FIRST DRIVE - Audi TT 3.2

[jamie@vwvortex]

Our first drive impressions of the Audi TT 3.2 with DSG. Full Story...

[gizmopop]

Before anyone starts posting speculation about performance figures and starts comparing it to " insert competing car name here", read the entire article.

I'm glad you guys got to test this vehicle, keep us updated

[mshilko]

This car sound incredibly fun to drive with a perfectly mated transmissions. Want an automatic, check, manual, check, tiptronic, check. Sounds great and I can't wait to try one out. I want that yellow one now, I'll let my wife keep that Passat!!


[Modified by mshilko, 9:44 AM 3-3-2003]

[91 16V Jetta]

What does that thing weigh?

[dommerdog]

quote:

---

Before anyone starts posting speculation about performance figures and starts comparing it to " insert competing car name here", read the entire article.

I'm glad you guys got to test this vehicle, keep us updated

---

What, only 6.3 0-60???

I'm Gaga

[Helicon Twist]

Sounds to me like Audi is playing catch-up with Nissan. The 350Z copied, then "one-upped", the TT by offering a V6 + lots of other performance goodies (e.g. standard Brembo brakes on the "Track" model). Is the VR6 TT the VAG response to the 350Z (287HP/274lb-ft engine, 3188 lb. weight)?

Don't get me wrong, I've dreamed of TT ownership for years and the 3.2L VR6 application sounds awesome. And though I'm a die-hard stick-shift fan, I'm intrigued by the DSG and hope to test-drive one soon.

I just hope Audi isn't totally backpedalling on its "Never Follow" slogan

[hawc]

I will definitetly consider getting this on the new GTI V when it comes out.

[AudiVwMeister]

mmm TT vr6.... <droool> ... automatic DOH.

proud to be one of the dinosaurs that still enjoys going through the gearbox and having a clutch pedal

[mizunderstoodVW]

I have a Golf 1.8t and i have to say performance wise that these things are just great, there is no comparable car with the Golf/GTI performance wise. In fact Honda or Toyota doesnt have anything comparable that could outmatch the Golf/GTI. Yet here we see something wonderfull and at the same time sort of treatening. While the DGS sounds wonderfull it is questionable whetherr it will be affordable.

I mean yeah...we all want to have something like the 3.2 TT with DGS but thats not possible, whats more the cars are too heavy. I would like to see something like a Polo hatch in the states, light and powerfull...but it doesnt seem like we are going to get something like this.

[George@VWvortex]

quote:

---

Sounds to me like Audi is playing catch-up with Nissan. The 350Z copied, then "one-upped", the TT by offering a V6 + lots of other performance goodies (e.g. standard Brembo brakes on the "Track" model). Is the VR6 TT the VAG response to the 350Z (287HP/274lb-ft engine, 3188 lb. weight)?

---

I don't know about that. Don't get me wrong, the Z is a cool car, but I don't think it trounces the Audi. In fact, the Audi beat it in a recent comparo in Autocar. Brembo brakes are nice and all, but they don't have to say Brembo on them to be great brakes.

quote:

---

I just hope Audi isn't totally backpedalling on its "Never Follow" slogan

---

I believe that's all relative. The Z blatantly follows the Audi on interior design/use of aluminum. AND the Z is a modern day version of the original Z car that itself followed designs such as the Ferrari GTO and Jaguar E-type. It might be argued that the TT follows design from the 356, but even then it's blatantly Audi in design.

Plus, a front engine, AWD setup is also VERY Audi, whereas there aren't or rather weren't many RWD Nissans out there for a while. I don't see Audi as "following" but then again, I'm biased.... and it's only an ad slogan for pete's sake.

[Helicon Twist]

Don't get me wrong, I wasn't saying the 350Z was necessarily a TT-beater... and heck, the Z's the 2nd Japanese copy of the TT (first being the Lexus roadster, twice the price for half the beauty). And given a choice, I'd take the VR6-TT over the Z in a heartbeat

I was just wondering if the new Z prompted Audi to develop a VR6 model of the TT, or if it's just coincidence

[Sunil]

quote:

---

mmm TT vr6.... <droool> ... automatic DOH.

proud to be one of the dinosaurs that still enjoys going through the gearbox and having a clutch pedal

---

Proud to be the guy that left-foot brakes while executing perfect downshifts with DSG to pass you on the inside as you fumble with pedals too widely spaced to properly heel-toe.

[gizmopop]

quote:

---

I was just wondering if the new Z prompted Audi to develop a VR6 model of the TT, or if it's just coincidence

---

I don't think it's reactionary to the new Z, the TT being a MKIV is open to use any engine that lineup has, the 3.2 VR6 first showed up on the Beetle RSI, long before any specs for a new Z car showed up(or the final Z concpet showed up for that matter). Also the 3.2 seems to play a big part in VAGs car lineup, Nearly every car VW will make in the coming years will have this engine as an option in someway shape or form.

And I would worry about the performance of this TT, VR6 engined cars are known for equalling or beating cars of more displacement and HP

[George@VWvortex]

quote:

---

I was just wondering if the new Z prompted Audi to develop a VR6 model of the TT, or if it's just coincidence

---

You never know. A hotter TT was always in the cards. Wierd thing is that it still isn't called the TTS (and since one of the original concepts was a TTS, you gotta wonder if there'll still be one).

[gizmopop]

quote:

---

I was just wondering if the new Z prompted Audi to develop a VR6 model of the TT, or if it's just coincidence

You never know. A hotter TT was always in the cards. Wierd thing is that it still isn't called the TTS (and since one of the original concepts was a TTS, you gotta wonder if there'll still be one).

---

Yeah I don't think this is the S. Most of the rumors (engine wise) have said the TT-S would have 280 hp (just like the next S3). 250 is close, but I've always felt that a 3.2 l 6 cylinder engine with 24 valves and variable valve timing on intake and exhaust valves should make in the neighborhood of 280hp.(I base this on the M3 3.2 w/333 hp and the NSX 3.2 with 290+hp) supposedly the TT-S will use FSI to achieve 280 hp,(thats the latest rumor anyway)

this TT 3.2 is supposed to replace the 225 the top 'regular model' when the 1.8T is no longer in use.

[Lackey]

quote:

---

Proud to be the guy that left-foot brakes while executing perfect downshifts with DSG to pass you on the inside as you fumble with pedals too widely spaced to properly heel-toe.

---

But it won't be you, it'll be the car.

[4SFEDTT]

Lovely car. Let's see.... i'll keep my boosted 1.8T ...smack this one around the highway for kicks...and then let him get a good look at my debadged rear. No jk ...in all seriousness I love this TT. While my personal preference is the 1.8T for it's easy tuning potential, we gotta remember that the large majority of TT buyers keep their cars stock and aren't interested in tuning. DSG should be a blast to drive and hard on the pockets when something goes wrong. Can't deny the beautiful engine and exhaust tone of a healthy VR6. Front and rear bumper treatments are gorgeous IMO. Could do without the grill but maybe it will grow on me. Rims are a thing of beauty as are most OEM Audi and VW wheels. All in all I think it's a great car. Wonder what the price tag will be......

I'll keep my tuned 225 coupe.

[ri-v-dub]

gimmie gimmie

[Elbows]

I dunno about you guys but I basically read this...as a review of the R32...which excites me very very much.

Granted you won't be able to mod-much, but the R32 will be similar to a nicely chipped 1.8T under warranty, with better sounding engine, AWD...and this transmission will probably be the key element in its shine.

I am very very very very excited to see/drive the R32 or even this TT...GAH!!!!

[ftillier]

Can anyone tell me what that awesome yellow/orange color is? Name and or code would be super.

Thanks!

[wnowak1]

I have one question regarding engines. 250 HP is a lot, but when you look at bmw m3, the power is much greater. One can also take a peak at the upcoming porsche gt3 engine: 3.6 liter, 385 hp, 285 lb-ft. The 350 Z is 3.5 liters w/ 270hp or whatever it is.

http://canadianautopress.auto123.com/en/info/roadtest/view.spy?artid=6406&make=Porsche

Manufacturer's like Audi and VW can make WAY more powerful cars. Once the design for an engine is made, it shouldn't be extremely costly to mass produce these parts. Since an engine is designed, molds and other things are made to fabricate the parts...well the same goes for the more powerful engine....just different shapes.

Is it competition? Regulations?

[Sunil]

quote:

---

Proud to be the guy that left-foot brakes while executing perfect downshifts with DSG to pass you on the inside as you fumble with pedals too widely spaced to properly heel-toe.
But it won't be you, it'll be the car.

---

That's probably what they said when they first started using automatic clutches in F1.....but eventually, everybody switched to stay competitive.

I strongly believe that while I love manual transmissions, my kids will probably ask me in 20 years what it was like to actually engage the clutch with my foot of all things.

DSG, SMG, and CVT are the future, and I'm not too broken up about it.

[joe@vwvortex]

quote:

---

Yeah I don't think this is the S. Most of the rumors (engine wise) have said the TT-S would have 280 hp (just like the next S3). 250 is close, but I've always felt that a 3.2 l 6 cylinder engine with 24 valves and variable valve timing on intake and exhaust valves should make in the neighborhood of 280hp.(I base this on the M3 3.2 w/333 hp and the NSX 3.2 with 290+hp) supposedly the TT-S will use FSI to achieve 280 hp,(thats the latest rumor anyway)

---

The 3.2L in the M3 made just 240hp in US trim - with the over 300hp version originally deemed "too expensive" for the US market due to use of very costly lightweight internal parts, individual throttle bodies etc. The new M3's price is significantly higher with the higher output engine. The same holds true for the 3.2L in the NSX - look at it in the Acura Type S - it's only putting out 260hp - not alot more than 250hp.

[GTIVR6RACER4EVER]

The US S50/S52 are completely different then the Euro S50/S52.

The US S54 is identical to the Euro S54, only difference is in the exhuast system (mainly emissions crap that yeild 5more hp). The S54 is based off the euro 3.2, and was merely a refinement, and "updated" version. The engine is capable of Magnitudes more performance, as PTG has proved over and over again.

Looks wise this 3.2tt looks hot, but its performance is lacking, I think they need a higher version of the R32, that has closer to 300hp NA.

Also I did not see, is this TT 4motion, or fwd only? Sorry got a lil confused. Thanks

[wnowak1]

I don't feel comfortable without three pedals.

[GTIVR6RACER4EVER]

Ditto

[billgti]

i really enjoy having |-|-| shift gates

i know it's great technology, but isn't the DRIVING EXPERIENCE somewhat like a tiptronic? i know it can downshift nicer and faster than a tiptronic but it's the same in that u have to toggle the shifter up/down (or play with the paddles). so if i go from 6 ----> 2 i have to toggle the shifter 4 times??? can't i do that in today's tiptronics too?

dpesite it's use of electro clutches etc, it still seems as tho this is just a very-well engineered "tiptronic" that can run circles around stick shifts?

[wnowak1]

quote:

---

i really enjoy having |-|-| shift gates

i know it's great technology, but isn't the DRIVING EXPERIENCE somewhat like a tiptronic? i know it can downshift nicer and faster than a tiptronic but it's the same in that u have to toggle the shifter up/down (or play with the paddles). so if i go from 6 ----> 2 i have to toggle the shifter 4 times??? can't i do that in today's tiptronics too?

dpesite it's use of electro clutches etc, it still seems as tho this is just a very-well engineered "tiptronic" that can run circles around stick shifts?

---

I agree with you.

I think in manual it can be done just as fast or faster. By the time you move the paddle 4 times I move the lever from 6 to 2

I also hate holding my foot on the brake all the time and I hate controlling slow speeds with the brake. i.e when I creap, i rather use the throttle rather than hold the break and have the car move. No matter how great the tranny is, if it doesn' t have a third pedal i don't like it. I love the feel when you manually select a gear...especially on the 350 Z


[Modified by wnowak1, 4:00 AM 3-4-2003]

[billgti]

yeah i enjoy having the pedal to play with too.

to add to my post above, i think it would be AT LEAST better if the DSG had a gated shifter that could take 6--->2 in 1 snap instead of 4 toggles.

there's just something with the toggle that bothers me. it makes me think TIPTRONIC TIPTRONIC TIPTRONIC unless i keep reminding myself of all the clever technology that's going on inside.

[wnowak1]

if it atleast had a manual clutch to go from neutral into first and drive and then switch gears w/ out the clutch...that would be GREAT....and like you said, the gated shifter would be heaven

[mizunderstoodVW]

There is so many people here that talk about a stick that they need....well they almost sound like a bunch a housewifes that havent had a kind of very different stick between their legs...

All this whining about electronic vs manual. Sure on a quater mile you might argue that it will not be you, but consider the every day use, stop and go trafic (do you want to dangle with the stick all day long in the city), beside sure the people testing these things are great drives, but i want to see all thos dubbers shifting perfectly each and every time...

As for the V6....they are just trying to keep the cost low...the more engines you make the better it is...consider the fact that the this V6 will be used by the Golf/Bora V, Passat and the TT....you get a serious volume there....should do lots for the cost/volume of these engines....

As for the perfomance you have to consider the fact that when the 1.8t came out they were rating it at 150 hp....and now its 180...we should expect lots more of this engine once VWAG finetunes this engine.

While we may complain about "ONLY" 250 hp....i would like to ask you whether you have driven a AWD 250 small and agile car like the TT....

The only thing i would look for is some more weight reduction...but otherwise this car can hold its own in more then one way.

[gizmopop]

quote:

---

The 3.2L in the M3 made just 240hp in US trim - with the over 300hp version originally deemed "too expensive" for the US market due to use of very costly lightweight internal parts, individual throttle bodies etc. The new M3's price is significantly higher with the higher output engine. The same holds true for the 3.2L in the NSX - look at it in the Acura Type S - it's only putting out 260hp - not alot more than 250hp.

---

You will correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the U.S. E36 M3 (240hp)only use single VANOS?(again I may be wrong on this). I know the M3 and NSX engines are expensive, but I didn't mention cost. Also wasn't there a 12V black Corrado owner who increased his engine's displacement to 3.1 L (did some other things as well but it is still Naturally aspirated) who supposedly got around 267 hp to the crank?(I believe he was featured in an issue of European Car a year or so back) if he can get that much out of a 12v 3.1 VR6, the 3.2 24v VR6 should be capable of at least that much... And the 6 speed Acura TL/CL-S makes 270 hp.

[joe@vwvortex]

quote:

---

You will correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the U.S. E36 M3 (240hp)only use single VANOS?(again I may be wrong on this). I know the M3 and NSX engines are expensive, but I didn't mention cost.

---

You are correct - and single Vanos was much cheaper to implement than double vanos. Cost was my sole point here - more HP can be had from the 3.2l but due to the odd configuration - extremely expensive solutions for valvetrain gear, pistons, rods etc. would be needed to that higher hp would be gained at higher rpm. The VR design is compact - which creates cooling problems as well. I think cost is a very signficant factor here.

quote:

---

Also wasn't there a 12V black Corrado owner who increased his engine's displacement to 3.1 L (did some other things as well but it is still Naturally aspirated) who supposedly got around 267 hp to the crank?(I believe he was featured in an issue of European Car a year or so back) if he can get that much out of a 12v 3.1 VR6, the 3.2 24v VR6 should be capable of at least that much

---

Remember though - VAG has other issues to deal with such as emissions etc. In discussing output with the VR engine designer he indicated that for the applications that the engine was slated, increasing emmissions requirements - and overall cost considerations - they decided that limiting the output to 250hp or so was the way to go.

quote:

---

... And the 6 speed Acura TL/CL-S makes 270 hp.

---

Hmm - didn't know that they had increased it but then again I don't pay that much attention to Honda products.

Does VAG need to up the HP - yup. The 3.6L VR6 will put out 280-300+hp. I think that will put them squarely in line with other engines in the market.

Have you seen the 600hp V10 Bi-turbo in the new Audi concept car? I think they know how to make hp

[Lackey]

quote:

---

That's probably what they said when they first started using automatic clutches in F1.....but eventually, everybody switched to stay competitive.

---

But these cars are bought for fun, not to race. Manumatics add convenience and in some cases performance but never fun. Which defeats the point, IMO.

[GTIVR6RACER4EVER]

Also the single Vanos Euro S50 was 286hp, that was a 3L. The US S50/S52 is entirely different based off the base engines. The euro blocks were completely different, and are entirely different animals. I had seen euro 3/3.2's for a while before the S54 came over here, and its just a newer version basically, only 15more hp give or take.

And someone mentioned they are expensive... well new they are expensive, however a fresh built S50 is pretty cheap, and NA you can get about 330 from that still being reliable, and about 350 from the 3.2. Some guys even did 3.3l

Eitherway it looks like these New sequential systems might do a bit better on the track, and we'll see when PTG campaigns thier SMGII's in 2004 (they had to postpone using them in 2003 season).