# 2.0 FSI T MK2 TT Re-map/Chip Tune



## thettshop (Oct 3, 2003)

*We are pleased to be able to offer the SKN map for the new 2.0T TT. It offers the same benefits of the MK1 TT re-map, which are a smooth power curve and a smooth increase in boost.*

The car will be mechanically checked for any faults, if all is ok we can then go ahead with the re-map/chip tune.

The chip gives an approx increase of 50bhp and 40ibs/ft of torque.

Please call 01234 853225, e-mail [email protected], or PM us for more information or to book your car in.


----------



## TT Law (Sep 6, 2003)

How Much?


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Does it come with a roll of toilet paper for when the roads are wet?


----------



## TT Law (Sep 6, 2003)

It does come with a sticker for under the spoiler for dry conditions:

"Its always nice to see a V6 in the REAR view mirror!"

  

Steve


----------



## blagman (Sep 11, 2006)

TT Law said:


> It does come with a sticker for under the spoiler for dry conditions:
> 
> "Its always nice to see a V6 in the REAR view mirror!"
> 
> ...


 :lol: :lol:


----------



## LazyT (Apr 13, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> Does it come with a roll of toilet paper for when the roads are wet?


Exactly! This company should develop a mod- install a loo in the backseat.  Otherwise, the backseat will be nothing but an expensive shelf. :?


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

TT Law said:


> It does come with a sticker for under the spoiler for dry conditions:
> 
> "Its always nice to see a V6 in the REAR view mirror!"
> 
> ...


Engines in the MKII are up front :wink:

But dont forget we can also mod ours.....and drive in all conditions


----------



## Wolverine (Dec 22, 2002)

Hey, this is a new topic. 2.0 vs 3.2 - who'd have thought... :roll:  :lol:


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

Toshiba said:


> TT Law said:
> 
> 
> > It does come with a sticker for under the spoiler for dry conditions:
> ...


Although not necessary stop in them...


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Wolverine said:


> Hey, this is a new topic. 2.0 vs 3.2 - who'd have thought... :roll:  :lol:


Only if you turn it into one. it was a comment ob traction.n :wink:


----------



## blagman (Sep 11, 2006)

So who is best

APR
REVO
ABT

Wife had a APR 1.8 turbo Beetle that I had the switchable program 201bhp map 95 ron fuel or 98 ron fuel and 206bhp  map never had one single problem in four years. So I would be inclined to go with APR again, unless anybody knows any different.

John


----------



## Calibos (Mar 28, 2004)

I have a 2.0T on overnight demo/test-drive at the moment. Currently I drive a 2.0TDI A3 (140bhp/320nm torque) Its remapped, so its about 170-180/350-360?.

First impression of the 2.0T is that is indeed a lovely refined engine which picks up faster than my TDI without noticable lag but it just feels nowhere as fast despite 0-60 of 7.8 compared to the TT's 6.2?. Sure there is nothing from the TDI for the first half second of lag but once the TDI's turbo spools up, its 'planted into the seat time'.

I know its all in the head, and the TT just feels slower when its actually faster but I think I'll will miss that 'planted into the seat' feeling from my TDI, so will deffo be looking to remap the 2.0T TT which brings me to my point/question.

I know BHP is a function of torque x Revs. But isn't it the amount of torque that spins the wheels and pushes you into your seat. ie when you want to find out how hard into the seat you'll will be pushed in a new car, you would look at the torque figure rather than the BHP figure. As such a high torque diesel spins the wheels more and pushes you back harder but for a lot less time than say a 2.0T TT which doesn't spin the wheels as much or push you back as hard but this lesser force pushing you back can last longer than the diesel because the petrol TT can rev a lot higher.

Would that be about right?

So a remapped 2.0T TT will have torque figures comparable to a non mapped 2.0TDI or a 3.2 (320nm). To all the people who are saying 250bhp(320nm) is too much for a FWD car. Should I not have the same if not more of a problem with my remapped FWD 2.0TDI? Sure I have to pull off without flooring it for the first few metres so the wheels don't spin in the wet but once the car is moving I can gun it in the wet. In the dry I think I have managed to spin the wheels once. Sure the ESP is stopping most of the spinning that maybe should happen, but I certainly don't feel like my progress is being hampered by it.

So surely all 250bhp(320nm) in a FWD TT means is that I am slightly hampered at a traffic Light grand prix in the wet?? Big deal! If I am not totally on the wrong track then for me this means that I am not preppared to wait another 8 or 9 months for a Quattro 2.0T and pay an extra few thousand euros just so I win a few more Traffic Light grand prixs in the wet.


----------



## Wolverine (Dec 22, 2002)

Toshiba said:


> TT Law said:
> 
> 
> > It does come with a sticker for under the spoiler for dry conditions:
> ...





Toshiba said:


> Wolverine said:
> 
> 
> > Hey, this is a new topic. 2.0 vs 3.2 - who'd have thought... :roll:  :lol:
> ...


Short term memory loss? It was you who turned it into one...


----------



## ChinsVXR (Apr 14, 2006)

Calibos said:


> I have a 2.0T on overnight demo/test-drive at the moment. Currently I drive a 2.0TDI A3 (140bhp/320nm torque) Its remapped, so its about 170-180/350-360?.
> 
> First impression of the 2.0T is that is indeed a lovely refined engine which picks up faster than my TDI without noticable lag but it just feels nowhere as fast despite 0-60 of 7.8 compared to the TT's 6.2?. Sure there is nothing from the TDI for the first half second of lag but once the TDI's turbo spools up, its 'planted into the seat time'.
> 
> ...


To put a few numbers in perspective.

Using MTM as a baseline.

*A3 2.0TDI 140bhp*

Before remap: 0-60 = 9.3 secs
After: 0-60 = 8.0 secs

Power before = 138 bhp & 320nm
After = 175 & 390nm

Weight 1460kg

* TT 2.0T*

Before remap: 0-60 = 6.4 secs
After: 0-60 = not stated, but probably around 5.9-6.0 secs

Power before = 197 bhp & 280nm
After = 240 & 355nm

Weight 1260kg

I think you might be finding that the lag in the 2.0TDI and then huge rush of torque make the car feel a lot faster than it actually is. I always felt my remaped Fabia with similar numbers to yours, but a lot less body weight was fast until I actually enjoyed a drag up a hill against a std blobeye Impreza (in the dry) 

The argument on here re the ability of a 2.0T to put its power to the tarmac will I'm sure continue for ever :? Interesting to see Mazda is now happy to release its FWD 3 series with 258bhp and 280lbft as std  I personally think that most performance cars can easily cope with 240bhp and 240lbft and of course they then benefit from a lower curb weight. I dont do traffic light GP's, so speed off the line in the wet doesnt bother me.


----------



## coley (Oct 2, 2006)

i must admit in these damp conditions i have found it quite difficult to put down the power without some wheels spin in 1st and 2nd gear and not just when moving off. Having said that i have only had the car since Friday and the tyres are still new hoping things will improve but probably not now until next Summer :? .

I had an Hi Power RX8 before with more BHP but alot less torque and rear wheel drive, virtually no wheel spin unless provocation, you can have more fun in rear wheel drive if you want


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

What tyres come with the TT? Because I had the same problem with my A3 and Dunlop Sports - 3rd gear wheel spin on occasions in greasy conditions. I changed to Goodyear Eagle F1s, and I wish I had them on from then start. Amazing how much more grip they have compared to the Dunlops.


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

Wolverine said:


> Toshiba said:
> 
> 
> > TT Law said:
> ...


He didnt mention engines, just traction, pretty clear in his post :?


----------



## Calibos (Mar 28, 2004)

Karsci. I see you have a remapped 2.0TDI A3 too. Whats your take on the subject of 2.0T non quattro TT remapping. Do you agree that if you don't mind the small (Traffic Light Grand Prix in the wet) limitations of 320+nm on a FWD A3 then one wouldn't be bothered by them on a remapped FWD 2.0T TT. Are you happy with how the power goes down on your FWD A3?


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

Sadly the car is now gone. But I was really disappointed to let it go. The new tyres made all the difference. While on the OEM Dunlops, I said it was almost a waist remapping the car if it didn't have quattro.

But with the F1s, putting the power down in the dry was no problem at all. In the wet, you had to hold back, but no more than in a standard car.

Despite all the hoohaa about 3.2 this and 3.2 that, I think a remapped 2.0T will be fine with FWD if you have the right tyres. OK, you may not be able to put all of that power down in slow tight corners, or in the wet. But it should be considerably better than the A3 handles it, and I doubt it will detract from the driving experience.


----------



## Wolverine (Dec 22, 2002)

Leg said:


> He didnt mention engines, just traction, pretty clear in his post :?


This thread is about tuning the 2.0T - the clear tenor of Tosh's reply _"we can also mod ours" _ is that the 3.2 can be boosted with more power than the 2.0 _and _ it can lay down the power better. I don't know how you can't see that that is not 3.2 vs 2.0 or is it too subtle for you.

And Tosh is a big boy - I'm sure he doesn't need an advocate.


----------



## Nick225TT (Oct 13, 2004)

What it (2.0T) will loose in traction in the wet it will make up under breaking and through the corner, due to it's weight advantage.

In the dry a Chipped 2.0T should still be fun great fun to throw around


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

I'd suggest you read the thread again - the first post was against the V6 so get ur fact/s right if you are going to have a go. :evil:

TRACTION

people are just too serious these days.


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

Nick225TT said:


> What it (2.0T) will loose in traction in the wet it will make up under breaking and through the corner, due to it's weight advantage.
> 
> In the dry a Chipped 2.0T should still be fun great fun to throw around


But the 3.2 has bigger brakes and wider tyres to help with that. Although, it is slowing from a higher speed to a lower one, to get round the corner. God knows which would have the upper hand. Perhaps we'll have the opportunity to test it out one day for real at a meet.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

pls not again, i cant cope with it all.

Anyone can mod any engine, they are nolonger std once changed so its not the point is it.

super charge the V6+100bhp
turbo charge the V6+80bhp

and it will still be able to put the power down - maybe.

Is the V6 a better eninge than the 20T once these have been done :roll:


----------



## Wolverine (Dec 22, 2002)

Toshiba said:


> I'd suggest you read the thread again - the first post was against the V6 so get ur fact/s right if you are going to have a go. :evil:
> 
> TRACTION
> 
> people are just too serious these days.


You may have started out with that intention but you couldn't resist biting when power was mentioned...

If you're gonna start the "thread correction game" don't bail out by playing the "I'm so laid back card"...


----------



## Nick225TT (Oct 13, 2004)

Karcsi said:


> Nick225TT said:
> 
> 
> > What it (2.0T) will loose in traction in the wet it will make up under breaking and through the corner, due to it's weight advantage.
> ...


You can spec the same wheels and tyres for both cars so the lighter car will have the advantage in breaking and cornering.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Wolverine said:


> Toshiba said:
> 
> 
> > I'd suggest you read the thread again - the first post was against the V6 so get ur fact/s right if you are going to have a go. :evil:
> ...


where? i said the words 'wet' and 'traction' i dont mention power, or speed, or perfomance, or better, or worse :?

Only what can be done to one, can be done to the other.


----------



## Nick225TT (Oct 13, 2004)

Toshiba said:


> pls not again, i cant cope with it all.
> 
> Anyone can mod any engine, they are nolonger std once changed so its not the point is it.
> 
> ...


You can't do this for 500 notes though and you'd have to spec the manual box beofre you started. 

It would give a 911 a run for it's money if you did


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

Nick225TT said:


> Karcsi said:
> 
> 
> > Nick225TT said:
> ...


Why am I continuing with this, I don't know [smiley=end.gif] . The bigger brakes will win out, and the additional weight over the wheels (espeically the rear axle) could actually help with braking. But then you fit large brakes to the 2,0T, and we start all over again... :roll: [smiley=zzz.gif]


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

Wolverine said:


> Leg said:
> 
> 
> > He didnt mention engines, just traction, pretty clear in his post :?
> ...


Are you serious? If there was a 3.2FWD, a 3.2Q, a 2.0TFWD and a 2.0TQ and Tosh made the comment he did how could you say its 3.2 vs 2.0 then? Its obviously FWD vs Quattro and the fact that they put the 2.0T in the FWD car isnt the point. Hence he didnt mention the engine. I think you will find that many of the people who ordered a 3.2 would have preferred a 2.0TQ if it had been available tbh and im sure if Tosh had a 2.0TQ he would be making the same comment.

Reason why Ive commented in Tosh's favour is 1. Because I can, its a forum and 2. Ive been misquoted myself on this subject in exactly the same way as u are doing here

Dont worry, Im sure ill disagree with him again any day now on something else....

Oh and im not getting into it, its plain and simple, been said to death, and that, is, all, I, have, to, say, about, that.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Colour?


----------



## Nick225TT (Oct 13, 2004)

Not unless you change the laws of physics...

If your breaking in the wet then the major factors will be the grip available from the tyres and the amount of momentum the vehicle has. Grip will be the same in both versions, but the lighter car will stop quicker.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Newtons second law

Dont get confused about the difference between weight and mass. Weight is the force due to gravity and is measured in newtons. Mass is the amount of matter that a body contains and is measured in kilograms.

Deceleration can be viewed as negative acceleration or decreasing velocity over time

a=(V2-V2o/2sg)

Also you need to take into account the coefficient of friction between tires and roadway in addition to Tire pressure, tire width, tyre condition

d = V2/(254*f)

But the angle also comes into play.

When a highway is on a grade, the standard formula for braking distance is the following:

d = V2/(254*(f Â± G))


----------



## ChinsVXR (Apr 14, 2006)

:roll: :roll: :roll: How come a thread about chipping a 2.0T has been degraded by the usual suspects into a shouldnt you have a 3.2 thread.


----------



## Wolverine (Dec 22, 2002)

Leg said:


> Are you serious? If there was a 3.2FWD, a 3.2Q, a 2.0TFWD and a 2.0TQ and Tosh made the comment he did how could you say its 3.2 vs 2.0 then? Its obviously FWD vs Quattro and the fact that they put the 2.0T in the FWD car isnt the point. Hence he didnt mention the engine. I think you will find that many of the people who ordered a 3.2 would have preferred a 2.0TQ if it had been available tbh and im sure if Tosh had a 2.0TQ he would be making the same comment.
> 
> Reason why Ive commented in Tosh's favour is 1. Because I can, its a forum and 2. Ive been misquoted myself on this subject in exactly the same way as u are doing here
> 
> ...


So, you are saying that the phrase_ "we can also mod ours" _ was referrring to modifying the Quattro traction system rather than an attempt to bait the 2.0T boys by inferrring that the 3.2 still has the capacity to be _more _powerful than even a chipped 2.0T. If you can explain away this phrase as relating to traction and not engine power then I'm perfectly happy to concede the argument. Good luck Rumpole...


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

Nick225TT said:


> Not unless you change the laws of physics...
> 
> If your breaking in the wet then the major factors will be the grip available from the tyres and the amount of momentum the vehicle has. Grip will be the same in both versions, but the lighter car will stop quicker.


Clearly weight has nothing to do with the degree of friction between the tyres and the road. Thames Trains ust of thought that when they upgraded the brakes on their trains a few years back. :roll:


----------



## blagman (Sep 11, 2006)

ChinsVXR said:


> :roll: :roll: :roll: How come a thread about chipping a 2.0T has been degraded by the usual suspects into a shouldnt you have a 3.2 thread.


Perhaps we ought to split the MK2 forum into 2.0t & 3.2 so we don't get interrupted all the time :lol: :lol:


----------



## Nick225TT (Oct 13, 2004)

Karcsi said:


> Nick225TT said:
> 
> 
> > Not unless you change the laws of physics...
> ...


If you want to compare the V6 to a train in terms of braking fine, but I still think your missing point. Audi spent a fortune building the TT out of lightweight material to help breaking, cornering and acceleration. If weight had no effect on any of these parameters then instead of using aluminium they would have used a couple of spare girders off the Forth bridge.

When the 2.0TQ comes out it will be heavier and take longer to break than the 2.0T.


----------



## Necroscope (Apr 9, 2006)

Eerrmm....... do we know the price yet, did some one ask that question :?:


----------



## BAMTT (Feb 22, 2004)

Just to add my twopence worth at Sunday night LEEK meet i did'nt have to many probs staying with a couple of Quattro in cars in the wet :?


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

Nick225TT said:


> Karcsi said:
> 
> 
> > Nick225TT said:
> ...


Simply because a car is lighter doesn't necessarily mean it will stop faster. As the friction between the tyre and the tarmac is a product of the weight of the car, area of contact and the materials, a weightier can make better use of the brakes and potentially stop faster. The more weight over the re-axle (less bias to the front) will also help with this.

Thames Trains made the mistake of fitting brakes that were more powerful than the train could handle - because the trains were not heavy enough to generate enough friction between the wheels and the rails. That was to illustrate my point that more weight generates more friction between the tyres and the road, hence greater potential stopping power. I was not missing the point. I was making one.


----------



## Necroscope (Apr 9, 2006)

He's right you know..............


----------



## Nick225TT (Oct 13, 2004)

Necroscope said:


> He's right you know..............


No he's not.

A bus has brake discs the size of dustbin lids but it isn't going to stop faster than any car. It's about energy, the heavier car will have to dissipate more energy in a quicker time to stop in the same distance as a lighter car. You can fill your car up with four mates and hit the brakes and it will take longer to stop even if you brake so hard the ABS kicks in.

The distribution of weight on a car will make a difference to the friction between the tyres and the road, but itâ€™s not going to change things significantly. Yes you want your tyres to be pushed into the tarmac (downforce) but you donâ€™t want to have to put a sack of potatoes in the boot to achieve this.


----------



## Necroscope (Apr 9, 2006)

All right then your both right  its always going to be a trade off between the two.........

Never fancied driving a bus either


----------



## blagman (Sep 11, 2006)

Meanwhile back on Planet Earth any idea on cost  But most important who is the best mapper out there, and who sells the best re maps.

John


----------



## Necroscope (Apr 9, 2006)

Come on you know someone wants to mention potential and kinetic energy..............


----------



## ChrisC (Jul 6, 2006)

There is a point that is being missed here, and thatâ€™s Audiâ€™s marketing. Cars are engineered these days to such an extent that no feel, noise or dynamic performance of any part is by accident, they are designed. Audi would not make the 2.0T better in any respect (apart from economy) over the 3.2Q because it is less expensive, in the same way a future more expensive model will be better than the 3.2Q.

However (and I am trying to get it back onto topic here) when a car is modified all bets are off. So if a chipped 2.0T FWD be faster than a standard 3.2Q in the real world or on a track only time will tell.

Chris.


----------



## markrbooth (Sep 25, 2006)

Nick225TT said:


> Necroscope said:
> 
> 
> > He's right you know..............
> ...


I think he was saying if other things being equal (ie 50-50 weight distribution and better brakes to stop the heavy car in the same distance) the heavier car should press the tyres into the road more and generate more traction on a given tyre.

I think there is also confusion between mass and weight. A heavier car (ie. more massive) should stop in exactly the same distance with equivalently upgraded brakes. However, shuv a huge spoiler and F1 style under tray on the lighter car and make it weigh the same as the heavier one (at speed) and it will still stop much quicker than before.


----------



## CH_Peter (May 16, 2002)

blagman said:


> Meanwhile back on Planet Earth any idea on cost  But most important who is the best mapper out there, and who sells the best re maps.
> 
> John


Perhaps we could drag this back on topic?

Blagman, I would assume that the prices are the same as other SKN maps, although I don't see one on the website presently. Perhaps just give the TT Shop a ring and ask?

01234 853 225

Peter


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

Yep. And the larger brakes on the 3.2 might be able to make better use of that additional grip than those on the lighter 2.0T, therefore cancelling out the handicap of the additional weight. But we will not find out until a car magazine does some proper tests of both. Autocar and Auto Motor und Sport used to do quite detailed testing of cars, but I haven't seen one from either.


----------



## Nick225TT (Oct 13, 2004)

I think the theory of 'heavier, bigger cars are better' was proved wrong along time ago.










You could still be right maybe heavy is the way to go in the future.............


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

Nick225TT said:


> I think the theory of 'heavier, bigger cars are better' was proved wrong along time ago.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


My God you are narrow minded. We are not talking about a situation where the only variable is weight, are we. :roll:


----------



## CH_Peter (May 16, 2002)

thettshop said:


> *We are pleased to be able to offer the SKN map for the new 2.0T TT. It offers the same benefits of the MK1 TT re-map, which are a smooth power curve and a smooth increase in boost.*
> 
> The car will be mechanically checked for any faults, if all is ok we can then go ahead with the re-map/chip tune.
> 
> ...


Sometimes threads go off topic a bit, but given that this one's from a forum sponsor, we might try and keep it to the above?


----------



## Nick225TT (Oct 13, 2004)

Karcsi said:


> Nick225TT said:
> 
> 
> > I think the theory of 'heavier, bigger cars are better' was proved wrong along time ago.
> ...


 :?:

I wasn't, thats was the reason I post the pic.

I suggested that the 2.0T would have the advantage in braking and through the initial part of a corner due to it being lighter and the Q would be quicker out of the corner thanks to its extra traction.

I still maintain that a QS would also have a better braking performance than a Mk1 V6 as they have the same brakes and if they were fitted with the same rubber and all other thing were equal.


----------



## markrbooth (Sep 25, 2006)

CH_Peter said:


> Sometimes threads go off topic a bit, but given that this one's from a forum sponsor, we might try and keep it to the above?


The thread seemed to go off topic after the first reply asking how much it was; to which the OP didn't reply (unless I missed it?)


----------



## CH_Peter (May 16, 2002)

markrbooth said:


> CH_Peter said:
> 
> 
> > Sometimes threads go off topic a bit, but given that this one's from a forum sponsor, we might try and keep it to the above?
> ...


As the first posts says, "Please call 01234 853225, e-mail [email protected], or PM us for more information or to book your car in."

I'm guessing "more information" would include the price.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Nick225TT said:


> I still maintain that a QS would also have a better braking performance than a Mk1 V6 as they have the same brakes and if they were fitted with the same rubber and all other thing were equal.


No it doesnt. The qS has the same brakes as the 1.8Ts - only painted red.


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

Nick225TT said:


> :?:
> 
> I wasn't, thats was the reason I post the pic.
> 
> ...


 :?: Indeed. You somehow inferred that I was suggesting that more weight made for a better car, which is clearly not what I argued. Only that the 3.2 has bigger brakes and more grip due to the weight, which I feel is likely to cancel out the 2.0T's weight advantage on braking. Everything else I agree with.[/quote]


----------



## Nick225TT (Oct 13, 2004)

Karcsi said:


> Nick225TT said:
> 
> 
> > :?:
> ...


If the 2.0T has a softer front end setup (less weight above it), then it will have more grip and better stability under braking. Just a theory.


----------



## TTwiggy (Jul 20, 2004)

You MkII guys crack me up!

anyway, i believe that the record for 0-100-0 is still held by Caterham?..... not exactly heavy those sevens.........


----------



## ChrisC (Jul 6, 2006)

TTwiggy said:


> You MkII guys crack me up!
> 
> anyway, i believe that the record for 0-100-0 is still held by Caterham?..... not exactly heavy those sevens.........


But it was taken from the R500 by an Ultima a year or so back, which is heavier :lol:

Chris


----------



## der_horst (Apr 29, 2006)

ChrisC said:


> But it was taken from the R500 by an Ultima a year or so back, which is heavier :lol:


afaik the veyron is the current record holder for production cars with 9.9 sec.


----------

