Larrytt

I cannot believe that Audi would do this. I have no problem with the engine having 250hp, NA engines are fairly easy to massage more power out of. The engine also has 320Nm (236.16 lb-ft), also could be raised higher with engine work . . .

What troubles me is the amount of torque the tranny is said to be able to handle . . . 350Nm (258.3 lb-ft) This part is disturbing to me. This is not even allowing for a 10% improvement in torque!

I love the design idea of the tranny. Sounds like it would be loads of fun to drive. An "auto" like this I can live with, hell my knees would thank me. But who would want to risk the chance of possibly blowing this tranny up? What the hell would a double clutch replacement cost? Would putting in better/stronger clutches cause more harm then good? Why was this tranny designed with such a low torque handling capability? Does not make sense. It is just telling me that Audi will not be improving this engine and it is just a stopgap measure to pacify TT owners worldwide. You can't spend umpteen millions of Euros on a tranny development project and then have to do it all over again when the engine hp/torque jumps up only 10%! lol

Maybe I am missing something here. Have I misread the article?

For those that missed it <a href="http://www.germancarfans.com/news.cfm?NewsID=2021121.003&Page=1">Audi TT 3.2</a>

<a href="http://www.dillonnews.com/convert.htm">Torque Converter</a>

VaskoTT

I doubt how accurate the article is...17" braking system? WOW, probably on 22" wheels ;-)))

TTigg

If this happens it's R32 or make-your-own TTS

Larrytt

the rears are 265mm.

The fronts are 13" the rears are 10"

hoTTub

I mentioned this on the Vortex once when they were giving the specs of the newly released 337 (aka the 25 Anniversary GTI in Europe) where they had stated that the brakes were 17" both front and rear..I obviously pointed out that this must be a mistake. I was quickly corrected, apparently when VW says 17" Brakes, it means that a 17" wheel is required to clear the brake assembly (caliper, rotor etc) I thought it was weird but it seems that is the way it is....

nansaidh

and it's probably a dumb question.

I don't understand how they almost double the 'size' of the engine (1.8 litre to 3.2 litre... i said 'almost') but even though the 3.2 sounds like it's normally aspirated v. the present turbo, it only ends up with a 25 hp gain over the present engine? I would have thought there'd be a lot more HP gain.

DSG looks interesting; they should "do something" with the look of the tip gearshift though... put something slick looking in its place that lives up to the design of the interior.

Anyway... why the errr 'modest' power gain?

Bluto

<center><img src="http://www.roadandtrack.com/images/rt_images/2002/january/2002_01_bmw_smg_lever.jpg"></center><p>

nansaidh

matter of fact, "slurp".

Larrytt

look at the various engines offered by Audi/VW:

Audi:
1.8t = 170, 180 and 225hp
3.0 = 220hp
2.7t = 250hp
2.8 = 190hp
4.2 = 300hp

The rumoured 3.2 = 250hp

Within the Audi engine lineup the numbers do make sense. When measured and compared to the rest of the automotive world it makes no sense and shows AudiAG to be way behind the curve.

VW:
1.8t =150, 170 and 180hp
2.0 = 115hp
2.8 = 190hp Audi V6
2.8 = 200hp VW VR6
4.0 = 270hp VW W8

Hope that helped . . . somehow.

I agree, the shifter on the floor needs to be designed, not slapped together to match the 2003 tip shifter.

RoninTT

doesn't want to have to work a clutch" Said person probably doesn't wanna have to tell his golfing buddies he has 4 banger in his car either, when they ask. They're going for the Automatic-BMW/Mercedes/Acura crowd. Hence the bigger engine/small bump in HP and manumatic tranny.

No offense to any rich old guys here, you obviously don't fall into this catagory since you drive a REAL manual.