# TT S, TT RS and TT TDi



## Weatherman (Sep 8, 2007)

According to Autocar..
http://www.autocarmagazine.co.uk/News/N ... rs/229443/


----------



## dextter (Oct 29, 2007)

Well, if all of this is correct, then we certainly can`t grumble at Audi, as there seems to be a variant here for everyone to enjoy ! 8)


----------



## Scooby-Doo (Sep 29, 2006)

TTS I would think yes,TTRS why try and go against the likes of the Cayman,it will still say Audi on the back.
TT Diesel, I still doubt very much if thats a goer.if there was a market for such a car why haven't BMW or Merc put their excellent range of diesels into the Z4 and SLK.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Nail in the coffin for the existing 20T.


----------



## BAMTT (Feb 22, 2004)

Scooby-Doo said:


> TTS I would think yes,TTRS why try and go against the likes of the Cayman,it will still say Audi on the back.
> TT Diesel, I still doubt very much if thats a goer.if there was a market for such a car why haven't BMW or Merc put their excellent range of diesels into the Z4 and SLK.


Well why pitch an R8 against a 911


----------



## walpole68 (Aug 15, 2007)

Expect to see a V12tdi in a R8 at some point,a tdi TTC will come,hey if a tdi can win lemans why should it sell in a small coupe,i think it would be a awesome car,quick and 40mpg,winning combination i think.


----------



## Scooby-Doo (Sep 29, 2006)

Much as I like the R8, if I had the odd Â£75K to spend I think I'd still buy a 911,cause its says Porsche on the back.R8 is going well at the moment,will be interesting to see how it fares in a year or two once the stampede has finished.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

75k - more like 95k, or thats what it ended up at once i'd added the options.


----------



## philhumphrey (Aug 7, 2006)

and if you look at this page;

http://www.autocar.co.uk/News/NewsGalle ... &IM=147173

you'll see exactly the list, which I caught a glimpse at, at the dealers a couple of weeks back.

Told you all, I wasn't telling Porkies, but you didn't believe me! :lol:


----------



## nutts (May 8, 2002)

How much can 1 magazine get wrong in one go :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## jbell (May 15, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> 75k - more like 95k, or thats what it ended up at once i'd added the options.


Thats without even trying.

The 2.0T will remain as the bottom of the range, it's good to have a spread of models IMO but not sure about Diesel, it's probably more for the European market.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

200bhp and 40mpg - more like sales rep market.


----------



## BAMTT (Feb 22, 2004)

Scooby-Doo said:


> Much as I like the R8, if I had the odd Â£75K to spend I think I'd still buy a 911,cause its says Porsche on the back.R8 is going well at the moment,will be interesting to see how it fares in a year or two once the stampede has finished.


I see badge snobbery :lol:


----------



## philbur (Apr 15, 2007)

With a 266 bhp Quattro TTS doesn't it look like they are getting ready to dump the 3.2 V6.

Phil


----------



## TTRTWO (Dec 9, 2006)

There are a lot of people out there who want six cylinders for Â£35k.


----------



## Scooby-Doo (Sep 29, 2006)

There are a few people out there who've spent Â£35K but don't always use the six cylinders the've got :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:


----------



## philbur (Apr 15, 2007)

And your source of data is?

Phil



TTRTWO said:


> There are a lot of people out there who want six cylinders for Â£35k.


----------



## audi975 (May 6, 2007)

Scooby-Doo said:


> TTS I would think yes,TTRS why try and go against the likes of the Cayman,it will still say Audi on the back.
> TT Diesel, I still doubt very much if thats a goer.if there was a market for such a car why haven't BMW or Merc put their excellent range of diesels into the Z4 and SLK.


they will make a goer of a TT diesel !!!! Reason being is Audi make better Diesels than any other manufacturer, why do you think ~Audi won the LE MANS with a diesel powered car!!

Have you driven a 2.0TDI (170BHP) A3 ??? try one!!, it p****s all over a standard 180BHP/225BHP TT and better in gear acceleration, nearly twice the MPG around town, figures starting to add up??? they should be................


----------



## Singletrack (Aug 1, 2007)

The diesel is a certainty....Alfa Romeo have paved the way with an Alfa Spyder and the Brera Coupe both offered with diesel engines. And yes....it is a response to demand in the European market where diesels is not only cheaper at the pump, but offers better mileage. The new engines can offer exceptional power along with across the power band torque a petrol engine can't touch.

Not saying I would want one....but I can see a market for it.

TT-S is also a certainty and we'll see it in the next few months. Will it kill the 3.2V6...might. But I don't mind, I've already got mine. Now it will be a collector's item. For those who prefer the growl of an engine over the whine of a turbocharger.


----------



## Jace (Jun 6, 2007)

thats it iam selling mine before they bomb


----------



## cedwardphillips (Sep 6, 2005)

http://www.germancarblog.com/2007/12/audi-tt-diesel-engine-indirectly.html


----------



## penfold (Nov 5, 2007)

With the way Audis depreciate, why will the 2.0 T bomb? It's the entry-level car at 25k, the others are all more expensive, some are more focused as pure sports cars... etc etc The 2.0 is still the sensible option, particularly as a daily driver.

As for the diesel, I like diesel engines, but they have to pay their way. The car is more expensive, as is the fuel and servicing, plus the noise is a bit agricultural (even in this it will be relative to the petrol engines), so the mpg has to be a significant improvement. Jumping from 37 in the 2.0T to 40 in the TDI is hardly significant.


----------



## andyc83 (Jun 19, 2007)

I've never seen my 2.0T do 37! 

From my perspective, on a smooth commute drive of 20-ish miles, I average around 30-32. If I vaguely have fun with the car, it drops to 25 combined. Completely agree that a "jump" to 40 is nowhere enough to make me buy a TT with a tractor engine.


----------



## penfold (Nov 5, 2007)

Well, what I mean is official figures of 37 and 40. If that turns out to be 30 and 33, still crap. Unless the figure is 50+, it just isn't going to justify that 3k premium.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

IF, note the if as this is all guess work despite what may have been posted.

1.8 TT - Cheaper to buy (22k) is golf money. You could chip the 170bhp to 200bhp easy and have the same performance of the 20T. Cheaper cars sell more.

20 TTD - Would open up other markets for the car ie fleets which means volumes. Volumes mean lower resale. Same bhp (200) as the 20T, Quattro??, better torque and better MPG, same price or close to. Why would it not sell? Extra urban is about 53mpg and combined is 41mpg (A4 numbers)

Not all mules make production.


----------



## Black Knight (Jan 16, 2007)

What on earth does this mean?

" And itâ€™ll earn that price tag with a cleverly set-up, rear-biased Quattro four-wheel drive system, with twice as much driver involvement as any other TT, and with a 2.5-litre five-cylinder engine"

It's about the TT-RS.. How on earh will they "cleverly set-up" a rear biased quattro? 
AFAIK this is not possible to do with haldex. They would need to install a real center differential for this which would then enable them to position the engine further back if they wanted to.. or they could move the haldex to the front and make it run off the propshaft and into the front diff..

But these are serious changes, if they really plan on spending the money on such huge chassis alterations, they should have started out with a chassis and drivetrain like that in the first place and have all TTs be rear biased.. the 2.0T FWD would never have seen the production line then, but so what.. and if they plan on doing this by ditching the stupid haldex then it would be a nice improvement for all TTs..


----------



## drjam (Apr 7, 2006)

I'd definitely give a diesel TT the benefit of the doubt - and a test drive. I reckon plenty of people out there would too (and not just fleet buyers), given the ever-rising fuel and VED costs.

My neighbour went the diesel route earlier this year - a beemer 3 series - and it's not remotely "agricultural", but smooth, quiet, comfy - and quick. And he's near-halved his fuel costs. It was a bit of an eye-opener for me. (The only diesels I've driven have always been clattery, underpowered hire cars...). For those wanting effortless, low-revs grunt and less visits to the petrol station, modern diesels are a world away from what they were. 
And after all, most TT's I see are just cruising from A to B, they haven't been bought as all-out sports cars; just good-looking, fast, comfy, practical everyday transport.


----------



## Wallsendmag (Feb 12, 2004)

Black Knight said:


> What on earth does this mean?
> 
> " And itâ€™ll earn that price tag with a cleverly set-up, rear-biased Quattro four-wheel drive system, with twice as much driver involvement as any other TT, and with a 2.5-litre five-cylinder engine"
> 
> ...


Wouldn't that just be a sport Haldex as fiited to Legs car and others?


----------



## Wallsendmag (Feb 12, 2004)

I honestly don't see what the problem is, I bought the car because I like it not for snob value. :?


----------



## Molehall (Jan 8, 2003)

audi975 said:


> Scooby-Doo said:
> 
> 
> > TTS I would think yes,TTRS why try and go against the likes of the Cayman,it will still say Audi on the back.
> ...


Audi could win Formula 1 with a diesel car and there would still be the anti-diesel brigade rubbishing diesel cars. :roll: :roll: :roll:

The good news is that eventually even the most dino-minded person gets to see the light albeit several decades after the forward thinkers.

IMHO we'll be seeing more Tesla type cars in the next few years. 8) 8) 8)


----------



## Black Knight (Jan 16, 2007)

wallsendmag said:


> Black Knight said:
> 
> 
> > What on earth does this mean?
> ...


not really.. haldex in a TT can never be rear biased... it can transfer torque to the rear EARLIER(as in before wheel slip, responding to throttle position, rather than ABS sensors detecting slip) than a regular TT but it can only behave like rear biased if the front wheels are on slippery surface, then the rear wheels get the all remaining torque the fronts havent used up - which can be more than 50% and up to 100% but as said, only if the front wheels have less or no grip.. obviously if you're moving forward this theoretical situation can only last for a moment until the rear wheels reach the gripless surface...... 
on equal surface, a 100% locked haldex can only achieve an even 50-50 torque split. while this also sounds reasonable, a 50-50 split sounds quite nice, driving with a 100% locked haldex all the time would destroy the drivetrain within a couple of miles because it is the same as driving an off-roader with the center diff locked on a dry road - a bad idea..
so this brings us back to a half time 4wd that only transfers power to the rear when it detects slip or at best when you mash the throttle hard... so in essence, it can never feel properly rear biased unless they reverse it somehow so the rear is main drive and front is "auxiliary" as is in bmws..
this reversal seems highly unlikely to happen when looking at it from a financial perspective, as it involves rearranging and repositioning the entire drivetrain and chassis to mate.. and they are looking at it from such a perspective..

maybe they'll just install a haldex perfomance controller instead of the regular and make a big deal out of it claiming rear bias and whatnot as a part of the marketing campaign i guess..


----------



## Black Knight (Jan 16, 2007)

drjam said:


> I'd definitely give a diesel TT the benefit of the doubt - and a test drive. I reckon plenty of people out there would too (and not just fleet buyers), given the ever-rising fuel and VED costs.
> 
> My neighbour went the diesel route earlier this year - a beemer 3 series - and it's not remotely "agricultural", but smooth, quiet, comfy - and quick. And he's near-halved his fuel costs. It was a bit of an eye-opener for me. (The only diesels I've driven have always been clattery, underpowered hire cars...). For those wanting effortless, low-revs grunt and less visits to the petrol station, modern diesels are a world away from what they were.
> And after all, most TT's I see are just cruising from A to B, they haven't been bought as all-out sports cars; just good-looking, fast, comfy, practical everyday transport.


Same here, only trouble is they still haven't got a DSG box that would suit the 3.0TDI.. I'd love a TT mk2 3.0TDI Quattro DSG.. that would be nice.. i think DSG suits diesels quite nice as it always keeps the engine at really low revs which sometimes annoys me in my V6, but a diesel might just actually provide reasonable torque at these low revs which would be nice. You wouldnt have to provoke a downshift to get going a bit faster..


----------



## Scooby-Doo (Sep 29, 2006)

I've nothing against diesel,other than I don't like the narrow power band.
Doesn't make sense for me,I do about 9-10K miles per year.I wouldn't make back the extra purchase cost in saved fuel.Test drove BMW320D,excellent engine but not my cup of tea.


----------



## Black Knight (Jan 16, 2007)

well the TDI that's supposed to roll out in the TT is supposed to be twin turbo (kinda suits the TT name) so the torque band will be a bit bigger i guess... we'll see


----------



## TTRTWO (Dec 9, 2006)

philbur said:


> And your source of data is?
> 
> Phil
> 
> ...


Always the best source and a sample size of only one....


----------



## TTRTWO (Dec 9, 2006)

Scooby-Doo said:


> I've nothing against diesel,other than I don't like the narrow power band.
> Doesn't make sense for me,I do about 9-10K miles per year.I wouldn't make back the extra purchase cost in saved fuel.Test drove BMW320D,excellent engine but not my cup of tea.


You need to remember that a 320d will be worth quite a bit more than a 320i at resale too.


----------



## Scooby-Doo (Sep 29, 2006)

Always do my sums mate,320D is Â£2200 more than 320i. Come 3 years time 320D is only worth Â£1100 more,so I make that Â£1100 of fuel I need to save to make it profitable,plus extra servicing.What Car (hate to quote this mag) gives 320D cost per mile as 57.1p and 320i as 55.5 so that over 3 years and 36000 miles its Â£ 576 more to run the diesel.Pick the holes if you can.


----------



## walpole68 (Aug 15, 2007)

Plus 320d is nice punchy engine and 320i is gutless.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Black Knight said:


> a 100% locked haldex can only achieve an even 50-50 torque split. while this also sounds reasonable, a 50-50 split sounds quite nice


Audi say the MKII version CAN send 100% in EITHER direction.


----------



## Black Knight (Jan 16, 2007)

Toshiba said:


> Black Knight said:
> 
> 
> > a 100% locked haldex can only achieve an even 50-50 torque split. while this also sounds reasonable, a 50-50 split sounds quite nice
> ...


No 4wd production car can send 100% in EITHER direction. At best perhaps 80% either direction and that is with a torsen center differential(big audis).
MKII and MKI have the same drivetrain basicly, at least the V6 DSG Quattro.

Haldex can send 100% to the rear wheels only if the front wheels are on ice or in the air and arent taking up any torque as they have no grip. This theoretical situation is obviously taken advantage off for marketing purposes by Audi. 
Obviously if the fronts are on ice and you're moving forward the rears will reach the ice too so you will have 100% sent to the rear for only a brief moment.

Haldex basicly "feeds" off the front axle. There is no real "torque split". Haldex hooks up to the front axle and makes the rear axle spin together with the front. When haldex is 100% locked it is basicly like the front and rear axle are locked together via solid gears and spin together. This is obviously a 50-50 split on equal surface, unless the front axle has no grip, all wheels spin together so only the rears will provide grip and use up torque and theoretically get more than 50% of torque..
Bigger audis with torsen center differentials actually split input torque to axles and do not lock their speed together, they can actually accelerate one axle beyond the speed of the other and send more torque to either side.. but this requires the drivetrain layout to be different and more complex - engine input goes into the center differential and is split to the rear and front by the torsen center differential, and then the front and rear differentials split it to left and right wheels.. 
On a TT the propshaft is just geared into the front differential housing, haldex is as the back of the propshaft and acts as a clutch between the propshaft and rear diff.. so obviously there is nothing "splitting" the torque between front and rear, just the haldex clutch locking the front differential housing to the rear differential housing and making them spin at the same speed together.. So the engine simply accelerates the front differential housing as it does in a FWD TT and because the propshaft is geared into it and haldex is locked the rear differential housing gets accelerated too.. quite crude but somewhat effective.. when haldex is 100% locked it doesnt allow the two axles to rotate at different speeds which kinda makes the car "skip" when doing tight maneuvers as the front wheels travel more than the rears.. this is why haldex only engages when "needed"...


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/secret_new_car.php?sid=1324&page=1

Car magazine also reporting same. TTtdi will sell well. BMW 123d coupe is natural competitor. Audi just need to make sure the twin turbo common rail engine is at least as smooth and rev-happy as is the 123d lump reportedly is.

More choices are good.


----------



## Arne (Dec 13, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> Nail in the coffin for the existing 20T.


My guess is that theTTS will replace the 3.2 - which will go out of production.

It will always be a demand for a not so expencive fwd TT. But I don't think a heavier TT V6 quattro at almost the same price as a lighter and more powerfull TTS will have any marked after it's arrival.


----------



## Black Knight (Jan 16, 2007)

I dont like turbos.. I want NA lots of cylinders.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

TTS is replacing nothing, Its an additional model in the range.


----------



## Thomas the Spoiler (Aug 1, 2007)

I can't see the point of the tt-s. You want a v6 for the money. I would rather go for the 2.0T and save the money, if I had to have a turbo 4 pot. Otherwise I'd go looking at other brands.


----------



## Arne (Dec 13, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> TTS is replacing nothing, Its an additional model in the range.


Ok - it will nail in the coffin for the existing 3.2 then.... :wink:


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Thomas the Spoiler said:


> I can't see the point of the tt-s. You want a v6 for the money. I would rather go for the 2.0T and save the money, if I had to have a turbo 4 pot. Otherwise I'd go looking at other brands.


Thing is you can't get anything for the money. Cayman is plus 10k. Boxter - is a ragtop. Whats the options for a non fourpot coupe >250bhp in the 32-5k space?


----------



## Black Knight (Jan 16, 2007)

how much does a z4 3.0 cost?

how about a brera? [smiley=jester.gif]


----------



## ezzie (Jul 2, 2004)

Also the TTS is likely to be priced at 33k, or rather rumours so far seem to range from at least 33k. So its 10% more for a 4 cylinder engine which has not received universal rave reviews in the S3.


----------



## Black Knight (Jan 16, 2007)

4 cylinders is just too little and sound like lawnmowers..

and turbos also annoyingly lack control and are nonresponsive.. i mean sure, if you're boy racer then turbo is the way to go, but what about people who are not obsessed with dump valve sounds and bigger intercoolers?

:mrgreen: :mrgreen:


----------



## ezzie (Jul 2, 2004)

Black Knight said:


> how much does a z4 3.0 cost?
> 
> how about a brera? [smiley=jester.gif]


Fair point, but both have shortcomings, one is getting on now in terms of design and only two seats (admittedly the TT's rear ones are useless) and the other is far too heavy. Once the new Z4 is out and the Brera is re-engineered. Then fair enough. Only left with the 350Z, but its interior is somewhat behind the TT's.


----------



## Black Knight (Jan 16, 2007)

ah yes, the 350z, forgot about that one.. i just never could bring myself to like that car.. the interior is bad and the exterior is even worse.. those renault/nissan light clusters and sharp lines that dont really make any sense just arent my cup of tea... i think the 350z is a perfect example of how with bad design it is possible to ruin even the best available basic car shape - the coupe shape..

yes, brera is uberheavy and uberugly, looks like some kind of a super fat squashed hatchback..

i wouldnt mind a z4 coupe though..

there's also the SLK, looks kinda nice although a bit gay, it always looked like a girly SL although the new SL is now totaly different


----------



## balders (Sep 11, 2006)

ezzie said:


> Fair point, but both have shortcomings, one is getting on now in terms of design and only two seats (admittedly the TT's rear ones are useless)


Ah, but to me, those rear seats aren't useless - my two kids fill them quite nicely, which is the main reason I've plumped for a TT rather than a Boxster, Z4 or SLK. There aren't many other options on the market that offer the combintation of four usable seats (for me anyway), performance, looks and price.

Balders.


----------



## der_horst (Apr 29, 2006)

Black Knight said:


> and turbos also annoyingly lack control and are nonresponsive..


that's the kind of image that gets created when companies try to make the maximum profit by introducing concepts like the TTS.

a turbo is not releated to lag, that's only an effect you get when the car is not powered by the engine but by the turbo. if the engine is reasonably sized and the turbo is fitting well to the engine concept there is no lag. if in doubt have a test drive in the 911 turbo.


----------



## TTRTWO (Dec 9, 2006)

....or a 535d with its sequential twin turbo - amazing.

PS Still agree that there is a roll for the 3.2 though.


----------



## Thomas the Spoiler (Aug 1, 2007)

... or a Veyron with 4 turbos. Although I think getting a test drive might be tricky.

I totally agree with derhorst, turbos are entirely different when a company is just trying to squeeze more power out of a small engine for marketing purposes.

Clarkson, I seem to recall, thought the lag on the S3 was so bad as to render it undriveable. That doesn't bode well...

I get very irritated by turbo lag, especially on windy roads. I found 2T suffered from lag problems much less than others


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Black Knight said:


> how much does a z4 3.0 cost?
> 
> how about a brera? [smiley=jester.gif]


You'd have to be a clown to get the brera its FWD and gets to 60 eventually around 7secs. Handling is poor.

Z4, im not a fan, but its nots a bad car. spec'd up its close to 40k and will lose its value faster than northern rock shares.


----------



## Thomas the Spoiler (Aug 1, 2007)

The Brera V6 is 4wd, I believe. But it is so slow you might as well walk.

On the upside it is a beautiful car, though not as attractive as the tt. It should drive well (when not broken down)


----------



## chilliman (Sep 22, 2007)

Given that it now looks like I will be doing 18k miles a year, have opted out of the company car scheme - if I'm still in the same situ early 2009 I will be putting my name down for the TT TDI

.... Now seeing as got my TTR July 2007 I think that will be about replacement time anyways!? 8)


----------

