RE: New Audi TT RS revealed

[aka_kerrly]

scherzkeks said:

aka_kerrly said:

For reference the Audi now has a 59/41 split f/r

It's been like that for some time. My old S3 SB was 58/42.

Yes , my point was for those who keep waffling on about the nose heavy/engine sat on the front bumper who are being such drama queens over a 60/40 split on an Audi.


ORD an co, how do you feel about for example the Ford Focus RS then, that has a 63/37 weight distribution so although I've never driven if I'm following your lead I'm going to announce that the new RS is front heavy and poor handling as is the 1994 Ford Escort COsworth with it's 56/44 split, what a dreadful car with nose heavy handling but I've not driven one of those either.

Have you stopped to think about those unbalanced F1 cars with 44/56 F/R or things like a Porsche 911 with a 39/61 F/R split vs the Cayman 46/54 split?

I am not denying that weight distribution has an impact on how a car reacts to driver inputs/road conditions but when you are automatically dismiss a car you have never driven based on weight distribution with no thought about the suspension setup or the many other factors which can be manipulated to counter the weight distribution you sound like a bit of a tt.

Would you demand that a rear passenger sits in the middle so as not to upset the weight distribution and risk ruining the handling of the car? Or are you really one of these people who notices the huge effect a bag of shopping in the boot makes

[Black Flag]

All of you Audi haters are really getting boring and honestly sound quite pathetic.
No one is forcing you to buy one, probably couldn't afford to anyway.

BF

[nickfrog]

I don't think it's about Audi hating, they make great products. It's just that I think it's OK for anyone to prefer a car with a lower polar moment of inertia, as that inherently helps the way the car handles and particularly the way it changes direction. Some less balanced cars and/or cars with large overhangs can still handle well of course but they're always up against it vs cars that are designed from the ground up to have a large proportion of their mass between the 2 axles (even if other aspects are consequently compromised like stability and packaging/practicality), either mid-engine or BMWs with all/most of the engine behind the front axle.

Incidentally, 911s have a relatively high polar moment of inertia.

I think that Highway Star who has switched from TT RS to a Cayman will know exactly what I am on about and might never look back. Glad for him he could afford a non-Audi

Edited by nickfrog on Sunday 8th May 15:17

[HighwayStar]

Black Flag said:

All of you Audi haters are really getting boring and honestly sound quite pathetic.
No one is forcing you to buy one, probably couldn't afford to anyway.

BF

Hmmmm... those critising the RS probably couldn't afford one eh. Really! Do you seriously believe that?That's a pretty lame and childish defence. I most certainly can. I knew what I was getting when I bought my TTS, I didn't feel I needed to defend it as I made my decision as was happy with it. I see you've had 2 TT RS's, but why so sensitive? You bought what you wanted and you're obviously very happy with it. I have a Caymam S now and couldn't be happier but long before I got I read all the forum talk that it's not a proper sports car, too much luxury, not light enough, the classic it's not a 911 but you know what... I still bought one. I'll accept that some folk think it's not all that, it's not whatever but... it does what I want, I got what I wanted and not what someone else thought I should get.
At the end of the day people critising the RS or anything else are really saying they wouldn't have bought that car for themselves. I'll never tell someone they should've bought something else unless they asked me straight.

[funkyrobot]

Black Flag said:

All of you Audi haters are really getting boring and honestly sound quite pathetic.
No one is forcing you to buy one, probably couldn't afford to anyway.

BF

Jealous because we can't afford one.

What do you say to people who could afford one, but still dislike them?

I don't think anyone is as boring as the VW and Audi design departments.

[ORD]

aka_kerrly said:

scherzkeks said:

aka_kerrly said:

For reference the Audi now has a 59/41 split f/r

It's been like that for some time. My old S3 SB was 58/42.

Yes , my point was for those who keep waffling on about the nose heavy/engine sat on the front bumper who are being such drama queens over a 60/40 split on an Audi.


ORD an co, how do you feel about for example the Ford Focus RS then, that has a 63/37 weight distribution so although I've never driven if I'm following your lead I'm going to announce that the new RS is front heavy and poor handling as is the 1994 Ford Escort COsworth with it's 56/44 split, what a dreadful car with nose heavy handling but I've not driven one of those either.

Have you stopped to think about those unbalanced F1 cars with 44/56 F/R or things like a Porsche 911 with a 39/61 F/R split vs the Cayman 46/54 split?

I am not denying that weight distribution has an impact on how a car reacts to driver inputs/road conditions but when you are automatically dismiss a car you have never driven based on weight distribution with no thought about the suspension setup or the many other factors which can be manipulated to counter the weight distribution you sound like a bit of a tt.

Would you demand that a rear passenger sits in the middle so as not to upset the weight distribution and risk ruining the handling of the car? Or are you really one of these people who notices the huge effect a bag of shopping in the boot makes

Look up 'straw man'. You have responded very forcefully to a number of points that I did not make.

I understand very well that 50/50 weight distribution and as much as possible between the axles is not the first, last and only word in handling. I drive a 911, FFS!

If you look at what I actually said, you might well find it entirely unobjectionable.

[Vocht]

The more I read up on this car and see pictures of it the more I want it. I honestly can't think of a better all rounder at this price point. Anyway, here's some pictures of one in Lime Green making it look like a small exotic car.

[Beefmeister]

That looks fantastic!

I know it's very sad, but I wish Audi would hurry up and put it on their Configurator.

[Deerfoot]

Beefmeister said:

That looks fantastic!

Wheels aside that indeed looks great in green.

[HighwayStar]

I've moved on from the TT now but I hope they finally deliver the goods Audi have promised since the last century with the RS. I have the mk2 TTS and though it was very nice, well made and drew admiring glances and comments from friends, neighbours and folk at petrol stations I could never love it. The MK3 TT & TTS just felt even more clinical to me, fast, efficient but ultimately detached. Also, they seem to sit a little too high...
Losing that 26k chunk of weight from the engine help things in the handling stakes... it'll be a big shame if it doesn't. It would be great if it was more than just a great numbers car and well 'it's got Quattro so it will be faster than X, Y and Z in the wet.'

[matrignano]

Has anyone seen what the standard wheels look like?

[SuperchargedVR6]

blade7 said:

£52k for an RS3 in a frock .

I know, mental isn't it. German car prices seem to be drifting further into fantasy land whilst wages haven't really made a significant leap forward since 2008.....oh that's right, I forgot - because leasing. And you're right, technically it is yet another flavour of MBQ. Yeah it might have aluminium panels here and there and that (not unique to TT) 5 cyl engine, but it is a Golf underneath.

And I'm not sure what the silver detailing at the front is all about either. It's a bit Sopranos. Or is that what Audi are getting at with it? Trying to be youthful still, but a bit long in the tooth.

[F1GTRUeno]

I really like it a lot, but then I liked the last one. My parents had a Mk.II TT 2.0 and it was a lovely thing, the S and RS models would've been fantastic.

On the road they'd give you pace and grip, that little extra ounce of feedback and driving pleasure which people bang on about, I suspect wouldn't actually matter too much, though I'm coming from a 1.4 Megane, a 1.2 Corsa and a 1.4 Seat Ibiza so I can't really comment on what true drivers cars are all about. I've driven a 360 Modena, a Gallardo and a DBS on track thanks to 6th Gear and noticed the 360 felt like a go kart, Gallardo had tremendous understeer and the DBS was just an accomplished brute (with very light steering) but that's about as far as my experience goes.

One thing I will never get about Audi with regards to driving dynamics though. They had the knowhow to make the B7 RS4 a brilliant drive by all accounts (only going off road tests and reviews from owners) and the first generation R8 was obviously another high watermark for them, the second generation is good as well (albeit seemingly not quite as engaging as the first one), why can't they transfer that knowhow to the rest of the range?

[ORD]

Two reasons: (1) Audi drivers dont care, so why bother? and (2) Slinging an engine out over the front wheels and then adding an AWD system is a terrible start for making a drivers car.

[HighwayStar]

F1GTRUeno said:

I really like it a lot, but then I liked the last one. My parents had a Mk.II TT 2.0 and it was a lovely thing, the S and RS models would've been fantastic.

On the road they'd give you pace and grip, that little extra ounce of feedback and driving pleasure which people bang on about, I suspect wouldn't actually matter too much, though I'm coming from a 1.4 Megane, a 1.2 Corsa and a 1.4 Seat Ibiza so I can't really comment on what true drivers cars are all about. I've driven a 360 Modena, a Gallardo and a DBS on track thanks to 6th Gear and noticed the 360 felt like a go kart, Gallardo had tremendous understeer and the DBS was just an accomplished brute (with very light steering) but that's about as far as my experience goes.

One thing I will never get about Audi with regards to driving dynamics though. They had the knowhow to make the B7 RS4 a brilliant drive by all accounts (only going off road tests and reviews from owners) and the first generation R8 was obviously another high watermark for them, the second generation is good as well (albeit seemingly not quite as engaging as the first one), why can't they transfer that knowhow to the rest of the range?

As ORD said and...

"On the road they'd give you pace and grip (yes), that little extra ounce of feedback (no) and driving pleasure which people bang on about (no)..."

From personal experience, I had a mk1 TT 225... I don't think it was as bad in the twists as generally thought but it wasn't great. One morning I open my blinds and found some decided I'd had it quite long enough and relieved me of it.
Next up, a mk2 2.0 TFSI. Seemed like a good idea at the time, the first time I took on my favourite back road. Was the last. I lost interest after the first decent corner. Kept it a mere 4 weeks. Replaced it with a TTS, lovely car, great to look at, a wonderful place to site and fast enough but... It never quite hit the spot either, lacking that extra ounce of feedback and driving pleasure people (me) bang on about. Kept that for 5yrs... And so to the mk3. No I didn't... test drove the TTS. Brilliant interior, lots of tech.. I bought a 981 Cayman S. That has more than an ounce of feedback and driving pleasure. I've no doubt the RS will be silly fast from here to there but will it be the proper sports car Audi keep saying it is? I've moved on but I hope so

[Clivey]

ORD said:

Two reasons: (1) Audi drivers dont care, so why bother? and (2) Slinging an engine out over the front wheels and then adding an AWD system is a terrible start for making a drivers car.

This is the thing. - Car manufacturers are now reduced to designing so-called "sports cars" for the lowest common denominator. Those that want an impressive looking car but have no idea how to drive a proper one. Steering feel? Handling balance? The average buyer doesn't have the attention span to begin to comprehend these things. If it's brash and they can boast to their mates at the bar / golf club etc., that's all they care about. That's why we see 4-cylinder Golfs with quad exhausts and part of the reason Boxsters now have turbochargers.

The problem with all previous "performance" TTs is that it doesn't matter how much glitter they're rolled in; being based on the Golf platform and having Haldex AWD means it has fundamental limitations that they can't escape. Even what is a truly wonderful engine and impressive gearbox can't save the RS if you're interested in more than posing and the traffic light grand prix.

As you say, Audi realise that TT customers largely don't notice this stuff; otherwise they'd have ditched the Haldex AWD and fitted something more befitting of a performance car. It's laughable that Ford - a brand that many Audi buyers would turn their noses up at - realised Haldex just wouldn't cut it for the Focus RS and now that car has a more "premium" drivetrain than cars from German brands costing much more. Here on PH, cars like the Mitsubishi Evo and Subaru Impreza / WRX are largely seen as obsolete but in reality, enthusiasts still idolise them for good reason and the Golf-platform VAGboxes just can't hold a candle to them, even when they have better on-paper acceleration times and more power.

With AWD, a double clutch gearbox and really strong engine, the "old" TT RS should be aping the Nissan GTR and driving rings around the competition but if you look at laptimes, it's only just able to keep up with rivals when it's seemingly given every advantage and has everything in it's favour. It is frustrating. - If they wanted / the market insisted, Audi could have based the TT on the A4/5 plaform, shortened it (like the Quattro concept, which also would have been nice to see go into production) and given it some proper hardware. Then we really would have something much closer to a mini-R8.

[Carl_Manchester]

matrignano said:

Has anyone seen what the standard wheels look like?

I prefer them without the black accents.

[kmpowell]

matrignano said:

Has anyone seen what the standard wheels look like?

Here you go, the expected standard 19's...



The 20" option will be available in the 2 or 3 different colour finishes.

[Clivey]

kmpowell said:

Here you go, the expected standard 19's...



The 20" option will be available in the 2 or 3 different colour finishes.

It looks like they're up to the same tricks as with the Golf R - standard wheels that look a bit pants and optional ones that look much better. The green car a few posts above looks fantastic IMO (though it's actually the wheels that are my least favourite detail, I prefer the ones on the old TT RS) and I want to like it but after the S3 and previous TT, I'm pessimistic to say the least. - If you couldn't already tell from my post above.

[Ali_T]

Am I the only one that's going to say...that is one hideously styled car!