# Something to look forward to... (Possible TTS engine tune teaser?)



## jsausley (Dec 2, 2011)

APR just released the numbers on their Golf R tune. The TTS engine is similar, if not identical (region dependent).

I'd love to know the curb weight differences between the TTS and the Golf R, but these are some amazing numbers, and make me question the necessity of that 5th cylinder.

http://www.goapr.com/products/ecu_upgrade_20tsi_gen3_mqb_r.html










Now, if only we could get a manual...


----------



## GaBoYnFla (Oct 2, 2005)

I agree...who needs that extra cylinder....and the 4 is lighter....mated to the fast DSG, it's going to be a quick car......


----------



## MoreGooderTT (Aug 20, 2011)

Impressive, but something is wrong with this chart.

Exactly how do you have an engine capable of producing approximately 170 HP and 150 ft-lbs of torque at what would normally be the engines idle rpm? Even if possible, it's not practical. I can't imagine how jerky it would be when you lift off the brake and touch the accelerator. Is this even a normal looking chart?


----------



## R5T (Apr 7, 2010)

a TTS 8S 6-speed manual weighs 1440 Kg.


----------



## jsausley (Dec 2, 2011)

MoreGooderTT said:


> Impressive, but something is wrong with this chart.
> 
> Exactly how do you have an engine capable of producing approximately 170 HP and 150 ft-lbs of torque at what would normally be the engines idle rpm? Even if possible, it's not practical. I can't imagine how jerky it would be when you lift off the brake and touch the accelerator. Is this even a normal looking chart?


It's a dyno, so it's under load. I don't know the specifics of how these tests are run but presumably they start the run at very low RPM, let's say 1,200, and hold the load to redline.

Most dynos don't start a run until 2-3,000 RPM, this one just started earlier.

Here's the chart on your car:


----------



## jsausley (Dec 2, 2011)

R5T said:


> a TTS 8S 6-speed manual weighs 1440 Kg.


Nice.. Golf R weighs 1525kg, so you're looking at a difference of about 190 lbs.


----------



## MoreGooderTT (Aug 20, 2011)

jsausley said:


> It's a dyno, so it's under load. I don't know the specifics of how these tests are run but presumably they start the run at very low RPM, let's say 1,200, and hold the load to redline.
> 
> Most dynos don't start a run until 2-3,000 RPM, this one just started earlier.
> 
> Here's the chart on your car:


Interesting! That makes sense. Thanks for that.


----------



## YYC Dubber (Jun 23, 2011)

jsausley said:


> APR just released the numbers on their Golf R tune. The TTS engine is similar, if not identical (region dependent).
> 
> I'd love to know the curb weight differences between the TTS and the Golf R, but these are some amazing numbers, and make me question the necessity of that 5th cylinder.
> 
> ...


With all due respect... the TTRS is a whole different league from the TTS. A much larger jump than the TT is to the TTS.

Having repeatedly test driven 2nd Gen TT's, TTS's and then ordering my TTRS... I can tell you the engine/ performance design strategy for the Gen 3 has NOT changed.

The issue with the TTS is your are using the same engine as the TT with a larger turbo. This means SLOWER spool up and MORE lag. On the 2nd Gen, I actually preferred the standard TT with an APR tune since you had the same amount of power as a stock TTS with a much better low end with a smaller turbo that spools very quicly... A tuned TTS will never be able to get that bottom end GRUNT because of the turbo design.

The other big issues you run into with the gen 3 TTS is tuneability... APR Stage 1 MQB tune is amazing.... and seeing very good numbers for torque ( the APR Stage 1 TT and TTS torque is very similar around 380 ft/lbs...)

* THE PROBLEM IS THE 6 SPEED DSG. It is not designed to handle these far higher amounts of torque... to the point that APR is designing torque limiting maps so your DSG doesn't implode. The design limit of the 6 sped is 380 ft/lbs. You now have a car that is hitting that design limit at anytime/all the time.*

The extra cylinder of the TTRS 5 pot gives you the extra displacement you need to be able to produce power from a turbo that does not have to be oversized for the engine and thus hits its torque peak early on, round 1600-1800 RPM. This is a FELT difference in stop and go traffic when you need a squirt of torque from low rpm cruise to slid into a tight lane change.

More importantly, the 7 Speed DSG is designed to handle up to 600 ft/lbs of torque, out of the box.

A 7 speed DSG, Gen 3 TTRS with a Stage 1 APR tune will probably be hitting around 470-500 ft/lbs of torque... that approximately 200 more than a tuned TTS, starting at a lower RPM.

I love ALL the TT models, and everyone has their own preference, requirements... but I assure you, the step up from a TTS to an RS cannot be masked by a tune.


----------



## jsausley (Dec 2, 2011)

YYC Dubber said:


> I love ALL the TT models, and everyone has their own preference, requirements... but I assure you, the step up from a TTS to an RS cannot be masked by a tune.


I realize all of this, I think everyone here does, but most of the statements you're making are based on the previous generation.

The new generation is making the same torque as the previous at very high levels of tune. Additionally it is lighter and more nimble, and the added nose weight from the RS will definitely be noticeable on the track. 

There is of course no replacement for the 5-cylinder, really, but for street-and-track car, a case could definitely be made for the lighter, sprightlier TTS now, I think.


----------



## JohnLZ7W (Nov 23, 2003)

jsausley said:


> There is of course no replacement for the 5-cylinder, really, but for street-and-track car, a case could definitely be made for the lighter, sprightlier TTS now, I think.


I think that was always the case though wasn't it? A stage2 mk2 TTS is already close to a stock TTRS in terms of power output and is already lighter than the RS. On track low-end torque is less helpful anyway and DSG would be beneficial.

The mk3 RS may get an aluminum block which would minimize the weight difference a bit.


----------



## jsausley (Dec 2, 2011)

JohnLZ7W said:


> I think that was always the case though wasn't it? A stage2 mk2 TTS is already close to a stock TTRS in terms of power output and is already lighter than the RS. On track low-end torque is less helpful anyway and DSG would be beneficial.
> 
> The mk3 RS may get an aluminum block which would minimize the weight difference a bit.


Yep -- but now, based on the graph above, that can be the case at just Stage 1.


----------



## Fined (Sep 3, 2013)

GaBoYnFla said:


> I agree...who needs that extra cylinder....and the 4 is lighter....mated to the fast DSG, it's going to be a quick car......



Having owned a StageII TTS and now having a StageII+ TTRS.. I would say the extra cylinder makes a massive difference. I loved my TTS. DSG really fits this cars personality well. However.. while my StageII TTS was equally quick as my stock RS (due to DSG I'd say my TTS felt faster while my RS was still stock).. the RS is loads more fun to drive since it just pulls and pulls even from down low. The 5 pot truly has some kind of character. Even a 2.0T built to be faster than a 2.5 will still be a bit less rewarding.. in my personal experience.


----------



## madmac48 (Nov 27, 2014)

Fined said:


> Having owned a StageII TTS and now having a StageII+ TTRS.. I would say the extra cylinder makes a massive difference. I loved my TTS. DSG really fits this cars personality well. However.. while my StageII TTS was equally quick as my stock RS (due to DSG I'd say my TTS felt faster while my RS was still stock).. the RS is loads more fun to drive since it just pulls and pulls even from down low. The 5 pot truly has some kind of character. Even a 2.0T built to be faster than a 2.5 will still be a bit less rewarding.. in my personal experience.


I totally agree! I came to my TTRS Stage 2+ from a C63 AMG,and I had experience of my son's Golf R.I was wonderfully surprised with the Torque of the 5 compared to the 4 [and even thinking of my C63] On the 1500km trip home from the dealer he was my co-driver and said "This is like an automatic,as you don't even have to shift down when passing " We had done the same trip from the next door VW dealer 2 years ago when we picked up his new R.If you can stretch to an RS from an S there is a HUGE difference,like comparing an AMG to an AMG Sport or a CarreraS [or even now the GTS] to a base Carrera.Then is always the Turbo and Turbo S !!
Mac


----------



## GaBoYnFla (Oct 2, 2005)

I was comparing stock cars with factory backed warranty.......so maybe I missed the thread's point.


----------



## JohnLZ7W (Nov 23, 2003)

GaBoYnFla said:


> I was comparing stock cars with factory backed warranty.......so maybe I missed the thread's point.


The first post throws the warranty out the window with a (theoretical) stage 1 tuned TTS.


----------



## Revolver1966 (Mar 30, 2014)

The warranty concern is always going to be there, does it have to become a main point of discussion every time a time is mentioned? We get it. 
Warranty or no warranty, a Mk3 TT-S will be pushing out performance figures similar to the original R8 V-10 while still retaining all the neat little things about the TT. All show, all go.
Factoring in the smaller size and weight, I'd guess 3.5 0-60, 9.0 0-100. As far as the DSG concern goes, the GTI tune actually puts out as much or more torque than the R. The difference is the numbers are more "square" like 380hp/390tq. However there is a "low output" tune that is like 355hp/360tq for the R. The new DSG can handle up to 400tq and feels much more robust than the Mk6 DSG transmission (shifts feel heavier, & direct, rev matching more pronounced, etc.) 350-400HP goes a LONG way in MQB Haldex. VW is also kinder to tunes than Audi.


----------

