RE: Shed of the Week: Audi TT (Mk1)

[Cloudy147]

I remember when these first came out and my bosses boss got one as a company car. At the time, they were so unique and immensely desriable, it was quite a cause for excitement when it arrived.

If memory serves it had to go back for a fault or two early on, then the handling recall for the spoiler, and then it went back as there was a burning smell coming from the cabin. All of that earned it a bit of an unreliable reputation at the office, but it was equally accepted as being put down to being one of the very first of this brand new and revolutionary, futuristic car.

Fab! I think they still look very striking on the road and seemed to have moved from modern to retro classic without passing through the "old car" phase.

[sawman]

wheeler dealers episode with the TT was on discovery channel this morning - gearbox fix for 50p....

[CDP]

Gary C said:

Wildcat45 said:

One of these or an MGF/TF for the same price?

As a serial MGF owner all I can say is I'll take the Audi.

No suprised by that as the mgf is a st car.

It depends if you enjoy driving or not. The TT is a much better car for daily driving but the MG is far more fun.

The TT coupe doesn't really drive much better than my A4 or even my Vectra. In fact around the limit the diesel Vauxhall was more adjustable, you could get the back end out and with a quick dab of oppo and accelerator flat to the floor hold it there. The TT was understeer everywhere. Not an issue on fast a and b roads, on wet Scottish mountain roads it was great.

I test drove a TT convertible back to back with the MG. Horrible floppy chassis, dull steering, slow turn inand no more practical than the TF. Best avoided.

[Helicopter123]

CDP said:

Gary C said:

Wildcat45 said:

One of these or an MGF/TF for the same price?

As a serial MGF owner all I can say is I'll take the Audi.

No suprised by that as the mgf is a st car.

It depends if you enjoy driving or not. The TT is a much better car for daily driving but the MG is far more fun.

The TT coupe doesn't really drive much better than my A4 or even my Vectra. In fact around the limit the diesel Vauxhall was more adjustable, you could get the back end out and with a quick dab of oppo and accelerator flat to the floor hold it there. The TT was understeer everywhere. Not an issue on fast a and b roads, on wet Scottish mountain roads it was great.

I test drove a TT convertible back to back with the MG. Horrible floppy chassis, dull steering, slow turn inand no more practical than the TF. Best avoided.

That's harsh, the TT convertible offers room down motoring for those with little interest in 'making progress'. It has never pretended to be a Boxster other than in the perceived desirability stakes amongst some. It's cheap fun in the Sun.

[CDP]

Helicopter123 said:

CDP said:

Gary C said:

Wildcat45 said:

One of these or an MGF/TF for the same price?

As a serial MGF owner all I can say is I'll take the Audi.

No suprised by that as the mgf is a st car.

It depends if you enjoy driving or not. The TT is a much better car for daily driving but the MG is far more fun.

The TT coupe doesn't really drive much better than my A4 or even my Vectra. In fact around the limit the diesel Vauxhall was more adjustable, you could get the back end out and with a quick dab of oppo and accelerator flat to the floor hold it there. The TT was understeer everywhere. Not an issue on fast a and b roads, on wet Scottish mountain roads it was great.

I test drove a TT convertible back to back with the MG. Horrible floppy chassis, dull steering, slow turn inand no more practical than the TF. Best avoided.

That's harsh, the TT convertible offers room down motoring for those with little interest in 'making progress'. It has never pretended to be a Boxster other than in the perceived desirability stakes amongst some. It's cheap fun in the Sun.

True but if I was after that I'd get an a4, 3 series etc convertible.

The drophead even loses the stunning looks of the coupe. All the fun of a golf with all the practicality of an mx5.

[Helicopter123]

CDP said:

Helicopter123 said:

CDP said:

Gary C said:

Wildcat45 said:

One of these or an MGF/TF for the same price?

As a serial MGF owner all I can say is I'll take the Audi.

No suprised by that as the mgf is a st car.

It depends if you enjoy driving or not. The TT is a much better car for daily driving but the MG is far more fun.

The TT coupe doesn't really drive much better than my A4 or even my Vectra. In fact around the limit the diesel Vauxhall was more adjustable, you could get the back end out and with a quick dab of oppo and accelerator flat to the floor hold it there. The TT was understeer everywhere. Not an issue on fast a and b roads, on wet Scottish mountain roads it was great.

I test drove a TT convertible back to back with the MG. Horrible floppy chassis, dull steering, slow turn inand no more practical than the TF. Best avoided.

That's harsh, the TT convertible offers room down motoring for those with little interest in 'making progress'. It has never pretended to be a Boxster other than in the perceived desirability stakes amongst some. It's cheap fun in the Sun.

True but if I was after that I'd get an a4, 3 series etc convertible.

The drophead even loses the stunning looks of the coupe. All the fun of a golf with all the practicality of an mx5.

Nobody buys a cheap two-seater convertible to be practical though so don't see your point?

[redhanded]

"The fact that the Audi TT is still selling well in 2018 after only two light styling refreshes speaks volumes for the public’s ability to accept out-there designs, as long as they work".

Really? I'm not sure I agree with that. The 1998 car was futuristic, bauhaus authentic and ushered in somthing quite new in terms of design purity. The later designs seem to have lost that idea. Some kind of gradual 911 type evolution it aint. Too many folded lines and intricate details just because they have the technology to do so it imo. It was a rare moment.

[CDP]

Helicopter123 said:

CDP said:

Helicopter123 said:

CDP said:

Gary C said:

Wildcat45 said:

One of these or an MGF/TF for the same price?

As a serial MGF owner all I can say is I'll take the Audi.

No suprised by that as the mgf is a st car.

It depends if you enjoy driving or not. The TT is a much better car for daily driving but the MG is far more fun.

The TT coupe doesn't really drive much better than my A4 or even my Vectra. In fact around the limit the diesel Vauxhall was more adjustable, you could get the back end out and with a quick dab of oppo and accelerator flat to the floor hold it there. The TT was understeer everywhere. Not an issue on fast a and b roads, on wet Scottish mountain roads it was great.

I test drove a TT convertible back to back with the MG. Horrible floppy chassis, dull steering, slow turn inand no more practical than the TF. Best avoided.

That's harsh, the TT convertible offers room down motoring for those with little interest in 'making progress'. It has never pretended to be a Boxster other than in the perceived desirability stakes amongst some. It's cheap fun in the Sun.

True but if I was after that I'd get an a4, 3 series etc convertible.

The drophead even loses the stunning looks of the coupe. All the fun of a golf with all the practicality of an mx5.

Nobody buys a cheap two-seater convertible to be practical though so don't see your point?

No but one would expect a two seater convertible to drive well enough to make up for all the compromises - the TT does not.

As a coupe it really works. A stiffer shell means the handling is secure and the quiet refinement to make long distances melt.

[J4CKO]

The convertible sold well and lots of people really enjoyed it, for me, it had to be a coupe as that is what I first saw in about 1999 and made me wonder where the hell that came from, it was just so different to anything else.

My thinking is is something sold when it was new, people will still want them down the line.

[Helicopter123]

CDP said:

Helicopter123 said:

CDP said:

Helicopter123 said:

CDP said:

Gary C said:

Wildcat45 said:

One of these or an MGF/TF for the same price?

As a serial MGF owner all I can say is I'll take the Audi.

No suprised by that as the mgf is a st car.

It depends if you enjoy driving or not. The TT is a much better car for daily driving but the MG is far more fun.

The TT coupe doesn't really drive much better than my A4 or even my Vectra. In fact around the limit the diesel Vauxhall was more adjustable, you could get the back end out and with a quick dab of oppo and accelerator flat to the floor hold it there. The TT was understeer everywhere. Not an issue on fast a and b roads, on wet Scottish mountain roads it was great.

I test drove a TT convertible back to back with the MG. Horrible floppy chassis, dull steering, slow turn inand no more practical than the TF. Best avoided.

That's harsh, the TT convertible offers room down motoring for those with little interest in 'making progress'. It has never pretended to be a Boxster other than in the perceived desirability stakes amongst some. It's cheap fun in the Sun.

True but if I was after that I'd get an a4, 3 series etc convertible.

The drophead even loses the stunning looks of the coupe. All the fun of a golf with all the practicality of an mx5.

Nobody buys a cheap two-seater convertible to be practical though so don't see your point?

No but one would expect a two seater convertible to drive well enough to make up for all the compromises - the TT does not.

As a coupe it really works. A stiffer shell means the handling is secure and the quiet refinement to make long distances melt.

Disagree, the coupe TT is not a drivers car either, and frankly pretty dull to drive, not that this matters a jot to those who buy and enjoy. The convertible is fine for cruising around in, which is what these get bought for.

[CDP]

Helicopter123 said:

CDP said:

Helicopter123 said:

CDP said:

Helicopter123 said:

CDP said:

Gary C said:

Wildcat45 said:

One of these or an MGF/TF for the same price?

As a serial MGF owner all I can say is I'll take the Audi.

No suprised by that as the mgf is a st car.

It depends if you enjoy driving or not. The TT is a much better car for daily driving but the MG is far more fun.

The TT coupe doesn't really drive much better than my A4 or even my Vectra. In fact around the limit the diesel Vauxhall was more adjustable, you could get the back end out and with a quick dab of oppo and accelerator flat to the floor hold it there. The TT was understeer everywhere. Not an issue on fast a and b roads, on wet Scottish mountain roads it was great.

I test drove a TT convertible back to back with the MG. Horrible floppy chassis, dull steering, slow turn inand no more practical than the TF. Best avoided.

That's harsh, the TT convertible offers room down motoring for those with little interest in 'making progress'. It has never pretended to be a Boxster other than in the perceived desirability stakes amongst some. It's cheap fun in the Sun.

True but if I was after that I'd get an a4, 3 series etc convertible.

The drophead even loses the stunning looks of the coupe. All the fun of a golf with all the practicality of an mx5.

Nobody buys a cheap two-seater convertible to be practical though so don't see your point?

No but one would expect a two seater convertible to drive well enough to make up for all the compromises - the TT does not.

As a coupe it really works. A stiffer shell means the handling is secure and the quiet refinement to make long distances melt.

Disagree, the coupe TT is not a drivers car either, and frankly pretty dull to drive, not that this matters a jot to those who buy and enjoy. The convertible is fine for cruising around in, which is what these get bought for.

The coupe was great for touring Scotland with full tent etc. It really made a good case with 2700 miles in two weeks with camping gear in the back. It can do things sports cars can not in that sense. A real mini GT for crossing continents in comfort; I can’t really think of much else in that segment - RCZ perhaps?

It’s been mentioned that with better bushes, springs, dampers etc they can be made a lot more fun. If it doesn’t wreck the refinement I can image it being a brilliant little car.

I take your point on the convertible being a car for cruising. But they’re all about show.

[alorotom]

CDP said:

Helicopter123 said:

CDP said:

Helicopter123 said:

CDP said:

Helicopter123 said:

CDP said:

Gary C said:

Wildcat45 said:

One of these or an MGF/TF for the same price?

As a serial MGF owner all I can say is I'll take the Audi.

No suprised by that as the mgf is a st car.

It depends if you enjoy driving or not. The TT is a much better car for daily driving but the MG is far more fun.

The TT coupe doesn't really drive much better than my A4 or even my Vectra. In fact around the limit the diesel Vauxhall was more adjustable, you could get the back end out and with a quick dab of oppo and accelerator flat to the floor hold it there. The TT was understeer everywhere. Not an issue on fast a and b roads, on wet Scottish mountain roads it was great.

I test drove a TT convertible back to back with the MG. Horrible floppy chassis, dull steering, slow turn inand no more practical than the TF. Best avoided.

That's harsh, the TT convertible offers room down motoring for those with little interest in 'making progress'. It has never pretended to be a Boxster other than in the perceived desirability stakes amongst some. It's cheap fun in the Sun.

True but if I was after that I'd get an a4, 3 series etc convertible.

The drophead even loses the stunning looks of the coupe. All the fun of a golf with all the practicality of an mx5.

Nobody buys a cheap two-seater convertible to be practical though so don't see your point?

No but one would expect a two seater convertible to drive well enough to make up for all the compromises - the TT does not.

As a coupe it really works. A stiffer shell means the handling is secure and the quiet refinement to make long distances melt.

Disagree, the coupe TT is not a drivers car either, and frankly pretty dull to drive, not that this matters a jot to those who buy and enjoy. The convertible is fine for cruising around in, which is what these get bought for.

The coupe was great for touring Scotland with full tent etc. It really made a good case with 2700 miles in two weeks with camping gear in the back. It can do things sports cars can not in that sense. A real mini GT for crossing continents in comfort; I can’t really think of much else in that segment - RCZ perhaps?

It’s been mentioned that with better bushes, springs, dampers etc they can be made a lot more fun. If it doesn’t wreck the refinement I can image it being a brilliant little car.

I take your point on the convertible being a car for cruising. But they’re all about show.

My wife and I toured around France and Spain in my Mk1 TT cab ... full tent gear, clothes, everything we needed - zero issue and all the joy of the roof off in the glorious sun rather than in a coupe - the cab and coupe are only marginal apart in their drivability and the coupe rears are worthless and nigh unusable - the cab wins hands down every time for me

[topless]

People who have a higher price in the ad to save money on the advert cost are dishonest and I dont buy cars from people who I know are dishonest

[Rojo]

I remember getting me and five mates in mine on the way back from the pub. It was acceptable in the naughties... Loved my little black TT, beautiful interior and if you folded the seats down it was a cracking little van.

[CDP]

Rojo said:

I remember getting me and five mates in mine on the way back from the pub. It was acceptable in the naughties... Loved my little black TT, beautiful interior and if you folded the seats down it was a cracking little van.

Six powerfully built directors in a TT. That must have been a tight fit.

[alfabadass]

Regret moving on from mine.

Ignore all the stupid golf in a frock comments.

This car was proper beefy. Really heavy and weighty. A real mans hairdressers car.

A Barbar's car!

[EarlOfHazard]

My dad has owned his black 225 coupe since 2005. Bought with 70k on the clock.
He's toyed with getting something else, but just enjoys it. I've recently bought a Merc estate to use when back home, and he know uses this instead, meaning the TT has effectively been forgotten
So I'm thinking of taking it on, and getting the wheel refurbed (BBS split rim) at £548, and then there's the centre caps. Plus looking at a remap and exploring inproving the handling. I wouldn't want it lower, so perhap just uprated ARBs.
With regards to reliabilty, it's been pretty good.
It's on 125k at the moment and in that time it's had:
A couple of broken rear springs
Intrument cluster needed repair (although this will need doing again as the LCD screen is playing up this time)
A part broke on the clutch pedal about 8 years ago - wasn't expensive to replace. Just a pain as car had to be collected.
New clutch this year (not cheap!)
Temperature sensor (causing EML to come on)
Oh and a heated seat has stopped working

The rest is just standard servicing (performed annually at MOT time); tyres; and brakes

Not bad at all.

[WJNB]

EarlOfHazard said:

My dad has owned his black 225 coupe since 2005. Bought with 70k on the clock.
He's toyed with getting something else, but just enjoys it. I've recently bought a Merc estate to use when back home, and he know uses this instead, meaning the TT has effectively been forgotten
So I'm thinking of taking it on, and getting the wheel refurbed (BBS split rim) at £548, and then there's the centre caps. Plus looking at a remap and exploring inproving the handling. I wouldn't want it lower, so perhap just uprated ARBs.
With regards to reliabilty, it's been pretty good.
It's on 125k at the moment and in that time it's had:
A couple of broken rear springs
Intrument cluster needed repair (although this will need doing again as the LCD screen is playing up this time)
A part broke on the clutch pedal about 8 years ago - wasn't expensive to replace. Just a pain as car had to be collected.
New clutch this year (not cheap!)
Temperature sensor (causing EML to come on)
Oh and a heated seat has stopped working

The rest is just standard servicing (performed annually at MOT time); tyres; and brakes

Not bad at all.

What a dreadful reflection on what is supposed to be a premium brand car.
I've been issued with & chosen numerous blue collar brand cars over 40 years many doing up to 150k miles & none I repeat none ever had that many quality/reliability issues. Sure a Ford Granada & a Ford Sierra were bags of nails at 70k miles but nothing was broken. The most expensive repair ever was a new turbo for a Vauxhall Vectra diesel. A Toyota Carina E (sneer by all means) went back after 150k miles going as well as it was when new, the bodywork still looking pristine & everything working.
Somebody somewhere is taking the micky & making fools of the badge snobs.
Many thing it's actually funny that 50k Porsche Boxsters might have technical unreliable problems, but that's Ok isn't it because its a Porsche.
With my own money I have owned Mazda MX-5's & Honda S2000's both shame the toffy-nosed brands.

[J4CKO]

WJNB said:

EarlOfHazard said:

My dad has owned his black 225 coupe since 2005. Bought with 70k on the clock.
He's toyed with getting something else, but just enjoys it. I've recently bought a Merc estate to use when back home, and he know uses this instead, meaning the TT has effectively been forgotten
So I'm thinking of taking it on, and getting the wheel refurbed (BBS split rim) at £548, and then there's the centre caps. Plus looking at a remap and exploring inproving the handling. I wouldn't want it lower, so perhap just uprated ARBs.
With regards to reliabilty, it's been pretty good.
It's on 125k at the moment and in that time it's had:
A couple of broken rear springs
Intrument cluster needed repair (although this will need doing again as the LCD screen is playing up this time)
A part broke on the clutch pedal about 8 years ago - wasn't expensive to replace. Just a pain as car had to be collected.
New clutch this year (not cheap!)
Temperature sensor (causing EML to come on)
Oh and a heated seat has stopped working

The rest is just standard servicing (performed annually at MOT time); tyres; and brakes

Not bad at all.

What a dreadful reflection on what is supposed to be a premium brand car.
I've been issued with & chosen numerous blue collar brand cars over 40 years many doing up to 150k miles & none I repeat none ever had that many quality/reliability issues. Sure a Ford Granada & a Ford Sierra were bags of nails at 70k miles but nothing was broken. The most expensive repair ever was a new turbo for a Vauxhall Vectra diesel. A Toyota Carina E (sneer by all means) went back after 150k miles going as well as it was when new, the bodywork still looking pristine & everything working.
Somebody somewhere is taking the micky & making fools of the badge snobs.
Many thing it's actually funny that 50k Porsche Boxsters might have technical unreliable problems, but that's Ok isn't it because its a Porsche.
With my own money I have owned Mazda MX-5's & Honda S2000's both shame the toffy-nosed brands.

As I can attest, they arent the most reliable car, but lets not forget this car was bought 13 years ago and could have been six years old then, so somewhere between 15 and 19 year old car.


The TT is a more complex car than any of those you mentioned. Not everyone who buys an Audi is a "Badge Snob", most bought the TT because of how it looked not because it was an Audi.

[Quavers]

Its a low value, modern audi.

Which means money pit.