so there you have it :-)

...<font color="003366"> Yep. Was wondering how long it would take for this one to get out and about.

Always like it when somebody else spills the beans.

So let's see here, there are now about 153 interesting things about the 2008, 2009 and 2010 TT I have still left to talk about.

In a not completely unrelated item Joe, did you notice that AAG quietly slipped Quattro onto the option list for the 2.0TFSI A3 in Europe. Three door AND Sportback.

Just thought some folks might find this one, er, "interesting."</font>

Some of the articles on the TT mkII have stated this but the specifications provided by Audi does not seem to indicate that the 3.2 is a "FSI" engine.

Thank you.

-J

No the 3.2 litre 15 degree VR6 engine used in the old and new TT is not a FSI engine.
The new 3.2 litre VR6 FSI engine is a 10.6 degree engine with 250 hp and 330 Nm of torque.

Hans.

That 302 hp FSI V-6 is sweet!!! Maybe better than that big heavy hemi.

and the journos already say the 2.0T drives better. Any idea on the weight of the new motor?

Gimme my 2.5T! :)

20 more hp isn't hard to do I would assume.

The 260 hp S3 engine weight 335 pounds. BMW's 3 liter 260 hp engine from the new X5 weights 355 (22 pounds lighter than before with magnesium) pounds. I have no idea how much the VR6 3.6 weights. (But looking at the weight comparison between the W8 and the V-8, the VR6 engine should weight about the same, bit more) as Audi's 3.2 liter V6 255 hp weights 373 pounds.

Most VAG engines. Some include weights.<ul><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_volkswagen_engines#Petrol_engines">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_volkswagen_engines#Petrol_engines</a</li></ul>

I am assuming the 3.6L 302 hp FSI VR6 engine will be in the TT-S.

But then you'll have to spend an extra 2 grand or so getting them to paint it Aviator Grey.

Only with a forged crankshaft instead of a cast one.

Hans.

The new 3.6 litre FSI VR6 engine is lighter than de old Audi 2.8 liter V6 used in the old Passat.

Hans.

darn it, a well sorted HO 2.0T Quattro would be so cool... in an old school Lotus Esprit Turbo sort of way....

Why? The 2.0T on the A3 has been available with quattro for a long time - 18 months, at least. It arrived with the 2.0T engine. The only issue was you had a choice of quattro or DSG, but not both.

Various articles gave conflicting information on the form of fuel injection employed on the 3.2L VR6 engine.

i really have problems positioning that engine mentally.

from the additional 37hp over the S3 engine let's say we need 7 for the weight difference alone.

so we'll end up with

- a less sporty handling due do the weight/weight-distribution
- &gt;20% additional fuel consumption
+ 30hp more
+ more torque

but i have no idea what that makes in total, the track king or a born cruiser?

The 3.6L FSI VR6 has one important advantage over the S3 engine in the North American market-it will be sold in this market. Early comments suggest that the S3 engine cannot perform properly with the fuels sold in the United States. All the advantages of power to weight, chassis balance, etc. are moot if the engine is not capable of operating on the fuels found in this country.

but for geezers like me who live in europe it's really a tough decision :)

I'm old enough to remember the mid-1970's and the energy crisis. People dramatically shifted from ownership of large cars to much smaller cars. This is what fueled, in part, the growth of the Japanese automakers. Volkswagen introduced the Rabbit diesel and GM attempted to create a V8 diesel based on the Oldsmobile 350 small block. GM's failure with diesel engines continue to taint diesel technology in the U.S. to this very day.

In 1980, literally a handful of cars had 200bhp or more. If I recall correctly this included the Pontiac Trans-Am turbo, the Porsche 928, and the Audi quattro. Even the Corvette developed less horsepower and for a while, carmakers did not advertise by horsepower, only fuel economy numbers.

Of course, by 1985 OPEC crumbled and prices fell dramatically. OPEC restricted production starting in 1973 as retaliation for the Yom Kuppir War involving Egypt, Syria and Israel. The second fuel crisis started in with the deposing of the Shah of Iran in 1978. Notice anything similar?

The geopolitical instability of the Middle-East, the record levels of U.S. consumer debt, and environmental issues could cause the purchasing metric of the consumer away from horsepower and cubic displacement to something diametrically opposite. The Europeans and the Asians understand this, and it is reflected in their business strategies. Meanwhile, GM and Ford continue to introduce bigger SUVs, pick-up trucks, and muscle cars.

the problem is that even if i suppose that fuel will never be so 'cheap' again as it is today (which is most likely the case), there are still two views:

1) get the 3.6l engine now, at a later point i definitely wont be able to afford such a car

2) get the 2.0l engine now, otherwise the fuel costs will make it un-sellable/usable in the near future.

dunno, i still hope that the 302hp engine will not offer a much better overall experience than the 265hp one as it's then a rather easy decision for me ;)

that's also the reason why i hope they'll be release around the same time so they can get compared.

My statements pertain less to the choices between the 3.6L and the 2.0L but to an ongoing debate on horsepower. The traditional consumer in the U.S. makes a purchase decision based on horsepower. Several, on this fourm, have stated that Audi produces underpowered cars, compared to the competition. I have taken the opposite approach. There is a level a rational constraint with Audi. Audi has decided that for the more mainstream products, it does not need to lead with horsepower. Niche products are a different story.

Overall, we need to be realistic about the world we live on.

imo the fuel consumption and the power are not that directly related in this case. the 3.2l engine with 250hp for example is underpowered compared to it's competitors, but due to the 3.2l displacement still needs much fuel. i could imagine that e.g. a 2.5l turbo engine with 300hp could give a higher milage than that one.

lower power does not indicate lower fuel consumption, only intelligent design does. so even from my european pov, where a galon is currently at slightly above 7 USD that engine doesn't make much sense as it fails in both aspects.

turbocharged cars just about always get better mileage than similarly powered (read larger displacement) naturally aspirated cars. Turbo power is highly efficient... and only there when you need/desire it.

You realize this, of course. This is just my verbose way of agreeing with you.

This is why I would love to see a nice torquey turbo-four in my next TT Quattro.

Seriously, the car I owned prior to my first TT was an identically rated (225 hp) 4.6L Mustang GT. Not only did the Audi 1.8T accelerate harder than the Ford V8, but the Audi *never* required a down shift to accelerate in top gear at highway speeds. The Mustang, always needed a down shift to fourth to keep it happy.

In addition, I have never gotten less than 20 mpg in city driving in the TT. In my Mustang, I have never gotten over 17 mpg.

In my previous life, I never would have believed that a 1.8 liter turbo could provide more drive-ability than a 4.6 liter V8.

Based on my current glorious experience with the Audi 1.8T, I am really pumped to find out what a similarly appointed 2.0T can do for my driving experience.

I'd not be inclined to go for the 2.0T with the K03 turbo, however. I am hopeful that it'll come with a K04 or better.

;P<ul><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HO_scale">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HO_scale</a</li></ul>

I was thinking you might go a different direction with that ;)

You *know* that I was thinking that way. ;)

OK, here's a HO...<ul><li><a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/images/2006/08/06/image71ed215e-7cb0-40cd-a5aa-d6debdb0e39f.jpg">Clicky</a></li></ul>

Preferably the 230hp one with quattro. Manual or DSG, I'm not too particular. 3.6 or 2.5T will likely be well out of my preferred price range. Hmmm, an '09 model, certified pre-owned in '11 or '12, should work out just fine! :-)

dammit

.

I've been given a VERY strong indication that the engine from the new S3 (2.0T FSI 274bhp Quattro drivetrain) will be coming to the TTMk2 as well! (Around 2008 timeframe)

Problem being the cost. I hope to have a child or two by then, and Officers (even Majors) are not what anyone would call "rich". Which is not to say I wouldn't love to have it or the 2.5T :-)