# Peugeot RCZ prettier than the TT???



## VerTTigo (Nov 14, 2009)

According to Autocar the new Peugeot RCZ is *FAR* prettier than the TT. For me it not even close. TT hands down. The RCZ front end is the same found on the 308, which im not a fan. The rest is TTish but with bad proportions and little elegance.




























What do you guys think?


----------



## dwell159 (Apr 4, 2009)

Are they blind? What is pretty??? This Peugeot is as ugly as they come...


----------



## ausTT (Feb 19, 2010)

i think it looks like a peugeot - in which case [smiley=thumbsdown.gif]


----------



## Americo (Jan 19, 2009)

Me no likey AT ALL


----------



## ramborami (Aug 1, 2009)

looks like a mitsubishi eclipse, proportions are quite a bit OFF, is it a hardtop convertible????

:?

View attachment 1


----------



## Redscouse (Sep 30, 2008)

Loads of people are talking about this, but i really dont like it!! :roll:

I saw this in the flesh at the Autosport International Show in January, and i was un-impressed really. Whether it was a new Pug or a new Porsche, really dont like the look of it, sorry!

Paul


----------



## johnny_hungus (Jun 14, 2009)

Bizarre!


----------



## davelincs (Jan 1, 2010)

well its a good job we all have different tastes, i used to think the hillman avenger looked good, come to think of it the avenger looks better then the peugeot


----------



## Gren (Jul 25, 2002)

Front end from the A pillars forward is a typical Peugeot - middle bit is okay (have I seen that roofline somewhere before?) and the back end is the typical huge arse of the folding hardtop. May have started off as a good design but lots of practical and corporate issues just got in the way


----------



## tegdiw (Feb 17, 2008)

I've been wroking with the RCZ for Peugeot on customer preview events and dealer training due to go live after the Easter weekend. Peugeot have a very, errm, individual style referred to above, and I'm still not sure myself. :?:

Whether it's prettier or not is fairly academic if the dealers aren't up to the job of looking after RCZ customers. [smiley=argue.gif]


----------



## sTTranger (Oct 21, 2008)

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

You gotta be kiddin, thats frigin ugly, the best part of that picture is the view :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## mailrush (Nov 20, 2009)

funny that someone should bring this up - i was thinking about it yesterday...

IMO - no.

Its got an ugly big mouth and i fear that the shaped roof is too futuristic for todays market and will fall into the new honda civic trap of looking like a space ship!  :lol:


----------



## Pete225 (Feb 9, 2004)

I saw it last week at Geneva. Nice, but it is still a Peugeot.


----------



## mailrush (Nov 20, 2009)

autocar certainly seems to think its better looking than the TT - http://www.autocar.co.uk/CarReviews/FirstDrives/Peugeot-RCZ-1.6-THP-200-Level-2/248205/


----------



## SimonQS (Jul 21, 2008)

VerTTigo said:


> According to Autocar the new Peugeot RCZ is *FAR* prettier than the TT. For me it not even close. TT hands down. The RCZ front end is the same found on the 308, which im not a fan. The rest is TTish but with bad proportions and little elegance.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Actually I like it, if I wasnt a badge snob (I would not drive a French car unless its a Bugatti) and they had a decent engine then I would consider one.


----------



## macfab (Feb 24, 2010)

From certain angles it doesn't look too bad but the grill at the front reminds me of Cheri Blair's smile.


----------



## welshmatt (Aug 6, 2008)

Ugh that rear is awful 

Had a look at some other pics and the interior seems your typical pug plastic. They appear to be punching above their weight (and failing miserably).

I reckon in a few years it will be horribly dated.


----------



## leenx (Feb 8, 2010)

Vile! Looks no different to any other Puegeot! Didn't get a great write up in The Times at weekend either!


----------



## djtex (May 6, 2007)

The rear three quarter shot makes it look like a Lexus SC430 and that can never be a good thing.


----------



## mcmoody (Sep 17, 2008)

Does anyone know how much it's supposed to be? For £15k say it looks like a nice little car (not in the TT league of styling nor build quality i'm sure). Any more than £15k and surely everyone would rather have a Scirrocco or 2nd hand TT?


----------



## mailrush (Nov 20, 2009)

mcmoody said:


> Does anyone know how much it's supposed to be? For £15k say it looks like a nice little car (not in the TT league of styling nor build quality i'm sure). Any more than £15k and surely everyone would rather have a Scirrocco or 2nd hand TT?


autocar reckons from £27,000 ish!! (which puts it in direct competition with the TT!)


----------



## welshmatt (Aug 6, 2008)

mcmoody said:


> Does anyone know how much it's supposed to be? For £15k say it looks like a nice little car (not in the TT league of styling nor build quality i'm sure). Any more than £15k and surely everyone would rather have a Scirrocco or 2nd hand TT?


I think £20k -£25k


----------



## mcmoody (Sep 17, 2008)

mailrush said:


> mcmoody said:
> 
> 
> > Does anyone know how much it's supposed to be? For £15k say it looks like a nice little car (not in the TT league of styling nor build quality i'm sure). Any more than £15k and surely everyone would rather have a Scirrocco or 2nd hand TT?
> ...


 :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: it's not April 1st yet!

On a serious note who's going to spend BMW/MERC/AUDI money on a Peugeot? :?


----------



## mailrush (Nov 20, 2009)

mcmoody said:


> mailrush said:
> 
> 
> > mcmoody said:
> ...


sorry, my mistake - it actually quotes £20k - £25k. which is still alot of money for the car. wouldnt you rather get a 18 month old tt?


----------



## mcmoody (Sep 17, 2008)

mailrush said:


> sorry, my mistake - it actually quotes £20k - £25k. which is still alot of money for the car. wouldnt you rather get a 18 month old tt?


I can think of several cars I would rather have. I had a peugeot moped when I was 16 8) and that's more than enough exposure to Peugeot for me.


----------



## jollyjack (Jan 29, 2010)

Car magazine have just done a group test with Pug, TT and Sirrocco, all diesels mind.
The Pug is cheaper and in their opinion looks good but does not compare for quality; so you get what you pay for.


----------



## heathstimpson (Feb 15, 2010)

It's ok but not in the same league for looks at the TT IMHO And it's French so it's value will drop like a stone and always be abkc at the garage for electrical repairs :lol:


----------



## sTTranger (Oct 21, 2008)

SimonQS said:


> Actually I like it, if I wasnt a badge snob (I would not drive a French car unless its a Bugatti) and they had a decent engine then I would consider one.


si, think you must be gettin old, have you had your eyes tested lately :roll:


----------



## jiggyjaggy (May 27, 2004)

Shame i think it's not a bad looking car. But not at £25k. Would rather pick a TT any day without sounding too biased. :?


----------



## mailrush (Nov 20, 2009)

if you're in a bar on a saturday night trying "to pull" and the girl says to you:

"so...what car do you drive..?"

you have no choice but to think:

"damn, blast, %$#*\!&£ - i wish i'd bought the Audi...."


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

I had a good look at this at the MPH show. To be honest I have no issue with it being a Peugeot - I had two 306 XSi's before I had the TT and I got far better customer service with them than I've ever had out of Audi, and comparatively few problems.

I could live with the bonnet bulge. It is sadly a product of new safety legislation requiring a certain amount of space between the bonnet and the top of the engine to protect pedestrians in an accident. The only way to avoid it is either to fit a tiny engine or fit explosive rams to the bonnet like in the Nissan GTR, which we know proves to be increadibly expensive in even the most minor of bumps. We are going to see this on so many cars in the future that we're going to become very accustomed to it. It will grow on us and in this car it is at least less extreme than on other Peugeot models.

I actually like the bubble roof. It's individual and distinctive.

What I couldn't live with though is the arse of it. Is this a hard top convertible? I've never seen pictures of one with the roof down. Whether it is or not it has something in common with most of the clutch of convertible hard-tops that we have now, in that the rear end is disproportionately too long, to accommodate the roof. It's a compromise on design in other cars - I suspect it's a necessity here to fit in with a common floor-pan.

Finally, I know we're supposed to be becoming more environmentally conscious but I have my doubts that the 1.6 engine (the largest available in the range) is big enough. It knocks out over 200bhp but I'd want a bit more.

A reasonable effort, but no, it's not better than the TT.


----------



## Scooby-Doo (Sep 29, 2006)

*Question was - is it prettier than a TT.* Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I'm sure that like the 207CC and 308CC women will absolutely love it and they'll buy it in droves,doesn't matter how it drives,what badge it's got or anything else other than how it looks.


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

Scooby-Doo said:


> I'm sure that like the 207CC and 308CC women will absolutely love it and they'll buy it in droves,doesn't matter how it drives,what badge it's got or anything else other than how it looks.


Never a truer word said.


----------



## nuedul5 (Feb 25, 2010)

It obviously isent nicer looking, anybody with eyes can see that.... who gives one anyway, whos going to be going, "ohh look a peugeot haha


----------



## graTT58 (Jan 28, 2009)

Its not prettier than a TT, but in the short term it will be more distinctive.


----------



## DaFolks (Jan 4, 2010)

TT every time unless you're blind :roll:


----------



## ELLIOTT (Feb 29, 2008)

It is a Peugeot, So it will lose most of its looks as bits fall off of it as your driving along [smiley=thumbsdown.gif]


----------



## TTitan (May 11, 2007)

Headlights are hideous for starters ..... Homer Simpson could do better.

Blatant rip-off -- A French Verison of a TT.

No thanks.

TTitan.


----------



## Girl Smiffy (Feb 19, 2010)

Brilliant - couldn't agree more! :lol:

For me the arse is weird, and couldn't face looking at that every morning and wondering why I bought one. I may change my mind in 10 years time...


----------



## tegdiw (Feb 17, 2008)

Mark Davies said:


> I could live with the bonnet bulge. It is sadly a product of new safety legislation requiring a certain amount of space between the bonnet and the top of the engine to protect pedestrians in an accident. The only way to avoid it is either to fit a tiny engine or fit explosive rams to the bonnet like in the Nissan GTR, which we know proves to be increadibly expensive in even the most minor of bumps.


As you say - it's a cost effective solution having the bulge. Explosive rams aren't the only way though - new Mercedes E Class has a simple mechanical system to raise the back end of the bonnet which can be reset manually as well.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

I like it.


----------



## hooting_owl (Sep 3, 2008)

i'll certainly go and have a good look at it when it hits the showrooms. it is a dramatic shape, no doubt about it. i suspect that the shape will date fairly quickly and dramatic will turn to hideous. the design of the tt (mk1 and mk2) is just delicious beyond words and shows no signs of dating. the tt had me reaching for my wad the first time i saw one on a client's driveway. maybe the peugeot will stir me too when i see one up close?
i have driven a 307 and was alarmed at how slushy it all was. the driveline lacked any precision and the car felt as though it had covered 150K rather than 8K. put me off peugeots.


----------



## Arne (Dec 13, 2006)

From all the pics I have seen, I think it looks very - very ugly :?

Just my oppinion, but if I was going to pic a new car on looks only, this one would be waaaaay down the list.....


----------



## syc23 (Jun 17, 2007)

Looks sh!te.

Resembles a cut and shut job - the bubble roof and sloping roofline does not gel with other elements at all. The front grill / mouth is far too large. They may aswell make the headlights cover the whole bonnet and as with all other Peugeot, interior is an ergonomic nightmare. It will no doubt be lacking in the performance department and will not drive well.

Just about sums it up really.


----------



## VerTTigo (Nov 14, 2009)

Now we have this: 
http://www.insideline.com/peugeot/rcz/2 ... drive.html

And i quote, "But no doubt about it, this is a highly entertaining driver's car that beats the Audi TT."


----------



## heathstimpson (Feb 15, 2010)

Auto Express had it above the TT and the VW third this week...


----------



## graTT58 (Jan 28, 2009)

VerTTigo said:


> Now we have this:
> http://www.insideline.com/peugeot/rcz/2 ... drive.html
> 
> And i quote, "But no doubt about it, this is a highly entertaining driver's car that beats the Audi TT."


The sales figures will determine which car the driving public prefer.


----------



## TurboTTS (Sep 11, 2009)

i cant see a 1600cc engine (turbocharged) beating the engine of the TTS or a 2.5L 5 cylinder engine of the TTRS..

i must say though, that in some angles the car looks great, especially in white, but then you look from another angle, and oh well it looks wrong on all accounts. the image is see in my head when i look at the car in profile, is one of when i was a kid i would draw cars that had 3 humps; 1 for the bonnet, a larger 1 for the roof and a smaller hump for the boot.. thats what it looks like. i dont like the steeringwheel. it only comes in manual.

i did get an invite to drive a RCZ from pogo (not sure how they got hold of my details, or even knew i drove sports cars :roll: ). needless to say, i have not taken them up on the offer...

oh, and my inlaws drive pogo, and i once tried to park a 307CC. i got in and didnt even know where to start, the thing is so uncomfortable, and the car is so basic... i would rather walk than drive a pogo. cant discredit them for trying, but if you are going to try overtake the TT market, you are going to have to try much harder. Audi is a very respectable German brand. German = quality and solid build. French = well, need i say more???

:lol:


----------



## graTT58 (Jan 28, 2009)

TurboTTS said:


> i cant see a 1600cc engine (turbocharged) beating the engine of the TTS or a 2.5L 5 cylinder engine of the TTRS..
> 
> i must say though, that in some angles the car looks great, especially in white, but then you look from another angle, and oh well it looks wrong on all accounts. the image is see in my head when i look at the car in profile, is one of when i was a kid i would draw cars that had 3 humps; 1 for the bonnet, a larger 1 for the roof and a smaller hump for the boot.. thats what it looks like. i dont like the steeringwheel. it only comes in manual.
> 
> ...


To be fair, I dont think they are trying to compete with the TTRS..


----------



## TurboTTS (Sep 11, 2009)

graTT58 said:


> TurboTTS said:
> 
> 
> > i cant see a 1600cc engine (turbocharged) beating the engine of the TTS or a 2.5L 5 cylinder engine of the TTRS..
> ...


or the TTS.

or the std TT :wink:


----------



## sTTranger (Oct 21, 2008)

i actually like the look of it in those pics, the dipped roofline is great


----------



## TurboTTS (Sep 11, 2009)

sTTranger said:


> i actually like the look of it in those pics, the dipped roofline is great


-1 [smiley=smash.gif]


----------



## conneem (Nov 4, 2006)

sTTranger said:


> i actually like the look of it in those pics, the dipped roofline is great












The front 3/4 view is definitely the money shot for the RCZ, I even think it looks better than the standard TT from that angle but I afraid if you move your viewpoint slightly either way it doesn't work for me, the boot has awkward proportions and head on it looks like a 307. I do think the roof line is nice (but must be in body colour) but the bubble shaped glass work looks weird. Overall I think it is quite a quirky design but in general it just kind of looks like it is overstyled and made from plastic.


----------



## jobe (Mar 18, 2007)

conneem said:


> sTTranger said:
> 
> 
> > i actually like the look of it in those pics, the dipped roofline is great
> ...


i agree, the only clean stuff on the car is the roof line. actually it is the only shape that reminds me of TT.. 
it looks a lot like lion cub, disproportional and clumsy [smiley=baby.gif]


----------



## igotone (Mar 10, 2010)

I must say, I think it looks OK, and it's brave of Peugot to try and produce a sports car given the competition out there already. Too many of the styling cues are a blatant attempt to copy the TT, but they do say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

7.6 seconds 0-60 is hardly very exciting for the quickest proposed version, but if the price is pitched right, I 've no doubt it will sell faster than they can make 'em.


----------



## Einarsson (Feb 11, 2010)

In my opinion it looks like PURE SH!TE.  Would never ever touch it with a stick.


----------



## sico (Feb 6, 2003)

First off Autoexpress are annoying, in their article it says something along the lines of "Has the Pug beaten the TT like they wanted to, yes they have". As if Autoexpress are the ultimate in opinion! These guys change their minds like the wind so dont be suprised to see a future review where the Pug comes last.

I think it actually looks ok, its a mix of TT and some 350Z IMHO. Im suprised they can get away with copying so closley in some areas, even the flat bottom steering wheel, even though its too big and thin! However, it costs 1,500 less than a TT and most people would rather pay 1,500 (if they have it) for an Audi. It cannot beat the TT for quality interior and exterior and badge appeal. They say it handles better however, add Quattro and ......

For me its 1,TT 2,VW and 3rd PUG also I would consider a 350Z above the Pug.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Depends on the judging criteria.

if we are talking best 20k car Pug wins, 
If we are talking looks - subjective but TT, PUG VW. you'd never say the vw was good looking from any angle.

when you talk of costs don't forget the Audi is much more than 1500 over the PUG, the stand kit list is like scrooge xmas present list and the extras is like shopping at Harrods.

It may be a blatant copy of the TT, but the TT has its self to blame with cheap models. Its not like the MKI.
If i recall the starting prices was about 27k - 10years ago.

I think it will be a real winner with buyers..


----------



## tegdiw (Feb 17, 2008)

VerTTigo said:


> Now we have this:
> http://www.insideline.com/peugeot/rcz/2 ... drive.html
> 
> And i quote, "But no doubt about it, this is a highly entertaining driver's car that beats the Audi TT."


Having driven both, I can confirm that this writer must have been smoking something dodgy. It's a nice drive, but it's much softer than a TT - with a heavy nose and doesn't like to be rushed.


----------



## MINI-TTGuy (Sep 29, 2008)

The RCZ - it's a disgrace. I read all about it and saw detailed pictures of the car inside and out in Autocar today, and my god, such a copy of the TT - the thing even has a TT style electronic spoiler which Peugeot suggest actually does something - I very much doubt that it does anything on this monstrosity. It even has a similar rear foglight position, rear valance and exhaust detailing.

The worst angle is definitely the side profile with its typical Peugeot monstrous overhangs, closely followed by the ridiculously overstyled and fussy gaping family nose with what are probably the largest headlights in history.

They predictably screwed up with the interior with its big plastic slab steering wheel, albeit with a small flattened bottom, and the clock where the centre air-vent should be - dreadfully chintzy looking.The bubble roof is the car's only redeeming feature - that's actually quite nice.

The 2.0's pricing is too close to that of the TT as well - surely if they want to poach some potential TT customers, the RCZ is going to have to be an awful lot cheaper than the TT due to prestige, build, etc. etc. etc. differential between the two. Mark my words, this car will be a flop and residuals will be shocking. And rightly so.

What I find most insulting is the way they copied the TT's roof and window line. That alone wound me up something shockin' when I saw it! :lol:


----------



## graTT58 (Jan 28, 2009)

MINI-TTGuy said:


> The RCZ - it's a disgrace. I read all about it and saw detailed pictures of the car inside and out in Autocar today, and my god, such a copy of the TT - the thing even has a TT style electronic spoiler which Peugeot suggest actually does something - I very much doubt that it does anything on this monstrosity. It even has a similar rear foglight position, rear valance and exhaust detailing.
> 
> The worst angle is definitely the side profile with its typical Peugeot monstrous overhangs, closely followed by the ridiculously overstyled and fussy gaping family nose with what are probably the largest headlights in history.
> 
> ...


If people can get the same looks and style for less money, then they might go for it. Thats why the likes of Kia and Hyundai are doing so well - they are copies of mainstream cars are less money (though admittedly the scrappage scheme helps too!)


----------



## johnny_hungus (Jun 14, 2009)

It looks OK, quite a bold move for Peugeot.

Alright for people who don't mind a Peugeot sitting on the drive... I asked the missus if she wouldn't mind a Peugeot on the drive, before I could even show her a picture she told me to F off lol :lol:


----------



## graTT58 (Jan 28, 2009)

What happened at Peugeot? I cant believe its the same company that gave us the 205GTi and 405 Mi16.


----------



## pauly-b (Feb 7, 2009)

graTT58 said:


> What happened at Peugeot? I cant believe its the same company that gave us the 205GTi and 405 Mi16.


I had three 205 GTi's in the 80's / early 90's - Absolutely loved em.. 

Interestingly the front cover of Autocar says "Why Peugeot's TT beats Audi' - And them doesn't actually compare them at all in the article .. Mostly because it's Cropley who couldn't roadtest a car if his backside depended on it...


----------



## heathstimpson (Feb 15, 2010)

pauly-b said:


> graTT58 said:
> 
> 
> > What happened at Peugeot? I cant believe its the same company that gave us the 205GTi and 405 Mi16.
> ...


The 1.9 205GTi was a cracking motor at the time; what happened since???


----------



## graTT58 (Jan 28, 2009)

pauly-b said:


> graTT58 said:
> 
> 
> > What happened at Peugeot? I cant believe its the same company that gave us the 205GTi and 405 Mi16.
> ...


My first car was a 205 and I want another one very soon.

Just saw a fully restored 1.9 GTi for £6,000!!!


----------



## SimonQS (Jul 21, 2008)

I had a 106 GTI in the late 90s, one of the best handling cars I have ever had.





Reminds me of Friday nights around "the circuit" in Nottingham... :roll: oh back in teh day, when life was more simple and the hottest car on the block was a Scort Cossie


----------



## freddiefudpucker (Apr 3, 2010)

Wow, what a reaction! Are Audi TT owners feeling that someone has made something to match or even beat their beloved Audi. And how much badge snobbery is there here?!?!?!?!
tegdiw, I'm guessing that you are only too happy to take the money that Peugeot give you to promote their product? and I'm certain that when you are in a dealership you'll be telling the guys how great the new car is? pity you won't name yourself on here so the guys you tell these things too know who you are.
I personally believe it's about time that something came out to rival the TT. I looked at a 54 plate roadster the other day, after reading how good the Audi's are on here, and all I can say is what a disappointment it was. The interior was nothing special, and for similar money I can get newer better spec cars, maybe not the same performance but that's got to be a good thing with the tax on the bigger engines! I mean, it's not even got dual zone climate control, a 206cc has that!!!! but Hey, such is life.
Just so you all know, this is just my humble opinion, and not intended to upset anyone. But I can't wait to see the RCZ, been to my local dealer and they will let me know when they have one for me to view and drive, and I think the car is stunning, and excellent value for money, with it starting at about £20k.
Bye for now y'all!!


----------



## powerplay (Feb 8, 2008)

freddiefudpucker said:


> Wow, what a reaction! Are Audi TT owners feeling that someone has made something to match or even beat their beloved Audi.


No.


----------



## TheDude (Apr 4, 2009)

powerplay said:


> freddiefudpucker said:
> 
> 
> > Wow, what a reaction! Are Audi TT owners feeling that someone has made something to match or even beat their beloved Audi.
> ...


Thats straight to the point :mrgreen:

I am by no means biased towards TT's and although I think this is a decent looking car, nothing detracts from the fact that it has a Peugeot badge stuck to it!


----------



## freddiefudpucker (Apr 3, 2010)

so the badge means more than the actual car then? :?


----------



## MINI-TTGuy (Sep 29, 2008)

freddiefudpucker said:


> Wow, what a reaction! Are Audi TT owners feeling that someone has made something to match or even beat their beloved Audi.


Beat the TT? We are still talking about the Fisher-Price Peugeot aren't we? :lol:

This situation reminds me of the VW Phaeton that thought it could come along, out of Polo, Lupo and Transporter van land, and build a car to take on the S-Class. Peugeot's TT attempt is even more ridiculous though. I mean, even if they had tried a bit harder designing the front of it, but no, they were all out of ideas, Audi brochures and tracing paper at that stage, so they whacked on the usual gaping Peugeot washing-machine corporate nose!


----------



## powerplay (Feb 8, 2008)

freddiefudpucker said:


> so the badge means more than the actual car then? :?


Not in the slightest.

I've owned Pugs before - 106, 106 quicksilver, 206, 206gti180.

You get what you pay for.

This car is Fugly, in the same way all recent Pugs are. Sure it will have a market share, but it cannot possibly persuade someone who was considering a TT (or similar) to change their mind. Imho of course.


----------



## freddiefudpucker (Apr 3, 2010)

If thats the case, isn't the TT just a fancy beetle? And the Phaeton wasn't starting at £20k,( which is probably an affordable budget for many people in this country) The front end design is 308, which, get this, is what the car is called! The 308RCZ, so it will look the same!! :lol:


----------



## powerplay (Feb 8, 2008)

freddiefudpucker said:


> If thats the case, isn't the TT just a fancy beetle? And the Phaeton wasn't starting at £20k,( which is probably an affordable budget for many people in this country) The front end design is 308, which, get this, is what the car is called! The 308RCZ, so it will look the same!! :lol:


A friend of mine has a Beetle. After careful, thoughtful and deliberated consideration, No.

Not quite sure of the other point you are trying to make, other than if you take something inherently shite and base something else on it, that something else will also be shite? If so then I concur :lol:


----------



## freddiefudpucker (Apr 3, 2010)

which point are we referring to? the one where someone had previously said that VW shouldn't try to go into the s class market or where I answered that it looks like the 308? the 308 is a middle sized family hatchback, reliable, nice finish, good value for money imo. I just think that people should be less short sighted about things, and give the car a chance. Peugeot appear to have upped their game, what car car of the year, crossover of the year and mpv of the year, in the same year, is an outstanding acheivement, which shows the direction which peugeot are heading. imo of course.


----------



## MINI-TTGuy (Sep 29, 2008)

freddiefudpucker said:


> ...crossover of the year and mpv of the year.


And that's exactly what they should stick to building! 

Surprised they didn't put sliding doors on the RCZ tbh! Very practical you know! :lol:


----------



## freddiefudpucker (Apr 3, 2010)

sliding doors might be a bit tight.....!!! 
Peugeot can't be that bad with sports cars, they did win Le Mans last year and the IRC too.


----------



## pars_andy (Dec 10, 2009)

According to the actual article it doesn't drive anywhere near as well as the TT. Too much roll, doesn't handle great and nowhere near as quick. Oh and the interior isn't great either. In what way is it a TT beater again?


----------



## freddiefudpucker (Apr 3, 2010)

it doesn't drive as well but get's rated higher? strange one that, 
The Peugeot RCZ Coupe full review Read in fullPerformance 4 out of 5 starsMid-range flexibility is key
Ride & Handling 4 out of 5 stars Nicely balanced 
Refinement 3 out of 5 starsRasping exhaust note 
Buying & Owning 4 out of 5 stars It certainly won't break the bank 
Quality & Reliability 4 out of 5 stars Premium look and feel 
Safety & Security 4 out of 5 stars Well protected in both respects 
Behind The Wheel 4 out of 5 stars Familiar layout 
Space & Practicality 3 out of 5 stars It's really a two-plus-two 
Equipment 4 out of 5 stars Plenty of bells and whistles 
sounds crap eh?


----------



## pars_andy (Dec 10, 2009)

Quote from the concluding paragraph of the autocar article....."the german cars will edge any contest with regards to drive quality."

Also interesting that you're basing your opinions of the TT on a 6 year old second hand mark 1 roadster.


----------



## powerplay (Feb 8, 2008)

freddiefudpucker said:


> it doesn't drive as well but get's rated higher? strange one that,
> The Peugeot RCZ Coupe full review Read in fullPerformance 4 out of 5 starsMid-range flexibility is key
> Ride & Handling 4 out of 5 stars Nicely balanced
> Refinement 3 out of 5 starsRasping exhaust note
> ...


I think you have to remember that ratings are given relative to the level of similar cars. If a Veyron has 5 stars for performance a Gallardo would have 3 and my TT probably wouldn't even get a whole star. But you wouldn't rate any of those together.

Just remind us again, why exactly are you a member of an Audi forum?


----------



## freddiefudpucker (Apr 3, 2010)

i came on here as i was CONSIDERING buying one, to see views etc on the car but all i see is people saying how great things are, no bad sides to them.
I saidm about the 5 1/2 year old car to compare, but the spec which all I've read on here is great, is disappointing to say the least. For £10-12k I would expect a lot more, especially from ther likes of Audi.
If the review is given against the level of similar cars, what are the similar cars to the rcz? I would have said the TT, maybe the mx5, maybe the scirocco.


----------



## Cobnut (Sep 21, 2009)

I think it will attract the ladies in their droves.

Particularly like the knight rider stylee bonnet detail.

Not so sure about the rear facing side mirrors, probably another French inovation which will eventually catch on.


----------



## graTT58 (Jan 28, 2009)

MINI-TTGuy said:


> freddiefudpucker said:
> 
> 
> > ...crossover of the year and mpv of the year.
> ...


In the same way that Audi should stick to building luxury vehicles, rather than rehashed A1s which are nothing more than a rebadged Skoda Fabia.


----------



## garvin (May 7, 2002)

Pugs have been known to be good driving/handling cars. Sadly I'm old enough to remember having driven 205GTi's and they were stonking cars to drive ............. just don't lift off mid bend  Even the humble 106's were great little driver's cars - they have softened up of late but that doesn't mean they can't build a good driver's car - it's not all about horsepower - I had enormous fun in 850 mini's due to their handling characteristics. Even the Mazda MX5 we have doesn't have a surfeit of horsepower but, boy, is it a sweet little handler and when wound up on the twisties there is not much that can show it a clean pair of heels .............. it just can't compete on the straight bits. Therefore, there is no objective reason why, dynamically, the RCZ can't be a great little car.

Style wise it's a good attempt but those rear 'haunches' are, IMHO, just so wrong. Of course the front looks typically Pug, just like the TT looks typically Audi! I'm not sure this can compete on quality though and it maybe priced too high - the buying public will decide, not Autoexpress, Car, Autocar or any such motoring magazine.


----------



## graTT58 (Jan 28, 2009)

garvin said:


> Pugs have been known to be good driving/handling cars. Sadly I'm old enough to remember having driven 205GTi's and they were stonking cars to drive ............. just don't lift off mid bend  Even the humble 106's were great little driver's cars - they have softened up of late but that doesn't mean they can't build a good driver's car - it's not all about horsepower - I had enormous fun in 850 mini's due to their handling characteristics. Even the Mazda MX5 we have doesn't have a surfeit of horsepower but, boy, is it a sweet little handler and when wound up on the twisties there is not much that can show it a clean pair of heels .............. it just can't compete on the straight bits. Therefore, there is no objective reason why, dynamically, the RCZ can't be a great little car.
> 
> Style wise it's a good attempt but those rear 'haunches' are, IMHO, just so wrong. Of course the front looks typically Pug, just like the TT looks typically Audi! I'm not sure this can compete on quality though and it maybe priced too high - the buying public will decide, not Autoexpress, Car, Autocar or any such motoring magazine.


Agreed. The sales figures will prove its popularity or otherwise.


----------



## MINI-TTGuy (Sep 29, 2008)

garvin said:


> I'm not sure this can compete on quality though and it maybe priced too high - the buying public will decide, not Autoexpress, Car, Autocar or any such motoring magazine.


Very true - the buying public will decide, but we must remember two things:

(i) The buying public are by and large, an incredibly stupid lot, and their taste in cars is, in general, woeful! :lol: Most will buy a car they're talked into, others will buy it because they had a similar model before, and the rest will buy a certain model as that particular brand's garage is the nearest to them. :lol: Unbelievable, but true. :roll:

(ii) Only a microscopic proportion of the buying public are TT enthusiasts (the phrase 'the buying public' reminds me of Tony Blair's famous speech opener 'People of Britain' for some reason  ). As a result, most people who made the right decision and bought a TT will have no real appreciation for its design, iconic status etc, and they'll probably be easily swayed by the Peugeot's bubble roof or somthing!


----------



## graTT58 (Jan 28, 2009)

MINI-TTGuy said:


> garvin said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not sure this can compete on quality though and it maybe priced too high - the buying public will decide, not Autoexpress, Car, Autocar or any such motoring magazine.
> ...


Lots of people will just want the latest thing, and the Peugeot will fill that need.


----------



## Cobnut (Sep 21, 2009)

VW's current ad campaign captures the sentiment exactly. "If you listen carefully it sounds like a Golf", "the doors close like the Golfs" etc. Imitation by the Pug is the sincerest form of flatery to the TT. However a TT is certainly isn't.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

No that's just the pure arrogance of VW to assume everyone copies what they do.
In reality, it's VW copying the other manufactures...

Not sure why so many are anti the RCZ


----------



## mark123 (Oct 23, 2009)

Think the rcz looks good from some angles but overall not as good as the TT (especially from side on and at the back). Dashboard from pics looks typically peugeot design and thats not good for me.

More and more people are buying cars because of the brand as much as anything - wouldn't exactly say peugeot is in the same league as audi in these stakes and in my opinion peugeot doesn't have the best brand reputation for reliability, especially annoying electrical problems.

Also for me the price for the rcz is too close to the tt for couple of extra grand I know which one I would go for.


----------



## Sylvian (Apr 27, 2007)

freddiefudpucker said:


> Wow, what a reaction! Are Audi TT owners feeling that someone has made something to match or even beat their beloved Audi. And how much badge snobbery is there here?!?!?!?!
> tegdiw, I'm guessing that you are only too happy to take the money that Peugeot give you to promote their product? and I'm certain that when you are in a dealership you'll be telling the guys how great the new car is? pity you won't name yourself on here so the guys you tell these things too know who you are.
> I personally believe it's about time that something came out to rival the TT. I looked at a 54 plate roadster the other day, after reading how good the Audi's are on here, and all I can say is what a disappointment it was. The interior was nothing special, and for similar money I can get newer better spec cars, maybe not the same performance but that's got to be a good thing with the tax on the bigger engines! I mean, it's not even got dual zone climate control, a 206cc has that!!!! but Hey, such is life.
> Just so you all know, this is just my humble opinion, and not intended to upset anyone. But I can't wait to see the RCZ, been to my local dealer and they will let me know when they have one for me to view and drive, and I think the car is stunning, and excellent value for money, with it starting at about £20k.
> Bye for now y'all!!


To compare the MK1 TT and the RCZ when you eventually do get to see it and drive it is an unfair comparison as the RCZ is a direct competitor to the MK2 TT. How you can say the MK1 TT's interior is nothing special is baffling, its one of the best designed interiors of any car and much better looking than even the MK2 (I own a MK2 TT). For 20K the RCZ you would get wont be great in the performance stakes but if your into MPG and lower tax then that is a good thing. The only thing i agree with you on is that standard kit on the Audi's is poor.


----------



## Gadgetgeezer (Mar 7, 2010)

We have owned a Peugeot 206CC when they first came out. Bought it for novelty value but the novelty soon wore off. Woeful support from Peugeot, Servicing Staff terrible, squeaky brakes......I could go on. Never again. We are going for a TT and we are certain we are buying something special and cannot wait. I can't understand how the motoring press rate the RCZ so highly against the TT. The TT is in another league and we all know it. Chalk and cheese.


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

Well I still like it and will test drive one to see for myself.

I have to say I am at the moment very anti French products though.

I have a LaCie external drive under warranty and those ass**** are a real ballache to deal with. I'm sure their customer support is a training school for politicians - they come out with flowery bollocks about wanting to 'solve' your issues but do naff all...
[smiley=argue.gif]

As you might summise, I'm not at all happy with them. :twisted:


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

Prettier? No. Peugeot's design process goes something like this: Choose wax crayons. Choose a complete idiot. Choose to build a concept from the result. Choose making it out of cheap ****ing plastic. Choose a massive backside like some R&B ho. Choose giving it lots of extra lines that serve no aesthetic or other purpose. Choose an enormous steering wheel that belongs in a people carrier. Choose a "flat bottom" that is so insignificantly small that it looks round anyway. Choose missing the point. Choose a tinny engine. Choose no style whatsoever. Choose exteriors in a range of tawdry colours. Choose ugly. Choose no taste.

"Pugspotting." :roll:


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

ScoobyTT said:


> Prettier? No. Peugeot's design process goes something like this: Choose wax crayons. Choose a complete idiot. Choose to build a concept from the result. Choose making it out of cheap ****ing plastic. Choose a massive backside like some R&B ho. Choose giving it lots of extra lines that serve no aesthetic or other purpose. Choose an enormous steering wheel that belongs in a people carrier. Choose a "flat bottom" that is so insignificantly small that it looks round anyway. Choose missing the point. Choose a tinny engine. Choose no style whatsoever. Choose exteriors in a range of tawdry colours. Choose ugly. Choose no taste.
> 
> "Pugspotting." :roll:


 :lol: :lol: :lol:

You'll be first in the queue then... :lol:


----------



## SimonQS (Jul 21, 2008)

rustyintegrale said:


> Well I still like it and will test drive one to see for myself.
> 
> I have to say I am at the moment very anti French products though.
> 
> ...


Got my LaCie Stark from the Apple Store, although it is Samsung guts, gave up after two months, but as they are supported by Apple, changed it in the store no questions asked.


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

SimonQS said:


> rustyintegrale said:
> 
> 
> > Well I still like it and will test drive one to see for myself.
> ...


The Apple Store is good like that. I had a Time Capsule 6 months out of warranty and the PSU failed. Without any argument they gave me a brand new unit which fortunately has a lot more capability too. 8)

By contrast LaCie don't seem to give a damn. Sadly I bought it on eBay so don't have the Apple support but I refuse to lose my data to LaCie. I have swallowed a bitter pill and removed both drives thus invalidating the worthless warranty. The drives are fine, the data safe and the crap LaCie parts on eBay.

After 20 years customer loyalty I'll now be going elsewhere for my external HD requirements and have just bought a Drobo... 8)

Cheers

Rich


----------



## tegdiw (Feb 17, 2008)

freddiefudpucker said:


> tegdiw, I'm guessing that you are only too happy to take the money that Peugeot give you to promote their product? and I'm certain that when you are in a dealership you'll be telling the guys how great the new car is? pity you won't name yourself on here so the guys you tell these things too know who you are.


Feel free to click to our website in my profile - nothing to hide myself, I stand by what I say we said exactly the same to Peugeot as well.

But do stop trolling - prettier or not is an opinion, driving ability is dependant on what you want - but at it's price point it's stupendous value and not German (yes a product advantage). To a specific group of customers this is a compelling offer, and we help dealer sales people to reach them.


----------



## 2zeroalpha (Aug 30, 2009)

Wow, I can hear the cages rattling ...  
There's no denying the rcz makes a statement. Personally I wouldn't go for one, purely because I need more performance out of my cars. However, at the risk of causing a furore, this is a case of looks and styling over what's underneath. Well wasn't that a major issue with the mk1? The badge snobbery is, I am sorry to say, totally unnecessary. Peugeot's efforts with the 205 most notably, are well known. Individual experiences with cars and dealerships don't add up to rubbishing a whole brand. This car will sell, much like the 206cc did. It has gallic flair and style, undercuts the competition (and we brits do love an underdog,even a french one) and does actually go... ish.
The only reason people are reacting so negatively is because a motoring magazine has dared compare it to the TT. Since when have we cared about the motoring press. It has long been established that they are about as impartial as my last set of homework marking... I have only just taken delivery of my TT and this article leaves me chuckling. The authors are clearly not as well informed as they like to make themselves out to be. They make some valid points about the car, fair enough, but the rest I take with a pinch of salt.


----------



## Hark (Aug 23, 2007)

Didn't read all 7 pages , sorry.

If you look quickly or quint it looks alot like a mk2 TT.


----------



## igotone (Mar 10, 2010)

Another Autocar video review here. Still positive, but not quite what you'd call 'glowing'.


----------



## johnny_hungus (Jun 14, 2009)

igotone said:


> Another Autocar video review here. Still positive, but not quite what you'd call 'glowing'.


I just watched that and think he may be spot on with his assessment.

It just looks too much like a CC to me, it looks good but I think it may really be hitting a different audience than what the TT is for.

1.6 engine @ 200bhp - should be interesting to test that one!


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

Well I've just watched that and now I don't like it.

Love the bubble roof and the aluminium arches, but the front grille is pig ugly as is that 'emergency handle' styled badge on the bonnet. It sounds asthmatic too and whilst the profile is very TTesque, they just haven't honed out the lumps, bumps and textures too nicely have they.

All in all then, I don't think I'll be going French anytime soon... :wink:

Cheers

rich


----------



## Scooby-Doo (Sep 29, 2006)

1.6THP 200 is £24500. Audi TT 2.0Tfsi is £26245, which makes the Audi £1745 more expensive.Come resale the Pug will be worth 41%, based on 207CC residuals,and the TT worth 59%,so the TT willl be worth £14959 and the Pug £10049 so you'll be £3000 in pocket by buying the TT- Noooooooooooooooooo brainer really.(and that's before taking into account that the TT is a better car)


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

Tog dog! [smiley=thumbsup.gif]


----------



## tegdiw (Feb 17, 2008)

Poor phone cam pic. But it does look better in the flesh and close up. Wheel designs are not especially inspiring...


----------



## 111laz111 (Feb 12, 2007)

Saw one on the road this morning and it looked good so went to the local Dealer (Toomeys) to have a closer look. 
It turns out it was the MD of Peugeot UK visiting the showroom in one and he had left in it by the time I got there. They dont have a demo car yet.
The Dealer is holding a launch evening on the 21st and then will be offering test drives.
I'll have a look and a drive but I got my fingers burnt badly with a Pug a few years ago when I bought the then new 407 coupe 3.0L petrol for £28K and lost a fortune when I chopped it in for a new TT.


----------



## jiggyjaggy (May 27, 2004)

Looks worse in real life. The marketing photo's worked well then! :lol:


----------



## watkors (May 3, 2010)

i still believe simplicity is beauty...
RCZ is like a girl with too much make up and accessories , as if its hiding something.
My TT is bold and beautiful and sexy and has the right proportion ...
Im not saying RCZ is ugly, its not, but my TT is prettier..


----------



## Andywarr (May 14, 2009)

my pal has had one for the last 3 weeks as was doing work for the launch, personally i dont like it... i took a load of pics next to my TTS, however i dont know how to post pics so cant share


----------



## tegdiw (Feb 17, 2008)

Andywarr said:


> my pal has had one for the last 3 weeks as was doing work for the launch, personally i dont like it... i took a load of pics next to my TTS, however i dont know how to post pics so cant share


Who's your pal Andy, might have been one of our Pro-Drivers gang?


----------



## freddiefudpucker (Apr 3, 2010)

Scooby-Doo said:


> 1.6THP 200 is £24500. Audi TT 2.0Tfsi is £26245, which makes the Audi £1745 more expensive.Come resale the Pug will be worth 41%, based on 207CC residuals,and the TT worth 59%,so the TT willl be worth £14959 and the Pug £10049 so you'll be £3000 in pocket by buying the TT- Noooooooooooooooooo brainer really.(and that's before taking into account that the TT is a better car)


where do you get your figures from? bet you buy parkers guide don't you? would explain a lot! so you know, the price you have put down for the 1.6thp200 is wrong, is it the gt or sport? bit vague on the details there, and the figures you have quoted are miles off anything I can find in glass's guide (you know the one, the one that the trade uses) so maybe the figures aren't a no brainer, just the person typing them perhaps? :?


----------



## xraytyd2 (Jan 17, 2010)

Toshiba said:


> No that's just the pure arrogance of VW to assume everyone copies what they do.
> In reality, it's VW copying the other manufactures...
> 
> Not sure why so many are anti the RCZ


I think if we went to the Pug site on the same topic the opinions would be the other way around. Having said that though the reason why there is such a strong opinion against the RCZ is that its a love it or like it car. Plus there are obviously non pug fans here .

Do you not own a TT. If you do why do you own it..


----------



## freddiefudpucker (Apr 3, 2010)

I don't own a TT, I was looking at buying one, as I have already said on this site, but the interior was nothing short of disappointing, very plain, crap is probably the best word for it. It was a MK1 tt roadster, 3.2 quattro. the drive was ok, fast car but not a car I would want to drive far in. I came on here to find other people's views, but only found smoke getting blown up people's arses, ooh, tt's are the best, nothing compares, blah blah. (it's not a bad thing to say negatives you know, to criticise is to say good and bad things.) then I saw the RCZ and wondered what tt owners would think, and reading what people put on here is really amusing, and a hell of a lot of it is immature child like comments, but thats just my opinion. the only guy who seems to talk any sense is toshiba, so credit due for that.


----------



## pars_andy (Dec 10, 2009)

I've owned both a mk1 and mk2 and I can assure that compared to the mk2, the mk1 is NOT a decent drive. By comparison, the mk1 is a heavy beast of a machine which needs to be forced to corner. Can't really understand why you don't like the interior though. It's a very clean, elegant cabin IMO. You were looking at a fairly old car though so maybe the previous owner didn't treat it properly...or maybe you just like a bit more tat?
Regardless...I really wouldn't form an opinion of the mk2 by simply having had a test drive of the mk1 3.2.


----------



## pars_andy (Dec 10, 2009)

And tosh doesn't speak sense. He's just a guy who is fed up of audi for some reason and invades EVERY single thread with anti audi one liners. It's not balanced or constructive criticism. He seems to despise audi and uses every single opportunity to put them down. You might not realise this if you've only been reading the rcz threads of course.


----------



## andyTT180 (Mar 19, 2010)

freddiefudpucker said:


> I don't own a TT, I was looking at buying one, as I have already said on this site, but the interior was nothing short of disappointing, very plain, crap is probably the best word for it. It was a MK1 tt roadster, 3.2 quattro. the drive was ok, fast car but not a car I would want to drive far in. I came on here to find other people's views, but only found smoke getting blown up people's arses, ooh, tt's are the best, nothing compares, blah blah. (it's not a bad thing to say negatives you know, to criticise is to say good and bad things.) then I saw the RCZ and wondered what tt owners would think, and reading what people put on here is really amusing, and a hell of a lot of it is immature child like comments, but thats just my opinion. the only guy who seems to talk any sense is toshiba, so credit due for that.


The mark 1 interiors crap are you serious the mark 1 interior is very classy, well made and understated but stylish, The interior in my 1999 model mark 1 looks like it just rolled out the factory combined with seats which hug you and easy to read dials, in your case the RCZ interior may be up your street loads of cheap plastic and littered with lots and lots of buttons


----------



## richieshore (May 17, 2010)

freddiefudpucker said:


> I don't own a TT, I was looking at buying one, as I have already said on this site, but the interior was nothing short of disappointing, very plain, crap is probably the best word for it. It was a MK1 tt roadster, 3.2 quattro. the drive was ok, fast car but not a car I would want to drive far in.


You can't slag off the TT on the MK2 forum if your issue with the TT was the interior of a MK1. The MK2's interior is absolute fantastic, gorgeous car to sit in and the amount you get standard is incredible. I'm not up my own arse over a TT just because I've ordered one, I genuinely believe there isn't a better car out there for the price, and that's why I bought one.

Oh and the RCZ will easily make my top 20 ugliest cars ever, it disgusts me that it is even compared to the TT when it is clearly in a league below, and again that's nothing to do with the fact that I've ordered a TT it's just my personal opinion.


----------



## pars_andy (Dec 10, 2009)

Some people just don't get the whole 'less is more' idea.


----------



## pars_andy (Dec 10, 2009)

richieshore said:


> You can't slag off the TT on the MK2 forum if your issue with the TT was the interior of a MK1. The MK2's interior is absolute fantastic, gorgeous car to sit in and the amount you get standard is incredible. I'm not up my own arse over a TT just because I've ordered one, I genuinely believe there isn't a better car out there for the price, and that's why I bought one.
> 
> Oh and the RCZ will easily make my top 20 ugliest cars ever, it disgusts me that it is even compared to the TT when it is clearly in a league below, and again that's nothing to do with the fact that I've ordered a TT it's just my personal opinion.


Id have to disagree there. I wouldn't say that the standard TT spec is even remotely generous. Quite the opposite in fact and many of the extras are well overpriced. The Peugeot definitely comes with more as standard...as did the mk1. That doesn't make it a better car of course.


----------



## richieshore (May 17, 2010)

pars_andy said:


> richieshore said:
> 
> 
> > You can't slag off the TT on the MK2 forum if your issue with the TT was the interior of a MK1. The MK2's interior is absolute fantastic, gorgeous car to sit in and the amount you get standard is incredible. I'm not up my own arse over a TT just because I've ordered one, I genuinely believe there isn't a better car out there for the price, and that's why I bought one.
> ...


Apart from the wheels and the speakers I didn't feel the need to change a thing (and only changed those because I'm really fussy), half leather half alcantara seats, climate control, 6 speed gearbox, mp3 CD player, leather flat bottom steering wheel, thatcham cat 1 alarm and imboliser.

Seems absolutely fantastic spec to me, considering that's all standard!!


----------



## pars_andy (Dec 10, 2009)

Well with the mk1 you can add 18" wheels, heated seats, full leather interior and xenons to that. The Peugeot betters this even further by including everything you listed, everything in this post and adds 19" wheels, electrically adjusted seats and Bluetooth as standard on the gt models (still cheaper than the entry level TT).


----------



## richieshore (May 17, 2010)

pars_andy said:


> Well with the mk1 you can add 18" wheels, heated seats, full leather interior and xenons to that. The Peugeot betters this even further by including everything you listed, everything in this post and adds 19" wheels, electrically adjusted seats and Bluetooth as standard on the gt models (still cheaper than the entry level TT).


Yes but either way you still can't ever consider the interior to be crap (and wheels and xenons are exterior).

And you can't possibly compare the price of the Peugeot with the TT based on the interior as it will always be cheaper due to the rest of the car - no matter how many gadgets you include inside the Peugeot should always be cheaper, and to be honest I think it's shocking that the Peugeot is the price it is considering if you get the 200bhp version it's only about £1000 cheaper and you're still in a 1.6 which is still slower than the TT diesel!

Oh and more importantly you're still driving a Peugeot!!


----------



## pars_andy (Dec 10, 2009)

I think the inside of the mk2 is stunning. I do resent the step backwards in included extras though. And the price of some of the options is simply insulting. For example, £180 for what is essentially a crippled iPod connection. I've actually removed this from my car (ive replaced the head unit) and it's a cheap single din blanking plate with an iPod port on it. It must cost them around £10 to make.


----------



## richieshore (May 17, 2010)

pars_andy said:


> I think the inside of the mk2 is stunning. I do resent the step backwards in included extras though. And the price of some of the options is simply insulting. For example, £180 for what is essentially a crippled iPod connection. I've actually removed this from my car (ive replaced the head unit) and it's a cheap single din blanking plate with an iPod port on it. It must cost them around £10 to make.


Yeah this is a bit of a joke, I've bough the sound pack as I was going to buy the Bose anyway and it gives you the iPod crap and the symphony radio for effectively £25! Shows how much they are actually worth! :lol:


----------



## pars_andy (Dec 10, 2009)

The symphony is decent!....although i replaced it on my second day so I never really had the chance to give it a proper workout. 
Be warned though, the iPod connection only allows you to access the first 5 playlists so you're out of luck if you want to play album number 70 on your iPod. You're probably better filling 6 CDs with mp3s. Either that or buy an aux cable and connect your iPod that way.


----------



## 111laz111 (Feb 12, 2007)

Richard Hammond summed it up in his review of the RCZ in the Mirror today by saying that it will sell well - to mum's for their shopping trips


----------



## pars_andy (Dec 10, 2009)

Every review I've seen indicates that it's a decent car which falls short of the more upmarket TT. It's not really in the same group performance wise with it's top if the range model being over 1.5 secs slower (7.6s 0-60 vs 6.1s 0-62). The top of the range Peugeot is a heavier car and doesn't handle as well either.
That being said, it still seems to be a half decent car for the money and anything which can put pressure on audi can only be a good thing IMO.


----------



## golfmadeasy (Aug 22, 2005)

I dont understand the hype....its a friggin PEUGEOT!!!! no comparison what so ever


----------



## andyTT180 (Mar 19, 2010)

I think the peugeots very overpriced and I dont think It can touch either the mark 1 or mark 2 TT, I cant understand how anyone could possible slag off the mark 1 interior its a really great interior even u mark 2 owners must admitt that as well. If I was spending that kind of money the peugeot would be the coupe I would buy I think If the RCZ had been priced from 17- 20 grand It would have done well but its too close to the TTs pricing and even if it was a better car than the TT which its far from Its still missing the premium brand, I think most people would admitt they'd rather say I own an audi than I own a peugeot


----------



## Jeffe (Jun 7, 2009)

Peugeot RCZ prettier than the TT? The answer is No!


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

308 meets Beetle meets heat lamp.


----------



## BlackRS (Mar 9, 2010)

There's been a lot of shite spoken on here about the RCZ, but the geezer who said the TT is very generously equipped as standard takes the biscuit. The general level of comments on this topic is laughable and says a lot about the calibre of the punters posting on here. As I mention elsewhere - money and status sums this whole debate up perfectly.


----------



## Wallsendmag (Feb 12, 2004)

BlackRS said:


> There's been a lot of shite spoken on here about the RCZ, but the geezer who said the TT is very generously equipped as standard takes the biscuit. The general level of comments on this topic is laughable and says a lot about the calibre of the punters posting on here. As I mention elsewhere - money and status sums this whole debate up perfectly.


Had a bad day ?


----------



## Gone (May 5, 2009)

freddiefudpucker said:


> Wow, what a reaction! Are Audi TT owners feeling that someone has made something to match or even beat their beloved Audi. And how much badge snobbery is there here?!?!?!?!
> tegdiw, I'm guessing that you are only too happy to take the money that Peugeot give you to promote their product? and I'm certain that when you are in a dealership you'll be telling the guys how great the new car is? pity you won't name yourself on here so the guys you tell these things too know who you are.
> I personally believe it's about time that something came out to rival the TT. I looked at a 54 plate roadster the other day, after reading how good the Audi's are on here, and all I can say is what a disappointment it was. The interior was nothing special, and for similar money I can get newer better spec cars, maybe not the same performance but that's got to be a good thing with the tax on the bigger engines! I mean, it's not even got dual zone climate control, a 206cc has that!!!! but Hey, such is life.
> Just so you all know, this is just my humble opinion, and not intended to upset anyone. But I can't wait to see the RCZ, been to my local dealer and they will let me know when they have one for me to view and drive, and I think the car is stunning, and excellent value for money, with it starting at about £20k.
> Bye for now y'all!!


That's not really true though is it, there are loads of cars out there with similar spec and performance to both the Mk 1 and Mk 2 TTs and some are even coupes or cabrios. For example Golf R32, Audi S3, Clio Sport (but with build quality niggles), Focus ST, Astra VXR, Maxda MX-5 and RX-8, the old RX-7, Nissan 350Z, Honda S2000, BMW Z4 and the Z4 coupe, BMW 135M, even the E46 330D equals the 0-60 time of the 1.8T 225 and probably handles better as well. Most of these cars would give a standard 1.8T a run for it's money in a sprint and are competitively equipped. You could go on for hours picking cars from the last 5-10 years that have the measure of the TT on paper, and I checked them all out before settling on a TT.

Most of us bought German cars rather than the Japanese/Euro boxes because of the build quality. It's long been known that the Japanese cars come with far higher specs/more standard equipment than the German marques and over the last 5-10 years the euro manufacturers have been catching up. The German marques don't include much as standard because they sell on build quality, because they can. The TT has the build quality, has pretty decent performance and has the looks, even 10 years on. There's always going to be brand snobbery to some extent but at the end of the day it is a TT Forum so it's not much of a surprise that there is a lot of support for the TT.

As for whats wrong with the RCZ, the grille is too big and looks like a sperm whale guzzling plankton, the badge on the bonnet looks like a uniquely-mounted bonnet release handle and it's bum is too big. The first points are true of all peugeots these days and they all look crap, and the last point... well Renault have finally designed the huge ass out of the Megane, to the point it's almost attractive (my guess would be the Alfa Brera gave them a strong hint...). Finally, when the TT was launched with the 1.8T engine and quattro it was derided for poor handling, lack of steering feel, understeer and lack of power. It looked the business but didn't deliver sufficiently on it's promises - all fair criticism. So what does that say about the prospects for a sporty looking coupe with a 1.6 engine and front wheel drive? I had a 308 as a hire car a few weeks back and if that is any yardstick by which to judge a 2010 Peugeot, then God help them.

Hammond has it right. Mums, shops.

That is all.


----------



## ttsteve (Nov 1, 2007)

By and large, putting all prejudices aside, I think it is a nice looking car - generally. The trouble is, making it look better would only make it look even more like a TT - which has blatantly been copied. I'm talking about the ugly front end; the mismatch of the bonnet and the grille, and the naff side profile of the same. Peugeot seem to go for oversized, 'blown-up' detailing; huge headlights, a bonnet that looks pumped up and 5% too big for the car.

Nonetheless, a piece of marketing genius from Peugeot who will sell loads of cheap 'TTs'. It doesn't offend me, on the contrary it brings a smile to my face, it's nice to be flattered by a copy of the real thing.


----------



## jjones (Jul 25, 2009)

it's like a chinese copy of an iphone, even the dashpod is a direct copy!


----------



## kbob221 (Feb 5, 2010)

It is french and quite clearly the poor mans TT. Buy one at your peril and dont complain when it falls apart! Not to mention the depreciation!

Kieran


----------



## Anneymouse (Dec 29, 2008)

They've blatantly copied, right down to the interior door handles, grips, and cowl over the instrument panel! The one bit which is truly different is the back window / roof, which looks like someone jumped out of the bedroom window and landed on it - or rather suspiciously like an arse.


----------



## duncs09 (Apr 28, 2009)

Is it just me who thinks that this guy is a moron, he is comparing a BRAND NEW CAR to an Audi TT built over 10 years ago. If a 10 year old car still offers stiff competition to a brand new car is that not a hands down win already?

The Mk1 TT has an amazing interior, I don't know where your statements come from, but as far as style and practicality come from it is a winner. We are terribly sorry it does not provide blue tooth but what did 10 years ago? Obviously you did not think much about this comparison.

I can only assume that you have gone about buying the RCZ and have realised that you made a mistake and now feel the need to put down the TT so you feel better about your decision. Put the TT up against the RCZ at Knockhill, see which is faster round track. Sit the Queen in either car, see which one she prefers the inside of. Compare the price, a MK1 Brand new was what, £32K. Expensive agreed, but you are comparing to a ten year old car, so a MK1 is now £8K compared to your brand new RCZ at £20K.

I am not a badge snob, not in anyway, I am all for German Engineering though, and I think that is fair enough, it has proven itself. I am in no way a Hitler though. If you think the RCZ will be going as strong as the TT in ten years time then your ignorance could not be measured really.

Also how stupid are you to come onto the TT forum and argue with people about how the TT is not great. Obviously we love the car otherwise we would not be here, we will always favour it over any copy cat turd that comes our way. It is highly unlikely we will jump ship and change our minds for someone who is an expert on the matter after test driving a TT once?

You will also notice I made no comment on how the RCZ drives, performs, that is because I have not driven one. I am just commenting on how much of a complete and utter tool you are even posting here in the first place.

This is a massive loss for you, so tuck your tail between your legs and leave as you are not going to have any joy here. Those who wish to look into the RCZ will, not due to you though.

My TT ran perfectly for 10 years, now it finally needs work, it will be done and I will then have my perfect sexy ass machine back. You tell me how long you have the RCZ for before you need work done, we shall do a long term running comparison.

Fun fun.

Sorry for the rant. It's been a bad day and reading the stuff that this guy comes out with is a joke. Omg who does actually come onto a group forum to argue with the group about the car that THEY ALL DRIVE! No wonder he likes the French machinery, he shares there ignorant personality. Stereo Type I know but I'm not sorry. :mrgreen:


----------



## leenx (Feb 8, 2010)

Anneymouse said:


> They've blatantly copied, right down to the interior door handles, grips, and cowl over the instrument panel! The one bit which is truly different is the back window / roof, which looks like someone jumped out of the bedroom window and landed on it - or rather suspiciously like an arse.


Complete blatant copy - no mistake! Saw one today also - middle aged bimbo with fake tan! :lol: :lol:


----------



## leenx (Feb 8, 2010)

duncs09 said:


> Is it just me who thinks that this guy is a moron, he is comparing a BRAND NEW CAR to an Audi TT built over 10 years ago. If a 10 year old car still offers stiff competition to a brand new car is that not a hands down win already?
> 
> The Mk1 TT has an amazing interior, I don't know where your statements come from, but as far as style and practicality come from it is a winner. We are terribly sorry it does not provide blue tooth but what did 10 years ago? Obviously you did not think much about this comparison.
> 
> ...


Excellent Response - and summed up perfectly!


----------



## Anneymouse (Dec 29, 2008)

duncs09 said:


> Is it just me who thinks that this guy is a moron, he is comparing a BRAND NEW CAR to an Audi TT built over 10 years ago. If a 10 year old car still offers stiff competition to a brand new car is that not a hands down win already?
> 
> The Mk1 TT has an amazing interior, I don't know where your statements come from, but as far as style and practicality come from it is a winner. We are terribly sorry it does not provide blue tooth but what did 10 years ago? Obviously you did not think much about this comparison.
> 
> ...


what he said!    :lol:


----------



## KentishTT (Jun 28, 2007)

Peugeot have not made an attractive car for a while now so the RCZ is a nice looking beast; yes it is clearly very strongly inspired by the TT but at least they have made a decent looking coupe again.

Peugeots usually have a nice firm but comfy ride and handle very well so I have no doubt that is is nice to drive.

Having owned a few Pugs in the past, my issue would be the lack of solidity but perhaps even that has changed?

The other issue I have would be niggly electrical faults (common to many french cars) and also the speed at which they usually get through things like, brake components and drive shafts. I used to work for PSA and every Citroen or Peugeot model had the same issues with short lifespans on braking components.


----------



## xraytyd2 (Jan 17, 2010)

Can I just say I love these arguments. I think the TT owners know they have the Prettier car. Its the pug owners that worry me if they think otherwise. The TT looks good on all angles end of storey and that was before I owned a TT. The Pug has its merits which I have discussed on this thread and my own thread. Im sure I will even turn my head when I eventually see one.

TT owners will always be biased on their own forum isnt that why we come on here. I just dont appreciate comments that are not related to the subject presented. Comparisons like this will always evoke differing opionions, but on here im afraid freddie you may be right in some respect. Anyone can make a cheap good looking car. The RCZ will take sales away from many brands. Good offerings for the second hand market down the track if your willing to take the risk.


----------



## andyTT180 (Mar 19, 2010)

i totally disagree on the RCZ being the first nice looking car peugeot have made I think the 207s nice for a small hatchback and I think the 407 coupe is a much better looking less fussy coupe than the RCZ I dont think I'd buy one new or used but If I had to choose a peugeot coupe it would be the 407 coupe, The RCZ has been overly designed in my eyes also someone said the RCZ is the first car which can compete with the TT on looks, wrong the alfa brera is an absolutely amazing looking car way better than the RCZ and dare I say it than the TT as well shame about its performance and reliablity etc


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

ScoobyTT said:


> leenx said:
> 
> 
> > Just can't see the apeal? :?
> ...





leenx said:


> Complete blatant copy - no mistake! Saw one today also - middle aged bimbo with fake tan! :lol: :lol:


_*BINGO!!* _ :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## xraytyd2 (Jan 17, 2010)

Guys. Lets not stereotype owners. Im sure ive seen Brigthton Ladies(Here in Oz) that drive TT's. Im sure the same could be made of TT ones.

Lets stick with the topic.


----------



## les (Jul 24, 2006)

I completely agree, this guy must be a complete and utter arse and have little idea about cars in general. I can't even be arsed to replying to why he is so wrong on so many issues. Look, if he likes pugs and thinks it better than a 10 year old designed car so be it but as for knowledge he lacks it along with brain cells. If he had just one more brain cell he would qualify as an half wit. Don't take this guy seriously after all his medication is obviously all wrong just like his opinions. Anybody fancy going onto a Pug forum and slating their cars :wink:
The RCZ will be all but forgotten in 10 years time and many will have been scraped while the TT will still be around as an ionic car design classic. Get over it. :roll:


----------



## duncs09 (Apr 28, 2009)

les said:


> I completely agree, this guy must be a complete and utter arse and have little idea about cars in general. I can't even be arsed to replying to why he is so wrong on so many issues. Look, if he likes pugs and thinks it better than a 10 year old designed car so be it but as for knowledge he lacks it along with brain cells. If he had just one more brain cell he would qualify as an half wit. Don't take this guy seriously after all his medication is obviously all wrong just like his opinions. Anybody fancy going onto a Pug forum and slating their cars :wink:
> The RCZ will be all but forgotten in 10 years time and many will have been scraped while the TT will still be around as an ionic car design classic. Get over it. :roll:


Love it! What I wanted to say but in less words, nice one Les


----------



## Dotti (Mar 9, 2003)

I'm sticking to my Mk1 audi for the moment and my upgrade will be a mk2 sometime in the not too distant future and that's that!


----------



## VerTTigo (Nov 14, 2009)

I can't understand how some people here get so angry and become almost unpolite when somebody states something negative about the TT. I don't know everybody in here but i believe there are many in here that are car enthusiasts, not just plain TT owners. You cant' be blind about TT flaws. And there are some. And worst, people here often believes that nobody else in the outside car world(non TT owners) can actually think that there is another car better than the TT. 
Well if the guy saw a MK1 and thinks the interior is bland is his opinion. If he is comparing the MK1 with the RCZ is because maybe he sees the MK2 a more expensive proposition to the RCZ. 
After some time now and seeing one RCZ in the flesh i can say the car is handsome. Its actually a very nice looking car. But everytime i see a pic of a RCZ i see a TT. But with a 308 front end and a longer, worst proportioned tail. There are some details that makes the french car look a poorly copied TT as the low rear bumper with those double exhaust that mimics the TT. If Peugeot was more creative and original in some aspects i could say the car is a great triumph. But...
If i was out there for a car is this price range the RCZ would a very strong proposition, alongside a Scirroco, a GTI and the Mégane. Preferring a TT is not just badge snobery, when you go out to spend you very hard earned money you want the best car your money can buy, and you want a car that shows that. You pay more for an Audi, or a Bimmer, but in fact you get more. Nobody cant argue with that. 
So people, please, lets be more open minded, the TT is not the only good car out there and we should welcome somebody who doesn't own a TT, they make this forum discussions a two way road. 
On another matter is clear that the TT is poorly equiped. A top of the line Focus Sedan that i was seeing before buying the TT has many features that my car doesn't have such as: keyless-go , dual zone air con, sunroof, automatic headlights, parking sensors, bluetooth, voice activated controls. These features should be standard in the TT.


----------



## duncs09 (Apr 28, 2009)

VerTTigo said:


> I can't understand how some people here get so angry and become almost unpolite when somebody states something negative about the TT. I don't know everybody in here but i believe there are many in here that are car enthusiasts, not just plain TT owners. You cant' be blind about TT flaws. And there are some. And worst, people here often believes that nobody else in the outside car world(non TT owners) can actually think that there is another car better than the TT.
> Well if the guy saw a MK1 and thinks the interior is bland is his opinion. If he is comparing the MK1 with the RCZ is because maybe he sees the MK2 a more expensive proposition to the RCZ.
> After some time now and seeing one RCZ in the flesh i can say the car is handsome. Its actually a very nice looking car. But everytime i see a pic of a RCZ i see a TT. But with a 308 front end and a longer, worst proportioned tail. There are some details that makes the french car look a poorly copied TT as the low rear bumper with those double exhaust that mimics the TT. If Peugeot was more creative and original in some aspects i could say the car is a great triumph. But...
> If i was out there for a car is this price range the RCZ would a very strong proposition, alongside a Scirroco, a GTI and the Mégane. Preferring a TT is not just badge snobery, when you go out to spend you very hard earned money you want the best car your money can buy, and you want a car that shows that. You pay more for an Audi, or a Bimmer, but in fact you get more. Nobody cant argue with that.
> ...


I am a massive Lotus Elise fan, and count myself as a car enthusiast, not overly fussed by the blingy extra's, I don't think too much should be expected from the MK1 TT, like I said, it's 10 years old so it won't have all these extra's. Also the under-steer of the TT is pretty extreme, but that is a part of the TT, you can throw it round corners and it's more likely that you will give up before it.

There are plenty cars out there which out do the TT, quite obviously, and it all depends what you are looking for. My argument was against somebody coming onto the TT forum to tell us how bad the Audi TT is. It's idiotic. I did not comment on the RCZ being a bad car, I haven't driven it. This guy isn't just being negative about the Audi TT, he is trying to slate the entire car and sell us a lesser model of car. Everyone here probably looked at other cars before deciding on the TT, we were quite aware of out decisions and made them for a reason. It's the same reason that very few, or none of us shall be buying the RCZ. Mainly because there are croissant stains all over it. (I love pain au chocolat btw so don't take me too literally :mrgreen: )

Anyway just read over this comment and it sounds very in your faceish, it is not meant that way so shall insert smiley here to lighten it 

I agree with much of what you said, it isn't the difference in opinion on the car that bothers us, it's the niconpoop coming onto an Audi TT fan site to tell us we are all wrong that annoys us.

Cheers

Ian


----------



## leenx (Feb 8, 2010)

I said for one that if a true competitor to the TT came along I'd say so, but to compare this piece of french rubbish to being anything near to the quality is complete madness! More fool you if you really think the RCZ comes close to being in the same league! I've seen one, i've been in the inside of one and it really isn't the same feel you get with the TT. I'm not getting remotely agitated by the fact some people believe the RCZ to be good or close to the TT. Seeing the driver step out of one today made me chuckle! :lol: :lol:


----------



## leenx (Feb 8, 2010)

It's the same reason that very few, or none of us shall be buying the RCZ. Mainly because there are croissant stains all over it. (I love pain au chocolat btw so don't take me too literally )

:lol: :lol: :lol: - Priceless!


----------



## ttsteve (Nov 1, 2007)

duncs09 said:


> VerTTigo said:
> 
> 
> > I can't understand how some people here get so angry and become almost unpolite when somebody states something negative about the TT. I don't know everybody in here but i believe there are many in here that are car enthusiasts, not just plain TT owners. You cant' be blind about TT flaws. And there are some. And worst, people here often believes that nobody else in the outside car world(non TT owners) can actually think that there is another car better than the TT.
> ...


Come on, the understeer characteristic of a TT can hardly be called "extreme". It's glib comments like this that 'stick' and become 'facts' on forums, just because someone said it in print. Generally speaking, the TT is a neutral handling car, with a tendency to understeer only when pushed to the point of losing traction. Remember, a car that is NOT losing traction does not show any tendency to over or understeer. An even then, understeer is the safer of the two, unless you are TRULY experienced and capable of dealing with racing conditions/speeds and drifting on a regular basis. I reckon I know my limits - fairly slow! - but amidst the talk and banter on here, I think a lot of guys get caught up in it all, and become 'experts' in car handling by proxy. Hence the pre-occupation with oversteer. Remember, the TT was recalled because experienced drivers (including a top rally driver) were being killed as a result of its original oversteer characteristics. In modding my TT, my aim is to make all four wheels grip as much as possible. In facilitating oversteer, you are inciting reduced traction at the rear wheels - loss of grip. Personally, I'm looking for maximum grip all round, then drive within those limits to achieve carefree driving at 'spirited speeds+' on dry roads.


----------



## Gone (May 5, 2009)

You don't need dual zone climate control in a 2 seater. Let's get off that point!


----------



## pars_andy (Dec 10, 2009)

Really not keen on a sunroof either!!


----------



## richieshore (May 17, 2010)

Not really a fan of keyless-go, automatic lights or parking sensors either! :lol:


----------



## romfordphil (Jan 21, 2010)

Lets face it as much as lots of us dont want to admit it; we buy a TT to have something to show off / be proud of - there are more practical cars out there and more performance based cars in the price bracket but the TT oozes class and a respected name in Audi.

As soon as someone asks you what car you drive and you say "an Audi" - even before you say which model or even age, they automatically think of a top quality car. Saying you own a Peugeot does not have the same affect whatsoever and it's something Peugeot are never going to change because they are not in the same bracket as Audi in any of their range if you compare like-for-like. Fair play on them giving it a go but a lack-lustre attempt at making a "luxury stylish sports coupe" isn't going to put them on that higher tier not with this effort.


----------



## Anneymouse (Dec 29, 2008)

Sorry Romford Phil but I think that is complete bollox. When I am asked, I say a TT, not an Audi. I bought my first baby because the look of the car blew me away. I knew sod all then about makes, manufacturers, models, hey, I used to drive a Talbot Solara! I pretty much cared even less, being a bit of a 'mmm that is nice' type girl, without checking out the CV! Even recently with being given the option to change my marque and try something totally new, well I looked about , and ummm, still nothing as pretty as the MK1!!  the MK2 doesn't even hold a candle for me (soz!). But then, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and bedriver  I have no idea if the Peugeot drives as well as the TT, I don't much care, it is a bit like someone taking Van Gogh's Sunflowers, painting the stem a different colour, and trying to brand themselves a genius, or Old Master. That is the beholder, they copied, they did, just look, they blatantly did!

As for the bedriver, I've no idea what is under the bonnet, and rooted around the official web site for some time without finding out the bhp, but would like to throw the little muther around some roundabouts and see if I get the same palpitations as I get from pushing the TT and trying to find evidence of this 'understeer'


----------



## richieshore (May 17, 2010)

romfordphil said:


> Lets face it as much as lots of us dont want to admit it; we buy a TT to have something to show off / be proud of - there are more practical cars out there and more performance based cars in the price bracket.


And why can we show off and be proud of our TT's? Because they are the best!!

Yeah there may be more practical cars for the same price and more performance based cars but a car that's practical and performance based at the same time for the same price that's as good as the TT there is not, not in my opinion anyway. And there definitely isn't anything that's even nearly as gorgeous!

I couldn't care too much about the badge (as long as it's not French), if the TT was actually made by Ford or Skoda or any Jap make I would still have bought one, just so happens it's by Audi.


----------



## duncs09 (Apr 28, 2009)

> Come on, the understeer characteristic of a TT can hardly be called "extreme". It's glib comments like this that 'stick' and become 'facts' on forums, just because someone said it in print. Generally speaking, the TT is a neutral handling car, with a tendency to understeer only when pushed to the point of losing traction. Remember, a car that is NOT losing traction does not show any tendency to over or understeer. An even then, understeer is the safer of the two, unless you are TRULY experienced and capable of dealing with racing conditions/speeds and drifting on a regular basis. I reckon I know my limits - fairly slow! - but amidst the talk and banter on here, I think a lot of guys get caught up in it all, and become 'experts' in car handling by proxy. Hence the pre-occupation with oversteer. Remember, the TT was recalled because experienced drivers (including a top rally driver) were being killed as a result of its original oversteer characteristics. In modding my TT, my aim is to make all four wheels grip as much as possible. In facilitating oversteer, you are inciting reduced traction at the rear wheels - loss of grip. Personally, I'm looking for maximum grip all round, then drive within those limits to achieve carefree driving at 'spirited speeds+' on dry roads.


Oh come on now, have you ever tracked your TT? The understeer is extreme when your putting it round Knockhill. I did not say it is a bad thing, being stuck to that road so well can only be a good thing, it's mainly the electronics that cause it all. If by hitting the ESP button you could turn off all electrical assistance then the car would be a better track car, but Audi are very safety concious and so this is not achievable. The comment about the understeer is correct, and I am not the only one to say it, believe it came up on both 5th gear and the autocar review.

I love my Audi TT to death. I am very passionate about it, and love driving it. You can't pretend these things do not exist though. The Audi TT under-steers. It is what makes it such a sturdy and sticky drive on the road. Like I said, the driver will give up before the car does. Also your last part, about dry roads? The Audi TT in the wet is phenomenal. Again I can best compare when the car has been on track. My Dad used to Race and many of his friends will but the TT's handling in the wet was putting the rear wheel drive cars to shame. Fantastic watching the TT whizz past or up to everything on each corner.

Anyway it seems we are both for the TT we just have different views on the drive of the car, probably from different driving climates. Understandable. The end story is, whatever you are looking for the TT is an amazing drive and an amazing car. :mrgreen:


----------



## duncs09 (Apr 28, 2009)

pars_andy said:


> Really not keen on a sunroof either!!


Got a Roadster, can't get any more sunroof than that unless you get out the car and run!



richieshore said:


> Not really a fan of keyless-go, automatic lights or parking sensors either! :lol:


 :mrgreen:

Agreed as well, I like having my Audi keys in my pocket, apart for anything it becomes a useful weapon if anyone ever attacked you on the street. :twisted:

Automatic lights may be useful as once or twice when in a hurry I have almost left mine on, but parking sensors are a no no, takes the driving out of driving really. If you can't park, you shouldn't be driving. :mrgreen:


----------



## duncs09 (Apr 28, 2009)

Anneymouse said:


> Sorry Romford Phil but I think that is complete bollox. When I am asked, I say a TT, not an Audi. I bought my first baby because the look of the car blew me away. I knew sod all then about makes, manufacturers, models, hey, I used to drive a Talbot Solara! I pretty much cared even less, being a bit of a 'mmm that is nice' type girl, without checking out the CV! Even recently with being given the option to change my marque and try something totally new, well I looked about , and ummm, still nothing as pretty as the MK1!!  the MK2 doesn't even hold a candle for me (soz!). But then, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and bedriver  I have no idea if the Peugeot drives as well as the TT, I don't much care, it is a bit like someone taking Van Gogh's Sunflowers, painting the stem a different colour, and trying to brand themselves a genius, or Old Master. That is the beholder, they copied, they did, just look, they blatantly did!
> 
> As for the bedriver, I've no idea what is under the bonnet, and rooted around the official web site for some time without finding out the bhp, but would like to throw the little muther around some roundabouts and see if I get the same palpitations as I get from pushing the TT and trying to find evidence of this 'understeer'


We don't throw our cars round roundabouts :wink: Especially when the sun has just come out after a slight drizzle and the roads are that little bit slippy, we would never even dream of hitting that ESP button then throwing it into a roundabout at say 50mph and seeing if we can get the little beauty sideways. Would we? No! Never! :twisted:

For an example of this under-steer, take the TT on a rasp on a road, really throw the car at those corners and then do the same with a 350Z BMW Z4, or a Lotus Elise as that is where I made my comparison. By using the Audi's weight you can sometimes manipulate the car to go exactly where you want it. However most of the time, you throw the Audi into a corner and it is so stuck to the road it doesn't want to give up the traction and so it can be hard to take that line you want. You have to be driving the car ragged to feel it admittedly, but I promise it's there.


----------



## ttsteve (Nov 1, 2007)

duncs09 said:


> > Come on, the understeer characteristic of a TT can hardly be called "extreme". It's glib comments like this that 'stick' and become 'facts' on forums, just because someone said it in print. Generally speaking, the TT is a neutral handling car, with a tendency to understeer only when pushed to the point of losing traction. Remember, a car that is NOT losing traction does not show any tendency to over or understeer. An even then, understeer is the safer of the two, unless you are TRULY experienced and capable of dealing with racing conditions/speeds and drifting on a regular basis. I reckon I know my limits - fairly slow! - but amidst the talk and banter on here, I think a lot of guys get caught up in it all, and become 'experts' in car handling by proxy. Hence the pre-occupation with oversteer. Remember, the TT was recalled because experienced drivers (including a top rally driver) were being killed as a result of its original oversteer characteristics. In modding my TT, my aim is to make all four wheels grip as much as possible. In facilitating oversteer, you are inciting reduced traction at the rear wheels - loss of grip. Personally, I'm looking for maximum grip all round, then drive within those limits to achieve carefree driving at 'spirited speeds+' on dry roads.
> 
> 
> Oh come on now, have you ever tracked your TT? The understeer is extreme when your putting it round Knockhill. I did not say it is a bad thing, being stuck to that road so well can only be a good thing, it's mainly the electronics that cause it all. If by hitting the ESP button you could turn off all electrical assistance then the car would be a better track car, but Audi are very safety concious and so this is not achievable. The comment about the understeer is correct, and I am not the only one to say it, believe it came up on both 5th gear and the autocar review.
> ...


Fair points Dunc. Thanks for the info. However, I have not, and I will never put my TT around a track. I'm too old fashioned to be able to get my head around wearing out all that tyre leather for one thing! What I'm saying is, that for ME, driving at 'spirited speeds+', the TT handles just how I want it to, with no over or understeer traits. It is being driven at a fair old pace well within its grip capabilities. To me, that's nirvana.


----------



## duncs09 (Apr 28, 2009)

Agreed. Truth is after without changing the brake fluid in the TT for stuff with a higher boiling point it's pointless to track, my first time I did 6 laps and lost all my brakes. Got a big event on the 18th of this month which shall be it's last tracking until it has been uprated. Got some higher spec brake fluid, new callipers, discs pads and tyres so should be fun. Tyres should last so long as they get a cooling period every 10 laps so it should be ok. I am there for experience, learn the lines and will move to more serious stuff in the future.

All in all the TT is fantastic, great drive, does everything you want plus more.

Hope you continue to enjoy it as much as I do pal.

:mrgreen:


----------



## VerTTigo (Nov 14, 2009)

It is just me or all this praise the RCZ is getting seem a bit forced. I have a sense that publications like Autocar and Autoexpress always look biased against Audi. 
It's clear that the RCZ was inspired by the TT, so its a chance for them (journalists) to say that the car is a masterpiece, even if its not a bit original as it should be if it was intended to be a real masterpiece.
When the RS4 arrived to the marked it was a much superior and more special car than the M3, but all they talked about is how the (by then 2 years away) upcoming V8 M3 should be on par with the RS4. It seemed that thre M3 was the first car in its segment to use a V8, when Mercedes used a V8 in the C43 more than 5 years before the RS4. And the RS4 was the first car with a high revving V8, but all the praise went to the M3. 
I know this looks like conspiracy theory material, but try to take this statement too serious and see what i mean:

from Autoexpress:

"Peugeot's stunning RCZ is a prime example. The two-door is the hottest property on the market right now, and looks as though it has driven straight off a designer's sketch pad. Petrol versions have already proven the equal of the best in the business, including the desirable Audi TT."


----------



## richieshore (May 17, 2010)

VerTTigo said:


> It is just me or all this praise the RCZ is getting seem a bit forced. I have a sense that publications like Autocar and Autoexpress always look biased against Audi.
> It's clear that the RCZ was inspired by the TT, so its a chance for them (journalists) to say that the car is a masterpiece, even if its not a bit original as it should be if it was intended to be a real masterpiece.
> When the RS4 arrived to the marked it was a much superior and more special car than the M3, but all they talked about is how the (by then 2 years away) upcoming V8 M3 should be on par with the RS4. It seemed that thre M3 was the first car in its segment to use a V8, when Mercedes used a V8 in the C43 more than 5 years before the RS4. And the RS4 was the first car with a high revving V8, but all the praise went to the M3.
> I know this looks like conspiracy theory material, but try to take this statement too serious and see what i mean:
> ...


This is quite funny, I honestly reckon that the mags are paid off by the car companies!

Although, in today's Auto Express the Pug RCZ diesel actually loses a showdown to the Scirocco diesel and they didn't even put a TT in the mix (which would've obviously smashed them both). Sooo..... Who knows?


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

Magazines are always biased - they are paid by their advertisers. It's as simple as that.


----------



## leenx (Feb 8, 2010)

Although, in today's Auto Express the Pug RCZ diesel actually loses a showdown to the Scirocco diesel and they didn't even put a TT in the mix (which would've obviously smashed them both). Sooo..... Who knows?[/quote]

A diesel RCZ - Why? :lol:


----------



## richieshore (May 17, 2010)

leenx said:


> A diesel RCZ - Why? :lol:


Tell me about it, as if their petrol model wasn't slow enough!! :lol: :lol:

I had someone try and argue with me that they are not built for speed like the TT but are built for economy... Oh right, is that why the TT has better MPG and less CO2 then? Yeah thought so! :lol: :lol:


----------



## leenx (Feb 8, 2010)

richieshore said:


> leenx said:
> 
> 
> > A diesel RCZ - Why? :lol:
> ...


 :lol: :lol:


----------



## duncs09 (Apr 28, 2009)

I'm all for the TT, but the RCZ rapes it when it comes to MPG.

Check out the figures online. Just thought I would say before an RCZ fan does as it is better coming from a TT owner.


----------



## VerTTigo (Nov 14, 2009)

leenx said:


> Although, in today's Auto Express the Pug RCZ diesel actually loses a showdown to the Scirocco diesel and they didn't even put a TT in the mix (which would've obviously smashed them both). Sooo..... Who knows?


A diesel RCZ - Why? :lol:[/quote]

Actually the sentence about how marvelous the RCZ is a quote from the Autoexpress comparision with the Scirocco.


----------



## richieshore (May 17, 2010)

duncs09 said:


> I'm all for the TT, but the RCZ rapes it when it comes to MPG.
> 
> Check out the figures online. Just thought I would say before an RCZ fan does as it is better coming from a TT owner.


Okay straight from the RCZ brochure...

116 200bhp 40.9mpg
116 156bhp 42.1mpg

and from the TT brochure

2.0 211bhp 42.2mpg
1.8 160bhp 43.5mpg

So our bigger, faster, more powerful engine beats both of their smaller, slower, weaker engines.

Not sure what raping you're on about mate!


----------



## duncs09 (Apr 28, 2009)

Maybe my mistake, the figures I got showed that whilst cruising the Audi TT does round about 38mpg.

Could you show me links to these figures, not that I distrust you just what I am looking at must be wrong and I can then further educate myself.

Which TT are we talking about here as well?

Thanks

Ian


----------



## richieshore (May 17, 2010)

duncs09 said:


> Maybe my mistake, the figures I got showed that whilst cruising the Audi TT does round about 38mpg.
> 
> Could you show me links to these figures, not that I distrust you just what I am looking at must be wrong and I can then further educate myself.
> 
> ...


Just download the new brochure from the Audi website and they are 3rd or 4th page from the end.

http://www.audi.co.uk/about-audi/contac ... hures.html

The figures above are actually for the Roadster (just to compare the 1.8 and 2.0 better).

The 2.0 211bhp Coupe is actually even a little bit better than the Roadster with 42.8mpg.

All the figures (for both TT and RCZ) are for a combined mpg too.


----------



## duncs09 (Apr 28, 2009)

Wish I could get 42mpg from my roadster. I'm a 1.8 225bhp mk1 roadster and probably average at 32-36mpg that is with considerate driving but also kicking the balls out of it. So suppose it kind of makes sense.

Anyway thanks for putting me right and sorry for the mistake. Going to give it tits on the back roads on the way home tonight though and see how low I can get that MPG figure. Of course I will only stick to the legal speed limits.


----------



## richieshore (May 17, 2010)

duncs09 said:


> Wish I could get 42mpg from my roadster. I'm a 1.8 225bhp mk1 roadster and probably average at 32-36mpg that is with considerate driving but also kicking the balls out of it. So suppose it kind of makes sense.
> 
> Anyway thanks for putting me right and sorry for the mistake. Going to give it tits on the back roads on the way home tonight though and see how low I can get that MPG figure. Of course I will only stick to the legal speed limits.


Ha ha, yeah they've improved the engines quite a bit with the new mk2, I'd still be more than happy getting around 34!

Have fun tonight!


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

I thought I had a chance to see what all the fuss was about the other day. I pulled up along side this and thought it was one to start with :lol:
http://www.********.co.uk/forum/download/file.php?id=8079


----------



## andyTT180 (Mar 19, 2010)




----------



## richieshore (May 17, 2010)

andyTT180 said:


> who tracks a TT anyway. on the road its a neutral handling car the mk 1 never claimed to be a track car, if you want a track car you for an elise or an exige, think you've been watching too much top gear mate and now your trying to pretend your Jeremy Clarkston talking about understeer you probably would know understeer of it hit you in the face


Who the hell would want to pretend to be Jeremy Clarkson? He's an absolute loser! And who doesn't know what understeer is??


----------



## andyTT180 (Mar 19, 2010)




----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

Dash said:


> I thought I had a chance to see what all the fuss was about the other day. I pulled up along side this and thought it was one to start with :lol:


It's not a lot different to be fair. Just think Dash, some bloke in Peugeot's design shop looked at that and though "VOILA!" :roll:


----------



## duncs09 (Apr 28, 2009)

andyTT180 said:


> who tracks a TT anyway. on the road its a neutral handling car the mk 1 never claimed to be a track car, if you want a track car you for an elise or an exige, think you've been watching too much top gear mate and now your trying to pretend your Jeremy Clarkston talking about understeer you probably would know understeer of it hit you in the face


Edited to keep the peace.

Why isn't their a little angel smiley? 
:mrgreen:


----------



## les (Jul 24, 2006)

Feel the LUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUVE :-*


----------



## talk-torque (Apr 30, 2008)

richieshore said:


> andyTT180 said:
> 
> 
> > who tracks a TT anyway. on the road its a neutral handling car the mk 1 never claimed to be a track car, if you want a track car you for an elise or an exige, think you've been watching too much top gear mate and now your trying to pretend your Jeremy Clarkston talking about understeer you probably would know understeer of it hit you in the face
> ...


For those who don't know, understeer is when you go into the hedge front first. Oversteer is when you go in back first.


----------



## duncs09 (Apr 28, 2009)

talk-torque said:


> richieshore said:
> 
> 
> > andyTT180 said:
> ...


Not the words I would have used, however they are ten times better! :mrgreen:


----------



## Anneymouse (Dec 29, 2008)

talk-torque said:


> For those who don't know, understeer is when you go into the hedge front first. Oversteer is when you go in back first.


 :lol: :lol:


----------



## Andywarr (May 14, 2009)

Anneymouse said:


> talk-torque said:
> 
> 
> > For those who don't know, understeer is when you go into the hedge front first. Oversteer is when you go in back first.
> ...


so understeer u can see what is about to kill you, and over steer means you cant


----------

