# magnetic ride worth the cost?



## markrbooth (Sep 25, 2006)

So what are people's opinion of magnetic ride? I was told by a local dealer the magnetic ride option can be switched on/off which sounds a waste of Â£1150 to me. However, a different dealer told me it is always on and merely firmed up in sport mode. This sounds far more worth my Â£1150 and makes me wonder if we, as early buyers, can afford not to spec it on our cars. Afterall, journalists only seem to have tested with it fitted so the TT 'might' handle rubbish without it and affect secondhand values as a result.

I'm almost ready to place my order with both local dealers quoting Jan/Feb delivery. Slightly revised spec now. Hoping for good trade in value on my Clio 172 in lieu of zilch discount.

2.0T, Petrol Blue, 18" turbines, magnetic ride, iPod, Bose, multi-function wheel, mineral grey leather + headed seats, storage pack, bluetooth*

* but was EXTREMELY impressed with the Parrot 3200 at the Paris motorshow.


----------



## JKL (Aug 26, 2006)

> I was told by a local dealer the magnetic ride option can be switched on/off which sounds a waste of Â£1150 to me. However, a different dealer told me it is always on and merely firmed up in sport mode


It's the latter, it can be switched between comfort and sport modes. I can't comment on the non MR suspension as I've not tried it, but I'm impressed with MR especially in comfort mode - excellent body control with a supple ride.


----------



## Bryn (Feb 12, 2004)

Hi there and welcome,

The subject of MR has been discussed at length on here and at first (and without being able to actually drive an MR equipped car) it looked like it could be just an expensive gimmick.

I ordered it before any test drive vehicles were available so it was a bit of a risk really. I went on what Evo had to say about it at the time and they had no negative comments. 
Now i've had the opportunity to drive an MR equipped car i'm well pleased that i took the option.

The bod that told you it was on all the time and you simply switch between modes (normal and Sport) was right. 
When you switch to sport mode it's like the car gets a bit of a prick with a needle and it tenses itself and feels more planted on the road, it's a cool system and I love the way it's switchable as well.

IMHO i'd drop BOSE and the rip off Xenons and spend the money on MR. I may be wrong but I really cant see BOSE or Xenon being a desirable option above MR and I think MR equipped MKII's will be more desirable in the future.


----------



## funky_chilli (Sep 14, 2006)

Bryn said:


> Hi there and welcome,
> 
> The subject of MR has been discussed at length on here and at first (and without being able to actually drive an MR equipped car) it looked like it could be just an expensive gimmick.
> 
> ...


i humbly disagree with that, i think BOSE or xenons are a desirable option because as more and more cars are beginning to come with them, in the future when cars are being sold without them, they will seem poor spec. whereas MR is such a new thing that they wouldn't really miss it? just a thought, of course if u can afford it, jsut get all three


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

You don't buy a car, with options another person maybe would like to have if you sell the car.

You oder the options, that YOU want to have.
If i must choose between Bose or MR, it's MR.

The press write good things abouth the system, and almost every pressscar has MR.
I think if there comes a faster TT, like the RS it will be standard on it., And maybe after 2-3 years it will be standard on the normal TT, if they upgrade the car.
MR will also be availble on the new A4.

I think that it isn't a waste of money, and you will find a buyer that only wants a TT with MR. Because the coming years, it will be apearing on more and more models. Just watch.
It's a typical Audi thing.....alway's looking for inovative features.

Also if you like a sporty way of driving, and you ain't afraid of a little bit off drifting with your TT, than you must take MR.
If you use the car only for going to work and buy in the weekend your shoppings, than maybe you can leave it off 8)


----------



## Bryn (Feb 12, 2004)

funky_chilli said:


> i think BOSE or xenons are a desirable option because as more and more cars are beginning to come with them, in the future when cars are being sold without them, they will seem poor spec. whereas MR is such a new thing that they wouldn't really miss it? just a thought, of course if u can afford it, jsut get all three


Yeah that's a fair point Chilli, but lets face it the TT is after all a sports coupe very much a 'drivers car'. 
Some bods will of course buy one just to pose in but most will be attracted by the performance of the car. 
Personally if I was in the market for a used one i'd be looking at a more 'Driver' focused spec rather than a more 'normal' spec, just my opinion of course


----------



## funky_chilli (Sep 14, 2006)

Rebel said:


> You don't buy a car, with options another person maybe would like to have if you sell the car.
> 
> You oder the options, that YOU want to have.


oh i totally agree with that
i was just pointing out that ppl may expect xenons and bose on a car, esp since xenons are getting so popular on higher end cars nowadays they expect it to be on something like a TT.
and if the standard system is so crap, then BOSE will definately help u sell ur car
but i agre, if i was to buy a new TT i'd get the MR too. hell i'd get all three


----------



## markrbooth (Sep 25, 2006)

Bryn said:


> Hi there and welcome,
> 
> The subject of MR has been discussed at length on here and at first (and without being able to actually drive an MR equipped car) it looked like it could be just an expensive gimmick.
> 
> ...


I think I'll stick with the Magnetic and Bose, but probably hold off on the bluetooth for a better after market option and totally ignore the xenon option.

As others have said, it's a total joke Audi want a small fortune for cruise control, rain sensitive wipers, and night sensitive xenon's .... all of which are currently standard kit (and have been for years) on the Clio 172/182 which I currently have and cost Â£13,500 new! I would like an auto dimming mirror though and you soon get used to the benefits of rain sensitive wipers and night sensitive xenon headlights


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

MR - I've ordered it and now after testing the new TT both with, and without MR i think its a waste of money - given the chance i'd drop it but it was too late for me to do that.

The best thing to do is go and test the cars for yourself - no one else can tell you what you like.
Bluetooth is very flaky - better option is parrot and it Â£350 cheaper, which just about pays for the Autopack you want.

As for the Clio's value, been a Renault - don't hold your breath

Renault Clio Renaultsport 172
2.0 Petrol 3-door Hatchback
5 Speed Manual Front Wheel Drive
Year: 2003 52
Mileage: 30,000

Part-exchange Price:
Excellent condition:
Â£5660
Average condition:
Â£5290
Below average condition: 
Â£4690


----------



## LazyT (Apr 13, 2006)

FWIW, in the latest edition of Audi Driver (10/2006), the MK2 is further explored. They emphatically recommend the Magnetic Ride (Â£1,150) in combination with the short shift manual transmission (Â£150) or Â£1,300 in total. 8) Conversely, DSG costs Â£1,400.  [/list][/code]


----------



## Chunk (Aug 12, 2006)

Test drove a non MR 3.2 at weekend and came to the conclusion that as I no longer do track days the ride was more than sufficient. It felt solid and stable so that will do for me. I managed to somehow break the spoiler as manually got it up and down but wondered why there was bleeping at high speed on m61 and noticed yellw spoiler light illuminated on rev counter. 
Also glad to have driven the stronic box, i know some people love it but i really do hate autos with there pre revving so glad went for manual. Loved the pick up on the box though - 80+mph before you knew it!!


----------



## vul3ck6 (Sep 26, 2006)

MR seems to be a wonderful option, every press recommend it but there is one thing I worry about Â¨reliabilityÂ¨. Of course, it's working then great, but if not.....it's not like the traditional suspension that you can just change one. It's 100 times more complicating, and that does worry me. When technology is working then it's great, if not it's going to be a nightmare. We always know the new model will be some defects after massive produce, I am more conservative about MR, also I am very happy to drive the traditional one, at least I know if I have problem with it I can fix it quickly.


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

yeah why don't buy a T-ford.....

Is this were *Audi* stands for?

I think a lot off people are driving a TT, not because it's a Audi, but because it's a sharp dressed model. if it was a toyota, they also buy the model.

For god's sake you've got 2 years waranty, and also after these two years, Audi never let me down. it's my 5 th Audi, and i never had discussions abouth waranty or replacement .

I know people who drive a standard supension within one year to hell....

I'm getting tired of all the people who won't pay the money for the things what the drivingfun realy upgrades, but do pay the money for Bose -ipod and other shit.
If you wont buy it, fine......but stop with other people overtalking to do also, based on one louzy testdrive from one hour, were you don't even know the car, or put the car on the limit.

MR is a adaptive suspension..........you will not notice it directly as a miracle or something, when you put it on "sport". only when you realy push the car to the limit than you will get the bennefit from the system.
But a lot off people see it as a "james-bond " gadget. They think if they just put the button, they will be micheal schumacher on a track. and that the car will lower 3 inches.

If you don;t know what youre are talking abouth, than "shut up" -------> (thx to Tosh) :wink:


----------



## LazyT (Apr 13, 2006)

Tell us what you really think Rebel.

Why do you care if someone opts for Bose rather than Magnetic Ride? A person should pay for the options from which he will derive the most pleasure. BTW, if you prefer a true driver's car, why did you select DSG over manual? :?


----------



## markrbooth (Sep 25, 2006)

Lazy T has a point here. Having driven both 3.2 DSG and manual it's no contest that the manual is the 'drivers' car. I hated the way the normal 'D' would change up a gear mid corner as you accelerated through it and lets face it, you're gonna be in D most of the time.

My local dealers only have the 3.2 with magnetic ride so I can't test without it. If it felt good enough with normal suspension I'd probably make do and save a grand.


----------



## T3 (Sep 24, 2006)

If its good enough for Ferrari, its good enough for a TT. (very similar system)


----------



## Bryn (Feb 12, 2004)

LazyT said:


> if you prefer a true driver's car, why did you select DSG over manual? :?


Probably for much the same reasons as I chose it - An STronic equipped car is faster than a manual - simply as that :wink:


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Rebel said:


> For god's sake you've got 2 years waranty, and also after these two years, Audi never let me down. it's my 5 th Audi, and i never had discussions abouth waranty or replacement .


we (UK) get three years :wink:


----------



## LazyT (Apr 13, 2006)

Bryn said:


> LazyT said:
> 
> 
> > if you prefer a true driver's car, why did you select DSG over manual? :?
> ...


That doesn't make it a true driver's car. It's the actually feel that the driver gets from shifting through the gears himself and not relying on an automatic transmission to to do that for him. Why else would a Porsche and Ferrari have manual trannys. If that were the case than a Lexus, because it can get you from Point A to point B, would also be a great driver's car. And we all know that it is a Luxury Vehicle and not a real driver's car.

That said. To each his own. Whatever make one happy. 8)


----------



## Wallsendmag (Feb 12, 2004)

I've been back fromthe states for a week and after driving an auto mustang for 3 weeks the last week in mine has been hell. Knowing that I am getting the s-tronic in three weeks time is great as driving out of work and through Newcastle of an evening is hard work .


----------



## Wallsendmag (Feb 12, 2004)

I've been back fromthe states for a week and after driving an auto mustang for 3 weeks the last week in mine has been hell. Knowing that I am getting the s-tronic in three weeks time is great as driving out of work and through Newcastle of an evening is hard work .


----------



## tehdarkstar (Jul 24, 2006)

markrbooth said:


> Lazy T has a point here. Having driven both 3.2 DSG and manual it's no contest that the manual is the 'drivers' car. I hated the way the normal 'D' would change up a gear mid corner as you accelerated through it and lets face it, you're gonna be in D most of the time.
> 
> My local dealers only have the 3.2 with magnetic ride so I can't test without it. If it felt good enough with normal suspension I'd probably make do and save a grand.


If you buy S-tronic, put it in D and always drive like that then yes, the manual is more of a drivers car. Why I bought it was because I can operate it manually without having to operate a clutch. On a race track, when you have to brake, downshift, steer, look at the mirrors, etc, everything together and in the shortest possible amount of time, switching gears on the paddle is a lot better. Why do you think that most of race cars nowadays are coming with semi-automated manual gearboxes?


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

is it to save the weight of the clutch pedal?


----------



## markrbooth (Sep 25, 2006)

tehdarkstar said:


> markrbooth said:
> 
> 
> > Lazy T has a point here. Having driven both 3.2 DSG and manual it's no contest that the manual is the 'drivers' car. I hated the way the normal 'D' would change up a gear mid corner as you accelerated through it and lets face it, you're gonna be in D most of the time.
> ...


I never intend to take mine on a track. If I want to race round a track I'd rather drive someone else's car


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

The man has a point.


----------



## tehdarkstar (Jul 24, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> is it to save the weight of the clutch pedal?


In my view the semi automated manuals with paddles save you two things: The operation of the clutch pedal (syncing it with the engine in very little time trying to get it right for the turn in) and taking the hands off the steering wheel. Keeping your hands on the wheel let you change gear slightly later, as you can start to turn in while downshifting...

Also, the S-tronic/DSG give you the VERY quick gearchanges, allowing you to wait until the last second to trigger it. I know I can't match the DSG times when changing gears on a manual gearbox.



markrbooth said:


> I never intend to take mine on a track. If I want to race round a track I'd rather drive someone else's car


Good point... I will track my car though, that's why I decided to get DSG. The question was that who wanted a drivers car shouldn't get DSG and I strongly disagree with that, as DSG gives you a lot of benefits when driving the car to the limit.


----------



## vul3ck6 (Sep 26, 2006)

One thing is very strange here....What do you mean TRUE DRIVER'S CAR? not quite understand, does it mean drive manual car is more professional? If it's true, why all the professional races are using paddle-shift gear, there is no doubt auto box is the furture. 
If you option for s-tronic on 3.2Q which is quicker and more fuel efficient than manual one. Also, it's wonderful when sitting in the traffic jam, the freedom of left foot, I am 100% willing to pay Â£1400 for that, it's heaven also fun listening to the gear change so quick.


----------



## ChrisC (Jul 6, 2006)

vul3ck6 said:


> One thing is very strange here....What do you mean TRUE DRIVER'S CAR? not quite understand, does it mean drive manual car is more professional? If it's true, why all the professional races are using paddle-shift gear, there is no doubt auto box is the furture.
> If you option for s-tronic on 3.2Q which is quicker and more fuel efficient than manual one. Also, it's wonderful when sitting in the traffic jam, the freedom of left foot, I am 100% willing to pay Â£1400 for that, it's heaven also fun listening to the gear change so quick.


The exact reason I went for DSG.

You can't compare a proper race box with DSG, they are totally different. Until VAG remove the software up change when you are in manual it wonâ€™t be the perfect tract accessory, but for me, a Friday night crawl round the M25 after 3 hours of drive make DSG the perfect companion and I wonâ€™t track day the TT anyway.


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

Toshiba said:


> Rebel said:
> 
> 
> > For god's sake you've got 2 years waranty, and also after these two years, Audi never let me down. it's my 5 th Audi, and i never had discussions abouth waranty or replacement .
> ...


LOL Tosh

You lucky bastards....alway's different... Maybe it's because with the UK driving style they even can give 6 years waranty


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

tehdarkstar said:


> markrbooth said:
> 
> 
> > Lazy T has a point here. Having driven both 3.2 DSG and manual it's no contest that the manual is the 'drivers' car. I hated the way the normal 'D' would change up a gear mid corner as you accelerated through it and lets face it, you're gonna be in D most of the time.
> ...


Very good point !

We had this discussion in different threads.


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

Since when was part of any definition of a "driver's car" that it should be easy or efficient to drive? Just because semi-auto boxes are now the norm in racing to gain an advantage does not make them the driver's choice.


----------



## JKL (Aug 26, 2006)

Back to Mag Ride, today's Autocar test of TT vs 335i vs Cayman (which the 335i wins btw) says ' ...the TT fidgets and rumbles and thumps its way along ...' and looking at the interior piccy, the test car has standard suspension.


----------



## markrbooth (Sep 25, 2006)

We, as drivers, don't drive/race on a track. We commute to and from work and go out for a cross country jaunt maybe on the way to visit relatives at the weekend. As much as I want to like the DSG I find it doing things I don't always like and at speed I find that disconcerting sometimes.

This is getting a bit OT but here's my personal experience of VW and Audi DSG test drives.

The DSG still feels like an automatic and, on my test drives, let me down badly when trying to go for a quick gap on a roundabout. Even the missus what shouting "what the f*ck" when she tried to pull out quickly on a roundabout. Admittedly, we were both in 'D' at the time but then you probably will find yourself in 'D' when you happen to need that quick getaway.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

JKL said:


> Back to Mag Ride, today's Autocar test of TT vs 335i vs Cayman (which the 335i wins btw) says ' ...the TT fidgets and rumbles and thumps its way along ...' and looking at the interior piccy, the test car has standard suspension.


I have ordered MR - IMO, they feel the same while in normal motion, in sports mode the car does crash more over pot hole/grates etc.

My advice - test the cars yourself back to back. very little in it unless you want to track the car at 140mph.

The best part of it is the 'sports mode on' you get come up on the dash and coloured calipers.  (anyone tempted to change the colour - looks a bit weedy in silver/grey?)


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

JKL said:


> Back to Mag Ride, today's Autocar test of TT vs 335i vs Cayman (which the 335i wins btw) says ' ...the TT fidgets and rumbles and thumps its way along ...' and looking at the interior piccy, the test car has standard suspension.


I have ordered MR - IMO, they feel the same while in normal motion, in sports mode the car does crash more over pot hole/grates etc.

My advice - test the cars yourself back to back. very little in it unless you want to track the car at 140mph.

The best part of it is the 'sports mode on' you get come up on the dash and coloured calipers.  (anyone tempted to change the colour - looks a bit weedy in silver/grey?)

Rebel
We get 3 years so AUK can charge us more.


----------



## merlot (Jul 26, 2006)

vul3ck6 said:


> One thing is very strange here....What do you mean TRUE DRIVER'S CAR? not quite understand, does it mean drive manual car is more professional? If it's true, why all the professional races are using paddle-shift gear, there is no doubt auto box is the furture.
> If you option for s-tronic on 3.2Q which is quicker and more fuel efficient than manual one. Also, it's wonderful when sitting in the traffic jam, the freedom of left foot, I am 100% willing to pay Â£1400 for that, it's heaven also fun listening to the gear change so quick.


I think people should buy what they want but there a couple of issues here. Firstly, with the mk1, road tests found the DSG to be slower than the manual; and, secondly, a number of 'auto' audis' are now listed as being more economical than the manual version when they are not (really). This is only because they have a high 6th gear. In the real world, the manual is more economic. I am not sure whether this applies to DSG, but it is certainly the case with tip in cars like the S4.


----------



## merlot (Jul 26, 2006)

vul3ck6 said:


> One thing is very strange here....What do you mean TRUE DRIVER'S CAR? not quite understand, does it mean drive manual car is more professional? If it's true, why all the professional races are using paddle-shift gear, there is no doubt auto box is the furture.
> If you option for s-tronic on 3.2Q which is quicker and more fuel efficient than manual one. Also, it's wonderful when sitting in the traffic jam, the freedom of left foot, I am 100% willing to pay Â£1400 for that, it's heaven also fun listening to the gear change so quick.


I think people should buy what they want but there a couple of issues here. Firstly, with the mk1, road tests found the DSG to be slower than the manual; and, secondly, a number of 'auto' audis' are now listed as being more economical than the manual version when they are not (really). This is only because they have a high 6th gear. In the real world, the manual is more economic. I am not sure whether this applies to DSG, but it is certainly the case with tip in cars like the S4.


----------



## merlot (Jul 26, 2006)

vul3ck6 said:


> One thing is very strange here....What do you mean TRUE DRIVER'S CAR? not quite understand, does it mean drive manual car is more professional? If it's true, why all the professional races are using paddle-shift gear, there is no doubt auto box is the furture.
> If you option for s-tronic on 3.2Q which is quicker and more fuel efficient than manual one. Also, it's wonderful when sitting in the traffic jam, the freedom of left foot, I am 100% willing to pay Â£1400 for that, it's heaven also fun listening to the gear change so quick.


I think people should buy what they want but there a couple of issues here. Firstly, with the mk1, road tests found the DSG to be slower than the manual; and, secondly, a number of 'auto' audis' are now listed as being more economical than the manual version when they are not (really). This is only because they have a high 6th gear. In the real world, the manual is more economic. I am not sure whether this applies to DSG, but it is certainly the case with tip in cars like the S4.


----------



## merlot (Jul 26, 2006)

markrbooth said:


> Even the missus what shouting "what the f*ck" when she tried to pull out quickly on a roundabout. Admittedly, we were both in 'D' at the time but then you probably will find yourself in 'D' when you happen to need that quick getaway.


I must go out and drive a DSG since my tip A8 4.2 pulls like a train from a standing start like at a r'about. Its even good at being gunned from 15-25 mph whilst slowing down for a r'about (where autos typically fail).

Possibly the poor road test times for the mk1 DSG centre around slow starting. Any thoughts?


----------



## biTTen (Sep 10, 2006)

DSG is more efficient then manual due to the fact that it has no power loss between gear changes, and the changes are so much faster. It has nothing to do with higher gearing.

The only people I've ever heard doubt the speed of DSG didn't take the car out of D...


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

biTTen said:


> DSG is more efficient then manual due to the fact that it has no power loss between gear changes, and the changes are so much faster. It has nothing to do with higher gearing.
> 
> The only people I've ever heard doubt the speed of DSG didn't take the car out of D...


I'm not sure that is true because for a diesel A3 the manual is more economical and has lower CO2 emissions than DSG. I have no idea why it should be the other way around for the 3.2.


----------



## markrbooth (Sep 25, 2006)

Karcsi said:


> biTTen said:
> 
> 
> > DSG is more efficient then manual due to the fact that it has no power loss between gear changes, and the changes are so much faster. It has nothing to do with higher gearing.
> ...


I think they assume the 3.2 will be driving itself round in 6th gear much more than you would choose to in a manual car. I generally get good economy from my driving style so will be interesting to see if I get closer to the DSG stats in my manual 3.2............... in two weeks time!!!!!


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

Toshiba said:


> The best part of it is the 'sports mode on' you get come up on the dash and coloured calipers.)


Tosh is this realy truth? I never noticed it when i saw the car with MR?
Why did they do that? 
Is it the same as on the new car from Steve?

And Steve, were are the reviews about MR ??
Please tell us all how great the adaptive suspension works :lol:

Steve??

Earth is calling planet Steve.......


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Rebel said:


> Toshiba said:
> 
> 
> > The best part of it is the 'sports mode on' you get come up on the dash and coloured calipers.)
> ...


Is which true? if you switch the modes it either says sports mode on, or sports mode off. Car defaults to sports mode when you turn it on.

Or do you mean the calipers? Demo cars for some reason didnt have this - its a dark silvers/light grey colour.


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

Tosh i mean the painted calipers. I didn't noticed that on my car, or on the demo. But i belive it if you say so. Why did they do that? 
So my new car (week 43) will have this also?


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

To show from the outside you have the MR option installed? :? I dont know. But i do know i dont like the grey colour with a silver car so i'm planning to paint mine black. (Dont want red - too loud)


----------



## biTTen (Sep 10, 2006)

Karcsi said:


> biTTen said:
> 
> 
> > DSG is more efficient then manual due to the fact that it has no power loss between gear changes, and the changes are so much faster. It has nothing to do with higher gearing.
> ...


Can't answer on the A3 TDI (it could well be gear ratios), but this should make things clear on the TT 3.2

CLICK


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

I simply don't understand why trundling around at any speed, with some changes in gear, would make one system so much more fuel efficient than the other. There is virtually no benefit to be gained from DSG in that sort of situation - you can just as easily quicking shift to a higher gear in a manual as the computer can with DSG. Probably more efficiently, actually, as you can see what the road layout and traffic is doing in front of you and the computer cannot.

I think Audi's figures are massaged beyond recognition in DSG's favour .


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

Toshiba said:


> To show from the outside you have the MR option installed? :? I dont know. But i do know i dont like the grey colour with a silver car so i'm planning to paint mine black. (Dont want red - too loud)


I never saw the colour for real on the calipers. How do you think you will paint them? one thing is for sure, the surface will be nice for a new paintjob. And proberly the best thing t do is when the car is new.

@ Steve .... can we get a larger picture from the painted calipers on your car with MR? Thx


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

erm - its just normal paint isnt it?  was just going to take the wheel off and get the brush out.


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

LOL

Please sent us the pictures if its done :lol:


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

thought of a problem - you dont get a jack in the new car. Looks like i'll be stuck with the grey.


----------



## neilholmes50 (Jul 15, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> erm - its just normal paint isnt it?  was just going to take the wheel off and get the brush out.


What about the heat generated from the disks etc when braking. Wont this burn and bubble normal paint?


----------



## TT Law (Sep 6, 2003)

Toshiba said:


> thought of a problem - you dont get a jack in the new car. Looks like i'll be stuck with the grey.


You do get a jack = at least I did?

Steve


----------



## TT Law (Sep 6, 2003)

The painted calipers are a bundled item for the UK. The European cars don't get it - it will be a cost option in the future. I personally certainly would not pay extra for it - the grey is just rubbish. If it was red/yellow it would really make it stand out.

Back on topic:

The MR really makes a difference. In 'Normal' mode the ride is compliant and even with my 19's on seems a lot more settled than the Mk1's I've owned. In 'Sports' it really firms up and the ride does get hard. You fell every imperfection on the road. The upside is when you are pushing the car a little you corner like its on rails. It just feels sporty.

At the end of the day the TT is not a true sports car but anything that helps to make it feel like one is worth the money in my opinion.

As Tosh said you do get an indication in the DIS when you switch the system on or off.

Rebel - I will try and post a close up picture for you.

Steve


----------



## JKL (Aug 26, 2006)

Regarding MR, completely agree with TT Law. Had the car for three and bit weeks now and convinced MR is well worth the money IMHO.


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

Thx Steve and JKL, glad to here this from some one else.

So the european car's won't get the grey painted calipers.
It was rather strange, because i dindn't notice them when i saw "my" first MK2.

Strange that Audi UK put this option to the MR.......
It's proberly because the neighours can't see that there is MR on the car ?

Steve those 19 inch reps, could you also get them in briliant silver like the orignals?

I like to see the "dark" version from you in a larger picture, i think that your colour wheels are better to clean.

Thx,

Rob


----------

