# 2.0l TFSI vs 3.2l V6 - what to consider?



## Jem (Apr 15, 2011)

Giving some consideration to widening my purchasing window and looking at the 3.2 V6 in addition to the 2.0 FSI. This is not for the added performance. This is just so I can cast my net wider in finding a car with the many options that I'm after.

Just want to better understand the financial impact of going for the more powerful engine. In the purchasing market there's little to no difference in price for both cars. On paper, the 3.2l V6 returns less mpg, is more expensive to tax and falls in a higher insurance group. What about servicing and other costs?

Also and from what I've come across, there seems to be a line of thought that the 2l is the one to go for due to little difference in performance due to the additional weight from the 2 cylinders in the V6. I don't particularly want to start a debate over this, but if both cars are worth the same by today's standards, the difference in running costs is (presumably) relatively small and overall there is better performance from the bigger engine, is there any reason why I should not consider the V6 particularly as the 4WD would be more useful in the snow?

Thanks.


----------



## Anakin (Apr 19, 2011)

its all down to personal choice really best to get a test drive in both. Some bloke on the R32 forum has just broke the mpg record on there 41.6 mpg over 431 miles, ok he was doing 50... but still ! 
Personally id go for the V6, I had a MK V R32 and its a great power plant and the sound is to die for. (very expensive to tune though)
Better in the snow ? better on a nice hot summers day round some twisty bends... 
Gues it would work in better in the snow than a FWD car esp with some nice winter tyres on.
only other thing is that the 3.2V6 will cost double to tax each year though.


----------



## Jem (Apr 15, 2011)

Tax wise, it's £50 difference (unless I'm missing something):
2.0L - 183g/km - £210 pa
3.2L V6 - 224g/km - £260 pa


----------



## TTRS_500 (Aug 29, 2010)

remap the 2.0tfsi and it will be quicker


----------



## patatus (Jun 12, 2006)

When I bought my TT, I tried both the V6 and the 2.0L one after the other to see if there was a real difference. And you know what I found? The V6 is in another league... The handling is much better (probably due to Quattro) and the sound of the engine is so much nicer. Go for the V6, you won't regret it.


----------



## Joebear (Sep 27, 2009)

May be a biased opinion as i own a 3.2 but i did test drive both.

firstly the tax is about £420 pa on the 3.2 if i remember correctly so yes very high.

Personally i chose the 3.2 as i found it a more enjoyable every day drive. The quattro is immense and exhaust note brilliant.

Best thing to do is test drive both. Although if you do im pretty sure you will be a V6er


----------



## Pete225 (Feb 9, 2004)

If you like wheelspin, go for the 2 litre. Otherwise, V6 all the way.


----------



## stumardy (Oct 25, 2009)

I've had both the 3.2 V6 S-tronic, and now I have an 11 plate 2.0l. I would defo go for the 3.2 V6, a far nice TT to drive!


----------



## Jem (Apr 15, 2011)

Sounds like I really need to test drive the V6.

One thing I don't understand though, why is the tax as high as £400+? It falls under band K, which is £260/year. Unless you guys are referring to 1st year of registration?

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/Ow ... G_10012524

I've done a vehicle enquiry on a typical licence plate from autotrader and also comes up with £260.

Also, what cost should I expect for remapping a 2.0L and what sort of results would it yield?


----------



## MXS (May 10, 2010)

V6 DSG £260.... Plus lots of        caused by exhaust note and low down grunt 8)


----------



## TTRS_500 (Aug 29, 2010)

Jem said:


> Sounds like I really need to test drive the V6.
> 
> One thing I don't understand though, why is the tax as high as £400+? It falls under band K, which is £260/year. Unless you guys are referring to 1st year of registration?
> 
> ...


Remaps start from 400 pounds for a good one. Depending on what model 2.0Tfsi you are getting, but basically there are 3 different versions. The 200ps one maps to 250hp, the 211ps one to 260, and the 272ps one maps to 300hp.

I would argue the lighter fwd 2.0TFSI is more fun to drive than the quattro alternatives. 3rd gear on at 30mph onwards wheelspin isnt an issue, and in 2nd gear wheel spin really isnt much of an issue at all either, just dont treat the accelerator as an on off switch.

The V6 sounds better but the quattro makes it all too easy to drive, too predictable, just point and squirt and its all effortless. I also prefer the power delivery of a mapped 2.0TFSI as it feels alot more frantic. The V6 sounds better though.


----------



## Jem (Apr 15, 2011)

Having tried the V6 this weekend, I have to admit I was a little disappointed when I put my foot down early range. Didn't feel as nippy. although when it picked up power it really did move. Did not throw it into too many corners and bends, but I had absolutely no issues with the 2l turbo in that department.

With this in mind along with the higher insurance band, extra tax and lower mpg, I will be ruling the V6 out of my hunt


----------



## AKF62 (May 2, 2011)

you have made the right decision, 2.0 turbo far more fun and all the motor mags rate it over the v6


----------



## New_TT_Owner (Mar 29, 2011)

I wonder the same thing.

I happen to have bought the 2.0T but was on the verge of going for the 3.2

I didn't test drive but two things happened which stopped me even bothering to test drive

1 - I was about to view and test drive a privately owned 3.2 but the owner rather naively (and honestly) admitted the only reason she's selling it is because the mpg is horrific. I didn't bother going.

2 - I went to Audi to test drive both and the Audi salesman slated the 3.2 saying the heavier car and awful mpg means it's just not popular and will depreciate hugely so Audi haven't even bothered with the engine anymore.

Now this is probably harsh. In truth I would *love* to have that super quick start off the lights, faster 0-60 with no wheelspin. And those who have one generally swear by it and part of me is wishing I had gone for it despite the depreciation and costs. So I'm not knocking it. But here are the reasons *for me* that I am happy with 2.0T:

1) Better Mpg
2) Holds value better
3) Jeremey Clarkson slates 3.2
4) Far better 2.0T reviews overall
5) Simple remap of turbo engine possible

I still wish I was able to get off at the lights as quick as the quattro though. My next TT will be a 2.0T quattro I suspect.


----------



## phillywilly (Feb 24, 2011)

Jem said:


> Having tried the V6 this weekend, I have to admit I was a little disappointed when I put my foot down early range. Didn't feel as nippy. although when it picked up power it really did move. Did not throw it into too many corners and bends, but I had absolutely no issues with the 2l turbo in that department.
> 
> With this in mind along with the higher insurance band, extra tax and lower mpg, I will be ruling the V6 out of my hunt


jem ,when you do get a tt ,post it up on here what you get and the spec :wink: and how you rate it 
cheers


----------



## Jem (Apr 15, 2011)

New_TT_Owner said:


> I wonder the same thing.
> 
> I happen to have bought the 2.0T but was on the verge of going for the 3.2
> 
> ...


Going by the test drives, I wasn't convinced the 3.2l accelerated quicker than the 2l turbo at early range.

The turbo kicks in fairly early. I suspect where the 3.2 excels is mid-long range.


----------



## New_TT_Owner (Mar 29, 2011)

Jem said:


> New_TT_Owner said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder the same thing.
> ...


I've not test driven so can't really comment and am just going by what I've read. And what I've read actually suggests the opposite to what you say. I'm just going by 0-60 figures of 5.5 for the 3.2 vs 6.2 for the 2.0T that's all. And from what I've read the 0.7s is purely because of the quicker start off the line (less/no wheelspin). Therefore this suggests the opposite to what you say in that if the benefit is early range only then they should be the similar after that. This would also fit in with the turbo not kicking in till later anyway. I think a turbo car will outdo a non-turbo car (of similar 0-60 rating) in the higher rev ranges as 0-60 includes a period without turbo.

But anyway as I say I've not driven the 3.2 and in the *real world* this may not be the case at all. Certainly Jeremy Clarkson totally slates the 3.2 saying you notice little/no speed difference.

Remap the 2.0 though and it's probably a very different story, mind.


----------



## Jem (Apr 15, 2011)

Maybe. I suppose it's down to how you drive it. For me, the turbo did feel that bit more nippy at the start.

Re Jeremy Clarkson, I tend to be in the 'he's a great entertainer' camp. Don't agree what a lot of what he says. Prior to the TT I was considering a civic FN2, regardless of how much abuse he gave it. Safe to say his entertaining views will not bare greatly on the choice of cars I drive


----------



## New_TT_Owner (Mar 29, 2011)

Jem said:


> Maybe. I suppose it's down to how you drive it. For me, the turbo did feel that bit more nippy at the start.
> 
> Re Jeremy Clarkson, I tend to be in the 'he's a great entertainer' camp. Don't agree what a lot of what he says. Prior to the TT I was considering a civic FN2, regardless of how much abuse he gave it. Safe to say his entertaining views will not bare greatly on the choice of cars I drive


Agree completely.

I don't know this for sure but it's possible that too many take his views seriously enough to affect the reputation and possible resale value of a car... you'll never go wrong with a 2.0T.


----------



## TT-driver (Sep 14, 2010)

New_TT_Owner said:


> Jem said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe. I suppose it's down to how you drive it. For me, the turbo did feel that bit more nippy at the start.
> ...


How much more does Jeremy have to exaggerate for people to understand that one shouldn't take him too seriously?

Anyhow, downsizing is the trend. So downsizing from a 3.2V6 to a 2.0T is the way forward. Yes the V6 may be nice. So was the 5.7V8 in my dad's Chevy 30 years ago. Plus, but I'm guessing here, less weight in the front of the car should make changes in directions easier, in other words more a driver's car.


----------



## Critter10 (Nov 4, 2010)

I started with a 2.0 back in 2007 and have only just parted with it for a new TTS. A couple of years ago someone shunted me up the rear and I was loaned a 3.2 for a month. I found it heavy and less responsive than the 2.0 and it drank fuel in comparison. It did stick to the road like glue and the noise was awesome. But I just found the 2.0 more engaging and fun to drive. I now have the TTS with Quattro etc. and it too feels a bit heavy, but I'm getting used to it 

Bottom line is, each to his own.


----------



## T444NRS (Jun 10, 2016)

Hi guys,this is exactly the dilemma I'm having at the moment. Currently have a mk1 225 but looking for a mk2 and really unsure which is going to be best as I don't do many miles. Any comments greatly received.
Tia
Tanya


----------



## SwissJetPilot (Apr 27, 2014)

After five years of 3.2 Quattro Roadster ownership, I've found it to be a really nice long distance touring car. Plenty of power on the a-bahn for high speeds and not too heavy for twisty Alpine roads. Mind you I have the AMR (mag shocks) which helps in both these conditions.


----------



## McEnroe (Oct 7, 2016)

It really comes down to personal preference- we--my Wife and I have both a mk 2 & a mk2 3.2 DSG- they are enough fun to drive are both standard is - exhaust and brakes - if you are happy to tinker with mods / tuning then yes a turbo car has more potential- I like the reliability and sound of the v6 - I did look at a TTS as well but went for the v6


----------



## MT-V6 (Jan 11, 2015)

I enjoy the effortlessness of driving the V6, and it is very smooth and quiet when not driving hard. When you put your foot down it sounds great.

Thirsty though and tax is relatively high (not so bad on coupe S-tronics though)


----------



## ian222 (May 4, 2007)

Ok so what year of cars you looking at? I have had both I had a 07 v6 and now a 61 2.0 i much prefer the 2.0 as it's facelift so has the better bumpers and skirts and the later engine. Sounds good. Better mpg. The v6 sounded good but wasn't really the look I wanted.


----------



## xpanel (Jun 16, 2013)

Haha, if you wanna see some 3.2 action, check out my youtube vids. I daily mine and I do a lot of Autocross racing. I love it.


----------



## pdk42 (Apr 23, 2018)

I just bought a 3.2 roadster and it was the engine that was a big part of the attraction. For me it's going to be a low miles weekend car so the fuel consumption isn't top of my requirements. However, I want a car that's a bit special and the 3.2 delivers that. The engine sound, refinement and lazy nature suit my intended use. There's something quite different about a 6 cylinder engine that a 4 pot can never replicate. Maybe the 2.0T is almost as fast and will return better mpg, but for me, it wouldn't feel as special.

As to Clarkson - I love his car shows, but I wouldn't take his advice over my own opinions.

Of course, YMMV, but that's my 2c worth!


----------



## Kazuki (Jun 9, 2015)

It depends what you are looking for. 3.2 gives more theatre and has excellent grip with the quattro. I've driven TTS and yes they are quick, but it doesn't have the theatre to go with it.


----------



## ashfinlayson (Oct 26, 2013)

If the financial side of it is a big factor, then consider there is a lot less to go wrong on the 2.L - no haldex service and less injectors and plugs to deal with, especially if you got a manual; There is a big difference in economy between manual and s-tronic variants.

I had the 2.L base model for 4 years and it was an excellent car, nothing ever went wrong and I usually saw 37mpg. The TTS surpasses it in every way (obviously) and after a year, I'm still in love with it. That being said if I went out and bought another mk2 today, it would be a manual 3.2 because you just can't beat the noise and power delivery of a v6


----------



## Steve in Ireland (Oct 13, 2017)

I've had my 3.2 V6 coupe for about 6 months now. Average fuel consumption (according to the car) is better than 30 mpg unless the journey is under 10 miles. On a long, lazy drive I've seen the average go over 35 mpg.


----------



## HAWKS (Mar 31, 2018)

Your just showing off now 35mpg 
I cant get over 23mpg average. On a long run at 70mph(boring) I might see 31mpg


----------



## pdk42 (Apr 23, 2018)

I did a lazy drive of about 50 miles over this last weekend. Mostly minor country roads, so average speed probably 40 mph. I drove conservatively and got 35mpg. City driving today for about 15 miles I got 24mpg. I think half-decent mileage is possible with the 3.2, but you have to pretend you're driving Miss Daisy and be on a road with not too many stop/starts. On a motorway journey at around 80mph, I reckon 31-32 mpg is a reasonable expectation based on my drive back from purchasing mine. Use the power and you'll be down under 25mpg. That may be too high a consumption figure for some - I certainly wouldn't want to be doing high mileage with that sort of mpg figure.


----------



## ashfinlayson (Oct 26, 2013)

HAWKS said:


> Your just showing off now 35mpg
> I cant get over 23mpg average. On a long run at 70mph(boring) I might see 31mpg


Manual vs dsg economy


----------



## pdk42 (Apr 23, 2018)

ashfinlayson said:


> HAWKS said:
> 
> 
> > Your just showing off now 35mpg
> ...


I guess you mean that DSG is more efficient? That's certainly what the UK Road Tax assumes.


----------



## ashfinlayson (Oct 26, 2013)

pdk42 said:


> ashfinlayson said:
> 
> 
> > HAWKS said:
> ...


No, just the opposite, automatics guzzle compared to manuals.


----------



## Trackdaybob (Jan 30, 2015)

Now in the position of having to replace my TT, there does seem to be plenty nice looking 2.0l's out there.

I still want a v6 though. If I bought a 2.0l, I'd miss the engine far too much and hate myself for not buying a v6


----------



## MT-V6 (Jan 11, 2015)

ashfinlayson said:


> pdk42 said:
> 
> 
> > ashfinlayson said:
> ...


True with torque converters but not so true of DSG, remember it works in a similar fashion to a manual, except with two clutches and two gear sets, except that it is better at changing than you. It will change up sooner and generally keep the revs lower than a human using a manual

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk


----------



## MT-V6 (Jan 11, 2015)

Generally it's a head or heart decision, who would buy a V6 for economy?! Get a V6 for the thrill, smoothness and sound, get a 2.0 turbo for the tuning potential and lower weight, get the TDI for MPG

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk


----------



## pdk42 (Apr 23, 2018)

MT-V6 said:


> Generally it's a head or heart decision, who would buy a V6 for economy?! Get a V6 for the thrill, smoothness and sound, get a 2.0 turbo for the tuning potential and lower weight, get the TDI for MPG
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk


Precisely.


----------



## carlsicesilverTT (Jun 30, 2016)

A facelift 2.0TFSI gen2 engine is significantly quicker than a early years 2.0TFSi gen1 engine.

A facelift 2.0TFSI looks much more modern and ages better than any 3.2V6. There would be no real difference in performance in real world driving. A facelift 2.0TFSI with Variable valve lift produces a sportier exhaust not than a gen 1 engine.

A 3.2V6 engine sounds better and a 3.2 has quattro so better wet weather grip.


----------



## rory182 (Apr 15, 2011)

I wouldn't even consider buying a fwd Audi of any variety, quattro all the way, grip any weather, gets the power down, great fun.

V6 duel economy is similar to a TTS, v6 more desirable than an early 2.0t later 2.0t is a peach but has to be quattro every time for me.


----------



## xpanel (Jun 16, 2013)

2008 Audi TT 3.2L

...with of course a manual transmission.


----------



## CRM (Dec 4, 2012)

Ok i may be a bit late to the party but here is my take.
I have owned a Mk1 3.2 DSG, and it got me hooked so replaced it with a Mk5 R32 DSG
4 years on i still own it and love it.
I also own a Mk2 2.0 TFSI roadster too.

Now the Roadster is a manual and its nice box but i miss the DSG
In terms of sheer performance, well the 2.0 is quick for sure. it makes a nice short burst of power and gives you a kick in the back and feeling or performance.
However the 3.2 doesn't actually feel that fast driving normally until you thrash it where it just pulls and pulls and pulls and sounds great.
Ok as for fuel economy, real world driving my commute is around 13 miles. 
Ignoring the DIS and what's displayed as they are quite different in terms of average MPG, i can tell you when being driven normally the 3.2 is no worse than the 2.0 and 70 quid in each car gets me around 320 miles in the R32 and 330 tops in the TT
So fuel costs are negligable

Road tax on my R32 is £520 which is hard.

3.2 is the sensible choice and a bit special if looked after and a good one.

EDIT to add, my TT is an 08 with white dials, not sure if this is the revised engine or not, but the exhaust note is really bloody good for an IL4 nice and raspy and sounds great when pressing on
I also own a Mk1 Focus RS and this sounds rubbish in comparison. goes like a stabbed rat though


----------



## Kirklet (Feb 18, 2017)

carlsicesilverTT said:


> A facelift 2.0TFSI looks much more modern and ages better than any 3.2V6.


 When I bought my 3.2 I test drove a 12 plate S-line and a 3.2 and in all honesty I couldn't tell the difference between how they look, I still can't ?? The test drive back to back sealed the deal for me, the 2l 4 pot was an antiseptic experience whereas the V6 sounds so sweet and feels so much better just pottering around.
I'm looking at upgrading to an 11 plate TTRS soon and apart from the spoiler and motor (the main reason for me upgrading if I'm honest) I still struggle to see the difference visually.


----------



## pdk42 (Apr 23, 2018)

carlsicesilverTT said:


> A facelift 2.0TFSI looks much more modern and ages better than any 3.2V6.


Don't understand this. Visually there's hardly any difference and what difference there is can be removed by fitting the facelift skirts and bumper.

Engine wise, I'd bet that the N/A 3.2 will probably last longer than the turbo 2.0, but I doubt it would make a practical difference one way or the other.


----------



## MT-V6 (Jan 11, 2015)

Facelift 3.2s do exist but are extremely rare from what I've seen

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk


----------



## SwissJetPilot (Apr 27, 2014)

I've been driving a 3.2 Roadster for about 5-years now. For me the decision to own a 3.2 was simple; no turbo, no plumbing to worry about, less stress on the engine and a timing chain rather than a belt.

You should read up on the issues with the 2.0. While this might not happen to you, if it does, it could be brutally expensive!

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=1832427

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

.


----------



## GaryG (Aug 21, 2016)

There's an old proverb "Admire a big horse, but own a small one." -> 2.0 TFSI


----------



## TTAds (Aug 29, 2018)

Anybody know what both return in mileage to a tank off fuel ?

Are they similar ?


----------



## Soulspring (Sep 24, 2018)

Can you not get a haldex 2.0TFSI? or just get TTS. A little remap of the TFSI will wipe the floor with the V6. However, i had an A3 with the 3.2 and its a gem of a unit.


----------



## Trackdaybob (Jan 30, 2015)

TTAds said:


> Anybody know what both return in mileage to a tank off fuel ?
> 
> Are they similar ?


Roughly 350 miles a tank in my v6 DSG.


----------



## cancellara27 (Aug 17, 2018)

I get Just over 400 miles in my 2.0 FWD


----------



## ashfinlayson (Oct 26, 2013)

I used to see 375 miles to the tank on short journeys the FWD TFSI, 470 once on a proper motorway run, Quattro TFSI wont be as frugal, nor will the s-tronic. I get 325 if I'm lucky in the TTS.


----------



## Oyanglon (Mar 13, 2021)

TTRS_500 said:


> Jem said:
> 
> 
> > Sounds like I really need to test drive the V6.
> ...


When the insurance company ask if any modifications have been made and you honestly reply "Yes it has been mapped" in that case sir you will have to pay an excess of x£s. Of course you could lie and if found out your insurance would be invalid. Is this correct?


----------



## motornoter (Jul 16, 2012)

I owned up to the insurance company that my 3.2 had been fitted with a Miltek cat back exhaust system and they upped the policy by £35, even though the only benefit is a nicer sound. Best to declare any mod, otherwise your cover could be voided. 
Can't praise my 3.2 high enough. Took it out at the weekend after waking it up from the car's winter slumbers and it's just awesome to drive. You won't be disappointed, as for fuel I get around 32mpg driving Miss Daisy and around ten less when pushing on...


----------

