VW Touareg 3.6 VR6 FSI engine in TT MK2?

[mc_hotmail]

Has anyone has done an engine swap of putting the Touareg 3.6 VR6 FSI engine into a gen-2 TT? I know TT must use transverse mount engine, but Touareg is longitude engine cars. DSG also complicates things. Just curious.

Volkswagen_Group_petrol_engines 3.6_VR6_24v_FSI_(EA390)

The Passat B6 (2005 to 2008) and CC (2008 to ?) are transverse engine, which may be better donor cars. However, "Unlike its predecessor, the B6 Passat no longer shared its platform with Audi's equivalent model (the Audi A4). Based on a modified version of the Mk5 Golf's PQ35 platform (PQ46), the B6 featured a transverse rather than longitudinal engine layout of its predecessor, ..."

[mc_hotmail]

The VW folks are much more adventurous. They start 6+ years ago:

3.6 24V VR6 Swap Questions and Links
We are putting a 3.6L VR6 into our 1985 Golf!

[rkesh88]

What are the benefits of it? It doesn’t seem like that much more power to swap the engine versus maybe boosting the vr6

[Yeoman]

It adds weight to a car that already has 60% of its weight over the front axle

[mc_hotmail]

I don't have weight data of these 3 engines, but on paper here they are:

2.0 TFSI (BPY) 197 bhp at 5,100–6,000 rpm, 207 lb⋅ft at 1,700–5,000, turbo charged, direct injection (FSI)
3.2 VR6 (BUB) 247 bhp at 6,300 rpm, 236 lb⋅ft at 2,500–3,000, normally aspirated, older multi-port fuel injection
3.6 VR6 (BLV) 276 bhp at 6,200 rpm, 266 lb⋅ft at 2,750 rpm, normally aspirated, direct injection (FSI)

The idea is to take a 2.0T as a chassis donor to receive the 3.6. The weight should be comparable to the stock TT 3.2 VR6. If the numbers intrigue you, why not feel it at your butt.

[Yeoman]

The mk 2 TT understeers badly to begin with, and is made only worse with the 3.2 - I've owned and tracked both the 2.0T and the 3.2 and there is a significant difference. Even if the 3.6 is only marginally heavier, it's going to make things even worse. Of course if you're not concerned about taking corners fast, then go for it! I can't imagine the cost/time benefit of doing this swap only to gain 30hp and worry about carbon buildup on the 3.6.. you're much better off putting that money into a turbo modification on the 2.0T - a tune alone will make more torque than the 3.6

[mc_hotmail]

I've owned and tracked both the 2.0T and the 3.2

Were they quattro? wonder if that help ease understeering.

Yes, I would pay more for a TTS 2.0T engine (in bold below) instead of the time and money for a 3.6 swap, but chances of find that CDLB engine is slim to none:

2.0 TFSI (BPY) 197 bhp at 5,100–6,000 rpm, 207 lb⋅ft at 1,700–5,000, turbo charged, direct injection (FSI)
3.2 VR6 (BUB) 247 bhp at 6,300 rpm, 236 lb⋅ft at 2,500–3,000, normally aspirated, older multi-port fuel injection
3.6 VR6 (BLV) 276 bhp at 6,200 rpm, 266 lb⋅ft at 2,750 rpm, normally aspirated, direct injection (FSI)
2.0 TFSI (CDLB) 268 bhp at 6,000 rpm, 258 lb⋅ft at 2,500–5,000, turbo charged, direct injection (FSI)

this swap only to gain 30hp

No, the premise here is to swap a non-salvageable 2.0T (BPY) 197 bhp with one of the other 3 above. I also appreciate the simplicity of a normally aspirated engine.

[mc_hotmail]

I found some numbers about engine weights:

EA113 2.0L TFSI: ~152 kg (335 lbs)

EA888 2.0L TFSI: 290 lbs (Gen 3, official press release, 2011 or later TT models)

EA390 3.6L VR6: unofficially from 396 lbs to 415 lbs (may include other accessory drives)