# So what does everybody think of the new TT?



## slineTT (Feb 24, 2006)

After seeing it at Gaydon in the flesh or rather in the aluminum, what do you think TTiers?


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

I like it so much i'd buy one.


----------



## TeeTees (Mar 9, 2006)

Hated it at first - but after seeing more and more pictures of it, I'm beginning to fall in love for the second time


----------



## Snake Pliskin (Apr 11, 2006)

First time I will have ordered a car ... based on pictures alone ! [smiley=rolleyes5.gif]

It looks fantatic ... & will i'm aure be an equally good drive 8)


----------



## ADB (May 7, 2002)

I haven't really taken to it - even after the hundreds of pictures and videos. It looks very similar to the MK1 so has lost that fresh look we all saw in 1995 when audi presented the original as a concept.

It's just another Audi now as far as I can see. I'll go and take a look and test drive when they get a 3.2 in at the local Audi dealer but I am not expecting to be blown away :? You never know though :?:

I think Audi have been a bit cheeky as well just to release it with a 2.0T FWD and 3.2 Quattro. I am sure there are additional engines in the plan but to release it with exactly the same engine as the current top model is all a bit '_not enough_' IMO.

....Hang on I'm just getting into the flame suit :wink:

Andy


----------



## ezzie (Jul 2, 2004)

Initially I was somewhat underwhelmed. It has become a little fussy at the front and the rest not that different. However on seeing it in the metal was very impressed and changed mind. Its a very eye catching car and I'm sure most people will concur on first sight. No one can disagree that they ought to have done better with the engines and released a 2.0Q from the start and the annoyance of most options being unavailable for a while. Regardless of all this it looks great and by all accounts drives likewise, both of which are what truely matter.


----------



## jameslunn (Nov 14, 2004)

Hi - Does anyone have any pictures of the Gaydon new TT?

Cheers

James


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

> Some of my Gaydon mark II pics


 at the bottom of the first page of threads. :roll:


----------



## ronin (Sep 6, 2003)

They have screwed up the interior.
All for evolution, but its not.
The seats are crap.
The three vents are crap.
The cupholder has to be the worse design ever, nicked from a kia pride no doubt?
The aluminium kick plates are devoid of graphics so look bland and Halfords.
They could have evolved the knee bars, instead you get a large glob of plastic.
The tt branding on the petrol cap - is that so you dont forget what you were driving when you fill it up.
Progressive elements of the original would have better, rather than a complete new interior - which is crap.
Porsche got it right with the Boxster, Audi...........
IMO!


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

But you're not bitter. :lol:


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Agree with some of the above.

dont like 3 vents - pointless.
Cup holder - as long as it works, dont wont it in the middle of the dash.
Logo on petol cap - why?

Disagree with other.
The knee bars and the bottom part of the center console are very poor on the MKI. I like the aluminium, just not the design, look like an after thought
Seats i think are good
A/C controls much better
Cabin in general is much better
Better Audio
Better front grill - except for fogs
pop up spoiler

All in all im happy. You can never please all the people when you update a design as we all have ideas about what works best.

I'd really like to see other peoples designs as what should have happened (ignoring engines) both externally and in the cabin.


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

If you take a look at the A4 cab, it has 3 vents in the middle compared to the saloon. I think they have planned ahead for the roadster, so that they can have the additional heating vents without having to use a separate dash.

Having said that, the A4 saloon/avant has square vents in the middle which probably make up the same total area coverage.

I love everything about the Mk2, as I loved everything about the Mk1. However, I never owned a Mk1.


----------



## jam225 (Jun 24, 2003)

Toshiba said:


> A/C controls much better


 :roll: Tosh have you actually touched and turned these ? For as good as Audi are with their tactile interiors these are the WORST part of the MK2 IMHO, Mrs Jams A Class (mk1) had better quality controls [smiley=toilet.gif]


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

But the existing one is just a cheap bit of plastics that breaks easly.

What do you believe Audi should have done? Should it all be chome or steel? would you rather have the MKIs controls. We have to move on, The MKI no longer cuts it.

I really would like to see peoples idea of an update to the car as we seem not to want change at all.


----------



## Mysterio (Jan 20, 2006)

I think it's sublime!!


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

I think the lack of interest at Gaydon with just the odd observer for the replacement of a car we are all so obsessed with we come on here night after night says it all.

Its a nice car, but it has zero 'wow' appeal. Maybe our expectations were too high.

I think its a daft discussion tbh tho, people will get it, Tosh will love 90% of his and hate 10% and still get robbed by the dealers. Its an Audi, we all like Audi, good luck to em, its just not for me.

Now that new roadster, bit mad, wierd looking, its 99 all over again ;-)


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

But I think it is precisely because Gaydon was predominantly for people who are big fans of (dare I say obsessed with?) the Mk1. They are not going to be interested in the Mk2, and (I think) probably resent it a little as a sign that the Mk1 'era' no moves into the past.

I would have loved to have owned a Mk1. But perhaps because I haven't, I appreciate more where Audi have gone with the Mk2, and that's a more elegant, grown up sports coupe. No, it's not a design classic. But it will still turn heads because it is different from all the other coupes on the road, and has a lot in common with the Mk1. I love it, and can't wait for it to he sitting on my drive.


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

Theres probably an element of truth in what you say. Now I come to think of it Ive always thought of myself as an Audi man but Ive had a 225TTC which I loved, an A4 Cabrio which was alright but I cant say I loved it and my current car which is outstanding, all new. Maybe thats why I dont like the mk2 then, its too much like the rest of the Audi range and in reality I like the TT, not Audis. I wont be getting a mk2 TT and if im honest, I wouldnt get any other Audi and as much as the RS4 appeals, I wouldnt get one if I had the Â£50K sat there.

Hmm thats a revelation.


----------



## nutts (May 8, 2002)

Leg said:


> I think the lack of interest at Gaydon with just the odd observer


That was mostly down to the fact that only 4 or 5 people at any time were allowed round the car... so most people went away and came back when there was a chance of getting a look, rather than queueing


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Leg said:


> I think the lack of interest at Gaydon with just the odd observer for the replacement of a car we are all so obsessed with we come on here night after night says it all.
> 
> Its a nice car, but it has zero 'wow' appeal. Maybe our expectations were too high.
> 
> ...


I have nothing against the MKI. I have had 3 in my time (and still have one now) I'm simply saying things have to move on. The car is starting to show its age and the cars it is directly competing with are getting better and better which means the TT is failing further behind. I do like elements of the new car but I donâ€™t like others. That said, I donâ€™t like some elements of the MKI while I do like other - else I wouldnâ€™t have bought one in the first place!

We all have different view on what makes the current car what it was/is hence my comments about so what should it be? We all seem very quick to criticise Audi about what they have done to the TT but yet the press is full of praise with regards the results. Maybe we are all too close to see it?

We can't agree on what is the best colour never mind anything else. :roll: 
Not sure how much about what is posted is actually what people really feel as I often post things just to get a reaction or spice things up.

I for one donâ€™t want a MKII v MKI thread :?


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> Leg said:
> 
> 
> > I think the lack of interest at Gaydon with just the odd observer for the replacement of a car we are all so obsessed with we come on here night after night says it all.
> ...


Couldnt agree more, this is a *TT* forum after all. Also, with regards to comments re the mk1 you are right, if the mk1 was perfect I wouldnt have spent a fortune making it into the car I wanted it to be in the first place. It need them to compete with current other marques IMO.


----------



## Guest (Jul 19, 2006)

I like it, but they should have made it a bit more "individual" to make it stand out a bit more...

there have been times when i see the new shape A4 coming the opposite way and i think "is that the new TT?!?!" - both look very similar. would never get that with the Mk1

why didnt Audi get rid of the TT name and call it the "the Audi Coupe - like an A4, just with 2 seats"? :wink:


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Agree - they should have changed the name. However this is what sells so that was never going to happen.


----------



## PaulusB (Jul 19, 2006)

Better looking than the old one that one thing thats sure :wink:


----------



## mark88 (May 7, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> Agree - they should have changed the name. However this is what sells so that was never going to happen.


exactly, it would be like Apple releasing a new iPod and calling it *something else*....

The more I see the new TT the more I like it, I'd only buy the S-Line version though because I simply HATE the foglight design on the standard bumper. Also not too keen the the Ford Focus arches and BMW creases.

I have an S3 on order, but after seeing the recent spy pics which look rather dissapointing I think I might be ordering a new TT when S-Line, RS4's are available.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

mark88 said:


> Toshiba said:
> 
> 
> > Agree - they should have changed the name. However this is what sells so that was never going to happen.
> ...


So you like the wipers and the radio :lol:

:wink:

ps most people would just like an ipod that works.


----------



## ronin (Sep 6, 2003)

Karcsi said:


> But you're not bitter. :lol:


Not bitter as ive got the merc now, just Audi could have had another sale!


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

ronin said:


> Karcsi said:
> 
> 
> > But you're not bitter. :lol:
> ...


You just sounded a bit peeved. I agree that Audi could have done something different to make it the show piece of all the models, as was the Mk1. The car looks very good, I think. But in a sort of "sticking to the party line" kind of way. It fits in with the rest of the Audi range. But it shouldn't, really.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

maybe the A5 will be the new TT and move up market more?


----------



## Dotti (Mar 9, 2003)

Toshiba said:


> Agree - they should have changed the name. However this is what sells so that was never going to happen.


I disagree that Audi should have changed the name. Why change it when your just basically updating or giving a current model a face lift, which lets face it the new mk2 is really .


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

Ona slightly different but similar note, just seen the RS4 Cab at the dealers. Â£60000.

Wouldnt touch one, hasnt even got the recaro seats from the saloon for a start off as they are optional and if you have them im told the rear seats are useless due to the room taken up.

Regardless of the pedigree of the car for Â£60000 I want a car that says 'Im a Â£60000 car and dont you forget it!'. Far nicer cars out there for that sort of money imo.


----------



## Dotti (Mar 9, 2003)

Leg said:


> Ona slightly different but similar note, just seen the RS4 Cab at the dealers. Â£60000.
> 
> Wouldnt touch one, hasnt even got the recaro seats from the saloon for a start off as they are optional and if you have them im told the rear seats are useless due to the room taken up.
> 
> Regardless of the pedigree of the car for Â£60000 I want a car that says 'Im a Â£60000 car and dont you forget it!'. Far nicer cars out there for that sort of money imo.


Agree with your statement there Leg.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Dotti said:


> Toshiba said:
> 
> 
> > Agree - they should have changed the name. However this is what sells so that was never going to happen.
> ...


Its hardly a facelift the new car shares next to no parts with the out going one.


----------



## Dotti (Mar 9, 2003)

Toshiba said:


> Dotti said:
> 
> 
> > Toshiba said:
> ...


Course it is. Still the same shape and lines etc but just lesss curvy.


----------



## Guest (Jul 19, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> Dotti said:
> 
> 
> > Toshiba said:
> ...


.....and looks more like an A3/A4 than the previous TT


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

Whatever happened to this [smiley=bigcry.gif]


----------



## jbell (May 15, 2006)

Leg said:


> Whatever happened to this [smiley=bigcry.gif]


The A5 is in this weeks Auto Express and its nice. Apparantly they will be doing an RS5


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

jbell said:


> Leg said:
> 
> 
> > Whatever happened to this [smiley=bigcry.gif]
> ...


to compete with the M6 I guess, maybe thats the answer


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

jbell said:


> Leg said:
> 
> 
> > Whatever happened to this [smiley=bigcry.gif]
> ...


In fairness that what we've got but with 'tiger eyes' - I ask you!


----------



## mark88 (May 7, 2006)

jbell said:


> Leg said:
> 
> 
> > Whatever happened to this [smiley=bigcry.gif]
> ...


Auto Express just make things up to accompany any pictures they manage to get. I don't believe anything in that mag.

A few weeks ago they had an exclusive on the RS3, with pics and details. Turns out the pic was of an modified A3 racer from H&R so clearly they just made up the article.


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

Similar, but very different also. The front bonnet / grille and lights are the most obvious differences. However, the passenger cabin roof is higher, the sides taller and more angular. It's a more masculine car. That was my favourite photoshop.


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

is it thrue that the aluminium inside the car isn't real aluminium ? I've ordered the aluminium pack also, but i have read that it's plastic and a other kind off metal, but no real aluminium which was on the MK1 ?


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> jbell said:
> 
> 
> > Leg said:
> ...


The lights are the focal point but the lines are more aggressive and the bonnet lower which gives a more hunched look. Whether it would pass EU regs is another matter though!

Basically what Karcsi said, more masculine.


----------



## ezzie (Jul 2, 2004)

Rebel said:


> is it thrue that the aluminium inside the car isn't real aluminium ? I've ordered the aluminium pack also, but i have read that it's plastic and a other kind off metal, but no real aluminium which was on the MK1 ?


As far as I understand, the air vent surrounds and steering wheel bits are all plastic. Health and safety dictat apparently which is why the front of the car is so plasticy also. The long bit on the glove box and around the gearbox are aluminium.


----------



## slineTT (Feb 24, 2006)

Since i asked the question i have to stick my neck out as well, so here it goes.
The new TT is bigger wich means better handling since its got longer wheelbase but not so city friendly anymore, and I live in London. A small car is alway faster in London. Also i always drive LHD so the centre console is obstructing my leap to the passengers seat at parking lots.

It looks great but it hasnt got the visual impact of the MK1, has anyone seen the thick black line on the windscreen in between the engine bay and the wipers? Not a good design

I looks more like a gentle coupe than a sports car. It feels like a nice GT strolling on the motorway than a little belter that you can throw around on a track.

On a straight line i am sure the 3.2 will be equal to a remapped 225

Not for me at this point as i need a smaller than the MK2 car to move in London. I have to admit though that the long bonnet of the MK2 begs for a bigger engine and the design is modern and will grow on me.

Thanks for all the comnents it has been a very intelligent discussion on the MK2


----------



## DonaldC (May 7, 2002)

This black strip:-


----------



## slineTT (Feb 24, 2006)

Yeah bingo Donald. I have never seen such a wide dashboard covering strip in any car.


----------



## DonaldC (May 7, 2002)

Its to hide your empty sandwich boxes and plastic ginger bottles when you throw them on the dash after finishing with them.

Apparently it's all the rage in Glasgow and white vans! :lol:


----------



## slineTT (Feb 24, 2006)

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Nice one Donald, white van design on a TT hmmmmmmmmm??????


----------



## Guest (Jul 21, 2006)

Somebody already got to work modding that Mk2 - white stripes  Its not a Dodge Viper you know :lol:


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

And removed the bonnet for additional cooling.


----------



## Adam RRS (May 25, 2006)

not impressed TBH... this car is not competition for the porsche cayman, SLK, Z4 coupe i'm sorry... looks very ordinary, the best thing about it was the interior and i couldnt even remember to take a pic of that. Shows how much of an impression it made on me...

oh! also, i was talkin to the guy after the show and he told me that because this is a demo model and there hasnt been an official release that within 2 weeks that car we saw at the show was gonna be cubed!!!!


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

cubed - as in crushed?


----------



## Adam RRS (May 25, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> cubed - as in crushed?


yep! criminal


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

They could have given it to me!


----------



## saint (Dec 6, 2002)

It's an Audi A 2.5 :?


----------



## Guest (Jul 24, 2006)

Adam TTR said:


> Toshiba said:
> 
> 
> > cubed - as in crushed?
> ...


that makes no sense whatsoever?! Why would you spend so much making a car that's gonna be crushed? AUDI - gimmie the Â£30k next time! ill put it to good use


----------



## Mrs Wallsendmag (Dec 13, 2005)

AndyRoo_TT said:


> Adam TTR said:
> 
> 
> > Toshiba said:
> ...


did you see the state of it ? pre production quality and nearly worn out already


----------



## Guest (Jul 24, 2006)

Wallsendmag II said:


> AndyRoo_TT said:
> 
> 
> > Adam TTR said:
> ...


still, getting _something_ for it is beter than nothing at all!


----------



## Adam RRS (May 25, 2006)

well the guy said to me its only ever been driven on and off the trailer and its been given by audi for demonstration purposes only... no chance of anyone ever owning it, so they crush it!


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

Perhaps they are not legally allowed to sell it as it was not produced on the production line. Don't know how EU legislation works, but I would not surprised.


----------



## les (Jul 24, 2006)

Having only seen the pics so far of the Mk2 I have to say Audi appear have done what VV did with the first GTI golf when they made the follow up Mk2. They made it bigger, heavier and in doing so lardier and not as exciting.

IMO the Mk2 TT looks like a watered down, smoothed out, less radical and all together a less exciting than the Mk1. Perhaps I will change my opinion when I get to see the new car in the flesh I do hope so. My dealer says hes not expecting any in untill September after first being told availabilty/delivery would be this July.

I missed the Top Gear review of the car ( they did review it didn't they?) I hear Clarkson rates it highly which he didnt the Mk1. So did they/he consider it cool or uncool and does anybody really give a feck? Not me thats for sure the guys a prat with a cap P. [smiley=dunce2.gif]


----------



## TeeTees (Mar 9, 2006)

les said:


> I missed the Top Gear review of the car ( they did review it didn't they?) I hear Clarkson rates it highly which he didnt the Mk1. So did they/he consider it cool or uncool and does anybody really give a feck? Not me thats for sure the guys a prat with a cap P. [smiley=dunce2.gif]


Maybe I missed it as well, but I have a funny feeling they didn't review it ? :?

I seen the Fifth Gear review and they liked it


----------



## ezzie (Jul 2, 2004)

Not been reviewed on TopGear the tv programme yet. Clarkson reviewed the 2.0 one in his Times column (available on their website) and seemed generally favourable. TopGear magazine has also reviewed it.

As to the Golf gti mkII comparison, it is somewhat different. As this time round the car is actually lighter than the previous version and handles and drives much better than the original according to all that have driven them. Also when you see one in real life will be much more impressed than the photos.


----------



## les (Jul 24, 2006)

ezzie said:


> Not been reviewed on TopGear the tv programme yet. Clarkson reviewed the 2.0 one in his Times column (available on their website) and seemed generally favourable. TopGear magazine has also reviewed it.
> 
> Yep thats it remeber now it was in the times.
> 
> As to the Golf gti mkII comparison, it is somewhat different. As this time round the car is actually lighter than the previous version and handles and drives much better than the original according to all that have driven them. Also when you see one in real life will be much more impressed than the photos.


I was referring to the first 2 Golf models of course not the new one :roll: 
The jury is out untill I have seen the Mk2 TT. We shall just have to wait and see. :?


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

Ezzie was referring to the MKII, that (this time round) it is bigger, yes, but lighter and handles much better. So it is quite the opposite of the MkI to MkII Golf transition. :roll:


----------



## tehdarkstar (Jul 24, 2006)

I have seen reviews of the TT MK2 on WhatCar?, Evo, Top Gear Magazine and Fifth Gear and all are favourable. It seems to be a very good car.


----------



## mrmyagi (Aug 1, 2006)

hello everyone,
I'm new here, and I have just put in my order for a 2.0 S tronic, phantom black with a few extra bits and pieces............Not test driven one, but love the look of it and it seems much more practical than the old one, and every review of it has been favourable.

Excited, but its just a shame i have to wait till november as i wanted the bi colour wheels etc..........
Never ordered a car without test driving it, but i have gone for it anyway..........

So I thought i would register here and try and whet my appetite even more for the next 3 months.
however, i have heard negative things about audi dealerships, can anyone shed any light on this as it will be my first ever audi?
cheers


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

front wheel drive....urgh. Wait and get a proper one or upgrade to a 3.2 but hells bells dont get a FWD, Audi are taking the mickey with that one.


----------



## squiggel (May 16, 2006)

Leg said:


> front wheel drive....urgh. Wait and get a proper one or upgrade to a 3.2 but hells bells dont get a FWD, Audi are taking the mickey with that one.


All the road test reviewers seem to like it just fine.

Is there some reason why people on here seem compelled to slag off other peoples choices if they are different from their own.....


----------



## tehdarkstar (Jul 24, 2006)

I have driven FWD, RWD and AWD cars and I have to say that the ones I'm less compelled to have are AWD. A good two wheels drive is normally more exciting and let you play more than the AWD.

As for the big V6 engine, most of the small cars I have seen driving well with small engines loose their balance when fitted with bigger, heavier ones (normally more understeer). Also, WhatCar? was quite keen on pointing out that the V6 is nearly pointless for the TT, as it isn't that lot faster, adds weight, isn't keen to rev as the smaller one and costs Â£5K more.

That's why I'm happy with my choice of a 2.0T with S-tronic and nothing will make me change it.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

I hear what you are saying but its only playfull banta.

FWD TT's are not the same and for the money Audi want for them i see legs point and i have to agree with it if im honest.

V6 - the MKII is totally different, it was designed with this engine in mind. Still amazed Audi went with these two models from the off. 25k for a 20T with 4WD i can understand 25k with FWD is taking the mickey

PS TTs are not AWD.

However welcome newbie, regardless of what we want or think as long as you're happy thats all that matters.

Dealers are ok - just sell the car before you need a service :wink:

Colours and extended spec??
Current ride?
Naked photos of girl friend?
Join'd TTOC yet?
Where are you based - going to a meet - check the events section?


----------



## mrmyagi (Aug 1, 2006)

2.0 L pearl effect phantom black S tronic,
black leather, sat nav, bi colour 10 spoke alloys, usb, multi function steering wheels, storage pack (not sure how useful this will be), blue tooth, bose surround, HFS, acousitic rear parking.  
been driving a very boring merc c class avantgarde for the last 4 years! :? 
No naked fotos to gf for you guys i am afraid! is there a link where i can veiw some of your girlfriends? :wink: 
not joined the OC as of yet! I am based in Hammersmith London but am often in Brighton on my weekends!
Nice to meet you all!


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Drop the USB else you will not see the car until late feb.


----------



## mrmyagi (Aug 1, 2006)

usb has been dropped!
cheers!


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Ipods ok tho.

whats HFS?


----------



## mrmyagi (Aug 1, 2006)

heated front seats..............
i might add the ipod connection....................


----------

