The Audi TT Diesel
Discussion
oldcynic said:
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.
PistonHeads - image matters.
slipstream 1985 said:
i think you just proved a point you were argueing against. i drive a cheap to run, economical, comfortable, relaxing drive in the real world car that is also cheaper insurance, cheaper road tax, and much cheaper to fuel but want to be seen to be driving a car perceived as a sports car
PistonHeads - image matters.
I'm arguing against blinkered prejudice, and judging people by the car they drive (or at least what fuel it uses).PistonHeads - image matters.
There's a world of difference between buying a car because you like it & can afford it, and buying a car because you think your peers will be impressed. It's also entirely possible to buy a car because your friend or neighbour bought one and loved it so much - that's not peer pressure, it's buying on personal recommendation and experience.
I'm arguing that most people will buy a car because they like it and can afford to run it, although I accept that there will always be a minority who buy it to impress the neighbours.
PistonHeads - Personal preference matters, and f
k what everyones else thinks unless of course they agree with mePolrules 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.
Do what?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.
TT 06-11 3.2 V6 - 1410 KG 27MPG 0-60 - 5.7s (manual)
TT 06-11 2.0 TFSI - 1260 KG 36MPG 0-60 - 6.4 (manual - and not the latest TFSI engine)
TT 06-11 2.0 TDI - 1370 KG 53MPG 0-60 - 7.3s
So bizarrely, you have the heaviest car here is the fastest and the least economical. And the engine in the TT is the 170 CR engine and not the rattly old PD one, so its widely regarded as a bit of a sweet one, as diesels go.
I would assume that your arguments on the disks, weight, stiffer springs and everything else goes out of the window. BMW have had light weight diesels for a while and VAG have introduced their CR units across virtually everything they do. The days of cast iron diesel engines with crap handing was good few years ago. The market has moved on and things have massively improved.
If I was in the market for a good looking car and I didnt need practicality, why not look at a diesel coupe. Its your choice at the end of the day and the frankly incorrect views spouted here are just plain wrong. And if I was a company car driver or someone who did 20,000+ miles a year, you would a brave person to NOT go for a diesel these days!
Some folks on here are going to get very angry when the SLK diesel comes out.
Not sure if some people on here realised, but there are diesel verions of:
BMW 3 series coupe
BMW 6 series coupe and convertible
Audi A5 coupe and Convertible
Volvo C70 cc
Scirocco
EOS
Saab 9-3 convertible
Mini inc convertible
Merc CLS
various alpinas
There is even a Tesla roadster with BATTERIES!
Not sure if some people on here realised, but there are diesel verions of:
BMW 3 series coupe
BMW 6 series coupe and convertible
Audi A5 coupe and Convertible
Volvo C70 cc
Scirocco
EOS
Saab 9-3 convertible
Mini inc convertible
Merc CLS
various alpinas
There is even a Tesla roadster with BATTERIES!
rallycross said:
Only a fool would buy a convertible diesel.
Maybe someone likes having the roof down on sunny days but also needs to do a large amount of miles, hence the convertible diesel.Jesus christ why does it matter what people drive?
As per the topic of the thread:
My parents had the current shape 2.0 petrol TT for a few years. Absolutely lovely car. Lovely interior, lovely exterior and plenty of go. Not the be all and end all of sports car greatness I'm sure (who really gives a f
k?) but a great car all the same. If my mum (who eventually drove the car more often than my dad) drove a lot more and needed to make long journeys, then I dare say she'dve got the diesel TT. Wouldn't have been a bad choice either.
J4CKO said:
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.
Bang right my friend.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.
off_again said:
Do what?
TT 06-11 3.2 V6 - 1410 KG 27MPG 0-60 - 5.7s (manual)
TT 06-11 2.0 TFSI - 1260 KG 36MPG 0-60 - 6.4 (manual - and not the latest TFSI engine)
TT 06-11 2.0 TDI - 1370 KG 53MPG 0-60 - 7.3s
So bizarrely, you have the heaviest car here is the fastest and the least economical. And the engine in the TT is the 170 CR engine and not the rattly old PD one, so its widely regarded as a bit of a sweet one, as diesels go.
I would assume that your arguments on the disks, weight, stiffer springs and everything else goes out of the window. BMW have had light weight diesels for a while and VAG have introduced their CR units across virtually everything they do. The days of cast iron diesel engines with crap handing was good few years ago. The market has moved on and things have massively improved.
If I was in the market for a good looking car and I didnt need practicality, why not look at a diesel coupe. Its your choice at the end of the day and the frankly incorrect views spouted here are just plain wrong. And if I was a company car driver or someone who did 20,000+ miles a year, you would a brave person to NOT go for a diesel these days!
A couple of points if I may...TT 06-11 3.2 V6 - 1410 KG 27MPG 0-60 - 5.7s (manual)
TT 06-11 2.0 TFSI - 1260 KG 36MPG 0-60 - 6.4 (manual - and not the latest TFSI engine)
TT 06-11 2.0 TDI - 1370 KG 53MPG 0-60 - 7.3s
So bizarrely, you have the heaviest car here is the fastest and the least economical. And the engine in the TT is the 170 CR engine and not the rattly old PD one, so its widely regarded as a bit of a sweet one, as diesels go.
I would assume that your arguments on the disks, weight, stiffer springs and everything else goes out of the window. BMW have had light weight diesels for a while and VAG have introduced their CR units across virtually everything they do. The days of cast iron diesel engines with crap handing was good few years ago. The market has moved on and things have massively improved.
If I was in the market for a good looking car and I didnt need practicality, why not look at a diesel coupe. Its your choice at the end of the day and the frankly incorrect views spouted here are just plain wrong. And if I was a company car driver or someone who did 20,000+ miles a year, you would a brave person to NOT go for a diesel these days!
- The fastest car is the most powerful, but not by as much as you might think - because of it's weight.
- The diesel weighs 110kg more than the petrol - like having a fat bloke permanently on your bonnet. It IS going to lose out on ultimate cornering ability & WILL use consumables quicker.
- Selfishly, I've worked out the following based on my annual mileage of 10k and using the average mpg you quoted above...
Petrol - 10000/36 = 277.78gal = 1262.7l = £1626.45 (@£1.28/l)
Diesel - 10000/53 = 188.68gal = 857.74l = £1149.37 (@£1.34/l)
I'm not convinced a saving of £477 is worth the bother? Cheaper tax you say?
Tax
- petrol = £180/yr
- diesel = £110/yr
So I guess I could save myself another £70 by going diesel - not really much though is it.
If I was in the market for a new Coupe, and like most people these days, had misgivings about economy, I would look at the above numbers, realise diesel isn't all it's hyped up to be and buy the petrol.
But I agree if you are doing spaceship mileages diesel starts to make more sense.
Polrules said:
The diesel weighs 110kg more than the petrol - like having a fat bloke permanently on your bonnet.
See my earlier posts - the current 2.0 Quattro diesel weighs just 10kg more than the current 2.0 Quattro petrol.And for the costings, try doubling the mileage and imagine spending £1000 of your own money to drive for work. Also I'm not convinced diesel is 6p more than petrol - it was nearer 2p last time I checked (but the gap may have widened)
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff