Jermy Clarkson Tests the Audi TT 3.2 Liter

I reviewed the 2 litre front-wheel-drive version a few months ago and I liked it very much. So you’d expect me to rave about the much faster four-wheel-drive V6 I’ve been using this past week.

Hmmm, well . . . the base car develops a murderous 197bhp, whereas the V6 delivers a creamy and interesting 247bhp. But you’d be surprised at how similar the two feel in terms of outright get-up-and-go.

Yes, the V6 gets from rest to 62mph in 5.9sec but the base car is there just half a second later. And it’s a similar story at the top end, where the V6 can do 155mph — just 6mph more than the front-driver.

nd it’s the same story with handling. Of course the V6 has four-wheel drive, which affords you a lot more grip, but curiously the front-driver is more rewarding and actually better to drive. It certainly is if you spec it up with the optional electromagnetic suspension, without which the V6 felt — dare I say it — a little crude and jiggly



Full 2006 LA Auto Show photos (click the link below)

2006 LA Auto Show Photo Gallery

AutoSpies.com Photo Galleries


Read Article

audiot - 11/29/2006 11:25:15 AM

+7 Boost

Can the Audi fans around here help me out?

See, I think the 3.2 liter V6 is utter crap. I've driven it in the A4 and A3. It lacks low-end torque. It is not an inspiring engine by any means, and Audi keeps sticking it into newer cars that are supposed to be performance-oriented. A V6 Accord engine is sweeter.

How is Audi going to catch BMW's inline-6 with a crap engine like their 3.2 V6? All you're left with is turbo 4's if you want an Audi. A bad set of choices.

Wake up Audi?

smshnick - 11/29/2006 2:10:03 PM

+1 Boost

I've had the 2.0 liter 4 and the 3.2 v6, and the 3.2 is definitely disappointing at first, however after several thousand miles of driving the engine in combo with the trans definitely gets better with age. The 2.0 is great right out of the box and gets better as well. I'm an avid Audi fan and I agree that their 6 cyl is their weakest link. However, BMW doesn't have a 4 that matches Audis, and BMW's 8 is on par. The other engine that Audi has an advantage over Bimmer is their Lambo sourced V10, it's much more wicked than BMW's, IMO.

S4cabriofoxone - 11/29/2006 2:19:47 PM

0 Boost

I hate the 3.2 also. This is VERY similar to the A3 saga- the 2.0T is awesome and cheap(ish), but the 3.2 is boring in comparison. I see no reason to buy a 3.2 A3, A4 or TT over a similarly equipped 2.0T model, FWD or not. Unless you really want the bragging rights, it's not worth it.

The 2.0T is also a lot more tunable, so you could easily surpass the 3.2's power output and make your 2.0T much quicker.

PlanoA4 - 11/29/2006 4:02:23 PM

+1 Boost

Well really the 3.2 isn't so bad, but the 2.0 is outstanding, so it makes the 3.2 feel like a let down. It is hard to find fault with the little 2.0 turbo motor. Every test I have seen comment on how strong it is. Hard to compare if a good engine is set next to an over achiever.

thecar - 11/29/2006 11:35:17 AM

0 Boost

wait for the 3.6 , 3.2 is like extra weight without much added power over the I-4 T setup for the TT.

BMW 3.0 (330ci ,328i) has even less HP than the VAG 3.2 when it loads with AWD , u cant really expect much out of those.

bmwdrvr - 11/29/2006 11:42:08 AM

-2 Boost

the tt would compete with the z4, not the 3 series coupes, besides a 335i would blow the doors of this wannabe sports car any way, edmunds did a test of the 335i with an automatic and it was only 1 tenth of a second behind the audi rs4 thats pretty sad for a car that has 120 more hp, but i cant say i dont like the tt i always have it just has never been a real sports car and the new one has softer styling, and a less unique interior..

bmwdrvr - 11/29/2006 11:44:28 AM

-1 Boost

and nice gm rip off on the suspension

Rupert - 11/29/2006 12:23:59 PM

+3 Boost

you could say ferrari rip-off.

S4cabriofoxone - 11/29/2006 2:22:26 PM

-2 Boost

"edmunds did a test of the 335i with an automatic and it was only 1 tenth of a second behind the audi rs4..."

That's Audi's quoted time. Road & Track got it at 4.3 seconds. I could also say that BMW's quoted time of 5.5 seconds is slow- it's the same exact thing, just turned around. See NARunner's post- except, it was 4.3, like I said, not 4.4. The RS4 is actually quicker than the outgoing RS6, and MUCH better to drive.

PlanoA4 - 11/29/2006 4:07:42 PM

+2 Boost

bmwdrvr- Get your facts straight the MagneRide is not a GM product, it is a Delphi product licensed to both GM and Audi and Ferrari, among others. It is a common practice: someone comes out with a revolutionary product and they license it to others.

I guess since there isn't blue and white propeller on it can't be good?

james_may - 11/29/2006 12:18:28 PM

+2 Boost

no , Z4 was orginated as roadster
while TT is 2+2 coupe
TT was never driver originated, while Z3/4 was. u think ppl cross shops Z4 coupe and TT coupe , you must be on to something.

thole - 11/29/2006 12:25:25 PM

+3 Boost

TT is more civilized than Z4 anyway , with a usable hatch and capable to put large laugguages with the seats fold.

335i is a turbo , 300HP without AWD can sure blow the doors off any 3L NA AWD car including 330xi.

We are talking the engine w/ AWD alone here, I have to agree 3.2 VAG engine is just avg. , even porsche couldnt save it with a tuned one on cayenne.

NARunner - 11/29/2006 12:45:29 PM

+4 Boost

bmwdrv-

"edmunds did a test of the 335i with an automatic and it was only 1 tenth of a second behind the audi rs4"

If you're going to compare, don't compare top test figures of the 335i to mfg claim or edmunds test of rs4. Compare top results with top results. The rs4 has tested 0-60 in 4.4 sec...don't let your bias get the best of you, my friend.

Sauceboy01 - 11/29/2006 1:16:18 PM

+2 Boost

what most of you fail to realize is that the AWD automatically robs you of some BIG HP. I wouldn't be surprised if both cars weren't putting similar numbers on the Dyno to the wheels!

chewy - 11/29/2006 10:11:51 PM

+1 Boost

The Audi regular V6 FSI is a better engine than the BMW version [non turbo] It has the same power (255 hp) and more torque 243 vs 225 IIRC. The VW unit makes 250 hp and 235 lb-ft torque. Again more than the BMW unit. The A4 does get a bit heavy and does have all wheel drive, but makes is up in other aspects. I am sure the V6 TT will be very nice. I think most just expect a major performance change as most 4 cylinder engines provide little performance compared to the 2.0 T FSI.