# TT VR6 w/Turbo or TTRS? Lets talk engines!



## sentari (Dec 4, 2011)

So with all the people waiting for their TTRS's, I thought we should discuss this topic. Surely there are some advantages to have an OEM/warrenty. But lets face it, most people on here are looking at potential of cars, not the restrictuions the manufacturers put on them. I had briefly considered the RS, but for about 20K less I would build a monster TT VR6 w/HPA Turbo (who ended up being the selection, but the kit is still in production). I may have changed my mind if the TTRS was a whole new interior or something. Also, while I like manuals -- I'm sorta hooked on the DSG now. I've also wondered if the gears of RS are any better than other TT's where people shred them when they put 400+ WHP on them. That does not really seem to be the case with the DSG with proper software.

Certinally it will be interesting what the tuner's can do with the RS. But it seems like a limited profit center for them consiering how few of these cars are on the road. The 2.0T does not have that problem, but not the potential either. 

Anyway, no rants. I love both cars and engines!


----------



## TheSandeman (Jan 12, 2011)

Sentari, give it a few more weeks and you'll see a said 3.2 Turbo build :thumbup:


----------



## bostoneric (Jan 10, 2004)

TheSandeman said:


> Sentari, give it a few more weeks and you'll see a said 3.2 Turbo build :thumbup:


or you can just go into the mk4 R32 forum and read any of the turbo builds.
there is even a HPA USA owner (Skela) where he swapped in DSG and longer gears.

edit:
adding link to his thread. 
http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?4904051-The-Chronicles-of-Skelator


----------



## JohnLZ7W (Nov 23, 2003)

No replacement for displacement, 3.2 > 2.5.


----------



## GERMANCARMAN (Jul 22, 2002)

JohnLZ7W said:


> No replacement for displacement, 3.2 > 2.5.


Could not disagree more, no way to get that weight off the front wheels, I love the VR6, had it in my Jetta GLI and my CC, but in a rather light car like the TT the lighter engine gives the car much greater overall potential in my opinion.


----------



## R5T (Apr 7, 2010)

The ultimate TT 3.2 Turbo.

Rothe Motorsport 615 bhp Audi TT 3.2 Turbo (for sale).

http://suchen.mobile.de/fahrzeuge/s...tures=EXPORT&categories=SportsCar&tabNumber=1


----------



## mtbscoTT (Jan 14, 2003)

Pretty sure the 2.5 weighs more than the 3.2.....but that said no way I'd rather have a heavily modded (and twin-turboing a 3.2 is heavily modded) 3.2 over the current state of the art 2.5T. 
The engine and manual transmission were the selling points of this car to me, as long with the refreshed exterior look. 
To each their own, but I prefer light personalization versus changing the whole character of something, and the RS out of the box is the platform for me.
BTW, I got to see Skela's R32 at a local meet a couple of months ago. It's a very impressive, albeit very expensive piece of work.


----------



## JohnLZ7W (Nov 23, 2003)

GERMANCARMAN said:


> Could not disagree more, no way to get that weight off the front wheels, I love the VR6, had it in my Jetta GLI and my CC, but in a rather light car like the TT the lighter engine gives the car much greater overall potential in my opinion.


Well then you'd be in full agreement with me. The 2.5T weighs more than the 3.2. Vermicular graphite is apparently quite heavy.


----------



## TheSandeman (Jan 12, 2011)

bostoneric said:


> or you can just go into the mk4 R32 forum and read any of the turbo builds.
> there is even a HPA USA owner (Skela) where he swapped in DSG and longer gears.
> 
> edit:
> ...


mk4 vr6 is different from the mk5/tt vr6 - for example, camshaft part numbers are different and so is the engine and transmission codes. awd system is an updated version of haldex (gen2/4 versus gen1)

its a great section to look at for a basis but if youre looking at direct turbo builds - look at the mk5 r32 turbo builds which are more scarce


----------



## Marty (Jul 14, 2000)

I've had both a turbo VR6 (a Mk3 GTI 2.8L VR6 which is certainly a different machine, but a turbo VR6 still) and a TT-RS, and I'd say it comes down to personal preference: 

Do you want to massively modify the engine of your car (making it much harder to work on, much harder to support for general repairs) with a hacked engine management system that was never designed to handle boost (manifold pressure above atmospheric) in exchange for the fun of tinkering with it and having a "sleeper"? If so, then maybe the turbo'd VR6 is your thing.

Or do you want a newer high-tech engine that was engineered for high boost from the factory that you can still tinker with (bigger turbo's, etc.) with less of a stretch of the engine management system? 

They're very different beasts. Having wrestled with both superchargers and turbochargers on my old VR6, I'm a big fan of taking stock turbo cars and modding them (rather than putting turbo's on cars designed to be naturally aspirated).


----------



## sentari (Dec 4, 2011)

All fair statements so far, and fun to read. I see that the 911's get "turbo'ed" all the time. My local motor sports shop tells me they have it down to a very exact science for those cars. But that might be difference since there is a Turbo 911 as well.

That black TT is nice. That's sort of the look i'm looking to end up with. But > 450 HP seems unnecessary!


----------



## sentari (Dec 4, 2011)

I agree with your point. But the thought of tinkering too much with the RS at this time when it's brand new just does not seem like a great idea for a lot of technical and financial reasons. But even so, putting another 10 grand into it would still be much cheaper than the cost of a 911 turbo or similar. Pushing towards 80 grand though.

The changes to the body/interior of the RS were just not enough for me to drop the 65K that I know I would have spent. I also found that the TTS just did not have the potential versus the extra cost (because they are newer). That said, I bought my wife a 2.0T that looks primed for a turbo upgrade later this summer!



Marty said:


> I've had both a turbo VR6 (a Mk3 GTI 2.8L VR6 which is certainly a different machine, but a turbo VR6 still) and a TT-RS, and I'd say it comes down to personal preference:
> 
> Do you want to massively modify the engine of your car (making it much harder to work on, much harder to support for general repairs) with a hacked engine management system that was never designed to handle boost (manifold pressure above atmospheric) in exchange for the fun of tinkering with it and having a "sleeper"? If so, then maybe the turbo'd VR6 is your thing.
> 
> ...


----------



## JohnLZ7W (Nov 23, 2003)

sentari said:


> All fair statements so far, and fun to read. I see that the 911's get "turbo'ed" all the time. My local motor sports shop tells me they have it down to a very exact science for those cars. But that might be difference since there is a Turbo 911 as well.
> 
> That black TT is nice. That's sort of the look i'm looking to end up with. But > 450 HP seems unnecessary!


If > 450hp seems unnecessary then just get an RS and chip it, that should get you near 420hp.


----------



## sentari (Dec 4, 2011)

Not a bad idea, but expensive still. I'd rather have someone else pay the first few year's worth of payments. But the following video is pretty compelling. I'd love to take that 1M out for a spin too. But in our snowy months those M's are just pointless. So it's Audi all the way as a daily driver (thus the 450hp comment)... Plus, the weight of the TT makes 450 HP pretty fun. The S4's are 4-5 hundred pounds more easily so even RS4 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIxLjbQ2AMU




JohnLZ7W said:


> If > 450hp seems unnecessary then just get an RS and chip it, that should get you near 420hp.


----------

