# MKII Engine choices V6 vs 2.0 FSI



## ali_2006TT (Jan 5, 2006)

Has anybody seen the photo taken off the AudiWorld site supposed to be a spy shot of the engine choices for the MKII. Does it say the 2.0PSI is 200PS? (not very clear)
http://www.audiworld.com/news/06/newtt/

Has anybody got a better idea of actual bhp/PS etc for the new engine choices?

Also V6 3.2 DSG vs 6 speed manual???


----------



## ali_2006TT (Jan 5, 2006)

I have now found some info already discussed on here...


> The new TT Mk2 will have DSG for both models.
> The TT 2.0 litre TFSI 200 hp wil have optional a 6 speed DSG in combination with FWD.
> The TT 3.2 V6 FSI Quattro 250 hp wil have optional a 6 speed Quattro DSG.
> A TT 2.0 litre TSFI Quattro will be availeble later with only a 6 speed manuel gearbox.
> ...


----------



## Neil (May 7, 2002)

Take it all with a pinch of salt :roll:


----------



## ali_2006TT (Jan 5, 2006)

So how many of us who have our names on a MKII are going to go for the 3.2?...

200bhp seems too little I think it will have to be the 250bhp


----------



## Mysterio (Jan 20, 2006)

would LOVE the 3.2 Quattro - I have 28k - you reckon I can manage it?!?!?!


----------



## ali_2006TT (Jan 5, 2006)

If the pricing of the MKI when it was launched is anything to go by..NO

they droped price after about a year and a half.

I think the 3.2 will be 30K
but what would I know!

I think if you are getting one of the 1st MKII's it would be worth getting high spec as this will be desirable for resale...but again what woudl I know.


----------



## Mysterio (Jan 20, 2006)

I'll scrape Â£30-31k together - I hope!!


----------



## ali_2006TT (Jan 5, 2006)

Thats the spirit!


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

I'm very disappointed about the suggested engine line up, and might defer getting one 'til later if a more potent 4-pot will be offered. I might even stuff it completely, wait a little, and get a 2nd hand Boxster/911 instead.

Why launch a brand new model, a replacement for an icon, and then offer the same engines that appear in every other VW Group car. The TT got one better than the S3 the last time. This time it seems it will be lagging way behind.


----------



## BAMTT (Feb 22, 2004)

With 200bhp (conservative) and fwd, i would'nt of thought it will be that much slower than the V6 quattro once up and running, having said that i would go for the V6 this time


----------



## Roonaldo (Mar 15, 2006)

From what I can gather the 2.0TFSi with 200bhp will be low 6's to 60 and do high 30's combined cycle fule economy.

Don't see much wrong with that


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Karcsi said:


> I'm very disappointed about the suggested engine line up, and might defer getting one 'til later if a more potent 4-pot will be offered. I might even stuff it completely, wait a little, and get a 2nd hand Boxster/911 instead.
> 
> Why launch a brand new model, a replacement for an icon, and then offer the same engines that appear in every other VW Group car. The TT got one better than the S3 the last time. This time it seems it will be lagging way behind.


Totally agree, but you never know - Audi may still pull a rabbit out of the hat come thursday.


----------



## TomA (Aug 24, 2005)

Toshiba said:


> Karcsi said:
> 
> 
> > I'm very disappointed about the suggested engine line up, and might defer getting one 'til later if a more potent 4-pot will be offered. I might even stuff it completely, wait a little, and get a 2nd hand Boxster/911 instead.
> ...


I agree with Toshiba here - it is plausible that there will be a nice surprise on Thursday from Audi with regard to engine output... Mis-direction an' all that. :wink:


----------



## Nick225TT (Oct 13, 2004)

These may be the engines at launch but in 12 months time there may be a 240bhp 4-pot (bigger turbo) for very little extra dosh.

Do you you get in early and enjoy the exclusivity of the MKII or be patient and wait for a more potent version. :?


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Nick225TT said:


> These may be the engines at launch but in 12 months time there may be a 240bhp 4-pot (bigger turbo) for very little extra dosh.
> 
> Do you you get in early and enjoy the exclusivity of the MKII or be patient and wait for a more potent version. :?


or you just put your name on the list twice and get the new engine when it comes out too :wink:


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

Roonaldo said:


> From what I can gather the 2.0TFSi with 200bhp will be low 6's to 60 and do high 30's combined cycle fule economy.
> 
> Don't see much wrong with that


Not a chance, mate. Look at the performance you get from the A3 2.0Tq. Aluminum is a lighter material, but it aint no miracle worker.


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

TomA said:


> Toshiba said:
> 
> 
> > Karcsi said:
> ...


I bl00dywell hope you know more than we, and you're both right. I'm looking for at least 240PS (like the QS) with quattro. Otherwise, I'll have to reconsider. But, I guess that wouldn't take too long before I'm signing on the dotty line for a V6 if it's going to look as good as I suspect.


----------



## Nick225TT (Oct 13, 2004)

It would seem a bit daft to launch with a bigger engine capacity +200cc and yet drop 40+ bhp at the same time. Not much kudos in doing that.

Audi proved that the 1.8t which had served them so well in 225bhp guise for 6 years could produce 240bhp with just a software upgrade if they let the geeks loose on the code.

The 2.0t has to be able to deliver these power outputs without the need for grease monkeys under the bonnet.


----------



## ali_2006TT (Jan 5, 2006)

Having driven a Boxter S (280bhp) a fair bit over the past few months I can't stand the thought of going for something <250bhp and I always liked the idea of the smaller engine 1.8 in MKI and 2.0 in MKII but I think a lot of people will be disapointed if its only giving 200bhp.

Lets pray for more horse power!! :!:


----------



## Roonaldo (Mar 15, 2006)

Karcsi said:


> Roonaldo said:
> 
> 
> > From what I can gather the 2.0TFSi with 200bhp will be low 6's to 60 and do high 30's combined cycle fule economy.
> ...


Seem the stats? like i said, low 6's to 60 (with DSG) and high 30's combined cycle. Nothing wrong with that :wink:


----------



## AL_B (Jun 19, 2002)

Seems to be some very similar threads going on...so posting my opinion again. 

don't know if anyone else feels this way, but I'm a little disapointed that the 2.0T engine doesn't have more power. They could have given it at least 225 or a bit more.

I think the majority of people will now think, (if they don't want a V6) that they are being short-changed. Why would an owner of a MK1 225 buy a MK2 2.0T 200bhp? If they do, I'm sure they'll be straight down to their favourite tuner for a remap.

Plus, the up and coming new S3, is due to have 260bhp 2.0T. So the power is possible.

AL


----------



## Roonaldo (Mar 15, 2006)

AL_B said:


> Seems to be some very similar threads going on...so posting my opinion again.
> 
> don't know if anyone else feels this way, but I'm a little disapointed that the 2.0T engine doesn't have more power. They could have given it at least 225 or a bit more.
> 
> ...


Everyone seems obsessed with bhp figures on here. the 2.0T is not slow....so what does the bhp figure matter?

Its quicker than my old Civic Type-R which was quick enough for me, i can't see the problem?


----------



## TomA (Aug 24, 2005)

Roonaldo said:


> AL_B said:
> 
> 
> > Seems to be some very similar threads going on...so posting my opinion again.
> ...


The point is that new 2.0T is down on power to the old 1.8T's. I think that's a fair point to make! It's not a question of being 'quick enough', it's more about being quicker than what you've already got in whatever guise. Purely based on performance, there is little point in a qS owner (or even a 225 owner) switching to the MkII.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Are you kidding?

200bhp is shocking, the new ones slower than the out going one. However if the 20T fit your requirement - enjoy.


----------



## AL_B (Jun 19, 2002)

Thanks Tom that is indeed the point I was trying to make.

Roonaldo,

Granted, power-to-weight is what you need to look at to properly judge a cars [potential] performance. Our Golf Anni 180bhp (fwd) once on the move is just as quick as my S3.

AL


----------



## Roonaldo (Mar 15, 2006)

TomA said:


> Roonaldo said:
> 
> 
> > AL_B said:
> ...


"down on power" exactly what I was saying, its not all about a number. The 2.0T is quicker than the old 225 no?(the qs is not a fair comparison as it was a stripped out sport variant). I'm sure the 225 was high 6's to 60 and slower than my old CTR? The 2.0T has alot more torque aswell I think.


----------



## TomA (Aug 24, 2005)

I give up! :lol:


----------



## Roonaldo (Mar 15, 2006)

TomA said:


> I give up! :lol:


Whats funny about that?


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

I think that what you're forgetting is that the TT has always had an entry level model.

For us it was the 180TTC at launch, then the 150TTR and the 180FWD later on.

So to my mind a 200bhp car doing the 0-60 sprint in 6.4 IS quicker than the 180 TTC which did it in about 6.9 IIRC. However, that's not to say it's a quicker car. AS we all know, 0-60 times tell you little about true performance and just by making secong gear more leggy, then the 0-60 could drop as you don't have to make the change to third.

All that said, I do take your point about the Tuners end of the market. MAny people chose the 1.8T because you could tune it. Not sure how wise it is to put much more power through the front wheels (new TT 2.0T in not quattro).

So I see the point about some existing 225 owners feeling like there's nowhere for them to go. However ~I'm sure one of the coldfellow's posts said to expect a quattro 2.0T later on.


----------



## ali_2006TT (Jan 5, 2006)

Dealer has told me today that V6 will be 5.7 0-62 and will therefore be fastest TT so far.

This is the reason for non TT owners to buy the MKII but I see others' point that its not a great hike in power from the QS or MKI V6....It is more modern and sleak looking IMO.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

ali_2006TT said:


> Dealer has told me today that V6 will be 5.7 0-62 and will therefore be fastest TT so far.
> 
> This is the reason for non TT owners to buy the MKII but I see others' point that its not a great hike in power from the QS or MKI V6....It is more modern and sleak looking IMO.


Guess you're not counting the QS at 5.6secs then :lol:
or is it 5.7 too :?


----------



## TomA (Aug 24, 2005)

Toshiba said:


> ali_2006TT said:
> 
> 
> > Dealer has told me today that V6 will be 5.7 0-62 and will therefore be fastest TT so far.
> ...


This is a good point. It's about the same as a qS so, looks aside, if we upgrade to the MkII 3.2 we get the same performance (approx) with half the mpg return... Hmmmmmm.


----------



## Mysterio (Jan 20, 2006)

what is the mpg for 3.2 :?:


----------



## ali_2006TT (Jan 5, 2006)

Fuel consumption: urban / extra urban / overall, l/100 km	14.7 / 7.8 / 10.3 for manual 12.9 / 7.3 / 9.4 for auto



> Guess you're not counting the QS at 5.6secs then
> or is it 5.7 too


according to official pricelist...QS is 5.9


----------



## TomA (Aug 24, 2005)

The spec sheet in the price list says:

MPG Urban Extra Urban Combined

Manual 19.2 36.2 27.4
S tronic 21.9 38.7 30.1

Tom.


----------



## The Don (Apr 7, 2006)

For about a year and a half, i've been looking for a perfect new car. I needed to get away from front wheel drive, but I wanted to stay nimble and fast. Last week, I heard there was a new TT coming out, and after mulling over cars like the 350Z that's poorly built, the S2000 that's too small, the RS4 that's not in my budget, and the M3 that's about to be phased out, seeing this car yesterday was the highlight of the year so far.

Now, regarding these engine options. I really wanted to know what the modification capabilities for the 3.2 engine would be? Aftermarket forced induction works out much better on some cars than others and I was wondering if anyone had any ideas as to how this engine would turn out in that regard?

Sorry if my english is less than stellar, I'm from the States :lol:


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

Hey fella- you probably need to look at what's possible with the VW Golf R32 as this is the same engine (essentially).

NA tuning is far more expensive than tweaking ECUs on Turbo cars though.


----------



## ronin (Sep 6, 2003)

TomA said:


> Toshiba said:
> 
> 
> > ali_2006TT said:
> ...


But you will gain a V6 growl!


----------



## TomA (Aug 24, 2005)

Good point and well made - sold! :lol: :wink:


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

but you can get that for free from the rspca :lol:


----------

