# 1.8L & 2.0L Engine difference



## Macauley

Hi all!

I've got a 1.8L on order but I'm worried it might not feel very fun to drive. For that little extra 0.9 seconds gain 0-60, it didn't seem worth an extra 3K. I'm not really a guy that wants to hit high speeds quickly, hence the engine choice, but I do like a bit of power. I don't really want to feel disappointed for the price and car it is.

So, has anyone tried both engines? If so, was there a big difference. Would it also be worth getting a stage 1 tune? I heard it practically brings it up to the 2.0L spec.

Thanks


----------



## can_quattro

As this thread plays out tomorrow, one of the more common themes will be as follows: 
The bigger issue with th 1.8 is no quattro, which I would agree with.
Without quattro, many feel an Audi is no longer worth the money you are paying for the brand.


----------



## debonair

can_quattro said:


> As this thread plays out tomorrow, one of the more common themes will be as follows:
> The bigger issue with th 1.8 is no quattro, which I would agree with.
> Without quattro, many feel an Audi is no longer worth the money you are paying for the brand.


Agreed. I would not have a TT without Quattro. My dealer told me that not so long back he had sold a TT without Quattro and within a month the guy was in moaning that he should have got a Quattro.

The TT is still a great car, whatever spec or model you choose but it depends where your priorities lie.


----------



## Rumney

Not sure about all the 'no good without Quattro' comments. Not everyone needs nor wants Quattro - it's a great car with or without it.
Yes Quattro has many benefits but if they are not relevant to your driving style, requirements or driving environment then why would you pay the extra?
Look at you requirements first and then decide - I don't think that you will be disappointed either way


----------



## Macauley

Rumney said:


> Not sure about all the 'no good without Quattro' comments. Not everyone needs nor wants Quattro - it's a great car with or without it.
> Yes it has many benefits but it they are not relevant to your driving style, requirements or driving environment then why would you pay the extra?
> Look at you requirements first and then decide - I don't think that you will be disappointed either way


I was just about to post a comment saying the same thing. Quattro wouldn't benefit me much here in the UK.


----------



## Justphil100

Rumney said:


> Not sure about all the 'no good without Quattro' comments. Not everyone needs nor wants Quattro - it's a great car with or without it.
> Yes it has many benefits but it they are not relevant to your driving style, requirements or driving environment then why would you pay the extra?
> Look at you requirements first and then decide - I don't think that you will be disappointed either way


Agree with these comments. Where do you live, town or country? - will you get the chance to use the extra power of the 2L? As for Quattro, add that and you have just added about 6k to the price and you now have an s-tronic rather than manual. I have just ordered a 1.8 TT Roadster (trading in my 3L XF). The Jag had plenty of power but wasnt much fun to drive which is why I am going back to a manual. Unless your current car is powerful and you are trading down then the smaller engine will be fine.


----------



## Macauley

Justphil100 said:


> Rumney said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure about all the 'no good without Quattro' comments. Not everyone needs nor wants Quattro - it's a great car with or without it.
> Yes it has many benefits but it they are not relevant to your driving style, requirements or driving environment then why would you pay the extra?
> Look at you requirements first and then decide - I don't think that you will be disappointed either way
> 
> 
> 
> Agree with these comments. Where do you live, town or country? - will you get the chance to use the extra power of the 2L? As for Quattro, add that and you have just added about 6k to the price and you now have an s-tronic rather than manual. I have just ordered a 1.8 TT Roadster (trading in my 3L XF). The Jag had plenty of power but wasnt much fun to drive which is why I am going back to a manual. Unless your current car is powerful and you are trading down then the smaller engine will be fine.
Click to expand...

I live just outside of London, so there is plenty of road to make the most out of my car. 6K just for that added handling doesn't seem worth it for my driving habits and environment.


----------



## Nyxx

First about Quattro.
My first TT was a 07 plate without Quattro, it would spin the front wheels very easily. 
My Second was a late 10 MY11, it came with a new engine and gearbox, but was still front wheel drive. Only spun wheels in the dry in 1st, longer gear box, much better. This engine and gearbox in the MK3 will perform the same.

Quattro now I have it, is a new world, its makes the car feel anytime anywere that is stuck to the road, The Mk3 Quattro is stunning, but, to you it might be a big "but" I do go out and have a good "play" :wink: do you? if not then you might not need it.

Is Quattro a must? No. You say...


Macauley said:


> Quattro wouldn't benefit me much here in the UK.


In the winter it would help a lot in the wet and greasy cold roads

1.8L v 2L
You seem already to being thinking about mapping a 1.8?. 
Personal taste.
But I would take the 2L everytime.

You said only 0.9 seconds! that is huge diffrence in a 0-60 time. huge....
1.8 FWD 0-62 = 6.9's
2.0 FWD 0-62 = 6.0's

Its down to how you drive not anyone else. Test drive and see what suits your driving.


----------



## ZephyR2

Don't map a brand new 1.8 and risk compromising your warranty. If you want 230 bhp then buy a 2.0L.
As you can see everyone's got a different opinion on the issue. The only way to find out if you'd be happier in a 2.0 vs a 1.8 is for YOU to go and drive them both. No point at all in asking others what they think.


----------



## Justphil100

ZephyR2 said:


> Don't map a brand new 1.8 and risk compromising your warranty. If you want 230 bhp then buy a 2.0L.
> As you can see everyone's got a different opinion on the issue. The only way to find out if you'd be happier in a 2.0 vs a 1.8 is for YOU to go and drive them both. No point at all in asking others what they think.


ZephyR2, so far you are the only one on this thread with a 1.8 TFSI, so simple question, are you happy with the performance?


----------



## ZephyR2

Justphil100 said:


> ZephyR2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't map a brand new 1.8 and risk compromising your warranty. If you want 230 bhp then buy a 2.0L.
> As you can see everyone's got a different opinion on the issue. The only way to find out if you'd be happier in a 2.0 vs a 1.8 is for YOU to go and drive them both. No point at all in asking others what they think.
> 
> 
> 
> ZephyR2, so far you are the only one on this thread with a 1.8 TFSI, so simple question, are you happy with the performance?
Click to expand...

Yep. Very happy. I had a 1.8 Mk2 coupe so I knew what to expect. Living and driving where I am I rarely get a chance to push the 1.8 to its limits,what with traffic and speed cameras, so a faster car would have been even more frustrating.
That works for me, but it doesn't mean its good for anyone else.


----------



## 4433allanr

I've had a 1.8T coupe for a year now, lots of grip, the engine is now loosened up nicely. Personally it suits me, I would spend the £3k on comfort and tech packs.


----------



## Xiano

I have a 1.8 and my dad has a 2.0, and I am perfectly happy with the performance of the 1.8. It's nippy, nimble, and fun to drive. Personally I didn't see the need to spend the extra £££ on the 2.0, and I put some of the money saved towards some extras that I would otherwise not have been able to afford. Would I prefer to have the 2.0? Yes, but I certainly don't feel like the performance is lacking with the 1.8


----------



## 35mphspeedlimit

I had a Mark 2 1.8 S-tronic (with no Quattro) with a 0-62 of 7.2 sec. It was responsive and more than capable on UK motorways. Shame the current 1.8 is only available in manual as if I could change to an S-tronic 1.8 roadster I would be sorely tempted!!  :wink:


----------



## ttsser

6.9 to 6.0 is 13% faster! Very much faster.

For me the Quattro is all about reducing the understeer. Coming from a Golf R into a TTS, the understeer is a lot less noticable. I even had quite dramatic oversteer in the wet today and I have only had the car less than two weeks :lol:


----------



## rumblestrip

Nearly a year on and very satisfied with my 1.8 TFSI. Plenty of torque, good and solid acceleration for motorway overtaking.

Could I suggest that it's not relevant to compare the 1.8 with a 2.0 litre Quattro? After all, there is a huge difference in price.

Not many years ago a 180 BHP, 0-60 in less than 7 seconds spec... gasps of admiration. Plus an overall 40mpg. What's not to like?


----------



## TTimi

I currently have a 1.8. It's fast enough, economical, but it still made me go and order an S3 yesterday. If you don't mind driving too fast, it is plenty quick for you. I feel like if I spent the extra for a 2.0 Quattro s tronic then I wouldn't have ordered a new car....


----------



## Mark Pred

I had a 1.8 for a day and wasn't impressed with the performance. A Fiesta ST could probably get past you without too much effort and I wouldn't be too ambitious with over takes in the 1.8. At least the 2 litre has some grunt to it. Given a choice between the two, I personally think it would be a no brainer, with or without Quattro.


----------



## 4433allanr

Overtaking certainly isn't a problem. As stated, after 12 months with the car it is a cracker. The engine gets better and better, you won't be disappointed.


----------



## Quattro-ita

I was going to buy a 1,8 but I had the chance to test it and I was really surprised by the poor performance. You don't feel like driving a sporty car, no torque.
the car also came with no drive select button, the steering wheel was so light!
I finally went for a diesel, great fuel consumption and lots of torque, really fun to drive.
If you don't like diesel engine (it was the same for me, but things change), go for the 2,0


----------



## ZephyR2

Sorry I had a test drive in a TDi roadster and I disagree. Whilst there might be lots of torque there is nothing "sporty" about and engine that runs out of puff at 4000 rpm. On top of that the engine sounds crap, doubly crap with the roof down.


----------



## 4433allanr

And again, from someone with a year of mixed enjoyable driving, you won't be disappointed. It won't be as quick as a 2.0, it'll be as quick as a TDI, it won't be as quick as a TTs, and you won't see an RS for very long.


----------



## Heath

My 2.0 s line coupe non Quattro in dealers having the very common seat repair. Dealer gave me a 1.8 roadster to use, wish it wasn't raining! The difference between the 2 is very noticeable in my opinion, for me I am glad I went for the 2.0. Going off topic, I have the B&O, the roadster doesn't, made me realise jus how good the B&O is.


----------



## rumblestrip

You can't judge the 1.8 until it's properly run in. No 'grunt' at all when box fresh. Needs 8-10k on the clock; problem is, demonstrators won't be in this condition.

If anyone is unsure about 1.8 v. 2.0, and feels screwed up about the issue then for goodness' sake get the 2.0. Then you can sleep easy.

But I'm chuffed with my 1.8. As I have said before, performs to a good standard. Depends on WHY you have car. To enjoy or to show off with ;-)


----------



## ZephyR2

I agree. Just over 8k and I can feel the difference in mine. The Mk2 was the same.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## rumblestrip

I should add, though, this was noticeable in 6th gear. Lower gears were fine, giving an exiting drive right from the start.


----------



## Nyxx

rumblestrip said:


> To enjoy or to show off with ;-)


Why add that silly remark?
I love going for a good play on country twisty road. There is no one there to show off to. Nor do I feel the 2.0 L is "showing off"


----------



## TerryCTR

Nyxx said:


> rumblestrip said:
> 
> 
> 
> To enjoy or to show off with ;-)
> 
> 
> 
> Why add that silly remark?
> I love going for a good play on country twisty road. There is no one there to show off to. Nor do I feel the 2.0 L is "showing off"
Click to expand...

To try and justify the 1.8 some more it would appear.

Pretty sure the engine loosens off in them all so there will still be the same gap to the 2.0l, to the TTS to the RS. You get what you pay for.


----------



## ZephyR2

The vast majority of other motorists think someone who boots it in a trail of dust as they come out of a roundabout (shock, horror !) or who overtakes on a single carriageway (look at that bloody idiot) is "showing off". If you've ever been in a car with a "steady" driver you will have heard these kinds of comments about someone doing a bit of positive driving.
The fact is that if you have a 2.0 or TTS you can do the same showing off as you can in a 1.8 but better and faster. :twisted:


----------



## rumblestrip

Nyxx said:


> rumblestrip said:
> 
> 
> 
> To enjoy or to show off with ;-)
> 
> 
> 
> Why add that silly remark?
> I love going for a good play on country twisty road. There is no one there to show off to. Nor do I feel the 2.0 L is "showing off"
Click to expand...

Aplogies! But my experience of this forum shows 'silly remarks' are the norm 

I must not copy the other boys
I must not copy the other boys
I must not copy the other boys
I must not copy the other boys......


----------



## Nyxx

rumblestrip said:


> Aplogies! But my experience of this forum shows 'silly remarks' are the norm .


True


----------



## rumblestrip

OK - to be serious for a moment, and to reiterate, the 1.8 doesn't show its true nature until it's properly run in. And no demonstrator vehicle, therefore, is going to show off the 1.8 engine at its best.

If budget allows then the 2.0 is the safer bet.

When I made the decision to go for the 1.8 I read the spec. and knew that it would be sufficient fun for MY needs. YMMV as they say.


----------



## ttsser

Nyxx said:


> rumblestrip said:
> 
> 
> 
> To enjoy or to show off with ;-)
> 
> 
> 
> Why add that silly remark?
> I love going for a good play on country twisty road. There is no one there to show off to. Nor do I feel the 2.0 L is "showing off"
Click to expand...

That's funny. When I read that remark I thought the remark meant that 1.8 owners just wanted to show off, as in pretend they had a fast car and 2.0 owners actually wanted to go and have fun in it :lol:


----------



## Gulliver

ttsser said:


> Nyxx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rumblestrip said:
> 
> 
> 
> To enjoy or to show off with ;-)
> 
> 
> 
> Why add that silly remark?
> I love going for a good play on country twisty road. There is no one there to show off to. Nor do I feel the 2.0 L is "showing off"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's funny. When I read that remark I thought the remark meant that 1.8 owners just wanted to show off, as in pretend they had a fast car and 2.0 owners actually wanted to go and have fun in it :lol:
Click to expand...

That is exactly how I interpreted it too.

OP I would get what you are happy financing, I have never driven a 1.8 but I am sure it is more than adequate and is still a great car.

However as my husband always points out about BMW 316 owners, it always looks like they can only just about afford to buy into the brand. Not sure I totally agree with his point of view but I can see what he means and the 1.8 TT may hold the same stigma for some.

If in any doubt and you can afford it I would get the 2.0.


----------



## debonair

Gulliver said:


> That is exactly how I interpreted it too.
> 
> OP I would get what you are happy financing, I have never driven a 1.8 but I am sure it is more than adequate and is still a great car.
> 
> However as my husband always points out about BMW 316 owners, it always looks like they can only just about afford to buy into the brand. Not sure I totally agree with his point of view but I can see what he means and the 1.8 TT may hold the same stigma for some.
> 
> If in any doubt and you can afford it I would get the 2.0.


I read it completely differently  I read it as the 2.0L drivers wanted to show off over the 1.8 owners as having a 'better' car.

It's hard when your head and your heart are having an almighty battle. It's a lot of money to be spending and you don't want to end up regretting your decision. If you go for the 1.8 you may always be kicking yourself for not getting the 2.0L or you may not and might be perfectly happy with the 1.8. It's that crystal ball that none of us have.

As for being deemed as having an 'entry level' car, there's nothing wrong with that. It's still a TT and a great car. A lot of people wouldn't even know the difference unless they are particularly into cars, all they will see is a TT.

When I was having a major dilemma about which model to go for the ONLY deciding factor was driving them both. I was trying to make a decision based on having only driven one of the two choices and that was the problem, I had no comparison to go by. So I went out and drove the other option and it made my decision instantly.


----------



## Macauley

Thank you to everyone for your help. With your help & and after watching a couple of videos on the 1.8 & 2.0 comparing the 0-100 tests, I must say that the difference in speed doesn't look worth it for 3K more. However, I can't say the same for the feeling of being in one.

That 3K has been spent well on plenty of extras instead


----------



## Nyxx

debonair said:


> I read it completely differently  I read it as the 2.0L drivers wanted to show off over the 1.8 owners as having a 'better' car.


Hence the "Aplogies" But there you go.... :roll:

Anyway glad you made your mind up I am sure you will enjoy your 1.8 with the extras you can spend on spec.


----------



## Quattro-ita

I definitely suggest a test drive before trusting people's opinion or spec sheets.
I was truly convinced that the 1,8l would have been the perfect choice for me but then the test drive changed my thoughts. Thank God I had the chance to drive the 1,8l, I would have wrongly spent my money having regrets....


----------



## Macauley

Quattro-ita said:


> I definitely suggest a test drive before trusting people's opinion or spec sheets.
> I was truly convinced that the 1,8l would have been the perfect choice for me but then the test drive changed my thoughts. Thank God I had the chance to drive the 1,8l, I would have wrongly spent my money having regrets....


I did a test drive in the 1.8 and once I put my foot down halfway... well, I had never been seen with such a big smile on my face apparently. Didn't once think that the car felt underpowered. If I wanted something more powerful then I would have bought a TTS, at least that will have more power worth paying for.

We all have different needs as mentioned previously, so asking the forum may not have been the best idea. I'm sure I'll be happy with it, if not, I can get it remapped, that way I will pretty much have the power of the 2L version.


----------



## wendigo

In my opinion the 0 -60 figure of the 2.0L whilst noticeably quicker than the 1.8 is not so significant as the in gear acceleration. With an extra 89 lb ft torque 273 as opposed to 184 of the 1.8L the 2.Litre will always pull harder in all gears. Which means you likely to change gear down more in the 1.8 to make the same progress as the 2.0l. So if you happy to use the gearbox the more in the 1.8 L then it's not such a big issue.

Out of interest does anybody know if the gear ratios in the 1.8 are any different to those in the 2.0L ? As that would impact on the performance.


----------



## Macauley

wendigo said:


> In my opinion the 0 -60 figure of the 2.0L whilst noticeably quicker than the 1.8 is not so significant as the in gear acceleration. With an extra 89 lb ft torque 273 as opposed to 184 of the 1.8L the 2.Litre will always pull harder in all gears. Which means you likely to change gear down more in the 1.8 to make the same progress as the 2.0l. So if you happy to use the gearbox the more in the 1.8 L then it's not such a big issue.
> 
> Out of interest does anybody know if the gear ratios in the 1.8 are any different to those in the 2.0L ? As that would impact on the performance.


You might want to research those numbers again. The 1.8 has 250 torque and the 2.0 has 370.


----------



## Nyxx

370 Max. torque, Nm
He said lb ft torque 273

Think there a different measurement?


----------



## Macauley

Nyxx said:


> 370 Max. torque, Nm
> He said lb ft torque 273
> 
> Think there a different measurement?


oh yes, silly me. I didn't notice that at first.


----------



## 90TJM

It depends what you want and how much you want to spend.The Wife has been thinking about a convertible and looking at the MX5/Fiat, as we cant justify another TT.But a discounted 1.8 TT Sport could be an option.


----------



## jacopo.valentino

1.8 seems zippy... but 2.0 has much better torque. It feels "bigger". And these cars are about feeling imho. I had both engines in non TT form. A3 2.0, A3 1.8, Golf GTI 2.0.


----------



## Barmybob

WOW, a thread brought back from 2017. I suspect the person that started this thread made up his mind a long time go


----------

