RE: Audi TT S: Review
Discussion
big_rob_sydney said:
It has the performance of a 20+ year old sti/evo, and costs about 10 times as much. Welcome to 1994 performance, but with new millenium pricing.
Still the fashion victim.
Meh.
Do tell. Here's the old one dragging a Spec C around Tsukuba. Still the fashion victim.
Meh.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDqIDcaan90
bozzy101 said:
big_rob_sydney said:
It has the performance of a 20+ year old sti/evo, and costs about 10 times as much. Welcome to 1994 performance, but with new millenium pricing.
Still the fashion victim.
Meh.
To be fair, it's better equipped, arguably better looking and likely a far nicer drive when cruising about. It's also lower tax, better MPG and cheaper servicing. Still the fashion victim.
Meh.
I still wouldn't buy one though!
scherzkeks said:
Do tell. Here's the old one dragging a Spec C around Tsukuba.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDqIDcaan90
To be fair that appears to be an old RS not an S.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDqIDcaan90
Still a daft comparison. There's much more to cars than straight line speed or lap times.
cerb4.5lee said:
Not to mention the fact that you only also have to change the oil every 18k miles in the TTS rather than the 4k to 6k you would do in an evo...even my old 200sx running a paltry 200bhp when it was standard needed its oil changing every 6k miles and that's just crazy for the performance it offered.
I could put up with the mad running costs of an evo given the performance and handling they offered. My evo would run rings around my tts..kambites said:
To be fair that appears to be an old RS not an S.
Right, and the STI a Spec C. But there are plenty of other sources if you like. Sport Auto put the TTS round Hockenheim almost 2.5 seconds faster than the equivalent STI. Regardless of any subjective preferences, the performance is a bit beyond "1994" -- and lap times involve more than the ability to go fast in a straight line.PorkRind said:
cerb4.5lee said:
Not to mention the fact that you only also have to change the oil every 18k miles in the TTS rather than the 4k to 6k you would do in an evo...even my old 200sx running a paltry 200bhp when it was standard needed its oil changing every 6k miles and that's just crazy for the performance it offered.
I could put up with the mad running costs of an evo given the performance and handling they offered. My evo would run rings around my tts..cerb4.5lee said:
Don't get me wrong I love the evo and I loaned one for 24hrs a few years ago and its still possibly the best car I have driven for making you feel like an absolute driving god and I loved the way it drove and how sharp it was...not to mention how quick it felt but ended up buying a TVR Cerbera instead...with hindsight though the evo would have been a snip to run versus what the TVR cost me!
Yeah, bang for buck theyre pretty fantastic, but ultimately, they dont really have a great image for those concious about such things. I bet the cerberas was an absolute beast, what sort of power did it have and what were the running costs like?
PorkRind said:
Yeah, bang for buck theyre pretty fantastic, but ultimately, they dont really have a great image for those concious about such things.
I bet the cerberas was an absolute beast, what sort of power did it have and what were the running costs like?
Factory said 420bhp reality is more around the 360bhp mark but with less than 1200kg to drag around it always felt quick, to be fair servicing is similar in cost to a V8 M3 in many ways but I needed a rebuild and a few other bits doing so ended up with a massive bill.(£11k)I bet the cerberas was an absolute beast, what sort of power did it have and what were the running costs like?
I also think a lack of use didn't help mine as you are better off using them fairly regular and mine mainly sat in the garage as my weekend car most of the time, regards the evo I must admit I wasn't sure about the image either rightly or wrongly.
For thrills, noise and driving involvement I haven't experienced anything to match my TVR since and I miss it a hell of a lot even though I could never really rely on it.
SuperchargedVR6 said:
As with nearly all VAGs, I find their engines more interesting than the cars they are in.
280lbft @ 1800rpm from a 2.0 petrol turbo is impressive, but unlike a diesel, it holds it to nearly 6000rpm. So the point of diesel again, is, erm?
It will get s280lbft @ 1800rpm from a 2.0 petrol turbo is impressive, but unlike a diesel, it holds it to nearly 6000rpm. So the point of diesel again, is, erm?
t loads more mpg? 
cerb4.5lee said:
Not to mention the fact that you only also have to change the oil every 18k miles in the TTS rather than the 4k to 6k you would do in an evo...even my old 200sx running a paltry 200bhp when it was standard needed its oil changing every 6k miles and that's just crazy for the performance it offered.
That's more of a function of engine design and oil quality at the time. The 200sx dates back to 1996.Back then a lot of cars had shorter service intervals.
Edited by Devil2575 on Wednesday 10th September 11:46
cerb4.5lee said:
Factory said 420bhp reality is more around the 360bhp mark but with less than 1200kg to drag around it always felt quick, to be fair servicing is similar in cost to a V8 M3 in many ways but I needed a rebuild and a few other bits doing so ended up with a massive bill.(£11k)
I also think a lack of use didn't help mine as you are better off using them fairly regular and mine mainly sat in the garage as my weekend car most of the time, regards the evo I must admit I wasn't sure about the image either rightly or wrongly.
For thrills, noise and driving involvement I haven't experienced anything to match my TVR since and I miss it a hell of a lot even though I could never really rely on it.
11k - that would be hard to swallow, I ended up with a 5k bill for the evo after it threw a rod, the vi engines were only really good for about 360 ish brake without upgrading to forged bits and mine was running a smidge under 380 - brought it on myself really. Happened right before Christmas also, really poor timing ! I also think a lack of use didn't help mine as you are better off using them fairly regular and mine mainly sat in the garage as my weekend car most of the time, regards the evo I must admit I wasn't sure about the image either rightly or wrongly.
For thrills, noise and driving involvement I haven't experienced anything to match my TVR since and I miss it a hell of a lot even though I could never really rely on it.
I was looking at the Nobles the other day but imagine them being of similar ilk / running costs / reliability as the TVR.. Given those issues, theyre worth it arnt they, because when they are working they bring the biggest smile / joy /buzz !
Devil2575 said:
cerb4.5lee said:
Not to mention the fact that you only also have to change the oil every 18k miles in the TTS rather than the 4k to 6k you would do in an evo...even my old 200sx running a paltry 200bhp when it was standard needed its oil changing every 6k miles and that's just crazy for the performance it offered.
That's more of a function of engine design and oil quality at the time. The 200sx dates back to 1997.Back then a lot of cars had shorter service intervals.
Although my 200sx wasn't anywhere near as laggy as the TTS is though so its gone backwards in that sense!
Thanks scherzkeks (what a name;-))and all
This is a rather interesting discussion.
In the past I have owned some Abarths, they never missed a beat, Escorts RS2000,Sierra 4wd 6 cyl.,Sierra Cossie 4WD around 310 bhp and some mods, quite a few GTI's,Audi A4 quattro,A6 2.7T quattro with some mods,
then 2 "hairy" hair-dresser-cars, AMG SLK32 and AMG SLK 55 both with LSD fitted after-market, very nice slides.......intersting in the wet;-)perfect weapons for the Stelvio....
The last seven years a TTS "roadster" for 3 years, then a TTRS "roadster" with THAT 5-pot engine, 7-sp.DSG,the latter is rather easy to drive on the Nuerburgring condition is a clean line....some work done on the suspension-rubbers by an ex-Rally-Champion and suspension guru, (NO I won't disclose his name;-)).....
Boxter and Boxster S hunting is easy up-hill:-))
Added info: the front-brakes and discs got replaced all TTRS last year without cost, (I used EBC yellow without probs)but had to comply for warranty issues....
it is a great ALL-WEATHER-car, we have snow here for around 6 months, most of the drivers here have 4WD for obvious reasons, under these conditions and being a cabrio they are hard to beat.No probs whatsoever on both, BUT the dealer is very quality- and customer-care-minded....
Moreover, here in Switzerland you have a 3-year-warranty extendable to 5, free servicing till 100,000kms or 10years......cutting down the running costs, a Boxster is many times more expensive......but it is a Porsche;-)
Tyres can get expensive.....Consumption is according to your mood....stick to the speed-limits and you are between 8-9,5 lts.per 100kms,rising on passes or the Ring "accordingly"....Car has now a bit over 50,000 miles.....
For me one of the best all-round-all-year-cars, BUT sometimes I miss the brutal power of the Cossie and it's ability to drive around hair-bends in a balanced slide I must confess:-))But doing such things on the roads here now!.......people get scared and send info to the police easily;-)
So driving hair-dresser's or other cars, enjoy your drives as per your tastes
Best wishes from Switzerland to all PHs.
This is a rather interesting discussion.
In the past I have owned some Abarths, they never missed a beat, Escorts RS2000,Sierra 4wd 6 cyl.,Sierra Cossie 4WD around 310 bhp and some mods, quite a few GTI's,Audi A4 quattro,A6 2.7T quattro with some mods,
then 2 "hairy" hair-dresser-cars, AMG SLK32 and AMG SLK 55 both with LSD fitted after-market, very nice slides.......intersting in the wet;-)perfect weapons for the Stelvio....
The last seven years a TTS "roadster" for 3 years, then a TTRS "roadster" with THAT 5-pot engine, 7-sp.DSG,the latter is rather easy to drive on the Nuerburgring condition is a clean line....some work done on the suspension-rubbers by an ex-Rally-Champion and suspension guru, (NO I won't disclose his name;-)).....
Boxter and Boxster S hunting is easy up-hill:-))
Added info: the front-brakes and discs got replaced all TTRS last year without cost, (I used EBC yellow without probs)but had to comply for warranty issues....
it is a great ALL-WEATHER-car, we have snow here for around 6 months, most of the drivers here have 4WD for obvious reasons, under these conditions and being a cabrio they are hard to beat.No probs whatsoever on both, BUT the dealer is very quality- and customer-care-minded....
Moreover, here in Switzerland you have a 3-year-warranty extendable to 5, free servicing till 100,000kms or 10years......cutting down the running costs, a Boxster is many times more expensive......but it is a Porsche;-)
Tyres can get expensive.....Consumption is according to your mood....stick to the speed-limits and you are between 8-9,5 lts.per 100kms,rising on passes or the Ring "accordingly"....Car has now a bit over 50,000 miles.....
For me one of the best all-round-all-year-cars, BUT sometimes I miss the brutal power of the Cossie and it's ability to drive around hair-bends in a balanced slide I must confess:-))But doing such things on the roads here now!.......people get scared and send info to the police easily;-)
So driving hair-dresser's or other cars, enjoy your drives as per your tastes
Best wishes from Switzerland to all PHs.
PorkRind said:
11k - that would be hard to swallow, I ended up with a 5k bill for the evo after it threw a rod, the vi engines were only really good for about 360 ish brake without upgrading to forged bits and mine was running a smidge under 380 - brought it on myself really. Happened right before Christmas also, really poor timing !
I was looking at the Nobles the other day but imagine them being of similar ilk / running costs / reliability as the TVR.. Given those issues, theyre worth it arnt they, because when they are working they bring the biggest smile / joy /buzz !
I bet yours went really well then I was looking at the Nobles the other day but imagine them being of similar ilk / running costs / reliability as the TVR.. Given those issues, theyre worth it arnt they, because when they are working they bring the biggest smile / joy /buzz !
agree regards timing with big bills as my mrs was pregnant at the time and she didn't take to kindly to me spending that sort of money on a car she didn't like anyway!!(mainly because of the pain it gave me) I am a big fan of Nobles and always liked them too and as you say on the right road at the right time that sort of car just takes so much beating in the feel good factor stakes.
cerb4.5lee said:
I bet yours went really well then agree regards timing with big bills as my mrs was pregnant at the time and she didn't take to kindly to me spending that sort of money on a car she didn't like anyway!!(mainly because of the pain it gave me)
I am a big fan of Nobles and always liked them too and as you say on the right road at the right time that sort of car just takes so much beating in the feel good factor stakes.
Where did you have the rebuild done? I don't think you'll find a lot to touch a TVR for the sense of occasion (even if the occasion is waiting for the AA agree regards timing with big bills as my mrs was pregnant at the time and she didn't take to kindly to me spending that sort of money on a car she didn't like anyway!!(mainly because of the pain it gave me) I am a big fan of Nobles and always liked them too and as you say on the right road at the right time that sort of car just takes so much beating in the feel good factor stakes.
).I must say that the review makes for disappointing reading. After seeing the unveiling of the new TT, it sounded as though Audi were ready to forget the disastrous and decidedly ugly mkII model and give us a TT that drives as good as it looks. What a shame they have turned this out with 'armfuls of understeer'. Part of me wonders if Audi is still scared after the controversy surrounding the stability of the mkI TT at high speed, and coupled with the car's success with women drivers, they are content now to give the TT loads of safe understeer and uninspiring drive.
It is a great shame these days that manufacturers tend towards making the car safe and turgid in the handling department, rather than leaving it up to the driver to ultimately control the car.
It is a great shame these days that manufacturers tend towards making the car safe and turgid in the handling department, rather than leaving it up to the driver to ultimately control the car.
SuperchargedVR6 said:
Renault Sport care about it's more focused drivers. VAG don't. Audi could charge £60K for this new TT and the same image conscious people would still buy it.
Shame really because with the VAG's technical know-how and enormous financial clout, they really could produce something remarkable if they wanted to. Even the R8 is known to be an under steer monster on track, and that nanny state VAGness has infected Lamborghini as well.
It's a corporate machine making decisions on behalf of it's customers. Yes, our customers love and want under steer, debate closed, decision made. Rubber stamp - dumphh.
I bet the new TT still uses the 'understeer bushes' in the front wishbones. Instead of solid rubber, they have voids in them which 'give' when you corner hard, causing the car to plough straight on. There was a fix for that with MK1 TTs, but I'm haven't studied the new platform yet.
You're talking about the standard bushes and standard wishbone in the 205 tyre cars. Every 225 tyre car (except one I think) used a cast alloy wishbone not a pressed steel wishbone which was slightly longer,stronger and lighter. It also had a lower ball join for a raised roll centre. It also used offset steering bushes for more caster. This meant less understeer, more steering feel, less roll, and a similar camber gain/ride even when slightly lowered over any car fitted with the standard wishbone. Shame really because with the VAG's technical know-how and enormous financial clout, they really could produce something remarkable if they wanted to. Even the R8 is known to be an under steer monster on track, and that nanny state VAGness has infected Lamborghini as well.
It's a corporate machine making decisions on behalf of it's customers. Yes, our customers love and want under steer, debate closed, decision made. Rubber stamp - dumphh.
I bet the new TT still uses the 'understeer bushes' in the front wishbones. Instead of solid rubber, they have voids in them which 'give' when you corner hard, causing the car to plough straight on. There was a fix for that with MK1 TTs, but I'm haven't studied the new platform yet.
I know I need to get out more.
Baryonyx said:
Part of me wonders if Audi is still scared after the controversy surrounding the stability of the mkI TT at high speed, and coupled with the car's success with women drivers, they are content now to give the TT loads of safe understeer and uninspiring drive.
It is a great shame these days that manufacturers tend towards making the car safe and turgid in the handling department, rather than leaving it up to the driver to ultimately control the car.
Especially when nowadays you have to jump through hoops to disable the nannying. Just add an "I can drive it myself, thanks" mode and stick a disclaimer on the fancy new TFT screen making the driver accept responsibility for turning "lead foot mode" off.It is a great shame these days that manufacturers tend towards making the car safe and turgid in the handling department, rather than leaving it up to the driver to ultimately control the car.
Having said that, I've not heard of lawsuits being filed against Mitsubishi etc. relating to "dangerous handling".
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff