# TT Tdi - UK Price and Options



## Nem (Feb 14, 2005)

Here we go...

http://www.ttoc.co.uk/news.php?articlelist=37

Nick


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

That should keep the 'its never going to happen' people ranting for a while. Same options, sameish price and sameish performance with quattro. Makes the T look expensive.

Dolphin has been dropped as predicted too.

PS Told you so. :lol:

Nick, do you have a date when Audi will lift the embargo on the 1.8T details?


----------



## carly (Mar 24, 2007)

Seems very pricey! :?


----------



## thebears (Jan 14, 2006)

What happended to the 200 PS engine?


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

You goto APR for that one.


----------



## nutts (May 8, 2002)

And a remap to 220/230PS will likely be quicker than both a standard MK1 225 and a MK2 2.0T :roll:

and with quattro will have less torque steer than a 2.0T


----------



## Martin L (Jan 19, 2008)

Toshiba said:


> Dolphin has been dropped as predicted too.


So has Mauritius replaced by what I presume is the Aruba blue...


----------



## Mysterio (Jan 20, 2006)

Imagine the embarrasment of the sound of a Diesel engine in a TT.


----------



## Wolverine (Dec 22, 2002)

Too slow for me. If it had 225 BHP (to offset the weight of the quattro) I'd have considered a coupe for sure but not a roadster. I like the near silence of my 2.0TFSI when stationary and the vroom from the exhaust when I press the go button.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

A4 Cabs have or should that be had a Diesel version.

The petrol engine is not exactly noiseless at standstill nor is it throaty when rev'd. :?


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Martin L said:


> Toshiba said:
> 
> 
> > Dolphin has been dropped as predicted too.
> ...


I'd not noticed that one. Good spot.


----------



## sane eric (Jul 19, 2007)

Toshiba said:


> PS Told you so. :lol:


Never doubted you.


----------



## sane eric (Jul 19, 2007)

TTD Over 1k more expensive than TTC, which is normal for a D version of a model in a range I think. I think this gets overlooked in the whole cost of ownership debate, esp now that they both have long life service schedules. I wonder how many miles a year you need to do to get back the 1k?


----------



## conneem (Nov 4, 2006)

Well, working it out based on the 10,000 miles I covered over the last year, and taking 36 vs 44 mpg, I would have used, wait for it, 50 litres less fuel on diesel :roll:

And there is a trend building here, that diesel is becoming more expensive than petrol at more and more garages.

But it would cost 300 euro less to tax here based on emissions.

I wonder if I would have had as much fun in a diesel :lol: 
Maybe if if was a sufficently powerful one, but then again probably not, as even if it was more powerfull and faster than the 2.0T I don't like the way diesels drive (maybe I'm too young for one )


----------



## Guest (Feb 27, 2008)

I'm pretty sure the engine will get rid of any rattles and squeeks currently suffered by petrol tt owners, mainly due to most the trim vibrating off the car.


----------



## jakeman (Jan 30, 2008)

Toshiba said:


> Martin L said:
> 
> 
> > Toshiba said:
> ...


Aruba Blue is one of the new A5 colours TT configurator still shows all original colours but not this.

I hear the TTDi is debuing in an episode of Emerdale prior to its launch, it was going to be on the Archers but because of the noise you couldn't hear what the Tractor drivers were saying so programme scrapped.

It's also the only TT to come with its own Nicotine replacement patches to help reduce "smoking" they tried the gum but couldn't get it off the mats.

:twisted:


----------



## Snake Pliskin (Apr 11, 2006)

Hmmm the "D" pricing seams quite low to me !

Just a few hundred quid more than the 2.0T petrol AND with 4 wheel drive ?

Usually Diesel is a Â£grand or so more, but 4WD too - just seams really cheap or am I missing something.


----------



## jakeman (Jan 30, 2008)

Snake Pliskin said:


> Hmmm the "D" pricing seams quite low to me !
> 
> Just a few hundred quid more than the 2.0T petrol AND with 4 wheel drive ?
> 
> Usually Diesel is a Â£grand or so more, but 4WD too - just seams really cheap or am I missing something.


Good point


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Snake Pliskin said:


> Hmmm the "D" pricing seams quite low to me !
> 
> Just a few hundred quid more than the 2.0T petrol AND with 4 wheel drive ?
> 
> Usually Diesel is a Â£grand or so more, but 4WD too - just seams really cheap or am I missing something.


 :lol: [smiley=end.gif] for FWD models, sell up now.

Smoked by a diesel :wink:


----------



## jakeman (Jan 30, 2008)

I've decided to stop worrying about Diesel TT's, being selfish i have a 4WD TTC on order at the end of it's 3 year lease it will have 90k+ on the clock so it will be worth Jack sh.t so being devalued by the TTDi (if it happens) won't affect me.

And another plus i will have 3 years of 4WD fun with a petrol engined TTC which looks and sounds great something i should be happy about not winging about diesel engines. My apologies to my fellow Forum members for my anti Diesel rage and good luck to any sad b.sta.ds who buy one.

The End


----------



## Janitor (Jul 2, 2007)

Toshiba said:


> :lol: [smiley=end.gif] for FWD models, sell up now.
> 
> Smoked by a diesel :wink:


Literally

Bothered :roll:


----------



## porters5 (Dec 4, 2007)

Not sure whether to be bothered or not by the TTC and Tosh's end of the 2.0T is nigh chatter. The most common things in favour of the 2.0T is its agility, lightness and feeling of being almost as fast as the 3.2. I don't see how anything seen thus far about the TTD changes this; it's significantly slower (by 0.8 seconds in 0 - 60), heavier, and weight distribution will be nose heavy so it just won't handle or have the lovely lightness of the 2.0T. I think we (myself included) get hung about Quattro, and in the TT it might be overrated IMVHO. How much does it matter?

However, Quattro seems to be something folk must have, and the TTD is very slightly more expensive than the 2.0T, making it appealing. Although you sacrifice performance and handling to get it, so it kind of renders it redundant.

Don't think Quattro is such a big deal in the new TT compared to the old one. The weight distribution on the Mk2 is pretty much sorted, which reduces the need for heavy Quattro. To me a light agile car is more important.

I'm due to take delivery on the latter quite soon, so I'm biased of course!!


----------



## Janitor (Jul 2, 2007)

Biased as may be Porters... but I concur

The thing that strikes me is that Audi can release any weird and wonderful format they like, but as long as the one I have is doing what I need it to and gives me the right feeling, then it doesn't matter a pedal-driven, three-wheeled TT jot what anyone else has / wants / thinks


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

porters5 said:


> feeling of being almost as fast as the 3.2. I don't see how anything seen thus far about the TTD changes this; it's significantly slower (by 0.8 seconds in 0 - 60) !!


 But then the TTD will feel Just as quick as the 20T as the performance difference is the same between the 3.2 and 20T as it is between the 20T and TTD.



porters5 said:


> heavier, and weight distribution will be nose heavy so it just won't handle or have the lovely lightness of the 2.0T.


 Cars with quattro have better distribution/balance of weight back to front.



porters5 said:


> I think we (myself included) get hung about Quattro, and in the TT it might be overrated IMVHO. How much does it matter?


 Matters lots, it like saying whats it matter if a TT has a petrol or diesel engine, it looks and polishers the same. Sports coupes are not meant to be wheel spinning hot hatches in drag.


----------



## porters5 (Dec 4, 2007)

> Toshiba wrote:
> But then the TTD will feel Just as quick as the 2.0T as the performance difference is the same between the 3.2 and 2.0T as it is between the 2.0T and TTD.


The TTD is still significantly slower and heavier and costs more, so it will feel worse for it. 2.0T is also significantly slower and costs Â£5k less than the next faster model, but lighter. 2.0T (and 3.2) are in smaller performance bracket of car than TTD which has more cars with similar performance.



> Toshiba wrote:
> Cars with quattro have better distribution/balance of weight back to front.


Audi are putting Quattro in the TTD to compensate for it being nose heavy and just plain heavy. 2.0T arguably doesn't have it as it doesn't need it to get same handling. Question is, would Audi develop a diesel TT that handles and drives better than its comparable petrol sibling? If so why? [smiley=oops.gif]



> Toshiba wrote:
> Matters lots, it like saying whats it matter if a TT has a petrol or diesel engine, it looks and polishers the same. Sports coupes are not meant to be wheel spinning hot hatches in drag.


See above comment :roll: about why Quattro is going into the TTD. The benefit it having it is wiped for shortcomings mentioned I think. So I think in the case of TTD, it'll handle no better than 2.0T, in fact maybe worse. Weight balance in the new TT isn't an issue unlike the old one, so Quattro matters much less in the slower models. You said elswhere it isn't a true TT without Quattro, beg to differ matey (as does a lot of the motor industry press). TT chassis ensures non Quattro isn't a spinner, depends how you drive it surely.

Will be interesting to find out more about the in-gear times of the TTD. My feeling is it will get an ok review, but handling will be seen as relatively poor, but a big boost for high milers. And lets not forget the possible addition of Quattro to a new 2.0T. But for reasons mentioned above I'm not convinced on this.

You mentioned before you had info saying it would happen soon. Any more chat on that (other than "soon" :wink


----------



## Arne (Dec 13, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> porters5 said:
> 
> 
> > feeling of being almost as fast as the 3.2. I don't see how anything seen thus far about the TTD changes this; it's significantly slower (by 0.8 seconds in 0 - 60) !!
> ...


The is only true for the initial 0-30 mph and is very much caused by traction problems. Over this speed the 2.0T accelerates more or less equal to the 3.2 :wink:

I think the 2.0 TDI will feel a lot slower than either of its petrol siblings :roll:


----------



## Jace (Jun 6, 2007)

Just speced up a TT-s on audis site....i am tempted i must say...
Any one wanna buy mine....lol


----------



## lossyman (Aug 29, 2007)

"I'm pretty sure the engine will get rid of any rattles and squeeks currently suffered by petrol tt owners, mainly due to most the trim vibrating off the car."

Here here! :lol:


----------



## Guest (Feb 28, 2008)

Jace said:


> Just speced up a TT-s on audis site....i am tempted i must say...
> Any one wanna buy mine....lol


See, if you'd have bought the 3.2 you wouldnt be bothered about moving.


----------



## sane eric (Jul 19, 2007)

The TTd post is close to becoming another 2.0 v 3.2 p!issing content, more to come over the next few weeks I reckon.


----------



## Guest (Feb 28, 2008)

sane eric said:


> The TTd post is close to becoming another 2.0 v 3.2 p!issing content, more to come over the next few weeks I reckon.


Whats the point in arguing?

3.2 is a better engine by a mile, coupled with quattro which makes the car safer in wet conditions,( and you have to agree its handy down here in south wales) n.a. engine that doesnt suffer any turbo lag,just nice smooth delivery of 250+ horses.

Those that keep arguing the 2.0 is a better car are clearly in denial.


----------



## Wolverine (Dec 22, 2002)

DUO3 NAN said:


> Jace said:
> 
> 
> > Just speced up a TT-s on audis site....i am tempted i must say...
> ...


LOL; I can see me chopping mine in for a 3.2 in a year's time. Just need to save up a few more pennies 

I donâ€™t care about the diesel, the 1.8, the TTS the TTRS variants â€" these were all inevitable. When Audi created the Mk1 TT Iâ€™m sure they saw it as a niche product and never dreamed it would sell in such numbers. When it came to the Mk2 they had learned that the market was significant and could support the TT in the same mainstream way as the rest of their range. Hence the proliferation of engine variants and the massive options list. Anybody who bought the Mk2 and thought theyâ€™d be in some sort of exclusive club is being naÃ¯ve.


----------



## Guest (Feb 28, 2008)

Wolverine said:


> DUO3 NAN said:
> 
> 
> > Jace said:
> ...


I'd wait a 18 months Ray and go for a used TT-s roadster.
Might be a bit more, but would make more sense if your moving from a yours.


----------



## Wolverine (Dec 22, 2002)

DUO3 NAN said:


> I'd wait a 18 months Ray and go for a used TT-s roadster.
> Might be a bit more, but would make more sense if your moving from a yours.


Yes, I could be tempted but it'll be all about the right price. I reckon the 3.2 will be a very good pre-owned buy when people move onto the TTS / TTRS :roll:


----------



## sane eric (Jul 19, 2007)

DUO3 NAN said:


> The TTd post is close to becoming another 2.0 v 3.2 p!issing content, more to come over the next few weeks I reckon.
> Whats the point in arguing?


No point at all, all opinion and personal preference.



DUO3 NAN said:


> 3.2 is a better engine by a mile, coupled with quattro which makes the car safer in wet conditions,( and you have to agree its handy down here in south wales) n.a. engine that doesnt suffer any turbo lag,just nice smooth delivery of 250+ horses.
> 
> Those that keep arguing the 2.0 is a better car are clearly in denial.


Naughty boy, not falling for that.


----------



## Guest (Feb 28, 2008)

sane eric said:


> DUO3 NAN said:
> 
> 
> > The TTd post is close to becoming another 2.0 v 3.2 p!issing content, more to come over the next few weeks I reckon.
> ...


Bugger. CAnt say i didnt try. :lol:


----------



## sane eric (Jul 19, 2007)

DUO3 NAN said:


> sane eric said:
> 
> 
> > DUO3 NAN said:
> ...


 8)


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

I'm sure now we have so many models its hard to getting into the A vs B debate. I just find the comments around the STD laughable when its basically the same difference as the T is to the V and yet this difference is now massive (T to STD), where as before it was tiny (V to T).

Tha main abjection seemed to be this model is above the T in the perceived pecking order? Who creates this pecking order?

Is the 1.8T version going to be ok if it priced below the T and doesn't have quattro?

:lol:


----------



## sane eric (Jul 19, 2007)

Toshiba said:


> I'm sure now we have so many models its hard to getting into the A vs B debate. I just find the comments around the STD laughable when its basically the same difference as the T is to the V and yet this difference is now massive (T to STD), where as before it was tiny (V to T).
> 
> Tha main abjection seemed to be this model is above the T in the perceived pecking order? Who creates this pecking order?
> 
> ...


I agree, with 4 models it should be harder to have a sensible pissing (oxymoron) content, which must be a good thing. Agree the point about differences in speed between models is not worth debating.

I am glad we have a name for the new model, STD.

Pecking order - did you just invent this with this post? Have you just elevated the STD above the 2.0 in the pecking order? 

That's bound to get a reaction! :lol:

Then again, what else would we all do all day if not vent our spleens in defence of our cars.

Phantom black is the best colour, 18" 10 spokes wheels are the best wheels.


----------



## Martin L (Jan 19, 2008)

sane eric said:


> The TTd post is close to becoming another 2.0 v 3.2 p!issing content, more to come over the next few weeks I reckon.


I concur, but I think people might be missing audis point.

I think this car isn't a car to make you decide whether you go for a TDI, 2.0T or 3.2 or even TTS. It's there to broaden the buying audience.

In my estimation this car has been aimed at the company car market where you have no choice. You take a diesel and that's it. So happens it's in a super sexy bodyshell is a huge bonus.
Given the option would you choose a 320d coupe or over the similarly price TTd?

Bit of a no brainer.... :wink:


----------



## sane eric (Jul 19, 2007)

Martin L said:


> sane eric said:
> 
> 
> > The TTd post is close to becoming another 2.0 v 3.2 p!issing content, more to come over the next few weeks I reckon.
> ...


Agree with that, new market, new sales, more money, more TT's on the road.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

sane eric said:


> I am glad we have a name for the new model, STD.


 :wink:



sane eric said:


> Pecking order - did you just invent this with this post? Have you just elevated the STD above the 2.0 in the pecking order?


No, not my doing. It was from a comment someone else made on the other STD thread. How i see it is this and it applys to both the T and the STD. Both are something i dont want to own so its really doesnt bother me what the MPG is, what the performance is (BTW im not sure where people are getting the numbers from re mid range and weight - we simply dont know) what the price is, or what the mags say. For ME a TT needs quattro and petrol, anything else simply doesnt interest me.

But here's the problem, what is one persons hardon, is another mans floppy. Im sure audi have done the sums.


----------



## Guest (Feb 28, 2008)

Runt of the litter.


----------



## TTRTWO (Dec 9, 2006)

sane eric said:


> TTD Over 1k more expensive than TTC, which is normal for a D version of a model in a range I think. I think this gets overlooked in the whole cost of ownership debate, esp now that they both have long life service schedules. I wonder how many miles a year you need to do to get back the 1k?


None as it will be worth Â£1k more when you sell it.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

You wont get the whole 1k back, but it will retain more than the T as it will be subject the the same 3yrs deprecation %. But again so with the V and TTS.


----------



## TTRTWO (Dec 9, 2006)

I'm more bullish than you. I've got no intention of owning a diesel TT (largely coz my TT is an R and I can't understand diesel soft tops) but they will sell very well and be much in demand.


----------



## Snake Pliskin (Apr 11, 2006)

Who is gonna buy one of these Diesel TT's anyway :?:

I haven't heard anyone on this forum jumping in and saying they are gonna be putting their name down for one.

I reckon it will be a whole new crowd, these smoking oil burners are gonna pull in [smiley=rolleyes5.gif]

Don't you just hate being behind a "D" when they put their foot down and a PLUME of smoke comes out their exhaust [smiley=smoking.gif]


----------



## TTRTWO (Dec 9, 2006)

You are quite right, the diesel is more more likely to attract new punters. Remember though that diesels with DPFs are not that black smokey.


----------



## porters5 (Dec 4, 2007)

Agree to all the above, and I will try to stop p1ssing on this forum.

Safe to say we all like our chosen model, and that's it.

One last little thing, I don't see the price thing as a "pecking order" at all, it only would be if we all bought the most expensive car we possibly could! As somebody put it the STD will for some be the default car of choice for many business owners, bringing a whole group of owners to the TT that weren't before. And why shouldn't they enjoy the TT. It's meaningless to my (petrol based) enjoyment of it though unless Audi seriously crank up the total number of cars produced on an unprecendented scale! After all, demand for the 2.0T is surely going to fall once they bring in the 1.4T engine from the Golf, or the 1.8T that's being talked about.


----------



## VinDiesel (Feb 28, 2008)

Hi, I've ordered a TT with a diesel engine. I didn't release it would be such and issue to the petrol only people. It looks like all the other TTs and it has all the same options.

At 20mph will anyone know the difference?


----------



## Scooby-Doo (Sep 29, 2006)

Doesn't it go any faster than that or is that the optimum speed for best mpg.


----------



## VinDiesel (Feb 28, 2008)

Im not sure how to answer that. Mid range i'd hope will be at least as good as, if not better than the petrol front wheel drive variant.


----------



## Guest (Feb 28, 2008)

VinDiesel said:


> Im not sure how to answer that. Mid range i'd hope will be at least as good as, if not better than the petrol front wheel drive variant.


Probably will be.
Do you plan on towing anything?


----------



## drjam (Apr 7, 2006)

VinDiesel said:


> Hi, I've ordered a TT with a diesel engine. I didn't release it would be such and issue to the petrol only people. It looks like all the other TTs and it has all the same options.
> 
> At 20mph will anyone know the difference?


Just to say, prior to the inevitable flurry of sarcasm that will surely be invited by that last line... welcome to the forum


----------



## VinDiesel (Feb 28, 2008)

Thanks.


----------



## MP (Feb 22, 2008)

Can't believe they are putting a diesel engine in with only 170 hp, Autocar informed us that it would be closer to 200 hp.

I ordered a 2.0t TTC at the beginning of february and I asked the salesman if the rumours were true about a diesel, he doesn't expect there to be one until next year! Good of Audi to keep the dealers up to speed!

Can't believe they are not giving it more power though!

0-60 in over 7.5 seconds.....


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

I'm sure we could level the same type of comments against other cars in the range. Its only x or y. is pointless, T is only 6.6, the V is only 5.7, the T is only FWD blah blah blah.

To put this into perspective, the so called hot Gti has a 0-60 time of 7.3 is that poor? A diesel TT is as fast as a Gti. Thats a reality, like it or not. O and its front heavy and 30bhp down :roll:


----------



## Scooby-Doo (Sep 29, 2006)

Vin, you asked for that,but each to his own.Probably had similar comments about the 190 2Wd on the MKI forum when the car was announced.


----------



## TTRTWO (Dec 9, 2006)

My eyes were opened to what diesel can do when I bought a 535d. I opened my eyes even wider once the DMS guy had closed the bonnet on the car and I went for a drive.


----------



## Snake Pliskin (Apr 11, 2006)

VinDiesel said:


> Hi, I've ordered a TT with a diesel engine. I didn't release it would be such and issue to the petrol only people. It looks like all the other TTs and it has all the same options.
> 
> At 20mph will anyone know the difference?


Come on seriously :wink: 

Vin "Diesel" has ordered a Diesel TT

Yeah right [smiley=jester.gif]


----------



## Guest (Feb 29, 2008)

Snake Pliskin said:


> VinDiesel said:
> 
> 
> > Hi, I've ordered a TT with a diesel engine. I didn't release it would be such and issue to the petrol only people. It looks like all the other TTs and it has all the same options.
> ...


Come on seriously.

Snake pliskin has ordered a TT :roll:


----------



## Snake Pliskin (Apr 11, 2006)

Who is moonlighting as Vin then ? :lol:


----------



## sane eric (Jul 19, 2007)

TTRTWO said:


> sane eric said:
> 
> 
> > TTD Over 1k more expensive than TTC, which is normal for a D version of a model in a range I think. I think this gets overlooked in the whole cost of ownership debate, esp now that they both have long life service schedules. I wonder how many miles a year you need to do to get back the 1k?
> ...


But why pay 1k more than you have to? Getting it back at resale - ok, but why own a diesel in the first place?


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Why order a FWD car, or a black one, or one with DSG, or one with 18s?

I have to be honest, i'd take the diesel car over the T. Sorry.


----------



## Wondermikie (Apr 14, 2006)

The diesel was always going to be inevitable, I'm not overly sure that it devalues the range in any way. TT ownership has always been more about the looks, brand and image than the driving experience and dynamics, and there's nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Mysterio (Jan 20, 2006)

The TT is the TT, regardless of the engine.

However, I couldn't and wouldn't stand for a Diesel sounding engine in such a beautiful car.


----------



## ww1 (Aug 18, 2004)

Thats me just been to dealer and given deposit for TTD order on Thursday. :lol:

Read through all gripes about diesel and cant say I give a monkeys. TTD has same engine as my current A4 avant quattro which is plenty fast for me. TTD weights much less so doubt I will have any cause to complain, and it looks great..
Company car policy says it must be a diesel so it fits the bill (I also do 30k miles year) live in Highlands to Quattro suits me fine.
Role on delivery this summer.

At geneva motorshow next Sunday so will get a butchers at it too.


----------



## Guest (Mar 1, 2008)

ww1 said:


> Thats me just been to dealer and given deposit for TTD order on Thursday. :lol:
> 
> Read through all gripes about diesel and cant say I give a monkeys. TTD has same engine as my current A4 avant quattro which is plenty fast for me. TTD weights much less so doubt I will have any cause to complain, and it looks great..
> Company car policy says it must be a diesel so it fits the bill (I also do 30k miles year) live in Highlands to Quattro suits me fine.
> ...


Thats its market though ww1.
Company reps.

Hope you enjoy.


----------



## VinDiesel (Feb 28, 2008)

Thats two of us then  
Did you get an approx date for the car?

Im not a sales rep, im a product placement manager for salon products.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Why is the diesel only for sales reps?

Caravanners, and track stars will love it. I bet rebel gets one to take round the ring.


----------



## Guest (Mar 1, 2008)

Toshiba said:


> Why is the diesel only for sales reps?
> 
> Caravanners, and track stars will love it. I bet rebel gets one to take up the ring.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

DUO3 NAN said:


> I bet rebel takes it up the ring.


----------



## Guest (Mar 1, 2008)

Toshiba said:


> DUO3 NAN said:
> 
> 
> > . ring.


----------



## sane eric (Jul 19, 2007)

TTRTWO said:


> sane eric said:
> 
> 
> > TTD Over 1k more expensive than TTC, which is normal for a D version of a model in a range I think. I think this gets overlooked in the whole cost of ownership debate, esp now that they both have long life service schedules. I wonder how many miles a year you need to do to get back the 1k?
> ...


That wasn't my point. If the rationale behind buying the STD is economy of ownership and given the fact diesel is dearer than petrol, the car costs an extra 1k and service intervals are now the same. Has anyone worked out how much cheaper it actually would be and how long you would need to own one for the diesel to be worth owning?


----------



## ww1 (Aug 18, 2004)

It goes something like this.

TDi = 44.4 combined mpg
TFSi = 36.7 combined mpg

Fuel cost - diesel =Â£5.05 imp gallon
petrol = Â£4.79

over 10,000 miles 
Diesel = 225.22 gallons = Â£1,137.39
Petrol = 272.48 gallons = Â£1,305.18

Diesel saves Â£167.39 at current prices every 10,000 miles

Also saving in road tax.

I do 30k miles a year so recon payback in 18months

Remember its also a quattro


----------



## ww1 (Aug 18, 2004)

It goes something like this.

TDi = 44.4 combined mpg
TFSi = 36.7 combined mpg

Fuel cost - diesel =Â£5.05 imp gallon
petrol = Â£4.79

over 10,000 miles 
Diesel = 225.22 gallons = Â£1,137.39
Petrol = 272.48 gallons = Â£1,305.18

Diesel saves Â£167.39 at current prices every 10,000 miles

Also saving in road tax.

I do 30k miles a year so recon payback in 18months

Remember its also a quattro


----------



## ww1 (Aug 18, 2004)

It goes something like this.

TDi = 44.4 combined mpg
TFSi = 36.7 combined mpg

Fuel cost - diesel =Â£5.05 imp gallon
petrol = Â£4.79

over 10,000 miles 
Diesel = 225.22 gallons = Â£1,137.39
Petrol = 272.48 gallons = Â£1,305.18

Diesel saves Â£167.39 at current prices every 10,000 miles

Also saving in road tax.

I do 30k miles a year so recon payback in 18months

Remember its also a quattro


----------



## ww1 (Aug 18, 2004)

It goes something like this.

TDi = 44.4 combined mpg
TFSi = 36.7 combined mpg

Fuel cost - diesel =Â£5.05 imp gallon
petrol = Â£4.79

over 10,000 miles 
Diesel = 225.22 gallons = Â£1,137.39
Petrol = 272.48 gallons = Â£1,305.18

Diesel saves Â£167.39 at current prices every 10,000 miles

Also saving in road tax.

I do 30k miles a year so recon payback in 18months

Remember its also a quattro


----------



## sane eric (Jul 19, 2007)

ww1 said:


> It goes something like this.
> 
> TDi = 44.4 combined mpg
> TFSi = 36.7 combined mpg
> ...


Thanks for that.

It's not compelling is it?


----------



## ww1 (Aug 18, 2004)

It goes something like this.

TDi = 44.4 combined mpg
TFSi = 36.7 combined mpg

Fuel cost - diesel =Â£5.05 imp gallon
petrol = Â£4.79

over 10,000 miles 
Diesel = 225.22 gallons = Â£1,137.39
Petrol = 272.48 gallons = Â£1,305.18

Diesel saves Â£167.39 at current prices every 10,000 miles

Also a Â£50.00 year saving in road tax.

I do 30k miles a year so recon payback in 18months (not a rep just live out in sticks)

Remember its also a quattro


----------



## ww1 (Aug 18, 2004)

It goes something like this.

TDi = 44.4 combined mpg
TFSi = 36.7 combined mpg

Fuel cost per gallon
diesel =Â£5.05 
etrol = Â£4.79

over 10,000 miles 
Diesel = 225.22 gallons = Â£1,137.39
Petrol = 272.48 gallons = Â£1,305.18

Diesel saves Â£167.39 at current prices every 10,000 miles

Also a Â£50.00 year saving in road tax.

I do 30k miles a year so recon payback in 18months (not a rep just live out in sticks)

Remember its also a quattro


----------



## iknight (Jul 4, 2007)

Is that Cawdor as in Cawdor Castle?


----------



## sane eric (Jul 19, 2007)

Itchy trigger finger?


----------



## Guest (Mar 3, 2008)

ww1 said:


> It goes something like this.
> 
> TDi = 44.4 combined mpg
> TFSi = 36.7 combined mpg
> ...


----------



## fut1a (Dec 28, 2006)

The mk1 imo became too common, when the diesel comes out, expect the mk2 to become a MUCH more common site


----------



## fut1a (Dec 28, 2006)

The mk1 imo became too common, when the diesel comes out, expect the mk2 to become a MUCH more common site


----------



## fut1a (Dec 28, 2006)

The mk1 imo became too common, when the diesel comes out, expect the mk2 to become a MUCH more common site


----------



## Wolverine (Dec 22, 2002)

fut1a said:


> The mk1 imo became too common, when the diesel comes out, expect the mk2 to become a MUCH more common site


Like your posts


----------



## sane eric (Jul 19, 2007)

fut1a and ww1 - are you trying to get your post counts up?

On another subject, I seem to be getting a few debug errors today.


----------



## penfold (Nov 5, 2007)

ww1 said:


> It goes something like this.
> 
> TDi = 44.4 combined mpg
> TFSi = 36.7 combined mpg
> ...


True, but then you need to look at the higher purchase price and servicing costs. Your annual saving of Â£217.39 means that, if you do 10k miles a year (admittedly you don't) then if the diesel adds any more than Â£18.11 per month to your other costs (i.e. look at your car finance package) , the petrol model would be cheaper. Personally, I KNOW the petrol model will be cheaper for me.


----------



## Snake Pliskin (Apr 11, 2006)

Diesel no doubt will push the numbers of TT's on roads up and that is not so good for exclusivity factor of owning a TT.

To be honest though, all the credibility of owning a "D" TT will be out the window when people hear the clatter clatter of the oil burner when your cruising at low speeds through your local town centre, Tesco's or housing estate


----------



## thebears (Jan 14, 2006)

The MK2 is alredy common, pass at least 10 per day on the run to work. Adding the oil burner will make them even more popular, but i suspect other brands will follow suit soon :roll:


----------



## Arne (Dec 13, 2006)

I will never be the owner of a TT with a diesel engine (but perhaps other models will be more interesting with a diesel engine if/when I am to consider that - perhaps as our number 2 car).

But I must say I was surprized when I looked at this weekend WTCC. The Seat's did actually outperformed the BMW's - and the Seat's are running with the WAG TDI engine..... :roll:

It does not make anything for my feelings toward the combination of sportscars and diesel - but it was never the less a bit surprizing. These are more or less "standard production cars".... :wink:


----------



## ww1 (Aug 18, 2004)

sorry about earlier multiple posts, debug error occured and looked as if first one had not gone through?
Audi news notes that combined mpg for diesel is 53.3mpg which conflicts with some other info I had.

If this is the case updated figures would be
TDi = 53.3 combined mpg 
TFSi = 36.7 combined mpg

Fuel cost per gallon 
diesel =Â£5.05 
etrol = Â£4.79

over 10,000 miles 
Diesel = 186.91 gallons = Â£943.92 
Petrol = 272.48 gallons = Â£1,305.18

Diesel saves Â£361.26 at current prices every 10,000 miles


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

You're not taking into account tax.


----------



## Snake Pliskin (Apr 11, 2006)

Arne said:


> I will never be the owner of a TT with a diesel engine (but perhaps other models will be more interesting with a diesel engine if/when I am to consider that - perhaps as our number 2 car).
> 
> But I must say I was surprized when I looked at this weekend WTCC. The Seat's did actually outperformed the BMW's - and the Seat's are running with the WAG TDI engine..... :roll:
> 
> It does not make anything for my feelings toward the combination of sportscars and diesel - but it was never the less a bit surprizing. These are more or less "standard production cars".... :wink:


I noticed that too BUT ...

It was a rolling start !

Off the grid, the petrol cars would surely outrun the Oil Burners

We should see this in the BTCC as I think Seat are using TDi's in that series this year too.


----------



## treblesykes TT (Jul 11, 2007)

ww1 said:


> sorry about earlier multiple posts, debug error occured and looked as if first one had not gone through?
> Audi news notes that combined mpg for diesel is 53.3mpg which conflicts with some other info I had.
> 
> If this is the case updated figures would be
> ...


An 3.6 p/mile for petrol over diesel I think I'd choose the petrol unless doing lots of motorway miles, where the savings would add up faster and you wouldn't really notice whether your in a diesel or a petrol.

But I say a diesel TT is a good thing the new engine is suppossed to be much smoother than the old 2.0 tdi,which was only really noticably rattly at tickover more so when cold. My A3 tdi cruised brilliantly only real noise in the cabin was the tyre roar.


----------



## TTRTWO (Dec 9, 2006)

ww1 said:


> sorry about earlier multiple posts, debug error occured and looked as if first one had not gone through?
> Audi news notes that combined mpg for diesel is 53.3mpg which conflicts with some other info I had.
> 
> If this is the case updated figures would be
> ...


The saving is a tad more as most Audi petrol cars need super unleaded.


----------



## Guest (Mar 4, 2008)

TTRTWO said:


> ww1 said:
> 
> 
> > sorry about earlier multiple posts, debug error occured and looked as if first one had not gone through?
> ...


Why?


----------



## sane eric (Jul 19, 2007)

TTRTWO said:


> ww1 said:
> 
> 
> > sorry about earlier multiple posts, debug error occured and looked as if first one had not gone through?
> ...


Does anyone think the TDi mpg will ever be realised? I get somewhere near 33-34 for my 2.0TTC against 36.7 above. Maybe it doesnt matter if they are equally optimistic.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

5th Gear had the golf bluemotion on last night to test the claimed 75mpg - They got low 40s. (42.9 from memory)

Normal VW marketing them - total bollox.


----------



## Guest (Mar 4, 2008)

DUO3 NAN said:


> TTRTWO said:
> 
> 
> > ww1 said:
> ...


Sorry, i'll try again, why do most Audi petrol cars need super unleaded?


----------



## TTRTWO (Dec 9, 2006)

Sorry, never saw your first reply. I don't know but I've had a selection of Audis' for ten years now and they always seem to have a greater tendancy to be recommended to run on super than BMWs/Mercs do.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

98RON is recommended for the turbo cars. Why performance, you need it to hit the claimed figures. Still works fine on normal stuff though.


----------



## TTRTWO (Dec 9, 2006)

Both the original TT petrol engines are built for 98:

http://www.audi.co.uk/audi/uk/en2/new_c ... t=8j3019_0


----------



## Guest (Mar 4, 2008)

TTRTWO said:


> Both the original TT petrol engines are built for 98:
> 
> http://www.audi.co.uk/audi/uk/en2/new_c ... t=8j3019_0


I rarely use it, no real economy difference, and if i remember correctly, its recommended because audi dont want to be replacing any component seals.


----------



## Snake Pliskin (Apr 11, 2006)

I can understand the 3.2 V6 being designed to run on super unleaded but unusual for the 2.0 T to state this ?

My Nissan 350z also stated super unleaded only and if you can't get that, just fill up with min' quantity of 95 ron until you can top up with super .. these were the official guidelines from Nissan.


----------



## Guest (Mar 4, 2008)

Snake Pliskin said:


> I can understand the 3.2 V6 being designed to run on super unleaded but unusual for the 2.0 T to state this ?
> 
> My Nissan 350z also stated super unleaded only and if you can't get that, just fill up with min' quantity of 95 ron until you can top up with super .. these were the official guidelines from Nissan.


Again, this is probably to save on car companies replacing inline seals within the 3 yr warranty period.

I throw a tank of super through my engine every 10 tanks, mainly to see if i can feel any difference in performance.
Nope, bugger all so far. :lol:


----------



## Snake Pliskin (Apr 11, 2006)

and what about SHELL then with their V-POWER Diesel :lol:


----------



## Guest (Mar 4, 2008)

Snake Pliskin said:


> and what about SHELL then with their V-POWER Diesel :lol:


Ive used both, in both my cars and my landrover.
Still no major difference.
Even ran them all for about 3 weeks,about two tanks each, my figures showed very little difference.

I have the figures on my laptop somewhere, ill try and post them later.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Picture from Geneva




























Nice Engine :roll: 









Full txt here.
http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/autoe ... _2008.html


----------



## TTRTWO (Dec 9, 2006)

So a straight through set of pipes - it looks no different to how a 2.0 litre petrol quattro will look then.

I must admit it sounds very quiet in the pics. :lol:


----------



## Guest (Mar 5, 2008)

TTRTWO said:


> So a straight through set of pipes - it looks no different to how a 2.0 litre petrol quattro will look then.
> 
> I must admit it sounds very quiet in the pics. :lol:


 :lol:


----------



## piloTT (Jan 19, 2004)

This should run quite happily on Jet fuel (Jet A1)..... and at only 50p/litre :wink:


----------



## Jimbo2 (Nov 30, 2006)

Picture of the interior.... looks like it's got the TTS' white DIS too.


----------



## Guest (Mar 7, 2008)

Jimbo2 said:


> Picture of the interior.... looks like it's got the TTS' white DIS too.


Whats that badge on the steering wheel?


----------



## Jimbo2 (Nov 30, 2006)

The car's got the full S-Line kit as far as I can see... but I didnt know that the white DIS was part of S-Line?


----------



## thebears (Jan 14, 2006)

anyone admitted to ordering one yet then?


----------



## Guest (Mar 7, 2008)

thebears said:


> anyone admitted to ordering one yet then?


I have.


----------



## Guest (Mar 7, 2008)

Not ordered one.


----------



## Snake Pliskin (Apr 11, 2006)

Jimbo2 said:


> Picture of the interior.... looks like it's got the TTS' white DIS too.


ha ha ha ... just spotted the RED LINE on the rev counter @ 4,500 rpm !

Go Diesel go :lol:


----------

