# Scirocco R or TTS?



## sony (May 21, 2010)

It'd either be a second hand TTS or a new R.
I'm probably going to get more "get the TTS" on here- but try and be as un-biased as you can!


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

,


----------



## sony (May 21, 2010)

What don't you like about the Rocco out of interest?


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

/.


----------



## richieshore (May 17, 2010)

I love them both and was toying between the 2 by myself - I decided to order a new TT s-line as didn't fancy a used car and is more in the same price range as the VW.

As I say loved them both but the TT definately looks a lot better and the inside feels so much nicer. My main reasoning in the end was that I don't have a family so don't have to worry about any room in the back, If I had a couple of kids then I'd have gone for the VW but as I'm still enjoying my freedom, TT everytime!

Oh and even the Scirocco has an extra 50bhp the 2011 TT has the same top speed and 0-60 only with better MPG!


----------



## Andywarr (May 14, 2009)

id not too keen on the looks of the roc, so id go for the TTS

What about the Golf R, i know its a bit more expensive than the roc but its got 4wd and in my opinion is a lot better looking


----------



## gti16v_boy (Oct 4, 2006)

I agree with Tosh above the Scirocco doesn't quite look right - too big a gap left in the wheel arches too....always looks like it needs to be lowered. Plus the 4WD of the TTS helps a clean getaway off the line and you can get the power down earlier exiting bends. IMO the TTS looks much classier and stylish - go for privacy glass on the TT tho if you can...makes a big difference in looks from the back IMHO.


----------



## audimad (Jan 7, 2008)

There was a series 2 TT concept called the shooting brake but Audi decided not to put it into production, then not long after the Scirocco was released looking remarkably similar to the TT concept. The Scirocco is a good car but it is no where near as good as a TT or any Audi for that matter.


----------



## sony (May 21, 2010)

I do prefer the looks of the TT- although the 'Roc is a rarer car! And a tad cheaper with options. Thanks for everyone's opinion so far.


----------



## powerplay (Feb 8, 2008)

I've thought about the Scirocco a lot and have come to the conclusion that I would never ever own one. It looks all wrong. The TT, in any guise, looks low and hugs the ground, the wheels look like they fill the arches perfectly because the arches are circular and the arc centre pretty much matches the centre of the wheels. On the VW the arches are very angular and the wheels don't "fit" at all. Plus the rear wheels look like shopping trolley wheels in a sea of big fat arse. Eugh.


----------



## wja96 (Mar 4, 2010)

Basically, the Scirocco will always be a Golf coupe, whereas the TTS will be a TTS. Of course, VW dealers are nicer than Audi dealers, but if I bought cars on that basis I'd have another Skoda.

I thought from the other thread we'd pretty much established the rear seats ruled the TT(S) out?


----------



## sony (May 21, 2010)

wja96 said:


> I thought from the other thread we'd pretty much established the rear seats ruled the TT(S) out?


No, the rear seats would only get VERY occasional use.


----------



## Digi (Oct 20, 2009)

I personally would not be comparing the two when buying a car.
The Scirroco is a nice car but the TT is surely classed as a more up market set of wheels.

A car to compare alongside the Scirroco would be the Passat Coupe (another nice car)

But as I always ya pays ya money ya takes ya choice.


----------



## iModTTS (Jan 27, 2009)

We dont have the 'Roc here, but if it has the TTS engine and awd, I would be very tempted. The GolfR is going to be a stellar platform (we don't have them here yet) and will be a very, very popular car. For me I'd rather not have the popular car. Id rather have something with; class, beautifully fluid design, monsterous power and since I can't afford a Veyron, the TTS is clearly the next best option!


----------



## hmetwally (Jul 13, 2007)

The ROC might look interesting at first glance. After seeing it around for a longer period, the car grows old very quickly, and all the awkwardness start to shine through. As for the Audi, its looks does not get old at all, it looks prettier and prettier and grows on one.
However this is subjective as it can get, and you are the one who will have to live with the decision.
Good luck in all cases.
Hazem


----------



## Poverty (Dec 21, 2009)

Roc R is quicker in a straight line once rolling, cheaper servicing due to lack of haldex, better mpg due to lower weight, and arguably more fun to drive than its quattro counterpart.

The TTS however has all the advantages that comes with haldex.


----------



## denTTed (Feb 21, 2007)

VW just has no stance at all.... needs lowering. Performance and drive will be great, they just look a bit rubbish.


----------



## powerplay (Feb 8, 2008)

Poverty said:


> Roc R is quicker in a straight line once rolling, cheaper servicing due to lack of haldex, better mpg due to lower weight, and arguably more fun to drive than its quattro counterpart.
> 
> The TTS however has all the advantages that comes with haldex.


I looked at the specs and the weight is well over 1400kg so its just as much a porker as the TTS. And as such I don't understand why their official DSG 0-62 time is 5.8 and some mags have tested it slower than that, given it is the same engine and drivetrain as TTS which is definitely 5.2 in real life.


----------



## Andywarr (May 14, 2009)

im suprised at how many people dislike the Rocco

I thought it was just me


----------



## richieshore (May 17, 2010)

Poverty said:


> Roc R is quicker in a straight line once rolling, cheaper servicing due to lack of haldex, better mpg due to lower weight, and arguably more fun to drive than its quattro counterpart.
> 
> The TTS however has all the advantages that comes with haldex.


Don't know where you got this from but the VW is only a tiny bit quicker than the base TT (MY11) and doesn't even come close to the TTS.

This car shouldn't be compared to the TTS, it's not even on par with the TT. The base TT (coupe at least not the 1.8!) is the same price (if not a little cheaper), same performance, same spec, better MPG, hasn't got the interior of a golf and is way way better looking.

The engine is the only thing this car shares with the TTS but because it's heavier and much less aerodynamic and it can only just out do the TT.


----------



## Poverty (Dec 21, 2009)

richieshore said:


> Poverty said:
> 
> 
> > Roc R is quicker in a straight line once rolling, cheaper servicing due to lack of haldex, better mpg due to lower weight, and arguably more fun to drive than its quattro counterpart.
> ...


Look mate, I have a cupra FWD, same engine as the Rocco R and a standard 2.0T k03 TT with or without quattro doesnt stand a chance. 0-62mph times will be similiar due to traction issues, but 3rd gear onwards the 2.0t wont stand a chance against a cupra or a rocco R, it will get left for dead.

Its stupid to look at the 0-62 times and top speed and come to a conclusion that the cars are just as fast as each other because they are the same of similiar :lol:

Of course they will have the same top speed as they will be limited, remove the limiter and the gearbox in the rocco R is good for 170mph indicated on the clock.

Like I said, and I speak from experience than just looking at stats and reading magazines, a stock rocco R will be quicker than a stock TTS when rolling 3rd gear onwards


----------



## Poverty (Dec 21, 2009)

powerplay said:


> Poverty said:
> 
> 
> > Roc R is quicker in a straight line once rolling, cheaper servicing due to lack of haldex, better mpg due to lower weight, and arguably more fun to drive than its quattro counterpart.
> ...


Because the TTS is 4wd and the rocco R is fwd.

The rocco R is still quicker once rolling.

And the proof will be in the quarter mile drag strip term times. The TTS might get to the finish line quicker due to its 4wd advantage from a standing start, but the Rocco R will have a higher term speed at the finish line, as they are quicker once up and running.


----------



## 2zeroalpha (Aug 30, 2009)

I can second that. Having essentially gone from a front wheel driven version of this engine to the four wheel driven version (and in a heavier car) I find it noticeably slower once moving.


----------



## Poverty (Dec 21, 2009)

2zeroalpha said:


> I can second that. Having essentially gone from a front wheel driven version of this engine to the four wheel driven version (and in a heavier car) I find it noticeably slower once moving.


Does the car feel like its adapted now or still feel the same?

BTW guys, Im only praising the rocco r's abilities to make this thread more balanced, whilst the Rocco R is quicker once rolling than a TTS, you will also need to consider that in the wet a Rocco R wont stand a chance against a TTS.

Just wanted to have a balanced discussion of facts so that the OP can make a decision on what he thinks will suit him best.

Im at the stage myself now where I will be leaving FWD for 4wd, albeit my decision is purely performance related of the higher echelons, fwd would struggle too much above 450hp, and im power hungry :twisted:


----------



## 2zeroalpha (Aug 30, 2009)

Yeah it does feel considerably better, jury's still out though. May look at other offerings as am skeptical about whether the car has achieved the projected gains (320bhp and 355 lb/foot).


----------



## richieshore (May 17, 2010)

Poverty said:


> Look mate, I have a cupra FWD, same engine as the Rocco R and a standard 2.0T k03 TT with or without quattro doesnt stand a chance. 0-62mph times will be similiar due to traction issues, but 3rd gear onwards the 2.0t wont stand a chance against a cupra or a rocco R, it will get left for dead.
> 
> Its stupid to look at the 0-62 times and top speed and come to a conclusion that the cars are just as fast as each other because they are the same of similiar :lol:
> 
> ...


To be fair I am only looking at figures on a page but these are tested figures so there is no reason not to consider them, 30-50 for the VW and the TTS in 3rd is 2.4 compared to 2.6 so fair enough it does catch up, however it's still slower 0-60 and slower in a 1/4 mile so in general it is still a slower car than the TTS and more comparable to the standard TT.

Oh and even with it being a little bit faster that the basic TT I very much doubt it will ever be 'left for dead' and I'm talking about the new MY11 TT which has more HP and more importantly a lot more torque than your model.


----------



## 2zeroalpha (Aug 30, 2009)

Err, his model has the same engine as the TTS.

And tbh, I've acually lost track of what we're comparing now!


----------



## richieshore (May 17, 2010)

2zeroalpha said:


> Err, his model has the same engine as the TTS.
> 
> And tbh, I've acually lost track of what we're comparing now!


Ha ha ha, my mistake, I read it as he has a Cupra and a Standard 2.0T TT, thinking he had both cars! My fault, apologies. Nevermind


----------



## LEO-RS (Apr 13, 2009)

powerplay said:


> Poverty said:
> 
> 
> > Roc R is quicker in a straight line once rolling, cheaper servicing due to lack of haldex, better mpg due to lower weight, and arguably more fun to drive than its quattro counterpart.
> ...


Purely because the TTS has 4wd traction.

Remove this from the equation, and the Rocco R from anything 30-40mph upwards would have the TTS no problems.

4wd is a hinderance, not an advantage when up and running, i.e 30+


----------



## LEO-RS (Apr 13, 2009)

richieshore said:


> To be fair I am only looking at figures on a page but these are tested figures so there is no reason not to consider them, 30-50 for the VW and the TTS in 3rd is 2.4 compared to 2.6 so fair enough it does catch up, however it's still slower 0-60 and slower in a 1/4 mile so in general it is still a slower car than the TTS and more comparable to the standard TT.
> 
> Oh and even with it being a little bit faster that the basic TT I very much doubt it will ever be 'left for dead' and I'm talking about the new MY11 TT which has more HP and more importantly a lot more torque than your model.


You are still basing a cars performance on 0-xxx though. 0-60 and 1/4m are heavily biased towards cars that can launch off the line. 0 to anything is a complete waste of time as there is so much skill involved in a clean getaway that a quick 0-60 is heavily reliant on driver skill. When you come up behind something in 2nd gear at 30mph, it is a complete different ball game.

Rocco R will have a quicker 40-100 in comparison to the TTS. TTS may win though in a 0-100 race due to the initial advantage of the 4wd. Which scenario would you say is much more day to day?

Apart from a 1/4m strip, i cannot recall any situatiuon where I have launched any car from standstill.

A TTS will have around 220whp. A rocco R will have around 240whp


----------



## Evil Derboy (Jan 25, 2008)

It's amazing how biased forums are... :lol:

I answered this question over on SciroccoNet and I wondered what the outcome would be on here. Seems quite a few TT owners don't like the looks or the stance of the Scirocco. To be honest I agree on the stance. It's almost a pre-requiste that you get the Scirocco lowered if you buy one (only my own personal opinion of course). The standard car looks like it's on stilts. TT suspension on the other hand doesn't need messed with.

Quality of materials in the TT + build quality are streets ahead and in my opinion, as I stated on SciroccoNet (much to some of the members surprise no doubt) the TTS is the better car. However, if you want something more practical then the Scirocco wins. Rears seats on the TT just simply don't work for anything other than storage. Also the TTS is more expensive, more ubiquitous on the roads and now looks just like a new S-Line.

I also have to agree with Tosh regarding the 2.0T attracting the hairdresser tag. (Not to mention the 1.8 cab). Obviously Audi are in the business of selling more cars, but 2 years ago when my white 2.0 TFSI landed it was a rare sight indeed. Now Ibis seems to be the most popular colou,r and the most common drivers of this colour are middle-aged blondes with sun-glasses perched on their heads.

Everyone buys a car for their own reasons. Having gone from a TT to a Scirocco I haven't looked back but would still be tempted by a TTS or TTRS but as it happens I now need practicality, so am unlikely to return to the TT fold BUT if I did, the entry level would have to be a TTS. I now wouldn't touch the lesser models with a bargepole.


----------



## richieshore (May 17, 2010)

Evil Derboy said:


> It's amazing how biased forums are... :lol:
> 
> I answered this question over on SciroccoNet and I wondered what the outcome would be on here. Seems quite a few TT owners don't like the looks or the stance of the Scirocco. To be honest I agree on the stance. It's almost a pre-requiste that you get the Scirocco lowered if you buy one (only my own personal opinion of course). The standard car looks like it's on stilts. TT suspension on the other hand doesn't need messed with.
> 
> ...


I don't understand why you wouldn't go near the lesser models when as you mentioned yourself the new 2.0T s-line is near identical to the look of the TTS not too far off on the BHP and has the same amount of Torque, add on quattro, magnetic ride and s-tronic and you're talking a near identical car that's only a tiny bit slower for nearly £4000 less!!

I don't understand why anybody would be buying anything but the lesser model!


----------



## LEO-RS (Apr 13, 2009)

Evil Derboy said:


> Rears seats on the TT just simply don't work for anything other than storage.
> Everyone buys a car for their own reasons. Having gone from a TT to a Scirocco I haven't looked back but would still be tempted by a TTS or TTRS but as it happens I now need practicality, so am unlikely to return to the TT fold BUT if I did, the entry level would have to be a TTS. I now wouldn't touch the lesser models with a bargepole.


Do you have a 197bhp Scirocco or an R version? Surely no one would downgrade from a TT to a 'lesser model' such as a Scirocco 

I use the rear seats in the TT near enough every time I use it. I 'store' my 2 yr old boy back there.


----------



## Evil Derboy (Jan 25, 2008)

If the R version had been available or even announced at the time I got my Scirocco I would have went for it. As it was the 200BHP GT was the top version around at the time and that's what I went for. Reason I went for the Scirocco was that it similarly priced with similar performance and more practicality. Hence the reason for what you might call a "downgrade".

I enjoyed my 2.0TT. Loved it in fact, but the brand is more mature now and the barrier to entry is lower. The car is starting to attract the same reputation as it's predecessor and the TTS and TTRS are the more masculine versions. That's why if I were considering another TT I would only go for either of those.

Dont get me wrong the Scirocco is also starting to attract a similar crowd. I'm not saying that the standard TT is a bad car, far from it. Only that I wouldn't go back to one as a previous owner and that if I were a comptemplative first time owner I would opt for a sportier version than the base model to avoid being lumped in with the housewives and poseurs.

Personally I think that it's tragic that the car is attracting that kind of customer as it really does deserve more. But I also think that Audi has lost the plot with the TT range. How long before we see a 1.4 160bhp version?


----------



## 2zeroalpha (Aug 30, 2009)

Mitchy said:


> richieshore said:
> 
> 
> > Rocco R will have a quicker 40-100 in comparison to the TTS. TTS may win though in a 0-100 race due to the initial advantage of the 4wd. Which scenario would you say is much more day to day?
> ...


Damn you mitchy for taking the words out of my mouth!


----------



## TT-Newbie (Sep 18, 2009)

Go for the TT. Scirocco = Golf coupe and in my opinion is the worse for it. The Golf is a fine car, but they shouldn't need to dress it up in a posh frock to shift more of them.


----------



## Evil Derboy (Jan 25, 2008)

TT-Newbie said:


> The Golf is a fine car, but they shouldn't need to dress it up in a posh frock to shift more of them.


That makes no sense at all. And is especially narrow-minded when you consider the Mk1 was based on the Golf. I

...It's also factually incorrect, the Scirocco shares more with the Passat CC than it does the Golf.


----------



## durkadurka (Mar 26, 2010)

I'd rather have the Scirocco from the early 90's.
The new Scirocco just doesnt work, and it isnt something special like the old one was.

Go for the TTS, much better car!


----------



## Taipei-TT (Apr 6, 2009)

I have a radical idea.....

How about you buy the car you like best and not worry what others think about it?


----------



## Andywarr (May 14, 2009)

Taipei-TT said:


> I have a radical idea.....
> 
> How about you buy the car you like best and not worry what others think about it?


or buy both :lol: :lol:


----------



## Poverty (Dec 21, 2009)

TT-Newbie said:


> Go for the TT. Scirocco = Golf coupe and in my opinion is the worse for it. *The Golf is a fine car, but they shouldn't need to dress it up in a posh frock to shift more of them.*


Oh boy the irony!

You need to read up on the TT architecture, yes alot of the mk2 is different, but alot of it is still "GOLF" :lol:


----------



## sony (May 21, 2010)

I'm defo going for the TT. Looks gorgeous.


----------



## richieshore (May 17, 2010)

sony said:


> I'm defo going for the TT. Looks gorgeous.


What's it going to be now though? Used TTS or have you been swayed by the shots of the new MY11 S-line model??


----------



## sony (May 21, 2010)

richieshore said:


> sony said:
> 
> 
> > I'm defo going for the TT. Looks gorgeous.
> ...


That still remains the dilemma- in terms of looks and performance the 2.0T is now pretty close.


----------



## Poverty (Dec 21, 2009)

sony said:


> richieshore said:
> 
> 
> > sony said:
> ...


the 2.0t is nowhere near the performance level of the TTS. Driving experience is completely different. TTS has a ko4 turbo which is larger and holds boost alot better higher up the rev range.

k03 engines are mediocre, the k04 is the best 2.0T you can get, even beating the japs as a all round package.


----------



## powerplay (Feb 8, 2008)

Poverty said:


> the 2.0t is nowhere near the performance level of the TTS. Driving experience is completely different. TTS has a ko4 turbo which is larger and holds boost alot better higher up the rev range.
> 
> k03 engines are mediocre, the k04 is the best 2.0T you can get, even beating the japs as a all round package.


Not 100% sure on that - its a great car yes, but the setup of the engine map from that factory is a bit too economy-targeted I think, imho it needs a stage1 remap to get the best of the car, as stock it feels too lethargic unless you give it the beans.


----------



## sony (May 21, 2010)

Don't get me wrong I didn't actually mean they're a match for one another. Just that for day to day, it isn't the biggest of gaps.


----------



## richieshore (May 17, 2010)

The TTS is clearly a much better, faster car than the TT however in comparison to the new model TT with the new engine I just don't think it's worth the extra cash, but then that's coming from someone who can only just afford the TT in the first place and is moving up from a mini cooper (that's really not that fast!), in my case £5000 or £6000 is a hell of a lot for things that I'm not going to miss!


----------



## LEO-RS (Apr 13, 2009)

richieshore said:


> The TTS is clearly a much better, faster car than the TT however in comparison to the new model TT with the new engine I just don't think it's worth the extra cash, but then that's coming from someone who can only just afford the TT in the first place and is moving up from a mini cooper (that's really not that fast!), in my case £5000 or £6000 is a hell of a lot for things that I'm not going to miss!


All TT's should have quattro. You will almost certainly 'miss' having that.

We had a lot of snow earlier this year, a TT quattro will have had little problems, a FWD TT would have had major problems. I lost count of the amount of cars i spotted wheelspinning trying to get up slight inclines, even M3's and the like :lol: Quattro just strolls up with little or no effort.

Then there is the MR, the bodykit, the brakes, the engine etc


----------



## richieshore (May 17, 2010)

Is the quattro really worth it Especially if you've never had it? I was considering getting a quattro but the guy selling me the car actually said not to bother and that I wouldn't notice the difference!

The big problem with adding the quattro to the basic TT is that you then have to have S-tronic which I'm really not that keen on, my mini is a trip tronic and it just bores me, I like gears.

So in your experience do you think I should add quattro to my order even though it means getting stuck with S-tronic and costing an extra £2500??

Cheers!


----------



## sTTranger (Oct 21, 2008)

Yes get s-tronic in manual. Im sure you can :?


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

/


----------



## LEO-RS (Apr 13, 2009)

richieshore said:


> Is the quattro really worth it Especially if you've never had it? I was considering getting a quattro but the guy selling me the car actually said not to bother and that I wouldn't notice the difference!
> 
> The big problem with adding the quattro to the basic TT is that you then have to have S-tronic which I'm really not that keen on, my mini is a trip tronic and it just bores me, I like gears.
> 
> ...


I wasn't aware that to have quattro on a 2.0t car, that you had to opt with the S tronic box too?

I think you would regret not having quattro especially if you were to go on and remap the car. You would always be thinking, I should have ticked that box.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

You don't, both options are independent.


----------



## sony (May 21, 2010)

According to the configurator on Audi's website, if you opt for a quattro 2.0t you have no choice but to have the S-tronic.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

.


----------



## Survey S2000 (Jul 28, 2009)

Toshiba said:


> quattro and DSG are the soul of the TT, anything less and its an empty vessel.
> FWD version really doent handle anywhere near as well as the q cars.


Maybe to those who have paid for the quattro and DSG it is.

On a 2.0tfsi engined TT the reviews of the quatto said it added unnecessary weight and reduced turn in.

If your going to tune the 2.0tfsi quattro then traction off the line would be improved.

Not sure if this will effect handling though.


----------



## LEO-RS (Apr 13, 2009)

Survey S2000 said:


> Toshiba said:
> 
> 
> > quattro and DSG are the soul of the TT, anything less and its an empty vessel.
> ...


I'll wave to you the next time you're stranded in the snow :wink:


----------



## Poverty (Dec 21, 2009)

Mitchy said:


> Survey S2000 said:
> 
> 
> > Toshiba said:
> ...


he wont get stranded if he takes the summer tyres off and sticks on snow/winter tyres for the cold period.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

.


----------



## Survey S2000 (Jul 28, 2009)

That right toshs, i wont get stranded as the weight is over the front driven wheels.

Quattro in the snow just means you crash at higher speeds. [smiley=bomb.gif]


----------



## sony (May 21, 2010)

There is no substitute for winter tyres- they beat quattro in snow.


----------



## davida-p (Apr 13, 2010)

I am pleased VW have bought back the Scirocco, though not too keen on the large rear behind. I was following one the other day and thought they just didn't get the rear just quite right , me thinks. So TT every time. I also think Audi are just the car manufacturer of the moment, innovative with solid branding...with a sprinkle of vorsprung durch technik street cred.
Also, close the door on one...does it sound like a TT....does it?


----------



## drjam (Apr 7, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> Without q, the weight balance of the car is changed dramatically towards everything over the front wheels.


"Dramatically"??
Are the weight & weight distribution differences really that big?


----------



## dbm (Apr 17, 2008)

richieshore said:


> Is the quattro really worth it


In a word: yes. I had a 2.0 FWD car as a courtesy vehicle whilst mine was in the shop for a minor job. I got more wheel spin from that car than I have ever had in my TTS, and the car felt much less planted.

Base TT has the 'show', Quattro has the 'go'.

Cheers,
Dan


----------



## Survey S2000 (Jul 28, 2009)

drjam said:


> Toshiba said:
> 
> 
> > Without q, the weight balance of the car is changed dramatically towards everything over the front wheels.
> ...


Yes. massively!


----------



## richieshore (May 17, 2010)

Mitchy said:


> I'll wave to you the next time you're stranded in the snow :wink:


I've never been stranded in the snow before and only ever had FWD or RWD!

If they make the MY11 model so I can have quattro at a reasonable rate and without S-tronic then I'll probably go for it, but other than that, considering I've never driven 4WD (except from shitty old Land Rovers) then I think it's unnecessary for me.


----------



## powerplay (Feb 8, 2008)

I saw my first Scirocco on the road tonight, a red one on the twisties near East Dean along the south coast.

Looked pretty good on approach but then as I passed it I realised how looong it looked. And it sort of reminded me of my TT when I first saw it, just after it arrived at the dealer and was yet to have the transit blocks removed from the suspension :?


----------

