Dream TT

I'm thinking about the "new" TT and I've been debating the merits of each engine. I came across this website with dyno numbers for each and it's convinced me that the 2.0 motor is an even better value than I realized. Now, if only quattro was available with the 2.0.

Check the numbers:

The 2.0 only loses 2hp at the wheels and torque is actually higher.

http://www.rri.se/popup/performancegraphs.php?ChartsID=643

The 3.2 hp is only 210 at the wheels (vs. 197 for the 2.0) and torque is only 211 (vs. 208 for the 2.0)

http://www.rri.se/popup/performancegraphs.php?ChartsID=640

|everso!|

that would make a difference. Even if it's haldex, it would make SOME difference.

BrandonLive

Having dyno'd my A3 2.0T stock and getting similar numbers.

Things to note:

The 2.0T is definitely underrated. It's got to be doing more than 200HP stock.

The 2.0T's transverse mount and FrontTrak drivetrain are pretty much ideal for actually translating engine power into wheel power. Very little loss happens there.

The 3.2, on the other hand, is probably not underrated at all (I only hope it isn't overrated), and most certainly loses some power to the wheels because of the AWD setup. Ostensibly, it makes up for that with better traction (especially from a stop, in the wet, etc), thus getting more power from the wheels to the *ground*.


What would be more interesting would be a comparison of a TT 2.0T Quattro to a 3.2Q. Then we'd learn the real difference between the engines, which I'm betting is still not 50HP (30-40 probably). Also, I expect a chipped 2.0T to be equal to or faster than the 3.2.

The way I think of it, though, is that I didn't buy a 3.2. I bought Quattro, and two cylinders came with it.

Dream TT

Here's a link to a 2.0 A3 Quattro. The hp numbers only dropped 5% and the torque only dropped 3%. The numbers for the 3.2 dropped 16% and 11% respectively.

That 2.0 is an impressive motor for the money.

http://www.rri.se/popup/performancegraphs.php?ChartsID=215