180HP vs 225HP ???

[11sec_car]

Witching next 2 weeks I will be purchasing a TT. It’s going to be 180hp version or 225hp version. The price difference between 2 models is around $1500 (both Quattro, manual tranny, 2001 year, 50k miles). I know for sure that after the purchase I will be doing BT upgrade (GT2871R).
My question is: Is the 225HP worth that additional $1500?? I know its worth that $ if I would stay stock. But since I will upgrade the turbo I don’t really see the point of spending additional $1500 for the 225hp version. I can spend that $$ on some other mods…

What are the differences between 180HP and 225 HP (besides the turbo, different exhaust and different transmissions)...
Sebastian
Ps. Is the 225 dual intercooler setup enough for the BT upgrate? Or I will need FMIC?

[ItsJ]

225TT, has lower compression, some stronger internals, 6spd

[5150 Pa55at]

My dad had both the 180HP and now the 225 hp. Huge differnce. Go with the 225HP TT. You'll be glad you spent the extra money.

[LaTenTConcepT]

how did they lower the compression gaskets or pistons or stroke??

[Martin419]

FWIW, I bought a new 180 FWD TT coupe in 2005 and now have the MTM remap & Milltek dual-pipe cat-back exhaust. Thanks to the huge increase in torque ( from around 230NM to 330NM! ) the acceleration is now quite incredible, and turbo lag is practically eliminated.

I've been reliably informed that it comfortably out-accelerates a stock 225 model on a good dry road. Should do 0-62 in just over 6 secs! Certainly feels like it.

Some of this has to do with the fact that my 5-speed manual 2WD car is about 16% lighter than a quattro six-speed TT (200kg less kerb weight!)

Fuel economy is also much better in my lighter car. Another good thing about it is I don't keep having to rev the engine past 4,000rpm to get the pull. Instead, I can now do it easily from 2,500 to 3,500rpm. As an illustration, I can now pull away in fifth gear at ONLY 50MPH, with the same pull as previously was only possible in 3rd or 4th! (Of course, if I take revs past 5,000, it shoots forward like a rocket.)

Also, incredibly, the fuel consumption in 5th gear at steady 60mph now reads 45mpg!

[element256]

my brother has the 225 and just with an ecu and exhaust is pushing 295hp.. and if you get the 180 it has single exhaust so you'll have to buy a dual rear valence too and the DSMIC is enough to handle the BT...I'd say go with the 225 cause you'll have to spend close to that $1500 anyways to get the 180 to the point of what you would have just financed with the 225

[4cefed4]

You should opt for the 225 if you can, even if you plan on going BT. The upgraded internals, lower static compression, and more durable (IMO) tranny will hold up longer to BT abuse. If you're going for a straight up drag car, then the guy above me's advice is good. The weight benefit from a non-Quattro coupe is much greater than the small amount of dry traction you'll lose with FWD. TTs are HARD to launch at the track, even with Quattro.

[4cefed4]

Originally posted by element256
my brother has the 225 and just with an ecu and exhaust is pushing 295hp.. and if you get the 180 it has single exhaust so you'll have to buy a dual rear valence too and the DSMIC is enough to handle the BT...I'd say go with the 225 cause you'll have to spend close to that $1500 anyways to get the 180 to the point of what you would have just financed with the 225

I was referring to Martin's post in my first.

Your point about the dual side mount ICs is valid, but a single outlet 3" exhaust is going to flow just as well as having dual outlets. Case and point: aftermarket exhausts for E46 M3s, C5 vettes, SRT-4s, etc.

[11sec_car]

I already have Drag car (11 sec Trans am), now I need fast and comfortable daily driver :)
Sebastian

Originally posted by 4cefed4
You should opt for the 225 if you can, even if you plan on going BT. The upgraded internals, lower static compression, and more durable (IMO) tranny will hold up longer to BT abuse. If you're going for a straight up drag car, then the guy above me's advice is good. The weight benefit from a non-Quattro coupe is much greater than the small amount of dry traction you'll lose with FWD. TTs are HARD to launch at the track, even with Quattro.

[4cefed4]

Originally posted by 11sec_car
I already have Drag car (11 sec Trans am), now I need fast and comfortable daily driver :)
Sebastian

Cool, so go with the 225 Quattro then.

[Martin419]

>> now I need fast and comfortable daily driver <<

FWIW, my souped-up 180 2WD is as fast; as comfortable (and quieter too) than the 225 which has its extra under-cabin transmission to the rear wheels.

The 2WD is also a more fuel efficient. And being lighter it is more snappy round corners as the car has less overall centrifugal inertia.

The other thing to consider, is that if you want to get a low price for a second-hand 225, it would tend to be more than a couple of years old. But all of those older cars have a fatal design fault in the dashpod (instrument panel). Audi corrected this from mid-2004 onwards. And my car is a mid-2005 model, so all the bugs have been fixed.

Furthermore, the claim by "element256" of 295hp with just an ECU + exhaust is quite hard to believe. Where did he get this figure from? The salesman? A rolling-road dyno? And if it was measured was it measured at the flywheel, or on the road itself? And does he have to go to 6,000rpm to get it? (I never like to take an engine up there).

btw, I’ve seen the plots of numerous 225TTs side-by-side taken at a track day. Chips used included: REVO, Superchips, AMD Technik, MTM etc. etc. They all had new cats & exhausts. Some even had bigger intercoolers etc. But none of them exceeded about 270bhp on the dyno plots. And most were around the 250bhp mark. Some even less. (btw the MTM car, had by far the highest torque reading, and it did this despite that fact that it was the only car without fancy racing cats or big intercooler.)

The other thing I didn’t like about the 225Q with its transverse mounted engine, is that I don't believe it’s a real "Quattro". In fact, most of the time, a 225Q is behaving just like a normal front-wheel drive car, but one that’s a lot heavier.

In contrast, my friend has a REAL Quattro. That’s the 2.3 litre Audi S2 with an adjustable Torsen differential which can be optimised for any road surface or mission. Of course, in that car he can demolish any TT.

Anyway, as you can all see, I've just joined this forum, and would really like to participate in good humoured debate with you all, and I'm always open to learning from more experienced folks!

Martin.

[4cefed4]

I would guess the 295 HP claim is at the crank/flywheel. The extra weight won't matter if he's not going for an all out competition car, and in the northeast it's good to have AWD for the winter months and rainy days.

[Don Supreme]

Why would a Quattro TT be hard to launch?

Just rev it up and drop the clutch!!!

Is it because of the haldex system?

[4cefed4]

Originally posted by Don Supreme
Why would a Quattro TT be hard to launch?

Just rev it up and drop the clutch!!!

Is it because of the haldex system?

I don't know why, but speaking from personal experience they are. I dont know much about their AWD system besides the power split. Maybe with some stiffer engine mounts and some sticky tires it would be better, but it was like launching a FWD car but worse because of the boost spike off-idle and the combo of weight and wheel base.

[EvotechTT]

I would definitely get a 225, my friend bought a 180 and then test drove mine and he regrets getting a 180.

[quattro411]

idk what you have done to your fwd 180 TT, but im sure any 225 TT with the same mods as you would beat you in any sort of race. There are engine mounts and sway bars that quite a good job from what I have herd from other owners. I have a 180 TT quattro and get a great jump off the line. How many quattro TT's have you driven? My friends and I can definitly tell the difference between my AWD car and there FWD and RWD cars.

[sushi_turbo]

225 TT for sure...

[ItsJ]

once again 225TT, if you can afford it, go for it.

Getting an audi without quattro is like.... well i'm sure you can get the drift : ) ...

It maybe haldex, but off the line it launches like an awd when it starts feeling all that extra slippage up front. You can also get the haldex performance unit which will put more power to the rear and will be used more often.

I have owned a b5 a4 and b5s4 in the past, and i find the launches on the TT haldex easier to do then the torsen.

[Martin419]

Quattro411 wrote:
>> idk what you have done to your fwd 180 TT, <<

I'll repeat: MTM remap & Milltek cat-back exhaust. giving 242 ft lbs of torque and 210BHP. The 2WD TT (with 5-speed manual) weighs 440lbs less than a Quattro TT (6-speed manual) and has much less transmission loss than one with the Haldex. It also has no turbo lag.

The net result is that my car will do 0-62 in 6 secs. That's quicker than a stock 225TT. That's all I'm saying.

It will also turn an impressive 45mpg at a steady 60mph in 5th gear. A 225Q will definitely not do this. b.t.w. the six-speed manual's sixth gear is very similar ratio to the 5-speed's fifth gear. But the 5-speed gearbox is by far the lightest gearbox.

[tigasTT]

I had a 180 before my 225....huge diff. Go for the 225!

The 225 has a K04 stock = more power!
The 225 has 6-speed > 180 has 5.
The 225 has 2 intercoolers > 180 has 1.
+++.....blah...blah...blah....:)

[quattro411]

yeah quicker than a STOCK 225TT, but with a few mods the 225 would be quicker than the FWD. How many people here would rather have FWD than AWD? not many I hope. we all have our opinions.

[Martin419]

>> How many people here would rather have FWD than AWD?<<

Hey then, why do most people like their Porsches with 2WD rather than AWD? ;-)

b.t.w. The notion of any TT being a "Quattro" is a con. The Haldex coupling is NOT proper Quattro. Torsen is. But TT doesn't have Torsen.

Haldex is front-wheel drive unless you are the sort of person who likes to go into wheel-spinning mode (I don't). Only then does the rear transmission kick-in. That sucks.

Also, even if you do have an Audi with Torsen AWD, it's still a handicap at high speeds. Just adds more friction and weighs the car down.

b.t.w. The TT225Q indeed does have bigger turbo etc. But it damn well needs it to haul all that extra weight & overcome the extra friction! ;-)

[4cefed4]

I really think that the only time a 225Q is faster than a 180F is when they are stock, or very heavily modded. In all that middle ground where most of us find ourselves, the weight benefit of the 180 is going to be the big factor in a race. My GTI has a 180 and has FWD, and let me tell you that your 225 is going to need to go big turbo to take out my car running the stock turbo.

[ItsJ]

isn't the TT FWD heavier than the VW GTI?

[bluea41.8tq]

Originally posted by Martin419
>> How many people here would rather have FWD than AWD?<<

Hey then, why do most people like their Porsches with 2WD rather than AWD? ;-)

b.t.w. The notion of any TT being a "Quattro" is a con. The Haldex coupling is NOT proper Quattro. Torsen is. But TT doesn't have Torsen.

Haldex is front-wheel drive unless you are the sort of person who likes to go into wheel-spinning mode (I don't). Only then does the rear transmission kick-in. That sucks.

Also, even if you do have an Audi with Torsen AWD, it's still a handicap at high speeds. Just adds more friction and weighs the car down.

b.t.w. The TT225Q indeed does have bigger turbo etc. But it damn well needs it to haul all that extra weight & overcome the extra friction! ;-)

The reason people want their porsches with two wheel drive is because it is rear wheel drive. If porsche would never make a fwd car becasue they suffer in performance in almost all aspects compared to rear or awd.(note that they do make awd porshces)

Also haldex only takes 1/8 of a revolution to kick in the rear wheels so if that is what you call wheelspin then ok but it's not to bad in my book.

finally i have a tt225 with a chip and exhaust and i will glady do a few runs against you so you can see how slow a 180 is compared to a 225 with similar mods.

[quattro411]

thanks for that bluea41.8tq, you took the words right out of my mouth

[tigasTT]

You have to have owned both to tell the difference. I thought the TT180FWD chip/filter/FMIC/DV/exhaust was already fast...guess what??? My TT225 chip/filter/DV is FASTER! Even on top gear my TT180FWD could only do 240kph as my TT225 does 260kph no problemo! Another thing that would be worth mentioning in this comparo is the ride quality. The 225 rides MUCH better at any speed than the 180FWD.

[ncttrnl]

Originally posted by 4cefed4
I really think that the only time a 225Q is faster than a 180F is when they are stock, or very heavily modded. In all that middle ground where most of us find ourselves, the weight benefit of the 180 is going to be the big factor in a race. My GTI has a 180 and has FWD, and let me tell you that your 225 is going to need to go big turbo to take out my car running the stock turbo.

Agreed. When you really start modding, the differences in power start to narrow quickly. Having driven both cars, I'm torn as to what I would choose if I had to do it again.

There was a brief period there when my single tailpipe seemed to be an open invitation to every assclown that managed to land himself a 225. I'm still not sure why. Most TT drivers are cool people.

The one nice thing about the 225 is all the extras on the engine. Its got oil squirters, forged internals, etc. Once you really get modding, those will be what matters as they are either expensive or sometimes impossible to do on the 180 blocks.

For whomever compared a porsche to a TT... 180 or 225, you are way out of you league trying to hang with them. Porsche drivers opt for the RWD because they usually don't need the AWD. Not many of them drive in the snow or anything so why carry the weight and drivetrain loss and bigger sticker price.

And yes the 180 FWD TT is a bit heavier than a GTI.

[Martin419]

Bluea41.8tq wrote: >> note that they do make awd porshces <<

Exactly. That’s why I used the Porsche example.

Bluea41.8tq also wrote: >> i have a tt225 with a chip and exhaust and i will glady do a few runs against you so you can see how slow a 180 is compared to a 225 with similar mods. <<

Thanks for the invitatation -- would be fun. However, my TT is on the other side of the Atlantic from you, so it makes the race a bit difficult to arrange! ;-)

BTW — I think I’d surprise you with my MTM remap giving 242ft-lb (328NM) of torque!


TigasTT, which chip did you have in your 2WD TT? And did you have manual 5-speed, manual 6-speed, or auto? (Manual 5-speed is simplest, lightest, and best of the lot IMHO.)

ncttrnl wrote: >> And yes the 180 FWD TT is a bit heavier than a GTI <<

FWIW I just looked-up the weight of the 1.8T Golf GTI, and kerb weight varies from 2,932-3,051 lbs (1,333-1,387 kgs)
see: http://www.modernracer.com/vwgti18t.html

However, my TT FWD with manual 5-speed actually has lower a kerb weight of 2,816lb (1,280 kgs)

see: http://www.audi.co.uk/newcars/specs....ode=8N30M4++00

[bluea41.8tq]

Originally posted by Martin419
Bluea41.8tq wrote: >> note that they do make awd porshces <<

Exactly. That’s why I used the Porsche example.

if you are going to quote me please do it correctly my point was porshce does not make a fwd car becasue it is not good for performance even from a basic physics standpoint. as can be seen in my orginal post

The reason people want their porsches with two wheel drive is because it is rear wheel drive. If porsche would never make a fwd car becasue they suffer in performance in almost all aspects compared to rear or awd.(note that they do make awd porshces)

my point to this whole statement is that fwn cars suffer in every aspect of performace when compared to rwd or awd, granted you may pay a weight penalty for the awd but the traction gain is not even measureable.

[Martin419]

>> my point was porshce does not make a fwd car becasue it is not good for performance even from a basic physics standpoint. <<

rear-wheel drive is no better or worse than front-wheel drive. It's just different.

i.e. Rear wheel drive cars tend to oversteer, while front-wheel-drive cars tend to understeer. Take your pick.

Moreover, oversteer can be catastrophic in the hands of all but the most experienced drivers, because if you are not careful, the car will go into an unrecoverable spin if you floor the gas too much round a corner (but it's more exciting, I suppose, but deadly.)

[bluea41.8tq]

fwd is not as good from a performance standpoint as rwd. In a fwd the front wheels must turn and put power to the ground, this means some of the grip must go to putting down the power and some must go to turning the vehicle. Hence a fwd car cannot devote all of it's grip to either turning or putting power to the gound. A rwd has a separate set of wheels for each task, hence it may use all available grip to either turn the car or put all of the grip to the ground. That is why all supercars are rwd or awd, if you can think of a fwd supercar enlightedn me.
-Jay

[Martin419]

But on a RWD car with engine up front, the power is where the weight is least, i.e. at the back. And this is not good if you are putting down a lot of power, and rear wheels will spin, and front wheels will oversteer which can be lethal.

HOWEVER, when the engine is at the back -- as in the case of a Porsche and other 'supercars', then the back wheels get a lot more traction and are ideal for power delivery.

But on the TT, the weight of the engine is at the front, which also happens to be where the power is being put down.

[quattro411]

why would audi bother putting quattro systems on all there top of the line models? I guess they don't know what they are doing.... NOT, awd and rwd have much better performance than fwd.

[quattro411]

viper, corvette, mustang, rwd with engine in the front. Your not gonna spin the tires with wider wheels and if you are a driver that knows not to spin'em off the line or around corners.

[Martin419]

Q: >> why would audi bother putting quattro systems on all there top of the line models? <<

A: Brand differentiation from other car manufacturers. Mainly.

[Martin419]

>> not gonna spin the tires with wider wheels and if you are a driver that knows not to spin'em <<

Reads: "normal drivers, and with normal wheels WILL spin'em." ;-)

[quattro411]

I cant say that we are normal drivers, or that there are many normal drivers that take thier car to track days ;-), we all have our opinions and thats what compitition is all about, as long as everyone loves their Audi!!!!!! unlike any other lol.......

[4cefed4]

To the guy with the 225 with the chip and exhaust (bluea41.8tq): Do you have any quarter mile time slips to back up your claims, or are you just trying to bench race. I have a 1/2" thick pile of them saying my GTI would show your TT tail lights. You racing against a similarly modded 180TT would be much closer, with you probably winning. In actuality, it would come down to drivers.

When comparing weights, one thing to consider is the ease of weight reduction in some cars vs. others. I can strip 200 pounds (rear seats, spare, tools) out of my car in less than 5 minutes. 90% of the time this is how my car is set up. With other weight reduction my car is about 300 pounds less than stock, scales at the track indicate my car is a tick under 2800 pounds with a 1/4 tank of fuel and me (200 lbs) in it.

FWD v. AWD v. RWD: It really all comes down to preference. If any of them held a definite advantage, do you think the others would still be around. There are good and bad examples of each, and you can't make a flat statement that one is better for x than another.

FWD:
Pros: lightest weight, easy to neutralize steering with a RSB, decent in adverse weather.
Cons: most difficult to launch, ruins weight distribution.
AWD:
Pros: best is adverse weather, good off the line grip, good for high exit speeds from turns.
Cons: heaviest, most expensive (to buy and repair).
RWD:
Pros: produces oversteer desirable for racing, improves weight distribution, good off the line and handling characteristics in sports cars.
Cons: poor for adverse weather.

For anyone out there who doesn't think a FWD car can compete with a RWD/AWD car in turns, try taking a mini cooper or mk5 gti for a spin.

Oh, and just to open up a whole new can of worms... wider tires don't grip better than narrow tires. Dust off your physics books, contact area is not a variable in any equation for coefficient of friction. Heat dissipation is the only way they offer a benefit in the real world.

[quattro411]

of course all three types (fwd, rwd, awd) will compete with each other in straight line competition, all its really on is the driver.

well said on the pros and cons for each type.

I do believe wider tires will grip better in cornering, guess I'm wrong for off the line grip....(makes sense though that one would think that though being there is a larger suface area) thanks for the knowlege.