Mark 3 TT - How big!
Discussion
I have a Mk 1 TT as my daily commuter car. It's a solid little thing with a bit of aggression when you want it, small enough for traffic and with an autobox that's responsive but not neck breakingly sharp on the gear changes. It's not perfect of course; reliability isn't great and changing a light bulb is mindbogglingly awkward, but overall it's perfectly fine and so I've put 80k miles of London commuting on to it over the last 12 years with hardly a dent. Poor thing's never even been outside the M25 and into 'bandit' land.
Shortly after I bought the Mk1 Audi launched the Mk2. Better no doubt but also quite a lot bigger, so immediately fails on the being able to get through traffic stakes. Now I've started to see the new Mk 3 on the roads and sitting behind one today I realised it's absolutely bloody enormous. It's enormous from the side as well, and the front. I measured my Mk1 against it whilst cutting it up and then watched its pretty face as it realised it was too fat to make the bus to taxi gap. Could have driven a bus through that gap, but not a Mk 3 TT. Size wise it has to be on par with the A8 I once had.
I bet the Mk3 is faster, more powerful and more economical than the Mk1, but how much better would it have been if it hadn't grown so lardy with it?
This got me thinking why new versions of cars always have to be bigger than the ones they replace. We all know the Polo is bigger than the original Golf, and so big that VW had to introduce new models below it to fit into the small car gap it left. Even the 911 has evolved from a rather fun if somewhat dangerous when wet, spots car into a portly middle aged grand touring cruise mobile.
Does anyone know a line of cars that has bucked this trend?
Shortly after I bought the Mk1 Audi launched the Mk2. Better no doubt but also quite a lot bigger, so immediately fails on the being able to get through traffic stakes. Now I've started to see the new Mk 3 on the roads and sitting behind one today I realised it's absolutely bloody enormous. It's enormous from the side as well, and the front. I measured my Mk1 against it whilst cutting it up and then watched its pretty face as it realised it was too fat to make the bus to taxi gap. Could have driven a bus through that gap, but not a Mk 3 TT. Size wise it has to be on par with the A8 I once had.
I bet the Mk3 is faster, more powerful and more economical than the Mk1, but how much better would it have been if it hadn't grown so lardy with it?
This got me thinking why new versions of cars always have to be bigger than the ones they replace. We all know the Polo is bigger than the original Golf, and so big that VW had to introduce new models below it to fit into the small car gap it left. Even the 911 has evolved from a rather fun if somewhat dangerous when wet, spots car into a portly middle aged grand touring cruise mobile.
Does anyone know a line of cars that has bucked this trend?
xjay1337 said:
I doubt its actually much bigger externally if you look at the measurments.
It certainly doesn't look much bigger.
Not forgetting the mk2 and mk3 are absolutely leaps ahead of the half mk4 golf TT which was an abomination of a drivers car
I never quite got the 'abomination of a drivers car' remarks about the Mk1 TT. The Golf is an excellent drivers car, and building the firmer and lower CofG TT on it an equally excellent idea that makes a damned good drivers car. It certainly doesn't look much bigger.
Not forgetting the mk2 and mk3 are absolutely leaps ahead of the half mk4 golf TT which was an abomination of a drivers car
I think the talk about it being a bad drivers car comes from those reviewers who think a car spends 100% of its time squeeling its tyres in 1 g corners or standing on its nose under ABS braking. In other words its from people who take someone elses car out for a good thrashing rather than actually driving a car they own.
MX5 would be a great light weight replacement. Only problem is that I'm middle aged and bald, so the 'bit of a hairdressers' image that hangs around the TT and MX5 is tricky. The only convertible I can drive without looking like a complete dick is an old SL.
Lorne said:
The Golf is an excellent drivers car,
I think you're pretty unusual in considering the mk4 Golf to be an excellent drivers car. Having said that the mk1 TT was quite decent to drive until they idiot-proofed it after which it became an understeery mess like the Golf.
Edited by kambites on Tuesday 6th September 11:43
Lorne said:
MX5 would be a great light weight replacement. Only problem is that I'm middle aged and bald, so the 'bit of a hairdressers' image that hangs around the TT and MX5 is tricky. The only convertible I can drive without looking like a complete dick is an old SL.
I do hope that's in jest 'cos I was looking at MX5s last week and I'm 66 with an arthritic hip and a dicky ticker - what on earth will people think of me in dinky little a sports car...? Do I care? Do I f
k!Lorne said:
xjay1337 said:
I doubt its actually much bigger externally if you look at the measurments.
It certainly doesn't look much bigger.
Not forgetting the mk2 and mk3 are absolutely leaps ahead of the half mk4 golf TT which was an abomination of a drivers car
I never quite got the 'abomination of a drivers car' remarks about the Mk1 TT. The Golf is an excellent drivers car, and building the firmer and lower CofG TT on it an equally excellent idea that makes a damned good drivers car. It certainly doesn't look much bigger.
Not forgetting the mk2 and mk3 are absolutely leaps ahead of the half mk4 golf TT which was an abomination of a drivers car
I think the talk about it being a bad drivers car comes from those reviewers who think a car spends 100% of its time squeeling its tyres in 1 g corners or standing on its nose under ABS braking. In other words its from people who take someone elses car out for a good thrashing rather than actually driving a car they own.
MX5 would be a great light weight replacement. Only problem is that I'm middle aged and bald, so the 'bit of a hairdressers' image that hangs around the TT and MX5 is tricky. The only convertible I can drive without looking like a complete dick is an old SL.
They were absolutely crap and widely regarded as the worst Mark of Golf there has ever been.
The TT is better, absolutely, because mainly it has slightly revised front suspension and the addition of independant rear suspension due to the Haldex (much in the same way the R32 Mk4 is better than a normal Mk4).
The TT is still dull lifeless and not that fast. You can improve them with some choice suspension and engine modification but they are still a world behind the Mk2 TT and even more so behind the Mk3 TT which is built on the MQB platform which is simply one of the best platforms out there at the moment.
M3 Convertible is a suitable option and you can pick up E46 M3s for well under £10k in good nick.
kambites said:
Lorne said:
The Golf is an excellent drivers car,
I think you're pretty unusual in considering the mk4 Golf to be an excellent drivers car. Her view was that the older car was more 'solid' and 'grippy in corners'. The newer car felt 'lighter' and 'nervous'.
I can see where the OP is coming from if you look at things from a different angle. If my sister wants to drive a bit 'sporty' (ie turning the wheel more aggressively into corners), feeling the back end of the car get up on it's toes and involved in proceedings is absolutely the last thing she would want (or need come to think of it..)
PHer operate within a bubble. Car journalists operate within a bubble of a bubble. Maybe.
Fair comment, I was assuming the term "driver's car" meant "car for a driving enthusiast" which is perhaps a rash assumption.
Perhaps it would be fairer to say the mk4 Golf is decidedly one-dimensional and numb to drive; whether that's a good or bad thing is obviously personal opinion.
Perhaps it would be fairer to say the mk4 Golf is decidedly one-dimensional and numb to drive; whether that's a good or bad thing is obviously personal opinion.
Edited by kambites on Tuesday 6th September 11:53
kambites said:
Lorne said:
The Golf is an excellent drivers car,
I think you're pretty unusual in considering the mk4 Golf to be an excellent drivers car. Having said that the mk1 TT was quite decent to drive until they idiot-proofed it after which it became an understeery mess like the Golf.
Edited by kambites on Tuesday 6th September 11:43
front wheel drive cars generally do understeer, the lauded best front driver, the 205 GTI had lift oversteer, or a crash as most normal drivers call it
I like the new TT, I love the original, I am no Audi hater, they brought concept car to market that, in 1999 looked amazing, and still does, dont let the usual rhetoric about "grey diesel leasemeobiles" distract us from what is otherwise a fine manufacturer of sold stuff, with occasional flashes of genius, original quatro, R8, TT etc, sure the TT is a Golf, but for two grand you can have a mk1 225 TT, they dont seem to wear out, still look ace and are only going one way in value for nice ones.
J4CKO said:
front wheel drive cars generally do understeer, the lauded best front driver, the 205 GTI had lift oversteer, or a crash as most normal drivers call it
All road cars generally under-steer at neutral throttle; the question is how easily they can be persuaded to do anything else and how controllable they are past that point. Plus of course how much information they give you about the approach of their limits. kambites said:
Fair comment, I was assuming the term "driver's car" meant "car for a driving enthusiast" which is perhaps a rash assumption.
Yup I guess "driver's car" meaning "car for a driving enthusiast" is all very subjective. Even amongst PHers the term 'drivers car' is inconsistent and unresolved - to some it means a car with lots of low down diesel torque 'so you don't have to change down a gear on the motorway and have to thrash it'...
Each to their own though
The Mk3 is shorter than the Mk2, although 14mm wider.
But each generation is lighter, which is quite unusual. The Mk3 is 50kg lighter than the Mk2 and 80kg lighter than the Mk1, despite loads of extra equipment!
The Mk1 is iconic. 20 years later, well maintained ones still look great! If they weren't so common the shape would still be very modern.
The Mk3 is not iconic like the Mk1, but not "meh" like the Mk2. It's modern and sharp, and absolutely gorgeous inside! I was only looking at them to entertain my wife, I never thought we'd actually buy one, but 5 minutes sitting in that interior and I had to have one!
As far as driving goes, it feels very compact and chuckable to me - definitely not too big. I would prefer more steering feel, but if you can "embrace" the electronic feel then it's still a very fun and competent car. Works well for both commuting and twisty roads.
But each generation is lighter, which is quite unusual. The Mk3 is 50kg lighter than the Mk2 and 80kg lighter than the Mk1, despite loads of extra equipment!
The Mk1 is iconic. 20 years later, well maintained ones still look great! If they weren't so common the shape would still be very modern.
The Mk3 is not iconic like the Mk1, but not "meh" like the Mk2. It's modern and sharp, and absolutely gorgeous inside! I was only looking at them to entertain my wife, I never thought we'd actually buy one, but 5 minutes sitting in that interior and I had to have one!
As far as driving goes, it feels very compact and chuckable to me - definitely not too big. I would prefer more steering feel, but if you can "embrace" the electronic feel then it's still a very fun and competent car. Works well for both commuting and twisty roads.
Edited by R E S T E C P on Tuesday 6th September 12:08
Matt UK said:
Yup I guess "driver's car" meaning "car for a driving enthusiast" is all very subjective.
Also true - I guess you can be enthusiastic about driving whilst preferring cars which have no control feel and a chassis no adjustability. In fact given how much people seem to care about lap times and acceleration numbers, maybe it's already the norm on Pistonheads. Edited by kambites on Tuesday 6th September 12:04
kambites said:
J4CKO said:
front wheel drive cars generally do understeer, the lauded best front driver, the 205 GTI had lift oversteer, or a crash as most normal drivers call it
All road cars generally under-steer at neutral throttle; the question is how easily they can be persuaded to do anything else and how controllable they are past that point. Plus of course how much information they give you about the approach of their limits. kambites said:
Also true - I guess you can be enthusiastic about driving whilst preferring cars which have no control feel and a chassis no adjustability. In fact given how much people seem to care about lap times and acceleration numbers, maybe it's already the norm on Pistonheads.
To be fair it's possible to glean enjoyment from any mode of motorised transport if you're that way inclined. I used to enjoy towing my 340R to various tracks just as much as driving that little go-kart around them when I got there. The challenges were different but each brought its own reward. Impasse said:
kambites said:
Also true - I guess you can be enthusiastic about driving whilst preferring cars which have no control feel and a chassis no adjustability. In fact given how much people seem to care about lap times and acceleration numbers, maybe it's already the norm on Pistonheads.
To be fair it's possible to glean enjoyment from any mode of motorised transport if you're that way inclined. I used to enjoy towing my 340R to various tracks just as much as driving that little go-kart around them when I got there. The challenges were different but each brought its own reward. Lorne said:
I bet the Mk3 is faster, more powerful and more economical than the Mk1, but how much better would it have been if it hadn't grown so lardy with it?
This got me thinking why new versions of cars always have to be bigger than the ones they replace. We all know the Polo is bigger than the original Golf, and so big that VW had to introduce new models below it to fit into the small car gap it left. Even the 911 has evolved from a rather fun if somewhat dangerous when wet, spots car into a portly middle aged grand touring cruise mobile.
The TT didn't get that much bigger with subsequent models but it did get a hell of a lot lighter with the next generations, so if anything could be called lardy it's the Mk1.This got me thinking why new versions of cars always have to be bigger than the ones they replace. We all know the Polo is bigger than the original Golf, and so big that VW had to introduce new models below it to fit into the small car gap it left. Even the 911 has evolved from a rather fun if somewhat dangerous when wet, spots car into a portly middle aged grand touring cruise mobile.
(From Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audi_TT )
Mk1:
Wheelbase 2,422 mm (95.4 in)
quattro: 2,428 mm (95.6 in)
Length 4,041 mm (159.1 in)
Width 1,764 mm (69.4 in)
Height 1,346 mm (53.0 in)
Kerb Weight 1395 kg.
Max. weight 1765 kg. (from http://www.auto-data.net/en/?f=showCar&car_id=...
Mk2:
Wheelbase 2,468 mm (97.2 in)
Length 4,178 mm (164.5 in),
TTS & TT RS: 4,198 mm (165.3 in)
Width 1,842 mm (72.5 in)
Height 1,352 mm (53.2 in),
TTS: 1,345 mm (53.0 in),
TT RS: 1,342 mm (52.8 in)
S Convertible: 53.5 in (1,359 mm)
Convertible: 53.5 in (1,359 mm)
Kerb weight 1,260–1,490 kg (2,778–3,285 lb)
Mk3:
Wheelbase 2,505 mm (98.6 in)
Length
Coupe:4,191 mm (165.0 in)
Roadster: 4,177 mm (164.4 in)
Width 1,832 mm (72.1 in)
Height
Coupe:1,343 mm (52.9 in)
Roadster: 1,355 mm (53.3 in)
Kerb weight 1,230–1,425 kg (2,712–3,142 lb)
So, mk1-mk3 is about 6in longer, 2.6in wider, 0.1in less height. Hardly a massive growth
Edited by Lucas Ayde on Tuesday 6th September 13:20
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff