# Audi TT RS +



## R5T (Apr 24, 2008)

There are some new indications for a upcoming TT RS plus with 360 hp.

* introduction Geneva 2011.
* December 2011 delivery.
* to order July 2011.
* Titanium grey grill.
* Upgraded brakes. (Ceramic ?)
* New Titanium grey wheels.
* R8 GT style bucket seats option.
* Fixed wing only.


----------



## jamiekip (Nov 12, 2006)

That would be really annoying!


----------



## BLinky (Jul 3, 2009)

Audi sure is raping their customers lately.


----------



## wja96 (Mar 4, 2010)

Why is everyone so negative? The fact is that Audi need to keep refreshing the range. They should release a TTRS diesel with 300bhp. I'd buy that!


----------



## ChinsVXR (Apr 14, 2006)

wja96 said:


> Why is everyone so negative? The fact is that Audi need to keep refreshing the range.


+1
It will upset current owners who thought theirs was top dog, but Audi needs to move on. The RS hasnt set the world alight and it seems most owners have to mod their cars to sort them out. So it obviously needs fixing. Porsche's models evolve, why shouldnt Audis.


----------



## jaybyme (Mar 10, 2010)

I've seen a few rumours about a TT RS + or GT version,can't find any facts though, and I've read most Geneva 2011 previews I've also read that the 360 hp version is only for the USA ?, so we will have to wait and see.


----------



## Simon H (Jun 22, 2008)

That list doesnt look like much to me. But i bet the price they ask will be a big premium. Most owners who have "fettled", their RSs, have probably a way better car than that. I suppose if you must have the latest and greatest, then you must have it, but all these cars are getting so damned expensive, you have to draw the line at some point. I will be more than happy with my "standard" RS, with a bit of fiddling  , regards, SIMON.


----------



## tt3600 (Apr 8, 2006)

Well i'm still waiting for my TT RS and the changes don't bother me apart from the HP increase, but that's easily solved if l get bored.

It will surely be a 50K+ car that then add S-tronic and options on top....


----------



## morane_j (Sep 30, 2009)

It seems it's more a TT GT than a TT RS+


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

/


----------



## TTRS_500 (Aug 29, 2010)

wja96 said:


> Why is everyone so negative? The fact is that Audi need to keep refreshing the range. They should release a TTRS diesel with 300bhp. I'd buy that!


 :lol:

Yes, because a RS car can be a diesel. A diesel RS is totally against what a RS car should be, which is fun :roll:


----------



## davidkoulakis (Jul 21, 2008)

tried and tested formula with the RS 6 Plus

gets rid of the remaining cars in the factory, ready for the next RS ... RS 5 and RS 3

limited production run

im sure there will be more spec included


----------



## wja96 (Mar 4, 2010)

TTRS_500 said:


> wja96 said:
> 
> 
> > Why is everyone so negative? The fact is that Audi need to keep refreshing the range. They should release a TTRS diesel with 300bhp. I'd buy that!
> ...


Why the big downer on diesels? They made several R8 TDI prototypes but then bottled it because they reckoned there was no market for a diesel supercar. I think they are wrong, but we'll never find out because they don't make them.


----------



## davidkoulakis (Jul 21, 2008)

wja96 said:


> TTRS_500 said:
> 
> 
> > wja96 said:
> ...


they couldnt build a gearbox reliable enough to take the torque


----------



## BLinky (Jul 3, 2009)

actually i have the best fun driving really small crappy diesel hatchbacks because they're so crap I tend to abuse them.


----------



## TTRS_500 (Aug 29, 2010)

double post


----------



## TTRS_500 (Aug 29, 2010)

wja96 said:


> Why the big downer on diesels? They made several R8 TDI prototypes but then bottled it because they reckoned there was no market for a diesel supercar. I think they are wrong, but we'll never find out because they don't make them.


I think the reason why is quite obvious. Keyword being diesel. Whats the point, you buy a sportscar for fun and to go quickly, not trying to save money....

A diesel is never as quick as a petrol, just look at audis le mans racer, and non audi marketing controlled accounts of the racing drivers who drove the things and how it compared to the petrol model....

I mean FFS who spends 50k on a sportscar but then wants to try and save a few pennies through a inferior diesel engine :?



> they couldnt build a gearbox reliable enough to take the torque


thats not true....



> actually i have the best fun driving really small crappy diesel hatchbacks because they're so crap I tend to abuse them.


Just imagine how much fun it would be absuing a 2k clio sport! 8)


----------



## wja96 (Mar 4, 2010)

davidkoulakis said:


> they couldnt build a gearbox reliable enough to take the torque


I'd be surprised if that was the case as the Phaeton TDI 5.0l and the Touareg TDI 5.0l are both perfectly reliable and as far as I'm aware it was the same engine. Of course it could be the case that they couldn't make a reliable gearbox small enough to fit into the available space.


----------



## wja96 (Mar 4, 2010)

TTRS_500 said:


> I think the reason why is quite obvious. Keyword being diesel. Whats the point, you buy a sportscar for fun and to go quickly, not trying to save money....


I'd say a 500bhp engine is a 500bhp engine, petrol or diesel.



TTRS_500 said:


> A diesel is never as quick as a petrol, just look at audis le mans racer, and non audi marketing controlled accounts of the racing drivers who drove the things and how it compared to the petrol model....


Odd, I thought it won. Beating all the petrol powered cars. Maybe it snuck up on them when they weren't looking, or maybe it was just faster?



TTRS_500 said:


> I mean FFS who spends 50k on a sportscar but then wants to try and save a few pennies through a inferior diesel engine :?


Well, I would. I LIKE diesels.



TTRS_500 said:


> Just imagine how much fun it would be absuing a 2k clio sport! 8)


You've missed the point. Or you are being deliberately obtuse. You can have real fun in a slow car because you have to DRIVE it to get anywhere at any speed. Try revving the nuts off a Clio 2.0 and staying within the speed limit then do the same in a Fiat Panda. One makes it easy to go fast, the other makes it fun going slow.


----------



## TTRS_500 (Aug 29, 2010)

wja96 said:


> TTRS_500 said:
> 
> 
> > I think the reason why is quite obvious. Keyword being diesel. Whats the point, you buy a sportscar for fun and to go quickly, not trying to save money....
> ...


1. Thats the stupidest thing ive ever heard.
2. Boy oh boy. You could have atleast done a little research, the diesel lemans cars werent the fastest, they just didnt have to make as many stops as the quicker petrols.
3.Obviously you dont like em enough as you want it to be as quick as a petrol car :lol: 
4.Driving a slow car is fooking boring. Its like driving a diesel, to enjoy the drive it needs to be atleast half swift, which a clio sport is, a joy to rag the nuts off, hold onto gears and go through the revs. What planet are you on?

If diesels where fun to drive then I think the secret would have been out a long time ago now and trackday warriors would have diesels. But they dont, and they dont because they are fun. They are a lazy mans/poor mans drive.


----------



## [email protected] (Aug 4, 2009)

R5T said:


> There are some new indications for a upcoming TT RS plus with 360 hp.
> 
> * introduction Geneva 2011.
> * December 2011 delivery.
> ...


Nowt on the list above will tempt me as I own a Roadster version which is relatively rare anyway...certainly where am based - South of England... I have more power than 360BHP; I have bigger brakes than whatever they will bring out - and NO, I do not want Ceramics - and lighter bucket seats won't do for me...weight lose is not an issue for me else I would have not bought a Roadster.

So whatever the TTRS + is, it is too little powerwise...too late...sounds like a sales gimmick and would probably take too long to hit the streets for me!

Chasing newer models is best left to those who are self-obsessed...am not in that camp thank God!


----------



## davidkoulakis (Jul 21, 2008)

wja96 said:


> davidkoulakis said:
> 
> 
> > they couldnt build a gearbox reliable enough to take the torque
> ...


The R8 diesel is a 6.0 V12, like they have in the £100k Q7 ... but that has a tip tronic box

they have not as yet build a DSG (R-tronic) box capable of handling 1000nm of torque

The cannot put a tiptronic in a £150k R8 supercar .... it will be a laughing stock


----------



## wja96 (Mar 4, 2010)

TTRS_500 said:


> 1. Thats the stupidest thing ive ever heard.


You should listen to yourself at least once then.



TTRS_500 said:


> 2. Boy oh boy. You could have atleast done a little research, the diesel lemans cars werent the fastest, they just didnt have to make as many stops as the quicker petrols.


Right, so they were faster overall then. I did make this point in the other thread. Fast cars are very slow indeed when they sit at the petrol pumps.



TTRS_500 said:


> 3.Obviously you dont like em enough as you want it to be as quick as a petrol car :lol:


I don't think I ever said that. What I do want is a faster diesel TT. After all, I can have that 3.0l engine in an A4 or an A6 or an A8, so why not a TT?



TTRS_500 said:


> 4.Driving a slow car is fooking boring. Its like driving a diesel, to enjoy the drive it needs to be atleast half swift, which a clio sport is, a joy to rag the nuts off, hold onto gears and go through the revs. What planet are you on?


No, driving a slow car fast is brilliant. With something like a Fiat Panda, you have to drive it foot flat to the floorboards the whole time, just to keep up with the traffic. Try that in a Renault Clio and you'll have no licence left.



TTRS_500 said:


> If diesels where fun to drive then I think the secret would have been out a long time ago now and trackday warriors would have diesels. But they dont, and they dont because they are fun. They are a lazy mans/poor mans drive.


And you've lost this argument as well. Otherwise you wouldn't be resorting to calling me poor and/or lazy. I'm neither and I prove it every time I drive my diesels. I have to change more often as I hit the redline more often, so actually I have to work harder and it's more expensive to buy than the equivalent petrol....


----------



## wja96 (Mar 4, 2010)

davidkoulakis said:


> The R8 diesel is a 6.0 V12, like they have in the £100k Q7 ... but that has a tip tronic box
> 
> they have not as yet build a DSG (R-tronic) box capable of handling 1000nm of torque
> 
> The cannot put a tiptronic in a £150k R8 supercar .... it will be a laughing stock


Fair enough, I stand corrected. If they wanted to make it I'd have it with a manual gearbox :lol:


----------



## jamiekip (Nov 12, 2006)

Petrol v diesel debate is funny!

PS. R-tronic is not twin clutch DSG it's lambo's semi auto e-gear. Fookin awful box.
R8 Diesel wasn't built as there was no appetite for it globally, plus the Market is going all hybrid, look at Porsche.
Diesels offer a completely different driving experience which is why they aren't found in performance cars and aren't found in any form of racing apart from endurance racing where fueling tactics are as important as total speed.

If I had the choice between a TT with a sweet sounding 360bhp 5 pot petrol or a 360bhp 4 litre tdi (let's face it it would need to be a BIG engine!) I'd go the petrol every day of the week!
Grin producing noise and it would handle far sweeter with the 100kg less in the engine bay.
Aren't sportscars all about putting a smile on your face?


----------



## powerplay (Feb 8, 2008)

davidkoulakis said:


> they have not as yet build a DSG (R-tronic) box capable of handling 1000nm of torque


I suppose it depends who "they" are. "They" have already got a 7-speed DSG box in the Bugatti Veyron good for well over 1300nm.

I suppose it must be the transverse design and compact size that is the limiting factor in the DSG's torque capacity.


----------



## jonnyc (Feb 13, 2010)

TTRS_500 said:


> 2. Boy oh boy. You could have atleast done a little research, the diesel lemans cars werent the fastest, they just didnt have to make as many stops as the quicker petrols


Pardon??? Both the Diesel Audi R10/15 and now 18 & Peugeot 908 have been faster on lap times compared to the petrol P1 cars since their conception..

They have a huge advance over the petrol powered cars due to massive torque..

Oops.. :roll:


----------



## wja96 (Mar 4, 2010)

jamiekip said:


> If I had the choice between a TT with a sweet sounding 360bhp 5 pot petrol or a 360bhp 4 litre tdi (let's face it it would need to be a BIG engine!) I'd go the petrol every day of the week!


Actually, it would need to be roughly the same displacement as the petrol car. 200bhp from a 2.0l TDI is easy these days. 275-300bhp is what the top 2.0TDI engines are running, and ENORMOUS torque to go with it. You are quite literally HURLED forwards. 3.0TDI engines make an easy 275bhp and 350bhp after tuning, so you don't need a bigger engine to get the same power.



jamiekip said:


> Grin producing noise and it would handle far sweeter with the 100kg less in the engine bay.
> Aren't sportscars all about putting a smile on your face?


The noise can be made 'right'. The new DI petrols sound like diesels anyway. Have you heard the 2.0 TFSI? And the weight difference won't be anything like 100kg. 25kg maybe. And if Honda ever sort out their issues with aluminium diesels then there is no weight difference at all.

All the diesel-haters really ought to try a big, modern, diesel engine. They sound great and they go very well indeed.


----------



## jamiekip (Nov 12, 2006)

wja96 said:


> Actually, it would need to be roughly the same displacement as the petrol car. 200bhp from a 2.0l TDI is easy these days. 275-300bhp is what the top 2.0TDI engines are running, and ENORMOUS torque to go with it. You are quite literally HURLED forwards. 3.0TDI engines make an easy 275bhp and 350bhp after tuning, so you don't need a bigger engine to get the same power.


Really? Show me a 4 cylinder 2.0 TDI that's putting out 275-300bhp? Without after market tuning... cause lets not start the tuning debate, as what every you do to a diesel, you can do to a petrol.
ie, 200bhp diesel can be chipped to 250bhp... well a 250bhp petrol can be chipped to 300bhp.
As far as I can see, all diesal cars have far more capacity to equal the power of a smaller capacity petrol engine.



wja96 said:


> The noise can be made 'right'. The new DI petrols sound like diesels anyway. Have you heard the 2.0 TFSI? And the weight difference won't be anything like 100kg. 25kg maybe. And if Honda ever sort out their issues with aluminium diesels then there is no weight difference at all.
> 
> All the diesel-haters really ought to try a big, modern, diesel engine. They sound great and they go very well indeed.


I'm not sure I've heard a good sounding diesel... nothing that has really made me think that sounds goooooood. I agree, DI petrol engines at idle sound naff (especially the 2.0TFSI), but under load they sound better than an oil burner, and as this thread started on the TTRS, the 5 cylinder petrol sounds amazing on the go. 6 cylinder diesels sounds better, and yeah they go well, but they are all low end torque and run out of puff quickly (in my experience on the 3.0tdi anyway).
OK I exegerated the 100kg, but my point is, today, for the same power, you need a bigger engine, which adds weight and harms handling....

The above is just my view and why I think we don;t see diesels in performance cars.

I'm no diesel hater by the way, I'm just going on my take on the market and buying behaviour of people.

Seems you maybe the minority thinking that there is a place for diesel in the performance/super car world?


----------



## LEO-RS (Apr 13, 2009)

I believe the 335d is just as quick as the 335i but then you go up 1 notch to the M3 in that range.

I had the TDI and it is a good car but in fairness it was slower than what it felt. The short gearing and quattro grip give you a false perception of speed as sure it throws you back in the seat but the gearing is so short, you dont build up the speed quick enough. 2nd to 3rd shift for example is around 45mph, you're reaching for 4th at 65-70, you're needing 5th to pass through 100.

I had mine revo'd and it did feel quick and low down from 50 in 6th it felt great. Would easily catch higher powered cars off guard for a while until they dropped a cog or come on boost and then they would fly past. With the revo software loaded and in comparison to the 200ps petrol, i'd put money on it that the TDI was the quicker car in all scenarios, but then again, revo the petrol and you're back at square 1.

TT TDI is a good car, no doubt about it and I'd rather have it over the 197bhp petrol car every day of the week. However, my opinion changed when the new 208bhp car was released as the fuel economy advantage was almost wiped out, that I'd take that over the TDI instead now. Audi have missed a trick by keeping it at 170bhp/53mpg, they should have developed the engine the same way they did the petrol 2.0T. Stop/Start should have been introduced, power should have went upto 190hp.

There's no point in even mentioning the RS, it's an animal in comparison to both the TDI and 197/208 petrols.


----------



## LEO-RS (Apr 13, 2009)

Additionally, you need to be doing 20k miles per annum plus in the TDI for you to be better off in the first 2-3yrs. Anything less really and you should really have opted for the petrol. Fuel is cheaper, and car is £1200 cheaper.


----------



## wja96 (Mar 4, 2010)

Mitchy said:


> I believe the 335d is just as quick as the 335i... ...There's no point in even mentioning the RS, it's an animal in comparison to both the TDI and 197/208 petrols.


I wouldn't disagree with anything in that post. I would just point out that the 335d is a 3.0l twin-turbo, rather than a 3.5l, but the point is absolutely right. If the manufacturers put the development in, diesel can be just as fast as petrol.


----------



## wja96 (Mar 4, 2010)

jamiekip said:


> As far as I can see, all diesal cars have far more capacity to equal the power of a smaller capacity petrol engine.


The examples I stated were indeed remapped or mechanically tuned, but the fact remains that a tuned diesel is every bit as powerful as a petrol engine of the same capacity, and they get better every day.



jamiekip said:


> I'm not sure I've heard a good sounding diesel... nothing that has really made me think that sounds goooooood. I agree, DI petrol engines at idle sound naff (especially the 2.0TFSI), but under load they sound better than an oil burner, and as this thread started on the TTRS, the 5 cylinder petrol sounds amazing on the go. 6 cylinder diesels sounds better, and yeah they go well, but they are all low end torque and run out of puff quickly (in my experience on the 3.0tdi anyway).
> OK I exegerated the 100kg, but my point is, today, for the same power, you need a bigger engine, which adds weight and harms handling....


I think you should listen to
1) the latest Landrover Discovery TDI V6 (it sounds like a 1960's American muscle car) and
2) the diesel in the new Q7 - you just can't hear it.



jamiekip said:


> The above is just my view and why I think we don;t see diesels in performance cars.
> 
> I'm no diesel hater by the way, I'm just going on my take on the market and buying behaviour of people.
> 
> Seems you maybe the minority thinking that there is a place for diesel in the performance/super car world?


I don't disagree vehemently with most of your argumentation, I simply think that a 200MPH car you can drive 500 miles in would be better than a 200MPH car you can drive 250 miles in.

I really like all that low-down oomphiness. I do rev my diesels (it helps keep the injectors clean) and that is the joy of it. You don't have to, but you can if you want.


----------



## jamiekip (Nov 12, 2006)

wja96 said:


> The examples I stated were indeed remapped or mechanically tuned, but the fact remains that a tuned diesel is every bit as powerful as a petrol engine of the same capacity, and they get better every day.


Maybe, but you can always tune a petrol of the same capacity and the gap between them stays the same. 
Besides it's more the delivery of diesels I'm not a fan of.... certinaly in the 2.0l 4pot camp, big slug of low end torque and running out of puff higher up. I personally prefer the delivery of a petrol...



wja96 said:


> I think you should listen to
> 1) the latest Landrover Discovery TDI V6 (it sounds like a 1960's American muscle car) and
> 2) the diesel in the new Q7 - you just can't hear it.


1) is that the jag engine? Not hear, but I do hear it's a peach... won;t change my view about what engine should be in a performance car though :wink: 
2) that's not a good thing for me though... great in a motorway cruiser... not for a car that should have a bit of soul!



wja96 said:


> I don't disagree vehemently with most of your argumentation, I simply think that a 200MPH car you can drive 500 miles in would be better than a 200MPH car you can drive 250 miles in.
> 
> I really like all that low-down oomphiness. I do rev my diesels (it helps keep the injectors clean) and that is the joy of it. You don't have to, but you can if you want.


I can get 35mpg if I keep the revs low, and I have a load of torque low down too... it's not 50mpg like a TT tdi... but then i'm running twice the power 

I'm loving the off topicness!


----------



## AEW003 (Dec 2, 2010)

I'm waiting for my RS and other than the extra 20hp there's nothing on there I'd order. Like others I suspect the price would be circa. £50k plus S-tronic etc. etc. With the beefed up brakes, buckets seats and the fixed spoiler as the only option I wonder if it's a more 'stripped out' track based version of the RS?


----------



## AEW003 (Dec 2, 2010)

Mitchy said:


> I believe the 335d is just as quick as the 335i but then you go up 1 notch to the M3 in that range.
> 
> I had the TDI and it is a good car but in fairness it was slower than what it felt. The short gearing and quattro grip give you a false perception of speed as sure it throws you back in the seat but the gearing is so short, you dont build up the speed quick enough. 2nd to 3rd shift for example is around 45mph, you're reaching for 4th at 65-70, you're needing 5th to pass through 100.
> 
> ...


As someone who has owned a 535d, 135i and a M3 (the 3.2 litre 343hp 6 cyl) the diesel was quicker mid range but that's it. The BMW 3.0 litre sequential charged turbo diesel is/was the best diesel available. However the two petrol engines were by far more fun/entertaining as they revved faster & harder and sounded much better even though the diesel had valves in the exhaust to produce a "more petrol" like sound. For sheer fun/excitement I don't think diesel (still) can come close to an equivalent petrol engine.


----------



## powerplay (Feb 8, 2008)

http://www.inautonews.com/american-audi-tt-rs-plus-is-coming


----------



## tt3600 (Apr 8, 2006)




----------



## drdomm (Feb 25, 2011)

What's with all the different codes for the Coupe Plus? Ideas?


----------



## R5T (Apr 24, 2008)

drdomm said:


> What's with all the different codes for the Coupe Plus? Ideas?


No idea, but i think it has to do with colours and equipment.
Things like, Ceramic brakes, bucket seats, wheels and so on.
But i'm not a ETKA expert.


----------



## JohnLZ7W (Apr 12, 2006)

It may be builds for different countries too. I'm pretty sure the US spec car is 8J35R9.


----------



## jaybyme (Mar 10, 2010)

I think it's the gearbox,looks like the plus is only available in S-tronic ?
8J3RSY is the code for the normal S-tronic,HA 10/10 was when they were first officially on sale ?


----------



## R5T (Apr 24, 2008)

jaybyme said:


> I think it's the gearbox,looks like the plus is only available in S-tronic ?
> 8J3RSY is the code for the normal S-tronic,HA 10/10 was when they were first officially on sale ?


There is also a 6S HA version, meaning "6 stufen handschaltung".


----------



## TTRS_500 (Aug 29, 2010)

jonnyc said:


> TTRS_500 said:
> 
> 
> > 2. Boy oh boy. You could have atleast done a little research, the diesel lemans cars werent the fastest, they just didnt have to make as many stops as the quicker petrols
> ...


I thought the porsche spyder posted faster lap times than both in the races the porche competed in.

Some say the regulations are currently biased towards the diesel racers?


----------



## 353S (Aug 16, 2008)

IMHO, the TT RR Plus is a rolling production change. Look at the dates to the right. All TT RS models end on 5/11 where the Plus starts 5/11. Pretty sure this is just a bump in hp only. I think speculation has gotten the best of us on this one


----------



## jaybyme (Mar 10, 2010)

R5T said:


> jaybyme said:
> 
> 
> > I think it's the gearbox,looks like the plus is only available in S-tronic ?
> ...


"whoops"
I didn't notice the other plus models,further down the list.
My car is still planned for build week 19/20 [smiley=bigcry.gif]


----------



## jamiekip (Nov 12, 2006)

353S said:


> IMHO, the TT RR Plus is a rolling production change. Look at the dates to the right. All TT RS models end on 5/11 where the Plus starts 5/11. Pretty sure this is just a bump in hp only. I think speculation has gotten the best of us on this one


Looks more like there are rolling changes on the TTRS coupe and the introduction of the TTRS+ from the 5/11 the way I read it


----------



## suffeks (Jun 16, 2010)

spotted 360hp ttrs: http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.p ... ing-closer!

i wonder if it has the same intercooler and i wonder if a revo chip will make more power than on the 340hp engine... hmmmmmm :mrgreen:


----------



## R5T (Apr 24, 2008)

The rumour has it that the European TT RS + (CEPB engine) is scheduled for KW 12/2012 with 360 hp an 465 Nm of torque.


----------



## VerTTigo (Nov 14, 2009)

R5T said:


> The rumour has it that the European TT RS + (CEPB engine) is scheduled for KW 12/2012 with 360 hp an 465 Nm of torque.


Release date only in december 2012? The MK2 will be near death...


----------



## R5T (Apr 24, 2008)

VerTTigo said:


> R5T said:
> 
> 
> > The rumour has it that the European TT RS + (CEPB engine) is scheduled for KW 12/2012 with 360 hp an 465 Nm of torque.
> ...


No, KW means "Calendar week" 12/ 2012, so March. :wink:


----------



## Hodgster (Jun 26, 2011)

20hp....WOW.......could you get get that with a superchips/revo thingy?


----------



## R5T (Apr 24, 2008)

Hodgster said:


> 20hp....WOW.......could you get get that with a superchips/revo thingy?


Yes, 20 hp with full Audi warranty. :wink:


----------



## powerplay (Feb 8, 2008)

Why so far away still? The US is getting this engine already :?

Still no matter, presumably the 340ps or 360ps engines will both have the same stage1 mapability as guesing it's only software that is different.


----------



## R5T (Apr 24, 2008)

powerplay said:


> Why so far away still? The US is getting this engine already :?
> 
> Still no matter, presumably the 340ps or 360ps engines will both have the same stage1 mapability as guesing it's only software that is different.


No it's not.
340 hp is CEPA engine.
360 hp is CEPB engine.


----------



## Axel1 (Jul 17, 2011)

R5T said:


> 340 hp is CEPA engine.
> 360 hp is CEPB engine.


It will be interesting to learn what specifically is different between the two...


----------



## Hodgster (Jun 26, 2011)

R5T said:


> Hodgster said:
> 
> 
> > 20hp....WOW.......could you get get that with a superchips/revo thingy?
> ...


Would you really notice 20hp...5/6% more power?


----------



## Axel1 (Jul 17, 2011)

Hodgster said:


> Would you really notice 20hp...5/6% more power?


Seems doubtful... but what many potential buyers worldwide WILL notice is Audi's new claim that the 6MT version of the 360hp engine goes 0-60mph in 4.1 sec.

That is considerably quicker than the previous Audi claim of 0-100kpm of 4.6 sec.for the same manual transmission in the 340hp version... and even quicker than the previously Audi claim of 4.3 sec.for the 340hp DSG.

Appears to me Audi underestimated their previous claims. I wouldn't think the 2mph difference (60mph vs. 62mph) and 20HP could make 0.5 sec. !!


----------



## powerplay (Feb 8, 2008)

R5T said:


> powerplay said:
> 
> 
> > Why so far away still? The US is getting this engine already :?
> ...


Oh, ok. So what is the TTRS that Car and Driver tested? I thought this was a US spec RS - they wouldn't have built both 340hp and 360hp American spec versions surely?


----------



## R5T (Apr 24, 2008)

I believe that black TT RS is a European version, no amber "what ever they are called" in the headlights.


----------



## R5T (Apr 24, 2008)

Rumour has it that the TT RS 360 hp engine "the CEPB" will also get AVL (Audi Valve Lift).


----------



## tt3600 (Apr 8, 2006)

What will that do for the RS?

Biggest difference l can see is reduced fuel consumption.

Audi should have updated to a variable geometry turbocharger, like the 911 turbo (and current diesel card) to improve performance low down the rev range.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_g ... rbocharger


----------



## R5T (Apr 24, 2008)

tt3600 said:


> What will that do for the RS?
> 
> Biggest difference l can see is reduced fuel consumption.
> 
> ...


a VGT turbo is a problem child kind of turbo IYAM.
More moving parts more malfunction parts.


----------



## conneem (Nov 4, 2006)

tt3600 said:


> What will that do for the RS?
> 
> Biggest difference l can see is reduced fuel consumption.


It seems to give more mid range torque in the 2.0T.

The MKVI GTI has the 2.0TSI (EA888) without valve lift and has 210PS & 280NM the same engine in Audi applications has valve lift and produces 210PS & 350NM


----------



## R5T (Apr 24, 2008)

The PECB engine will have 465 Nm of torque.


----------



## tt3600 (Apr 8, 2006)

Does not sound like it will have Valvelift then, today's TT-RS has 450nm?

The difference on the TT 2.0t is impressive.


----------



## R5T (Apr 24, 2008)

tt3600 said:


> Does not sound like it will have Valvelift then, today's TT-RS has 450nm?
> 
> The difference on the TT 2.0t is impressive.


All depend on the goals they set for it.
It could be torque, it could be fuel consumption.


----------



## morane_j (Sep 30, 2009)

it's coming....


----------



## Joelc (Aug 21, 2011)

Although everyone here probably knows this but the North American TTRS has 360 hp...


----------



## R5T (Apr 24, 2008)

In Germany they put a new run-in (3100+ Km) TT RS S-Tronic on a superflow dyno, it spit out a very healthy 374.5 ps by 5900 rpm.
Most new TT RS have between 360-370 hp.

Temp: 27.2º C
Airpressure: 997 hPa

Power 374,5 ps @ 5900 1/min
WHP: 223,2 kW


----------



## jonnyc (Feb 13, 2010)

I'd put a load of money on all of the European S-Tronic TTRS's having the 'revised' engine map in them already.. Along with the RS3 too.. There just too quick to have 335hp lol..

Even mine dyno'd at 360hp stock..


----------

