# Weight distribution of 3.2Q and 2.0T



## asimo (Oct 9, 2007)

Hello everybody, first time post a topic.

The weight distribution for both car is:

58:42 for 2.0T

55:45 for 3.2Q

So anybody knows why that always ppl say 3.2Q have a heavy nose,and 2.0T is the drivers car?

BTW i'm from China,and the delivery time here is almost the same as you guys pick up from UK. :lol:

The price is a little higher here,but TT's the same.


----------



## iknight (Jul 4, 2007)

Are you Toshiba in disguise??!!


----------



## asimo (Oct 9, 2007)

No No,Haha, you could know this from my bad english. 

Toshiba in my mind is a TV.After I viewed tt forum:

Toshiba is a TV+King Kong

by seeing your reply:

Toshiba is a TV+King Kong+a lovely 3.2Q guy


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Nope not me.

The 3.2 does have better balance but most only care about the total weight not where it is and what polish to use. The comments are more historical than factual. Its fair to say the MKI was nose heavy and like the golf in a dress kinda comment its simply stuck - even though its not true.

The version debates go down hill very fast and reason/logic doesn't hold any water here :? .


----------



## iknight (Jul 4, 2007)

asimo said:


> No No,Haha, you could know this from my bad english.
> 
> Toshiba in my mind is a TV.After I viewed tt forum:
> 
> ...


Are you infering that the long established and highly respected member of the forum wears lady's clothing???!! :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

I'll do anything for money and to increase my post count.


----------



## asimo (Oct 9, 2007)

Toshiba ,from your opinion,which car you think is more agile? If both with the esp/asr off


----------



## sane eric (Jul 19, 2007)

asimo said:


> Toshiba ,from your opinion,which car you think is more agile? If both with the esp/asr off


----------



## paulie1 (Mar 6, 2007)

sane eric said:


> asimo said:
> 
> 
> > Toshiba ,from your opinion,which car you think is more agile? If both with the esp/asr off


 :lol: Here we go again...


----------



## Raider (Sep 9, 2007)

OMG.... [smiley=end.gif]


----------



## Wallsendmag (Feb 12, 2004)

S3 ofcourse 8)


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

asimo said:


> Toshiba ,from your opinion,which car you think is more agile? If both with the esp/asr off


The 3.2 is totally different with the ASR off, It comes alive. Without being funny you cant really drive the T with ASR off. I think my views are well known on the versions and i dont think its a good idea to dig any deeper.


----------



## Singletrack (Aug 1, 2007)

This is a trap isn't it? :? Which is more agile....?  The car polished with Swisswas brand automotive wax of course! Try Swisswax, the wax of ....well, the Swiss I guess....


----------



## sane eric (Jul 19, 2007)

It's the one that has the iPod, but not the BOSE, or is it the other way around :?


----------



## thebears (Jan 14, 2006)

wallsendmag said:


> S3 ofcourse 8)


 :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## JEB (Oct 2, 2007)

Does anyone on here do track days in there TT?
I know its not a track car so I will not be ragging it but when my 2.0T finally arrives and its all run in I'd be interested to see what it can do.

Brands is a good venue for me and they do very cheap winter track days.

You can't do timing on track days but there is no reason why a 3.2 and a 2.0T couldn't run together on track which would show which is quicker.

I'm happy to represent the 2.0T team

I expect the 3.2 is more balanced because of all the 4WD stuff at the back end, stick 130kg of lead in the boot of a 2.0T and it would be about 50:50 and still lighter than a 3.2 :twisted:


----------



## thebears (Jan 14, 2006)

not sure if EVO mag has lap times for both cars yet!


----------



## yangliang (Jul 1, 2006)

Hi Asimo and welcome!!

I'm also from China.

I've attached the Chinese TT2 spec and price list.

http://www.audi.cn/audi/cn/en2/new_cars ... ronic.html



asimo said:


> Hello everybody, first time post a topic.
> 
> The weight distribution for both car is:
> 
> ...


----------



## Arne (Dec 13, 2006)

asimo said:


> Hello everybody, first time post a topic.
> 
> The weight distribution for both car is:
> 
> ...


The front of the 3.2 is still a lot heavier than the 2.0T. You do the mat and you will see..... :wink:


----------



## thebears (Jan 14, 2006)

Have they move the block back behind the front axles as well in the MKII?

In the MKI the engine does sit slighty forward of the front axle so this would also have an added effect as well, would it not?


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

JEB said:


> Does anyone on here do track days in there TT?
> I know its not a track car so I will not be ragging it but when my 2.0T finally arrives and its all run in I'd be interested to see what it can do.
> 
> I expect the 3.2 is more balanced because of all the 4WD stuff at the back end, stick 130kg of lead in the boot of a 2.0T and it would be about 50:50 and still lighter than a 3.2 :twisted:


A German mag has done the times and the 3.2 TTR is faster round a twisty track than 20 TTC with MR. Rob/Rebel has the article.

As for the race round a track - what are you trying to prove, the fastest car or the better driver? :?
As for the weight - dont bother with the lead, get the 20TQ


----------



## Janitor (Jul 2, 2007)

Can I have those four minutes of my life back please..?


----------



## whynot (Apr 24, 2007)

But everyone knows the FWD is a pointless girls car and just for people who like the look of the TT. Anyone remotly interested in tracking wouldnt go near a car with FWD. :lol:

3.2Q - 'The Real Thing'
20T - 'A shamefull shell'


----------



## Janitor (Jul 2, 2007)

Absolutely Mr whynot, dead on the money

However, those less 'Driving God-like' amongst us will very happily adore a beautiful car with stunning styling inside and out that ticks many middle ground boxes without the slightest inclination to track it - ever :roll:

I'm also sure, taking things to their natural conclusion then, that the Radical / Westy / GT3 owners will laugh long and hard at anyone who buys a TT for the track


----------



## Wondermikie (Apr 14, 2006)

LOL not the "biggest dick contest" again :roll:

Anyway, this is the 3.2 equivalent in the world of the Oryctolagus cuniculus *










* rabbit for you uneducated.


----------



## sane eric (Jul 19, 2007)

whynot said:


> But everyone knows the FWD is a pointless girls car and just for people who like the look of the TT. Anyone remotly interested in tracking wouldnt go near a car with FWD. :lol:
> 
> 3.2Q - 'The Real Thing'
> 20T - 'A shamefull shell'


Yep, dead right. TT is not for those who can't afford proper racing cars for tracking, definitely not.


----------



## Arne (Dec 13, 2006)

whynot said:


> But everyone knows the FWD is a pointless girls car and just for people who like the look of the TT. Anyone remotly interested in tracking wouldnt go near a car with FWD. :lol:
> 
> 3.2Q - 'The Real Thing'
> 20T - 'A shamefull shell'


That's probabely why the fwd Seat makes such a "bad" performance in the WTCC....in competition with rwd BMW's and others....

No - wait.... Seat is actually in close competition with BMW to win both the Manufacturers title, and the Drivers title :wink:

Not to bad for a fwd tracking car - is it.... :roll:

http://www.fiawtcc.com/fiawtcc/monza/20 ... 8833.shtml


----------



## whynot (Apr 24, 2007)

I forgot 2nd place is a good thing :roll: 
Just above the renowned Chevvy, great advert for FWD.

Remind me, what size engines are in those pittyfull cars?
Howabout we up the engine size?

FWD is for people who dont or cant drive - its simply cheap and easy, not good.
You here it all the time on 5th Gear and Top Gear, FWD is for sports car and is much better :lol: :lol:

Ive seen some of your posts before, do you have a part time job writing one liners for David Williams or Brucey? :lol:


----------



## whynot (Apr 24, 2007)

I forgot 2nd place is a good thing :roll: 
Just above the renowned Chevvy, great advert for FWD.

Remind me, what size engines are in those pittyfull cars?
Howabout we up the engine size?

FWD is for people who dont or cant drive - its simply cheap and easy, not good.
You here it all the time on 5th Gear and Top Gear, FWD is for sports car and is much better :lol: :lol:

Ive seen some of your posts before, do you have a part time job writing one liners for David Williams or Brucey? :lol:


----------



## Janitor (Jul 2, 2007)

So good he posted it twice


----------



## whynot (Apr 24, 2007)

I forgot 2nd place is a good thing :roll: 
Just above the renowned Chevvy, great advert for FWD.

Remind me, what size engines are in those pittyfull cars?
Howabout we up the engine size?

FWD is for people who dont or cant drive - its simply cheap and easy, not good.
You here it all the time on 5th Gear and Top Gear, FWD is for sports car and is much better :lol: :lol:

Ive seen some of your posts before, do you have a part time job writing one liners for David Williams or Brucey? :lol:


----------



## Janitor (Jul 2, 2007)

Ooo, three times. Even better now


----------



## whynot (Apr 24, 2007)

I forgot 2nd place is a good thing :roll: 
Just above the renowned Chevvy, great advert for FWD.

Remind me, what size engines are in those pittyfull cars?
Howabout we up the engine size?

FWD is for people who dont or cant drive - its simply cheap and easy, not good.
You here it all the time on 5th Gear and Top Gear, FWD is for sports car and is much better :lol: :lol:

Ive seen some of your posts before, do you have a part time job writing one liners for David Williams or Brucey? :lol:


----------



## Janitor (Jul 2, 2007)

:lol:


----------



## whynot (Apr 24, 2007)

I forgot 2nd place is a good thing :roll: 
Just above the renowned Chevvy, great advert for FWD.

Remind me, what size engines are in those pittyfull cars?
Howabout we up the engine size?

FWD is for people who dont or cant drive - its simply cheap and easy, not good.
You here it all the time on 5th Gear and Top Gear, FWD is for sports car and is much better :lol: :lol:

Ive seen some of your posts before, do you have a part time job writing one liners for David Williams or Brucey? :lol:


----------



## Arne (Dec 13, 2006)

whynot said:


> I forgot 2nd place is a good thing :roll:
> Just above the renowned Chevvy, great advert for FWD.
> 
> Remind me, what size engines are in those pittyfull cars?
> ...


he-he...did I hit some soft spots..... :lol:

And why "up the engine size"? My small 2.0T (with a low cost remap) outputs way more bhp and torque than any standard TT - no matter engine size :wink:

OK - I do admitt that it does make it a bit more of a challenge to drive. And I am sorry that you obviously are not up to such a challenge 

ps: I did "hear" you at your first post..... :roll:


----------



## whynot (Apr 24, 2007)

I forgot 2nd place is a good thing :roll: 
Just above the renowned Chevvy, great advert for FWD.

Remind me, what size engines are in those pittyfull cars?
Howabout we up the engine size?

FWD is for people who dont or cant drive - its simply cheap and easy, not good.
You here it all the time on 5th Gear and Top Gear, FWD is for sports car and is much better :lol: :lol:

Ive seen some of your posts before, do you have a part time job writing one liners for David Williams or Brucey? :lol:


----------



## Janitor (Jul 2, 2007)

I'm also sure, taking things to their natural conclusion then, that the Radical / Westy / GT3 owners will laugh long and hard at anyone who buys a TT for the track


----------



## Janitor (Jul 2, 2007)

I'm also sure, taking things to their natural conclusion then, that the Radical / Westy / GT3 owners will laugh long and hard at anyone who buys a TT for the track


----------



## Janitor (Jul 2, 2007)

I'm also sure, taking things to their natural conclusion then, that the Radical / Westy / GT3 owners will laugh long and hard at anyone who buys a TT for the track


----------



## whynot (Apr 24, 2007)

Remap - so what you're saying is the engine is not up to the job as it was delivered. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Why don't you go for the 500bhp 3.2 - ooh, i forget, FWD cant handle real power due to its drive system. :roll:


----------



## Arne (Dec 13, 2006)

whynot said:


> Remap - so what you're saying is the engine is not up to the job as it was delivered. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
> 
> Why don't you go for the 500bhp 3.2 - ooh, i forget, FWD cant handle real power due to its drive system. :roll:


 [smiley=stupid.gif]

A good thing can always get better 8)

I think you must search very hard to find a car that matches the quality, comfort, look, power AND tracking capabilities that the 2.0T has - no matter if it is remaped or not - if you also take the cost into consideration.

You know (or perhaps you don't?) some of us live in the real world, where f.ex. money do matter.... :wink:


----------



## TTurbine (Oct 4, 2007)

whynot said:


> But everyone knows the FWD is a pointless girls car and just for people who like the look of the TT. Anyone remotly interested in tracking wouldnt go near a car with FWD. :lol:
> 
> 3.2Q - 'The Real Thing'
> 20T - 'A shamefull shell'


[email protected]!
Bottom line is, anyone remotely interested in tracking would give a TT a very wide berth full stop!
However, on the road it's a different situation altogether.
And thats why EVERY SINGLE motoring journalist who has driven both has said that whilst the 3.2 is a great car, the 2.0T is the current"model of choice".
(But, hey, what would they know, it's only their job afterall!)
I know it must hurt to have paid more and not gotten the "best" model, but sh*t happens - live with it.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

[smiley=sleeping.gif]


----------



## TTurbine (Oct 4, 2007)

[smiley=stupid.gif] [smiley=sleeping.gif] 
Hurt feelings...........Bless :-*


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Not at all, this is nothing to do with me. You sound like a complete and utter winker all the time. But, pls do continue to enlighten us with your boundless wisdom and knowledge. Maybe you could answer the "best wax" or "must have options" questions? We here appear to be at a total loss :roll:

As for the Motoring Press, would that be the same ones that posted all the spy shots of the 'New' TT? Or the same ones that posted all comments about the next engines? Or the ones thats said the RS version would appear at Geneva, then Toyko, then the Berlin Motorshow? I have to admit they are consistent. Constantly full or crap. [smiley=toilet.gif]

Opinions are like arseholes and you appear to be a large one, or is it you have a large one. My englesh are not two good bruv.

[smiley=stupid.gif]


----------



## thebears (Jan 14, 2006)

Should have brought an S3 :lol:


----------



## TTurbine (Oct 4, 2007)

Toshiba said:


> asimo said:
> 
> 
> > Toshiba ,from your opinion,which car you think is more agile? If both with the esp/asr off
> ...


We seem to have our very own Carlos Fandango on here!! :lol: 
I can just picture you now hanging the back end out :lol: 
Or drifting through a series of bends - not :lol: 
As if you have a clue what you're talking about, "coming alive!".
It is you who needs to get a life, but then again you must have one, with all of your "expert" opinions on all things.
Are you perhaps a motoring journalist ?
I doubt it, firstly they can spell and secondly, the Magazine Road Testers would have IMHO a tad more of a clue as to what is what when it comes to a car's driving dynamics than you would ever attain in a million years.
[email protected]
You should stick to your "what wax is best" opinions/conversations yourself Tosh (as it is clearly pretty much the upper level of your knowledge) and leave more difficult stuff to the people who know more than you.
:-*


----------



## whynot (Apr 24, 2007)

What is this tosser talking about?

I wish I could have thought of a user name with 'TT' in. Such imagination, I bet you're a hoot at parties :lol: 
Just admit you bought the crappy version because you can't afford a real one. Maybe you should have studied harder and you too would be able to have got one with a real drive train? Howâ€™s the pay at ASDA these days? Your parents must be so proud. Come down boozer tomorrow, the lads will piss themselves laughing at this front wheel drive shit. Itâ€™s priceless; we're going to have such fun at your expense. 

Remind me TTosser, sorry TTurbine when you should use a comma and when you should use a question mark?

Motoring Mags â€" PMSL, I see the latest TopGear mag states the MKII is not iPod compatible! So trust worthy. They can't get the obvious things right, so how the fuck do you come to the conclusion they know anything about cars or how to drive them? Did they lay in the boot with their eyes closed for the duration of the tests? It would appear so, because they are talking bollocks. Corrections they are talking best buy, not the best car. But are you so dumb you canâ€™t distinguish between the two? 
**Note to TTurbine. This is what is called a rhetorical question. You are really that dumb it would appear.**

Feel free to come back and Iâ€™ll spank you again.


----------



## whynot (Apr 24, 2007)

Arne said:


> I think you must search very hard to find a car that matches the quality, comfort, look, power AND tracking capabilities that the 2.0T has - no matter if it is remaped or not - if you also take the cost into consideration.
> 
> You know (or perhaps you don't?) some of us live in the real world, where f.ex. money do matter.... :wink:


OK, real world. â€˜TTâ€™ and â€˜trackingâ€™ should not coexist in the same sentence especially in FWD guise unless we are writing a comedy sketch. The TT is not, in any shape or form a track car. Are you on crack? You must be if you think it is. 
The TT is a VW Golf in a dress, with a Focus style suspension system and a marketing wrap around to make you think otherwise. I know about market!

Letâ€™s do a quick search then shall we?
Seat FR: Same PQ35 platform, same engine, same performance much cheaper, and a real 4 seater.
Golf GTI: Same dynamics - PQ35, same engine again, more comfort and more toys for less Â£s.
BMW 1M: spanks the TT in every way you can think of and its rear wheel drive.
350Z: Outperforms the TT, just as cheap, better looking and rear wheel drive.
S3: Hammers the TT, better equipment levels, has that understated look and to boot it has a drive system that can put that power on the track.
Astra VXR: Faster, much cheaper, better seats handling to match.

How many more do you want Lewis?


----------



## modernTT (Aug 9, 2007)

well that was an interesting thread...I'm happy with my 3.2 but am happy for all you 2.0 people too!~ Can't we all just get along. LOL @ reference to [email protected] and argument between! too funny :lol:


----------



## whynot (Apr 24, 2007)

:wink: 
Heâ€™s an idiot. A well deserved spanking and outing of TTurbines narrow mind and uneducated views . 
The difference appears to be 3.2 owners can laugh at the childishness displayed, where as T owners have to jump to reviews to 'prove' they bought the right car regardless of the thread topic.

Tracking, FWD and car mag reviews - I'm still PMSL now. :lol:
3.2 is the only TT at the moment worth buying.


----------



## sane eric (Jul 19, 2007)

What p!sses me off is the generalisation of owners by the car they bought. 2.0 or 3.2, my car is better than your car, I know what I am talking about you don;t, these facts suit my case I'll ignore those views.

So f*cking what. I bought my car for my reasons. I don't car what anyone thinks of that, but I get p!ssed off when generalisations are made about why I bought my car and the type of person that makes me.

This stuff is bull, should be taken somewhere else, it's all subjective, purile and ultimatelty pointless.

Hurrumph.

That feels better.

And BTW, I saw this coming on page 1, you are so predictable, someone always ends up making a d!cks of themselves on these threads, sometimes more than one of you.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

TTurbine said:


> Toshiba said:
> 
> 
> > asimo said:
> ...


 [smiley=sleeping.gif]

I know about as much as any other person who drives a car and more than most people who write columns in magazines. You don't have to be a world class driver to tell the difference when pressing the ASR or the MR button for that matter. But, I'm sure as you've tried it, you will know this?

Why don't you try contributing rather than acting like an troll called gary with an itchy VAGina?










Hannu Mikkola.


----------



## iknight (Jul 4, 2007)

Why don't you try contributing rather than acting like an troll called gary with an itchy VAGina?










Hannu Mikkola.[/quote]

Quality!


----------



## reallynotinterested (Oct 11, 2007)

whynot said:


> What is this tosser talking about?
> 
> I wish I could have thought of a user name with 'TT' in. Such imagination, I bet you're a hoot at parties :lol:
> Just admit you bought the crappy version because you can't afford a real one. Maybe you should have studied harder and you too would be able to have got one with a real drive train? Howâ€™s the pay at ASDA these days? Your parents must be so proud. Come down boozer tomorrow, the lads will piss themselves laughing at this front wheel drive shit. Itâ€™s priceless; we're going to have such fun at your expense.
> ...


I have been reading these boards for a while now, deciding what TT to buy and how to spec it etc. The problem is most of the threads on this forum always seem to end up going the same way, the 3.2 vs 2.0t battle. I find it hard to get any useful information, this is why I haven't joined previously.

I know one thing for sure, whatever TT I buy will be my decision and not influenced by narrow minded egocentirc individuals with small genitalia! I really like the TT but am amazed that this forum is full of people who are basically just here to flame. You need to grow up, slagging off people because "apparently" they can not afford to buy a 3.2 is purely juvenile!

Swearing at people in posts by trying to get your point across, shows a total lack of class, intelligence and proves the type of person you are.

I know when I do get my TT (whatever spec and engine it will be, and yes I have driven both and can see the merits of each) I will not be posting here, it's pointless.

reallynotinterested


----------



## sane eric (Jul 19, 2007)

reallynotinterested said:


> whynot said:
> 
> 
> > What is this tosser talking about?
> ...


Agreed. It puts me off wanting to read and contribute. BUT, these threads are not what the majority of threads are about and most members avoid contributing to the "debate", unless it is to subvert or point out the absurdity of it.

Good luck with the car hunt.


----------



## iknight (Jul 4, 2007)

reallynotinterested said:


> whynot said:
> 
> 
> > What is this tosser talking about?
> ...


I have driven both cars and rest assured WHICHEVER you go for you will be delighted.


----------



## sane eric (Jul 19, 2007)

whynot said:


> :wink:
> Heâ€™s an idiot. A well deserved spanking and outing of TTurbines narrow mind and uneducated views .
> The difference appears to be 3.2 owners can laugh at the childishness displayed, where as T owners have to jump to reviews to 'prove' they bought the right car regardless of the thread topic.
> 
> ...


Is that why your only contribution to this thread http://www.********.co.uk/ttforumbbs/vi ... 4&start=20 was to have a pop at the T?


----------



## andyc83 (Jun 19, 2007)

To be honest, I have found the vast majority of the threads helpful when I was deciding what spec to get for my car.

And when things don't go right for whatever (and it doesn't have to be TT-related), people trip over themselves to offer kind words!

As I have done in this thread, I have avoided the 2.0T vs 3.2 argument - I have my reasons for buying a 2.0T, and I don't need to justify it to anyone...neither should anyone else.

I am really chuffed with my choices and can't wait to get the car and enjoy it! I might not have the soundtrack of a V6, but I know I can still go and get pissed in London on school nights without having to worry about how to pay for the champagne!


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

I've given in the forum is totally shite these days due to people who don't want to add anything to the ownership, but would rather belittle others for whatever reason. TTurbine is a case in point - look at all his posts, not a single contribution.

My advice, buy a Golf or A5 and join a different forum.

As for justification of ANYTHING, this is not a court room of world opinion with right and wrong answers. Tuff if you don't like what i want or have. Make your own mind up

O and the wax answer is swissol.

Pls lock this thread. :?


----------



## Arne (Dec 13, 2006)

The one thing I do agree with, is that there obviously are many narrow mind people here with little or non own experience....

Just to be a little serious here, since most of this tread so far has been full of sh..t.

For those of you that claims the 2.0T is not a car for tracking - have you tried? And yes - I have, and I was very positivly surpriced, as I know many others have been. And yes - I have been tracking a lot of cars.

The same goes for the 3.2 as well - which should be obvious. Different drivetrain and different engine will give different characteristica - but both cars will give a lot of fun and challenge on a track.

Mind you - I don't say the TT is made for tracking. I say it's a car that behave well at the track as well as the street. And if you really want to know what the TT is good for - take it to the track, and you will be posetively surprized, specially if you got the MR.

And this goes for both engines......

For those of you here that claims so hard otherwise, I suspect very strongly that you have never been on a track before - and have not a clue what you are talking about.

All you are is big mouth and a lot of talk - and that comes easy.

So you "girlies" - stop talking, and get your buts (preferable with your TT's) to the nearest track and get some experience of your own.

THEN we can talk..... 8)


----------



## TTurbine (Oct 4, 2007)

The only point I wanted to prove categorically once and for all on here, is that there are a couple of forum members who intimidate most of the other people on here with their views - and God help you if you don't agree with them!!
Tosh, suggesting that I have made comments to belittle is a definate case of Pot calling the Kettle. 
I have been a member of this forum for a while under another name, when I owned my MKII, and in the end all I ever seemed to get was [email protected] from certain members who couldn't debate issues without their egos getting in the way. Why do you do it??
I had to laugh at Whynot's comments, totally inappropriate and inept (delivering a verbal spanking only a 10 year old would be proud of), and certainly showed his true colours (another pseudo riche wanna be perhaps?) with his remarks about ASDA etc.
You come across as nothing more than a professional knuckle dragger.
I'd wager there are more than a few people on here with 2.0T's who would wipe the floor with you both academically and financially.
The TT is a lovely car, but just cos you've got a 3.2q doesn't mean that you've "made it" in life, and it certainly doesn't give you the right to take the p*ss out of other people, their cars or their views.
I agree with others that this forum is a disgrace, there are plenty of people who would like to use it more, to enjoy their cars and swap stories, but they, like me are put off incase they end up being ridiculed by certain members on here.
In the months that have passed since I used to contribute on this forum, the only thing, from popping in regularly to look that hasn't changed is the banal attitude of a number of so called contributors when anything is said that may make their cars out not to be the dogs dangly's. 
The majority of car's are all about compromise in some way shape or another, just live and let live without being nasty or derogatory about other peoples lives or comments and this forum will be on the up and up. Keep on with the same stinking attitude and eventually you'll end up with just the few of you pinging messages around between yourselves.
Oh, and just to make it clear, I did have a 3.2 myself - loved it, never had a bad word to say about anyone who either aspired to one, or had a 2.0 T or a MKI.
It was a company car (not sure if you get them working on the tills at ASDA), I've moved up to something else but still smile everytime I see a MKII on the road - 3.2 or 2.0T
Anyone got a sensible comment to make now?


----------



## smartartkid (Aug 20, 2007)

Come on chaps!! It's only a forum, surely we can agree to disagree on stuff or maybe even agree that we can't all agree on stuff or maybe agree that we can't disagree on stuff or maybe..... you know what I mean???

Personally I think Skoda all the way, or actually, what about that car that actually turns into a robot and runs, wouldn't mind one of them! Although maybe it's a subliminal message saying if you buy this car you're gonna end up having to run everywhere?? Oh I dunno!! [smiley=drummer.gif]

So in answer to your question TTurbine, no sensible comments around here! :wink:  [smiley=dizzy2.gif] [/quote]


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Yet another pis$ng contest.

Lots of people here with strong views on lots of things, colours, waxes, engines, Z4s, S3s so why PURPOSELY make it worse. :?

I've not commented either way, other than to say the 3.2 feels totally different with ASR/ESP off so feel free to blame the thread on me. Arnie, you and two others have done that all themselves.

Pls lock this thread someone.


----------



## Arne (Dec 13, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> Yet another pis$ng contest.
> 
> Lots of people here with strong views on lots of things, colours, waxes, engines, Z4s, S3s so why PURPOSELY make it worse. :?
> 
> ...


Can you show me where I have dragged the 3.2 in the gutter here?

What I have done is pissed back at those in this thread that obviously feels very bad about the 2.0T for some reason, and can't keep that to them selves.

If you feel you are one of them, be my guest.....


----------



## Janitor (Jul 2, 2007)

Meh, can't be arsed to read all that cobbblers

Simply put then - there are extremists on either side for one reason / belief or other. Thatâ€™s all fine of course and beyond that, there are mellow members, argumentative ones, constructive types and antagonistic cnuts

whynot - you are clearly the latter... and sorry to burst your little spunk-bubble, but you haven't 'spanked' anyone. Not even come close with the bollocks you post. Have you noticed how youâ€™re the only one that laps up your shite..? :roll:










I do agree wholeheartedly with Tosh though - bin this thread please


----------



## CraigyTT (Oct 19, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> I've given in ... due to people who don't want to add anything to the ownership, but would rather belittle others for whatever reason.


*Seconded.*
Incidentally, even though I quite enjoy winding up Tosh, I hope at least some people have noticed I've not gone in for any of this type of discussion recently.

I've tried to stick to factual stuff like chipping in where I know how something works when someone asks about something.

The general "my car's better than your car, for X reason" just detracts from the forum in my opinion, so I've stopped joining in on those topics (this post being the only exception).

Lets get back to enjoying our cars...

C


----------

