RE: Audi TT Mk1: Guilty Pleasures

[XM5ER]

Having had several 5 star evo cars over the years, I've come to the conclusion that looking "for a dab of oppo" in every car is not necessarily the best way to choose one (or maybe I've just gotten older). I agree, the TT is still a great looking car and I reckon that within the next 10-15 years it will start to look like a classic.

Question for TT owners, is it possible to sharpen up the chassis without making it uncomfortable, I had a Mk4 Golf and it was pudding of a handler, mainly due to piss poor damping characteristics.

[MrHooky]

pti said:

It's Dolomite grey, same colour as my old one. A very tidy looking example as well

Thanks and yes - it's grey not green! Has a very slight blue hue running through the paint but looks a very dark grey in most lights.

Car is on 75k miles and I echo all comments said above - a very well put together car and feels quite special still as a lot of the parts and switchgear were bespoke for the MKI.

I've seen a few MKIIIs now and whilst I can see it hinting back to the MKI in design theme I'm not sold. I'm sure the interior is nicer and quieter but I actually still like the layout inside the TT for what is now a nearly 20 year old design.

Black roof models weren't a run out V6 either as mentioned earlier. A retuned 1.8T in 240bhp guise but wearing the same body kit (deeper front splitter and taller re spolier) plus had fixed pole position seats with rears removed. A lovely car but without the V6 growl.

[MrHooky]

a boardman said:

I am look to replace my 14 year old focus and am looking at the TT.

what is the mpg of the 3.2 v 1.8t

Very litle in it. I have the 3.2 DSG and will get c.30 on a motorway run and more like mid to low 20s around town.

It's actually my frugal car in comparison to the S8 which I'm getting a combined 19 from... Gulp!

[jqhn80]

"Cheap to run"? Really? My '03 225 alomst bankrupt me when I had it years ago. By far the most unreliable car I ever had, never completed a round trip over 100 miles without something going wrong. Take a look at ttforum.co.uk to have an idea. Still, a great piece of car design, and for me that goes even more for the interior.

[corcoran]

Otispunkmeyer said:

Have to agree, a clean MK1, especially the 3.2 run out special with the black roof, is a good looking machine.

The MK1 run-out was a 1.8 with 240bhp wasn't it? I had a black one with the contrasting.. err.. black roof.. still, lots of room in the back of one of those!

There's a lovely one near me I'm toying with the idea of (apologies for the Autotrader link!)::
http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/2015...

[aka_kerrly]

jqhn80 said:

"Cheap to run"? Take a look at ttforum.co.uk to have an idea. Still, a great piece of car design, and for me that goes even more for the interior.

The danger of one car forums is almost everyone goes on there to ask how to fix a problem or a minor problem experienced by a dozen people is exaggerated to be a problem EVERYONE will experience.

Very rarely will those who don't have problems feel the need to post every month saying "nothing broke."

[tomjol]

aka_kerrly said:

jqhn80 said:

"Cheap to run"? Take a look at ttforum.co.uk to have an idea. Still, a great piece of car design, and for me that goes even more for the interior.

The danger of one car forums is almost everyone goes on there to ask how to fix a problem or a minor problem experienced by a dozen people is exaggerated to be a problem EVERYONE will experience.

Very rarely will those who don't have problems feel the need to post every month saying "nothing broke."

Indeed, and regular posters tend to be those who are borderline obsessional about the car and often end up replacing every little thing they can find which isn't quite perfect, of which there are going to be plenty on any 10-15 year old car.

Not that that would ever apply to me, of course

[soad]

corcoran said:

Otispunkmeyer said:

Have to agree, a clean MK1, especially the 3.2 run out special with the black roof, is a good looking machine.

The MK1 run-out was a 1.8 with 240bhp wasn't it? I had a black one with the contrasting.. err.. black roof.. still, lots of room in the back of one of those!

237bhp; the V6 had 247bhp.

[iloveboost]

XM5ER said:

Having had several 5 star evo cars over the years, I've come to the conclusion that looking "for a dab of oppo" in every car is not necessarily the best way to choose one (or maybe I've just gotten older). I agree, the TT is still a great looking car and I reckon that within the next 10-15 years it will start to look like a classic.

Question for TT owners, is it possible to sharpen up the chassis without making it uncomfortable, I had a Mk4 Golf and it was pudding of a handler, mainly due to piss poor damping characteristics.

The other thing is that frequently aspects of a solo car review or test contradicts another of the same car. I think the only car tests that are really trust worthy are comparisons on the same road/s with the same driver/s. Even then a lot of suspension and engine tuning is a compromise, but better technology allows less of a compromise.

If you mean the TT Mk1 (or a FWD car that just relies on the standard rear beam to act as a rear anti roll bar) you're best bet is to fit a rear anti roll bar, or replace it with a stiffer one. I think the TT Mk1 has the better control arms the S3 and LCR got, plus slightly lower and stiffer suspension.

TT Mk1 has lovely seats and a nice interior for the age, other than that it's not really different to an LCR or S3 once rolling along.

Edited by iloveboost on Wednesday 10th June 17:35

[rallycross]

Be careful with older model 225's (over 10 yrs old) with a bit of age on them they become quite unreliable and in most cases are expensive to fix.

The last one I had was a low mileage FSH 2001 and the list of things that we had to sort out over 12 months limited use was horrendous, as for people saying its like a Golf they drive nothing like a golf, and when it comes to repairing them they are a complex nightmare compared to working on a Golf.

[tomjol]

iloveboost said:

The other thing is that frequently aspects of a solo car review or test contradicts another of the same car. I think the only car tests that are really trust worthy are comparisons on the same road/s with the same driver/s. Even then a lot of suspension and engine tuning is a compromise, but better technology allows less of a compromise.

If you mean the TT Mk1 (or any FWD/AWD car that just relies on the standard rear beam to act as a rear anti roll bar) you're best bet is to get an adjustable rear anti roll bar. I think the TT Mk1 has the better control arms the S3 and LCR got, plus slightly lower and stiffer suspension.

TT Mk1 has lovely seats and a nice interior for the age, other than that it's not really different to an LCR or S3 once rolling along.

They do indeed have the cast control arms. There are two variants, early ones with a 30mm front bush (most of which were replaced under recall) and later ones with a 45mm one. Sticking some poly in the 45mm variant makes a big difference, and fitting a reducer (search Cookbot or Defcon) to bring it back to 30mm supposedly makes a similar difference again.

ETA: For clarity, AWD models have independent rear suspension, but with a rather puny ARB.

Edited by tomjol on Wednesday 10th June 16:29

[AH33]

My old mk1




It's wheel fell off, with the help of an 82 year old man




While I was waiting for the insurance payout, I bought an EP3 Civic Type R, far more involving to drive, faster and a lot cheaper to run (I was getting around 23mpg average in the TT)

[J4CKO]

AH33 said:

My old mk1




It's wheel fell off, with the help of an 82 year old man




While I was waiting for the insurance payout, I bought an EP3 Civic Type R, far more involving to drive, faster and a lot cheaper to run (I was getting around 23mpg average in the TT)

I like that but it looks like an older Audi kind of aping the newer ones.

Was that the end of it, doesnt look that bad ?

[iloveboost]

tomjol said:

They do indeed have the cast control arms. There are two variants, early ones with a 30mm front bush (most of which were replaced under recall) and later ones with a 45mm one. Sticking some poly in the 45mm variant makes a big difference, and fitting a reducer (search Cookbot or Defcon) to bring it back to 30mm supposedly makes a similar difference again.

ETA: For clarity, AWD models have independent rear suspension, but with a rather puny ARB.

Edited by tomjol on Wednesday 10th June 16:29

Yes of course they do, or where would you put the rear diff?! Sorry I should have said that better I'll edit it.

Edited by iloveboost on Wednesday 10th June 17:35

[RemyMartin]

soad said:

corcoran said:

Otispunkmeyer said:

Have to agree, a clean MK1, especially the 3.2 run out special with the black roof, is a good looking machine.

The MK1 run-out was a 1.8 with 240bhp wasn't it? I had a black one with the contrasting.. err.. black roof.. still, lots of room in the back of one of those!

237bhp; the V6 had 247bhp.

Quattro sport was noticably lighter though.

[AH33]

J4CKO said:

I like that but it looks like an older Audi kind of aping the newer ones.

Was that the end of it, doesnt look that bad ?

Oh yeah, the engineer valued the damage at 13k!

I know what you're saying. I bought it like that, I wouldn't have put mega dark tints myself but it was a bargain at the time.

[R_U_LOCAL]

Mrs Local had a Mk1 225 TT for a few years. It had everything going for it - looked great, nice interior, plenty of power, 4 wheel drive, but...

I hated it.

That low roofline looks good, but if you're long-in-the-back like me, there's virtually no headroom & I banged my head so hard getting in it once that I ended up with a genuine whiplash injury (yes, I know it's my fault for being a dopy git, but it's never happened in any other car I've driven).

I thought the driving experience completely lacked any element of feel or feedback, the ride was horribly harsh and crashy, the steering didn't feel like it was connected to anything other than the dashboard and the gearchange was click-clacky (not in a nice Ferrari way - more of a toilet brush in a metal toilet way).

It certainly had plenty of grip, but you couldn't really feel how close it was to the limit because of the harsh ride. It was certainly quick, but the engine lacked character and didn't make a particularly nice noise. Brakes were good and it seemed solidly built, but it was getting leggy towards the end and was starting to look a bit dated and to suffer a few problems.

It was the sort of car I should have wanted to borrow regularly, but in reality I avoided driving it at all costs.

In the end, she traded it in for a Mini Cooper which was far slower, but in my opinion much more enjoyable to drive.

A few weeks after we'd sold it we got an NIP from South Yorkshire Police asking for the new keeper details - the TT had been clocked at 97mph in a 30 limit.

So at least the new owner was enjoying it more than I ever did.

[forzaminardi]

Good original low milers are already appreciating. Undoubtedly it's a classic design and a very influential car. At the end of the day, a lot of sh*t is written and said about it not having the last 8 or 9/10th of its contemporary competitors, but as the article points out, that's sort of ignoring the fact that most car buyers aren't looking for the sharpest driving tool in the World.

[hdrflow]

They're nice cars with mine being the nicest of them all .


MyTT by hdrflow, on Flickr

The TT was always more of a GT car but I guess at the time 2 doors meant sports car . Also for an article meant to praise the TT a lot was missed about its origins and a lot was mentioned about the usual (and now) tiring banter.

[J4CKO]

hdrflow said:

They're nice cars with mine being the nicest of them all .


MyTT by hdrflow, on Flickr

The TT was always more of a GT car but I guess at the time 2 doors meant sports car . Also for an article meant to praise the TT a lot was missed about its origins and a lot was mentioned about the usual (and now) tiring banter.

Another stunner !