# Mk3 TTS v Mk2 TTRS



## Anyone_for_TT? (Apr 18, 2017)

I've been looking at the Mk2 TTRS. 0-60 4.6s
I've also seen Mk3 TTS at a surprising 0-60 of 4.6s also! Amazing. New TTS as fast as the old TTRS!??

With either one I'm likely to get a stage 1 at some point.

Looking at the torque curves it seems probably there's more low-rev torque with the old TTRS, even after remapping. I may be wrong though.

So I don't know, is it worth the premium (of more yearly depreciation for a 2015 TTS, probably an extra £1000 yearly depreciation compared to TTRS I'm guessing) for what is a newer car and possibly similar speed?

I have to say I don't like the look as much as the Mk2 going by the pics.

But I adore the tech thing - how much of that virtual cockpit is a gimmick and hwo much of it is very useful?

Any advice appreciated thanks 

(currently have a Mk2 TT).


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

As a drivers car the MK3 is much better, nicer place to sit with good tech.
RS will remap much better and sounds better.

All depends how much paper stats mean to you.


----------



## Anyone_for_TT? (Apr 18, 2017)

Out of interest as you have one can you tell me if Audi have 
sorted out that slight DSG lag from standstill yet?


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

I dont have an issue on ours, but from memory it was a symptom that developed with age.
Another reason why the new car is better - Audi warranty...


----------



## Anyone_for_TT? (Apr 18, 2017)

Cheers Tosh. Never heard if it being an age related problem though with Audi themselves saying it's "normal" and not admitting a problem so I can't see warranty helping. Just wondering if Audi are up to speed now with BMW and their phenomenal zero lag DCT (much as i dislike BMW's). If you don't have an issue then it's encouraging.


----------



## Mark Pred (Feb 1, 2017)

Toshiba said:


> As a drivers car the MK3 is much better, nicer place to sit with good tech.
> RS will remap much better and sounds better.
> 
> All depends how much paper stats mean to you.


Agreed. I had a mk2 TT RS, good as it was... the mk3 TTS is a much better car than the mk2 RS in so many areas (interior, looks much more aggressive than the softer mk2, tech, handling/steering, S tronic box hasn't got the mk2 'issues', fuel economy, etc, etc) and performance wise, ignore 0-60's as that doesn't really tell you much, the mk3 TTS I personally think has better mid range clout than the old RS. There's probably nothing in it if you raced the two cars round a track. Noise is the only thing the RS did better, but then the TTS in Dynamic isn't a shrinking violet. VD you get used to very quickly and when ever you get in a car with old fashioned dials, it just looks, well - ancient compared to the VD. I'm sure as time goes on and other manufacturers catch up, all cars will have configurable dashboards. For now, Audi leads the way and so refreshing not to have a distracting screen surfacing out of the dashboard - I never did get on with that in my 8v S3 and then short lived ownership of the latest RS3; everything you need in the mk3 TT just sits in front of the driver. Just how it should...


----------



## GoTeamGb2012 (Dec 27, 2012)

Well aside from the gorgeous exhaust note on the RS the TTS has moved on in pretty much every single area. My TTS has walked past an RS albeit slowly but dynamically I feel the TTS has moved on as one would expect. It feels lighter on its feet too. Take my words with a pinch of salt as I've never been a huge fan of the Mk2 so maybe my bias speaking. That being said the RS is still gorgeous mk2 or not.


----------



## TFP (May 29, 2010)

I owned four mk1's, no mk2's as I never fell in love with the shape.

The mk3's angular, agressive look won me over instantly.

The interior is a very nice place to be.

The major decision here will be about the noise the cars make.

But if the budget's 30k I'd have to say get the mk3 TTS, brilliant car.


----------



## Anyone_for_TT? (Apr 18, 2017)

GoTeamGb2012 said:


> Well aside from the gorgeous exhaust note on the RS the TTS has moved on in pretty much every single area. My TTS has walked past an RS albeit slowly but dynamically I feel the TTS has moved on as one would expect. It feels lighter on its feet too. Take my words with a pinch of salt as I've never been a huge fan of the Mk2 so maybe my bias speaking. That being said the RS is still gorgeous mk2 or not.


Your TTS faster than a mk2 RS? Torque curves etc suggest otherwise from what I've seen


----------



## Koimlg (Dec 1, 2016)

Anyone_for_TT? said:


> GoTeamGb2012 said:
> 
> 
> > Well aside from the gorgeous exhaust note on the RS the TTS has moved on in pretty much every single area. My TTS has walked past an RS albeit slowly but dynamically I feel the TTS has moved on as one would expect. It feels lighter on its feet too. Take my words with a pinch of salt as I've never been a huge fan of the Mk2 so maybe my bias speaking. That being said the RS is still gorgeous mk2 or not.
> ...


335 or 355bhp in the RS plus. Unlikely the TTS is faster or even as fast by some way. Its not just about straight line speed, that 5 cylinder engine gives so much more even in the Mk2, the version I had in my old RS3. In the Mk3 it is flippin mad but that now has 400 horses


----------



## Koimlg (Dec 1, 2016)

Koimlg said:


> Anyone_for_TT? said:
> 
> 
> > GoTeamGb2012 said:
> ...


Not to say that the TTS isn't a great and quick car 8)


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

I have had 2 RSTTs, MK3 TTS feels every bit as fast as the RSs did, but with all the other benefits of a better drive and feel. So it's not just one former RS owners view.

Power is only one measure, the MK2 was heavier, around 100KGs from memory. 
35bhp vs 100KGs! its fractions the difference and fuel levels and the driver could swing it either way!!!!


----------



## Anyone_for_TT? (Apr 18, 2017)

Toshiba said:


> I have had 2 RSTTs, MK3 TTS feels every bit as fast as the RSs did, but with all the other benefits of a better drive and feel. So it's not just one former RS owners view.
> 
> Power is only one measure, the MK2 was heavier, around 100KGs from memory.
> 35bhp vs 100KGs! its fractions the difference and fuel levels and the driver could swing it either way!!!!


Sorry missed this Tosh.

That's very interesting. I'm going to have a look at the torque and bhp curves again and then consider the weight see if it makes a difference. I have to say that going from my current TT (FWD) and trying several TTRSs although the TTRSs are faster the haldex does add significant weight to it and it just feels not as nimble and fast as my light FWD TT so what you say makes sense. But is it *actually* as fast?

APR state that the 0-60 of the golf R with the Mk3 TTS engine after a stage 1 remap is a staggering 3.8s but that's on the dyno so I don't know how it equates to real world. But they do get 4.6s I think 0-60 stock which matches quoted figures. If so then then Stage 1 despite producing much less torque and bhp than the TTRS's stage 1 is producing a very impressive 0-60 time, faster than my calculated 0-60 time of 3.94s (very crude calculation on my other thread) for the TTRS Stage 1 so I wonder if what you say may be right in reality and not just in feel...


----------



## TFP (May 29, 2010)

Anyone_for_TT? said:


> APR state that the 0-60 of the golf R with the Mk3 TTS engine after a stage 1 remap is a staggering 3.8s but that's on the dyno so I don't know how it equates to real world.


I was at santa pod today and saw a Golf R do a 12 second 1/4 mile, so that must have been modified, a very quick run.


----------



## azbaz125 (Oct 30, 2014)

How this is even a comparison is beyond me. The mk2 TTRS as a drivers car is on another level I've had a TTS and driven the new TTS and as soon as your in a RS it's a completely different experience 5 cylinder engines are just amazing. The RS has 7 speed compared to the TTS 6 speed and if you ever wanted to tune the car the Rs has a lot more to give. Only thing in mk3 TTS favour is the new mod cons. But imo I'd trade that for 5 cylinder all day every day.


----------



## barry_m2 (Jun 29, 2015)

azbaz125 said:


> How this is even a comparison is beyond me........


This is sooooo last year!  :lol:


----------



## no name (Feb 16, 2014)

Performance wise there is barely a difference. Go modern get a few mods and you already have an rs beater.

What's this 'drivers car' nonsense? :-D ??

Sounds like something you hear on the new top gear.

Theres only one way to settle this, drag race >.<


----------



## powerplay (Feb 8, 2008)

I would have a mk3 TTS over a mk2 RS, handling, poise, balance and grip are way better.


----------



## Erty (Nov 26, 2016)

Yes, I can confirm, I have had both.


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

Never driven a Mk3, but unmapped my MK2 RS couldn't noticeably close the gap on a MK3 TTS. The S has always been the sensible unsensible car choice, with the RS being on the side of extravagance. The noise of the RS is probably the only reason to buy one over an S.


----------



## DPG (Dec 7, 2005)

Dash said:


> Never driven a Mk3, but unmapped my MK2 RS couldn't noticeably close the gap on a MK3 TTS. The S has always been the sensible unsensible car choice, with the RS being on the side of extravagance. The noise of the RS is probably the only reason to buy one over an S.


I agree, the 5pot noise is lovely.


----------



## powerplay (Feb 8, 2008)

It's not just the sound but the power delivery is very different too - in comparison it feels like a bigger engine than the numbers suggest.


----------

