# TT 3.2 V6 vs 1.8T 225HP



## WOB GMAN (Apr 19, 2003)

alright what has better track times, 0-60, 1/4. accleration ect...


----------



## M this 1! (May 17, 2000)

*Re: TT 3.2 V6 vs 1.8T 225HP (WOB GMAN)*

a stock 3.2 just got clocked 5.9 to 60 and 14.3 in the 1/4. pretty sure it was .3
the stock 225 is 6.2 to 60. 
what it doesn't show is the stickshift quattro launch. THAT is where the 225 will kick ass


----------



## 87turbogti (Aug 9, 2002)

*Re: TT 3.2 V6 vs 1.8T 225HP (WOB GMAN)*

*3.2 v6- 250hp @ 6300rpms 236ft/lbs @ 2800-3200rpms , 0-60 in 6.6 seconds

*225 1.8t- 225hp @ 5900rpms 207ft/lbs @ 2200-5500rpms, 0-60 in 6.7 seconds 
(from audi's site)
my dad's 225 movessss! 


















_Modified by 87turbogti at 6:38 AM 3-28-2004_


----------



## M this 1! (May 17, 2000)

*Re: TT 3.2 V6 vs 1.8T 225HP (87turbogti)*

mine was from Car and Driver


----------



## WOB GMAN (Apr 19, 2003)

*Re: TT 3.2 V6 vs 1.8T 225HP (87turbogti)*


_Quote, originally posted by *87turbogti* »_*3.2 v6- 250hp @ 6300rpms 236ft/lbs @ 2800-3200rpms , 0-60 in 6.6 seconds

*225 1.8t- 225hp @ 5900rpms 207ft/lbs @ 2200-5500rpms, 0-60 in 6.7 seconds 
(from audi's site)
my dad's 225 movessss! 

















_Modified by 87turbogti at 6:38 AM 3-28-2004_

man that things hot


----------



## WOB GMAN (Apr 19, 2003)

*Re: TT 3.2 V6 vs 1.8T 225HP (WOB GMAN)*

btw i don't believe car and driver http://****************.com/smile/emthdown.gif


----------



## M this 1! (May 17, 2000)

*Re: TT 3.2 V6 vs 1.8T 225HP (WOB GMAN)*

that's a very weird comment. you don't 'believe'? to say they were given a broken in or healthy one, i understand. but to not believe.....is weird


----------



## WOB GMAN (Apr 19, 2003)

*Re: TT 3.2 V6 vs 1.8T 225HP (M this 1!)*


_Quote, originally posted by *M this 1!* »_that's a very weird comment. you don't 'believe'? to say they were given a broken in or healthy one, i understand. but to not believe.....is weird

well what i'm saying is we all took quotes from C&D and all cameup with different answers and its not the first time i've seen this. i saw them with the TT, first they were like ran a 14.4 . then in another article it ran like a 15.2 or something. so i mean if it we're close i'd say yeah sure its driver/road ect...but almost a second off...


----------



## coupester (Jan 21, 2004)

*Re: TT 3.2 V6 vs 1.8T 225HP (WOB GMAN)*

There are so many variables when posting track times for a turbo charged vehicle. For a true comparison you would have to look at all data for each run such as relative humidty, air temp, track temp, fuel type and level, time between runs, reaction time, shift points, ect., ect.
One thing I am usually skeptical of is manufacturer's times, many times they are estimated before production begins or run on vehicles that aren't really "loosened up".


----------



## silver bullet_337 (Mar 2, 2004)

*Re: TT 3.2 V6 vs 1.8T 225HP (coupester)*

Some manufacturers seem to be pesimistic about their own cars. Like Audi claiming 6.6sec for the 3.2, when i've seen one on the track do 6.1. Same with BMW and the M5, claiming 5.3...when in reality it's like 4.6-4.9sec. Maybe the factory test drivers do "real world" driving situations, when they don't try to break the cars! Then again it is normal for timed runs to fluctuate, there are a lot of factors that can make a 1/2sec differance.


----------



## MoTTivated (Apr 1, 2004)

*Re: TT 3.2 V6 vs 1.8T 225HP (WOB GMAN)*

the 3.2 is faster stock, but for modding i would go with the 225 as your platform, there is more available and you can really play around with turbo options... my 225 only has rims and a forge diverter valve and is still very quick.


----------



## Kammer (Apr 14, 2000)

*Re: TT 3.2 V6 vs 1.8T 225HP (MoTTivated)*

I've owned both. They are very different cars. I like them both for different reasons.
I like my 3.2 VERY VERY much


----------



## kn7671 (Aug 15, 2002)

*Re: TT 3.2 V6 vs 1.8T 225HP (MoTTivated)*


_Quote, originally posted by *MoTTivated* »_the 3.2 is faster stock, but for modding i would go with the 225 as your platform, there is more available and you can really play around with turbo options... my 225 only has rims and a forge diverter valve and is still very quick. 

Why would you mod a 225HP TT, but not the TT 3.2 ??








Stock is Stock, & Modified is Modified. One should not compare a Stock Car to a Mod car for baselines. I could easily say that if I dropped a simple Turbo or Supercharger kit into the 3.2L TT, then a 225HP TT would not stand a chance without some serious turbo work, and possibly engine engine work. A chip will only do so much to the 225TT.
Try Getting 350HP out of a 1.8T and see what it takes, then rate driveability and total money invested. Now take a 3.2L TT and see what it takes to get 350HP. Now compare the same items. The 3.2L TT will win every category, except maybe for a fuel mileage test, the 3.2L would lose simply because it is a larger engine.










_Modified by kn7671 at 6:49 AM 4-2-2004_


----------



## Kammer (Apr 14, 2000)

*Re: TT 3.2 V6 vs 1.8T 225HP (kn7671)*

I think a lot of people assume the 3.2 will not be heavily modded because the gearbox can't take it. I read somewhere in early DSG literature that the clutches would be overwhelmed by a big power increase. Like anything, though, people will find a way to tune this trans to accept more power - whether they do it with software or different parts or both.
I bought the 3.2 knowing about the trans, and I don't intend to mod the car (except for snows in the winter). It is quite nice as it stands. It does make me want to swap a 3.2 liter into my GLI (or charge the 2.8).








Guess I just wanted to point out that because of the unique trans in the 3.2, this is not the classic (and well played) 1.8t vs. vr6 debate. Oh, and BTW, the six speed in the 225-horse TT is a sweet one also. Again, these are different cars. Both are great.


----------



## kn7671 (Aug 15, 2002)

*Re: TT 3.2 V6 vs 1.8T 225HP (Kammer)*

It is rumoured that Porsche is working on a new 911 that will come with a DSG tranny option, so hopefully this means that they are working on improving its strength.
I think over the next few years we will start to see other manufacturers diving into a DSG type tranny. It only makes sense with the push to have better fuel economy than manual transmissions are the more efficient, but not everyone knows or wants to know how to drive a manual, therefore the DSG will offer manual like efficiency but with Automatic like driving.


----------



## coupester (Jan 21, 2004)

*Re: TT 3.2 V6 vs 1.8T 225HP (kn7671)*

Why would you mod a 225HP TT, but not the TT 3.2 ??
Probably because you can't modify a 3.2, their is no aftermarket products available yet. You can get very close to 350 crank hp out of a 180 for about $5K, and very close to 300 out of a 225 for alot less. What are you going to do to get 350 hp out of the six? 100 hp out of normally aspirated motor without forced induction is HUUUUUGE dollars, and probably is impossible out of a six cylinder without nitrous, blower, or turbo. 
"A chip will only do so much to the 225TT."
Yeah, make it faster than the 3.2. But none of this matters, it is hard enough defending our cars against the Yamahaki Croud, let's not start the 1.8 vs 3.2 thing. Both are fine motors and they're both TTs.


----------



## M this 1! (May 17, 2000)

*Re: TT 3.2 V6 vs 1.8T 225HP (coupester)*

stock for stock is basically black and white. modded comparisons are more open for discussion due to the range of options. the reason it's talked up is how the chip only gives so much, but it's 260hp/290tq and about $600 installed. in the end, they are truely 2 different animals. 
but for the sake of hypothetical fun:
a 3.2 with a S/C yeilds 320hp
my TT coupe matches that with the stock turbo, but has 350ft/lbs


----------



## nasTTcar (Dec 8, 2001)

*Re: TT 3.2 V6 vs 1.8T 225HP (WOB GMAN)*

I've got a pretty well modded TT without doing any internal engine work and my TT is "stick you back in the seat" fast and quick.
I previously owned a 93 M5 prior to the TT and I would say the TT is actually quicker than that M5. It sure feels that way.
My guess is that I get somewhere in the low 5's with this TT.
I hang in there with modded WRX's and outrun the older M3's. I would guess that with bigger turbo and different cam I would be pulling over 350hp. That would probably not be enjoyable.


----------



## Dark Cipher (May 17, 2003)

*Re: TT 3.2 V6 vs 1.8T 225HP (M this 1!)*



M this 1! said:


> stock for stock is basically black and white. modded comparisons are more open for discussion due to the range of options. the reason it's talked up is how the chip only gives so much, but it's 260hp/290tq and about $600 installed. in the end, they are truely 2 different animals.
> but for the sake of hypothetical fun:
> a 3.2 with a S/C yeilds 320hp
> my TT coupe matches that with the stock turbo, but has 350ft/lbs
> ...


----------



## Sheep (Dec 21, 2000)

*Re: TT 3.2 V6 vs 1.8T 225HP (Dark Cipher)*

[/QUOTE]...theres power everywhere, LOTS of torque down low where the 225 (even chipped) lacks severly... [/QUOTE]
Well, I don't know how "down low" you might be referring to, but if you're going to be canyon carving or whatever with the usual "happy feet," you'd never be running under 2500rpm with the 1.8T, thus, a well-chipped 1.8T will be entering its prime torque band and more than capable of pulling on the TT3.2, considering also that the 4-banger has a handling advantage with less weight up front. We're not talking modified/turbo'd VR's since few will ever go that route. If you mod the VR with cams (this is major deal on VVT's), etc you'll take out the low-end.
I've been in the R32... love the sound, smoothmess and seats. That car to me has a far more performance bent that the 3.2 TT and part of reason I believe 250TT carries an inflated sticker price for what you get... dang, the thing is only 3 thousand less than a base-priced M3 which is already "dresed to kill" in that format. The options are just more luxo, dress-up stuff. The DSG tranny is simply not worth $13-15K more... imagine what performance modding you could do with that extra cash for the R32... it'd be "good-bye" super-chipped 1.8T in a blink.
This is not intended as a 1.8T is better than a 3.2 discussion; for me personally it's a matter of what you get for money spent. When I spend $$, it's always with idea of performance potential of car with current typical aftermarket mods and the cost thereof, not the styling or how many cylinders. I'd absolutely prefer a V6 over a 4-cyl, and I would never recommend someone buying a 225TT over a 3.2TT if that's what they have their heart set on. Styling does not outweigh performance for me... so the R32 is far better value and has bit more practicality if I have to lug my keyboards/PA's around.
I'd be shocked if Audi ever brought a twin-turbo 3.2 to NA, much less its cost under $50K. If they did, I'd doubt they could keep up with demand, then the dealer mark up would soar.


----------



## A4Jetta (Feb 16, 1999)

*Re: TT 3.2 V6 vs 1.8T 225HP (Sheep)*

1.8T for potential, V6 for refinement.


----------



## AU-297 (Apr 6, 2004)

*Re: TT 3.2 V6 vs 1.8T 225HP (A4Jetta)*

Well put!
or 3.2=$$$$$ and 1.8T=$$$


----------



## rastta (Feb 22, 1999)

*Re: TT 3.2 V6 vs 1.8T 225HP (Kammer)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Kammer* »_I think a lot of people assume the 3.2 will not be heavily modded because the gearbox can't take it. I read somewhere in early DSG literature that the clutches would be overwhelmed by a big power increase. Like anything, though, people will find a way to tune this trans to accept more power - whether they do it with software or different parts or both.

The clutches aren't the problem it's the ECU. It is programmed with alot of safeguards. If it senses increase in torque beyond what it is programmed to handle it simply cuts power to the engine. It's an extremely complex system.


----------



## golf2pointslow (Feb 15, 2004)

*Re: TT 3.2 V6 vs 1.8T 225HP (A4Jetta)*


_Quote, originally posted by *A4Jetta* »_1.8T for potential, V6 for refinement.









Not really. If you plan to spend a few grand to get a turbo or supercharger on a V6 it will smoke any 1.8t. Whatever you do to a 1.8t, the V6 could always be faster. But if you don't plan to spend much, a few cheap mods to the 1.8t can smoke a V6 with the same ammount spent on it.


----------



## Gambit (Apr 4, 2001)

The VR6 will ALWAYS be heavier on the front end then a 1.8T. Just for that I'd say the 1.8T is better because it doesn't nose-dive as much when cornering. Almost any supercharger option to the VR6 ends up on the front end (way infront of the front wheels) which means more weight on the front, while the Turbo options on the 225 would be in the back of the engine. In order to put a supercharger on the 3.2 you have to drop the compression ratio down to about 9:1 which means you are going to have to loose power to make power.
Those are just a few thoughts. I only wish that Audi would offer DSG for the 1.8T


----------



## M this 1! (May 17, 2000)

*Re: (Gambit)*

you'd only have to drop compression if you're going much bigger power. the VF kit bumps to 320hp and still is a bolt on kit. the thing with the VR6 is heat. it's a notoriously hot motor and boost exacerbates the problem. the 1.8t was built for boost and handles big power quite well. this isn't just a replacement for displacment kinda thing. hell, Honda held the record for a really long time for getting over 1000hp out of 1.0 liters. design becomes quite important.


----------



## rastta (Feb 22, 1999)

*Re: (M this 1!)*


_Quote, originally posted by *M this 1!* »_you'd only have to drop compression if you're going much bigger power. the VF kit bumps to 320hp and still is a bolt on kit. the thing with the VR6 is heat. it's a notoriously hot motor and boost exacerbates the problem. the 1.8t was built for boost and handles big power quite well. this isn't just a replacement for displacment kinda thing. hell, Honda held the record for a really long time for getting over 1000hp out of 1.0 liters. design becomes quite important.

It's simply about $$$$. The only 1.8T - and it's actually a 2.0T that i've seen with over 500hp is by Dahlback and it's pretty much maxed out and has numerous internal modifications etc. There are several 600hp R32's with pretty much bolt on's. With internal modifications - you could expect at least 100hp or more. Again - you could make the same modifications to each engine and the 3.2 will always produce more hp.


----------



## bugzy (May 29, 2000)

*Re: ([email protected])*

Here's my opinion, i dont own a TT, i got a A4
the 1.8t has more tunability in the TT sense for a couple reasons, the 1.8t is turbo and can easily be mod'd with chip, turbo upgrades blah blah blah, to easily achieve 280 crank hp ... most likely over 300 crank hp 
now, the 3.2L motor is awesome, 250hp stock, and i do not doubt with most built on type parts, can gain up to 280 crank hp as well. I forsee power up to 350-400 crank hp easily off the 3.2L
however, the biggest concern is not the motors, but the DSG tranny in the 3.2. I doubt the DSG tranny is designed to hold more than 280hp ... 
now i still need to read more details about the DSG, but this happens a lot on many transmissions like the SMG in the BMW's and the CVT ... has some limitations in power handling
but this is just my ramble.
continue the fight


----------



## rastta (Feb 22, 1999)

*Re: (bugzy)*


_Quote, originally posted by *bugzy* »_however, the biggest concern is not the motors, but the DSG tranny in the 3.2. I doubt the DSG tranny is designed to hold more than 280hp ... 


Yup - the DSG is the limitation for the TT, definitely. I was focusing more on the potential of the motors. There will be DSG trannies that will be designed for more powerful applications though and there is still the possibility that they might bring over the TT 6 speed next year.


----------



## MaineVDUB1 (Apr 11, 2003)

*Re: ([email protected])*

yup..if they brought the 6 speed tranny over to the TT 3.2 this discussion is over...3.2 wins but right now..the DSG is what you've got and if you own a current 3.2 to get more power you'd probably have to do some heavy work to the tranny that doesn't have to be done to the 225


----------



## rastta (Feb 22, 1999)

*Re: (MaineVDUB1)*


_Quote, originally posted by *MaineVDUB1* »_yup..if they brought the 6 speed tranny over to the TT 3.2 this discussion is over...3.2 wins but right now..the DSG is what you've got and if you own a current 3.2 to get more power you'd probably have to do some heavy work to the tranny that doesn't have to be done to the 225

Nope - in fact the DSG tranny is similar to the 02M 6 speed internally - with the exception of the twin shafts. Again - it's the ECU that limits the DSG as it cuts power if specified torque limits are exceeded by a certain margin as a safety measure. It has NOTHING to do with the stregnth of the transmission.


----------



## bugzy (May 29, 2000)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
Nope - in fact the DSG tranny is similar to the 02M 6 speed internally - with the exception of the twin shafts. Again - it's the ECU that limits the DSG as it cuts power if specified torque limits are exceeded by a certain margin as a safety measure. It has NOTHING to do with the stregnth of the transmission.

yes that is definitely true. The tranny is good for lots of power, but its the software that controls it.
It uses senses, to detect torque, and will kick back if it exceeds its operating limits. Now if you find someone that has hacked with the tranny computer, then things will change








the biggest concern with the SMG II on the M3 was the same thing. Some companies have unlocked it, but i believe its limited to around 450hp through the SMGII Setup.


----------



## M this 1! (May 17, 2000)

*Re: (bugzy)*

If Giac can get my Allroad 2.7t tip to handle 320hp/360tq, without complaints.............i bet he can do the same for the DSG


----------



## bugzy (May 29, 2000)

*Re: (M this 1!)*

i know that the 2.7t with tip sometimes has issues with gear searching


----------



## NBA (Mar 18, 2004)

*Re: (bugzy)*

with chip mod , the 225 is much faster ..


----------



## agenTT (May 8, 2004)

If you don't intend to mod the engine, get the 3.2. If you want to mod it like hell, no doubt, the 1.8T will be a better choice - cheaper to mod, more mod available, and car is cheaper than the v6. 
Case closed!


----------

