2.8's are better than 1.8's. Talk amongst yourselves.

I'll respond to this thread in a very organized fashion, basically listing first what I like about the 2.8 and 3.0 engines in contrast to the 1.8T/2.0T, and then rebut with the counterpoint.

2.8/3.0:
- Naturally aspirated engines don't lag. Especially with the GIAC chip, dead spots don't really exist. I hit the gas and the car pulls.
- Sounds. I know that some people really like the sound of turbo spool-up, but I've got to say: nothing makes my morning (EVERY morning) like the sound of a V6 rumbling through my Stebro exhaust.
- Naturally aspirated engines are less susceptible to altitude and climate changes. This is particularly important since I spend about 1/4 of the year in Colorado, and 3/4 in Missouri. My 2.8 works great everywhere; I don't have as many negative effects as a turbocharged engine owner.
- If a turbocharger fails on a 1.8T, it becomes an expensive-to-fix 1.8 liter inline-four. My engine is a 2.8 liter V6 until the day that it completely fails.
- While turbochargers are cool creations, much like superchargers (which I intend to get), they are a very simply way for anyone to modify their engine to higher potential. I really appreciate how difficult and time intensive research has been to put parts on my 2.8.
- The naturally aspirated tuned 2.8 becomes less of a tuned import and more of a muscle car. I'm not saying it'll ever run a quarter mile in 13 seconds or less without something fancy like a supercharger, custom turbo/twin-turbo, or NoS/NX, but when you put headers, a cat-back exhaust, lightweight pulleys, a lightweight flywheel, a sturdier clutch, a chip, an intake, some better lubricating motor/gear oil in, the tuning scheme becomes more reminiscent of something you'd do to a Camaro than to an Audi A4.
- Gearing: said and said again, the 5-speed transmission in the 2.8 is really quite superior to the 5-speed in the 1.8T.
- Bigger engine = better power rating. While squeezing 295 HP out of the 2.8 probably doesn't do that many good things for its mechanical longevity, squeezing 275-350 out of a 1.8 liter seems a lot more...destructive.

The 1.8T Case:
- The engine is easier to tune. $300-$600 gets you 2.8 power and some off-the-line blazing. $3000 begins to throw you into supercharged 2.8 range, and all on a car that is cheaper.
- More products. I can go to any Audi/VW tuner and find products for the 1.8T engine. Many places have products that will fit the 2.8, but they often don't list them because of the lack of demand. I've often had to e-mail distributors/manufacturors to find out if they had a similar available product for the 2.8 (and they almost always do).
- More room to work on. I can, to a point, work relatively easily in the 1.8T engine compartment (which I have, many times). Work in the 2.8 30v compartment? Yeah. That radiator service panel is coming out or off.
- Better publicity. I don't remember european car's last edition of "2.8 Challenge". Oh wait, that's because it is called 1.8T challenge, and is annual with a lot of enthusiasm. The 2.8? A handful of articles in euroTuner and european car. Car and Driver may have covered the 2.8 more than these other magazines, and, well, they don't do the tuning thing so much (except the annual super tuner challenge).
- It gets the credit it deserves. The 1.8T is an awesome engine. It was hyped and it was worth it. I drove the A3 2.0 FSI (non-turbo) in Germany, and I'll say that even the non-turbo engine is incredibly capable, smooth, and responsive; the 2.0T FSI is going to be quite the burner, I assure you. The 2.8? An equally incredible engine. Smooth, modern, reliable, and powerful...hey, it even has good gas mileage. The thanks? Tuners are picking up 3.2 liter V6's from Europe for tuning ideas rather than giving us old 2.8/3.0 owners another thought or glance. Thanks. Thanks a lot.

There's so much more to be said. The reason this is so long is partially just because its time to get this out of my system (and I'm really bored). There. I've answered.

I notice more of a power decrease w/my 2.8 than my brother's 1.8t. Turbos rule at altitude, not NA. But I agree with your other points about the 2.8.

A turbo is less susceptible to altitude changes. There is not much a naturally aspirated engine can do as far as scavenging more oxygen in a high altitude environment. A turbo by virtue of its design, will still compress air to a given pressure regardless of altitude (up to the point of its mechanical and design limitation).

This is why Pike Peak races are all done by turbocharged cars.

and when I would drive his car (after fixing it or whatever) it seemed to pull a lot better than mine. Turbos rule at altitude.