# What Car 2.0TFSI vs 3.2Q



## BMW330Ci (Apr 7, 2006)

Not wishing to add fuel to the 2.0TFSI / 3.2 debate, but I find the following figures really odd/interesting.

The 2.0 was tested in Wet conditions, the 3.2 in dry. The figures (except the Traffic Light Grand Prix) are very similar ie in gear/through gear acceleration.

(Note : I am not entirely impartial. 2.0 waiting for me at the dealers, and have a 330CI as a Company Car).

2.0 TFSI What Car Jan 07 









3.2Q What Car Nov 06


----------



## Wondermikie (Apr 14, 2006)

I am impartial, seeing as I own neither car yet. In defence of the 3.2 -

i) The Whatcar figures for the 3.2 are substantially slower than what Autocar got when they figured the 3.2
ii) the Whatcar figures for the 2.0T are a bit quicker than the Autocar data for the Golf GTI, would have though they would be similar.

They seem to have tested a "good" 2.0 against a "bad" 3.2. Plus BMW claim 5.7 to 62mph for the Z4 coupe so to say they only got 6.7 to 60mph doesn't say much about their road testing skills :roll:


----------



## coley (Oct 2, 2006)

I would expect the Golf GTi figures to be quite different due to the less weight of the TT. Power to weight ratio


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

I don't mind the figures and expect they wont be far off. The 20T is 220/230bhp not 200bhp as its says. So 20-30bhp for the extra weight for quattro and better traction. So based on that, traffic lights excluded i would expect them to be about the same

The point is a v powered car and a turbo'd car feel very different. I WANT A V. how often do you drive 0-60 in 5.7sec or 100+mph? - not very, i hope!


----------



## Wondermikie (Apr 14, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> I don't mind the figures and expect they wont be far off. The 20T is 220/230bhp not 200bhp as its says. So 20-30bhp for the extra weight for quattro and better traction. So based on that, traffic lights excluded i would expect them to be about the same


Interesting, I found these dyno results - the 2.0T is here....
http://www.rri.se/popup/performancegrap ... artsID=643

..and makes 197ps or 194bhp *at the wheels*, whereas the 3.2 dyno test (S-tronic, not that it makes any difference I suppose) here....
http://www.rri.se/popup/performancegrap ... artsID=640

..made 210ps or 207bhp at the wheels. Given the usual drivetrain losses the 3.2 is probably putting out exactly what it should, and the 2.0T is performing well above average. The Golf GTI was 195ps / 192bhp.



Toshiba said:


> The point is a v powered car and a turbo'd car feel very different. I WANT A V. how often do you drive 0-60 in 5.7sec or 100+mph? - not very, i hope!


Agreed, both great cars and each to their own, and I never drive with full throttle for more than 3 seconds because there is always someone in front of me, no matter where I go or what time I go.


----------



## Janker (Oct 27, 2006)

Mike,

So are they saying the 3.2 has

Discrepancy (measured/stated)

Power / Torque -16% / -11%

Does this mean the one they tested produced 16% less power & 11% less torque than claimed by the manufacturer? or are they claiming this loss is down to the transmission etc?


----------



## ChrisB72 (Feb 1, 2005)

Does anyone have a link to find the same stats for the MKI?

Ideally figures for the TTC 1.8T 225.


----------



## ChrisB72 (Feb 1, 2005)

Toshiba said:


> The *20T* is 220/230bhp not 200bhp as its says. So 20-30bhp for the extra weight for quattro and better traction. So based on that, traffic lights excluded i would expect them to be about the same


?? :?

Did you mean the 3.2 not 2.0T?


----------



## Wondermikie (Apr 14, 2006)

Janker said:


> Mike,
> 
> So are they saying the 3.2 has
> 
> ...


They're comparing the manufacturer figures which are taken at the flywheel against their own figures taken at the wheels, rather than try to guess the transmission losses. For the 3.2 with it's quattro drive I think that the 16% difference would amount to a normal transmission loss, would have maybe expected it to be slightly more, so no doubt the engine they tested is putting out the full 250ps at the crank.

Because they test all the cars on the same basis though, you can make direct comparisons between each car. With a similar transmission loss say 15% the 2.0T would be putting out around 225ps at the crank, which ties in with Tosh's statement that they were producing 220-230 as standard. There have been similar discussions on the Tyresmoke GTI forum with stock 2.0T's producing high dyno figures.


----------



## Wondermikie (Apr 14, 2006)

ChrisB72 said:


> Does anyone have a link to find the same stats for the MKI?
> 
> Ideally figures for the TTC 1.8T 225.


Main index link http://www.rri.se/index.php?DN=29

No TTC, but TTR 1.8T 225 quattro http://www.rri.se/popup/performancegrap ... artsID=524

...201ps at the wheels.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

ChrisB72 said:


> Toshiba said:
> 
> 
> > The *20T* is 220/230bhp not 200bhp as its says. So 20-30bhp for the extra weight for quattro and better traction. So based on that, traffic lights excluded i would expect them to be about the same
> ...


no i mean the 20T comes with 220-230bhp on BAM engines not 200bhp like they say.


----------



## squiggel (May 16, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> no i mean the 20T comes with 220-230bhp on BAM engines not 200bhp like they say.


Yeah, right.... :roll:


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Thats what the GTI people are saying. also look at the plot.

or let me guess - its not what you want to hear so its not true either.
not sure why it would bother you.


----------



## kmpowell (May 6, 2002)

Toshiba said:


> Thats what the GTI people are saying.


You are partially right Tosh.... Golf GTi's (from Sep 05>) have BWA engine codes and none of them which have seen the rollers on UK MKIV's have produced less than 220bhp. The pistons were upgraded very quietly by VW and a few other bits, and the reasons were due to the Focus ST and Astra VXR being released, thus VW needed a more equal car for the group tests.

So yes you are right, but it's BWA engines that produce the extra power.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

I stand corrected on the type code.

Since this is the same engine used in the 20T TT one could reasonably assume the TT will have the same output.


----------



## ChrisB72 (Feb 1, 2005)

Wondermikie said:


> ChrisB72 said:
> 
> 
> > Does anyone have a link to find the same stats for the MKI?
> ...


Cheers for this link.

What about speed figures in and through gears to compare with the What Car test?


----------



## d246 (Jul 12, 2006)

Very interesting. Why do VW not publisise the 220 ish bhp?


----------



## Wallsendmag (Feb 12, 2004)

Audi did the same thing with th MkI S3


----------



## Wondermikie (Apr 14, 2006)

ChrisB72 said:


> Cheers for this link.
> 
> What about speed figures in and through gears to compare with the What Car test?


No sorry, not got it and Autocar never did it, only the 3.2 in DSG form. I see you have a 2.0T on order, Autocar have already tested the 3.2 so I doubt they will do the 2.0T unless it becomes quattro next year.


----------



## squiggel (May 16, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> Thats what the GTI people are saying. also look at the plot.
> 
> or let me guess - its not what you want to hear so its not true either.
> not sure why it would bother you.


Just dont believe that VW would go to the trouble of re-engineering an engine for more power output and not publicise and market it. Not to mention the legalities of their quoted emissions not matching reality.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

How much proof do you want - its not the odd one, its every one that's been on the rollers! Also not sure why you think its a bad thing? is more not better?


----------



## Nick225TT (Oct 13, 2004)

squiggel said:


> Toshiba said:
> 
> 
> > Thats what the GTI people are saying. also look at the plot.
> ...


If the GTI was only a couple of months into its production run then they couldn't really drop in a uprated engine with out upsetting a lot of owners of the 197bhp version. If Audi after 9 months upped the power on the 3.2 and 2.0 by 20bhp at no extra cost it would pi$$ a lot of people off.


----------



## blagman (Sep 11, 2006)

Autocar will be featuring a Golf GTI againt a 2.0t in the near future, the TT wipes the floor with the GTI mainly due to it's weight advantage and better aero.


----------



## Janker (Oct 27, 2006)

blagman said:


> Autocar will be featuring a Golf GTI againt a 2.0t in the near future, the TT wipes the floor with the GTI mainly due to it's weight advantage and better aero.


When's the article due out? - that's the second time I've heard that... my stealer also said they were told on the track day trip/TT launch that Audi had tweaked the torque curve via the ECU on the TT 2.0T FSI to make it feel much stronger than the same engine in the A3 /GTi.. agree on the weight though, that will make a big difference in all round handling - look how much lighter the new GTi is over the old model and the difference that made - take off another 48KG!

Golf GTI DSG 197BHP kerb weight = 1,328kg (150BHP per Ton)
TT 2.0T FSI DSG 197BHP kerb weight = 1,280kg (156BHP per Ton)
TT 3.2 V6 DSG 250BHP kerb weight = 1,430kg (177BHP per Ton)

The 'edition 30' GTi might be a closer match with its claimed 230BHp 2.0T FSI at 175BHP per Ton - having said which the enine in the TT is rumoured to produce 220 - 230 BHP so who knows... :roll:

If it did produce the claimed 220-230 then it would be:

TT 2.0T FSI DSG 220BHP kerb weight = 1,280kg (174BHP per Ton)
TT 2.0T FSI DSG 230BHP kerb weight = 1,280kg (182BHP per Ton)

And the last one - a Revo/AMD/APR tweaked 2.0T FSI

TT 2.0T FSI DSG 250BHP kerb weight = 1,280kg (198BHP per Ton)


----------



## blagman (Sep 11, 2006)

I go to the library every week to check  the Audi A4 2.0t now comes in with a 217 bhp ecu so I would imagine that this is the same ecu they now fit to the 2.0t.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Nick225TT said:


> squiggel said:
> 
> 
> > Toshiba said:
> ...


unless, like vw they dont tell people.


----------



## ChinsVXR (Apr 14, 2006)

Ive owned both the 2.0GTI and now 2.0TT and the TT feels quite a bit faster and certainly more torquey. My guess is that its more than 197bhp in the Golf, that always felt a bit underpowered whereas the TT doesnt.


----------



## merlot (Jul 26, 2006)

ChinsVXR said:


> Ive owned both the 2.0GTI and now 2.0TT and the TT feel quite a bit faster and certainly more torquey. My guess is that its more than 197bhp in the TT. Golf always felt a bit underpowered whereas the TT doesnt.


Is'nt the TT a good amount lighter than the Golf?


----------



## ChinsVXR (Apr 14, 2006)

merlot said:


> ChinsVXR said:
> 
> 
> > Ive owned both the 2.0GTI and now 2.0TT and the TT feel quite a bit faster and certainly more torquey. My guess is that its more than 197bhp in the TT. Golf always felt a bit underpowered whereas the TT doesnt.
> ...


Yes its lighter, but 50kg isnt that much. Half the weight of your average TT owner  (wallet in pocket of course)


----------



## Wondermikie (Apr 14, 2006)

Janker said:


> blagman said:
> 
> 
> > Autocar will be featuring a Golf GTI againt a 2.0t in the near future, the TT wipes the floor with the GTI mainly due to it's weight advantage and better aero.
> ...


FYI next week's Autocar (Wed 10th Jan) has the group test with the following -

TT 2.0T
Golf GTI
Seat Leon FR 2.0T
Skoda Octavia 2.0T


----------



## blagman (Sep 11, 2006)

Cool 8) Should be a good read


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Why did you change from to the V6 blagman?


----------



## blagman (Sep 11, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> Why did you change from to the V6 blagman?


Because of you Tosh 

No it's very difficult having had four wheel drive for 4 years to go back to two wheel drive, It's like air con once you have had it you would never go back. Also the price difference is not that great I would have re maped the 2.0t and put a Miltek exhaust on it Â£1000. Then when you stand back and look at the vehicle with 18's on the standard brake calipers look very weedy on the 2.0t and I would have probobley changed them too :lol:

The 2.0t I test drove went very well and I think is a cracking car for the money and think it will be a hit for Audi Uk.

John


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Just curious - don't want to start the whole mines better than yours again.


----------



## blagman (Sep 11, 2006)

No Worries


----------



## Necroscope (Apr 9, 2006)

It was a simular story for me.

I basically opted for the 3.2 because of the sound, and the rear pipes (the look). PLUS i wasnt that happy with performance on damp roads, BUT i think all 3.2 owners will admit that the 2.0T is an easier drive.

Dropping the Xenon's from the car gave me a gap of about 2K, which in the grand scheme of things was very little, but i still had to draw a line at some point.

Running cost never really came into it as i think it worked out that was 200 quid a year more.............


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

I genuinely thought it would have been a spec issue. By the time you add the things onto the 20T to equal the cars out (for me) you might as well have a beastly roar of the V6.

I have no comment over FWD and AWD.


----------



## satans worm (Dec 26, 2006)

mmm, going through the 2.0T V 3.2 quandry myself, initialy ordered the 2.0T but thinking of changing my mind, basicaly the 3.2 cost 3k more after deducting the leather and wheel upgrade costs. The car is offically for the wife and supposed to be our every day chariot to get the shopping/ drive to the station etc type runs so the daily MPG and other running costs are a consideration, however we live in Suffolk and so the thought of 4wd appeals for the icy mornings and muddy lanes, as did the look of the twin exhaust and that great sound.

I have a Boxster S in the garage at the mo but thinking i could sell it and just share the one car instead, and pocket the left over cash!

any opinions, do you think the second hand values/ desirability will be very different between the 2 in 3 or 4 years time?


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Real cost difference is less than that.

When we had the great 20T Vs 3.2 debate, i'm 100% sure when we matched the specs it was a smidge over 2k.


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

Wondermikie said:


> Janker said:
> 
> 
> > Mike,
> ...


Apples and pears? Would not transmission loss be much lower on a fwd car? And, because of strigent TUV rules, I believe all german cars produce quite a bit over the official figures. If so, why would VW bother to change their figures from 200ps to 215ps, say?


----------



## Arne (Dec 13, 2006)

Karcsi said:


> Apples and pears? Would not transmission loss be much lower on a fwd car? And, because of strigent TUV rules, I believe all german cars produce quite a bit over the official figures. If so, why would VW bother to change their figures from 200ps to 215ps, say?


I don't know how it is in Germany or UK, but in Norway you can alter the power within +/- 12-15% without any new approvals. And that might come from the TUV rules.

That, and the fact that Audi also have previous customers that already has bought a 2.0TFSI engine with less output to consider, might be why Audi not has "bother" to change their figures....?


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Anyone had a 20T on the Rollers. the only person i know who has one said his was 218bhp. Ive seen the plot and its over 210 and very close to 220 line so I've no reason to doubt him.


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

Toshiba said:


> Anyone had a 20T on the Rollers. the only person i know who has one said his was 218bhp. Ive seen the plot and its over 210 and very close to 220 line so I've no reason to doubt him.


Which is about what you would expect. Most TDI 140 Audis produce well in excess of the quoted 140PS - some over 155bhp. I think naturally aspirated engines are less "over-powered" than turbo ones - more predictable and vary less from engine to engine, I suppose. So I would expect a 3.2 to produce between 250 and 255bhp, but certainly no less than the stated 247bhp.

Arne - I would not be surprised if they are raise the power from that stated up to a certain amount (as it is to the detriment of no-one), but I very much doubt they are allowed to reduce it covertly by any amount, unless the official power output can still be assured.


----------



## Arne (Dec 13, 2006)

Karcsi said:


> Arne - I would not be surprised if they are raise the power from that stated up to a certain amount (as it is to the detriment of no-one), but I very much doubt they are allowed to reduce it covertly by any amount, unless the official power output can still be assured.


I agree with that, but then it would be the customers that they had to answere for. I was refering to the TUV rules, and the official aprovals.


----------



## satans worm (Dec 26, 2006)

Re 2.0T V 3.2 , has anyone ordered the 2.0T over the 3.2? im at the point of changing my order from 2.0T to 3.2 without driving the 2.0T at all. One hesitation is that reviews always seem to rate 2.0T as a 'better' car, anyone else found this or is the only reason 2.0T are chosen instead of the 3.2 due to price difference?


----------



## ChinsVXR (Apr 14, 2006)

satans worm said:


> Re 2.0T V 3.2 , has anyone ordered the 2.0T over the 3.2? im at the point of changing my order from 2.0T to 3.2 without driving the 2.0T at all. One hesitation is that reviews always seem to rate 2.0T as a 'better' car, anyone else found this or is the only reason 2.0T are chosen instead of the 3.2 due to price difference?


Its been discussed on here many time. I prefer the 2.0T and I could of had the 3.2 if I'd wanted. Even if they were the same price, I'd probably still go for the 2.0T as I prefer the characteristics of a turbo engine over N/A. Understand that other like N/A over turbo though. If your into modding, obviously the 2.0T is easier to tune.


----------



## Jimbo2 (Nov 30, 2006)

IMO, in every-day driving situations, the only true real advantage of the 3.2 over the 2.0 is Quattro.

If they had Quattro as an option on the 2T, I would have specced it without a second thought.


----------



## satans worm (Dec 26, 2006)

Thanks, really would love to drive a 2.0T but the only one in the country right now for sale in the dealerships is in Croydon which is quite a hike for me  . Will take the gamble and go for the 3.2 i think......


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

3.2 engine feels much stronger towards the top end, where as the 20T drops off with the turbo. The turbo gives you a false feeling of going faster than you are. where as the power delivery is silk smooth in the V6 all the way to the red.

I would not have the 20T, but that's me - and no i don't have to defend buying a V6 as my second MKII will here soon and if I'd have wanted to 'save some money' or panda to the mags, or indeed if i did feel that engine was better - i would have got it, simple.

Don't forget the mags are judging a package and its very rare for the top of the range models to get the vote (due to the cost difference).

Look at the golf range. These so called motoring guides or mags say the 1.6FSI is the best one to go for. Do they mean that's the faster, or best engine? no, its means its the best overall compromise from within the range.

Going back to the mags - which car do they test agains the big boys and which do they test against the hot hatches? the 3.2 more than hold its own against the cayman. its not better, but its no joke either.

You can remap a 20T to give the sameish (240/5) power as the V6 - you cant however add quattro. As with the 20T, the V6 can also be tuned - hell you can add a super charger or a turbo if you wanted to, but can you really be bothered? What about insurance? What about the hassle? what about when you sell the car?

0-60 in 5.9 @ 250bhp, you will need to almost double that to get below 5 secs.


----------



## Wondermikie (Apr 14, 2006)

satans worm said:


> Re 2.0T V 3.2 , has anyone ordered the 2.0T over the 3.2? im at the point of changing my order from 2.0T to 3.2 without driving the 2.0T at all. One hesitation is that reviews always seem to rate 2.0T as a 'better' car, anyone else found this or is the only reason 2.0T are chosen instead of the 3.2 due to price difference?


The initial residual values (Lex) show the difference between the 2.0T and the 3.2 maintaining throughout three years ie. pay Â£4k more now but the car will be worth Â£4k more later. Plus you won't lose out on having to pay a lot for larger alloys, leather, heated seats plus you get the bigger brakes & quattro as standard.

The only cost of a 3.2 over a 2.0T is the financing on the price difference, and any difference in running costs.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

And a massive grin from the beastly roar of the 6 cylinders. Will cost less in front tyres tho :wink:


----------



## satans worm (Dec 26, 2006)

I just changed it to the 3.2  
While I was typing the email my fingers 'slipped' and i accidentaly added rear parking senosors and extended leather!!


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

i've opted for both of those this time round too. (dont have extended leather in this one).


----------



## Wondermikie (Apr 14, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> i've opted for both of those this time round too. (dont have extended leather in this one).


What's the full spec of the new one :?:


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

erm good question.

TT CoupÃ©

Engine/Trim 3.2 quattro 250 PS S tronic
Combined fuel consumption: 30 mpg
CO2-Combined emissions: 224 g/km

Exterior colour Silver, metallic 
Interior 
Seats: Sports seat 
Upholstery: Fine Nappa leather

Seats black, Dashboard black, Carpet black, Headliner black 
Acoustic parking system (rear only) 
Xenon Plus headlights with Adaptive light 
Indirect tyre pressure monitoring 
Multi-function steering wheel wih paddle shift gear change 
Extended Leather package, black 
Audi Magnetic Ride 
Cruise control 
BOSE Surround Sound System 
iPod connection


----------



## DonaldC (May 7, 2002)

And which alloys?

TPM - is that to just fill in the blanking switch?
APS - are you letting your wife drive as well?
Cruise - and you're coming from a QS! :roll:


----------



## Wondermikie (Apr 14, 2006)

Tosh - nice spec. 10 spoke alloys?

The pictures from DonaldC and Rebel are making me think of Silver too, maybe white will be too much of a residual disaster.

DonaldC and Rebel - have you got any more pics of your car since you previously posted??


----------



## ChinsVXR (Apr 14, 2006)

Wondermikie said:


> satans worm said:
> 
> 
> > Re 2.0T V 3.2 , has anyone ordered the 2.0T over the 3.2? im at the point of changing my order from 2.0T to 3.2 without driving the 2.0T at all. One hesitation is that reviews always seem to rate 2.0T as a 'better' car, anyone else found this or is the only reason 2.0T are chosen instead of the 3.2 due to price difference?
> ...


Lombard and Pendragon dont see it the same way. That gap is about 60% of the difference. Both cars lose the same %, which is good on the 3.2 as in a lot of cases the expensive version loses more as a %


----------



## blagman (Sep 11, 2006)

ChinsVXR said:


> Wondermikie said:
> 
> 
> > satans worm said:
> ...


Thanks for the heads up with Balanced payments option, Prestige gave me a cracking deal


----------



## LazyT (Apr 13, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> erm good question.
> 
> TT CoupÃ©
> 
> Engine/Trim 3.2 quattro 250 PS S tronic


Tosh- since you will have driven the 3.2 V6 with both a manual tranny and the DSG tranny, for some time once you receive your new MK2. I am looking forward to your assessment of each transmission with the 3.2 V6.


----------



## Wondermikie (Apr 14, 2006)

ChinsVXR said:


> Lombard and Pendragon dont see it the same way. That gap is about 60% of the difference. Both cars lose the same %, which is good on the 3.2 as in a lot of cases the expensive version loses more as a %


Yep different companies will have different balloons, but then add in the options to the 2.0T that will be worth nothing at the trade-in time and it makes less sense.

Lex 36 months, 10k p.a., non-maintained -

2.0T S-tronic
Metallic
10 spokes
Leather
Heated seats

Deposit Â£5k
35 months Â£350.32
Balloon Â£14,810

3.2 S-tronic
Metallic
10 spokes
Leather
Heated seats

Deposit Â£5k
35 months Â£352.07
Balloon Â£18,491

So for people that aren't interested in keeping the car after 3 years, and are speccing different alloys, leather, etc. on the 2.0T then the 3.2 is less than Â£2/month more.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

DonaldC said:


> And which alloys?
> 
> TPM - is that to just fill in the blanking switch?
> APS - are you letting your wife drive as well?
> Cruise - and you're coming from a QS! :roll:


TPM - yep, dont like the blank.
No, wife wont drive it. doesnt want to.
Cruise - i have cruise on the qS too. always spec cruise. point saver!

10 spokes, most people go for turbines so i think they will be much rarer. Dont think the RS4s are worth the extra and will soon appear on every other MKI you see.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

LazyT said:


> Toshiba said:
> 
> 
> > erm good question.
> ...


Will do, Manual is really jerky 1st to 2nd. bugs the hell out of me.


----------



## Jimbo2 (Nov 30, 2006)

blagman said:


> ChinsVXR said:
> 
> 
> > Lombard and Pendragon dont see it the same way. That gap is about 60% of the difference. Both cars lose the same %, which is good on the 3.2 as in a lot of cases the expensive version loses more as a %
> ...


How did you change your order? I thought that you couldn't do that once you had a build week?

Did you go for any kind of payment protection on the BF? I've found it to be very expensive compared to other types of loan.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

you can change the order up until it goes confirmed. A schedule build week means totally and utterly nothing at all. In fact id go far as saying 90% wont be built on this build week given in the first instance.

to change the order call your dealer and he will do it for u


----------



## benjones (Dec 4, 2006)

blagman said:


> Thanks for the heads up with Balanced payments option, Prestige gave me a cracking deal


I tried Prestige and they were good however the sponsor of this very forum gave me the best finance deal by a country mile.

Kamran Saleem @ www.mhcfinance.co.uk

Audi TT 2.0 TFSI â€" S Tronic

Purchase Price: Â£29,300
Deposit: Â£2,000
Balance to Finance: Â£27,300
3 years LP with Balloon
36 Months: Â£456.30
Balloon: Â£15,441 (36 months)

This is at 7% APR / 3.5% flat which is an incredible rate


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Â£450/month for 3 years to hand it back at the end - you're all mad.


----------



## benjones (Dec 4, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> Â£450/month for 3 years to hand it back at the end - you're all mad.


Nobody will just hand it back at the end Tosh - you'll nearly always have capital in the car by then. You can't hand it back with lease purchase anyway - it's just the same as a loan (except with a baloon payment at the end so the loan is offset).

Opting out of company car scheme so it's easily the best option for me.


----------



## ravihira (Oct 14, 2006)

benjones said:


> Toshiba said:
> 
> 
> > Â£450/month for 3 years to hand it back at the end - you're all mad.
> ...


But unless you've got the Â£15000 lying around to payoff the off-set, then you will hand it back or p/x it in for another car....which means you're paying Â£450 to rent the car....or take out another loan to payoff the Â£15000.

I orignally wanted to go down the PCP route as well, but am now leaning towards the proper HP deals instead....I have had quotes on Â£20000 over 5 years coming out at about Â£375...and as I'm thinking of the keeping the car for at least that long, this seems the more sensible option for me.


----------



## Philr (Oct 10, 2006)

Based on what I have read I have always fancied the 2.0t but when you spec it up a little the price difference is not that great and the quattro, as most people agree is desirable. Many press articles suggest that quattro, compared to the 2.0 T, does not appear to offer any significant benefit.

I wonder if these comments would apply if the tests were carried out in typical UK winter/autumn conditions where the quattro might show some more advantage in wet/damp conditions.

What I can't understand is why STronic has no effect on the 2.0 t but makes a relatively big difference on the 3.2?


----------



## benjones (Dec 4, 2006)

It really doesn't matter which way you do it to be honest - LP, HP, PCP. The important thing is that you can afford the monthly payments and you're paying as little interest as possible. As you say you can re-finance at the end of the term anyway.

Back on topic - all this is making me wish I'd ordered the 3.2 now  must keep thinking about all the cash I'll save on petrol and insurance though  i'll be doing about 25k a year!


----------



## Wondermikie (Apr 14, 2006)

Wondermikie said:


> FYI next week's Autocar (Wed 10th Jan) has the group test with the following -
> 
> TT 2.0T
> Golf GTI
> ...


Should I post the results of this contest, or will that spoil it for anyone who wants to buy the mag and read it themselves :?:


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

no post it.


----------



## Speed Racer (May 21, 2006)

Philr said:


> Based on what I have read I have always fancied the 2.0t but when you spec it up a little the price difference is not that great and the quattro, as most people agree is desirable. Many press articles suggest that quattro, compared to the 2.0 T, does not appear to offer any significant benefit.
> 
> I wonder if these comments would apply if the tests were carried out in typical UK winter/autumn conditions where the quattro might show some more advantage in wet/damp conditions.
> 
> What I can't understand is why STronic has no effect on the 2.0 t but makes a relatively big difference on the 3.2?


On a Top Gear rerun tonight, they pitted the M3 vs S4. Same power. The M3 is measurably lighter. The S4 is AWD. In a drag (1/4 mile?), the M3 bested the S4 by a car length. On their track in the dry, the S4 was over 1 second faster on the lap. It's all due to Quattro. In the wet, it would have been many seconds faster.

In the final analysis, the 2 cars (2.0T vs. 3.2) have completely different engines with different power delivery characteristics (top end punch turbo vs. flat power curve but torquey V6); and DSG vs. a manual is distinctly different as Quattro vs. 2WD (wet and dry). Buy the one (combo) that best suits your purpose (or budget, etc.) and the one that gets you enthused. It's really simple. All the hair-splitting over specs is futile. What writers say is even less applicable to the average driver. And for what it's worth, DSG is worth about .3 seconds (faster) vs. manual in 0-60.

Whatever turns you on. As for now through, a 3.2 Quattro DSG would win in a dogfight (wet/dry, street, closed circuit, etc.). But not by enough to make that big a difference. You can have fun in either, street or track. Journos would make you think the gap is like a R32 vs. a VW Polo. They're just salesmen paid by advertisers.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Maybe the reason the 3.2 makes a bigger difference is that it can put down the power quicker - i dont know, else the engine (20T) doesnt have enough power to take advantage of it (a chipped 20T manual vs a chipped 20T DSG would prove this one was or the other).


----------



## Wondermikie (Apr 14, 2006)

OK -

Brake test - full-on stop from 70mph

TT 215m
Golf 207m
Octavia 248m (it's a porker)
Leon 218m

Dry handling - MIRA circuit (figure of eight)

TT 1:20.2 sec
Golf 1:21.5 sec
Octavia 1:23.1 sec
Leon 1:22.0 sec

Wet handling - tighter circuit than dry

TT 1:08.6 sec
Golf 1:07.4 sec
Octavia 1:10.2 sec
Leon 1:08.6 sec

Acceleration -

Various but TT fastest in every gear / increment, by a fair distance in some cases.

Conclusion - Leon and Octavia are good value, if not as desirable and high-performing as the other two cars. 
TT "....the only one that actually resembles a sports car delivers, not only on the road but also with its looks and aura of quality".
Golf "....you get that in the Golf as well, but not on the same scale...you get what you pay for..."

"Whilst we were impressed by the advantages of the TT's more sophisticated set-up, it was hard not to be more impressed still by the integrity and high entertainment value of the Golf".
Our choice - GOLF GTI :roll: :lol: :lol:

They talked about different gear ratios in the cars having an effect on performance. They reckon the TT pulls 34.1mph/1000rpm in 6th gear as opposed to 26mph/1000rpm in the Leon. Can't believe that, and if it was true then the TT would have the worst 6th gear performance, not the best.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Golf my Arse.


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

Just wait to friday....... i can tell you how a 2.0T with a chip and dsg handles.

speedracer, you said DSG is only 0.3 seconds faster from 0 till 60...
But that's only when the driver don't make any mistakes......
DSG never make a mistake from 0 to 60 :wink: 
It's alway's the same, and alway's as quick as possible....
I bet with a manual, from the 10 times you would press the throttle from 0 till 60, it never will be the same over and over....


----------



## Speed Racer (May 21, 2006)

The GTi is also won Automobile magazine's best car of the year for 2007. Automobile is arguably the best US car mag.

All is so subjective. Pitting hot hatches against coupes? I wouldn't want the GTi just because 1) it's a hatch, and 2) because it's FWD. Therefore, it wouldn't even be on my list of candidates. They should stick to keeping cars in the class they belong to.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Rebel said:


> Just wait to friday....... i can tell you how a 2.0T with a chip and dsg handles.


you mean performs, not handles. a chip wont change the handling :wink:

unless you're chipping the MR? :lol:


----------



## Speed Racer (May 21, 2006)

Rebel said:


> Just wait to friday....... i can tell you how a 2.0T with a chip and dsg handles.
> 
> speedracer, you said DSG is only 0.3 seconds faster from 0 till 60...
> But that's only when the driver don't make any mistakes......
> ...


I agree. I only use that figure because that's usually what VW and Audi report as the difference in 0-60 times between the two.


----------



## eko (Nov 5, 2006)

Wondermikie said:


> ChinsVXR said:
> 
> 
> > Lombard and Pendragon dont see it the same way. That gap is about 60% of the difference. Both cars lose the same %, which is good on the 3.2 as in a lot of cases the expensive version loses more as a %
> ...


Is that final payment figure for the 3.2 correct?.

I know thats the figure thats on their website but I can't believe the price gap between the 2.0 and the 3.2 will still be that high after 3 years.

I have checked a few other sites and none were quoting that high of GFV on the 3.2.

Freeway cars are often cheaper than Lex but if these figures are correct then theres a large difference this time.

If thats for real I may think of changing.

I may give them a call tomorrow.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

most people just hand them back after the 3 years, so makes no real difference. But for Â£2/month extra you'd be daft not to get the v6 one.

Does that mean the 20TQ will be in the middle of the two? :wink:


----------



## Wondermikie (Apr 14, 2006)

eko said:


> Is that final payment figure for the 3.2 correct?.
> 
> I know thats the figure thats on their website but I can't believe the price gap between the 2.0 and the 3.2 will still be that high after 3 years.
> 
> ...


Lex are usually pretty reliable, as is the info on their website. Call them, get a firm quote and then get your order in  I'm waiting for them to get the roadster online, which they say won't be for another 4 weeks or so.

Remember the difference between the 2.0T and the 3.2 isn't the same as the Mk1 225 and V6, which were virtually identical cars apart from the engines. The 3.2 has more kit as standard and as such the difference between the two should be maintained, even after 3 years.

Would expect both the list price and the residuals on the forthcoming 2.0T quattro and the 3.2 to be inbetween, as Tosh says.


----------



## eko (Nov 5, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> most people just hand them back after the 3 years, so makes no real difference. But for Â£2/month extra you'd be daft not to get the v6 one.
> 
> Does that mean the 20TQ will be in the middle of the two? :wink:


Yes, I know how it works, thats a very good deal from Lex.

You will almost certainly be handing the car back with nothing back in return for the next deposit, can't help thinking they've overvalued the GFV.

Good news for the monthly payment though and if your looking to go the finance route it makes the V6 the better option.

And whats this about a 2.0TQ?


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

i was just saying the 20T quattro will sit in the middle of the two existing models so therfe is it fair to expect the price to be split. ie Â£1 more that the FWD version and Â£1 less than the V6


----------



## eko (Nov 5, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> i was just saying the 20T quattro will sit in the middle of the two existing models so therfe is it fair to expect the price to be split. ie Â£1 more that the FWD version and Â£1 less than the V6


Ah Yes  , I see what your saying.

Still can't help thinking that Lex have made a boo boo, checked a few other sites, but they didn't come close to the Lex quote.

It's the future value making this a good deal, their APR is nothing special.

I phoned them to check and they confirmed the website prices.

They also said that an order through them would now be arriving in November. :!:


----------



## eko (Nov 5, 2006)

Depreciation figures are now available for the TT on the What Car website.

I've used their graphs in the past, sometimes spot on, sometimes a bit out.

Gives you a rough idea though.


----------

