# 2.7T in a TT?



## TTMAN225 (Jan 20, 2005)

is it possible? i think dahlback did it and then all of a sudden they removed all history of it from anywhere haha... pictures, videos, info, conversation... anything would be nice...


----------



## cincyTT (May 11, 2006)

*Re: 2.7T in a TT? (TTMAN225)*

In eurotuner someone took a a3 and made a widebody (needed to fit everything) 2.7T RWD car. Its realatively the same layout so about the same measure would need to be taken.


----------



## TTurboNegro (Mar 9, 2007)

*Re: 2.7T in a TT? (cincyTT)*

^^that was soo sick...(a couple issues ago)

2.7 in a TT would be so baller http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## M this 1! (May 17, 2000)

*Re: 2.7T in a TT? (TTurboNegro)*

BUT a 2.7T w/ tranny would be very, very heavy. and it's not cheap to make a 400hp+ 2.7. Hell the k04 upgrade kit is about $6k and you still need to buy the motor, tranny and the MONSTEROUS $$ for the conversion. 
A 1.8t w/ a $6k Del Rio kit will do 400hp, or you add another $1k in rods and you'll be 450hp range!!!
it would be cool though


----------



## chaugner (Jul 13, 2002)

*Re: 2.7T in a TT? (M this 1!)*


_Quote, originally posted by *M this 1!* »_A 1.8t w/ a $6k Del Rio kit will do 400hp, or you add another $1k in rods and you'll be 450hp range!!!


1.8t neva looses


----------



## urugly (Jul 12, 2004)

*Re: 2.7T in a TT? (chaugner)*

There was another A3 in eurotuner a few issues back with a 2.0 mounted longitudinal with a massive GT66. It still retained its all wheel drive but RWD would be fun. The radiator was rear mounted to add room under the hood. I think the 2.7T would fit especially if you rear mounted the radiator like that A3. I guess if you have the money anything is possible. If I was going to do that big of a swap project I think I would rather have a 4.2 with a charger.


----------



## Maverick1.8t (Jun 24, 2005)

*Re: 2.7T in a TT? (urugly)*

this is dumb, why go 2.7 when you can go 3.2 and add a turbo kit with less hassle?


----------



## cincyTT (May 11, 2006)

*Re: 2.7T in a TT? (Maverick1.8t)*

vr engines will be much easier to fit and turbo than a V style engine.


----------



## M this 1! (May 17, 2000)

*Re: 2.7T in a TT? (cincyTT)*

It is dumb, but the 2.7 V6 has more potential than the 3.2 VR design.


----------



## urugly (Jul 12, 2004)

*Re: 2.7T in a TT? (cincyTT)*

I think the W12 GTI on the home page proves you can put what ever motor you want into a car


----------



## cincyTT (May 11, 2006)

*Re: 2.7T in a TT? (M this 1!)*


_Quote, originally posted by *M this 1!* »_It is dumb, but the 2.7 V6 has more potential than the 3.2 VR design.


possibly, but you cant add power without having any space to put on larger turbo(s). Space is a key factor here.


----------



## M this 1! (May 17, 2000)

*Re: 2.7T in a TT? (cincyTT)*

let the turbos stick out the sides of the hips of the car. it'll look like Princess Leiha


----------



## TTMAN225 (Jan 20, 2005)

*Re: 2.7T in a TT? (M this 1!)*

haha i like the responses... yesterday i was driving an s4 and my boss was telling me about how dahlback did it and i was just curious... its not something im really considering but it would be cool to just be different... especially if you know of one bad euro s4 550hp motor that will be for sale here shortly haha...







thanks for the responses guys


----------



## Maverick1.8t (Jun 24, 2005)

*Re: 2.7T in a TT? (TTMAN225)*

i would go with the 4.2fsi over both.


----------



## conman4287 (Nov 21, 2006)

*Re: 2.7T in a TT? (TTMAN225)*

just get a 3.2 TT and get the HPA twin turbo kit... it would be way easier than trying to fit a 2.7 in there, the TT comes stock with a 3.2 plus a twin turb0 3.2 would destroy a 2.7....2.7=400-550 hp/ 3.2=500-800 hp.


_Modified by conman4287 at 3:44 PM 5-22-2007_


----------



## cincyTT (May 11, 2006)

*Re: 2.7T in a TT? (conman4287)*


_Quote, originally posted by *conman4287* »_just get a 3.2 TT and get the HPA twin turbo kit... it would be way easier than trying to fit a 2.7 in there, the TT comes stock with a 3.2 plus a twin turb0 3.2 would destroy a 2.7....2.7=400-550 hp/ 3.2=500-800 hp.


I rather have one big effer in there. Takes less space and is much more intimidating.


----------



## conman4287 (Nov 21, 2006)

*Re: 2.7T in a TT? (cincyTT)*

V12 twin turbo TT http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## cincyTT (May 11, 2006)

*Re: 2.7T in a TT? (conman4287)*


_Quote, originally posted by *conman4287* »_rear mounted V12 twin turbo TT http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

FIXED!!


----------



## splitsecond (May 17, 2007)

Nobody ever answered the question... is it possible to do it? Would it just involve swapping out the engine or would you have to put an S4 tranny in there too?
And what about a 3.2? How hard would that be to swap out?


----------



## J Dubya (Oct 26, 2001)

*Re: (splitsecond)*

Well since the TT motor is transverse and the S4 is longitudnal I would think there would be some serious modification to make it work, plus the trans is pretty long. There's barely enough room for two turbo's in the B5 chassis, trying to fit them in the TT would be difficult.
I think a VR based motor has much more potential than the 2.7T. Cheaper to build and will make 500 HP on a stock bottom end pretty easy.


----------



## cincyTT (May 11, 2006)

*Re: (splitsecond)*


_Quote, originally posted by *splitsecond* »_Nobody ever answered the question... is it possible to do it? Would it just involve swapping out the engine or would you have to put an S4 tranny in there too?


THat was answered 5 times and given reasons why not.


----------



## l88m22vette (Mar 2, 2006)

*Re: (cincyTT)*

here is the simple answer: no


----------



## splitsecond (May 17, 2007)

Simple enough.


----------



## pythiasjt (Nov 12, 2003)

*Re: (splitsecond)*

Yea there is absolutely no room for a longitudinal transmission in a normal TT. Nevermind the engine bay is so short that the 2.7 would be sticking way out the front. the tunnel would have to be hacked up proper.
can it be done? yes it can be done. but you would have to make your own frame, firewall, tunnel and rear sub frame (to accommodate a different drive other then the Haldex) it would be a totally gutted race type car. they used to have the 4.2 in the DTM car so it is possible, but not probable.


----------



## rastta (Feb 22, 1999)

*Re: (pythiasjt)*

There is a front mounted 2.7T TT running around in England. Was done in 2002/2003. Dialynx was the tuner that did it - named the Bullett. Here's a link to the complete story.
http://www.dialynx.co.uk/reviews_six_shooter.htm#


----------



## l88m22vette (Mar 2, 2006)

*Re: ([email protected])*

well, guess I was wrong. And, to go along with that, WOW


----------



## urugly (Jul 12, 2004)

*Re: (l88m22vette)*

Sweet http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
I want that instrument cluster


----------



## Maverick1.8t (Jun 24, 2005)

*Re: 2.7T in a TT? (M this 1!)*


_Quote, originally posted by *M this 1!* »_It is dumb, but the 2.7 V6 has more potential than the 3.2 VR design.

how do you figure?the smaller displacement means that even if you stick with the conventional twin turbo design they must be smaller, and that means less output-let alone the space issue.since the 3.2 comes as NA from the factory it takes well to forced induction and has more potential for growth.pound for pound i dont think a 2.7t can out muscle a 3.2t.


----------



## formulanerd (Feb 19, 2005)

*Re: 2.7T in a TT? (Maverick1.8t)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Maverick1.8t* »_
how do you figure?the smaller displacement means that even if you stick with the conventional twin turbo design they must be smaller, and that means less output-let alone the space issue.since the 3.2 comes as NA from the factory it takes well to forced induction and has more potential for growth.pound for pound i dont think a 2.7t can out muscle a 3.2t.


i agree with M this 1!, though the difference probably isnt huge, but if i had the choice i'd go with the 2.7


----------



## cincyTT (May 11, 2006)

*Re: 2.7T in a TT? (formulanerd)*


_Quote, originally posted by *formulanerd* »_

i agree with M this 1!, though the difference probably isnt huge, but if i had the choice i'd go with the 2.7

comparing a s4 or even a rs4 to a 3.2L TT/R32, i would take the power potential of the 3.2. Why? The space in the 2.7T (s4 or in a TT) is so cramped you cant really fit anything in there, but in a TT/R32, HPA has got over 550hp and 600ftlbs with 2 gt28r's pushing 21psi. Plus you can run a single gt35 or better yet a gt40r and make some insane power. 
but when it comes to out of the car and say on an engine dyno, that is a totally differnt question. It would have to go down to head flow and rev capabilities, and the 2.7t may have the advantage there.


----------



## spiTTfire (Sep 24, 2006)

*Re: 2.7T in a TT? (TTMAN225)*

I guy in Germany is doing a 2.8l-project at the moment.
http://www.audi-tt-forum.de/ph...t=139


----------



## Maverick1.8t (Jun 24, 2005)

*Re: 2.7T in a TT? (formulanerd)*


_Quote, originally posted by *formulanerd* »_

i agree with M this 1!, though the difference probably isnt huge, but if i had the choice i'd go with the 2.7

you can agree all you want, but the truth of the matter is, there are tuners squeezing more power out of the 3.2t than the 2.7tt.as a matter of fact, i havent seen any single turbo conversions for the 2.7t model; the rs4 k04 conversion and one off gt25r conversion is all i have heard of, even then the 2.7 lags behind.


----------



## M this 1! (May 17, 2000)

*Re: 2.7T in a TT? (Maverick1.8t)*

what are you high? there are numerous GT2871 BI turbo set ups on the 2.7t! they've comfortably eclipsed the 1k hp mark. the head design of the VR has its limits. there's a polish S4 avant in the 9s!!! i tried finding the youtube but failed. u won't touch that with the 3.2vr


----------



## formulanerd (Feb 19, 2005)

*Re: 2.7T in a TT? (Maverick1.8t)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Maverick1.8t* »_
you can agree all you want, but the truth of the matter is, there are tuners squeezing more power out of the 3.2t than the 2.7tt.as a matter of fact, i havent seen any single turbo conversions for the 2.7t model; the rs4 k04 conversion and one off gt25r conversion is all i have heard of, even then the 2.7 lags behind.

i laughed when i read this. (no offense) and M this 1! beat me to it.
















there isnt a 3.2TT anywhere that can touch it, even though it's an AVANT and a heavy beast.


----------



## splitsecond (May 17, 2007)

Why would he buy an Avant if that's what he wants to do with it?


----------



## M this 1! (May 17, 2000)

*Re: (splitsecond)*

probably like most of us. "who i like this car!" "i'll chip it and lower it and it'll look WAY better!" "maybe an exhaust too" "do they make software for 100 octane?" "how do i get it just a LITTLE faster?"
and on
and on
and on
and....


----------



## Maverick1.8t (Jun 24, 2005)

*Re: 2.7T in a TT? (M this 1!)*

it doesnt matter if im high or not.your talkin 3 cylinders spooling a gt2871r,lol.im guessing its all run on standalone, and not much of that car looks very stock.for the lag thats involved im hoping they have a higher rev limit.im making a comparison pound for pound and i dont think the 2.7 can match the 3.2 is all.


----------



## cincyTT (May 11, 2006)

*Re: 2.7T in a TT? (Maverick1.8t)*

i think im going to have to agree with mav here. im not sure about the 2nd 2.7t shown but i dont want to put holes in my hood for a pair of turbos to fit. Take in to account that you can get all 6 cyl to spool a nice single turbo as oppose to barely fitting 2 in the s4/rs4 engine bay. And after seeing some dynos of 4 ams evos' running gt42r's and all making over 925+awhp. They all were hitting boost about 6k and running over 8k redlines. You can fit a gt30XX and even a gt4X turbo in a vr and not in a 2.7t car. Add in the extra liter (most had 2.2 or 2.3 stroked 4g63's) and you should easily see full boost in the mid to low 5k range. Get the car to run to 8-8.5k redline and you have a very potent beast. Also something like a gt35 varient or gt40r would spool faster and still make insane power.


----------



## exboy99 (May 14, 2002)

*Re: (splitsecond)*

I forget where I first read about that polish avant
but it's bananas..... don't they drive
that car to the track... not a trailer queen.
if this thread is about possibility... 
I guess it's confirmed that yes... it's possible.
and as for potential... that's been confirmed also.
what I wanna know is when are companies going to
offer a LIGHT and Balanced car.... it seems all the cars
coming out are big HP but also big in weight....
viva the nsx and the elise that did it by taking crap
out.... it'd be cool to see audi develop a raw sports car.
I am not sure there is a way to lighten our TT's
enough to get many gains....
do a motor swap in an MKI vw... that's fun....
you've seen the vr turbo bunnies?


----------



## 1.8Tabamoura (Jul 29, 2005)

*Re: 2.7T in a TT? (formulanerd)*


_Quote, originally posted by *formulanerd* »_
i laughed when i read this. (no offense) and M this 1! beat me to it.
















there isnt a 3.2TT anywhere that can touch it, even though it's an AVANT and a heavy beast.

the same S4 came to my mind. insane , that S4 is the fastest street legal Audi in the World. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif to 2.7T, ****ing amazing engine.


----------



## M this 1! (May 17, 2000)

*Re: 2.7T in a TT? (1.8Tabamoura)*

u don't need to cut holes in your hood to fit big turbos. you might when concidering collector length of your headers and the size of turbos. hell look at the above view, those things are Supra size!!! 
the head design of the VR is not going to yeild the hp numbers of the 2.7t. you've got 30vs against 24 and you have a TRUE Vee design. 
again, this car is SO, SO much faster in the 1/4 than ANY VR motored full body car (there was a VR6 powered tubular dragster way back) 
when did boost at X rpm come into this discussion? 

but even look at some of the ridiculous power the 2.7t gets out of k04s! that in itself is incredibly comparable to the high hp VRs out there!


----------



## Maverick1.8t (Jun 24, 2005)

*Re: 2.7T in a TT? (M this 1!)*


_Quote, originally posted by *M this 1!* »_u don't need to cut holes in your hood to fit big turbos. you might when concidering collector length of your headers and the size of turbos. hell look at the above view, those things are Supra size!!! 
the head design of the VR is not going to yeild the hp numbers of the 2.7t. you've got 30vs against 24 and you have a TRUE Vee design. 
again, this car is SO, SO much faster in the 1/4 than ANY VR motored full body car (there was a VR6 powered tubular dragster way back) 
when did boost at X rpm come into this discussion?

but even look at some of the ridiculous power the 2.7t gets out of k04s! that in itself is incredibly comparable to the high hp VRs out there!

boost at x rpm came into the discussion when you noted the limits of the vr head.ok, you have 5 valves cool, but when did having that make the design so much better?without getting into semantics 4 valves per cylinder have been the conventional design and in some cases (supra,skyline) can produce about 1000hp in 6 cylinder cars with similar displacement.every head can be ported and polished,you can use different cams, you can upgrade intake manifolds, solid lifter setups, etc.im really not seeing where this "restriction" lies.your trying to compare the "potential" of one engine to the other and using a frankenstein motor as your supporting argument.sorry pal, im just not willing to agree with you on this one.


----------



## M this 1! (May 17, 2000)

*Re: 2.7T in a TT? (Maverick1.8t)*

You said:
you can agree all you want, but the truth of the matter is, there are tuners squeezing more power out of the 3.2t than the 2.7tt.as a matter of fact, i havent seen any single turbo conversions for the 2.7t model; the rs4 k04 conversion and one off gt25r conversion is all i have heard of, even then the 2.7 lags behind.

so where are these tuners that squeeze more out of the 3.2 than the 2.7t? 

The VR head holds way to much heat! it always has. that's been it's limit, not lack of techy parts by the tuners.
you can't just say you don't agree with me 'cause you don't. u need proof. both Streetwerke and EIP have not gotten too high with these motors and they're ahead of HPA. there have been many 600hp 2.7ts. even the AWE 550+ car just uses K04s to run its 11.9 in a 3700lbs car. and it's not my fault if i found a freakish 2.7t to prove my point of potential. wasn't that the discussion?







obviously neither of us is stuffing one of these ridiculous money pit motors in our cars and it's all bench racing anyway.


----------



## formulanerd (Feb 19, 2005)

very true.
even *IF* _in theory_ the 3.2 had more potential, there currently isnt a car to back any of it up, and until there is, the 2.7 is king.
you can disagree all you want, but like M this 1! said, the facts are all there until proven otherwise.
i'd take either of them over my 1.8T!


----------



## cincyTT (May 11, 2006)

*Re: (formulanerd)*

i hope you are taking into account the ages of the enigines. The 2.7t has been around for a much longer time than a 3.2. Product development takes time.
Sorry, i just like this discussion. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## M this 1! (May 17, 2000)

*Re: (cincyTT)*

'92 is when the VR6 came out. displacement has changed, intake manis have changed, # of valves have changed........but it's still the same engine. not to mention all the changes should make it easier to get that higher hp #. the 2.7t is not so old at all. and unfortunately, audi had Cosworth make a 3.0t which was to be the RS4, but canned both in favor of the all motor stuff. hopefully we'll all get to see this 2.5 inline 5 cyl turbo!!!! the old 2.2 5cylinders still kick ass!


----------



## fier ringe (Oct 3, 2007)

*TT 2.7t single turbo*








http://www.materialmord.de/romanntt_2.jpg
Crazy Germans!


----------



## l88m22vette (Mar 2, 2006)

*Re: TT 2.7t single turbo (fier ringe)*

So cool, but good-God what a PITA. Just get a 3.2, swap in a manual, call HPA, and enjoy 500+hp.
http://hpamotorsports.com/products_turbo_twin.htm


----------

