# Autovisie Test Mk2 3.2 against the 350Z



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

Today i bought the "autovisie" because i knew there was a test in it between de 350Z and the TT. And i thought, this would confirm that the TT is a sportscar. Becaused that whas the question, in the article from 8 pages, with a lot off pictures on 2 circuits taken.

End off the test: the 350Z is a sportscar the TT isn't. The TT was a little bit quicker on the the track, but the driver doesn't feel what the car's does.
To much distance between suspension, steering and the driver.

on other fronts, like interiior etc the TT was better.
Audi did not make a real sportscar according them

"Autovisie" is for more than 30 years one off greatest automagazine in the netherlands with a lot off members.

I was a little bit dissapointed

Maybe Hans can tell us were to find the article, because it's not on their site, only the magazine and the titel: 350Z against 3.2 TT
So a 2.0 TFSI isn't also a sportscar Tosch :wink:

Hans can you translate maybe a little bit of the article?

http://www.autovisie.nl/redactioneel/ma ... /index.xml


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

Here is a picture off the article

http://www.autovisie.nl/downloads/trail ... ler_17.pdf


----------



## Iceman (Jul 3, 2004)

Rebel said:


> Maybe Hans can tell us were to find the article, because it's not on their site, Hans can you translate maybe a little bit of the article?


It will be on there site in due time, most likely when the nieuw mag edition is coming.
I don't have the mag, and i'm also not planing to buy it.

Hans.


----------



## ChinsVXR (Apr 14, 2006)

Interesting result and it would be interesting to see how they based their results.

I owned a 350Z with GT pack when they first came out and also have had the 3.2 engine in an R32 I owned.

The VAG 3.2 is IMHO a poor engine. Mega lack of mid range poke and the 350Z engine is lightyears ahead. In my drive home (which ive done for the past 10 years), I would overtake in a 350Z, where I wouldnt in the R32. So from a performance angle I can see why they prefer the 350Z.

I was never mega impressed with the 350Z on the handling stakes. My worst ever drive home was in poor conditions in the 350Z. Not helped by not wanting to hurt the Rays alloys at Â£500+ per corner.

The 350Z was also pretty poor on the quality of the interior and general feel.

I have read a few write ups on the 350Z, but always wondered if they had driven the same car.

Be interesting to see how they find it when they give the TT the power its crying out for.

Jonathan


----------



## Bryn (Feb 12, 2004)

ChinsVXR said:


> The VAG 3.2 is IMHO a poor engine. Mega lack of mid range poke and the 350Z engine is lightyears ahead.


The latest 350Z is putting out 300bhp now, interestingly the 6 pot TT is showing an identical 0-60 time as the Nissan - and it has 50bhp less!


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

So the best current car in its class is slower around the track than the old crappy 3.2 powered MKII guess i must have missed something.


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

Toshiba said:


> So the best current car in its class is slower around the track than the old crappy 3.2 powered MKII guess i must have missed something.


Just what I was thinking. I doubt the Shoemaker would complain about his car having less feel than the Renault / BMW as long as it was quicker around an F1 track.

According to this magazine, a Fiat 500 would be a better sports car as there's a shorter more direct link between the driver and the suspension / wheels - hell, he can lean out the window and touch them!

But I also agree with what Jonathan says. I haven't driven the 350Z, but I have driven a 3.2 TT and a 3.0 Z4. The Beemer has a fair superior engine, with a load more midrange grunt, even though it is no faster to 60 and has only 15mph more. In the Beemer you know straight away when you stab the throttle that there are a few horses under the engine.

With the TT, it's pretty sutble by comparison. OK, it was a DSG which perhaps has that affect - I've not yet driven a manual, and I'm hoping it provides a more satisfying drive. And perhaps a remap would bring it up to Beemer standards.

I have to admit that, I had really serious doubts about go through with the TT order, after driving the Z4. But then I had a look at Z4 residuals.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

The 3.2 in the new model has been changed from the one in the MKI. Power delivery is different has been retuned - dont know how, i saw it in the Audi Mag yesterday.

say power now comes in lower down and engine revs better. Dont recall any of the figures. Sorry.


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

Ooh, that sounds promising.


----------



## ChinsVXR (Apr 14, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> The 3.2 in the new model has been changed from the one in the MKI. Power delivery is different has been retuned - dont know how, i saw it in the Audi Mag yesterday.
> 
> say power now comes in lower down and engine revs better. Dont recall any of the figures. Sorry.


Thats good if they have reworked it. I'll be interested to try it. Wonder why they didnt give it more power at the same time? The 3.2 is still very low on its power output for its discplacement. I'd of thought 280bhp should be the baseline figure.

I would like to add in defence of the 3.2 (now I have less beer in my system), that my experience has been in the heavier Golf.


----------



## evotista (Jul 22, 2005)

Taking Audi driver magazine figures published in March 2003 for the Mk1 3.2 the engine details are as follows

3.189 cm3
184kW (250 PS) at 6,300 rpm
320 Nm from 2,800 - 3,200 rpm

Mk II figures puiblished in July 2006 Audi Driver

3.189 cm3
184kW (250 PS) at 6,300 rpm
329 Nm from 2,500 - 3,000 rpm

The graphs that are printed in either edition for Torque versus rpm however look nigh on identical. If there has been any reworking it is very marginal, more likely a very subtle change to the ECU map.

HTH


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Its in the Audi mag - the one they send you FOC when you've bought a new car. i dont have it to hand - just said it had been reworked for better power delivery esp for the MKII.

Has about 5 pages on the MKII and an interview with Mark from the forum too!!


----------



## der_horst (Apr 29, 2006)

Bryn said:


> The latest 350Z is putting out 300bhp now, interestingly the 6 pot TT is showing an identical 0-60 time as the Nissan - and it has 50bhp less!


just look at the weight of the nissan: 1544kg. that's more than the mercedes slk 55 amg.

imo the test's outcome will once again be that the TT has potential based on his weight, but that the combination of the relatively low power output of the 3.2l and the suboptimal, soft steering are holding back that potential.

which is imo no big news and it sounds a bit strange to rank it down even if the track times are faster, but then again the 350z is a rather old model while the TT has just been engineered from scratch, so that rating might be ok if expectations decrease with the lifetime of a model.

i still hope that audi is clever enough to fix these issues, be it for the upcoming models (TTS/R/RS) or, if they aren't stupid, for the next model year. at least the stuff that's easy to fix, like the oversoft steering. that's probably a man week of work and they get rid of one of the few negative points current reviews have on their list.


----------



## Iceman (Jul 3, 2004)

der_horst said:


> i still hope that audi is clever enough to fix these issues, be it for the upcoming models (TTS/R/RS) or, if they aren't stupid, for the next model year. at least the stuff that's easy to fix, like the oversoft steering. that's probably a man week of work and they get rid of one of the few negative points current reviews have on their list.


I wonder, will it possible to change de power steering configuration with VAG-COM, also the pop-up speed of the rear spoiler. ?

Hans.


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

Also in this test:

The 3.2 is a much betther engine than the V6 in the 350Z. 
The 3.2 is between 60mph till 90 mph almost 6 seconds faster in acceleration than the 350Z.
The engine is smoother and has less fuel consumption.

The only complaining is abouth the steering response. No road-contact.
The suspension was "too good" they found. (they had the MR option ) The 350Z gave more thrill by breaking outh, en you must fight with the car. On bad roads and corners, the TT drove like a train.

All by all a good test for the 3.2 TT.

The TT was a betther car for daily use, and the 350Z was more a car for those who realy wanted a sportscar.


----------



## evotista (Jul 22, 2005)

Toshiba

The audi magazine you refer to says the following

"The naturally aspirated, 24 valve, four cam 3.2 V6, basically unchanged from that in the outgoing TT, is mildly retuned for improved low to mid-range response; its 320 Nm maximum torque stretches from 2500 - 3000 rpm instead of 2800 - 3200 rpm."

So, the maximum torque band has increased by 100rpm more and dropped down 300rpm in the range. I think this constitutes the "mildest" of retunes...in real world driving i would imagine you'ld be hard pushed to notice any significant difference. The proof as they say will have to wait until the first dealer test drives.


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

Not necessarily. It depends how the rest of the curve, around the max torque band looks compared with that for the Mk1 3.2.


----------



## squiggel (May 16, 2006)

Rebel said:


> Also in this test:
> 
> The 3.2 is between 60mph till 90 mph almost 6 seconds faster in acceleration than the 350Z.


 :!: :!: :!: That's an awesome difference. In a real world damp road overtaking situation I know which car wins for me...


----------



## PATT (Apr 2, 2003)

> The 3.2 is between 60mph till 90 mph almost 6 seconds faster


Never gone beyond 71mph myself so I'll never know


----------



## squiggel (May 16, 2006)

Rebel said:


> The suspension was "too good" they found. (they had the MR option ) The 350Z gave more thrill by breaking outh, en you must fight with the car. On bad roads and corners, the TT drove like a train.


The one thing that worries me is how much of these favourable impressions is down to the Magnetic Ride.... Would be a real blow to start reading reviews of the standard car that say the suspension is poorer on the twisties.

It is annoying as h*ll that UK is the only country where this was not a day 1 option, or the situation is so confused that no-one knows if it is a day 1 option or not.


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

I don't find it fair that almost every testcar in the video's or the magazines has Magnetic Ride.

I did ordered it, but it's not how they should test the car or test them against a other car.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

I dont have a problem with all the test cars having MR - it has a switch, turn it off and tell us what difference it makes :?


----------



## der_horst (Apr 29, 2006)

MR is not even listed in the german price lists or available in the configurator. i only know the price from german mags that reviewed this option and mentioned the costs, so i'd say that uk is one of the early adopters for this from audis pov.

which doesn't mean it's available for the masses, it seems that the complete first batch went into the test cars


----------



## ChrisC (Jul 6, 2006)

The VAG 3.2 V6 is a compromised VAG 2.8 VR6. 2.8 was the limit for that engine for years because they could not increase the bore size, and they could not increase the stoke or the pistons would meet at the bottom . Until some at VAG came up with the idea of pocketing the bottom of the piston to allow the stroke it be increased. A long stroke engine is normally a tractor engine, that hate to rev.

I am 100% sure the VAG 3.2 V6 engine is inferior to the Nissan 350Z V6, for this reason.

There is one important factor which is being ignored in comparing these cars, and thats the gear ratios/ final drive ratio. These have as much an impact on performance as engine power. If Audi have done there homework in this area the week engine can easily be overcome to give it good mid range acceleration.

Personally I would love a 3.2 TT with a top speed of 130mph (redline 6th). Its far to fast for UK roads anyway, but this would make the acceleration even more ballistic.


----------



## der_horst (Apr 29, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> it has a switch, turn it off and tell us what difference it makes :?


some reviews said it controls the two modes 'very hard' and 'backbreaking hard' 

at least that was criticised by some testers who did wish for a softer than normal mode for bad roads or during the winter. especially as they can control the viscosity by the power they apply all kinds of settings should be possible rather cheaply. why not exchange the switch by a potentiometer and make it continuously variable? i'd have fun playing around with that


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

If thats the case maybe a thumb wheel would be a better options rather than the switch so you can 'tune' it to your liking/requirements. (again IMO).


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

Toshiba said:


> I dont have a problem with all the test cars having MR - it has a switch, turn it off and tell us what difference it makes :?


Agree

But what i realy want to know, what is the different between the normal suspension and the "normal" in the MR ?

In germay there is a magazine i buy every 2 weeks when it comes out, which is only abouth VW and Audi....They call it "Gute Fahrt"

They also have a website, i will look for the URL

In this magazine they alway's compare 2 , 3 , 4 different cars against each other. All the same type, but different engines, or options.


----------



## der_horst (Apr 29, 2006)

that's what i meant with potentiometer


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

Why didn't all the car's have MR? Just make the price a little bit heigher.
It's very confusion, with all these test against other car's with different suspension's.

And i'll find it very dissapointing that not every country has the same options from the start. Can't follow these strategie or marketing policy from Audi AG.


----------



## der_horst (Apr 29, 2006)

Rebel said:


> In this magazine they alway's compare 2 , 3 , 4 different cars against each other. All the same type, but different engines, or options.


sounds good, but atm i doubt that all mags are testing the MR versions because they want to but because audi doesn't supply other test cars.

most testers also get the 3.2l version. the two tests i've seen so far where they got both were rather interesting (two german tv-mags) because in the end the testers were always in doubt which one the better overall choice was as both had (dis)advantages.

i could imagine that that's the case with MR as well (unless you know that you want a hard sport mode). so the more 3.2l MR versions audi supplies the more positive feedback they'll get on these expensive models and the more likely it gets that people will order them even though the other option would have been sufficient for their needs as well.

atm the tests are rather boring, as we only have two engines and a few options, especally if you don't want to wait for your car that long. let's see how the situation is next spring with the upcoming roadster and TTS as well as the real availability of most options.


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

i'll think that the TTS and other TT's higher up in ranking will have MR standard.


----------



## der_horst (Apr 29, 2006)

Rebel said:


> Why didn't all the car's have MR? Just make the price a little bit heigher.


same problem as with all options: that idea is good as long as you want that option, if they force you to buy stuff you don't need you get angry. at least i do. stuff like "no sunroof for you unless electric seats are bought as well" is what i hate about vw/audi pricelists. the TT is one of the few models where they don't do this yet/anymore and i like that.


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

i can't imagine that somebody with a fast TTS with 300hp or more don't want MR.

It's a shame that Audi put it on all test car's and not standard on every TT.

False comparion. I realy want to know after a year how many car's are sold with MR.
And i want to bed, next year or a year later they put it standard on it.
Just like other things get standard on the MK1 after a few years.


----------



## der_horst (Apr 29, 2006)

Rebel said:


> i can't imagene that somebody with a fast TTS with 300hp or more don't want MR.


me neither, but TTS or above will probably come with a richer base configuration, including MR anyway.

but do you really need MR for e.g. the upcoming 150hp diesel version?



Rebel said:


> And i want to bed, next year or a year later they put it standard on it.
> Just like other things get standard on the MK1 after a few years.


but that's normally to keep the cars more attractive compared to newer models of the competitors and therefore being able to keep the prices at the same level as during the release phase when the car is still more or less unique.


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

You are right Horst, It's all abouth marketing.

but 150 hp diesel would be a shame for the TT marketing. 
Leave those engines where they belong. In a Touran family car or something.


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

This is the site from "Gute fahrt" http://www.gute-fahrt.de/

Till sofar there was no multiple TT-car test.


----------



## der_horst (Apr 29, 2006)

Rebel said:


> but 150 hp diesel would be a shame for the TT marketing.


iirc they said that, if they win le mans with their diesel they'll build a diesel TT as well.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

yep, they did.


----------



## ChinsVXR (Apr 14, 2006)

Taking this to an England vs Europe or probably more specifically Germany.

MR might suit German roads, but be horrible here in the UK. As Ive posted elsewhere, Opels Interactive Damper Control is reputed to be good in Germany, but IS horrible on UK roads.

A lot of these fancy suspensions seem good in theory, but it falls apart on UK roads.

If MR had been std on UK cars, I for one would of wanted a drive before commiting I suspect when its tested back to back with a non MR car, then the non MR car will fare better.

Ive yet to see anyone prove, or even show in writing somewhere that the TT with MR has been set up on UK roads.

Finally, the latest RS4 which has had rave reviews has survived without it.

Jonathan


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

Why don't you buy a Jeep or Range Rover if the roads are that terrible?
I did went too the UK two times by car, but never saw that roads that you mentioned? Do you live in the mountains somewhere?

Funny how everybody has a own interpretation abouth options or which type too chose :wink: 
I did the same with Tosh and the others had "fun"









But anyway, it's a shame why Audi is cheating with all the driving tests by giving them a MK2 with MR. 
If we in the netherlands didn't have the option from choosing MR for january, i bought the car also without this.

I did not drive the car, and do not know what i will get, but than again, i don't have the car longer than 2 years.


----------



## evotista (Jul 22, 2005)

Karcsi/Toshiba

Here's the 2 torque curves:

Mark I 3.2 V6










Mark II 3.2 V6










As you can see, there's not alot in it. Between 4000-5000 the mark II seems to have an extra 10 Nm, and between 1500 - 2500 it seems more linear, but i think the real world difference will be felt more as a function of the lighter weight than of really any improvement on the engine.


----------



## squiggel (May 16, 2006)

Looks like 20-25Nm more around the 1500 -2200rpm range?

Definately a fatter torque curve. How much noticable difference, dont know but for sure an improvement.


----------



## squiggel (May 16, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> I dont have a problem with all the test cars having MR - it has a switch, turn it off and tell us what difference it makes :?


Dont think that's how it works.

Think the switch sets 'hard' or 'much harder' as the default setting but I think it is altered dynamically around this point continuously.

So I dont think MR is ever switched off, you just choose two setpoints for it to work around.

However there is so little firm information out there that I wouldnt be entirely sure which interpretation is correct...


----------



## der_horst (Apr 29, 2006)

squiggel said:


> However there is so little firm information out there


i agree. i've read that it's supposed to be intelligent and that it recognizes your driving style and adapts to it, but i can't imagine that a piece of hardware can actually guess correctly what i'm about to do in the next corner (do i even know that?).

so i hope it's not trying too hard to be intelligent but mainly acts based on the little switch to whom i've disclosed my intended driving style...


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

squiggel said:


> Looks like 20-25Nm more around the 1500 -2200rpm range?
> 
> Definately a fatter torque curve. How much noticable difference, dont know but for sure an improvement.


Evotista, thanks for the graphs.

I think the experience will be far far better - the profile is very much flatter, and higher at all points other than the previous max. I'm not sure how much better an aftermarket remap would be.

If you look that the Auto-motor-sport curve, that's flatter still - perhaps with a little artistic license thrown in.








[/url]


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

Oh, and I'm not too worried about the reports of ultra hard suspension. Reviewers have forever and a aday harped on about how hard the suspension is on Audis. I've never found them unduly so.

The guy at the Audi Forum last month said he had driven the car on the motorway. He apparently drove the car on concrete surfacing, with the expansion gaps. With the car in standard more, it was very comfortable. With MR switched on, he felt his fillings come loose.

I'm taking what magazines report with a pinch of salt. Each have their own agendas to meet. However, if we find it is bad on british roads after driving a demo car, we have a few months to change our orders seeing as it is a Jan 07 option.


----------



## evotista (Jul 22, 2005)

Looks like the Auto-motor-sport curve is for the 2.0 T FSI and not for the 3.2 V6.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

i have no idea what the curves mean - so im just going to nod.


----------



## Bryn (Feb 12, 2004)

ChinsVXR said:


> MR might suit German roads, but be horrible here in the UK. As Ive posted elsewhere, Opels Interactive Damper Control is reputed to be good in Germany, but IS horrible on UK roads.


I think you might be missing the point here.

As far as I'm aware MR is an 'adaptive' suspension system, ie it will adapt to the road surface/conditions and adjust accordingly.

If it's adaptive presumably it makes little difference where it was developed because it will 'adapt' and function differently depending on the country/planet/ where it is used.

If what you claim about Opels system is true then clearly the system does not work because it's obviously not adapting to different road conditions.

I think the question should be - 'will the MR system work'
not 'will the MR system work on UK road'


----------



## Johnnywb (May 31, 2006)

I thought the adaptive bit was you pressing the button and the magnets coming on?


----------



## Bryn (Feb 12, 2004)

Johnnywb said:


> I thought the adaptive bit was you pressing the button and the magnets coming on?


Apparently the system has two modes, 'normal' and 'sport' and I assume you use the button to select the desired mode.

I'm guessing the system is continuously active and you simply press the button to alter the mode of damping rather than activating or de-activating the entire system.


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

In the Autovisie they spoke that the system was adaptive to road and drivingstyle if you select "sport". It is no standard set up


----------



## Bryn (Feb 12, 2004)

Rebel said:


> In the Autovisie they spoke that the system was adaptive to road and drivingstyle if you select "sport". It is no standard set up


So it's only active in sport mode is that correct?


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

I realy don't know, but i think so.
You can also see on this picture that it's not just a on/out switch for stiffer suspension. There's more behind this system. Like travelsensors and control unit for algorithm


----------



## squiggel (May 16, 2006)

The following quote from a Delphi press release suggests to me that the system is active in both modes, but using different algorithms depending on the switch setting:



> The greater the energy applied and the stronger the magnetic field, the greater the resistance and damping power. The energy is controlled in relation to driving dynamics and impulses from the road. This means for every road situation optimal damping power is available. This damping power produces â€" according to OEM desire â€" a more comfortable feel or sportier vehicle handling.
> 
> Audi uses the magneto-rheological dampers for both â€" comfort and sport. In its basic mode, the suspension allows for a more comfortable vehicle feel. In sports mode, the vehicle offers a sportier ride thanks to a push of a button.
> 
> ...


If I didnt have to wait months for it, I would get it.


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

Thx squiggel !


----------



## TT Law (Sep 6, 2003)

Mine is due to be built week 40 and has Mag ride on. I will review when it arrives.

Steve


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Audi told me Friday that the MR option, even though in their words is 'production available' (info from production and supply dept) wont be available in the UK until January. I know some cars have scheduled dates but they are not real. (im told)

Dont shoot, im only repeating what i was told.

you will know in a week or so as your car will go confirmed if it is available.


----------



## squiggel (May 16, 2006)

TT Law said:


> Mine is due to be built week 40 and has Mag ride on.
> Steve


How does that square with Audi UK, dealers, and the online configurator and pricelist all saying January???

Good for you if you are correct, hugely frustrating for those who based the specification of the car they ordered on the official information available.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

The honest answer is no ones know whats going off (different dealers are saying different things) I've seen the release dates for all the options and all its says for MR is 'production available'. Audi have made a real mess of the options thing.

Lets just wait and see what happens - should be confirmed one way or another in just over a weeks time.


----------



## Bryn (Feb 12, 2004)

squiggel said:


> How does that square with Audi UK, dealers, and the online configurator and pricelist all saying January???
> 
> Good for you if you are correct, hugely frustrating for those who based the specification of the car they ordered on the official information available.


I've been caught up in all this as well as a result of the MR option and the delays. back and forth with the dealer over the last two weeks trying to sort it all out. 
They actually guranteed me delivery WITH MR for mid Nov then broke the news last week about Jan 07 and I created such a stink they took a grand off list for me. My order is still not confirmed (should know Tuesday) but they are now saying that Jan 07 is a minimum :x


----------



## mhdavies (Jun 21, 2006)

Just caught up with these posts relating to the Autovisie statement that they could not categorise the TT with Mag Ride as a sports car because of: â€œtoo much distance between suspension, steering and the driver.â€

Iâ€™m interested but not surprised. For me, as an engineer (not automotive though) and a â€œkeen driverâ€ (couple of Elises, Porsche (old), a few track days etc) the matter of â€œfeel and drivabilityâ€ is an important matter. (So Mk1 TT was out of the question.) After much agonising re MR, I ordered a Mk2 TT 2.0 with standard suspension.

Because most of the road test cars were MR equipped, only a few reports could make any comment or comparison with the standard suspension. However I came to believe that MR was not for me, based on as much research as I found possible â€" Audi and Delphi (who make the MR system), pretty well all the reviews, and briefing of, and feedback from, a dealer salesman of like mind about his German driving experience.

MR is a complete system. It is not an add-on to, or a modification of the standard dampers. It cannot be switched on or off, but is always operating. Each corner of the car has an accelerometer that gives a major input to controlling the instantaneous intensity of the damping of the wheel at that corner. There is also an input from the steering angle, and there may well be inputs from ESP sensors and yaw and other sensors relating to the body dynamics and speed; and also some amount of cross linking from each corner. Whatever the details, it is complicated. That may be why it is not practicable to have a variable control rather than just the Normal/Sport settings â€" which would obviously be desirable. Each setting is a complete â€œsetupâ€ of many variables.

MR reacts in a few milliseconds. Far quicker than a human could â€" and with more numerous, sensitive and precisely calibrated inputs to work from (though we are pretty sensitive to G forces, steering feedback etc). So the problem is that the car, in working as designed, and achieving (so the road tests say), remarkable results in many ways, is doing the job itself and decoupling the driver from involvement.

Reviews have described the MR advantages, soft basic setup for a smooth ride and great for motorways with â€œjointsâ€ for instance, but able to give automatic stiffening as soon as there is a need to control body dynamics. It all occurs before a driver could possibly react, and inhibits whatever would have happened without MR. I can understand why Autovisie say that it is â€œtoo goodâ€. It might give better times on test tracks and roads that are well known and driven by practised drivers able to operate the car at 10/10ths. And of course in those tests such drivers are not concerned with degree of feeling if, in those special circumstances, a better time can be achieved. I wonder what would be the case on unknown roads, when realistically driving has to be limited to 9/10ths or less, and â€œfeelâ€ is vital? Some reviews have said MR cars drive â€œlike a trainâ€ â€" er, well yes, quite â€" if thatâ€™s what you want.

Many buyers will appreciate the MR advantages without concerning themselves with the degree of feel â€" owners of Mk1 TTs for instance. And I could be quite wrong â€" but Iâ€™m happy with my decision at the moment: MR is too much of a risk.

And why not Sport suspension in my order? Because it is cheap and easily retro fitted if I decide I want it. Mag Ride is not removeable!


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

Thx mhdavies 
I will just see how it works.

MR is also an option on the S3 and will be on the faster A4's
If it doesn't please me than next time i won't take it again  
It's only a temperarely car that i'm buying, not a marriage with a woman for 30 years.

We shall see, i will be driving on the Ring with the car, and also use him for normal conditions, so i think after some time i know maybe more.

But why would Audi break their neck, too bring this new system on the MK2? They can't afford too make the same mistake as on the MK1 by introducing. With esp and rear spoiler etc..

This system works on ferrari's and on the corvette , so why not on the MK2 ?


----------



## ChinsVXR (Apr 14, 2006)

Lots of manufacturers claim their new system is the best thing since sliced bread.

Opel/Vauxhall - Interactive Damper Control - press in UK slated it.

BMW - Active Steering - again slated

BMW - Run Flats - go ask my guys who have these on their BMW's what they think.

I will hold judgement until someone like EVO tests both cars back to back.
Sending them an email to ask them to do this 

Jonathan


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

Chins you might be right, but let's wait with rumours till they've tested it.
And the best testing for all these new things will be the experience from the MK2 drivers them selve.


----------



## ChinsVXR (Apr 14, 2006)

Rebel said:


> Chins you might be right, but let's wait with rumours till they've tested it.
> And the best testing for all these new things will be the experience from the MK2 drivers them selve.


I agree, but the only problem will be getting an owner to drive both and not have their judgement clouded by the options they ticked for their car. Journalist might be a little more independent


----------



## ChinsVXR (Apr 14, 2006)

Rebel said:


> Chins you might be right, but let's wait with rumours till they've tested it.
> And the best testing for all these new things will be the experience from the MK2 drivers them selve.


I agree, but the only problem will be getting an owner to drive both and not have their judgement clouded by the options they ticked for their car. Journalist might be a little more independent


----------



## Bryn (Feb 12, 2004)

mhdavies said:


> Mag Ride is not removeable!


Mhdavies,

What a brilliant, well written and informed post - thank you.

Iâ€™ve taken this option myself and your point about MR not being removable is something that also concerns me.

The fact that the system cannot be removed or disabled could possibly set an MR equipped car permanently apart from a car with a standard setup, effectively producing what could be seen as two â€˜flavoursâ€™ of the MKII.

One view could be If the MR system proves to be rubbish it will create a possible â€˜lemonâ€™ in the MKII pack - and of course it cannot be changed!.
However, if the system proves to be a great success it could relegate non MR cars to â€˜lemonâ€™ status, and likewise they to cannot be changed! Personally I don't think itâ€™s quite as simplistic as that but there is potential for a â€˜status warâ€™.

I don't think the MR debate is a make or break situation it will not create two breeds of car that are so different it will be like chalk and cheese itâ€™s merely an enhancement to an existing theme designed for a slightly different application.

What attracted me to MR was the â€˜switchabilityâ€™ of the system. Stiff sport suspension is great fun and makes a real difference to the whole driving experience but IMO sometimes it can also be tiresome in normal day to day traffic. I like the idea of being able to switch to a more comfortable setting.

DSG was advertised at the time as being a â€˜gearbox for all moodsâ€™ and iâ€™ve also chosen this option. MR and STronic offer flexibility to the driving experience and could arguably be seen as offering two or three cars all rolled into one.

I like the idea of selecting different â€˜modesâ€™ for different moods.

1. â€˜Hooligan modeâ€™ = spoiler up, select â€˜Sâ€™, MR on sport, press down hard on the loud pedal
2. â€˜Normal bod modeâ€™ = spoiler on auto, select â€˜Mâ€™, MR on normal, press throttle 
3. â€˜Old fart modeâ€™ = spoiler permanently down, select â€˜Dâ€™, MR on normal, gently press throttle

At the end of the day itâ€™s all just speculation at this point because none of us have actually driven one yet! but lets just hope itâ€™s all as good as they say it is.

.


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

I stick with Bryn 

Audi alway's stands for improvement and new features.

If you don't like improvement get a Fiat or something like that.
We are the "rebel's"

We go for MR 

After 2 year's it's standard on the MK2 , and it shure will be standard on the faster models like the TTS or TT-RS. mark my words.

Audi doesn't bring a "toy" like MR on a car like the TT. It's got a mission.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Rebel said:


> Audi doesn't bring a "toy" like MR on a car like the TT. It's got a mission.


To make money, nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

Toshiba said:


> Rebel said:
> 
> 
> > Audi doesn't bring a "toy" like MR on a car like the TT. It's got a mission.
> ...


i agree Tosh,

but you don't make money when you got bad tests, or unsatified clients


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

I am sure MR is 'removeable', in that it is computer controlled via a piece of software, and that software can be adjusted so to emulate standard shocks - i.e. the inputs from all the sensors are switched off?

The Ferrari F599 (right number?) has a similar system. Have the press slated that for having detached handling characteristics? OK, it's supposed to be grand tourer rather than a sports car. But the TT is supposed to be a sports coupe and not a sports car. Good for one, and not for the other?


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

lets just wait and see. Again no right or wrong answer, only what you want and we are all different.

Come on Audi give us our cars before we start talking about the carpets or shinnyness of the screws.


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

Toshiba said:


> Come on Audi give us our cars before we start talking about the carpets or shinnyness of the screws.


Now we are talking...

i don't like ice blue leather...brrrr

8)


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

I dont like the wait :evil:


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

i'm counting off, this is my "build week" (34)

but hey !!! You've got tyre-pressure control on yours


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

I hear all the cars built this week have been bodge (its trainee week) - reject it.

Problem with the paint ( applied via a paint brush) and the screwdrivers used by trainees to put them together was the wrong type. Hope they get the assembly people trained on the LHD models before they start doing the RHD ones.

:roll:


----------



## mhdavies (Jun 21, 2006)

If it is still appropriate to refer again to Mag Ride on this thread, Bryn, thank you for your kind comments and it is good to see some follow-up debate about my thoughts.

I must emphasise that in no way am I suggesting MR Bad, Standard Good! Like everyone else I wish we did have some good basis of actual comparative driving experiences and back to back tests of MR and Standard. As I said, I did have driving experience feedback from one Audi salesman who I believe shared an understanding.

My point is that, at this time of ordering in ignorance and with crossed fingers, from the evidence I have managed to glean, for my kind of car, the balance of risks has steered me away from MR. It was close though: say a 55%/45% decision.

I have shared your concerns Bryn regarding the â€œtwo flavoursâ€: one or other may prove to be a lemon, but from the (good) reports of the standard car I agree that a less sharp division is more likely. (Perhaps about Â£1,150 worth!)

Also I very much agree with Karcsi that as MR is software controlled it should be relatively easy for the settings to be adjusted, and that this could include emulation of standard dampers. So in due course there may well be refinements or alternatives, and in fact this should be expected â€" perhaps with or without a choice, or perhaps as a service adjustment. (There are issues either way â€" â€œBut I liked it the way it used to be!â€).

BUT we donâ€™t know!! And my preference is to avoid the risk today â€" I donâ€™t want to end up with one of â€œthose early MR carsâ€. If we knew that settings could be adjusted in service it might well have affected my decision â€" although the â€œdetached driverâ€ problem might have remained

I do not agree though with thoughts that because MR equivalents are used on other vehicles MR will automatically be good on the MK 2 TT. Again it all depends!


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

Toshiba said:


> I hear all the cars built this week have been bodge (its trainee week) - reject it.
> 
> Problem with the paint ( applied via a paint brush) and the screwdrivers used by trainees to put them together was the wrong type. Hope they get the assembly people trained on the LHD models before they start doing the RHD ones.
> 
> :roll:


----------



## squiggel (May 16, 2006)

I dont think either will be a lemon, but I know I am going to have a feeling that magnetic ride is a technological step forward, and that I am more likely to miss having it, if only as a toy to play with and change the feel of the car on different days to match different moods, than I am to regret having bought it.

I think for a typical driver who likes to drive 'briskly' on twisty uk roads, the system is likely to be an advantage. A hell of a lot depends on how good the software is though....

I'm sometimes a little bemused by a desire for 'sporty' handling that favours a car that will hang it's tail out at a given speed as opposed to one that will go round the same corner at a higher speed without drama. I want a light and lively feel to the car, but not too much drama.

I'm not going to get it as i dont want to risk delay, but if I'd known when I ordered that the January date on all the official Audi material was wrong, I would have gone for it at the time. Should have listened to TTlaw. He was saying Day1 all along.


----------



## tehdarkstar (Jul 24, 2006)

squiggel said:


> I'm not going to get it as i dont want to risk delay, but if I'd known when I ordered that the January date on all the official Audi material was wrong, I would have gone for it at the time. Should have listened to TTlaw. He was saying Day1 all along.


The info on the official material was correct at the time it was printed, but Audi changed it last week... I didn't order it for the same reason at first, but now that it has been brought forward I have added it to my spec.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

squiggel said:


> I'm not going to get it as i dont want to risk delay, but if I'd known when I ordered that the January date on all the official Audi material was wrong, I would have gone for it at the time. Should have listened to TTlaw. He was saying Day1 all along.


Nobody knew until last week. I found out wednesday/thursday and posted it on here that it was listed as 'Production Available' but when i checked with my other contact he said it meant the orders could now be place. When he checked the system for me NO UK cars other than demos had been confirmed. Ive since spoke to Audi again and it meant cars could NOW be build and indeed some with MR have gone confirmed.

If you want it add it, it wont make a difference.


----------

