# Mk4 Jetta - 3.6L Touareg Bottom End, 3.2L 24V Head



## TallaiMan (Mar 2, 2004)

We had a bit of an interesting project getting tuned here a few weeks ago...
- 3.6L Touareg block, machined to accept 2.8L 24V or R32 3.2L 24V head
- R32 3.2L 24V cylinder head w/ Techtonics Tuning camshafts
- Stock 2.8L 24V Motronic ME7 ECU
- Full 2.5" exhaust
- Stock R32 intake manifold, airbox, MAF, etc..
The car is definitely a sleeper, and looks like OEM under the hood, but as you can see on the dyno, scoots along very nicely.
















It's been a while since I've posted here, but I figured you guys would like to see this. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
Let me know if you have any questions.


_Modified by TallaiMan at 12:03 PM 2-17-2010_


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

*FV-QR*

Obvious questions:
1) How extensive is the machining necessary
2) Are the dyno runs from the same car/dyno? Both fwd or awd?
Interesting results though.


----------



## TallaiMan (Mar 2, 2004)

*Re: FV-QR (need_a_VR6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *need_a_VR6* »_Obvious questions:
1) How extensive is the machining necessary
2) Are the dyno runs from the same car/dyno? Both fwd or awd?
Interesting results though.

More info on the machining will be available when the process is finalized.








They are both cars on our dyno, the R32 was in FWD mode, and the Jetta is FWD.


----------



## apstguy (Apr 3, 2006)

That looks awesome. That took some work but I am sure it was worth it.
Couple of questions:
Why use a different head? To avoid the difficult 3.6 management or limited aftermarket parts?
Why use 2.8 vs 3.2 management? To reduce the oxygen sensors?
I want to come by an see it


----------



## MeiK (Mar 18, 2005)

*Re: (apstguy)*

Finally an interesting N/A project! http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif








Well done! 270WHP is nothing to sneeze at! 
edit: What's the compression on this engine? 10.5:1? Any plans for water/meth injection + a timing tweak? It would be excellent to see a 300WHP N/A VR6 in a MKIV.


_Modified by MeiK at 3:50 PM 2-17-2010_


----------



## RemiRokosa (Jul 12, 2008)

*Re: (MeiK)*

Subscribed! http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## snappergolf (Feb 6, 2003)

noice!


----------



## mjille (Dec 3, 2004)

*Re: (snappergolf)*

Sweet http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: (mjille)*

Watching. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Ld7w_VR (Apr 21, 2006)

*Re: (mjille)*

Interesting. Will be watching this.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: (MeiK)*


_Quote, originally posted by *MeiK* »_270WHP is nothing to sneeze at! 
What's the compression on this engine? 10.5:1? It would be excellent to see a 300WHP N/A VR6 in a MKIV.


If they are making 270*f*whp on the stock airbox, stock ecu, etc...then there is a lot more power to be had out of it. 
Remember though, if I am reading this correctly that they are comparing a bone stock R32 to this hybrid w/ TT cams in it. The gains posted are not all from the displacement alone.
That being said, I'd like to have 3.6L of displacement on my pile of parts as I've already put down 265*a*whp on my .:R with only 3.2L

I'd also like to know the CR and if the pistons have been modified.


----------



## newcreation (Nov 23, 2003)

*Re: (PowerDubs)*

Subscribed


----------



## TallaiMan (Mar 2, 2004)

*Re: (MeiK)*


_Quote, originally posted by *apstguy* »_That looks awesome. That took some work but I am sure it was worth it.
Couple of questions:
Why use a different head? To avoid the difficult 3.6 management or limited aftermarket parts?
Why use 2.8 vs 3.2 management? To reduce the oxygen sensors?
I want to come by an see it









The 3.2L head was used because the 3.6L one is meant for FSI, and isn't ideal in terms of fitment or horsepowerz.
We used the 2.8L ECU because that's what was in the car. There isn't any reason why the R32 ECU couldn't be used. The mapping is very similar, both have some finicky load tables that are somewhat of a PITA to get worked out.

_Quote, originally posted by *MeiK* »_Finally an interesting N/A project! http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif








Well done! 270WHP is nothing to sneeze at! 
edit: What's the compression on this engine? 10.5:1? Any plans for water/meth injection + a timing tweak? It would be excellent to see a 300WHP N/A VR6 in a MKIV.

_Modified by MeiK at 3:50 PM 2-17-2010_

Nope, especially not on our dyno. The car easily loses traction in 3rd gear with a blip of the throttle.
I believe the compression came out to roughly 10.3:1, but don't quote me on that!








No plans for WMI or timing tweaks. This as tuned on 91 octane, and I'd have to ask Nate how well these things respond to added timing.
300WHP may be possible with this setup. Some porting, valvetrain bits, and more aggressive cams might be enough. 
If not, there's always ITBs for the loonies.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: (TallaiMan)*

The higher compression the better, considering anyone who is going to spend money on this swap is going to have cams which will lower the dynamic CR. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Veedub_junky (Aug 13, 2005)

*FV-QR*

Wow - very impressive. I will definitely be watching this thread and hoping for future developments/details. The prospects of a 300 fwhp NA jetta/gti is exciting to say the least. I'd guess anyone willing to go through the trouble of swapping to to a 3.6L block is not afraid of a few more conventional mods








Props to you guys - you put out some incredible stuff!


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: FV-QR (Veedub_junky)*

Just made a phone call to a friend who made a phone call to the shop that built this. 
The guy was surprised to get a call on it since he said they just finished it. 
All the info I was able to get is that it is not just the bottom end. Both the block and head need to be machined and therefore it will be sold as a long block.
That rules it out for me. My head is already ported, and the cost of a longblock with machining to both parts will be quite a bit higher than if it was just the block.
Oh well...


----------



## PhReE (Sep 16, 2004)

*Re: FV-QR (PowerDubs)*

^^ maybe someone on this forum would be interested in buying a ported R32 head... 
Just sayin...


----------



## fourthchirpin (Nov 19, 2004)

*Re: FV-QR (PowerDubs)*

depends on what type of machining is needed for both. 
no replacement for displacement lol


----------



## VR6-GT42RS (Jun 4, 2008)

3,6 bottom end will only give torque...try to do at test with stock cams an stock ecu...and then compare... when you say r36 head is not made for power,you are not right...r36 head flows over 300hp on NA...50 hp more then r32.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: (VR6-GT42RS)*


_Quote, originally posted by *VR6-GT42RS* »_3,6 bottom end will only give torque

Displacement is displacement. Besides HP=(TQ * RPM)/5252.


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

*FV-QR*

If both the block and head have to be machined to work, it's kind of balls. Probably makes more sense to run the whole 3.6 motor and convert it to efi.


----------



## VR6-GT42RS (Jun 4, 2008)

*Re: (PowerDubs)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PowerDubs* »_
Displacement is displacement. Besides HP=(TQ * RPM)/5252.



You still can not compare a stock r32 to a3,6 bottom with r32 head and cams...add the tt cams in a r32 and then see the diffrence.. im pretty sure it is small.head is where you see the diffrence,not in the last 400cc.
But still http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif for project..but it is done before years ago..the german mk1 "r36" runs also old r32 head on his r36 bottom.

_Modified by VR6-GT42RS at 7:54 AM 2-18-2010_


_Modified by VR6-GT42RS at 7:55 AM 2-18-2010_


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: (VR6-GT42RS)*

I'll argue that...I ported my R32 head and saw great gains on the flowbench.. real world results were nearly zilch.
Displacement on the other hand.. 400cc is no joke.


----------



## VR6-GT42RS (Jun 4, 2008)

*Re: (PowerDubs)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PowerDubs* »_I'll argue that...I ported my R32 head and saw great gains on the flowbench.. real world results were nearly zilch.
Displacement on the other hand.. 400cc is no joke.



add the same cams in a r32 an tune it..the you will see the differnce on the last 400cc.
i would like to see a real r36 na tuned instead..pretty sure it will make higher numbers.


----------



## 24valvedGTI (Jan 27, 2007)

*Re: (PowerDubs)*

I would love to see a large turbo thrown at this thing







Very cool build!!!!!


----------



## TallaiMan (Mar 2, 2004)

*Re: (VR6-GT42RS)*


_Quote, originally posted by *VR6-GT42RS* »_when you say r36 head is not made for power,you are not right...r36 head flows over 300hp on NA...50 hp more then r32.

I never said the 3.6L doesn't flow. I said it wasn't ideal for fitment, nor making horsepowerz on this project. Parts availability for it is limited, and converting to EFI would have complicated things beyond what the customer wanted to deal with and pay for.
The FSI Touareg 3.6L VR6 is rated at 280CHP, and this car is making well over 300CHP from what it put down on our dyno, without direct injection, with just a cammed R32 head, on 91 octane.
We also haven't compared the R36 head to the 3.6L Touareg head, so I am not sure whether or not there are differences.


----------



## TallaiMan (Mar 2, 2004)

*Re: (24valvedGTI)*


_Quote, originally posted by *24valvedGTI* »_I would love to see a large turbo thrown at this thing







Very cool build!!!!!

Thanks! I doubt this will be seeing any boost in the future. There's a reason why we stuck with a 2.9L and an R32 head when we built our time attack A4 VR6T.


----------



## TallaiMan (Mar 2, 2004)

*Re: (VR6-GT42RS)*


_Quote, originally posted by *VR6-GT42RS* »_You still can not compare a stock r32 to a3,6 bottom with r32 head and cams...add the tt cams in a r32 and then see the diffrence.. im pretty sure it is small.head is where you see the diffrence,not in the last 400cc

If someone local with TT cams in their NA R32 would like to come by and dyno, we'd be more than happy to do it for free.
We have those cams in our 2.9L VR6T, and tested them on an NA 2.8L as well. They made about ~12WHP difference in peak on a 2.8L Mk4 GTI with chip, intake, and exhaust, IIRC. Down low there was very little change.
Cams and exhaust don't add 60lb-ft. of torque and 30 horsepower at the wheels at 2500RPM. At least in our realm of reality and on our dyno they don't.


----------



## VR6-GT42RS (Jun 4, 2008)

*Re: (TallaiMan)*


_Quote, originally posted by *TallaiMan* »_
I never said the 3.6L doesn't flow. I said it wasn't ideal for fitment, nor making horsepowerz on this project. Parts availability for it is limited, and converting to EFI would have complicated things beyond what the customer wanted to deal with and pay for.
The FSI Touareg 3.6L VR6 is rated at 280CHP, and this car is making well over 300CHP from what it put down on our dyno, without direct injection, with just a cammed R32 head, on 91 octane.
We also haven't compared the R36 head to the 3.6L Touareg head, so I am not sure whether or not there are differences.









stock r36 head with stock sw =300chp..almost the same you make with tt cams and custom sw..so what i see i that you have sw tuned/upgrated the r32 head to flow the same power as a stock non tuned r36..nice upgrade for sure..but think about the results if you do the same with the r36..they make all stock only with sw upgrade 320-330 chp..


----------



## RipCity Euros (Sep 23, 2007)

*Re: (VR6-GT42RS)*

Awesome!
Yeah, I still want to see a 3.6L on EFI too.


----------



## fourthchirpin (Nov 19, 2004)

*Re: (RipCity Euros)*

There's one in BK, NY. 3.6l swap in a mk4 with the following mods:
Bigger downpipe
3" exhaust
short runner intake manifold
830cc injectors. E85 fuel.
90mm TB
O2A tranny.
Wolf 3d Standalone.
Car has made over 300whp. Once the car is back on the road I will get a dyno for you guys.


----------



## PhReE (Sep 16, 2004)

*Re: (fourthchirpin)*

^^ 830cc's eh, planning to go turbo I assume?


----------



## newcreation (Nov 23, 2003)

*Re: (PhReE)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PhReE* »_^^ 830cc's eh, planning to go turbo I assume?

I believe its to just handle the E85 the larger injectors


----------



## PhReE (Sep 16, 2004)

*Re: (newcreation)*

Wow, still pretty big but still cool http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: (RipCity Euros)*


_Quote, originally posted by *RipCity Euros* »_Awesome!
Yeah, I still want to see a 3.6L on EFI too.

Billy has one, but running standalone and giving up variable intake manifold & cam timing cripples it.


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

*FV-QR*

Billy's is on stock R32 ecu, which is throwing cam codes and that is hurting the power. Once it's on standalone, I'm sure it'll pick up a ton of power.


----------



## RipCity Euros (Sep 23, 2007)

*Re: FV-QR (need_a_VR6)*

I thought billy sold/ traded it? Thats what he told me. Yeah its on the R32 engine management.

_Quote, originally posted by *fourthchirpin* »_There's one in BK, NY. 3.6l swap in a mk4 with the following mods:
Bigger downpipe
3" exhaust
short runner intake manifold
830cc injectors. E85 fuel.
90mm TB
O2A tranny.
Wolf 3d Standalone.
Car has made over 300whp. Once the car is back on the road I will get a dyno for you guys.

Yeah, I heard about that car (from you) but I think he was on a poor tune then (a while ago). Sounds like a beast though. IDK why more people are not using them for NA drag cars. They are getting CHEAP too.


----------



## snappergolf (Feb 6, 2003)

*Re: FV-QR (RipCity Euros)*

so, where is the video of this thang?


----------



## VWGuy (Nov 2, 1999)

*Re: FV-QR (snappergolf)*

This is a stupid question perhaps, but I've got a lot to learn.
Am I understanding correctly that this motor runs on a 24v ECU with stock programming? That's interesting - I guess I'm surprised the ECU knows what to do with a motor 'modified' that much.


----------



## PhReE (Sep 16, 2004)

*Re: FV-QR (VWGuy)*

ME7 is a VERY versatile ECU, between the MAF and full-time closed-loop wideband o2 control it can adjust for quite a bit of changes in hardware, automagically.


----------



## TallaiMan (Mar 2, 2004)

*Re: FV-QR (PhReE)*

Sorry for the late responses; I'm not on here nearly enough lately.









_Quote, originally posted by *PowerDubs* »_
Billy has one, but running standalone and giving up variable intake manifold & cam timing cripples it.

Both of those can be set up using GPOs on any capable ECU. We gained a ton of area under the curve by manipulating the cam adjusters on our Time Attack VR6T B5.

_Quote, originally posted by *VWGuy* »_This is a stupid question perhaps, but I've got a lot to learn.
Am I understanding correctly that this motor runs on a 24v ECU with stock programming? That's interesting - I guess I'm surprised the ECU knows what to do with a motor 'modified' that much.

No, it is on the stock Motronic ECU, which we dyno-tuned in-house.

_Quote, originally posted by *PhReE* »_ME7 is a VERY versatile ECU, between the MAF and full-time closed-loop wideband o2 control it can adjust for quite a bit of changes in hardware, automagically.

It's somewhat adaptive, but this car was barely running when we got it. It was lacking power, and throttle-cutting like crazy. These ECUs have some pretty finicky load tables and such, which make tuning them quite a pain.
In fact, a *very* well known tuning company tried their hand with this car before giving up.


----------



## 1.BillyT (Aug 2, 2000)

*Re: FV-QR (TallaiMan)*

I was thinking this would be a potential option for me to get this thing running right on stock management, but if it requires machining the block, I'm out. Will just move forward with stand alone.
As it is right now, car is only making 200 wheel with stock R32 ECU, with load calc faults and cam timing faults. Runs great, real smooth, just no real power to speak of. Also, no real mods to speak of on this thing. Stock exhaust and the air intake is drawing right off the exhaust(need to move the battery)
But yeah, running the r32 head would probably solve the cam timing issues, and I'm pretty sure this ecu is bad as we had it on another car and it started throwing fuel trim faults as well as the load calc fault...
Oh well... still a cool build. I know I would be pretty happy with another 75 wheel. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## 1.BillyT (Aug 2, 2000)

*Re: FV-QR (TallaiMan)*


_Quote, originally posted by *TallaiMan* »_
It's somewhat adaptive, but this car was barely running when we got it. It was lacking power, and throttle-cutting like crazy. These ECUs have some pretty finicky load tables and such, which make tuning them quite a pain.

Like I said, mine runs perfectly smooth on the stock r32 ecu, even with the cam timing issues. Just not any kind of real power.








I t has had a bone stock and an old EIP chipped ecu (the one with the load calc and fuel trim faults) Made the same power with both, only real noticeable difference is the twitchy throttle on the EIP ecu.


----------



## 1.BillyT (Aug 2, 2000)

*Re: FV-QR (1.BillyT)*

Been thinking about this head swap some more...
The first big issue I can think of is the timing chain cover... Just seeing pictures of how the R32 upper cover mates up with the 3.6 lower cover would be cool...


----------



## TallaiMan (Mar 2, 2004)

*Re: FV-QR (1.BillyT)*


_Quote, originally posted by *1.BillyT* »_I was thinking this would be a potential option for me to get this thing running right on stock management, but if it requires machining the block, I'm out. Will just move forward with stand alone.
As it is right now, car is only making 200 wheel with stock R32 ECU, with load calc faults and cam timing faults. Runs great, real smooth, just no real power to speak of. Also, no real mods to speak of on this thing. Stock exhaust and the air intake is drawing right off the exhaust(need to move the battery)
But yeah, running the r32 head would probably solve the cam timing issues, and I'm pretty sure this ecu is bad as we had it on another car and it started throwing fuel trim faults as well as the load calc fault...
Oh well... still a cool build. I know I would be pretty happy with another 75 wheel. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

We have the load calc issue is very common with the 3.6L bottom-end, and something that we have resolved here for the 2.8L 24V ECU. 
We can do the same with an R32 ECU, as the load mapping is similar.
Not sure what you're getting the cam codes from, since we haven't had too much experience with the 3.6L head. If there's a way to resolve those cam codes, we should be able to provide you with a solution for your existing Motonic ECU.


----------



## PhReE (Sep 16, 2004)

*Re: FV-QR (1.BillyT)*

What cam code are you getting? Is it a cam/crank correlation code? Or an over advanced/over retarded code? Those can possibly be from a stretched chain also... I am actually throwing those codes ATM and will be swapping the chains soon.


----------



## 1.BillyT (Aug 2, 2000)

*Re: FV-QR (PhReE)*

cam/crank correlation, upper limit reached on the exhaust pick up. 3.6 has about 15K on it, and the intermediate pulley bolt has been updated. Not a hard fault, but it comes back in about 5 minutes of run time.
The most obvious issue is that the cam pick ups on the 3.6 are about 180 degrees off from where the 3.2 pick ups are. Right now, I am running R32 gears with 3.6 triggers. The last thing for me to try is putting the r32 triggers in with r32 pick ups, but that is gonna take some machine work as the r32 pick ups are physically a different size. I guess I could try mounting the r32 sensors in the 3.6 valve cover in some kind of way... which might actually work. One of the draw backs is that the r32 pick ups are 75 bucks each whole sale, which is no big deal if it works, but 150 wasted is it doesn't, not to mention the time to mod the valve cover or the 3.6 timing cover.
FWIW, the 3.6 pick ups are only 19 each...
Car won't start with the sensors unplugged, and will take twice as many cranks with either the intake or exhaust unplugged, which means they are giving some kind of decent reference for the ECU. Timing has been checked and rechecked...


----------



## Abstract_99 (Jun 24, 2002)

*Re: FV-QR (1.BillyT)*

sooo ready to attempt this just waiting on to see pricing on machining the 3.6... i am currently running a r32 head in a 2.8 block...
i just really want to see a full list of all things to make it work...
i know cams should make a big difference... i wanna be close to 300whp... 
lets do it!!!! 


_Modified by Abstract_99 at 2:53 PM 2-24-2010_


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 6, 2009)

WOW


----------



## Abstract_99 (Jun 24, 2002)

*FV-QR*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_WOW


go away. lol...


----------



## vwaro725 (May 29, 2007)

*FV-QR*


_Quote, originally posted by *PhReE* »_Wow, still pretty big but still cool http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 


Rule with E85 is to double the stock injector size to account for the ammount of fuel needed. But the best part of e85 is it lovessss timing and results in some seriousss gains over 93. 
Guy in the 1.8t fourm is running 830cc injectors and E85 on his sligthly moded 1.8t with a KO3 and is making 270hp and like 290 somthing ft pounds. 
Im in the process of runing E85 on my 24v, I have TT cams, downpipe highflow cat and there 2.5 exhaust. Also custom cold air setup with factory airbox and KN panel filter. And usung Unitronic for the tuning. 
Im hoping to easilyyy break 220hp considering the ammount of fuel and timing i will be able to pull out of the E85. Deffinetly should be cool


----------



## PhReE (Sep 16, 2004)

*Re: FV-QR (vwaro725)*

Cool, definably post up your results. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## ThurbsR32 (Feb 23, 2008)

*Starting this project any words of wisdom*

I currently have a mkIV .:R32 with vf-engineering supercharged stage 2 kit, anyone familiar with this set up will agree it lacks some serious torque. I recently got a hydro locked 3.6 fsi from a touareg I'm going to be replacing all crank and rod bearings and basically just swap bottom ends ( I use the term "swap" very loosely). I want to still use the vortech v-9 and 264 260 TT cams I currently am running. I don't have a machine shop that I know personally so I was hoping to find some guidance in what need to be done to mate my head to the 3.6


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

Put an r32 hg on the 3.6 block. It becomes obvious. Its a ton of work.


----------



## dorkage (Jul 7, 2009)

need_a_VR6 said:


> Put an r32 hg on the 3.6 block. It becomes obvious. Its a ton of work.


Hate to bump this thread, but do you have any pictures of the normal 24V headgasket on a 3.6L VR6? I'm curious how different they are.


----------



## 24vGTiVR6 (Sep 14, 2010)

24valvedGTI said:


> I would love to see a large turbo thrown at this thing


x2 - this shoulda been the plan originally.......

With something this costly to machine, and the wide variety of FI parts available for the 3.2 head, it seemed THE reason to do the swap. Hopefully this motor will meet a nice big turbo soon. 

It's cool and all tho, strictly engineering-wise. Props to the shop that did this - love the innovation that's going on here. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

dorkage said:


> Hate to bump this thread, but do you have any pictures of the normal 24V headgasket on a 3.6L VR6? I'm curious how different they are.


No current pic but I can take one the next time I grab a block from storage. 

The only advantage of the 3.2 head imo is you can run stock inj rail off the shelf manifolds.


----------



## dorkage (Jul 7, 2009)

need_a_VR6 said:


> No current pic but I can take one the next time I grab a block from storage.
> 
> The only advantage of the 3.2 head imo is you can run stock inj rail off the shelf manifolds.


Thats a huge advantage from what I've been reading. Using the stock 24v ECU makes MK4 3.6l swaps much easier. 

I just looked at some of the head gasket pictures. It looks like the FSI has a water passage at the front that the 24vs don't have, but beyond that, not much difference.


----------



## GRN6IX (Jan 2, 2003)

dorkage said:


> Hate to bump this thread, but do you have any pictures of the normal 24V headgasket on a 3.6L VR6? I'm curious how different they are.


The 3.6 is an 10.5 degree angle vs the 15 degree of the 2.8/3.2L motors. That's probably the biggest hurdle.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VR6_engine


----------



## 04dhrvr6 (Oct 5, 2009)

I'm looking to run a 3.6 in my mk4 and do t really want to switch everything over to fsi. Is running the 3.2 head the only way I can get around this? Because I know my 24v ecu will adjust to run the 3.2 motor would it adjust enough to run a 3.6 without running the fsi gas pedal and ecu harness and chassis harness like a lot of people are saying you need to do? I do have a machine shop at my disposal since my father Inlaw is a machinist if giving guidance we can make the head fit I'm sure. Thanks for any help


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

The exhaust vvt range is bigger on the 3.6 (and late 3.2) so your stock ecu will have a cam fault unless you run the early exhaust cam and gear. Not sure it fits or the performance tradeoffs there. 

Get a 3.6 block, put your hg on top and its pretty obvious.


----------



## kleinergti1 (Dec 19, 2001)

Here is a photo of mine. 3.6 block with 3.2 r32 headgasket spacer. Lots of machining for sure.
IMG_6411 by Mike, on Flickr
IMG_6410 by Mike, on Flickr


----------



## dorkage (Jul 7, 2009)

Which hole is the oil return for the MPI motors? I wonder why they ended up putting that giant oil return on the side of the engine. It makes fitting 3.2 stuff to the block tricky. The aux water pump bracket doesn't really fit on the FSI block.


----------

