Wednesday 24th September 2014

Audi TT Roadster for Paris

And it's, cough, 'openly sporty' according to Audi's official press release

---

We've barely driven the new TT and Audi has gone and chopped the roof off, the new Audi TT Roadster joining the debuts at next week's Paris show.

Roadster the better for showing off that interior

Described in the official press release as 'openly sporty' this perhaps unfortunate turn of phrase will do nothing to curb sniggering among powerfully built types about the stereotypical buyer of two-seat roadsters. But we're above that at PH and wouldn't stoop to exploiting unfortunate translations for cheap laughs.

So we'll instead turn to the words of known romantic Prof Dr Ulrich Hackenberg, Audi's steely head of development. "The concept of designing a compact roadster following clear geometrical rules formed the original idea for the Audi TT in autumn 1994," he says. "With the new TT Roadster, we have developed this concept in a consistent manner and further improved the technical experience in the car." And to think Mazda offered us 'lots of fun' as a key development goal for the new MX-5. Sentimental fools.

310hp TT S Roadster gets all the goodies

For those harbouring dreams of wind in the hair AND adherence to clear geometrical rules the TT Roadster is clearly the one to go for though, the technical features broadly in line with the coupe we've already driven. So the range is headed by a 310hp TT S Quattro with S Tronic dual-clutch transmission, a 230hp 2.0 TFSI in S Tronic Quattro or front-drive manual form also available. As per the coupe line-up there's also a 184hp 2.0 TDI Ultra, all models slightly behind their hardtop equivalents on mpg and CO2 thanks to a c. 90kg weight penalty (the like for like figure comparing a manual 2.0 TFSI manual). This also impacts slightly on performance but we're talking tenths here and there, the additional steel bracing in the A-pillars, sills and between the suspension components increasing torsional stiffness as well as adding the necessary rollover protection.

The power-operated roof is 3kg lighter than before, fully fleece lined for thermal and acoustic insulation and can be lowered at speeds of up to 31mph too. Even with the additional metalwork in the rear bulkhead you still get through-loading ability too and roof up or down you get a full 280 litres of boot space. There's even a hood colour described as 'Jive' should the more stern black or titanium grey options not appeal.

A TT Roadster, following geometric rules yesterday

But even with Audi Space Frame aluminium panels over the steel MQB architecture it's clear there's none of the new MX-5's lightweight minimalism here but then the TT Roadster is a very different beast, even if many of the same stereotypes apply about being, well, openly sporty.

At least that'll afford opportunity to show off your fancy Audi Virtual Cockpit, the new multi configurable binnacle display flagged by Audi as one of the technical highlights of the car. As also seen on the Lamborghini Huracan and, of course, the coupe version of the TT too the display neatly declutters the dashboard and demonstrates Audi's mastery of interior design. Roof up or down and regardless of true sporting potential the TT Roadster will prove a nice place to be, probably the most important target it had to hit.

[Ex Boy Racer]

Pretty car

[DoubleSix]

Ex Boy Racer said:

Pretty car

For pretty girls...

[kambites]

Looks nice. Makes a lot more senes than the coupe, really.

Edited by kambites on Wednesday 24th September 11:50

[Dave Hedgehog]

if the S is 40k whats this going to come in at? 50k?

[Lost soul]

I would buy it just to have that dash

[zcacogp]

As openly sporty as a game of pub darts, methinks. It's all a bit sad really; it will be popular because of what it looks like rather than because it's a good car. Beauty is skin deep, and this remains a FWD hatchback in a pretty frock.

Would I have one? Not a chance.


Oli.

[oldtimer2]

Steel joined to aluminium are not necessarily the best of friends over time. Yet we are seeing more and more of it in new cars as a wight saving measure. Can anyone say how they will remain friends? Did Audi or Dr Hackenburg offer any enlightenment?

[kambites]

oldtimer2 said:

Steel joined to aluminium are not necessarily the best of friends over time. Yet we are seeing more and more of it in new cars as a wight saving measure. Can anyone say how they will remain friends? Did Audi or Dr Hackenburg offer any enlightenment?

Interesting question, how are they attached and how do they avoid sacrificial corrosion of the aluminium?

[mike-r]

Is the main picture in the article a photograph? The back end looks like a cartoon.

[Dan Trent]

mike-r said:

Is the main picture in the article a photograph? The back end looks like a cartoon.

Audi's press department does like getting busy with its digital airbrush but they are - or were - photos. We'll get some of the car in the metal next week at Paris though.

Cheers,

Dan

[anonymous-user]

Dull, dull, dull.

[anonymous-user]

People spouting the same old st

[aka_kerrly]

MonkeyMatt said:

People spouting the same old st

Pathetic isn't it.

No one has driven one yet and very few would have seen one in the metal yet people are still trotting out the tired old "its a golf in a frock"

No, it's built using a chassis system that shares some parts with the Golf but is configured differently eg is the wheelbase the same, is the centre of gravity the same, the same weight distribution, the same suspension settings, suspension geometry.

There are literally hundreds of variables that can be adjusted using the MBQ chassis which can change how the car ultimately drives/behaves.

Also strange that the Golf that shares the platform has had plenty of good reviews, even from "that Harris chap"

[X5TUU]

DoubleSix said:

Ex Boy Racer said:

Pretty car

For pretty girls...

what a dick comment to make ...

anyway, back on topic ... you can see the harks back to the mk1 in the bulbous wheel arches, looks nice, I would def buy one as a daily ... none of this oil burner malarkey though for me

[zcacogp]

aka_kerrly said:

Pathetic isn't it.

No one has driven one yet and very few would have seen one in the metal yet people are still trotting out the tired old "its a golf in a frock"

No, it's built using a chassis system that shares some parts with the Golf but is configured differently eg is the wheelbase the same, is the centre of gravity the same, the same weight distribution, the same suspension settings, suspension geometry.

There are literally hundreds of variables that can be adjusted using the MBQ chassis which can change how the car ultimately drives/behaves.

Also strange that the Golf that shares the platform has had plenty of good reviews, even from "that Harris chap"

Very true; people can set up a chassis for very particular tastes and the changes that can be wrought by a competent chassis engineer are vast. It is quite possible that this will feel significantly different to a Golf/Octavia/Caddy to drive.

But the simple fact is that the fundamentals of a car design have far more influence on how good a driver's car it can be. A front-engined FWD chassis will never reach the pinnacle of driving quality; that is the preserve of RWD machines. You can tweak a compromise to make it reasonable but the Golf chassis will always be just that; a compromise. Drive something less compromised and with rather more potential and you'll see what I mean.

The Golf does get good reviews - as an all-rounder it is excellent. Big boot, four seats, spacious interior, reasonable driving experience, good fuel economy. It's an excellent compromise between several opposing demands. Which is why the TT is so absurd; you have compromised driving abilities and drivetrain with none of the benefits of a large boot/four seats/lots of space inside. Here we surely have a car that can only sell on it's looks. (And at a price like that, a Cayman/Z4 makes far, far more sense to someone who cares about driving.)

Just my £0.02's worth.


Oli.

[Chienmetallique]

X5TUU said:

... none of this oil burner malarkey though for me

You haven't owned a TFSI engine then! Burns plenty of oil.

[soad]

Actually, I like it - looks good to me. Even though I'll almost certainly never buy one.
The interior looks both sporty and premium.

[tomjol]

Must every TT related thread follow the same depressing pattern?

They've been flogging the things for sixteen years now, I think everybody is already aware that it's "compromised", it doesn't need wheeling out every fking time.

[anonymous-user]

aka_kerrly said:

Pathetic isn't it.

No one has driven one yet and very few would have seen one in the metal yet people are still trotting out the tired old "its a golf in a frock"

No, it's built using a chassis system that shares some parts with the Golf but is configured differently eg is the wheelbase the same, is the centre of gravity the same, the same weight distribution, the same suspension settings, suspension geometry.

There are literally hundreds of variables that can be adjusted using the MBQ chassis which can change how the car ultimately drives/behaves.

Also strange that the Golf that shares the platform has had plenty of good reviews, even from "that Harris chap"

That may all be true, but it still looks as dull as a dull thing - no imagination in the styling at all - most folk would be hard pushed to tell that from a Mk1 - which, like the Mk2, IMO, looked very dull too.

[scherzkeks]

zcacogp said:

Very true; people can set up a chassis for very particular tastes and the changes that can be wrought by a competent chassis engineer are vast. It is quite possible that this will feel significantly different to a Golf/Octavia/Caddy to drive.

But the simple fact is that the fundamentals of a car design have far more influence on how good a driver's car it can be. A front-engined FWD chassis will never reach the pinnacle of driving quality; that is the preserve of RWD machines. You can tweak a compromise to make it reasonable but the Golf chassis will always be just that; a compromise. Drive something less compromised and with rather more potential and you'll see what I mean.

The Golf does get good reviews - as an all-rounder it is excellent. Big boot, four seats, spacious interior, reasonable driving experience, good fuel economy. It's an excellent compromise between several opposing demands. Which is why the TT is so absurd; you have compromised driving abilities and drivetrain with none of the benefits of a large boot/four seats/lots of space inside. Here we surely have a car that can only sell on it's looks. (And at a price like that, a Cayman/Z4 makes far, far more sense to someone who cares about driving.)

Just my £0.02's worth.


Oli.

Pinnacle of driving quality. Depending on conditions, road/track layout, driver preference, and tires, results will vary for the different chassis types.
I always think of this article whenever a certified member of the PH Driving God club orates from on high: http://home.comcast.net/~cvetters3/test1.htm

And even within your own somewhat narrow classification system, I'm not so sure that a Cayman and a Z4 are in the same class as "drivers' cars"