# Top Gear - 'The Three Coupe Challenge' discussion thread



## kmpowell (May 6, 2002)

As there is a special article on the show tonight, please discuss the article on this thread. This will save lots of other random threads starting and keep everybodys opinions in one place making it easier to read.


----------



## vagman (Sep 6, 2002)

Hammond- "The TT is a Golf in a fancy outfit" [smiley=zzz.gif]

It's got phuck all in common with a Golf, you Muppet.


----------



## djt2010 (Jan 16, 2007)

vagman said:


> Hammond- "The TT is a Golf in a fancy outfit" [smiley=zzz.gif]
> 
> It's got phuck all in common with a Golf, you Muppet.


Clarkson said the same thing about the Mk1


----------



## RAVEN TTR (Oct 21, 2004)

TT looked lovely on the track, from all angles 8)


----------



## koppernob (Nov 19, 2006)

Said nothing really, the Alfa was all over the track, and 5 seconds slower. TBH I like the Mazda as well as the TT, more practical for a family man but far too greedy for me, I draw the line at 22mpg commuting.


----------



## Gav150ttr (Sep 11, 2003)

What a bunch of muppets they are!

TT was not the best against those other two??

Shocking!


----------



## Gav150ttr (Sep 11, 2003)

kmpowell said:


> As there is a special article on the show tonight, please discuss the article on this thread. This will save lots of other random threads starting and keep everybodys opinions in one place making it easier to read.


What the r32 like mate?


----------



## fut1a (Dec 28, 2006)

What a load of rubbish. I often wonder why I watch Top Gear, or Fifth Gear for that matter because they are all about light entertainment than seriously testing cars.


----------



## Iceman (Jul 3, 2004)

I'm disappointed in the TT 2.0T based on what i saw on Topgear.
*Did they use the Magnetic ride during the fast lap. ?*
I think it was turn off because i thought the car was moving a lot and had a lot of roll, ducking and diving IMHO.
I always thought the car would be much more stable and level with Magnetic ride on during fast moving.
I have to evaluate the hole Magnetic Ride thing again because it looked not good IMHO.
The other thing is that no Audi tuner use it on there cars, not MTM, not Wimmer, not Abt.

Hans.


----------



## demi_god (Apr 7, 2006)

c'mon, it wasn't that bad.....they just don't want to be seen kissing the TT's slick smooth squared lamped ass....The writings on the wall.....just as long as you know how to read it. :wink:

Personally, i'm pleased with the way they "indirectly" said it's good... It means those who like an obvious statement (is it the best, yes or no) may not quite get it that the TT's a great car, and will buy a Bera....good luck to em, i say.


----------



## vagman (Sep 6, 2002)

Iceman said:


> I'm disappointed in the TT 2.0T based on what i saw on Topgear.
> *Did they use the Magnetic ride during the fast lap. ?*
> I think it was turn off because i thought the car was moving a lot and had a lot of roll, ducking and diving IMHO.
> I always thought the car would be much more stable and level with Magnetic ride on during fast moving.
> ...


Clarkson gave MR a lot of praise during his opening salvo and he is normally very critical of such things. :?

I'm still prepared to give it the benefit of the doubt.


----------



## MBK (Jan 25, 2004)

Hmm before you all get too downhearted the lap time for the new TT was a bit of a stunner: (selected list)

Subaru Impreza STI 1.30.1 
Vauxhall Monaro VXR 1.30.1 
Aston Martin DB7 GT 1.30.4 
Golf R32 1.30.4 
Audi S4 1.30.9 
Porsche 911 turbo 1.31.0 
Vauxhall VX 220 turbo 1.31.3 
*Audi TT 2.0T Mk 2 1.31.4* tonight
Honda NSX Type R 1.31.6 
BMW M3 1.31.8 
Nissan 350Z 1.31.8 
Mazda RX8 1.31.8 or *1.32.00 on this show*
BMW 535d 1.31.8 
BMW 130 1.31.9 
Ford Focus RS 1.32.2 
Mazda 6 MPS 1.32.2 
Lotus Esprit V8 1.32.5 
* Audi TT V6 1.32.7 * MK I V6 for comparison
MG ZT 1.33.0 
Mercedes SL 55 AMG 1.33.2 
Volkswagen Golf R32 1.33.2 
Jaguar XKR 1.34.7 
Ford Focus ST 1.34.9 
Vauxhall Vectra VXR 1.35.3 
Alfa 147 GTA 1.35.6 
Lotus Elise 1.35.6 
Renault Clio v6 1.36.2 
Honda Civic Type R 1.36.5

I would say the same time as a VX220 turbo is something to cheer about, slightlty faster than an M3 & 350Z (how much more power??) and 5 seconds faster than the old Civic Type R, impressive. I just wonder what time the 3.2 could post....the Cayman S posted a 1.26 - do you think it could match that.

Huge step forward for Audi in terms of handling if not in areas such as design and individuality.

Off to put the tracksuit on my cow...


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

McPowell, whe as MK2 driver's already had a Topgear thread.......where we discusses the programme, and where i posted my reaction and comment on the programme from tonight....

Why did you removed that thread and why did you put a new one under youre name on the forum?

My comment abouth the programma is also gone....

Nice moderating.....are you russian?


----------



## Alchemist (Feb 11, 2004)

The standard of driving round the track was shocking. The Alfa looked pregant and wallowy.

RX8 had the best track balance.

How expensive is the TT when laden with optional extras that should be standard  You are well into 3 series territory on that score.

At least the art critics made them sweat and I even found Hugh quite funny


----------



## Iceman (Jul 3, 2004)

MBK said:


> Hmm before you all get too downhearted the lap time for the new TT was a bit of a stunner: (selected list)
> 
> Golf R32 1.30.4
> 
> ...


I may hope it will be faster than the Golf R32's 1.30.4 min.
It's lighter and have the supposed awesome Magnetic Ride. ???
The TT 2.0T may did a fast time but it looked not good IMHO.
I lost a lot of confidence in MR tonight based on what i saw.

Hans.


----------



## ezzie (Jul 2, 2004)

Clarkson favoured the TT overall, and opted for the Brera on looks. To be honest difficult to argue with the looks of the brera, though to own we all opted for the TT as a far superior car and looks great too.

Are we sure the track car was the same as the road TT?. The road one was left hand drive, did anyone notice if the track one was the same. The time was stunning. I wonder how much faster the quattro version would be.


----------



## Arne (Dec 13, 2006)

This is what I found on the topgear site, but I was not able to see the program:

"Jeremy established that the new Audi TT is no longer just a VW Golf in a nice frock. James tried to persuade us that the Alfa Breraâ€™s soul and passion make up for its worrying lack of pace. And Richard argued that the Mazda RX-8 is the one to have, simply because you wonâ€™t find any in your local golf clubâ€™s car park."


----------



## DonaldC (May 7, 2002)

Iceman said:


> MBK said:
> 
> 
> > Hmm before you all get too downhearted the lap time for the new TT was a bit of a stunner: (selected list)
> ...


Hans I agree. I thought the TT would have looked more composed and flatter in the corners. Did one of the presenters not mention its nose dip at one point (they also mentioned this on the Brera)? I would have thought the MR would have excelled in this test.

I wonder if the test track car did not have the MR because of the cost, whereas the LHD car did have it. To me it did not look like MR was installed.

Donald


----------



## davidg (Sep 14, 2002)

ezzie said:


> Clarkson favoured the TT overall, and opted for the Brera on looks. To be honest difficult to argue with the looks of the brera, though to own we all opted for the TT as a far superior car and looks great too.
> 
> Are we sure the track car was the same as the road TT?. The road one was left hand drive, did anyone notice if the track one was the same. The time was stunning. I wonder how much faster the quattro version would be.


OK ! Just watched it again and , yes J C . was lhd , red leather mag ride etc ,,, stig , black leather uk , 06 reg ,, so who knows if it was mag ride , i would say no ???


----------



## mjbTT (Nov 11, 2006)

vagman said:


> Hammond- "The TT is a Golf in a fancy outfit" [smiley=zzz.gif]
> 
> It's got phuck all in common with a Golf, you Muppet.


...a strange thing to say, as Clarkson said exactly the opposite about 2 mins earlier :lol:

Whatever was said, and despite the waste-of-time (and very boring) golf and museum pieces, didn't the TT look fantastic [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

Personally, I just don't see what the appeal of the Alfa is - IMO, it looks like something out of the 80s - only thing that looked worse was it's handling on the track.

On balance, I'd say 'we' did quite well


----------



## digimeisTTer (Apr 27, 2004)

They asked the Scots about design and art :lol: :lol: :lol:

no offence


----------



## John C (Jul 5, 2002)

none taken, much :evil: :wink:


----------



## Iceman (Jul 3, 2004)

IMHO the TT was to much rolling, ducking and diving for having MR.
If it has MR it look not good ad all and not worth the money.

Hans.


----------



## Wallsendmag (Feb 12, 2004)

Iceman said:


> IMHO the TT was to much rolling, ducking and diving for having MR.
> If it has MR it look not good ad all and not worth the money.
> 
> Hans.


Anyone see the colour of the calipers? What time would a mr car have done?


----------



## markrbooth (Sep 25, 2006)

I agree, the TT looked terrible in the hammer head and went extremely wide (as wide as the Alfa!) for what is supposed to be an excellent handing FWD car. My first thought was that MR was not on this car. I thought MR and DSG would make the TT extremely smooth and level in the corners and it was far from that.

I noticed the studio car had the 18" standard 3.2 tyres on it, I think.


----------



## Calibos (Mar 28, 2004)

The Brera to me looks like a hatchback. A futuristic ultra modern looking hatchback in the Honda civic vein but a hatchback nonetheless. Doesn't do a thing for me. Same goes for the Mazda. I know I am looking at an RX8 when I see one on the road buts its not a car I look over my shoulder to look at or track in my mirrors like I would if a TT, Porsche, RS4, Aston etc drove past.


----------



## snapperpete (Apr 8, 2006)

djt2010 said:


> vagman said:
> 
> 
> > Hammond- "The TT is a Golf in a fancy outfit" [smiley=zzz.gif]
> ...


Hammond was wrong, but when Clarkson made the comment about the MK1 he was correct....the reason I didn't buy a mk1, but can't wait to get my mk2...roll on March 1st!


----------



## Philr (Oct 10, 2006)

I think most people who watched would have been left with the impression that the TT was the better car overall.

Clarkson was complimentary about the 2.0 TT although a little less so about its 'bigger brother'.


----------



## Johnnywb (May 31, 2006)

Philr said:


> I think most people who watched would have been left with the impression that the TT was the better car overall.
> 
> Clarkson was complimentary about the 2.0 TT although a little less so about its 'bigger brother'.


Not sure about that, he kept mentioning that the 2.0 was he baby of the range and he made 1 comment about the 3.2, which wasn't quantified with anything.


----------



## filler (Jan 3, 2007)

Hi,

I watched the show fully expecting them all to go for the Alfa and to slate the TT as being a "hairdresser's" car (which is the ribbing I get on a daily basis). Clarkson clearly likes the new TT an awful lot though - in fact, he used the same language as Fifth Gear used when reviewing the car, i.e. that it's now a "proper sports car".

I thought it looked really good going round the track. It was bound to pitch and roll, and given that we have to use these cars on the road I'm glad that it has some give in the suspension ;-)

I've never liked the Brera very much TBH and I think the GT is a far better looking car. I test drove one but walked away when I saw the "quality" of the paint work on it (which was shocking). The GT has the proper Alfa 3.2 V6 as well and makes a stonking noise.


----------



## demi_god (Apr 7, 2006)

You Tube for those that missed it, or wanna see it again





 Part 1





 Part 2

View the Stig (part 2) @
6.01/10 RX8
6.53/10 Brera
7.42/10 TT


----------



## Philr (Oct 10, 2006)

Johnnywb said:


> Philr said:
> 
> 
> > I think most people who watched would have been left with the impression that the TT was the better car overall.
> ...


Well in terms of being the 'baby' he said it was more technical, more aggresive and now a proper sportscar. He also made a comment in comparison to the 3.2 - cant recall the wording but basically saying the 2.0 T, in his opinion, was the better car.


----------



## snapperpete (Apr 8, 2006)

â€œonly the 2 litre one remember, just the baby, the V6 actually is nowhere near as good as thisâ€ thats what Clarkson said...don't shoot the messenger


----------



## fluffekins (Jan 20, 2007)

Would like to shoot Clarkson ! I'm sure the Quattro would have handled the hammer head better than the fwd.

I looked at the 3.2 Brera too. I agree that it looks good, but if money is an object (which it must be otherwise we would not be buying a TT at all) and service an issue (I waited an hour for a test drive of the Brera) not to mention build quality and dynamics, then there really is only one choice.


----------



## Janker (Oct 27, 2006)

If your keen to know if the TT they used for the track had MR - look at the registration number on the Youtube video and ring your local dealer and ask them to have a look at the car on the Audi dealer system - it will list all the spec of that exact car on the screen!

I can't see Youtube from work ('Surfscout' :evil so I can't do it myself - anyone fancy giving it a shot?

Must confess I don't reckon it had MR or sports suspension - that dive when he hit the brakes was huge!


----------



## Arne (Dec 13, 2006)

Even if it had MR, we don't know what mode it was in.... :wink:


----------



## VeeDubDan (May 6, 2006)

I for one struggle to call the Alfa a "coupe"! It looks more like a hatch back to me! :?

As for the Mazda, my sister in law has had one from new and it's had it's engine replaced once and just recently it was taken away on a trailer when the engine fooked up again!

I'm with the general opinion that the track TT did not have MR. Mind you it was still better than the Alfa. It's wing mirrors were touching the ground in the corners! :lol:


----------



## octagonmike (Oct 15, 2006)

I Thought that the review was pointless on Topgear last night.

Firstly choosing a car by looks is very common for most people who know little about the way a car actually works etc and I for one will immediately hold my hands up and admit I fall into that camp.

Secondly reliability is by far the most important for me and I have owned 3 audis to date and have had no reliabiity roblems whatsoever.

The Alfa certainly is an attractive car but is basically a three door hatchback not a coupe. The RX8 is in my opinion a real ugly mother of a car and its interior is cheap and nasty.

The Audi has it all, style, class and reliability.

As for how it handles on a track I couldn't give a monkeys because I will not be taking my 32k car anywhere near a track or slinging it around sharp bends at 80 mph.

The car satisfies everything I want and to be honest the fact that those 3 geeks didn't choose it as their favourite is a relief. If they think something is cool then trust me its not. The nerdiest and totally uncool trio you will ever find.


----------



## Janker (Oct 27, 2006)

VeeDubDan said:


> I for one struggle to call the Alfa a "coupe"! It looks more like a hatch back to me! :?
> 
> I'm with the general opinion that the track TT did not have MR. Mind you it was still better than the Alfa. It's wing mirrors were touching the ground in the corners! :lol:


Yeah - and they should have had clumps of Â£20 notes being flung out of the Alfa's window as it drove round to represent the deprecation!! :lol:


----------



## SoTTonSoph (Sep 5, 2006)

Top Gear confuses me, they seem to always do the most random tests with cars which really shouldn't go together.

Clarkson's DVD released this Xmas where he goes to America is full of comparisons that don't really work, and while I (sort of :? ) understand why they picked the cars they did last night, I wouldn't ever personally have considered buying the Mazda or the Alfa as a TT alternative.

Despite any of the negative comments, watching the film just made me want a new one..unfortunately my budget will not stretch that far quite yet!


----------



## TheLaird (Nov 17, 2006)

Don't expect any informed comment from the Top Gear team. It's not a programme for people who are serious about the cars they choose to buy for everyday use. It's a light entertainment programme. That's the reason why I continue to watch it, because it's sometimes mildly amusing. In their pointless track tests, they are allowing the viewing punters to fantasise about, for example, driving a Veyron at 407 km/hr. Any opinions expressed are of the "bar-room bigot" variety - not to be taken seriously.


----------



## Arne (Dec 13, 2006)

TheLaird said:


> Don't expect any informed comment from the Top Gear team. It's not a programme for people who are serious about the cars they choose to buy for everyday use. It's a light entertainment programme. That's the reason why I continue to watch it, because it's sometimes mildly amusing. In their pointless track tests, they are allowing the viewing punters to fantasise about, for example, driving a Veyron at 407 km/hr. Any opinions expressed are of the "bar-room bigot" variety - not to be taken seriously.


I agree with you. You have to look at this program for what it's supposed to be - a light entertainment show, and not a "serious car program" that only brings out facts and objectivity.

And for entertainment, I think the program is good :wink:


----------



## Smeermaas (Jan 22, 2007)

So has there been a TV-show doing a serious review of the new TT then?


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

And yet, in December:



> Prized Top Gear Award For New Audi TT CoupÃ©
> 
> History repeats itself as new TT CoupÃ© scoops BBC Top Gear Best CoupÃ© Award five years after its predecessor
> 
> ...


----------



## VeeDubDan (May 6, 2006)

Mind you at least Top Gear didn't do the power sliding test like 5th Gear!! Bunch of tools! :lol:


----------



## markrbooth (Sep 25, 2006)

VeeDubDan said:


> Mind you at least Top Gear didn't do the power sliding test like 5th Gear!! Bunch of tools! :lol:


And with the quattro with some of the traction control still on. Muppets.


----------



## markrbooth (Sep 25, 2006)

Arne said:


> TheLaird said:
> 
> 
> > Don't expect any informed comment from the Top Gear team. It's not a programme for people who are serious about the cars they choose to buy for everyday use. It's a light entertainment programme. That's the reason why I continue to watch it, because it's sometimes mildly amusing. In their pointless track tests, they are allowing the viewing punters to fantasise about, for example, driving a Veyron at 407 km/hr. Any opinions expressed are of the "bar-room bigot" variety - not to be taken seriously.
> ...


I think their section testing cars on their track tells you a lot about each car's performance characteristics and is as good as any other more serious program. The rest is light entertainment though and deliberately attempting to break the mould of the boring drivel of standard car programs.


----------



## ctgilles (Jul 5, 2005)

Iceman said:


> I'm disappointed in the TT 2.0T based on what i saw on Topgear.
> *Did they use the Magnetic ride during the fast lap. ?*
> I think it was turn off because i thought the car was moving a lot and had a lot of roll, ducking and diving IMHO.
> I always thought the car would be much more stable and level with Magnetic ride on during fast moving.
> ...


I was thinking the same, couldn't be engaged now could it? :?


----------



## ronin (Sep 6, 2003)

Mazda looked the most fun on the track.
Can't beat RWD goodness.


----------



## markrbooth (Sep 25, 2006)

ronin said:


> Mazda looked the most fun on the track.
> Can't beat RWD goodness.


Agreed, the stig seemed to enjoy the RX8 on the track the most. I'll remember to put it on my short list next time I'm in the market for a track car.


----------



## TheGrimmestReaper (Jan 16, 2007)

Just to reiterate - TG is a light entertainment show and a damn fine one at that. It's the last bastion of free speech and I adore and share JC's hatred of political correctness. This piece was purely an excuse to get on a golf course and have a laugh - I suspect from it's thin content they were a little short of material for the show tbh.

Anyway the point is we don't spend Â£30k+ on a car to get us from A to B, a a bus does that, we spend stupid amounts of money on cars that make us smile inside and out. The new TT does that for me - the rest of it is just looking for peer approval that I made the right choice to burn that much cash!

P.S I also own a Golf GT 1.4TSI which JC said was as smooth as falling downstairs with calipers on! I disagree but it sure made me laugh. :lol:


----------



## TheLaird (Nov 17, 2006)

markrbooth said:


> Arne said:
> 
> 
> > TheLaird said:
> ...


I hear what you're saying, but:
Although track testing has it's place, it's on the road that we mostly use our cars - complete with all the potholes, surface imperfections etc which are part of real world motoring. The practical issues are rarely covered nowadays.
As for the "boring drivel of standard car programmes", there just aren't any standard car programmes any more. In fact I think there's a huge gap waiting to be filled now - by a straight motoring programme which would do an honest and thorough comparison of the three coupes that were featured last night. Instead of which we get Clarkson, May and Hampster pratting about on a golf course.
Hurumph - I've finished now [smiley=argue.gif]


----------



## mikeyinhk (Jun 5, 2006)

Sorry guys, seeing those 3 tw*ts, driving on a golf course, and doing what exactly in a sweaty sock museum- call that entertainment-please!

Lets say I was a genuine punter with Â£20k+ burning a hole in my pocket, and I had shortlisted those 3 cars, and tuned in hoping to see a comparison!! End up watching w*nker clarkson in rupert the bear trousers!

The programme in neither informative or entertainment.

Why do i watch it, i hear you ask...........i just like my cars!


----------



## ravihira (Oct 14, 2006)

when i was looking around for a new car, i did initially consider the mazda rx8, but quickly went of the idea after reading about some of the issues and regular maintenance it needs due to its wankel engine.

The mazda needs al least 1 litre of oil adding every month, if not sooner !, and the other big issue i read about was how the engine can flood if not left running for at least 5 minutes. (therefore if you wanted to take it out of the garage and onto your drive for a clean, you would need to leave the engine running for quite a while). There were major stories on other forums about the car having to be towed to the dealer to get the engine sorted, if it get flooded.

As for the Alfa, it doen't even look like a coupe and them depreciation values will hit you hard with this model. Also reliability apparently is a major issue with all the Alfa brand.

That leaves, the one and only TT Mk2...the only car worth considering in that bunch.

they should have tested a nissan 350z and the Z4 coupe against the new 3.2 TT. That would have been a good comparison.


----------



## d246 (Jul 12, 2006)

I traded my rx8 in for the new TT. Whilst delighted with the TT, I do miss the RWD and the 9500rpm scream!

Also, I never once had a problem with flooding and Â£10 on oil every 1500 miles was no big deal. The problem was sub 20mpg. A flaw in an otherwise enjoyable and unique car.


----------



## Alchemist (Feb 11, 2004)

d246 said:


> I traded my rx8 in for the new TT. Whilst delighted with the TT, I do miss the RWD and the 9500rpm scream!
> 
> Also, I never once had a problem with flooding and Â£10 on oil every 1500 miles was no big deal. The problem was sub 20mpg. A flaw in an otherwise enjoyable and unique car.


Agreed. The RX8 is not only a proper drivers car, it pass as a decent 4 seater when required.

I've debated this before, so I'm not going to again, but reliability is not a problem of the RX8, its fantastic. I've owned mine for over 3 years and the car and dealer have been excellent. 

The same cannot be said for the Golf GTi (1.8T) we also own. The Golf costs more to run than the RX8, for any given 12 months, and its been back the the dealer an acceptible amount of times. Plus its no GTi :evil:

IMHO, the new TT looks worse than the old one.


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

Alchemist said:


> d246 said:
> 
> 
> > I traded my rx8 in for the new TT. Whilst delighted with the TT, I do miss the RWD and the 9500rpm scream!
> ...


This is not meant to be inflammatory, but how much is your RX8 worth now and how much did you pay for it?


----------



## Alchemist (Feb 11, 2004)

Â£22k now Â£12K, in 3 glorious years. I have driven the "old" TT, which never came close.

How much to spec an equivalent TT at that time and see its value in 3 years time? Add in 3 years of no fun.

Its about driver enjoyment, and neither the Alfa (glorified hatchback) nor the TT offer it as much as the 8. The 8 is not perfect either but in everyday driving, it wins.

I know its frustrating, but I have driven the new TT and compared it to a new Golf GTi, fundamentally, similar cars. I was astonished the the Golf was the better car. One of these cars is to replace our Golf, but others remain on the list to try.

Audi will have a sales success on their hands, no doubt, but there is no yearning, in my camp to have one.

Top Gear, again have not been conclusive which they preferred, but that Top Gear PC for you.


----------



## Philr (Oct 10, 2006)

But what about the slightly 'odd' looks. The cheap/poor interior plastics?

I test drove an RX8 two years ago - I was going to trade in my Octavia VRS - but after a test drive it did not impress at all. As always each to his own but the RX8 is Golf GTI/Civic Type R competitor.

The very poor petrol consumption and contstant need for oil just make it almost a joke - they donâ€™t even make oil tops ups easy (poor access).

The TT has to be one of the best looking cars on the road, fast, uses the latest technology etc; the two donâ€™t compare.


----------



## trentend (Apr 14, 2006)

Brera concept - near perfection. Brera reality - fat arsed hatch back. Shame.


----------



## jam225 (Jun 24, 2003)

Alchemist said:


> I know its frustrating, but I have driven the new TT and compared it to a new Golf GTi, fundamentally, similar cars. I was astonished the the Golf was the better car.


 :roll: Speaking as an owner of both the Mk5 GTI and TT MK2 I cannot believe what your're saying. Did you actually DRIVE both the cars ?, they couldn't offer more different driving experiences if they tried.

My first MK2 TT experience was a 2.0T test drive and I thought it kicked the ass off the golf in terms of balance, handling and roadholding, it just felt so much more planted than the GTI 8)

Dont get me wrong I think that the GTI is a well sorted hot hatch (thats why I kept it :wink: ) but the MK2 TT is on a whole different level, especially in 3.2 guise 8)

As per the TG conclusion if I were a brave man I'd have went for the Alfa based on looks alone, but as an overall ownership experience the TT wins it hands down for me every time 8)


----------



## coley (Oct 2, 2006)

I had a RX8 for 18 months before swopping for the TT. The TT is quicker in a straight line but in my opinion the brakes and handling are way short of the RX8 in comparison. I was surprised the TT was quicker around the track based on this and as the original track time for the RX8 was against the Nissan 350Z which has quite a bit more power than the RX8 but posted exactly the same time.

I never had any problems with the engine, build quality etc. and fully enjoyed driving the car. The only major downside for me was the sub 20mpg no matter how you drove the car.

The new TT looks alot better in my opinion than the RX8 and is a bit more classy. I also do not think the 3.2 would post a faster lap, if you take the 350Z or the M3 as an examples of cars with more power but are heavier and obviously less agile. Power isn't everything its obviously the overall package when you look at the lap times  This may probably be the reason why most journo's/mags prefer the 2.0 to the 3.2 :?:


----------



## blagman (Sep 11, 2006)

jam225 said:


> Alchemist said:
> 
> 
> > I know its frustrating, but I have driven the new TT and compared it to a new Golf GTi, fundamentally, similar cars. I was astonished the the Golf was the better car.
> ...


Spoken from a man who Knows his stuff 8) not three half wit journalists who do not now there arse from there elbow


----------



## tehdarkstar (Jul 24, 2006)

But guys, regardless of what the three said in the program, the TT made the lap in 1.30.1!!!

For an FWD car with a 2.0 engine and 197bhp its REALLY good! It's quicker than cars like Audi S4, BMW M3, Aston Martin DB7 GT, Golf R32 and many, many others like Nissan 350Z and Porsche 911 Turbo... That IS something! Even more if the car didn't have Magnetic Ride.

I'm well impressed and when I got to mine this morning I just smiled, knowing that if needed, it would kick some back sides... :lol:


----------



## Speed Racer (May 21, 2006)

coley said:


> I had a RX8 for 18 months before swopping for the TT. The TT is quicker in a straight line but in my opinion the brakes and handling are way short of the RX8 in comparison. I was surprised the TT was quicker around the track based on this and as the original track time for the RX8 was against the Nissan 350Z which has quite a bit more power than the RX8 but posted exactly the same time.
> 
> I never had any problems with the engine, build quality etc. and fully enjoyed driving the car. The only major downside for me was the sub 20mpg no matter how you drove the car.
> 
> The new TT looks alot better in my opinion than the RX8 and is a bit more classy. I also do not think the 3.2 would post a faster lap, if you take the 350Z or the M3 as an examples of cars with more power but are heavier and obviously less agile. Power isn't everything its obviously the overall package when you look at the lap times  This may probably be the reason why most journo's/mags prefer the 2.0 to the 3.2 :?:


On your RX8 assesment, spot on. I've had 3 rotary powered cars (all 3 generations of RX-7s). All RWD of course. They are going to outdrive any FWD car. Problem with the RX8 was all the lost time with wheel spin (same with the M3's time...and that's why the much heavier S4 kicked its butt).

Build quality on Mazda rotaries is always good. As for the motor, well it's bulletproof. 3 moving parts...that's it! It's indestructable (as long as you're feeding it oil). The motor has no redline. It'll spin as fast as you can make it spin. The redline is due to the transmission/drivetrain. NASA got a stock 12A rotary to 20,000 rpms in the 70s. Racing Beat can mod rotaries to death. Gas mileage will never be good...6 power pulses per 1 single crank rotation. That's a lot of gas being fed to the motor.

3.2 should lap faster as it won't lose time with all that disgusting understeer in the 2.0T. It'll just grip and go. Extra weight won't affect anything. Brakes are important for lap times too and if you add up all the things about the 3.2 it'll go quicker. Add a Haldex PP controller (second generation) for the Quattro and it'll do even better as it won't need wheelspin to push power to all 4 wheels.


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

hahaha,speedracer therefore the times in the real car-magazines from different tracks are the proof?

http://www.fastestlaps.com/

just as all the talk abouth the nurburgring, where no-one from the dutch and german forum's knows you or youre car, this again is in the same context.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Audi TT 3.2 quattro vs Mazda RX-8 
Power Lap Times 
Track TT 3.2 quattro RX-8 
Vairano testtrack 1:23.774 1:24.546 
Oschersleben 1:50.82 1:56.14

Specs 
Discipline TT 3.2 quattro RX-8 
Max speed 155 m/h (250 km/h) - 
0-60 mph acceleration 5.9 
Power/weight ratio 0.18 0.18

Summary 
Discipline TT 3.2 quattro RX-8 
Track Performance 99 points 94 points 
Straight line speed 18 points 18 points 
Total 117 112

The Answear 
Audi TT 3.2 quattro is noticeably faster.

Audi TT 2.0 TFSI vs Mazda RX-8 
Power Lap Times 
Track TT 2.0 TFSI RX-8 
Top Gear Track 1:31.4 1:31.8

Specs 
Discipline TT 2.0 TFSI RX-8 
Max speed 150.66 m/h (243 km/h) - 
0-60 mph acceleration 6.6 
Power/weight ratio 0.16 0.18

Summary 
Discipline TT 2.0 TFSI RX-8 
Track Performance 63 points 63 points 
Straight line speed 16 points 18 points 
Total 79 81

The Answear 
Mazda RX-8 is a bit faster.


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

Does your dog bite Tosh?


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Dog - thats me!


----------



## TTdriver (Sep 2, 2006)

Basically the programme in my eyes said that the MK1 was crap and the MK2 isnt that much better ho hum who gives a s--t as the bucatti was the best car on the programme :roll:


----------



## JAAYDE (Aug 15, 2006)

MBK said:


> Subaru Impreza STI 1.30.1
> Vauxhall Monaro VXR 1.30.1
> Aston Martin DB7 GT 1.30.4
> Golf R32 1.30.4
> ...


i never understood why the didn't use the 225 or QS rather than the 3.2 which is not as quick as either around the track.. :?


----------



## Speed Racer (May 21, 2006)

JAAYDE said:


> MBK said:
> 
> 
> > Subaru Impreza STI 1.30.1
> ...


Those times mean very little, other than for sensationalized journalism. All the cars use different tires, the times are set on different days in different weather and temps (summer through winter, dry/wet/damp), and the cars may not even represent the quickest version of its own type based on the way the test car is equipped. There have been different "Stigs." You also have no idea if driving aids are used, or not used, used on some and not all??? All it proves is that on a given day a Stig lapped their track and the best time attained was what is posted. I agree they are a decently close approximation of what the car can do when pushed to the limit and when all other times are tossed out in favor on the single best, but those times are certainly not a controlled test by any means. At least most reputable magazines adjust 1/4 miles times for weather conditions.


----------



## Speed Racer (May 21, 2006)

Rebel said:


> hahaha,speedracer therefore the times in the real car-magazines from different tracks are the proof?
> 
> http://www.fastestlaps.com/
> 
> just as all the talk abouth the nurburgring, where no-one from the dutch and german forum's knows you or youre car, this again is in the same context.


What's it like to have an IQ in the double digits???


----------

