# Test drove the new MK3 TT 2.0TSI Quattro S-tronic (Pics)



## Yesj (Nov 12, 2014)

Last Saturday I test drove the new MK3 TT :mrgreen:

Great car! Feels like it's worth every penny.
To bad it was raining all day, but the quattro and Hankook tires had tons of grip.

0-62mph in 5,5sec with launch control with only 230PS. I tried it couple of times and i believe it! Seriously fast!
Above 60mph i think it's not faster than my 07 plate FWD 2.0tfsi (exhaust mod) becaus of the weight and power loss over the quattro setup.

The interior quality really is a new standard! It's such a nice place to be in. For me the best interior of any car yet. The full digital screen in front of you is also really impressive! Works great and the center console is much nicer becaus of it.

The steering rack also is a great improvement! Full lock is twice as fast. Handling is sharper.


----------



## tt3600 (Apr 8, 2006)

The more l look at the car the more it looks like a face lift.

Agree the interior is nice.


----------



## walton_TT (Oct 14, 2014)

WANTWANTWANT


----------



## dextter (Oct 29, 2007)

tt3600 said:


> The more l look at the car the more it looks like a face lift.
> 
> Agree the interior is nice.


I know what you`re saying here bud, but surely, most new models are pretty much a facelift of the last ones ? If they changed it too much, then it just wouldn`t be a TT any more, it would be something else...

Yes, I know it`s not a completely different-looking car to the last ones, but to me, that`s part of the appeal of the new model, as it`s instantly recognisable, even to non car-enthusiasts, that this is STILL an Audi TT, whereas many models are changed so completely, they aren`t even the same model any more at all, and might has well have been completely renamed.

I think the Mk3 is an excellent evolution of the model, and merges the best points of both the Mk1 and 2, perfectly !

All IMHO, of course....


----------



## Templar (Mar 9, 2012)

I do like the mk3 and it would need to be the TTS for me..I just think it's too expensive for what it is.


----------



## ChrisTTS (May 20, 2008)

Hi

Had another 2.0 TFSI S-Line to drive for the day today..[attachment=0]IMG_0006.JPG[/attachmen

Just to put the TTS price rise in prospective it increased from £36,045 for the Mk2 to £38,700 and increase of £2655 or around 7.4%.

For this you get similiar performance to the outgoing TTRS, LED headlights and the virtual cockpit.

Remember that options are optional....

Try adding sat-nav and DAB to a Cayman it comes out at £2,863


----------



## Templar (Mar 9, 2012)

The mk3 TT just will not drive anywhere as good as the Cayman and is certainly not as special to have on your drive albeit the Quattro will come into its own when the snow is around.


----------



## RichP (Jun 20, 2014)

Templar said:


> I do like the mk3 and it would need to be the TTS for me..I just think it's too expensive for what it is.


It would have to be an RS for me and I'm thinking that will be waaay too expensive for what it will be. But I may be wrong....


----------



## RichP (Jun 20, 2014)

dextter said:


> I know what you`re saying here bud, but surely, most new models are pretty much a facelift of the last ones ? If they changed it too much, then it just wouldn`t be a TT any more, it would be something else...
> 
> Yes, I know it`s not a completely different-looking car to the last ones, but to me, that`s part of the appeal of the new model, as it`s instantly recognisable, even to non car-enthusiasts, that this is STILL an Audi TT, whereas many models are changed so completely, they aren`t even the same model any more at all, and might has well have been completely renamed.
> 
> ...


I have to disagree. The problem with the MK3, if I saw one from the side, I'm not sure if I would know if it was a MK2 or a MK3, or even the rear for that matter (not unless you really know your TT's) It just looks like another TT other than the front end.

Other than the front end, the MK3 already looks dated. They could have kept the TT's distinctive side profile but modernised it more. Look at Honda NSX, Vauxhall Astras etc...how they have changed over the years.

The fact that so many people are asking is it worth the asking price is because it's too similar to the MK2.


----------



## Pale Rider (Nov 15, 2011)

Yes, it looks like the Mk2 unless you're a TT freak. An expensive Mk2. A pity.

I still reckon the Mk1 is the best looking. They spoilt the basic design with the Mk2 and they've spoilt the Mk2 a bit more with the Mk3. The bit of body kit on the S-line between the back of the door and the rear wheel arch is very strange. It kicks up at a strange angle - like bad accident repair. Weird.


----------



## Yesj (Nov 12, 2014)

Templar said:


> The mk3 TT just will not drive anywhere as good as the Cayman and is certainly not as special to have on your drive albeit the Quattro will come into its own when the snow is around.


A TT isnt a cayman rival 
The TT is the car to have when you want sportcar looks, but with full economy, practicality, and a little bit sportier driving experience than a hot hatch.
A old couple can't get into or out of a cayman. And if there grocery shopping they wont have any space in a cayman.

Personally my next car would be the current cayman or a 997. But for the time a TT was the better economic choice



Pale Rider said:


> Yes, it looks like the Mk2 unless you're a TT freak. An expensive Mk2. A pity.
> 
> I still reckon the Mk1 is the best looking. They spoilt the basic design with the Mk2 and they've spoilt the Mk2 a bit more with the Mk3. The bit of body kit on the S-line between the back of the door and the rear wheel arch is very strange. It kicks up at a strange angle - like bad accident repair. Weird.


I really never heard someone say the MK1 is the best looking TT. But there's a first for everything


----------



## moda (Dec 8, 2009)

Hi there,

is it brillant non-metallic or Mythos black metallic? 
I like it like this!

Thanks!


----------



## Templar (Mar 9, 2012)

Yesj said:


> Templar said:
> 
> 
> > The mk3 TT just will not drive anywhere as good as the Cayman and is certainly not as special to have on your drive albeit the Quattro will come into its own when the snow is around.
> ...


[/quote]

I'd like to see old folks getting in an out of the TT really... not too sure they would find this car easy either. Also I think you may be surprised at the available luggage space in the Cayman, very deep area in the front for soft luggage but admittedly suitcases wouldn't work too well.
A TTS is getting extremely close to Cayman money, of course this only apply to people buying new as the TT appears to lose more money than the Cayman.


----------



## DavidUKTTS (Jul 8, 2014)

They forgot the right side foot rest.

If, like me, you use Cruise a lot... don't buy one. Seriously, I HATEd having to hover my foot over the accelerator in my E46 and E-Class. So stupid to delete this standard feature of the Mk2.

:roll:


----------



## jonh (Dec 6, 2014)

There is a footrest I think, see page 71 of the on-line brochure - "Image shown also features aluminium foot rest. On UK models this will be black".


----------



## Hark (Aug 23, 2007)

I'm surprised you liked the centre. I liked the interior but thought the centre transmission tunnel looked like cheap plastic. Dash and steering wheel were very nice, for me that was the only bit of the interior that was a let down. I'd also forgot how pointless the rear seats were in a TT.

Looks nice in those pictures. One we saw was silver. Rear and profile are nice but front doesn't work for me at all. Looks a bit like an A4 and the overhang lines on the bonnet / front arch are like the chavs used to do to their golfs to make the bonnet overhang the lights.


----------



## Yesj (Nov 12, 2014)

Hark said:


> I'm surprised you liked the centre. I liked the interior but thought the centre transmission tunnel looked like cheap plastic. Dash and steering wheel were very nice, for me that was the only bit of the interior that was a let down. I'd also forgot how pointless the rear seats were in a TT.


Yeah the only part what looks cheap is the centre console way in the back. Cheap plastic also used on the side of the really nice looking seats.
I wonder if there is a option for some more premium quality materials.


----------



## DavidUKTTS (Jul 8, 2014)

jonh said:


> There is a footrest I think, see page 71 of the on-line brochure - "Image shown also features aluminium foot rest. On UK models this will be black".


That's the left side footrest. On the Mk3, to the right of the accelerator pedal, there is just the side of the footwell. On the Mk2 there is a carpeted footrest on which to place your redundant right foot when using cruise.
Without this your right foot either has to hover over the pedal or you have to scrunch up your right leg to place your foot on the floor in front of the pedal. This, to me, is a deal breaker.


----------



## Templar (Mar 9, 2012)

One reason not to buy a first off..chances are there will be a right hand drive footrest fitted at a later date sue to complaints/concerns.


----------



## 90TJM (Sep 30, 2013)

It is growing on me but the front does not match the rest of the car,the side and rear are too rounded.


----------



## Templar (Mar 9, 2012)

90TJM said:


> It is growing on me but the front does not match the rest of the car,the side and rear are too rounded.


I agree somewhat, the front, side and rear profiles of mk3 does not seem to flow into each other.


----------



## patatus (Jun 12, 2006)

Getting used to it it seems... starting to like it, even it silver...


----------



## nkpt7 (Oct 14, 2014)

patatus said:


> Getting used to it it seems... starting to like it, even it silver...


What's not to like??? stunning! Getting mine on Friday!


----------



## MikeHawes (Jan 8, 2015)

Yesj said:


> Hark said:
> 
> 
> > I'm surprised you liked the centre. I liked the interior but thought the centre transmission tunnel looked like cheap plastic. Dash and steering wheel were very nice, for me that was the only bit of the interior that was a let down. I'd also forgot how pointless the rear seats were in a TT.
> ...


I was concerned by the cheap looking loop of leather to operate the seat fold back - looks rubbish


----------



## patatus (Jun 12, 2006)

MikeHawes said:


> Yesj said:
> 
> 
> > Hark said:
> ...


It's stylish :mrgreen: A bit like on the TT Roadster MK2... (the loop for the belt).


----------



## Templar (Mar 9, 2012)

Which was a useless feature on the mk2 if I'm honest..

I kinda like the idea of the leather loop on the mk3, simple but functional.


----------



## patatus (Jun 12, 2006)

Templar said:


> Which was a useless feature on the mk2 if I'm honest..
> 
> I kinda like the idea of the leather loop on the mk3, simple but functional.


It was actually very useful on the roadster to block the belt on the passenger side so that it doesn't make noise when moving... Looks like the MK3 roadster still has the same. I like it too.


----------



## Templar (Mar 9, 2012)

The buckle on the passenger side always rattled against the b pillar on my previous mk2 through the loop or not. Ended up always having the seatbelt pulled over the bolster when driving on my own.


----------



## RSSTT (May 30, 2014)

It looks like a lovechild of a three way orgy between the MKII TT, an Audi A5, and a Scirroco.

I'm still not a fan of the MKII, but it's growing on me (all these years later). Guess the MKIII may do the same over time but for now I just don't like it.


----------



## Templar (Mar 9, 2012)

I'm still on the fence with the design of the mk3 tbh but do like the advanced technology


----------



## Shug750S (Feb 6, 2012)

Templar said:


> The buckle on the passenger side always rattled against the b pillar on my previous mk2 through the loop or not. Ended up always having the seatbelt pulled over the bolster when driving on my own.


+1 on that. Annoys me every time a passenger gets out, it rattles and I hve to pull the buckle over the side bolster to stop it.

Why they can't have the arm like BMW do on coupes & convertible 3 series?


----------



## Templar (Mar 9, 2012)

Shug750S said:


> Templar said:
> 
> 
> > The buckle on the passenger side always rattled against the b pillar on my previous mk2 through the loop or not. Ended up always having the seatbelt pulled over the bolster when driving on my own.
> ...


No shit :wink: 
My Merc used to hand me my seatbelt. :roll:


----------



## muziki1 (Nov 6, 2014)

Pale Rider said:


> Yes, it looks like the Mk2 unless you're a TT freak. An expensive Mk2. A pity.
> 
> I still reckon the Mk1 is the best looking. They spoilt the basic design with the Mk2 and they've spoilt the Mk2 a bit more with the Mk3. The bit of body kit on the S-line between the back of the door and the rear wheel arch is very strange. It kicks up at a strange angle - like bad accident repair. Weird.


I agree. I love the Mk1 with its sexy curves. The most sensuous of all models in my opinion. A body to die for..


----------



## patatus (Jun 12, 2006)

I took a few pics this afternoon...


----------



## dextter (Oct 29, 2007)

patatus said:


> I took a few pics this afternoon...


Mate; that is very, VERY nice !!

Enjoy ! 8)


----------



## Templar (Mar 9, 2012)

Looks very nice in the white mate...liking the wheels too.

Think your eyesight needs attention as there's not one photo of the whole car... :lol:


----------



## SpudZ (Jul 15, 2012)

Nice. Is that the Glacier White?


----------



## patatus (Jun 12, 2006)

dextter said:


> patatus said:
> 
> 
> > I took a few pics this afternoon...
> ...


Not mine unfortunately... Available at West London Audi :mrgreen:


----------



## patatus (Jun 12, 2006)

SpudZ said:


> Nice. Is that the Glacier White?


I think so...


----------



## patatus (Jun 12, 2006)

Templar said:


> Looks very nice in the white mate...liking the wheels too.
> 
> Think your eyesight needs attention as there's not one photo of the whole car... :lol:


??? I can see the whole car on all of them (except the last one with the wheel). ???


----------



## tt3600 (Apr 8, 2006)

Nice alloys! Definitely think a lighter colour suits the new TT, really shows off the lines.


----------



## Shug750S (Feb 6, 2012)

The skirt just looks wrong behind the door, like a bolt on bit for a Corsa


----------



## tt3600 (Apr 8, 2006)

Shug750S said:


> The skirt just looks wrong behind the door, like a bolt on bit for a Corsa


It's the optional foot rest


----------



## patatus (Jun 12, 2006)

tt3600 said:


> Shug750S said:
> 
> 
> > The skirt just looks wrong behind the door, like a bolt on bit for a Corsa
> ...


Nothing to do with foot rest... It's S-Line specific exterior package. :roll:


----------



## tt3600 (Apr 8, 2006)




----------



## Yesj (Nov 12, 2014)

Whooo looks great in white!!


----------



## Templar (Mar 9, 2012)

Had a test drive in this, nice looking thing but didn't give me the fizz tbh


----------



## tt3600 (Apr 8, 2006)

Definitely don't like it in Black that's for sure.


----------



## VerTTigo (Nov 14, 2009)

Its funny, but how many months have passed, I am still not convinced about the Mk3 design. Back in 2009, before I bought my MK2 I used to spend a lot of time on the internet appreciating pictures. The Mk2 looked wonderful back then. It looked special, sporty, sensual. I am talking about how the car looked in pictures. There was a picture of a black TTS with 19 inch grey wheels... oh my. There is nothing I see in the MK3 that makes me want to look at it 100 times, just like the Mk2 did.


----------



## VerTTigo (Nov 14, 2009)

This is the picture. I used to spend hours looking at it. 
Now please, can someone say that the MK3 in the picture above looks 7 years better than this??


----------



## tt3600 (Apr 8, 2006)

Think the RS will change my opinion


----------



## patatus (Jun 12, 2006)

VerTTigo said:


> This is the picture. I used to spend hours looking at it.
> Now please, can someone say that the MK3 in the picture above looks 7 years better than this??


It does in the flesh. And interior is 20 years better than MK2. Go and see it.
Btw, this is the one I test drove. It does look amazing, pictures don't do it justice.










Look at this video:


----------



## VerTTigo (Nov 14, 2009)

It looks amazing? Maybe. Does it look 7 years better than the Mk2? No way. The Mk2 ( and the Mk1 for that matter) was maybe the best non exotic looking car in the market when it was released. Can we say the same about the Mk3?


----------



## patatus (Jun 12, 2006)

VerTTigo said:


> It looks amazing? Maybe. Does it look 7 years better than the Mk2? No way. The Mk2 ( and the Mk1 for that matter) was maybe the best non exotic looking car in the market when it was released. Can we say the same about the Mk3?


MK2 looked more different than MK1 (bigger, more modern). Mk3 is just an evolution. True. But it still does look very good, and interior is stunning. Way better than MK2.


----------



## Templar (Mar 9, 2012)

I still not blown away by the mk3 if I'm honest. Been to open days, TTOC meet at APS to see a couple and spoke to Audi staff there also test driven the fwd and Quattro, never went away really wanting one.
Maybe when the TTS and TTRS comes alongs...


----------



## philgage78 (Nov 28, 2014)

Had our MKIII TT for just under a week now.
It's very interesting reading people's comments and opinions and comparing it to the MKII etc (new to TT's so can't really compare that much)
All I know is I'm blown away by the MKIII, looks great inside and out, sounds great and pretty quick.
Couldn't be more happy.


----------



## Templar (Mar 9, 2012)

philgage78 said:


> Had our MKIII TT for just under a week now.
> It's very interesting reading people's comments and opinions and comparing it to the MKII etc (new to TT's so can't really compare that much)
> All I know is I'm blown away by the MKIII, looks great inside and out, sounds great and pretty quick.
> Couldn't be more happy.


That's all that counts fella..as long as you're happy.

Mk1 & mk2 opinions have been going on for years now so I imagine with the mk3 this will just add to it.


----------



## 35mphspeedlimit (Sep 25, 2010)

philgage78 said:


> Had our MKIII TT for just under a week now.
> It's very interesting reading people's comments and opinions and comparing it to the MKII etc (new to TT's so can't really compare that much)
> All I know is I'm blown away by the MKIII, looks great inside and out, sounds great and pretty quick.
> Couldn't be more happy.


Glacier White = Need to put up more pictures!! :wink:


----------



## philgage78 (Nov 28, 2014)

35mphspeedlimit said:


> philgage78 said:
> 
> 
> > Had our MKIII TT for just under a week now.
> ...


Sorry, i know you have Glacier on order, i've edited my original post in the shows us your TT section.
Didn't actually get many pics so those 2 are the best i have.
Mine was parked next to a Ibis white before i collected it and there is a big difference in colour, i describe the Ibis as a bright white and the Glacier as a deeper white. Both looked great, you will not be disappointed in the Glacier :wink:


----------



## Templar (Mar 9, 2012)

I prefer glacier white to Ibis white but would I pay for it..unlikely.


----------



## patatus (Jun 12, 2006)

Templar said:


> I prefer glacier white to Ibis white but would I pay for it..unlikely.


You mean you would pay for a car which is 30K£ without any option, but you wouldn't add 500£ for the paint? Would you pay for anything? :roll:


----------



## Templar (Mar 9, 2012)

Yeah sure I'd pay for options, but not for a colour that would not generally be distinguishable from a free colour unless parked next to each other. I would prefer to spend 550 on a more useful option. 
Just for the record, one of my favourite looking TT's was a TTS black edition in glacier white with black and silver leather interior.


----------

