# 2.OL TURBO OR 3.2 V6 ?



## mangonation (Sep 12, 2007)

I keep thinking if i have made the right choice by ordering the 2.0L and not the 3.2. i have heard the 2L is more fun to drive. can any one HELP?


----------



## Calibos (Mar 28, 2004)

Can.....Worms...........Open.................................Everywhere!!


----------



## brittan (May 18, 2007)

Noooooooooooooooooooooo. Not again!
There are many threads on here extolling the virtues and otherwise of the 2.0 and 3.2 engines. And there are people on here with firmly set opinions on which car is the better one. Such opinion may or may not be of use to you . . .

Go and drive both cars with your choice of transmission, even if you have to travel to a different dealer to do it. Do your sums for purchase price and running costs and pick the one you like.


----------



## tiTTy (Feb 15, 2006)

2.0T is more flexible, and in the dry, the FWD makes the car more nimble and sharp.

With a good re-map you will leave the 3.2V6 as there is big weight difference.


----------



## fluffekins (Jan 20, 2007)

No car should have less than 6 cylinders.


----------



## chrisabdn (Aug 15, 2007)

hi mangonation

that's a dilemma most of us face before ordering, i suspect.

as victt says, the best advice any of us can give you is to go and drive both cars and make your mind up.

speaking from personal experience, i had read all the bumph in the magazines which all said the 2.0T was the better car, so i'd set my mind on getting one of those.

i drove it loved it, and thought that was it.

the thinking being, from the mags and my own opinion, that the 3.2 surely couldn't be worth the extra.

then i drove the 3.2 and all i can say is "holy sh*t!!!"

the 3.2 felt much faster, and that v6 growl gets under your skin and seeps into your soul ... i hear it in my sleep, it's the first thing i hear when i wake in the morning, i think i'm going cuckoooooo!!

the 2.0 is all i need, really. it's a fantastic car, and will be great fun to drive.

that said, i now find myself with a few more quid in my pocket and able to afford the 3.2 ... and for me, that's what it comes down to. if going for the 3.2 is too much for you, then there's no shame in going for the 2.0, however if you have the funds to choose either and it makes little difference to you financially then i'd have to choose the 3.2 ... which i strongly suspect i'll be doing.

they say that the 2.0 is lighter, and thus should be more nimble, more chuckable, more fun to drive ... that's backed up by the magazines. however we have to remember that few of us here will be professional drivers, and if we're truly honest with ourselves few of us could push any of these cars to their limits. remember also that the 3.2 has oodles of grip due to the quattro 4wd, and sticks to the road like poop to the proverbial hairy blanket ... i've got some awesome backroads near where i live and took the 3.2Q out, i gave it no quarter and drove it as hard as i knew how, and i know these roads, and it was awesome ... it felt more sure footed than the 2.0 on the exact same roads, no understeer, and no less chuckable.

i'll be driving the 2.0 again next weekend and will give it a workout, i'll then try the 3.2 once more just to be sure.

that's just my personal feeling and experience on a few test drives though, both cars are phenomenal and you won't be disappointed but, to reiterate, you really need to drive them both - preferrable for a few hours each, and get to know them before making up your mind.

good luck bud.


----------



## mangonation (Sep 12, 2007)

hi chrisabdn thanks for the info. loads of help. as the previous message and yourself said. i will be testing the 3.2 out now. i myself justl ooked at the facted that it only has an extra 50 bhp and would prob drink much more so would not be worth while.?

im going 2 test drive next week at least i will no then, the way u describe the v6 i think it has to be done

besides the power and 4 wheel drive there is no other diffrence between to the two car?


----------



## chrisabdn (Aug 15, 2007)

also, it's true that the 2.0 is a turbo, and therefore you can get it chipped to go faster however, personally, i wouldn't interfere with a brand new car under warranty ... especially not after spending the guts of Â£30K.

there are those who will, and good for them ... but i'm not a mod'er.

again, there's no right or wrong here ... your choice chum.


----------



## chrisabdn (Aug 15, 2007)

oh and i'm posting this again, just for sh*ts and giggles ... :lol:


----------



## chrisabdn (Aug 15, 2007)

mangonation said:


> hi chrisabdn thanks for the info. loads of help. as the previous message and yourself said. i will be testing the 3.2 out now. i myself justl ooked at the facted that it only has an extra 50 bhp and would prob drink much more so would not be worth while.?
> 
> im going 2 test drive next week at least i will no then, the way u describe the v6 i think it has to be done
> 
> besides the power and 4 wheel drive there is no other diffrence between to the two car?


not sure how much diff the extra 50bhp would make in the real world ... the 3.2 felt quicker, which it is marginally, but it's that engine note that gets you. if you can do a back to back test that'll settle it, i should imagine.

the differences between the two cars, other than extra power and quattro, are that the 2.0T is a turbo (thus more tunable if you're into that) and the 3.2 is naturally aspirated. the 3.2 has twin tail pipes (either side at the back), and comes with a few standard options which you need to spec on the 2.0 ... such as full leather seats, 18" alloys, and heated seats ... some other cosmetic subtleties too, like darker rear light clusters, etc. might be more that others are aware of.

the 3.2 will be a lot more thirsty. from other threads i've gleaned that with the 2.0 you can get around 35mpg, but this drops to 25mpg in the 3.2.

the way i'm working the finance is that i'll pay a slightly higher deposit for the 3.2, and monthly it won't cost me much more than the 2.0 ... which makes the extra fuel more palatable.

the extra cost for the 3.2 might be hard to justify when compared to the 2.0 because it's very very good, but only you'll be able to decide. for me, knowing i can afford the 3.2 means if i got the 2.0 i'd always wonder ... whereas if it just wasn't financially doable i'd have been happy with my choice ... i'm also moving to the outskirts of town and taking backroads to work, so the quattro will be very handy in heavy rain and ice/snow ... not essential by any stretch, but certainly very handy.

8)


----------



## Sussex_Paul (Aug 1, 2007)

Totally down to your own personal choice.............
But the 2.0 TFSi isn't as underpowered as some on here would have you believe as it's 150kg lighter than the 3.2Q.
:wink: 
Brief quote from Evo magazine to to stir things up............... :twisted: 
"Could you justify a TT now? Maybe you could. The new one has made the crucial leap into evoness, but only as a 2-litre with front-wheel drive. Seems that less really is more."


----------



## chrisabdn (Aug 15, 2007)

there were a couple of things that sold the 3.2 for me ...

firstly, when i drove the 2.0 i though "oh this is cool, this is nice, this quick", and i was happy, and smirking.

when i drove the 3.2 i actually felt emotional about it, i virtually did not stop howling with laughter the whole time i drove the car, every time i sunk the pedal i bellowed, and i had a permanent full on grin plastered on my face. i had that feeling well up in my chest and throat that i used to get as a kid on christmas eve, i still get it now thinking about the 3.2 ... i didn't get that in the 2.0.

the other thing was the steering. i currently drive a diesel Golf which is quite a heavy car, but i feel the steering is perfectly weighted for my driving style. when i drove the 2.0 i thought the steering was too light, but in the 3.2 it felt more like my Golf ... I'm not sure if it was just my imagination, but the 3.2 felt better to drive over all.


----------



## mohan (Mar 15, 2007)

the only person that can help is you.... decide for yourself as you are going to have to live with the car.....

i went from e39 m5 to tt, and spent an afternoon with the 3.2, ordered a 2.0 on account of what the magazines said, and i am a very happy man...

both me and my wife were underwhelmed by the 3.2... poorer throttle response, lack of low down torque, and engine is muted until you really get on the revs.... torque of 20 really tells around town, a real basey almost v8 exhaust note from 3000rpm...

and yes 20 is slower than 32, way way slower than my m5, but the handling is sublime and you can have a lot more fun at slower speeds.... it's not about how quick you can get from a to b, it's also about having a smile on your face at the end.....


----------



## chrisabdn (Aug 15, 2007)

mohan said:


> both me and my wife were underwhelmed by the 3.2... poorer throttle response, lack of low down torque, and engine is muted until you really get on the revs.... torque of 20 really tells around town, a real basey almost v8 exhaust note from 3000rpm...


actually mohan, that's a very good point.

the 3.2 i drove was s-tronic, and so held the revs quite high, especially in s-mode ... which obviously contributed to the engine note.

which is why i want to drive a manual 3.2 before i make up my mind, as i likely wouldn't choose to drive at such high revs most of the time.

oh, i used to be indecisive, but now i'm just not sure ... :lol:


----------



## mohan (Mar 15, 2007)

Sussex_Paul said:


> Totally down to your own personal choice.............
> But the 2.0 TFSi isn't as underpowered as some on here would have you believe as it's 150kg lighter than the 3.2Q.
> :wink:
> Brief quote from Evo magazine to to stir things up............... :twisted:
> "Could you justify a TT now? Maybe you could. The new one has made the crucial leap into evoness, but only as a 2-litre with front-wheel drive. Seems that less really is more."


power to weight is very important, not only for the handling, but also speed... the brera has way more power but is oh so slow as it's made of steel!!! it's that weight advantage that leads to the better handling quoted by all of the car magazines......


----------



## Jersey Paul (Aug 1, 2007)

I prefer the sound of the 2Ltr.
They have obviously left the induction howl of the turbo and dump valve audible and the exhaust note is nice and throaty.
I like this "character" sound as well as the tuning potential. :twisted: 
It looks like audi engineers looked at the tuners for this inspiration.
In other TFSI audis these sounds don't seem as audible and are more soundproofed.


----------



## mohan (Mar 15, 2007)

Jersey Paul said:


> I prefer the sound of the 2Ltr.
> They have obviously left the induction howl of the turbo and dump valve audible and the exhaust note is nice and throaty.
> I like this "character" sound as well as the tuning potential. :twisted:
> It looks like audi engineers looked at the tuners for this inspiration.
> In other TFSI audis these sounds don't seem as audible and are more soundproofed.


i often amuse myself at lights /in traffic by reving to 4000 quickly and then coming off, and listening for the sound due to the dump valve.....


----------



## the911sc (Sep 24, 2006)

mohan said:


> Jersey Paul said:
> 
> 
> > I prefer the sound of the 2Ltr.
> ...


...especially when Audi engines use divertor valves not dump valves which just pump the air into the exhaust!...


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

3.2 every time.

Weight is not a problem, just put qtr of a tank of fuel in and they weigh about the same :roll: 3.2 has better weight distribution, better specs, is not FWD. Turn of the ESP on the back lanes and the handling is mind numbing on those twisty bends.


----------



## Jersey Paul (Aug 1, 2007)

I know they use a diverter valve!! - usually just say DV to cover both bases.
I think turbo are the greener option - its all about recycling energy.
Anyone tried the new Forge replacement unit for TFSI?
If they are online I am willing to test one for you!!


----------



## FinFerNan (Feb 28, 2007)

Toshiba said:


> 3.2 every time.
> 
> ......... the handling is mind numbing on those twisty bends.


Worked for you Tosh didn't it


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

It was a portion of the forum that did it and its views on FWD.
Its pointless and useless. :wink:

You wont catch BMW or porker, or Ferrari within a light year of anything that turns only the front wheels. However if Audi release a fwd versioned RS model of either the 4, 5, 6, or 8 i'll happily eat my words. However i will require BBQ source.


----------



## woppy (Apr 11, 2007)

Im with the 3.2 brigade im afraid!

I ordered the 2 litre originally, but im really happy with the 3.2.

The noise, road holding and the fact that you can drive round in 3rd all day..


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

You can see a nice movie from the 3.2 on a track over here:

http://videos.streetfire.net/video/ed41 ... 18d867.htm


----------



## BobFat (Jul 24, 2007)

Your everywhere :wink: Good on yer.


----------



## mangonation (Sep 12, 2007)

thanks for al the advice, will defo try the 3.2 out as well.


----------



## vagman (Sep 6, 2002)

TT 3.2 'Spitfire' quattro. [smiley=guitarist.gif]


----------



## FinFerNan (Feb 28, 2007)

Toshiba said:


> It was a portion of the forum that did it and its views on FWD.
> Its pointless and useless. :wink:
> 
> You wont catch BMW or porker, or Ferrari within a light year of anything that turns only the front wheels. However if Audi release a fwd versioned RS model of either the 4, 5, 6, or 8 i'll happily eat my words. However i will require BBQ source.


Facinating Tosh, now stop sulking, put your toys back in your pram and play nice, there's a good boy :wink:


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Rebel said:


> You can see a nice movie from the 3.2 on a track over here:
> 
> http://videos.streetfire.net/video/ed41 ... 18d867.htm


3.2, you mean 1.2 fiesta and you couldnt shake him. Did you only use gears 1-3? :lol:


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

Is there a 4 than?

Tosh in your wildest dreams maybe.....you couldn't follow that silver car in the movie, even if you where in a veyron....

hmm, maybe so.......till the first corner :lol:


----------



## rmwd (Feb 13, 2007)

Toshiba said:


> 3.2 every time.
> 
> Weight is not a problem, just put qtr of a tank of fuel in and they weigh about the same .


Not sure that's true Tosh.
A full tank of 60 litres weighs less than 60Kg (petrol is less dense than water). So with a quarter tank (not that practical) the most you can shave is less than 45Kg. That's only a third of the weight difference.


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

People who can't drive buy 4 wheeldrive. Because they feel save.
But a TT isn't a real 4 wheeldrive.....it got "Haldex"....
Well, and let me tell you.....it would be perfect ......if they gave the rear wheels more power.
"Haldex" ....LOL

Oh no, let's wait, we call it quattro..better marketing...... and there will be some donkey's who think it's 4 wheeldrive and buy it. Smart thinking from Audi

Result.......a lot of donkey's go for it.

No thx, i take the driver's version......and give it some pepper....no 3.2 can catch up.

Quattro did you say? LOL

Tosh, Maybe we should call you "Hanky Haldex" :lol: :wink:


----------



## Singletrack (Aug 1, 2007)

I know this is a debate that will never end and this video may have appeared elsewhere in this forum...but this is really why I chose the V6...you just can't beat that sound. I seriously want this Pogea Racing exhaust system.


----------



## Singletrack (Aug 1, 2007)

This is the sound of Pogea Racing's exhaust for the 2.0 FSI...not quite as meaty, but nonetheless amusing in it's pretentions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2yhl8y- ... ed&search=


----------



## sico (Feb 6, 2003)

Rebel said:


> People who can't drive buy 4 wheeldrive. Because they feel save.
> But a TT isn't a real 4 wheeldrive.....it got "Haldex"....
> Well, and let me tell you.....it would be perfect ......if they gave the rear wheels more power.
> "Haldex" ....LOL
> ...


So you say the TT 3.2 is not four wheel drive? Is it only two then?

What is REAL 4 wheel drive?


----------



## monkey_boy (Feb 3, 2007)

Has this debate not gone on 2.0 or 3.2 times before?

I may have bought the 2.0l if it had RWD to be honest. Never quite liked the feel of FWD, but thats just a personal taste thing, as all these opinions on 2.0 and 3.2 are.

Both are cracking cars, just for different reasons. Buy what you like, your choice is only right for YOU.


----------



## sico (Feb 6, 2003)

Why I purchased the current "top of the range TT":

1, Exhaust either side
2, V6 six cylinders naturally aspirated
3, Sound of "engine" not exhaust
4, 250 BHP and 320NM torque

Why I didnt purchase the 2.0L

1, Same engine as Golf GTI
2, Less powerful in BHP and torque than my previous car a Focus ST
3, Could afford 3.2
4, Front wheel drive


----------



## FinFerNan (Feb 28, 2007)

monkey_boy said:


> Has this debate not gone on 2.0 or 3.2 times before?
> 
> I may have bought the 2.0l if it had RWD to be honest. Never quite liked the feel of FWD, but thats just a personal taste thing, as all these opinions on 2.0 and 3.2 are.
> 
> Both are cracking cars, just for different reasons. Buy what you like, your choice is only right for YOU.


Spot on MB [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

TBH I couldn't give a stuff who drives what, it's the incessant dummy throwing I can't be doing with.

Some on here seem intent on taking every possible opportunity to remind us that their toys are bigger/brighter/better/lighter/noisier/faster - it's so bloody childish!

As far as I am concerned, we are all entitled to an opnion and no one can really argue that both cars have their good and less good points.

Perhaps Tosh should just take up Rebel's challange and then maybe we can all just get on with getting on :wink:


----------



## paulie1 (Mar 6, 2007)

Well said Fin,now can we move on-please??


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Rebel said:


> People who can't drive buy 4 wheeldrive. Because they feel save.


No, they buy it because front wheel drive is for wheel barrows and low powered city run abouts not a sports coupe. O and Audi's heritage is Quattro.
The power is to the wrong wheels and everyone knows it.

Would you buy a Ferrari in poo brown, no. Same thing.


----------



## FinFerNan (Feb 28, 2007)

Toshiba said:


> Rebel said:
> 
> 
> > People who can't drive buy 4 wheeldrive. Because they feel save.
> ...


Tosh - Please, either take Rebels challenge, shut up or get a room and get it over with :roll:

BTW - Audi's heritage is _Turbo_ Quattro and wheelbarrows are "driven" from the rear - usually by the person pushing :wink:


----------



## mangonation (Sep 12, 2007)

everyone i only asks the question which one would be better. now i feel like i have started a bitching match.

but everyone thanks for the info,

what i have gather is that alot of people no there stuff, but at the end of the day, only you can decide which is the best car for yourself.

once again thanks everyone, lets leave it that.

mangonation


----------



## Wallsendmag (Feb 12, 2004)

mangonation said:


> everyone i only asks the question which one would be better. now i feel like i have started a bitching match.
> 
> but everyone thanks for the info,
> 
> ...


The best thing to do would be to use the search facility and read what has been written far too many times already. Can we lock this thread please it serves no purpose.


----------



## FinFerNan (Feb 28, 2007)

mangonation

Don't worry buddy, *you* did not start anything 8)

This particular subject tends to bring the kiddies out to play, toy's get flung, corners get filled and tantrums ensue 

I think you are best trying out the two versions, preferably with/without S-tronic and make the decsion that suits you mate. Good Luck.


----------



## mangonation (Sep 12, 2007)

Thanks mate i will.

Quick question i no the front grill is diffrent on the 3.2 then the 2L is there any other diffrence besides the inside?


----------



## mangonation (Sep 12, 2007)

just forgot, whats is the difffence between the two front grills?


----------



## FinFerNan (Feb 28, 2007)

3.2 grill is painted/gloss.

3.2 gets full leather/heated seats and 18" 10 spokes. Can't think of anything else other than the obvious V6/Quattro.

If you spec 2.0 upto 3.2 the price difference is only about Â£2k. Fuel should run out at 27mpg Vs about 32-33 ie bugger all, depreciation, insurance and servicing is much the same overall.

Cost is not really the issue - yes the 3.2 will cost more to run, but not _that_ much more.


----------



## TommyTippee (May 31, 2007)

I've left this one alone------------- why?????????

Stop it -- just stop it :x :x :x :x

There is no answer

just love what you've got

IT'S ALL f****** GREAT


----------



## tt200 (Jan 29, 2007)

The number of people quoting the sound of the 3.2 as their reason for purchase makes me laugh.

Unless Iceman is talking complete bollocks in this thread http://tinyurl.com/2cxmbf much of the sound is generated by nothing more than a fancy Organ Pipe.

Audi might just as well link the sound system to the rev counter and play the noise of a formula one car over the speakers - the effect would be the same and a hell of a lot cheaper.


----------



## mangonation (Sep 12, 2007)

Thanks geeze, just seen your location, you live in solihull?, me to, small world man,

Now im gonna have to make sure i notice your car. i get mine in the middle of october, cant wait.

The reason with al the question about the litres is that my bro thinking of getting one aswell, my car has already beened ordered and can not be changed now, but my bro asks me the question. so i posted it on here, i myself am test drving the 3.2 with my bro next week, so see how we get on.


----------



## FinFerNan (Feb 28, 2007)

TommyTippee said:


> I've left this one alone------------- why?????????
> 
> Stop it -- just stop it :x :x :x :x
> 
> ...


Tommy

You are right in part mate. Sadly these threads will always detriorate, but that does not (IMO) warrant ignoring the initial question, does it?

Look on the bright side - most of the reply's are on topic and presumably of some help to mangonation.

However, I hear what you are saying (I have said the same myself in the past  ) and will try not to get drawn in again :wink: I suppose it's too much to expect everyone else to do the same eh?


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

tt200 said:


> The number of people quoting the sound of the 3.2 as their reason for purchase makes me laugh.


The sound is a bonus, 6 cylinders feels so much smoother and better than four does. I doubt anyone buys the car for the colour, so i'd guess the noise it makes would be the same, its simply one of many factors that goes into the equation.

The sound is easy to fix - replacement exhaust, else a drill.


----------



## FinFerNan (Feb 28, 2007)

mangonation said:


> Thanks geeze, just seen your location, you live in solihull?, me to, small world man


We are building up a Silhill posse :lol: :lol:

So which car have you ordered and which dealer?


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

Toshiba said:


> tt200 said:
> 
> 
> > The number of people quoting the sound of the 3.2 as their reason for purchase makes me laugh.
> ...


Hanky Haldex, tell me, where do you enjoy that smooth and better drive? On the highway in a straightline at full speed? Or in daily traffic when you visit your clients?

Why should a 6 be better than a four? The car is as good as his driver is.....so in your case...... arghh....whatever

I strongly advice to all new buyers to take the 3.2. Just ask Toshiba which product to use for the glossy shine on the front grill.


----------



## mangonation (Sep 12, 2007)

FinFerNan

i have orderd the 2L Phantom black with 19 rs4 wheels and brown chennai leather. and a few extra on top. i brought mine from beachwood audi as there where the only one who would commit to a delivery time and where the most helpful. birmingham just said you have to wait til next year now. beechwood have confirmed order and is due for mid october. cant wait. there based in Halesowen. where did you order yours from?

when i get mine will have to link up mate?


----------



## mangonation (Sep 12, 2007)

also you got any more pic of your car?


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Without wanting this thread to descend in to total dribble, I'll resist most of what i would say. However you are talking rubbish. How many 4 cylinder engines do get in the 350,Cayman,911, or DB9 range? Why? How many R8s,911s,350s,caymans or DB9s are FWD? Why - because less cylinders is not as good or smooth as more. Why are none of them FWD? its a poor and very limited way to propel a car when you have more than 150bhp.

You need to make your mind up about heldex, as you keep changing it. The V6 is FWD unless it needs to put power to the rear because THE FWD drive system cant handle it (or should that be the driver :roll: ). So if FWD is so good the Heldex would never transfer power to the rear. Heldex in the MKII allows up-to 100% of the power to be sent in either direction - so in theory, if needed, the V becomes rear wheel drive.

I have been up against more the 1 or 2 20ts and the 6 IS faster even with my poor skill at pressing the go pedal. Be it to 60, or mid range, or all the way up to speeds over 140.

The numbers speak for themselves. Even you rob posted the times from the german mag that tested BOTH versions on a short track. The 20t had MR the 3.2 didnt but it still spanked the 20t on a shorty twisty track with the same driver in the same conditions. Im sure i dont need to post your own link on here.

Have you driven a 3.2 on a twisty bendy road? or are you going to keep reffering to quotes made by jurnos (all whom know bugger all about driving) who are talking about a MKI, which im more than happy to say was like lard on wheels?

Im unclear why we have to do this same fucking trip every 30days, you know the facts - just accept them. Is it when you get premenstrual and all emotional due to the hormones? Deal with it else sell up and get an S3.


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

Yes finfernan post some pic's from your car :wink: 
everything is better than these boring conversations abouth which engine is the best.
Because everybody thinks he's got the best engine.

Pictures we want :wink:


----------



## drjam (Apr 7, 2006)

tt200 said:


> Audi might just as well link the sound system to the rev counter and play the noise of a formula one car over the speakers - the effect would be the same and a hell of a lot cheaper.


That's a great idea. 
You could even download new sounds like ringtones to suit your mood. Today I'll be a lawnmower, tomorrow a Boeing 747...

I wonder if you'd need Bose though for best effect - oh, wait, aaargh, that's another can of worms...


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

Tosh it's HALDEX with a A :wink:

But it's alway's funny when people need arguments abouth other sportscar's and their engines.

So if a DB9 is RWD and have more than 4 cylinders.....you only have to buy a TT with RWD (which isn't there) and more than 4 cylinders, and than you have a sportscar. 
Oh no wait....even better.......than you are a real driver? Or people think you are a real driver?

Did you never watched to the WTCC with the Seat Leon in it.....the car from Tom Coronel (who also was in the formel 1) is FWD. (see pic)
I bet you would be ten times better in your Haldex than Tom Coronel in his FWD car?

It's better to start with learning driving, and than buy a proper car.
Some people first buy the car, but can't drive. No problem with that.
But the only thing they do, is posing with their toy on pictures. How clean and shiny it is.


----------



## sico (Feb 6, 2003)

tt200 said:


> The number of people quoting the sound of the 3.2 as their reason for purchase makes me laugh.
> 
> Unless Iceman is talking complete bollocks in this thread http://tinyurl.com/2cxmbf much of the sound is generated by nothing more than a fancy Organ Pipe.
> 
> Audi might just as well link the sound system to the rev counter and play the noise of a formula one car over the speakers - the effect would be the same and a hell of a lot cheaper.


this is a funny response. tt200 look at some performance cars like Astons, Porkers etc - you will see they have the same "fancy organ pipe!"!

I guess some people just dont know much about cars.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Rebel said:


> Did you never watched to the WTCC with the Seat Leon in it.....the car from Tom Coronel (who also was in the formel 1) is FWD. (see pic)
> I bet you would be ten times better in your Haldex than Tom Coronel in his FWD car?


Thats his company car, that hes PAID to drive. I use AIX and Zos as part of my job - would i buy it. Hell no!
What car does he choose to drive, or should i say which car/s has he spent his money on?

As for professional drivers im sure he could beat me and you in a transit van round the ring np (like top gear) but thats not the point now is it. Which would he get round the track the fastest is what counts.

Im off to polish the car, and paint the calipers - thats all the TT is.


----------



## sico (Feb 6, 2003)

Rebel said:


> Did you never watched to the WTCC with the Seat Leon in it.....the car from Tom Coronel (who also was in the formel 1) is FWD. (see pic)
> I bet you would be ten times better in your Haldex than Tom Coronel in his FWD car?


Please dont tell me your using WTCC cars as a justification for FWD!

Thats funny

Should we use F1 also, are they FWD? :lol:

This thread just gets more bizare!


----------



## Janitor (Jul 2, 2007)

sico said:


> This thread just gets more pointless!


 [smiley=thumbsup.gif]


----------



## tt200 (Jan 29, 2007)

sico said:


> this is a funny response. tt200 look at some performance cars like Astons, Porkers etc - you will see they have the same "fancy organ pipe!"!
> 
> I guess some people just dont know much about cars.


Oh dear. Oh dear. The comment was meant to be light hearted - you don't think you are being a little precious ?

Designing a car such as the TT is as much about image and perception as it is about engineering and making a V6 sound like a V8 obviously pays. It may be fake but judging by the response here it clearly addresses an emotional need and probably adds a thousand or so to the price of the car.


----------



## Weatherman (Sep 8, 2007)

mangonation said:


> I keep thinking if i have made the right choice by ordering the 2.0L and not the 3.2. i have heard the 2L is more fun to drive. can any one HELP?


Crumbs, what a discussion, just as well there's only 2 engines to choose from ! The 2.0 certainly appeared to be 'fun' enough when I drove it and I feel sure will be the one I go for when the time (hopefully) comes. I wouldn't worry about it now and would simply look forward to the excellent car you're going to get 

Now wondering how long the 3.2 v TT S threads will be next year :roll:


----------



## sico (Feb 6, 2003)

tt200 said:


> sico said:
> 
> 
> > this is a funny response. tt200 look at some performance cars like Astons, Porkers etc - you will see they have the same "fancy organ pipe!"!
> ...


Light hearted - didnt sound like it to be honest.

And -

No it doesnt make a V6 sound like a V8 and it doesnt add much to the price. It simply routes some of the sound from the engine bay into the cabin.

Why not read up on it before further comments?


----------



## tt200 (Jan 29, 2007)

sico said:


> Light hearted - didnt sound like it to be honest.
> 
> And -
> 
> ...


I'm sorry if I've touched a nerve - it really isn't necessary to add an insult to each of your posts.

It was precisely because I had read up on it that I made the comment - I was intrigued by the whole idea. I've always been aware that manufacturers spent time and money tuning things like the exhaust note but I hadn't realised they would go to the extent of piping additional noise into the cabin.

As for adding to the price I wasn't trying to infer that the additional components would add to the cost of the car - indeed I doubt that they add much at all. I was making the point that Audi have clearly calculated that some people would be happy to pay a premium for a car that sounds more powerful or more exciting than it actually is.

Anyway as the topic is now becoming tedious I will try to resist mentioning it again.....


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

V6 noise doesn't appear to come into the cabin, so im unclear what is meant by that. Sound for the T is from the exhaust, V6 is from the engine.

Surely all exhausts make a car sound less powerful than it is, as its purpose is to reduce the noise of the engine?


----------



## DSB TTR (Sep 18, 2007)

So........

Who won the pissing contest?


----------



## FARQ (Sep 6, 2007)

for me it was a simple cost factor

there's about a $20,000AUD diff in price here between the 2 models

that & as much as i do enjoy the 3.5litre V6 in my Z, she is a costly bitch for me to run, & as i'll be doing only short trip city driving mainly a 3.2 V6 is just not going to be economical

i test drove both, the 2.0 TFSI had enough pep for my liking, & i did find it a bit more 'fun' to drive i guess

if money was no object, i would have gone for the 3.2 V6 probably though


----------



## sico (Feb 6, 2003)

tt200 said:


> sico said:
> 
> 
> > Light hearted - didnt sound like it to be honest.
> ...


No insult in my posts....?


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

DSB TTR said:


> So........
> 
> Who won the pissing contest?


Put it this way

Jo Brand - 20T
Paula Radcliffe - 3.2

OK, both are female, both have most of the same female bits, but you just wouldnt with Jo - its just wrong. However if you want Jo, good luck to you. - Sick fecker!


----------



## BobFat (Jul 24, 2007)

Toshiba said:


> Jo Brand - 20T
> Paula Radcliffe - 3.2


  Jo is fun and witty, Paula shits herself. Reckon you could have come up with better examples there Tosh :wink: I'll take Jo thanks. :-*


----------



## sico (Feb 6, 2003)

BobFat said:


> Toshiba said:
> 
> 
> > Jo Brand - 20T
> ...


At least Paula has actually taken a sh*t in her lifetime... :lol:


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

But whos going to get round the track first? :wink:

A topless Jo Brand - im wretching just thinking about it [smiley=sick2.gif]


----------



## BobFat (Jul 24, 2007)

:lol:


----------



## Guest (Sep 19, 2007)

3.2 v6 every time.
This is such a good engine.
Have had this engine in 2 previous tt's, a coupe and a roadster and in Tosh's favourite car, an R32.
Good overall acceleration, good mid range torque and imho the perfect amount of poke for modern driving.
I just prefer the nice smooth power delivery across the gears, and it works perfectly with the s-tronic gear box.
A marriage mad in heaven.

I've nothing against the 2.0, it serves a purpose in the market place as does the 3.2.


----------



## mangonation (Sep 12, 2007)




----------



## mangonation (Sep 12, 2007)




----------



## mangonation (Sep 12, 2007)




----------



## cheechy (Nov 8, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> Rebel said:
> 
> 
> > I use AIX and Zos as part of my job - would i buy it. Hell no!


Lol does the Bank you work for know you are posting here Tosh :lol: :lol:

Are you an LPAR or a full fat fixed partition man then?


----------

