# Audi TT 1.8T FSI and 2.0 TDI.



## Iceman (Jul 3, 2004)

There are indications that Audi will announce the 1.8T FSI and 2.0 TDI engine's for the TT this year.
Both engine's will have 170 hp according to the corridor info.

Hans.


----------



## ChrisB72 (Feb 1, 2005)

Any thoughts or predictions on performance figures?


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Real shame is all i can say.


----------



## John C (Jul 5, 2002)

'corridor' is just so last year, it's all about the water-cooler now and if you bring your own bottle it takes longer than a cup and you never know what you will hear.

<sigh>


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

Both FWD, I guess. Seems daft. Surely one FWD model is enough to devalue the range, not where the FWD versions out number the quattros!

It's seems the TT is now just another Audi model - no better, no worse. Seems like the Mk1 brigade are right - the TT is nothing special; certainly not sacred.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Agree, if it does come true.


----------



## mjbTT (Nov 11, 2006)

Karcsi said:


> Both FWD, I guess. Seems daft. Surely one FWD model is enough to devalue the range, not where the FWD versions out number the quattros!
> 
> It's seems the TT is now just another Audi model - no better, no worse. Seems like the Mk1 brigade are right - the TT is nothing special; certainly not sacred.


Karci - no need to be a Q-Snob. All models have their place, and much though I'd view a diesel TT with some scepticism, this kind of 'Us' v 'Them' is tiresome. As has been discussed dozens of times before, each model has it's pros and cons. If anything, having the affordable FWD TT out there acts as a lead into Quattro - I know I will have my name down for the Q2.0TT when it comes out - and then where will you be :wink:


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

Oh, get a grip. The TT is a sports coupe, and Audi sports cars are about quattro. The 2.0T FWD is still a good alternative to the 3.2, because it has the power, the lower weight and and therefore agility to still be called (albeit only just :wink a sports coupe.

But once you start adding further, lower powered, FWD versions, that's taking the p!ss. The TT no longer is a sports coupe. It's just another coupe.

OK, even the Z4 has it's hairdrier model, the 2.0i. But the TT will have 2 (to some, 3), and one will be a diesel! That beginning to sound like Audi is saying, all our models will now be high volume derivatives - no special treatment. I just wonder what they will do with the R8...


----------



## moore11 (Oct 1, 2006)

Would Nissan or Porsche bring out weedy entry level engines on their coupes? No. Imagine Nissan releasing a 170hp 350Z to make it more achievable to the masses. Why do Audi feel the need to undermine the MKII if this is true? I have nothing against diesels, they have their place and some current diesels provide the torque to leave most petrols in the shade....but a diesel Sports car is just wrong.


----------



## NUM_TT (Apr 5, 2004)

Well fair enough but a diesel TT could presumably be remapped then you get decent performance (guessing 170 upto 220bhp?) with great fuel economoy and a great looking car*.

*Although the mk1 looks better than the mk2. :wink: 
(oops flame suit on)


----------



## mjbTT (Nov 11, 2006)

Karcsi said:


> Oh, get a grip. The TT is a sports coupe, and Audi sports cars are about quattro. The 2.0T FWD is still a good alternative to the 3.2, because it has the power, the lower weight and and therefore agility to still be called (albeit only just :wink a sports coupe.
> 
> But once you start adding further, lower powered, FWD versions, that's taking the p!ss. The TT no longer is a sports coupe. It's just another coupe.
> 
> OK, even the Z4 has it's hairdrier model, the 2.0i. But the TT will have 2 (to some, 3), and one will be a diesel! That beginning to sound like Audi is saying, all our models will now be high volume derivatives - no special treatment. I just wonder what they will do with the R8...


Are you suggesting its FWD or the lack of power that devalues the brand? I think this is more about power rather than how that power is delivered.

I do agree that the further introduction of lower powered variants is unnecessary (except commercially) and yes, a diesel would be taking the piss. However, the 2.0T has done nothing to devalue the brand, thus proving that Audi sports cars aren't _all _about Quattro. don't get me wrong though, when a Quattro TT comes along that suits my needs, I'll be there.


----------



## Iceman (Jul 3, 2004)

NUM_TT said:


> Well fair enough but a diesel TT could presumably be remapped then you get decent performance (guessing 170 upto 220bhp?) with great fuel economoy and a great looking car.


More like 200 hp and 410 Nm.

Hans.


----------



## Godzilla (Feb 20, 2007)

Not saying that I agree to the introduction of these 2 new models, or that there should be diesel sports cars, but also dont think its right to blanket statement that you cant have diesel sports cars (although I wouldnt buy one).


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

mjbTT said:


> Are you suggesting its FWD or the lack of power that devalues the brand? I think this is more about power rather than how that power is delivered.
> 
> I do agree that the further introduction of lower powered variants is unnecessary (except commercially) and yes, a diesel would be taking the piss. However, the 2.0T has done nothing to devalue the brand, thus proving that Audi sports cars aren't _all _about Quattro. don't get me wrong though, when a Quattro TT comes along that suits my needs, I'll be there.


Power, but the 2.0T only just redeems itself, in my eyes. If the TT is there to compete with the likes of Porsche and BMW, FWD will not cut it. Not technically, because the TT's FWD chassis must be right up there with the best of them. The trouble is the best of them are hot hatches, and not sports coupes. Yes, it is a snobbery factor. But we are talking Audi, BMW, Porsche and M-B. Don't tell me snobbery isn't a big factor. Why else does BMW sell any 2.0 Z4, or sold any 1.9/2.2 Z3?!

I suppose the deciding question is, if there had been also a 2.0Tq from launch, what proportion of 2.0T owners would have gone for it instead? Perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps the 2.0T will go down in history as the sports coupe that re-wrote the rule book for sports coupes.

Diesel - I would actually support the introduction of a diesel. But it would have to have something with considerably more power (perhaps they could do something with the 2.7 V6, if not the 3.0). And definately have quattro.


----------



## mjbTT (Nov 11, 2006)

2.0TQ - depends on 2 factors. It'd need over 200bhp, and t'd need to be the right price. I guess if one comes out with 240bhp+ and is c. Â£27K, most would go for it. Only a matter of time I guess.


----------



## vagman (Sep 6, 2002)

The 2.0T FWD is weedy enough to be the bottom of the TT range and I wouldn't like to see anything weedier.


----------



## T3 (Sep 24, 2006)

well I wouldnt quite call the 2.0T a weedy engine, but fair enough about smaller engines. Cheapens the TT as a brand within Audi.


----------



## Iceman (Jul 3, 2004)

vagman said:


> The 2.0T FWD is weedy enough to be the bottom of the TT range and I wouldn't like to see anything weedier.


I don't see the problem in that.
The TT Mk1 had also a 150 hp engine with fwd.

Hans.


----------



## TT Law (Sep 6, 2003)

I think the point some of you are missing when wishing for a 350bhp+ TT is that the with the R8 now Audi have to think of the sales of that car aswell.

At Â£75k + for a 400bhp+ R8 a TT at this output becomes even more unlikely. The R8 has really made a difference to where the TT fits in the line up.

As with the Mk1 Audi will want to sell as many TT's as it can and it aint doing too bad with the current line up. By adding a diesel and and cheaper lower output petrol it can only be good for sales as much as it may ruin exclusivity for people who alrady own the car. It is only history repeating itself. The only difference from the Mk1 is that Audi are producing at least 40% more cars than it did before so it needs a bigger lineup in the long run to keep these figures.

Steve


----------



## Iceman (Jul 3, 2004)

Another point is that Audi will keep the oppertunity to give the R8 a less powerfull V8 engine, if necessary.
A 350 hp TT will be in the way for that, there is also the S5 in that power range.
Therefore it's most unlikely that the TT get that much power.
The power limit of the TT will be most likely more in the neighbourhood of 300-330 hp.

Hans.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

The point (for me) is the 150 and 180 FWD did devalue the brand in the uk, the 20T while being on offer from the start is no different. Even lesser models (for me) will just go to prove the MKII is to be nothing more than a reps car.


----------



## Scooby-Doo (Sep 29, 2006)

In what way does the 150.180 or "190" FWD car devalue the range.Do you mean that because the car is now available to people whose budget wouldn't quite stretch to a quattro that it makes you look less flash and the corresponding reduction in your standing in the community???? or what.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

:roll: 
What part of devalue do you not understand?
Why don't Porsche make 911s with 18T or 19TDs for half price (30k)?


----------



## Scooby-Doo (Sep 29, 2006)

Porsche have a limited range of cars and are not constantly chasing numbers.Over the past ten years BMW and Mercedes have launched smaller cars and I think that their perceived brand value has fallen considerably,every man and his dog has one.Audi on the other hand Audi has always been a middle of the road brand so its perceived brand value has never been up there with BMW or Mercedes.By offering more choices its only chasing numbers like everybody else.If you want a name on your car then buy a Porsche,if you want a competent and cheaper alternative buy a TT or Z4.


----------



## der_horst (Apr 29, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> The point (for me) is the 150 and 180 FWD did devalue the brand in the uk, the 20T while being on offer from the start is no different. Even lesser models (for me) will just go to prove the MKII is to be nothing more than a reps car.


imo it's not the low power models that devalue the car by their own but audis tendency to hold back all high power models while introducing new engines only in the low price segment.

as i said before, the more i think about it the more it seems to me that i (or audi) got the TT completely wrong and that it's not meant to be as sporty as i had assumed initially 

concerning the discussion about the R8: who would drop his choice for the R8 if audi would offer a TTRS? the RS4 is imo the best argument against that theory. also the R8 is a prestige project anyway, it's not where the big profits are being made (totals, not percentage).

and the way for the R8 is up, not down. the V12 should be the next available engine, not something below the 420hp mark, which reaches down into the TTRS class.


----------



## FinFerNan (Feb 28, 2007)

Ref the devaluation of a brand - Cayenne and Boxter, say's it all really.

As Scooby says + Audi is it'self aspiring to be something it might not really be. Why else did it buy Lamborghini?

Be realistic - if the brand is trying to evolve, in order to move "up" it needs cash. To get cash it needs volume.

Volume and exclusivity are not compatible.

QED: Audi is a volume brand, nicer than most, but certainly not exclusive.


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

I couldnt care less what models they release so long as they release a well sorted RS.

As for devaluing the brand, who cares, so long as one of them has quattro, 350 brake and RS styling and they will take my cash for one sooner rather than later I doubt Ill be going slow enough to hear Joe Bloggs ask 'Is that a diesel or a petrol TT then?'

Anyway, when Ive finished modding the bl00dy thing, they wont be in any doubt. 

Hah, pipe dreams again. 

Is it just me or can I hear another German Marque coming on.....


----------



## Iceman (Jul 3, 2004)

der_horst said:


> and the way for the R8 is up, not down. the V12 should be the next available engine, not something below the 420hp mark, which reaches down into the TTRS class.


The R8 is just a 911 competitor not a super sportscar like the Lamborghini MerciÃ©lago.
The 911 range starts with 325 hp and the Cayman S ends by 295 hp.
Audi can put in a 350 hp V8, in due time if they want to.
The TT will most likely not get much more than 280-330 hp.

Hans.


----------



## der_horst (Apr 29, 2006)

Iceman said:


> The TT will most likely not get much more than 280-330 hp.


but those two numbers and the way how they are achieved are worlds apart. it could be a low esteem 2.0l with 280hp as one extreme if audi doesn't want to put any more effort in the TT and just recycles the engine from the A3 and GTI or an TT-exclusive R5 with 330hp as the other extreme.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Audi spent millions and millions on the space frame, they should have kept the normal/traditional design and spent that money on better engines. 20bhp would offset the additional mass, 50 more bhp would add lots of


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

Funny how easy it is to forget it is rumour (at best) after 3 pages isnt it. :lol:


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

I like rumour - its so much harder to prove you are taking bollox.


----------



## DXN (May 18, 2002)

it is a rumour 

secondly, if a car that was out of your reach financially became realistic then you would buy it, audi is a buisness and wants to sell as many TT (in what ever guise) as possible.

If the R8 was cheaper I'd be tempted. :lol:

I dont think the cheaper versions of the TT devalued the brand, I think it just opened it up to more people who love the brand. Heck you can get a 225 for 8K now.

if you had 20K for a car a second hand 225 or sport mk 1 or a mk1 new tdi 170 bhp/ petrol 150bhp would be a diffiuclt decison

heres to a decent high spec TT :lol:


----------



## DXN (May 18, 2002)

toshiba posted as I typed my post above is not directed at anyone


----------



## jimb (Oct 31, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> Audi spent millions and millions on the space frame, they should have kept the normal/traditional design and spent that money on better engines. 20bhp would offset the additional mass, 50 more bhp would add lots of


Man I hope you are joking.
Lower mass is not just an acceleration equalizer.
Its about braking, handling and acceleration at the same time.
If u want to equalize additional mass, u need to change a lot of things at car's setup.
Lower weight > kg/hp adjustment. :wink:


----------



## mikey748 (Oct 16, 2002)

Perfect timing on this post for me

I've got Â£32k inc my Mk 1 trade in but my chosen spec (3.2, DSG, MR, NAV etc) to make a Mk 2 desirable is Â£36k. Been offered this spec on a 5k mile 56 plate for Â£32k and could probably get this down to Â£31k.

Had justified buying this in my head and heart and was just back on the forum to further cement that I wouldn't be disappointed and then came across this post.

Devalue the TT? Absolutely - I pay Â£32k for a Â£36k second hand car and then they come out with a low budget version for poseurs at Â£22k or something similar? Felt the same with the low powered FWD versions of the mark 1 but will not make the same mistake again.

Audi's policy may be sucessful but I'll not be joining in this time :?


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

I suppose, whether they are 1.8 or 3.6, Audi plane to sell some 70,000 a year. That's hardly exclusive, and will devalue the car enough as it is. Would making them all look the same (same exhaust, grille, wheels etc) help retain value or devalue the car even more?

Aside - http://cars.uk.msn.com/News/car_news_article.aspx?cp-documentid=4594824

Still no 3.6 TT in the tea leaves? That change would make sense if a 240+bhp 2.0Tq was introduced.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Its not likely to happen in the short term. Why? Audi have a full order book and don't need to do anything to sell the car. Changes to the range would see changes to existing orders left, right and center and increase the delays for customers. This in turn has the opposite affect - ie it puts people off purchasing.

As per the MKI you should be ok for the first 2-3 year then the bottom will fall out of the market. Get the 56 Reg and sell in 2years.


----------



## mikey748 (Oct 16, 2002)

Toshiba said:


> As per the MKI you should be ok for the first 2-3 year then the bottom will fall out of the market. Get the 56 Reg and sell in 2years.


Could be good advice - I'll think again....

I used to be indecisive but now I'm not so sure


----------



## vagman (Sep 6, 2002)

mikey748 said:


> Perfect timing on this post for me
> 
> I've got Â£32k inc my Mk 1 trade in but my chosen spec (3.2, DSG, MR, NAV etc) to make a Mk 2 desirable is Â£36k. Been offered this spec on a 5k mile 56 plate for Â£32k and could probably get this down to Â£31k.
> 
> ...


Excellent post.

Unfortunately, I'm committed to my purchase, but I'll not be hanging to the mkII for long if they do what they did with the mkI in it's latter years.

Judging by worldwide demand, they (Audi) would appear to be reaching their target audience with ease and there is no need to offer any lower powered variants, although I reluctantly concede that a diesel version will become an option.

Anyway, whilst Audi AG may offer a 1.6 and 1.8T mkII TT, that doesn't mean that AUK would offer it in the UK.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

jimb said:


> Toshiba said:
> 
> 
> > Audi spent millions and millions on the space frame, they should have kept the normal/traditional design and spent that money on better engines. 20bhp would offset the additional mass, 50 more bhp would add lots of
> ...


Not joking, the lower mass makes very little difference in the real world (not track), where as more bhp makes people smile. Look at the other car makers, they just dial up the bhp to great results.

In reall terms the quattro system and heavier engine makes no difference at all. A 240bhp ABT powered 20T is 0-60 in 6.0secs. A 250bhp 3.2 with an extra 150kg is 0-60 in 5.9.

sod the kg's, give me bhp's


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

vagman said:


> Unfortunately, I'm committed to my purchase, but I'll not be hanging to the mkII for long if they do what they did with the mkI in it's latter years.


Do you mean release a V6 with improved styling and a revolutionary gearbox and a lightweight sports model?

Surely what people are asking for is progression rather than the addition of mundane low spec models? :?


----------



## der_horst (Apr 29, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> Its not likely to happen in the short term. Why? Audi have a full order book and don't need to do anything to sell the car.


but the margin will be higher with higher performance models as the price is growing much faster than the costs are. which is also why i fear they might go for the 2l engine in the TTS as such a no frills model would come at nearly no cost for audi.


----------



## vagman (Sep 6, 2002)

Leg said:


> vagman said:
> 
> 
> > Unfortunately, I'm committed to my purchase, but I'll not be hanging to the mkII for long if they do what they did with the mkI in it's latter years.
> ...


No, I mean the introduction of the shitty mkI 150/170 fwd versions, were a bad move by Audi. :x

I'm all for the high spec, high power, 2.5T, 3.2T, 3.6, 2.0T (S3 engine) or whatever models. 

If Audi opened the order book for an S-TT or RS-TT tomorrow, then I'd be first in the queue. :roll:


----------



## jimb (Oct 31, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> In reall terms the quattro system and heavier engine makes no difference at all. A 240bhp ABT powered 20T is 0-60 in 6.0secs. A 250bhp 3.2 with an extra 150kg is 0-60 in 5.9.
> 
> sod the kg's, give me bhp's


0-60 (0-100km/h here) comes with 1st & 2th where better traction overcomes... too early to judge a fwd vs an awd.
Instead, take a look at 0-400m 0-1000m 80-120 etc between a reprogamed 20T and a stock 3.2... you will see some unexpected differences. :wink:


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

I dont think Audi will make the flagship model an over turbo'd 4pot. (IMO and based on evey other model in the Audi range)


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

vagman said:


> Leg said:
> 
> 
> > vagman said:
> ...


Oh, yeah, fair enough. Couldnt agree more.

2nd in the queue btw :wink:


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

jimb said:


> Toshiba said:
> 
> 
> > In reall terms the quattro system and heavier engine makes no difference at all. A 240bhp ABT powered 20T is 0-60 in 6.0secs. A 250bhp 3.2 with an extra 150kg is 0-60 in 5.9.
> ...


Not turning this into a 20T vs 3.2 if you wanna post those numbers feel free. Audi cock'd up and should have spent more on engines rather than aluminium chassis.

FWD is not what the TT is about, quattro is the sole of the car and the cheaper engines are just a way to cash in and rape the heritage and devaule the brand for the rest of us.


----------



## jimb (Oct 31, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> Not turning this into a 20T vs 3.2 if you wanna post those numbers feel free. Audi cock'd up and should have spent more on engines rather than aluminium chassis.
> 
> FWD is not what the TT is about, quattro is the sole of the car and the cheaper engines are just a way to cash in and rape the heritage and devaule the brand for the rest of us.


You are right.
Never intended to start (another) 3.2 vs 20T war ( I was close thow).  
Sorry about that 

My whole point was about how important the lower weight is in generall and nothing more.


----------



## mjbTT (Nov 11, 2006)

mikey748 said:


> Perfect timing on this post for me
> 
> I've got Â£32k inc my Mk 1 trade in but my chosen spec (3.2, DSG, MR, NAV etc) to make a Mk 2 desirable is Â£36k. Been offered this spec on a 5k mile 56 plate for Â£32k and could probably get this down to Â£31k.
> 
> ...


Mikey - exactly what league do you think you are in for Â£32K? Suggest a few alternatives before you cut and run! For the Â£Â£Â£, the TT is a great car with a high perceived value. If you want a badge, go for a [for example] Cayman, with IMHO a low perveived value, compared to the real c.Â£40K+ for specced.

Also, from what I can gather from your post, you've already devalued the car before the poseur's variant has even been conceived! (and I assume you don't include the 2.0 in that category or you would't be here now).

So what are you after, Nissan? Mazda!? Alfa!! Boxter - or is that a 'Poor Man's Porsche? Don't take this the wrong way, but cars depreciate - just look at the Z4M or the 911 - nothing to do with hairdresser variants :?


----------



## mikey748 (Oct 16, 2002)

mjbTT said:


> mikey748 said:
> 
> 
> > Perfect timing on this post for me
> ...


Alternatives?? Now that's a good question:

I want a sports coupe that's got to be a step up in enjoyment from my 275 bhp mk 1 to justify the money it will cost.

It's got to have 4WD or RWD (I dont want to start yet another debate on this suffice to say for the money i'm talking about, FWD doesn't cut it on sporty cars for me)

It needs an element of practicality - golf clubs and 9mth old son need to fit but not at the same time

350z? Can't fit a set of golf clubs or my 9 mth old in here otherwise would be a contender
RX8? Don't like the look
Z4 Coupe - possible but undecided on styling and rumours of strange handling
Cayman - could tolerate the lack of practicality but would need the 'S' and it's more than I'd pay for it's performance, even if 2 years old
996 911 - tempted by 5 year old used example (very tempted in fact but if it broke, I'd never have any money again)
BMW 645 - 2004/5 at Â£30k? quite like these but a bit bigger than the sports coupes I'm really after
MK2 TT - I want 4wd and a few reasonable extra's for the Â£31k new this is worth. 265bhp 2.0t quattro please. The 3.2 I was offered has sold and a web search isn't turning up any I fancy locally or they are dealer ex-demo's that are not selling at the silly ticket prices

So I've made my mind up, waxed the MK1 and it will be staying with it. It's hugely capable as a quick GT style coupe, looks fantastic and always will (not convinced the same will apply to the mk2 - only time will tell)

The Â£20k upgrade cost will be invested and supplemented by the Â£3k/year depreciation saving I'll make. With luck I'll be able to afford a AM DB9/V8/Gallardo by the time my son leaves home!


----------



## Scooby-Doo (Sep 29, 2006)

We each have different requirements when buying a car and most manufacturers cater for this,unfortunately you can never get exactly the combination you want.
When I went to buy a TT the main attraction was the looks and the A1+ quality of the interior,the interior quality of my Mercedes was poor.
The dealership had a brand new QS in the showroom in my prefered colour but the alcantara recaros I just couldn't live with,opted for a 190 Quattro instead.(225 discontinued)Told there was a 3 month waiting list for a quattro.Dealer then offered me the 190 FWD for immediate delivery and Â£4000 less.
Had the car for 18 months,perfect for what I want,0-60 in 6.8 secs,30 mpg,comfortable ride (no lowered suspension) and its a TT.My daily commute is "A" and "B" roads and a lot of speed cameras.


----------



## mikey748 (Oct 16, 2002)

Scooby-Doo said:


> We each have different requirements when buying a car and most manufacturers cater for this,unfortunately you can never get exactly the combination you want.
> When I went to buy a TT the main attraction was the looks and the A1+ quality of the interior,the interior quality of my Mercedes was poor.
> The dealership had a brand new QS in the showroom in my prefered colour but the alcantara recaros I just couldn't live with,opted for a 190 Quattro instead.(225 discontinued)Told there was a 3 month waiting list for a quattro.Dealer then offered me the 190 FWD for immediate delivery and Â£4000 less.
> Had the car for 18 months,perfect for what I want,0-60 in 6.8 secs,30 mpg,comfortable ride (no lowered suspension) and its a TT.My daily commute is "A" and "B" roads and a lot of speed cameras.


I'm thinking the entire devaluation debate changes depending in which end of the model range you are sitting

If your in a 190FWD with the style, build and image of something more expensive/sporty your happy but the 225/3.2 owners will feel cheated.

I've seen similar debates around the Cayman v 911 - I'd love a Cayman and maybe that's because I would like a 911 but get most of the performance, style and image in the Cayman for money I could scrape together


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

mikey748 said:


> I'm thinking the entire devaluation debate changes depending in which end of the model range you are sitting
> 
> If your in a 190FWD with the style, build and image of something more expensive/sporty your happy but the 225/3.2 owners will feel cheated.


Agree. 
What did Audi do? They designed the real TT, then looked at ways to make it cheaper to sell more product. So what do they do to achieve this? They dropped the quattro system, lowered the spec and put a smaller engine in.

What will be the plans for the other two models? Drop the spec some more and drop/lower the retail price further. Lower prices mean lower perceived value, which devalues the brand as well as producing a car thats more accessible to the masses. Both of these will hit the resale values of the cars hard. Look what happened to the MKI once the FWD version hit the roads - prices dropped and not by a small amount.

Do i want to lose loads of money on a car? No - hence why i purchased another TT.

If Audi Do release the 1.8 and diesel i will be selling up and moving on. Might as well just get a Focus or Golf - it will become that common and thats not what i paid 36k for.


----------



## Scooby-Doo (Sep 29, 2006)

I can't see Audi putting a diesel in the TT,there have been numerous stories about Mercedes,BMW etc putting diesels in their coupes but not one of them has done it.


----------



## jimb (Oct 31, 2006)

1.4TSI is coming... :lol:


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Scooby-Doo said:


> I can't see Audi putting a diesel in the TT,there have been numerous stories about Mercedes,BMW etc putting diesels in their coupes but not one of them has done it.


Would that include the
BMW 320d, 325d, 330d or 335d CI? 
or 
Merc C200 CDI, C220 CDI?

:roll:


----------



## jbell (May 15, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> Scooby-Doo said:
> 
> 
> > I can't see Audi putting a diesel in the TT,there have been numerous stories about Mercedes,BMW etc putting diesels in their coupes but not one of them has done it.
> ...


Don't forget the A5 3.0 TDi :wink:

Audi will put a diesel in the TT purely because the Le Mans (R10?) car is Diesel and the Europeans love them. All they want to do is make money and to do that they need to sell more cars and now Porsche own so much of them they will have to.

I don't think the Boxster/Cayman are "poor mans' Porsches" thats just a stupid statement, they saved Porsche and turned it into the most profitable car company in the world, they are great cars (I drive a Boxster regularly) but everything about them is over priced hence the reason they make so much money especially on the extras.

Bring on a TT MK2 QS/RS 3.2 FSi or S3 engine with Recaro Buckets, no rear seats, DSG?, S-Line body styling, OX Ultraleggera wheels and painted Misano Red with a Phantom Black roof :twisted: I would buy one.

There is nothing anyone can do about new models, they will happen whether or not you like it, you will not alter Audis plans. For all we know the two current engines may be ditched in favour of new versions - welcome to the world.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

I ignored the A5 as its wasn't referenced in the list of cars. But to be complete you can/could also have the 2.7D as well. 

3.2 in the TT is not FSi :wink:


----------



## jbell (May 15, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> 3.2 in the TT is not FSi :wink:


I know  , should be don't you think. The TT is sold as an advanced sports coupe so it should have the most advanced version of an engine.

Audi really haven't made the most of the new TT IMO, they should have launched an entire range with all options and got it right first time - iPod anyone :wink: and why no MMI, Digital Radio etc.

It is a Sports car and therefore should have Sports Suspension standard with MR an option, Short Shift standard, Recaro as an option.

Unless the S-Line/RS comes along soon with a very very sporting look and feel a la RS4 with a rear drive bias and lots more power, Audi are missing a large sales and publicity opportunity to have an incredible car that would get rid of their mainly dull image and sell to the Boxster buyer.

The TT should be a statement of how good a coupe can be in all areas, I am not saying it is a bad car, the 3.2 I drove was excellent but they have missed the mark somewhat and it comes down to the little things that make the finished product go from a good car to a great car.


----------



## Scooby-Doo (Sep 29, 2006)

Tosh,when I said coupe I meant SLK,Z3,Z4,350Z .Audi already make A4 cabrio with diesel and forthcoming A5 but these are different classes as are BMW 3 series and CLK Mercs.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Not bothered about FSi - its a marketing thing to keep the green party happy and doesnt appear to improve performance.

MMI and colour DIS - agree
Ipod - OK it works, but if the USB would have been available i would have had that for sure - it appears to have full support. Plus i hate ipod and apple.

DR - not bothered either way

Sports - I like the MR ride height, its not high, nor pimp your golf low either. Kinda more in the middle. (10mm - even the wife wouldn't be able to tell the difference).

IF they wanted to make the TT what it could have been they would have had to go with the 3.2 as the entry level car and dropped the 20T in favor of an RS style car with 300bhp. Problem is the cost and it starts to get too much for a TT. You are in cayman money and frankly id take the cayman.

Its not an easy balancing act for Audi to pull off. Personally i'm more than happy with the 3.2 but at 35k its getting expensive and ive gone for all the option you'd probably find on the RS model (MR, 19s, DSG, MFSW, Extended to name a few) so that gives you a clue as to the potential cost of such a variant.



Scooby-Doo said:


> Tosh,when I said coupe I meant SLK,Z3,Z4,350Z .Audi already make A4 cabrio with diesel and forthcoming A5 but these are different classes as are BMW 3 series and CLK Mercs.


I took coupe to mean coupe, but i know what you are saying and agree. its wrong. TT shouldnt ever have a diesel IMO.


----------



## Molehall (Jan 8, 2003)

There's quite a few forum members who reckon that Audi shouldn't do diesel sports cars.

I suspect that Porsche and other car manufacturers are in agreement with this view point. The R10 TDI rather devalues Porsche etal, but that's just a personal opinion.

The results in St. Petersburg

1 Capello/McNish (Audi R10 TDI) 114 laps
2 Pirro/Werner (Audi R10 TDI) + 0.426s 
3 Maassen/Briscoe (Porsche) + 26.350s
4 Bernhard/Dumas (Porsche) + 26.466s 
5 Brabham/Johansson (Acura/Honda) + 34.079s 
6 Fernandez/Diaz (Acura/Honda) - 1 lap
7 Field/Field/Berry (Creation-Judd) - 2 laps
8 Beretta/Gavin (Chevrolet) - 3 laps
9 Salo/Melo (Ferrari) - 5 laps 
10 van Overbeek/Bergmeister (Porsche) - 6 laps


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> TT shouldnt ever have a diesel IMO.


Should never have had FWD either but Audi dont seem to give a t0ss.

Starting to wonder if my next car will actually be 2 cars. Something like an Cayman S/Z4M Coupe for playing out and business trips and a Cooper S for going to the office, nipping to the shop and taking the kids out when Wifey is out in her car. Ive seen Cooper S's for Â£10K ish now. 2 cars to mod, hmm, liking that idea. :lol:

I dont think Audi will release a suitable mk2 TT in time, each day I doubt it more and more.


----------



## Wondermikie (Apr 14, 2006)

Molehall said:


> There's quite a few forum members who reckon that Audi shouldn't do diesel sports cars.
> 
> I suspect that Porsche and other car manufacturers are in agreement with this view point. The R10 TDI rather devalues Porsche etal, but that's just a personal opinion.
> 
> ...


Sorry but the R10 and the (soon to be) TT 170 TDI have absolutely nothing in common apart from the fact they both drink diesel.



Leg said:



> Should never have had FWD either but Audi dont seem to give a t0ss.
> 
> Starting to wonder if my next car will actually be 2 cars. Something like an Cayman S/Z4M Coupe for playing out and business trips and a Cooper S for going to the office, nipping to the shop and taking the kids out when Wifey is out in her car. Ive seen Cooper S's for Â£10K ish now. 2 cars to mod, hmm, liking that idea. :lol:
> 
> I dont think Audi will release a suitable mk2 TT in time, each day I doubt it more and more.


Sounds like a good idea to me 8)


----------



## Iceman (Jul 3, 2004)

Wondermikie said:


> Sorry but the R10 and the (soon to be) TT 170 TDI have absolutely nothing in common apart from the fact they both drink diesel.


The 170 hp 2.0 TDI will not be used in the TT.
The TT will get a new 204 hp 2.0 TDI Bluetec engine with 400 Nm of torgue.

Hans.


----------



## ezzie (Jul 2, 2004)

It would be good to have 200bhp as the base output on the TT range.


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

Iceman said:


> Wondermikie said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry but the R10 and the (soon to be) TT 170 TDI have absolutely nothing in common apart from the fact they both drink diesel.
> ...


Now, that would be something I would be interested in - if it had Quattro.


----------



## fut1a (Dec 28, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> mikey748 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm thinking the entire devaluation debate changes depending in which end of the model range you are sitting
> ...


Couldn't agree more. I will sell up 6 months before they are released. I hope i don't regret not going for the Porsche :roll:


----------



## fut1a (Dec 28, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> mikey748 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm thinking the entire devaluation debate changes depending in which end of the model range you are sitting
> ...


Couldn't agree more. I will sell up 6 months before they are released. I hope i don't regret not going for the Porsche :roll:


----------

