The Audi TT Diesel
Discussion
Polrules said:
However you dress it up it's all about economy.
What you are saying to those in the know is that you want a nice car but can't afford to run the petrol one.
You all know the petrol unit is lighter, responds to throttle input quicker, revs higher etc. You all know the diesel car is compromised by stiffer springs to counter the weight of the engine, that often the diesel equivalent needs bigger discs (hence more unsprung weight) to match the lighter petrol car...I could go on.
End of the day you would pick the petrol car if it cost the same to run.
Nail. Head.What you are saying to those in the know is that you want a nice car but can't afford to run the petrol one.
You all know the petrol unit is lighter, responds to throttle input quicker, revs higher etc. You all know the diesel car is compromised by stiffer springs to counter the weight of the engine, that often the diesel equivalent needs bigger discs (hence more unsprung weight) to match the lighter petrol car...I could go on.
End of the day you would pick the petrol car if it cost the same to run.
People want to be seen in a 'nice' car. People want to impress the neighbours. People can't afford truly nice cars so they buy poverty spec economy examples of 'nice' model of cars.
People only buy A3's, A4's and A5's by the bucket load in diesel spec because they can't afford an RS4 etc but still want to look like they are doing well by having four rings on their bonnet.
If this wasn't the case then they would be perfectly happy in Skoda's latest offering.
To cement this, most of my work colleagues heads would be turned by a 60 plate A5 simply because it is brand new, shiny and an Audi.
If I were to tell them that it's actually a bit cack due to the fact it is an economy special FWD oil burner with a dull engine, they would look at me as if I'm mad.
It's all about image folks.
CraigyMc said:
^This
From teh list you've put up, the 100/130/150 are all old engines. The new ones are 2.0, and 140 or 170bhp, as far as I know.
I've had the newer 2.0 ones in several Mk5/6 Golfs - most recently a new top spec GT Tdi 170 mk6 which was quite refined and did 50 mpg regardless - it was refined mainly due to the top spec car being amazingly well sound proofed (how much weight must that add?). The week after that we had a regular Tdi Mk6 golf 2.0 which was back to the usual unpleasant-ness of noise, vibration and harshness and narrow band of performance. But economical yes - very.From teh list you've put up, the 100/130/150 are all old engines. The new ones are 2.0, and 140 or 170bhp, as far as I know.
Polrules said:
However you dress it up it's all about economy.
What you are saying to those in the know is that you want a nice car but can't afford to run the petrol one.
You all know the petrol unit is lighter, responds to throttle input quicker, revs higher etc. You all know the diesel car is compromised by stiffer springs to counter the weight of the engine, that often the diesel equivalent needs bigger discs (hence more unsprung weight) to match the lighter petrol car...I could go on.
End of the day you would pick the petrol car if it cost the same to run.
Did you really write all of that without the nagging feeling that you were massively stating the obvious there?What you are saying to those in the know is that you want a nice car but can't afford to run the petrol one.
You all know the petrol unit is lighter, responds to throttle input quicker, revs higher etc. You all know the diesel car is compromised by stiffer springs to counter the weight of the engine, that often the diesel equivalent needs bigger discs (hence more unsprung weight) to match the lighter petrol car...I could go on.
End of the day you would pick the petrol car if it cost the same to run.
Assuming you didn't consciously do it, then, duh! People buy diesels because it saves them money, but this in itself is a perfectly valid reason. Modern cars are heavier full stop, they get around this by having more power, stiffer springs and bigger brakes in general - it isn't as if adding another 100kg tops is going to magically turn what was already a heavy car into an oil tanker and as a result you get better fuel economy which means you can drive it more and may well enjoy driving it more knowing you're saving money whilst having fun.
Tonberry said:
Polrules said:
However you dress it up it's all about economy.
What you are saying to those in the know is that you want a nice car but can't afford to run the petrol one.
You all know the petrol unit is lighter, responds to throttle input quicker, revs higher etc. You all know the diesel car is compromised by stiffer springs to counter the weight of the engine, that often the diesel equivalent needs bigger discs (hence more unsprung weight) to match the lighter petrol car...I could go on.
End of the day you would pick the petrol car if it cost the same to run.
Nail. Head.What you are saying to those in the know is that you want a nice car but can't afford to run the petrol one.
You all know the petrol unit is lighter, responds to throttle input quicker, revs higher etc. You all know the diesel car is compromised by stiffer springs to counter the weight of the engine, that often the diesel equivalent needs bigger discs (hence more unsprung weight) to match the lighter petrol car...I could go on.
End of the day you would pick the petrol car if it cost the same to run.
People want to be seen in a 'nice' car. People want to impress the neighbours. People can't afford truly nice cars so they buy poverty spec economy examples of 'nice' model of cars.
People only buy A3's, A4's and A5's by the bucket load in diesel spec because they can't afford an RS4 etc but still want to look like they are doing well by having four rings on their bonnet.
If this wasn't the case then they would be perfectly happy in Skoda's latest offering.
To cement this, most of my work colleagues heads would be turned by a 60 plate A5 simply because it is brand new, shiny and an Audi.
If I were to tell them that it's actually a bit cack due to the fact it is an economy special FWD oil burner with a dull engine, they would look at me as if I'm mad.
It's all about image folks.
B3njamin said:
Did you really write all of that without the nagging feeling that you were massively stating the obvious there?
Assuming you didn't consciously do it, then, duh! People buy diesels because it saves them money, but this in itself is a perfectly valid reason. Modern cars are heavier full stop, they get around this by having more power, stiffer springs and bigger brakes in general - it isn't as if adding another 100kg tops is going to magically turn what was already a heavy car into an oil tanker and as a result you get better fuel economy which means you can drive it more and may well enjoy driving it more knowing you're saving money whilst having fun.
Not at all Assuming you didn't consciously do it, then, duh! People buy diesels because it saves them money, but this in itself is a perfectly valid reason. Modern cars are heavier full stop, they get around this by having more power, stiffer springs and bigger brakes in general - it isn't as if adding another 100kg tops is going to magically turn what was already a heavy car into an oil tanker and as a result you get better fuel economy which means you can drive it more and may well enjoy driving it more knowing you're saving money whilst having fun.
My point would be that most cars are heavy enough, why compromise further for the sake of a few mpg?
As an Audi hater I have to say the new TT looks great. Personally a deisel engine in a sports car is a complete no-no but Audi are experts at marketing and they definitely sell.
For me, I just couldn't handle driving something with so much weight at the front end. Maybe this is an oversteer suicide suggestion but I feel it's a shame the TT wasn't mid engined/RWD.
For me, I just couldn't handle driving something with so much weight at the front end. Maybe this is an oversteer suicide suggestion but I feel it's a shame the TT wasn't mid engined/RWD.
Polrules said:
B3njamin said:
Did you really write all of that without the nagging feeling that you were massively stating the obvious there?
Assuming you didn't consciously do it, then, duh! People buy diesels because it saves them money, but this in itself is a perfectly valid reason. Modern cars are heavier full stop, they get around this by having more power, stiffer springs and bigger brakes in general - it isn't as if adding another 100kg tops is going to magically turn what was already a heavy car into an oil tanker and as a result you get better fuel economy which means you can drive it more and may well enjoy driving it more knowing you're saving money whilst having fun.
Not at all Assuming you didn't consciously do it, then, duh! People buy diesels because it saves them money, but this in itself is a perfectly valid reason. Modern cars are heavier full stop, they get around this by having more power, stiffer springs and bigger brakes in general - it isn't as if adding another 100kg tops is going to magically turn what was already a heavy car into an oil tanker and as a result you get better fuel economy which means you can drive it more and may well enjoy driving it more knowing you're saving money whilst having fun.
My point would be that most cars are heavy enough, why compromise further for the sake of a few mpg?
phil1979 said:
Polrules said:
B3njamin said:
Did you really write all of that without the nagging feeling that you were massively stating the obvious there?
Assuming you didn't consciously do it, then, duh! People buy diesels because it saves them money, but this in itself is a perfectly valid reason. Modern cars are heavier full stop, they get around this by having more power, stiffer springs and bigger brakes in general - it isn't as if adding another 100kg tops is going to magically turn what was already a heavy car into an oil tanker and as a result you get better fuel economy which means you can drive it more and may well enjoy driving it more knowing you're saving money whilst having fun.
Not at all Assuming you didn't consciously do it, then, duh! People buy diesels because it saves them money, but this in itself is a perfectly valid reason. Modern cars are heavier full stop, they get around this by having more power, stiffer springs and bigger brakes in general - it isn't as if adding another 100kg tops is going to magically turn what was already a heavy car into an oil tanker and as a result you get better fuel economy which means you can drive it more and may well enjoy driving it more knowing you're saving money whilst having fun.
My point would be that most cars are heavy enough, why compromise further for the sake of a few mpg?
slipstream 1985 said:
phil1979 said:
Polrules said:
B3njamin said:
Did you really write all of that without the nagging feeling that you were massively stating the obvious there?
Assuming you didn't consciously do it, then, duh! People buy diesels because it saves them money, but this in itself is a perfectly valid reason. Modern cars are heavier full stop, they get around this by having more power, stiffer springs and bigger brakes in general - it isn't as if adding another 100kg tops is going to magically turn what was already a heavy car into an oil tanker and as a result you get better fuel economy which means you can drive it more and may well enjoy driving it more knowing you're saving money whilst having fun.
Not at all Assuming you didn't consciously do it, then, duh! People buy diesels because it saves them money, but this in itself is a perfectly valid reason. Modern cars are heavier full stop, they get around this by having more power, stiffer springs and bigger brakes in general - it isn't as if adding another 100kg tops is going to magically turn what was already a heavy car into an oil tanker and as a result you get better fuel economy which means you can drive it more and may well enjoy driving it more knowing you're saving money whilst having fun.
My point would be that most cars are heavy enough, why compromise further for the sake of a few mpg?
Polrules said:
Not at all;)
My point would be that most cars are heavy enough, why compromise further for the sake of a few mpg?
I've just looked up the TT brochure. The 2.0 TFSI Quattro weighs 1405kg, compared with the 2.0 TDI Quattro at 1415kg.My point would be that most cars are heavy enough, why compromise further for the sake of a few mpg?
Granted the petrol version is faster 0-60, but the diesel is no slouch and possibly even a more relaxing drive in the real world. The diesel is also cheaper insurance, cheaper road tax, and much cheaper to fuel (plus less visits to the filling station - suits me fine!)
I don't accept the premise that everyone buys these cars for image - most people will buy the car because they like it. And with the blatant anti-diesel snobbery on this thread, it would appear that on PistonHeads image is everything.
PistonHeads - image matters.
For most people getting in the car is like getting on a plane to go on their holidays, you get in, sit down and get on with it, very few people when boarding a holiday jet start going on abotut whether its got the Pratt and Whitney's or the Rolls's Royces, they dont know how much thrust it has or the bypass ratio, as long as it gets off the runway, is comfy, the fare is reasonable and doesnt stop mid air they dont care.
We are the exception here, we are the geeks, we are really only respected by each other if we have some fast car by other members of this little world.
I work with databases, I suspect most of the people who use said databases via an application dont care whether it is a SQL Server or Oracle database as long as it givens them their data in a reasonably timely and reliable fashion, I dont see them as idiots because they dont care.
We are the exception here, we are the geeks, we are really only respected by each other if we have some fast car by other members of this little world.
I work with databases, I suspect most of the people who use said databases via an application dont care whether it is a SQL Server or Oracle database as long as it givens them their data in a reasonably timely and reliable fashion, I dont see them as idiots because they dont care.
phil1979 said:
...and tax, insurance etc etc. I would prefer the 3.2 V6 in my Alfa GT, but it's just not that wise for a daily commuter. Does that mean I'm not allowed to buy the GT for its looks (which I adore), but instead be forced to buy a boxy dullard to show my guilt at driving an oil burner?
Not at all - I have no issue with those who have had to make tough choices like yourself - you should be congratulated for persevering & buying such a nice looking car in the first place. However as you've said yourself you'd prefer the 3.2 - which is in essence my point. I don't believe anyone can sincerly say that they chose the TDi for any reason other than economy. It's just not credible.
Polrules said:
Not at all - I have no issue with those who have had to make tough choices like yourself - you should be congratulated for persevering & buying such a nice looking car in the first place.
However as you've said yourself you'd prefer the 3.2 - which is in essence my point. I don't believe anyone can sincerly say that they chose the TDi for any reason other than economy. It's just not credible.
I quite agree. What I will say is that the only thing I yearn from the 3.2 version is the noise - that's about it. I certainly wouldn't drive any different if I had the petrol. However as you've said yourself you'd prefer the 3.2 - which is in essence my point. I don't believe anyone can sincerly say that they chose the TDi for any reason other than economy. It's just not credible.
But I have plans in place to rectify that, by means of a weekend car, very soon...
Fatman2 said:
As an Audi hater I have to say the new TT looks great. Personally a deisel engine in a sports car is a complete no-no but Audi are experts at marketing and they definitely sell.
For me, I just couldn't handle driving something with so much weight at the front end. Maybe this is an oversteer suicide suggestion but I feel it's a shame the TT wasn't mid engined/RWD.
Yeah, given the shape of the car and the fact that the back seats are nigh-on useless, it would seem to me that a mid-engine configuration could have been on the designers minds.For me, I just couldn't handle driving something with so much weight at the front end. Maybe this is an oversteer suicide suggestion but I feel it's a shame the TT wasn't mid engined/RWD.
I've got a petrol (2.0TFSI) and although it's a great car with a good mix of good performance, excellent comfort, great looks, economy (sort of) and reasonable practicality - it's definitely not what I would call a sports car. More like a 'designer' version of a hot hatch.
The TTS or TTRS however ...
Hot Potatoes said:
Tonberry said:
Polrules said:
However you dress it up it's all about economy.
What you are saying to those in the know is that you want a nice car but can't afford to run the petrol one.
You all know the petrol unit is lighter, responds to throttle input quicker, revs higher etc. You all know the diesel car is compromised by stiffer springs to counter the weight of the engine, that often the diesel equivalent needs bigger discs (hence more unsprung weight) to match the lighter petrol car...I could go on.
End of the day you would pick the petrol car if it cost the same to run.
Nail. Head.What you are saying to those in the know is that you want a nice car but can't afford to run the petrol one.
You all know the petrol unit is lighter, responds to throttle input quicker, revs higher etc. You all know the diesel car is compromised by stiffer springs to counter the weight of the engine, that often the diesel equivalent needs bigger discs (hence more unsprung weight) to match the lighter petrol car...I could go on.
End of the day you would pick the petrol car if it cost the same to run.
People want to be seen in a 'nice' car. People want to impress the neighbours. People can't afford truly nice cars so they buy poverty spec economy examples of 'nice' model of cars.
People only buy A3's, A4's and A5's by the bucket load in diesel spec because they can't afford an RS4 etc but still want to look like they are doing well by having four rings on their bonnet.
If this wasn't the case then they would be perfectly happy in Skoda's latest offering.
To cement this, most of my work colleagues heads would be turned by a 60 plate A5 simply because it is brand new, shiny and an Audi.
If I were to tell them that it's actually a bit cack due to the fact it is an economy special FWD oil burner with a dull engine, they would look at me as if I'm mad.
It's all about image folks.
I also think the MPG has been drummed into are heads, its all relative. for instance my nan wants to buy a new diesel fiesta as her Getz is only doing 29mpg, I had to explain the £££`s she would spend to save a few miles a tank simply isnt worth it.
Lucas Ayde said:
Yeah, given the shape of the car and the fact that the back seats are nigh-on useless, it would seem to me that a mid-engine configuration could have been on the designers minds.
I've got a petrol (2.0TFSI) and although it's a great car with a good mix of good performance, excellent comfort, great looks, economy (sort of) and reasonable practicality - it's definitely not what I would call a sports car. More like a 'designer' version of a hot hatch.
The TTS or TTRS however ...
That's really interesting. From what I've read the current TT is a massive leap in handling from the outgoing model.I've got a petrol (2.0TFSI) and although it's a great car with a good mix of good performance, excellent comfort, great looks, economy (sort of) and reasonable practicality - it's definitely not what I would call a sports car. More like a 'designer' version of a hot hatch.
The TTS or TTRS however ...
I guess ultimately though, it has to sell and part of the success is probably that it is, as you say, extremely comfortable. This must suit a larger market more than rock hard suspension and pin sharp handling so Audi triumph again.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff