# 3.2 V6 Quattro VS 225 Quattro



## GINNO78 (Dec 11, 2010)

Looking at 0 - 60 figures and 0 - 100 figures due to the extra weight of the V6 the performance figures/power to weight are almost identical!! 
So am I right in thinking a Re-Mapped 225 would comfortably show the V6 a clean pair of heels??

Also what is the advantage of going for the big heavy V6 over the 1.8T 225 apart from the sound??

Fuel will probably be a lot better on a mapped 225 too :idea:


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

Sound, Power delivery and optional DSG gear-box are the big selling points of the v6. The 225 is easier to mod cheaply (remap etc), but the V6 can also be modded with things such as super-chargers, for a laugh (but more expensive).


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Peak power to weight is useful for Top Trumps and the odd imaginary traffic light Grand Prix. I don't enjoy either of those things though so I'd take the V6 for the way it delivers the power every time. A turbo will give you the peak figures and it'll certainly be quick because of it, but you'll need to stir the gears to get to it - that's fine when you're in the mood, but for all the times you're not trying to set a new lap record on the way to work a V6 will be the more drivable.


----------



## craig121 (Nov 7, 2010)

This been already re-listed no offers,

Am kicking myself for purchasing a 2002//180bhp what I thought was a real bargain, but this price !
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll? ... K:MEWAX:IT

Would take the v6 above all others regardless of mod performance. just wish I realised you can get a V6 dsg at this price :roll:


----------



## T3RBO (Dec 9, 2003)

Prices of the V6 have definitely dramatically dropped of late... even on the mk2


----------



## V6RUL (May 28, 2009)

Im sure its a buyers market at the mo hence price drops.
Steve


----------



## Fred (Jan 7, 2010)

In standard form they are pretty much identical in terms of speed. The turbo on the 225 means low down it has just as much power as the 3.2 Maybe not under say 2400 when its off turbo, but your hardly ever down there.

Mapped the 225 has more peak, more average power, more torque and is lighter so is faster. Not by some huge margin, but its noticably faster and although off boost the 3.2 still has an advantage once you are spooled up (say 2700) there is MUCH more low down power in the mapped 225.

The person going on about peak figures and thats all a turbo delivers - have you ever driven one??? Once on boost and then to red line the 225 (mapped) is hugelly fast and rapes a V6, if anything more so in the low to mid range!!

And stirring the gears?? eh! 6th gear, 70 MPH and foot down in both cars, the 3.2 would be annihilated. Dont beleive me (I presume you own a v6) come to leeds and I will happily show you.

Advantages of the 3.2 - the sound and if you like an auto the DSG is very good, if a little clonky at times.

V6 owners will try stick up for it all day long (same as R32 owners on the Golf forums) but the truth is its a pretty poor engine and the 1.8t in mapped form is a hugely impressive one.

I mean look at it this way - 250 BHP from a 3.2 thats pathetic! Honda were getting 185 bhp from a *1.6* 13 years ago LOL

BMW 10 years ago were getting 320 BHP from the same size 3.2!


----------



## jayz_son (Jan 11, 2009)

i do like the v6, but it should be a much faster car than the 1.8t to start off with, but considering its displacement, it isnt

also if bmw can get well over 300bhp from a 3.2, its quite a poor figure 250bhp

also vw have got rid of the v6 in the golf r, and stuck to a 2.0t which walks all over an r32


----------



## V6RUL (May 28, 2009)

The V6 is underpowered, i agree. But this is what helps make it very reliable.
Audi should have thrown a SC or Turbo at the V6 as a QS version to make it stand out and away from the 1.8 QS higher version and 80% of the discussions on here would disappear as we would know straight away the V6 is better.
Steve


----------



## T3RBO (Dec 9, 2003)

The V6 sounds better so thus must be faster


----------



## V6RUL (May 28, 2009)

T3RBO said:


> The V6 sounds better so thus must be faster


That's the best logic I've heard in a while.
Steve


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Fred said:


> The person going on about peak figures and thats all a turbo delivers - have you ever driven one??? Once on boost and then to red line the 225 (mapped) is hugelly fast and rapes a V6, if anything more so in the low to mid range!!


I can't compete with this hyperbole.. "rapes a V6"?? Don't you actually mean "would be a bit quicker than a V6"? A mapped 225 will put out 260bhp, if we're being generous. There's a small weight difference on top of that. Let's not pretend there will be any massive performance differences between the two.



Fred said:


> I mean look at it this way - 250 BHP from a 3.2 thats pathetic! Honda were getting 185 bhp from a *1.6* 13 years ago LOL
> 
> BMW 10 years ago were getting 320 BHP from the same size 3.2!


Hmmm... my car gets about 320bhp from a 3.6... Does that mean Porsche messed up? Or does it mean they understand that there are more important things than peak BHP per litre. Check out the peak torque of that BMW S54 engine you mentioned... It doesn't arrive till 4900RPM, compared to around 2500-3000RPM for the V6 TT. That gives you a much broader RPM range for your gearing (which is why the M3 doesn't really perform unless you're thrashing it).


----------



## Fred (Jan 7, 2010)

Spandex said:


> Fred said:
> 
> 
> > The person going on about peak figures and thats all a turbo delivers - have you ever driven one??? Once on boost and then to red line the 225 (mapped) is hugelly fast and rapes a V6, if anything more so in the low to mid range!!
> ...


I was talking about the S52 - the S54 has 340 bhp.

Its peak is higher - but that doesnt mean it doesnt have more torque than the V6 - at the V6s peak!!!

That engine in the same ca, with the same gearbox etc etc etc would be faster at any revs.

In terms of the 260 peak (which i agree is generous) vs 250 its not all about the peak, the 1.8Ts advantage is its average bhp, a wider, less peaky delivery of power over the rev drop between gears range.


----------



## V6RUL (May 28, 2009)

FACT.. if your name begins with S, you have the fastest cars on the forum.
?teve


----------



## mikeat45 (May 9, 2009)

i doubt if anyone buys a TT cos its fast most including me bought them for the looks 
there is a list of people i know who have said let me know when you want to sell, not one has said how fast is it ?

is yours faster than mine ??, i dont give a "flying" i didnt want the fastest car or i would have bought it, but i doubt i would have liked it...as much as my TT.

V6 sounds better and looks better (unless you have put V6 bits on a 225) parked up or "in a straight line" still looks better sounds better :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

i have put a V10 :lol: in mine, twin turbos. :lol: ....ah no hang on....thats in Forza 3 not in real life :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## T3RBO (Dec 9, 2003)

stevecollier said:


> FACT.. if your name begins with S, you have the fastest cars on the forum.
> ?teve


When the honours list is release I am expecting to be Sir Turbo :lol:


----------



## GINNO78 (Dec 11, 2010)

I have to agree with fred ..... For a 3.2 its pretty weak.....The BMW E46 M3 makes 343bhp 262lbs ft due to the Vanos technology I owned an E46 M3 before I bought the TT and whilst the M3 is quick...Im pretty sure my Mapped TT is quicker off the mark due to the 4wd ....but anywhere else no.

I drove the Golf R32 which has the same V6 as the TT and found it completely boring after the M3 .......But I have to admit the Turbo 1.8T 225 is brilliant once mapped and the fun factor of the turbo kicking in is brilliant....I find N/A engines even the M3 to some extent boring ....im a Turbo convert now.....

So for me I certainly wouldnt chose the V6 over the 225 1.8T its positively boring in comparison...well if its anything like the Golf R32 engine!!!!


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

mikeat45 said:


> is yours faster than mine ??, i dont give a "flying" i didnt want the fastest car or i would have bought it, but i doubt i would have liked it...as much as my TT.
> 
> V6 sounds better and looks better (unless you have put V6 bits on a 225) parked up or "in a straight line" still looks better sounds better.


Fred would definitely beat you at Top Trumps though.


----------



## mikeat45 (May 9, 2009)

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## T3RBO (Dec 9, 2003)

:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Gone (May 5, 2009)

:lol: :lol:


----------



## Marco34 (Apr 5, 2009)

mikeat45 said:


> i doubt if anyone buys a TT cos its fast most including me bought them for the looks
> there is a list of people i know who have said let me know when you want to sell, not one has said how fast is it ?
> 
> is yours faster than mine ??, i dont give a "flying" i didnt want the fastest car or i would have bought it, but i doubt i would have liked it...as much as my TT.
> ...


I agree. I drove both the 1.8 and 3.2 V6 and it was hands down V6 for me. I'm not going to start spending time why I chose the V6 TT, it's purely personal to me what I prefer. I was never going to go down the mod route and having heard the 3.2 V6 I was sold. Spandex mentioned all the plus points. As with Mike, I'm not bothered a bit if a remapped 1.8 will be faster. I've a little more to consider in my life than 0-60.


----------



## V6RUL (May 28, 2009)

Dont worry boys, i will fight our corner.. :lol: 
Pre 2004 R32s had different ECU software, so post 2004 R32s and TTs have a little more bhp.
If your standard 225 wants to go up against a V6 it would be close ish.
However if your modded 225 wants a go at a modded V6..your in big trouble, im afraid.. :roll: 
Steve


----------



## GINNO78 (Dec 11, 2010)

stevecollier said:


> Dont worry boys, i will fight our corner.. :lol:
> Pre 2004 R32s had different ECU software, so post 2004 R32s and TTs have a little more bhp.
> If your standard 225 wants to go up against a V6 it would be close ish.
> However if your modded 225 wants a go at a modded V6..your in big trouble, im afraid.. :roll:
> Steve


Yes but you fail to mention the V6 costs 4 times as much to tune to the 225............225 hands down for me :mrgreen:


----------



## wallstreet (Oct 19, 2009)

T3RBO said:


> The V6 sounds better so thus must be faster


Lol!

Oh not this again!!


----------



## HC1001 (Nov 27, 2010)

Went for a spin in the 3.2 a little while ago, I the sound made me smile over and over but I did not have any 0-60 races with anyone!?!

Like said before it's not all about 0-60.............. [smiley=argue.gif]

I picked the v6 as it was a better package for me, I knew a remapped 225 would be faster but the v6 overall is a better package (IMO of course)

8) 8)


----------



## sixdoublesix (Nov 3, 2009)

stevecollier said:


> FACT.. if your name begins with S, you have the fastest cars on the forum.
> ?teve


+ 1

?imon

Having owned both 225 and V6 and as daily cars MK1 and MK2 TT's I can say that the V6 is more pleasure to drive and the DSG gives it the edge, yep sounds great and feels good too as the power delivery is very smooth!


----------



## ttsteve (Nov 1, 2007)

That 3.2 lump is very heavy and has a well documented adverse effect on a TTs handling when cornering - it just wants to go straight on.

It's a bit lame to cite the sound of the engine as being a notable plus in my book. Big deal! come on, if you're so inclined you can pretty much make a car sound how you want with zorst tuning these days. Personally, I'm quite happy with the 'none invasive' burbly sound of my resonated Milltek. Nah, it's no big deal, but a sure sign that devotees will clutch at straws to hype up the V6 as being better than a 225.

And as has been said, the amount of power generated by that 3.2 engine is WAY, WAY below what it should be given its capacity.


----------



## Marco34 (Apr 5, 2009)

ttsteve said:


> That 3.2 lump is very heavy and has a well documented adverse effect on a TTs handling when cornering - it just wants to go straight on.
> 
> It's a bit lame to cite the sound of the engine as being a notable plus in my book. Big deal! come on, if you're so inclined you can pretty much make a car sound how you want with zorst tuning these days. Personally, I'm quite happy with the 'none invasive' burbly sound of my resonated Milltek. Nah, it's no big deal, but a sure sign that devotees will clutch at straws to hype up the V6 as being better than a 225.
> 
> And as has been said, the amount of power generated by that 3.2 engine is WAY, WAY below what it should be given its capacity.


A few suspension tweaks and the 3.2 handles perfectly. Steve's coilover mods made it the best TT I've ever driven for feel and sharp handling and most TT owners mod their suspensions whether it be 1.8 or V6.

I'm not here to 'clutch at straws and hype up the V6', I'm here to stop people saying it's a lump, it's slow, it's ****. I chose it over the 1.8 so for me it's the right car, for others not.


----------



## stefan (Feb 21, 2010)

Can't we just agree on that we all love our individual cars..?


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

ttsteve said:


> That 3.2 lump is very heavy


Does anyone have the actual weights for the engines? On Parkers, comparing like for like (i.e. manual V6 to manual 1.8 ) the difference is only 25Kgs...


----------



## ttsteve (Nov 1, 2007)

Anyway, they're all TTs and we love em all. Don't we?


----------



## Marco34 (Apr 5, 2009)

ttsteve said:


> Anyway, they're all TTs and we love em all. Don't we?


Yes!!


----------



## V6RUL (May 28, 2009)

Maybe 2011 should be an all TT love in.. :lol: 
Steve


----------



## V6RUL (May 28, 2009)

HC1001 said:


> Went for a spin in the 3.2 a little while ago, I the sound made me smile over and over but I did not have any 0-60 races with anyone!?!
> 
> Like said before it's not all about 0-60.............. [smiley=argue.gif]
> 
> ...


Just to say hi and some info for ya incl a V6 owners list and and a local meet on Wed at the Sandpiper off the M58..
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=161580
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=188382
Be good to see there if you can make it.
Steve


----------



## Marco34 (Apr 5, 2009)

Are you there Wednesday Steve? Assume you've finished abroad! Be good to catch up!!


----------



## V6RUL (May 28, 2009)

Marco34 said:
 

> Are you there Wednesday Steve? Assume you've finished abroad! Be good to catch up!!


I will be there.
Steve


----------



## RobLE (Mar 20, 2005)

How often is this "discussion" going to come up!

I've had both and as I have said countless times - the 225 power delivery is like a hot hatch (which is basically what it is, with the Golf underpinnings) whereas the 3.2 is more like a Porsche - the power is instant and it sounds terrific. Its hardly a poor engine and I'm sure Audi's engineers could have 'squeezed' more than the 247bhp from the engine than they did, had they been so inclined to do so.

One magazine article I read said the 3.2 V6 sounded better than the one in the Alfa GTV and not far off that of an M3. Praise indeed and remember how much the M3 costs in comparision to the 3.2 TT.

As for 'who's faster, mine or yours' does it really matter? Besides...the 3.2 is actually 'faster' if not quicker. Remember the 3.2 does 155mph and the 225, 'just' 150mph... 

Wait for the..."but I've had 160mph out of my 225 etc..." :roll:


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

RobLE said:


> One magazine article I read said the 3.2 V6 sounded better than the one in the Alfa GTV and not far off that of an M3. Praise indeed and remember how much the M3 costs in comparision to the 3.2 TT.


As much as I like the E46 M3, it does sound like someone's thrown a handful of bolts into the gearbox... The V6 TT has a better bass note...


----------



## stefan (Feb 21, 2010)

RobLE said:


> How often is this "discussion" going to come up!
> 
> I've had both and as I have said countless times - the 225 power delivery is like a hot hatch (which is basically what it is, with the Golf underpinnings) whereas the 3.2 is more like a Porsche - the power is instant and it sounds terrific. Its hardly a poor engine and I'm sure Audi's engineers could have 'squeezed' more than the 247bhp from the engine than they did, had they been so inclined to do so.
> 
> ...


ZZZZZzzzz........ [smiley=baby.gif]


----------



## Marco34 (Apr 5, 2009)

stefan said:


> RobLE said:
> 
> 
> > How often is this "discussion" going to come up!
> ...


And I thought you had a 3.2 Stefan, it looks like it in the Avatar!! :lol:


----------



## V6RUL (May 28, 2009)

:lol:


----------



## mikeat45 (May 9, 2009)

on its best mine sounds like an angry bear :lol: :lol: 
my BMW 330i M Sport sounds like a 'er..... car :roll: but the top comes down 8)


----------



## stefan (Feb 21, 2010)

Marco34 said:


> stefan said:
> 
> 
> > RobLE said:
> ...


I looove the look of the V6...and the speed of a 225 remapped  
But we all love our Titi's... 8)


----------



## GINNO78 (Dec 11, 2010)

Well I finally drove a 3.2 DSG yesterday.....and apart from the DSG which was superb.....and the V6 engine tone.......it was very boring....power delivery is smooth but feels laboured after driving my Revo 225 .......The 3.2 is a lazy engine and it doesnt seem to like being revved high either..........Felt a lot slower than a Re-mapped 225 probably the same as the 225 before the map which I also found slow and boring......Im very glad I went for the 225 now and not the 3.2.....Turbo power rules!!


----------



## V6RUL (May 28, 2009)

GINNO78 said:


> Well I finally drove a 3.2 DSG yesterday.....and apart from the DSG which was superb.....and the V6 engine tone.......it was very boring....power delivery is smooth but feels laboured after driving my Revo 225 .......The 3.2 is a lazy engine and it doesnt seem to like being revved high either..........Felt a lot slower than a Re-mapped 225 probably the same as the 225 before the map which I also found slow and boring......Im very glad I went for the 225 now and not the 3.2.....Turbo power rules!!


At least youve tried both to see which you prefer.
I agree the 3.2 could do with a little more umph.
Steve


----------



## wallstreet (Oct 19, 2009)

mikeat45 said:


> on its best mine sounds like an angry bear :lol: :lol:
> my BMW 330i M Sport sounds like a 'er..... car :roll: but the top comes down 8)


----------



## VAGmanchester (Jan 7, 2011)

I've owned both a 225 mapped and now have a V6 and I have to to say I prefer the V6. I think this is down to my driving style changing tho. Whereas I used to like putting my foot down more, I now prefer the odd blip but mainly commuting to work and back. For me the power delivery of the V6 is perfect, nice lazy power. We service several 1.8T's and the trend does seem to be that these owners drive their cars harder than v6 owners and seem more keen on modifying them to get more performance. Not to stereotype drivers, but maybe thats why theres a difference in opinion. People want their cars for different things?

Mark


----------



## spaceplace (Mar 10, 2013)

Official tt times...

TT 3.2 0-60= 5.6sec
TT 225 0-60= 6.2sec
TT 180 0-60= 4.2sec
TT (convertible) 0-60= 2.8sec
TT (with red paint) 0-60= 2.2sec


----------



## Delta4 (Jun 19, 2015)

spaceplace said:


> Official tt times...
> 
> TT 3.2 0-60= 5.6sec
> TT 225 0-60= 6.2sec
> ...


I'm impressed by the archive searching thread revival


----------



## Pukmeister (Dec 27, 2017)

If only I had discovered this forum years ago when this thread started, I could have avoided my recent huge mistake of buying a V6 when clearly I should have bought a Turbo. :roll:


----------



## Gixxer123 (Oct 27, 2011)

Thats not a trolling post is it? Lol


----------



## Pukmeister (Dec 27, 2017)

No, just sarcasm hence the smilies.

I find my 3.2 plenty quick enough (for a car), its a bit of a B-road overtaking weapon (but not like a litre bike).

I fix enough piping at work without having to do it under the bonnet at weekends, I'd rather be driving than looking for leaks.


----------



## Gixxer123 (Oct 27, 2011)

Pukmeister said:


> No, just sarcasm hence the smilies.
> 
> I find my 3.2 plenty quick enough (for a car), its a bit of a B-road overtaking weapon (but not like a litre bike).
> 
> I fix enough piping at work without having to do it under the bonnet at weekends, I'd rather be driving than looking for leaks.


Lol If you want speed only a bike will do.

The V6 really is a totally different car to the turbo, having had both. The turbo feels fast, in the v6 you can be going the same speed but its so much easier so dosnt feel that quick.


----------



## Chapeau! Velo (Dec 5, 2017)

They made a 1.8T - why? :roll:


----------



## Gixxer123 (Oct 27, 2011)

Chapeau! Velo said:


> They made a 1.8T - why? :roll:


Maybe its a chav version, ripe for a barry boys fart cannon to be fitted. :lol:


----------



## cam69 (Dec 22, 2011)

The fact that Quattro gmbh put the 1.8t in the qs says it all really.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


----------



## Tuscan12 (Mar 3, 2018)

cam69 said:


> The fact that Quattro gmbh put the 1.8t in the qs says it all really.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk












Hmmm, not convinced.
My last proper Quattro!!

POST A series Audi's don't really count as a proper Quattro in my book!

And I miss having proper Quattro!!!!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------

