# Good article on Pistonheads



## DesignerDaveTT (Jan 19, 2006)

http://www.pistonheads.com/news/default ... ryId=29673


----------



## tim_s (Jan 9, 2013)

I was just about to post this. Interesting article, yes, but I would prefer to see First Drive articles rather than what effectively amounts to a piece of corporate PR spin. I don't want Audi to tell me how the car drives, I want journalists to show me how it drives - at least up until the point that I can get out for a test drive in one.


----------



## VerTTigo (Nov 14, 2009)

tim_s said:


> I was just about to post this. Interesting article, yes, but I would prefer to see First Drive articles rather than what effectively amounts to a piece of corporate PR spin. I don't want Audi to tell me how the car drives, I want journalists to show me how it drives - at least up until the point that I can get out for a test drive in one.


Agreed 100%. What I don't like is that they dismiss the Mk2 design too much. It was such a successful job, great proportions, incredible stylish tail lights, nice details on the side profiles. Its a fact, the MK2 aged much much better than the Mk1. Proof of that is this new version looking just about the same...


----------



## VerTTigo (Nov 14, 2009)

By the way, this is the first taste we have of how the new car rides:

http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/audi/tt/86 ... ide-review


----------



## .nayef (Nov 1, 2013)

> Rather amusingly, Audi is particularly proud of the fact you can now drift a TT. Yes, really: turn off the ESC (it will be fully off, too) and the TT "permits controlled drifts": engaging sport mode prioritises more drive to the rear wheels "making it much easier to steer and control the car when drifting". Both are quotes. *It's official: the new TT can drift.*


That cracked me up. :lol:

Could it be true a normal audi that oversteers!!


----------



## CWM3 (Mar 4, 2012)

I am more interested in how it drives, hopefully they have put some soul into it, its the one thing that lets a Mk2 down, there's no drama, its all rather sterile and bland. If they have sorted that, it just might be a decent drivers car.


----------



## RockKramer (Feb 15, 2012)

CWM3 said:


> I am more interested in how it drives, hopefully they have put some soul into it, its the one thing that lets a Mk2 down, there's no drama, its all rather sterile and bland. If they have sorted that, it just might be a decent drivers car.


This... Exactly what I've been saying. The looks I'm not sure about though.


----------



## Paulj100 (Mar 24, 2009)

Quote- Its a fact, the MK2 aged much much better than the Mk1. Proof of that is this new version looking just about the same...[/quote]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Paul


----------



## VerTTigo (Nov 14, 2009)

Paulj100 said:


> Quote- Its a fact, the MK2 aged much much better than the Mk1. Proof of that is this new version looking just about the same...
> 
> :lol: :lol: :lol:
> 
> Paul


I didnt mean to start a debate between Mk1 and Mk2 lovers. We have to be honest, the Mk2 design is such a great feat that 8 years after its introduction it doesnt look old at all. The Mk1 design theme is just incredible. Its an icon, and its the reason we are all here today, it started everything. Some elements are old now, but its value is undeniable.


----------



## CWM3 (Mar 4, 2012)

RockKramer said:


> This... Exactly what I've been saying. The looks I'm not sure about though.


Looks are always subjective, for every lover there will be a hater, personally having seen it in the flesh, touched it, sat in it, demo'd through the functionality, apart from a bit too much bright work on the external trims, I like it.
The interior is a step up from the Mk2, which is now ageing fast, the seats are a game changer in support and quality of materials/feel.
But for me, its how it will drive, and if its like a Mk2 that will be a major chance missed, it needs to be much more involving and entertaining.


----------



## TortToise (Aug 22, 2009)

CWM3 said:


> RockKramer said:
> 
> 
> > This... Exactly what I've been saying. The looks I'm not sure about though.
> ...


By all accounts the Mk1 was hardly an example of a great driver's car (based on the same platform as the widely panned MkIV Golf) ... the Mk2 was widely considered to be an improvement.


----------



## CWM3 (Mar 4, 2012)

TortToise said:


> By all accounts the Mk1 was hardly an example of a great driver's car (based on the same platform as the widely panned MkIV Golf) ... the Mk2 was widely considered to be an improvement.


OK that's good a evolution story, but is it a real drivers car.....sadly no, its competent at best, so in essence the signs are not good, they have had 2 attempts, and so far we have left base camp.........


----------



## TortToise (Aug 22, 2009)

CWM3 said:


> TortToise said:
> 
> 
> > By all accounts the Mk1 was hardly an example of a great driver's car (based on the same platform as the widely panned MkIV Golf) ... the Mk2 was widely considered to be an improvement.
> ...


The TTs are based on the VAG platforms for medium sized cars of the time (Golf/ Leon/ Octavia). The MkIV Golf (-> Mk1 TT) was considered to be one of the worst driving, the MkV Golf was (-> Mk2 TT) competent but not outstanding. However the new MQB platform has resulted in very positive reviews for the latest generation of sporty VAG cars - i.e. Golf GTi/R. I'd be quite confident that the TT would follow this trend, especially in Quattro guise.

But lets be honest, at the end of the day it's a front engined, predominantly front-wheel-drive car based around a standard platform so expecting it to match up in terms of driving experience with a mid-engined RWD hardcore sportscar like a Cayman isn't really reasonable.


----------



## RockKramer (Feb 15, 2012)

Leaving aside quality, Peugeot in their day and now with the RCZ R, the RenaltSport Megan and Fords Focus ST & RS... If they can work wonders with fwd, communicative steering and chassis Audi should've been able to if not better, get close to/match these efforts and get bonus points with quattro in the mix. The engine has always been a little to ahead of the front axle but the new platform is supposed to move it further back. The Mk7 Golf with the Performance Pack (front diff etc) is highly praised in the handling stakes so it should look promising but... The S3 though praised for having loads of grip suffered the usual Audi complaint of numb steering and lacking involvement and entertainment. To some it's not and issue but to some (me included) it clearly is.
Compared to the TT the Cayman is a hardcore sports car but I would see the Exige and the 4C as more hardcore. The Cayman is like the TT, though more focused, is a daily driver. Not many would have the other 2 with their spartan interiors as daily drives. All IMO of course.


----------



## Paulj100 (Mar 24, 2009)

VerTTigo said:


> Paulj100 said:
> 
> 
> > Quote- Its a fact, the MK2 aged much much better than the Mk1. Proof of that is this new version looking just about the same...
> ...


I do apologise for my earlier post. I do agree with you regarding why in the article he would partly dismiss the MK 2 :? There was no need for that. I am a Big fan of the MK 2 and when launched was a massive improvement over the MK 1. The MK 1 will always have a character of its own. I believe the MK 2 has aged well mainly due to its corporate front grill which the whole Audi range have now. The MK 3 was never going to be a big change as like a 911 and beetle the main shape remains. It's great the MK 3 incorporates designs from the MK 1 and 2 and will be a great success IMO. The legend that is TT lives on

Paul


----------



## tt3600 (Apr 8, 2006)

What percentage of the body is now Aluminium on the MK3, is it more or less than MK2??

More of the floor pan is steel :?










Seems like less aluminium now???

Here's the MKII ... Aluminium accounts for 69 percent of the weight of the overall body. :x


----------



## tt3600 (Apr 8, 2006)

Also if Audi are going to ditch the 5 cylinder and pump 5-cylinder engine sound into the cockpit and make the TT-RS a 4 cylinder they have lost a customer as l won't pay £50K for a 4-cylinder car; Audi can **** right off.


----------



## CWM3 (Mar 4, 2012)

tt3600 said:


> Also if Audi are going to ditch the 5 cylinder and pump 5-cylinder engine sound into the cockpit and make the TT-RS a 4 cylinder they have lost a customer as l won't pay £50K for a 4-cylinder car; Audi can **** right off.


Perish the thought a measly 4 cylinder, I might just stretch to 50K for a Porker919.....its the way the world is going, you better get used to walking in the future then.


----------



## Patrizio72 (Mar 22, 2011)

Lmao


----------



## phope (Mar 26, 2006)

tt3600 said:


> What percentage of the body is now Aluminium on the MK3, is it more or less than MK2??
> 
> More of the floor pan is steel :?
> 
> ...


I think you're asking the wrong question

Even if the % of materials in the body is changed, it matters not a jot what the % is, as it's the overall weight of the car that counts

The Mk3 2.0t fwd for example is stated as 1230kg, a whole 50kg less than the equivalent Mk2 2.0 fwd, or nearly 8 stone


----------



## tt3600 (Apr 8, 2006)

CWM3 said:


> tt3600 said:
> 
> 
> > Also if Audi are going to ditch the 5 cylinder and pump 5-cylinder engine sound into the cockpit and make the TT-RS a 4 cylinder they have lost a customer as l won't pay £50K for a 4-cylinder car; Audi can **** right off.
> ...


If that's the way "VAG" are going hello BMW M4. I'm sure many TT-RS owners will not wish for a lagtastic 4 cylinder 2.0 with 420BHP. Leave this engine in the TT/TTS.


----------



## tt3600 (Apr 8, 2006)

phope said:


> I think you're asking the wrong question
> 
> Even if the % of materials in the body is changed, it matters not a jot what the % is, as it's the overall weight of the car that counts
> 
> The Mk3 2.0t fwd for example is stated as 1230kg, a whole 50kg less than the equivalent Mk2 2.0 fwd, or nearly 8 stone


I think it's a shame they didn't increase the Aluminium to make the car even lighter :? I mean we're paying a premium price here.


----------



## Patrizio72 (Mar 22, 2011)

Lmao


----------



## phope (Mar 26, 2006)

Well, I'm no car engineer, and I suspect you're not either - I'll leave decisions over the merits of different materials to the engineers

It's interesting to note though that the latest Cayman and Boxster also have a combined aluminium/steel construction, with 46% aluminium - not sure how that compares to the Mk3 though 

Porsche sure charge a 'premium' price...I specced up a new Boxster S once, and made my eyes water 

http://www.autozine.org/Archive/Porsche ... r_981.html


----------



## drjam (Apr 7, 2006)

tt3600 said:


> If Audi are going to ditch the 5 cylinder and pump 5-cylinder engine sound into the cockpit and make the TT-RS a 4 cylinder they have lost a customer





tt3600 said:


> Seems like less aluminium now???
> Here's the MKII ... Aluminium accounts for 69 percent of the weight of the overall body. :x


It could be made of 32.6% cheese and use a 2-cylinder engine - what matters is how it goes, stops, handles, looks and sounds. 
So if the new RS is better than the old one in those respects (and until it appears no-one can say), you seem to be saying you still wouldn't buy one just because it's "missing" a cylinder and is made of the "wrong" metal?


----------



## Patrizio72 (Mar 22, 2011)

Pmsl


----------



## TTshire78 (Apr 26, 2012)

> It could be made of 32.6% cheese and use a 2-cylinder engine - what matters is how it goes, stops, handles, looks and sounds.
> So if the new RS is better than the old one in those respects (and until it appears no-one can say), you seem to be saying you still wouldn't buy one just because it's "missing" a cylinder and is made of the "wrong" metal?


The problem is. If it's 32.6% mature cheddar it would be too brittle. On the other hand if it was 32.6% dairylea it would handle as good as a Micra. I think you would need Red Leicester as you would be able to slice it off and use it for cheese on toast if u got peckish at the end of your journey


----------



## VerTTigo (Nov 14, 2009)

drjam said:


> tt3600 said:
> 
> 
> > If Audi are going to ditch the 5 cylinder and pump 5-cylinder engine sound into the cockpit and make the TT-RS a 4 cylinder they have lost a customer
> ...


I agree with tt3600, the RS should come with a 5 cyl engine. As much powerfull or smooth as a 4cyl can get, its just as not as special as 6 cyl unit. And for the RS price, it better have a special engine...


----------



## CWM3 (Mar 4, 2012)

Lets compare it with car that has a true sporting history in its past, and has seen many changes, good and not so good.

The M3.

4 cylinder NA
6 cylinder NA
8 cylinder NA
6 cylinder twin turbo

Every iteration has given the car its individual character. Many agree the best of the crop, was not the fastest, biggest, most powerful, but in fact the opposite of all them, the weedy 4 pot wins that title.

The reality is that the next RS will probably have a 5 pot, but it does not need it if the whole package is good, it could be anything 4,5,6 or whatever, but so far Audi have yet to find a formula that makes it a great car, so the Mk3 gives them another shot, only time will tell.


----------



## tt3600 (Apr 8, 2006)

drjam said:


> tt3600 said:
> 
> 
> > If Audi are going to ditch the 5 cylinder and pump 5-cylinder engine sound into the cockpit and make the TT-RS a 4 cylinder they have lost a customer
> ...


I won't spend £50k on a car with a 4 pot 2.0l engine and like l say, I'm sure most rs owners would agree with me. The 2.5l 5 pot sounds and goes fantastically well with much lower lag than the tts 2.0l 4 pot. Where did l say wrong metal? Audi were marketing %69 aluminium on the mk ii and now not a peep. I now realise the car is lighter but Audi could have gone further. As long as they retain the 5 pot I'm a buyer.


----------



## RockKramer (Feb 15, 2012)

It's been widely reported that Audi have confirmed the 5 pot will be in the new RS!


----------



## MichaelAC (Sep 7, 2009)

Hmmmmm....Still not 6 though is it


----------



## RockKramer (Feb 15, 2012)

MichaelAC said:


> Hmmmmm....Still not 6 though is it


The RS boys get by and don't seem to miss it


----------



## MichaelAC (Sep 7, 2009)

OK, you may be right...... :lol:


----------



## Patrizio72 (Mar 22, 2011)

I like the sound of a more traditional old Quattro 5


----------

