RE: Audi TT Ultra and Sport: Driven
Discussion
ORD said:
Baryonyx said:
Booooooring.
I await the arrival of Scherzkeks from his usual 'free fellatio for all Audi staff' schedule to defend this latest TT TDi duffer.
I await the arrival of Scherzkeks from his usual 'free fellatio for all Audi staff' schedule to defend this latest TT TDi duffer.
I love that the brutal ad hominem attacks now come even before the guy says a word!
Clivey said:
chungasarnies said:
Looks and sounds impossibly dull for that money. Not that I care, but have I read this right? No Quattro and no DSG for the diesel?
VAG product strategy sometimes defies conventional logic but I suspect they'll arrive later.cerb4.5lee said:
I could be wrong but I thought the last tdi TT was quattro but I am surprised an auto isn't offered because that gearbox does suit the diesel`s shorter rev range.
The 8J (previous generation) TDI was Quattro only but I don't recall what the transmission choices were beyond a 6MT. Autos do tend to suit diesels well - one of the reasons my Discovery has a slushbox. The ZF 8-Speed in the Jag XF really makes the most of even the 163PS 2.2; it feels like a larger, more powerful engine until you really go for it!Clivey said:
cerb4.5lee said:
I could be wrong but I thought the last tdi TT was quattro but I am surprised an auto isn't offered because that gearbox does suit the diesel`s shorter rev range.
The 8J (previous generation) TDI was Quattro only but I don't recall what the transmission choices were beyond a 6MT. Autos do tend to suit diesels well - one of the reasons my Discovery has a slushbox. The ZF 8-Speed in the Jag XF really makes the most of even the 163PS 2.2; it feels like a larger, more powerful engine until you really go for it!The auto/diesel combo just makes so much more sense I think.
E65Ross said:
Lol at the person saying he tried one and said it had poor traction and was slow? Did you then decide to try a more powerful quattro?
The previous model diesels were all Quattro (Haldex 4).DaveR said:
I've got a 328i F30 3 series now (4 pot turbo) and, even though it's petrol and it's very effective and 12 years younger, I don't half miss the sound of my old 6-cyl 330i E46.
And this is why I love the NA straight sixes. Throttle response, beautiful sound, the top-end of the rev range is like a crescendo and the whole thing's effortlessly smooth. Also, they're as bomb-proof as modern engines get and I also happened to think my old 320i was reasonable on fuel (we got 27 MPG urban on BP / Shell 95 RON).DaveR said:
Good to see Audi taking on BMW in mega-sounding consumption figures that are completely unachievable in the real world!
The problem isn't the manufacturers though - they're just trying to keep-up with the anal-retentive bell-ends from Brussells (and elsewhere).DaveR said:
Ending on a positive though, a1300Kg EU weight is pretty impressive. Quite a lot less than a Cayman (driven wheels same end of the car as the engine, hence the comparison before anyone asks...)
One bonus at least of a 4-pot engine. ORD said:
Read the article again - this isn't a case of "will eventually understeer a bit if pushed to extremes". It handles like a shopping car with fairly big tyres.
I also don't buy this "you cant tell on the road" nonsense. If you cant feel the difference between a car that tends to understeer a lot and one that doesn't, even at very legal and safe speeds, you aren't paying attention! It isn't so much that the shopping car will actually lose bite at the front and push wide - which many will do at relatively low speed - more that the feeling of a car that does that is noticeable well below the limits, and it neither inspires confidence nor is much fun.
If being an understeer-happy diesel doesn't stop a car being a sports car, what does? Does a car just have to say "sports car" in the marketing material?
In conclusion, it will sell like hot cakes.
Quoted for truth. I completely agree - you can feel and tell how a car will behave even if you're not pushing it as hard as physically possible. My friend's old S3 communicated that it was a blunt instrument long before you punished the front tyres. Same with the old Golfs, same with my old Vauxhall Corsa.I also don't buy this "you cant tell on the road" nonsense. If you cant feel the difference between a car that tends to understeer a lot and one that doesn't, even at very legal and safe speeds, you aren't paying attention! It isn't so much that the shopping car will actually lose bite at the front and push wide - which many will do at relatively low speed - more that the feeling of a car that does that is noticeable well below the limits, and it neither inspires confidence nor is much fun.
If being an understeer-happy diesel doesn't stop a car being a sports car, what does? Does a car just have to say "sports car" in the marketing material?
In conclusion, it will sell like hot cakes.
ORD said:
I agree that there is a certain pleasure in driving a slow car and even a car with low grip limits generally - see, for example, standard hatches that can be quite fun to hussle along red-lining in each gear just to keep up with fast flowing traffic!
However, I cannot see anything to be said for understeer as regards driving enjoyment. My wife's Chevrolet Kalos can be quite good fun in a straight line because you have to murder it just to make progress, but it is nothing short of dire around corners - the only choices are (1) go very slowly indeed or (2) roll and understeer a bit, neither of which is much fun. I would say the same about the C-class that I drove recently, save that it wasn't even fun in a straight line and was too fast for its chassis (despite being only moderately fast).
Whilst I understand what you mean, it can be quite fun trying to extract maximum performance from a compromised car. - My aforementioned Corsa, whilst not exactly PH material, was a willing little thing. - Sometimes you just need to get yourself in a different frame of mind, however when you're not in the mood, the understeer is not pleasant, to put it mildly.However, I cannot see anything to be said for understeer as regards driving enjoyment. My wife's Chevrolet Kalos can be quite good fun in a straight line because you have to murder it just to make progress, but it is nothing short of dire around corners - the only choices are (1) go very slowly indeed or (2) roll and understeer a bit, neither of which is much fun. I would say the same about the C-class that I drove recently, save that it wasn't even fun in a straight line and was too fast for its chassis (despite being only moderately fast).
T0MMY said:
Exactly...the whole reason it's fun to drive a car without too much grip is you can drive it on the limit more often and more safely. That means if anything, the on-limit behaviour is more important for a car with limited grip. It's fun battling oversteer at low speed; it's just rubbish battling understeer. Contrast driving an old E30 with driving an old Toyota Carina.
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner! I even considered swapping the 18"s on my old E46 for the smallest wheels & tyres possible to try and make the fun more accessible. It would still have outperformed most cars on the road (which all seem to be bland ecoboxes these days).
cerb4.5lee said:
I would like them to squeeze that engine into the TT because my mrs likes the TTS we have but its arguably not the best car economy wise to do the 30k miles a year that she does in it, but after experiencing the 4 pot diesel in my old 520d that has managed to put us both off 4 pot diesels but a 3ltr diesel TT could tick the box possibly.
The nearest thing to that is an A5 3.0TDI Quattro...now, if the TT were based on the same platform, albeit shortened, we'd have a much better basis for a performance car...AbyssRS said:
the amarok uses a completely different engine which is agricultural as hell, i run a manual one and its horrid in comparison to this new 184ps.
We also run a Skoda vRS 184ps (same engine as the TT) and its been on the dyno at 239bhp and 520nm using the dtuk crdt+ system.
As an engine this new 184 is superb and it would be my engine of choice in a TT
I want to see this dyno print out, I got around 200bhp from a remapped CR 170bhp version over a year ago and it it came in at 170bhp pre re-map. I can't see you getting another 39bhp on top, no chance.We also run a Skoda vRS 184ps (same engine as the TT) and its been on the dyno at 239bhp and 520nm using the dtuk crdt+ system.
As an engine this new 184 is superb and it would be my engine of choice in a TT
my two cents worth .....
drive the wifes audi tt most weeks .
nice place to sit , goes well , does almost everything perfectly ........ and thats the crunch for me .
i enjoy jumping back into a mgf afterwards , sounds nuts iknow ..... slower , more crude e.t.c
but i actually feel like I'm involved in it , same as a pug 205 , or mx5 ..... all cheaper and maybe in most peoples eyes less of a car .
they just bring a smile to my face in a way the audi never does
drive the wifes audi tt most weeks .
nice place to sit , goes well , does almost everything perfectly ........ and thats the crunch for me .
i enjoy jumping back into a mgf afterwards , sounds nuts iknow ..... slower , more crude e.t.c
but i actually feel like I'm involved in it , same as a pug 205 , or mx5 ..... all cheaper and maybe in most peoples eyes less of a car .
they just bring a smile to my face in a way the audi never does
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff