# The difference between a 2.0T and a 3.2



## Rico2006 (Apr 9, 2006)

Hi All,

Here's my attempt at more forum particiation - nothing earth shattering but my thought processes in choosing my next car....

Is it just me or is the cost between the 2.0T and 3.2 when you start adding options relatively insignificant?

And you get quattro, 'free' leather and cheap wheel upgrades

I was going to go 'green' with a 2.0T, desparate for 37 mpg (or maybe not with my lead wellies on  ) but when you add turbine wheels and leather it all creeps up nearer to the 3.2 costs.

Can I live with 27 mpg instead of 37 mpg? After seeing the aussie video and hearing the V6 it's too tempting.

Will I regret getting a 2.0T (wish I had quattro in winter and more traction in the wet)? :?

or will I get a 3.2 and (after owning an RX8) wish I had the agility of a lighter car (albeit with reduced traction in the wet) :?

I think 3.2

Just wanted to empty my brain of these thoughts before it explodes

And yes, the RX8 does drink like a fish (fuel, that is) 

Discuss....!


----------



## Dr.Phibes (Mar 10, 2006)

yeah go for the 3.2 - I have


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

The RX-8 is only 30kg lighter than the 3.2 TT. Hard to beleive, but true (1380kg versus 1410kg).


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

sports car, fwd, Audi are having a laugh. Get a quattro wth any engine rather than any FWD and stick the Sports Haldex on it.

You have to ask yourself, if people are prepared to spend Â£500 on a haldex upgrade for the quattro, how bad will a FWD car be? Regardless of how good the new TT is, FWD is FWD and u will get torque steer and u will get lots of understeer, even the best FWD hot hatches suffer from that.

The same WILL apply to the mk2, the TT Shop already have the Mk2 Sports Haldex ready for order and even better, its switcheable between (it think the categories are these) standard, sports and track.

If u must get a mk2, get a 3.2 Quattro and stick a few hundred aside for the haldex, hmm actually, now I come to think of it, with proper suspension, some BBS 19s and have the damn silly grill blacked out on a phantom black mk2 with red leather, then sort the lights out, it might just work......


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

v6 3.2 all the way.


----------



## ezzie (Jul 2, 2004)

I entertained similar thoughts before opting for the 3.2. Go for it.


----------



## Rico2006 (Apr 9, 2006)

OK, OK I Know

V6 - You know it makes sense

Fuel Economy Schmuel Economy

I'm used to it anyway - by the way what is the tank size?


----------



## DonaldC (May 7, 2002)

Hi Rico,

I started a post a few weeks back on this very subject of the perceived value between the 2.0 and 3.2V6. In case you missed it, here's my thoughts again:-



> I was wondering how much different would be the costs between a reasonable and identical spec 2.0TFSI and the 3.2 V6:-
> 
> 3.2 V6 OTR...................Â£29,285.00.............2.0T FSI OTR Â£24,625.00
> S-Tronic..........................Â£1,400.00...................................Â£1,400.00
> ...


Cheers
Donald


----------



## Rico2006 (Apr 9, 2006)

Thanks Donald,

Good to see others have gone though the same decision process

I guess it is to be expected of a successful company to wack up base costs with options, although the V6Q looks better and better value the more I think about it - especially in comparison to Z4C, 350Z, R32 et al
none of which I really like

The Audi is the allround winner inside and out in my mind

Rico


----------



## DonaldC (May 7, 2002)

You're welcome Rico!

If you are anything like the rest of us, you'll be trawling around the net for every scrap, rumour and picture going. If it wasn't for Hans giving me my photo fix, I would have went mad by now! :lol:

All you need to do is ask Tosh (Kevin) for an update on availability of options and tell him you have ordered a 3.2 and you'll have a new pal! :lol:

And then ask what the future engine models are likely to be! :twisted:

Hope to see you on the forum every night!!!!! Ha.

Cheers
Donald


----------



## R6B TT (Feb 25, 2003)

Well - I'm going to be different and take the 2.0T - with some AmD enhancements. I have one gas guzzler on the drive already and don't need another. I agree the price diff isn't that great - but the residuals on the last 3.2 haven't been exactly stellar, and this one is a 2 year car for me until they come up with a TTS / RS


----------



## bw64402 (Jul 30, 2006)

R6B TT said:


> Well - I'm going to be different and take the 2.0T - with some AmD enhancements. I have one gas guzzler on the drive already and don't need another. I agree the price diff isn't that great - but the residuals on the last 3.2 haven't been exactly stellar, and this one is a 2 year car for me until they come up with a TTS / RS


I agree. I'm buying the 2.0T to have a bit of fun before i settle down (and change to a "family car" -  ) hence this fits the bill perfectly.

One question. The 3.2 comes with full leather. In a sports car won't you slide all over the place??? I was thinking of upgrading my 2.0T to include full leather, then was advised by a mate to stick with Alcantara as it grips you more in the corners. Interesting i thought ...


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

I've had both First TT had full, silver qS and Red qS have half and half. Full leather IMO is much better.

Its not the seats you need to grip its the rear wheels hence Quattro :wink:


----------



## bw64402 (Jul 30, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> I've had both First TT had full, silver qS and Red qS have half and half. Full leather IMO is much better.
> 
> Its not the seats you need to grip its the rear wheels hence Quattro :wink:


I like the response! Unfortunately my budget did have to stop at Â£26k. Now starting to wish i could have stretched it, but i'm sure the 2.0T will give me hours of fun and enjoyment!


----------



## ezzie (Jul 2, 2004)

The other thing about the mk2's sports seats is that they seem to have higher side bolsters than the mk1 to hold one in place better.


----------



## TTonyTT (Apr 24, 2006)

I went through just the same thought processes - and went for the 3.2 (with some extra bits too of course).

With the price of fuel ever increasing, maybe the strongest argument for opting for the 2.0T would be if you're doing >20k miles a year in the car. But then, if you're doing that sort of mileage and want to be economical, get an A3/4/6 diesel instead!

I get 40mpg+ from my 2.5TDI which does c20k miles/yr. The TT will be just for fun (though strangely, I've decided to insure if for full business use too, "just in case" :wink: ), so fuel consumption isn't an issue for me.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

bw64402 said:


> Toshiba said:
> 
> 
> > I've had both First TT had full, silver qS and Red qS have half and half. Full leather IMO is much better.
> ...


Just be happy - im sure it will be fine.


----------



## der_horst (Apr 29, 2006)

just wanted to hawk the info from the aw-forums where it said that the TT will be released for the US as 2.0l quattro model from the start (together with the roadster model), which implies that the 230hp 2.0l quattro will be available by then (march 07).

no need to discuss the reliability of this info as it's not from a audi press-release, but i wanted to mention it as some might want to take this possibility into consideration.


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

For those going for the 2.0T I wouldn't worry too much about traction issues.

It's rare that the haldex system actually pushes drive to the rear wheels - unless you modify it, and not everyone is willing to do that on a new car.

You have to remember that the V6 is heavy lump - hence why the 225s were alwys regarded as the better handling of the MKI TTs.

If you get yourself into situations on punblic roads where you need four wheel drive grip, then you're probably going too fast for the conditions.


----------



## TTonyTT (Apr 24, 2006)

Kell said:


> If you get yourself into situations on punblic roads where you need four wheel drive grip, then you're probably going too fast for the conditions.


I appreciate the "common-senseness" of that view, but I'm not sure that I'd fully agree with it - on a couple of levels.

Firstly, you could argue the same for ABS - if you need to break so hard that the ABS kicks in, then you were going too fast for the conditions. 4WD is going to be "useful" in situations which just arise and need prompt driver response.

Secondly (and more risky as a tenable argument), if you have 4WD, then the increase in the car's capabilities that this gives the driver enables them to drive differently for any set of conditions. If they never pushed so hard as to need 4WD, then what's the point of having it. Why have a V6 if you'll never "enjoy" the quicker acceleration and response times. For most of us, most of the time, a 1.0, 80bhp engine is more than adequate.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

der_horst said:


> just wanted to hawk the info from the aw-forums where it said that the TT will be released for the US as 2.0l quattro model from the start (together with the roadster model), which implies that the 230hp 2.0l quattro will be available by then (march 07).
> 
> no need to discuss the reliability of this info as it's not from a audi press-release, but i wanted to mention it as some might want to take this possibility into consideration.


Why do you assume this? and why do you assume 230bhp?

why will it not just be 200bhp Quattro?


----------



## der_horst (Apr 29, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> why will it not just be 200bhp Quattro?


because that combination was not on the roadmap 2953 posted and the idea of not releasing the 200hp version in the us is not that new either.

of course one could argue that this doesn't mean anything, but so far i haven't read a prophecy made by him that didn't fulfil.


----------



## Nick225TT (Oct 13, 2004)

Rico2006 said:


> Hi All,
> 
> Can I live with 27 mpg instead of 37 mpg? After seeing the aussie video and hearing the V6 it's too tempting.


I think you will be very lucky to see 27mpg with the 3.2. Most Mk1 owners get low 20's depending on the type of driving. You may see slightly more as the new TT is lighter.


----------



## ezzie (Jul 2, 2004)

I think the quoted average consumption for the mk1 v6 was 26.6mpg. With a lighter and more aerodynamic replacement, hopefully real life figures may creep towards the mid 20s.


----------



## Rico2006 (Apr 9, 2006)

Mid 20's : Bliss 

Anything's better than my current 200 miles from a 51 Litre tank!
(country lanes in an RX8)


----------



## ChinsVXR (Apr 14, 2006)

I'm also thinking of getting the 2.0T. As for the fwd vs quattro.

Ive owned recently S3,RS4, Scoobies & R32 all 4wd and very recently MKVGTI and Astra VXR. Probably the most fun and certainly with handling I prefered over my previous 4wd Audi was the VXR.

As mentioned in day to day driving, if you really need 4wd your probably going to fast. All modern cars including the TT have ESP which should provide most of the safety factor.

My VXR had 240bhp through the front wheels. Sure there was some torque steer, but actually having to learn a car and get the most out of it was fun. Maybe people that want 4wd cant handle power 

I would remap the 2.0T, to make it quicker than the 3.2, whilst still giving more mpg and probably feeling more nimble.

As with the old TT, depreciation will also be worse on the 3.2 gas guzzler and against a remaped 2.0T, it will feel a little limp wristed midrange.

The other thing people need to consider is that if its a company car, the tax will be a load less in the 2.0T.

Jonathan

Off to hide and ready for the VXR flack


----------



## gm2002 (Aug 14, 2002)

what does the haldex sport upgrade do and where can I find out more info about it?


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

ChinsVXR said:


> Ive owned recently S3,RS4, Scoobies & R32 all 4wd and very recently MKVGTI and Astra VXR. Probably the most fun and certainly with handling I prefered over my previous 4wd Audi was the VXR.


You tell them how it is. I like the VXR.

As for the 20T vs 3.2V6 all getting boring - if you think the 20T is better you have one, wont change the rest of our views.


----------



## squiggel (May 16, 2006)

One thing I noticed when I was feeling the pain of going for bi-xenons was that the price of this option is the same for both cars, despite including the exterior light styling pack which I assume is the one already on the 3.2's with halogen.

This is the one option that I feel I am really being screwed on, but dont want to do without.


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

The upcoming S3 will have Bi-Xenons as standard. Talk about sticking the knife in and twisting it. :x


----------



## ezzie (Jul 2, 2004)

Out of interest, all those that are opting for the 2.0 litre then intend to re-map. Would the fuel consumption not become similar to the 3.2s after doing so? I realise it will still be lighter, but presumably will no longer do the claimed 37mpg.


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

It should. The remap just allows for more fuel and air to enter the cylinders at full throttle, to give the extra power. If you don't use the power, you don't use the fuel. In essence, a chipped 2.0T should be just as frugal.

However, caning a chipped 2.0T and a V6 would probably result in similar fuel consumptions - perhaps slightly less for the 2.0T has it is lighter and more efficient (less power loss through transmission as only 2WD). That's my theory, anyhoo. Either way, it would probably result in you loosing your licence.


----------



## PATT (Apr 2, 2003)

Bw64402:


> I was thinking of upgrading my 2.0T to include full leather, then was advised by a mate to stick with Alcantara as it grips you more in the corners. Interesting i thought ...


Really depends on the size of your arse :!: - You'd really need to be pulling some severe manoeuvres on the road or taking the car on a track to notice I'd say :wink:

As for the whole 2.0T and 3.2 debate I can honesty say that while driving a Golf GTI for a while I liked the 2.0T turbo characteristics (sound/responsiveness) I REALY did notice the reduction in traction and would urge all existing owners to experience the closest FWD version in the GTI or wait for the MK2 demoâ€™s that arrive at the end of the month before taking the plunge.

Disclaimer:
While I understand there are numerous reasons for opting for the 2.0T (cost/economy/engine type etc.) I am only stating my humble point of view. [smiley=gossip.gif]


----------



## R6B TT (Feb 25, 2003)

ezzie said:


> Out of interest, all those that are opting for the 2.0 litre then intend to re-map. Would the fuel consumption not become similar to the 3.2s after doing so? I realise it will still be lighter, but presumably will no longer do the claimed 37mpg.


On my 225 my average fuel consumption improved from 27 to 30 mpg post AMD remap and Milltek


----------



## ChinsVXR (Apr 14, 2006)

At least Ive not had to put a hard hat on me yet.

I would add that if you intend to keep the 2.0T std, then it would be pretty boring and i would take the 3.2.

I was very disapointed with my MKV GTI's std engine. It needs a chip, but with it, its a much better beast.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

unlike the VXR


----------



## ChinsVXR (Apr 14, 2006)

ezzie said:


> Out of interest, all those that are opting for the 2.0 litre then intend to re-map. Would the fuel consumption not become similar to the 3.2s after doing so? I realise it will still be lighter, but presumably will no longer do the claimed 37mpg.


I used to get 33 out of my std MKV GTI and 30 out of my 240bhp VXR, so would expect 28-30 out of a remaped 2.0 TT


----------



## ezzie (Jul 2, 2004)

Thanks for all the above explanations, most enlightening.

Do the chips invalidate warranties? does it put off or attract future buyers when then realise a car is chipped? eg they may think one a boy racer or fear the car has been thrashed, or does it make the cars more desirable due to the increased power?


----------



## ChinsVXR (Apr 14, 2006)

ezzie said:


> Thanks for all the above explanations, most enlightening.
> 
> Do the chips invalidate warranties? does it put off or attract future buyers when then realise a car is chipped? eg they may think one a boy racer or fear the car has been thrashed, or does it make the cars more desirable due to the increased power?


In theory, a chip will invalidate your engine warranty, but good tuners will cover that. A remaped car might devalue cars come resale, so you can always return to std

Jonathan


----------



## der_horst (Apr 29, 2006)

ezzie said:


> Do the chips invalidate warranties?


in germany yes, if a damage within the warranty period could be related to the mod.



ezzie said:


> does it put off or attract future buyers when then realise a car is chipped?


i can only answer for myself, but i'd never buy a used car that has been chipped. i might be a pessimist but i'd assume that it has been in the red rpm area most of it's time, got some damages from hitting curbs during power slides and the gear box will be near it's end, as well as the clutch. but as i said, i might be a pessimist 

as a rule of thumb one can say that if you want a faster car you should buy one, not try to create it on your own. my guess is that it wont be that much more expensive than chipping to get the next better engine.


----------



## der_horst (Apr 29, 2006)

ChinsVXR said:


> A remaped car might devalue cars come resale, so you can always return to std


how much does it cost to let them flash the original firmware again?


----------



## ezzie (Jul 2, 2004)

Cheers for that. Roughly speaking how much would it cost to go from 200 to 250hp? on the 2.0. Is it around Â£500 or closer to Â£2k.


----------



## ChinsVXR (Apr 14, 2006)

ezzie said:


> Cheers for that. Roughly speaking how much would it cost to go from 200 to 250hp? on the 2.0. Is it around Â£500 or closer to Â£2k.


Youve got a whole number of tuners to choose from as the 2.0T is the same as in the MKVGTI, Octavia, Leon A3, A4 etc.

AMD, MTM, ABT, Revo, APR. Cost should be Â£500-650. A good tuner will return it to std for a nominal fee if not free. The car should then have approx 245bhp and 250-260lbft.

I wouldnt rag mine, its just nice to have the extra mid range. Makes for nice lazy driving.

Jonathan


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

der_horst said:


> ChinsVXR said:
> 
> 
> > A remaped car might devalue cars come resale, so you can always return to std
> ...


I had a skn on my last TT - cost Â£500 for and extra 40bhp, and Â£100 to return to std before i traded it in for this one.


----------



## bmx (May 25, 2003)

ezzie said:


> Cheers for that. Roughly speaking how much would it cost to go from 200 to 250hp? on the 2.0. Is it around Â£500 or closer to Â£2k.


remaps are genrally taking the 2.0T engine upto 245 bhp

AMD are quoting a very expensive Â£821 for a rolling road remap.

awesome gti are quoting Â£700 for an APR remap

on the other hand the 3.2 engine in standard form have been dynoed at 260+ bhp

i have decided to go fro the 3.2 engine (r32) instead of the 2.0T (gti) in my new car, because, insurance is more for a modified 2.0T , than a stock 3.2, warantee invalid on remaped ecu, short life of front tyres, less grip and more understeer is not for me, i know i could get most things sorted out to the way i wanted, but its at a price and always more for mr insurance man. anyway i would say go for the 3.2  and like leg says get the gen2 haldex controler and switch it to race setting :twisted: brum brum


----------



## ChinsVXR (Apr 14, 2006)

Ive now ordered a 2.0T.

Looking at the costs.

Spec for spec the difference there was a price difference of Â£3.5k and at 3 years residuals forecast to be pretty similar. So I wouldnt recoup the Â£3.5k at the other end.

Fuel wise over 30,000 miles I would also spend another Â£1,400 on fuel. This is based on my experience of owning an R32 and MKVGTI.

Servicing would be more expensive on the 3.2 as well.

Company car tax is approx Â£12,000 over 3 years for the 3.2 vs Â£7,500 for the 2.0T

Added up this equates to Â£9,400 in extra costs for the 3.2. If I take out the company car tax its still Â£4,900 over 3 years.

My insurance company has stated no increase in premium for a remap, most will only charge 50-100 a year max anyway. In 30,000 miles I might go through 2 extra tyres in the 2.0T, so Â£250.

So on a cost for cost basis, the 3.2 is a much more expensive proposition.

BUT, cars are not all about costs.

People buying 3.2 state

Lack of grip in the 2.0T
Invalidate warranty if you chip it
Understeer

As mentioned earlier in this thread, my 240bhp really didnt struggle and I dont expect the TT to.

If you remap there is a warranty issue, but VAG engines have proved pretty solid on the remap front, so I dont see a problem there. Most tuning companies state a price on the web, but tend to run deals, so a remap from one of the good companies shouldnt end up costing more than Â£500.

4wd doesnt mean less understeer. The 3.2 has a much heavier nose than the 2.0T and one might argue that it will understeer more. No one actually knows the answer on this as far as I'm aware. I do think the 3.2 will understeer as much.

Ive yet to see a review where people that have driven both are recomending the 3.2, with people prefering the 2.0T engine. Sure if you want smooth, then the 3.2 limo might work  With a remap the 2.0T will be a quicker car as well.

Both are lovely cars though. Forums would fall apart if we all had the same opinion

Jonathan


----------



## bmx (May 25, 2003)

there are a lot of arguments on the golf forums about the 3.2 v the 2.0T and the part that says better fuel consumtion. you have to remember the 20T engine will be worse when remaped.

as for the handling and understeer, the r32 golf is far better than the 20T gti, and has no understeer at all. dont know if the 3.2 TT is going to be the same as the r32 though so cant comment


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

ChinsVXR said:


> Ive yet to see a review where people that have driven both are recomending the 3.2, with people prefering the 2.0T engine. Sure if you want smooth, then the 3.2 limo might work  With a remap the 2.0T will be a quicker car as well.
> Jonathan


The reviews are spilt but dont forget they are not given advise on the BEST car, simply on a packaged based around cost.

The instructors from the Audi event (the one where the dealers sale people went over to germany and got the chance to play with the MKII on the track) ALL said the 3.2 is a much better car. (Most sale staff i have talked to have also said the 3.2 is better - 9/10, well 7/8)

However this is like saying red is better than silver - it depends what you want.

3.2 all the way for me.


----------



## ChinsVXR (Apr 14, 2006)

bmx said:


> there are a lot of arguments on the golf forums about the 3.2 v the 2.0T and the part that says better fuel consumtion. you have to remember the 20T engine will be worse when remaped.
> 
> as for the handling and understeer, the r32 golf is far better than the 20T gti, and has no understeer at all. dont know if the 3.2 TT is going to be the same as the r32 though so cant comment


Ive had both unlike many of the people that comment on the Golf forums. Remaps dont always equal higher consumption, worst case 1-2mpg. In my calculations I used 7mpg difference between the 3.2 and 2.0. Official combined is worse than that. Not sure where people get this no understeer from? Most of the time its from people trying to justify their overpriced Golf IMHO. Again roadtesters would say the GTI was more fun.

My biggest concern with the 3.2 is mid range and real world driving. I never found the 3.2 impressive in day to day driving. Sure when I was risking my license it was though. With a remap the power to weight ratio of the 2.0T will be over 20bhp/ton and 40lbft/ton greater in the 2.0T.

Audi still have the best TT to come. Chuck in the new S3 engine, quattro and a remap and it will be hard to beat IMHO. No point releasing a proper peformnace version at launch though. Theres enough of us ready to spend money on them in their current form.

Jonathan


----------



## LazyT (Apr 13, 2006)

bmx said:


> on the other hand the 3.2 engine in standard form have been dynoed at 260+ bhp
> 
> and like leg says get the gen2 haldex controler and switch it to race setting


I'm also thinking about the 3.2 V6. Presently, I am leasing an A4 2.0T and really enjoy this quick engine, however I want to look at the more powerful V6 on the MK2. To get extra hp out of the V6 you mentioned "dynoed at 260+ bhp" and "gen2 haldex controler". What are these hp enhancements?


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

The 20T is a TT with its soul removed :wink:

[smiley=fireman.gif]


----------

