RE: New engine and styling for 2010 Audi TT

[NoelWatson]

bn9af said:

Forced induction engines produce far less CO2 and get better fuel economy than a similarly powerful, larger N/A engine,

A 330i BMW produces 272bhp with around 175g emissions. What petrol turbo engine beats that?

[Belfast Boy]

Not in my list of cars I wish to own sorry, and struggling to see the updates!?

[conneem]

soad said:

Mafioso said:

5.6 secs to 60 seems optimistic with 208bhp, even with the nice gearbox, no?

I don't know - how heavy is it?

2.0T FWD - 1260kg 0-100km/h in 6.1s manual 154g CO2
2.0T quattro - 1360kg 0-100km/h in 5.6s S-Tronic 154g CO2
TTS - 1415kg 0-100km/h in 5.2s S-Tronic 185g CO2
TTRS - 1450kg 0-100km/h in 4.4s S-Tronic 215g CO2

the torque figure is correct also as it is the new valvelift engine.

It seems to be a very mild mid life facelift, similar to what happened to the MKI TT.

Edited by conneem on Thursday 8th April 15:44

Edited by conneem on Thursday 8th April 15:45

Edited by conneem on Thursday 8th April 15:48

Edited by conneem on Thursday 8th April 15:49

[BlackPorker]

Everyone seems to overlooking the fact they are introducing a 7-speed S tronic for the TT RS.

Edited by BlackPorker on Thursday 8th April 16:10

[Remagel2507]

BlackPorker said:

Everyone seems to overlooking the fact they are introducing a 7-speed DSG for the TT RS.

I didnt know they were - I heard that the engine produces too much torque for it to be fitted? Has it been beefed up then?

[BlackPorker]

Remagel2507 said:

BlackPorker said:

Everyone seems to overlooking the fact they are introducing a 7-speed DSG for the TT RS.

I didnt know they were - I heard that the engine produces too much torque for it to be fitted? Has it been beefed up then?

"Starting this fall, Audi will also offer the option of the TT RS with a newly developed version of the S tronic that can handle the tremendous torque of the powerful five-cylinder engine. The compact layout of the seven-speed, dual-clutch transmission makes it suitable for transverse mounting in combination with the quattro all-wheel drive system.

The TT RS Coupe with the S tronic launches itself from zero to 100 km/h (62.14 mph) in 4.4 seconds. The TT RS Roadster requires 0.1 seconds more for this discipline – a bat of an eye less than with the manual transmission."

From:
http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2010/04/08/4723...

[the_lone_wolf]

Mr Gear said:

the_lone_wolf said:

soad said:

Dropped the V6?! Not a big seller then? Not cheap to tax either i suppose...

TT buyers in "style over substance" shocker...

Wow, what an ignorant comment.

The 4cyl was always the better option in the TT. Cheaper, more tuneable, better balanced.

I didn't realise hairdressers tuned their cars?...

[adycav]

Just need to fix the understeer and it might be a viable option.

[conneem]

BlackPorker said:

Everyone seems to overlooking the fact they are introducing a 7-speed S tronic for the TT RS.

Edited by BlackPorker on Thursday 8th April 15:52

This might even make it quicker than the 8:09 and 1:14.3 it did on the 'Ring and Hockenheim respectively.

Sport Auto Tests (same driver and in the dry)

. . . . . . Nordschleife . . . . Hockenheim

TT-RS . . . . . 8:09 . . . . . . . . 1:14.3
E92 M3 . . . . 8:05(cups) . . . . .1:14.3(cups)
Lotus Evora . . - . . . . . . . . . .1:14.3

Edited by conneem on Thursday 8th April 16:02

[Ponk]

Tony*T3 said:

nickwilcock said:

I was quite interested in the Audi TT, but no V6 = no sale!

V6 quattro was about the only remaining reason it stood out above the VW range. Now that's gone.

The V6 is heavy and thirsty. The 4 pot turbo outperforms it and is cheaper to run. THe V6 historically also has much worse depreciation. So I cant really see why you'd want it.

The current 3.2 V6 is circa 280bhp isn't it? At least i'm sure the one in my dad's A5 is.

[Mr Gear]

the_lone_wolf said:

Mr Gear said:

the_lone_wolf said:

soad said:

Dropped the V6?! Not a big seller then? Not cheap to tax either i suppose...

TT buyers in "style over substance" shocker...

Wow, what an ignorant comment.

The 4cyl was always the better option in the TT. Cheaper, more tuneable, better balanced.

I didn't realise hairdressers tuned their cars?...

Very amusing, it must have taken you ages to think of that.

Virtually all the mega-quick TTs are the 4 cylinder. You'd have to be a masochist to start with a V6.

[Remagel2507]

Mr Gear said:

the_lone_wolf said:

Mr Gear said:

the_lone_wolf said:

soad said:

Dropped the V6?! Not a big seller then? Not cheap to tax either i suppose...

TT buyers in "style over substance" shocker...

Wow, what an ignorant comment.

The 4cyl was always the better option in the TT. Cheaper, more tuneable, better balanced.

I didn't realise hairdressers tuned their cars?...

Very amusing, it must have taken you ages to think of that.

Virtually all the mega-quick TTs are the 4 cylinder. You'd have to be a masochist to start with a V6.

Probably because 4 pots are turbos and therefore a good starting ground - mind you I have heard of a 550bhp Turbo V6

soad said:

Tony*T3 said:

The V6 is heavy and thirsty. The 4 pot turbo outperforms it and is cheaper to run. THe V6 historically also has much worse depreciation. So I cant really see why you'd want it.

But but it sounds better, surely?

Sure does

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ds0XXmRfD9o

[teen_cerbera]

Mafioso said:

5.6 secs to 60 seems optimistic with 208bhp, even with the nice gearbox, no?

It sure does, considering the £35k TTS (which I WAS in the middle of trying to buy) with 272bhp takes the same

Added to the fact most of the photos are of the TTS, Im confused by this article...

[Beefmeister]

Riggers said:

New nose is no news

Loved this line!!

[TheRoadWarrior]

Mr Gear said:

the_lone_wolf said:

soad said:

Dropped the V6?! Not a big seller then? Not cheap to tax either i suppose...

TT buyers in "style over substance" shocker...

Wow, what an ignorant comment.

Made me chuckle tho :-)

[the_lone_wolf]

Mr Gear said:

the_lone_wolf said:

Mr Gear said:

the_lone_wolf said:

soad said:

Dropped the V6?! Not a big seller then? Not cheap to tax either i suppose...

TT buyers in "style over substance" shocker...

Wow, what an ignorant comment.

The 4cyl was always the better option in the TT. Cheaper, more tuneable, better balanced.

I didn't realise hairdressers tuned their cars?...

Very amusing, it must have taken you ages to think of that.

Virtually all the mega-quick TTs are the 4 cylinder. You'd have to be a masochist to start with a V6.

You'd have to be a masochist to start with a TT...

[the_lone_wolf]

TheRoadWarrior said:

Mr Gear said:

the_lone_wolf said:

soad said:

Dropped the V6?! Not a big seller then? Not cheap to tax either i suppose...

TT buyers in "style over substance" shocker...

Wow, what an ignorant comment.

Made me chuckle tho :-)

At least someone managed to spot the

[V]

NoelWatson said:

bn9af said:

Forced induction engines produce far less CO2 and get better fuel economy than a similarly powerful, larger N/A engine,

A 330i BMW produces 272bhp with around 175g emissions. What petrol turbo engine beats that?

Agreed the BMW petrols are exceptional, shame they are so unpopular. You see people buying the 330d over the 330i even if they only 5000 miles a year.

Remagel2507 said:

BlackPorker said:

Everyone seems to overlooking the fact they are introducing a 7-speed DSG for the TT RS.

I didnt know they were - I heard that the engine produces too much torque for it to be fitted? Has it been beefed up then?

Thats surprising as the 7-Speed DSG in the Golf etc has a limit of 250nm (184lb/ft) torque.

Ponk said:

Tony*T3 said:

nickwilcock said:

I was quite interested in the Audi TT, but no V6 = no sale!

V6 quattro was about the only remaining reason it stood out above the VW range. Now that's gone.

The V6 is heavy and thirsty. The 4 pot turbo outperforms it and is cheaper to run. THe V6 historically also has much worse depreciation. So I cant really see why you'd want it.

The current 3.2 V6 is circa 280bhp isn't it? At least i'm sure the one in my dad's A5 is.

The one in the Golf R32 and Audi A3/TT was 250PS I thought.

[kambites]

The V6 engines in the longitudinal and transverse Audis are completely unrelated. The TT's "V6" is a VR6, the A4/A5 unit is a true (much wider angle) V6.

[V]

kambites said:

The V6 engines in the longitudinal and transverse Audis are completely unrelated. The TT's "V6" is a VR6, the A4/A5 unit is a true (much wider angle) V6.

Yes that quite right, as I mentioned above the TT V6 would have had the same unit as the Golf R32 and A3 3.2, both now discontinued.