# TT 3.2 V6 is looking a tad Sluggish



## Guest (Aug 11, 2003)

Autocar road test today

0-60 : 6.8secs
0-100 : 17.2secs

Not exactly setting the world alight is it.


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

Autocars tests for the 225 are recorded as:

6.1 and 15.8 respectively!!

It will be fun overtaking V6s on the roads!! Â ;D


----------



## jgoodman00 (May 6, 2002)

I guess it is the consequence of the extra weight & automatic gearbox...


----------



## Richard (Apr 25, 2003)

Also seen 6.1 quoted on Honest John's website for the V6 - certainly felt faster than a 225 when I drove it yesterday.


----------



## jgoodman00 (May 6, 2002)

I thought Autocar didnt come out until tomorrow?


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

> I thought Autocar didnt come out until tomorrow?


It comes earlier for subscribers!


----------



## jgoodman00 (May 6, 2002)

> It comes earlier for subscribers!


Ahh, ok.

I really should subscribe to it, seeing as I buy it almost every week...


----------



## andya (Jun 17, 2003)

I've seen times from 6 - 6.2 quoted for the V6. Whatever the number is the sweet sound and magic DSG box will ensure more smiles/miles that these bitter 225 owners


----------



## vagman (Sep 6, 2002)

> It will be fun overtaking V6s on the roads!! Â ;D


Ah but the 3.2 will keep on going, when a 225 runs out of puff.


----------



## V6 TT (Sep 24, 2002)

.......as I've driven it and felt exacly how rapid it really is, I can safely say it will be low 6's if not late 5's and the beauty of this beast is, that these times can be completely consistant


----------



## scoTTy (May 6, 2002)

I felt it was slightly quicker than a 225. Where it will win is in in-gear acceleration and also the virtually zero time lost when changing gear.


----------



## V6 TT (Sep 24, 2002)

.......OT I know, but scoTTy, have you any thoughts about getting one?


----------



## b3ves (May 6, 2002)

> .......as I've driven it and felt exacly how rapid it really is, I can safely say it will be low 6's if not late 5's and the beauty of this beast is, that these times can be completely consistant


Dean, I drove the very same car, twice. Now it could be that the engine is just very tight and of course there's no turbo shove, but the performance felt less impressive than a standard 225. My standard S3 felt faster when I jumped back into it after the second 3.2 drive, when I got the chance to go flat out in each gear.

I'm not saying it's not a great car, just for different reasons. Journos love a good V6 and the trick gearbox is cool, but I don't think it's the TT performance choice Audi are marketing it as.


----------



## Dubcat (Jun 10, 2002)

Scotty (im asking you because you are one of the few who actually has some real world experience to draw on unlike many others who just refer to some motoring journo's experience) -

What wins performance wise? Chipped 225 or 3.2?
W.


----------



## b3ves (May 6, 2002)

> Scotty (im asking you because you are one of the few who actually has some real world experience to draw on unlike many others who just refer to some motoring journo's experience) -
> 
> What wins performance wise? Â Chipped 225 or 3.2?
> W.


I can answer this - chipped 225, no contest.


----------



## scoTTy (May 6, 2002)

Agreed. Even without anything other than a chip, it's still a chipped 225.

Dean - we all have personal requirements etc so this is purely my own reason and not a recommendation :

I'm not planning on going for the 3.2.
The cost to change for me isn't worth it.
I have the car as I want it now with adequate power and handling enhancements.
If I was going to go for anything at the moment it would be a 3.2 DSG A3. I'll probably wait for an RS3 derivative to tide me over before the next model of TT.


----------



## V6 TT (Sep 24, 2002)

> What wins performance wise? Â Chipped 225 or 3.2?


.......this question is pretty old now surely? Â It was never about modded TT's against 3.2 TT's. Â The fact you can chip a 225 TT and get it up to 265bhp and the V6 gets 247bhp, what's the point in the question? Â Wintermute, I've read numerous posts where you have talked at length about chipping options with members, so why play dumb on this occasion?.......are you just another frustrated 225 owner?   ;D

.......just pay the Â£800 and chip and forget, your car will be faster than mine :.......


----------



## b3ves (May 6, 2002)

> I'll probably wait for an RS3 derivative to tide me over before the next model of TT.


Off topic, but do you know how long it'll be before the RS3 will be released?

Cheers,
Rob


----------



## scoTTy (May 6, 2002)

no


----------



## vagman (Sep 6, 2002)

> Off topic, but do you know how long it'll be before the RS3 will be released?
> 
> Cheers,
> Rob


New A3 has a six year product life so RS3 will probably be at least 3 years down the road. :-/

Just my guestimate.


----------



## mattreader (Jul 10, 2002)

When I drove it, it felt about the same as my 225, certainly no slower (or quicker for that matter), just a different delivery of power. Can't believe they only got 6.8 - it's quicker than that - does it say if they had the traction control off or used launch control?

Would I be right in saying the 225 would be quicker again to 60 than 6.1, if you didnt need to use 3rd?


----------



## EighTT (Jun 10, 2003)

If you think about this logically, the 3.2 has about 25 hp more than the 225. It weighs about 80 pounds more than the 225, which isn't much difference.

The DSG will keep the power ramped up nearly continuously, versus a greater power loss during shifts with the 225.

In other words, there is no logical reason that the 3.2 shouldn't be AT LEAST as quick as a stock 225. Everything I've read suggests high 5s to very low 6s for the 3.2. Again logic (there's that word again) would suggest that a 3.2 should be 2 to 3 tenths quicker than an unchipped 225.

I find it interesting that so many 225 owners (of which I am one) act like the weight differential of 80 pounds (225 vs. 3.2) is enormous, but a 225 TT roadster weighs 220 pounds more than a 225 TT coupe and you rarely see anyone mention the weight differential, which is about 3 times greater than the difference between a DSG TT and a 225.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

> Autocar road test today
> 
> 0-60 : 6.8secs
> 0-100 : 17.2secs
> ...


You may be overlooking one detail.

Do you think a 225 would turn in the manufacturers quoted results if tested in same current ambient temps that the V6 was?

I doubt it.


----------



## Wolverine (Dec 22, 2002)

How much gear-crunching/clutch-burning are you prepared to accept in order to match the best 0-60 times that have been wrung out of the 225 by car journos?

The DSG gearshift is designed to maintain as much maximum power/acceleration through the gears without having to resort to violence.

I would be surprised if, in the real-world, a standard 225 could out-drag the 3.2 (from 0 to 60 and especially from 30-80). Of course, this humble opinion is based on conjecture, journalistic hyperbole, wishful-thinking blah blah


----------



## natt (May 15, 2002)

Vlastan, could you let us know the gist of what the AutoCar review says?


----------



## Guest (Aug 12, 2003)

OOOOOOOOOOOHHH!!!! 

Now this is turning into a real situation!!!
My car's faster than your car... My new car's a V6, your's is only a four-pot 

Are we now going to spilt the forum into two, 1 for the 225's and 1 for the V6's...lol

Come on guys stop it now, give it a rest...Or I'll send you all to your rooms :

Tut-tut! Kids... Who'd have 'em!


----------



## Dubcat (Jun 10, 2002)

p.s. yes - i bit. Fishing for 225 owners is going to be soooooo easy for you


----------



## jgoodman00 (May 6, 2002)

> p.s. yes - i bit. Â Fishing for 225 owners is going to be soooooo easy for you


Lol.



> Do you think a 225 would turn in the manufacturers quoted results if tested in same current ambient temps that the V6 was?


This is a good point, but the automatic gearbox must sap some of the power from the engine...


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

> Lol.
> 
> This is a good point, but the automatic gearbox must sap some of the power from the engine...


Why? There is no no torque converter as with a conventional slush box. I'm no engineer, but I would have thought that minimal power reduction due to frictional losses would have been high on the DSG box design brief, and that possibly the new DSG with its twin clutch, may have less friction losses than the regular 6 speed manual cable-operated box in the 225 (whose design first iteration appeared in the Mkii Passat, then Corrado back in the early 90s)


----------



## Antwerpman (Nov 4, 2002)

> whose design first iteration appeared in the Mkii Passat, then Corrado back in the early 90s


what has that got to do with the price of cheese?? you can find numerous examples of pieces of kit that started from rather humble or rudimentary beginings and ended up in very desirable cars.....remember we all drive golfs!!


----------



## V6 TT (Sep 24, 2002)

> p.s. yes - i bit. Â Fishing for 225 owners is going to be soooooo easy for you


.......GOTCHA!.......but I wasn't expecting such a harsh response, I did have more respect for you than this  .......Nevermind, it takes all sorts to complete a Forum I guess.......I'll go and take my V6 and play else where me thinks   ;D


----------



## Dubcat (Jun 10, 2002)

Dean - I apologise. Â Was having a crap morning and took it out on you I guess Â :-/

Anyway - for the record, if i was buying my TT now I would 100% go for the V6. Â All these bhp numbers and which car is faster is only out of interest and curiosity for me. Â None of it would stop me from choosing the V6 over the 225. Â

Only reason i'm not getting one is because I have taken the depreciation hit on my 225 and am better off living with it now. Â Don't get me wrong - I LOVE my 225 - it's just that there is no denying what new owners will go for.

W.
p.s. deleted my original post. Â


----------



## ChadW (May 2, 2003)

> New A3 has a six year product life so RS3 will probably be at least 3 years down the road. :-/
> 
> Just my guestimate.


Still slightly off-topic here.

Thought the new A3 is only out for about 3 years before the next one comes along....

Back on topic now.

Audi Driver mag quoted a 225 has: 0-60 5.9 secs!
Wonder what time they get for the V6 when they test that!


----------



## scoTTy (May 6, 2002)

> Autocar road test today
> 
> 0-60 : 6.8secs
> 0-100 : 17.2secs
> ...


This is how this thread started so I thought I'd refer back to it.

I think you'll find that in the rest of the motoring press which feature 3.2TT, you'll find some rather more positive views than those post in Autocar.

Keep your eyes open.


----------



## andya (Jun 17, 2003)

I think there is some selective reporting going on here. I've just bought AutoCar and read the article on the 3.2TT

They actually rate the car as very good and better than the 225TT when you read the full article.

I'm still not sure where they get their performance numbers from as I've seen much lower quoted and it definately felt more urgent when I drove it.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

> what has that got to do with the price of cheese?? you can find numerous examples of pieces of kit that started from rather humble or rudimentary beginings and ended up in very desirable cars.....remember we all drive golfs!!


Well my friend let me clarify: Â one of the biggest advances in car design over last 15 years has been metturlogical (?)developments ie the properties of metal, namely friction, wear and machining tolerences. Â That modern cars need little or no running in, less maintenance and generally (except the V6 TT of course ) go faster for longer, illustrates this.

So, there is a chance just maybe that the older design of the TT manual box is in fact _less_ efficient than the state of the art Borg Waner/VW effort that is the DSG. Â Possible that those old cogs may drag more against one another?

I do fail to correlate it to the price of edam though.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

> I think there is some selective reporting going on here. I've just bought AutoCar and read the article on the 3.2TT
> 
> They actually rate the car as very good and better than the 225TT when you read the full article.
> 
> I'm still not sure where they get their performance numbers from as I've seen much lower quoted and it definately felt more urgent when I drove it.


It's also tested in 30oC temp, in a car with only 900 miles on the clock. Â Sixes take more loosening than 4s.


----------



## jgoodman00 (May 6, 2002)

> Why? There is no no torque converter as with a conventional slush box. Â I'm no engineer, but I would have thought that minimal Â power reduction due to frictional losses would have been high on the DSG box design brief, and that possibly the new DSG with its twin clutch, may have less friction losses than the regular 6 speed manual cable-operated box in the 225 (whose design first iteration appeared in the Mkii Passat, then Corrado back in the early 90s)


Ahh, ok.

So does the BMW SMG (or whatever its called) have a torque converter? I guess I was basing it on the fact that the SMG BMW is slower than the manual, & the tiptronic Porsche is certainly slower...


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

> Ahh, ok.
> 
> So does the BMW SMG (or whatever its called) have a torque converter? I guess I was basing it on the fact that the SMG BMW is slower than the manual, & the tiptronic Porsche is certainly slower...


SMG= electronicaly controlled manual - no TC

Tiptronic=conventional auto with electronic manual over ride - with TC

That Porsche will eschew Tiptronic after many years for their own twin clutch electronic manual, says alot for the system.

Next gen M4 and M5 also rumoured to have twin clutch jobbie.

And Audi have got it wrong? : : : : :

There will be some hats eaten....


----------



## scoTTy (May 6, 2002)

Not only do I believe they've got it right but :

SMG II = 0.09 seconds to change gear
DSG = 0.02 seconds to change gear

I think they are well ahead of the game.

OK - who's gonna bite on this line :

If it's good enough for Schumacher, DC, Montoya etc then it's good enough for me.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

> Not only do I believe they've got it right but :
> 
> SMG II = 0.09 seconds to change gear
> DSG = 0.02 seconds to change gear
> ...


In one! ;D

Why do I suspect that this debate will subtley shift from 'DSG is crap and worse than manual', to 'it might be faster, offer more control amd be smoother, but I still prefer the feel of my own manual changes'? I suspect it will.

Were chat rooms around then, I wonder if such a debate would have raged when gearboxes acquired synchromesh negating the need to double de-clutching; or when anti lock arrived in 1978, alleviating the need for cadence-braking?

Too many people take Clarkson (Mr Anti-Paddle) seriously I suspect....funny that his own car is an auto merc SL.


----------



## jgoodman00 (May 6, 2002)

> 'DSG is crap and worse than manual', to 'it might be faster, offer more control amd be smoother, but I still prefer the feel of my own manual changes'?


Lol, I definitely wont be saying that. If it can be used as a labour saving device (as a car is), then I am all for it! 

So can anybody confirm if the SMG BMW is indeed slower than the manual version? If so, why?


----------



## b3ves (May 6, 2002)

> I find it interesting that so many 225 owners (of which I am one) act like the weight differential of 80 pounds (225 vs. 3.2) is enormous, but a 225 TT roadster weighs 220 pounds more than a 225 TT coupe and you rarely see anyone mention the weight differential, which is about 3 times greater than the difference between a DSG TT and a 225.


EighTT, I think you're mistaken, in fact by a huge degree. IIRC the quoted kerb weights are as follows

TTC 225 = 1,395kg
TTR 225 = 1,475kg
TTC 3.2 Â = 1,520kg

By my calculation, the 3.2 TTC is a whopping 286 pounds heavier than a TTC 225.

So there! 

As for the performance advantages of DSG, why is it that same Autocar road test article quotes 15.6 sec 0-100 for the Golf R32 and 15.8 for the TT 225, versus 17.2 for the TT 3.2?

It's a fine car don't get me wrong, but as the Autocat strapline goes, 'V6 and DSG add appeal but not pace'


----------



## Guest (Aug 12, 2003)

Gloat gloat gloat.......I told you so

"EighTT, I think you're mistaken, in fact by a huge degree. IIRC the quoted kerb weights are as follows

TTC 225 = 1,395kg 
TTR 225 = 1,475kg 
TTC 3.2 = 1,520kg

By my calculation, the 3.2 TTC is a whopping 286 pounds heavier than a TTC 225"

No wonder this overweight excuse for a TT cannot turn-in on it's softer GT suspension.

I think the 3.2 will ultimately be cast into the shit*y car pit along with the M3 Coupe and the Hyundai Coupe.....after the massive depreciation rate has overtaken the 225's of course. :-/

Have the V6'ers been conned by some clever spin and should they have waited for a test drive? Even the Americans are avoiding this abomination!

So what's it got going for it? In summary only the engine note and better brakes get a vote each(mine included) as the extra power will be used up hauling it's heavy ar*e around, @sub-20MPG

Enjoy your V6's and remember to set aside on average, an extra Â£1,000/year to cover the insurance hike and the petrol guzzling V6 on the road.


----------



## Richard (Apr 25, 2003)

Good to see that we're back into the realms of a sensible & rational debate. ???

Most of my friends are incredibly envious of the fact that I am getting a TT. They wouldn't give a toss what the model was, nor would they know one from another anyway, for the most part.

Just enjoy your TT's whatever the model, and try not to criticise your own cars. They're a damm site better than virtually all other cars on the road. ;D


----------



## EighTT (Jun 10, 2003)

> EighTT, I think you're mistaken, in fact by a huge degree. IIRC the quoted kerb weights are as follows
> 
> TTC 225 = 1,395kg
> TTR 225 = 1,475kg
> ...


Well, I am showing that a 2003 225 TTC weighs 3274 lbs http://www.car-buying-strategies.com/Audi-TT-225-Coupe.html

and a 2004 3.2 TTC weighs 3350 lbs http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=19&article_id=6572&page_number=2

Which, if correct, is a difference of approximately 76 pounds. Assuming this is accurate or close to accurate, the difference of 76 pounds is not substantial.

I can quote numerous other sources for these weights, if need be.


----------



## Guest (Aug 13, 2003)

"76 pounds in not substantial"

utter tripe...especially if it's near the front of a high performance car. It's handling will be badly affected.

I think with the DSG and bigger engine 100-180Ilbs will be more accurate.


----------



## Dubcat (Jun 10, 2002)

Mate - don't even worry about it. You weigh 100 pounds less than me so you still have the weight advantage 

F. B'stard.


----------



## giles (May 6, 2002)

Autocar made me smile today. V6 is not for me and I am pleased I went for the 225 again in March this year - now at over 265bhp.

I just couldn't order a V6 without a testdrive.

Read Autocar and it will explain why the V6 is slower. I can't understand why Audi are touting the V6 as the top performance TT model.

Looks to me like

150
180
V6
225

(plus you get to modify the 225 easily)


----------



## Guest (Aug 13, 2003)

It's a feckin abomination 

Just watch this baby's depreciation rate as it get's cast-aside.

The words "V6 and Mug" springs to mind.


----------



## b3ves (May 6, 2002)

> Well, I am showing that a 2003 225 TTC weighs 3274 lbs http://www.car-buying-strategies.com/Audi-TT-225-Coupe.html
> 
> and a 2004 3.2 TTC weighs 3350 lbs http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=19&article_id=6572&page_number=2
> 
> ...


I'm quoting manufacturer's figures, i.e. the right ones. Maybe you are are mixing kerb weight for the 225 with unladen for the 3.2.


----------



## zippySF (May 28, 2003)

> Maybe you are are mixing kerb weight for the 225 with unladen for the 3.2.


Would that be for an unladen European 3.2 or for an unladen African 3.2? ;D

I hate to say it, but something else missing in the comparisons is the fact the 225 has the weight of the spare tire, I assume.


----------



## V6 TT (Sep 24, 2002)

.......for the record, Audi Official figures have the TT 225 @ 6.6 to 62mph and the TT 3.2 @ 6.4 to 62mph.......


----------



## EighTT (Jun 10, 2003)

Obviously Dean, the 225 is better on all counts! Â The 3.2 is just a slow slush box! Â 

Now you see some of the stuff I went through on the U.S. forum!


----------



## andya (Jun 17, 2003)

Do 180 or 150 TTs get as much abuse from 225 owners as the 3.2?

I thought the idea of this forum was to promote and share the TT experience - not turn into a slanging match.

If we'd all wanted a 'real' sports car then we'd all have an Elise or a Noble


----------



## V6 TT (Sep 24, 2002)

> Obviously Dean, the 225 is better on all counts! Â The 3.2 is just a slow slush box! Â
> 
> Now you see some of the stuff I went through on the U.S. forum!


.......it was inevitable I guess? Ho hum :-/.......

.......I just can't wait for TT MkII so that I can have a winge!   ;D


----------



## Richard (Apr 25, 2003)

> I think there is some selective reporting going on here. I've just bought AutoCar and read the article on the 3.2TT
> 
> They actually rate the car as very good and better than the 225TT when you read the full article.
> 
> I'm still not sure where they get their performance numbers from as I've seen much lower quoted and it definately felt more urgent when I drove it.


Agree entirely. It felt the same to me. Also, having also read the article, they quote the difference in the price of the 225 against the V6 based on the old 225 price before the recent increase. Therefore the lower price gap adds further weight (if you pardon the pun) to their argument.


----------



## Guest (Aug 13, 2003)

Mmmmmmmm Wonder what a 3.2 TTR weighs then ?

(The only REAL reason for having a TT is to have the lid in all weathers, except torrential rain !)

Be intresting to see how a 3.2 frees up after a few thousand miles. with that torque pulling away from 20 mph in 6th gear ?


----------



## scoTTy (May 6, 2002)

I'm amazed by some of the comments in this thread particularly from people who haven't drive the car. You cannot simply say a heavier car will handle that much worse than a lighter car. It's not that simple.

How comes no one has even queried the weight distribution? The closest we have come to it is the comment about the spare wheel. The 3.2 TT has a different weight distribution than the 225. On my test drive, as I posted at the time, I couldn't take it to the limit but I didn't experience this terrible understeer that's been mentioned. I have spoke to someone who has probably driven more miles than anyone in a 3.2 including hooning across Scotland with a scooby. I trust his verdict that the 3.2 is a quicker point to point car than the 225. Yes he works for Audi and yes I expect people to say that I am blind to being misled by corporate marketing but I hope those who know me will trust me enough to when I say I have total confidence in his comments.

P.S. Has anyone ever acheived a 6.4 0-60 in a 225? You can bang them out all day in a 3.2.

P.P.S. I'm keeping my chipped 1.8T.


----------



## Wolverine (Dec 22, 2002)

> Obviously Dean, the 225 is better on all counts! Â The 3.2 is just a slow slush box! Â
> 
> Now you see some of the stuff I went through on the U.S. forum!


If somebody irrationally criticises the 3.2, peppering their posts with boorish comments and you happen to love the car (have even ordered one), it may feel like a personal attack.

The vast majority of negative posts on this subject have attacked the car and not the devotees of the 3.2. I am perfectly content that the unconstructive fraternity is entitled to express a critical opinion of the 3.2 (just as I am entitled to disagree with them).

Naturally some of the vociferous comments have no substance and are merely the rantings of a dogmatic, blinkered prespective. These posts simply add a little spice alongside the majority of considered, balanced arguments that have been expressed.

Just don't take it personally


----------



## jgoodman00 (May 6, 2002)

Personally, I had made my mind up to go for a Boxster as my next car. Then news of the V6TT came along & I was very very tempted to put order one. However, I guess already owning a TT slightly blunted my enthusiasm, along with remembering the horrific fuel consumption of the R32 I drove.

Whilst I am in no doubt the gearbox is revolutionary, I also remember the amount of fuel my V6 golf used to consume with my regular commutes to & around London. For this reason, I have not changed from my current TT, & for this reason I will not change for the V6 TT.

I guess if the performance had been significantly different (i.e. BoxsterS fast) then I might have been even more tempted, but as it is, I feel I would be getting a car which is only marginally quicker (if at all), & significantly more thirsty. If my car were a weekend toy, or I didnt cover many miles per year, then again the TT V6 would be favourite, but the V6 engine just doesnt suit my current circumstances.

And when are they going to make a 3.0d Z4?


----------



## jam (May 8, 2002)

do you guys think that it will turn out that a modded 225 (i.e. chip/suspension) will be the more 'drivers car' of the two out of interest?

i know i'd rather have a 225 over a V6 because of fuel consumption/company car tax being lower plus i like the kick of the turbo Â ;D

cheers

James


----------



## Guest (Aug 13, 2003)

"Naturally some of the vociferous comments have no substance and are merely the rantings of a dogmatic, blinkered prespective. These posts simply add a little spice alongside the majority of considered, balanced arguments that have been expressed.

Just don't take it personally"

Utter bolloc*s. Our comments are based on facts such as:

It's heavier
Slower
Won't turn-in as good as a 225
Guzzles more fuel
Cost's more to insure
Suspension is softer

It's a huge let-down as a TT evolution from the 225.


----------



## bluenose (Aug 7, 2002)

my dad's bigger thatn your dad.... 

Get a grip and enjoy what you have....if you don't like something, don't buy it.


----------



## andya (Jun 17, 2003)

> but as it is, I feel I would be getting a car which is only marginally quicker (if at all), & significantly more thirsty


According to the figures it's only marginally more thirsty than the 225. something like 1mpg in each of the categories.


----------



## jgoodman00 (May 6, 2002)

> According to the figures it's only marginally more thirsty than the 225. something like 1mpg in each of the categories.


Hmm, I would not trust those figures for one second. Autocar Test figure was pretty low (something like 16 I think), which is probably more accurate. When I had my golf I averaged about 22mpg, with my TT I average well over 30, normally 32-35mpg which is amazingly good in my opinion...


----------



## Wolverine (Dec 22, 2002)

> Utter bolloc*s. Our comments are based on facts such as:





> It's heavier


True



> Slower


False - 225 0-60 6.6 seconds. 3.2 0-60 6.4 seconds



> Won't turn-in as good as a 225


How do you know?



> Guzzles more fuel


True - 225 30.7 mpg 3.2 28.8 mpg (_Guzzle_ is overegging the fact)



> Cost's more to insure


True



> Suspension is softer


False

Selective, subjective, emotive criticism.


----------



## Guest (Aug 13, 2003)

Whatever floats your boat old bean


----------



## Wolverine (Dec 22, 2002)

Well, I've just read the Autocar article and although the 3.2 (as tested) came up slower than the 225 they recommend the 3.2, for the engine, the DSG box and the way it drives as an overall package (even with an incaccurate price differential of Â£2355)


----------



## sattan (Sep 10, 2002)

Well I had a go in one today.... and I can't say as I liked it too much - mainly due to the auto-box, still prefer a manual.... but each to their own..

sounds nice tho 

and I did feel that the suspension was softer...?

and totally unreleated whitehouse Audi in Dartford have a TT for sale with quad abt exhausts...

and a couple of RS-6's too..... some people got too many point on the licence methinks


----------



## ttisitme (Jun 26, 2003)

Well this is getting civilized now...thats good!

Just to throw in my 2p's worth, I have not had a test drive yet, but will when the local dealer gets one in however I really don't think I could live with an autobox in the car of any type, perhaps this is because I just left a autobox behind before getting the TT and enjoying the novelty again!

What has really thrown it I think is just that the performance isnt much (if any) better than the 225, thats a missed opportunity in my book.

Steve


----------

