# Scirocco or TT



## topper harley (Aug 3, 2011)

Its crunch time, im spending about 13-14 grand and its between a 58reg 2.0TSI Scirocco or a 07-57 2.0TFSI TT FWD

If i could have the TT with the Scirocco engine that would be perfect but at the moment its looking like the scirocco over the TT.

The main reason is the early TT's have the EA133 engine and the early Scirocco has an early version of the EA888 that both the Scirocco and TT now use and form what i have read on many different forums seems to be a far better engine as the EA133 has a reputation for drinking oil.

Can anyone help, is this oil drinking a common problem on all the early TT engines or is it due to being badly ran in or any other factor.

Any help would be appreciated, cheers


----------



## CWJ (Aug 24, 2010)

Can't comment in the newer engine but my MY07 TT with the older engine has only used a litre of oil in the last 12,000 miles. From what I can deduce the major benefit of the newer spec engine is the 350nm of torque vs the 280nm of it's predecessor. Remapped the former figure goes to 400nm!!


----------



## Jimmys (Jul 10, 2011)

Interestingly I have a 2.0TSi Scirocco and am awaiting a new TT-S. I am only swapping because I do not need the practicality of the Scirocco any more, but would not hesitate to recommend it. The interior is not up to Audi standards although the seats are very comfortable. A well equipped Scirocco is well worth considering, especially if you may need to carry passengers (well more than 1 passenger anyway)

James


----------



## TTShocking (Jun 10, 2010)

Jimmys said:


> Interestingly I have a 2.0TSi Scirocco and am awaiting a new TT-S. I am only swapping because I do not need the practicality of the Scirocco any more, but would not hesitate to recommend it. The interior is not up to Audi standards although the seats are very comfortable. A well equipped Scirocco is well worth considering, especially if you may need to carry passengers (well more than 1 passenger anyway)
> 
> James


Not consider the Scirocco R I know its not 4wd but very similar performance and same engine? just a thought 8)


----------



## Jimmys (Jul 10, 2011)

For me the TT-S is a bit of a luxury treat. I like the interior of Audis and the performance figures of the TT-S are significantly faster then the Scirocco R from what I have read. That said, if I had got a Scirocco R 2 years ago I probably wouldn't be changing it now. Unfortunately for me the Scirocco R came out after I had ordered my 2.0TSi

James


----------



## TTShocking (Jun 10, 2010)

Jimmys said:


> For me the TT-S is a bit of a luxury treat. I like the interior of Audis and the performance figures of the TT-S are significantly faster then the Scirocco R from what I have read. That said, if I had got a Scirocco R 2 years ago I probably wouldn't be changing it now. Unfortunately for me the Scirocco R came out after I had ordered my 2.0TSi
> 
> James


Fair point, my sister has just brought a TTS 2011 black edition, drive it the other day loads better than my 09 one the interior is different and all the minor niggles i had with mine when i brought new in 09 have been ironed out. Well enjoy your new toy


----------



## topper harley (Aug 3, 2011)

Thanks for the replies, anyone else able to comment on the oil consumption side of things?


----------



## Anakin (Apr 19, 2011)

EA 888 is chain driven , EA133 is belt driven.. I had the EA113 in the Rocco R (my TT RS is better on fuel than the rocco R)
My Sister has a 2010 2l TSI (EA888) and its better on fuel than the slightly older engine. But then again the TT is lighter...

I would not worry too much about the diffrent engines, go with what ever car appeals to you more.

Rocco R vs TTs is no contest, the Rocco struggles with the power and fwd in all but Ideal conditions.


----------



## newt (May 12, 2002)

Oil consumption seems variable on the TT mine is ok. One area that has been discussed before is the so called running in period. Some folk think they are doing the engine a good turn by changing the oil early on, this is not a good idea as their needs to be some metal to metal contact to bed in the bores. In the past manufactures used to use a running in oil that required changing after a 1000 or so miles, this is not the case with Audi they use high quality oil from the start and that's why they don't recommend a change for at least 10000 miles, and in some cases 20000. So some of the poor oil consumption may be down to early oil changes which I agree is counter intuitive.


----------



## Anakin (Apr 19, 2011)

newt said:


> Oil consumption seems variable on the TT mine is ok. One area that has been discussed before is the so called running in period. Some folk think they are doing the engine a good turn by changing the oil early on, this is not a good idea as their needs to be some metal to metal contact to bed in the bores. In the past manufactures used to use a running in oil that required changing after a 1000 or so miles, this is not the case with Audi they use high quality oil from the start and that's why they don't recommend a change for at least 10000 miles, and in some cases 20000. So some of the poor oil consumption may be down to early oil changes which I agree is counter intuitive.


very interesting, Im having a remap done on mine soon. Done 9k miles or so, not due for an oil change but I was going to change it. So should I leave it until the car asks for one ?


----------



## newt (May 12, 2002)

Anakin said:


> newt said:
> 
> 
> > Oil consumption seems variable on the TT mine is ok. One area that has been discussed before is the so called running in period. Some folk think they are doing the engine a good turn by changing the oil early on, this is not a good idea as their needs to be some metal to metal contact to bed in the bores. In the past manufactures used to use a running in oil that required changing after a 1000 or so miles, this is not the case with Audi they use high quality oil from the start and that's why they don't recommend a change for at least 10000 miles, and in some cases 20000. So some of the poor oil consumption may be down to early oil changes which I agree is counter intuitive.
> ...


Yes I would wait. Another way of looking at this why would Audi introduce an oil changing process that would reduce the life of their engines and possibly result in warranty claims. You can also operate a new engine much harder from new than say one built 10 years ago, as build tolerances are much tighter.


----------



## maxamus007 (Mar 9, 2011)

TTShocking said:


> .....loads better than my 09 one the interior is different


What have they changed on the inside?
I thought the TT interior was the same and has remained the same...?


----------



## TTShocking (Jun 10, 2010)

maxamus007 said:


> TTShocking said:
> 
> 
> > .....loads better than my 09 one the interior is different
> ...


The problems with the sagging seats the new ones have thicker leather (feels different) and the seats have TTS embedded in them (cosmetic really) and the DRL light switch is integrated in to the actual main lights switch, the controls for the air con ie the knobs are aluminium finish not sure if this is because she got a black edition the stupid phone jack in the center console has been removed and that s about it from first looks...... oh and the doors don t feel as heavy as mine.


----------



## MINI-TTGuy (Sep 29, 2008)

There's no comparison between the mundane scirocco and luxurious TT! I have an 08 TT 2.0 and you do have to to it up the odd time with oil, but sure so what? Great engine!


----------



## blueboy (Sep 6, 2010)

When I bought my 2.0 tfsi tt I had originally gone to view a scirocco which I had set my heart on buying.Unfortunatley parked at the side of the scirocco was the tt which I now own.The scirocco was certainley a very attractive car but parked at the side of the tt it did very much look like a run of the mill hatchback.That together with the rather boring interior swayed me towards the much sportier looking tt.In the fourteen months I,ve now owned the car other than a full oil change I,ve only topped up 1/2 liter in 10000 miles which doesn,t seem a lot to me.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Scirocco, its not even in the same league...
It looks like one of the ugly sisters with small pox and a mild case of leprocy after a good beating by Joey Barton and Vinny Jones.

Oil is bad on all TFSI engines, doesnt matter what type.


----------



## TTShocking (Jun 10, 2010)

Toshiba said:


> Scirocco, its not even in the same league...
> It looks like one of the ugly sisters with small pox and a mild case of leprocy after a good beating by Joey Barton and Vinny Jones.
> 
> Oil is bad on all TFSI engines, doesnt matter what type.


or maybe a squashed golf?? :lol: :lol:


----------



## TT-driver (Sep 14, 2010)

newt said:


> Oil consumption seems variable on the TT mine is ok. One area that has been discussed before is the so called running in period. Some folk think they are doing the engine a good turn by changing the oil early on, this is not a good idea as their needs to be some metal to metal contact to bed in the bores. In the past manufactures used to use a running in oil that required changing after a 1000 or so miles, this is not the case with Audi they use high quality oil from the start and that's why they don't recommend a change for at least 10000 miles, and in some cases 20000. So some of the poor oil consumption may be down to early oil changes which I agree is counter intuitive.


I totally agree. Changing oil early stops the running in process. Treating the engine too carefully from day one means the running in process never starts.

Scirocco or TT: I had the same decision to make. I deliberately did not go for a test drive. I just sat there in both. Walked around both checked and thought about practicality or the lack thereof. Bottom line: The TT made me feel very special. The Rocco made me feel slightly special and is way too practical to be cool. So no new Rocco, a second hand TT it had to be. Oil consumption? Who cares. I had to top it up with about 2 litres between long life services (18k miles) and I actually think it is starting to use less oil now. One year down the line and I still feel that I made the right decision.


----------



## IC_HOTT (May 29, 2010)

topper harley said:


> Its crunch time, im spending about 13-14 grand and its between a 58reg 2.0TSI Scirocco or a 07-57 2.0TFSI TT FWD Any help would be appreciated, cheers


no-one looks twice at a scirocco


----------



## maxamus007 (Mar 9, 2011)

I prefer my mates Rocco R to my 2.0TFSI. The power and sound is in a different league. The build quality is alot better than my TT.

Not sure how it compares to a TTS but its deffo better than a normal TT (excluding TTS/TTRS).

Features:

- Built in 30GB touch screen SATNAV with SDHC slot
- Media connection built in arm-rest (you dont even get an arm rest in a TT!)
- Finishes in shiny piano black
- Auto wipers as standard
- Tyre pressure sensors as standard
- DRL's and Auto-lights as standard

The sound it makes is just phenomenal!

If im really honest, I preferred my MK5 Golf GTI more too. Yes, the TT is better looking but the GTI was pure fun and smiles.


----------



## markuk (May 21, 2011)

maxamus007 said:


> I prefer my mates Rocco R to my 2.0TFSI. The power and sound is in a different league. The build quality is alot better than my TT.
> 
> Not sure how it compares to a TTS but its deffo better than a normal TT (excluding TTS/TTRS).
> 
> ...


Mmmm i suppose whatever floats your boat, I don't like the Scirocco and as for auto wipers, tpm, auto lights what the heck just gadgets. I bought a Golf GT sport and sold it back to the dealers within 4 weeks worst car I had ever owned which had every bell and whistle added to it ......... cant repeat what i thought of it !

I think the TT is great


----------



## DW19 (Sep 10, 2009)

This may kind of be helpful but its only my opinion, Ive always seen the Scirocco as in the same 'league' as the A3. The TT however, is in a different league, its a proper low, sporty, coupe, not a Golf with a few different body panels. It's only my opinion though, but thought it may be worth a mention.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Someones been on the pop tonight - a golf! :? 
This feels like one of those VW advert this - im going to have to get my eyes checked, sure hes just said the golf was more fun.

As for the spec - what you dont say is 30GB HDD is pointless, iphone has more storage and the AMI is a 000000000x better!!!
The nav is SHOCKING "keep on this road for some time" "keep on this road for a long time" is this 1982 again?
Piano black, the finish marks are looks nasty.. and you can have that as an option on the TT if you're daft enough.
Extras are standard to make it look like a better package!


----------



## maxamus007 (Mar 9, 2011)

Toshiba said:


> Someones been on the pop tonight - a golf! :?
> This feels like one of those VW advert this - im going to have to get my eyes checked, sure hes just said the golf was more fun.
> 
> As for the spec - what you dont say is 30GB HDD is pointless, iphone has more storage and the AMI is a 000000000x better!!!
> ...


You can say what you want but I still prefer my MK5 Golf GTI to my TT.

Some are saying the Audi's are in a different league to VW's........most of the underlying parts/engine are the same in both brands (likewise with all VAG cars)......the brakes are pads all come from VW cars just as an example.

The Rocco R is a better car than a non-TTS/RS TT IMO.



DW19 said:


> This may kind of be helpful but its only my opinion, Ive always seen the Scirocco as in the same 'league' as the A3. The TT however, is in a different league, its a proper low, sporty, coupe, not a Golf with a few different body panels. It's only my opinion though, but thought it may be worth a mention.


The A3 is a Golf with an Audi badge.



markuk said:


> Mmmm i suppose whatever floats your boat, I don't like the Scirocco and as for auto wipers, tpm, auto lights what the heck just gadgets.


Most of these gadgets are pretty much standard on Ford's these days but not on Audi's. You'd think they would be standard on a £25k + car..?


----------



## IC_HOTT (May 29, 2010)

maxamus007 said:


> You can say what you want but I still prefer my MK5 Golf GTI to my TT.
> The Rocco R is a better car than a non-TTS/RS TT IMO.


of course you have your opinion maxamus007 but as a matter of interest why have a TT if you prefer your golf and the scirocco R is a better car - cause you love it really :wink:

Anyway - back to the OP query, who looks twice at a golf or scirocco or turns and glances back admiring the curves ? No-one !!!


----------



## Joe Ekins (May 4, 2011)

If you don't need practicality I would go for a TT everytime, the scirocco is a sporty looking family hatchback whilst the TT is a proper sports car ;0)


----------



## Anakin (Apr 19, 2011)

I think the new rocco is every bit as good looking as the mk II TT.
mine got almost as many looks as my bright Orange TT RS 


















I just didnt like the 270bhp and fwd


----------



## DW19 (Sep 10, 2009)

maxamus007 said:


> DW19 wrote:
> This may kind of be helpful but its only my opinion, Ive always seen the Scirocco as in the same 'league' as the A3. The TT however, is in a different league, its a proper low, sporty, coupe, not a Golf with a few different body panels. It's only my opinion though, but thought it may be worth a mention.
> 
> The A3 is a Golf with an Audi badge.


Really? Well thanks for clearing that up. :wink:

In my opinion, the Golf is a bit boring, a bit sensible, a middle aged mans car - who yes, has (nearly) all the quality of the A3, but got the Golf because its a cheaper more sensible option... and for me the Scirocco is just too close. Its not a low, sporty coupe, its a 3door hatchback. Not a coupe like the TT, hence the TT is a different league of car. But funnily enough, I think that the Golf R looks better than the Scirocco R, it looks more of a hot hatch.

Only my opinion, but still.


----------



## MarcF-TT (Jun 14, 2011)

I originally REALLY liked the Scirocco. Then got a Golf MK6 and now my heart is set on a TT MK2. Looking at the Scirocco now, it just seems less grown up than the TT. The TT just looks sharper IMO and feels a lot nicer when sitting in it. Yes the TT isn't as practical so up to you really!


----------



## topper harley (Aug 3, 2011)

I have test drove both and i agree with most of you the TT does feel more special.

the only draw back i had was the Oil consumption. Even though Audi say the engine can use up to 1l of oil per 1000miles i just cant see how it is ok ,it must be a problem with the engine and if it was on a long life service you would be putting up to 18l of oil in the engine between oil changes and audi would say thats ok. I couldnt deal with that its not the cost so much as thinking my engine is broken and audi wont admit it, it would drive me crazy.


----------



## danda (Mar 10, 2011)

Another point to possibly consider - the way they drive, after all that's what a car is for; I've driven both and thought the drive on both had slightly different feel, the Rocco I had for test appeared to understeer more (could have been the test car), it didnt feel as precise.


----------



## TTShocking (Jun 10, 2010)

maxamus007 said:


> I prefer my mates Rocco R to my 2.0TFSI. The power and sound is in a different league. The build quality is alot better than my TT.
> 
> Not sure how it compares to a TTS but its deffo better than a normal TT (excluding TTS/TTRS).
> 
> ...


Think i m with you on this one...  I test drive the Golf R and it sounded awesome (but 36k for a golf no chance), but having had a golf R32 the sound from that V6 was mint! but looks the TT wins hands down the drive is a bit boring compared to my Golf, in a well known driving magazine it says its like driving a computer game... [smiley=gossip.gif]


----------



## mr gee (Apr 20, 2007)

I decided to get both :lol:

Having a 2007 TT and a 2011 GTI, we decided to add a Roc R to our garage. Hopefully it'll come in Jan 2012


----------



## TT-driver (Sep 14, 2010)

topper harley said:


> I have test drove both and i agree with most of you the TT does feel more special.
> 
> the only draw back i had was the Oil consumption. Even though Audi say the engine can use up to 1l of oil per 1000miles i just cant see how it is ok ,it must be a problem with the engine and if it was on a long life service you would be putting up to 18l of oil in the engine between oil changes and audi would say thats ok. I couldnt deal with that its not the cost so much as thinking my engine is broken and audi wont admit it, it would drive me crazy.


I can't remember having seen postings on this forum where oil consumption is really up there in the 1/1000 range. That is not to say that it's impossible but it must be an exception. Anywhere between 1/4000 to 1/10000 (miles) seems normal. And you could always opt for normal service intervals and perhaps a different grade oil, like 5W40.

Mine is improving on oil consumption. It's getting less @ 40k miles.


----------



## hugy (Dec 4, 2007)

I think its crazy comparing a TT to a 'Roc.
They are not comparable imo.
Looks,drive,you know what I mean...


----------



## wja96 (Mar 4, 2010)

hugy said:


> I think its crazy comparing a TT to a 'Roc.
> They are not comparable imo.
> Looks,drive,you know what I mean...


Well, surely the oily bits of the FWD 2.0 TFSi TT and the 2.0 TFSi Scirocco are the same, no?

Same engine? I think so.
Same gearbox. I think so too.
Suspension part numbers look suspiciously similar.
Brakes? Yep. The same.

So they probably drive quite similarly, I'm thinking!

Obviously the TT is significantly different in the metal that makes the bit you sit in and on and look at, but mechanically, they are extremely similar.

Let's be honest, from Skoda to Audi via SEAT and VW, the commonalities are more frequent than the differences.


----------



## hugy (Dec 4, 2007)

Of course they have similar DNA but the TT is so much more sporty to drive.
I have'nt driven the R version but the standard car to me is very dull and thats what I mean when I say they are not comparable.


----------



## msnttf10 (Jul 30, 2007)

VW is just a rehash of the reject design for the TT.
Both the backend and frontend end simply look wrong [smiley=dizzy2.gif] [smiley=freak.gif]


----------



## the minty1 (Mar 27, 2011)

I was considering a scirocco before I got the TT as it was cheaper, just, and a bit more practical. Well I got the TT and the other day I saw a white scirocco going the other way and thought, oh yes I have made the right choice and the right colour (misano red) If I had got the scirocco every time I passed a TT I would say to myself, I should of got a TT. I am sure the scirocco driver going the other way also thought the same. The rear of that car lets the side down in my opinion.
I also thought about the mark VI golf GTI who again is a bit cheaper, but in the end its just a Golf. 
I am happy with what I chose.


----------



## marre (Mar 29, 2010)

I'll be OK with both.


----------



## YoungOldUn (Apr 12, 2011)

the minty1 said:


> I was considering a scirocco before I got the TT as it was cheaper, just, and a bit more practical. Well I got the TT and the other day I saw a white scirocco going the other way and thought, oh yes I have made the right choice and the right colour (misano red) If I had got the scirocco every time I passed a TT I would say to myself, I should of got a TT. I am sure the scirocco driver going the other way also thought the same. The rear of that car lets the side down in my opinion.
> I also thought about the mark VI golf GTI who again is a bit cheaper, but in the end its just a Golf.
> I am happy with what I chose.


+1

I considered one but bought the TT and whenever I see a scirocco, think how glad I am to be in the TT.


----------

