Audi stupid to phase out 3.2L v6?
10-25-2009, 01:21 PM
#1
AudiWorld Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Audi stupid to phase out 3.2L v6?
Own a 2004 3.2L S line TT roadster. My third Audi so am very familiar with their cars. Was thinking about buying a new car and have driven quite a few....SLK 300, SLK 350, Boxster, Boxster S, 128+135 (too large for me) and both a 2009 TT 3.2L and TTS v4 turbo roadster. Thought the SLK 300, Boxster, and 128 a bit underpowered for my tastes. Was impressed by the TTS as it is very peppy but really did not like the turbo lag....does not happen all the time but feel it's the last thing a sportscar owner would want to have happen when pushing their car through a move requiring a quick (or potentially deadly) response. Cannot see anyone who is seriously into high powered sportscars to want a TTS....the 3.2L roadster, SLK350, Boxster S, 135, and new Z4 are too stiff competition. Seems that given the sales of the TT to date, Audi has given up on trying to compete for the serious sportcar buyer. Don't get me wrong....the TTS is a nice responsive car but cannot hold it's own relative to the more serious configured cars and the turbo lag sucks.
Why do people want the TTS? The gas mileage is not that much different than the 3.2L v6 and while peppy, the v6 is a much more exciting ride....street driving, highway and of course the very nice engine sound. The good news is that the TTS engine does not sound too overtaxed at 70-80mph....good improvement relative to earlier 2.0L turbos as with those cars you'd wish there was another gear (think lawnmower).
JMHO,
BosTTon
Why do people want the TTS? The gas mileage is not that much different than the 3.2L v6 and while peppy, the v6 is a much more exciting ride....street driving, highway and of course the very nice engine sound. The good news is that the TTS engine does not sound too overtaxed at 70-80mph....good improvement relative to earlier 2.0L turbos as with those cars you'd wish there was another gear (think lawnmower).
JMHO,
BosTTon
10-26-2009, 01:56 AM
#3
AudiWorld Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BosTTon
10-26-2009, 11:01 AM
#5
AudiWorld Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 3.6L would rock!!!!!! One of my fav testdrives was the 2009 SLK350....300hp, a sweet sounding and driving car. Would have bought one if it had Quattro/AWD (I live in New England) and was more comfortable vs. a TT.
But that is what Audi should be doing vs. a 4cy turbo lagster excuse for a sportscar
BosTTon
But that is what Audi should be doing vs. a 4cy turbo lagster excuse for a sportscar
BosTTon
10-26-2009, 05:50 PM
#6
AudiWorld Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The mistake that Audi is making is not offering a 6 speed manual in the TT with 2.0T and Quattro. That combination will sell a lot more than just a DSG offering.
That being said, a base 2.0T with just a chip tune and DV upgrade makes more power and torque than a 3.2L VR6, has very little lag (since it uses a small KO3), better fuel efficiency and runs smooth as silk.
I had a 3.2 TT and a 225 TT (both MK1s) and while the 3.2 was a good touring motor I just felt it did not belong in the already nose heavy and short wheelbase TT. A test drive in the MK2 3.2 TT with a 6spd was a much better experience though probably because the part aluminium subframe balances the car out.
That being said, the 2.0T def is the motor for these cars, but Audi needs to offer up the manual trans and Quattro too.
That being said, a base 2.0T with just a chip tune and DV upgrade makes more power and torque than a 3.2L VR6, has very little lag (since it uses a small KO3), better fuel efficiency and runs smooth as silk.
I had a 3.2 TT and a 225 TT (both MK1s) and while the 3.2 was a good touring motor I just felt it did not belong in the already nose heavy and short wheelbase TT. A test drive in the MK2 3.2 TT with a 6spd was a much better experience though probably because the part aluminium subframe balances the car out.
That being said, the 2.0T def is the motor for these cars, but Audi needs to offer up the manual trans and Quattro too.
10-27-2009, 08:17 AM
#7
AudiWorld Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You make a really good point....if Audi is serious about a premium sportscar, they should have the manual tranny option and it is probably costing them customers. Look at the Boxster, Z4, Z350, S2000...mainly manual trannies. The only mostly auto (manual is rare) are the SLK280/350...often known as chickmobiles. I do go with the auto but it's a leg issue, can't drive the manual anymore (boo hoo hoo).
Re "chip tune and DV upgrade" on a TTS...what is the cost? Drove another TTS yesterday and it is definitely not my cup-o-tea at this point (spoiled on the v6 lack of lag).
BosTTon
Re "chip tune and DV upgrade" on a TTS...what is the cost? Drove another TTS yesterday and it is definitely not my cup-o-tea at this point (spoiled on the v6 lack of lag).
BosTTon
Trending Topics
10-27-2009, 02:53 PM
#9
AudiWorld Member
The 3.2 TT costs the same and is significantly slower than the TT-S so I can see why they got rid of it. For 600 bucks you can get your ecu flashed and the HP gets bumped to 320. There is also a 3-5 MPG difference between the 2 engines as well. Call me crazy but I actually have more fun driving the TT-S than I did my 08 M3.
10-27-2009, 10:43 PM
#10
AudiWorld Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 3.2 TT costs the same and is significantly slower than the TT-S so I can see why they got rid of it. For 600 bucks you can get your ecu flashed and the HP gets bumped to 320. There is also a 3-5 MPG difference between the 2 engines as well. Call me crazy but I actually have more fun driving the TT-S than I did my 08 M3.