# 3.2 vs 1.8t (225bhp)



## Tonusmaxumus79 (Sep 2, 2016)

I've tried searching the forum, maybe searching for the wrong thing, it's Friday and I've the had a few whiskeys  ,but, what's faster mk1 3.2 or the 1.8t 225.
In standard form from the factory of course.
I realise the 1.8T has more tuning potential due to it being a turbo, but in real life 0-60 times top end speed, track times ect.
Just looking to see the difference in performance in both cars.
Has anyone owned both cars that they can give us a conclusion.


----------



## rusTTy_racer (Sep 7, 2015)

I have a 3.2 and my chums have 1.8T's and I would say in standard form there is not much in it when giving it the beans on public roads.

I am happy with my choice and the fact it's a DSG but you know that you have gone and said it now so watch out for the ranting to start lol :lol: :lol: [smiley=bomb.gif]


----------



## gogs (Dec 22, 2010)

V6 is heavier up front, can't be tuned as easily or cheaply as the 225, really depends what you want to do with the car

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Hoggy (May 8, 2002)

Hi, If the 3.2 had been avail in 2001 when I purchased my 225, I would have purchased the 3.2, but after all these years I can't bear to part with my 225.
As a low mileage keeper, I'd have had no cambelt to worry about every 5 years with low miles.
Hoggy.


----------



## cam69 (Dec 22, 2011)

The v6 does sound awsome though.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


----------



## MichaelAC (Sep 7, 2009)

Hi,

I owned a 225 for 4 years + and now have a V6 which I've owned for about three years so have experience of both. The V6 is quicker in standard form than the 225. The power to weight ratio is 162 bhp/ton whereas the 225 is 151 bhp/ton.

Its not a lot but note that the V6 also has a lot more torque too.

When you drive them the V6 is smoother and has a more linear power delivery and the DSG also saves you some time on the gear change especially as the TT manual gearbox is not exactly slick.

On track, I'm not sure because the 225 was better getting the front end round a corner so that might help the 225 catch up but I never had the 225 on track so couldn't say. Overall, there's not that much in it but the V6 is quicker.


----------



## 3TT3 (Aug 30, 2014)

When I was looking  official quotes
350z 282-313 bhp depending on year and engine type, all around 5.7 sec 0-60 top speed 155 mph
Mk1 TT 222 bhp 6.3 sec 0-60 top speed 152 mph
Mk1 TTqs 237 bhp (but substantially better torque than 222) 5.9 sec 0-60 ,whether that was with a/c removed and a nude test driver, dunno) electronically limited top speed of 155 mph(Itd probly do 156  )
Mk1 TT v6 247 bhp 6.3 sec 0-60 and 155 limited top speed.
Thats what I remember.


----------



## infidel.uk (Feb 21, 2015)

The ONLY reason i would get a 3.2 is if i was doing lots of motorway miles.


----------



## big mikeS (Feb 21, 2015)

Interesting views as I'm not sure which engine/combination I want


----------



## TT Tom TT (Oct 9, 2015)

In stock form I would say this:

1.) QS
2.) 3.2 Manual
3.) 3.2 DSG
4.) 225

In the real world I have no idea why anyone would buy a 225 and not pay 300 quid for a 15% power increase. To take it to 255bhp.


----------



## coggers225 (Jan 5, 2014)

You buy a 3.2 because you want a car that looks and sounds nice, you buy a 225 because you want a faster, better handling car.


----------



## cam69 (Dec 22, 2011)

Or you get a qs and have the best of both worlds.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


----------



## YELLOW_TT (Feb 25, 2004)

cam69 said:


> Or you get a qs and have the best of both worlds.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


 [smiley=dude.gif]


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

Tuning potential? Pfft, you can always slap a supercharger on the V6


----------



## Gonzalo1495 (Oct 13, 2014)

Dash said:


> Tuning potential? Pfft, you can always slap a supercharger on the V6


And you can slap a big ass turbo to the 225.

I think when we speak about tuning potential, we have to assume various factors such as the following apply:
1) How easy is it to take it to X power figures. 
2) Cost
3) Longevity

The 225 is designed to handle forced induction, is relatively cheap to modify, and easy to make power.

To contrast this, a supercharger or turbo kit for a V6 requires expensive parts/custom work, custom intercoolers, custom manifolds, custom tunes, engine work, etc. etc. 
Then you're talking about supercharging an engine that was not designed to operate under forced induction, that comes into the reliability/longevity category.

And lastly, all of the above is very expensive. HPA's turbo kit for the V6 is very very expensive. 
The same notions apply for "big turbo" builds on the 1.8t, but even then you can argue they are easier to do.


----------



## damien.wrl (Sep 20, 2009)

Owned both and they are both quick enough for daily use, however one sounds like every other car out there the other you just want to listen too...


----------



## Antthony (Jul 29, 2016)

damien.wrl said:


> Owned both and they are both quick enough for daily use, however one sounds like every other car out there the other you just want to listen too...


This.

The 3.2 is quicker in standard form as far as straight line acceleration. As far as I know there were no track comparisons back in the day with the Mk1 unfortunately so really what would be quickest round a track is purely conjecture, and would also IMO depend on the track.


----------



## MichaelAC (Sep 7, 2009)

3TT3 said:


> When I was looking  official quotes
> 350z 282-313 bhp depending on year and engine type, all around 5.7 sec 0-60 top speed 155 mph
> Mk1 TT 222 bhp 6.3 sec 0-60 top speed 152 mph
> Mk1 TTqs 237 bhp (but substantially better torque than 222) 5.9 sec 0-60 ,whether that was with a/c removed and a nude test driver, dunno) electronically limited top speed of 155 mph(Itd probly do 156  )
> ...


The 225 has 221bhp and 0-60 in 6.4 seconds or 0-62 in 6.6 seconds
The V6 with DSG is 247bhp and 0-60 in 6.2 seconds or 0-62 in 6.4 seconds

Those are Audi's figures and you won't achieve them but they can be used as a measure between the two cars.

There is a lot of confusion because most web sites quote 0-60 second times of older cars as 0-62 because with older cars the acceleration times were reported in 0-60mph whereas today and for a while now it's been 0-62 because that's 100kph and fits in with european acceleration times.


----------



## TripleThree (Dec 10, 2012)

I've done a google search... (Not a forum search because it doesn't like the terms "V6", "3.2", "1.8" or "225")

I've found a lot of discussion over the 225 being a better race car than the V6, mainly due to the mods and the Turbo...

I'd like to know which one is better to own? I have a FWD Roadster and want to go Quattro. Either one will be an increase in performance for me. I'm never going to take it on the track so I'm not bothered about being slightly faster or slower than someone else, but I want to _enjoy_ driving and owning it. Would being a soft-top make you choose different?


----------



## TT Tom TT (Oct 9, 2015)

TripleThree said:


> I've done a google search... (Not a forum search because it doesn't like the terms "V6", "3.2", "1.8" or "225")
> 
> I've found a lot of discussion over the 225 being a better race car than the V6, mainly due to the mods and the Turbo...
> 
> I'd like to know which one is better to own? I have a FWD Roadster and want to go Quattro. Either one will be an increase in performance for me. I'm never going to take it on the track so *I'm not bothered about being slightly faster or slower than someone else*, but I want to _enjoy_ driving and owning it. Would being a soft-top make you choose different?


But yet having AWD is so important :-|..?


----------



## Antthony (Jul 29, 2016)

TT Tom TT said:


> TripleThree said:
> 
> 
> > But yet having AWD is so important :-|..?


It's debatable, due to the way the Haldex works as well as the big chunk of extra weight, it's reasonable to assume that the FWD is going to be quicker in a given situation.


----------



## TT Tom TT (Oct 9, 2015)

Antthony said:


> TT Tom TT said:
> 
> 
> > TripleThree said:
> ...


You mis-quoted the post. Under what circumstance is FWD ever better here besides fuel economy? You have went off on a tangent, I was playing on the fact that I found it strange that 'Triple' is set on having AWD but in the next breath says he's not bothered about being quicker or slower which seems strange for someone who is so focused on having AWD. If you want AWD for the sake of AWD with no speed than why not just get a 4x4?


----------



## Antthony (Jul 29, 2016)

TT Tom TT said:


> You have went off on a tangent


What I said is perfectly relevant to the thread and the discussion at hand. No tangents


----------



## TT Tom TT (Oct 9, 2015)

Antthony said:


> TT Tom TT said:
> 
> 
> > You have went off on a tangent
> ...


Thread title: "3.2 V 1.8T (225)"

Neither of these cars are FWD :-|.


----------



## TripleThree (Dec 10, 2012)

TT Tom TT said:


> But yet having AWD is so important :-|..?


Well I would go for a Mk2... But I just don't like it! :wink:

I checked out the Mk3 in the showroom while Audi programmed a second key for my current car. 
I like that more than the Mk2... But I couldn't get over how much bigger the car seemed while having less space and less storage than my TT. Can't afford that yet anyway.

What I mean is that, if I replace my car with another TT then I want a better one rather than the same... 
That means AWD, and going from 150 to 225bhp(+). IMO that will make a bigger difference to how much I enjoy the car than -0.2 secs 0-60.

I also don't want to get into the problem we have in NZ with Skylines... No matter how much work you put into one, there is always another that's better!


----------



## Antthony (Jul 29, 2016)

TT Tom TT said:


> Antthony said:
> 
> 
> > TT Tom TT said:
> ...


I wasn't the one who brought up FWDs mate . . . :?


----------



## TripleThree (Dec 10, 2012)

Antthony said:


> I wasn't the one who brought up FWDs mate . . . :?


No I did. I said I had one, but wanted either a 3.2V6 or a 225...


----------



## westo3 (Jan 15, 2011)

Just go and test drive both you will soon know which you prefer


----------



## Fisher4772 (Jun 21, 2015)

Well it's a No Brainer .... None of them , buy the ultimate TT 240 Qs .. Quicker hands down 
( and yes I have driven and owned the others)


----------



## hey3688 (Oct 4, 2013)

Fisher4772 said:


> Well it's a No Brainer .... None of them , buy the ultimate TT 240 Qs .. Quicker hands down
> ( and yes I have driven and owned the others)


For the prices of decent 240 QS's these days you could have a nice V6 for cruising and a nice 225 for modding,The best of both worlds.


----------



## rusTTy_racer (Sep 7, 2015)

hey3688 said:


> Fisher4772 said:
> 
> 
> > Well it's a No Brainer .... None of them , buy the ultimate TT 240 Qs .. Quicker hands down
> ...


Great idea, think it might send wifey over the edge though. Ha lol!


----------



## damien.wrl (Sep 20, 2009)

Fisher4772 said:


> Well it's a No Brainer .... None of them , buy the ultimate TT 240 Qs .. Quicker hands down
> ( and yes I have driven and owned the others)


Not a no brainier, horses for courses,I could have gone for a QS but like other people I don't want bucket seats and webbing nets, lots of people don't rag them and want comfort and a bit of class?. With speed bumps and the number of cars on the road nowadays it's not often you can get a charge on and then even the 180 is fast enough to have a bit of fun... Mrs H laughed when I showed a picture of the inside of a QS ,she thought I was joking, she thought it looked like a chaved up boy racer.. I have also never really liked the black roof.The wheels are sexy though....bit like the 911s some people want a stripped out track car some want heated seats music etc...


----------



## cam69 (Dec 22, 2011)

Round a track a fwd with a decent limted slipp diff would most likely be better than 4wd but i might be wrong.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


----------



## MichaelAC (Sep 7, 2009)

TripleThree said:


> I've done a google search... (Not a forum search because it doesn't like the terms "V6", "3.2", "1.8" or "225")
> 
> I've found a lot of discussion over the 225 being a better race car than the V6, mainly due to the mods and the Turbo...
> 
> I'd like to know which one is better to own? I have a FWD Roadster and want to go Quattro. Either one will be an increase in performance for me. I'm never going to take it on the track so I'm not bothered about being slightly faster or slower than someone else, but I want to _enjoy_ driving and owning it. Would being a soft-top make you choose different?


Personally I'd go for a V6 if choosing a roadster because you would be able to hear the noise of the engine better with the roof down. Great mini GT car too the V6.

As far as owning both goes, I regret selling my 225 very much now and have considered buying another one as a second car but having had both, if I had to choose and only have one it would still be the V6 even though it is slower than my old remapped 225.


----------



## TT Tom TT (Oct 9, 2015)

cam69 said:


> Round a track a fwd with a decent limted slipp diff would most likely be better than 4wd but i might be wrong.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


You're wrong and again this has no relevance to the OP, if you're paying all that money for a 'decent limited slip differential' then I guess the 225 is allowed a re-map? The gap has opened up even further.


----------



## rusTTy_racer (Sep 7, 2015)

Ok, back to the OP (Yes Tom you are right  ) I doubt if any normal driver could honestly say they could feel an additional 10bhp/ton via the seat of your pants (obviously I could :lol: ) but does a 'standard' V6 TT with DSG get from A to B quicker than a 'standard' 1.8T manual?

Maybe yes, if you have deep pockets and can plan your route via petrol stations :roll: If I had 10grand in a box under the stairs I might get a QS but then I do fancy a R32 Mk4 Golf so that's a possible maybe :lol:


----------



## MichaelAC (Sep 7, 2009)

rusTTy_racer said:


> Ok, back to the OP (Yes Tom you are right  ) I doubt if any normal driver could honestly say they could feel an additional 10bhp/ton via the seat of your pants (obviously I could :lol: ) but does a 'standard' V6 TT with DSG get from A to B quicker than a 'standard' 1.8T manual?
> 
> Maybe yes, if you have deep pockets and can plan your route via petrol stations :roll: If I had 10grand in a box under the stairs I might get a QS but then I do fancy a R32 Mk4 Golf so that's a possible maybe :lol:


Aha, it's the extra torque you'll feel and the 2mpg difference that you'll not notice :lol:

Also, your black V6 is one of my favourite looking TTs.


----------



## Gonzalo1495 (Oct 13, 2014)

TT Tom TT said:


> cam69 said:
> 
> 
> > Round a track a fwd with a decent limted slipp diff would most likely be better than 4wd but i might be wrong.
> ...


Not to mention a haldex controller or powertrack insert at the slightest! :lol:

While FWD isn't bad on track, it's no question AWD will always perform slightly better because of turn out acceleration and grip. 
The only time AWD would be a negative would be airstrip/drag racing where your goal and times are set at insanely high speeds, therefore the added weight is a drawback.


----------



## 3TT3 (Aug 30, 2014)

Aha! I will say 2 words! "torque steer"
Why?
I dunno, but it sounds knowledgeable near 2 am


----------



## Fisher4772 (Jun 21, 2015)

damien.wrl said:


> Fisher4772 said:
> 
> 
> > Well it's a No Brainer .... None of them , buy the ultimate TT 240 Qs .. Quicker hands down
> ...


It was said tongue in cheek .... Pure Banter 

By the way I haven't got a cargo net , they're to expensive !!


----------



## spaceplace (Mar 10, 2013)

I had the 225 then had it mapped, I now have the v6 dsg (also mapped) and tbh wouldn't go back to the 225, the v6 sounds too good and I like the dsg, I'd say the v6 is faster out the box and with dsg and launch control and sport mode you can hit the stated figures consistently, to hit the figures in the 225 you have to get a perfect get away (launch control on the dsg does that for you) and you have to red line 1st gear which personally I don't like doing with a manual. Of course the 225 can be tuned to be faster for cheaper, but then you could spend more and also tune the v6 to be a monster. I think the best thing to do it drive both and see which you like more


----------



## damien.wrl (Sep 20, 2009)

Fisher4772 said:


> damien.wrl said:
> 
> 
> > Fisher4772 said:
> ...


----------



## Tonusmaxumus79 (Sep 2, 2016)

Sorry guys ain't been on the forum due to working yet again, but reading through the posts on paper the v6 is a little faster, and according to some makes a better noise, for me and this is my thought I'd take a turbo note over a v6 any day but thats just me.
The dsg gear box from what I've researched is top notch but you can't beet a manual box I'd take one all day long.
I think I need to the v6 to fully appreciate it what it can do.
Thanks for all the replays


----------



## Street Fighter (Sep 18, 2016)

Once you've had a turbo there's no going back.

I went from an Evo to an M3 and I hated it, it was all rev, rev, rev!

I missed the tickle you get in the kidneys and the noise of the wastegate chatter too much. :lol:


----------



## damien.wrl (Sep 20, 2009)

Who cares what goes better than what .... they are all just gorgeous...
Cleaned it half an hour quick scrub and you have a work of art 
Just get the best one you can!!


----------



## Street Fighter (Sep 18, 2016)

Yes, well said...just get a turbo tho.


----------



## MichaelAC (Sep 7, 2009)

Street Fighter said:


> Once you've had a turbo there's no going back...........


I did :lol:


----------



## MichaelAC (Sep 7, 2009)

Or you could try a super charger.......


----------



## Rich2508 (Aug 28, 2016)

I switched from a Cooper S to the TT, found the supercharger made it too frantic in day to day driving, despite my TT only being a 180 , much more enjoyable to drive.


----------



## Morbs320i (Sep 20, 2015)

Like that a lot..


----------



## odub (May 17, 2015)

infidel.uk said:


> The ONLY reason i would get a 3.2 is if i was doing lots of motorway miles.


Interesting thought, I'd choose the 20v for fuel economy


----------



## rallye_turbo (Mar 30, 2015)

MichaelAC said:


> Or you could try a super charger.......


Rotrex R32 is a beast of an engine. I had one in a Mk2 Golf. Just under 450bhp and so smooth and linear.
And the noise....!


----------



## spudmurphy (Jul 6, 2016)

odub said:


> infidel.uk said:
> 
> 
> > The ONLY reason i would get a 3.2 is if i was doing lots of motorway miles.
> ...


IIRC from when we bought my girlfriends 3.2 the book figures suggest that the 3.2 was more economical on motorway miles than a 225.

However once the urban miles are taken into count the combined cycle takes a huge hit :lol: [smiley=bigcry.gif]

Al


----------



## rallye_turbo (Mar 30, 2015)

spudmurphy said:


> odub said:
> 
> 
> > infidel.uk said:
> ...


Driven sensibly I have always maintained really surprising fuel economy from these 1.8T engines and I have them in everything from a TT to a Lotus Elise (which was amazing and more fuel efficient than the 1.8VVC K Series it replaced despite it being 200bhp less). The 3.2 is a larger engine, more friction, more cylinders so it will be less fuel efficient. 
The 3.2 is a great engine and can be made more powerful at a cost and gains much smaller. Going to a supercharger or a turbo produces amazing results, but boy does it cost!


----------



## MichaelAC (Sep 7, 2009)

Rich2508 said:


> I switched from a Cooper S to the TT, found the supercharger made it too frantic in day to day driving, despite my TT only being a 180 , much more enjoyable to drive.


Yes, frantic is the word, especially with the JCW kit on it :lol:

The TT is a far more sophisticated car and 10 times more stable. The Mini is good at cornering on a smooth road but sometimes I think it'll just bounce off the road on sharp bumpy corners.

I've never driven a car as stable on cornering or braking as the TT. I've come across obstructions on blind corners before and had to emergency brake whilst cornering and the thing still managed to stop with no dramas!! Unbelieveable. I think my V6 has the brake assist too which has helped me out a few times.

But supercharger on a V6......yes please


----------



## delandrzej (Apr 12, 2015)

For me its the V6 for the feel good factor ! simple... !!


----------



## Zangie (Mar 16, 2020)

Good afternoon,
Sorry to return to such an old thread but it is a fascinating read. My midlife crisis has now officially dictated that I buy and Audi TT. I have only ever driven one, and that was a TTS....very lumpy low down but flew once it was on boost.

Sadly I can't afford a TTS. So, V6 or 1.8T that is my dilemma.

I need some advice from those of you who have driven both. I haven't driven too many turbo charged cars (other than diesels) 
and lag is not something I find very appealing even if I know the surge is coming shortly afterwards....so that means I buy the V6 doesn't it? My hesitation is that I get the feeling from some of the posts that the V6 doesn't have that instantaneous kick that I want when I see the exit on the roundabout, it's more of a zoooomy, long sweeping bend sort of a car if that makes sense.

"Go and try one" is probably what you will say, "you'll know when you drive it if it's right for you". Tried to last weekend but dodgy dealer, excuse about flat battery. So in the mean time I thought I might scrounge some advice.

My other question is this: If I'm not worried about big power, but more driveability, should I consider a 180 which I believe has a smaller turbo and spins up a bit quicker and then modify this to regain a few BHP?

Any guidance appreciated.

Thanks.


----------



## damien.wrl (Sep 20, 2009)

I think nowadays you are looking for the best one you can buy, I have had both and although the 225 is quick on paper you sort of don't feel it.. The V6 sounds gorgeous and you know the speed more... I wanted a V6 manual but searched for a special car , was looking at all of them but finally got what I wanted , took patience though ..
Part of the ownership is just looking at it though... let's face it the days of hooning around the streets are gone with cameras , speed bumps and traffic volume


----------



## A_Banging_Donk (Apr 22, 2017)

To be honest, the 225 isn't all that bad off boost.. where are you based? Maybe a helpful forum member will be able to give you a ride?


----------



## EddieMunster321 (Jan 14, 2016)

MichaelAC said:


> sophisticated car and 10 times more stable. The Mini is good at cornering on a smooth road but sometimes I think it'll just bounce off the road on sharp bumpy corners.


I wholeheartedly disagree with that, the Cooper JCW (or S) is light years ahead of the TT in the handling stakes, they're not even close. The standard turn-in, and steering response, on the TT is poor, without the well-documented modifications like the 50mm ARB and Cookbots, the Mini would run rings around it all day long...... and then some!

Also, the immediate throttle response on the S gives it much quicker exits from corners, and the lighter weight allows you to brake far later into a corner than the TT.

With 50mm ARB, Cookbots and various other modifications, as my 225 has had, it's far closer to the JCW, but then I wouldn't have bet against my JCW around the twisty stuff when I had the Cayman S, never mind the TT.


----------



## EddieMunster321 (Jan 14, 2016)

damien.wrl said:


> I think nowadays you are looking for the best one you can buy, I have had both and although the 225 is quick on paper you sort of don't feel it..


On a similar note, I also have a 3.0 Z4 (the 231bhp straight six), and that "feels" quicker than my TT, but that's down to the immediate throttle response on the Z4 (in sport mode) that lulls you into thinking it's going quicker than it really is. The initial bite is instant, but then power delivery is very linear on the Z4, whereas the lag of the TT, and then the hammer blow of the torque makes the 225 feel faster.

I'm not a fan of modified engines, other than chip/filter, but I think with a balanced/quicker spooling turbo the TT would be dramatically improved and in chipped form, i.e. 260bhp-270bhp, it'd be more than useful in the speed stakes. Even better, fitting a twin-turbo, small vane feeding large vane as in my 123d!


----------



## Merlin1 (Jun 8, 2018)

Zangie said:


> I need some advice from those of you who have driven both. I haven't driven too many turbo charged cars (other than diesels)
> and lag is not something I find very appealing even if I know the surge is coming shortly afterwards....so that means I buy the V6 doesn't it? My hesitation is that I get the feeling from some of the posts that the V6 doesn't have that instantaneous kick that I want when I see the exit on the roundabout, it's more of a zoooomy, long sweeping bend sort of a car if that makes sense.
> 
> "Go and try one" is probably what you will say, "you'll know when you drive it if it's right for you". Tried to last weekend but dodgy dealer, excuse about flat battery. So in the mean time I thought I might scrounge some advice.
> ...


Well I have a 3.2 DSG Roadster and I find that the 3.2 has pleanty of available power at any RPM! It's fast right off the start, and if you nail it at 40 mph the DSG kicks down instantly and the torque and power is fantastic....probably the most rewarding car I've had, including my Corvette that I had for 23 years, a 5.7 V8 but not as quick as the TT off the line. My Westfield with 160 bhp crossflow Ford was quick to 50 mph, but the TT would eat it all the way through the speeds. In Canada I ran a modern Buick with a 250hp V6, but not as quick as the TT. Drive a good V6, decide for yourself, I would be very surprised if you were left dissappointed!


----------

