# The final argument is the 3.2 or 2.0 the better choice.



## sico (Feb 6, 2003)

*3.2 or 2.0*​
The 3.2 is better by far6458.72%The 2.0T is better and im a gay4541.28%


----------



## sico (Feb 6, 2003)

The final poll, is the 3.2 or 2.0 better. This should solve it.


----------



## GarethW (Oct 12, 2006)

_Maybe we should leave this thread, we seem to be drifting away from facts and more towards emotion._

So why start this thread then? :?


----------



## tehdarkstar (Jul 24, 2006)

Interesting that you don't see this kind of thing on other forums... :? Or the MKI room for that matter.


----------



## Arne (Dec 13, 2006)

Very funny..... [smiley=juggle.gif]


----------



## DonaldC (May 7, 2002)

embarrassing to say the least... :?


----------



## Necroscope (Apr 9, 2006)

Sico must have a 2.0T to be bring this crock of crap back up again!


----------



## sico (Feb 6, 2003)

he he he :lol: :lol:

[smiley=argue.gif]

Jeez come on! Anyone would think im talking about your mums! Lets lighten up a bit here - its Friday! :wink:


----------



## andyc83 (Jun 19, 2007)

I shouldn't take the bait, as both have their merits and drawbacks, but here's what went through my mind when I was deciding on my MK2 order:

The 3.2 has Quattro, sounds lovely, and is more powerful. But, it is heavier, costs more to tax, insure and run! Also, it costs about 5k more to buy - substantial when a grand means a lot to me!

The 2.0 is a fantastic engine, packs a good punch even without a remap, is ligher than the 3.2, and costs noticeably less to tax, insure and run. The MY2007/2008 versions don't t have Quattro, so some people will miss that sense of security in the rain.

I've gone for the 2.0 personally because frankly, I don't feel like I can afford to run a 3.2 with the higher tax, insurance and petrol consumption as a day-to-day commute car! Also, I have driven both, and the 2.0 feels agile and secure even round fast bands, and it is genuinely fun to drive!


----------



## sico (Feb 6, 2003)

andyc83 said:


> I shouldn't take the bait, as both have their merits and drawbacks, but here's what went through my mind when I was deciding on my MK2 order:
> 
> The 3.2 has Quattro, sounds lovely, and is more powerful. But, it is heavier, costs more to tax, insure and run! Also, it costs about 5k more to buy - substantial when a grand means a lot to me!
> 
> ...


This answer is far to logical and sensible for this thread. Please refrain!
:wink:


----------



## mjbTT (Nov 11, 2006)

oh dear :? 
aaahh, your're from Norfolk :wink:


----------



## TommyTippee (May 31, 2007)

Stop it!!

TFI Friday

I'm off this weekend so am going to wash and cuddle my baby and have some FUN

Oh BTW 2.0 is better


----------



## woppy (Apr 11, 2007)

The best comment I read on this subject was on one of the journo reviews (maybe 5th gear, can't remember now),

"Both versions will have their fans"

By the passion that I have read in your responses, both here and in my (unbiased) thread 'What engine did you chose and why?' I can see that this is indeed true.

My pearls of wisdom for what they are worth :wink:


----------



## Arne (Dec 13, 2006)

woppy said:


> The best comment I read on this subject was on one of the journo reviews (maybe 5th gear, can't remember now),
> 
> "Both versions will have their fans"
> 
> ...


Well spoken.... :wink:


----------



## sico (Feb 6, 2003)

Whys this thread that was meant to be stupid getting logical and sensible anwers? The other threads that are meant to be getting sensible answers are all stupid.... :lol:


----------



## Arne (Dec 13, 2006)

sico said:


> Whys this thread that was meant to be stupid getting logical and sensible anwers? The other threads that are meant to be getting sensible answers are all stupid.... :lol:


That's because TT-owners are NOT sensible and logical..... :lol:


----------



## sico (Feb 6, 2003)

News just in for those waiting:

Audi UK have just taken another shipment of 2.0T's.

http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/2376/bsplitco1.jpg


----------



## drew_TTC2 (Jul 18, 2007)

ROTFLOL :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## drew_TTC2 (Jul 18, 2007)

now i've got that tune in my head !

:lol:


----------



## ratty (May 18, 2004)

Loaded question from a 'tractor boy' :roll:


----------



## sico (Feb 6, 2003)

2.OT owner shocked to hear he has no quattro:

http://chandiramani.info/blog/images/chimp.jpg


----------



## philbur (Apr 15, 2007)

priceless. FUDL



sico said:


> 2.OT owner shocked to hear he has no quattro:
> 
> http://chandiramani.info/blog/images/chimp.jpg


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Ive got a foot in both camps :wink:


----------



## treblesykes TT (Jul 11, 2007)

lets settle this with a pissing contest or finding out whose dad eats the biggest breakfast


----------



## sico (Feb 6, 2003)

treblesykes TT said:


> lets settle this with a pissing contest or finding out whose dad eats the biggest breakfast


Sounds interesting, they should use this method in the house of commons.
:wink:


----------



## DonaldC (May 7, 2002)

Toshiba said:


> Ive got a foot in both camps :wink:


...why do swingers always publicise their views? :roll: :wink:


----------



## ratty (May 18, 2004)

Toshiba said:


> Ive got a foot in both camps :wink:


Explain........... :arrow:


----------



## Johnny Napalm (Jul 16, 2007)

The best one is whatever the individual prefers... :wink:


----------



## Wallsendmag (Feb 12, 2004)

Toshiba said:


> I'm very camp :-*


Are you sure you haven't got the turbo :wink:


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Im not tight arse lets get the cheap option - that frankly should not carry the TT badge. A TT without quattro is like a Ladyboy - ok it might look ok on the outside, but you know deep down that its sick and fundamentally wrong.


----------



## Arne (Dec 13, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> Im not tight arse lets get the cheap option - that frankly should not carry the TT badge. A TT without quattro is like a Ladyboy - ok it might look ok on the outside, but you know deep down that its sick and fundamentally wrong.


Spoken like a true looser.... :wink:


----------



## Wallsendmag (Feb 12, 2004)

Arne said:


> Toshiba said:
> 
> 
> > Im not tight arse lets get the cheap option - that frankly should not carry the TT badge. A TT without quattro is like a Ladyboy - ok it might look ok on the outside, but you know deep down that its sick and fundamentally wrong.
> ...


Looser than what?


----------



## Arne (Dec 13, 2006)

I just can't help it, but here are some minor facts about the "fundamentally wrong 2.0T" - compared to it's superior 3.2 quattro (taken from another thread some time ago):

From the tests, these are the results I can find (though it might be more) for 100-180 km/h (all with manual gears):

Std 3.2 manual varies from 14.2 (sport auto), 13.7 (ams) till 13.2 (Auto Zeitung). 
For the 3.2 TTR manual varies from 14.3 (ams) till 14.2 (sport auto).

For the 2.0T the figures varies from 14.3 (ams) till 13.4 (sport auto).

So frankly, I can not see how you, from these figures, can say the 2.0T is now where near the 3.2. I think they show just the opposite, and confirms what I am saying....

I have never said that the quattro is pointless. I have actually said that I would have chosen it, IF it was an option for the 2.0T. But the MKII fwd is a very good fwd compared to the MK1 fwd.....or other fwd cars for that matter. They have managed to make a good ballanced fwd car without the "old" overstear problem the MKI have.

Just for fun I also checked the 80 - 180 km/h for both 2.0T and 3.2 from the two magazines that has tested both cars (we can then asume they have performed similar tests probabely with similar metods and the same persons).

Result:

3.2: 16.3 sec (Sport Auto), 15.7 sec (ams) 
2.0: 15.2 sec (Sport Auto), 16.1 sec (ams)

And with a quick remap of the 2.0T, you get a fun car that smokes the 3.2 in most ways except for the first few yards from stillstand..... :wink:

But offcourse there are those that buys a car where the most important is to be quickest over the first cross after green light.....or are afraid to loose controll when it gets wet :roll:


----------



## Arne (Dec 13, 2006)

wallsendmag said:


> Arne said:
> 
> 
> > Toshiba said:
> ...


Looser than a ladyboy...? [smiley=jester.gif]


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Her we go again. I never mentioned the 20T engine. We (being the wife)have one in our A3 so i know what it is, or isn't and its nothing special - but its not poor either and I'm happy to say it. Im also not saying the 3.2 is great it too is nothing special and again its not poor. I said the TT should be quattro.

The figures you have put up are somewhat one sided - AGAIN.
We have posted the times many times before and even i can be bothered to do it again. The 3.2 when driven by a 'real' driver and not some numpty from a crappy mag IS faster round the track. Is faster to 60. To be 100% accurate not only is the 3.2 TTC faster, but the 3.2 TTR with std springs is too when compared to a T'd TTC with MR around the same course with the same driver.

If you need to mod the car it ain't that good is it. You can mod the 3.2 to 550bhp - but again, I'm sure that's not as good at the 20t :roll:

Maybe they need to also test the colours to see which is faster, i think red would win, its a lighter colour and handles better.

Im so glad we have this same bullshit every other week.


----------



## mjbTT (Nov 11, 2006)

But Toshiba, you're always right there in the middle of it, aren't you. Don't see Donald, MarcusGilbert, Wallsendmag, etc. provoking anybody do we? Okay, forget Wallsendmag :?

Why bother, thought we all agreed to let it lie. And even if you didn't mention the 2.0T, you did mention Q, so it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what you're up to.

It is boring, why bother with this 'p1ssing contest approach to life'? [smiley=zzz.gif]


----------



## Wondermikie (Apr 14, 2006)

Edited because these threads do nothing for the forum :?


----------



## Wallsendmag (Feb 12, 2004)

Better value taken as better al round.


----------



## mjbTT (Nov 11, 2006)

Wondermikie said:


> :lol: another 3.2 v 2.0T thread.
> 
> For the record I believe both cars are great. However, setting the price aside - the simple facts are -
> 
> ...


So I guess you're a 3.2 man then! Agree with everything you say as it goes, though I don't see many 2.0T owners actually saying 'mine is better than yours', so why do a minority of 3.2 owners feel the need to do just that :?


----------



## Wondermikie (Apr 14, 2006)

Edited because these threads do nothing for the forum :?


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

mjbTT said:


> But Toshiba, you're always right there in the middle of it, [smiley=zzz.gif]


I do respond I hold my hand up, point is i dont start them. I only post the other side of the coin. (which i do for most things) if you look back you will clearly see i posted a silly comment about having one foot in both camps.

The tread then went some what off piste (it was meant as a piss take and most took it as such and posted accordingly) then we get the 'facts' from someone else about a test someone else did sometime, somewhere. :roll:

If you read whats actually happening people are pulling each others legs - i wonder what the author of the threads goal actually was - piss take or constructive debate?


----------



## YELLOW_TT (Feb 25, 2004)

wallsendmag said:


> Arne said:
> 
> 
> > Toshiba said:
> ...


See Rich it is not just me


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

YELLOW_TT said:


> wallsendmag said:
> 
> 
> > Arne said:
> ...


Nope, and u have a proper TT too.


----------



## YELLOW_TT (Feb 25, 2004)

Leg said:


> YELLOW_TT said:
> 
> 
> > wallsendmag said:
> ...


 :lol: :lol: better put one of these on [smiley=fireman.gif]


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Im not sure a TT is yellow is 'proper'

Proper TTs only come in three colours, red, black and silver.


----------



## YELLOW_TT (Feb 25, 2004)

Toshiba said:


> Im not sure a TT is yellow is 'proper'
> 
> Proper TTs only come in three colours, red, black and silver.


What colour is your mk2 :?:  
there is a white and a yellow qS by the way


----------



## Arne (Dec 13, 2006)

Wondermikie said:


> :lol: another 3.2 v 2.0T thread.
> 
> For the record I believe both cars are great. However, setting the price aside - the simple facts are -
> 
> ...


he-he....I do like those "fact's are....", because it's so fun to look closer into those so called "facts".... :roll:

the simple "facts" are -

"_the 3.2 has more power_"

Peak power - it's correct. But it's much less than what is stated. The facts can be found here: 
3.2: http://www.rri.se/popup/performancegrap ... artsID=640
2.0T: http://www.rri.se/popup/performancegrap ... artsID=643

Fact is that peak power on the wheels only differs by 13 ( :!: ) bhp, and looking at the more important aerea under the bhp graph, the 2.0T is at least as good as the 3.2 (if not better) - and it has less weight :wink:

"_the 3.2 has more torque_"

Peak torque - it's correct by a minor margin. But it's much less than what is stated. The facts can be found here: 
3.2: http://www.rri.se/popup/performancegrap ... artsID=640
2.0T: http://www.rri.se/popup/performancegrap ... artsID=643

Fact is that peak torque on the wheels only differs by 4 ( :!: ) Nm, and looking at the more important aerea under the bhp graph, the 2.0T is way better than the 3.2 - and it has less weight :wink:

Further to this, the 2.0T can easily (and for little cost) be remaped to outperform the 3.2 in both bhp and torque by far greater figures....by just a stage 1 remap.

"_the 3.2 has better acceleration_"

This is correct from 0 - aprox 40 mph. Beyond that the std 2.0T is equal to or better than the 3.2. And with a stage 1 remap, the 2.0T smokes the 3.2 in all speeds above 40 mph (when it starts to get fun....)

"the 3.2 has better in-gear performance figures"

As for the acceleration figures, I have seen results that are more or less equal for this kind of performance - as long as the different variables are more or less the same (driver, conditions, type og gear etc)

"the 3.2 has a better drivetrain"

I do agree that the quattro will outperform a fwd under poor traction conditions. But this is the only thing the 3.2 is better at, and when the TTS comes the 3.2 will just be left in the shadow - because of less power and more weight.....with the same drivetrain.

"_the 3.2 has more traction_"

This is just a way to rewrite the above statment and looks more like a frantic effort to find more positive comments on the 3.2 than what excist.

"_the 3.2 has more equipment_"

Might be true for the UK (it's the same between the 2.0T and 3.2 in Norway, except for the wheel size), but you do have to pay for the difference :wink:

"_So FFS how on earth can the 2.0T possibly be better :? These threads are just a joke_."

I think your "the 3.2 is far supperior than the 2.0T" is just a joke. Most (if not all) of the serious motorjournalists found the 2.0T to be the most fun car to drive - because of the great 2.0T engine, and the lighter weight.

The performance figures from different "serious" companys tests (and not the claimed figures) shows that there are very little that differs the 3.2 and 2.0T - BUT the 2.0T can easilly be remaped for little cost to outperform the 3.2.

I don't say that the 2.0T is a better car. The best would be a more powerfull and still lightweight TT with quattro - which is what will come in a few months time.

But I do think that some of you 3.2 owners are suffering from some kind of "must convince that my car is the best one - since I payed a few thousend bucks more for it".

The reason for why I say this, is that you (the 3.2 owners) are more or less without exception, those who starts commenting on how good the 3.2 are compard to the 2.0T - or just giving negative comments on the 2.0T.

And the fun thing is that you just can't stand being corrected/given respons for this with pure facts - and therfor have to bring in those "clever" arguments on "ladyboys car" etc :lol:

Who do you think you are fooling :roll:

The thing I really don't understand is that from all here that has been to Nurburgring (or seen pictures from the tracks), all the MK TT's that have been seen there (and there are a few) are the 2.0T.

Makes you wonder - does'nt it..... :wink:

Might look like the 3.2 is the real ladyboys car - since they need the extra cc and cylinders to "show off", and the extra traction to make shure nothing "bad" happens when they (by accident) push too hard on the accelerator....


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

But its always you measuring the cock to show us what a man you are, how you are right everyone else is wrong!

If Q is pointless why is everyone wanting the TTS surely a light weight chipped 20T with FWD would be better like you say?

Nobody has to justify ANYTHING, its called a choice. Pay your money, take your pick.


----------



## Arne (Dec 13, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> But its always you measuring the cock to show us what a man you are!


No - it's not like that Toshiba :wink:

It's always me that give you feedbacks AFTER you have done your best to show off your choice of engine - usually by trying to tell how bad the 2.0T is compared to your 3.2 8)

I do understand that you don't like it when someone talks back at you. For some strange reasons, people like you often react that way.... :?

But don't worry - I won't tell anyone.....

Contradictionary to you, I belive that most people can make up their own minds by the different oppinions they get - where I think that facts counts for more than a big mouth showing of :roll:

Because that has never impressed me. Just like a lot of cc, cylinders and sound have never impressed me on the tracks - or the road. It's what you can do whit what you have that matters :wink:


----------



## Arne (Dec 13, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> But its always you measuring the cock to show us what a man you are, how you are right everyone else is wrong!
> If Q is pointless why is everyone wanting the TTS surely a light weight chipped 20T with FWD would be better? :roll:


ps: did you read what I wrote, or are your reactions just a part of your backbone - without involving your brain.... :?:

Quote from my earlier post:

"I don't say that the 2.0T is a better car. The best would be a more powerfull and still lightweight TT with quattro - which is what will come in a few months time. "

But since this is written in your and not my language, it must be my poor english that makes you unable to understand, and not your ability to read....?


----------



## Wondermikie (Apr 14, 2006)

Edited because these threads do nothing for the forum :?


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Im waiting for Audis 20T R8 and the TTs gone. It much better than the V8 version. What remap do i need? And will the red work best on a track or black?

You are the only one taking this seriously, everyone else has posted in the spirit of the thread.


----------



## sico (Feb 6, 2003)

"!it's so fun to look closer into those so called "facts".... "

- I agree:

"Fact is that peak power on the wheels only differs by 13 ( ) bhp, and looking at the more important aerea under the bhp graph, the 2.0T is at least as good as the 3.2 (if not better) - and it has less weight "

- The rolling road performance figures will be low on any 4wd. Check any 4WD inc RS4. Maybe your 2.0t is faster than that? :roll: Also these are from some company based somewhere who the hell knows!

"This is correct from 0 - aprox 40 mph. Beyond that the std 2.0T is equal to or better than the 3.2. And with a stage 1 remap, the 2.0T smokes the 3.2 in all speeds above 40 mph (when it starts to get fun....)"

- The 2.0T could be chipped but so could the 3.2. The 2.0T would wheel spin when chipped, the 3.2 wouldnt. Plus quattro would handle corners.

"I do agree that the quattro will outperform a fwd under poor traction conditions. But this is the only thing the 3.2 is better at, and when the TTS comes the 3.2 will just be left in the shadow - because of less power and more weight.....with the same drivetrain. "

- If the TTS is faster then the 3.2 then it will be even faster than 2.0T? So whats your point. Also you seem to be agreeing that the 3.2 is better than the 2.0T as your comparing against the TTS?

"But I do think that some of you 3.2 owners are suffering from some kind of "must convince that my car is the best one - since I payed a few thousend bucks more for it"

- How long is your post, whos trying to convince who?

"I think your "the 3.2 is far supperior than the 2.0T" is just a joke. Most (if not all) of the serious motorjournalists found the 2.0T to be the most fun car to drive - because of the great 2.0T engine, and the lighter weight. "

- Serious motor jounalists?

"As for the acceleration figures, I have seen results that are more or less equal for this kind of performance - as long as the different variables are more or less the same (driver, conditions, type og gear etc) "

- Where you been looking, gay pride magazine?

"I don't say that the 2.0T is a better car. The best would be a more powerfull and still lightweight TT with quattro - which is what will come in a few months time. "

- The weight of the 3.2 is also the quattro you know! So when you say lighter exactly how much do you think it will be?

Your in denial, get a 3.2 and stop being gay. :lol: :lol:


----------



## Arne (Dec 13, 2006)

Wondermikie said:


> Arne said:
> 
> 
> > he-he...
> ...


Sorry about the "ladyboy" comment to your previous post. That was not fair to you, and I am sorry about that. But than again, I do this kind of "debate" because I think it's funny as a response to posts that I find a bit "strange" or missguiding to others.

I don't know your experience, but for me just the simple statment that "money no object - one is better than the other - and that's it - there's no debate to it, no reason to suggest otherwise - arguing the point is just daft etc" is pure b...shit :wink: And for me, it just tells me that you don't relly know that much of what you are talking about.

Regarding the quattro I do agree that q is better that fwd in general - but not if you also take into consideration the extra weight. It's just to have a look at previous years of racing in classes that holds both q and fwd cars with weight penalties - and you will quickly find out that it's not that simple.....

Regarding the engine I would honestly claim that the 2.0T is a better and more modern engine than the 3.2 in more or less all ways - specially after it is remaped.

And remember - the remap is just a software adjustment, that Audi easilly could have done without any increase in production cost if they wanted. 200 bhp is not a "mechanical construction limit" as the 250 bhp is on the 3.2 without major extra cost.

So I would say that the 2.0T is a far better engine than the 3.2.....specially when you look at the power and torque graph - which is way more essential than peak power and torque.

There is not much more that differs the two cars, if you drop options and costs - therefore I come to another conclusion than you do :wink:

And I realy whish that I could test it out on the tracks my self. But unfortunately so far it seems like the only one of the MKII owners that wants to find out what the TT is capeable of, is the ones with the 2.0T.

And again - I wonder why..... :?:


----------



## Arne (Dec 13, 2006)

sico said:


> "!it's so fun to look closer into those so called "facts".... "
> 
> - I agree:
> 
> ...


Sico - I think I have answered your comments allready if you read my comments without your preoccupied oppinions shading your minds :wink:

Some of your comments clarly shows that your answeres are made without your brain (but perhaps only your heart and feelings) being involved.....


----------



## Arne (Dec 13, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> Im waiting for Audis 20T R8 and the TTs gone. It much better than the V8 version. What remap do i need? And will the red work best on a track or black?
> 
> You are the only one taking this seriously, everyone else has posted in the spirit of the thread.


Some of what I write is seriously ment, and some is ment to tease you.

From what I can see it's pretty succesfull..... :lol:


----------



## mjbTT (Nov 11, 2006)

Wondermikie said:


> I've posted this before, but on the Z4-forum you never get 2.5 or 2.2 owners saying "...my car is better than the 3.0..." because quite simply it isn't, and that's a fact. On the SLK forum you don't get 350 owners posting "...my 350 is better than a 55 AMG..." because again it simply isn't the case.


Not been to one of these forums, but do the Z4 3.0 owners regard the 2.2 or 2.5 with such contempt? Do the 55 AMG owners go on about how the 350 devalues a brand? I doubt it.

Toshiba, I do 'get' that much of this type of debate is just taking the piss, but there is often an underlying and unnecessary 'mine is bigger than yours' element to it. And obviously, Sico was bored with being at work on a Friday, so maybe this thread became too serious!


----------



## sheila (Oct 7, 2006)

When I ordered my TT in October 2006 I was unable to test drive the 2.0TT as they were not available anywhere in the UK dealers to drive.
Two weeks ago I went to an Audi Dealers open day and for the first time took the 2.0TT out for a test drive.
I have to say that I was a bit anxious having read all the motoring reports on the 2.0TT that state it is the better buy, however I was unimpressed and am glad I bought the 3.2, they are as different as chalk & cheese, full fat milk and skimmed, diet coke and coke.
Performance, engine response and handling of the 3.2 is outstanding in comparison.
As the dealer stated the 2.0TT is just good value for money.
Also had a run out in the new S5 and saw the RS8 on display, looks stunning in black with tan leather seats.


----------



## heywood (Feb 9, 2007)

What's everyone got against ladyboys? - not very pc.

Must be loads of them on the BMW forums getting along happily.

Handbags away girls.

Hang on - there's a subject for a poll... What is the best handbag for scrapping with - a real, luxurious, tactile, quality leather one, or one made from some cheap, tacky imitation suedette type material??

oops


----------



## vagman (Sep 6, 2002)

The TT 3.2 quattro is Audi's brand leader.

Whereas, the TT 2 litre is Audi's equivalent of the Tesco Value range........................and we all know how shite that is.

:-* :-*


----------



## mohan (Mar 15, 2007)

Arne said:


> "_the 3.2 has better acceleration_"
> 
> This is correct from 0 - aprox 40 mph. Beyond that the std 2.0T is equal to or better than the 3.2. And with a stage 1 remap, the 2.0T smokes the 3.2 in all speeds above 40 mph (when it starts to get fun....)


this is on account of the quattro system.... in gear acceleration is also dependent on revs/torque and gearing.... from a standing start, 3.2 figures will always be better than the 20t.... check this video.....

rs4 smokes e39 m5 from standing start, but gets absolutely whooped by the torque rwd of the m5 from all rolling starts....






both have similar power outputs, m5 a flatter torque curve.....

my point, quattro and peak power is not the be all and end all....


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

Why do we let a sick guy as sico ruine some relation's over here.
The forum can be helpfull to discuss problem's or solution's.
If morron's like sico show up and try to start a fight between both owners, these things above can come in danger. Because people don't share their information of just stop posting.

I think Arne's post were alway's friendly, so why do we bash each other for something like this?
Both car's did an ecellent time on the Nordschleife-Nurburgring or other test-circuits, compared to the MK1.

Please ignore post like this from a frustrated pathetic dumb person like sico.


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

tehdarkstar said:


> Interesting that you don't see this kind of thing on other forums... :? Or the MKI room for that matter.


100% correct

we did it once , we did it twice , just for fun, but now with many new MK2 drivers on the forum it ain't funny anymore.


----------



## stephan (Jul 25, 2007)

don't mind having either of the cars, it just came down to simple maths, my TTR 2.0 with extras cost R452 000 same car with the 3.2 liter engine cost an extra R90 000 (South Africa) The Rand USD exchange is at the moment R7.11 for a Dollar, just to give you an idea of the amount of money that it costs here in SA


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Arne said:


> Regarding the engine I would honestly claim that the 2.0T is a better and more modern engine than the 3.2 in more or less all ways - specially after it is remaped.
> 
> And remember - the remap is just a software adjustment, that Audi easily could have done without any increase in production cost if they wanted. 200 bhp is not a "mechanical construction limit" as the 250 bhp is on the 3.2 without major extra cost.


I know i shouldn't respond as it will simply per-long the stupidity but...

Not sure i agree - why is the ed30 which has 20bhp extra internally different to the 200 version? Why have VW gone to the time and expense to develop this 'variant' if they could just do a basic remap.
No company spends money for the sake of it.

R32 results look good :roll: 
http://www.rri.se/popup/performancegrap ... artsID=631
same engine 17bhp more, 16Nm more.

Maybe they just roll a dice for the figures. Saves testing them.


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

Tosh we all know that you have the biggest c*ck , so you win this thread :wink: 
We don't need any proof but maybe you can show your's to "sico" :lol: :wink:


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Didnt think the point was to win. Do i get a cup?


----------



## John C (Jul 5, 2002)

Never contributed to the 2 engine threads due to their futility however one thing happened today. Hired a car due to being away this week on hols and it is a blown four pot. (Saab 9.3 Aero Convertible) and when you floor it you do miss the V6 howl. Does not make the V6 better but it does sound nice!


----------



## sico (Feb 6, 2003)

Arne said:


> sico said:
> 
> 
> > "!it's so fun to look closer into those so called "facts".... "
> ...


Really? Please specify? My answers are based on logic and fact... but please point out where they are incorrect and based on emotion.

Rebel - if you dont like it dont read the thread. This argument has been on many threads (some of which you have contributed to!), I just got fed up with it intangled in other threads and therefore setup this one to sort it out.

Dont get angry just because you have a 2.0, its not my fault you made the wrong choice.


----------



## Wallsendmag (Feb 12, 2004)

To be serious for once i drove a VAG 1.8 turbo for 8 years (5 years Golf MkIV GTI and 3 years TT 180 ) if they sold a 2.0 quattro I may well of chosen that.The reason that I didn't pick the turbo was that I drive an Audi because my teenage years were spent watching rallying and I just couldn't see myself driving an Audi without quattro pure and simple.I haven't driven a 2.0 and unless I feel like a test drive of a roadster I probably won't .


----------



## Arne (Dec 13, 2006)

Sico - why do you think I get angry? I have no reason to 

I do think that you read my mode just as bad as you read the rest of what I write :wink: But some people have their minds set up no matter what :roll:

I have allready specified everything that is necessary for you to understand. You can only lead the horse to the water, but you can't make it drink it..... :wink:

Keep having fun with your car, and I will do the same with mine. That's the whole point - is't it?

But everytime you feel the need (for some odd reason) to tell everyone else how bad the 2.0T must be compared to your topp of the line sportscar - don't excpect me not to correct you from your missconseption. I know it hurts you when you are confronted with facts, but it's you that are asking for it. I never start - you do..... :wink:

And I think it's fun - even if you don't when confronted with facts.... 8)

So cheer up Sico


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

Angry?

Sico, in you wildest dreams maybe.

It's only that your topic is so old as the way to jeruzalem. It's boring, and it's trying to get people upset. Just be glad you made the "right" choice and enjoy it.

The 2.0 drivers also enjoy their choice and i have never heard one saying he wanted a 3.2. So if you want to post a topic which makes people "angry" than come up with something better.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Lots say 'if they could have' they would have :wink:



Arne said:


> But everytime you feel the need (for some odd reason) to tell everyone else how bad the 2.0T must be compared to your topp of the line sportscar - don't excpect me not to correct you from your missconseption. I know it hurts you when you are confronted with facts, but it's you that are asking for it. I never start - you do..... :wink:
> 
> And I think it's fun - even if you don't when confronted with facts.... 8)


You have no facts. It clear what is faster than what, its also clear what is faster round the track than what, its also clear what has better traction that what regardless of your views on FWD, 4WD or Quattro, its also clear what sounds better than what. Its also clear given that every other FWD car loses much more power to the wheels than the TT does (from your posted links) that either the tested car was a gem, or the car/engine has more than 200bhp to start with. If you look at the figures you so covert (web link you posted again) for the 05 and 06 GTI you will see the sudden or same jump in power. :?

Fact is 20T is better VALUE for money - but thats all, O and mpg and tax liability.

If you continue to look at the figures for other models in the VAG range you will see the 3.2 tested was obvious a crock. the R32 has 16bhp more and this appears in your eyes to justify your view.

The facts are IN THE UK, the cost difference of the cars is 2k when you levels the specs. Lets call that 1k for a V6 engine, and 1k for quattro. Bargain if you ask me.

Would you like to argue about paint colour or other options you can spec for the TT now? If you want to keep arguing the engine, i have no problems with that. I'm happy to argue with you forever as im 100% sure which is better.


----------



## Wondermikie (Apr 14, 2006)

mjbTT said:


> ...do the Z4 3.0 owners regard the 2.2 or 2.5 with such contempt? Do the 55 AMG owners go on about how the 350 devalues a brand? I doubt it...


You're right - and these 3.2 v 2.0T threads do absolutely nothing for the forum, it's a futile discussion, and it always end in tears, so in that respect I have edited my posts.


----------



## Arne (Dec 13, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> If you want to keep arguing the engine, i have no problems with that. I'm happy to argue with you forever as im 100% sure which is better.


Why so sour Thosiba? If your read the different threads where I argue about the different engines, it's rather easy to see that it's never me that starts it - it's you or any other of your fellow 3.2 brothers. Just another thing you get so very wrong....

But it do seems like you can't stand being met with other arguments without being pi**ed of. I am not the one that can tell you why - that is something you will have to find out about yourself.

If you can't take the fight - don't start it.... :wink:


----------



## FinFerNan (Feb 28, 2007)

This argument is purile and pointless.

Who cares who started the "argument" and despite everthing this is clearly as case of 6 of one and half a dozen of the other.

As Woppy pointed out:-

*Each car will have it's own fans*

For heavens sake now, *let it be* - This perpetual argument is terminally BORING.

I for one, REALLY don't care about 0-60 figures or which car sounds better etc etc etc etc etc..............

I guess, all this thread does (and other's like it) is make most people want to sign off.

I had a Mk1 TTR and now own a Mk2 TTC - END OF!

PS - I will not be posting any further comments on ths thread and I urge others to just let it sink without a trace :wink:


----------



## philbur (Apr 15, 2007)

I say let it run it's course if you don't want to here it don't read it. Personally I've learnt a lot about the various merits of the 2.0T and the 3.2 V6 as a consequence of the various arguments.

Thanks for a very informative thread (Arne).

Regards
Phil



FinFerNan said:


> This thread is purile and pointless.
> 
> Who cares who started the "argument" and despite everthing this is clearly as case of 6 of one and half a dozen of the other.
> 
> ...


----------



## FinFerNan (Feb 28, 2007)

I know I said I would not post again on this thread, however:

Philbur - You are correct. The opening sentence of my post should have read

"This argument is purile and pointless...."

I will now correct this - thank you.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Arne said:


> Toshiba said:
> 
> 
> > If you want to keep arguing the engine, i have no problems with that. I'm happy to argue with you forever as im 100% sure which is better.
> ...


You started it, not me - read the order of the thread. The whole thread is / was a piss take, look up what that means - you clearly dont seem to understand.

Im not sour about anything, you can't wind me up. Everyone else accepts the engine with more power is better one. You posted rubbish after rubbish to support the unsupportable regardless of what everyone else is saying. The 20t does not match the 3.2 at anything. 5.5 to 60 vs 6.4 200 vs 250 bhp which part dont you get? We've posted the performance times all the way up to 150, again the 20t is nowhere near as quick, Track times are less for the 20T. Even the mags you so covert show you a TTR with a 3.2 engine is faster round the same short course with the same driver than a 20T TTC with MR on.

Why do the golf boys with the same batch of engines not have this - they simply accept that the V6 is better, they accept the 20T is slower. If they are unhappy with the performance of the car they chip it - they dont go on a rant and say the 3.2 is not as good. They accept they both have their own place which is down to the owner to choose.

Even rob (rebel) is not as anti as you.

I HAVE A 20T in MY A3, its not a patch on the 3.2. If you doubt this ask anyone what went to the MKII meet i arranged in london - i turned up in it!
And no its not chipped, i dont want to chip it.

Im sure the 180FWD MKI is also better than the V6 - again the MKI people dont sit around arguing this crap - not you, black is white and white is black.


----------



## tehdarkstar (Jul 24, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> I HAVE A 20T in MY A3, its not a patch on the 3.2. If you doubt this ask anyone what went to the MKII meet i arranged in london - i turned up in it!


Eugh, are you still driving that? What's up with your TT? And what do you mean with "MY A3"? Have I missed out on something?


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

A3 is/was the wifes so 'MY' is not strictly true. Audi gave me an A6 as a loan car for the TT. However i take it in turns to travel to london in the cars (keep the miles down) and the wife wanted the A6 the week we all meet up, hence i had hers.

If that makes sense.

TT had its seat base replaced after i scored/marked the leather with a pizza box


----------



## tehdarkstar (Jul 24, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> A3 is/was the wifes so 'MY' is not strictly true. Audi gave me an A6 as a loan car for the TT. However i take it in turns to travel to london in the cars (keep the miles down) and the wife wanted the A6 the week we all meet up, hence i had hers.
> 
> If that makes sense.
> 
> TT had its seat base replaced after i scored/marked the leather with a pizza box


Yeah, it makes sense, but your dealer is taking an awful long time to return your car, isn't it? How much time do they need to replace a seat base???


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

It took two weeks, they ordered the parts and then took it to bits and decided they needed to replace the foam padding as well as it wouldn't stay in shape or hook on to something. Hence it then took a while for the unplanned part to turn up.

I got it back last Friday, seat doesn't look like they do from the factory, but it doesn't look crappy either.


----------



## Arne (Dec 13, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> You started it, not me - read the order of the thread. The whole thread is / was a piss take, look up what that means - you clearly dont seem to understand.
> 
> Im not sour about anything, you can't wind me up. Everyone else accepts the engine with more power is better one. You posted rubbish after rubbish to support the unsupportable regardless of what everyone else is saying. The 20t does not match the 3.2 at anything. 5.5 to 60 vs 6.4 200 vs 250 bhp which part dont you get? We've posted the performance times all the way up to 150, again the 20t is nowhere near as quick, Track times are less for the 20T. Even the mags you so covert show you a TTR with a 3.2 engine is faster round the same short course with the same driver than a 20T TTC with MR on.
> 
> ...


I am not anti 3.2 Toshiba. As I have said before - the 3.2 is a great engine, as is the 2.0T. But they are very different engines, with different characteristica - and different pro and cons.

If anyone is anti here, it's you - whith your repeatedly comments on how bad the 2.0T fwd really is. I think your insight in yourself is almost as bad as the insight you have regarding the pro and cons of these two good cars.... :wink:

Anoter thing that I seem to have to repeat is that it's not the max bhp and torque that is the major factor regarding which has the most usable power - it's the aerea of bhp and torque graph during the "most driveable" part of the rpm range. This, together with weigth and traction, is what gives the major effect on how quick the car is. And both cars/modells have their strong and not so strong sides here.

For the rest of your arguments, I have allready documented enough for everyone to see that what you claim is not as black and white as you so very hard (for some reason or the other) whishes it to be.

And regarding who started it, it's pretty easy to see - isn't it.

Remember this?:



Toshiba said:


> Im not tight arse lets get the cheap option - that frankly should not carry the TT badge. A TT without quattro is like a Ladyboy - ok it might look ok on the outside, but you know deep down that its sick and fundamentally wrong.


If this is not to "pick a fight" and start it, I don't know what is :roll:

And I did not have any comments regarding the 3.2 or 2.0T before you managed to give such a stupid remark..... 8)

Otherwise you do have a lot of good advice to give here, so thumbs up for that [smiley=thumbsup.gif]


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

If we are being accurate, im not anti 20T, im anti FWD its for hot hatches not premium coupes or track cars (which the TT is not). I've said before if Audi gave us the option from the start i would have considered it as would many others from both sides - maybe even you. However as i really wanted a V i doubt i would have got it anyway. But in the absence of facts (bhp and cost) its impossible to say. We will have to wait until Jan for those numbers, which is around the time im planning to change the car as it happens.

Really cant see how the S will fit in the range.


----------



## sico (Feb 6, 2003)

Toshiba said:


> If we are being accurate, im not anti 20T, im anti FWD its for hot hatches not premium coupes or track cars (which the TT is not). I've said before if Audi gave us the option from the start i would have considered it as would many others from both sides - maybe even you. However as i really wanted a V i doubt i would have got it anyway. But in the absence of facts (bhp and cost) its impossible to say. We will have to wait until Jan for those numbers, which is around the time im planning to change the car as it happens.
> 
> Really cant see how the S will fit in the range.


Yes I think your right. If Audi offered a RWD TT then I would have considered this.

RWD hot hatches and coupes are much better dynamically and in a different league than FWD as with the BMW 1 series (ugly but good to drive). This is a fact and can be found throughout the internet and car mags (before anyone argues!).

It simply doesn't make sense having a powerful engine driving the wheels that are steering.

I think that manufacturers have a limit imposed to the power they can put through FWD and its around 220.


----------



## Arne (Dec 13, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> If we are being accurate, im not anti 20T, im anti FWD its for hot hatches not premium coupes or track cars (which the TT is not). I've said before if Audi gave us the option from the start i would have considered it as would many others from both sides - maybe even you. However as i really wanted a V i doubt i would have got it anyway. But in the absence of facts (bhp and cost) its impossible to say. We will have to wait until Jan for those numbers, which is around the time im planning to change the car as it happens.
> 
> Really cant see how the S will fit in the range.


Believe it or not, but regarding quattro versus rwd versus fwd, I do agree with you in the essens of what you are saying.

My preferences for a true sportscar is rwd with quattro as the second best choice. Therefor I would have chosen different if the 2.0T had come with other drivetrain choices.

However the fwd in the MKII is surpricingly better than any other fwd cars I have driven, and that might have something to do with the ballance of the car and other technical modifications they have done - which is also commented from more or less all of the different motorjournalists. The lack of understeer is amazing, but the lack of the possibility to make powerslides is somewhat sad - although not something that I personally miss so often.....(would have made it more fun in wintertime though..... 8) )

And in different race touringcar classes, fwd does not come short of a rwd looking at laptimes - but a true rwd sportscar might be a bit more fun to play with :wink:

So this is also why I think the TTS will have it's purpose - even though I would wish it came with rwd and not quattro. I too find it sad that Audi do not make a proper rwd sportscar....


----------



## T3 (Sep 24, 2006)

[/quote] I HAVE A 20T in MY A3, its not a patch on the 3.2. [/quote]

Well you cant compare an A3 to a TT either.
My GF has an A3 2.0 T and I've done many tests "borrowing her car- she would kill me if she knew :wink: )

The 2.0 TT kills the A3. One car lengh every shift on poor runs, and a huge gap when I LC with MR and concentrate..

Same engine, doesnt make the same car.

But yes, lets stop it with the derivative banter. If it's not educational or informative, its emotional and personal.. not good.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Im feeling ill today, i dont have the energy to argue.


----------



## T3 (Sep 24, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> Im feeling ill today, i dont have the energy to argue.


no need to argue :wink: 
hope you feel better


----------



## Janitor (Jul 2, 2007)

Toshiba said:


> Im feeling ill today, i dont have the energy to argue.


Ooo Tosh, chin up fella 

Not been here long but it's great finding out who's who. You are certainly one of the 'characters' that's for sure - hope you get well (return to form) soon [smiley=thumbsup.gif]


----------



## Arne (Dec 13, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> Im feeling ill today, i dont have the energy to argue.


Then you must be seriously ill (just a joke Toshiba.... :lol: )

Whish you a quick recovery [smiley=cheers.gif]


----------



## PrimoTT (Feb 14, 2007)

Toshiba said:


> A3
> TT had its seat base replaced after i scored/marked the leather with a pizza box


Easily the funniest thing I have ever read on a forum! Not to poke fun at having to take the car in for service though.


----------



## yangliang (Jul 1, 2006)

Quick question:

Would the V6 boys still of chosen the V6 if at launch the 2.0L version came with quattro and the V6 was FWD only?


----------



## Wallsendmag (Feb 12, 2004)

yangliang said:


> Quick question:
> 
> Would the V6 boys still of chosen the V6 if at launch the 2.0L version came with quattro and the V6 was FWD only?


No,see my earlier post, Audi for me =quattro. The V6 fwd would have massive traction problems.


----------



## PATT (Apr 2, 2003)

Sound, Acceleration and Quattro (SAQ) are what made me choose the the 3.2


----------



## sico (Feb 6, 2003)

Looking at the poll - I think we have found that there is a pretty even split across both 2.0 and 3.2.

The poll did highlight that many 2.0 owners do admit to being gay... :wink:

On a serious note:

The choice of engines is based on the requirements of the person buying the car.

What may be best for one person may not be for another and therefore this argument may be flawed.

In line with others on the forum I would like (believe it or not) to see an end to these fruitless arguments. I dont beleive they will ever end though as it will always crop up.

Lets get on with the normal business of having a peacful forum community and lay down our arms.

Hail the TT 2.0 or 3.2!


----------

