .......I LIKE A TURBO


----------



## markrbooth (Sep 25, 2006)

coley said:


> I started the post, what i wanted and thought i had asked was views on the performance on the 2.0TFSI from new owners not a comparision contest between the two models.
> 
> I wish i had never mentioned the 3.2 now :?
> 
> Everybody is missing the point :!:


I did give you a considered response earlier in the thread. Hardly anyone has driven the 2.0T and 3.2Q back to back (me included - there are very few 2.0Ts out there!) but I prefer the engine characteristics of the Golf GTi over R32 which is a similar comparison (same turbo engine as 2.0 TT). The turbo has more torque from lower down and has very little lag. Still sounds nice too.

Are you planning a test drive soon? My dealer is getting their first 2.0T on demo by the end of the month.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

saint said:


> Toshiba said:
> 
> 
> > Still comes back to MOST are purchased on a cost basis.
> ...


Is it due to the cost and we cant afford them?

PS R8 is not worth Â£75k IMO the Audi brand is not in this league.


----------



## Gav150ttr (Sep 11, 2003)

Toshiba said:


> markrbooth said:
> 
> 
> > T3 said:
> ...


Its worth more??? SO?? (afew grand)
Save harder??? (afew more??)

hardly a divide from the rich to the poor is it? :?:

ie Z4 to Z4M now thats a divide :!:

my dealer told me that the 2.0T is the one to have even when i was considering changing to the 3.2 that he had in stock ready as i could not wait any longer???


----------



## markrbooth (Sep 25, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> saint said:
> 
> 
> > Toshiba said:
> ...


Agreed, but Audi won Le Mans so need a suitable car in their range. If the group can make the Bugatti moster they should have no trouble with a Â£75k supercar. They make A4/A6/A8 models approaching silly money so what's the problem?


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

I prefer the punch in the back performance of a turbo - as you can feel you are getting your money's worth. Where as the V6 is very smooth; the rate of acceleration building right to the red line. The performance is far more subtle, which gives the impression it's not as potent as the turbo. I love the V6, and I'm sure I will get used to it. :roll:


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Strange - all the dealers i spoke to said dont bother with the 20T, 3.2 is better and the 20T will be a backward step from the qS.

Maybe its just an opinion?
If it had Quattro or was RWD then maybe it would be a harder to pick. but FWD is for hatches, not sports coupes.


----------



## europameister (Jun 4, 2006)

Ok,

Heres another price angle! My car is a company car. (although I have to contribute towards it!)

Cost of 3.2 Quattro over 4 year hire period including personal contribution and 40% tax = Â£22,104.

Cost of 2.0T over 4 year hire period including my options of Bi colour alloys and short shift (I can live without hot leather!!) = Â£13,368.

*ADDITIONAL COST OF 3.2 Quattro = Â£8,736*

This also doesn't allow for the additional fuel savings during the ownership period.

If it were my own money It would probably have been a tougher decision but for company car drivers it is a no brainer. The less efficient engine coupled to the additional weight of the Quattro system (which is probably only utilised 5% of the time) means that you pay the penalty for carrying all that additional weight around with you 100% of the time.

I'm probably going to be a little controversial here but surely AWD is not necessary nowadays with modern traction control and more advanced tyre technologies negating the need for AWD?

Only rally cars really can gain maximum benefit from AWD technology as the extra weight can be justified by the kind of terrain that they race on, where traction is everything. Subaru and Mitsubishi employ very sophisticated AWD sytsems for their road cars but they have to tame perhaps 100BHP more than the 3.2 puts out and they do actually still build rally cars!!

Quattro is an important distinguishing brand to Audi just as M cars are to BMW. Just not sure it is still relevant anymore? 

Having said all that I still might have bought the 3.2 if it would have been my own money but there again I think it would have gone into a Porsche 993 but thats another argument for another day!


----------



## Gav150ttr (Sep 11, 2003)

Toshiba said:


> Strange - all the dealers i spoke to said dont bother with the 20T, 3.2 is better and the 20T will be a backward step from the qS.
> 
> Maybe its just an opinion?
> If it had Quattro or was RWD then maybe it would be a harder to pick. but FWD is for hatches, not sports coupes.


WHY :?:


----------



## TT Law (Sep 6, 2003)

My opinion:

If I had Â£35k burning a hole in my pocket and no worries about running costs or future values it would be the 3.2 - no brainer!

That decision would be based on the fact that I would want the percieved best car.

I have the 2.0T and the engine is far better than the 3.2 - it's miles ahead on useability. The downside is the lack of quattro and the noise of the V6.

Surprisingly the 2.0T has a good exhaust note and I am very happy with that. The driving style needs alteration due to the lack of quattro. I had become very lazy in the V6 quattro (Anyone can drive it fast). The 2.0T is very nimble and feels very light and sporty. I have spent Â£27.5k and have Magnetic Ride, Xenons & Bose.

I simply could not justify the extra Â£4.5k ish for the spec I wanted in the 3.2. The 2.0T is a new engine and will easily outlive the 3.2 (non Fsi) and also the residual value is a better % on the 2.0T and this is important to me due to swapping on the arrival of quattro.

If the argument is based around money then the people who are intimating this 'have considerably more money than yooou'. They are welcome to their 3.2's. I simply cannot justify the expense at the moment.

At the end of the day the new TT is no sports car and people who think the 3.2 is and the 2.0T is not are just kidding themselves. It is a very stylish 'sporty' piece of eye candy and I can assure you that I get more looks of admiration in this car than any other I have owned. People don't care if the car is a 2.0T or 3.2 it just looks fabulous.

When the 2.0T quattro arrives the V6 will be obscelete. Just look at the saga with the Mk1. The 225/240 were always the pick of the bunch. The turbo suits this type of car perfectly.

Steve


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

And no one can argue with your logical - but its based on a cost point of view contray to what many have said.

Not sure why i care - just got bored with the 20T people posting all the time that its a better car. Its not, its a cheaper car that is good without doubt. Just got fed up of not arguing back. If Audi had only released the FWD model i would not have purchased one - its as simple.

The i have more money than you arguement is bull - how many have purchased the car?

The Same arguement over % resale drop will be true maybe even bigger on the FWD models - If like you, people drop the 2WD drive models for a Q model. The market will be flooded with 2WD cars - result lower prices. (what happend with 150TTrs)

In answer to the posters first question - you have to make your own mind up and track a car down to test. It will take you 5mins to ring audi to get you a test drive in your area.


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

europameister said:


> I'm probably going to be a little controversial here but surely AWD is not necessary nowadays with modern traction control and more advanced tyre technologies negating the need for AWD?


Traction control only allows you to utilise the maximum amount traction allowed between the tyre and tarmac, and not allow you you put down the maximum amount of power the engine can produce. AWD allows you do do that (up to a much higher upper limit).

But true, you only really need quattro from standing / low speed starts in slippery conditions. And, we hardly ever have to do that do we? :roll:


----------



## coley (Oct 2, 2006)

Thanks, eventually got some relevant feedback and opinions of the 2.0TFSI.

No, probably won't bother looking for a test drive in the 2.0T now as my car should arrive no later than week on Friday.

Thats what the dealer has told me anyway 

As soon as i get it, ots off to wheelbase for change of wheels to the 19" new RS4's.


----------



## digimeisTTer (Apr 27, 2004)

:roll:

My dad could beat your dad up :roll: :?

sad.


----------



## sandhua1978 (Sep 11, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> Strange - all the dealers i spoke to said dont bother with the 20T, 3.2 is better and the 20T will be a backward step from the qS.
> 
> Maybe its just an opinion?
> If it had Quattro or was RWD then maybe it would be a harder to pick. but FWD is for hatches, not sports coupes.


The point I don't get Tosh in all this Hot Air ... is that the 3,2 pushes 85% of its power to the fronts, and only 15% to the back which means on average it is a FWD drive car!???

Though have to agree this post about 3.2 vs 2.0T has been overdone now, Like many have stated already if you've ordered you have already chosen a car that *you wanted* and *desired.*.... BE HAPPY With YOUR CHOICE! and stop telling everyone else why you think yours is better! You've chosen a 3.2 for your reasons, and others have chosen a 2.0T for their reasons.... so lets not fight about it and get back to providing useful information to Prospective, And Future Owners which is why i joined the forum in the 1st place!


----------



## coley (Oct 2, 2006)

Toshiba, Yes i could just ring around countless dealers trying to arrange tests drives.

i asked for opinions, isn't that what forums are for :?: :?:

Not childish remarks. its like being in the House of Commons


----------



## Gav150ttr (Sep 11, 2003)

sandhua1978 said:


> Toshiba said:
> 
> 
> > Strange - all the dealers i spoke to said dont bother with the 20T, 3.2 is better and the 20T will be a backward step from the qS.
> ...


 [smiley=dude.gif]


----------



## LazyT (Apr 13, 2006)

Now that everyone has gathered here in the forum. Does anyone have change for a Â£50 note? :?


----------



## Gav150ttr (Sep 11, 2003)

coley said:


> Toshiba, Yes i could just ring around countless dealers trying to arrange tests drives.
> 
> i asked for opinions, isn't that what forums are for :?: :?:
> 
> Not childish remarks. its like being in the House of Commons


When is your car arriving as i did hear that the folding mirrors has been put back which is delaying cars?? :?:


----------



## europameister (Jun 4, 2006)

[/quote]
But true, you only really need quattro from standing / low speed starts in slippery conditions. And, we hardly ever have to do that do we? :roll:[/quote]

But can the extra cost and weight justify winning the odd "traffic light grand prix"?

I'll keep my Â£2k a year in tax savings and light up the tyres now and again after all I'm not paying for them!

Not trying to cause an argument, just playing devil's advocate


----------



## coley (Oct 2, 2006)

The dealer told me on Saturday that he had checked the system and the car was built and was in the german port ready to be shipped over. Told me this should take no longer than 10 days to arrive at the dealers 

Is this a realistic timescale :?:


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

sandhua1978 said:


> The point I don't get Tosh in all this Hot Air ... is that the 3,2 pushes 85% of its power to the fronts, and only 15% to the back which means on average it is a FWD drive car!???


I think it's anything between 0 and 50% to the rear. "On average" will differ from driver to driver and the conditions.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

2 to 3 weeks is the real time.
some have said currently a back log at the port so its taking much longer. dont know how true it is.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

sandhua1978 said:


> The point I don't get Tosh in all this Hot Air ... is that the 3,2 pushes 85% of its power to the fronts, and only 15% to the back which means on average it is a FWD drive car!???


It can push upto 100% in either direction - ie its the best of all world. When needed, the power goes to the back, when needed it goes to the front - what's hard to understand about all that hot air?


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

Gav150ttr said:


> coley said:
> 
> 
> > Toshiba, Yes i could just ring around countless dealers trying to arrange tests drives.
> ...


No delay, according to my dealer. My car will have them (crossed fingers) and it's confirmed for build in week 45.


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

europameister said:


> But can the extra cost and weight justify winning the odd "traffic light grand prix"?
> 
> I'll keep my Â£2k a year in tax savings and light up the tyres now and again after all I'm not paying for them!
> 
> Not trying to cause an argument, just playing devil's advocate


You're right. It isn't worth the Â£2k per year. But I think I've lost the plot of the argument. Why are we including cost and personal circumstances when discussing which is the better performing car? If we do, of course there will never be any conclusion. In that case we might as well compare two random cars.


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

Toshiba said:


> sandhua1978 said:
> 
> 
> > The point I don't get Tosh in all this Hot Air ... is that the 3,2 pushes 85% of its power to the fronts, and only 15% to the back which means on average it is a FWD drive car!???
> ...


I'm sure Haldex cannot do that - it's a clutch system not a viscous coupling like torsen. It can only at max divide the power equally between front and back, not send all the power to the rear.


----------



## ChinsVXR (Apr 14, 2006)

Great thread.

Lots of missinformation.

Best one is that a chipped 2.0T will not be as faster than std 3.2  Lest we forget bhp/ton and lbft/ton. I'm sure a visit to Santa Pod could be arranged 

I'm sure many 2.0T owners can afford the 3.2, but like me cant see the point/benefits in the extra cash. For others I can see why they want a 3.2.

Jonathan


----------



## vul3ck6 (Sep 26, 2006)

I think the best way to end this arguement, that will be the new replacement engine for bigger brother. 
Technology is always moving forward, and it's no doubt the 3.2 V6 will be replaced by new engine pretty soon.
It's like the 2.0T replacing the 1.8T. This moment, the 3.2 is the old engine from 6 years ago, but the 2.0T is newish nearly 3 years in the VW group. We all know the VW group is famous for FSi engine, better fuel efficiency, lower CO2...etc. 
Therefore, I can't understand why people still argue about which is the better engine, it's like arguing about 6 years old computer is better than the current one. 
We all have to move on, so you can still say that the 3.2 is the best when the new one comes out.......but I won't!!!!! because I will buy the new one 8)


----------



## John C (Jul 5, 2002)

You lot don't get out much do you?


----------



## digimeisTTer (Apr 27, 2004)

John C said:


> You lot don't get out much do you?


 :lol:

how much is your house worth tosh? :lol: :lol:

we can bring a whole new element to keeping up with the tosh's :wink:

but maybe that's where the phrase came from "talking a load of tosh" :-*


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

digimeisTTer said:


> John C said:
> 
> 
> > You lot don't get out much do you?
> ...


which one :wink:

I'm not the one talking shit over the 20T. If it was better i would have bought it - simple as that really.
Its not about keeping up with anyone. my point is a simple one people pick things for different reasons, one being cost.

Anyone COULD get a 3.2 car i'd guess with how the banks through loans around, else you could pcp one for the same as you'd pay for a focus a month.


----------



## Titus_V6 (Jan 19, 2006)

So ?

Can the MkII Haldex setup put 100% power to the rear wheels ?

If so, i am impressed.

Hope this is true

Titus


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Its in one of the mags - says it can put upto 100% of the power in any direction but is generally 85/15. Cant remember the mag but will look tomorrow. (just coz a mag says it, doesnt mean its true :wink: )


----------



## squiggel (May 16, 2006)

Titus_V6 said:


> So ?
> 
> Can the MkII Haldex setup put 100% power to the rear wheels ?


If ESP ( or whatever system it is that stops a wheel spinning) is preventing the front wheels from spinning uselessy on a low friction surface, then yes.

Those are unusual circumstances


----------



## exodont (Sep 10, 2006)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quattro


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quattro

Even the torsen system cannot send all the power to rear. Haldex can only send 50%. Torsen is 50:50 in normal conditions. Haldex is 100% front (unless Audi have messed with the software at it is 85% front and 15% rear).

However, if you rear the bottom bit of the Wikipedia page it contradicts this and says that 100% of the torque goes to the rear if the front is slipping. For one, you will never loose all traction at the front; and another, I don't believe more than 50% can go to the rear as the front wheels are coupled with the rear when the Haldex clutch is engaged - by definition that means a 50:50 distribution of power.


----------



## squiggel (May 16, 2006)

Haldex fully locked, front wheels on low-friction surface, rear wheels high friction, that's 100 percent torque to the rear wheels me-thinks


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

Not a chance, me thinks. 100% of torque being transferred to the road, yes. But that's only a maximum of 50% of the engine's torque.

I believe that the Haldex system works by coupling the rear wheels to the fronts, so that the front wheels are always driven. If the fronts slip to the extent that ESP has to intervene, power is reduced to regain traction, and still only 50% of this power is sent to the rears.

With the torsen system, there is a proper differential distributing power from the engine between the fronts and the rear. Then you can have more than 50% going to the rear.

Please, someone who knows the ins and outs of Haldex set us straight?!


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

I have no idea - whats quattro?

I quote
"This V6 has the Haldex four-wheel-drive system, which normally sends 85 per cent of drive to the front axle, but can send 100 per cent to either end."


----------



## ChinsVXR (Apr 14, 2006)

Helping the confused 3.2 owners out 8)

From Tyresmoke



> I contacted Haldex about the front/rear split on my A3 3.2, this was their answer;
> 
> "The Haldex Coupling do not have a fixed split between front and rear. On regular driving/steady state the coupling gives around 5-10 Nm to the rear.
> On a 1/7 of a wheelturn we can transfer all available torque to the rear. In a theoretical situation with the front wheels in the air we would transfer 100% torque to the rear within 250ms.
> ...


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

do you have an english version of the email :lol:


----------



## squiggel (May 16, 2006)

So thinking about it the ESP isnt involved at all.

When the fronts are on low friction (or in the air) the Haldex will lock up so there is no way for the fronts to spin faster than the rear, but all the torque is going to the rear wheels, bar a miniscule amount of power being used to turn the front wheels.


----------



## digimeisTTer (Apr 27, 2004)

Toshiba said:


> I'm not the one talking shit over the 20T. If it was better i would have bought it - simple as that really.


But you hadn't driven either before you bought/ordered one so how are/were you qualified to compare :?:


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

No more or less than anyone else.

When i ordered mine I'd not even seen the pictures!

I wanted V6 Power and 4WD - why is my choice wrong for me? 
It isn't, it's what i wanted.

My Colours wrong I'm told,
The options i picked are wrong I'm told,
and the engines wrong I'm told too.

So much for freedom of choice.


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

ChinsVXR said:


> Helping the confused 3.2 owners out 8)
> 
> From Tyresmoke
> 
> ...


Well, that's very good if the guy means what he says - all engine power going to the rear. Should mean that in a straight line drag race a FWD has not got a cat's chance in hell of beating a quattro car with similar power.


----------



## TT Law (Sep 6, 2003)

Tosh,

I am sure your car will be stunning and you will be happy with it.

As you say why people cannot let choice be the guiding factor I don't know. I really could'nt give a rats what people think of my 2.0T, it puts a smile on my face and thats what counts.

As for which engine is best - noone can decide other than for themselves which is best, it is all about choice and what YOU like. Just because something costs more it doesn't mean its better.

Live and let live.

Steve


----------



## saint (Dec 6, 2002)

Let's just hope he gets it soon.......


----------



## vul3ck6 (Sep 26, 2006)

exodont said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quattro


In other words, the quattro system on TT is just like the system on Honda CR-V, not permanent four wheels drive, it's a very interesting system, so what it will do only to pervent the car going side way.

Thanks for providing the information.........very useful!!!


----------



## T3 (Sep 24, 2006)

Just one more thing about performance between the 2 as the original post was about.

This does only pertain to peeps living at relatively high altitude.

At 1750m, NA (naturally aspirated) engines lose about 20-21% power.
Turbo or SC casr only loose about 5-7%
184kw(247bhp) - 20% is 147.2kw (197bhp)
then consider that the 3.2 is 150kg heavier than the 2.0.

A quick power to weight sum would show the 2.0 to have a far superior figure, and even with the limitation of initial traction off the line, the 2.0 still has the upper hand..

The power to weight is actually very similar even at the coast as well. Do the sums..

As I've said, its about intention....


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

saint said:


> Let's just hope he gets it soon.......


I've canceled my order - ive ordered the wrong car :roll:


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

T3 said:


> Just one more thing about performance between the 2 as the original post was about.
> 
> This does only pertain to peeps living at relatively high altitude.
> 
> ...


Christ, this is getting so fecking anal! :roll: Unless someone can come up with a short definite list of criteria by which the two cars (NOT the engines) can be fairly compared, then everything is personally subjective and hence irrelevant.

You can always come up with situations in which either car can win. Even if you judge by the time taken to lap a track - no doubt the 2.0T is faster zig-zagging through a set of cones, but the 3.2 will be faster off the line in a straight line drag race in the wet.

And then if you add that you simply do not want to spend as much as Audi as for a 3.2, then it makes all this dick measuring completely irrelevant.


----------



## Trax (Aug 11, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> saint said:
> 
> 
> > Let's just hope he gets it soon.......
> ...


Does that mean I can have yours in a week? :lol:

Then I get to play with MR.


----------



## DonaldC (May 7, 2002)

...high altitude....hmmm...

That reminds me of the day I drove up through the Cairngorms mountains past the Lecht Ski resort (if you can call it that!) in my mark 1 quattro TT. Road was covered in snow and there was a lot of cars stuck by the road side and one or two all over the road trying to put their power down on the front or rear axles. Quattro just drove straight up the road and over the mountain - well apart from a tea stop with roll and square sausage and brown sauce!

Don't care too much about losing power at altitude, I'll stick with the quattro! Anyway do you have altitude down south? :lol:

Cheers
Donald


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Plenty of attitude.


----------



## markrbooth (Sep 25, 2006)

DonaldC said:


> ...high altitude....hmmm...
> 
> That reminds me of the day I drove up through the Cairngorms mountains past the Lecht Ski resort (if you can call it that!) in my mark 1 quattro TT. Road was covered in snow and there was a lot of cars stuck by the road side and one or two all over the road trying to put their power down on the front or rear axles. Quattro just drove straight up the road and over the mountain - well apart from a tea stop with roll and square sausage and brown sauce!
> 
> ...


So if we factor in the quattro at snowy altitudes against the 25% power loss we find the 3.2 edges ahead again. In fact the power loss could be beneficial to grip.

I'll get me coat


----------



## Bryn (Feb 12, 2004)

Ok, Iâ€™m sticking me neck out a bit here so don't someone come and chop me head off alright, but Iâ€™ve been thinking about STronic on the 2.0T - is there any advantage in terms of performance.

My thinking is this (and it could all be bollocks of course but bear with me). From what I understand, the STronic box matted to the 3.2 NA engine is marginally quicker than the manual because the engine revs hardly change due to the â€˜seamlessâ€™ 0.2 second gear change.

Bearing in mind the Turbo charged engine will suffer from at least some lag would this not cancel out any performance advantage the STronic box might be able to achieve over a manual Turbo?


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

You have a point - i dont have a clue however. :wink:


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

Can somebody help me out?

I saw on this forum 3 or 4 new Mk2's on a driveway. 
I noticed that the houses in the UK ar very small and poor looking. It looks almost that the car was more expensive than the house...

It were all 3.2 V6 ...........

So far, robbie, from a internet-cafe somewere in germany 8)


----------



## markrbooth (Sep 25, 2006)

Rebel said:


> Can somebody help me out?
> 
> I saw on this forum 3 or 4 new Mk2's on a driveway.
> I noticed that the houses in the UK ar very small and poor looking. It looks almost that the car was more expensive than the house...
> ...


Stop baiting us V6 boys by suggesting we've bought cheap houses to finance the extra cost of the V6 

Actually you are right, there has been a massive explosion of newly built houses in the UK and some towns look like they were built yesterday. There simply are not enough houses so people buy whatever they can afford. I used to live on the local new build rabbit warren but not anymore


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

A single Garage in the UK would prop cost as much as most normal houses in the rest of eurpoe. :lol: 
We need all these â€˜poorâ€™ houses to house the immigrant sent to us by the rest of the world.

Image what the houses of the 20T people look like :roll:


----------



## Dotti (Mar 9, 2003)

Don't boys with nice big fast cars live at home with mum and dad? :lol:  :wink:


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Dotti said:


> Don't boys with nice big fast cars live at home? :lol:  :wink:


No in hotels.


----------



## Dotti (Mar 9, 2003)

yeah well, your an exception old Toshy lad  :wink:


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

We dutch are proberly different in that kind off things.
I would first buy a proper house and than if there was money left i looked for a car.

But, the TT was alway's a "poser" car, so i can understand some choices.

p.s. before some people are going to throw stones at me. Yes i will also post my 2.0 TFSI on my driveway :lol:

And know, i go back to were i was......enjoying my holiday


----------



## T3 (Sep 24, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> Plenty of attitude.


 :lol: :wink:


----------



## vul3ck6 (Sep 26, 2006)

*Image what the houses of the 20T people look like :roll:*

Ah, It's bit over the top now!!! 
We can discuss about CARS, but no personal insult, please!!!!

I don't care who is rich or poor, not my business at all, 
you can do whatever you like to your own property but please stick with the topic, OK!!!!!


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

This insult can from rebel, i just turned it around.

Hes doesnt have a clue about what houses cost in the UK. Is it not Rebel that's insulted people who have taken the time and effort to post pictures of their car for others to see.
Plus its not personal unless you do/say something against a person :wink:

No one on here is rich, we all work for a living and more over we all have TTs, not DB9s - if we did our man servants would be having this argument for us.

Im on the 'rock and roll' and use my 7 alias to claim loads of benifits.


----------



## LazyT (Apr 13, 2006)

Bottom Line: the 3.2 V6 version is clearly much more than a hot-hatch. 8) It's ready to take on the big boys, opposed to just laying waste to the Japanese rice-burners. :lol:

IOW, everyone's tastes and preferences are different.


----------



## Dotti (Mar 9, 2003)

Toshiba said:


> Im on the 'rock and roll' and use my 7 alias to claim loads of benifits.


Thought you were a video repair man by day and gigalo by night!  :wink:


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

Tosh, was it you who said that the 2.0 people don't have the money for a 3.2?

But anyway stop with the bullshit-talk abouth the house prises. Do you think i'm an idiot? I can simply look how many pounds the houses cost in the UK.
And believe me, it ain't so bad like you say. I think a normal house cost 7 times a 3.2 V6 over here. 
I want tell you how much it cost too build my house, otherwise you would run away and hide.

But i think that there are a lot off people in the UK who drive a car above there "standing" maybe?
It's like many german doe also...

They got a big car, and if you come to their home, they got 3 chairs, a wooden table and a sofa from 1950.
Car's car's car's......car's are the mirror off youre succes story.........isn't it Toshy ?
Are you also going too post your MK2 on your driveway?

So maybe the 2.0 buyers, choose for less fuell consumption.....choose for a economic better price, with a better price wen you sell the car.....
And maybe there for they safe money for a bigger house with more comfort and nice furniture....

Tosh but anyway you got a "rich men" 3.2 and i'm got the poor man's 2.0......

You are a joker, and i must say.......without you this forum would be boring 8)

Every circus has his clown......


----------



## Dotti (Mar 9, 2003)

Oh well :? . Hey my TT is the family run about  :wink: . Comes in handy for the school run and grocery shopping as well as the odd run to and from work   :wink:


----------



## DonaldC (May 7, 2002)

Rebel - take a chill pill FFS!

Everyone likes a bit of banter, but you're taking it a bit too far!


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

Donald you should know me better


----------



## Bryn (Feb 12, 2004)

And while you're at it take those stupid f**king sun glasses off as well they went out with the Romans


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Rebel said:


> Every circus has his clown......


Is that the 3.2ltr quad bike? dont want to sell myself short. :lol:

My waist's bigger than yours. (Thats no the only thing dotti said was bigger..) :wink:


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

That can't be him, surely. By the nature of his posts, I would have thought those glasses are older than he is. Rebel, you have a lot to learn about what can pass as witty sarcasm and what is just plain rude.


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

People don't like when the thruth will be told.

The ones who get angry are the ones who maybe got a car bigger than the house, the other will laughed about it, just like i would do.

It's only a car for god's sake....

I piss on Tosh his salary, with his big fat 3.2 engine and all the options 8) 
He used the argument , that the 2.0 are the cheaper car's as if he is fucking Donald Trump himself.........hahahaha

Okay back on topic now.... 8)

There was one guy who realy said some good words....

the 2.0 is a responsive car.....just like they told in the "5th gear" test..
the 2.0 is easyer to drive in corners and turn's and feels lighter with steering
The 2.0 has less fuel consumption with almost the same speed 
the 2.0 engine will be there some time, but the old 3.2 will leave next year....

It would be nice when they drove both car's on a circuit ....
I don't think the "sound" and the "glossy-over the top-grill" is worth the extra money.
And i don't need quatro to drive quick.... even in the wet i don't.....if you ain't got the skills or the ball's , quatro won't help you too drive quick in the wet.....

Don't be too hard on me, when i'm gone, maybe i can't give a answere on this thread before friday

Donald you will be happy now :wink:


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

Karsci is this you?

Do you act in the same show with Toshy 8)










p.s. Tosh ... Dotti loves clown's :wink:


----------



## TSCN (May 23, 2006)

When the hell did this turn into a debate of whos got the biggest wallet?! It's pathetic.


----------



## Dotti (Mar 9, 2003)

My name keeps cropping up a few times also! :lol: :lol:  :? :lol: .

Oh well I would take my shades off but they cover my face so there  :-* But if you want me to remove them I'm sure it can be arranged  :wink:


----------



## jbell (May 15, 2006)

Rebel said:


> People don't like when the thruth will be told.
> 
> The ones who get angry are the ones who maybe got a car bigger than the house, the other will laughed about it, just like i would do.
> 
> ...


Oh dear :? :? :? :?

Tosh is right the 2.0 is cheaper, by Â£5k or spec for spec Â£2.5k, it is what manufacturers call an "entry level model".

Quattro will undoubtedly help you drive faster in the wet as you have more traction.

You are right it is "only a car" but some people like their cars more than others, therefore they will join what should be a debate with some friendly banter.

The truth has been told


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

Rebel said:


> Karsci is this you?
> 
> Do you act in the same show with Toshy 8)
> 
> ...


Oh well, my secrets out. And before anyone asks, yes, collar and cuffs do match.


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

TSCN said:


> When the hell did this turn into a debate of whos got the biggest wallet?! It's pathetic.


Clearly I do - have to keep the red wig somewhere when clocked off.


----------



## LazyT (Apr 13, 2006)

Rebel- please don't ever post the picture of that clown again. It's freaking me out! :wink:


----------



## TTonyTT (Apr 24, 2006)

Karcsi said:


> Rebel, you have a lot to learn about what can pass as witty sarcasm and what is just plain rude.


to be fair ... I've always allowed for a little "lost in translation" effect in Rebel's posts ... he's posting in a second (or third?) language ... and it's easy enough for us English-as-a-first-language posters to mis-interpret each other, so for those foreigners it's got to be a lot worse :wink:

Either that or he'll get a good kicking if he ever shows up over here ...


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

TTonyTT said:


> Karcsi said:
> 
> 
> > Rebel, you have a lot to learn about what can pass as witty sarcasm and what is just plain rude.
> ...


True, and Tosh is a right wind up merchant. But expletives are not usually used in jest.

Anyway, what was this thread about then? Oh, yes. How the 2.0T compares to the 3.2. Has anyone driven both and is actually legimately qualified to comment, as opposed to the 2.0T/3.2 hardliners?


----------



## TSCN (May 23, 2006)

TTonyTT said:


> Karcsi said:
> 
> 
> > Rebel, you have a lot to learn about what can pass as witty sarcasm and what is just plain rude.
> ...


I'm going to opt for the kicking option. Less thought needs to go into it this way :lol:


----------



## ChinsVXR (Apr 14, 2006)

Maybe there could be a charity raising opportunity here :?:

Tosh vs Rebel

At a TT mega meet.

1. Drag up the strip
2. Race on a dry circuit
3. Hose the circuit and race
4. In the ring for 3 x 3 mins

How much could we raise :?: :lol:


----------



## DonaldC (May 7, 2002)

Rebel said:


> I piss on Tosh his salary, with his big fat 3.2 engine and all the options 8)
> He used the argument , that the 2.0 are the cheaper car's as if he is fucking Donald Trump himself.........hahahaha


...omg, it's Borat and his cultural learnings of Britain for make benefit glorious nation of Netherlands!

:lol:

And leave out clown pics - some people have unpleasant phobias of clowns! (Not me!).

Chilled
Donald

PS. Dotti how do you always get dragged into things? :roll:


----------



## squiggel (May 16, 2006)

DonaldC said:


> Rebel said:
> 
> 
> > I piss on Tosh his salary, with his big fat 3.2 engine and all the options 8)
> ...


 :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## St.George (Aug 30, 2006)

I like Chins idea......... Sorry felt left out of the action :?


----------



## Dotti (Mar 9, 2003)

ChinsVXR said:


> Maybe there could be a charity raising opportunity here :?:
> 
> Tosh vs Rebel
> 
> ...


I want to be a pom pom girl :lol:  8)  :wink:


----------



## LazyT (Apr 13, 2006)

Rebel and Tosh obviously have crushes on each other. :roll: So much so, you would think they are an old married couple. Rebel has even started including Tosh's picture in his e-mail caption. :-*


----------



## LazyT (Apr 13, 2006)

Dotti said:


> ChinsVXR said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe there could be a charity raising opportunity here :?:
> ...


\

So you would just wear your own pom-poms then? :wink:


----------



## TTonyTT (Apr 24, 2006)

LazyT said:


> Dotti said:
> 
> 
> > ChinsVXR said:
> ...


*JUST *your own pom-poms?

  :wink:

And a plaster cast on your leg of course ...


----------



## TSCN (May 23, 2006)

TTonyTT said:


> LazyT said:
> 
> 
> > Dotti said:
> ...


mmmm.....

......... plaster cast and pompoms, secretly every mans fantasy


----------



## Dotti (Mar 9, 2003)

LOL :lol: Watch it you two or I will poke you with my crutches  :wink:


----------



## TSCN (May 23, 2006)

Dotti said:


> LOL :lol: Watch it you two or I will poke you with my crutches  :wink:


Your just increasing the fantasy. Get poking


----------



## TTonyTT (Apr 24, 2006)

Dotti said:


> LOL :lol: Watch it you two or I will poke you with my crutches  :wink:


You'd have to catch us first. :-*


----------



## Dotti (Mar 9, 2003)

Don't worry I will!  :wink: .


----------



## TSCN (May 23, 2006)

TTonyTT said:


> Dotti said:
> 
> 
> > LOL :lol: Watch it you two or I will poke you with my crutches  :wink:
> ...


She can hop suprisingly quickly


----------



## saint (Dec 6, 2002)

so to sum up - what's the conclusion of this thread?


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

Don't know. But it was fun while it lasted.


----------



## Dotti (Mar 9, 2003)

I can go faster with a fully plaster casted right leg which is broken on my go faster NHS modded crutches with neon lights :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## TSCN (May 23, 2006)

Dotti said:


> I can go faster with a fully plaster casted right leg which is broken on my go faster NHS modded crutches with neon lights :lol: :lol: :lol:


Her crutch-pod's gone so she doesn't know how fast shes actually going or how long before she runs out of plaster 8)


----------



## Dotti (Mar 9, 2003)

Got a real fetish for kitchen utensils too for shoving down my plaster to itch it  :wink:


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Im back - I was having trouble getting my wallet out of the car :lol:

Rebel wtf are you smoking? - where did wallet sizes and pay come from?
you seem to have a complex about cars, houses, and money. i'd show you how big my knob is too, but i think three things to worry about is more than enough for anyone. Maybe it's because you'd like to live in our great country but cant?

I cant even travel home without missing the fun!

Note to self.
Send bank statements and P60/P11D to rebel to seek his approval for my life style. Also pass all purchasing decisions in the direction of rebel and the forum to see if im able to afford them or that im worthy of owning them. :roll:

I think you've more than stepped over the mark this time!


----------



## TSCN (May 23, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> Im back - I was having trouble getting my wallet out of the car :lol:
> 
> Rebel wtf are you smoking? - where did wallet sizes and pay come from?
> you seem to have a complex about cars, houses, and money. i'd show you how big my knob is too, but i think three things to worry about is more than enough for anyone. Maybe it because you'd like to live in our great country but cant?
> ...


Here here - like I said earlier, this post turned really pathetic the second money came into it.


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

Toshiba said:


> Im back - I was having trouble getting my wallet out of the car :lol:


PMSL :lol:



Toshiba said:


> Rebel wtf are you smoking? - where did wallet sizes and pay come from?
> you seem to have a complex about cars, houses, and money.


Well, his surname is Schillings.


----------



## LazyT (Apr 13, 2006)

Dotti said:


> LOL :lol: Watch it you two or I will poke you with my crutches  :wink:


Who's poking whom?


----------



## TSCN (May 23, 2006)

LazyT said:


> Dotti said:
> 
> 
> > LOL :lol: Watch it you two or I will poke you with my crutches  :wink:
> ...


We're not fussed :lol:


----------



## Dotti (Mar 9, 2003)

Saucy lot


----------



## TSCN (May 23, 2006)

Dotti said:


> Saucy lot


You love it


----------



## digimeisTTer (Apr 27, 2004)

I do think Rebel has a point tho'

who would spend Â£15-Â£30 odd K on a car and live in a crap house?

priorities are different for all of us i suppose :?


----------



## neilholmes50 (Jul 15, 2006)

i dont think its anybodies business except your own when it comes to money etc.

YOU work for it,
YOU earn it,
YOU spend it,
on anything YOU want to
not what other people expect you to

Ever heard of the TV prog "Keeping up appearances"

My wages arn't bad but i do want i want with it. even look like a scruff sometimes just because i want to "bum around" abit


----------



## Dotti (Mar 9, 2003)

digimeisTTer said:


> I do think Rebel has a point tho'
> 
> who would spend Â£15-Â£30 odd K on a car and live in a crap house?
> 
> priorities are different for all of us i suppose :?


Majority of people on here probably get a TT as a company car package anyway! :wink:


----------



## TSCN (May 23, 2006)

Dotti said:


> digimeisTTer said:
> 
> 
> > I do think Rebel has a point tho'
> ...


Or drive that Metro TT conversiony thing?


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

digimeisTTer said:


> I do think Rebel has a point tho'
> 
> who would spend Â£15-Â£30 odd K on a car and live in a crap house?
> 
> priorities are different for all of us i suppose :?


A gypsy?


----------



## Dotti (Mar 9, 2003)

Leg said:


> digimeisTTer said:
> 
> 
> > I do think Rebel has a point tho'
> ...


 :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## TSCN (May 23, 2006)

Leg said:


> digimeisTTer said:
> 
> 
> > I do think Rebel has a point tho'
> ...


Good point. Whenever you see a traveling carnival or funfare all of the "carnies" are driving around in big mercs bm's and audi's. Makes you wonder.......? Bet there is a BIG difference between actual and "estimated" earnings?


----------



## R6B TT (Feb 25, 2003)

TSCN said:


> Leg said:
> 
> 
> > digimeisTTer said:
> ...


I'd think there's certainly a BIG difference between 'actual' and 'declared' :roll:


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

digimeisTTer said:


> I do think Rebel has a point tho'
> 
> who would spend Â£15-Â£30 odd K on a car and live in a crap house?
> 
> priorities are different for all of us i suppose :?


Not quite the way he said it though. And these days, most people are happy to have a roof over their heads they can call theirs (even if jointly owned with their bank  ). A decent car is slightly more affordable and available.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

My House.


----------



## TSCN (May 23, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> My House.


My God - Tosh lives in a Palace


----------



## Dotti (Mar 9, 2003)

Does the burnt out TT on the other forum/thread belong to you also Toshy? :lol:


----------



## John C (Jul 5, 2002)

Come back Dean, all is forgiven...........


----------



## LazyT (Apr 13, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> My House.


I don't think so. England doesn't have slash pines, pictured in the photo, like they do here in the U.S. Nice try though. :lol:


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Its my summer home.


----------



## LazyT (Apr 13, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> Its my summer home.


Wow, you have a summer home too!  You should get the hot-hatch version for the summer and keep your 3.2 version with quattro for the wet winters. 8)


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

what if it rains?


----------



## TSCN (May 23, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> what if it rains?


Yea why not have 2 3.2's - or a couple of R8's just for fun


----------



## LazyT (Apr 13, 2006)

TSCN said:


> Toshiba said:
> 
> 
> > what if it rains?
> ...


In theory owning two R8s sound great, but practicality dictates only a hot-hatch, aka the 2.0T, and a spectacular 3.2 with quattro.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

even im lost now :lol:


----------



## TSCN (May 23, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> even im lost now :lol:


Didnt want to be the first one to admit defeat mate but so am I - how the hell has this thread err "flowed" about?


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

I didnt even understand the title tbh so I kept out of it.


----------



## TSCN (May 23, 2006)

Leg said:


> I didnt even understand the title tbh so I kept out of it.


Good idea - you stick to the 2.0T VS 3.2Quattro debates - oo wait, that would be this one then :lol:


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

TSCN said:


> Leg said:
> 
> 
> > I didnt even understand the title tbh so I kept out of it.
> ...


Never been in that debate, only FWD vs Quattro. Couldnt care less what engine is linked up to it. Mind u, u try getting anyone to read your posts written in plain English. :roll:

So which colour did we decide is best?


----------



## TSCN (May 23, 2006)

Leg said:


> TSCN said:
> 
> 
> > Leg said:
> ...


Black obviously, Black & Quattro, the only mix


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

TSCN said:


> Leg said:
> 
> 
> > TSCN said:
> ...


And did we decide whether TT owners 'WAWE' at each other? Another thread whose title I didnt understand?


----------



## TSCN (May 23, 2006)

Leg said:


> TSCN said:
> 
> 
> > Leg said:
> ...


Probabaly not, do you not WAWE then?


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

TSCN said:


> Leg said:
> 
> 
> > TSCN said:
> ...


What self respecting TT owner would? Im old fashioned, I wave or flash.

Mind you, the big debate Im having at the moment is which wheels are best.


----------



## Dotti (Mar 9, 2003)

I heard Leg loved a mass debate! :wink:


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

Dotti said:


> I heard Leg loved a mass debate! :wink:


I think you misheard 'mass debate' as something else Dotti


----------



## Dotti (Mar 9, 2003)

Leg said:


> Dotti said:
> 
> 
> > I heard Leg loved a mass debate! :wink:
> ...


Ooops  . I was thinking DSG and manual mass debate?  :wink:


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

I like the reactions from some people very much 8) 
There are very "german's on the these forum. Fat car, poor house.... ROFL! 
Car's are realy good investments, clever people over there  
I'm wondering how the houses from the Porschedriver's look, do they got the some excuse? "sorry guy, the houses are very expensive overhere, so i bought me a 911" 8)

But now some serious bussines....
When is the MK2-owners Meeting ? I'll be there. Than i make a reservation in my agenda. 
Can't it be arranged somewere around Essex? Dotti offered me to sleep in her guesthouse.

Rob


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

Dotti said:


> Leg said:
> 
> 
> > Dotti said:
> ...


In this context I must say I prefer an automatic massdebate, although if the Mrs aint up for it a manual one is always a possibility


----------



## vul3ck6 (Sep 26, 2006)

TSCN said:


> Dotti said:
> 
> 
> > digimeisTTer said:
> ...


I can't read this anymore....it's just too funny :lol:

My TT is from my own company, 
you know....it's all about TAX...who wants to pay huge money to this hopeless government, 
so I prefer having a nice TT against tax........


----------

