# 2.0 tdi Quattro versus 2.0 TFSI



## Bologna_1973 (Aug 11, 2008)

Hello there,

Just joined the forum and will soon be ordering a new TT on my Company's car scheme.

Only I have a dilemma between the TDI and TFSI versions.

Whilst I am impressed with the TFSI's performance and road-handling I need to consider the following downsides as well:

- Lease cost will £24 more per month than the TDI
- Monthly company car tax is £43 more than the TDI
- Fuel consumption will be higher and autonomy lower

However the emotional advantages of the TFSI are equally compelling:

- Smoother ride and better performance
- better image
- nicer sound

Although I would never have previously considered a diesel engine for the TT, it does make sense financially, but is it justified?

Considering that my Lease covers servicing, insurance and break down...etc and that I do not need to worry about depreciation costs, which car would you guys get?

Would a remap of the TDI bring performance levels up to the TFSI level whilst optimizing fuel consumption? Has anyone remapped the TDI to date and what are the results?

Thanks for your answers. Truely appreciated


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

I'd go TTS or V6.

from those two - TD as the power is about the same but it has AWD and can put down the power better.
FWD suffers from wheel spin.

Money saving are not a reason to buy a car in my book, so they'd be irrelevant.
No chips out for the TD atm as i understand it.

However its really something you need to answer yourself.


----------



## Bologna_1973 (Aug 11, 2008)

Toshiba said:


> I'd go TTS or V6.
> 
> from those two - TD as the power is about the same but it has AWD and can put down the power better.
> FWD suffers from wheel spin.
> ...


Funny I thought that the 170 TDI engine was an Audi stablemate and consequently had already been remapped albeit for other models....


----------



## membatmaz (Jul 30, 2008)

Tosh money doesnt grow on trees for everyone!!

If it did then I would have ordered a TTS too!! but I found that the TDI is a fantastic car and chose it over the TFSI for the cons you stated above..

But i actually felt that the Diesel had a smoother ride and supprisingly a nice sound!! but TFSI does have a deeper sportier sound I have to admit

I dont think anyone can comment on the TDi unless they have actually test drove one!! very impressive....


----------



## Arne (Dec 13, 2006)

Bologna_1973 said:


> Toshiba said:
> 
> 
> > I'd go TTS or V6.
> ...


http://en.bsr.se/products/t1202/ You get 205 bhp / 425 Nm from the remapped TDI.

I don't know if you can use it as it is, or if they have to some some modifications to it? I know that one problem with remapping the 170 bhp TDI has been a temperature issue. They have solved it, but I think I read something about not going too high on turbo pressure. And I have no ide if the cooling is excactly the same (layout etc) in the TT and the A4?


----------



## Janitor (Jul 2, 2007)

I haven't driven the TTDi, but the A3 2.0TDi quattro was impressively pokey. I'd say go for the oil burner given the financial considerations in play here [smiley=thumbsup.gif]


----------



## windymiller (Jul 10, 2008)

[/quote]
Funny I thought that the 170 TDI engine was an Audi stablemate and consequently had already been remapped albeit for other models....[/quote]

I think you are mistaking the 170 TT diesel (which uses the much newer Common Rail diesel) which is starting to be rolled out in the VAG this year with the older 170 one that is currently in the Mk5 golf, leon FR and has been around for about 3 years. 2 different engines.

The link takes you to an A4 diesel - the CR diesel has only just been announced for the A4 for order in the UK and i hazard a guess the link therefore relates to the old version.


----------



## Suge_K (May 27, 2008)

2.0T all the way...only advantage the 2.0D has is the quattro, but doesnt have the power to exploit the benefit. FWD only spins in the wet when pushed hard from standstill, never had any problems with grip either and pushed it pretty hard...

If moneys a worry, get the D...TFSI is a better car....oh yeah...IMO...

S


----------



## Gordon B (Apr 12, 2008)

Personally IMHO if its performance you want, then go for the TTS. If finance and economy are important, then the sensible choice would be the TDi.

The advantages you give for the TT 2.0 TFSI does not really swing it for me. The TDi ride is very smooth, you would never know there is a diesel engine under the bonnet. The TDi has excellent torque. It occurs lower down in the rev range and is more usable in day to day driving (especially overtaking on motor-ways).
To the general public, just having the mk2 Audi TT is an image statement in itself. Everyone loves its sophisticated beautiful looks, regardless of model. Having Quattro also enhances that image. To people in the know, its the TTS that is the cool one to have. 8)

I love the exhaust note of the TDi. Its not as good as the 3.2 V6, but surprisingly very good for a diesel.
Its early days for a good TT TDi remap at present (new engine and model), but they will eventually get onto the market, then I would expect performance to increase to over 200bhp, and 0-60 times similar to the current 2.0 TFSI (6.5 - 6.9 sec).

Why not go for a back to back test drive, and compare all three cars. [smiley=book2.gif]


----------



## Bologna_1973 (Aug 11, 2008)

Thanks to all. Anyone one know the difference in autonomy between the TFSI and the TDI, under average driving conditions? The mpg (for both models) seem to be stretching, to say trhe least?

Anyone actually tried the TFSI and TDI back to back? What where your initial thoughts?


----------



## Jimbo2 (Nov 30, 2006)

In the UK at least, the financial differences do not particularly benefit the D over the T.

The (best) fuel economy of the D is about 10mpg over the (best) fuel economy of the 2T, if the 2T is run on 98RON. 98RON is cheaper than diesel.

So what you save on mpg in the D you spend on higher fuel costs. The D is also cheaper to tax on an annual basis, and may work out cheaper to run as a company car (depending on your personal situation).

Nobody knows for sure what the ongoing running costs of the D are like yet but (for example) the D has quattro and is a heavier car, so you may find that the tyres need replacing sooner than if you were driving a 2T.

If the financial aspects are more or less equal, the real question is : what is more important to you - speed / handling or quattro? The 2T is lighter and faster, and can be cheaply modded to produce significantly better performance. The slower D has loads of torque and the stability/safety of quattro.

Best to arrange a head to head test drive and see which one you feel you could live with. Let us know how you get on...


----------



## Suge_K (May 27, 2008)

The D is not slow by any means and the economy is always going to be better, but i still get some good figures on the motorway in the TFSI...if you want performance its a no brainer, the TFSI is a cracking engine, hence why the TTS has the same one...

Dont think you can get S-tronic on the tractor yet which may force your hand....S-tronic makes this car...simple as that.

Get MR too if you can stretch, its stunning...

S


----------



## Arne (Dec 13, 2006)

Don't forget the service cost of the tdi (+ quattro). At least for the "till now" tdi engines, the service intervalls are more often, and the cost is higher.

From the calculations I have seen been done in Norway, you shall drive VERY much each year to make a tdi pay off - and way more than what the "average person" does:?


----------



## Bologna_1973 (Aug 11, 2008)

Arne said:


> Don't forget the service cost of the tdi (+ quattro). At least for the "till now" tdi engines, the service intervalls are more often, and the cost is higher.
> 
> From the calculations I have seen been done in Norway, you shall drive VERY much each year to make a tdi pay off - and way more than what the "average person" does:?


Yes you have a point however in my specific case, servicing, MOT, repairs, breakdown are all covered...the only thing I need to pay (directly) out of pocket is the fuel.

Hence my question still remains, is the TDI a better proposition than the TFSI? Oddly enough although the purchase price for the TDI is higher than the TFSI, the lease cost is cheaper due to deperciation being lower on the TDI and the fact that it will (supposedly) be easier to shift after 4 years.


----------



## Suge_K (May 27, 2008)

Theres only so far we can take you with this....

My advice is TFSI with an S-tronic box...

If you do loads of miles, fuel economy is better in the D....what do you want from the car?


----------



## Bernieddevil (Jul 9, 2008)

I'll second Suge-k's advise. I initially was contemplating the TDi as well. What swung it for me was the brilliant S-Tronic (obviously not available on TDi). Also I dont do regular motorway miles anyway so a TTC was ordered  Couldnt stretch my budget for a TTS thou


----------



## membatmaz (Jul 30, 2008)

Looked at both... done my research for over 3 months... Test drove both... Done calculations..

TDI won....

1. Both the TDI and FSTI look identical in appearance (apart from exausts)

2. TDI does 53.3 (combined) MPG and the FSTI does 36.7 (Combined) MPG.....
I like to drive my car aggresively!!! So my TDI will do around 44mpg, if i had the fsti i would be as low as 29 MPG........

3. Diesal cars are thh future!!! unless your filthy rich and money isnt an issue that is  ... Some people have said that the cost of diesel will go up in the next couple of years!!! But NO ONE knows this... these are all projections!!! and the littlest poloital or economical thing can change this...

4. The sound of the FSTI is great!!! But the TDI also has a great noise including the turbo whistle.. there really is no sound of a tractor with the new audi diesel engines.... But the FSTI is nice..

5. Correct!! the TDI will hold its value more, i got told the same thing when i bought my'n and was shown examples of audi TDI owners who have sold theres back to audi and its value didnt drop much at all.

6. TDI has quatrro handling and safety... which is a big thing.. the difference is noticable and the grip is emence!!

7. TDI has 170 brake horse and the FSTI has 200 brake horse... TDI torque smashes the FSTI... and its quiet amazing..

8. Manual or s-tronic.... both great!!! S-tronic had had great reviews... but manual for me love it too much.. not ready for a s-tronic box yet!!!

9. TDI costs more (Wonder why?  )

Hope this helps mate..

They are both truely great cars!!!!


----------



## Gordon B (Apr 12, 2008)

membatmaz said:


> They are both truely great cars!!!!


Totally agree.

Maybe the options will help you decide.

If you want S-Tronic go for the Petrol, if you want Quattro then go for the TDi.


----------



## tj (May 7, 2002)

I've gone for a TTR TDi over the TSFI. I don't do a great deal of mileage but a test drive convinced me that a) it doesn't sound like a diesel and b) it goes like stink when on the move. It is £1100 over the TSFI but I get quattro. Stealer says service costs are the same but he would say that wouldn't he. I think residuals will be higher because fuel isn't going to get any cheaper and there will be less of them on the road. And if a diesel engine is good enough for an R8 then it's good enough for a TT. It just seemed the right decision at this moment in time. You pays your money and takes your chance.
The press seem to like it also. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/drivin ... 898815.ece


----------



## Suge_K (May 27, 2008)

Who needs Quattro with 168ps :? 
People make a big deal about Quattro, and yeah its great technology but....TTS needs it because there is just so much power, 3.2 because of the weight and substantial power...D has neither of these, ok its slightly better in the wet, but nothings gona save you in bad conditions if you drive like an arse...you have ESP and ASR anyways...

TFSI is a better car for performance...fact

D is more cost effective mileage wise...

Manual gearbox is like dangling a fork into the waste disposal...S-tronic everytime, quicker too... 

S


----------



## drjam (Apr 7, 2006)

Suge_K said:


> Who needs Quattro with 168ps :?


I'd have thought the need for quattro is more down to lb/ft (torque) rather than power; and in particular big low-down torque which might otherwise spin the wheels on the TDi?


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

D has it due to the amount of torque from the engine. Its way more than the 20t puts out.
It does make a huge difference - look at the comments from the people that have moved from T's to TTS. all stating this is the reason ie traction.

You might find the in gear times for the D are as good if not better than the T due to where the power is,


----------



## membatmaz (Jul 30, 2008)

Suge_K :-| where do you get your facts from.....

AUDI..... The second best car manufactorer is europe and they just threw in the "quatrro" into the new TDI for no reason!!!!! Sorry; just doesnt add up... It delivers ultimate control, better braking, less skidding. More safe and better in all weather conditions...

S-tronic dont get me wrong is fantastic... but come on, once the novality wears off, you would just simply stick it in auto and only use the manual mode now and then!!!!!(This is coming from s-tronic owners, check threads) and nether is a s-tronic box more involving no matter what anyone says.. I tested the s-tronic, loved it.. but loved the manual more!!! but hey! thats for me... I love to shift gears with a real manual, simply my personal preference!

S-tronic is quicker its a fact!!!! fifth gear have done a test race between the s-tronic and manual... S-tronic won by *4 tenths of a second*!!!!! :lol: WOW lol (Worth the money :? ) thats less than half a second ... wow big difference..

Check it:





and the driver prefered the manual.....


----------



## Suge_K (May 27, 2008)

TTS has more power so is bound to benefit...
2.0T only falls short off the lights...and thats flat footed...

Im not into drag racing anyway...
:?

This is a pointless argument...people who buy diesel are so wedded and vice versa...

Theyre different cars, TFSI is a better drive apparently...

That is all

S


----------



## drjam (Apr 7, 2006)

membatmaz said:


> AUDI..... The second best car manufactorer is europe and they just threw in the "quatrro" into the new TDI for no reason!!!!! Sorry; just doesnt add up... It delivers ultimate control, *better braking*, less skidding. More safe and better in all weather conditions...


Better braking?!?! [smiley=huh2.gif]


----------



## membatmaz (Jul 30, 2008)

better deceleration..


----------



## Suge_K (May 27, 2008)

membatmaz said:


> Suge_K :-| where do you get your facts from.....
> 
> AUDI..... The second best car manufactorer is europe and they just threw in the "quatrro" into the new TDI for no reason!!!!! Sorry; just doesnt add up... It delivers ultimate control, better braking, less skidding. More safe and better in all weather conditions...
> 
> ...


Did i say it was there for no reason....erm nope...

I think i said Quattro is a great bit of kit...would i have it on my TFSI...sure in a hearbeat...but id want the extra power to compensate for the weight, and the handling dynamics would change, I love the light steering on my car, no other model boasts that, TTS is closest....Everyone knows how Quattro works, but all im saying is that its all relative and people lose sight...Quattro is great, but the FWD 2.0 is no less a car for not having it - 2.0 quattro would be a different animal...and its not a big enough benefit on the D to make it attractive...despite people thinking it is because of tat on here...Ive had no problems with grip and minimal spinning in the wet...nothing to the extent that would make me consider the D...

Any S-tronic owner will tell you how much the box feels like a manual after prolonged use...its a stunning gearbox...s versatile...as for quicker...it is, in the published figures for each model, test by pros...what else do we have to go on...your word vs. mine...ps my 2.0 does 0-62 in 4.1secs with S-tronic etc...

Noones can shift as fast as S-tronic and i would imagine the difference would be even greater between it and a manual with a 'novice' i.e. not a pro...behind the wheel...

People buy the D for the fuel economy...its as simple as that...

S


----------



## drjam (Apr 7, 2006)

membatmaz said:


> better deceleration..


Nope, you'll still have to explain that one (and I hope no-one's driving around thinking quattro will help them stop better).


----------



## Bologna_1973 (Aug 11, 2008)

Thanks for all your numero :roll: us replies...although I wasen't trying to stir a diesel versus petrol argument, honest

Seeing that with the diesel I will save over £800 per year (even if I don't drive the car at all during the year!) and thats without counting petrol, I think the D is looking like the more likely candidate.

At the risk of getting vilified and kicked out of the forum...I am also taken in by the BMW 123D MSport Coupe. Any thoughts on this car, has any of you driven it? If so what's it like?
Although not to everone's aesthetic taste and not as compelling from a stylistic angle, the figures are hard to ignore: 204 BHP, 0 to 60 in 6.7...a cracker of a diesel engine and in keeping with the TDI's CO2 emissions to keep the eco warriors at bay....


----------



## Suge_K (May 27, 2008)

If you havent yet driven the S-tronic box, seriously advise it...

S


----------



## Bologna_1973 (Aug 11, 2008)

Suge_K said:


> If you havent yet driven the S-tronic box, seriously advise it...
> 
> S


Thanks Suge, by any chance have you got a pic of your car as I am interested in Meteor grey and would like to see what it looks like in the flesh?


----------



## Janitor (Jul 2, 2007)

Bologna_1973 said:


> I am also taken in by the BMW 123D MSport Coupe. Any thoughts on this car, has any of you driven it? If so what's it like?


Indeed. You'd be daft not to consider your options. I've tried to make myself like BMW because as you rightly say, they make corking engines... but there's more to it than that and as much as I've tried, I just don't like them. If you do, then get stuck in [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

The world is your (soon to be diesel powered) oyster


----------



## Janitor (Jul 2, 2007)

Bologna_1973 said:


> Thanks Suge, by any chance have you got a pic of your car as I am interested in Meteor grey and would like to see what it looks like in the flesh?


As for Meteor - again, it's something I'd hoped I would like given that Dolphin Grey was so nice, but I had a Meteor A5 on test and it looked very, very dull I'm afraid to say... even in blazing sunshine... but again, that's just my opinion and others like the colour


----------



## Suge_K (May 27, 2008)

Its a hard one to photograph as its a flippy paint...but see below...

Personally i love it and it looks great in the metal...Dolphin is slightly nicer...but not available anymore :?

Agree with Janitor, looks toss on the A5...but nice on a TT....looks a bit darker than it is in my photies...


----------



## Suge_K (May 27, 2008)

Sorry meant to say...is a bit lighter than in my pics....

S


----------



## Bologna_1973 (Aug 11, 2008)

Suge_K said:


> Sorry meant to say...is a bit lighter than in my pics....
> 
> S


Nice car!! Did you consider the Condor grey as well before getting the Meteor grey?


----------



## Bologna_1973 (Aug 11, 2008)

Janitor said:


> Bologna_1973 said:
> 
> 
> > I am also taken in by the BMW 123D MSport Coupe. Any thoughts on this car, has any of you driven it? If so what's it like?
> ...


As I said the BMWs styling is more subjective and not to everyone's liking, but the bare metal seems to deliver (at least on paper) [smiley=book2.gif]


----------



## Suge_K (May 27, 2008)

Thanks mate, not bad for a 25yr old 

I didnt to be honest, its a nice colour...but dont like the green tinge so much. I wanted the magma leather so it would have clashed...you wont be disappointed with Meteor...

S


----------



## Bologna_1973 (Aug 11, 2008)

Suge_K said:


> Thanks mate, not bad for a 25yr old
> 
> I didnt to be honest, its a nice colour...but dont like the green tinge so much. I wanted the magma leather so it would have clashed...you wont be disappointed with Meteor...
> 
> S


One last question is the meteor grey as difficult to keep clean as the phantom black, does it show up every little scratch and stone chip the way black those?


----------



## Suge_K (May 27, 2008)

Nope, its very forgiving...i like black but its a mare to clean...

Meteor will look good even with a bit of grime, very pleased in that respect. Undercoat on the bumper is dark grey so stone chips do not show at all really, have a tiny one on the lower left but you seriously cant see it...again very happy in that respect.

Ask as many questions as you need mate, glad to help...

S


----------



## Gordon B (Apr 12, 2008)

Bologna_1973 said:


> Thanks for all your numero :roll: us replies...although I wasen't trying to stir a diesel versus petrol argument, honest
> 
> Seeing that with the diesel I will save over £800 per year (even if I don't drive the car at all during the year!) and thats without counting petrol, I think the D is looking like the more likely candidate.
> 
> ...


I also considerd the BMW 123D M sport, but for a couple of thousand more I personally think the BMW 320D coupe is a better car. Both are excellent drives, good performance and economy, but the diesel noise is very apparent in both these models. Both sound like Black Taxi Cabs 

Personally I think the Audi TT, and also the Audi A5 are better looking and more stylish than the BMW.


----------



## Juiceloose (Jun 3, 2008)

I had the BMW 120d M Sport Coupe for a four day test drive. It's a nice motor and performance was great. Unfortunately it does sound like a diesel at tickover and when pushed hard. I also couldn't convince myself about the shape as I still think that from certain angles it looks like a Noddy car.

Also had a spin in the 123d 3 door hatch which was brilliant performance wise. Again though, I couldn't convince myself about the shape.

After driving the TTR TFSI over a weekend I've ordered the TDiQ Coupe to replace my current 320D M Sport company car. I ordered it without driving it (couldn't find a dealership that had taken delivery of a TDiQ) so I can't wait for mid September when it's delivered.

I don't think you'd be disappointed with either of the Beemers or the TDiQ from a performance perspective but the looks are a totally different issue. I think the TT looks stunning compared to the Beemers but some people think the opposite.


----------



## Rupes (Apr 8, 2008)

I can definitely recommend the TDiQ. I've had mine for three weeks and 1000 miles and it's fantastic. Looks great, sounds great, plenty of performance and the handling is superb. Some of the petrol drivers on here would have you think that the differences between the 2.0T and the TDI are huge but I don't think that is the case at all. The in-gear acceleration with all that torque to play with is fantastic and there's plenty of ability to accelerate away whatever speed you're at.

I suspect that Audi were trying to produce a TDI model with comparable performance to the 2.0T. Slightly slower 0-60 but that's probably because you would need an extra gear change with the TDi over that sprint. Lower BHP than the petrol but a diesel doesn't need as much power output to perform because of the torque it can generate.

I would recommend driving the petrol and diesel one after the other to understand what the differences really are. For all the driving I need to do there is nothing that the petrol version can do any better than the diesel - so why would I want to throw a whole load more money away on fuel?

I can also recommend the Meteor Grey and don't forget the Magma red leather seats to go with it! Here's a couple of my photos.


----------



## Suge_K (May 27, 2008)

Rupes said:


> there is nothing that the petrol version can do any better than the diesel


S-tronic? 

To be fair, there isnt that much in it, and i dont want you to think im making out there is...all im saying is you wouldnt choose the D over the TFSI for peformance alone...theres no shame in watching the fuel/cost...especially in this day and age...

Like someone on here said...we all have a budget, else we would be on the R8 forum...

S


----------



## atlasapl (May 7, 2008)

Juiceloose said:


> I had the BMW 120d M Sport Coupe for a four day test drive. It's a nice motor and performance was great. Unfortunately it does sound like a diesel at tickover and when pushed hard. I also couldn't convince myself about the shape as I still think that from certain angles it looks like a Noddy car.
> 
> Also had a spin in the 123d 3 door hatch which was brilliant performance wise. Again though, I couldn't convince myself about the shape.
> 
> ...


I gave the 123d Coupe a serious look as well, and again it was the style of the car that stopped me from getting it, one hell of a car though. Still, what I loose in performance with the TT TDi (once I get it), I gain in style.

Strange thing about the current TT, when it first came out I hated it. I thought to myself what the hell have they done. It's proven to be a slow burner for me and I think it's a great looking car now. It's still quite a rare sight where I live.


----------



## drjam (Apr 7, 2006)

Always an interesting debate on the D vs T issue, but often seems to get onto comparing drag-race stats (which most people - and I include me - will rarely ever exploit), or whether quattro (ditto) or s-tronic (can't comment, but I'm sure is great, though expensive) comes as standard.

Surely the biggest difference between the two is down to whether you like the character of each engine - effortless, low-down torque vs. high-revving, needing more 'effort' (wrong word; 'involvement'?) to get the most out of it? Personally for 'fun' blasts and 'going out for a drive' I much prefer the latter, but for just making swift, economical, everyday progress the former is great. No better or worse, just depends how you use the car and what your subjective preference is. Some people hate running out of revs too soon vs. some people hate having to rev to get the full potential from a car.

(& just to throw another spanner in the works - for me, as I like free-revving but would also like maximum economy and less up-front cost, I'll probably have a serious look at the 1.8 if/when it goes on sale here. After all, the reason they produce a range is to suit all sorts!)


----------



## Bernieddevil (Jul 9, 2008)

Thanks for the pics suge_k and rupes...I can't wait to get hold of mine which happen to be in the same colour and interier as you both have...I struggled to find Metoer grey colour examples on the net before I ordered so just went for it as it was closest match to Dolphin grey which me and the misuss loved on display in the showroom. Have to say Metoer Grey did look rather ordinary on another model they had in showroom but I still went for it and looking at those pics, so glad I did 

As far at the TDi v TTC debate, personally i'd have gone D if it had the S-tronic option or TTS if I had the extra money. Its that simple


----------



## Suge_K (May 27, 2008)

You wont regret it Bernie my son...S-tronic is tha beeeeeeeeeeeezness!

S


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Power on both cars come in at the same point - so to say the D has more low down power is wrong.

No i dont have a 20T FWD - thanks!


----------



## drjam (Apr 7, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> Power on both cars come in at the same point - so to say the D has more low down power is wrong.


According to the Audi website, 2.0 max power is "200 at 5100-6000" vs. TD "170 at 4200"
But that's quibbling, as I'm not aware anyone's claimed the D has more power, regardless of revs. 
But it certainly has more low down (and high up) _torque_.


----------



## Bologna_1973 (Aug 11, 2008)

Finally I am opting for the TT  The BMW is a fine driver's machine but I am still not convinced of the Bangle styling, too odd for my taste... :roll:

Next question is which colour??? So far I am undecided between Meteor Grey and the classic silver colour. I like Meteor grey but it does look a bit starnge. Silver is nice as it brings out the front grill and "teeth" of the car.

Phanthom black is too common and is a pain to keep clean plus all scratches and chips become very visible
Garnet red is no longer produced I believe, is this right?

The other colours are not to my taste.


----------



## membatmaz (Jul 30, 2008)

Silver is not my cup of tea on TT's.... dont think it does it any justice... if your definatly choosing between the grey and silver.... i say grey....

It was between white and black for me... went with white..


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

drjam said:


> Toshiba said:
> 
> 
> > Power on both cars come in at the same point - so to say the D has more low down power is wrong.
> ...


Website says
petrol
Performance data

Displacement, cc 1984 
Max. output, kW (PS) at rpm 147(200)/5100 
Max. torque, Nm at rpm 207(280)/1800-5000

Torque comes in within 50rpm of the diesel.


----------



## Bologna_1973 (Aug 11, 2008)

membatmaz said:


> Silver is not my cup of tea on TT's.... dont think it does it any justice... if your definatly choosing between the grey and silver.... i say grey....
> 
> It was between white and black for me... went with white..


Yeah the white is nice I agree but under my lease scheme I need to get a metallic colour...


----------



## atlasapl (May 7, 2008)

If its a metallic colour I still think Phantom Black is great but a bitch to keep clean, so maybe some thing like Meteor Grey.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Not phantom, it loses all the nice lines of the car and the front grill looks silly. [smiley=sick2.gif]


----------



## Bologna_1973 (Aug 11, 2008)

Toshiba said:


> Not phantom, it loses all the nice lines of the car and the front grill looks silly. [smiley=sick2.gif]


So what do you suggest Toshiba?


----------



## DavdG (Nov 28, 2007)

The lighter colours look better and show off the lines, I choose condor with the 18in bi-colour wheels, really sets it off IMO, also doesn't show the dirt like the phantom.

.... Colours are always a personal choice though.


----------



## Janitor (Jul 2, 2007)

Ice Silver - works a treat on TT [smiley=thumbsup.gif]


----------



## DavdG (Nov 28, 2007)

Great pic Janitor


----------



## Janitor (Jul 2, 2007)

Why thank you kind sir [smiley=thumbsup.gif]


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Bologna_1973 said:


> Toshiba said:
> 
> 
> > Not phantom, it loses all the nice lines of the car and the front grill looks silly. [smiley=sick2.gif]
> ...


Its a balance between dark and light. too dark the trim looks daft, too light you lose the contracts of the mirrors.
I struggled with a colour. Ordered red to start with, changed to Sprint but when i saw the sprint it looked too dull, changed to white, didnt like the contrast with the mirrors an finally went back to red.

Pick what u like, doesnt matter what others think.
Hand on heart id go red again, after that id be tempted by the orange then meteor.

three colours here
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=121839


----------



## Bologna_1973 (Aug 11, 2008)

Great advice guys thanks again :roll: :wink:

As I will be getting the car pretty standard, its a company car and any options are not only paid for in full by myself but in addition contribute to the base price of the car which also has an effect on the monthly company car tax.

I was specifically thinking of parking sensors but would in the end (adding together purchase price and company car tax) pay close to £400 for what is a £300 option!!!

I know that the sensors can be retrofitted but they can ruin the bumper aesthetics as I have seen in some pictures. A cheaper and seemingly smarter option is to get a meta systems numberplate holder which has parking sensors integrated. See here:
http://www.parkingaid.co.uk/index.htm

http://cgi.ebay.it/SENSORI-PARCHEGGIO-R ... 286.c0.m14

This is an Italian company which seems to own the copyright on this product as I have not seen any other manufacturers producing these. If I get one off ebay.it would end up spending around 70 to 80 euros and installation seems straightforward.

Anyone have experience of the above product and its installation? Do you think this is a viable alternative to after-market sensors which require tampering with the rear bumper?


----------



## Bologna_1973 (Aug 11, 2008)

Heres another link for the MetaSystems reverse sensor numberplate holder: http://www.metasystem.co.uk/index.php/m ... w/full/211


----------

