RE: Audi TT S facelift: Driven

[9k rpm]

It’s a nice looking, quick (extremely so in the cold/wet), fairly economical, relatively light for its segment, well built car with an excellent interior; it’s no reason they sell loads.

I’m a BMW fan but find it particularly impressive this is 100kg lighter than the M240i whilst also being 4wd which other posts and indeed this article seem to have overlooked.

If they had done this IOM test in cold wet February I think the story would have been a little different. On paper £45k looks a bit steep but what new car doesn’t it will probably hold its value better than a BMW too.

I wouldn’t buy one but can understand why others do.

[J4CKO]

Think they are quite light for the spec as they use a lot of aluminium in the construction, they arent the "Golf in a frock" that people seem to think.

[E65Ross]

loose cannon said:

E65Ross said:

1 - that's an absurd generalisation, but OK, whatever
2 - you say that like it's a problem?

Car manufacturer makes cars to make money
said manufacturer makes a car that has a large demographic
demographic for such car likes the car and buys it, and is happy with it
car manufacturer makes money
manufacturer happy, customers happy

I can't see a problem there?

I find it bizarre how it seems to be a crime against humanity that any person should ever buy a car because they like the look of it and aren't too fussed on how it drives.

I think your taking it to seriously tbh
I’m no fan of them but I’m sure they will sell well
And people will be fully satisfied with it
But that’s not gonna stop me from saying what I think about them, there are lots of people that think my car choices are insane, different strokes for different folks, after all its a car forum not everyone likes the same stuff and unfortunately on here it then becomes a big row id still talk to you if you had one

[va1o]

The facelift was always going to be subtle but I think they’ve done a good job. The new grille looks really smart and freshens up the the front. Interior hasn’t changed much but doesn’t really need to as it’s already best in class. Rear looks sharper now.

I’ve got a 2015 Mk3 TT and was planning on replacing with the new BMW Z4 when it launches, but I think I’ll take a look at this also. I wonder if the 245PS Quattro version could be the sweetspot as should be a 5s 0-60 car.

[pichat]

After the original TT they get uglier and uglier. What's with the sharp edges? A Korean design trend?

[deltashad]

J4CKO said:

Think they are quite light for the spec as they use a lot of aluminium in the construction, they arent the "Golf in a frock" that people seem to think.

Not sure about that. Do you have a problem with Golfs? 😁

First TT was extreme with it's design. With age it got a bit boring and as everyone knows was largely bought by bimbos which did nothing for the image.
2nd gen got away from the feminine looks, but now looks unexciting. This face lift is nothing more than a change of lipstick.

Personally I'd rather have a Golf.

[JMF894]

For a new 2+2 'sports car' I wouldn't call 1460 kgs light by any measure tbh. In fact I'd call it rather lardy. It's only 90 kgs lighter than my old 9-5 Aero barge!

What's the weight of a current Golf R by comparison?

[E65Ross]

JMF894 said:

For a new 2+2 'sports car' I wouldn't call 1460 kgs light by any measure tbh. In fact I'd call it rather lardy. It's only 90 kgs lighter than my old 9-5 Aero barge!

What's the weight of a current Golf R by comparison?

I don't think it's strictly fair to compare new with old. This car has a LOT more tech in it, 4WD, more safety crash structure stuff and it's STILL 90kgs lighter

Where do you draw the line.....this weighs more than an original BMW 7 series....etc etc.

Oh - despite being "only" 90kgs lighter, I bet it feels a lot lighter than the Saab.

[J4CKO]

deltashad said:

J4CKO said:

Think they are quite light for the spec as they use a lot of aluminium in the construction, they arent the "Golf in a frock" that people seem to think.

Not sure about that. Do you have a problem with Golfs? ??

First TT was extreme with it's design. With age it got a bit boring and as everyone knows was largely bought by bimbos which did nothing for the image.
2nd gen got away from the feminine looks, but now looks unexciting. This face lift is nothing more than a change of lipstick.

Personally I'd rather have a Golf.

No, I like Golfs, I was quoting the often used line to point out it isnt just a Golf with a different body style, but more to it than that though there is commonality, not sure it justifies ten grand over a Golf R which is its nearest Golf relative.

The TT has the fancy digital cockpit, posher interior and is made of Aluminium instead of steel so not quite the same, but that is what AUdi sells them at so if you want one, and plenty do, that is what they cost.

They have a market and sell a fair few, can get a 2 litre tfsi for a lot less, dont see many of the more powerful ones as most owners seem happy with the lower engined versions and cant see the point of the 300 bhp plus models, and enthusiasts spending 45 grand plus dont generally want a TT, at that price point you are getting into some much more interesting stuff.

I would have another TT but it is a pain not being able to take more than one passenger, was ok spending a couple of grand on one, and I looked at what I got for just over 20 grand, a 230 bhp TT didnt cut it when you could get an M135i with lower miles and newer.

[anonymous-user]

I don’t understand the TT. All the compromises of a two seater but none of the benefits?

[Tuvra]

big_rob_sydney said:

At £45k, what is PH's idea of the best 4-5 seat drivers car (brand new)?

£47k buys you a 2018 BMW M4 with delivery mileage, they're pretty good

[corcoran]

As I often tell myself: "Stop. Fiddling. With. It."

[brightbluesmurf]

J4CKO said:

Think they are quite light for the spec as they use a lot of aluminium in the construction, they arent the "Golf in a frock" that people seem to think.

The skin (wherever there's metal) is 100% aluminium. The unibody is also hybrid aluminium-steel although the ratio is less than the MK2, which was 69% alumiunium. I'd have the TT over any Golf.

https://www.audi-technology-portal.de/video/1143

Edited by brightbluesmurf on Thursday 19th July 10:34

[Taaaaang]

Helicopter123 said:

E65Ross said:

Has anyone ever thought Audi might purposefully make the TT a little less driver-focussed and a bit softer round the edges for a reason? Seems like they sell pretty well so seems like Audi know what they're doing. I see more TTs than any of its supposed rivals IMO.

I was going to add something a little critical but you've hit the nail in the head.

Audi know their market, and clearly sell plenty of TTs.

I never yearned for one myself, but I'm glad it exists all the same.

Do they sell loads though?

I can't remember the last time I noticed one on the roads.

[E65Ross]

Taaaaang said:

Helicopter123 said:

E65Ross said:

Has anyone ever thought Audi might purposefully make the TT a little less driver-focussed and a bit softer round the edges for a reason? Seems like they sell pretty well so seems like Audi know what they're doing. I see more TTs than any of its supposed rivals IMO.

I was going to add something a little critical but you've hit the nail in the head.

Audi know their market, and clearly sell plenty of TTs.

I never yearned for one myself, but I'm glad it exists all the same.

Do they sell loads though?

I can't remember the last time I noticed one on the roads.

Have you read the article? Not having a dig, just asking

[loose cannon]

E65Ross said:

[mcpoot]

yonex said:

I don’t understand the TT. All the compromises of a two seater but none of the benefits?

What's to understand? The main "benefit" of a two seater coupe over an equivalent four seater is the looks. If you don't like the looks of the TT then fair enough but obviously many thousands of owners do.

[telecat]

9k rpm said:

It’s a nice looking, quick (extremely so in the cold/wet), fairly economical, relatively light for its segment, well built car with an excellent interior; it’s no reason they sell loads.

I’m a BMW fan but find it particularly impressive this is 100kg lighter than the M240i whilst also being 4wd which other posts and indeed this article seem to have overlooked.

If they had done this IOM test in cold wet February I think the story would have been a little different. On paper £45k looks a bit steep but what new car doesn’t it will probably hold its value better than a BMW too.

I wouldn’t buy one but can understand why others do.

I drove a 2015 TTS Manual with the Virtual Cockpit display and a lot of other toys. 7,000 miles Bright yellow and still £29000. The M240i was a 66 reg 2000 miles similar levels of Kit, £27000. It was also nicer to drive had a slightly nicer Manual box and carries 4 and luggage much better than The TTS. Leaves AWD as the only advantage and I have driven the M240i Ever day bar one this Winter. Would the TTS have been worth it. No.

[Plug Life]

Hairdressers of the world, rejoice!

[andrewparker]

David87 said:

So how come this gets to keep the 310PS engine and the Golf R got bumped down?

The TTS gets a particulate filter with the revisions, but it still has less power than the previous version, 302bhp instead of 306bhp. With the MK8 around the corner VW aren't doing anything with the MK7.5.