# Official MK2 pictures...



## ross2280 (May 11, 2005)

Official pictures over on Fourtitude...

http://www.fourtitude.com/news/publish/Audi_News/article_2142.shtml


----------



## TwilighT (Feb 10, 2005)

I can't decide whether I liked it or not, but I'm sure I wasn't impressed like when I first saw the TT. It's mostly because I own a TT and got used to it's looks. I guess most of us want a diffirent car but as stylish as the MK1 TT..

the interiror looks good..






















































The real TT was a conjunction of many stylish parts that were harmonious with each other.. The air wents in the middle, the gas cap, symmetrical head and rear lights, symmetrical wheel arches, the TT logo in stereo cover, the seat heater buttons etc..

Look at this pic, doesn't it look beautiful


----------



## TwilighT (Feb 10, 2005)

the rear..


----------



## Mackem (May 22, 2002)

Now that's doubly undecided! 

Me too.


----------



## TwilighT (Feb 10, 2005)

Official Photos


























































































Other Photos


----------



## p1tse (Sep 20, 2004)

the interior is similar to the shooting brake


----------



## khewett (Jan 16, 2005)

Has some nice touchs, but I'm not feeling the love...


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

The only thing i dont like is the front lights - too weedy. The cabin looks top quality and lots of toys.


----------



## bmx (May 25, 2003)

i dont like it


----------



## ObiWan (Sep 25, 2005)

I like it, I am pleased they have not been to radical


----------



## GW1970 (Jul 4, 2005)

Audi have done a good job - looks good. Just could never quite recapture the magic of the mk1 IMO


----------



## vagman (Sep 6, 2002)

ross2280 said:


> Official pictures over on Fourtitude...
> 
> [smiley=sick2.gif] [url=http://www....w.fourtitude.com/news/publish/ ... 2142.shtml


Hmmmm.........that thing has the profile of a Crossfire. [smiley=sick2.gif]

The front looks like a Focus. [smiley=sick2.gif]

And the wheels, at least on this car, are pathetic. [smiley=skull.gif]

The clear winner is the BMW Z4 Coupe. 8)

n.b. Nice interior, though.


----------



## TwilighT (Feb 10, 2005)

Comparisions.. post your coments..



























shooting brake interior, looks like it's more advanced :? 

























the rear..


----------



## NaughTTy (Jul 9, 2003)

Mahoosive front end overhang :?


----------



## L7 (Aug 27, 2004)

NaughTTy said:


> Mahoosive front end overhang :?


Exactly, looking at the two cars together given a choice i'd take the mk1 on looks.


----------



## The Curse (Mar 28, 2006)

Change the alloys and I'd say the mkII.


----------



## Mattyp (Oct 22, 2005)

I'd give it 7 out of 10. Not a bad effort, but definitely not inspired as the MK 1 obviously was.

It was always going to be an almost impossible task for Audi to improve on one the best car designs of the 20th century IMO, and I for one won't be rushing down to the stealers with my Â£1500.00 deposit. I think that money might be better spent on a nice set of adjustable coilovers, some spacers and a performance haldex!


----------



## Dino_Donis (Apr 19, 2004)

Prefer the Mk1 with the MK2 interior. Mk2 looks like a 'toned down' version of the MK1. Those wheels are not good look like 17"???
What are the performance figures??? Engine Options??


----------



## Raz225TTC (Feb 24, 2006)

audi proved you can't replace a classic. apart from the front grill and steering wheel, theres nothing I really like about it.


----------



## Naresh (Nov 22, 2004)

I quite like the design, not too radical - just an evolutionary progression on the Mk1. 8) Is it safe to assume this is the final design that will hit the showrooms later this year?? :roll:


----------



## scottk (Nov 7, 2004)

I dont think Audi could really have come up with something radically better because the MK I is such a beauty already!

I'd put money on it being a better drive though!


----------



## J55TTC (Apr 25, 2005)

Twilight, is that your TT parked under the bridge?

Awesome TT and awesome photo!

You wouldnt have a high res copy for my desktop would you? Apart from 18's instead you those 19's you can hardly tell the difference between mine and that one.


----------



## deckard (Apr 4, 2005)

Overhangs!!! Reminds me of a Peugoeot 407 Coupe [smiley=thumbsdown.gif]


----------



## James1000 (Jul 25, 2005)

Its a nice looking car. 
And thats the problem, the mk 1 was and still is a phenominal looking car. 
Overall Im happy. Its certainly no flop, but at the same time Im confident its not going to smash down mk1 residuals, as I believe demand will remain high for the original classic.
Im sure the mk 2 will be my next car, but Im happy to hang on to mine for another couple of years safe in the knowledge Ill get a good price when I come to sell.

Interesting that I have various photoshops from a couple of years back of the mk2, and the new TT seems to have taken parts from each picture! Maybe Audi didnt bother spending cash on design, instead simply waiting for the work to be done for them by the enthusiast photos :lol:


----------



## daforce (Oct 8, 2003)

Looks OK, but next to the MK1 it appears all too bland and boring the MK1 is chunky and compact with bags of class which is what made me buy one.

I'm not sure about the interior either the only bits i like are the wheel and the sat nav screen, the MK1 has more metal which i think suits the style of what the TT represents....you could lift the MK2 interior out and drop it in any Audi in the range and it wouldn't look out of place, try that with the MK1 interior and it would look wrong IMHO.

I'm certainly not going to rush down the the dealers to put a deposit down but may have a test drive when its realeased.


----------



## Nick225TT (Oct 13, 2004)

The wheels look lost in the those arches, and the front in way too heavy.

MKI for me at the moment. May change my mind when I see it for real.

Engines are the same as Golf/A3 and needed more power.

Only get Quattro with the V6 lump.... and stuck with fwd for the 4 pot


----------



## L8_0RGY (Sep 12, 2003)

It's funny you know, when I watched the presentation I was thinking 'wow, this is far better than the photoshops I have seen but now I've seen it in still life (photos) I'm not so sure.

It seems to me to be a cross between the new Merc CLS and the BMW 6 series. I'm a fan of the 6 series, but not the CLS and the rear isn't prominent enough for my liking.

Also, I heard they were going to put a 4.2 litre engine in the new TT but they stuck with a 2.0T and 3.2. The 3.2 is only marginally faster than the existing TT and we don't the price yet (do we?) of the new marque so I think Audi may have come a little unstuck with this.

The wheels also seem to small - are they 18's? They look more like 16s or 17s.

The interior also seems more bland than our current one which is much commented on, yes they have included full screen sat nav but this isn't really necessary. This again leans more towards the Beema market.


----------



## L8_0RGY (Sep 12, 2003)

TwilighT said:


> Other Photos


Back to a black gear stick and no lcd display for the air-con - wtf???

Is this supposed to be a Back to the Future trip?

A multi function steering wheel for me would've been a must however the one thing I do like is the TT logo on the revo but I've just noticed it only revs to 6200 whereas the 3.2 and maybe the others go to 6600.


----------



## ctgilles (Jul 5, 2005)

I like it. A lot. I want one


----------



## Dogmatic6 (May 7, 2002)

I think its a nice car  but I have a problem. Why does it remind me of a ford cougar?

I know it doesn't look like one but thats what's poping into my head.

weird...


----------



## Mrs Wallsendmag (Dec 13, 2005)

I like it ,it looks like an update of the original instead of something completeley new


----------



## daforce (Oct 8, 2003)

It reminds me of a Volvo C70 the bonnet has the same lines...it's not individual enough there's too many other cars spinging to mind when i look at it!!


----------



## DXN (May 18, 2002)

I think its close to what was expected. 

I think(for what its worth)
we will see a wider range of engine specs released in a time order
I reckon the larger bonnet will accomadate a RS version 2010
A lowered version (I hope)
Bigger alloys
More choice in interior sat nav etc
A silver knob on the S-Line version :lol:

I think its a result but not as stocky and compact as the mark 1.

I'd have one of each 8)


----------



## AL_B (Jun 19, 2002)

Hmmmmm, comparing them side by side...MK1 (especially on those big wheels) looks just perfect. Unfussy. Simple. Same with the interior. The MK1 is simply a design icon.

The overhang comment was a good one - the MK1 looks great and stocky in comparison to the MK2.

I like the MK2, but its one of those cars that will have to grow on you I think.

AL


----------



## Mrs Wallsendmag (Dec 13, 2005)

UK specs are normally quite different from mainland Europe (steering wheel aside) so expect bigger wheels


----------



## ResB (Apr 17, 2005)

AL_B said:


> Hmmmmm, comparing them side by side...MK1 (especially on those big wheels) looks just perfect. Unfussy. Simple. Same with the interior. The MK1 is simply a design icon.
> 
> The overhang comment was a good one - the MK1 looks great and stocky in comparison to the MK2.
> 
> ...


I concur.


----------



## DXN (May 18, 2002)

Wallsendmag II said:


> UK specs are normally quite different from mainland Europe (steering wheel aside) so expect bigger wheels


good point 
what is on the german web site is likely to be different in the UK

including the prices :?


----------



## kmpowell (May 6, 2002)

I really was hoping that Audi would pull something out of the bag on this one, but IMO they haven't. From those pictures it just looks all wrong wrong wrong, and completely mis-proportioned. 

Ok, it will handle better, drive better and the interior will have more toys, but it certainly is no looker. If they do a RS version, i pray it will be beefed up, and only then will it be worth considering.

Poor show Audi, you have made the mistake of trying to improve a classic, but looking at those pictures, you have just gone backwards and made a pigs breakfast outta it.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

Unremarkable. Not about to lure me back into an Audi.

Quite like the steeing wheel.


----------



## Love_iTT (Aug 18, 2002)

I'm just soooo glad I didn't rush out and sell my TTR in readiness for the MkII - I would have kicked myself. The Mk I coupe is still one of the most evocative shapes on a car that I know of.

Sorry, not for me :?

Graham


----------



## Marque (Jun 4, 2003)

Interesting. What I would say is:

[1] Side profile very sharp shounder line compared to Mk1. For my interest I do like the Mk1 gentle curvacious body, it gives the impression of solidity (a trip Merc have been doing for years, the gentler the angle the preception that it is stronger) as opposed to the rather "Edge" related profile already recognised on the Ford Cougar.
[a] We still have the aliens but do we have adaptive bi Xenon headlights?
* Thank god the roof rails have gone - at least they appear to have disappeared.
[c] I do concur the front overhang has increased - to deliver pedestrian safety I am sure but why not move the wheels forward?
[d] Why a high and low level brake light. Surely if you're seeing the one 6 inches off the ground you've already dropped the bike and are actively contracting road rash with Isaac Newton as pillion.
[e] Symetrical reversing lights...a nice touch
[2] Interior - why 3 centre vents? Looks a bit cluttered in comparison to MK1. And stainless steel/chrome on a streeing wheel - I ask you!
[a] However the shielded knee restraints wil be more forgiving in an accident.
 Looks like Handbrake has an integrated arm rest from the image.
[c] I would of hoped that eight dimple motif could have been kept on the vents and filler cap. The shape of my finger tips is still curved & the dimples do fit the hand better that a rather cubist alternative.
[3] No 2.0L quattro? That's a disappointment. Looks like Quatto will be retained for top f the line models - and that's 3.2 upwards.
[4] ASF a great improvement.

Not wishing to decry the 3.2 but I do hope the car's better balanced. In summation, more technical drawing execise than organic athleticity embodied in a proportioned body.

Mk1 will be safe bet for some time I think.*


----------



## DXN (May 18, 2002)

I still don't know how much room there will be in the back seat. :?

It looks a lot longer but any pics of this anywhere?

Had to laugh when ronaldo got into the back and immediately looked into the rear as if to say "still no room"


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

Dogmatic6 said:


> I think its a nice car  but I have a problem. Why does it remind me of a ford cougar?
> 
> I know it doesn't look like one but thats what's poping into my head.
> 
> weird...


That's exactly what's going on in my head (not much else, I grant you). The rear looks exactly like the Cougar to me.

Otherwise, I like it. Looking at the competition, and the MKI, on the Autobild website, the MKII does make them all (a part from the Cayman, perhaps) look old in comparison.

The front does need tinkering with, though. It reminds me of a frog. Those lights are too cute for a sports coupe. It needs some beefing up. However, the car looks very different depending on the angle the picture is taken from.

Anyone mentioned the astonishing 0-60 times? The 3.2 does it in 5.7 secs, 0.7 less than the MKI. The 2.0 TFSI time is 6.4sec, which is 1.0 secs quicker than the outgoing 190. That's awesome. How much lighter is this car compared to the MkI?


----------



## DXN (May 18, 2002)

Marque said:


> [c] I would of hoped that eight dimple motif could have been kept on the vents and filler cap. The shape of my finger tips is still curved & the dimples do fit the hand better that a rather cubist alternative.












Its still there but like the rest of the car its stretched


----------



## Jac-in-a-Box (Nov 9, 2002)

Looking at it, it's hardly "evolution" If it was, I'd expect see more of the MKI - I see none of it.

Looks bland and uninspiring.

Dave


----------



## J55TTC (Apr 25, 2005)

Marque:

The lower light is the fog lamp


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

some of the same pictures on topgear website too.


----------



## TTotal (Aug 12, 2002)

Had the pleasure of being at Autocar mag with Helen Wak and Jamie for the "launch" this afternoon, so watch out for next weeks issue with our photos in it ! 
We noticed..

Awful steering wheel doughnut  
Sloping sill line from back wheel down to front. 8) 
Seperate fog light with assymetrical rear clusters(its not another brake light) 8) 
Indicators in the door mirrors(thanks Graham!)
One piece door glass without quarterlight 8) 
Lack of dimple theme in the cabin  
The nasty crease around the waist wrapping round the rear bumper  
Additional dash vents :? 
Tow eye panel in rear bumper 

Not my cup of tea so far [smiley=thumbsdown.gif]


----------



## Marque (Jun 4, 2003)

J55TTC - ahh hah - that starts to make sense!

Re the loss of the dimples to be releced with a rectangular depression than unless you've got Fish Fingers it's still not going to be a good fit.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

The fourtitude article talks of options like trick dampers, and a few other mechanical bits...

Also the MMI interface, Bluetooth, etc etc.

It certainly has some technical promise, maybe needs a nice (non-silver) colour to bring out the lines, and needs an S or RS version with a proper engine.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Anyone know how to reprogram it so it comes up at 20mph and not 75 :lol:

WAK i'll be round - get reading


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

jampott said:


> The fourtitude article talks of options like trick dampers, and a few other mechanical bits...
> 
> Also the MMI interface, Bluetooth, etc etc.
> 
> It certainly has some technical promise, maybe needs a nice (non-silver) colour to bring out the lines, and needs an S or RS version with a proper engine.


RED


----------



## AxlFoley (Mar 26, 2005)

from what i have seen so far its growing on me, but i think its a car that needs to bee seen in the flesh to get a reall appretiation of how good it looks.

mind you the ass end looks really UGLY


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

At least the poor thing starts life with a decent 4 pot this time.


----------



## AxlFoley (Mar 26, 2005)

And im not keen on the stub on the roof :?


----------



## DXN (May 18, 2002)

jampott said:


> and needs an S or RS version with a proper engine.


Like the V6 people will say it will never happen but it will. 8)


----------



## Testarossa (Mar 8, 2006)

in the picture message that audi have sent out it looks like a crossfire !!!!


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

AxlFoley said:


> And im not keen on the stub on the roof :?


Audi trying to copy BMW shark fin - also ffeaturees on A6s and A4s. The Audi bee sting was more original. And that's this cars real aesthetic problem. It is completely derivative and contrived where the Mki was innovative and original.

As one who was stunned by original TT concept and received one of first UK TTs in 1999, this is a big let down.

Does Chris Bangle have a half wit brother over in Audi styling? Both Audi and BMW seem determined to challenge and alienate their customers in equal measures through their design language.


----------



## Duggy (May 17, 2005)

What have they done to the interior  ......just another audi, obviously ABSOLUTE philosothy went out the window, down to cost! :?

Its not a bad looking car, like the pop up spoiler at the back, I'm sure the Mk1 would of had the same if they knew then what they know now. :wink:

I'm also sure it drives better, well the V6 maybe........ 2WD on 4 cylinder model seems a BIG mistake :?


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

Testarossa said:


> in the picture message that audi have sent out it looks like a crossfire !!!!


Yep, I can hardly tell the difference. :roll:


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

garyc said:


> At least the poor thing starts life with a decent 4 pot this time.


Are you raving - its a big let down 200bhp, you can get that in a rep car. Its shocking. Ive got a skateboard with more power than that.


----------



## Guest (Apr 6, 2006)

Well I'm off to the Porsche dealer to check out a Camen, nothing like as good a a Mk 1. The interior will be all aluminium painted plastic looking at it, nothing like the spectacularly effective Mk 1 dash.


----------



## AxlFoley (Mar 26, 2005)

Looking better witha change of rims :wink: 








and some subtle changes!


----------



## Top_Gun (Feb 5, 2006)

Hmmm..... looking at the car driving around it did look nice... but the still pictures I agree let the car down a little... The MK1 was chunky with nice curves..... the MK2 looks like it's been on the atkins diet... :lol:

I`m sure Audi will release the V6 version with a better bodykit making it look more agressive so we can spend money again with a V6 conversion - for those of us who couldn`t afford a proper one!


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

some good pictures on the german website.

http://www.audi.de/audi/de/de2/neuwagen ... coupe.html


----------



## TTej (Sep 10, 2003)

You know i think the Mk2 is exactly spot on to what its designed for.

When the Mk1 was about to launch Audi wanted to give it 150bhp. Then when they saw the competition they went all out and gave it 225.

It did wonders for the brand and now Audi is uber cool. Job done.

The new one, isnt ment to be show stopping just a envolution and to be honest i bet Audi dont want us (i.e the TT heads) in them any more. The TT is grown up and got sensible.

Now you know what they making for us........R8 anyone????? Twisted Evil

So far and this is just from the pics

Things i love

Pop up spoiler (forget porsche thats corrado all the way!)
One piece glass (like the Mk2 golf when they did that)
Those side mirrors (bet you see them on every VAG car at edition38)
The squarer front bumper (original was too rounded till we got the V6)
Symetrical lights (nice touch and they look R8 style with a crystal theme)
Front smoked repeater (finally now orange)
Front glass is more wrap around
Steering Wheel race style

Things i dont like

Front lights a lil feminine
The rear fog light in the bumper (just looks cheap)
Turbine wheels (god they are ugly, why didnt we get new Comps)
Interior looks to bland

Things im unsure on

Front grill (looks agressive, maybe too bog)
That swag line (very Z4, but does give it a hunched stance)
Rear end (looks clean, maybe to close to an A3)
3 centre vents (maybe ones just for us to put gauges in)

Well only time will tell, and i hope i win that comp to be the first to drive it!!


----------



## MikeyG (Sep 17, 2005)

Having now seen the still photos, looked at the interior a bit, and watched the videos a couple of times....

When I first saw a MK1 TT, I wanted one, purely on how it looked, it was a beautiful object and looked like nothing else on the road. That had nothing to do with any perceived value, or status, or anything of that sort; it was entirely on the grounds of it being stunning to look at from any angle. I'm still delighted to have bought one of the last MK1s to be built.

The new one is undeniably a nice looking car, but neither the interior nor the exterior are far from any number of other cars available today - it simply doesn't stand out from the crowd enough (particularly the interior - could be my outgoing A6!).

Ignoring that point (whether it stands out or not), it's just less holistically beautiful than the MKI: too fussy; the lines, particularly that upper crease just below the glass, are too complex - it just doesn't work as well as the 'old' one. :?

When the MK1 was launched, there were very few people saying anything other than good things about it - this thread alone (even making allowances for vested interests on everyone's part) shows that the near-unanimity of opinion is absent for the new model.


----------



## James1000 (Jul 25, 2005)

To Quote "Anyone mentioned the astonishing 0-60 times? The 3.2 does it in 5.7 secs, 0.7 less than the MKI".

This for me is simply getting up to speed. The mk 1 shudv been acheiving this with a 3.2 v6 and 249 bhp.
Also doesnt the sport have the same performance with a 1.8l engine? Now thats impressive.


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

That may be so. But what have they done to achieve it? Mess around with the gear ratios? Or the 70% change to aluminium made that much of a difference to the weight. If so, that bodes well for weight distribution - considerin the 30% steel is mostly in the rear.


----------



## Dotti (Mar 9, 2003)

The mk2 looks longer :? . Is it longer?


----------



## Andy B (Mar 23, 2006)

Dotti said:


> The mk2 looks longer :? . Is it longer?


Yes its longer and fat


----------



## paulb (May 6, 2002)

Toshiba said:


> garyc said:
> 
> 
> > At least the poor thing starts life with a decent 4 pot this time.
> ...


There's more to life than power. The new FSI turbo is a far better engine than the old 1.8...

Wonder if they'll do a diesel following on from the R10?


----------



## scoTTy (May 6, 2002)

I'm 99% sure they will. It would be a great vehicle for a TDI from a marketing point of view and since so many are company cars I'm sure it'd sell.

I can't get over how far back the wheels are!! It'll be interesting to rear the reviews but I can't help but think it'll maintain the extremely safe understeer tendancies and if not exagerate them.


----------



## paulb (May 6, 2002)

Must say that either the 170bhp 4 pot or 220 bhp 6 pot diesels would be a very nice option...


----------



## Dotti (Mar 9, 2003)

Will it still have the same sound and whistle as the current TT does anybody know?


----------



## The Silver Surfer (May 14, 2002)

Well, from first impressions, it looks like the MKII will not be my next car. I'm sure it will be a 'nice' car, however from the pictures, the design of the exterior or interior does nothing for me. It's just looks a touch too bland, and looks nowhere near a cohesive a design as the MKI.

Of course, I'll need to see it 'in the flesh' before I make a final judgement.


----------



## skilby99 (Mar 18, 2005)

mmmm, not really feeling the love either...it just dosent have the WOW factor at all, looks too corperate, like they have played it down so it fits in with the rest of the range.

verdict: dissapointed :?


----------



## A3DFU (May 7, 2002)

Sorry, it doesn't float my boat. 

Part of the interior looks A3 like
The lower crease line is too fussy
The boot lip is new A4
Too much overhang at the front

I'll stick with mine


----------



## jamesl (May 15, 2002)

Bland bland bland. I'm not sure what Audi are trying to achieve with this car....apart from steal sales from the prestige small saloon market.

It looks like Audi are trying to reach the widest customer base possible, and in the process not satisfying any one single market completely. It looks dumpier than the Mk1 (admittedly a tough act to follow) and has a touch of the new Focus about the front lights......lets hope it's a decent drive.

Is it actually a four seater as well? Looks a bit cramped in the back.

I don't think I'll be getting rid of my car just yet.

James


----------



## Dotti (Mar 9, 2003)

A3DFU said:


> Sorry, it doesn't float my boat.
> 
> Part of the interior looks A3 like
> The lower crease line is too fussy
> ...


Hi Dani

Also the front looks very similar to an A6 . I suspect they have taken a little bit of eveything else out of the rest of the Audi range also.


----------



## sssgucci (Nov 20, 2004)

I think it will look better in the flesh.


----------



## genocidalduck (May 19, 2005)

Just watched the video...Being dying to watch it all night....I am not disapointed with the looks i think it looks great inside and out. Infacti think it looks stunning. Once you see one in the metal next to a MKI. Then you will realise the MKI is dated. Initial performance im not impressed about...However i expect in a couple of years that will change. If i decide i want a 2 door coupe again. I will happily put my money down on one providing 0-60 times are in the low 5's.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

I don't like it either. Those sharp lines remind me of the bone lines that stick out along a frog's back. Not as round and smooth as the Mk 1


----------



## ttvic (Jul 4, 2003)

Like to see one in the flesh before I decide


----------



## BAMTT (Feb 22, 2004)

I think it looks good i like the interior, shame there is no colour DIS and satnav and the heater control aren't well positioned, but over all nice, and as people have said the MK1 whilst still good looking will look dated when placed next to the MK2,

I noticed its a bit quicker in 3.2 guise, is it lighter ?, does it have haldex or 'proper' torsen 4wd ?

Overall i like it but am a little disapointed in so far as it looks a bit to corporate whereas the MK1 looked like nothing else in the Audi range when introduced,

I will probably go for a 3.2 about 6months after launch, inless of course Audi announce plans for RS version soon


----------



## genocidalduck (May 19, 2005)

BAMTT said:


> I think it looks good i like the interior, shame there is no colour DIS and satnav and the heater control aren't well positioned, but over all nice, and as people have said the MK1 whilst still good looking will look dated when placed next to the MK2,
> 
> I noticed its a bit quicker in 3.2 guise, is it lighter ?, does it have haldex or 'proper' torsen 4wd ?
> 
> ...


If you go to the front page of the forum it will tell you....Its mainly made out of Ali

So that was something Iceman was right about.

Oh and the magnetic dampner things. He later photoshops were almost spot on.

So Iceman whats the MKIII going to look like


----------



## foster2108 (Oct 22, 2004)

I remember when I first saw the Mk1, it was an instant WOW!. There are some nice touches, but overall I just don't like it. I'm sure it will be a better car to live with and drive etc but it just doesn't do it for me. Maybe it will grow on me but I can't see that I'll ever like it enough to buy one.


----------



## Image (Nov 29, 2005)

Once there was the Porsche 993 ..... great car .... Then came the 996.... a soft evolution without the passion .... Then came a reincarnation the 997... WHY? ... Perhaps like computer software people should only buy the odd number variants and not the even number versions..... I like the evolutionary trend of the TT, BUT please couldn't they have given me some horses.... Where is the Porsche eater in this MKII.

I Have a great 225 MKI... and when I can find time I shall be arriving on Wak's doorstep to make it a Porsche eater .... Too much work not enoough play

Image


----------



## Image (Nov 29, 2005)

Once there was the Porsche 993 ..... great car .... Then came the 996.... a soft evolution without the passion .... Then came a reincarnation the 997... WHY? ... Perhaps like computer software people should only buy the odd number variants and not the even number versions..... I like the evolutionary trend of the TT, BUT please couldn't they have given me some horses.... Where is the Porsche eater in this MKII.

I Have a great 225 MKI... and when I can find time I shall be arriving on Wak's doorstep to make it a Porsche eater .... Too much work not enoough play

Image


----------



## genocidalduck (May 19, 2005)

Image said:


> Once there was the Porsche 993 ..... great car .... Then came the 996.... a soft evolution without the passion .... Then came a reincarnation the 997... WHY? ... Perhaps like computer software people should only buy the odd number variants and not the even number versions..... I like the evolutionary trend of the TT, BUT please couldn't they have given me some horses.... Where is the Porsche eater in this MKII.
> 
> I Have a great 225 MKI... and when I can find time I shall be arriving on Wak's doorstep to make it a Porsche eater .... Too much work not enoough play
> 
> Image


I should think a attempt at a Porsche eater will come in a couple of years


----------



## L8_0RGY (Sep 12, 2003)

Karcsi said:


> Testarossa said:
> 
> 
> > in the picture message that audi have sent out it looks like a crossfire !!!!
> ...


  Wow...seeing both cars together really does make it look like a Crossfire.

Doh....


----------



## Rogue (Jun 15, 2003)

Looks familiar.

Rogue


----------



## greg2302 (Sep 2, 2005)

What did everybody expect - look at the new vs old A4, A3 etc, none of those models changed radically, just moved with the times, a freshen up to the styling .... :roll:


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

genocidalduck said:


> BAMTT said:
> 
> 
> > I think it looks good i like the interior, shame there is no colour DIS and satnav and the heater control aren't well positioned, but over all nice, and as people have said the MK1 whilst still good looking will look dated when placed next to the MK2,
> ...


Time for kmpowell to make an apology, do you think?


----------



## shane (Apr 19, 2004)

NaughTTy said:


> Mahoosive front end overhang :?


I just couldn't put my finger on what it was that I didn't like about it..... and that's it - the front and rear overhangs!

IMO, the mk1 looks way better and even though the mk11 interior is really sweet the mk1 doens't look outdated. In fact, comparing the 2 only serves to highlight how advanced (in design terms) the mk1 was for it's time.

Now, seeing as I was waiting until after the mk11 release before fully deciding should I purchase a mk1, I'm a bit worried that the mk1 might attain something of a classic status which could push the price up


----------



## Hilly10 (Feb 4, 2004)

I think Audi are going after a broader base now. Existing 225 180 quattro TT owners if they want to trade to the Mark 2 will have no 4 wheel drive unless as the mark 1 they put it on british spec. As the uk is one of the biggest markets for the TT I think that will happen


----------



## senwar (Apr 21, 2003)

Oh dear.

I so wanted my first impressions to be WOW. But it isn't.

The front looks so much like the focus from the side on view.

It may look different in the flesh, but I'd intended to possibly plump for a MkII in 12-18 months. Don't think I will now.

I like the interior, but the cars not a patch on the MkI. Many cars these days though don't have the wow factor straight away. So maybe this will be a grower over time.

But it certainly does nothing for me like the first model did when I saw it for the first time in italy in 1998.


----------



## Mysterio (Jan 20, 2006)

wrong post


----------



## jdn (Aug 26, 2002)

jampott said:


> genocidalduck said:
> 
> 
> > BAMTT said:
> ...


 :lol:

Fat chance!


----------



## PaulS (Jun 15, 2002)

Front overhang is too long, and there's no way I'm ever gonna like that grille. The interior is classic audi - but its lacks the simplicity (& beauty) of the MK1 interior. Who needs 3 mid dash vents? 2 were fine. Rear spoiler ?? I hope it actually does something, is the mk2 TT shell significantly lighter, have they used alloy?

They are selling the MK2 to a wider corporate audience now. No 4WD as standard? No Xenons? The company car parks will be full of them :roll:

Unless the driving experience is considerably sharper than the MK1 - can't see any reason to buy one.

Makes you realise what a great job Porsche did with the Cayman styling - and you are guaranteed the porsche driving experience.


----------

