# 3.2 vs 2.0T Pros - Cons



## zautodriver (Oct 18, 2012)

What are the pros - cons of the 3.2 over the 2.0T?

2.0T - Better Mileage
3.2 - More Power
3.2 - Less service (no turbo)
3.2 - Maybe last longer?


----------



## Dr. Bill (May 15, 2011)

3.2 - heavier, with the weight in the wrong place, more understeer as a result
2.0 - much easier to get more power - e.g. with a simple ECU flash (or a lot more power with a new turbo)
2.0 - more torque
2.0 - some turbo lag, can be improved with an ECU flash

When I was looking at TT's a while ago, everyone I asked suggested the 2.0T over the 3.2.
Now, I do prefer the 3.2 in our Q5 to the 2.0T, but then again, the Q5 isn't really a sporty car.


----------



## JohnLZ7W (Nov 23, 2003)

Not trying to come off as a 3.2 advocate, just pointing out some other advantages of the 3.2 as the 2.0T is pretty well covered

3.2 can be had with a manual
3.2 sounds much better
3.2 better throttle response
2.0T DSG only


----------



## _Dejan_ (Oct 9, 2012)

JohnLZ7W said:


> Not trying to come off as a 3.2 advocate, just pointing out some other advantages of the 3.2 as the 2.0T is pretty well covered
> 
> 3.2 can be had with a manual
> 3.2 sounds much better
> ...


You are wrong. 2.0T can be Manual or S-Tronic.


----------



## xBassi (May 26, 2011)

i think maybe he meant when the 3.2 came out , the only option for the 2.0 was dsg only?


----------



## mtbscoTT (Jan 14, 2003)

_Dejan_ said:


> You are wrong. 2.0T can be Manual or S-Tronic.


Assuming the OP is in the US. In the US, only 3.2's and the TT-RS have ever been offered with manual, all 2.0's are DSG here.


----------



## yip (Jul 14, 2003)

Driven both and own a 2.0T model. For a daily driver I went with the 2.0T. I like averaging 400 miles per tank and occasionally 450 per tank on road trips. To me the 2.0T felt faster *except* off idle throttle response. Maybe it's the rubber band effect of the turbo. 

I might buy a 3.2 manual as a second car to play around with if a red one ever pops up in my area for a decent price. 

I miss driving a manual and I really am not that impressed with the DSG/S-Tronic unless driving spirtedly. 

As far as handling goes they both understeer at the limit and the difference in feel was negligable even with the weight difference. It seems that unless your an avid track day driver your probably not going to tell much difference if both cars are AWD. 

In the end for me the sound of the 3.2 didn't out weigh the better economy of the 2.0T. 

As a side note to be fair my car came with a brand new set of PS2's and the 3.2's Ive driven all had cheaper less desirable non oem tires on them.


----------



## sentari (Dec 4, 2011)

Frankly as tiny as the VR6 engine is, i'd really like to see the overall weights of both because I just don't think it's as much as people think. I have both a VR6 and a 2.0T w/APR flash and the VR6 is much faster (yes BEFORe the turbo)


----------



## abacorrado (Apr 5, 2005)

buts thats with about 700 lbs less weight and the 2.0 with a traditional slushbox


----------



## abacorrado (Apr 5, 2005)

I believe the vr6 is aprox 120 pounds more than the 2.0T


----------



## pal (Aug 16, 2000)

sentari said:


> Frankly as tiny as the VR6 engine is, i'd really like to see the overall weights of both because I just don't think it's as much as people think. I have both a VR6 and a 2.0T w/APR flash and the VR6 is much faster (yes BEFORe the turbo)


2.5 TFSI (RS) - 183 kgs (403.45 lbs)
3.2 VR6 - 169 kgs (372.58 lbs)
2.0TFSI - 152 kgs (335.11 lbs)

2.0T cannot be had with 6MT and Quattro here in the US and that was the deciding factor for me to get the 3.2. Based on the weight differences of the engines, the heavier DSG will make up for the lighter 2.0T engine for front axle loading and overall balance.

My wife's GTI with an APR flash makes less power to the front wheels than my 3.2 TT does to all four with just a Modshack intake. Her car makes more torque though and gets better gas mileage.


----------



## yip (Jul 14, 2003)

sentari said:


> Frankly as tiny as the VR6 engine is, i'd really like to see the overall weights of both because I just don't think it's as much as people think. I have both a VR6 and a 2.0T w/APR flash and the VR6 is much faster (yes BEFORe the turbo)



Are you comparing a 3.2 TT to a 2.0 TT? If not then weight could make a big difference as to why the 2.0 felt much slower than your 3.2. 

The 2.0 is only off about a 1/2 second to 60 from the 3.2 and from a roll it's even closer. 

No doubt the 3.2 is slightly quicker on paper but I could not tell much of a difference other than the slight lag from a dead stop in the 2.0t when driving both TT's with these two engines.


----------



## abacorrado (Apr 5, 2005)

pal said:


> 2.5 TFSI (RS) - 183 kgs (403.45 lbs)
> 3.2 VR6 - 169 kgs (372.58 lbs)
> 2.0TFSI - 152 kgs (335.11 lbs)
> 
> ...


I highly doubt the 3.2 vr6 is only 37 lbs heavier than the 2.0


----------



## _Dejan_ (Oct 9, 2012)

abacorrado said:


> I highly doubt the 3.2 vr6 is only 37 lbs heavier than the 2.0


I think he compare 2.0 engine with DSG and DSG add few kg/lbs to weight


----------



## pal (Aug 16, 2000)

_Dejan_ said:


> I think he compare 2.0 engine with DSG and DSG add few kg/lbs to weight


The 2.0T FSI engine has many more components in addition to the basic engine that adds to the complete engine weight - turbo, intercooler, all the piping, HPFP etc. I would think that extra hardware makes it a bit heavier than a NA 2.0 FSI that we don't get here in the US. Its probably why the TT RS inline five is a bit heavier than the VR6 as well despite 1 less cylinder.

Bottom line is that it is lighter and has more tuning potential than a VR6 so can easily be made to make more power and handle better while being more fuel efficient to boot. So functionally, its a win-win. If Audi had a 2.0T FSI with Quattro and a 3-pedal 6MT, that would have been my TT of choice.


----------



## abacorrado (Apr 5, 2005)

well I have lifted a 2.0 long block, that is pretty fn heavy, no freaking way a vr6 long block is less than 150 pounds more. a turbo weighs about 15 lbs, intercooler piping maybe 3 lbs, intercooler maybe 6 lbs, they both have tons of hoses and pvc crap with emissions and tested curb weights put the vr6 about 120 pounds heavier both with dsg, which is about 30 pounds more. the vr6 is a brick, however it is probably what I will buy as I think it will be easier to get 500hp out of it now that the kinks in the turbo systems seem to be worked out


----------



## abacorrado (Apr 5, 2005)

BTW pal I think I speak for lots of people when saying thanks for dynoing your car, there isnt a lot of info regarding the MKII TT, it helps to fill in the dirth of knowledge


----------



## pal (Aug 16, 2000)

abacorrado said:


> well I have lifted a 2.0 long block, that is pretty fn heavy


You must be really strong to pick up a 335 lb motor and without numbers its hard for you to quantify that weight since "pretty fn heavy" is not a unit most of us understand for objective comparisons :beer: 

I am looking at an Audi document and can confirm the weights of the R5 2.5L TFSI and 2.0 4VI TFSI engines as correctly posted - 403 lbs and 335 lbs. I cannot find the VR6 source except something posted on other forums so cannot give confirmation at this time so will not argue with you. 

Here is one post I found on another forum -> Engine Weights



abacorrado said:


> BTW pal I think I speak for lots of people when saying thanks for dynoing your car, there isnt a lot of info regarding the MKII TT, it helps to fill in the dirth of knowledge


No issues. I had also posted the corner weights of my 3.2 TT Coupe as 3173lbs with 11 (or 12) gallons of gas. I like to do all the work on cars myself and document and take pics to share with the community so you will see more from me from time to time.

BTW, I think we have very similar tastes in cars as I had a 2002 225 TT Quattro as well - loved that car.


----------



## abacorrado (Apr 5, 2005)

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2009-audi-tt-20t-quattro-coupe-road-test-review

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2008-audi-tt-32-quattro-short-take-road-test
Notice the 3.2 has a manual, the DSG adds about 35 lbs, so right at 100 lbs difference. And yes thanks to better living thru chemicals and peer pressure I am pretty strong


----------



## sentari (Dec 4, 2011)

Boost your 3.2 properly and you will becoming a believer. BTW: It's shockingly small when you pull it out and strip off all the crap. Mine is surely heavier because the turbo is 2-3 times the size of a stock K03...


----------



## goss008 (Jul 9, 2008)

*Mpg*

How do you manage to get 400 miles out of a tank in the 2.0t Audi tt?
I can only get 300 driving urban with a little bit dual carriageway can't afford to run it.


----------



## yip (Jul 14, 2003)

goss008 said:


> How do you manage to get 400 miles out of a tank in the 2.0t Audi tt?
> I can only get 300 driving urban with a little bit dual carriageway can't afford to run it.


400 is the average for me. I can get 450+ if I go on a few long distance runs. 

I can also get as low as 250. all depends on how you drive it. In normal auto mode and light on the throttle it's easy for me to get 400 miles per tank.


----------

