# TTS vs 3.2V6



## pacemaker1000 (Oct 8, 2011)

i have not had a chance to drive a v6 but had i quickie in a tts and must say i was impressed with the performance compared to my old 2.7 Boxster (also tried a diesel but i wont go there :roll: )

so my question is how far if any is the v6 off the tts as i cant stretch to the latter?
on paper its not a lot considering the v6 has 20bhp less and is heavier


----------



## CWJ (Aug 24, 2010)

This is a contentious issue, but for me TTS every time. Its faster, has far more tuning scope, is cheaper to tax and has better MPG as well as resale value. It does lacks the awesome exhaust note however.

I await my flaming...


----------



## Wallsendmag (Feb 12, 2004)

pacemaker1000 said:


> i have not had a chance to drive a v6 but had i quickie in a tts and must say i was impressed with the performance compared to my old 2.7 Boxster (also tried a diesel but i wont go there :roll: )
> 
> so my question is how far if any is the v6 off the tts as i cant stretch to the latter?
> on paper its not a lot considering the v6 has 20bhp less and is heavier


V6 is totally different to the S so much more laid back.The way the power is delivered in the S makes it feel much quicker but I don't think there is much in it.


----------



## wja96 (Mar 4, 2010)

This is a contentious issue, but for me TDi every time. Its fast enough, has far more tuning scope, is cheaper to tax and has better MPG as well as resale value. It does lacks the awesome exhaust note however.

I await my flaming...


----------



## CWM3 (Mar 4, 2012)

With all due respect to the OP, if you cannot stretch to the TTS, then it's a non issue, test drive a V6 against a 2.0TFSi. Then make your decision as to if you want a TT or not.

It does not matter at that point whether the TTS is close, miles away, or a million times better, just enjoy what you can stretch to.


----------



## hugy (Dec 4, 2007)

I've never driven a V6 either but the turbo in the TTS (K04 )will defo make the TTS feel faster than the V6.
I personally prefer the boost of a turbo engine but that's just me


----------



## Dayer2910 (Apr 29, 2012)

I love these threads....entertaining  now where's "super RS" hahaha....

And of course the TTS is better than the V6..


----------



## Russ 182 (Jan 31, 2009)

Im in a similar boat to you op. ideal world id buy a TTS, i can just afford one although think the v6 is more managable.

Having owned a mk1 v6 for 2.5 years, the v6 engine is a peach. Solid, reliable with smooth consistant power. However a modded v6 with 350bhp would be lovely!


----------



## robokn (Feb 21, 2006)

Would just cost about 10k in tuning to try and get there had both V6 very good fun TTS very quick and far more tunable


----------



## temporarychicken (Oct 16, 2012)

Since the TTS effectively replaced the V6 model in the range, the decision is not side by side, but more to do with age and affordability.

I have seen good 2007 v6 models for 12k pounds. This is cheaper than bottom money for a TTS.

The two really don't compete in the used market as prices don't seem to overlap.

I test drove a TTS last week and it was very good indeed. Smashing Engine. The V6 is more of a grand tourer - and great value.

However, the comments on Tuning are very important. If you get bored with your V6, you are stuffed. There's nowhere to go with it.

If however, you get bored with your TTS, a 300 bhp software-only upgrade is 500 pounds. No contest.

Also you will have much less front weight on the TTS, which will make the car less nose heavy and sharper.

Buy the V6 if you get a great car at a great price! If your budget hits bottom money for a TTS - then grab that!


----------



## TondyRSuzuka (Dec 3, 2011)

pacemaker1000 said:


> i have not had a chance to drive a v6 but had i quickie in a tts and must say i was impressed with the performance compared to my old 2.7 Boxster (also tried a diesel but i wont go there :roll: )
> 
> so my question is how far if any is the v6 off the tts as i cant stretch to the latter?
> on paper its not a lot considering the v6 has 20bhp less and is heavier


My angle on this conundrum would be to say the TTS will save you money in Tax, fuel and residual value eventually. Plan it over 3 years...

£220 saved on tax approx/year
£250 saved on fuel per year (obviously this will vary depending on your mileage but this is a fair price i think)

x 3 = £1410
+
£1000 residual over the V6 over 3 years

= £2410 TOTAL SAVING over a 3 year period...

Question is, is £2.5k your difference between the V6 and TTS? Havnt driven the V6 but I agree with previously mentioned points above, TTS has potential, its a better looking car, better road presence and is an outstanding engine. Everything should have a turbo charger, because they make you smile all the time!!!


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

temporarychicken said:


> Since the TTS effectively replaced the V6 model in the range


No it didnt. It was just retired due to emissions


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

TondyTT said:


> I agree with previously mentioned points above, TTS has potential, its a better looking car, better road presence and is an outstanding engine. Everything should have a turbo charger, because they make you smile all the time!!!


TTS engine is far from outstanding.
20T unit is a poor engine in all forms, noisy and rattly - like a diesel, very unrefined.
Output from the TTS (power) and the options are much better however.

S is the best car in the range, but the engine is its weak point/achilles heel.


----------



## TondyRSuzuka (Dec 3, 2011)

Toshiba said:


> TondyTT said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with previously mentioned points above, TTS has potential, its a better looking car, better road presence and is an outstanding engine. Everything should have a turbo charger, because they make you smile all the time!!!
> ...


This has been said before that the S is the best. I would love nothing more than to have an RS for the engine... What are your thoughts on the 5 pot? I havnt purchased one simply because its 8-10k for 1 more cylinder and bigger brakes.... Thats really it on the face of it. personally think money would be better saved and spent on an RS5. Views?


----------



## SuperRS (Mar 7, 2012)

Just because the 2.0tfsi sounds like a diesel doesn't mean it's unrefined. It sounds the way it does because of the fuel stratified injectors that it uses. It's a peach of a engine in k04 form and easy to get 360hp out of.

The v6 dumps more weight over the front axle as isnt fast. Sounds nice though


----------



## SuperRS (Mar 7, 2012)

TondyTT said:


> Toshiba said:
> 
> 
> > TondyTT said:
> ...


Rs5 is just a bigger modern 3.2 v6 TT with higher running costs. Its not that fast for the money and it's a tourer. A TTRS is more of an animal


----------



## powerplay (Feb 8, 2008)

I have had a TTS and a V6. The TTS is faster, no question, but they are very different to drive. V6 runs out of puff high up but its actually as good as if not better than the TTS for general smooching around.

The V6 is actually very responsive and a pleasure to drive, and no lag!

Obviously if you can't afford a TTS then absolutely no point comparing to one; being well aware of the running costs of the V6 over the 2.0 and putting those aside, I'd be more than happy to have a V6.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

SuperRS said:


> Just because the 2.0tfsi sounds like a diesel doesn't mean it's unrefined. It sounds the way it does because of the fuel stratified injectors that it uses. It's a peach of a engine in k04 form and easy to get 360hp out of.
> 
> The v6 dumps more weight over the front axle as isnt fast. Sounds nice though


RS engine is not further back vs the V6 - you keep saying this but its just not true. Take a peek..
If one is front heavy, then so is the other.... i dont believe either is, but you're welcome to make up your own mind.
360 - easy - depends on your view of easy again....

refined - oxford says, "coarseness or vulgarity" the engine is very coarse, and rough. (IMO) 
lets not confuse power and "refined", but a turbo on the V6 and you have huge power, its just the turbo...


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

TondyTT said:


> This has been said before that the S is the best. I would love nothing more than to have an RS for the engine... What are your thoughts on the 5 pot? I havnt purchased one simply because its 8-10k for 1 more cylinder and bigger brakes.... Thats really it on the face of it. personally think money would be better saved and spent on an RS5. Views?


I enjoyed the RS TT, handling is not great, but IMO the extra cost over the S is not worth it for what you get.
The performance of my 300bhp (DSG) S was equal to my manual RS, if not a little faster (based on VAGCOM engine data). The RS has a good engine sound, but it is a little 'fake' (seems this is the future), and a homage to a car of old - but still.... it all comes down to how important is that extra 0.1 to 60 to you?

RS5, I currently have one right now, its great fun and much more of a finished product than the RS TT
Its got a much bigger/refined engine and yep, it likes to go drinking with George Best, so isn't cheap to run.. but its a blast. I'll post up some pics tomorrow.

Given the options, RS TT , TTS or RS5, if i was looking at costs, TTS easy, if money was no object it would be RS5 or even RS6. (M1 is worth a look too).
Also if you're looking for an RS, i think the values will tank on the used market and the only model i'd even think about would be the +, that's what everyone will be looking to buy in the next few years (IMO)


----------



## SuperRS (Mar 7, 2012)

Toshiba said:


> SuperRS said:
> 
> 
> > Just because the 2.0tfsi sounds like a diesel doesn't mean it's unrefined. It sounds the way it does because of the fuel stratified injectors that it uses. It's a peach of a engine in k04 form and easy to get 360hp out of.
> ...


The v6 engine is bigger therefore more weight on the front. Not saying its further back


----------



## V6RUL (May 28, 2009)

RS has a heavier engine than the V6 fact
RS is 1475-1535 kg fact
V6 is 1410-1430 kg fact

TTS is probably the best value for money but one box is left unticked.
Steve


----------



## SuperRS (Mar 7, 2012)

V6RUL said:


> RS has a heavier engine than the V6 fact
> RS is 1475-1535 kg fact
> V6 is 1410-1430 kg fact
> 
> ...


No ones disputing that but the V6 is a bigger engine in size, whilst the TTRS is more compact therefor there's more weight hanging over the front axle.

My TTRS with quarter tank weighed 1460kg.


----------



## V6RUL (May 28, 2009)

Unless my block is different to the other Vees, I think you should rethink just how small the Vee is..








Steve


----------



## Piker Mark (Nov 16, 2011)

wja96 said:


> This is a contentious issue, but for me TDi every time. Its fast enough, has far more tuning scope, is cheaper to tax and has better MPG as well as resale value. It does lacks the awesome exhaust note however.
> 
> I await my flaming...


I had a TDI as a loaner for a couple of days - it wasn't excactly what I'd call fast or even fast enough. That car makes no sense to me when the 2 litre petrol TT has better performance, is cheaper to buy and can return very good fuel consumption. As nice as a diesel TT is, I've always wondered who would buy the TDI in the first place when the other models are as good as they are and especially when the diesel costs as much as it does :? They had one in stansted audi for nearly £40k actually! Had buckets and by the look of it, every option you could have. I'd love to meet the person who bought that car and ask them WHY??????!!!!!!


----------



## pacemaker1000 (Oct 8, 2011)

Forgot to say I will be getting an auto so road tax is similar.


----------



## SuperRS (Mar 7, 2012)

V6RUL said:


> Unless my block is different to the other Vees, I think you should rethink just how small the Vee is..
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Bigger than my block


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

By 1 cylinder - but given it mounted transversely, does it matter?
So who's going to be the first to put up the dimensions?


----------



## V6RUL (May 28, 2009)

SuperRS said:


> V6RUL said:
> 
> 
> > Unless my block is different to the other Vees, I think you should rethink just how small the Vee is..
> ...


Are you sure..
Steve


----------



## SuperRS (Mar 7, 2012)

Do you want to see.


----------



## V6RUL (May 28, 2009)

SuperRS said:


> Do you want to see.


Yep and your block is still 10 kg heavier anyway, so that must account for 1 or 2 degrees over the axle..
Steve


----------



## Diveratt (Aug 31, 2009)

SuperRS said:


> V6RUL said:
> 
> 
> > Unless my block is different to the other Vees, I think you should rethink just how small the Vee is..
> ...


Yeah but your one piston short


----------



## V6RUL (May 28, 2009)

And have you bottled out of the RR showdown that you seem to have set up..
Steve


----------



## phope (Mar 26, 2006)

Main section of RS engine is 494mm wide










Further info: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/28079959/QL-gAsVAalV.pdf.pdf


----------



## SuperRS (Mar 7, 2012)

V6RUL said:


> And have you bottled out of the RR showdown that you seem to have set up..
> Steve


My mental race spec build isn't complete yet. Engines built, turbo kits pretty much sorted, gearbox sorted, but the twin plate clutch is still in development. The main hold up is the clutch.


----------



## temporarychicken (Oct 16, 2012)

Toshiba said:


> temporarychicken said:
> 
> 
> > Since the TTS effectively replaced the V6 model in the range


No it didnt. It was just retired due to emissions

.....
I used the word 'effectively' since the gap left by the withdrawal of the V6 in the TT range in the UK during 2008 coincided with the introduction of the TTS almost exactly. Therefore, in the UK the TTS is the effective V6 replacement model.

The V6 carried on being sold in the US until 2010 however, overlapping with the TTS. Thus it was not a replacement model over there arguably.

The op asked which to buy out of the two in the UK. He needs to know that 2008 was the effective UK changeover year.

This is the UK forum right :wink: :wink:


----------



## ChadW (May 2, 2003)

temporarychicken said:


> Toshiba said:
> 
> 
> > temporarychicken said:
> ...


Must've been right at the end of 2008 then as mine is registered on 1st Feb 2009 and have seen 59 and 10 plate UK V6's for sale on Pistonheads in the past.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Nope, not even close.

I had a launch TTS in 2008, (as well as a launch V6 in late 2006) V6 was not retired until 2010 in the UK and the S was never aimed at replacing the V6 in any shape or form. The S was ALWAYS planned to be 2 years behind the release on the launch cars. it was simply the standard corporate model approach used by Audi for everything and anything.

If you was to argue the V6 was replaced by anything it would have to be the 2009 RS, but the fact is that's not true. The reason for the retirement was pure economics. The new 20T (211bhp) coincided with the V6s demise and others will/could argue that was the replacement, it simply doesn't have one, big engines are a thing of the past.

2008 was a change over year in another way, it was when the first 'minor' updates to the cars were made.
I've made loads of posts in the model history thread in the kb, so i wont repeat them here.


----------



## temporarychicken (Oct 16, 2012)

Interesting... I stand corrected as I had thought the V6 was totally gone from the UK before 2009.

I just had a quick look at autotrader, the newest V6 for sale in the UK is 2008. Hardly scientific of course. Maybe the number of new registrations of V6 dwindled heavily in 2009 onwards, explaining the relative lack of used examples on 9 and 10 plates. I guess it was no longer top dog by then...


----------



## markuk (May 21, 2011)

powerplay said:


> I have had a TTS and a V6. The TTS is faster, no question, but they are very different to drive. V6 runs out of puff high up but its actually as good as if not better than the TTS for general smooching around.
> 
> The V6 is actually very responsive and a pleasure to drive, and no lag!
> 
> Obviously if you can't afford a TTS then absolutely no point comparing to one; being well aware of the running costs of the V6 over the 2.0 and putting those aside, I'd be more than happy to have a V6.


I had a V6 then the TTS yep they are a different drive, now back with a V6 and I much prefer it


----------



## ChadW (May 2, 2003)

markuk said:


> powerplay said:
> 
> 
> > I have had a TTS and a V6. The TTS is faster, no question, but they are very different to drive. V6 runs out of puff high up but its actually as good as if not better than the TTS for general smooching around.
> ...


Nice one! 8)


----------



## ajayp (Nov 30, 2006)

ChadW said:


> markuk said:
> 
> 
> > powerplay said:
> ...


+1 :roll:


----------



## patatus (Jun 12, 2006)

+1 for the V6. Smoother, much better noise & pleasure to drive. (and yes, I hate the turbo lag of the 2.0 engine).


----------

