# Vote for Most Reliable MK2 TT Engine



## SwissJetPilot (Apr 27, 2014)

A colleague at work stopped to chat about possibly buying his first Mk2 TT and had a question about which was the best engine to go with. By "best", he meant the least problematic, trouble-free, requiring little or no maintenance beyond the service schedule.

Obviously my preference is the 3.2, but not everyone wants the weight, fuel and tax burden associated with the larger engine.

Please vote and comment about which engine you have, what you like or don't like about it and if you had the choice, which engine you'd prefer.

Also, if you've experienced serious problems with your engine, please post that too.


----------



## SwissJetPilot (Apr 27, 2014)

I have a 2007 3.2 Quattro with just over 105,000-km. I have had no engine related issues of any kind. Only standard maintenance of oil and filter changes. The engine and fuel/exhaust system is 100% OEM with no mods or re-Maps.

Pros - 
Excellent acceleration
Plenty of power up the Alps and at autobahn speeds (>200-kph)
Great touring car

Cons - 
A bit thirsty
The car is a bit heavier than I'd prefer for a 2-seat Roadster, but the touring characteristics make up for it on long trips.


----------



## Hoggy (May 8, 2002)

Hi, No Turbo, No cambelt, No contest.
Hoggy.


----------



## MT-V6 (Jan 11, 2015)

You sum it up for me. Also mine uses no oil and it comes out golden brown every yearly service. Very few on here report any issues with them so they must be pretty solid


----------



## IPG3.6 (Sep 5, 2015)

i vote the 3.2 - why?

because no turbo setup!  There is MUCH less to fail, the engine doesn't have timing belts either. I also believe it was originally designed as a diesel block so made to withstand higher cylinder pressures.


----------



## grantlack (Aug 3, 2017)

no coincidence that the VR6 was the most mature platform of the bunch by the time it found its way into the TT. the only real concern is chain stretch later in life, which can be monitored with VCDS and addressed before any catastrophic damage occurs.


----------



## pcbbc (Sep 4, 2009)

SwissJetPilot said:


> A colleague at work stopped to chat about possibly buying his first Mk2 TT and had a question about which was the best engine to go with.


"best" in what regard?


> Obviously my preference is the 3.2, but not everyone wants the weight, fuel and tax burden associated with the larger engine.


Exactly.


----------



## FNChaos (Nov 30, 2016)

Most reliable motor, 3.2 no doubt.
Best 'modd'able' motor = Upgraded EA113 2.0TFSI (TTS) Better, stronger bottom-end. Actually designed to handle more power (as apposed to the newer EA888 2.0TSI)


----------



## SwissJetPilot (Apr 27, 2014)

@ pcbbc -

Good point - edit made; "By best, he meant the least problematic, trouble-free, requiring little or no maintenance beyond the service schedule."


----------



## Roller Skate (May 18, 2015)

3.2 without a doubt.

My Mk2 had uprated Shrick Cams, never missed a bit. Currently running two TT roadsters, a 
Mk3 and a MK1 that I'm running around in because a 3.2 mated with that DSG gearbox it's still my favourite iteration of the car.

Saying that ... the TTS comes a close second.


----------



## Iceblue (Jul 20, 2018)

This sounds like a 3.2 love in and in the circumstances who can disagree. Hard for anyone to really comment unless you have owned both and driven them both hard as a daily driver, not a weekend beauty queen. My only experience is my 2.0 FWD turbo EA113 (50,000 kms in two yrs) and being my first turbo am very impresssed with the acceleration and other aspects. In that regard it has held up very well against many porkers and also V8's that are common in my market. Yes it needs to be looked after and has more bits that can go wrong but to date , touch wood this has been preventative stuff apart from a failed oil cooler that was relatively cheap to fix and uncommon based upon threads on here.

Without any expereince of the 3,2 all I can say is that the there is noticeable understeer and body roll on the much lighter 2.0 which I have yet to address so I would imagine this would be quite severe on a stock 3.2 although this could be compensated somewhat by the extra weight of the haldex system on the rear.

Hey DUDE I love the Audi tt farm


----------



## motornoter (Jul 16, 2012)

Own a Mk2 3.2 litre auto Roadster and love it!! Also owned a Mk1 250 quattro a few years ago and enjoyed that too.

Anyone know where our Dolphine Grey M1 is now - original reg number RO03 CZD.

Just noticed how our old Mk1 has been used to illustrate a TT Buying Guide in the Jan 29 issue of Classic Car Buyer!!


----------



## andy mac (Jun 24, 2019)

I voted for the 3.2. I've never owned any of the others to compare it to, but it's been great so far.

I wanted a 3.2 because my last three cars have all had turbos and all had turbo problems.
I guess I could be unlucky but not having to worry about the turbo, DPF and belts is a big plus.


----------



## ttdan3.2v6 (Apr 25, 2019)

3.2 for me, obviously. When i bought it, It was that or the 3.2S Boxster, as i've already got a classic 911 it didn't make much sense. 
So far i've been hugely impressed with the TT, and as an earlier poster pointed out, it doesn't use a drop of oil or water.


----------



## french (Oct 7, 2018)

So what are the problems with the 2.5 5 cyl then ?


----------



## Danny1 (Sep 2, 2010)

french said:


> So what are the problems with the 2.5 5 cyl then ?


Nothing, but hardly anyone owns one hence a lack of votes


----------



## french (Oct 7, 2018)

They don't know what there are missing !


----------



## ashfinlayson (Oct 26, 2013)

I voted for the 2.tfsi as it's the only engine I've had, but I've had it in two cars with only a few niggles. The niggles have been nothing to do with the engine though, it's all the bits attached to it that tend to go wrong :lol:


----------

