# 2.5T vs. VR6T swap into a TT - which to do?



## Doooglasss (Aug 28, 2009)

So I want to ditch my 1.8T in hopes of making more power and having a car I can daily drive in the lower RPM range. I have a AWD Audi TT with an 02M and haldex unit that I know will work with either motor- both motors will bolt right in to the car & to the trans.
So my debate mostly pertains to weight and I've posted a question on that in the 2.5L tech forum. I don't want to have a car that's too nose heavy and if the 2.5L weighs that much less than the VR6 then I'd go for it on that fact alone. There are a few people making big power with that motor and it would be an individual swap since I've never seen a 5cyn. in a mk1 TT.
What would you guys do in my shoes? Right now I'm ready to buy a motor to start the build off and give me a permanent direction - *since I cannot make my mind up.* The parts to build the motor and turbo it will cost the same amount since I'm going to fabricate my own kit and the internals are similarly priced.
* my goals *
I want to use a Borg Warner S3xx series turbo and I'd want to make over 400 all wheel hp. Would like spool to be as low as possible and power off boost to adequate enough to daily drive. I'm all about twisty roads so I need a car that is light, has power on tap, and can take serious abuse. I'm assuming I'm going to be going standalone with either setup, but the VR6 setup is more likely to be stock ecu+tune friendly due to more software available at this time.
I know I'm asking for the best of both worlds but if some people have experience with this I'd really appreciate their input!
Note: For those of you that don't know the Bullseye S3xx series turbo's - I'm told they have spool like a GT30 and power like a GT35 with more longevity and completely rebuildable. After seeing dyno's comparing Garrett's & Bullsey's my mind is made up!


----------



## Daskoupe (Oct 9, 2006)

*FV-QR*

2.5l is the future,soon as i can get my hands on one i'll be building it


----------



## VR6-GT42RS (Jun 4, 2008)

vr6 will not fit your bell housing on the 02m..vr6 vs 4cyl=different beelhousing..


----------



## bonesaw (Aug 8, 2004)

*Re: (VR6-GT42RS)*

Your goals can be completed on a 1.8T. the 2.5 will definitely have the cool factor but does not have the R&D behind it like the 1.8T. And 12v are just played, especially in a Mk4. Ultimately it is up to you, but the cheapest and most doable option is a 1.8T


----------



## Doooglasss (Aug 28, 2009)

*Re: (bonesaw)*

I could have acceptable power in a 1.8T before 5k?
making 400 ALL wheel is going to require the larger turbo which in turn comes with a later spool. Since the motor is so small I doubt I'd make the power I want to and have the on-tap throttle response I want.
I would do a 24v VR6 either a 2.8 or a 3.2L. If doing the VR6 I would be using the R32 transmission and selling my 4cyn 02M.
My friend just informed me that the 2.5L is a Lambo motor and has an aluminum block - which is much lighter than the VR's cast iron block.
At this point I'm trying to acquire a 2.5L motor. I plan to build the bottom end and if funds allow to do a full head job as well. I'm sure I'll be deep into my pockets by then but who knows. Might as well do it once and do it right I figured.


----------



## TBT-Syncro (Apr 28, 2001)

*Re: (DougLoBue)*


_Quote, originally posted by *DougLoBue* »_
My friend just informed me that the 2.5L is a Lambo motor


lols


----------



## MaxVW (Nov 4, 2004)

lol


----------



## DasTeknoViking (May 25, 2008)

*Re: (MaxVW)*









Seriously, its half a Lambo engine.... but it deff aint no Lambo engine. 
3.6L swap if you want to be original.


----------



## DUBZAK (Oct 27, 2009)

*FV-QR*

3.4l stoker 15degree vr 24v 
VR o2m bellhousing and HPA gearkit
GT40 w 1.06ar
Smoke built Supras on 15lbs. 
Cant wait to see it on 25.


----------



## Doooglasss (Aug 28, 2009)

*Re: FV-QR (DUBZAK)*

LOL - OKAY half a lambo motor I guess! Yea I kind of assumed that since I've never seen a modern lambo running on a 5cyn. - maybe a v10...
That VR setup sounds pretty sick but sadly that is way out of my price range! What car do you have that in your Corrado?
Another stupid question:
*High compression + boost = friendly or not?*
In my mind FI just adds compression into the cylinder and that's how it makes power so by using a higher compression motor don't you obtain full boost sooner and require less boost to make the same power. I guess since the boost reading is at the manifold, the same amount of pressure would be in the cylinders either way?


----------



## akid420 (Apr 23, 2009)

i know this might seem stupid but u could do a weight to hp ratio for each engine. that way you get best options


----------



## DUBZAK (Oct 27, 2009)

*FV-QR*


_Quote, originally posted by *DougLoBue* »_
That VR setup sounds pretty sick but sadly that is way out of my price range! What car do you have that in your Corrado?
Another stupid question:
*High compression + boost = friendly or not?*
In my mind FI just adds compression into the cylinder and that's how it makes power so by using a higher compression motor don't you obtain full boost sooner and require less boost to make the same power. I guess since the boost reading is at the manifold, the same amount of pressure would be in the cylinders either way?


That VR set up is not mine, i wish it was, but was a customer of my friends shop. 
Higher compression allows quicker spool, but too high of compression bends rods. That is bad. This is why a built bottom end VR @ 9.0 to 1 spools quicker on the same turbo than a stock bottom end dropped to 8.5 to 1 with a head spacer. But the stock bottom end reaches their toloerances much quicker.


----------



## mcdub (Jun 19, 2005)

Did not know the heads were the same**
And sure its a lambo motor,cause the lambo motors are strait the **** up made by audi.
edit for not having false info.


_Modified by mcdub at 7:18 AM 2-5-2010_


----------



## mcdub (Jun 19, 2005)

*Re: (bonesaw)*


_Quote, originally posted by *bonesaw* »_Your goals can be completed on a 1.8T. the 2.5 will definitely have the cool factor but does not have the R&D behind it like the 1.8T. And 12v are just played, especially in a Mk4. Ultimately it is up to you, but the cheapest and most doable option is a 1.8T

An engine is an engine.
Even if its new,no point for R&D.
Drop the compression add a snail and add some fuel and have someone deecent tune your standalone,voila your 2.5T is rolling like eny other engine.
Oviously theres a bit more to it then that,but engine new or old,doesn't matter it can be boosted.
R&D comes in to play with overboosting on stock applications








The 2.5 is the beez kneez imo.Questions of mounting and transmissions and pedal clusters are more on my mind then the worry of boosting it,boosting it is probably the easiest part of it all.
12v isn't played,its just proven over the years its the best damn engine vw ever produced and the ABA


----------



## bonesaw (Aug 8, 2004)

*Re: (mcdub)*

wow, if the OP wants the cool or unique factor than do the 2.5. 
if you want a vr6 just get the TT with the 3.2
my point is the 1.8T will do what he wants to do with the car.
There is no way the VR is the best motor made, it is unique but compare it to other 6 cylinders and it sucks.
I do agree the ABA is a nice motor but not for what the OP wants to do.
If you want to dream then keep dreaming but your goals can be accomplished for 1/3 or 1/4 of what you think its going to cost for 2.5 or 24v swap.


----------



## CorvetteKillerVr6 (May 9, 2007)

*Re: (bonesaw)*


_Quote, originally posted by *bonesaw* »_wow, if the OP wants the cool or unique factor than do the 2.5. 
if you want a vr6 just get the TT with the 3.2
my point is the 1.8T will do what he wants to do with the car.
There is no way the VR is the best motor made, it is unique but compare it to other 6 cylinders and it sucks.
I do agree the ABA is a nice motor but not for what the OP wants to do.
If you want to dream then keep dreaming but your goals can be accomplished for 1/3 or 1/4 of what you think its going to cost for 2.5 or 24v swap.


thats kind of a harsh comment isnt it????
vr is unique but compare it to other 6 cylinders and it sucks????????
i beg to differ my friend, the 12v vr6 platform is an awesome engine to work with, and does not suck........

034 Audi vr6t???
INA engineering audi vr6t,
these cars are looking to spank supra's very soon, on low boost for that matter........
saying these things suck compared to other 6-cyl's is a joke dude,
do your research.
Narrow angle vr's are the **** my friend.....


----------



## CorvetteKillerVr6 (May 9, 2007)

*Re: (CorvetteKillerVr6)*

for example....
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=4001630

takes alot of nerve to claim the vr6 is **** compared to others with 6 slugs.....

kinda crazy to assume with out knowing isnt it......
to the point where its almost insulting to dudes like Issam at INA and Javad at 034, who are out to prove that the a vr can be a very violent and pissed off engine.
good luck with this project dude, i vote a 12v or 24v vr all the way. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## TBT-Syncro (Apr 28, 2001)

*Re: (CorvetteKillerVr6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *CorvetteKillerVr6* »_

thats kind of a harsh comment isnt it????
vr is unique but compare it to other 6 cylinders and it sucks????????
i beg to differ my friend, the 12v vr6 platform is an awesome engine to work with, and does not suck........

034 Audi vr6t???
INA engineering audi vr6t,
these cars are looking to spank supra's very soon, on low boost for that matter........
saying these things suck compared to other 6-cyl's is a joke dude,
do your research.
Narrow angle vr's are the **** my friend.....

The VR is great that it is strong. But it's head is garbage (even in 24v form). 2Jz is a substantially better motor, there is no comparison, its leagues better.


----------



## TBT-Syncro (Apr 28, 2001)

*Re: (TBT-Syncro)*

if i was going to build a 500HP motor again, it would be a 2.5 or a 2.0 20v, it wouldnt be a VR


----------



## CorvetteKillerVr6 (May 9, 2007)

*Re: (TBT-Syncro)*


_Quote, originally posted by *TBT-Syncro* »_
The VR is great that it is strong. But it's head is garbage (even in 24v form). 2Jz is a substantially better motor, there is no comparison, its leagues better.

but thats its...??? so theres ONE other engine we can agree on thats better
i might agree on a toyota 2jz... but even then, there guys getting very close to the 9-10 sec 1/4's with vr's on big boost. and they seem to take it for a long time too
either way, screw the 2.5......


----------



## CorvetteKillerVr6 (May 9, 2007)

*Re: (TBT-Syncro)*


_Quote, originally posted by *TBT-Syncro* »_if i was going to build a 500HP motor again, it would be a 2.5 or a 2.0 20v, it wouldnt be a VR

honestly?????
how does it make sense???
wouldn't a VR on lower boost be more efficient ???


----------



## TBT-Syncro (Apr 28, 2001)

*Re: (CorvetteKillerVr6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *CorvetteKillerVr6* »_
but thats its...??? so theres ONE other engine we can agree on thats better
i might agree on a toyota 2jz... but even then, there guys getting very close to the 9-10 sec 1/4's with vr's on big boost. and they seem to take it for a long time too
either way, screw the 2.5......


The only person who would diss the 2.5, is someone who knows nothing about it. Ask Isaam what motor he's going to build next.








and no, i could list a dozen motors that are better. Hell, Honda All motor guys are running faster than almost all Big boost VR Turbo VW/Audi
Evo 8 +5G = 10 second car
R32 +50G = 12 second car


----------



## TBT-Syncro (Apr 28, 2001)

*Re: (CorvetteKillerVr6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *CorvetteKillerVr6* »_
honestly?????
how does it make sense???
wouldn't a VR on lower boost be more efficient ???

no, because the head is garbage, but the 2.5 head is incredible. hell honda's flow more air through 4 ports then we do through 6. A motor is just an air pump. the more air it can move, the better of a motor it is.


----------



## CorvetteKillerVr6 (May 9, 2007)

*Re: (TBT-Syncro)*


_Quote, originally posted by *TBT-Syncro* »_
The only person who would diss the 2.5, is someone who knows nothing about it. Ask Isaam what motor he's going to build next.








and no, i could list a dozen motors that are better. Hell, Honda All motor guys are running faster than almost all Big boost VR Turbo VW/Audi
Evo 8 +5G = 10 second car
R32 +50G = 12 second car


i guess so..... i really dont know much about the 2.5 at all so i guess your right .








either way, id go vr just for the toughness sake.......
they seem to take a good ****kicking.

and plus, how many of us really need a 9 sec street car????? 
isnt 450 at the wheels cool enough??
haha
TBT, i wont doubt u dude, you know your ****, and you've helped me on here soo many times before.

so ill give it to you, i guess i need to learn alittle more about the 2.5???


----------



## DUBZAK (Oct 27, 2009)

*FV-QR*

screw this debate, if theres any 5cyl i'd put in a car it's a 20V Audi S4/S6 motor. 
Screw this new crap give me external waste gates and digital boost gauges in bar measurements from the 80's.


----------



## CorvetteKillerVr6 (May 9, 2007)

*Re: FV-QR (DUBZAK)*

yeah the S4 5-cylinder seems pretty crazy, 
found this the other day and thought it was quite incredible.

wish we had an autobahn to do 300km/h on.........









http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...ex=18.

i mean i know im full of **** saying the best engine is a vr......
but the sound and that bottom end torque........









i guess i just try to TELL myself its the best, cause i have one
haha
http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## DUBZAK (Oct 27, 2009)

*FV-QR*

S2's are like pineapple express. None Better, gods vjj. 










_Modified by DUBZAK at 4:22 AM 2-3-2010_


----------



## mcdub (Jun 19, 2005)

*Re: (TBT-Syncro)*


_Quote, originally posted by *TBT-Syncro* »_
and no, i could list a dozen motors that are better. Hell, Honda All motor guys are running faster than almost all Big boost VR Turbo VW/Audi
Evo 8 +5G = 10 second car
R32 +50G = 12 second car

A 10 second evo costs much more then 5g's to build.
And obviously the R is going to cost more,its NA.
Just the turbo,exhaust,intercooler,charge piping,fueling and tuning,manifold ETC. is more then 5g's.
No dsm that does 10's runs a stock turbo,intercooler,fueling,tuning,exhaust,exhaust manifold etc. 
Compare apples with apples hombre.Thats a foolish statement.
Comme on tbt,you know better then that.
Wen I said the 12v was the best,I was clearly talking about VOLKSWAGEN engines.Dont be dissing the 12v.It is clearly the ultimate 6 cyl engine vw ever produced.No questions asked.It has the poorest of poor head flow.But it makes the numbers and the bottom can handle PLENTY stock,all these guys running 500whp 12v's on stock bottom.
And did I mention the price they cost to build now ????















No engine is better then the GM LS SERIES AND I DONT GIVE A FLIPASAURUS WHO YOU ARE.But thats apples to oranges








However,the 2.5 sounds rather tits and this is a local car,been 2 years this thing is around now easy..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImZTlG313Pw


----------



## Daskoupe (Oct 9, 2006)

*FV-QR*

sorry but the 20/20 pwns all


----------



## bonesaw (Aug 8, 2004)

*Re: FV-QR (Daskoupe)*

Im not arguing what motor is better or not, my point is for what the OP wants to do 400whp and fun to drive it can be done with a 1.8T. Plain and simple.


----------



## kevhayward (Mar 13, 2007)

*Re: (TBT-Syncro)*


_Quote, originally posted by *TBT-Syncro* »_
The VR is great that it is strong. But it's head is garbage (even in 24v form). 2Jz is a substantially better motor, there is no comparison, its leagues better.


One was designed for compact normally aspirated FWD applications, and the other was designed to be a high power turbo engine from the outset. A slightly flawed comparison.
I wouldn't go as far as to say the 12V's flow is garbage. Sure, it's not spectacular by any means, but I've seen worse.
It performs perfectly well within it's design brief and the fact all it takes to see 400whp is a spacer, turbo, intercooler, fuelling and software - and hold onto it - is why it's such a popular turbo motor.
When you're forcing air into a cylinders, flow isn't that important, comparatively speaking, unless you specifically want 4000hp from 3psi at 9000rpm.
Look at the TT RS engine, which isn't a Lambo block by the way, it's a recast of the Rabbit's 2.5 block, in vermicular cast iron. The head is a variant of the Gallardo V10's. It has very narrow bore in relation to it's crank throw and restrictive intake, so flow throughput isn't mind blowing, but it can still throw out some hefty power http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## KubotaPowered (Jan 27, 2005)

*Re: (TBT-Syncro)*

Haven't there been a lot of 2.5's blowing up with FI? I haven't done my homework on them yet but just off of what I have heard and taking to a few people that are definitely in the know in the industry, they have been hard to crack and get FI VR6 HP out of them. Please correct me if I am wrong though. Personally my next supercar killer will be a UrS6 or Audi Quattro coupe, 5 cylinder ftw


_Modified by KubotaPowered at 11:00 AM 2-3-2010_


----------



## TBT-Syncro (Apr 28, 2001)

*Re: (kevhayward)*


_Quote, originally posted by *kevhayward* »_
Look at the TT RS engine, which isn't a Lambo block by the way, it's a recast of the Rabbit's 2.5 block, in vermicular cast iron. The head is a variant of the Gallardo V10's. It has very narrow bore in relation to it's crank throw and restrictive intake, so flow throughput isn't mind blowing, but it can still throw out some hefty power http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 


actually, the flow of the head is really impressive. iirc each port flows about 60% more than a 20v head port.


----------



## EL DRIFTO (Jul 11, 2004)

*Re: (mcdub)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mcdub* »_
GM LS SERIES AND I DONT GIVE A FLIPASAURUS WHO YOU ARE.But thats apples to oranges











how much hp does LS put down stock engine on boost b4 it needs upgrades
~540 whp anyone know ?
apples to cats
the hemi wont pass 540 without internal mods either
edit
looks like 500 whp max ls1
& 600 whp max ls2


_Modified by EL DRIFTO at 7:41 PM 2-3-2010_


----------



## mcdub (Jun 19, 2005)

*Re: (EL DRIFTO)*

I wont get into it,but ls1 is good for 400 na ls2 can go to 500 na and ls6 to 600 easy na with few things simple such as a cam,exhaust,intake.
Dont get me started with mopar....
Take a look at this site.
http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/...ds-28/
Wonder why its in there,oh wait,probably because they are the most compact and lightweight v8's ever.








NOW BACK ONTO DISCUSSION OF this 2.5T
The ones possibly blowing up to who'm was saying ( kubota ? ) 
Wouldn't be surprised if they were chip software car















Gotta get one fully built in a space frame with motec for R&D











_Modified by mcdub at 3:57 PM 2-3-2010_


----------



## TBT-Syncro (Apr 28, 2001)

*Re: (mcdub)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mcdub* »_
NOW BACK ONTO DISCUSSION OF this 2.5T
The ones possibly blowing up to who'm was saying ( kubota ? ) 
Wouldn't be surprised if they were chip software car

















i believe that the problem is that one corner of the head doesnt have a stud, so that corner is prone to lifting.


----------



## DUBZAK (Oct 27, 2009)

*Re: (TBT-Syncro)*

Well whatever the problem with the 2.5 the TT RS has solved them. If you want a great car...buy this intead of building one. and be done. you can afford it cause its financed. 
FSi 2.5T. The new neevar lose?

taken from Audi.com:
Developed especially for this model, it catapults the TT RS Coupé from 0 to 100 km/h in 4.6 seconds. (Roadster: 4.7 seconds) The sprint to 200 km/h take sonly 15.9 seconds in the TT RS Coupé and 16.9 seconds in the TT RS Roadster. In conjunction with quattro®, the six speed manual transmission ensures a driving sensation just like motor racing. Pure. Charged with emotion. Extremely dynamic.
Propulsion and adrenaline: the engine of the TT RS creates both in fractions of a second. The 250 kW of the TT RS is just waiting to be released. Even at low speeds, the unit makes a lot of torque available. And it maintains this potential over a very wide range - with an impressive maximum of 450 Nm between 1,600 and 5,300 rpm. For breathtaking thrust, extreme agility and maximum emotion. On any route. Every single second.
More thrust, more efficiency: The engine of the TT RS is the first Audi 5-cylinder with the combination of FSI ®direct fuel injection and turbocharging. The design: particularly compact. Its FSI® technology: already proven on the race track. Petrol is injected directly into the combustion chamber. Precisely metered for efficient combustion and improved utilisation of fuel. Meanwhile, the turbocharger ensures high torque at low speeds. For you, this means impressive torque with moderate consumption.
The 5-cylinder design is rooted deep in the Audi genes. With countless successes in rally and circuit sport. Legendary models were powered by turbocharged 5-cylinder engines: from the Urquattro and the Sport quattro S1 to the Audi IMSA/GTO vehicles. A long tradition which makes the TT RS a legitimate successor to the Urquattro. But the inherited dynamics can be further enhanced by activating the sport button. The engine responds more rapidly to accelerator pedal movements and the backing sounds of the exhaust system roar powerfully. The result is a driving experience like never before.
Fuel consumption and emission data:
Fuel consumption, combined: 9.2-9.5 l/100 km
CO2 emissions, combined: 214-221 g/km


----------



## mcdub (Jun 19, 2005)

*Re: (TBT-Syncro)*


_Quote, originally posted by *TBT-Syncro* »_
i believe that the problem is that one corner of the head doesnt have a stud, so that corner is prone to lifting.

Oh look who desides to come back out to play with the kids.
Thanks for posting that.


----------



## cant get a password (Sep 24, 2004)

*Re: (mcdub)*

My buddy just dynoed 517 in his TT with a 2.2 20v and I will be copying his setup but not doing a 2.2 stroker.The car is a beast!


----------



## Issam Abed (Feb 12, 2004)

*Re: 2.5T vs. VR6T swap into a TT - which to do? (DougLoBue)*


_Quote, originally posted by *DasTeknoViking* »_
Seriously, its half a Lambo engine.... but it deff aint no Lambo engine

I have seen the Lambo V10 cylinder head in person and it is IDENTICAL to the 2.5 rabbit head so all the bs you see on the forums you can pretty much throw out of the window.
We got Ferrea to make valvetrain kits for the 2.5 head now and with cams in the future I see no reason why with a decent intake manifold this baby cant make 240+whp NA.

_Quote, originally posted by *cant get a password* »_My buddy just dynoed 517 in his TT with a 2.2 20v and I will be copying his setup but not doing a 2.2 stroker.The car is a beast!

David?
I wouldnt recommend a 2.2L 20V in todays market.
VR's are GREAT motors, gobs of low end torque and the displacement is THERE.
You basically have 3 motors to choose from:
2.1 20V
2.5 20V (inline-5 rabbit motor)
2.9 12V or 24V VR6
If you want to deviate from these 3 then be my guest but each one of them have there pros and cons. The biggest con of the VR6 is that when something goes wrong you are looking @ $8000+ to repair it.In the next 2-3 years I expect the 2.5 rabbit motor to really start flying into older chassis the more people start tinkering with them. 
Cheap, reliable & have the best cylinder head port VW has made to date.What is not to love?

_Quote, originally posted by *DougLoBue* »_I'm assuming I'm going to be going standalone with either setup, but the VR6 setup is more likely to be stock ecu+tune friendly due to more software available at this time.

If you manage to get ahold of a Beetle 2.5 Harness and ECU or similar I can graft it to work with the MKIV cluster and such.
send me an email....I will see how I can help. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## mcdub (Jun 19, 2005)

*Re: 2.5T vs. VR6T swap into a TT - which to do? (Issam Abed)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Issam Abed* »_
I have seen the Lambo V10 cylinder head in person and it is IDENTICAL to the 2.5 rabbit head so all the bs you see on the forums you can pretty much throw out of the window.
We got Ferrea to make valvetrain kits for the 2.5 head now and with cams in the future I see no reason why with a decent intake manifold this baby cant make 240+whp NA.


So it is exacly identical.Thats pretty awsome.Shoulda took pics you jurk!!!!


----------



## Golf 2.0T (Apr 17, 2007)

*Re: (DougLoBue)*


_Quote, originally posted by *DougLoBue* »_
My friend just informed me that the 2.5L is a Lambo motor and has an aluminum block - which is much lighter than the VR's cast iron block.
.

the 2.5 has a cast iron engine block ..but the motor is still lighter than a VR


----------



## -=GTI=- Zach (Sep 16, 2007)

*Re: 2.5T vs. VR6T swap into a TT - which to do? (Issam Abed)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Issam Abed* »_
We got Ferrea to make valvetrain kits for the 2.5 head now and with cams in the future I see no reason why with a decent intake manifold this baby cant make 240+whp NA.


Not saying you're wrong, but I'll believe it when I see it http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## mcdub (Jun 19, 2005)

Dear TBT,could you explain this plz.








Stolen from Golf 2.0T build.
Regards.
mcdub.


----------



## Doooglasss (Aug 28, 2009)

*Re: (mcdub)*

I didn't know this thread was still active!
Sure I can make 400awhp EASY with the 1.8T, if I want boost at 5k... 
My MAIN goal is drive ability. I think I will make more power with more cylinders & more displacement. I decided 100% against the VR due to the weight factor.
I bought a 2.5L - there is no replacement for displacement...
I'm not 100% sure what CR I will use or any of the specifics but I know it fits right into my car with ease and I will need to use 034 Standalone which I'm actually excited for. If I can ditch as many VW OEM sensors & systems as possible I will be thrilled!


----------



## chaugner (Jul 13, 2002)

*Re: (DougLoBue)*

stick with the 4cylinder 20v setup you have in the TT now. I am building mine at the moment, 2.0t with aeb head and should EASILY get to 500awhp with full boost below 4500 - does not really matter anyways since you can rev to 8K, so even if full spool is later you still have a very usable power band.
Tried and prooven, no need to try to do something special. Yeah VR6 would be kind of cool to be honest but 4 cyl is much easier. If you want to go even cheaper just get rods and stick a 3071r on it and you will have 4300 for full boost and 400awhp on race gas and 28psi.


----------



## NYEuroTuner (Feb 4, 2008)

Go VR6
/ Thread


----------



## GTijoejoe (Oct 6, 2001)

*Re: (TBT-Syncro)*


_Quote, originally posted by *TBT-Syncro* »_
no, because the head is garbage, but the 2.5 head is incredible. hell honda's flow more air through 4 ports then we do through 6. A motor is just an air pump. the more air it can move, the better of a motor it is.

This is also my opinion... The VR is no exceptionally awesome motor, but has been proven for realiable power, and taken to ends with 034.... What Issam has done with it is totaly awesome, but you cant deny other OE motors that can be done the same but with less... sometimes much less... (no disrespect to 034's A4 VR... its awesome)
Oh...I vote 2.5 motor











_Modified by GTijoejoe at 12:03 PM 2-10-2010_


----------



## mcdub (Jun 19, 2005)

*Re: (mcdub)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mcdub* »_Dear TBT,could you explain this plz.








Stolen from Golf 2.0T build.
Regards.
mcdub.


Im still waiting on TBT to answer this for me.


----------



## DannyLo (Aug 2, 2006)

*Re: (mcdub)*

i will be doing a 2.5 in something at some point in my life


----------



## sharons03jetta (Jul 6, 2005)

*Re: (Lieutenant Dan)*

Ive got an extra 2.5 If anyone needs one


----------



## GTijoejoe (Oct 6, 2001)

*Re: (Lieutenant Dan)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Lieutenant Dan* »_i will be doing a 2.5 in something at some point in my life









Ditto !!!!!!!!!!


----------

