# Which Mk 2 to buy?



## MichaelAC (Sep 7, 2009)

Hi,

I'm considering buying a MK2 and can't afford a TTS or RS so deciding between ther V6 or the 2.0

V6 has a good noise and gets 4wd and appears to be quicker unmodified but the 2.0 will remap well and then be quicker than the V6?

Problem is, traction is important for me so 4wd is quite important. Can owners tell me how traction is with a remapped 2.0, does it have a LSD?

This is a genuine request for experience and info rather than a V6 versus 2.0 debate which I'm sure has happened before on here somewhere :lol:

Thanks in advance,
Michael.


----------



## SwissJetPilot (Apr 27, 2014)

Personally, I'd recommend the 3.2 Quattro. The VR-6 engine is a solid, no drama engine without cam belts, piston problems, or turbo plumbing. Fitted with a S-Tronic automatic transmission it's a really nice combination. Just be sure the Haldex has been properly maintained (e.g. fluid and filter changed). Before you buy, have the vehicle taken into a shop and get it VCDS scanned. It won't reveal every problem, but will at least let you know if there's anything currently at fault.

As with any TT, get all the bells and whistles you want as OEM. Of course they can always be added later, but it's generally cheaper to get them OEM rather than after the fact.

Lots of documentation to browse through in the KB on pretty much every topic -

https://www.ttforum.co.uk/forum/viewtop ... &t=1755145
https://www.ttforum.co.uk/forum/viewtop ... 6#p8560746


----------



## p1tse (Sep 20, 2004)

What's your budget?

I would agree with the comment above if choosing those two
The noise is lovely but trade off on mpg


----------



## leon263 (Feb 12, 2007)

3.2 V6 DSG all day long .............. an absolute delight to drive with manual or paddle shift options as standard. Personally I just stick it into drive when I get in and into park when I get there but that's probably something to do with my age. The DSG benefits from the lower tax bracket (around £300 a year) but as mentioned they can be a tad thirsty, low to mid 20's around town but mid 30's on a run would be normal.


----------



## Danjo (Sep 27, 2017)

I have a stage 2 TFSI (270bhp and 350lbsft) and I can still average 38mpg on a run, but acceleration is fierce when I want to use it. I have driven a number of V6's and the sound is great but they feel very slow and heavy in comparison due to the Quattro system. Unless I wanted to race off the lights, there's not really any other circumstances where I feel I'd benefit from 4wd, other than driving quickly in the wet which would just be dangerous.


----------



## Hoggy (May 8, 2002)

Hi, V6 for me especially if a keeper. No cambelt or turbo so much more reliable. Check timing chains wear of course
Hoggy


----------



## heylinTTnz (Sep 17, 2018)

V6 with Quattro, plenty quick.... and oooo la la that VR6 sound nothing like it... Unless you like turbo 4s with DSG farts and less traction then go the 2.0.


----------



## Iceblue (Jul 20, 2018)

Buy the 2.0 TT. It accelerates quicker and goes as fast, is lighter on the front end and therefore handles better and sounds great driven in sport mode or with the flappers. Its probably cheaper as well.


----------



## chrisj82 (Jun 15, 2012)

SwissJetPilot said:


> Personally, I'd recommend the 3.2 Quattro. The VR-6 engine is a solid, no drama engine without cam belts, piston problems, or turbo plumbing. Fitted with a S-Tronic automatic transmission it's a really nice combination. Just be sure the Haldex has been properly maintained (e.g. fluid and filter changed). Before you buy, have the vehicle taken into a shop and get it VCDS scanned. It won't reveal every problem, but will at least let you know if there's anything currently at fault.
> 
> As with any TT, get all the bells and whistles you want as OEM. Of course they can always be added later, but it's generally cheaper to get them OEM rather than after the fact.
> 
> ...


What are the piston problems I thought they were forged ?


----------



## Danny1 (Sep 2, 2010)

I would go with the v6 out of those, the tfsi is the shopping car version.


----------



## SwissJetPilot (Apr 27, 2014)

The 2.0 and 1.8 TFSI engines prior to 2012. Engine codes known to be affected include CAEB, CDNC and CNDC (list being updated). The problem seems to have been corrected when the facelift was released. But all A5 TFSI engines before that, i.e. 2008 - 2012, are susceptible.

http://casestudies.atlanticmotorcar.com ... orrection/

It might be worth a browse through TSBs listed in the KB for specific issues and VAG solutions.

https://www.ttforum.co.uk/forum/viewtop ... 6#p8560746


----------



## motornoter (Jul 16, 2012)

Agree with SJP and others and suggest you go for the V6 as the sound of that engine working hard is awesome.

Our 2009 DSG equipped roadster is fitted with a Miltek cat back exhaust system and the sound bouncing out of the twin tail pipes is superb.

When it comes to mpg, manage to consistenly get into high 20s (had 32 up once) but we only use our black beauty as a weekend driver so not too concerned how much juice that 3.2 V6 gulps every mile.

Which ever engine size you eveniutally go for, enjoy driving your TT and welcome to the forum.


----------



## MichaelAC (Sep 7, 2009)

Thanks for all your replies, really interesting to hear everyone's take on the two cars.

I should explain that I'm a former MK1 owner and had a remapped 1.8 for 4 years then a V6 for another 4 or 5 years.

They were both very different with the remapped 225 being the quicker of the two but the noise of the V6 and the DSG gearbox made that great too. With the right tyres on, the MK1 isn't as bad at handling as has been made out either. On fast bends it was quicker than my current Boxster simply due to the DSG and the amazing stability of it.

I loved it when trying to cross busy roundabouts, especially on wet days too because it just launched over them with the same eagerness of my Labrador chasing his favourite ball!

I sold the TT for a Boxster about 8 months ago and have to say that on a dry day with no traffic the Boxster is fantastic. The engine growl is unique to the 6 cylinder Boxer engine and the steering, balance and handling is great fun. On track there'd be no contest but as a daily driver, although competent, it's not as good as the TT, hence my dilemma.

So as I said, I'm heading back to a TT and will probably go MK2 over the MK1 because I know its lighter and better handling as standard even though it doesn't have the same visual character. I think I'm leaning towards the V6 because it has the 4wd and I know that engine and how well it works with the DSG box. The 4wd traction with that gearbox makes it punch well above its weight in the real world. Not sure I can rule the 2.0 out but I'd have to remap it or it would be too slow and that complicates insurance in my experience.


----------



## SwissJetPilot (Apr 27, 2014)

Roadster or Coupe? If Roadster, this is worth a read -

https://www.ttforum.co.uk/forum/viewtop ... &t=1813258

For the VR6 3.2 engine, there have been some reported issues with the serpentine (accessory) belt tensioner so it's something to keep an eye on. When you replace the belt, it's a good idea to replace the tensioner at the same time.

http://www.motorreviewer.com/engine.php?engine_id=120


----------



## Danjo (Sep 27, 2017)

MichaelAC said:


> Thanks for all your replies, really interesting to hear everyone's take on the two cars.
> 
> I should explain that I'm a former MK1 owner and had a remapped 1.8 for 4 years then a V6 for another 4 or 5 years.
> 
> ...


It would be worth driving a 2.0 as they don't feel slow. The V6 posts a quicker 0-60 as the 4wd allows you to launch but the 2.0 feels quicker in most scenarios. I was very close to buying a V6 but I like to modify my cars and I think I would have grown bored of the lack of tuning options on the V6 without spending large amounts of money. Even a stage 1 remap totally transforms the 2.0 and you'll be surprised at what machinery you can keep up with!


----------



## kerwinrobertson (Sep 3, 2018)

A 2.0 will use less fuel and be cheaper to tax than the 3.2, 
my 2012 TTS is only £250 a year in tax. 
The 2.0 TFSI should be cheaper, and with a stage 1 map it produces the same torque as the TTS.


----------



## Jasonl (Mar 31, 2018)

I got fwd and its stage 2 and im being honest if u got a lead foot its undrivable in the wet wheelspins everywhere


----------



## ashfinlayson (Oct 26, 2013)

My old fwd mk2, with good tyres used to wheel spin from stock so I doubt remapping would make for much more usable power. I'm in a TTS now but if I went out and bought another TT tomorrow, it would be a manual 3.2


----------



## Trackdaybob (Jan 30, 2015)

Another vote for the v6 here.
I didn't consider anything else when buying.


----------



## Nidana (Jun 9, 2018)

I might be wrong but don't the latter 2.0 come with Quattro would they be in budget?

I have a 3.2 and love it to bits. The noise is great and always wanted one but company cars/vans got in the way. 
This video I saw when it was originally realeased on the tube of you and that really finalised my opinion of my plans should I get one. 




. 
For now I am just enjoying the car for what it is and slowing sorting suspension and brakes out for a later supercharger or turbo install. If I don't do the conversion I won't be upset as I had the base car I always wanted. 
Then again I could go mental like this guy did instead. 
https://www.drive2.ru/r/audi/tt/4899916394579126532/

If you have a heavy foot then mpg won't realistically matter.
Really it's which does your heart want ignore your head?
In the end it will be milk floats for everyone with no soundtrack.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## pdk42 (Apr 23, 2018)

When I bought my TT, the 3.2 V6 was a big part of the appeal. A sports car needs something special engine wise IMHO. The 2.0 is a fine engine, but the V6 is just that bit special. Fuel consumption isn't good, but unless it's your main car, it's something most of us can live with.


----------



## carlsicesilverTT (Jun 30, 2016)

Quattro doesn't mean the car is more powerful, its just a front wheel drive car that transfers a small amount fo power the wheel with most traction when needed. The quattro system on the mk2 TT's is front wheel drive biased its a haldex system.

Only dick heads drive fast in the wet as braking distances are increased. So I find my TT is faster than a TTS in the dry, its about physics and common sense. Power to weight ratio. The quattro system is heavy like having 2/3 people in car.

Plus all the problems with the TTS such as magnetic ride, higher servicing costs etc etc.

The 3.2 is a good car but its heavier and less powerful than a facelift simple stage 1 remapped TT with 270 bhp.

The 211 facelift TT was a replacement for the 3.2. Read this autocrat review about it

https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-review/au ... tt-20-tfsi

The facelift TT looks great.

I find that on some surfaces I do get a tiny bit of wheel spin in 2nd/third gear.

With a crazy amount of torque on tap for me I don't need to floor it in 2nd/3rd that often. If you use your head with the throttle pedal and progressively put foot down rather than slam it down you won't get wheel spin.

I do like my power so to avoid disappointment my next Audi will be RS4 with a torsion quattro system that can transfer 100% power to rear wheels if required. The haldex quattro system on TT's and S3's can only ever transfer a max of 50% power to rear.


----------



## SwissJetPilot (Apr 27, 2014)

Another point of consideration is how will the car be used. If your goal is racing from street light to street light, then yeah, anything will suffice and you can have it remapped and a weld a coffee can muffler on it for good measure.

But if you want a nice comfortable touring sports car for long distance vacations across Europe, the 3.2 is definitely the way to go. If you plan on spending time at speed (>100 mph cruise) on the a-bahns or climbing over the Alps, then mag-shocks are a very good idea. Otherwise, they're just an expensive accessory and IMHO totally useless for speeds under 70-mph on relatively straight roads.

Forget low profile wheels unless you want your spine compressed. While 19's look cool, 17's will let you drive for days on end in comfort. I know this from first-hand experience as I have driven the a-bahns to northern Germany and as far south as Gibraltar in my 3.2 Roadster.

Quattro is nice, but again, how will you use it? It's not a true Quattro 4x4 since it's a transverse set up. Of course in wet and icy conditions, it will come in handy. Honestly, I keep mine off snow and ice covered roads because of salt, not because I'm concerned about wheel slip.

Probably one of the better videos on Quattor vs. Quattro can be watched here - 





The other advantage is the 3.2 is a heavier car and therefore offers a more comfortable ride with the right wheels and shocks. The engine isn't working half as hard, so it will probably outlast a turbo and can cruise at a-bahn speeds all day long.

As to fuel economy and taxes. Well, if that were an issue you'd be driving a Smart car, rather than asking questions to a bunch of petrol heads in this forum then wouldn't you.


----------



## MichaelAC (Sep 7, 2009)

I'm remembering what a great forum this is, thanks for all the replies again.

The TT I can afford will be the 2007 one. The 2.0 standard is 154BHP per ton with front wheel drive and tiptronic. The V6 is 176BHP per ton and the remapped 2.0 is around 199 BHP per ton. The V6 engine is only 30KG heavier than the 2.0.

The remapped 2.0 will be quite quick and does have good torque too so very usable but I do like 4wd traction so the best all rounder for me is likely to be the V6.

I don't 'drive like a dick' in the wet but it is useful to pull away quickly at busy roundabouts and also firm safe acceleration in a 4wd is quite safe. Regarding my driving, I'm probably not brilliant but I teach advanced driving so hopefully a little better than average.

I know this debate can go on forever because it frequently does in the MK1 forum and I've had both turbo and V6 models of those. The reason there's a debate is because both are great cars and I'm sure that's the same with the MK2.


----------



## kerwinrobertson (Sep 3, 2018)

carlsicesilverTT said:


> Quattro doesn't mean the car is more powerful, its just a front wheel drive car that transfers a small amount fo power the wheel with most traction when needed. The quattro system on the mk2 TT's is front wheel drive biased its a haldex system.
> 
> Only dick heads drive fast in the wet as braking distances are increased. So I find my TT is faster than a TTS in the dry, its about physics and common sense. Power to weight ratio. The quattro system is heavy like having 2/3 people in car.
> 
> ...


The haldex system is actually quite light just over 90kg so that's about 12 stone = 1 person. 
Magride was available on other models and is not more problematic than a conventional damper, just more expensive when it does go wrong.


----------



## pdk42 (Apr 23, 2018)

kerwinrobertson said:


> carlsicesilverTT said:
> 
> 
> > Quattro doesn't mean the car is more powerful, its just a front wheel drive car that transfers a small amount fo power the wheel with most traction when needed. The quattro system on the mk2 TT's is front wheel drive biased its a haldex system.
> ...


90kg is actually quite a lot. With the 30kg extra of the 3.2, that's 120kg which is pushing the weight of two light people.


----------



## Delmarez (May 12, 2014)

I bought my mk2 in January 2018. I'd had 3 mk1 225s and a leon cupra R before deciding on a mk2. My budget was 12k so I went for a fwd 2.0 TSI ea888 engined 2012 facelift S line black edition.

Many of my friends have or have had a v6 and they do sound amazing, and a very reliable engine. However, I'd always go for the turbocharged version personally as the tuning potential greatly outweighs the 3.2 equivalent.

If it was a choice between a pre facelift 2.0 and the 3.2, I'd go for the 3.2 purely due to the issues with the ea113 engine, and I don't really like the pre facelift styling. If it was a choice between a facelift 2.0 and a 3.2, I'd go for the 2.0, especially with the fwd as you won't have to worry about the haldex system ever giving you problems etc.

I must point out I use my 2.0 every day for work, I get an average of 35mpg with mixed driving, and the tax and maintenance costs are cheaper than the 3.2.

Like others have said, both engines are great, but personally I'd lean towards the turbo.


----------



## FNChaos (Nov 30, 2016)

Delmarez said:


> If it was a choice between a pre facelift 2.0 and the 3.2, I'd go for the 3.2 purely due to the issues with the ea113 engine, and I don't really like the pre facelift styling. If it was a choice between a facelift 2.0 and a 3.2, I'd go for the 2.0, especially with the fwd as you won't have to worry about the haldex system ever giving you problems etc.


← This.

The 3.2l is front-heavy and not as 'tunable' as the 2.0l, but more reliable and more powerful (stock).
Early model EA113 2.0's can be tuned to the same power level as the 3.2, but the motor don't benefit from the beefier construction of the _*modified*_ EA113 (used in the TTS) or the newer tech benefits of the later EA888.


----------



## ian222 (May 4, 2007)

I have had both versions and my facelift 2wd 2.0 is by far the best. Looks far better with the TTS bumpers and skirts and it's very nippy. The V6 was nice but lacked styling.


----------



## Solarblaze_uk (Sep 30, 2018)

Whilst feedback is great to hear. Surely nothing can compete with your own experience of being in these two cars?

Why not test drive both the 2.0T and V6 - with also a 2.0T stage one thrown in, there's a stack of them around. Obviously it would be rude to throw about a car on a test drive, but asking the owner, how quick is it from standstill - most sellers will no doubt plant the right foot down to show you and give you some idea of what it can do.


----------



## merlin c (Jan 25, 2012)

I have had 2 Mk1 225's which were fantastic cars. I now have a MK2 tfsi 1.8 remapped to 210 bhp, its frontwheel drive but the acceleration, roadholding and top end is fantastic. I love the light steering and a clutch that is light and smooth. Best of the TT's I have owned. V6 is next on my shopping list, but thats a few years off.


----------

