RE: New Audi TT RS revealed

RE: New Audi TT RS revealed

Author
Discussion

ORD

18,086 posts

126 months

Thursday 28th April 2016
quotequote all
JockySteer said:
ORD said:
JockySteer said:
Power to weight is a simple calculation. It doesn't take drive-train into consideration does it? Kind of makes that point defunct.
I'm not sure you understand what 'defunct' means, but it's certainly true that p/w isn't the whole story (as the guy above showed with the figures for the GTR).
Don't worry, I do.
smile

The point I made is no longer in existence or use and/or is not functioning, you say? I doubt that is what you meant.

But such is modern Britain, where nobody ever admits he is wrong in even the slightest respect. irked

Back on topic, I cannot see much to fault in this car for its intended buyers and use. I think it nails the brief. I just dont like the brief.

Shnozz

27,419 posts

270 months

Thursday 28th April 2016
quotequote all
ORD said:
Back on topic, I cannot see much to fault in this car for its intended buyers and use. I think it nails the brief. I just dont like the brief.
That's the nub of the issue really isn't it.

It's a remarkable car, if that is the sort of car you're after.

It's not for me, either. But then neither is a GTR. There is an element of soul missing. But I am a car nerd, who makes compromises elsewhere in search of some soul. Most normal folk wouldn't, and neither would a proportion of car geeks either. And for those with £50k to buy a wickedly fast, reliable, cheap to run car with decent practicality, this is a superb offering.

urquattroGus

1,845 posts

189 months

Thursday 28th April 2016
quotequote all
It's your choice, you can look like a ***** in the TT or a ***** in the Cayman smile

Beefmeister

16,482 posts

229 months

Thursday 28th April 2016
quotequote all
urquattroGus said:
It's your choice, you can look like a ***** in the TT or a ***** in the Cayman smile
Constructive. Thanks.

thesmurfs

117 posts

95 months

Thursday 28th April 2016
quotequote all
Good value?


M1C

1,832 posts

110 months

Thursday 28th April 2016
quotequote all
Nice spreadhseet work.
But!!1 How about the Mustang 5.0?

34,995 and 415bhp ish? Just trying to find the kerb weight.....

1680kg.

So...stats are

4.8 - 420 - 1680 - 250 - 34,995 - 139.98 - RWD



Edited by M1C on Thursday 28th April 13:29


Edited by M1C on Thursday 28th April 13:44

kambites

67,460 posts

220 months

Thursday 28th April 2016
quotequote all
thesmurfs said:
Good value?

Unsurprisingly, they're in roughly inverse order of price. smile

I suspect there's an awful lot of cheap slow cars that would beat everything on that list at £/bhp/tonne. Still, it does look decent enough value if judged on those terms.

ZX10R NIN

27,490 posts

124 months

Thursday 28th April 2016
quotequote all
The number that surprised me was the Cayman being 20kgs heavier than the TT.

kambites

67,460 posts

220 months

Thursday 28th April 2016
quotequote all
The Cayman weight is EU (ie with driver and luggage). The TTRS (at least the mk2 TTRS, I can't see a figure for the mk3) is unladen.

nickfrog

20,871 posts

216 months

Saturday 30th April 2016
quotequote all
thesmurfs said:
Good value?

On that basis, that makes the M135i incredible value at 321ps, 1495kg EU and £25k after discount (the Ford is not discounted I believe), and despite the high std spec... (6 cyclinders, NAV, leather, Brembos) £117 per PS per Ton. And no 4wd nor big wheels in sight !



Edited by nickfrog on Saturday 30th April 12:30

peter450

1,650 posts

232 months

Sunday 1st May 2016
quotequote all
Meridius said:
Aphex said:
Heres an older video of the rs3 making some lovely noises: https://youtu.be/1HayoASR-54?t=1m

What an engine
Sounds great and its really a very capable engine, this ones at 700hp or so

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVWFIx8BTt8

and will even do 1000hp if you want it to

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asXKGo7nm_Y

Trouble with a lot of these videos is there's so much wind and background noise it's hard to get a feel for the true sound. Generally from what ive heard the sound from a 5 is better than a 4 but still not a match for the howl you get on 6 cylinder + cars

urquattroGus

1,845 posts

189 months

Sunday 1st May 2016
quotequote all
Still doesn't sound quite as good as the old 2.2 Audi 5 cylinder. That revs savagely when tuned and has a slightly harder edged note.

Baryonyx

17,990 posts

158 months

Sunday 1st May 2016
quotequote all
peter450 said:
Trouble with a lot of these videos is there's so much wind and background noise it's hard to get a feel for the true sound. Generally from what ive heard the sound from a 5 is better than a 4 but still not a match for the howl you get on 6 cylinder + cars
5 cylinder cars sound better than sixes, IME. They have that offbeat, uneven sound that you get from odd numbers of cylinders. The old Audi rally cars sounded ballistic and revved like mad too. A colleague of mine has recently went from a V8 R8 to a TTRS and now an RS5. The TT RS was by far the best sounding car of the lot.

Meridius

1,608 posts

151 months

Sunday 1st May 2016
quotequote all
You're right the 2.5T doesnt quite have the same rawness to it as the old 2.2, being a much newer engine though there are not many highly tuned examples to come across, hopefully will see more tuning of the 2.5 in the future though just like the older 5 cylinder has seen a whole range of use in its 30 years.

Heres a nice 2.2 hillclimber because why not - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7spDOxlPer4

As for 5 or 6 cylinder, well theres some great sounding 6 cylinders out there, Alfa V6, BMW straight 6, VW VR6, Jap straight 6 in the Skylines, Supras etc, Porsche flat 6 - I think I would pick a different favourite on each different day smile

Edited by Meridius on Sunday 1st May 20:17

Wills2

22,666 posts

174 months

Sunday 1st May 2016
quotequote all
georgeq said:
A realistic 15% remap would put it at 460 PS 550 Nm. Possibly 3,5 sec to 60?
Well it does 0-62mph in 3.7 which is around 0-60mph in 3.5 secs stock so a remap should put it better than that.

Msportman

276 posts

155 months

Monday 2nd May 2016
quotequote all
Why don't Audi forget the heavy 5 pot where it hangs far too much over the front axle causing that leaden under steering feel.

It's the same with the RS3. Not much change from the previous Gen car......slow in fast out and not much in between.

The R and S3 are as quick and £10k less.

It looks a pretty car but still appeal to female drivers me thinks!

I'd rather invest in an M2 at this price point or a name new Cayman S

nickfrog

20,871 posts

216 months

Monday 2nd May 2016
quotequote all
Msportman said:
Why don't Audi forget the heavy 5 pot where it hangs far too much over the front axle causing that leaden under steering feel.
I am no engineer so this is probably going to be a stupid comment : I am not sure you can have a front transverse engine behind the front axle (even partially) and/or have 4wd.

Wills2

22,666 posts

174 months

Monday 2nd May 2016
quotequote all
M1C said:
Nice spreadhseet work.
But!!1 How about the Mustang 5.0?

34,995 and 415bhp ish? Just trying to find the kerb weight.....

1680kg.

So...stats are

4.8 - 420 - 1680 - 250 - 34,995 - 139.98 - RWD
The mustang brochure has the following for the GT Auto (like for like with the posted list as they are all auto versions)

416ps/1732kg (EU) so 240ps/tonne - £36,495 - £152 - RWD

Still cracking value though, looks like Ford are back, giving the best bang for your new car buck.


Edited by Wills2 on Monday 2nd May 12:59

kambites

67,460 posts

220 months

Monday 2nd May 2016
quotequote all
nickfrog said:
I am no engineer so this is probably going to be a stupid comment : I am not sure you can have a front transverse engine behind the front axle (even partially) and/or have 4wd.
I'm sure a transverse engine behind the front axle line would be possible but there are good packaging reasons for not doing so - moving the axle line back behind the engine brings the suspension turrets back which makes it easier to meet the hard-point clearance requirements and improves structural rigidity (because the turrets can be integrated into the bulkhead); it also makes routing the steering column easier.

The 4wd in itself shouldn't be an issue as long as the engine is mounted high enough that the prop-shaft can clear the crank shaft as it passes through the sump.

I think Msportman's point was that it would probably be a better car with an inline-4, although I suppose that depends on whether you're an engine-note person or a handling person.

Edited by kambites on Monday 2nd May 13:04

zeDuffMan

4,054 posts

150 months

Monday 2nd May 2016
quotequote all
Msportman said:
Why don't Audi forget the heavy 5 pot where it hangs far too much over the front axle causing that leaden under steering feel.
They did consider binning it for the new gen cars but I'm really glad they haven't. Don't need any synthesised noises in the speakers when the engine sounds as good as the 5pot does. The extra cylinder also allows for stronger torque delivery. If you want a fast 4pot motor you've got plenty of options both inside the VAG stable and out.