Audi TT The Audi TT line, in both the coupe and roadster combines Audi's All Wheel Drive performance with the feel of a European sports car.

3.2 vs. 1.8

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jun 4, 2008 | 11:42 AM
  #1  
JusTTin's Avatar
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 3
Default 3.2 vs. 1.8

What is your input on a 1.8 (180 hp not 225) TT vs a 3.2 TT (250 hp)
i want an automatic coupe which one would you pick and why?



I am looking for an '04 '05 audi TT for less than 24k.
 
Old Jun 4, 2008 | 11:49 AM
  #2  
cincyTT's Avatar
I'm make believe
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 17,587
From: In my head
Default RE: 3.2 vs. 1.8

If you want a auto, the DSG in the 3.2 is far better than the tiptronic in the 1.8t. However, you can make about the same power with a 1.8t with a chip as a 3.2 and the 1.8t will also get better mpg. If you plan on just keeping it basically stock, the 3.2 is better also since it has less moving parts compared to the 1.8t.
 
Old Jun 4, 2008 | 04:53 PM
  #3  
jakej's Avatar
2nd Gear
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,049
From: Milwaukee
Default RE: 3.2 vs. 1.8

I would go with the 3.2L, it should be more reliable... however, don't expect to upgrade it, but it's an auto anyway.
 
Old Jun 4, 2008 | 09:34 PM
  #4  
JettaRedII's Avatar
2nd Gear
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 626
From:
Default RE: 3.2 vs. 1.8

The 3.2 is an awesome enginevery smooth, very powerful. However, it's heavier, and that will affect handling, and 250 bhp is what you get. The 1.8T can be modified to outrun the 3.2 and will probably handle better in the twisties, but modding ain't cheap.

It really depends on what you want. Drive both and decide. If you don't, you're dumb, and I'm sure you're not dumb.
 
Old Jun 5, 2008 | 07:32 AM
  #5  
dale55's Avatar
1st Gear
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 103
Default RE: 3.2 vs. 1.8

Hi! I have the 3.2 V6. The reasons I love it are:

1. Unbelievable sound especially with a "wak-box mod" and the "flapper mod".

2. I get 21 mpg in the city.

3. DSG took a while to grow on me, but now I love it. It is like 4 transmissions in one and is VERY nice driving around in Dallas traffic.

4. Everyone is right about very few mods, but honestly it doesn't need it. I put on a 19mm rear sway and an upgraded headunit for the bose system and the car needs NOTHING!

dale
 
Old Jun 5, 2008 | 11:17 AM
  #6  
JusTTin's Avatar
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 3
Default RE: 3.2 vs. 1.8

ok so i found a 2004 black 3.2 v6 auto coupe and its 26 miles away 43,000 miles and this guy is asking for 19,900 is this a good deal?

ok so im new to this. if i were to get a 3.2 what mods are effecient to get more hp?

i was thinking an intake and fmic someone help me out.
 
Old Jun 5, 2008 | 11:35 AM
  #7  
cincyTT's Avatar
I'm make believe
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 17,587
From: In my head
Default RE: 3.2 vs. 1.8

a fmic is for a turbo car, the 3.2 is a NA. An intake, chip (not as big of a gain as a turbo car, but some www.unitronic.ca ), exhaust, and HPA intake manifold is about all the power mods for a 3.2.
 
Old Jun 5, 2008 | 12:05 PM
  #8  
dale55's Avatar
1st Gear
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 103
Default RE: 3.2 vs. 1.8

ORIGINAL: JusTTin

ok so i found a 2004 black 3.2 v6 auto coupe and its 26 miles away 43,000 miles and this guy is asking for 19,900 is this a good deal?

ok so im new to this. if i were to get a 3.2 what mods are effecient to get more hp?

i was thinking an intake and fmic someone help me out.
1. Just cut holes in the stock intake. Called the wak-box. It is free and will return the same as an intake costing many $$$.

2. Again V6 needs no mods, BUT you can get a chip and a catback exhaust and 200 cell cats. Will cost you about $2500+ to do and will give you maybe 25 HP.

3.That's a good price and the V6 costs alot less than the 1.8 to maintain as well.

dale
 




All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:29 AM.