# Is the Mk3 significantly better to drive than a Mk2?



## jc74 (Jul 6, 2014)

So my question is whether the Mk3 TT STRonic is significantly better than the Mk2 STronic to drive? - I'm hopefully trying to get a fair view from people who have owned a Mk2 TT/TTS and moved up to a Mk3 TT and thus have driven both for an extended period.

I used to own a Mk2 TTS STronic for 9 months and have test driven a Mk3 TT 2.0 TFSI STronic for a few hours, so nothing long term. The main thing I noticed is that the Mk3 has much more pull low down in the rev range than the mk3 TTS, thus making it better to drive around town.

I'm looking potentially to buy a new/nearly new mk3 TT, but am wondering whether actually I may be better off saving a few (thousand) quid and getting a late Mk2 TT instead.

I was reading the blurb about how the Mk3 TT is on the new MLB platform and is lighter than the old TT, but that's only 50kg.

So aside from the tech (doesn't bother me too much), and the looks (we can see for ourselves and judge), what makes the Mk3 TT better than a Mk2 - and is it substantially better in people's opinion?

Thanks


----------



## moro anis (May 27, 2010)

This is my 4th TT over a period of 9 years.

Initially I had a manual Mk1 Quattro Coupe and thought it was perfection.

I then bought a Mk2 Roadster which I had for a couple of years and looked at that as an evolution of perfection.

I then bought a TTS Roadster S Tronic which I had for 4 years and again thought that as an evolution in perfection and unlikely to be surpassed.

Last August I drove a Mk3 S Tronic S line Quattro and was very impressed but thought it lacked the punch and grunt of the TTS and decided to wait until some were about.

In January I test drove a manual Mk3 TTS Coupe and an S Tronic TTS Roadster. I was blown away by yet again another evolution in perfection. The Mk3 seems a whole leap ahead in technology and sophistication which is good, as the Mk2 had been around for 9 years and changed little.

I believe the ratios are slightly different as the revs seem lower at 70 mph. I think it used to be about 23.5 mph/1000 and now more like 25mph/1000. Maybe I'm wrong.

Also there are four different driving modes now plus a fifth you can configure. There's economy, auto, comfort, dynamic and individual. Each one gives the car a different feel and sound.

I certainly wouldn't buy another Mk2 if you can afford a Mk3 as the Mk2 I'm sure will depreciate more quickly and then when and if you do eventually buy a Mk3 the cost of change will be greater.

At the end of the day though the choice is yours but I'd certainly drive some and see what you think. In terms of thinking, I think the Mk3 TTS though not a lot quicker on paper than the Mk2 absolutely blows it away when accelerating and overtaking.It's a totally different and improved car all round in my opinion yet still retains all I loved with my previous TTs


----------



## steve_collier21 (Apr 13, 2011)

I had both the Mk2 and Mk3 Quattros from new with s-tronic. When I first got the Mk2 I felt the take-up from standstill took a lot of getting used to, bordering on dangerous. Certainly if you were the kind of driver that aggressively inserts into small gaps onto roundabouts, or pulls out onto a main road into a traffic-gap, then this was a difficult car to do it properly. (Luckily, I live in Norway so traffic was not usually much of a problem.) I feel the Mk3 is much better in this repect. I heard it was re-programmed but that could be rumour. In general, the Mk3 is so much better in all respects that I'm glad I stuck with the marque.


----------



## stumardy (Oct 25, 2009)

Hi,

I've had two Mk 2 Quattro S-Tronic's and now have a Mk3 Quattro S-Tronic and I can say hand of heart that the Mk3 is awesome to drive. I would not go back to the Mk2 now.


----------



## Rev (Nov 17, 2015)

steve_collier21 said:


> When I first got the Mk2 I felt the take-up from standstill took a lot of getting used to, bordering on dangerous. Certainly if you were the kind of driver that aggressively inserts into small gaps onto roundabouts, or pulls out onto a main road into a traffic-gap, then this was a difficult car to do it properly.


I noticed this a few months ago, I was pulling away from the toll booths at dartford, and there was a mk2 TT in the one next to me. He put his foot down and I could hear the turbos spooling up but he wasn't going anywhere, then all of a sudden he surged forwards lol.


----------



## sherry13 (Oct 8, 2013)

It's very different. The first time I test drove the TT mark 3 (coming from a mark 2) I immediately noticed it was faster, more pointed, nippier, lighter and much more fun. Add to that the exhaust pops and more of a roar when blasting it - auto tune or not - it makes the car have more character than the mark 2. And as another user said before, you can play around with different modes as well.

Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Significantly is an understatement,


----------



## no name (Feb 16, 2014)

Definitely an improvement all round.
I am now an automatic box convert too.


----------



## noname (Aug 20, 2015)

I'm a bit in the opposite direction of you guys....or I only think different..
frame, weight or the line of the car are irrelevant to make a serious choice between mk2 and mk3..or better, ok, any small part, new part of this car has brought a big improvement but, I think the most important differences are the engine (even if the same, it's more drivable better consumptions and good/ready torque) and the quattro traction..and these two things carry with them a fast, fun and a sporty car on road.
of course the car is awesome, tech and so many things that make jealous anyone..but a TTs mk2 has nothing to be jealous of a mk3 to me..I mean it's the same line, it's faster and have grip too...
buy a TTs mk2 now it's a good choice for who wants a great, fast car and don't spend too much...of course more power, more optionals or newest things are always better!
I had TTs and TTrs and used them for about 10000km on track and I can assure you, for out use on normal road are too perfect!

I think is up to you if you don't care to drive a 2013 car or a 2016.. personally I've bought the mk3 because I use it everyday, mountain and sea and I don't care if it's not so comfortable sometime but I like 2 seats cars..I have even the hook!

..and the last true thing, I didn't like and I didn't want to buy the mk3...but I had no other choices but, considering the past, it was impossible that I couldn't love the mk3...so I bought it!


----------



## deeve (Apr 5, 2004)

In a word...
Yes! Yes!! Yes!!!


----------



## noname (Aug 20, 2015)

deeve said:


> In a word...
> Yes! Yes!! Yes!!!


3 words...


----------



## gogs (Dec 22, 2010)

I'd like to think so given the mk2 is going on for 10 years old in terms of design 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## TTimi (Jan 26, 2016)

Both models are very nice cars to drive. Sister has a TTS Mk2 and it is a lovely drive. Feels quick and good grip round corners. It felt as good as the mk3 diesel TT I have driven for about an hour. But maybe that is because of the power and Quattro?


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

As above, MK2 is for girls, MK3 for men!!!!


----------



## leopard (May 1, 2015)

Toshiba said:


> As above, MK2 is for girls, MK3 for sissies !!!!


 :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## LEIGH-H (Feb 24, 2016)

ManuTT said:


> deeve said:
> 
> 
> > In a word...
> ...


Or one word, displayed three times...


----------



## Rev (Nov 17, 2015)

LEIGH-H said:


> ManuTT said:
> 
> 
> > deeve said:
> ...


Obligatory:


----------



## Iceblue (Jul 20, 2018)

The only problem with all of the above is that the Mk 2 is better looking than the Mk 3


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Only if you're in need of a seeing dog.. :roll:


----------



## Sticks (Sep 3, 2008)

Iceblue said:


> The only problem with all of the above is that the Mk 2 is better looking than the Mk 3


More subtle, yes.

The Mk2 is a much less stiff and a softer ride, which may be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on what you want it to do. Mk3 is better overall, although it's a pity there's no 6 cyl version.


----------



## Number86 (Oct 20, 2017)

I'll put money on the fact iceblue has an MK2. It's always owners of previous gen cars that come out with crap like this, and this is across all the car forums I've ever been on.

I think the exception is when BMW went from e46 3 series to the e90 (saloon). That thing is a fucking dog, with rear lights off a Kia, wth where they thinking. The e92 coupe was lovely though.


----------



## ajayp (Nov 30, 2006)

Iceblue said:


> The only problem with all of the above is that the Mk 2 is better looking than the Mk 3


I used to think and feel the same and tbh the MK3 has grown on me over the last few months. 
This was before I got mine and now I look at the MK2 and it's still nice but I love mine and wouldn't go back.


----------



## powerplay (Feb 8, 2008)

Once you've owned a mk3, the mk2 drives like a canal barge.


----------



## 90TJM (Sep 30, 2013)

I have owned both but the interior of the Mk2 looks its age,I would go to a dealer and compare them if possible.Maybe wait for the facelift if buying new or could be some 18 plate bargains out there.


----------



## zooks (Sep 15, 2017)

Iceblue said:


> The only problem with all of the above is that the Mk 2 is better looking than the Mk 3


OP has probably found out the answer in the last 2 1/2 years :mrgreen:


----------



## leopard (May 1, 2015)

Number86 said:


> I think the exception is when BMW went from e46 3 series to the e90 (saloon). That thing is a fucking dog, with rear lights off a Kia, wth where they thinking. The e92 coupe was lovely though.


Nothing looks better than an e46 M3 csl


----------



## Mark Pred (Feb 1, 2017)

jc74 said:


> So my question is whether the Mk3 TT STRonic is significantly better than the Mk2 STronic to drive? - I'm hopefully trying to get a fair view from people who have owned a Mk2 TT/TTS and moved up to a Mk3 TT and thus have driven both for an extended period.
> 
> I used to own a Mk2 TTS STronic for 9 months and have test driven a Mk3 TT 2.0 TFSI STronic for a few hours, so nothing long term. The main thing I noticed is that the Mk3 has much more pull low down in the rev range than the mk3 TTS, thus making it better to drive around town.
> 
> ...


Completely different car to drive, way better than the mk2. That's not just tech, performance and looks (IMO), but the way the mk3 feels, handles and steers. It's no Cayman (I had a Cayman S for a while), but it's getting closer. We have a new Golf R as well as the TTS and the Audi is noticeably sharper, more touchy feeling than the Golf to drive. Which is quite a compliment, given that the R is very good car itself. I owned a mk2 TTS and mk2 TT RS, the mk3 TTS is night and day better than both of those cars. Even fuel economy is something Audi have improved. I regularly get 36 to 40 mpg from my TTS on my commute to work each day. Same journey with my mk2 was 33 on a good day. I like my TTS so much, I'm on my second one. Had a 16 plate in silver and now have an 18 plate black edition, which draws more compliments than any car I have ever owned (the colour is the cause of that). Great car. I wouldn't hesitate if I was considering going from the mk2 to a mk3.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

You lost me at the R's a good car... compared to what a model t ford?
Shocking..!


----------



## SamoaChris (Jun 24, 2014)

Number86 said:


> I'll put money on the fact iceblue has an MK2. It's always owners of previous gen cars that come out with crap like this, and this is across all the car forums I've ever been on.
> 
> I think the exception is when BMW went from e46 3 series to the e90 (saloon). That thing is a fucking dog, with rear lights off a Kia, wth where they thinking. The e92 coupe was lovely though.


It's understandable, most folks are going to support/justify their own buying decisions.

Having said that there's no way I'm getting out of my Mk 2 given that it was the last of the line, good spec. and limited colour! It was bought as a keeper for my retirement. If it was more run-of-the-mill I wouldn't hesitate on changing to a Mk 3.

As for driving, I mainly enjoy just wafting along as I'm an old codger and it's a roadster. If it was a coupe I'd be more interested in the better driving dynamics of the Mk 3. But then again I have a number of motorcycles as well.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

While its true people will always defend, those who have all owned both cars are pretty unanimous in terms of which version is both the better drive and most complete package..


----------



## carrock (Mar 17, 2011)

Number86 said:


> I'll put money on the fact iceblue has an MK2. It's always owners of previous gen cars that come out with crap like this, and this is across all the car forums I've ever been on.
> 
> I think the exception is when BMW went from e46 3 series to the e90 (saloon). That thing is a fucking dog, with rear lights off a Kia, wth where they thinking. The e92 coupe was lovely though.


I left the TT owners group on facebook for that reason.. Sick of reading posts from Mk1 owners who " hated the mk2 and mk3 " and then wasted a lot of money with silly grilles and bumpers in an attempt to make their 15 year old heap look like a mk2.


----------



## Mark Pred (Feb 1, 2017)

Toshiba said:


> You lost me at the R's a good car... compared to what a model t ford?
> Shocking..!


 :roll: clueless... as usual. We have a new Golf R, fantastic car, end of. I doubt you've even driven one...


----------



## captainhero17 (Apr 10, 2018)

Why on earth are you people resurrecting a +2 year old thread and even arguing about it? The original op probably bought the MK3 and then sold it so he can buy a nice Fiat 500l because he got triplets. :lol:

But seriously who decided to dig this up from the thread grave? :lol: 
There should be an option to lock threads and mark them as "solved".


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Mark Pred said:


> Toshiba said:
> 
> 
> > You lost me at the R's a good car... compared to what a model t ford?
> ...


It's utter shite..!
dull outside, duller inside.


----------



## Number86 (Oct 20, 2017)

Don't be a bell Toshiba. It's objectively a good car in its sector. You might think it looks dull, which is completely subjective (unless it's a fiat multipla [smiley=clown.gif]) , but you can't argue it's not dynamically similar to the tt but in hatch form, which isn't a bad thing.

I really don't like 4x4s as I think they're ungainly and dynamically compromised vs a saloon or estate, doesn't mean I can't appreciate a decent one...


----------



## ross_t_boss (Feb 28, 2017)

Number86 said:


> Don't be a bell Toshiba. It's objectively a good car in its sector.


He won't hear it, never deviated from that rhetoric so why would he now. It is quite a dull car to drive in comparison to his R8 to be fair, but not much more than the TTS.

My wife is on her 2nd Golf R and it is phenomenal, it felt so far ahead of my MK2 it forced my hand on moving to the MK3. But also confirmed it was RS for the inline 5 or go home.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Isn't what both of you posted subjective? :roll: 
Indeed isn't the whole of this thread subjective? 
I'll go further isn't 95% of the forum subjective? I'll let you think about that for a while and maybe i reference this the next time a thread comes up..!

But, to be clear i didn't call out its dynamics, i said it was dull and boring and i firmly stand by my opinion until someone present a formula to measure these things.


----------



## ZephyR2 (Feb 20, 2013)

Not surprisingly Tosh the Golf will seem dull to someone who like you drives a R8 (or should that be an R8 :? ). But to someone who drives a Micra the Golf is a supercar.
As you say its all subjective but its also relative. Bearing in mind the number of high end / performance cars you have owned and driven I don't think your opinion can be regarded as being middle-of-the-road. You need to come down a level and see what the majority see.

Personally though I think the Golf is boring.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

You guys are pulling in the comparison cars.. 
I'm not saying a focus RS is boring or the Civic R or the S3.. and would say they all completely leave the golf crying in its oil pan. Subjectively speaking.. its a car you buy when you've given up life or don't care about anything but grey. #livelifeincolour


----------



## Rev (Nov 17, 2015)

I think the Golf is pretty boring too, but other than that it doesn't really do anything wrong. Its just for those that don't want something too in your face. I like their cars more now than their old ones, but its always seemed to me that its like someone went over every square mm to make sure all their cars are as boring as possible. I can seriously imagine someone saying, "this area is too stylish and it has too much flair". I really hate that. But some people like it, fair play to them I guess. I dislike the Civic Type R more though. I think the Lexus LC500 is quite nice, its like a middle ground between too extreme and too dull, not that its a hatchback but its just to illustrate the style I like :lol: (although I don't like the Lexus image and I don't like all of their other cars, except the LFA of course  )


----------



## Mark Pred (Feb 1, 2017)

Our Golf R boring to look at? Yes, it's a bit dull I agree and that's a good thing IMO. It's the family hatch, has four doors and gets very grubby after the kids have been in there... that's the missis car and our second car is my TTS, where kids take shoes off and behave :wink: The best thing about it being so anonymous means I don't have to put up with car envy, you know the sort of thing... idiots tailgating, people not letting you out in traffic or trying to race you because they've got small man syndrome or a little knob :roll: :lol: But boring to drive? No, far (far) from it and ours is a manual, so one could argue it is in some ways more engaging to drive than my TTS...


----------



## GavinE (Aug 21, 2016)

The age old Q car debate where suddenly a car seems to become something more than they actually are to the vast majority based on perceived value and comparable performance stats to justify their existence.


----------



## leopard (May 1, 2015)

Toshiba said:


> But, to be clear i didn't call out its dynamics, i said it was dull and boring and i firmly stand by my opinion until someone present a formula to measure these things.


Dead easy, it goes like this...






Don't forget it's over the angle (tip) squared. :lol:


----------



## Mark Pred (Feb 1, 2017)

GavinE said:


> The age old Q car debate where suddenly a car seems to become something more than they actually are to the vast majority based on perceived value and comparable performance stats to justify their existence.


Translated and with punctuation [smiley=baby.gif]


----------

