# Differences between 2009 and 2010 (maybe 2011) TTS? + 2009 3.2 question



## Drecca (Oct 26, 2003)

Hey Guys,

I've been in the market for a TTS for a few months now, very few for sale in the Montreal area, and I finally found a good deal on a 2010 but someone jumped on it before I could.

Anyway, I've still been searching, and found a 2009, with about 35k miles (50k km's) on it.

Are there any differences between the 2009 and 2010? What about 2011? 

The 2010 I was looking at had Navigation as well. Do they all have heated / power seats?

As a compromise, I found a 2009 3.2 quattro, fully loaded, magnetic suspensions, etc. What am I giving up apart from the sweet turbo engine if I go with the 2009 3.2?

Any advice is greatly appreciated. I've had my MK4 Jetta for over 10 years now, so I'm completely out of the loop on Audi's / Vw's now


----------



## GaBoYnFla (Oct 2, 2005)

Everywhere TTS's are hard to find. I tired for about 6 months.....nothing.........then went and bought a new one back in 2011. Also, the prices asked for the used ones were really high too.

Just my opinion, I love the Vr6....had a R32 before this...fantastic sound-heavy motor out front. I like the balance of the turbo motor car much better than that extra weight all out front. The TT is mostly aluminum (69%) especially the front....to take advantage of that, you need the lighter motor. The TTS is also faster than the 3.2....but you will miss the sounds that 3.2 makes.

My 2 cents! Good luck.


----------



## rn53 (Jun 4, 2011)

I bought my 2009 in Feb 2012 and paid just over 32k from a dealer in Texas and it was CPO as well. No nav, had 40k miles. It took me about 4 months to find what I was looking for and it took me getting it delivered from across the country to finally make it work, finding one locally was next to impossible. After everything, no regrets


----------



## Vegas-RoadsTTer (Mar 17, 2013)

*Agree with FLA*

The 3.2 has a great sound and is a great engine, but even the a "standard" 2011+ TT is as fast from 0-60, the TTS is even faster. The standard and S have better weight distribution due to the lighter engine, and I believe both get better gas mileage than the 3.2.

I know the 2011+ standard has a timing chain like the 3.2. Anyone know if all Mk II TTS have a chain? That would be an important factor for me in selecting a model year.


----------



## JohnLZ7W (Nov 23, 2003)

Vegas-RoadsTTer said:


> The 3.2 has a great sound and is a great engine, but even the a "standard" 2011+ TT is as fast from 0-60, the TTS is even faster. The standard and S have better weight distribution due to the lighter engine, and I believe both get better gas mileage than the 3.2.
> 
> I know the 2011+ standard has a timing chain like the 3.2. Anyone know if all Mk II TTS have a chain? That would be an important factor for me in selecting a model year.


TTS is the older FSI engine, no timing chain. Honestly if I was shopping I'd go for a 2011+ standard TTQ and chip it.


----------



## GaBoYnFla (Oct 2, 2005)

JohnLZ7W said:


> TTS is the older FSI engine, no timing chain. Honestly if I was shopping I'd go for a 2011+ standard TTQ and chip it.


It still won't match the TTS's power.


----------



## Vegas-RoadsTTer (Mar 17, 2013)

*Are you sure?*

APR test data shows the 2011+ unchipped engine to be grossly underspeced with peak torque better than that advertised for the TTS engine. The APR chipped data (241 HP and 300 ft-lb of torque) compares to the TTS unchiped (265HP and 258 ft-lb of torque). Don't have 0-60 numbers for each, however.

http://www.goapr.com/products/ecu_upgrade_20tsivl_trans.html


----------



## GaBoYnFla (Oct 2, 2005)

Vegas-RoadsTTer said:


> APR test data shows the 2011+ unchipped engine to be grossly underspeced with peak torque better than that advertised for the TTS engine. The APR chipped data (241 HP and 300 ft-lb of torque) compares to the TTS unchiped (265HP and 258 ft-lb of torque). Don't have 0-60 numbers for each, however.
> 
> http://www.goapr.com/products/ecu_upgrade_20tsivl_trans.html


Show me numbers of speed not hp....the chip mfgs always show dyno stuff but rarely how much faster that makes it on a track or 0-60. I think the APR is prob one of the most reputable maker with their racing program to back them but I do doubt many of the chip makers numbers in real world. There also has to be trade offs or Audi would just make the cars that way to start.


----------



## Vegas-RoadsTTer (Mar 17, 2013)

*Agree, HP and torque do not tell the whole story*

Also need to consider the RPM range they are available. That's why I was asking if you knew of any chipped speed times.

Before I bought my 2011 I was very tempted by several ads I saw for low mileage (under 20K) 3.2 Mk IIs at very reasonabler prices. (My Audi service manager loves the 3.2 engine.) I decided to go with the 2011 as a better car for the reasons listed (as well as remaining base Audi warranty + CPO) after I found 0-60 times for the 2011 confirmed in auto magazine reviews, and handling improvements noted as well due to losing lots of pounds on the nose.

A negative for chipping is that I've seen posted that the 2011+ ECU will tell the dealer if it has been chipped, opening the door for warranty discussions.

When I first saw the APR dyno data on the stock engine, I was wondering about an Audi conspiricy theory. To wit, Audi deliberately under-speced the 2011+ engine to artificially widen the gap between the stock and S models to justify the price difference. However, as I investigated (and as you said), the S has better much better confirmed speed numbers than the stock 2011+.


----------



## i0n (Oct 29, 2012)

GaBoYnFla said:


> Show me numbers of speed not hp....the chip mfgs always show dyno stuff but rarely how much faster that makes it on a track or 0-60.


Here's a video of me on the track behind a TTS (silver car): http://youtu.be/w6yXG3xvbj4?t=2m40s.

As far as I can tell, you guys are arguing for the same thing. Nobody is questioning that the TTS is faster than the EA888 TT stock. However, the difference between the TT and TTS is much closer with the EA888 than it was before. We all know that the TTS makes more horsepower than the TT, but the TTS also has *significantly* more turbo lag, which you can see both in the dyno charts and in how the silver TTS doesn't really start to pull away from me on the track until we reach very high speeds.

In my opinion, a combination of the smaller gap in performance and better low-end torque of the EA888 with valvelift makes the TT a much better buy as a daily driver than the TTS. Combine this with the fact that if you put the same k04 turbo that's on the TTS on the EA888 TT you make hp and torque number that rival the TTRS, I think the TT also makes a better buy for people who are looking to tune their cars.

I think it will be interesting to see what the future holds for these cars with the mk3, especially as the gen III EA888 will bring an integrated manifold. Right now, you can buy a TT and simply swap the turbo to make massive performance gains. But, if the exhaust manifold is integrated with the block, the only way to get better performance might be to move up the model ladder and buy a TTS or TTRS...


----------



## GaBoYnFla (Oct 2, 2005)

i0n said:


> Here's a video of me on the track behind a TTS (silver car): http://youtu.be/w6yXG3xvbj4?t=2m40s.
> 
> Snip........, I think the TT also makes a better buy for people who are looking to tune their cars.
> 
> ...


Bet the track was fun? 

Your forgetting other things too that the TTS has like bigger brakes, higher level of trim, body pieces, etc........it does depend on his plans....and whether he wants to keep a warranty too.


----------



## joneze93tsi (Aug 8, 2008)

A chipped TTS is faster than a chipped TT, mod for mod, you can't beat it.
It has a beefy motor, bigger turbo, bigger brakes.


----------



## i0n (Oct 29, 2012)

GaBoYnFla said:


> Bet the track was fun?
> 
> Your forgetting other things too that the TTS has like bigger brakes, higher level of trim, body pieces, etc........it does depend on his plans....and whether he wants to keep a warranty too.


It was incredibly fun, I just wish I was rich so that I wouldn't have to worry about wear and tear. I love this car and want it to last as long as possible!

I didn't forget about those things, I purposefully didn't mention them. If you get the S-line package + magride, or the competition package, you can match the trim of the TTS. Brakes can always be replaced, but honestly the stock ones are fine for daily driving and autocross (lighter too). Like you said, it depends on his plans...


----------



## GaBoYnFla (Oct 2, 2005)

i0n said:


> It was incredibly fun, I just wish I was rich so that I wouldn't have to worry about wear and tear. I love this car and want it to last as long as possible!
> 
> I didn't forget about those things, I purposefully didn't mention them. If you get the S-line package + magride, or the competition package, you can match the trim of the TTS. Brakes can always be replaced, but honestly the stock ones are fine for daily driving and autocross (lighter too). Like you said, it depends on his plans...


When I was evaluating it....I started adding up brakes, etc....it gets real expensive especially if you go with stuff to try and preserve warranty (Stasis).....I just went for the package that has backing by Audi....


----------



## racerxjin (Feb 13, 2012)

I personally think the TT is a better car to tune than TTS. 
I added a the K04 turbo and made a big dfference. 
Also no carbon build up issues. 

Also here is some numbers 

http://db.tt/JonTZIVd 

I would love to see a TTS or even a TTRS on a road course to compare performance.


----------



## JohnLZ7W (Nov 23, 2003)

racerxjin said:


> I personally think the TT is a better car to tune than TTS.
> I added a the K04 turbo and made a big dfference.
> Also no carbon build up issues.


 Hmm? The TTS already has a K04 doesn't it? And why wouldn't you have carbon issues? The base 2.0T is still FSI, just like the TTS and RS motors. Nice numbers tho, that's already a tick faster than a stock RS.


----------



## Poverty (Feb 17, 2012)

The v6 is rubbish avoid it. Underpowered and a interferring nannying ESP system 

The normal TT fwd is more fun. 

The TTS is the pick of the range, so hold out for that one.


----------



## Stevelev (Mar 4, 2004)

To the OP, I have 2 things to say... 

1) After scoping my car a year ago and then again recently, there's is very little carbon buildup which came as a pleasant surprise 

2) My 2010 TTS is running great and although I'm currently on the fence regarding trading versus keeping the car next spring, I'd consider selling it for the right price :beer:


----------



## racerxjin (Feb 13, 2012)

Stevelev said:


> To the OP, I have 2 things to say...
> 
> 1) After scoping my car a year ago and then again recently, there's is very little carbon buildup which came as a pleasant surprise
> 
> 2) My 2010 TTS is running great and although I'm currently on the fence regarding trading versus keeping the car next spring, I'd consider selling it for the right price :beer:


 I am sure that you take care of your car well, but eventually it will happens on the FSI engine. 
FSI engine is a better engine for performnace, but TSI engine is more reliable. Also if you just switch out your turbo from a K03 to a K04 you can get the same perforance... almost. 

For my car all I need is my water meth kit to be installed.


----------



## racerxjin (Feb 13, 2012)

to get back to the oringinal question. 

TTS still uses the older ECU which is easily flashed and undetectable. 
2009 and down TT base has the same ECU with the current TTS. 
2010 TT base has the new smaller ECU that you have to take out to flash and can be detected by warranty. 

I know because I had a 2009 TT and never had any warranty issues until it was totalled. 
I have a 2010 and I have the same setup and I got GDIed. No more warranty for me.... 

If I could do it again I would have got a 2009 TT or any year TTS.


----------

