# TTRS vs TTS vs V6 vs 2.0TFSI vs TDI



## SuperRS (Mar 7, 2012)

Ok ive created this thread because we have so many topics along the lines of "I dont think the TTS is worth the extra money over a 2.0TFSI as they are pretty much as quick as each other looking at 0-60mph figures" etc etc.

Well now I have it laid out here, throughout the audi range there is a noticeable step up in performance, and to say a 2.0Tfsi is nearly as quick as a TTS just isnt correct.

Please Note:

I havent used any audi data. Audi times are often conservative for certain models, as their vehicles need to follow a marketing hierachy. Cant have the TTRS to be seen as stepping on the R8's toes for example.

So just to reitrate, my times are all from indepenent magazine tests and/or public test days which utilise accurate timing equipment ie 30-130mph.

I ommitted the 1.8TFSI as I couldnt find substantiale independent data.

*2009 Audi TT RS Coupe*

0-60mph 3.9s
0 - 100 mph 9.3 s
0 - 200 kph 14.9 s
1/4 mile 12.1 s @ 113 mph

Power to Weight ratio: 234 bhp/tonne

30-130mph @tuned 400hp 14.1 secs manual

Nordschleife 8:09.00 
Hockenheim Short 1:13.10 
*
Audi TT-S Coupe DSG*

0 - 60 mph 4.6 s
0 - 100 mph 11.8 s
0 - 200 kph 20.5 s
1/4 mile 13.2 s @ 105 mph

Power to Weight ratio: 192 bhp/tonne

30-130mph @ tuned 360hp 19.8 secs manual

Hockenheim Short 1:15.20
Nordschleife 8:29.00

*2006 Audi TT 3.2 quattro (8J)*

0 - 60 mph 5.5s
0 - 100 mph 12.8 s
0 - 200 kph 23.8 s
1/4 mile 14.0 s

Power to Weight ratio: 170 bhp/tonne

Hockenheim short 1:20.30

*2010 Audi TT 2.0 TFSI quattro DSG*

0 - 60mph 5.6 s
0 - 100 mph 14.1 s
0 - 200 kph 26.0 s
1/4 mile 14.1 s

Power to Weight ratio: 151 bhp/tonne

*Audi TT 211 FWD Manual*

0-60mph 6.4s
0-100mph 14.8
0-200 km/h: 26 s
1/4 mile 14.6

Power to Weight ratio: 164 bhp/tonne

Nordschleife 8:40.00

*2008 Audi TT Coupe 2.0 TDI quattro*

0-60mph 7.5s
0 - 100 mph 19.5 s

Power to Weight ratio: 125 bhp/tonne


----------



## TondyRSuzuka (Dec 3, 2011)

Mpg?

Mines better than a tdi!

:lol:


----------



## TootRS (Apr 21, 2009)

Nice idea 

30-130 times are a little slow for the S/RS tho. TTS at Marham last year managed 16.97s, and I'm pretty sure the RS STronic was close to 13.


----------



## Bayley (May 8, 2013)

Good work


----------



## SuperRS (Mar 7, 2012)

TootRS said:


> Nice idea
> 
> 30-130 times are a little slow for the S/RS tho. TTS at Marham last year managed 16.97s, and I'm pretty sure the RS STronic was close to 13.


Ahhh I took my figures from the year before, which were manual cars! Ive edited the data to stat manual.


----------



## TootRS (Apr 21, 2009)

SuperRS said:


> TootRS said:
> 
> 
> > Nice idea
> ...


 [smiley=thumbsup.gif]


----------



## igotone (Mar 10, 2010)

Well it's no bad thing to set out the stats - there IS a lot of crap talked on here about 'minor' differences between models. As long as the figures are factual, what's the problem? It's a pity that threads on the subject degenerate so consistently.

As someone who's progressed through three different models in the range, i know the differences in each case have been enormous when judged by the butt dyno, let alone the figures, which pretty much speak for themselves.


----------



## Ikon66 (Sep 12, 2003)

Ok, so the thread is probably quite useful and interesting and when I first read it I thought, hmmm, a possible sticky. However, it appears to be now descending, again, into the merits of the RS and how good it is with different map stages!!!


----------



## Mattyw (May 27, 2013)

I'm not sure who your referring to about dragging this thread into an argument, but my opinion would be that the TT range wouldn't be fast enough for me if I was looking for a performance car. Yes, you can remap, tune and fiddle with your engines but in reality MOST people wouldn't want to buy a car that has been modified.. so on top of the high depreciation figures of an RS, your also chucking thousands of pounds away trying to make them quick.

I'm sorry, but the only way this could end is... a disaster. You can't do 100MPH regularly on these roads without putting someone else's life in danger or simply loosing your licence. I'd buy the TTS any day over an RS :wink:


----------



## 35mphspeedlimit (Sep 25, 2010)

FWIW the stated 0-60 for the stock TTS Manual is *5.5sec* on the Audi Configurator which makes it only 0.2sec faster than the 2.0Q, hence the comparison that has been made for the similarity between the TTS and 2.0Q!! 

And to complete the set you missed off the 1.8TFSI which in manual configuration reaches 60 in 7.3sec, 0.2 sec slower than the S-tronic and just a tad quicker than the 2.0D.


----------



## TootRS (Apr 21, 2009)

Ikon66 said:


> Ok, so the thread is probably quite useful and interesting and when I first read it I thought, hmmm, a possible sticky. However, it appears to be now descending, again, into the merits of the RS and how good it is with different map stages!!!


It was a response to the view that the TT range is not that quick. In order to discuss the merits of the whole range it needs owners of all models to get involved.


----------



## SuperRS (Mar 7, 2012)

35mphspeedlimit said:


> FWIW the stated 0-60 for the stock TTS Manual is *5.5sec* on the Audi Configurator which makes it only 0.2sec faster than the 2.0Q, hence the comparison that has been made for the similarity between the TTS and 2.0Q!!
> 
> And to complete the set you missed off the 1.8TFSI which in manual configuration reaches 60 in 7.3sec, 0.2 sec slower than the S-tronic and just a tad quicker than the 2.0D.


I should have added this to my original post, but I havent used any audi data. Audi times are often conservative for certain models, as their vehicles need to follow a marketing hierachy. Cant have the TTRS to be seen as stepping on the R8's toes for example.

So just to reitrate, my times are all from indepenent magazine tests and/or public test days which utilise accurate timing equipment ie 30-130mph.

I ommitted the 1.8TFSI as I couldnt find substantiale independent data.


----------



## 35mphspeedlimit (Sep 25, 2010)

SuperRS said:


> I should have added this to my original post, but I havent used any audi data. Audi times are often conservative for certain models, as their vehicles need to follow a marketing hierachy. Cant have the TTRS to be seen as stepping on the R8's toes for example.
> 
> So just to reitrate, my times are all from indepenent magazine tests and/or public test days which utilise accurate timing equipment ie 30-130mph.
> 
> I ommitted the 1.8TFSI as I couldnt find substantiale independent data.


Fair enough although, if truth be told, you probably didn't have time to wait for the 1.8TFSI to return a 0-60 time!!!


----------



## SuperRS (Mar 7, 2012)

Some more data on the TTRS.


----------



## TootRS (Apr 21, 2009)

35mphspeedlimit said:


> FWIW the stated 0-60 for the stock TTS Manual is *5.5sec* on the Audi Configurator which makes it only 0.2sec faster than the 2.0Q, hence the comparison that has been made for the similarity between the TTS and 2.0Q!!
> 
> And to complete the set you missed off the 1.8TFSI which in manual configuration reaches 60 in 7.3sec, 0.2 sec slower than the S-tronic and just a tad quicker than the 2.0D.


Incidentally those figures are 0-100km/h so it's 0-62, that extra 2mph can make 0.1/0.2s difference, especially as it can fall right on the borderline of needing to change between 2nd and 3rd. The Audi figures are conservative, stock RS 0-60 times are consistently below 4s in independent tests.


----------



## 35mphspeedlimit (Sep 25, 2010)

TootRS said:


> 35mphspeedlimit said:
> 
> 
> > FWIW the stated 0-60 for the stock TTS Manual is *5.5sec* on the Audi Configurator which makes it only 0.2sec faster than the 2.0Q, hence the comparison that has been made for the similarity between the TTS and 2.0Q!!
> ...


Interesting stuff. I'd like to test mine 0-60 but would need to do it in two halves!!!


----------



## TootRS (Apr 21, 2009)

35mphspeedlimit said:


> Interesting stuff. I'd like to test mine 0-60 but would need to do it in two halves!!!


LOL, think you need the patience of a saint to religiously stick to 35


----------



## igotone (Mar 10, 2010)

TootRS said:


> The Audi figures are conservative, stock RS 0-60 times are consistently below 4s in independent tests.


Like this one...






OK - this was IMHO a sensible attempt to get something set down for reference about performance figures for members. Are we really going to let Walter Mitty with half a dozen posts - nearly all of them in this thread - cock it up?


----------



## LEO-RS (Apr 13, 2009)

TootRS said:


> There is simply no need to try and drag the thread into an argument. The performance the TT RS gives you from a 2.5T I5 is phenomenal, knocking on the door of 450hp/700Nm with a stage 2 tune, then there's the guys doing the big turbo builds. The engine is a real peach! 0-60 in 3.1s stage 2 DSG and 2.8s stage 3 manual, both documented. Amazing figures!


Ahem, 3.1secs, you've robbed me of a tenth there you bugger 

Whose this Matty kid? 7 posts, trying to stir the pot, waffling the biggest amount of poo about 'furious acceleration' and then no point in any car with a top speed in excess of the 70mph limit. Come on, obvious wind up merchant.


----------



## 35mphspeedlimit (Sep 25, 2010)

TootRS said:


> 35mphspeedlimit said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting stuff. I'd like to test mine 0-60 but would need to do it in two halves!!!
> ...


It was a bit easier in the Roadster with the wind in my hair (okay, face) but in the Coupe it is a little more difficult!! There are plenty of guys here with TTS but I have yet to see a TTRS locally, although the local dealer has a white TTRS in the showroom for £45k (ex VAT)!!!


----------



## TootRS (Apr 21, 2009)

Mitchy said:


> TootRS said:
> 
> 
> > There is simply no need to try and drag the thread into an argument. The performance the TT RS gives you from a 2.5T I5 is phenomenal, knocking on the door of 450hp/700Nm with a stage 2 tune, then there's the guys doing the big turbo builds. The engine is a real peach! 0-60 in 3.1s stage 2 DSG and 2.8s stage 3 manual, both documented. Amazing figures!
> ...


Sorry Craig, forgot you'd cracked 3.0 dead mate


----------



## Templar (Mar 9, 2012)

Ikon66 said:


> Ok, so the thread is probably quite useful and interesting and when I first read it I thought, hmmm, a possible sticky. However, it appears to be now descending, again, into the merits of the RS and how good it is with different map stages!!!


I thought the same initially, but I can see where this thread may end up..


----------



## Kinnard (Sep 17, 2012)

35mphspeedlimit said:


> TootRS said:
> 
> 
> > 35mphspeedlimit said:
> ...


Recon it could be had a fair bit cheaper,is gathering dust chatting to the salesman the other day recons he won't shift it 
Nice motor aswell


----------



## Templar (Mar 9, 2012)

http://www2.autotrader.co.uk/classified ... ?logcode=p

Could always have one of these for less


----------



## 35mphspeedlimit (Sep 25, 2010)

Kinnard said:


> Recon it could be had a fair bit cheaper,is gathering dust chatting to the salesman the other day recons he won't shift it
> Nice motor aswell


Haven't done the maths but appears a bit steep in terms of cost as that would be roughly £54k UK Price, but I think you are right, they would have to take a pretty hefty hit on that to attract a buyer (or at least one without money to throw away)!!


----------



## Dayer2910 (Apr 29, 2012)

i thought everyone on Jersey was loaded and used 50 pound notes instead of Rizzlas for a smoke.... 

why would anyone buy an RS on jersey to do 35mph, weird


----------



## 35mphspeedlimit (Sep 25, 2010)

Dayer2910 said:


> i thought everyone on Jersey was loaded and used 50 pound notes instead of Rizzlas for a smoke....
> 
> why would anyone buy an RS on jersey to do 35mph, weird


How dare you use foul language on the TT Forum, you should know better than to use the 'J' word!!!!!  Meanwhile, over here in *Guernsey* times are hard and we can only afford to use £20 notes!! 

P.S. Jersey has a 40mph speed limit - jammy beggars!!! :lol: :wink:


----------



## akf (May 26, 2013)

Test drove a tts before buying my latest black edition fwd and didn't notice much difference except in the price.


----------



## TootRS (Apr 21, 2009)

akf said:


> Test drove a tts before buying my latest black edition fwd and didn't notice much difference except in the price.


List price between the two is only £3,750 which isn't much considering the level up in performance and spec.


----------



## SuperRS (Mar 7, 2012)

Fwd cars feel more frantic than Quattro ones anyway due to less grip.
Quattro is loss drama point and go


----------



## Kinnard (Sep 17, 2012)

35mphspeedlimit said:


> Kinnard said:
> 
> 
> > Recon it could be had a fair bit cheaper,is gathering dust chatting to the salesman the other day recons he won't shift it
> ...


Sadly it's out of my league only got the tts cause the price they let me have it I couldn't turn it down
Don't get me wrong i love the tts and its a quick car but in fairness I don't think people realise the rs is capable of holding its own against a lot of sports cars


----------



## V6Kent (May 30, 2013)

The most amusing thing about this thread is that 'V6's are slow and pointless and the worst TT in the range' SuperRS, has just proved that the stock V6 is one of the fastest.

Top work that man!

*Boots it, listens to V6 howl* :lol:


----------



## akf (May 26, 2013)

Wonder why v6 has been removed from range???


----------



## TootRS (Apr 21, 2009)

VAG discontinued the transverse 3.2 V6 engine a few years ago as seems to be the trend with manufacturers these days, they're all downsizing.


----------



## AudIED (Mar 30, 2013)

Ah but, how do they sound?

V6 has it by miles!


----------



## Nyxx (May 1, 2012)

Audi config for a MY 2011 says 0 to 62 for FWD = 6.2

2.0 Petrol


----------



## SuperRS (Mar 7, 2012)

V6Kent said:


> The most amusing thing about this thread is that 'V6's are slow and pointless and the worst TT in the range' SuperRS, has just proved that the stock V6 is one of the fastest.
> 
> Top work that man!
> 
> *Boots it, listens to V6 howl* :lol:


There are 6 petrols, so if we split them into two's the v6 is in the 2/3rd of the "tables".

Therefore that makes it average


----------



## moro anis (May 27, 2010)

I hardly ever rant on here but I get a bit sick of mine's better than yours. Is a TTS worth the money, my RS is superior, yawn yawn.

FFS just enjoy what you've got and let others do the same.


----------



## Mattyw (May 27, 2013)

moro anis said:


> I hardly ever rant on here but I get a bit sick of mine's better than yours. Is a TTS worth the money, my RS is superior, yawn yawn.
> 
> FFS just enjoy what you've got and let others do the same.


+1


----------



## wezzel98765 (May 7, 2011)

TTS 4.6S to 60?

Don't think so ...

The audi quoted time is 5.2 ... timed by tuning companies is 5.0

Timed by myself, I did do a 4.49 a month ago, but consistently get a 4.9 now...


----------



## Dayer2910 (Apr 29, 2012)

moro anis said:


> I hardly ever rant on here but I get a bit sick of mine's better than yours. Is a TTS worth the money, my RS is superior, yawn yawn.
> 
> FFS just enjoy what you've got and let others do the same.


it is entertaining the constant battles although i have to agree it does get a bit tiring with the same old arguments over and over, sure the RS is desirable and gorgeous but personally i couldn't justify it purely for road use.


----------



## TondyRSuzuka (Dec 3, 2011)

moro anis said:


> I hardly ever rant on here but I get a bit sick of mine's better than yours. Is a TTS worth the money, my RS is superior, yawn yawn.
> 
> FFS just enjoy what you've got and let others do the same.


Inclined to agree, we all love what we run. Thats why we hang around on here instead of spending time with our partners :lol:


----------



## igotone (Mar 10, 2010)

wezzel98765 said:


> TTS 4.6S to 60?
> 
> Don't think so ...
> 
> ...


4.9 secs is about bang on for the TTS with a good launch. That's what I used to get pretty consistently.


----------



## igotone (Mar 10, 2010)

moro anis said:


> I hardly ever rant on here but I get a bit sick of mine's better than yours. Is a TTS worth the money, my RS is superior, yawn yawn.
> 
> FFS just enjoy what you've got and let others do the same.


Completely agree - it's spoiling the forum - big time! The difference between the models is a matter of fact and the times are there to prove it, but who really gives a flying f*ck? Not everyone wants the same things from a car and there's no such thing as a bad TT.


----------



## 35mphspeedlimit (Sep 25, 2010)

igotone said:


> moro anis said:
> 
> 
> > I hardly ever rant on here but I get a bit sick of mine's better than yours. Is a TTS worth the money, my RS is superior, yawn yawn.
> ...


Agreed. I love my 1.8TFSI but do aspire to bigger and better things when the opportunity arises at some point in the future!


----------



## SuperRS (Mar 7, 2012)

wezzel98765 said:


> TTS 4.6S to 60?
> 
> Don't think so ...
> 
> ...


Easily done and proven with a vbox. This is a s-tronic remember.

We have remapped tuned Golf R's with the same engine doing low 4's in the 0-60 dash.


----------



## TondyRSuzuka (Dec 3, 2011)

Each engine suits each individual, we all know that. Non of these are cheap cars, apart from the recent troll non of this should be perceived as "who's wallet is heavier".


----------



## Ikon66 (Sep 12, 2003)

Well that's gone TU as I expected. gonna lock for now n clean up when I have time later [smiley=argue.gif]


----------



## Ikon66 (Sep 12, 2003)

and we're back, it may read a little disjointed but I've culled the negativity and baiting, if it degenerates again it'll go


----------



## SuperRS (Mar 7, 2012)

If it goes I'll start a fresh thread but twice as informative lol.


----------



## Dayer2910 (Apr 29, 2012)

Looks like SUPER RS could be in for more naughty boy corner time...hahaha :lol:


----------



## jaybyme (Mar 10, 2010)

SuperRS
where did you get that HHR lap time for the TTRS, I haven't seen that time in any mag ?


----------



## igotone (Mar 10, 2010)

Ikon66 said:


> and we're back, it may read a little disjointed but I've culled the negativity and baiting, if it degenerates again it'll go


Just a thought but why not just post it as a sticky for info and lock it anyway. As long as the stats are accurate it serves it's purpose and enquirers can just be pointed to it?


----------



## Ikon66 (Sep 12, 2003)

igotone said:


> Ikon66 said:
> 
> 
> > and we're back, it may read a little disjointed but I've culled the negativity and baiting, if it degenerates again it'll go
> ...


Was considering that but trying not to stifle genuine discussion


----------



## igotone (Mar 10, 2010)

Ikon66 said:


> igotone said:
> 
> 
> > Ikon66 said:
> ...


Fair does, but we seem to have trouble with the genuine discussion bit don't we? 

The OEM stats speak for themselves and really need no further discussion - it's the modded this versus the modded/unmodded that which seems to muddy the waters.


----------



## Ikon66 (Sep 12, 2003)

Indeed, but as a moderator you're damned if do or don't [smiley=bigcry.gif]


----------



## igotone (Mar 10, 2010)

Ikon66 said:


> Indeed, but as a moderator you're damned if do or don't [smiley=bigcry.gif]


Feck 'em - just do it! :lol:


----------



## TootRS (Apr 21, 2009)

igotone said:


> Ikon66 said:
> 
> 
> > igotone said:
> ...


There's a sticky I've seen on another forum for performance data, people can post independently verified runs and detail where it was done, state of tune, tyres used, fuel used etc. that might not be a bad idea. Everyone can take what they want from the figures and compare as they see fit. Can't really argue with facts either.


----------



## jamiekip (Nov 12, 2006)

TootRS said:


> Can't really argue with facts either.


But people always do... The TTRS and to be fair other TT owners destroy civil debate and turn everyone into PMT suffering teenage girls with anxiety issues... Just saying lol


----------



## TootRS (Apr 21, 2009)

jamiekip said:


> TootRS said:
> 
> 
> > Can't really argue with facts either.
> ...


Sigh


----------



## jamiekip (Nov 12, 2006)

TootRS said:


> Sigh


I know


----------



## Plake (Nov 23, 2012)

12.8 looks optimistic for the v6 0-100. What's the source of the data?


----------



## sico (Feb 6, 2003)

No it's not optimistic I have seen these figures they are pretty comparable if you google. Meaning they are the same on Many sites.

The 2.0 looks slightly optimistic but I guess it's possible.


----------



## Shug750S (Feb 6, 2012)

Does it matter. Hopefully everyone likes or is happy with whichever TT they have. This is my first one and it's perfectly okay for what I want at present.
Will I get another, probably not, as never had the same car / next version as a replacement in 30+ years of owning cars. Years ago had a mk1 fiesta 1300s and then 2 cars later an XR2i, but not straight after.

When I decide to replace it, or buy another to use as well as, I'll look around, see what suits my needs at the time, and buy it.

Not jealous when I see a TTS, RS, Porker, Aston, whatever, just assume that's what they wanted so good luck to them.


----------



## jaybyme (Mar 10, 2010)

Everyone buys a car to suit their needs and financial situation.
Whether it be for going from A to B, sitting pretty in the driveway, or blasting round a track.
A diesel TT would most probably be more than capable for most peoples needs,it just doesn't give everyone that buzz,and pride of owning something special.
To be honest,I think it gets more difficult choosing a car when you have the money.
I'm still a bit tight when it comes to cars,and look to buy the best bargain on the market that ticks all the boxes.


----------



## Strakey (Aug 13, 2013)

Sorry if i'm treading over old ground here but I'm looking at buying a TT but am not sure which model, so this thread seems relevant.
I've just come from owning a Lotus Elise and my head is saying 2.0TFSI Quattro but the sound of the V6 is very tempting and I don't fancy the thought of FWD on the standard TFSI.

I realise it's all personal opinion but I'd be interested if anyone has previously owned an Elise before their TT and what their thoughts may be, also any opinions on 4WD vs FWD in the 'fun' stakes.

Thanks,

Chris


----------



## Templar (Mar 9, 2012)

Strakey said:


> Sorry if i'm treading over old ground here but I'm looking at buying a TT but am not sure which model, so this thread seems relevant.
> I've just come from owning a Lotus Elise and my head is saying 2.0TFSI Quattro but the sound of the V6 is very tempting and I don't fancy the thought of FWD on the standard TFSI.
> 
> I realise it's all personal opinion but I'd be interested if anyone has previously owned an Elise before their TT and what their thoughts may be, also any opinions on 4WD vs FWD in the 'fun' stakes.
> ...


One thing to bare in mind is the age of the car you would like to buy. The mk2 3.2 has been out of production for some time now. I believe but may be wrong, but 07 -08 3.2's are readily available but start to get a little scarce after that. There were probably some new old stock so to speak on later reg's. They do sound very good especially with a nice aftermarket exhaust. Tuning wise I think good gains for less money are available for the TFSI engine though.


----------



## gogs (Dec 22, 2010)

There's a 2009 on Autotrader just now, if your looking to tune the TT there's not a great deal you can do with the V6 without spending an absolute fortune, a remap will only get you around 15 extra horses :-o
Aftermarket exhaust and decent air filter will certainly get you the noise


----------



## CWM3 (Mar 4, 2012)

Answering Strakey.....after an Elise, most TTs will feel like a lead weight around corners, nothing new there, its not the same tool.

The last thing you will then enjoy is a FWD TT, early onset of understeer and scrabbling front tyres is the trademark of any attempt at sprited driving.

The quattros offer a different feel, the V6 gives a great soundtrack, lusty performance, but feels heavy on front and earlier onset of understeer compared to a TTS.

TTS is quicker, steers better and rides better than FWD & V6, it has mag ride as standard which is positive in the ride and handling stakes.

RS notches it up again with the best engine of the range, and as you can see is infinitely tuneable, so if you are chasing big numbers and low times, thats your weapon.

It will upset some on here, but the FWD is a nice soft run around, but quickly starts to tie itself in knots, and where you are coming from, you will regret it from day 1.

Not driven a 211 quattro stronic.....so no comment on that one.


----------



## gogs (Dec 22, 2010)

I have magride fitted to my V6 and it does firm things up somewhat, as said above if its tuning for performance your after then the V6 is not what your after due to limited options


----------



## Templar (Mar 9, 2012)

So a few factors come to mind. . How much money do you want to spend, what level of performance do you want and would you be looking at tuning it ? When you have them answers to narrow the field down then members can give you more specific replies.

A low mileage 2.0 TFSI roadster in good condition with an Audi warranty was my starting point, but buying from Audi will start eating up your money. Luckily a good offer was available when I bought mine. £1000 Audi uk contribution, £500 dealer contribution, 2yrs servicing, mot protection on top of the 1 years warranty and breakdown cover. At the time when checking, worked out at around £500 more than a used off Autotrader.
The warranty by the way was a god send and since it expired I renewed it for another year inc of full breakdown cover for £445. More than paid for itself when my roof needed attention. 
Something to think about.


----------



## Strakey (Aug 13, 2013)

Sorry I should be more specific. Firstly thanks for the previous replies.
I'm looking to spend around 12/13k, am after a coupe rather than convertible, I don't need 4 seats but a little more space after the Elise would be nice. I've also considered the Z4 Coupe but prefer the overall TT package.
I'm very unlikely to tune the car so 'out of the box' performance and sound is what I'm after. Basically I think I'm answering my own questions here and leaning towards the 3.2 Quattro


----------



## CWM3 (Mar 4, 2012)

Strakey said:


> Sorry I should be more specific. Firstly thanks for the previous replies.
> I'm looking to spend around 12/13k, am after a coupe rather than convertible, I don't need 4 seats but a little more space after the Elise would be nice. I've also considered the Z4 Coupe but prefer the overall TT package.
> I'm very unlikely to tune the car so 'out of the box' performance and sound is what I'm after. Basically I think I'm answering my own questions here and leaning towards the 3.2 Quattro


Me thinks you have arrived at the right decision based on cost and need


----------



## Templar (Mar 9, 2012)

Me too.. should get a nice 3.2 for 13k and from what I gather quite well spec'd too. Just remember to that the rfl is £455 or so and they're a little thirsty. Not saying this to put you off in any way just pointing out a few facts :wink:

Let us know how you get on if you would.


----------



## Strakey (Aug 13, 2013)

Sorry, what's rfl?


----------



## CWM3 (Mar 4, 2012)

Strakey said:


> Sorry, what's rfl?


Road tax


----------



## Strakey (Aug 13, 2013)

D'oh! 
Thanks


----------



## igotone (Mar 10, 2010)

Strakey said:


> Sorry, what's rfl?


Road Fund Licence, which it used to be with all proceeds spent on the roads. Nowadays it's just tax and they spend it anywhere but on the roads .


----------



## Templar (Mar 9, 2012)

Strakey said:


> D'oh!
> Thanks


Soz for that..working for a large American company for some years has conditioned me to use acronyms


----------



## gogs (Dec 22, 2010)

My V6 is a coupe and if I'm honest if your over 4ft in height the rears are pretty much useless for passengers :-(

I tend to do low miles so fuel costs are not terrible for me, it can be thirsty if you have a heavy right foot but I can get around 350mls to a tank of fuel and that's with some enjoyable right foot work ;-)

Road tax is high, my mk1 V6 was only £290 a year so the mk2 with a manual box is around the £450 mark but I'm led to believe the stronic/DSG versions are cheaper on tax for some reason :-o
I've gone manual this time around as I had a DSG box in the mk1 V6 which failed and cost around £1000 for a repair, not for a new unit which was closer to £2000 plus the labour ! Ouch


----------



## Templar (Mar 9, 2012)

igotone said:


> Strakey said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, what's rfl?
> ...


Yep, used by the EU commission to fund aid in eastern countries which in turn really funds poppy field cultivation and arms purchasing. Oops.


----------



## ajayp (Nov 30, 2006)

RFL has gone slightly up since the budget.

Paid £475 for my 3.2 roadster stronic last week.

Steep, but I love mine 8)


----------



## glospete (Feb 1, 2013)

35mphspeedlimit said:


> Agreed. I love my 1.8TFSI but do aspire to bigger and better things when the opportunity arises at some point in the future!


Absolutely agree and I am loving my 1.8TFSI but I don't aspire to "bigger and better things" - been there, done that and worn the T-shirt! Now with the congestion and driving conditions in the UK I am very happy with a 140mph car which most of the time does 80mph maximum. I remember many many years ago going out on a Sunday afternoon just for a drive - who does that regularly any more? And that's leaving aside the cost of motoring. 
Let's just all enjoy the car we have which we presumably bought because it was the right car for us - not willy waving as to who has the fastest, most expensive etc

Sent from AutoGuide.com App


----------



## 35mphspeedlimit (Sep 25, 2010)

glospete said:


> 35mphspeedlimit said:
> 
> 
> > Agreed. I love my 1.8TFSI but do aspire to bigger and better things when the opportunity arises at some point in the future!
> ...


Wise words and something I should take note of especially given where I live!


----------



## CWM3 (Mar 4, 2012)

glospete said:


> 35mphspeedlimit said:
> 
> 
> > Agreed. I love my 1.8TFSI but do aspire to bigger and better things when the opportunity arises at some point in the future!
> ...


The thread was resurrected yesterday with a new member asking for advice model against model, he was supplied with some, and he decided that the V6 was probably his best route...........now I am struggling to see where the issue of aspiration, speed, and willy waving come in to this...he asked for advice, got some...job done :?


----------



## Dave v (Jul 21, 2013)

CWM3 said:


> glospete said:
> 
> 
> > 35mphspeedlimit said:
> ...


Yeah, but which ones the fastest.......

Joking people


----------



## Strakey (Aug 13, 2013)

Ok, one other question...

S-Tronic or manual? I'm not too fussed by the 0.2 sec advantage to 60, more the driver involvement. Coming from an Elise gearbox which somehow manages to be both notchy AND vague is the TT manual, erm, satisfying to use? (if that's the right phrase?) Can you heel and toe in the TT?
There seem to be a lot more S-tronics than manuals out there - is that because they're better? More preferred?


----------



## Templar (Mar 9, 2012)

Strakey said:


> Ok, one other question...
> 
> S-Tronic or manual? I'm not too fussed by the 0.2 sec advantage to 60, more the driver involvement. Coming from an Elise gearbox which somehow manages to be both notchy AND vague is the TT manual, erm, satisfying to use? (if that's the right phrase?) Can you heel and toe in the TT?
> There seem to be a lot more S-tronics than manuals out there - is that because they're better? More preferred?


Personal preference mate..I like the S Tronic, others prefer manual. Best advice is to go try a few see what you think.


----------



## CWM3 (Mar 4, 2012)

It's at this point everyone puts their tin hats on and wonders......................why did he have to ask that question?


----------



## brittan (May 18, 2007)

Strakey said:


> Ok, one other question...
> 
> S-Tronic or manual? I'm not too fussed by the 0.2 sec advantage to 60, more the driver involvement. Coming from an Elise gearbox which somehow manages to be both notchy AND vague is the TT manual, erm, satisfying to use? (if that's the right phrase?) Can you heel and toe in the TT?
> There seem to be a lot more S-tronics than manuals out there - is that because they're better? More preferred?


The precision of the TT manual change can be improved by changing the gearbox end cable bushes to similar to these: http://www.awesomegti.com/42-draft-vw-s ... ed-my02-05

In the TT the throttle is cut when you press the brake pedal; but that can be mapped out.


----------



## Templar (Mar 9, 2012)

CWM3 said:


> It's at this point everyone puts their tin hats on and wonders......................why did he have to ask that question?


I was just thinking the same thing..and now just waiting for it.


----------



## Patrizio72 (Mar 22, 2011)

brittan said:


> Strakey said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, one other question...
> ...


Thanks for the suggestion on that, might look into it myself


----------



## Pale Rider (Nov 15, 2011)

The trouble is that these 0-60/0-100mph times don't mean much except on a race track. The interesting times (IMO) are 0-30mph and overtaking times. The low down torque of the TDi makes it much quicker in "real life" terms than the usual standing start figures indicate.


----------



## Paul-TT (Jul 29, 2013)

glospete said:


> 35mphspeedlimit said:
> 
> 
> > Agreed. I love my 1.8TFSI but do aspire to bigger and better things when the opportunity arises at some point in the future!
> ...


I totally agree with these wide words! I have had my 1.8TFSI S-Line S-Tronic coupe for a couple of weeks & not once has it felt underpowered or disappointing to drive on our overcrowded roads! Over the years I've owned a number of quicker cars including an Impreza WRX & a variety of RenaultSport hot hatches but none of those were as complete a package as the TT. I am quite happy cruising along the M4 in the mornings with the excellent BOSE audio system for company watching the mpg climb into the mid-40s!!


----------



## beberobu (Aug 26, 2017)

Hi there! Very nice forum!
I would like to ask something maybe goosey but...
Regarding exterior, except ground clearance and lights, it's any other noticeable, visible by a naked eye, difference between a base 2.0 TT TFSI (2008) and the S line (TTS)? 
But about between a 2006 base TT 2.0 TFSI and a 2008 TTS?
I mean, if im puting a TTS suspension on a 2006 TFSI and you're looking by side, would you be able to say that is not a TTS?
Cheers!


----------



## ashfinlayson (Oct 26, 2013)

beberobu said:


> Hi there! Very nice forum!
> I would like to ask something maybe goosey but...
> Regarding exterior, except ground clearance and lights, it's any other noticeable, visible by a naked eye, difference between an base 2.0 TT TFSI (2008) and the S line (TTS)?
> But about between a 2006 base TT 2.0 TFSI and a 2008 TTS?
> ...


Different bumpers, wheels, exhaust


----------



## MT-V6 (Jan 11, 2015)

Different grille, diffuser and mirrors too


----------



## QS Luke (Jul 13, 2013)

Also the S-line and the TTS are not the same thing.


----------



## beberobu (Aug 26, 2017)

QS Luke said:


> Also the S-line and the TTS are not the same thing.


Ah, so many Info... I thought TTS and S-Line is same thing... Thank you so much!
Where i could see those infos?
Cheers!

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using Tapatalk


----------



## QS Luke (Jul 13, 2013)

Not sure TBH, the S-Line is a 211PS TT with a few nice bits of trim AFAIK (see sig )
The TTS is the 272PS with all the above shiny bits and mag suspension


----------



## Graham'sTT (Dec 6, 2014)

beberobu said:


> QS Luke said:
> 
> 
> > Also the S-line and the TTS are not the same thing.
> ...


This is the UK sales brochure for April 2010:
https://www.audi.co.uk/content/dam/audi ... l%2010.pdf 
It will answer (and illustrate) some of your questions.
Other years' brochures are probably on-line as well.


----------



## beberobu (Aug 26, 2017)

QS Luke said:


> Not sure TBH, the S-Line is a 211PS TT with a few nice bits of trim AFAIK (see sig )
> The TTS is the 272PS with all the above shiny bits and mag suspension


 I google it a lot today and i found out the differences between S-Line and TTS.
S-Line is sport package, what can be added for "the entire model range except the Audi allroad quattro and the A8." (quote from google and other sources).
TTS its a different engine and bits other small differences which you, all, just list them here.
I was wondering only about body / canopy as im not so fun of speed or power, for commuting a base TT for me is more than enough in terms of speed or power but... i have to admit that i really love so much the look of TTS and i was wondering if i can make a close enough TTS looking from a base MK2 TT.
Cheers!


----------



## beberobu (Aug 26, 2017)

Graham'sTT said:


> This is the UK sales brochure for April 2010:
> https://www.audi.co.uk/content/dam/audi ... l%2010.pdf
> It will answer (and illustrate) some of your questions.
> Other years' brochures are probably on-line as well.


 Thanks mate, i already read it, thanks a lot!
Is the quattro system working at over 30 MPH at any version? I've read somewhere that is not working over 30 MPH...


----------



## ashfinlayson (Oct 26, 2013)

There are barely any visual differences between the tt sline and the TTS other than exhaust, badges an wing Morris.

Quattro works all the time. I believe it sends up to 50% of the power to the back wheels when required


----------

