Audi RS3 May Get the 340 HP Engine from the TT RS

A shame they just don't add DI to the 3.2L FSI in the TT Roadster now. Would make a little less power then the 2.5L DI turbo, but get better gas mileage.

Now if only they don't price the RS3 stupidly high. Oh wait, it's an Audi... nevermind.

Avatar, you aren't very bright.

#1. The 3.2L FSI is a direct injection motor.
#2. It is not available in the TT roadster.
#3. It wouldn't get better mileage.
#4. The purpose of an RS model Audi is to be a very high performance car. A 255 hp motor in an RS line car would be embarrassing, like your knowledge of cars.

Get a clue before posting.

My bad on #2, it is available.

@ Avatar,

FSI = DI

Lol, really Joe?

#1 Sorry, fancy Europrean naming of things. Funny, since they call the new turbo engine a DI engine and the 3.2L FSI. But my mistake.

#2 Really? That's funny, Audi lists it as an option on their website. Guess you know something Audi doesn't.

#3 This is where it get's funny. See, the new 2.5L DI Turbo gets 9.5 liters per 100 km (25 mpg) for the Roadster. The 3.2L also get's 25 mpg. Now, using GM's examples of DI, more power same gas mileage or more power and better gas mileage:

CTS
3.6L
255hp
18/26
3.6L DI
306hp
17/26

Saturn Vue
2.4L
169hp
19/26

2010 Chevy Equinox
2.4L DI
182hp
21/30

Now the Vue is based on the Theta platform, Equinox Extended Theta, which means bigger aka heavier. So we add DI and more horsepower plus 2 more city mpg and 4 more highway mpg on a larger, heavier car. Granted, the 2010 Equinox has a 6 speed over a 4 in the Vue. However, if the Malibu is any indication, since it uses the same engine as the Vue and comes with either a 4 or 6 speed, the 6 speed nets 1 more mpg highway.

But it gets better Joe. The Equinox comes with a 3.0L DI engine as well. 255hp (265hp for the SRX), 18/25 for mileage, same as the 3.2 FSI in the Roadster. Here is where it get's laughable though, Audi needs premium gas, the Chevy needs regular. More power, less displacement, lower grade fuel, bigger and heavier vehicle, and same gas mileage. Tune the LF1 for premium like the 3.2 FSI and it will be making close to 300 hp most likely, right close to the new 2.5L DI turbo Audi is putting out. So much for the superior engineering of imports.

4# See above, lmao.

@Avatar.

What are you talking about?

I assume you mean the 3.6L di engine, as GM doesn't have a 3.0L anything...

And that's 17/24 for the 3.6 AND the 3.4 liter engines. 16 if you go AWD....

Granted the 3.6L (LY7) is a nice engine, as I am sure the 3.2L FSI from VW/Audi is as well. The 3.6L LLT from GM has some power, but is also tuned accordingly (with that peak torque coming in @ 5200 rpm vs. 3400 rpm for the LY7).

All in all you are comparing very similar engines to each other. Just the Audi has a cast iron head (eww...) and needs premium fuel.

Oh and since we are in a pissing contest between GM and Audi, here's the icing on the cake.

The 2.8L turbo (non di) V6 (LP9) from GM could own either the 3.6L or 3.2L or 2.0 Turbo (Audi TTS).

Making 280hp @ 5500rpms and 295 ft/lbs of torque @ 2000 rpms, while getting the same mileage as the 3.6L di GM engine... (it does take premium however).

I'm sure a little tweaking and it could take on the 2.5L turbo.

Avatar,

Still trying, eh? I like the way you add DI to an FSI motor and come up with 2-4 mpg more.

The 3.2 FSI (which is ALREADY DIRECT INJECTION) gets 18 MPG CITY AND 24 MPG HIGHWAY in the TT roadster, and gets 255 hp on PREMIUM GAS. Less with regular.

You may want to check and see if your hypothetical, imaginary, fuzzy math engineering has already been implemented by a manufacturer before you eat your foot again.

Lol, really Avatar?

Um, Brian, hate to break it to you, but GM has a bunch of new engines out this year for 2010 models.

2009 Saturn Vue Hybrid
LCS
3.6L DI Dual Mode Hybrid
262hp vs 170hp of 2.4L Vue Hybrid
25/32 vs 23/27 of the 2.4L Vue Hybrid

2010 Equinox/Terrain/SRX
LF1
3.0L DI
255hp (265hp for SRX)
18/25 vs 17/24 of the 3.6L LY7

2010 Equinox/Terrain
2.4L DI
182hp
21/30 mpg vs 19/26 2.4L non-DI Vue

All engines above need REGULAR GAS. So once again, GM makes same power, better gas mileage, with less displacement and lower fuel grade on a bigger and heavier vehicle. Articles for them are all over the net.

As for the LLT vs LY7, yes, the LY7 peaks lower. But look at the torque curves. The LLT at 1000 rpm has about 225 lb-ft of torque vs 175 lb-ft for the LY7 at 1000 rpm. At the LY7's peak at 3100 rpm, the LLT is making the same amount. At this point, the LY7 flat lines and falls off at around 5000 rpm vs the LLT which gains more torque slowly till its peak at 5200 rpm and then starts to fall off at around 5400 rpm. DI allowed for a much better tune all around in the LLT vs the LY7. Nice try though.

The LP9 is currently only in the 9-3 Aero AWD. It gets 15/24 making 280 hp as stated. However, the 9-3 Aero weighs 3300 lbs vs the 4,100 lbs of the LLT CTS AWD making 304 hp and 17/26 for gas mileage. LP9 is an old engine at this point, though it gets a revision for the 2010 SRX. It will be making 300 hp and the same torque, no word of gas mileage yet though. Nice try again.

"Now, using GM's examples of DI, more power same gas mileage or more power and better gas mileage" Its not my fault Audi can't seem to get more with more. Allow me to steal a line from you Joe, "Get a clue before posting."

You keep bringing up GM engines in an Audi article. Please read up on Audi engines before telling everyone what Audi should do. Obviously you had no clue FSI = DI. You were ignorant that the 3.2 needs premium fuel to produce 255 hp and 24 mpg. You are a moron who keeps bringing up unrelated engines to help prove his already false point:

"A shame they just don't add DI to the 3.2L FSI in the TT Roadster now. Would make a little less power then the 2.5L DI turbo, but get better gas mileage."

Thanks for suggesting a 255 hp, 24 mpg RS3. Go back to fantasy land where you came up with that post.

@Avatar

Well looking into the new 3.0L fine it does exist, but I can't find any specs on it.

All I find is it's estimated at 255hp and should get this many mpg....

When it shows up on GM's powertrain page and I can get some detailed specs it might win out.

Or it might not.

I don't really care if it makes 250+hp if the torque curve is coming in really high in the rpm band. Like you pointed out with the 3.6L LLT engine, it makes over 300hp, but you'll need to use all the rpm range to get it.

It's one thing to design and tune an engine for a performance car (like the Audi RS series). They should have power, and it should come in at the upper end of the rpm range. At the same time the 3.2L Audi engine makes it's torque down low (just like the 3.6L LY9). You keep pointing out both versions of the GM 3.6L have a pretty flat torque curve, which they do. But look at the LLT. You can see where the cam phasing is coming into play, right at 3k rpm. Close to where you'd be cruising on the highway. Where as the LY9 shows a rise in torque at 3000 rpms. Which would make it seem more responsive at low rpm and in low gear.

The same debate has gone on in the toyota forums with the 1zz-fe vs. 2zz-ge engines. Yes the 2zz-ge makes 50 hp more and can certainly out perform the 1zz. At the same time many people have test driven both versions of the Celica (GT and GT-S) and many of those people have ended up with the GT. Simply because it's a more livable setup.

It's the same reason you only see the LLT put into the Caddy. Because it's suppose to be a sport car and people understand that.

All in all, the tech specs are not as important and the real world drive-ability and figures. If gas mileage is your thing look at that, if ease of use is then test drive them. I'm sure both Audi and GM program the engines for optimal usage in which ever vehicle they end up in.

Brian, you do make a good point in that the new engines GM is putting in these crossovers have lower torque output then the engines they replace. I am not arguing that in the least. Because of this, the towing capacity has dropped. However, you can't deny they do make more power and get better gas mileage then the engines they are replacing thanks to DI. These engines also aren't highly strung like the 2zz-ge is. The 2zz-ge is made for hp, just like the F22C1 in the S2000. Looking at the torque curve for the LE5, it is progressive unlike the peaky curves of the 2zz-ge and F22C1.

As for the LLT vs the LY7, once again, at the peak of the LY7 the LLT is making roughly the same. It does dip a bit, but no where near the amounts of the 2zz-ge and F22C1. The difference between the peak and the dip is about 25 lb-ft or 9% less.

Um, Joe, I never said the 3.2L FSI didn't need premium. I am just merely pointing out the fact that it has .2L on GM's new LF1 which makes the same power with lower grade fuel and better gas mileage on a larger, heavier vehicle. Also, I am pretty sure I apologized for the not realizing that FSI=DI. GM's 3.6L does the same power without DI and regular fuel with better mileage again on larger, heavier vehicles. There seems to be a pattern here.

@Brian:

I thought I'd give you my $0.02 on the 1zz vs 2zz engine. Having owned both cars for a couple of years. I don't think that the problem with the 2zz was the engine per say, although everything you said about it was correct, it was the tranny design.

If we took a look at the main competitor back then, the Acura RSX, it has a similar engine. The big cam kicked in at 6000RPM, and the HP jumped by about 50 right then and there. If you shifted the RSX 6 speed at redline , 8000 RPM back then, the next gear came in right at 6000 RPM, so still on the big cam, and making way more power.
The celica GTS however, had a 6200 RPM switchover if I remember correctly, redlined at only 7800 RPM, and the next gear dumped the engine back down to about 5600 RPM, well off the power peak for the engine. To make matters worse, tuners were unable to reprogram the crosseover point for the cam any lower so the car felt really weird, as it would be pulling like mad, you'd shift at redline or even fuel cutoff, and then... nothing for a second or two... then off you go again! when you get back on the big cam.

The 1zz in the GT only had a 5 speed, and the gears were spaced at better ratio's for the engine, so it felt livelier, even if it was down 40+ hp.

Like you said... way more livable. But a different tranny would have totally changed that car, and Toyota might have sold enough to keep making them.

@Paul

Yeah, that's pretty much what my friend who had the GT-S complained about. I always found it comical that in the Lotus is all works "correctly"....