# So confused - 2.0T Vs 3.2 v6 engine



## dan_chong (Jan 15, 2007)

Hi, new to forum  but i'v been reading this forum for over a year now!
And now is the time for my first post as i am ready to purchase a new TT.
I know there has been many debates over the 2 new mkIIs. And believe me, i've tried searching as many posts as i can regarding the 2.0t vs 3.2 v6!

I think i'm going to stick with manual - short shift. and intend to get my tt tuned with AMD

2.0T - Im liking the idea of the fact that it's very tuneable and is quite economic in comparison with the 3.2 v6. Its a lighter car, and has the potential to be faster than the 3.2...however how will it handle with the power and torque as its a FWD???

3.2 v6 - powerful engine, handles well. 4wd will handle engine tuning well, but car is heavier by 150kg. Just as tuneable, if not, more than the 2.0T!however, its thirstier and more expensive!

Which to go for????? It's killing me!


----------



## Chunk (Aug 12, 2006)

here we go again  - I had to make the same decision, changed from 2-3.2 and no regrets. Each to there own though and people preffer different - go drive em both, see which you prefer, buy that one, enjoy it


----------



## Johnnywb (May 31, 2006)

This debate will go on and on forever. At the end of the day, go and drive both and then make your decision, it'll depend on how you like your power delivery. Personally, i'm not a fan of turbo cars, especially as most of my driving is in town, i find turbo gets a bit annoying after a while. I would also wager that the turbo car is MORE tunable than the 3.2, although how well it can put additional power down is yet to be seen really. I find the telling time is in the wet once the tyres aren't brand new anymore! Certainly seems to be in my FWD focus.


----------



## LazyT (Apr 13, 2006)

dan_chong said:


> 3.2 v6 - powerful engine, handles well. 4wd will handle engine tuning well, but car is heavier by 150kg. Just as tuneable, if not, more than the 2.0T!however, its thirstier and more expensive!


Don't you have to invest alot more in tuning costs for the 3.2 V6 to get decent power and torque increases than you would with the 2.0T? :?

Also, some have suggested that Audi will release the 2.0T with quattro in Europe later this Summer.


----------



## blagman (Sep 11, 2006)

Reading about it on here will only give half the story, you need to go and drive both and make your own mind up


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

if you start messing with either car you will not only invalidate the Audi warranty but also your insurance. Get the car the best suits your needs/wants in stock form.


----------



## TTonyTT (Apr 24, 2006)

If you do a lot of miles, and fuel cost is a key consideration, then the 2.0T has to be favourite, just from a cost perspective.

If that's not relevant, then go drive them, and decide for yourself!

Don't forget to keep the windows down whilst driving ... the sound of the 3.2 is very pleasing to the ear, and a 3.2 with DSG going up/down through the gears is enough to put a smile on anyone's face


----------



## shigs (Sep 16, 2006)

dan_chong said:


> Hi, new to forum  but i'v been reading this forum for over a year now!
> And now is the time for my first post as i am ready to purchase a new TT.
> I know there has been many debates over the 2 new mkIIs. And believe me, i've tried searching as many posts as i can regarding the 2.0t vs 3.2 v6!
> 
> ...


buy the 2.0t if you want a better engine...

buy the 3.2 if you want 4wd and better traction

simple thing is to just take your time and test drive both cars, you will then know what choice to make 

and also, getting more power out of the 3.2 is like trying to get blood out of a stone! you will really have to throw alot of money at it to get big gains!

tuning the 2.0t to around 270bhp will cost you shy of a grand but then u will ave the problem of traction :?


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Define a better engine? power output? engine noise, number of cylinders? Age of design?

What is best depends on your wants!


----------



## satans worm (Dec 26, 2006)

I orginaly ordered a 2.0T but kept thinking of the 3.2v6, now ive 'upped' the order to 3.2 I do not think about the 2.0T at all!

Love the sound, love the symetrical pipes and if the quattro gets me out of trouble just once in the 5 years i own it i figuare that would pay for the difference straight away

The big question now is do i go DSG?? :twisted:


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

I hope this wont take the thread off topic and also hope people don't use it to suggest something is better than something else (I'm hoping we are ALL past this stage, and can chill today).

This is a link to the abt documentation for the MKII TT.
http://www.abt-sportsline.de/fileadmin/ ... t_engl.pdf

if i read it correctly - I'm not looking to argue!!! It would suggest the 20T can only go-to 240bhp with out a mod to the gear box? comments?? why is this? are the gear boxes not the same?

Also shows the tuning stage/options for both engines including 0-60 times etc..
So we are clear again, i'm not posting it to say A is better than B.
My personal summary of what they say (make your own) is a 250bhp FWD would be no faster than a 250bhp 4WD car so the extra weight means nothing at all, or very little. (240=6.0 250=5.9)

Hope you enjoy the read, i did. Unfortunately no prices. Any one got them?
O and 355bp 

Hope this helps you to chose dan_chong and welcome.


----------



## TTonyTT (Apr 24, 2006)

satans worm said:


> The big question now is do i go DSG?? :twisted:


It might be a "big" question ... but (at the risk of veering off-topic), the answer is easy.

Yes.

Go try it for a few hours.


----------



## Speed Racer (May 21, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> I hope this wont take the thread off topic and also hope people don't use it to suggest something is better than something else (I'm hoping we are ALL past this stage, and can chill today).
> 
> This is a link to the abt documentation for the MKII TT.
> http://www.abt-sportsline.de/fileadmin/ ... t_engl.pdf
> ...


Interesting. If I had a vested interest I'd write to ABT and inquire about the gearbox mod (need/specifics). I also like ABT's philosophy about longevity and reliability when it comes to their re-maps. That's one factor that I can guarantee not all re-mappers take into consideration. A re-map is great until it grenades your engine. I would totaly trust ABT. Nice TT racer too!


----------



## Wondermikie (Apr 14, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> if i read it correctly - I'm not looking to argue!!! It would suggest the 20T can only go-to 240bhp with out a mod to the gear box? comments?? why is this? are the gear boxes not the same?
> 
> Also shows the tuning stage/options for both engines including 0-60 times etc..
> So we are clear again, i'm not posting it to say A is better than B.
> My personal summary of what they say (make your own) is a 250bhp FWD would be no faster than a 250bhp 4WD car so the extra weight means nothing at all, or very little. (240=6.0 250=5.9)


Nice find, wouldn't mind seeing the prices. From the power plot there doesn't seem to be much in the upgrades until you get over 5000rpm, the 240 conversion looks best bet for normal use.












Toshiba said:


> O and 355bp


Look at the torque on that, what a beast [smiley=guitarist.gif]  wouldn't fancy putting petrol in a supercharged 3.2 though [smiley=thumbsdown.gif]


----------



## ChinsVXR (Apr 14, 2006)

The other big german tuner MTM doesnt mention the gearbox in their 272bhp 2.0T version, or even the 313bhp :lol:

http://www.mtm-online.de/en/index.php?nav=3&FZID=TT8J147&Kitnum=M1TT200313FX

Or for a bit of power for a 2.0T as cheap as chips, try this 



> Milltek distributor in Kirkcaldy, Fife: Star Performance recorded incredible gains from their new SEAT Leon FR 2.0 Turbo on their rolling road. The car was fitted with full Milltek turbo-back exhaust system in combination with custom GIAC software. As standard, the car has 197bhp and 206lb ft; with the exhaust and ECU upgrade, it was recorded with an astounding 291bhp and 316lb ft - that's a gain of 94bhp and 110lb ft of torque!!!


That 2.0T engine sure is tunable :twisted:


----------



## vagman (Sep 6, 2002)

satans worm said:


> The big question now is do i go DSG?? :twisted:


Without a doubt. [smiley=guitarist.gif]


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

I would go for the 3.2 V6...Manual !


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

ChinsVXR said:


> The other big german tuner MTM doesnt mention the gearbox in their 272bhp 2.0T version, or even the 313bhp :lol:
> 
> http://www.mtm-online.de/en/index.php?nav=3&FZID=TT8J147&Kitnum=M1TT200313FX
> 
> ...


50% extra power with the same turbo? I don't that comes with a warranty!


----------



## Wondermikie (Apr 14, 2006)

Karcsi said:


> 50% extra power with the same turbo? I don't that comes with a warranty!


How can they get that much power?? The ABT that Tosh posted earlier says the 270 tuning comes with a new turbo.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

might have a half life of hours at that bhp.


----------



## y2_dyc (Jan 15, 2007)

we could just wait for the 2.0T quattro. isn't it supposed to be out in Summer 2007? :lol:


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

will be interesting to see the output they opt for.


----------



## ChinsVXR (Apr 14, 2006)

Wondermikie said:


> Karcsi said:
> 
> 
> > 50% extra power with the same turbo? I don't that comes with a warranty!
> ...


Give Star Performance a call and ask how - recently voted the best Audi tuner in the UK.


----------



## tehdarkstar (Jul 24, 2006)

I think the 2.0 vs. 3.2 is a very subjective choice and depends really of what you think. When I chose my 2.0T I did only on a personal preference basis and I have to say that the car is well above my expectations.

As others said before, go drive both and choose the one you prefer.


----------



## LazyT (Apr 13, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> will be interesting to see the output they opt for.


220 - 230 hp with 280NM - 300Nm torque. 8)


----------



## LazyT (Apr 13, 2006)

tehdarkstar said:


> When I chose my 2.0T I did only on a personal preference basis and I have to say that the car is well above my expectations.


Isn't your TT receiving a couple of performance enhancements this month?


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

LazyT said:


> Toshiba said:
> 
> 
> > will be interesting to see the output they opt for.
> ...


I think 230 too (Golf), but i wouldnt bet against the 'thrashed to within an inch of its life' engine from the S3 (260)


----------



## Wondermikie (Apr 14, 2006)

ChinsVXR said:


> Wondermikie said:
> 
> 
> > Karcsi said:
> ...


Had a look, a Milltek and a chip.

If Seat swap the turbo, injectors, block, pistons, conrods & head to get a reliable 240ps from the Leon Cupra, and Audi did the same for 265ps in the S3, then there's no way I would be taking 300ps from an exhaust and a chip.


----------



## LazyT (Apr 13, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> I think 230 too (Golf), but i wouldnt bet against the 'thrashed to within an inch of its life' engine from the S3 (260)


An additional 30 hp should help take care of the 55kg (121 lbs.) in additional weight form the Quattro equipment, with a little extra to spare. An additional 60 hp instead should really make it fly. 8)


----------



## Wondermikie (Apr 14, 2006)

Would a 2.0TQ 230/265 be much lighter than the 3.2?


----------



## LazyT (Apr 13, 2006)

Wondermikie said:


> Would a 2.0TQ 230/265 be much lighter than the 3.2?


The 2.0TQ would be around 95kg lighter.


----------



## markrbooth (Sep 25, 2006)

Back on topic, my decision to go 3.2 was made for me. The missus won't have an entry level car, full stop, so the decision was easy. She wouldn't have a basic Boxster, she'd want the S. She wouldn't want an entry level 99, she'd want the turbo. She didn't want the 2.0T, she got the Quattro.

At a party, "Ooo, like your new car, is it the quattro?"
The answer she'd hate to have to give, "No just the FWD, but it's really good."

I wanted the 2.0T for all the sensible reasons of cost, economy, and semi-equal performance, but she told me not to be a girl and get the car that lights your fire..... and I do see her point now.

Spot the theme with her previous cars:

Clio 172
Corrado VR6
Golf GTi MKII (ok, not technically range topping but when you only earn Â£12k a year....)


----------



## tehdarkstar (Jul 24, 2006)

LazyT said:


> tehdarkstar said:
> 
> 
> > When I chose my 2.0T I did only on a personal preference basis and I have to say that the car is well above my expectations.
> ...


I will be doing the remap this month or early next month (depends on when I can sort out some noise problems I'm having with the car), but I have dropped Milltek as I think the aftermarket look is not for me. I hope the TT-RS comes with quad-exhaust and I will have it then...


----------



## Janker (Oct 27, 2006)

?[/quote]

I will be doing the remap this month or early next month (depends on when I can sort out some noise problems I'm having with the car), but I have dropped Milltek as I think the aftermarket look is not for me. I hope the TT-RS comes with quad-exhaust and I will have it then...  [/quote]

Must confess I've backed away from the quad exhaust as it looks a bit much + I'm not sure on the pipe angle where they exit the car (looks to much like a 'V' shape either side to me). I am however going to go for the twin pipe Miltek as I like the look of that - just need to see what 2 x 100mm pipes look like (is the standard 3.2 pipes 90mm?)

The remap is a defo for sure! - keen to hear what you think and see your before and after charts


----------



## tehdarkstar (Jul 24, 2006)

I will certaily do a dyno before and after the remap as I want to make sure that they're giving me what I'm paying for. I will look at it as soon as I get a silent cabin again... 

As for the exhaust, the more I look at it the less I mind it being there. Not that I like the looks of the standard exhaust, but TBH I'm not bothered anymore. Maybe I will just leave it there.


----------



## LazyT (Apr 13, 2006)

tehdarkstar said:


> As for the exhaust, the more I look at it the less I mind it being there. Not that I like the looks of the standard exhaust, but TBH I'm not bothered anymore. Maybe I will just leave it there.


What about Chrome Tips for it? 8)


----------



## mjbTT (Nov 11, 2006)

The standards are 90mm. AmD have quoted me Â£355 + vat Fitted.


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

markrbooth said:


> Back on topic, my decision to go 3.2 was made for me. The missus won't have an entry level car, full stop


She sounds like fun. :lol: :wink:


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

Toshiba said:


> will be interesting to see the output they opt for.


230 HP....not more. 
Otherwise they want sell a 3.2 anymore, i think


----------



## markrbooth (Sep 25, 2006)

Karcsi said:


> markrbooth said:
> 
> 
> > Back on topic, my decision to go 3.2 was made for me. The missus won't have an entry level car, full stop
> ...


I always um and ar for ages and can never make my mind up even after weighing up all the options. She just says get the best or you'll regret it later. Then again, she earns all the money so I do what she says


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

markrbooth said:


> Karcsi said:
> 
> 
> > markrbooth said:
> ...


Sounds perfect to me!


----------



## TT Hopeful (Oct 7, 2006)

dan_chong said:


> Hi, new to forum  but i'v been reading this forum for over a year now!
> And now is the time for my first post as i am ready to purchase a new TT.
> I know there has been many debates over the 2 new mkIIs. And believe me, i've tried searching as many posts as i can regarding the 2.0t vs 3.2 v6!
> 
> ...


Old age debate and will probably continue for years to come!!
Perhaps if they did the 2.0T as quattro I probably would have gone for it but alas they don't (yet) and I'm too impatient to wait, so I went for the 3.2.

I suppose it depends what you want. If you want the faster more powerful car get the 3.2. Don't listen to people saying "oh but the 2.0 is raunchier cause of the turbo!" That's just bollocks, the 3.2 is quicker, full stop, end of debate. If you want to be more practicle then go for the 2.0T. You'll notice that the majority of people buying the TT as a company car will be getting this version.

Definitly drive both and see what you think. Ultimately, neither is better than the other, they have their advantages. All that matters is which advantages appeal to you most- performance or economy?


----------



## mjbTT (Nov 11, 2006)

the performance difference between the 2 is marginal. I'd like to see them both put round the Top Gear track in the new series. That would be worth seeing....and c'mon, the 2.0T can hardly be put in the company car bracket, even if a few are bought on that basis. :lol:


----------



## y2_dyc (Jan 15, 2007)

nice information...
im steering towards buying a 3.2 atm...however what will happen to economy if i get an AMD remap...if i increase performance, will mpg decrease?

also when is the 2.0T quattro due to come out, is there any links for this car?
Thanks


----------



## tehdarkstar (Jul 24, 2006)

y2_dyc said:


> nice information...
> im steering towards buying a 3.2 atm...however what will happen to economy if i get an AMD remap...if i increase performance, will mpg decrease?
> 
> also when is the 2.0T quattro due to come out, is there any links for this car?
> Thanks


The remap should actually improve fuel comsumption based on AMD claims, but probably it is based on using RON98, which is something to consider: the 3.2Q copes very well with RON95, but the 2.0T needs RON98 to give you its best*, which may make the fuel comsumption difference less of an issue.

As of the quattro version, Audi hasn't officially announced anything yet (not even if it will exist).

* This allegation is based on a test that a couple of people I know performed on the 3.2 and 2.0T engines in the A3. According to them, when using RON95 the fuel economy between the 2.0T and the 3.2Q (both driven hard) was about 2mpg different in favour of the smaller engine, but the 2.0T engine was noticeably noisier, as well as vibrating more. The 3.2Q behaved the same with both fuels.


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

y2_dyc said:


> nice information...
> im steering towards buying a 3.2 atm...however what will happen to economy if i get an AMD remap...if i increase performance, will mpg decrease?


Depends entirely on your right foot! To get more power you have to burn more fuel. It's generally publicised that remaps are more fuel efficient when driven normally. In reality, you will use the power you have at your disposal, which is likely to off set any supposed gains when you are driving normally.

My TDI used slightly more fuel overall, as I used the additional power often, and it was perhaps marginally more economic when driven economically.


----------

