# 2.0T vs. 3.2 V6 vs. Tuning the 2.0T



## oab97 (Feb 18, 2007)

In considering the 2.0T vs. the 3.2 V6 I would like to get the community’s thoughts.
The 250hp 3.2 V6 amounts to a $2345 option on the Eos if all the other options are held constant. That’s not an insignificant sum of money for a 50hp difference. GTI owners commonly reprogram their ECUs and bump the 2.0T from 200hp up to around 250hp. This costs them about $500 and gives the 2.0T about the same peak power as the V6 as well as higher peak torque numbers (250+ft-lbs for the 2.0T vs. 235ft-lbs with the V6).
Has anybody begun performance tuning the Eos at all? I haven’t seen any chatter about it in this forum. While I’m sure the V6 is smoother and lacks the turbo lag of the 2.0T, $1845 is a big price difference if you end up with the same kind of performance at the end of the day. Of course, there is the warranty and longevity considerations that must go into the thought process, but mild tuning of VW’s and the 2.0T in particular is a very well explored subject and considered pretty safe as long as you don’t go nuts with bigger turbos, injectors, intercoolers, etc.
The other consideration is that the Eos, while reasonably spry in the corners, is not, and never will be, a real sports car. Perhaps the 200hp of the stock 2.0T is all it really needs, particularly when considering how easily it will spin-up its single front drive wheel if you turn off the traction control. Oh how I wish it had an LSD, if not an AWD option








Anybody else kicking similar thoughts/questions around in their heads?


_Modified by oab97 at 5:58 PM 2-18-2007_


----------



## vweosdriver (Oct 30, 2006)

*Re: 2.0T vs. 3.2 V6 vs. Tuning the 2.0T (oab97)*

What turbo lag? If you want AWD and sports car performance, don't buy the Eos.


----------



## oab97 (Feb 18, 2007)

*Re: 2.0T vs. 3.2 V6 vs. Tuning the 2.0T (vweosdriver)*

The 2.0T FSI is a great new engine design and with peak torque available at 1800rpm, turbo lag is certainly MUCH better than in most turbo cars from years past. Nonetheless, it is still present. My father had a MkIV GTI VR6. The engine only developed 200hp but the throttle response was absolutely incredible. It almost felt like an electric motor (peak torque at 0 rpm). I've driven both a MkV GTI and an EOS with the 2.0T and I've been impressed, but contemplating what any car would be like with more power and quicker throttle response is 2nd nature to me.
I know the EOS isn't a sports car and if you're not in to performance that's cool. I want a convertable and my life situation (a new child) dictates that I have to have real back seats (not like those dummy seats in Mustangs, 911s, 3-series BMWs, etc.). As such, my options are very limited. The only "real" performance car with a drop-top and big enough back seat is the S4 and it's $60K which I'm not in a position to spend on a car.
We make the best of the options given to us and while the EOS is not a "sports car", I believe that it could be a fun "sporty car" and I don't see anything wrong with exploring the options available to make it sportier.


----------



## gkullman (Nov 27, 2000)

*Re: 2.0T vs. 3.2 V6 vs. Tuning the 2.0T (oab97)*

My EOS 3.2 is truly a great GT car. The 3.2 has effortless motivation feel and this is a heavy car. Quiet powerful touring is what I wanted and I got a hard-top/drop-top for far less than other equal german cars.


----------



## PanEuropean (Nov 3, 2001)

*Re: 2.0T vs. 3.2 V6 vs. Tuning the 2.0T (oab97)*


_Quote, originally posted by *oab97* »_In considering the 2.0T vs. the 3.2 V6 I would like to get the community’s thoughts.

I'm not much of an engine connaisseur - I know how to check the oil, but that's about all I know about engines (and all I want to know about engines).
I have noticed one thing, though: The more cylinders the thing has, the quieter it is, assuming all other factors are the same. Before I bought my Phaeton, I test drove both the V8 and the W12 engine Phaeton. Both of them accelerated more or less equally quickly, and both of them had more than enough horsepower for driving in North America. But - the 12 cylinder one was much quieter than the 8 cylinder one, so, I bought the 12 cylinder one.
So far as 'power' is concerned, my guess is that both of the Eos engines that are offered in North America have more than sufficient power, especially considering how light the car is. So, the decision about which engine to get might really be more of a 'how quiet is it' or 'how smooth is it' question, rather than 'how powerful is it'.
Just my two cents.
Michael


----------



## chris2.0tdsg (Nov 29, 2006)

*Re: 2.0T vs. 3.2 V6 vs. Tuning the 2.0T (oab97)*

Hi,
I will collect my EOS tomorrow or wednesday. I have opted for the 2.0T, and will have it chip tuned to 240HP, and torque equal to the V6 under VW warranty a couple of weeks later, and can report then the differences noticed.
By the way, i wanted the V6 myself, but my wife convinced me not to do this, because of the two batteries in the trunk, taking more space away.
Chris


----------



## aflaedge (Jun 27, 2006)

*Re: 2.0T vs. 3.2 V6 vs. Tuning the 2.0T (chris2.0tdsg)*

I'll be interested to see what people decide to do to their EOS in the performance department. My own plans include a cold air intake and a streamlined exhaust if either ever gets developed for the EOS. From there I'm not sure yet, but it will at least provide me with a solid foundation. Better tires are first though. The burn outs have worn off their novelty.


----------



## cb391 (Mar 12, 2006)

*Re: 2.0T vs. 3.2 V6 vs. Tuning the 2.0T (oab97)*

I drive an Eos with the 4 cylinder engine. I find that wheel spin from a stop can be a problem. With the V6 being heavier I would think that off the line acceleration would be better. A chipped 4 with higher horsepower and torque and with the same weight as stock would be a lot harder to to get traction from a stop. At some point one has to consider a way to get more traction. Now you would be looking at suspension and tire. Now all this is less of an issue once the car is rolling down the road. Then the extra power can get to the ground more efficiently.


----------



## PaulZooms (Dec 16, 2006)

*Re: 2.0T vs. 3.2 V6 vs. Tuning the 2.0T (cb391)*


_Quote, originally posted by *cb391* »_I drive an Eos with the 4 cylinder engine. I find that wheel spin from a stop can be a problem. With the V6 being heavier I would think that off the line acceleration would be better. A chipped 4 with higher horsepower and torque and with the same weight as stock would be a lot harder to to get traction from a stop. 

I agree completely with your point. The _only_ thing I don't like about the 2.0T is the "bounce" that is easy to get off the line. As a hotfoot, I've had to train myself to get rolling a bit before hitting it.
While taking a number of test drives before purchase, I found I was able to get a bit of bounce off the 3.2 if I _really_ punched it. At that point, I had trouble not getting bounce on the 2.0T. My wife, the tortise, was able to bounce the 2.0T fairly easily, but could not get any bounce out of the 3.2.
I ended up the with 2.0T anyway, and have adjusted my jackrabbit starts. I might well have gone for the 3.2 if the PDC had been available as a solo option. With the technology package, it wasn't worth $3,500 over the 2.0T with Lux and PDC to me.


----------



## bougy (Nov 21, 2006)

*Re: 2.0T vs. 3.2 V6 vs. Tuning the 2.0T (PaulZooms)*

pardon me, but what do you mean by bounce or not bounce, I don't get that expression ... (my english ...)


----------



## cb391 (Mar 12, 2006)

*Re: 2.0T vs. 3.2 V6 vs. Tuning the 2.0T (bougy)*

What Paul was referring to is actually called "wheel hop" (I believe). It occurs between the time the wheel is spinning and when it is trying to get traction. This intermittent traction condition actually causes the wheel (and tire) to hop or bounce. When this happens all you have to do is back off the throttle and the condition goes away.
Andy


----------



## cb391 (Mar 12, 2006)

*Re: 2.0T vs. 3.2 V6 vs. Tuning the 2.0T (PaulZooms)*

As I suspected. The slightly heavier V6 engine does help the front wheels to track better. Thanks for that info. I too have learned to ease into the throttle to cut down the wheel spin. Tires cost too much!!
Andy


----------



## oab97 (Feb 18, 2007)

*Re: 2.0T vs. 3.2 V6 vs. Tuning the 2.0T (cb391)*

I noticed the same tendency for traction loss from a stop during my test drive of a 2.0T. I haven't had the opportunity to drive the 3.2 but I figured the bigger engine with more torque would exacerbate the problem not help it. Interesting that the extra front end weight might be the reason the 3.2 is better. It might also be attributable to the smooth build up of power in the V6. The 3.2 has peak torque @3000 rpm while the 2.0T's torque curve quickly spikes to its peak @1800rpm as the turbo spools up. It's a much more abrupt hit of power I would think.
It was the wheel hop tendency in my test drive that caused me to offer the following lamenting comment in my initial post: “I wish it had an LSD, if not an AWD option







"
Either would help significantly in getting the power down to the pavement better, as would more sporting rubber.
As a sidebar question: Do the 18" Samarkands come with stickier rubber than the 17"s, or they also low-performance all-season tires?


----------



## WolfsburgerMitFries (Jul 4, 2005)

*Re: 2.0T vs. 3.2 V6 vs. Tuning the 2.0T (oab97)*


_Quote, originally posted by *oab97* »_
As a sidebar question: Do the 18" Samarkands come with stickier rubber than the 17"s, or they also low-performance all-season tires?

All season tires do not automatically equate to low performance. And its not as if the Eos is a performance platform either...its a FWD convertible, its a cruiser.
The 17" tires selected for the Eos are Goodyears, and if you look up their reviews at the Tire Rack, you'll find they have some of the most horrible ratings and reviews you'll ever witness. Its a true embarrassment....have a look for yourself.
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/...ad=XL 
I noticed Kevin in Canada, who just posted his pictures in the owners pictures thread got 17" Michelins on his Eos. The Factory 18" tire is the Pirelli P6, not rated so well either but not anything as bad as those Goodyears. The Pirelli PZero M+S (all season) is rated very well and would be an excellent replacement.
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/...ace=5



_Modified by WolfsburgerMitFries at 5:38 PM 2-19-2007_


----------



## oab97 (Feb 18, 2007)

*Re: 2.0T vs. 3.2 V6 vs. Tuning the 2.0T (WolfsburgerMitFries)*

WARNING: I'm kind of hi-jacking my own thread









_Quote, originally posted by *WolfsburgerMitFries* »_All season tires do not automatically equate to low performance. And its not as if the Eos is a performance platform either...its a FWD convertible, its a cruiser.
The 17" tires selected for the Eos are Goodyears, and if you look up their reviews at the Tire Rack, you'll find they have some of the most horrible ratings and reviews you'll ever witness. Its a true embarrassment....have a look for yourself.

Thanks for the info
So what you're saying is that not all 4-season tires suck, but the ones the Eos comes with in the U.S. do?







Either way, living in Houston where I have seen snow/ice on the ground exactly ONE time in 10 years, I'm going to want higher performance summer tires sooner rather than later.
END HI-JACK: Please continue with the engine options discussion










_Modified by oab97 at 3:40 PM 2-19-2007_


----------



## PaulZooms (Dec 16, 2006)

*Re: 2.0T vs. 3.2 V6 vs. Tuning the 2.0T (WolfsburgerMitFries)*


_Quote, originally posted by *WolfsburgerMitFries* »_
...The 17" tires selected for the Eos are Goodyears, and if you look up their reviews at the Tire Rack, you'll find they have some of the most horrible ratings and reviews you'll ever witness. Its a true embarrassment....have a look for yourself.
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/...ad=XL 
I noticed Kevin in Canada, who just posted his pictures in the owners pictures thread got 17" Michelins on his Eos...
_Modified by WolfsburgerMitFries at 5:38 PM 2-19-2007_

I got Michelin Pilot HX MXM 235R45/17 tires on my Eos with Lux. 
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/...X+MXM
While this is much better than the Goodyear's, I thought it was supposed to have all season tires, not summer tires? Fortunately, I drive a Yukon in inclement weather - even heavy rain. My last convertible was only in snow 3-4 times in 8 years, so I guess this is OK. I suspect that these tires were supplied because the car was originally destined for a dealer in Southern California and rerouted to Colorado because it matched my order exactly. My "ordered" car was actually built 8 or 9 days before I signed on the dotted line. I'm glad to have it early, even if the snow has limited my driving.







I was planning to get an Eos since the Concept C debuted, and only waited until Winter to get a dynamite price ($1,000 over invoce from my local dealer!)

_Modified by PaulZooms at 5:26 PM 2-19-2007_

_Modified by PaulZooms at 5:27 PM 2-19-2007_


_Modified by PaulZooms at 5:29 PM 2-19-2007_


----------



## gizmopop (Feb 6, 2000)

*Re: 2.0T vs. 3.2 V6 vs. Tuning the 2.0T (PanEuropean)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PanEuropean* »_
I have noticed one thing, though: The more cylinders the thing has, the quieter it is, assuming all other factors are the same.... So, the decision about which engine to get might really be more of a 'how quiet is it' or 'how smooth is it' question, rather than 'how powerful is it'.
Just my two cents.
Michael

The 3.2 is certainly smoother, but don't expect it to be quiet...it is a VR6 after all (and they make some of the best engine sounds this side of a Ferrari...







)
Back to topic, if you want to mod the car for performance (speed), the choice is a 2.0T with a manual tranny. There are some companies that do chip the DSG along with the ECU, but you generally still get less gains than with the manual. 
Also relevant...from my experience a chipped 2.0T GTI (both manual and DSG) accelerates at the same rate as my stock R32. The GTI is lighter than my R32, the difference is more than the 2.0T Eos to the V6. There's obviously more you can do that just chip tuning, so I guess its possible to get more than the V6s performance for less than the price difference...you don't get the V6 growl however...


----------



## cb391 (Mar 12, 2006)

*Re: 2.0T vs. 3.2 V6 vs. Tuning the 2.0T (PaulZooms)*

My Eos with the sport package has Michelins but they are all seson MXM4 extra load. http://www.tirerack.com/tires/...+MXM4
Andy


----------



## sydeos (Dec 30, 2006)

*Re: 2.0T vs. 3.2 V6 vs. Tuning the 2.0T (PanEuropean)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PanEuropean* »_
I'm not much of an engine connaisseur - I know how to check the oil, but that's about all I know about engines (and all I want to know about engines).
Michael

I generally prefer them still turning and burning










_Quote, originally posted by *PanEuropean* »_
I have noticed one thing, though: The more cylinders the thing has, the quieter it is, assuming all other factors are the same. Before I bought my Phaeton, I test drove both the V8 and the W12 engine Phaeton. Both of them accelerated more or less equally quickly, and both of them had more than enough horsepower for driving in North America. But - the 12 cylinder one was much quieter than the 8 cylinder one, so, I bought the 12 cylinder one.
So far as 'power' is concerned, my guess is that both of the Eos engines that are offered in North America have more than sufficient power, especially considering how light the car is. So, the decision about which engine to get might really be more of a 'how quiet is it' or 'how smooth is it' question, rather than 'how powerful is it'.
Just my two cents.
Michael

The more cylinders an engine has the shorter time interval between ignition strokes in the engine and hence the smoother it is, leaving out the variables of the inherent smoothness in various engine configurations - inline, vee, horizontally opposed etc.
We will leave gas turbines out of this discussion Michael








I would suggest that as the W12 Phaeton is the top of the range model it probably has more sound proofing to compliment its limousine image than the engine being quieter due to it's configuration.
Getting back to the thread -
All vehicles have a weight shift to the rear during acceleration hence a FWD car will have less traction than a rear wheel drive car at this stage. Consider the 911 as a solution to this problem but hanging the engine out the back causes a whole stack of other problems








Better traction comes from from wider tire contact patches, the 18" wheels on the Eos are 1/2" wider than the 17" wheels. Higher performance tires. Stiffer or Sport suspension which better controls body movement during acceleration or braking. Then we come to electronic aids such as traction control or electronically controlled differentials. 
As stated in a thread above the torque characteristics of the engines in question is also a factor as the higher torque of the 2.0T at a lower engine RPM will make it easier to experience a loss of traction when accelerating hard. Some vehicles limit the torque available in the first two gears to limit this problem.
I have only limited experience of the 2.0T 6speed manual (stick shift) on a 30min test drive so far and this was done in Honolulu so it was dry and sunny but I didn't notice any major traction issues. I can think of a great many vehicles that will suffer a loss of traction from a stand still if you floor the accelerator. Without modern traction control many high powered vehicles would be undrivable in the wet.
The Eos is a relatively good performer given it size and weight and the compromises in the engineering required to give you a hardtop convertible. Would you prefer that it didn't loose traction by reducing the performance available. You could get the 1.6FSI as in Europe and you would I guess never have a problem








The perfect car has not yet been designed, some just have compromises that are much harder to live with then the compromises inherent in others.
But there are plenty of cars where you are required to be a 'Driver' and not just the 'Directing Passenger' behind the wheel.


_Modified by sydeos at 3:48 PM 2-20-2007_


----------



## WolfsburgerMitFries (Jul 4, 2005)

*Re: 2.0T vs. 3.2 V6 vs. Tuning the 2.0T (sydeos)*


_Quote, originally posted by *sydeos* »_
Better traction comes from from wider tire contact patches, the 18" wheels on the Eos are 1/2" wider than the 17" wheels. 

The tread is not wider on the 18", They are both 235mm tires.
Many tire manufacturers no longer publish a tread width specification because how that is measured varies among tire manufacturers, making it impossible to accurately compare between brands based on printed specs. If you get on the Tirerack, You'll find Michelin, Pirelli, and Goodyear generally do not offer a "tread widith" specification.
But there is good news, if you do look at a manufacturer that does publish tread width, like Yokohama, Sumitomo, or Avon...and look at both 235/40-18 and 235/45-17 you'll see that in every case, they have identical tread width specifications for the 17 and 18 inch sizes.
Yokohama.
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/...8ADS4
Sumitomo.
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/...HTRPL
Avon.
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/...550XL 




_Modified by WolfsburgerMitFries at 2:24 AM 2-20-2007_


----------



## sydeos (Dec 30, 2006)

*Re: 2.0T vs. 3.2 V6 vs. Tuning the 2.0T (WolfsburgerMitFries)*


_Quote, originally posted by *WolfsburgerMitFries* »_
The tread is not wider on the 18", They are both 235mm tires.
_Modified by WolfsburgerMitFries at 2:19 AM 2-20-2007_

Thanks for that info - I can't even get a release date for the Eos here apart from the fact that it is supposed to be next month so getting Australian tire specs is impossible.
So while the tire is the same tread width the lower side profile and the fact that the wheel is 1/2" wider will still contribute to a more stable contact patch in more extreme driving situations and hence better traction over the 17" wheels. Also our 18" wheels come with Sport Suspension as a standard fit








As for the tires themselves I assume we will get the same high performance tire as fitted to the Australian Spec R32 Golf as the winter issue here is a total non-event. But given the premium that we pay for the car they would want to be.


----------



## PanEuropean (Nov 3, 2001)

*Re: 2.0T vs. 3.2 V6 vs. Tuning the 2.0T (sydeos)*

*Archival Note:* Related post - Tuning chips...tech perspective?
Michael


----------



## just4fun (Oct 29, 2006)

*Re: 2.0T vs. 3.2 V6 vs. Tuning the 2.0T (PaulZooms)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PaulZooms* »_
I got Michelin Pilot HX MXM 235R45/17 tires on my Eos with Lux. 
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/...X+MXM
While this is much better than the Goodyear's, I thought it was supposed to have all season tires, not summer tires? 

Confirmed, mine also came with 235/45/R17 Michelin HX MXM4 Pilot tires with an M+S rating, so they are rated for some level of mud and snow service.
the past couple days the temps have been hovering around the freezing mark, so the roads are wet and sloppy in the afternoon, but lots of slippery areas in the mornings. 
So far, the little bit we have driven the car it seems to handle ok on the snow and ice, and seems to grip the dry pavement really well.
Dedicated snow tires would, of course, be better on the snow and ice.
I noticed, that with just over 400 km (250 mi) on the tires, they are already showing some scuffing on the outside shoulder of the front tires. This leads me to suspect they are made with a somewhat softer compound, and probably won't wear that well.
Kevin








Kevin


----------

