Audi TT 225 or Z3 2.8?

[DanielJames]

Evening all!

I'm looking at getting a roadster, my budget is upto around £5k and the main limitation is insurance!

I will be doing around 50 miles per day, so 30mpg would be nice and I think both these cars will do that...

BMW Z3:
Pros: RWD, straight 6, cheaper than the TT, perhaps a more raw driving experience?
Cons: No modern cons (aircon, cruise etc)

Audi TT:
Pros: Climate/cruise/trip computer etc - modern style, easily tuned, cheaper insurance
Cons: apparently dull to drive? probably will be a bit thirstier than the Z3?

So obviously I'm going to drive them both, but people that have owned either cars I'm looking for your feedback

regards
Dan

[Dracoro]

Sure you can get aircon/cruise/trip computer on the z3.

The Z3 I rented back in 2001 had air con.

[Sam.F]

The TT doesn't have cruise control as standard IIRC.

My Dad used to run a 225 coupe which would easily return 40mpg on a relatively gentle run. Lovely interior and great BOSE stereo.

[DanielJames]

Dracoro said:

Sure you can get aircon/cruise/trip computer on the z3.

The Z3 I rented back in 2001 had air con.

Sorry meant climate control! They all have cruise IIRC

[Vulgar LS2]

I've got a face lift 2.8 Z3, it's got electric sports seats (like the Z3M) heated seats, air con and a few other bits but didn't come with cruise control. I've had mine for 6 years and not cost me a penny, if you can get one with a hard top it gives you a heated screen. I think mine will be sold this year.

[clan]

I sold my 98 Z3 2.8 and bought a facelift 2003 TT 225, I'm afraid there is no comparison between the cars, the TT is way better in nearly every way. Its quick, comfortable and handles reasonably well and feels a lot more stable at speed, it gets better fuel consumption and the cabin just feels a better place to be. Mine has been chipped/ mapped to 265 bhp and I'm about to upgrade the ARB's which should transform the handling. For me its just feels a more modern place to be.

[DanielJames]

clan said:

I sold my 98 Z3 2.8 and bought a facelift 2003 TT 225, I'm afraid there is no comparison between the cars, the TT is way better in nearly every way. Its quick, comfortable and handles reasonably well and feels a lot more stable at speed, it gets better fuel consumption and the cabin just feels a better place to be. Mine has been chipped/ mapped to 265 bhp and I'm about to upgrade the ARB's which should transform the handling. For me its just feels a more modern place to be.

Did you go for the convertible or the hard top pal? Much wind noise if you got the roadster?

[clan]

DanielJames said:

Did you go for the convertible or the hard top pal? Much wind noise if you got the roadster?

I went for the tin top, I was looking for the extra practicality of having the seats in the back (only for my nine year old right enough).

[300bhp/ton]

DanielJames said:

Evening all!

I'm looking at getting a roadster, my budget is upto around £5k and the main limitation is insurance!

I will be doing around 50 miles per day, so 30mpg would be nice and I think both these cars will do that...

BMW Z3:
Pros: RWD, straight 6, cheaper than the TT, perhaps a more raw driving experience?
Cons: No modern cons (aircon, cruise etc)

Audi TT:
Pros: Climate/cruise/trip computer etc - modern style, easily tuned, cheaper insurance
Cons: apparently dull to drive? probably will be a bit thirstier than the Z3?

So obviously I'm going to drive them both, but people that have owned either cars I'm looking for your feedback

regards
Dan

I think this is pretty easy spilt tbh. The Z3 will feel like a sports car, and while some claim it has a floppy chassis, it is still going to be the most fun, the most hooligan and the most grin inducing to drive. It'll also sound the best and be the best handling.

The TT looks ok, but you can't help feeling it's a hatchback in a pretty frock. And it won't be anywhere near as much fun to be in. The biggest difference is the 1.8T is quite tunable if you are wanting more HP. But power doesn't mean it'll automatically be more fun behind the wheel.

[Jw Vw]

Out of the two I would plump for the Z3. Much more fun IMO. Why don't you keep the 3-Series abit longer?

[300bhp/ton]

DanielJames said:

Evening all!

I'm looking at getting a roadster, my budget is upto around £5k and the main limitation is insurance!

I will be doing around 50 miles per day, so 30mpg would be nice and I think both these cars will do that...

BMW Z3:
Pros: RWD, straight 6, cheaper than the TT, perhaps a more raw driving experience?
Cons: No modern cons (aircon, cruise etc)

Audi TT:
Pros: Climate/cruise/trip computer etc - modern style, easily tuned, cheaper insurance
Cons: apparently dull to drive? probably will be a bit thirstier than the Z3?

So obviously I'm going to drive them both, but people that have owned either cars I'm looking for your feedback

regards
Dan

BTW - if you want an economical Roadster... try something like a MK3 MR2 or an MGTF. You'll lose out on the luxury side, but they'll be lighter and more sports car like.

Edited by 300bhp/ton on Sunday 15th January 14:47

[al1991]

TT.

I don't think it would use more fuel than a Z3 either?

Know someone who had one when they were new, cained it all the time and got mid 30s I seem to remember.

[kambites]

The mk3 MR2 is a vastly better drivers' car than either, IMO. So is the MX5 and, for that matter, the MG TF.

[jjones]

you will be lucky to get 30mpg in the tt, mine used to average 28 at best (standard 225 car)

[motco]

A close family member of mine had a 'W' plate TT 225 Roadster. He said that the interior was the most wonderful place to be whilst waiting for the RAC to rescue him after yet another breakdown. Clutch pedal broke, gear selector fork broke, dash pod failed immobilising the car, clutch and DMF failed, timing belt stripped its teeth causing a thousand pound bill long before belt change was due, an HID headlight failed and Audi quoted more than £600 just for the labour to fix it*, there is more but memory fails me. I have a 2.2 Z3 and it does have aircon but not cruise, that can be retrofitted to the later ones easily. It handles far better than those who criticise it think it does. On a recent trackday it was drifting along with the best and could be held in a neutral slide more easily than any TT with its very intrusive ESP system You can turn off the DSC on the Z3 but never quite turn off the TT's equivalent. The TT understeers heavily but the Z3 does what you want to a great degree.

• I did it for a £100 second hand ballast.

[Kitchski]

I've only ever driven a TT. Based on my experiences I'd get a Z3. Even a bright pink one.

[anonymous-user]

I've driven a first gen TT - it was a late model "sport" with extra power (250bhp?). What a drab lump of a thing that was - I've heard bad things about the Z3 but I cannot imagine it's less of a sports car than the TT. Never has 250bhp in a small car been so fking dull.

[6fire]

I've owned neither but driven both.

The Z3 is a laugh - it feels like a sports car. It's fun, noisy, a little bit crashy and raw.

The TT is as dull as ditchwater but a nicer place to be.

Of the two, I'd probably buy the TT - but only because I tend to do a long motorway schlep on a Friday night and Monday morning, and that would be *much* more pleasant in the TT. For everything else, I'd have the Z3.

[stargazer30]

I have a Mk3 MR2. Test drove a TT 225 when I was after something faster. In a word, no. Those things weigh about 1400kg and you really notice it. The brakes are shocking and it was too dull/heavy. Mind you, really nice interior, comfy and they won't spit you off the road backwards in poor weather or if you lift off the gas mid bend so depends on what your after really.

[Matt UK]

I've driven both - really sorry OP, but if I had £5k for a roadster I wouldn't be considering either.