# Big power loss on the 3.2 at the wheels? Or dodgy engine?



## Sussex_Paul (Aug 1, 2007)

Just comparing the two performance figures for the 2.0 and the 3.2 on a rolling road test.
The larger engine looses a hell of a lot of power at the wheels.
From (manufacturer figures) 247 bhp down to 207 bhp (as tested) and 236lb/ft down to 211 lb/ft torque (as tested).
Is this likely to be a dodgy engine or the quattro running gear sapping the power?
The 2.0 TFSi shows (manufacturer figures) 197 bhp to 194 bhp (as tested) and 207 lb/ft up to 208 lb/ft (as tested).
When you add the extra weight (150 kg) of the 3.2 it actually gives the 2.0 a better power to weight ratio...........................


----------



## Necroscope (Apr 9, 2006)

This must be why the 2.0T is faster :? :lol:


----------



## chrisabdn (Aug 15, 2007)

The Quattro system is bound to sap some of the power.

A few years back I test drove a 225 Mk1 Quattro, and was a little underwhelmed ... I subsequently test drove, and bought, a Seat Leon Cupra 1.8T 180 ... same engine, less bhp, but felt quicker / more fun to drive.

A friend, who knows more about it than me, said it was due to the 4WD sapping power.

I'm no expert though.


----------



## sane eric (Jul 19, 2007)

Wait for it, it's going to come......


----------



## BobFat (Jul 24, 2007)

tick... tock.... tick.... tock.... [smiley=bomb.gif]


----------



## Janitor (Jul 2, 2007)

Oh nooooo.... quick, everybody run!!!



















Paul - ye are young of this world (forum)... so you may, just may get away with it. Here's hoping


----------



## TommyTippee (May 31, 2007)

Sussex_Paul said:


> Just comparing the two performance figures for the 2.0 and the 3.2 on a rolling road test.
> The larger engine looses a hell of a lot of power at the wheels.
> From (manufacturer figures) 247 bhp down to 207 bhp (as tested) and 236lb/ft down to 211 lb/ft torque (as tested).
> Is this likely to be a dodgy engine or the quattro running gear sapping the power?
> ...


OMG

Stop it--------------Stop it

Don't say another word


----------



## BAMTT (Feb 22, 2004)

Somethings not right with the 2.0 figures 1.5% power loss from flywheel to wheels ....i don't think so,


----------



## Raider (Sep 9, 2007)

Hehehehehe......*puts fingers in ears and waits for it*..i might be young to the forum also but i`ve seen the posts..omg...Incoming! :lol:


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

BAMTT said:


> Somethings not right with the 2.0 figures 1.5% power loss from flywheel to wheels ....i don't think so,


I thought that too. I would expect about 20-25bhp loss on the FWD - is that about right? The quattro looses about twice as much because the power is being put through an additional coupling / axle. Hardly earth shattering news. With the additional weight, there is not much in it between the two cars. The V6 will always sound faster, even if not actually faster in all situations.


----------



## Sussex_Paul (Aug 1, 2007)

BAMTT said:


> Somethings not right with the 2.0 figures 1.5% power loss from flywheel to wheels ....i don't think so,


The figures quoted are correct.
Thats why I was asking if the problem was with the engine or the quattro drive on the 3.2
Some cars loose very little between the flywheel and the wheels, but the loss of power for the 3.2 is getting on 17%

Just a matter for healthy, grown up debate, not yet another 2.0 v 3.2 slanging match!! [smiley=devil.gif]


----------



## Janitor (Jul 2, 2007)

Duck!

:lol:


----------



## DonaldC (May 7, 2002)

..but you may have a better chance of not hitting a tree! :?


----------



## Wondermikie (Apr 14, 2006)

From last time http://www.********.co.uk/ttforumbbs/vi ... hp?t=93445


----------



## Guest (Sep 21, 2007)

3.2 v6 is the better car though, everyone knows that.


----------



## sane eric (Jul 19, 2007)

Kaboom


----------



## Guest (Sep 21, 2007)

sane eric said:


> Kaboom


Bored. :lol:


----------



## sane eric (Jul 19, 2007)

DUO3 NAN said:


> sane eric said:
> 
> 
> > Kaboom
> ...


----------



## Guest (Sep 21, 2007)

sane eric said:


> DUO3 NAN said:
> 
> 
> > sane eric said:
> ...


And to be honest, if i had'nt have said it, someone else would of come along shortly and done so.


----------



## whiteshirt (Jul 19, 2007)

_GOING TO THE SHELTER WITH MY TIN HELMET ON SOMEBODY SOUND THE ALL CLEAR WHEN THIS HAS GONE AWAY_


----------



## Necroscope (Apr 9, 2006)

whiteshirt said:


> _GOING TO THE SHELTER WITH MY TIN HELMET ON SOMEBODY SOUND THE ALL CLEAR WHEN THIS HAS GONE AWAY_


Unfortunately this will never go away.


----------



## wildstallionuk (Jul 10, 2007)

I think I like where this thread is going, and every day I feel better about being a 2.00 ltre owner.

Im not trying to offend you 3.2 guys btw. I am at least envious of the sound your engine makes, maybe I will make a sound recording and burn a cd to play inside the car.


----------



## Guest (Sep 21, 2007)

wildstallionuk said:


> I think I like where this thread is going, and every day I feel better about being a 2.00 ltre owner.
> 
> Im not trying to offend you 3.2 guys btw. I am at least envious of the sound your engine makes, maybe I will make a sound recording and burn a cd to play inside the car.


Or put it on your ipod.

Or, buy a 3.2 v6, the better option.

And yes, i'm just yanking chains, as this question has no answer.


----------



## wildstallionuk (Jul 10, 2007)

Maybe I can make funny sounds with my lips, and if I practice really hard become a ventriloquist fooling both pedestrians and passengers.

Anyone remember that black guy off Police Academy?


----------



## Guest (Sep 21, 2007)

wildstallionuk said:


> Maybe I can make funny sounds with my lips, and if I practice really hard become a ventriloquist fooling both pedestrins and passengers.
> 
> Anyone remember that black guy off Police Academy?


 :lol:

Or, find a skeleton to play domino's in a dustbin and put him in the passenger seat of a 3.2 v6 and pretend its a 2.0.


----------



## Janitor (Jul 2, 2007)

...and we're off


----------



## Guest (Sep 21, 2007)

Janitor said:


> ...and we're off


 [smiley=drummer.gif]


----------



## Janitor (Jul 2, 2007)

DUO3 NAN said:


> Janitor said:
> 
> 
> > ...and we're off
> ...


 [smiley=dude.gif]


----------



## DSB TTR (Sep 18, 2007)

Just remember people, opinions are like arseholes, everybody has one :wink:


----------



## Janitor (Jul 2, 2007)

DSB TTR said:


> Just remember people, opinions are like arseholes, everybody is one :wink:


Bit harsh [smiley=thumbsup.gif]


----------



## sane eric (Jul 19, 2007)

I am getting an ice lolly stick and a clothes peg. That should sound just fine. Ahhhh, them were the days.


----------



## DSB TTR (Sep 18, 2007)

Janitor said:


> DSB TTR said:
> 
> 
> > Just remember people, opinions are like arseholes, everybody is one :wink:
> ...


Hey, you cheated! I said has one! :lol:

All cool here man!


----------



## Janitor (Jul 2, 2007)

DSB TTR said:


> Hey, you cheated! :lol:


 :lol:


----------



## DSB TTR (Sep 18, 2007)

^^^







^^^


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

DSB TTR said:


> Just remember people, opinions are like arseholes, everybody has one :wink:


Yeah but the arseholes all bought the 20Ts AKA cheap seats 

Its all be said before. The numbers are wrong and the reason for it. More than once. Try looking up the numbers for the Golf or A3 with the same engine/drive system. Must be the TT Badge - it make makes up the bhp difference from 180bhp ATWs or maybe its the fact the cars come with more than 200bhp to start with or maybe its the orbit of the moon. :roll:


----------



## Guest (Sep 21, 2007)

Toshiba said:


> DSB TTR said:
> 
> 
> > Just remember people, opinions are like arseholes, everybody has one :wink:
> ...


I'm with Toshiba. 3.2 v6.
Mans car.


----------



## DSB TTR (Sep 18, 2007)

Can't we all just get along? LOL


----------



## Guest (Sep 21, 2007)

3.2 v6.
Or in Rebels case, a 2.0, with abt, and go faster bose so he can drive around in circles fast.


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

DUO3 NAN said:


> 3.2 v6.
> Or in Rebels case, a 2.0, with abt, and go faster bose so he can drive around in circles fast.


great post, dreamer.
MK members whill love these post....good to have you around...please stay


----------



## Guest (Sep 21, 2007)

Rebel said:


> DUO3 NAN said:
> 
> 
> > 3.2 v6.
> ...


Round and round and round and round in circles he goes.
Where are the posts you threatened Rebel?


----------



## BobFat (Jul 24, 2007)

DUO3 NAN said:


> 3.2 v6.
> Or in Rebels case, a 2.0, with abt, and go faster bose so he can drive around in circles fast.


I'm sure there are many people who would hope you can control your posting and keep your issue within your own thread. Thank you.

Back on topic, i lurve the 2.0T and 3.2V6. But regardless of engine, its the beautiful lines that both models share. Fabulous. Anyone lucky enough to be able to afford to own one is lucky indeed. There are so many people less fortunate. Happy days.


----------



## heywood (Feb 9, 2007)

All of this is totally irrelevant. 
We all know the only important thing is how often you are going to polish it, and what sort of wax you use.


----------



## Thomas the Spoiler (Aug 1, 2007)

DSB TTR said:


> Just remember people, opinions are like arseholes, everybody has one :wink:


I think opinions are more like nipples, if anything.


----------



## cheechy (Nov 8, 2006)

heywood said:


> All of this is totally irrelevant.
> We all know the only important thing is how often you are going to polish it, and what sort of wax you use.


Yes Rebel what do you think man?

I have got figures from elsewhere which do say that the 0-100mph times for the 3.2 and 2.0tfsi are pretty much identical by the way.

The only advantages of the 3.2 are the spec and quattro - but then you pay for that.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

and the performance and the handling and the looks and the better brakes and the ability to go round corners.


----------



## tt200 (Jan 29, 2007)

Now that S-P the Puppetmaster has pulled all the
strings, I can sit back and watch the marionettes dance
themselves to death.

It doesn't get any better than this!


----------



## Janitor (Jul 2, 2007)

[smiley=thumbsdown.gif]


----------



## jimb (Oct 31, 2006)

To be honest its really annoying... avoiding threads like this just because some people cannot have a proper discussion or being objective. :?

This is a technical matter and has nothing to do with opinions, but with facts. 
But I guess the TT forum is the wrong place for TTs techical discussions... or not?

In this case, the huge drivetrain loss of the 3.2 is a fact.
Recently I've seen another 3.2TT dyno result here (Greece) which shows 205 bhp at wheels!
I've also seen some 0-400m, 0-1000m runs between a 3.2 roadster and a 2.0T coupe. The result was identical times but different speed for quarter mile (15.0sec @ 151km for 3.2 - 15.0sec @ 156km for 20T) and a surpise for the 1000m (27.3sec @ 195km for the 3.2 - 27.0sec @ 198km for 2.0T).
Also in the rolling test (50-80, 80-110, 120-140) the 2.0T was always faster!  
Ofc we should have in mind that the 3.2 roadster is a bit heavier and maybe with a worst Drag Coefficient than the coupe

Anyway... I'm pretty sure that someone who dislikes the numbers above, will turn the "facts" to "opinion" soon or late... :roll:


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

You seem to have. The facts are 0-60 5.7 vs 6.6, or is that an opinion of the testers? :lol:


----------



## jimb (Oct 31, 2006)

Thats the official figures and its common logic that those figures rarely comes out in real world, for many many reasons. :wink:

On the other hand, 0-60 (0-100km here) measure is just a tree in the forest regarding the overall performance of a car and nowdays is mostly a marketing statement.
Most representative sampes are the 0-400m or even better the 0-1000m measures and manufacturers dont publish numbers for those. :roll:

As far as they dont state the wheel power. :wink:


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Correct they are the offical numbers.

The tested numbers for the 3.2 was faster than the stated 5.7 and the 20 was slower - does that make it a fact or an opinion?

Do a search on here - its all been posted before, around a hundred times or so.


----------



## jimb (Oct 31, 2006)

Oh yes... lots of times and the 3.2 wasnt quicker than the official time.

Still a 0-60 is nothing for the overall performance, especially when comparing a 4wd with a fwd... I've seen (or run) hundreds of races where the one car jumps ultra-fast over the line and then looking like it stoped comparing with the other one, when traction is gained. :wink: 
( recently I wrote an e.x. with a 225 1.8T... its was a bit faster of the line and till 60 due to 4wd... but just after that it was in 2.0T's rear mirror. So which one is faster? )

Focusing on the topic subject, the power loss in the 3.2 is huge (and thats a fact), the wheel horsepower is very close to the 2.0T (about ~10-15hp) and you can see this only when both have traction, not in 0-60 when the 4wd have the advantage. :wink:


----------



## BAMTT (Feb 22, 2004)

Toshiba said:


> Correct they are the offical numbers.
> 
> The tested numbers for the 3.2 was faster than the stated 5.7 and the 20 was slower - does that make it a fact or an opinion?
> 
> Do a search on here - its all been posted before, around a hundred times or so.


Yeah 5.7 is a bit slow


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

BAMTT said:


> Toshiba said:
> 
> 
> > Correct they are the offical numbers.
> ...


I will endeavor to do better


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

jimb said:


> Oh yes... lots of times and the 3.2 wasnt quicker than the official time.
> 
> Focusing on the topic subject, the power loss in the 3.2 is huge (and thats a fact), the wheel horsepower is very close to the 2.0T (about ~10-15hp) and you can see this only when both have traction, not in 0-60 when the 4wd have the advantage. :wink:


Your 'Fact' is more of an opinion, or is you opinion fact - im confused?

20bhp loss to the wheels for 4WD is acceptable in my book.
227 at the wheel is the average number..

However the same system in the S3 seems to lose NO power. Its 263 at the WHEEL.

Has it clicked yet? :roll:


----------



## jimb (Oct 31, 2006)

Dyno results are facts... not opinions... especially when there is more than one.

I'd like to see some dyno runs that gives 227hp @ wheels on a stock 3.2 :wink:


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

At the point that the dyno is measuring power output (high revs in a high gear), would the haldex system be in 4wd mode at all?


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

jimb said:


> Dyno results are facts... not opinions... especially when there is more than one.
> 
> I'd like to see some dyno runs that gives 227hp @ wheels on a stock 3.2 :wink:


No they are opinion. They are simply one car, not every car :roll: 
You dont know the state of the engine, how or why or anything about the tests. However it appears you just want to use the numbers you want rather than what they are.

It is fact the 3.2 slaps the 20t - I've done it MANY times. A chipped 20t can keep up with a std 3.2

The 'facts' 227 with visual proof for you.
3.2 with quattro










Another 3.2 with quattro - O the numbers are different, thats strange :roll:










An S3 with quattro









O - The quattro system is loss less then is it not? or has it clicked yet why the numbers are like they are? :roll: 
I'll give you a clue - its a ratio between stated engine power and actual. Strange the the 20T engine fairs batter after the release of the focus as it use to lose 8% - Thats a big loss, 1% less than the Quattro system :lol:


----------



## Janitor (Jul 2, 2007)

Good. Is that sorted then..?

Move along, nothing more to see here :roll:


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Depends on your opinion. :lol:


----------



## brittan (May 18, 2007)

Is that a fact?


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Rumor im told.


----------



## Arne (Dec 13, 2006)

The figures Tosh is refering to here is not the 3.2 TT engine. It's the 3.2 FSI engine, which by the way has a very different power-graph compared to the 3.2 TT engine.

Tosh - what is the reason you did not include the top text of the charts you copied in - where it says which car (modell and year) actually has been tested?

I do think you try to make "facts" of something that is not facts by leaving out some essential information.

The different charts and the real facts are here for everyone to see:

http://www.rri.se/index.php?DN=29


----------



## Janitor (Jul 2, 2007)

:lol:

Still, as I said yesterday:



Janitor said:


> Good. Is that sorted then..?
> 
> Move along, nothing more to see here :roll:


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Arne said:


> The figures Tosh is refering to here is not the 3.2 TT engine. It's the 3.2 FSI engine, which by the way has a very different power-graph compared to the 3.2 TT engine.
> 
> Tosh - what is the reason you did not include the top text of the charts you copied in - where it says which car (modell and year) actually has been tested?
> 
> ...


No its not the FSI engine at all - go look again. the FSI engine doesnt have the same output (188) as the non FSI(184) :roll:

YOU are making the facts fit what you want. The 3.2 SPANKS the 20T its a fact, just live with it. FWD is for go garts and town cars.

It is a fact the car tested on the above was running on diesel or was broken. No QUATTRO car losses that about of power. Or the DSG was shagged.


----------



## Wondermikie (Apr 14, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> ...FWD is for go garts and town cars...


And fartboxes.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Good point

FSI engine.
FSI makes no difference - its to keep the eco-mentalists. Happy, Ford used the technology in the late 90s but called it SCi or some like that.


----------



## BAMTT (Feb 22, 2004)

Toshiba said:


> It is a fact the car tested on the above was running on diesel or was broken. No QUATTRO car losses that about of power. Or the DSG was shagged.


I thought 15-20% was about right for a 4wd car, Isn't it the 2.0 numbers that are wrong in the first post IMO

I can't remember the numbers but my old mapped 225 lost a about 50 bhp on the rollers :?


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

The other 3.2 plots are correct for a quattro car. I was going to look at a none quattro car but i cant think of a car with the 3.2 engine in thats FWD to show the real loss between the systems.

Since the launch of the focus ST engine output has increased on the t's thats why i posted the pre ST numbers as well. The systems LOSE the same power give or take the odd %.


----------



## sico (Feb 6, 2003)

Also lets not forget the ability to put the power down. Two wheels will not be able to put all the 2.0L's power down without wheelspin, four wheel drive will!

So the power mesured by these graphs although true is not a good mesure of overall performance as it depends on the drive train/ road conditions/ tyres and wheels driven.

Having the two wheels that power the car also doing the steering is a bad combination.


----------



## BAMTT (Feb 22, 2004)

Toshiba said:


> The other 3.2 plots are correct for a quattro car. I was going to look at a none quattro car but i cant think of a car with the 3.2 engine in thats FWD to show the real loss between the systems.
> 
> Since the launch of the focus ST engine output has increased on the t's thats why i posted the pre ST numbers as well. The systems LOSE the same power give or take the odd %.


Hmm only Alfa are mad enough for a 3.2/3.0 V6 to go through the frint wheels and it loses @ 25bhp albeit through a completey different transmission

I must agree though when wanting to push on in anything other than perfect conditions FWD is probably not the way to go, Although my Scooby can be a bit twitchy in the wet


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

I was thinking Audi models, to show the quattro doesn't lose much over crappy, i mean over FWD.

RR dont account for wind resistance.


----------



## filler (Jan 3, 2007)

Just to add my opinion (well, it is lunchtime  )

From my point of view the two cars are two different animals and it really depends what you want. Given the same suspension, wheels, etc. the 2.0 will be more nimble and may even handle "better" (although that is entirely subjective) because it weighs less. The 3.2 (by dint of having the Quattro) will have better traction and more grip, especially in less than favourable conditions. My 2.0 does have a bit of torque steer in the wet if you're really gunning it but wheelspin is never an issue because the TCS (Talent compensation system  ) is so good.

I've driven both and they differ in character but overall they are both great cars. I miss the V6 noise from my old Merc but I don't miss the fuel bills :wink:


----------



## BAMTT (Feb 22, 2004)

filler said:


> the TCS (Talent compensation system  ) is so good.


Very good :lol:


----------



## TommyTippee (May 31, 2007)

anyone had enough yet??????????

[smiley=toilet.gif]


----------



## BobFat (Jul 24, 2007)

Naaaa, its quite entertaining really. Sad, but entertaining. Takes my mind off the wait


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Roll on the 20Q :lol:


----------



## whiteshirt (Jul 19, 2007)

Can I come out my bunker yet!


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Depends on which side you're on, the righteous and glorious allies or the cowardly we swap sides and fall over easily italians?


----------



## TommyTippee (May 31, 2007)

whiteshirt said:


> Can I come out my bunker yet!


NO Scuds are coming now

:lol: :lol:

:wink:


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

20 or 3.2 scuds?, I'm happy i can dodge the slower ones - plus its raining so they would probably crash before they got close - Quattro, even scuds need it. :lol:


----------



## sico (Feb 6, 2003)

filler said:


> My 2.0 does have a bit of torque steer in the wet if you're really gunning it but wheelspin is never an issue because the TCS (Talent compensation system  ) is so good.


Dont forget that TCS does not allow you to put more power down, physics will not allow that im afraid... :wink:


----------



## jimb (Oct 31, 2006)

Scuds ahead... :lol:

Toshiba I'm still waiting for a *TT* 3.2 dynoed @ wheels above 210hp.
Or we are not talking about TT here...? Till then, I'll keep the facts. :wink:

Oh, as for the "_3.2 SPANKS the 20T its a fact, just live with it_" I can really live with it... no big deal...

...It was just a nice surprise for me, the *fact* that the above sentence is wrong, nothing more, nothing less.

So, do yourself a favor and search for some 0-1000m times for both 3.2 & 20T... see for yourself what spanks what and get down from that nice pink cloud. :wink:


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Don't need to the biggest 20T fan on here 'rebel' has posted lots of track times and the mag time before.

The 3.2 TTR - yes R is faster round a tight track than the sporty (i use that word in the darts type of sports - ie not!) TTC O and the TTC had MR too, the TTR didn't. Its an embarrassment to have the FWD version in the range. Cheap seats to sell to poor people who want looks only and sales reps.

Done the race against the 20ts more than a few times and it strains my eyes tbh I have to look for the dot in the mirror. Get a remap. :lol:

O i have a 20t in the wife's A3 so i know what it is or isn't :wink:

I forgot 1 post means a fact :roll:


----------



## BAMTT (Feb 22, 2004)

There are enough 2.0 and 3.2's on here now can we not do a side by side comparison 0-60/0-100/400 m/1000m and a lap of a track

I remember toshiba has starring in a vid a while back


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

That was nems 265bhp TT, not been to any meets for a while - i cant remember how far ahead i was - maybe 8 lengths maybe a touch more.
For legal reasons - my car keys got stolen that day, and i have no idea who the driver was. I was in the pub.

While fun, its rather risky.


----------



## jimb (Oct 31, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> O i have a 20t in the wife's A3 so i know what it is or isn't :wink:


So do I, a 3.2 in A8... :wink: :lol:


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Thats equal then - FACT :roll:

A8









A3









20TT









And its crashed - FWD, its a liability


----------



## sane eric (Jul 19, 2007)

Toshiba said:


> Cheap seats to sell to poor people who want looks only and sales reps.


Gee thanks. Do you write these lines yourself?


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

All cars have a stripped down entry level model. Design a car, then they remove all the bits, like quattro, big engine, spec, wheels and make it the reps version that his a price point. They even make sure its in the low tax bracket to encourage corporate sales.

While it was said in jest, it is true.


----------



## sane eric (Jul 19, 2007)

Toshiba said:


> While it was said in jest, it is true.


What's your point? Do you want me to feel inferior to you?

Jest maybe, not sure what we are achieveing here. Anyway, I'm off to ogle my poor man's excuse for a car while I wait for it to be delivered.


----------



## Janitor (Jul 2, 2007)

Please Eric, don't try to find sound reasoning - it doesn't exist

I seriously couldn't give a flying fuck which is best - whether mechanically founded, statistically backed or plain old opinion

Everything will mean one thing for one and something else to another. That is how it is and thank god that it is so. Getting seriously tired of these pointless 'debates'

As for the 'if you don't like it, don't click it' approach... well I click on all Forum topics to hopefully find something of interest / amusement, but this endless bollocks is just eternally frustrating

Some say it will never go away - but if people stop posting shit and responding with shit then it will stop. Instantly


----------



## DSB TTR (Sep 18, 2007)

I wonder how much bandwidth is taken up on this forum with "blah blah 3.2 this and blah blah 2.0 that"?

I know I am new here and have no credibility because of that, but it does get rather boring comparing appendages between members.

jm2p worth.........


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Oooo about 10 pages or so. Im unclear if its an offical fact or just an opinion :?


----------



## sane eric (Jul 19, 2007)

Janitor said:


> Please Eric, don't try to find sound reasoning - it doesn't exist
> 
> I seriously couldn't give a flying fuck which is best - whether mechanically founded, statistically backed or plain old opinion
> 
> ...


Of course, you are right and I shouldn't have posted. It is very frustrating to read bollocks when all you want to do is help or be helped or generally hi-five a new owner.

Right, off to find out if Bose or iPod is any good, I'm sure I've read a post on it somewhere......... :lol:


----------



## DSB TTR (Sep 18, 2007)

Toshiba said:


> Oooo about 10 pages or so. Im unclear if its an offical fact or just an opinion :?


Yes, in this thread! How many others are there? I will let the children play on.......

*blows whistle to start play time*


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

sane eric said:


> Toshiba said:
> 
> 
> > While it was said in jest, it is true.
> ...


Achieve, nothing. What do we ever achieve? White is better than black, blue is the new red? Ipods are crap? The seats are badly designed? The paint chips too easy? The next model will be X? Seat belt rattles? DSG is for townies, manual for sports drivers? Best looking tyre? Should i remap? which replica's? What is the best polish? what colour or options are a must?


----------



## Janitor (Jul 2, 2007)

True Tosh, very true... but there's a clear difference between experience, input and opinion which we all give and take quite openly and the bullshit sniping that certain topics ALWAYS descend into

It's not the exchange of views that grinds - it's the way that some choose to do it


----------



## Janitor (Jul 2, 2007)

A little example:

On ordering a new TT, I chose the 2.0T.

This was not based on price or anything technical, just the fact that I test drove the 3.2 for a day, appreciated it's performance and tone followed by a 2.0T that I felt delivered the power in a way that 'I' like this car to feel to 'ME'

Nothing more, nothing less

No bullshit. No sniping. No wind up

I fully accept that someone else will want the V6 sound and nothing else will do. Great!

See..? It can be done


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

But THIS thread is not a hijack. The topic was a stupid one thats bound to go one way - what was the point? If you've purchased a T why would you care what the 3.2 does or doesn't do? The 3.2s will disagree with the topic as is correct - the cars do run mid to late 20s. The 20Ts will say its just expensive and not much faster.

The this fact, or that fact is all opinion, cars are cars. What is for one is not for others. It clear from the posted graphs quattro IS not sapping the power - im not qualified to say what is, nor is anyone else on here.

I dont give a flying as you can see and will post crap forever while ever it comes my way. What the post doesn't and facts can never take into account is a persons WANT!


----------



## DSB TTR (Sep 18, 2007)

exercise in futility springs to mind.........


----------



## Janitor (Jul 2, 2007)

Indeed Tosh - the thread title hardly got it off to a good start... and most of the early replies were light hearted 'Don't mention the War!' types. Not supporting one view or another

FWIW, I'm not necessarily aiming my comments squarely at you fella - that's not my style. I prefer to recognise and maintain respect for those that contribute well to things and you fit that mould for sure. I even thanked you personally for your comments in my 'New TT on the way' thread

Anyway, I can't offer any solutions - that's all down to the members... I know I just personally like a community to show some tight-knit spirit


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Im more than happy to put my hands up, i play along because i was and am bored. I dont hold a grudge and for sure the next time it comes up I'll post the same stuff again and we'll end up 10 pages further down again.

I'm just tryng to get my post count up - if people have genuine questions i, along with countless others answer them as honestly as we can with our opinions.

As above, "exercise in futility" but jolly funny.


----------



## BobFat (Jul 24, 2007)

Its gonna take some people longer than others to get your humour Tosh - a bit like Rebel :wink: You can be a pain in the arse though m8 

Keep smilin.


----------



## TommyTippee (May 31, 2007)

Right, the predator drone is out now, we know where you are, anymore and KABOOOOOOOM

[smiley=rifle.gif] [smiley=rifle.gif]


----------



## Wondermikie (Apr 14, 2006)

Come on guys, you're not trying hard enough - previous 2.0T v 3.2 threads were locked due to abuse long before they got to this length.


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> White is better than black, blue is the new red? Ipods are crap? The seats are badly designed? The paint chips too easy? The next model will be X? Seat belt rattles? DSG is for townies, manual for sports drivers? Best looking tyre? Should i remap? which replica's? What is the best polish? what colour or options are a must?


Who are you, Jade Goody? Amazing cos they were a shit boyband. I agree. Unless you have an oddshaped arse. Tell me about it. No, thats a BMW model designation. Do they? Its called STronic now. Indeed, I couldnt agree more. Pirelli without a doubt. Of course you should. None, always buy original brand. I like Megs but many like Swissol. Shit brown and scrotum massager without a doubt.

Good, now that that is settled, carry on with the mindless twaddle, err over to you Tosh. [smiley=rolleyes5.gif]


----------



## John C (Jul 5, 2002)

..........and there are people dieing in the world whilst others.............

:roll:


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

I was hoping for 20 pages.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

John C said:


> ..........and there are people dieing in the world whilst others.............
> 
> :roll:


If they had a 3.2, at least they'd die in style.
Is it from scuds?


----------



## John C (Jul 5, 2002)

Then go and read the 3.2 manual, with all those extra features it is bound to have more than 20 pages.

hrmmm, bound, no pun intended.


----------



## sane eric (Jul 19, 2007)

Toshiba said:


> Oooo about 10 pages or so. Im unclear if its an offical fact or just an opinion :?


Too much. That's a fact.

:wink:


----------

