# Dealers Raving about the 2.0T



## Rico2006 (Apr 9, 2006)

I have visited 2 dealers in Kent now and seen many TT2s (well, 4)
Love it - fit, finish, looks - the lot (all bar actually driving it)

Expressed interest in purchasing and mentioned my indecision on the 3.2 vs 2.0T

Both dealers expressed enthusiasm for the 2.0T, and said they would go for the 2.0T as it is less of a GT car and more involving to drive. this is based on their Germany training when it was compared to a Z4 and an Alfa Brera.

This was suprising as I'd thought they would press the 3.2 (for more commission) - but no!

I don't want to stir up the 2.0T vs 3.2 again but I thought I'd mention this to see what other people are hearing from dealers


----------



## ChinsVXR (Apr 14, 2006)

Astute people these dealers 

No doubt the first test drives in 2.0T by 3.2 owners will make interesting reading. 

I have seen the light anyway. Dealers have said the same to me 

Jonathan


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

Well if ure gonna stir up the 3.2 vs 2.0T thing again I must say I expect the engines are both great, its the poxy FWD that I question.

There was no need to stir it up again though!

Ere Chins, is yours a special model no one else knows about? :roll:


----------



## Johnnywb (May 31, 2006)

Leg said:


> Well if ure gonna stir up the 3.2 vs 2.0T thing again I must say I expect the engines are both great, its the poxy FWD that I question.


Yup, my sentiments too. Had there been a 2.0T Quattro at launch, i may well have gone down that route.


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

I realy don't know what engine is the best to take...


----------



## Johnnywb (May 31, 2006)

If i'd been doing a lot of driving, i probably would have gone down the 2.0 route, but as i'm now in London and going to be doing limited travelling by car, thought i'd go the whole hog!


----------



## Rico2006 (Apr 9, 2006)

I really am just looking for as much input as possible before I order, not wishing to stir the engine debate! :wink:

I guess I will try and test drive a 2.0T in the wet to get a definative answer to the question 'just how much will a 2.0T FWD spin when it is damp?' :?

Will try not to mention my engine decision headache again until I have test driven the two of them 

Now if I could only decide on a colour...


----------



## ronin (Sep 6, 2003)

Comes back to the mk1 225 vs 3.2. The 225 in that case was always the better car, though had quattro.


----------



## der_horst (Apr 29, 2006)

Rebel said:


> I realy don't know what engine is the best to take...


it's somehow disappointing that Audi offers an initial set of engines where it's hard to determine the undoubtedly superior setup. but i fear that even with the upcoming 2.0l 265hp and 3.6l 300hp this problem will continue, only on a slightly higher level.


----------



## exodont (Sep 10, 2006)

Rico2006 said:


> Both dealers expressed enthusiasm for the 2.0T, and said they would go for the 2.0T as it is less of a GT car and more involving to drive. this is based on their Germany training when it was compared to a Z4 and an Alfa Brera.
> 
> I don't want to stir up the 2.0T vs 3.2 again but I thought I'd mention this to see what other people are hearing from dealers


I can confirm that my local dealer said exactly the same thing - his main reason for saying this was that the 2.0 FSI is a gem of an engine with a wide torque band and an instant throttle response. The exhaust rasp is better too.

I used to drive a Golf R32 Mk1 and took a test drive in the Golf GTI with the 2.0 FSI + DSG out of curiosity. It hurt to admit that the 2.0 was a lot more fun to drive, and it was this experience that decided me to go for the 2.0T.

Perhaps I should add that he'd also compared TTs both with and without MR on the track at Ingolstadt. He didn't think it added anything to the pliancy of the ride, and not a great deal to the cornering either. But, as in all these things, it's a matter of what you fancy.


----------



## ChinsVXR (Apr 14, 2006)

exodont said:


> Rico2006 said:
> 
> 
> > Both dealers expressed enthusiasm for the 2.0T, and said they would go for the 2.0T as it is less of a GT car and more involving to drive. this is based on their Germany training when it was compared to a Z4 and an Alfa Brera.
> ...


As an ex R32 driver and MKV GTI driver I agree as well. Having had 240bhp through the front wheels on the Astra VXR, all this it needs quattro is crap - all IMHO :lol: Seem to be quite a few people new to the 3.2 engine on here, no doubt they will defend to the hilt why they spent so much on their car. The 3.2 will sound good though - that about its only plus.


----------



## Mysterio (Jan 20, 2006)

I had a choice to make and made it, and im glad i went 3.2. I would only have regretted in later...


----------



## DonaldC (May 7, 2002)

Rico2006 said:


> I have visited 2 dealers in Kent now and seen many TT2s (well, 4)
> Love it - fit, finish, looks - the lot (all bar actually driving it)


Ah, Kent! Let me see now....do you have rain in London...nope....do you have proper hills...nope...do you have windy roads...nope....do you have traffic jams...yes. Okay...stuff the quattro and go for the FWD! Or the 2.0 in other words.....

..whereas it pishes down every day where I live in Scotland and there are loads of hilly and windy wee bits and lots of big hard trees shouting out..."come ahead big man.." so I'll stick with the Quattro! :lol:

Donald


----------



## ChinsVXR (Apr 14, 2006)

DonaldC said:


> Rico2006 said:
> 
> 
> > I have visited 2 dealers in Kent now and seen many TT2s (well, 4)
> ...


But at least we have a driving test :lol: Turning the wheel rather than needing quattro to get you round a corner helps

 But then Scotland is the land of McCrae (soory McCrash)


----------



## LazyT (Apr 13, 2006)

Audi may well be trying to backdoor buyers into opting for the 2.0T with expensive upgrades; some of which come standard on the 3.2. :wink:


----------



## LazyT (Apr 13, 2006)

ChinsVXR said:


> Seem to be quite a few people new to the 3.2 engine on here, no doubt they will defend to the hilt why they spent so much on their car. The 3.2 will sound good though - that about its only plus.


What about the added cost for all the upgrades on the 2.0T, that come standard on the 3.2. BTW, what is you estimate on the costs of your performance upgrades? If I end up going with the 2.0T, which I happen to have right now on my A4, I will certainly purchase the split dual-exhaust upgrade that Milltek will offer.


----------



## ChinsVXR (Apr 14, 2006)

LazyT said:


> ChinsVXR said:
> 
> 
> > Seem to be quite a few people new to the 3.2 engine on here, no doubt they will defend to the hilt why they spent so much on their car. The 3.2 will sound good though - that about its only plus.
> ...


I think Ive done the maths on here before 

Money wasnt my major driver. I wanted the best TT they sell today and IMHO its the 2.0T. The 3.2 is a bit lardy and Ive yet to see a review that rates it above the 2.0T.

If money is the driver then:

3.2TT to my 2.0T spec is Â£30,200, 2.0T is Â£27,050. So on purchase price there is a Â£3k saving. I might blow Â£450 on a remap, but then I'll have a quicker car :lol: 3.2 drivers will need a full Miltek etc just to keep up 

Come resale there is a Â£1,500 difference between the two, so I'm still Â£1,700 better off.

Insurance and servicing will be less and in 36000 miles I will save Â£2,000 in petrol.

Thats all theory though!!. I'll not keep this longer than 18 months, if that. 9 months is my record over the past 7 years - and that was a Scooby I bought the wife 

Jonathan


----------



## LazyT (Apr 13, 2006)

ChinsVXR said:


> I might blow Â£450 on a remap, but then I'll have a quicker car :lol: 3.2 drivers will need a full Miltek etc just to keep up


Just a remap? No other upgrades?

What do you think of the 350Z?


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

ChinsVXR said:


> exodont said:
> 
> 
> > Rico2006 said:
> ...


I wouldnt take a Quattro Mk2 2.0T and leave it std. First mod, change the haldex for the new mk2 performance haldex. But seen as Audi are taking the p1ss with a FWD 2.0T then u cant.

Ure (and I mean everyone in the debate who hasnt pointed out it isnt the engines, its the transmission thats the issue) making it a 3.2 vs 2.0T debate, and it isnt, its a FWD vs Quattro debate and if ure happy with FWD, go get a shopping trolley. If there was a 2.0T Quattro I would say go for that all the way, the tuning potential is much better. The problem is Audi havent made it an even playing field. For some obscure ridiculous reason they havent given the buyers who want a proper drivers car any choice, a FWD is never going to be a drivers car, not even in the watered down world of TT 'drivers cars'.

FWD is atrocious for being driven hard, and even worse if its in the least bit wet. Its a fact and no amount of jiggery pokery will change that. For driving RWD is best but Quattro is the only comprimise if u must have an Audi, and we by definition of our presence here, must.

I got my 3.2 as there wasnt a decent 2+2 seat 1.8T Quatro option when I ordered mine. Ive had a 225 from new in 02 and theres nowt wrong with the 4 pots, theres a lot wrong with FWD in a car like this.

So change the debate, im sure no one cares much about the engines. Tosh for example had a QS and has now ordered a 3.2 TT, Im pretty sure if we ask him his reason is quattro and not the engine as Ill bet he would happily have bought a 2.0t and chipped it if it had been quattro, as would many.

In the end its Audi's fault, why on earth they cant marry the 2.0T to the quattro system now if they can do it with the 3.2 I dont know?

Dont underestimate the advantage a modded haldex and quattro gives u on 0-60, i dont have to worry about any wheelspin or loss of grip, all I do is plant it and let go of the clutch, while FWD drivers are trying to get their power down.

In actual fact, if im honest and I was in the market for a mk2, which I will never be, then I would have waited for a 2.0t quattro and gone mod crazy, again.


----------



## ChinsVXR (Apr 14, 2006)

LazyT said:


> ChinsVXR said:
> 
> 
> > I might blow Â£450 on a remap, but then I'll have a quicker car :lol: 3.2 drivers will need a full Miltek etc just to keep up
> ...


If you go to the high end of what repuatable tuners are saying 260-5bhp and 305 lbft. Do the maths on power to weight and lbft to weight.

The std 2.0T is 18bhp/ton behind the 3.2. Add 55bhp and your 20odd in front  Torque is even more impressive.

350Z is nice - never really floated my boat and is overrated by journos IMHO. I occasionally look at one and miss it, but not enough to buy another one. Only kept mine 4 months. Always got nice comments from mates, customers etc. Certainly never had flack, unlike this TT I'm getting  If I was spending 30k on a 2 seater again, I'd probably get a year old Boxter


----------



## ChinsVXR (Apr 14, 2006)

Leg said:


> ChinsVXR said:
> 
> 
> > exodont said:
> ...


Dont agree with quattro being the driver. I like a car that doesnt feel nose heavy, feels light and changes direction in a responsive manner.

How a driver car canont be FWD is crap. How do you define a driver car?

I've had a Clio 182 with Cup packs - not a drivers car :?: Accord and Integra Type R, 205 GTi etc?

My last car being the Astra VXR, took a bit of time to get to know - sure my granny might not of enjoyed it -sure she'd be fine in an Audi with quattro.

Quattro does not mean it will be a driver car- Ive made that mistake with Audi and owned an RS4, S4 and some S3's. Guess its taken some time to wake up :lol:

I have however said that when they do bring out a real performance TT with quattro, I will look at that - not the 3.2 limo we have on offer for now. 
I would like to see the TT with 265bhp 2.0T engine - easy to tune to 300bhp. Might still swap to an S3 early next year - although after the reports, will drive this one first

Jonathan


----------



## jam225 (Jun 24, 2003)

ChinsVXR said:


> LazyT said:
> 
> 
> > ChinsVXR said:
> ...


And come winter you'll be lighting up the front wheels without even trying :wink:


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

ChinsVXR said:


> Leg said:
> 
> 
> > ChinsVXR said:
> ...


There u go again, Quattro doesnt make it nose heavy, the V6 does, do u think when they add quattro to the 2.0T it will handle worse, or better especially when u spend Â£600 and put a proper Haldex on it?!? Imagine that, Â£1100 (haldex and chip) and u have a 270bhp proper quattro TT that is lighter than the 225 ever was. I would be wishing I had waited.

There will be a 2.0T Quattro, and then who do you think will want the 2.0T FWD? No one. The 2.0T Quattro will be by far the most popular model.

If u want to define a drivers car look at every proper sports car, not the tarted up Tesco hatches u mention, all RWD, Lotus, Caterham, Westfield, TVR, porsche etc etc etc, FWD is for shopping trolleys, Motorway cruisers and hot hatches. Just like the bunch you have listed. The TT isnt a drivers car or a sports car in standard form, and even with a load of handling mods its only correcting what should have been done by Audi, but to make it in FWD is even worse, in fact I would go as far as to say its the biggest piss take ever to launch the new TT with the 2 choices they have.

Quattro certainly doesnt mean it will be a drivers car but a Haldex modded Quattro is as close as the TT will get to a proer drivers car, unless anyone knows of a plan for a well balanced RWD one?

Im surprised people are even entertaining it, mind you, impatience has no boundaries.

Of course, all IMO and from someone who couldnt care as he wont ever buy one, but hey, its a forum and im bored.


----------



## ChinsVXR (Apr 14, 2006)

Leg said:


> There u go again, Quattro doesnt make it nose heavy, the V6 does, do u think when they add quattro to the 2.0T it will handle worse, or better especially when u spend Â£600 and put a proper Haldex on it?!? Imagine that, Â£1100 (haldex and chip) and u have a 270bhp proper quattro TT that is lighter than the 225 ever was. I would be wishing I had waited.
> 
> There will be a 2.0T Quattro, and then who do you think will want the 2.0T FWD? No one. The 2.0T Quattro will be by far the most popular model.
> 
> ...


The 2.0T will always be wanted, at least whilst they are young as they are low on company car tax. The quattro hurts emmisions.

Done the RWD thing with E46 M3 and 350Z, still had as much fun and driver involvement with the Clio and Astra. I guess I like a car that will put a smile on my face, be fun and challenging whilst driving. A remaped basic spec 2.0T will probably do that for me 

If they come out with the proper TT, I might just switch 8)


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

The 2.0 TFSI has a special "soundpipe" , for a betther sound as well in as out the car. And i don't mean the exhaust.

Just wait till you hear in the flesh, than you will be surprised.
The MK2 2.0 TFSI sounds 10 times betther than the 225Hp MK1


----------



## LazyT (Apr 13, 2006)

Rebel said:


> The 2.0 TFSI has a special "soundpipe" , for a betther sound as well in as out the car. And i don't mean the exhaust.
> 
> Just wait till you hear in the flesh, than you will be surprised.
> The MK2 2.0 TFSI sounds 10 times betther than the 225Hp MK1


Is the MK2 2.0T's exhaust note the same as it is in the A4? My A4's 2.0T engine sounds a little strained upon rapid exceleration.


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

Quattro should actually make the 2.0T even better balanced as you are sticking a driveshaft / haldex clutch at the rear of the car aswell as the front.

The 2.0T is a peach of an engine, and I would have it in an instant. But not with FWD. As has been said, if it's Audi it's quattro, anything else then RWD - except perhaps a 997, and then it's a Carrera 4.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

ok too many points to answer but the key ones are:

leg: would i have had gone from the qS to a 20TQ, not sure - is the basic answer see below for more. would need to be better than i felt today.

Why did i go 3.2 - more kit, the return will be better despite what others are saying. Any option is a loss leader come resale so no point spec'in up a 20T car to the level of a 3.2 and saying it will keep its money better. The % retained are the same for both cars so its all bull

FWD - i just cant do it, and not because i cant drive. So the 200bhp model is a none started for me.

OK detail time.
qS has now gone as of lunch time today. Audi UK tried to give me an A3 but after i drove it for 30mins it was returned sorry A3 owners but the car is dire and i just couldn't live with it. So i swapped the A3 for an A4 which happens to be a SE 2.0 TFSI and FWD only.

Thoughts - i'm so glad i did not order this engine. The car does not pick up in 4th at 40mph, or in any gear (not first :roll: ) below 2500 rpm (seems to think about it and then go), it has nice spot in 3rd between 2700-4000, but that's it (motor way speeds should be good. i'll try it out tomorrow). The power band does not feel that big either. The noise from the engine is much better than that from the qS/18Ts. Does it feel a sporty engine? - no not really. It does have twin pipes tho 

Also if you hit the gas hard as you come out of a corner in 2nd say the car wants to torque steers to the right and its a horrible feeling, where as my qS would have been great fun. Its also tried to do this is you race off from the light - 2nd gear seems worse.

It also rained later on where i am, so i thought id try it again, and basically it looks like a xmas tree with the esp light flashing on all the time as you try to set off fast from junctions.

I'm not saying the MKII will do exactly the same, but I'm sure it will do some of it which i would like to live with, nor would i enjoy.

Sorry guys but i feel it needs a better way of putting the power on the road and not ESP. With the esp button off, the car is just pointless as it tries to polish the tarmac.

As for dealer say a is better than b. I've not had a single dealer say to me go for a 20T. However maybe the ones saying it may not have sold the 20T slots they have ordered and are just tried to pass them on.

Ok - this is OIMO, and ive spent about 60mins in the car. I'm due to keep the car for about a month so i will let you know more later.

Going to take it to east mids meet later this month and im happy to let others see what i mean.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

LazyT said:


> Is the MK2 2.0T's exhaust note the same as it is in the A4? My A4's 2.0T engine sounds a little strained upon rapid exceleration.


Yes, and i agree but sounds better than the tinny/tappy 18Ts. Do you also get torque steer if you boot the car in 1st/2nd?


----------



## ChinsVXR (Apr 14, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> ok too many points to answer but the key ones are:
> 
> leg: would i have had gone from the qS to a 20TQ, not sure - is the basic answer see below for more. would need to be better than i felt today.
> 
> ...


To pick up a few point here 

This is a pretty meaningless post in respect of the TT.

Without looking too deeply into it:

1. The A4 weighs a lot more than the TT - so acceleration will be dulled.

2. My guess is the gearing will be different - again affecting acceleration.

3. Probably the biggest factor is the crap chasis that the A4 has. We have one at work and it cant handle 140bhp let alone 200bhp. I can light up the tyres all the time.

Most people in my experience will relate 200bhp and fwd not mixing based on driving crap Audi's like the A4. Things have moved on in the world of fwd, its just the A4 is a damn old car thats had too long a shelf life. Its a rep special, built for comfort. I'm poodling around in a 1.8T Passat as I wait for my TT - that cant deal with 150bhp, feels very laggy and has sod all poke.

What I can relate to is that my old MKV GTI could deal with 200bhp and was crying out for more bhp, the crappy old VXR certainly dealt with 240bhp and more after a remap. Even Ford can do it and journos like it with 300bhp.

If the TT cant handle 200bhp, then to me then the 3.2 will be no great shakes, sure it might not wheelspin, but so far, no one has complained.

I realise that 3.2 owners will need to defend their decision to buy one of VAGs worst engines IMHO and will enjoy reading all the posts "So glad I chose the 2.0T - wheelspins, gutless. The 3.2 will make it a dot in my rear view mirror etc :lol: "

Maybe we can have the instead of the booker prize the "Quattro Prize for best fictional put down of the 2.0T" 8)

Jonathan


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

ChinsVXR said:


> Toshiba said:
> 
> 
> > ok too many points to answer but the key ones are:
> ...


The decision is FWD vs Quattro Chins, as I said, not engine vs engine, the engine is forced on us by Audi. It was in March when I got mine too, I couldnt order a 225 and wouldnt have touched a 190 FWD for example.

Its pretty simple, if there was a 2.0T quattro available now, you wouldnt have bought the FWD, simple fact. No one would have. Defending FWD in the new TT is merely defending your own impatience and Audis decision to play on that. A decision im stull confused by as I dont understand why they couldnt offer the quattro from the off on the 4 pot. Unless of course they are expecting a lot of you to upgrade when the quattro is available thereby generating a used market all in one fell swoop. Hmm now that sounds very Audi.


----------



## blagman (Sep 11, 2006)

The 20t also only ways around 1260kg so power weight ratio will be very good.

John


----------



## ChinsVXR (Apr 14, 2006)

Leg said:


> The decision is FWD vs Quattro Chins, as I said, not engine vs engine, the engine is forced on us by Audi. It was in March when I got mine too, I couldnt order a 225 and wouldnt have touched a 190 FWD for example.
> 
> Its pretty simple, if there was a 2.0T quattro available now, you wouldnt have bought the FWD, simple fact. No one would have. Defending FWD in the new TT is merely defending your own impatience and Audis decision to play on that. A decision im stull confused by as I dont understand why they couldnt offer the quattro from the off on the 4 pot. Unless of course they are expecting a lot of you to upgrade when the quattro is available thereby generating a used market all in one fell swoop. Hmm now that sounds very Audi.


I think you missing where Audi are aiming the TT at  Even when quattro is offered a large number of people will buy the fwd version. It has a much lower company car tax. This TT will be high on company car lists. Soon as you add quattro it will be taken off. Audi have already stated that they expect the 2.0T to be the big seller

Personally, quattro is only of interest for me when power rises above 270bhp. After that I conceed that its best to have quattro. Under that, its not needed, unless you live in an area with very poor weather - anything south of Lancaster doesnt qualify :lol:


----------



## exodont (Sep 10, 2006)

blagman said:


> The 20t also only ways around 1260kg so power weight ratio will be very good.
> 
> John


In fact, the 2.0T is 150Kg lighter than the 3.2 - to put that in context for old fogeys like me who don't understand metric, that's the equivalent of a passenger weighing 23 stones sitting in the passenger seat!


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

ChinsVXR said:


> Leg said:
> 
> 
> > The decision is FWD vs Quattro Chins, as I said, not engine vs engine, the engine is forced on us by Audi. It was in March when I got mine too, I couldnt order a 225 and wouldnt have touched a 190 FWD for example.
> ...


Ah well you have to bear in mind im in Yorkshire where summer is a dry spell on June the 13th at 1pm and lasts about 14 minutes. Ive also opted out of company cars and I have over 270BHP so I qualify. 8)

If you are right that Audi have purposefully sold out and aimed the FWD TT at the fleet market then its a dark day in TT land when comprimises like that are made when the TT was originally a concept, unaltered on the whole, for the road.

I opted out specifically so I didnt have to drive a FWD low emissions POS. I love my emissions, they make the Blueflame sound really cool and if thats not worth a tree or two, what is? Every pop, burble and roar is worth a tenner! 

Anyway one of the lads at work just binned his 325 for a Prius, for every tree I kill, he saves one, so alls well in the world.


----------



## LazyT (Apr 13, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> LazyT said:
> 
> 
> > Is the MK2 2.0T's exhaust note the same as it is in the A4? My A4's 2.0T engine sounds a little strained upon rapid exceleration.
> ...


A little sometimes. Any torque steer is only momentarily. The 2.0T engine in my A4 has been extremely enjoyable, but I wonder if it were chipped if it wouldn't be excessively strained over the long run? Since I have a lease on my A4, I haven't been able to modify the A4.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

I think this is getting out of context. People who have purchased/ordered 3.2s have done so because the either don't want the small engine/small power output or because they want quattro, its as simple as that. I really donâ€™t understand why ChrisVXR for example has such a problem with it. We donâ€™t all share your views and simply donâ€™t want to take a backward step from the current MKI (my view, not sure IF other existing owners share it or not - dont really mind either way). Again all ChrisVXR's comments are based on the old golf platform which was far from good so its total irrelevant when in the context of the MKII.

The V6 has great power and is instant press and go when you jump on the pedal. I have had a V6 MKI TTR before and it felt great, sounded fantastic and feels much more relaxed to drive than a 4pot engine. (OK handling wasnâ€™t fantastic, but that was then - not now).

As for nose heavy where the @!Â£* has this come from? The MKII was designed with THIS engine in mind. Have you driven one? Has anyone here who is saying the 3.2 is not as good as the 20T actually driven them back to back? or are you just repeating the Topgear report for the MKI from 2-3years ago?

The only downside for the V6 is the fuel costs â€" thatâ€™s it. If you are into modding that may be a -tive point too compared to the 20T model as engine tweaks do not give the same % gains. (but anyone who has a V6 already has the power so wont really be that bothered anyway).

The 20T maybe a better 'value' package, but i donâ€™t want 'value' I wanted quattro and performance. Less money doesnâ€™t make it better. A car in this class and only FWD doesnâ€™t seem logical to me.

IF Audi had launched a 20T with 260bhp and quattro, i'm not sure i would have gone that route. The V6 is what i wanted. V6's are what the other cars in this class have not 4pots. 350z's cayman etc etc.

Now if audi added a turbo to the V6 we'd be getting somewhere. IMO.


----------



## blagman (Sep 11, 2006)

There is nothing like a 6 cylinder engine for noise  I just think that as everybody raves on about the MK5 Golf GTI how much better than this will be the 20t Audi TT (MK2) as the chassis will have a little more development along with being 150kg's lighter than the Golf. I am all for four wheel drive as in the past I have had a Subaru and currently have an Evo 8 MR with 370/372. The 20t with a REVO or APR would be quiet interesting little Q car 

John


----------



## ChinsVXR (Apr 14, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> I think this is getting out of context. People who have purchased/ordered 3.2s have done so because the either don't want the small engine/small power output or because they want quattro, its as simple as that. I really donâ€™t understand why ChrisVXR for example has such a problem with it. We donâ€™t all share your views and simply donâ€™t want to take a backward step from the current MKI (my view, not sure IF other existing owners share it or not - dont really mind either way). Again all ChrisVXR's comments are based on the old golf platform which was far from good so its total irrelevant when in the context of the MKII.
> 
> The V6 has great power and is instant press and go when you jump on the pedal. I have had a V6 MKI TTR before and it felt great, sounded fantastic and feels much more relaxed to drive than a 4pot engine. (OK handling wasnâ€™t fantastic, but that was then - not now).
> 
> ...


Sure you dont have a problem with the 2.0T and fwd. Why is it a step backwards? Why cant someone else feel that the cheaper car is the better one? Reviews of the MK2 TT Ive yet to see the 3.2 recomended over the 2.0T.

Audi is the only company to offer 4wd in this class - all the other are 2wd - Cayman, Boxter, 350z etc Whos the odd one?

We can argue about which divetrain is best - fwd, rwd and quattro until the cows come home. Just because someone doesnt subscribe to your quatto theory that the car has to have quattro to be good or to even exist.

We dont all share your views on the TT and as discussed by the TT marketing manager, the 2.0T will be the most popular choice. So Audi are doing an amazing job managing to sell a car that isnt logical - maybe creating a new niche  Maybe others realise that with a nice remap that have a quicker car than the 3.2 and with a good remap, overal economy will not suffer.

My experience of the R32 was in MKIV format, Ive driven the MKV current chassis and still dont like the engine, apart from the noise.

I understand why people want a 3.2. I could easily of bought one and ran it with an allowance, but decided against it. The only thing I might wish I had changed was going for MR.

As long as we are all happy with our choice 8)


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

But that then comes back to 'what is the TT'? If audi want to make the car a FWD rep car, then i for one wont be keeping it long. If this is planned to happen, i'd guess the introduction of the diesel model will be the key indicator for it, then you can say goodbye to your 3yrs resale vaule.

Really dont understand where Audi are now pitching this car.

Audi has the fast hatch in terms of the S and RS3 - why mess the the TT.

Whys its a step back - its only 200bhp and FWD, compared to 225/240 and 4wd.

As many reviews say 3.2 is the one to have as say 20T, so this is missleading. When ever they do say 20T they say 'package' not best car. Like you say we all have our own opinions, but the cars above are NOT FWD - maybe thats for a reason?

Name the dealers and i'll ring them and say i'm looking for a MKII TT which do you recommend - 20T or 3.2 and see what they say?

But since you're happy with your choice and im happy with mine - whats the problem?


----------



## Johnnywb (May 31, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> Audi has the fast hatch in terms of the S and* RS3* - why mess the the TT.


Do you know something we don't Tosh....?!


----------



## blagman (Sep 11, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> But that then comes back to 'what is the TT'? If audi want to make the car a FWD rep car, then i for one wont be keeping it long. If this is planned to happen, i'd guess the introduction of the diesel model will be the key indicator for it, then you can say goodbye to your 3yrs resale vaule.
> 
> Really dont understant where Audi are now pitching this car.
> 
> Audi has the fast hatch in terms of the S and RS3 - why mess the the TT.


I think you have hit the nail on the head a sporting two door coupe, as opposed to the drab looking new S3. A reasonable spec 20t will be circa Â£27k hardly rep car money.

John


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Dont know what you are asking/mean. I dont know nothing about audis plans.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

blagman said:


> Toshiba said:
> 
> 
> > But that then comes back to 'what is the TT'? If audi want to make the car a FWD rep car, then i for one wont be keeping it long. If this is planned to happen, i'd guess the introduction of the diesel model will be the key indicator for it, then you can say goodbye to your 3yrs resale vaule.
> ...


so why make a diesel or make ref to 20T model in terms of a company car tax?


----------



## blagman (Sep 11, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> blagman said:
> 
> 
> > Toshiba said:
> ...


Being self employed I have no Idea about company car tax, but Diesel versions are just a reaction to present and future demand I would imagine.

John


----------



## ChinsVXR (Apr 14, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> But that then comes back to 'what is the TT'? If audi want to make the car a FWD rep car, then i for one wont be keeping it long. If this is planned to happen, i'd guess the introduction of the diesel model will be the key indicator for it, then you can say goodbye to your 3yrs resale vaule.
> 
> Really dont understant where Audi are now pitching this car.
> 
> Audi has the fast hatch in terms of the S and RS3 - why mess the the TT.


I agree with you. Looks like they might milk it for all its worth. I dont think they should release a TT with less than 200bhp and not sure on diesel. The new TFSI with even less power looks like it will go in as well.

Not sure its just Audi UK, but Audi Germany


----------



## ChinsVXR (Apr 14, 2006)

blagman said:


> Toshiba said:
> 
> 
> > But that then comes back to 'what is the TT'? If audi want to make the car a FWD rep car, then i for one wont be keeping it long. If this is planned to happen, i'd guess the introduction of the diesel model will be the key indicator for it, then you can say goodbye to your 3yrs resale vaule.
> ...


I'm a rep 

The TT will be on all accountant and IT managers company car list


----------



## LazyT (Apr 13, 2006)

The bottom line in Audi deserves a huge bitch-slap for not offering the 2.0T with quattro upon release. :x

Also, they should offer it with a little more hp & torque, say 220 hp like they will be offering for the A4 2.0T. Notice how they have finally bumped up the hp on the A4 2.0T at the end of the B7's product cycle. :x

The only real gripe I have seen from the test drives of the 3.2, is that Audi should have offered it with a little more hp and torque. Once again, Audi deserves a huge bitch-slap. :x

I wish the public hadn't ordered so many 2.0T MK2s already. Then Audi would be forced to offer the 2.0T with quattro sooner in its product cycle. :x


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

Err, correct me if I am wrong but unless ive got the wrong end of the stick then the dealer allocation for demo cars kinda gives away their true feelings about which is the best model? 100% V6 by the looks of it. Im assuming Mark got this direct from James. Only goes up to J but its quite telling as its in alphabetical order not model order so my assumption is this trend continues beyond J? Especially as the model descriptions atthe top specify V6s.

*Extract from latest news on www.ttoc.co.uk ...*

Each dealer will get 2 or 3 cars (288 in the uk). Demos should be available w/c 18th September.

Their cars will be a mix of 4 specs.

Spec 1
Variant: 3.2 quattro
External colour: Silver met
Internal colour: Magma red
Upholstery: Fine nappa (extended leather)
Transmission: Manual
Lighting: Standard
Wheels: 18" 10 spokes
Radio/navigation: Concert
Suspension: Standard
Steering wheel: Multifunction
Other:

Spec 2
Variant: 3.2 quattro
External colour: Brilliant Red
Internal colour: Ebony
Upholstery: Fine nappa
Transmission: Manual
Lighting: Xenon plus
Wheels: 18" 10 spokes
Radio/navigation: Navigation (red/black - not colour) & CD changer
Suspension: Magnetic
Steering wheel: Multifunction
Other: Electric seats

Spec 3
Variant: 3.2 quattro
External colour: Phantom black pearl
Internal colour: Light grey
Upholstery: Fine nappa
Transmission: S Tronic (DSG)
Lighting: Standard
Wheels: 18" 7 spoke turbines
Radio/navigation: Concert
Suspension: Standard
Steering wheel: Multifunction with shift function
Other:

Spec 4
Variant: 3.2 quattro
External colour: Condor grey
Internal colour: Mineral grey
Upholstery: Fine nappa
Transmission: S Tronic (DSG
Lighting: Xenon plus
Wheels: 18" 7 spoke turbines
Radio/navigation: Navigation (red/black - not colour) & CD changer
Suspension: Magnetic
Steering wheel: Multifunction with shift function
Other: Electric seats

All cars will also come with:

- Auto climate control
- Outside temp display
- Front fogs
- Seat height adjustment
- Ellipsoid front lighting
- Anti-glare rear view mirror
- ISOFIX
- DIS
- Cruise
- Darkened rear lights
- BOSE
- Winter pack
- Mobile phone prep
- Tyre pressure control system

Dealer cars
Dealer name Description Colour Spec 
Amersham Audi 3.2 q S tronic Condor Grey Spec 4 - 3.2 q S tronic Condor Grey 
Amersham Audi 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver Spec 1 - 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver 
Aston Green Audi 3.2 q Man.6sp Brilliant Red Spec 2 - 3.2 q Man.6sp Brilliant Red 
Aston Green Audi 3.2 q S tronic Condor Grey Spec 4 - 3.2 q S tronic Condor Grey 
Aston Green Audi 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver Spec 1 - 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver 
Aylesbury Audi 3.2 q Man.6sp Brilliant Red Spec 2 - 3.2 q Man.6sp Brilliant Red 
Aylesbury Audi 3.2 q S tronic Condor Grey Spec 4 - 3.2 q S tronic Condor Grey 
Basingstoke Audi 3.2 q Man.6sp Brilliant Red Spec 2 - 3.2 q Man.6sp Brilliant Red 
Basingstoke Audi 3.2 q S tronic Condor Grey Spec 4 - 3.2 q S tronic Condor Grey 
Basingstoke Audi 3.2 q S tronic Phantom Black Spec 3 - 3.2 q S tronic Phantom Black 
Bedford Audi 3.2 q Man.6sp Brilliant Red Spec 2 - 3.2 q Man.6sp Brilliant Red 
Bedford Audi 3.2 q S tronic Phantom Black Spec 3 - 3.2 q S tronic Phantom Black 
Bedford Audi 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver Spec 1 - 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver 
Beechwood Audi 3.2 q Man.6sp Brilliant Red Spec 2 - 3.2 q Man.6sp Brilliant Red 
Beechwood Audi 3.2 q S tronic Condor Grey Spec 4 - 3.2 q S tronic Condor Grey 
Beechwood Audi 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver Spec 1 - 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver 
Bexley Audi 3.2 q Man.6sp Brilliant Red Spec 2 - 3.2 q Man.6sp Brilliant Red 
Bexley Audi 3.2 q S tronic Condor Grey Spec 4 - 3.2 q S tronic Condor Grey 
Bexley Audi 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver Spec 1 - 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver 
Birmingham Audi 3.2 q S tronic Condor Grey Spec 4 - 3.2 q S tronic Condor Grey 
Birmingham Audi 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver Spec 1 - 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver 
Blackburn Audi 3.2 q Man.6sp Brilliant Red Spec 2 - 3.2 q Man.6sp Brilliant Red 
Blackburn Audi 3.2 q S tronic Condor Grey Spec 4 - 3.2 q S tronic Condor Grey 
Blackburn Audi 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver Spec 1 - 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver 
Boston Audi 3.2 q Man.6sp Brilliant Red Spec 2 - 3.2 q Man.6sp Brilliant Red 
Boston Audi 3.2 q S tronic Condor Grey Spec 4 - 3.2 q S tronic Condor Grey 
Bradford Audi 3.2 q Man.6sp Brilliant Red Spec 2 - 3.2 q Man.6sp Brilliant Red 
Bradford Audi 3.2 q S tronic Phantom Black Spec 3 - 3.2 q S tronic Phantom Black 
Bradford Audi 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver Spec 1 - 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver 
Brighton Audi 3.2 q S tronic Condor Grey Spec 4 - 3.2 q S tronic Condor Grey 
Brighton Audi 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver Spec 1 - 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver 
Bristol Audi 3.2 q Man.6sp Brilliant Red Spec 2 - 3.2 q Man.6sp Brilliant Red 
Bristol Audi 3.2 q S tronic Phantom Black Spec 3 - 3.2 q S tronic Phantom Black 
Bristol Audi 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver Spec 1 - 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver 
Bury St Edmunds Audi 3.2 q Man.6sp Brilliant Red Spec 2 - 3.2 q Man.6sp Brilliant Red 
Bury St Edmunds Audi 3.2 q S tronic Phantom Black Spec 3 - 3.2 q S tronic Phantom Black 
Caffyns Audi 3.2 q Man.6sp Brilliant Red Spec 2 - 3.2 q Man.6sp Brilliant Red 
Caffyns Audi 3.2 q S tronic Phantom Black Spec 3 - 3.2 q S tronic Phantom Black 
Camberley Audi 3.2 q S tronic Condor Grey Spec 4 - 3.2 q S tronic Condor Grey 
Camberley Audi 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver Spec 1 - 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver 
Camerons Audi 3.2 q Man.6sp Brilliant Red Spec 2 - 3.2 q Man.6sp Brilliant Red 
Camerons Audi 3.2 q S tronic Condor Grey Spec 4 - 3.2 q S tronic Condor Grey 
Camerons Audi 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver Spec 1 - 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver 
Cardiff Audi 3.2 q Man.6sp Brilliant Red Spec 2 - 3.2 q Man.6sp Brilliant Red 
Cardiff Audi 3.2 q S tronic Condor Grey Spec 4 - 3.2 q S tronic Condor Grey 
Cardiff Audi 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver Spec 1 - 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver 
Carlisle Audi 3.2 q Man.6sp Brilliant Red Spec 2 - 3.2 q Man.6sp Brilliant Red 
Carlisle Audi 3.2 q S tronic Phantom Black Spec 3 - 3.2 q S tronic Phantom Black 
Carlisle Audi 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver Spec 1 - 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver 
Carrs Audi 3.2 q Man.6sp Brilliant Red Spec 2 - 3.2 q Man.6sp Brilliant Red 
Chelmsford Audi 3.2 q S tronic Condor Grey Spec 4 - 3.2 q S tronic Condor Grey 
Chelmsford Audi 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver Spec 1 - 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver 
Chester Audi 3.2 q Man.6sp Brilliant Red Spec 2 - 3.2 q Man.6sp Brilliant Red 
Chester Audi 3.2 q Man.6sp Brilliant Red Spec 2 - 3.2 q Man.6sp Brilliant Red 
Chester Audi 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver Spec 1 - 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver 
Crawley Audi 3.2 q Man.6sp Brilliant Red Spec 2 - 3.2 q Man.6sp Brilliant Red 
Crawley Audi 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver Spec 1 - 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver 
Crewe Audi 3.2 q S tronic Condor Grey Spec 4 - 3.2 q S tronic Condor Grey 
Crewe Audi 3.2 q S tronic Phantom Black Spec 3 - 3.2 q S tronic Phantom Black 
Crewe Audi 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver Spec 1 - 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver 
Croydon Audi 3.2 q S tronic Condor Grey Spec 4 - 3.2 q S tronic Condor Grey 
Croydon Audi 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver Spec 1 - 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver 
Derby Audi 3.2 q Man.6sp Brilliant Red Spec 2 - 3.2 q Man.6sp Brilliant Red 
Derby Audi 3.2 q S tronic Condor Grey Spec 4 - 3.2 q S tronic Condor Grey 
Derby Audi 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver Spec 1 - 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver 
Docklands Audi 3.2 q Man.6sp Brilliant Red Spec 2 - 3.2 q Man.6sp Brilliant Red 
Docklands Audi 3.2 q S tronic Phantom Black Spec 3 - 3.2 q S tronic Phantom Black 
Doncaster Audi 3.2 q Man.6sp Brilliant Red Spec 2 - 3.2 q Man.6sp Brilliant Red 
Doncaster Audi 3.2 q S tronic Condor Grey Spec 4 - 3.2 q S tronic Condor Grey 
Doncaster Audi 3.2 q S tronic Phantom Black Spec 3 - 3.2 q S tronic Phantom Black 
Doncaster Audi 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver Spec 1 - 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver 
Dulwich Audi 3.2 q Man.6sp Brilliant Red Spec 2 - 3.2 q Man.6sp Brilliant Red 
Dulwich Audi 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver Spec 1 - 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver 
Dundee Audi 3.2 q S tronic Phantom Black Spec 3 - 3.2 q S tronic Phantom Black 
Dundee Audi 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver Spec 1 - 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver 
East Kent Audi 3.2 q Man.6sp Brilliant Red Spec 2 - 3.2 q Man.6sp Brilliant Red 
East Kent Audi 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver Spec 1 - 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver 
Edinburgh Audi 3.2 q S tronic Condor Grey Spec 4 - 3.2 q S tronic Condor Grey 
Edinburgh Audi 3.2 q S tronic Phantom Black Spec 3 - 3.2 q S tronic Phantom Black 
Edinburgh Audi 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver Spec 1 - 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver 
Epsom Audi 3.2 q Man.6sp Brilliant Red Spec 2 - 3.2 q Man.6sp Brilliant Red 
Epsom Audi 3.2 q S tronic Phantom Black Spec 3 - 3.2 q S tronic Phantom Black 
Esplanade Newport 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver Spec 1 - 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver 
Exeter Audi 3.2 q Man.6sp Brilliant Red Spec 2 - 3.2 q Man.6sp Brilliant Red 
Exeter Audi 3.2 q S tronic Condor Grey Spec 4 - 3.2 q S tronic Condor Grey 
Exeter Audi 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver Spec 1 - 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver 
Exeter Audi 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver Spec 1 - 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver 
Finchley Road Audi 3.2 q S tronic Phantom Black Spec 3 - 3.2 q S tronic Phantom Black 
Finchley Road Audi 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver Spec 1 - 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver 
Five Oaks Audi 3.2 q Man.6sp Brilliant Red Spec 2 - 3.2 q Man.6sp Brilliant Red 
Five Oaks Audi 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver Spec 1 - 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver 
Glasgow Audi 3.2 q S tronic Condor Grey Spec 4 - 3.2 q S tronic Condor Grey 
Glasgow Audi 3.2 q S tronic Phantom Black Spec 3 - 3.2 q S tronic Phantom Black 
Glasgow Audi 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver Spec 1 - 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver 
Glasgow Audi 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver Spec 1 - 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver 
Grimsby Audi 3.2 q S tronic Phantom Black Spec 3 - 3.2 q S tronic Phantom Black 
Grimsby Audi 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver Spec 1 - 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver 
Guernsey Audi 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver Spec 1 - 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver 
Guildford Audi 3.2 q Man.6sp Brilliant Red Spec 2 - 3.2 q Man.6sp Brilliant Red 
Guildford Audi 3.2 q S tronic Phantom Black Spec 3 - 3.2 q S tronic Phantom Black 
Hadwins Audi 3.2 q S tronic Condor Grey Spec 4 - 3.2 q S tronic Condor Grey 
Hadwins Audi 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver Spec 1 - 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver 
Harold Wood Audi 3.2 q Man.6sp Brilliant Red Spec 2 - 3.2 q Man.6sp Brilliant Red 
Harold Wood Audi 3.2 q S tronic Condor Grey Spec 4 - 3.2 q S tronic Condor Grey 
Harold Wood Audi 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver Spec 1 - 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver 
Harrogate Audi 3.2 q Man.6sp Brilliant Red Spec 2 - 3.2 q Man.6sp Brilliant Red 
Harrogate Audi 3.2 q S tronic Condor Grey Spec 4 - 3.2 q S tronic Condor Grey 
Harrogate Audi 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver Spec 1 - 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver 
Hatfield Audi 3.2 q S tronic Phantom Black Spec 3 - 3.2 q S tronic Phantom Black 
Hatfield Audi 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver Spec 1 - 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver 
Heritage Audi 3.2 q Man.6sp Brilliant Red Spec 2 - 3.2 q Man.6sp Brilliant Red 
Heritage Audi 3.2 q S tronic Condor Grey Spec 4 - 3.2 q S tronic Condor Grey 
Highland Audi 3.2 q S tronic Condor Grey Spec 4 - 3.2 q S tronic Condor Grey 
Highland Audi 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver Spec 1 - 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver 
Hitchin Audi 3.2 q S tronic Condor Grey Spec 4 - 3.2 q S tronic Condor Grey 
Hitchin Audi 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver Spec 1 - 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver 
Huddersfield Audi 3.2 q S tronic Condor Grey Spec 4 - 3.2 q S tronic Condor Grey 
Huddersfield Audi 3.2 q S tronic Phantom Black Spec 3 - 3.2 q S tronic Phantom Black 
Huddersfield Audi 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver Spec 1 - 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver 
Hull Audi 3.2 q S tronic Condor Grey Spec 4 - 3.2 q S tronic Condor Grey 
Ipswich Audi 3.2 q S tronic Condor Grey Spec 4 - 3.2 q S tronic Condor Grey 
Ipswich Audi 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver Spec 1 - 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver 
Isaac Agnew Audi 3.2 q Man.6sp Brilliant Red Spec 2 - 3.2 q Man.6sp Brilliant Red 
Isaac Agnew Audi 3.2 q S tronic Condor Grey Spec 4 - 3.2 q S tronic Condor Grey 
Isaac Agnew Audi 3.2 q S tronic Phantom Black Spec 3 - 3.2 q S tronic Phantom Black 
Isaac Agnew Audi 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver Spec 1 - 3.2 q Man.6sp Silver 
Jersey Audi 3.2 q S tronic Condor Grey Spec 4 - 3.2 q S tronic Condor Grey 
John Fox Audi 3.2 q Man.6sp Brilliant Red Spec 2 - 3.2 q Man.6sp Brilliant Red 
John Fox Audi 3.2 q S tronic Phantom Black


----------



## TT Law (Sep 6, 2003)

Leg,

Audi dictated that it would be 3.2's.

If I were in Audi's shoes I'd have done the same. Â£4.5k more and probably nowhere near that much more to produce.

Steve


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Dealers dont pay that tho, diff will only be about 1000-1200 pounds in real terms. Again Audi have got this wrong - should be a mix. ( call me silly, but not everyone wants the same). Also why have the same 4 demo colours? :?

I can understand WHY they have done it, and its so they are easy to build and schedule the parts.

Crazy.


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

I dont get it, if Audi think the 2.0T will be the most popular, then why not have 2.0T demos.

Makes no sense at all. Unless of course Audi cant produce enough Quattro systems to meet demand in Europe AND the UK and subsequently want people to order 2.0T FWDs without test driving them. Mind u to do that they would need the motoring press to say the FWD 2.0T was the better car, and they wouldnt do that unless they really believed that, would they?


----------



## TTej (Sep 10, 2003)

of Course they are raving about them, they probably have shead loads of em sitting about,

Hans what canz ve do witz all theze 2.0FWD

LOL, Send zem to Englands, lol They willz buy zem, they havent even noticed ze handbrake, LOL

LOL

But shallz ve send za 2.0FWD as demos.

OF course not, who will buy zem thenn

LOL
LOL


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Demo-in the top model is nothing new as they generally look better, or have more toys which is why demo cars normally have a few options thrown on top.

Makes you want them!

PS i do think the 20T will be the big seller - but only based on cost.
Again another reason to get a V6. TTshop will do good business out of this too, what with remaps, twin pipe and RS4 wheels :roll:


----------



## bw64402 (Jul 30, 2006)

I for one am getting tired of the 2.0T vs 3.2 debate.

[smiley=argue.gif]

The honest truth is .... if people could afford it and wanted to spend the money they would have bought a 3.2. I would have... no shame in saying that!

However, i did not want to / could afford to spend over Â£30k on a car. I've maxed myself out at Â£27k for this car (with all the extras i've put on). you have to place a limit somewhere (unless you are a lottery winner!  )

Now lets get back to getting excited about picking up our MK2's and have good debate on the merits of all cars (rather than one-up-manship).

AND RELAX ............... [smiley=cheers.gif]


----------



## Dotti (Mar 9, 2003)

Well I'm sticking with my classic mk1 just for the moment . So there, no comparison with a mk2 8) :-* :wink:


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

Indeed but dont forget, this is a forum....
:wink:

foÂ·rum (fÃ´rm, fr-) Pronunciation Key 
n. pl. foÂ·rums, also foÂ·ra (fÃ´r, fr)

The public square or marketplace of an ancient Roman city that was the assembly place for judicial activity and public business. 
A public meeting place for open discussion. 
A medium of open discussion or voicing of ideas, such as a newspaper or a radio or television program. 
A public meeting or presentation involving a discussion usually among experts _(self appointed - Leg)_ and often including audience participation. 
A court of law; a tribunal.

Plus some of us are working from home and bored


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Its nothing new and it all comes back to what you want.

in fairness the whole thread is a pi55 take, it was a silly and pointless topic.


----------



## blagman (Sep 11, 2006)

I think the problem for the 3.2 is that on a dry and twisting road it would be hard pressed to put much distance between itself and a 20t IMHO. The 3.2 needs to distance itself more from the lesser model, more power and better lights would have been a start.

John


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> in fairness the whole thread is a pi55 take, it was a silly and pointless topic.


Arent they all Tosh, arent they all.....in the end im always right, my Mum said so. She also said I was the cleverest and bravestest boy in the whole wide world so it must be true :wink:


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

blagman said:


> I think the problem for the 3.2 is that on a dry and twisting road it would be hard pressed to put much distance between itself and a 20t IMHO. The 3.2 needs to distance itself more from the lesser model, more power and better lights would have been a start.
> 
> John


Ok its only a second 0-60, (the difference between the models) but to get any faster takes some serious money and effort that would need to be passed on to customers.

Just how fast is fast enough?

5 secs?
4 secs?
light speed?
warp drive?

I think the models are well setup (even if i dont agree with them) 4pot vs V6, quattro vs fwd.

something for everyone.

plus the cars are designed to complete against other cars in its class not rocketship or supercars.

Xenon, sud b on the 3.2 end of story.
MR, i really cant get my head round and really on a car of this type shouldnt be needed. its simply about making money for Audi.


----------



## Dotti (Mar 9, 2003)

Leg said:


> Toshiba said:
> 
> 
> > in fairness the whole thread is a pi55 take, it was a silly and pointless topic.
> ...


So you have a big one then?  oops I was thinking aloud for a moment then  :wink:


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

Dotti said:


> Leg said:
> 
> 
> > Toshiba said:
> ...


And at a strange tangent Dotti, how did you get to a big one from my post? U not getting enough lately?


----------



## Dotti (Mar 9, 2003)

Washed your car lately Leg? :-*


----------



## bw64402 (Jul 30, 2006)

Leg said:


> Indeed but dont forget, this is a forum....
> :wink:
> 
> foÂ·rum (fÃ´rm, fr-)  Pronunciation Key
> ...


Fair point Leg 

Just finding it hard to do my job and pick out the useful comments :lol:


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

Dotti said:


> Washed your car lately Leg? :-*


Saturday, shes due again tomorrow, a good soaking with the hose, rub her down hard, just as shes drying off cover her in wax and then rub her all over with soft, soft cloths. Throughout making sure that I get into all the little nooks and crannies.


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

bw64402 said:


> Leg said:
> 
> 
> > Indeed but dont forget, this is a forum....
> ...


Onny joking m8, and as for the useful comments, wrong forum altogether, I wouldnt waste your time :lol: I do recall one, but it was months ago.


----------



## ezzie (Jul 2, 2004)

Would appreciate the post 'J' list of dealer demos please.


----------



## Johnnywb (May 31, 2006)

Yep that'd be useful!


----------



## LazyT (Apr 13, 2006)

Leg said:


> Dotti said:
> 
> 
> > Leg said:
> ...


Leg- are you the Leg, III? Maybe that's who DoTTi is looking for.


----------



## ChinsVXR (Apr 14, 2006)

Well I can only talk about colour choice for so long :?

As mentioned its a forum - and as such needs a bit of a good argument, debate, BS etc.

Just nice to see some MK1 TT owners that are after a drivers car, and not the usual style over substance crew.

We also need to remember that fitted with a 1.1 three cylinder theres a sector of our society that would choose that over the 2.0T and 3.2.

Looking forward to a good MR debate when everyone gets to drive both variants , and who will be the first to crack the command to get the spoiler to rise at 40mph automatically


----------



## Dotti (Mar 9, 2003)

LazyT said:


> Leg- are you the Leg, III? Maybe that's who DoTTi is looking for.


No thanks, I'm married


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

Liz Taylor was also married.......


----------



## LazyT (Apr 13, 2006)

Dotti said:


> LazyT said:
> 
> 
> > Leg- are you the Leg, III? Maybe that's who DoTTi is looking for.
> ...


Does your other half know about your cyber crush on Tosh and Leg?


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

LazyT said:


> Does Tosh and Leg know about your secret crush on Rebel?


No they didn't, till now....


----------



## der_horst (Apr 29, 2006)

bw64402 said:


> if people could afford it and wanted to spend the money they would have bought a 3.2.


the length of this thread should be proof enough that the choice isn't that simple.



Toshiba said:


> Just how fast is fast enough?
> 
> 5 secs?
> 4 secs?


i'd like to see the 4 in the front. it just looks so much nicer 



Toshiba said:


> I think the models are well setup (even if i dont agree with them) 4pot vs V6, quattro vs fwd.
> 
> something for everyone.


if you only have two setups and are not allowed to introduce new engines that are not part of other vw/audi models there's no other choice. that doesn't make it a good choice though as the basic conditions already suck 



Toshiba said:


> plus the cars are designed to complete against other cars in its class not rocketship or supercars.


as posted in a nother thread there are lots of competitors who offer better engines in the same segment, the reason why i don't care so much abut them is that they don't have the TT around it. but if you take a look at the S3 and RS4 as the top versions of the adjacent models i hope that audi will fill the gap soon.


----------



## Wallsendmag (Feb 12, 2004)

dealers are raving about the 2.0 as the 3.2s sell themselves,I'd have to buy a new hat if I got a 2.0 anyway :lol:


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Would that be a red baseball cap?


----------



## ChinsVXR (Apr 14, 2006)

wallsendmag said:


> dealers are raving about the 2.0 as the 3.2s sell themselves,I'd have to buy a new hat if I got a 2.0 anyway :lol:


I thought it was the dealers need 3.2's as demos as they have sold all their 2.0T allocation :lol:

If the 3.2 sells itself them demos are worthless 

This comes as std issue with the 2.0T










For the 3.2










Plus for the guys that owned a MK1, their long service award










and of course who could forget the other badge opposite the quattro badge of honor.


----------



## Dotti (Mar 9, 2003)

LazyT said:


> Dotti said:
> 
> 
> > LazyT said:
> ...


Yeah, didn't you know he loves spectating!


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

play school finished early today has it?


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

Dotti said:


> LazyT said:
> 
> 
> > Dotti said:
> ...


Sorry Im busy that day. Washing my car. Tosh is Mr Lasciviousness anyhow, he doesnt need my help, enjoy.


----------



## Dotti (Mar 9, 2003)

Leg said:


> Dotti said:
> 
> 
> > LazyT said:
> ...


He don't need no ones help he is doing great on his own! :-*


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

Thank fcuk for that. We may not have established if quattro is needed on the 2.0T, we may not have agreed the best engine, we may have wasted 9 pages on pointless banter but at least we know Dotti is satisfied with Tosh's performance. The world can relax again, phew!


----------



## TTej (Sep 10, 2003)

Leg said:


> Thank fcuk for that. We may not have established if quattro is needed on the 2.0T, we may not have agreed the best engine, we may have wasted 9 pages on pointless banter but at least we know Dotti is satisfied with Tosh's performance. The world can relax again, phew!


Must be to do with the red TT's.

Tosh why you buying a silver one next, you moved on from Dotty?

Leg you might be in there again


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

TTej said:


> Leg said:
> 
> 
> > Thank fcuk for that. We may not have established if quattro is needed on the 2.0T, we may not have agreed the best engine, we may have wasted 9 pages on pointless banter but at least we know Dotti is satisfied with Tosh's performance. The world can relax again, phew!
> ...


Mines black, and I have cash waiting for a respray if the need arises dont you worry!


----------



## Dotti (Mar 9, 2003)

Leg said:


> Mines black, and I have cash waiting for a respray if the need arises dont you worry!


Why bother with that? You know it makes sense to go and blow all your hard earnt cash on a mk2!


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Hope my wife doesnt see this. :?


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

Dotti said:


> Leg said:
> 
> 
> > Mines black, and I have cash waiting for a respray if the need arises dont you worry!
> ...


Good God no. This is my last UK car, everyone knows that.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

but its german :lol:


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

ChinsVXR said:


> and who will be the first to crack the command to get the spoiler to rise at 40mph automatically


Clearly a 2.0T. The front wheels will reach 75mph long before the rest of the car does.


----------



## Dotti (Mar 9, 2003)

Toshiba said:


> but its german :lol:


Is she hairy?


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

no but i can find a parking spot without a towel on it. (and i dont mean always ultra plus)


----------



## LazyT (Apr 13, 2006)

Tosh- is that a picture of DoTTi with a staple gun?


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Not that im aware of - dotti post us all a pic


----------



## Wallsendmag (Feb 12, 2004)

Toshiba said:


> Would that be a red baseball cap?


Er no the Audi one with Quattro on the front and TT on the back 8)


----------



## vanos (Aug 25, 2006)

Karcsi said:


> ChinsVXR said:
> 
> 
> > and who will be the first to crack the command to get the spoiler to rise at 40mph automatically
> ...


LOL


----------



## TTonyTT (Apr 24, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> Not that im aware of - dotti post us all a pic


No, please don't.

  :-*


----------



## LazyT (Apr 13, 2006)

Okay it's settled. The 2.0T for the 'boy racer' in all of us and the 3.2 V6 for everyone else.


----------



## Johnnywb (May 31, 2006)

LazyT said:


> Okay it's settled. The 2.0T for the 'boy racer' in all of us and the 3.2 V6 for everyone else.


PMSL :roll:


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

only in the dry and a straight line. :lol:


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> only in the dry and a straight line. :lol:


soddin hell Tosh, lost me a fiver, I bet it wouldnt pass 10 pages.


----------



## Dotti (Mar 9, 2003)

I prefer twin pipes!


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

I agree one is just not enough.


----------



## LazyT (Apr 13, 2006)

Johnnywb said:


> LazyT said:
> 
> 
> > Okay it's settled. The 2.0T for the 'boy racer' in all of us and the 3.2 V6 for everyone else.
> ...


What does 'PMSL' mean? :?


----------



## Dotti (Mar 9, 2003)

LazyT said:


> Johnnywb said:
> 
> 
> > LazyT said:
> ...


Piss Myself Laughing (not me personally)


----------



## LazyT (Apr 13, 2006)

Dotti said:


> I prefer twin pipes!


Dotti- does 'twin pipes' mean 'two strapping young lads' over there in the UK?


----------



## LazyT (Apr 13, 2006)

Dotti said:


> LazyT said:
> 
> 
> > Johnnywb said:
> ...


Thanks. That's a good one, I will need to remember that one. :lol:


----------



## LazyT (Apr 13, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> I agree one is just not enough.


Regardless of which engine varient purchased, the split dual-exhaust is a must have. Milltek will offer one for the 2.0T.


----------



## Dotti (Mar 9, 2003)

LazyT said:


> Dotti said:
> 
> 
> > LazyT said:
> ...


ROTFLMAO  :wink: Have you heard of this one? :wink:


----------



## LazyT (Apr 13, 2006)

Dotti said:


> LazyT said:
> 
> 
> > Dotti said:
> ...


Yes, indeed. That's an oldy but a goody. :wink:


----------



## NaughTTy (Jul 9, 2003)

Sorry if this subject has been done to death (I haven't read all 12 pages :roll: ) but I was chatting to the guys & gals in Aylesbury Audi today and they were also raving about the 2.0T. Said it was a far more lively and nimble car - much better to drive and *felt* quicker than the V6.


----------



## blagman (Sep 11, 2006)

Same as what my dealer has been saying 20T feels far more lively than a V6, it's the weight  V6 will be a very nice slonky old thing though.

John


----------



## Johnnywb (May 31, 2006)

Don't worry, the last 12 pages have been pretty much about the same thing, the standard 2.0T FWD -v- 3.2 Quattro debate.


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

Amazing how the dealers who we all call stealers and slag off for ripping us off and talking utter sh1te are suddenly all knowing and to be trusted as they compound the 2.0T FWD buyers decisions.

Of course they dont have any other motivation do they. :roll:


----------



## Johnnywb (May 31, 2006)

No, no, i fully agree, the 2.0T is definately the car to go for. The fewer 3.2's on the road the better

For my resale value


----------



## NaughTTy (Jul 9, 2003)

Leg said:


> Amazing how the dealers who we all call stealers and slag off for ripping us off and talking utter sh1te are suddenly all knowing and to be trusted as they compound the 2.0T FWD buyers decisions.
> 
> Of course they dont have any other motivation do they. :roll:


These were aftersales people - not the salesmen. They all know me pretty well - never usually get any BS from them....and I never refer to Aylesbury Audi as "stealers" as the service side have a great reputation for their personal approach to customer service :wink:


----------



## ChinsVXR (Apr 14, 2006)

NaughTTy said:


> Leg said:
> 
> 
> > Amazing how the dealers who we all call stealers and slag off for ripping us off and talking utter sh1te are suddenly all knowing and to be trusted as they compound the 2.0T FWD buyers decisions.
> ...


Aylesbury Audi service is second to none - so good input :lol: Shame their sales are not quite as good


----------



## NaughTTy (Jul 9, 2003)

ChinsVXR said:


> NaughTTy said:
> 
> 
> > Leg said:
> ...


I'm working on them too :wink:

They *might* be bringing a MKII demo to the Bucks meet next week


----------

