# TTRS Mk2 vs Mk3 Real world performance



## Alex_S (Sep 4, 2011)

Whilst driving in my Mk3 TTRS over the weekend a Mk2 TTRS appeared in my rear view mirror, obviously fancying his chances and wanting to know how his car compared to mine.

I was travelling at 50mph at the time, the dual carriageway ahead was clear so I quickly switched over into dynamic mode and floored it, expecting to see me comfortably pulling away. But no, to my surprise this car was completely glued to my rear bumper!

I soon pulled into the next service station for fuel, where the guy came walking over with a big smile on his face, almost in disbelief that his '09' plate manual unmodified car easily kept up with mine in a straight line!

I always thought that my Stage 1 Mk2 TTRS felt quicker, but assumed that was more to do with the extra torque that it had over the Mk3. However i am disappointed that the new car is no quicker in the real world than a standard Mk2, and has not moved on apart from in the numbers, which are most probably achieved due to the better launch control system on the Mk3, which is not something I will never use unless I was on a track where it is safe to use.

So for anyone looking to swap their Mk2 for the Mk3, dont expect a performance increase just because they say it has 400hp. There is really no difference unless you're looking for the new technology from the virtual cockpit!


----------



## BillTheButcher (Oct 24, 2017)

That's interesting.  I haven't looked that closely at the Mk3 figures. Are the power-to-weight ratios comparable?


----------



## ormandj (Mar 27, 2017)

Alex_S said:


> Whilst driving in my Mk3 TTRS over the weekend a Mk2 TTRS appeared in my rear view mirror, obviously fancying his chances and wanting to know how his car compared to mine.
> 
> I was travelling at 50mph at the time, the dual carriageway ahead was clear so I quickly switched over into dynamic mode and floored it, expecting to see me comfortably pulling away. But no, to my surprise this car was completely glued to my rear bumper!
> 
> ...


He was kidding if he said his was un-modded. They aren't in the same performance ballpark stock to stock. Stock the mk2 ran 12.6s 1/4 miles, my personal '18 TT RS ran an 11.7 on a bad night. That's a night and day difference in acceleration, and not just launch control based.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

I'd be very surprised if it was unmod'd - maybe he meant 'he's' not mapped it, but who knows what the previous owners have done....

RS of old is about where the TTS is.. but mid range it would win due to Nm


----------



## Hoggy (May 8, 2002)

Hi, Perhaps it was down to the driver.  
Hoggy.


----------



## EvilTed (Feb 5, 2016)

Maybe it's just me but I'm not all that surprised. Making a car disappear in your rear view requires a *serious* difference in performance.
The Mk3 does 50-100 in 6.5s (source https://www.topgear.com/car-news/top-ge ... -drag-race )
it's not at all difficult to assume the Mk2 was slightly slower (let's say 7.5s for arguments sake)

Even at 100 mph you only cover 45m a second and so the best you could hope is to have made ~30m gain on him in the sprint (you weren't doing 100mph for all 6.5s) and on the road that doesn't amount to much. Especially when you consider the fact that he may have gunned it earlier or been prepared to reach an even more illegal speed than you before he lifted off.


----------



## Alex_S (Sep 4, 2011)

Hoggy said:


> Hi, Perhaps it was down to the driver.
> Hoggy.


Haha..........unfortunately no skill was required - straight road, foot flat


----------



## Hoggy (May 8, 2002)

Alex_S said:


> Hoggy said:
> 
> 
> > Hi, Perhaps it was down to the driver.
> ...


Hi, Perhaps the MK2 was already in the correct gear @ optimum revs & ready to blast.  :wink: 
Hoggy.


----------



## Alex_S (Sep 4, 2011)

EvilTed said:


> Maybe it's just me but I'm not all that surprised. Making a car disappear in your rear view requires a *serious* difference in performance.
> The Mk3 does 50-100 in 6.5s (source https://www.topgear.com/car-news/top-ge ... -drag-race )
> it's not at all difficult to assume the Mk2 was slightly slower (let's say 7.5s for arguments sake)
> 
> Even at 100 mph you only cover 45m a second and so the best you could hope is to have made ~30m gain on him in the sprint (you weren't doing 100mph for all 6.5s) and on the road that doesn't amount to much. Especially when you consider the fact that he may have gunned it earlier or been prepared to reach an even more illegal speed than you before he lifted off.


All makes sense there, and I suppose the visual differences are only negligible over a short time. Im also guessing (hoping) he got on the power a moment earlier which always makes a difference! He only had a split second to lift off later though as he was literally 'glued' to my bumper! Maybe unaware of any past tuning or BS, but either way he certainly went away the happiest, whilst I was left scratching my head.


----------



## EvilTed (Feb 5, 2016)

Alex_S said:


> EvilTed said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe it's just me but I'm not all that surprised. Making a car disappear in your rear view requires a *serious* difference in performance.
> ...


I have used this justification to make myself feel better about all sorts of outcomes on the road. I particularly recall not being able to make significant inroads against a 2004(ish) BMW 330i which I had expected to rub in to the ground without even trying.


----------



## powerplay (Feb 8, 2008)

I know for a fact my stock mk2 felt pretty underpowered especially pulling in 3rd gear, APR made a huge difference.

The mk3 is pretty close in performance to my mapped mk2, but many factors come into play, flooring it has to be at the right revs in the right gear, sometimes I think damn I need more power, other times I surprise myself and think wow. The mk3 though I still think needs more effort to get the most out of it, lame throttle response in comparison.

All things being equal no way is a stock mk3 RS no quicker that a stock mk2 RS, in a straight line and definitely not on a fast B-road :lol:


----------



## Mark Pred (Feb 1, 2017)

Not that I'd agree with racing on a Public Road   But having had the mk2 RS and now mk3 TTS, I was pretty sure my new car was as quick as the previous RS. Handling way better, no doubts on that. So, a couple of months ago somewhere near Southend... I had a mk2 RS behind me, clearly intent on showing me some manners... well, I floored it and all he could do was stay with me, he only started to inch up on me as we got to a silly speed, at which point I backed off and sensibly, so did he. So, he could not get past, despite me pulling over to the left hand lane offering him the road to do it. I am sure had we gone past a ton he would have eventually got past, but it just shows that a few tenths less to 60 and a little extra bhp that he had over me didn't make all that much difference on the road. Which is why the mk3 RS is only going to marginally be faster to the mk2 RS in most situations. Of course if you want to seriously risk your licence, it's a different story. Pal of mine with a new RS3 found the same thing when he had play with a mk1 RS3. Again, unmodified ( he knew the fella anyway) and he couldn't shake it, despite the mk2 RS's extra power... does all this matter? Nah. The mk3 TT, TTS and TT RS are way (way) better a car over the mk2 versions that I wouldn't even be fussed if it aren't massively quicker than the previous models.


----------



## drjam (Apr 7, 2006)

Alex_S said:


> EvilTed said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe it's just me but I'm not all that surprised. Making a car disappear in your rear view requires a *serious* difference in performance.
> ...


If he was *literally *glued to your bumper, that would explain why you couldn't pull away


----------



## ormandj (Mar 27, 2017)

drjam said:


> Alex_S said:
> 
> 
> > EvilTed said:
> ...


Haha, you win the thread.


----------



## BillTheButcher (Oct 24, 2017)

For about the same as I paid for my Mk2 RS I could have had a Mk3 S and I was seriously tempted to buy the newer car for a number of reasons. Of course performance is important but engine character and sound also play a large part in my enjoyment of any car. By that measure there is no comparison IMO: the 2.5 is in a different league to the 2.0.


----------



## TerryCTR (Nov 12, 2009)

It most certainly is, I wasn't prepared to pay the cash for a Mk3 RS so I did briefly look at the Mk2 RS purely for that 5 cyl soundtrack. In the end I couldn't find what I felt was a good one and dealers were still wanting top money for what is becoming a dated car so the better tech and handling won out in the end.

I'm actually looking at ordering an M2 once the books open again as I miss the 6 cyl from the M235 I offloaded for the TTS


----------



## BillTheButcher (Oct 24, 2017)

TerryCTR said:


> It most certainly is, I wasn't prepared to pay the cash for a Mk3 RS so I did briefly look at the Mk2 RS purely for that 5 cyl soundtrack. In the end I couldn't find what I felt was a good one and dealers were still wanting top money for what is becoming a dated car so the better tech and handling won out in the end.
> 
> I'm actually looking at ordering an M2 once the books open again as I miss the 6 cyl from the M235 I offloaded for the TTS


It was a close-run thing for me. I love the interior of the Mk3.  Finances permitting I hope to have a Mk3 RS before too long.

I was very close to getting a W204 C63 before I bought the B7 RS4 that led to the TTRS. The 6.2 in them is a sublime engine but the gearbox was [smiley=bigcry.gif] and I found it a frustrating car to drive: all that power and torque but on UK roads you can rarely deploy it without either giving the traction control a heart attack or spinning up the rears all the time.


----------



## TerryCTR (Nov 12, 2009)

Totally agree, even the M2 will suffer in the colder months and that's where the Mk3 RS comes into its own.

C63 though - now that's a soundtrack :twisted:


----------

