Audi TT Mk1 - not sure why it's got such a bad reputation?

[Missy Charm]

TameRacingDriver said:

I drove a 3.2 before eventually buying a 350z. I have to admit i did find it boring to drive. Nice to look at and sit in though and the noise was pleasant.

Thank you. I love the styling of the Mk1 TT, it's one of the few truly pretty modern cars, but have always been concerned that they have some of the worthy but dull character that seems to be endemic in pre-Gangsta rap chariot Audis. Perhaps that's not important, however, if one accepts it as more akin to the personal luxury cars of the seventies and eighties than a true sports car.

[rottenegg]

Missy Charm said:

A child born on the day this topic was created would now be in secondary school.

The Mk1 TT has aged quite well stylistically. Are they boring to drive?

Depends on the model. The 3.2 is definitely a boring steer, but the 240 Quattro Sport is actually not too bad. It's the best looking MK1 as well, imo.

The biggest problem with the MK1 TT is the platform is was based on - MK4 Golf. They really are the most dreary of cars to drive, so naturally the TT will share it's apathy.

Learning from the MK1's criticism, Audi went to town on the MK2. Wide track, lowered ride with bump steer correcting knuckles, quicker steering, alloy panels etc etc.

[TameRacingDriver]

rottenegg said:

Depends on the model. The 3.2 is definitely a boring steer, but the 240 Quattro Sport is actually not too bad. It's the best looking MK1 as well, imo.

The biggest problem with the MK1 TT is the platform is was based on - MK4 Golf. They really are the most dreary of cars to drive, so naturally the TT will share it's apathy.

Learning from the MK1's criticism, Audi went to town on the MK2. Wide track, lowered ride with bump steer correcting knuckles, quicker steering, alloy panels etc etc.

While I felt the 3.2 was quite boring, I have always wondered what the QS 240 is like, as it seems a bit more focused.

I've also heard the Mk2 is a lot better, shame it looks so bland in comparison with the Mk1 which is a definite design classic in my eyes.

[CraigyMc]

TameRacingDriver said:

rottenegg said:

Depends on the model. The 3.2 is definitely a boring steer, but the 240 Quattro Sport is actually not too bad. It's the best looking MK1 as well, imo.

The biggest problem with the MK1 TT is the platform is was based on - MK4 Golf. They really are the most dreary of cars to drive, so naturally the TT will share it's apathy.

Learning from the MK1's criticism, Audi went to town on the MK2. Wide track, lowered ride with bump steer correcting knuckles, quicker steering, alloy panels etc etc.

While I felt the 3.2 was quite boring, I have always wondered what the QS 240 is like, as it seems a bit more focused.

I've also heard the Mk2 is a lot better, shame it looks so bland in comparison with the Mk1 which is a definite design classic in my eyes.

I ran a 197hp 2.0 MK2 for about 80K miles as a company car. It drives fine as long as the front tyres are new. Loads of other problems (window and door seals, things like that). The rear load area is a fairly usable thing, despite being small volume it's got a lot of area.

I did drive a friend's Mk.I 190 and found it to be devoid of anything. I'd not buy one due to coil pack and dashboard issues.

[bangerhoarder]

While it shares a base with the Golf, the old trope of it driving like one is a little unfair. It’s not a Boxster, but it is a very heavily modified car underneath - look at how many TT parts are modded back onto old Golfs. The steering rack is much quicker, spring and damper rates are different, rear suspension on Quattro models is obviously different, ARBs are different, brakes are bigger, standard fit strut brace, etc (I can’t remember what else). The APX/BAM was never fitted to the Golf (closest thing is the Leon Cupra R which is very well regarded after all). The contemporary S3 is fun but the steering isn’t as good nor is the gearchange.

The 8N TT isn’t just a different body stuck on a Golf.

[s m]

Missy Charm said:

The Mk1 TT has aged quite well stylistically. Are they boring to drive?

Early mk1 TT seemed to be quite exciting to drive compared to the Veedubs when it first was introduced



They had to dumb it down though as production continued as it was maybe ‘too exciting’ in the vein of old 205s, Porsche 911s and BMWs

[Zoon]

s m said:

Missy Charm said:

The Mk1 TT has aged quite well stylistically. Are they boring to drive?

Early mk1 TT seemed to be quite exciting to drive compared to the Veedubs when it first was introduced



They had to dumb it down though as production continued as it was maybe ‘too exciting’ in the vein of old 205s, Porsche 911s and BMWs

Competiter - Car magazine proof-reader on holiday?

[CraigyMc]

Zoon said:

s m said:

Missy Charm said:

The Mk1 TT has aged quite well stylistically. Are they boring to drive?

Early mk1 TT seemed to be quite exciting to drive compared to the Veedubs when it first was introduced



They had to dumb it down though as production continued as it was maybe ‘too exciting’ in the vein of old 205s, Porsche 911s and BMWs

Competiter - Car magazine proof-reader on holiday?

From a time before spellchecking was common in that sort of package.

[rottenegg]

bangerhoarder said:

While it shares a base with the Golf, the old trope of it driving like one is a little unfair.

But it does though. The 3.2 drives exactly like the Golf 2.8 4Motion. It just lollops along lazily and soggily.

Different spring, damper, bush and rack rates can't fix the fundamentally crap underpinnings, which was the MK4 Golf.

MK5/MK2 TT were night/day better to drive than MK4/MK1 TT.....and most of that was down to the considerably stiffer monocoque.

[CraigyMc]

rottenegg said:

bangerhoarder said:

While it shares a base with the Golf, the old trope of it driving like one is a little unfair.

But it does though. The 3.2 drives exactly like the Golf 2.8 4Motion. It just lollops along lazily and soggily.

Different spring, damper, bush and rack rates can't fix the fundamentally crap underpinnings, which was the MK4 Golf.

MK5/MK2 TT were night/day better to drive than MK4/MK1 TT.....and most of that was down to the considerably stiffer monocoque.

I'm a bit confused by your reference to the Golf V versus the 8J TT. The TT's got a primarily aluminium shell, not shared with the golf.

The Mk1 TT was pretty close to the donor car though.

[s m]

Zoon said:

s m said:

Missy Charm said:

The Mk1 TT has aged quite well stylistically. Are they boring to drive?

Early mk1 TT seemed to be quite exciting to drive compared to the Veedubs when it first was introduced



They had to dumb it down though as production continued as it was maybe ‘too exciting’ in the vein of old 205s, Porsche 911s and BMWs

Competiter - Car magazine proof-reader on holiday?

I guess so.

Interesting the way the CAR journos of that time found the early TT at the opposite end to the VW Golf/4-motion it was based on.


There were quite a few positive reviews



Just shows how they get it so wrong sometimes

I wonder what current cars perceived as really great to drive will fall from grace in 20 years time

[Bill]

Didn't they have to tone down the handling after a rally star famously binned one?

[s m]

Bill said:

Didn't they have to tone down the handling after a rally star famously binned one?

Same as like the E21 323i - got banned in Sweden and on the German authorities radar.
Replaced with the E30

I think the ur-Quattro caught a few out too

[bangerhoarder]

rottenegg said:

But it does though. The 3.2 drives exactly like the Golf 2.8 4Motion. It just lollops along lazily and soggily.

Different spring, damper, bush and rack rates can't fix the fundamentally crap underpinnings, which was the MK4 Golf.

MK5/MK2 TT were night/day better to drive than MK4/MK1 TT.....and most of that was down to the considerably stiffer monocoque.

I’ve not driven the V6 models, only 225/180 TTs and no 4wd Golfs, so the perspective is different. The 1.8T TT doesn’t lollop - but again, it’s no sports car. Just feels a lot sharper than the nearest equivalent 1.8T Golf.

[Zoon]

Bill said:

Didn't they have to tone down the handling after a rally star famously binned one?

No, they had to add the spoiler to the rear.
Apparently, the car generated too much lift on the rear axle at high speeds without one.

[Bill]

Plus suspension changes and addition of ESP. https://apnews.com/article/95f3134836f22091481646a...

[s m]

Bill said:

Plus suspension changes and addition of ESP. https://apnews.com/article/95f3134836f22091481646a...

Although surprisingly in the litigious USA it was optional for cars already sold

A fair few owners over here decided not to take the spoiler and up/down-grades etc preferring the original set up

[rottenegg]

CraigyMc said:

rottenegg said:

bangerhoarder said:

While it shares a base with the Golf, the old trope of it driving like one is a little unfair.

But it does though. The 3.2 drives exactly like the Golf 2.8 4Motion. It just lollops along lazily and soggily.

Different spring, damper, bush and rack rates can't fix the fundamentally crap underpinnings, which was the MK4 Golf.

MK5/MK2 TT were night/day better to drive than MK4/MK1 TT.....and most of that was down to the considerably stiffer monocoque.

I'm a bit confused by your reference to the Golf V versus the 8J TT. The TT's got a primarily aluminium shell, not shared with the golf.

The Mk1 TT was pretty close to the donor car though.

Only on some of the removable panels....bonnet, wings etc. The core skeleton is MK5 Golf.

What the 8J got that the MK5 didn't get is alloy knuckles, control arms, etc etc as part of a lowering and widening package without increasing bump steer.

[CraigyMc]

rottenegg said:

CraigyMc said:

rottenegg said:

bangerhoarder said:

While it shares a base with the Golf, the old trope of it driving like one is a little unfair.

But it does though. The 3.2 drives exactly like the Golf 2.8 4Motion. It just lollops along lazily and soggily.

Different spring, damper, bush and rack rates can't fix the fundamentally crap underpinnings, which was the MK4 Golf.

MK5/MK2 TT were night/day better to drive than MK4/MK1 TT.....and most of that was down to the considerably stiffer monocoque.

I'm a bit confused by your reference to the Golf V versus the 8J TT. The TT's got a primarily aluminium shell, not shared with the golf.

The Mk1 TT was pretty close to the donor car though.

Only on some of the removable panels....bonnet, wings etc. The core skeleton is MK5 Golf.

What the 8J got that the MK5 didn't get is alloy knuckles, control arms, etc etc as part of a lowering and widening package without increasing bump steer.

As I wrote earlier in the thread, I actually owned an 8J (ie. MK2) TT. This is the aluminium structure per audi:


The only substantial bits that are steel are the boot floor and the doors; the chassis was put together in the alu chassis factory in Neckarsulm (same line as the R8) before going to Hungary (Győr) for assembly into a car.

The doors became alu in the MK3 (8S).

I've no idea where you have your understanding from, rottenegg. Can you expand on it?

Anyway, sorry for the thread derail, this is supposed to be about the MK1 (8N)

[WayOutWest]

rottenegg said:

But it does though. The 3.2 drives exactly like the Golf 2.8 4Motion. It just lollops along lazily and soggily.

Different spring, damper, bush and rack rates can't fix the fundamentally crap underpinnings, which was the MK4 Golf.

MK5/MK2 TT were night/day better to drive than MK4/MK1 TT.....and most of that was down to the considerably stiffer monocoque.

Back in the day I bought a nicely specced V6 4 Motion 3 door, full leather Recaros, 17 inch wheel option. It was only 2 or 3 years old and very low mileage, so could not blame worn bushes or tired suspension for handling woes. Although it seemed OK on a very gentle test drive, I soon realised it was borderline dangerous if pushed in the twisties. Terrible roll and floatiness. You could however fit R32 suspension (shocks, springs, anti-rollbars) to it, which I did, which greatly improved things. The steering never quite felt connected though.

The 225 is certainly better than a standard Golf V6 4Motion (as was an S3 of the same vintage), but if the TT 3.2 is set up more like the Golf 2.8 than the R32 then that isn't great. The 3.2 does sound superb though with a nice exhaust, way better than the 225.

I agree the Mk5 Golf GTi and Mk2 TT handle so much better. But I still would love to try a properly set up Mk1 TT QS 240 - with modern tyres, poly bushes, uprated dampers and a remap - to see if a Mk1 TT can be made into a drivers car.

The Leon Cupra R was probably the best handling car on that VAG platform at the time from the cars I've driven. I think it had the quickest and tightest feeling steering rack of the bunch, and the best brakes, being the only one to get Brembos.