# "What Car" review. 2.0T *****. 3.2V6 ****



## Scooby-Doo (Sep 29, 2006)

Latest edition "What Car" Review gives the 2.0TT five stars and the 3.2V6
four stars (3.2 V6 DSG fivestars) Can't make out quite why but they were very keen on the 2.0TT.Any comments ???????


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

If you look at the detail - they score the same on every section. One assumes its based on the COST, rather than which is the best. (Best is subjective anyway ie if i needed a mpg of more than say 30 or more, the best one would be 20T, however if i want the best performance or 4WD it would be the 3.2).


----------



## DonaldC (May 7, 2002)

Scooby-Doo said:


> Latest edition "What Car" Review gives the 2.0TT five stars and the 3.2V6
> four stars (3.2 V6 DSG fivestars) Can't make out quite why but they were very keen on the 2.0TT.Any comments ???????


A few weeks ago this would have started something! Nice try! :lol:

Both good reviews and I would be a happy buyer of either car.

And I just got another star for replying..... 8)

Donald


----------



## exodont (Sep 10, 2006)

DonaldC said:


> Scooby-Doo said:
> 
> 
> > Latest edition "What Car" Review gives the 2.0TT five stars and the 3.2V6
> ...


Congratulations on the star Donald... another milestone in life passed.


----------



## ChinsVXR (Apr 14, 2006)

For information Scooby-Doo is not me registering as another alias


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Forum is an easier place to visit when the 20T people are not trying to prove its as good as a 3.2


----------



## LazyT (Apr 13, 2006)

ChinsVXR said:


> For information Scooby-Doo is not me registering as another alias


It might be Rebel though. :wink:


----------



## BAMTT (Feb 22, 2004)

Just an observation but i had a little run in with a MKV R32 on the w/e (dry conditions :roll: ), and apart from the initial traction advantage he had and once my esp light had stopped going techno there was absoulutely nothing in it ( both cars DSG both in S mode). we had a little chat afterwards and was he asking whether my car was chipped :lol:

Had to admit it sounded the nuts tho

Anyway just my tuppence worth

I shall now stand back in the event of fireworks :lol:


----------



## exodont (Sep 10, 2006)

BAMTT said:


> Just an observation but i had a little run in with a MKV R32 on the w/e (dry conditions :roll: ), and apart from the initial traction advantage he had and once my esp light had stopped going techno there was absoulutely nothing in it ( both cars DSG both in S mode). we had a little chat afterwards and was he asking whether my car was chipped :lol:
> 
> Had to admit it sounded the nuts tho
> 
> ...


I've owned both and much preferred the GTI... just great fun to drive.. :wink:


----------



## ChrisC (Jul 6, 2006)

Just my opinion

Itâ€™s all personal preference. Front wheel drive is a cheaper way for car manufactures to assemble and package cars, and has therefore been adopted not for dynamic reasons. Front wheel drive cars have got a lot better over the years, gone are the torque steering, and chronic understeer, (apart from the Astra VXR), but this is just engineering the way out of a problem caused by front wheel drive.

Of course in a race, the most important thing is the driver. When doing my track days at Bedford autodrome, the days normally start with the instructors using Suzuki jeeps to teach people following in their sports cars (TVRâ€™s etc) the racing line, after a few laps they would build up the speed, and most new comers canâ€™t keep up with these jeeps, hardly the most stable machines.

If you are happy with front wheel drive I think the 2.0T will be a great car, however if like me you donâ€™t like front wheel drive then the 3.2 is the only option. Now what a 2.0TQ would be like only time will tell.


----------



## tehdarkstar (Jul 24, 2006)

I have posted a few weeks ago a review of the 2.0T from the Evo magazine. If you search around you will find it. BTW, Evo doesn't consider COST on their reviews... :wink:


----------



## exodont (Sep 10, 2006)

We're off again...


----------



## ChinsVXR (Apr 14, 2006)

ChrisC said:


> Just my opinion
> 
> Itâ€™s all personal preference. Front wheel drive is a cheaper way for car manufactures to assemble and package cars, and has therefore been adopted not for dynamic reasons. Front wheel drive cars have got a lot better over the years, gone are the torque steering, and chronic understeer, (apart from the Astra VXR), but this is just engineering the way out of a problem caused by front wheel drive.


Dont give up and watching Top Gear - They havent tested a production VXR yet, only one with SRI suspension. Funnily enough for a car with such massive understeer it was quicker around the track than a 130 M Sport (isnt that one of those so called drivers cars  ), nicely quicker than a MKV GTI and only 5 hundreths behind the 182 Cup :lol: :lol:

Source: EVO Mag


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

god - this so bores me. 20T people if you are happy cool. the 3.2 ADDS 4WD and better performance - The cars are the same other than that. power is applied in a different way on the turbo models so they 'feel' quick. Its doesnt mean they are quicker.

Chip the 20T and it will be as quick, chip the 3.2 (+15bhp) and it will be quicker than a chipped 20T.

20T is the entry model
3.2V6 is the top of the range.

20T is more of a hot hatch
3.2V6 is more of a GT car

20T is cheaper to purchase and run
3.2V6 has a deeper sound and feels smoother

20T has a lower spec
3.2V6 costs more for the extra bits

Do we really need to do this every ***kin week. Im going to sell mine and get an ST focus.


----------



## ChinsVXR (Apr 14, 2006)

exodont said:


> BAMTT said:
> 
> 
> > Just an observation but i had a little run in with a MKV R32 on the w/e (dry conditions :roll: ), and apart from the initial traction advantage he had and once my esp light had stopped going techno there was absoulutely nothing in it ( both cars DSG both in S mode). we had a little chat afterwards and was he asking whether my car was chipped :lol:
> ...


There a commonality starting to appear - ex owners of GTI and R32's buying the TT


----------



## ChinsVXR (Apr 14, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> god - this so bores me. 20T people if you are happy cool. the 3.2 ADDS 4WD and better performance - The cars are the same other than that. power is applied in a different way on the turbo models so they 'feel' quick. Its doesnt mean they are quicker.
> 
> Chip the 20T and it will be as quick, chip the 3.2 (+15bhp) and it will be quicker than a chipped 20T.
> 
> ...


I'm off to the pub to discuss this matter further. Might be able to contribute more to this discussion after 6 or 7 pints :lol:


----------



## ChrisC (Jul 6, 2006)

ChinsVXR said:


> ChrisC said:
> 
> 
> > Just my opinion
> ...


Basic physics lesson, when a car accelerates the weight is transferred to the rear, away from the front wheels, less weight on the front wheels = less grip.

When we see a India Car / F1 Car / Top fuel drag car, etc using front wheel drive, I might change my mind.

And I was not saying front wheel drive is bad, just saying its a solution to a manufacture wanting cheaper production cost, and more interior space for a given exterior dimension.


----------



## ChrisC (Jul 6, 2006)

PS Vauxhall let Top Gear have the car knowing what they where going to do with it. Its back to the 80's for Vauxhall, have you ever driven a Astra GTI 16V with an XE engine.


----------



## BAMTT (Feb 22, 2004)

Ok just to clarify the R32 pulled about 2 -3 cars lengths off the mark and stayed at that, as i said both are DSG cars so there weren't any fluffed gear changes etc according to quite a few MKV GTI owners the BWA engined cars (late 2005 +) have been known to make more than the quoted 200 bhp with some around 220bhp ( closer to A4 DTM spec )

So yes off the mark and out of corners the R32 would be quicker but only for a small amount of time until the 2wd has full traction

This wasn't meant to start another 2.0 vs 3.2 arguement :roll: but to merely point out that the the .8 faster to 60 is mostly due to the 4wd as i was quite surprised that the R32 could'nt/ wasn't trying :wink: to pull out any more than his initial advantage


----------



## LazyT (Apr 13, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> god - this so bores me. 20T people if you are happy cool. the 3.2 ADDS 4WD and better performance - The cars are the same other than that. power is applied in a different way on the turbo models so they 'feel' quick. Its doesnt mean they are quicker.
> 
> Do we really need to do this every ***kin week. Im going to sell mine and get an ST focus.


I think people are sick and tired of waiting for the MK2 and vent their frustrations through this endless rhetoric.


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

This is shokking news !!!!!!!!!

Where can is read this test? Is it online? Or can someone make a picture of it?

Thx


----------



## LazyT (Apr 13, 2006)

Rebel said:


> This is shokking news !!!!!!!!!
> 
> Where can is read this test? Is it online? Or can someone make a picture of it?


Bad news! It's not written in German. :wink:

Besides, 'What Car' is rubbish. Once I carry out my first mod to the MK2, the installation of the Portaloo in the backseat, I'm going to flush that issue of 'What Car' right down that loo. :lol:


----------



## vul3ck6 (Sep 26, 2006)

If Whatcar is rubbish, you probably couldn't bear Autoexpress, they give three stars on 3.2Q which you can check online. 
There is no need to argue about 2.0T or 3.2Q which is the best because 2.0 TFSI is the engine of the year, lighter, more responsive, more fuel efficient, no wonder the reviewer gives it such high scores. Also, there is quite a bit price difference, I know there will be someone going to say Â¨the 3.2Q has full leather heated seat, four wheel drive, and some little bits, and quicker time in 0 to 60Â¨ but how many times you really use full power in the city, driving thrugh the roundabout? no way!! the Clio probaby quicker than you, a little bit of turbo lag, others will take you for granted, you may chase them back on the straight line but they already think you are slow. I am really looking forward to the new V6 engine, even the TSI one, I think they will be real gem. 
In my opinion, 0 to 60 quicker doesn't mean better, agile car is more fun for me.


----------



## LazyT (Apr 13, 2006)

vul3ck6 said:


> If Whatcar is rubbish, you probably couldn't bear Autoexpress


Actually I can't wait to test out my first modification to the MK2. 8) It doesn't matter, any paper will do. It will be much more satisfying than a performance upgrade to the MK2. :-*

I can't believe that no one has considered installing a Portaloo in the backseat. It has to be the best use of that tight space. If one has a Portaloo, he only has to stop for gas on long road trips. 8)


----------



## squiggel (May 16, 2006)

vul3ck6 said:


> If Whatcar is rubbish, you probably couldn't bear Autoexpress.


Autoexpress really is rubbish, but What Car is pretty trustworthy. In relative terms to other car mags anyway...


----------



## Johnnywb (May 31, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> god - this so bores me. 20T people if you are happy cool. the 3.2 ADDS 4WD and better performance - The cars are the same other than that. power is applied in a different way on the turbo models so they 'feel' quick. Its doesnt mean they are quicker.
> 
> Chip the 20T and it will be as quick, chip the 3.2 (+15bhp) and it will be quicker than a chipped 20T.
> 
> ...


***king brilliant. I have to say 100% honestly that it's starting to turn me off this forum. Too much ends up in a 2.0T v 3.2 argument, we've been there, done that umpteen million times.

I've bought a 3.2 because it was closer to the spec i want and comes with Quattro, plus an amazing soundtrack.

I've driven a turbo'd car for the last four years and am fed up with it, i want a nice smooth power delivery again. Had there been a 2.0TQ i would ahve given it a LOT of thought. But there isn't and despite what anyone says, there won't be for a little while and i need to change my car now. Also whilst i'm having a bit of a rant, the conversations that keep recurring about the 3.2 being dropped next week/month/year* delete as applicable are getting a bit boring too.


----------



## LazyT (Apr 13, 2006)

squiggel said:


> vul3ck6 said:
> 
> 
> > If Whatcar is rubbish, you probably couldn't bear Autoexpress.
> ...


So I shoudn't flush Autoexpess down my Portaloo mod?


----------



## nutts (May 8, 2002)

At the end of the day, reviews are not worth the paper they are written on 

The ONLY review worth a damn is your own. Go and drive both cars and then decide. 

At the end of the day, how relevant is all the criteria that mag testers use, when rating a car? and how reliable is their judgement?

It's horses for courses


----------



## BAMTT (Feb 22, 2004)

Johnnywb said:


> I've driven a turbo'd car for the last four years and am fed up with it, i want a nice smooth power delivery again. Had there been a 2.0TQ i would ahve given it a LOT of thought. But there isn't and despite what anyone says, there won't be for a little while and i need to change my car now. Also whilst i'm having a bit of a rant, the conversations that keep recurring about the 3.2 being dropped next week/month/year* delete as applicable are getting a bit boring too.


Although a 2.0TQ would be slower than the 2.0T :lol: and FWIW the 2.0T in very linear in its power delivery only the noise of the turbo gives it away :wink:

And also FWIW if i was in the mkt for a MK2 it would be a V6 or an I5


----------



## dillonw (Apr 14, 2006)

well, one thing i would say

i would have loved the 3.2 and yes it is a higher specced car and i would have loved the extra power

the great thing about the 2.0 though as a company car driver is the low co2 emissions. which will save me a fortune in tax


----------



## markrbooth (Sep 25, 2006)

I too would have loved to get the 3.2 but I have a budget to consider and the 2.0T gets me more options for a more managable price. I think the reason there is so much debate on 3.2 vs 2.0 is that no one can actually get a drive in the 2.0T yet as dealers won't have them until close to christmas.

I say go drive the 3.2 and then test the VW Golf GTi and R32. If you find the GTi more to your taste, order a 2.0T. Simple


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Not true, dealers do have them and they have been test driven by many on here.


----------



## markrbooth (Sep 25, 2006)

Fair enough. I'm just going by my experiences around Brighton.


----------



## BAMTT (Feb 22, 2004)

markrbooth said:


> Fair enough. I'm just going by my experiences around Brighton.


You may want to keep that to yourself :wink:


----------



## Scooby-Doo (Sep 29, 2006)

I didn't mean to stir things up.My TT is a 2WD 190 which I bought last year,couldn,t get a quattro for three months and it was Â£4500 cheaper(before bigger alloys,bose & 6CD).What I would like is ex quattro owners' views on driving the MkII 2W compared to the Mk1.The main problem I find with the 2WD is wheelspin on wet or poor surfaces and front tyres that only last about 8000 miles which are the same problems I had with a MKIII golf VR6 I had back in 1995.Since then I've only had RWD Mercs and BMW.I'll probably get a MKII TT next year but totally undecided about which one to get.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

The same issue will exist with the new car, its simple physics. Handling may well be light years ahead but the amount of power through the wheels has increased by 10bhp. TC may stop some of it, but the dash will light up like an xmas tree in the wet.

However only you can tell, go and test for yourself.


----------



## BAMTT (Feb 22, 2004)

Toshiba said:


> The same issue will exist with the new car, its simple physics. Handling may well be light years ahead but the amount of power through the wheels has increased by 10bhp. TC may stop some of it, but the dash will light up like an xmas tree in the wet.
> 
> However only you can tell, go and test for yourself.


True the golf will spin its wheels in 3rd when its wet


----------



## markrbooth (Sep 25, 2006)

Scooby-Doo said:


> The main problem I find with the 2WD is wheelspin on wet or poor surfaces and front tyres that only last about 8000 miles which are the same problems I had with a MKIII golf VR6 I had back in 1995.


Yup, ditto my Corrado VR6 only lasting less than 12,000 miles and I didn't often drive it 'that' hard. However, my Clio 172 front tyres lasted almost 20,000 miles and the rears are due a (quite desperate) change now at 30,000. With the 2.0T being a similarly light car to my Clio, I'm hoping the tyres will last at least 15,000+ allowing for the torque of the turbo.


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

Toshiba said:


> god - this so bores me. 20T people if you are happy cool. the 3.2 ADDS 4WD and better performance - The cars are the same other than that. power is applied in a different way on the turbo models so they 'feel' quick. Its doesnt mean they are quicker.
> 
> Chip the 20T and it will be as quick, chip the 3.2 (+15bhp) and it will be quicker than a chipped 20T.
> 
> ...


Crap... 8)

The standard MK2 3.2 is much cheaper than my 2.0 TFSI...


----------



## TTdriver (Sep 2, 2006)

How comes top gear mag have reviewed the MK2 in there november issue but no one hasnt mentioned the review :?


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

i think that the 2.0 was better than the 3.2 , and nobody wants to hear that 8)


----------



## sandhua1978 (Sep 11, 2006)

Rebel said:


> i think that the 2.0 was better than the 3.2 , and nobody wants to hear that 8)


So why you got a picture of a 3.2 on your signature???


----------



## LazyT (Apr 13, 2006)

Rebel said:


> i think that the 2.0 was better than the 3.2 , and nobody wants to hear that 8)


So now you think the 3.2 is better than the 2.0?


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

20T is pants, its a noddy car - end ov.

Rebel - hope you like loosing money then as you be lucky to see a â‚¬ come resale time.

Strange thing is if the 3.2 is so bad and the 20T so good - why are they testing it against all the big car 350z, Z4 :lol:

I'm hoping the next zonda will be FWD with a 4pot turbo in the front.


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

sandhua1978 said:


> Rebel said:
> 
> 
> > i think that the 2.0 was better than the 3.2 , and nobody wants to hear that 8)
> ...


???????? Don't know what you mean? Lazy....i think you see ghosts

@ Tosh, my mk1 was a 180 hp and i did get a very very very good price for it 
Over here in the netherlands the people don't like car's who has a great full consumption and with engines with bad emissions. 
So don't whorry, by the time i sell the car, it want be a problem.
But again, i sell the car for myself and not for others.......

And once again, my car is way over the price from a standard 3.2 ...so i don't mind that you call it a cheap version....

If a buy a 3.2 with all the options i took , than the gap to a new Porsche is very small also....
But i don;t want the heavy engine in the noise from the 3.2.... i'm quite happy that many magazines tested the 2.0 and the 3.2 and all said that the 2.0 was the best value for the money...............and that's what count's when i sell the car after 2 years....

i don;t give a shit if there are twoo exhaust, or if there's a badge with quatro on it......
helll no........i think that no off the quatro's drivers can follow me on the ring or on a track in my FWD....
the UK have too many posers and too litle drivers.....
that's why the TT is so populair over there.

i think the new TT will again get a "haircutter" image.....or the title that it is a "gay-car"..
It's a shame that so little people *drive *realy the car ....
It;s all abouth painted calibers, i-pods, and other shiny stuff....

No i'm quite happy to use the car where it's made for............fast driving and high speed corners...... 8)

where the f*ck is LEG........i need his help


----------



## tehdarkstar (Jul 24, 2006)

TTdriver said:


> How comes top gear mag have reviewed the MK2 in there november issue but no one hasnt mentioned the review :?


I have posted the scans of that review here on the day I got the magazine in the post.


----------



## tehdarkstar (Jul 24, 2006)

Rebel said:


> sandhua1978 said:
> 
> 
> > Rebel said:
> ...


Be careful with these generalizations mate, as I see more Ferrari, Porsche, Lamborghini, TVR, Caterham, Lotus and etc over here than any other country and I see a lot more people over here doing track days than I have seen elsewhere...


----------



## exodont (Sep 10, 2006)

Rebel said:


> where the f*ck is LEG........i need his help


You can easily handle this lot Rebel... they're just trying to wind you up :wink:


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Rebel said:


> And once again, my car is way over the price from a standard 3.2 ...so i don't mind that you call it a cheap version....
> 
> If a buy a 3.2 with all the options i took , than the gap to a new Porsche is very small also....


But that's list price you still need to spec up the cayman which moves back the gap again - trust me i toy'd with it big time.



Rebel said:


> But i don;t want the heavy engine in the noise from the 3.2....


Don't recall anyone saying the MKII was noise heavy. MKI yes.



Rebel said:


> the UK have too many posers and too litle drivers.....
> that's why the TT is so populair over there.


No we cant drive as the roads are so busy with pimps, homos, immigrants and drug dealers all heading to the curry house - we crawl along trying to avoid pot holes.



Rebel said:


> where the f*ck is LEG........


Mines just above the ankle


----------



## LazyT (Apr 13, 2006)

Rebel said:


> sandhua1978 said:
> 
> 
> > Rebel said:
> ...


You said "I think that the 2.0 WAS better than the 3.2..." It sounds like you are not so sure now. :wink:


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Hes seen sense, leave him be.


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

Tosh they did say that the 2.0 was easy to drive in the corners, more accurate steering... 8)


----------



## sandhua1978 (Sep 11, 2006)

Rebel said:


> sandhua1978 said:
> 
> 
> > Rebel said:
> ...


???????? Don't know what you mean? Lazy....i think you see ghosts

Great Job in Photoshop! :lol:


----------



## M4L__TT (Mar 25, 2004)

Im just glad that we didnt have this argument back in 1999 about the 180 and 225 its so boring..both turned out to be great cars...if you wanted the full works and had the cash you generally went for the 225 if you wanted the cheaper version with one pipe you opted for the 180...when the original tt site opened in mid 2000 the argument was about whether the coupe was better than the roadster and which was the best colour beside silver..

The debate about whose got the best doesnt seem to have got much better over the past 6 years.

Guys all the tt range is great old and new 150,180,225 3.2 mk1 or mk2 coupe or roadster..silver or any other colour...

its all down to individual choice and if your after go faster then you mod the car if not you leave it as it came out of the factory...
enjoy the tt experience they are all good...

regards malc


----------



## Dotti (Mar 9, 2003)

I want an R8 [smiley=sweetheart.gif] ... you lot can keep your 2.0 and 3.2s :-*


----------



## TTdriver (Sep 2, 2006)

iF you can afford a R8 and your single i'll marry you as the R8 is truly stunning


----------



## Dotti (Mar 9, 2003)

I know they are very expensive brand new but I would wait for second hand one probably that is a couple of years old . Replace my TT with one perhaps 8)  . R8 would have to be red nontheless


----------



## TSCN (May 23, 2006)

Dotti said:


> I know they are very expensive brand new but I would wait for second hand one probably that is a couple of years old . Replace my TT with one perhaps 8)  . R8 would have to be red nontheless


I'll buy you one......maybe


----------



## TTdriver (Sep 2, 2006)

I'd take him up on that offer as they start at approx Â£80k


----------



## TSCN (May 23, 2006)

TTdriver said:


> I'd take him up on that offer as they start at approx Â£80k


......and this is where the maybe comes in. On a serious note I am seriously tempted to sell something or other off and get one, they're gorgeous.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Dotti said:


> I know they are very expensive brand new but I would wait for second hand one probably that is a couple of years old . Replace my TT with one perhaps 8)  . R8 would have to be red nontheless


Im tempted to put my name down on the list - only costs Â£500.


----------



## Dotti (Mar 9, 2003)

Go on Toshy you know you want to


----------



## M4L__TT (Mar 25, 2004)

I think you might find that the first years allocation of 500 has already gone..

regards malc


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

I would not pay this much for an Audi - the brand is simply not worth it.

I am tempted by either a 911 else a DB9 tho - might have to save a few more Â£s tho.


----------



## Dotti (Mar 9, 2003)

You could wait and get one second hand I guess


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Secondhand, i'm not having some one else's cast off's :evil:

Not many good 50k cars about, 75k is a bit of a big jump for a good 911 (and the 911 is way better than any Audi) then a massive leap to 100k for a DB9

I still really fancy the ST Focus with that fantasic Turbocharged, Duratec 225 PS, 2.5 litre, 5 cylinder engine and 320Nm of torque @1600 rpm, just doesnt seem right tho.


----------



## Dotti (Mar 9, 2003)

Bit of a difference there between a DB9 and a Focus ST! :?

When do you get your mk2?


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

Yeah Tosh, give your dealer a call, your car must been there by now, not?
We want reviews and pictures 8)


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Its at the dealers - Im not picking it up for a few weeks yet.


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

Toshiba said:


> Its at the dealers - Im not picking it up for a few weeks yet.


8)

i knew it !!

You don;t like the 10 spokes wheels.

Pick it up at night, and drive it into youre garage, nobody will see them !

Why must you wait solong for the RS4 wheels? TT LAW had them sooner.


----------



## Dotti (Mar 9, 2003)

I thought Toshy was one of the first on this forum to put his order in for his mk2 and yet he still hasn't got it! :?


----------



## tehdarkstar (Jul 24, 2006)

Dotti said:


> I want an R8 [smiley=sweetheart.gif] ... you lot can keep your 2.0 and 3.2s :-*


Are you single? I can do the laundry, iron, cook (good luck on that) and clean your car for you. :lol:


----------



## squiggel (May 16, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> Its at the dealers - Im not picking it up for a few weeks yet.


Why's that then :?: :?:


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Life's rather manic - I'm flying all over the place at the moment with work and I'm also having an extension built on the house so it suits me not to take delivery right now. (Plus it only got to the dealers on Thursday last). Plus i have a free car from Audi to run round in. 

19s - i do like them, then i don't, then i do - need to see them myself. But I do really like the std 18s (no Really) didn't want the bi ones after what happened with the qS ones, and have never liked the turbines.

Car is penciled in for this coming Friday, but I'm going to move it back a week to Monday to the 23rd.


----------



## LazyT (Apr 13, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> Lives rather manic - I'm flying all over the place at the moment with work, I'm cool and I'm also having an extension built on the house so it suits me not to take delivery right now.
> 
> Car is penciled in for this coming Friday, but I'm going to move it back a week to Monday to the 23rd.


For one so busy, you sure have plenty of time to post on this forum. :wink:

Are you still planning any mods? 8) Or are you waiting until you get your MK2 to decide?


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

I can post on the forum from anywhere in the world - works just as boring wherever you are! :lol:

Im not sure what to do with it. the 300bhp conversation karen talked about looks good, but i also like the idea of a supercharger.

That's why i started the mods thread to see what other people are thinking of doing.


----------



## LazyT (Apr 13, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> I can post on the forum from anywhere in the world - works just as boring wherever you are! :lol:
> 
> Im not sure what to do with it. the 300bhp conversation karen talked about looks good, but i also like the idea of a supercharger.
> 
> That's why i started the mods thread to see what other people are thinking of doing.


Refresh my memory, what kind of modifications does the 300bhp conversation consist of?

Have you considered installing a loo in the backseat. You know for business and pleasure travel. I can't believe future MK2 owners aren't all over this idea. :wink:

BTW, those a$$holes at Audi have finally added the MK2 to its Audi USA website. They only mention the same two engine choices. I guess they expect to sell alot of the 3.2 engine version here in the states. 8) I read somewhere that around 85% of A4 buyers in the US purchase quattro, foregoing the FWD version.


----------

