# NEW ENGINES LINE UP. 3.2 NOT FSI DEAD.



## Foiel (May 8, 2002)

Good afternoon Folks !

... It doesn't make any sense for me the current engine line up of the new TT.. I just wrote an e-mail about this point to their CS based in Ingolstadt because I'm simply too curios.. this is the Issue.. Why Audi didn't put the S3 engine on the TT since the beginning..? now with the 3.2 250 Hp they can't offer the 2.0 TFSI because , in my opinion, nobody would buy the 3.2 ( more fuel consumption,heavier,not FSI if it counts .. ).. what's behind this move ?? even SEAT got the 2.0 TFSI !! then how come they didn't launch the 2.0 with Quattro ?? I'm almost sure they will but i would have done it immediately.. I really don't understand the meaning of this 3.2.. probably they just want to sell all the not 3.2 FSI left and then simply replace it with another engine ( 3.6 ?? ).. I would like to buy the new TT roadster but i'm waiting and probably i'll have to wait until I fully understand what Audi wants to do.. !! 

What do you think.. don't you find the current engines simply not correctly mixed.. or the current engine mix is only to sell as many 3.2 as possible and then replace it.. ?

See ya !
8)


----------



## Iceman (Jul 3, 2004)

One of the reasons why Audi put in the 3.2 VR6 is the UK market.
Second, the S3 engine was not production ready at the time of the TT introduction.
3th, the 200 hp 2.0T FWD is a leight fast car, and would be corrupted by the Quattro drive performance wise. (weight gain)
4th, Audi wil not change the engines in the first two years of production.

I think we will see the S3 engine equipped TT @ the IAA Frankfurt.

Hans.


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

Hmm, an interesting and original post at last and something which really needs discussing.

I havent really got any input myself, however its going to be fascinating to see how this one pans out as I dont believe anyone has truly discussed it properly yet.

Anyone got any thoughts on the matter? I see Iceman has made some valid and salient points.


----------



## Guest (May 28, 2007)

I think some of us would buy the 3.2 v6 over any s3 spec engine.
Some of us like the growl.
I know it sounds stupid, but that growl puts a smile on my face over any turbo whirl i know.
Maybe Audi just dont want to confuse us with too much choice.
Look at some of the options on the tt at the moment on the config, its bad enough picking your engine, on top of everything else you spec.


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

I think Iceman has a good point with the UK market.

More and more country's have extra taxes for car's with a bad emission.
In the UK these extra taxes are reasonable. Therefore a lot of V6's in the Uk.

Personly i also wonder which engine should be there between the V6 and the 2.0?
Can't believe they will take the S3 engine at a short time. Because they won't sell any V6 engine anymore.

Maybe there won't be a engine between them in a short time, and will they replace the 3.2 next year for a FSI-engine.

I think they will first come with a slower engine (below the 2.0) and with a faster engine (above the V6.......with 280hp)

But maybe i'm wrong....


----------



## vagman (Sep 6, 2002)

I bought the 3.2 for 3 reasons.........4 reasons.

1. It is a fabulous engine especially in S mode. n.b. bollox to fuel consumption and emissions

2. S-Tronic

3. Quattro

4. It is the top of the range

I still wouldn't buy an S3 engined TT as Audi cannot offer the engine with Quattro and S-Tronic...........and even if they could, I don't think I would be arsed. Monstrous turbo-lag and all that.

:lol:


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

hmm......the S-tronic thing is a good point indeed Vagman

but which one will be the top off the range in the future? strange marketing over there in Germany


----------



## Iceman (Jul 3, 2004)

vagman said:


> I still wouldn't buy an S3 engined TT as Audi cannot offer the engine with Quattro and S-Tronic...........


There are a few car with 2.0T S-tronic and Quattro on wÃ¶rtensee.
The "TT CSQ" and the "A3 24 Street".
The "A3 24 Street" have a 275 hp/340Nm S3 engine and S-Tronic.

Hans.


----------



## mjbTT (Nov 11, 2006)

vagman said:


> I still wouldn't buy an S3 engined TT as Audi cannot offer the engine with Quattro and S-Tronic...........and even if they could, I don't think I would be arsed. Monstrous turbo-lag and all that. :lol:


Does the S3 engine not work with S-Tronic? If not, it a non-starter for me.


----------



## vagman (Sep 6, 2002)

Iceman said:


> vagman said:
> 
> 
> > I still wouldn't buy an S3 engined TT as Audi cannot offer the engine with Quattro and S-Tronic...........
> ...


If you don't mind me asking, Iceman...................WTF is an A3 24 Street.

Also, the TTS/TTQS (it's the same thing...innit) cannot be ordered with both DSG and Quattro.

Can you provide a specific Audi or VAG car that does.

Thanks


----------



## Mpekas (Feb 21, 2007)

Last Thursday I went to my dealer to find out the progress of my order. A new show car had just arrived a 3.2 TT. I have to admit the sound of that engine is OUUUUAOUUUUU. Dealerâ€™s comment â€œthat engine is only sound , the car is too heavy for that engine 250hp for 1430â€ â€œI was pressing the pedal but what I was getting was far less than what was expectedâ€ â€œFrom my point of view the 3.2 TT needs more power, I know that the V6 can produce more power.â€ â€your car should be here next weekâ€ 
I like the last part more 
PLZ GOD BRING ME MY CAR THIS WEEK PLZ PLZ

PS: This is not my opinion I havenâ€™t driven the 3.2


----------



## Iceman (Jul 3, 2004)

vagman said:


> If you don't mind me asking, Iceman...................WTF is an A3 24h Street.


This is the "A3 24h Street"

*Picture.* and *Tech Info.*

Hans.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Don't understand the title. The 3.2 is not FSI.

I too would still have purchased the V6 over a S3 engined TT. Don't care about the position in the line up, its the V6 engine i wanted.
Your comments on the 3.2s performance dont hold water either. Look at the track times or posts from rebel.

As for UK tax i think some dont understand how the UK system works. The tax will and is changing how people purchase cars. UK has one of the highest petrol taxes in Europe.
Company cars are taxed based on CO2 banding as is the petrol you put in it.

Im all for the S3 engined TT, it wont kill 3.2 sales nor will it kill 20t sales, but I'd guess more of the 20T people would have ordered the quattro equipped car than the fwd version if they had a choice from the start.

Most v6 owners want a v6 engine, the s3 engine doesn't change that want. If you had a choice between 3.2 and 3.6 then i'd go 3.6 not that its a better engine, more it has more bhp and i dont want to have to chip or tune a car. More is more as they say.

As for Audi putting the 3.2 in the TT only for the uk market is laughable. They dont give a damn about the uk market even though we purchase 10 times more cars than any other market. If they did the UK line up would no be as is.


----------



## Guest (May 28, 2007)

Mpekas said:


> Last Thursday I went to my dealer to find out the progress of my order. A new show car had just arrived a 3.2 TT. I have to admit the sound of that engine is OUUUUAOUUUUU. Dealerâ€™s comment â€œthat engine is only sound , the car is too heavy for that engine 250hp for 1430â€ â€œI was pressing the pedal but what I was getting was far less than what was expectedâ€ â€œFrom my point of view the 3.2 TT needs more power, I know that the V6 can produce more power.â€ â€your car should be here next weekâ€
> I like the last part more
> PLZ GOD BRING ME MY CAR THIS WEEK PLZ PLZ
> 
> PS: This is not my opinion I havenâ€™t driven the 3.2


It'll beat seeing bloody supras going around the centre of Heraklion honking there horns.


----------



## Wallsendmag (Feb 12, 2004)

I would have thought long and hard about an S3 version TT or the V6 the one thing I wouldn't buy is non quattro just a personal thing but Audi and quattro are linked through visions of Kielder for me


----------



## Mpekas (Feb 21, 2007)

No argue with that DUO3 NAN.
â€œAs for Audi putting the 3.2 in the TT only for the uk market is laughableâ€ I cannot agree more. Everybody knows that you people love Diesel engines!! xexexexexexe
                   :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

I truly thought Audi would put a diesel in the TT. Still may do.


----------



## Mpekas (Feb 21, 2007)

That tt will never reach Greece; there is a law that forbids you to buy a diesel when you live in Athens or Thessaloniki (11.000.000 people in Greece 6.000.000 of them live in those 2 countries)


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> I truly thought Audi would put a diesel in the TT. Still may do.


Aye but will they ever put a Tosh in a Diesel TT?


----------



## DXN (May 18, 2002)

having had a 225 mk 1 I would have gone for a another turbo car, driving the V6 at the audi experience day I must say that the engine, car, MR and handling is fantastic (Toshiba is absolutely right, the V6 is a fantastic car) the power is there in an instant and not exponential to turbo.

I would have to test both (highjer powered turbo) or V6 back to back

I'll wait till end of year to see what the motors shows bring...

fingers crossed two new engines one ala S3, one new 6 pot


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

If they put the BMW 335 twin turbo into one i'd consider it.


----------



## CraigyTT (Oct 19, 2006)

Leg said:


> Toshiba said:
> 
> 
> > I truly thought Audi would put a diesel in the TT. Still may do.
> ...


Not if he's still breathing.

v6 diesel?

oh... wait...

C


----------



## CraigyTT (Oct 19, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> If they put the BMW 335 twin turbo into one i'd consider it.


There's a slight irony to that statement when it comes to me (being one of the biggest proponents of the 2.0 over the 3.2). The other car on my shortlist was the petrol 335ci (the twinturbo straight six)...

As it won international engine of the year 2007, they must be getting something right over in Munich.

C


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Engines are like colours. Just depends what you want, no right or wrong - only choice. I've had lots of turbo engines. I didnt want another one. Others have other valid reasons for either version.


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> Engines are like colours


Remind me never to engage you to do interior design on my house.

''Ok so Leg, for the living room we are going for a lighter shade of 2.5Tdi combined with a ceiling in hybrid electric and 1.6 petrol 4 pot, we are saving V8 for where the action happens, thats right, the loo!''

Cant see it catching on myself.


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

Toshiba said:


> If they put the BMW 335 twin turbo into one i'd consider it.


Wherefore you need that engine? You don't track it, and you all are alway's complaining abouth the traffic and the speedlimits?

So now you don't give a damn abouth design or quality, but now you need power? :wink:

Please for god's sake leave those "pimp-3-coupe's" for the sporty tattoo-boy's.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

I just think its a real good engine.


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

but don't you need a car where you can put the engine in?

please don't tell me you like the silhoute and the shapes from a 'pimped" BMW 3 serie Coupe?

what happened with you Tosh?

:wink:


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

ROFL, ive been waiting for this.^^



Toshiba said:


> I just think its a real good engine.


BTW Tosh, would I be right in saying that engine won engine of the year (or sometghing similar?)


----------



## vagman (Sep 6, 2002)

Rebel said:


> but don't you need a car where you can put the engine in?
> 
> please don't tell me you like the silhoute and the shapes from a 'pimped" BMW 3 serie Coupe?
> 
> ...


I wouldn't say no to a BMW 335i Coupe. 

But I'd have to go back to a manual and non-quattro. 

Still........there is always to A5 3.2 to consider........or even the 3.0TDI. :roll:


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

I openly admit i looked hard at the M3 with its V8, but no i wouldn't have the 335 - but not because of the engine. It doesn't mean i cant respect the qualities of what is a fantastic engine however you look at it. I dont know if it did win engine of the year but i better than most engines I've experienced before and yes its diesel.

The 30TDi in the A5 is also a cracking engine and from memory it chips up to silly numbers.
If i was to go for the 5 i think it would have to be the S5 with that gorgeous V8.


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

Toshiba said:


> If i was to go for the 5 i think it would have to be the S5 with that gorgeous V8.


Cheers...

So much better than that old-fashion and boring 3-serie coupe design.

At least you didn't lost your taste :wink:


----------



## CraigyTT (Oct 19, 2006)

Leg said:


> ROFL, ive been waiting for this.^^
> 
> 
> 
> ...


As I mentioned above... international engine of the year 2007, overall winner.

http://www.ukintpress.com/engineoftheye ... inner.html

btw, the VAG 2.0TFSI won the 1.8 to 2-litre category.... the 3.2 from VAG won sod all.

C


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

Very important that the engine won a price ....LOL
That's all marketing stuff...

The 2.0 TFSI was 2 times engine off the year.....but who gives a f*ck?
It still needs fuel....


----------



## Guest (May 29, 2007)

Mpekas said:


> No argue with that DUO3 NAN.
> â€œAs for Audi putting the 3.2 in the TT only for the uk market is laughableâ€ I cannot agree more. Everybody knows that you people love Diesel engines!! xexexexexexe
> :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Thats primarily down to what we pay in tax on our fuel and the farming community love the torque.
Although some people in the uk cant run their kids to school a mile away without using a 5.0 tdi.


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

Rebel said:


> Toshiba said:
> 
> 
> > If i was to go for the 5 i think it would have to be the S5 with that gorgeous V8.
> ...


Oh Rob you crack me up *and *now ure earning me money.

I had a bet on that whatever I bought you would slag it off within a week of me ordering it and waddya know. :lol:

Even funnier since you have been slagging the A5/S5 off voraciously for weeks.

Money AND laughter, bless you for that. :lol: :lol:

Priceless. You couldnt make this stuff up, oops, you do dont you.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

CraigyTT said:


> btw, the VAG 2.0TFSI won the 1.8 to 2-litre category.... the 3.2 from VAG won sod all.
> 
> C


Your point is? :roll:


----------



## CraigyTT (Oct 19, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> CraigyTT said:
> 
> 
> > btw, the VAG 2.0TFSI won the 1.8 to 2-litre category.... the 3.2 from VAG won sod all.
> ...


 :lol: That the 3.2 is an old engine - past its prime? If it had fsi, the outcome may have been different...

C


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

fcuk another silly [email protected] Are you dutch by any chance or of dutch ancestry?

A manual 3.2 TTR is faster around a twisty short track than the modern FSI DSG, MR equipped FWD TTC - go figure. A ROADSTER. :lol:

You might want to look up what FSI is, its for emissions not performance. Its a marketing gimmick by VAG and the 3.2 CAN be had in the Audi range with it. Again go and look, they choice not to bother with it in the TT.

Just so I'm clear, you bought the car for FSI did you? It even makes the engine rattle like a diesel (where it comes from). :lol: :lol:

Go and look up how much 'extra' power (i use the term VERY loosely) it gives you.


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> fcuk another silly [email protected] Are you dutch by any chance or of dutch ancestry?


Oh to be fair Tosh, you cant generalise about an entire nation, even they have standards...

http://www.********.co.uk/ttforumbbs/vi ... hp?t=85184


----------



## mjbTT (Nov 11, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> fcuk another silly [email protected] Are you dutch by any chance or of dutch ancestry?
> 
> A manual 3.2 TTR is faster around a twisty short track than the modern FSI DSG, MR equipped FWD TTC - go figure. A ROADSTER. :lol:
> 
> ...


I think you missed Craig's point here - don't think anyone was comparing 2.0 FSI v 3.2 Non-FSI. The point was, regardless of associated pros/cons, the 3.2 is an old engine. That can't be denied. Still, gave you another chance to have a pop at the 2.0 :lol: Chill!


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

The retort was no more of a pop than the original post.

I don't see these type of post help anyone and all need to stop.
Im sure the engine didnt win due to FSI UNLESS the main thing the judges are looking for is how much fuel it uses. In truth none of us (i'd guess) purchase a TT for the MPG. If we did buy cars for MPG we'd be in diesels or a Toyota thing with green decors on it.


----------



## CraigyTT (Oct 19, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> fcuk another silly [email protected] Are you dutch by any chance or of dutch ancestry?


Tosh, I don't mind you having a different opinion, but lets keep it clean eh? Last time I looked this forum was about TT's, and was *not* a platform for xenophobic comments and swearing.



Toshiba said:


> A manual 3.2 TTR is faster around a twisty short track than the modern FSI DSG, MR equipped FWD TTC - go figure. A ROADSTER. :lol:
> 
> You might want to look up what FSI is, its for emissions not performance. Its a marketing gimmick by VAG and the 3.2 CAN be had in the Audi range with it. Again go and look, they choice not to bother with it in the TT.
> 
> ...


I know exactly what FSI is Tosh. I bought a car equipped with an engine sporting it, you know?

My main point is that the 3.2 is just old, remember. Yep, a v6 is probably faster than a 2.0 all things being equal, even if the 2.0 has dsg and the v6 doesn't. However, BMW got about 340 bhp out of the last of the 3.2 M3's, so does 250bhp sound competitive to you - even if the competition was just for performance? It's not that competitive from where I'm sitting.

As you mention, the 2.0 TFSI engine is a lot cleaner in terms of emissions - the international engine of the year competition is a competition to find the engine with the best technology mix, not just the highest performance one (which the 3.2 would be beaten at anyway, by a number of engines, not just the BMW one mentioned above). Thus I don't know what you're getting at - if the 3.2 had FSI perhaps it would have placed better. The 3.6 did.

Statement: FSI is not a gimmick - it makes the fuelling much more precise, and that leads to lower emissions and better mpg. I know you don't care about mpg or emissions Tosh, but the journos who judge the competition do.

Apart from FSI, the rattle on the FSI engine could equally be caused by the fact that there's minimal crank offset on it (so there's a lot of effective piston "slap" - exactly as in a diesel engine). So what? The current BMW M5/M6 engine sounds exactly the same at idle, for the same reasons. Who cares?

I'm not really bothered by the amount of extra "power" FSI would give the v6. The fact is that in the IEofY competition, more MPG helps more than more bhp at the moment. The emphasis is on clever efficiency, not just maximum revs and power. Having said that, if a performance engine sports some decent tech for efficiency, it certainly helps. BMW are winning the competition a lot at the moment for those reasons (electric water pumps that only run when they have to, and only as much as they have to, etc).

As I was saying before: the current v6 as fitted to the TT ain't that clever.

For the record, the 3.6 FSI VAG v6 placed 5th in it's class (3.0 to 4.0) this time round.

C


----------



## Guest (May 29, 2007)

CraigyTT said:


> Toshiba said:
> 
> 
> > CraigyTT said:
> ...


I've had the 3.2 v6 in three past cars now, IMO its the best engine i've come across.
No turbo lag, enough power for most cars, not as fuel hungry as many are lead to believe.

Do you have a hand coming out of your arse that your typing with?


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Does it matter who got what bhp out of what? No, its irrelevant.

An engine is designed for a position in a line up for THAT manufacture. Its not designed to be the highest outputting engine of that size ever. The fact the the V6 is 250 is due to the other engines in the range. The fact the 20T is 200 is also due to the same engines in the Audi range.

Audi COULD have put a 250bhp 20T in the range, they havent and didnt for a reason.

20T-200, 3.2-250 3.6-280 4.2-340 and 4.2 420 Spooky, nice gap between each. Also mirrored by the pricing structures of each model too.

Its marketing, nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## Foiel (May 8, 2002)

.. Nice engine line up Toshiba and the 3.2 V6 would have sense in that case.. But then IT does not make any sense an S3 engine in the TT because It would kill the 3.2 250 hp..

weird marketing.. In my opinion BMW is better in line up.. :?


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

I like bmws line up too.

A3 does have a V6 3.2 version. S3 has not killed it off.


----------



## Foiel (May 8, 2002)

Yep, Toshiba you are absolutely right.. My consideration in that in a model like TT the potential customer cares a lot more about even small technical detail than the A3 potential customer.. I would say that the S3 is attracting for sporty cars potential customer and, doing a calculation, S3 should not be that important in A3 range sales.. While if you do a mistake in engine line up for the TT is much more visible especially in comparison with BMW which is actually producing the best engines with the best product line up... Does anybody have some GOOD connections in AUDI to solve our mystery.. ? :wink: :wink: :wink:

I personally think that many people are in my same situation.. I don't buy the car because I simply feel that some new engines/equipment are going to be launched and the current line up is absolutely without any sense.. Audi is lucky with me because the current Z4 is the ugliest car on earth ( both interior/exterior ) otherwise I would have already bought a 3.0 BMW without any doubts... :?


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

Did Foiel get a response from Audi CS to his email?


----------



## Foiel (May 8, 2002)

Nope Leg... In my opinion Audi is not that good in quick response..  :x ... Let's wait again...


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

I don't think Audi will respond. What was at the beginning can't be changed in terms of the engine line up - its history. It is what it is, like it or not. I'm not clear what kind of answer you are wanting or expecting from Audi. Are you expecting Audi to say don't order a car now, wait 12 months for the xbhp powered version?

If you are wanting an answer on the future of the 3.2 i have it from Audi the engine is staying and will not be REPLACED by the 3.6. This can be read two ways - it doesn't say the 3.6 WONT appear either.

As for the 265bhp 20T it will feature in the TT line up at some point. Where or how, it will only come clear when Audi announce it.


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

But the mainpoint is, that in time the older V6 engine will be replaced by an engine that is cleaner and has a better emission-rate.

Maybe in your country the goverment give a damn abouth the world, but other country's do....
And Audi will come with a cleaner V6 which is proberly FSI and faster.

Or maybe they will build the old V6 engines for another 8 year's specialy for the UK...

who now's? :wink:


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

you're beyond help.


----------



## CraigyTT (Oct 19, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> you're beyond help.


touchÃ©

C


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Not at all. if you want to keep posting the same old crap all the time pls feel free. You will have the same old arguments, the only difference is the people on the forum will get less and less.


----------



## paulie1 (Mar 6, 2007)

Rebel said:


> But the mainpoint is, that in time the older V6 engine will be replaced by an engine that is cleaner and has a better emission-rate.
> 
> Maybe in your country the goverment give a damn abouth the world, but other country's do....
> And Audi will come with a cleaner V6 which is proberly FSI and faster.
> ...


224g/km(s-tronic V6) as opposed to 183g/km(s-tronic 2.0T).
Hardly a huge gulf given the relative displacements is it? :? :?


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

Tosh, can't see why i don't have a own opninion?
Iceman told this some monthes ago...
And the topic-starter has also his own opinion abouth the engine.

It would be better if you answered my post with your vision.
Does your goverment want car's with less polution? Don't they charge more taxes on older engines in the future?

Don't you read the news what happens in the rest of europe?
Why can't you understand my vision, that that maybe could a reason to change the older engine for a cleaner and better one?

But, everytime when people say something abouth "your" engine, they talk "crap" or they are" beyound help"

A forum is place where you can discus...
Would be nice if you also give your vision abouth the "cleaner engines" thing and global warming etc etc........and why you think Audi won't change this old engine for a cleaner one? 
Audi stands for improvement....FSI stands for improvement and for less consumption i thought? could be wrong?

So they will put almost in every car a new cleaner engine , only the TT will have the old engine, because YOU don't like it to have a old engine after one year from now, when you can't order a 3.2 anymore?

And no, i'm not looking for a fight :wink: 
I only repeat things which Iceman said abouth engines and which some other people also think that will happen...


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

paulie1 said:


> Rebel said:
> 
> 
> > But the mainpoint is, that in time the older V6 engine will be replaced by an engine that is cleaner and has a better emission-rate.
> ...


Not in the UK maybe :wink:


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Still waiting for the proof cars cause global warming. The earth cools and warms in natural cycles. PROVE its not a natural cycle. However either way, personally I'm happy with global warming, i dont like the cold so bring it on.

If you want to tackle climate control stop the growth in the worlds population. Petrol powered cars add next to nothing - its a tax system, nothing more.

If you changed your car rob to a push bike you would help combat global warming - the fact you have a car says you care as much as the next person.


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

Toshiba said:


> Still waiting for the proof cars cause global warming. The earth cools and warms in natural cycles. PROVE its not a natural cycle.
> 
> *However either way, personally I'm happy with global warming, i dont like the cold so bring it on.*
> 
> If you want to tackle climate control stop the growth in the worlds population. Petrol powered cars add next to nothing - its a tax system, nothing more.


ROFL ! :lol:

At least you still got your humor.... :wink: 
And your postings are the best when you get "mad" :lol:


----------



## paulie1 (Mar 6, 2007)

Rebel said:


> paulie1 said:
> 
> 
> > Rebel said:
> ...


Well not anywhere unless you live in Switzerland :roll:


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

What happens is you only drive half the miles of a 20T owner? Surely that would make the 20T more polluting than a throbbing fully erect rocket ship powered by a glorious 3.2 V6 ?


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

Hahaha !

Tosh, lat's all have a laugh as long as we can....

After 5 year's we are all driving a "fred Flinstone" TT.....with no engine in it...

see here, the new TT - MK5 ......"i love global warming"


----------



## DonaldC (May 7, 2002)

I'm sorry Rebel but that is not a car - by definition a car should have four wheels! :lol: :wink:


----------



## Foiel (May 8, 2002)

... Whaaaaaaaaaat ??.. I'm reading on the web that Wolkswagen is launching in Italy a golf gti pirelli version with a 2.0 TFSI with 230 Hp.. now the 2.0 on the TT has no sense at all !!! what a crapy engine line up for the TT.. They are offering the 2.0 TFSI with the right amount of hp in all volkswagen group models except on the TT.. !!! :evil: :evil:

Audi..Audi..


----------



## CraigyTT (Oct 19, 2006)

Foiel said:


> ... Whaaaaaaaaaat ??.. I'm reading on the web that Wolkswagen is launching in Italy a golf gti pirelli version with a 2.0 TFSI with 230 Hp.. now the 2.0 on the TT has no sense at all !!! what a crapy engine line up for the TT.. They are offering the 2.0 TFSI with the right amount of hp in all volkswagen group models except on the TT.. !!! :evil: :evil:
> 
> Audi..Audi..


There's already a golf GTI 30 edition with a similar spec. http://www.volkswagen.co.uk/new_cars/fo ... golf_gti30

C


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

Foiel said:


> ... Whaaaaaaaaaat ??.. I'm reading on the web that Wolkswagen is launching in Italy a golf gti pirelli version with a 2.0 TFSI with 230 Hp.. now the 2.0 on the TT has no sense at all !!! what a crapy engine line up for the TT.. They are offering the 2.0 TFSI with the right amount of hp in all volkswagen group models except on the TT.. !!! :evil: :evil:
> 
> Audi..Audi..


Just spend 900 euro and give your car a ABT-remap and you will have 240HP.....with 2 years full waranty on the car


----------



## PaulManning (Nov 6, 2006)

I don't own a TT yet, although I am getting serious about an order. Hanging on to see what MY2008 brings forth and also (as posted elsewhere) I am concerned about the leather seat problems. This apart, I would plump for the 3.2 because of sound, lazy revving and torque as opposed to the "sewing machine" four pot. Not that I am slagging off the 2.0, its just that I have always preferred larger capacity 6 pots to a high revving 4 albeit that the same or more power can be obtained from the 2.0 with chipping. My other main reason for preferring the 3.2 is that it is quattro. Maybe that will change in 2008 or 2009? I can see the other reasons for the 2.0, such as insurance, emissions, fuel consumption etc, but I am really not too bothered about these. Plus, when I test drove the 2.0 I found it was having difficulty putting all the power down on the road when pushed hand, and suffered from a degree of torque steer at such extremes.


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

James brown is dead


----------



## CraigyTT (Oct 19, 2006)

Rebel said:


> James brown is dead


Didn't he die in December 2006?

C


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

yep, one year before the 3.2 V6 died... :wink:


----------



## CraigyTT (Oct 19, 2006)

Rebel said:


> yep, one year before the 3.2 V6 died... :wink:


I'd estimate 11 months, but who is counting?

C


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

I hope you're right. I will get a FREE replacement car from Audi if that's the case.

But you both wrong.


----------



## Foiel (May 8, 2002)

Here I'm again folks !

Here is the partial answer from AUDI AG regarding my query :

Dear,

Thank you for contacting us with your query.

Once the investigation of the issues concerning your query is completed, you will be contacted again. Until then, we kindly ask
for your patience.

Thank you once again for writing to us. Be assured of our utmost attention at all times.

Yours sincerely,

At least the are alive... Let's wait and see their response about their engine line up... I'm too curios because I keep on thinking that the current engines are a total non sense..

I will keep you updated,

see ya ! 8)


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

You expected anything more :lol:


----------



## Foiel (May 8, 2002)

Absolutely yes otherwise I will keep on sending them E-mails ( I've already done it in the past and it worked.. ) Let's wait...
:evil: :evil:


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

So to summarise you are expecting Audi to tell you the secret plans for the MKII that will no doubt impact sales of existing cars and maybe futures ones in additional to creating a total nightmare for dealers when they get the calls asking to swap orders.

Do keep us upto date.


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

Maybe Kev (KMpowell) can ask "007" for more info?


----------



## Foiel (May 8, 2002)

.. Superman is trying to get some info .. :wink: 8)


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

VW have just announced that the new Golf MKVI R version will continue to use the existing 3.2V6.

"while the four-wheel-drive R32 flagship version will keep its fabulous 3.2-litre V6"

edit missed this bit
The existing Golf Plus and Estate won't get the MkVI treatment just yet, but three and five-door variants of the new Golf are set to make their world debuts at the Geneva Motor Show next March, before the line-up arrives in UK dealers in autumn 2008.

Looks rather long term to me :lol:


----------



## CraigyTT (Oct 19, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> VW have just announced that the new Golf MKVI R version will continue to use the existing 3.2V6.
> 
> "while the four-wheel-drive R32 flagship version will keep its fabulous 3.2-litre V6"
> 
> ...


otoh, the point of the Mk.6 Golf platform is principally to re-engineer the manufacturing process to cut down build time and cost. They aren't likely to use a proper, new engine on that sort of project.

C


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Strange - Why are they using the new TFSI engines and replacing the existing ones then? Why are they using it to launch the new dry clutch 7speed DSG system? Good point though - The TFSI engines are not proper engines.

And no it not 'just' to reduce cost :roll: .

The firm's bosses certainly hope so, because the next- generation model is set to hit showrooms sooner than originally planned.

The high production costs of the MkV have forced VW to speed up the development of the MkVI, and several designs for the newcomer have been proposed. However, these pictures give the best indication yet of how the family car will look.

Despite tight financial constraints, the marque is aiming to offer more equipment than on the current car, and improve quality. But it's also keen to avoid competing against the upÂ­-market Audi A3, another VW Group model. As a result, the MkVI's styling will follow an evolutionary approach.
Traditional Golf design features, such as the rising waistline and chunky C-pillars, are set to continue, while changes are inspired by the forthcoming Tiguan SUV. Its new grille features a pair of distinctive horizontal bars, while the redesigned, squared-off headlamps are narrower than before. At the back, the light clusters are more angular.

According to insiders, the new Golf will use the existing car's platform, but feature a less complicated multi-link rear suspension set-up. This move is to reduce production times, leading to big cost savings for the manufacturer during the build process.

This is the best bit though

The clever turbo and supercharged 1.4-litre TSI will still be offered, while performance fans will welcome the next-generation GTI. It may also benefit from a larger-capacity version of the advanced TSI engine

Looks like the 20T is history already :lol: :wink:


----------



## T3 (Sep 24, 2006)

yes thats why the 2.0T is in the S3.... and will be in the TTS....
"History in the making" more like it.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

I didn't write the article or 'choose' the engines to put in the GTi. Seems strange they are dropping it already. However it does give you a clue as to the future plans regardless of if you like it, or agree with it.

I posted it as its relevant to the thread not to make a statement.
Feel free to complain to VW.


----------



## der_horst (Apr 29, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> "while the four-wheel-drive R32 flagship version will keep its fabulous 3.2-litre V6"


with the same specs or upgraded? i remember having read somewhere that the next platform should get the R36 instead of the R32, so i wonder if they just pushed the 3.2 to that new performance marker?


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

pass - its says 'keep', so id 'guess' that means the one we have now.


----------



## Foiel (May 8, 2002)

.. Last week I read an interview of Mr. Rupert Stadler and he said that Audi is going to totally separate its image from VW in the next few years.. They could start putting the new engines with the latest development on Audi range and then after some time to extend the use on other brands of the group ( not like the TFSI being used on Seat before that on Audi... Damn.. !! ).. It' s just a guess but I think they could start doing it.. OR NOT ? :?: :?:


----------



## Foiel (May 8, 2002)

HERE IS WHAT AUDI HEADQUARTER CS REPLIED ME..

" It is with regret that we learn about your dissatisfaction with our General Importer AUTOGERMA in Italy. Therefore, we informed
the responsible department about your complaint.

After having forwarded your questions regarding the range of engines for the Audi TT, we are able to give you background
information regarding our range of engines offered.

We decided to install the 3.2 MPI in the Audi TT because this engine is technically mature as a multitude of tests of the
technical press affirm. Nevertheless, we are thinking about the implementation of the FSI technology. However, we are sorry to
inform you that we won't offer this engine for the Audi TT in the near future.

Unfortunately we cannot comment on any future changes in our model range. The preparation of any model takes a long time and is
paired with the continual updating and optimizing of technologies. This also explains why some projects might be postponed or
rearranged at very short notice, or even abandoned for good.

Therefore, we do not give notification of changes until we are sure that these are definite. We kindly ask for your
understanding.

Please note, that when such changes have been agreed upon, our Audi partners are the first to be notified. Subsequently, the
general public will be informed. "

They answered me back because they are very professional in their headquarter not as Volkswagen group Italy !

... Should I understand that the 3.2 FSI is not that reliable yet... ?? FSI in the near future.. bah I'm wondering when...

FSI or not FSI ... The discussion keeps on goin on... :lol: 

See ya folks


----------



## Foiel (May 8, 2002)

.. Anybody interested in this reply ... ??


----------



## vagman (Sep 6, 2002)

Foiel said:


> .. Anybody interested in this reply ... ??


I was, but they (Audi) have not not told you anything that we didn't know already.


----------

