# Any got any Audi TT RS Vbox acceleration times?



## Gibbo205 (Dec 22, 2010)

Hi there

Am considering a change of car, am currently driving an EVO X FQ-360 running just shy of 400BHP due to a turbo back Milltek exhaust system.

What I am interested in is any figures you guys can provide for say stock TT RS, Stage 1 TT RS and Stage 2 TT RS please.

For comparison the EVO X FQ-360 stock (20c Summers day):-

30-70mph =3.9s (2nd - 3rd gear)
60-100mph = 5.6s (4th gear)

Now EVO X FQ-360 with Milltek Turbo Back System (5c winters day):-

30-70mph = 3.5s (2nd-3rd gear)
60-100mph = 4.8s (4th gear)

For comparison sake the EVO X can supposedly hit 60mph in 4.1s, best I've managed with launch control is 4.4s and it hits clutch hard so I tend to launch the car gently which is circa 4.8s and 0-100mph time depending on launch is circa 9.6-10.5s.

Would be interesting to see the kind of numbers you guys are getting from your TT RS and what mods you have done. Oh and all my figures were done on a Performance Box. 

Lastly has anyone here driven/owned an EVO, even better an EVO X? If so how does the handling compare between the two please?

Thanks in advance for any help anyone can give.


----------



## LEO-RS (Apr 13, 2009)

A German magazine has just tested 0-62 in 3.9 secs ( 60 in 3.6/7 ) and 0-100 in 9.3s on an S-Tronic car. Not seen any remapped S-Tronic cars yet. As to manual cars, JonnyC has recorded a 3.15 0-60 and 11.6 1/4m in stage 2 trim standard turbo (430-450hp).

There's a chap on here who vbox's his S1 car who will help you out with some specific mid range figures. These things are quick, S2 TTRS car up against an M5 with 570hp at a recent vmax day...






vmax - 181mph .. viewtopic.php?f=19&t=186967&p=1888758&hilit=mrdemon#p1888758

As to TTRS vs Evo....Simply biased myself but there's no hesitation for me, TTRS all the way. (Fuel economy 31mpg, tax £225, it's cheap to insure, service and run. Looks comes down to personal taste but again there's no contest for me, outside and inside, the TT is streets ahead. (Jap crap interiors are horrendously bad) Residuals, image, god i can go on all day.


----------



## LEO-RS (Apr 13, 2009)

Here is the German article...

http://www.autobild.de/artikel/gross-ge ... 16415.html

Beats the new RS5 with significantly less (335 vs 450) The 2.5T engine is an absolute gem with the way it delivers its power, peak torque between 2000-5000rpm. Aerodynamics and lighter weight obviously help a lot too.

This thread may help you in what you need, consider intake temps from Aug/Sept...

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=182177&hilit=+vbox


----------



## mrdemon (Apr 20, 2005)

Now EVO X FQ-360 with Milltek Turbo Back System (5c winters day):-

30-70mph = 3.5s (2nd-3rd gear)
60-100mph = 4.8s (4th gear)

they are very very fast times.  did you have a tail wind :wink: 
Any way as said it's the running costs that got me into it, 20k services, £225 tax ave 24 mpg on motorway 35mpg.

peak figures I have stage 1 tune are

40-60 mph 1.3 in 2nd gear
60-80 mph 1.9 in 3rd gear

here are my standard and tuned 3rd and 4th gear times

standard 3rd gear
40-60 - 2.2 seconds
50-70 - 2.39 seconds
60-80 - 2.58 seconds

Now I have had fitted the 2nd decat pipes a new pannel filter and the REVO map.

Tuned 3rd gear times all run the same as before
40-60 - 1.82 seconds
50-70 - 1.84 seconds
60-80 - 1.99 seconds

here are my 4th gear times standard.
60-80 - 3.22
70-90 - 3.43
80-100 - 3.64

tuned
60-80 - 2.56
70-90 - 2.71
80-100 - 2.92


----------



## mrdemon (Apr 20, 2005)

quote
"so I tend to launch the car gently which is circa 4.8s and 0-100mph time depending on launch is circa 9.6-10.5s."

about the same

I got 4.7 on a normal launch and about the same to 100mph, it's hard to get a good 100mph time as it does not hit it in 3rd gear. I think the S-tronic saves 3/10th on gear change and keeping the car on boost so 1 second quicker to 100mph over manual.

I did one dropped clutch lauch once got 0-30mph in 1.68 seconds 

here is an example at vmax with slow launches


----------



## LEO-RS (Apr 13, 2009)

Mrdemon..

I think you should get out and try these figures again as temperature obviously plays a significant factor. Your runs were done end of Aug beginning of Sept, intake temps easy 20c+.

Give it a go now with -10c and you'll be flying.


----------



## mrdemon (Apr 20, 2005)

yes it will prob make a change 40-100 in 4th i'll give it a go when the snow has gone.

but i went out and did a quick 40-60 in 2nd gear to try and get 1.2 and it was the same, in fact it was 1.4 :lol:

So I guess these temps just help the car on longer runs, and help you keep the BHp you already have.

The car always feels faster in the cold that's for sure, but did you know it's harder to push the car though the dense air.

I always get the car to 95+ oil temp so a slow 5 mile route then do the tests, so the cars not over heated in any way.

I would have put money on getting 1.2 but alass it was not to be.

Hence I am chomping at the bit to vbox a stage 2 car.

I might clean the car down and do a 60-100mph run in 4th today now lol.


----------



## Gibbo205 (Dec 22, 2010)

mrdemon said:


> yes it will prob make a change 40-100 in 4th i'll give it a go when the snow has gone.
> 
> but i went out and did a quick 40-60 in 2nd gear to try and get 1.2 and it was the same, in fact it was 1.4 :lol:
> 
> ...


Hi mate

Can I be cheeky and ask if you can do two runs please:-
30-70mph in 2nd-3rd 
60-100mph in 4th

Obviously conduct such test in a safe manner on private land. 

What BHP is your car running and what exactly does Stage 1 and 2 cost, plus what is involved?


----------



## LEO-RS (Apr 13, 2009)

Stage 1 is just a remap. All below will get you to around 400-410bhp /400-410 lbft.

Bluefin £445
Custom Code £450
Revo £820
Sportec £1000

APR have just brought out a map promising 405bhp/460lft but when you look at the map, the torque is up and down unlike the others where its fairly steady throughout the rev range. Unsure of cost on this

Stage 2 is TBE Milltek race, cost at the moment is fairly expensive at £1650. Induction is fine, just pop a panel filter in there. (Intercooler will obviously help maintain peak power in the summer months but not a necessity for S2)

Milltek exhaust and S2 map should see the car with a healthy 430-440bhp. (450 on an optimistic dyno)

So all in to get the car from standard 335hp upto 430-450hp, it should cost you no more than £2.2k if you go with the custom code software...

viewtopic.php?f=27&t=184105

Mr demons car runs a revo stage 1 so 400-410bhp


----------



## mrdemon (Apr 20, 2005)

"Can I be cheeky and ask if you can do two runs please:-
30-70mph in 2nd-3rd 
60-100mph in 4th"

its all about gearing and what is best for the car, I take it you choose those times becasue it is fast in your car.
your car is going to be faster in the ranges you have posted.

Why don't you post a 60-80 in 3rd gear  or 60-90  and I'll go and do a 60-90 as well.

30 to 70 is a strange range for the TT as the car will do 60 in 2nd then you will loose 3/10's changing gear and then the boost will not have built up to do the extra 10 mph.

again If i am on the road v another car I will not be in 4th gear at 60MPh I will have only just changed out of 2nd  
you can work out the 4th gear run I have posted it already, it's 5.48  so 0.68 down on your time.

If you want low down torque and don't want to change gear much you need a stage 2, this is where the stage 2 will gain a lot of time over the stage 1 imho ie low gear runs with out changing gear.

So it depends if you want to see how fast a car is at it's best or how a car pulls from low revs.

It looks like we are posting the same 100mph times and we are going to be faster than each other depending what ranges we want to post in.


----------



## Gibbo205 (Dec 22, 2010)

mrdemon said:


> "Can I be cheeky and ask if you can do two runs please:-
> 30-70mph in 2nd-3rd
> 60-100mph in 4th"
> 
> ...


30-70 and 60-100mph is a test I do on all my cars just to satisfy my own curiosity and also because its a test that many other sites and reviewers also tend to use as well along with the standard

0-60mph
30-70mph
60-100mph
0-100mph
1/4 mile
30-100mph
etc.

So its not about choosing test that suit just one car, its about choosing performance stats were likely to use on a regular basis, 30-70mph for example I use every day several times.

I've used such test on M3 CSL, 911, Mustang and a whole host of cars, for example my Mustang managed:-
30-70mph = 2.75s (2nd gear)
60-100mph = 4.0s (3rd gear)

But that was a fast car. 

Out of interest what are you seeing 0-60mph, 0-100mph and 1/4 mile in your TT RS m8?

Lastly how would you describe the handling of the TT RS close/on the limit in the dry and its wet handling?


----------



## mrdemon (Apr 20, 2005)

again not done any hard standing starts

did 4.6 60 mph run at vmax the other week.

did a 0-30 mph in 1.68 on another day in my standard car no tune.

about 10.5 to 100mph again changing to 4th at 96mph kills the time.

most reviews in EVO do 20mph times in gear which is why i choose that to do my tests.
if you put a gear change in there it's then down to the driver, flat shifting etc etc so pointless imho.

As for on the limit, the car just grips and grips and is very very easy to drive, it's hard to get to the limit in a 4WD car on the road.

Most have fitted stiffer ARB's inc me because you get the normal Audi understeer. 
you can also fit a race/sport 4wd controller which puts more power to the rear.

I keep meaning to get more neg camber on the front, to try and cure it of understeer altogether.
and alot of people have fitted front lower arm stiffer bush's to help with steering even more.

It's not a 100% drivers car but then neither is the Evo, is any 4WD car a real drivers car ?
what is a drivers car ?
I also had a CSL which was a great car to have fun in.
Again had a Noble 3R, Exige etc etc these I class as drivers cars, normal cars after those seem ... well normal lol.

TTRS is just a nice car which is fast and cheap to run, and very usable in the wet and snow.

Evora S
GT3
Cayman R

are all going to feel better drivers cars, but bar the GT3 which is about the same speed as a stage 1, slower.
if you want fast times get a dual clutch system, it's the cheapest way to gain 1 second to a ton.


----------



## mrdemon (Apr 20, 2005)

just done them

60-90 mph 3 seconds 3rd gear 

60-100mph 5.1 seconds 4th gear.


----------



## TTRS_500 (Aug 29, 2010)

Stage 2 plus cupra was on par with 400hp evos, stock 996 turbo rolling from 30 to 120.

Stock TTRS is slightly slower than a stage 2 plus cupra. Stage 1 TTRS vs stage 2 plus cupra makes you wonder whether the cupra driver is trying especially at higher speeds.

Where are you based, maybe you can meet up with a TTRS owner.

I did a 12.8 with a passenger at santa pod in s astock car on my first ever run


----------



## jamiekip (Nov 12, 2006)

Gibbo I think the biggest difference you'll notice in the TT versus your Evo is the size of the power band. I'm guessing your evo delivers a massive wallop of power from 3k up to about 5.5k rpm.
The extra cylinder in the TT give you a massive power band to play in from 2.25k up to 6k.

It's a monster of an engine with massive potential!

I got 11% off my car new and with alm the mods ive added I still haven't managed to go over the actual RRP of the car.... So it's like the mods were free lol


----------



## moncler1 (Sep 28, 2008)

hahha.. like it Jamie, makes me feel better about all the dosh I've wasted on mine!

Nice to see we have a new S2 expert, wish I'd known all those 'facts' beforehand :lol:


----------



## LEO-RS (Apr 13, 2009)

moncler1 said:


> hahha.. like it Jamie, makes me feel better about all the dosh I've wasted on mine!
> 
> Nice to see we have a new S2 expert, wish I'd known all those 'facts' beforehand :lol:


Not quite sure if that's supposed to be aimed at me?

The guy asked about what makes S2 and what it costs to which I responded with the info he requires. Not sure why the need for the bitchy comment?


----------



## moncler1 (Sep 28, 2008)

No, you're right, my apologies.


----------



## LEO-RS (Apr 13, 2009)

> EVO X FQ-360 with Milltek Turbo Back System (5c winters day):-
> 
> 60-100mph = 4.8s (4th gear)
> 
> For comparison sake the EVO X can supposedly hit 60mph in 4.1s, best I've managed with launch control is 4.4s and it hits clutch hard so I tend to launch the car gently which is circa 4.8s and 0-100mph time depending on launch is circa 9.6-10.5s.


Gibbo, your times are baffling me a bit there.What are you doing 60-100 in 3rd in? Surely it's got to be quicker than 4th? If you believe the German magazine stats for the TTRS, 0-100mph in 9.3s with a mere 335hp is some achievement.

You may get what you want from this video.....It shows a S2 European car with around 440bhp, 0-300km/h on speedo looks to be around 40secs. (Car launches very poorly too, 0-100km/h looks to be around 5secs rather than sub 4) Even if you take the 0-310km/h to account for the slight speedo inaccuracy, along with the poor launch, it still looks to be at worst case around 50secs or so....




Okay, not directly comparable but have a look at this link for 0-300km/h times as tested in magazine reviews... http://www.fastestlaps.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=392



> 40.4 - TTP-Porsche Cayman Biturbo (471PS)
> 40.6 - Wiesmann GT MF5, 507 PS/1421 kg (Sport Auto)
> 40.7 - Porsche 997 Turbo 480PS (Nardo 2007)
> 40.8 - Lamborghini Gallardo LP560-4 (560PS) (Nardo 2008)
> ...


----------



## Gibbo205 (Dec 22, 2010)

mrdemon said:


> just done them
> 
> 60-90 mph 3 seconds 3rd gear
> 
> 60-100mph 5.1 seconds 4th gear.


Hi m8

Thanks for doing this. 

My runs are in 4th as then I don't need to change gear, results are:-

60-90mph in 4th gear = 3.4s
60-100mph in 4th gear = 4.6s

I would imagine my gearing is shorter which helps, top speed in 4th is 112mph I think, about 115mph indicated.

I shall try some 3rd gear runs, just not sure if the EVO X can hit 90mph in 3rd, it might be something stupid like 88mph.


----------



## Gibbo205 (Dec 22, 2010)

Mitchy said:


> > EVO X FQ-360 with Milltek Turbo Back System (5c winters day):-
> >
> > 60-100mph = 4.8s (4th gear)
> >
> ...


I am testing in 4th because the EVO X gearing is stupidly short, how else do you think they make a 2.0 car go so quick.  Top speed in 3rd is just shy of 90mph I think and as I give my car mechanical sympathy its practically as quick for me to do such acceleration runs in 4th gear, remember 4th tops out around 112mph. EVO's have very short gearing which is why they accelerate so quickly, but tail offer at top-end speeds.

There is no chance on earth a 440BHP TT RS is gonna be doing 0-300kph in 40s, its just not possible. There is no chance on earth its quicker than the lighter and more powerful tuned Corvette Z06 with 600BHP at 43s. I am even doubting 50s as that would mean its quicker than a GTR which again I severley doubt as most GTR's have circa 510-530BHP stock and a stupidly fast gearbox with immense of the mark acceleration, 3.3s flat to 60mph.

I think it would be fairer to say something more like 52-53s for an Audi TT RS running 440BHP and maybe just maybe 50s for a sportshift version running same power.


----------



## Gibbo205 (Dec 22, 2010)

TTRS_500 said:


> Stage 2 plus cupra was on par with 400hp evos, stock 996 turbo rolling from 30 to 120.
> 
> Stock TTRS is slightly slower than a stage 2 plus cupra. Stage 1 TTRS vs stage 2 plus cupra makes you wonder whether the cupra driver is trying especially at higher speeds.
> 
> ...


Stoke-on-Trent, so basically around the Midlands, be happy to meet up in the new year for sure if there are any local TT RS owners in the area.


----------



## Gibbo205 (Dec 22, 2010)

jamiekip said:


> Gibbo I think the biggest difference you'll notice in the TT versus your Evo is the size of the power band. I'm guessing your evo delivers a massive wallop of power from 3k up to about 5.5k rpm.
> The extra cylinder in the TT give you a massive power band to play in from 2.25k up to 6k.
> 
> It's a monster of an engine with massive potential!
> ...


Hi m8

Actually because mine is a FQ-360 model with de-cat turbo back milltek system its power delivery is as follows:-

2000rpm = turbo spooling
2500rpm = boost coming on strong
3500rpm = peak torque (385lb/ft)
3500-7000rpm = Best area for pull, though the car pulls hard to the 7700rpm limiter.

So the new EVO X powerband is not that bad actually, 3000-7000rpm is very strong.
Yes the lesser EVO X models power band is 3000-5500rpm, but with filter, decat, exhaust and remap they are just like mine.

The older EVO 8's tend to be more 4500-6500rpm powerband though, so 9's upwards have certainly improved.

So its not that bad actually, but I have to say the TT RS looks nicer, sounds better, seems to go just as well sub 100mph with stage 1 and is probably quicker once past 130mph possibly.......

The big debate would be which one is better in the twisties, the EVO X has S-AWC, AYC, ASC and lots more plus its a sharp focused machine with little to no understeer on dry surface with sticky tyres. Can the TT RS Haldex system compare as in when the TT RS pushes wide due to understeer, is it time to back off or can you just increase steering angle and apply more power and let the car pull itself around the bend or is that EVO's magic trick with its AYC systems?


----------



## mrdemon (Apr 20, 2005)

you are looking about 38 seconds 0-165mph in my car.

100 to 150 mph is 15 seconds.

cars pulls very strong to 120Mph

100-120mph is only 3.73 seconds.

I did a 0-120mph in 14.2 seconds.

Think I am the only east mids person, I am close to j21 M1


----------



## jamiekip (Nov 12, 2006)

Fancy a run to the north in the new year gibbo???
Myself and jonnyc are at a RR day end of Jan in northallerton?
My car is stage 2 and Jonny is stage3
will give you a view of what's possible with between £2k to £5k of mods

http://m.vagoc.co.uk/vb/showthread.php?t=5486

As for the twisties well like any Audi they come with understeer dislled in. But with a few tweaks it's a very responsive car! H&R arbs and superpro bushes and the car is a lot sharper on the nose without harming the ride or vibration in the cabin. Coilovers would help again with lower c of g.
I personally find the haldex upgrade isn't that big a requirement in the TTRS as the gen4 system works very well. If the nose pushes wide and you keep the power in the torque will shift quickly to the rear axle. In these conditions the cars been a riot of four wheel drifts


----------



## TTRS_500 (Aug 29, 2010)

the TTRS nose will only go wider once you reach the limits and apply more power. No electrical goodies. Havent had the TTRS on the limits yet though as got it mid sept, and by the time I started to get used to it the roads where greasy.

Meet up with Mr.Demon and have a play.

Are you a MLR member at all by chance?


----------



## Gibbo205 (Dec 22, 2010)

mrdemon said:


> you are looking about 38 seconds 0-165mph in my car.
> 
> 100 to 150 mph is 15 seconds.
> 
> ...


I've not bothered timing mine above 100mph, but will get some figures at somepoint in the future, but would be in 5th on an EVO, plus its 5 speed box only and 5th is geared for 175mph so quite long.

I think past 110mph the TT RS will definetely have the legs due to 6speed box and larger capacity engine.


----------



## Gibbo205 (Dec 22, 2010)

jamiekip said:


> Fancy a run to the north in the new year gibbo???
> Myself and jonnyc are at a RR day end of Jan in northallerton?
> My car is stage 2 and Jonny is stage3
> will give you a view of what's possible with between £2k to £5k of mods
> ...


Yes I'd be up for going on the RR, I can't see that forum though, but what date and time and would I be allowed to run or is it an Audi only day? I'd be well up for that and be happy to take you out in EVO and anyone else, on the basis you take us out in the TT RS. 

Yes am on MLR, same username.


----------



## mrdemon (Apr 20, 2005)

well I can meet up any time, I have time on my side, free any time.

just pm me.

stage 2 is more like 3k. the exhaust alone is £1.8k with out fitting

add your map, filter, ARB's,IC, Geo and a few other tweeks and the basics are 5k


----------



## LEO-RS (Apr 13, 2009)

Gibbo205 said:


> mrdemon said:
> 
> 
> > just done them
> ...


If you hit 4th gear at 60mph, is your turbo on boost? I thought evos were notorious for serious turbo lag?

60-100 is not a test that any car magazine covers from what I have seen. I guess you have chosen it as a benchmark because you know your evo is short geared and thats what makes your car shine? Would you really do a 1-2-4 when doing a 0-100 dash? Wouldn't it lose boost between 2nd and 4th?

In any case, 4.6s is seriously quick, quicker than most supercars and quicker than an R35 GTR for sure (0-100 in 8.5, 0-60 in 3.5)

That leads me onto why I was baffled with your figures, If you are doing a genuine 4.6 60-100 then why are your 0-100 times 9.6-10.5s? Why are your 0-60 times so poor at 4.5+ with 400hp? I understand you want to keep hold of your gearbox and clutch but is it really that bad to launch the thing even with LC?

On the TTRS,the thing just flys off the line... 




JonnyC went quicker at 3.15 on the same day, same spec as the green car, he's just a better driver :wink: (No seriously)

I think what you would make over a TTRS 60-100, the TTRS would make on you 0-60 and then 100+ TTRS would stretch its legs again.

As to the 40s, I was only going off what it appeared on the youtube video. Do i believe 40s personally? No, of course not due to speedo inaccuracies but I would think somewhere ITRO of 50s or so and on a par with a GTR.

A 430hp TTRS shouldnt be doing this to a 570hp M5 should it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXuxigqj ... re=related

Yes okay the RS gets a better line out of the bend and appears to get on the gas a little sooner, but the M5 wasn't making any ground on the car until well after 150mph or so and overall he was struggling to close the gap created by the initial burst of acceleration.

The same M5 and a GTR.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9JXVmdg ... re=channel

Make your own mind up, I would love to have seen a side by side video with the GTR/TTRS, I really dont think there would have been a lot in it  I'll be at Bruntingthorpe in Feb/Mar time in S2 tune so if you are game, we can meet and have a side by side  (Keep an eye on the vmax section of pistonheads for more details)

Nice review btw...http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showth ... p=17068699

Mustang looks nice, not an Evo fan though, think it lost a lot when it went on the 10 platform.


----------



## Gibbo205 (Dec 22, 2010)

Mitchy said:


> Gibbo205 said:
> 
> 
> > mrdemon said:
> ...


Read my previous post mate. 

The EVO X is not laggy at all, the FQ-360 hits peak torque of 363lb/ft at 3500rpm. It starts to spool at 2000rpm and is coming on strong 2500rpm upwards and keeps pulling hard to the 7700rpm redline. I am happy to take anyone out to prove they are not laggy at all or just read reviews of EVO X, they all comment on how much more responsive the engine is. 

I've been doing 60-100mph for years along with 30-130mph as its a true test of a cars horsepower and gearing plus it eliminates any poor starts effecting figures.

The problem with the EVO X is its stock clutch is made of cardboard, the car has LC but that means dropping the clutch at 5500rpm and a few of those on an EVO X will soon result in a new clutch. If you use this method on an FQ-360 the absolute best you will achieve is 4.1s, with around 400ish horses you might just dip sub 4.0s but you'd need a perfect launch in perfect conditions and your clutch is going to hate you. The ideal launch zone is 3000-4000rpm and slip the clutch out quickly, most will see 4.5-4.8s with this method and a clutch which last far longer.

To answer your question at 60mph in 4th gear the car is just over 3000rpm so its well on boost. so yes it does favour the EVO a lot but 60-100mph is something Ive been doing with all my car and results I have are as follows:-
Saleen Mustang = 3.9s (2nd - 3rd)
Saleen Mustang = 4.2s (3rd)
BMW M3 CSL = 5.9s (SMG set to S6)
EVO X FQ-360 (stock) = 5.6s (4th)
EVO X FQ-360 (De-Cat Milltek & lower temps) = 4.8s (4th)

So yes an EVO can launch very hard if your willing to put it through that and accelerates very strongly to circa 115mph, a good launch on an X is gonna see 100mph reach in sub 10s on one running close to 400 horses but beyond 100mph I can see a 400BHP TT RS then pulling away, simply due to gearing.

I think a car like a Corvette Z06 does 60-100mph in circa 3.5s now that is a quick car.


----------



## mrdemon (Apr 20, 2005)

we would be pulling away at 60 if you look at my 60-90 mph time of 3 seconds dead  and once in 4th no catching up.

Would love a go in the EVo though, always wanted to try one.

Mitchy, as for a TTRS v GTR its not possable to keep up with one due to there duel clutch gear box.
any slight gain I get over my mates, is all of a sudden lost when I change gear and there is no catching up.

you would need a S-tronic stage 2 to beat a standard one.

As for the wild times at Gti i think the 60mph beam was faulty, a lot of cars went to fast on the day for the 60 mph time.
So i have writen off any Gti figures. the 1/4 miles times are ok as you break a beam but the 60mph times need backing up with others imho


----------



## LEO-RS (Apr 13, 2009)

mrdemon said:


> we would be pulling away at 60 if you look at my 60-90 mph time of 3 seconds dead  and once in 4th no catching up.
> 
> Would love a go in the EVo though, always wanted to try one.
> 
> ...


I was thinking similar when I seen Jonnys 3.15 run, just seemed too quick to me. As quoted by Audi for the standard car, 0-62mph in 4.6. (0-60 will come up a little sooner at 4.3s or so)

That's over a second slower than what Jonny achieved that day.

However, looking at this article.. http://www.zerotohundred.com/2009/auto- ... nm-312kmh/

Avus quote 0-62 in 3.8 for their similary specced car. (0-60 = 3.5/6) Now we are only 0.4s out on Jonnys 3.15. Add on sticky R888 rubber, and put a pro in the seat, then it gets you thinking.There's also a video of sTTrangers car (430ish) doing a 0-60 in 4.24 on that day, so driver skill definitely comes into play. 4.24 being believable

Will be interesting to see what Jonny will do in 2011, his car I believe is now in S3 trim so a hybrid I guess, he's keeping awfully quiet. You would expect to see an improvement of this 3.15 in 2011 with more power. Time will tell. It is a strange 1 as I have no idea how they verify 60mph in every car, what methadology as like you say, a 1/4m is a distance as you break a beam


----------



## LEO-RS (Apr 13, 2009)

Gibbo, What are your thoughts on the TTRS? Is it something you are thinking about swapping the evo X for and what would you do with it modification wise?

Why have you not mapped the Evo? Will surely be even more of an animal mid range? What does the Evo X map too with exhaust?


----------



## Gibbo205 (Dec 22, 2010)

mrdemon said:


> we would be pulling away at 60 if you look at my 60-90 mph time of 3 seconds dead  and once in 4th no catching up.
> 
> Would love a go in the EVo though, always wanted to try one.
> 
> ...


Hold on, I've not even done a 60-90mph run in 3rd yet, remember my runs were in 4th against your 3rd. If I can hit 90mph in 3rd gear then I too shall be hitting around 3s mark as well.

The fact with both equally good launches our 0-100mph are both similar thats proof of that, I think the TTRS is faster once remapped but not until past 115-120mph area, below those speeds its going to be down to drivers as its too close to call.


----------



## Gibbo205 (Dec 22, 2010)

Mitchy said:


> Gibbo, What are your thoughts on the TTRS? Is it something you are thinking about swapping the evo X for and what would you do with it modification wise?
> 
> Why have you not mapped the Evo? Will surely be even more of an animal mid range? What does the Evo X map too with exhaust?


The 360's ECU is able to re-programme itself to an extent and hence such vast power is unleashed just by fitting the exhaust. 

But yes agreed a custom remap will get one to about 405BHP with my exhaust but the torque will be about 420lb/ft so yes more mid-range torque for sure.

However if you know anything about engines, the thing that bends rods the most is too much torque too low down, so as it stands I know my car is running very safely though a bit too rich.

But yes a custom remap will see more torque and better fuel economy for sure.

As to my thoughts on the TT RS well I like it, good looks, serious performance potential tuned, nice sounding engine, good gearbox and Audi build quality. Plus the fact its only 1450kg, so its a nice car.

The downsides for me at the moment is dull steering feedback, all Audi's have this apart from the RS4 to an extent and the fact its 4WD system is probably nowhere near as sophisticated and advanced as EVO's S-AWC, AYC, ASC, ACD system. Because the TT at end of the day is still a FWD car that can just push power to the back, though the 4th gen Haldex system is much better than previous incarnations.

So yes its a nice car but at the same time the same money buys you a 997 C2S or C4S, granted an older car but against such company it then because quite a hard choice as a stock 997 C2S with 355BHP will hit 0-60mph in 3.9s and onto 100mph in 10s completely stock with a good driver. Yes more power is hard to come by and very expensive but its a car designed from the ground up to be a razer sharp performance car out the box wheras the TT is a platform derived from just everyday run of the mill car such as bog standard TT.

Still even after all that yes I do like what the TT RS is, I just think its about buying wrong aggressively otherwise the depreciation hit will be huge as already these are selling for 35k less than a year old, so one has to purchase aggressively to make sure any loss is lessened as I hate loosing money on cars.


----------



## mrdemon (Apr 20, 2005)

"I hate loosing money on cars"

should have kept the CSL then  the only car I miss after owning 50+ cars.

Evo's lose mega bucks and along with high running costs total ownership is expensive and hence why i have never owned one.

as for a basic 911, no thanks, GT3 yes, turbo yes, GTS yes, standard no thanks 

I think any one who likes cars and does not like to lose money has to look at 997.1 GT3's for 55k

Even Chris Harris has bought himself one with his own money


----------



## TTRS_500 (Aug 29, 2010)

So the Evo isn't mapped? Ive run against my mates fq360 which was stock against my stage 1 from 30 to 70 and I got like two car lengths infront. Also had run in against a 420hp Evo 30 to 120 and again about two car lengths infront.

What quarter miles are 420hp evos doing with full interior and no trick mods? Over on Scn the general consensus is that from a rolling run a 420hp Evo is slightly slower than a stage 2 plus 2.0tfsi and we know that a stage 1 Ttrs takes chunks out of the 2.0tfsi


----------



## mrdemon (Apr 20, 2005)

I could beat an Evo in my 340BHp Cayman once rolling.

never seen a fast one yet even tuned.

I think the low gearing kills them above 60mph.


----------



## TTRS_500 (Aug 29, 2010)

mrdemon said:


> I could beat an Evo in my 340BHp Cayman once rolling.
> 
> never seen a fast one yet even tuned.
> 
> I think the low gearing kills them above 60mph.


Only Evo that's beaten me is a 520 and 600hp ones. Both where laggy though, especially the 600.


----------



## LEO-RS (Apr 13, 2009)

> So yes its a nice car but at the same time the same money buys you a 997 C2S or C4S, granted an older car but against such company it then because quite a hard choice as a stock 997 C2S with 355BHP will hit 0-60mph in 3.9s and onto 100mph in 10s completely stock with a good driver. Yes more power is hard to come by and very expensive but its a car designed from the ground up to be a razer sharp performance car out the box wheras the TT is a platform derived from just everyday run of the mill car such as bog standard TT.


True, but an S-Tronic TTRS car with 335hp so 20hp less than the C2S has just posted a 3.9 0-62mph and 9.3 0-100mph run. Admittedly not as good on a track but how many of us take our cars near a race track?

http://www.fastestlaps.com/comparisons/ ... Coupe.html

TT comes with a 3yr warranty, is easy to tune, is modern, is usable with 4wd, has 2 rear seats, good boot space, good spec, the cabin is a nice place to be. (Im sure you'll agree miles ahead of the truly awful evo interior)

I do agree with you buying 2nd hand as to avoid big depreciation. You can get a good spec year old example for under £40k which makes them a good buy imo.


----------



## conneem (Nov 4, 2006)

Here is a dyno of an FQ360 before and after a MIlltek exhaust, for people wanting to compare the power band to the RS.


----------



## jonnyc (Feb 13, 2010)

Hey,

As for performance figures from GTI International.. I do believe that time that was posted (of course im going to say that) but seriously, the launch was just perfect, 7k drop and just hooked up.. Anyone who saw it would back that up..

Of course ill be backing up performance figures with V-Box figures as soon as the weather picks up..

Actually.. Im quite tempted to smash out a sub 3.5 second 0-60 time on my 225 snow tyres to prove a point :roll:


----------



## conneem (Nov 4, 2006)

You were hooking up some serious launches by looking at the squat in the pics Jonny :twisted:


----------



## Gibbo205 (Dec 22, 2010)

mrdemon said:


> "I hate loosing money on cars"
> 
> should have kept the CSL then  the only car I miss after owning 50+ cars.
> 
> ...


Sorry EVO X is not so expensive to run, not as cheap as a TT RS but not mega bucks and they depreciate no worse than a TT RS, for example 2009 TT RS are going now for 35k, so thats 15k in less than 12 months, thats mega bucks too.

Servicing is 10k interval at an average cost of £280 for service.
On mine which is running just shy 400 horses, I average 17-19MPG, but can return 32MPG on the motorway, if I got a remap this would improve by approx 2-3MPG, so not end of the world.

Apart from that just like an Audi its got warranty, though tax is £400 a year, ouch.


----------



## Gibbo205 (Dec 22, 2010)

mrdemon said:


> I could beat an Evo in my 340BHp Cayman once rolling.
> 
> never seen a fast one yet even tuned.
> 
> I think the low gearing kills them above 60mph.


Yet my EVO is as quick as your TT RS past 60mph though......

3.5s 60-90mph in 4th, yours does it in 3s flat in 3rd, I am sure mine will be similar if not matching that in 3rd. In 4th mine is actually quicker than yours from 60-100mph.

The gearing only kills mine above 115mph, thats a lot different than 60mph and even then its no slouch it pulls very easily to 160mph, though I will admit I'd expect the TT RS to be quick above 120mph as its 5th is shorter than my 5th and you have got an extra gear. 

The ultimate test is 30-130mph, its a true test of a cars power.


----------



## TTRS_500 (Aug 29, 2010)

Gibbo205 said:


> mrdemon said:
> 
> 
> > I could beat an Evo in my 340BHp Cayman once rolling.
> ...


All the runs I do are 30-120, we usually do multiple runs of each car combo to be sure of the outcome

A 400hp evo aint touching a stage 1 rs.

360hp golf gtis are quicker, sorry mate, but the vbox figures aint matching up to my real life experiences.

A easy way to settle this is to just post UK evo x times that are running 400hp with full interior, along with a term speed.


----------



## mrdemon (Apr 20, 2005)

vboxs times are showing about right

40-60 is 1.3 60 to 90 is 3 seconds flat then once in 4th in the RS it will pull again there is no let up.
as I said 100-120 is 3.7 ish.

You only have to be a 1/10th or two quicker to get a few car lenths.

The evo has not posed times like that, see if you can match them  will be interesting.

No good quoting my 4th gear 60mph time I am in 3rd 

not that is matters, just a bit of xmas banter 

Evo's are quick off the line and seem to post great 0-60 mph figures, not not so good above

I can only quote what I have seen with my 340BHp Cayman which walked away from the Evo's I had fun with on B roads at 60 mph plus. again it all seems to go wrong after the evo changes into 5th.

here is my car v a ruf 911 which has another 40BHp more than me.
he gets a slight pull, put then I peg him in 4th gear then he is quicker just in 5th and 6th we crossed the line 1mph apartat 174 mph


----------



## steeve (Jul 8, 2010)

That 911 certainly shifts...................


----------



## jonnyc (Feb 13, 2010)

conneem said:


> You were hooking up some serious launches by looking at the squat in the pics Jonny :twisted:


1.4 second 60ft times.. And that was with stock map and road tyres  hehe..


----------



## Gibbo205 (Dec 22, 2010)

mrdemon said:


> vboxs times are showing about right
> 
> 40-60 is 1.3 60 to 90 is 3 seconds flat then once in 4th in the RS it will pull again there is no let up.
> as I said 100-120 is 3.7 ish.
> ...


Hey mate

I ran some quick test, but car had full tank of petrol and it was wet and due to my gearing the best I could do was:-

55-85mph in 3rd gear = 2.7s (86mph is limiter in 3rd, can't hit 90mph)
100-120mph in 5th gear = 4.2s (again can't hit 120mph in 4th, about 112mph is limit, if this was possible in 4th I am confident it would be circa 3.5-3.8s area)

Still I think in this case at least the EVO X when running close to 400BHP is no slouch and certainly does not die off after 60mph, my 100-120mph proves this, especially considering I am using 5th versus your 4th and remember 5th is my top gear so a lot longer than your 4th and probably 5th gears. 

The ultimate test is 30-130mph, MLR hold such events, fastest car I've ever owned was my Mustang which did the 30-130mph dash in a blistering 12.1s but that car did have nearly 600BHP. 60-130mph was sub 10s and 60-120mph would be sub 9s, that car was epic quick.

I shall get some 30-130mph done in the EVO X as I think it will be surprisingly quick, probably 16s region. Will also look at some 100-150mph times as well, though I think a TT RS Stage1 will be quicker there.


----------



## Gibbo205 (Dec 22, 2010)

TTRS_500 said:


> Gibbo205 said:
> 
> 
> > mrdemon said:
> ...


I shall do some 30-120mph test, but I am quite confident than an EVO X running close to 400BHP like mine would not be slower than a 360BHP Golf GTI, unless were taking old school Golf's before they got fat and heavy of course.

My 100-120mph time is 4.2s and thats in 5th gear, which happens to my top gear, so the gearing is not in my favour but still thats no slouch. 100-130mph in mine takes 7.2s not sure how that compares to a TT RS but its not slow.

I've not run the 1/4 mile in mine yet but the Lancer Evolution﻿ VIII MR FQ-400 does 1/4 mile in 11.9sec @ 121 mph and from what I've read on the EVO X if you get the launch perfect and your running around 400 horses expect circa 12.2-12.4s at around 115-118mph. EVO's when running over 350BHP are not slow, the incredibly short gearing means when they have lot of BHP they a quick and always on the boil.


----------



## TTRS_500 (Aug 29, 2010)

360bhp mk2 Leon cupras do the quarter mile in 12.9 secs with a 115mph term and that's a fwd car. The dsg golf are even quicker.


----------



## Gibbo205 (Dec 22, 2010)

TTRS_500 said:


> 360bhp mk2 Leon cupras do the quarter mile in 12.9 secs with a 115mph term and that's a fwd car. The dsg golf are even quicker.


So slower than an EVO then with same power. Due to traction of the mark.

But I know which out of those is gonna be a lot quicker and easier to drive, yes mmmm 360BHP through the front wheels, nice bit of torque steer going on there and anything but a dry day can see it been very hard to put any power down.

Stock EVO GSR's with 260BHP manage 13.1-13.3s I believe, and I think all FQ's are sub 13s.


----------



## TTRS_500 (Aug 29, 2010)

Are you quoting American quarter mile figures or uk only because that makes a difference, I'm quoting uk only the yanks are always alot quicker for numerous reasons. As for torque steer on the vag chassis with 360 hp no not really. Anyway the point I'm making is look at the 2.0tfsi term speed of 115mph, that pretty much shows how quick that car is to get up to that terminal speed after a difficult fwd launch. Take away the launch and put in a 30 rolling start instead at 3rd gear and you should now be able to appreciate that a 360bhp fwd gti/Cupra will probably beat the 400hp Evo, whilst a stage 1 Ttrs is about two car lengths in the same 30-120 sprint against the tuned 2.0tfsi


----------



## mrdemon (Apr 20, 2005)

quote
"I shall get some 30-130mph done in the EVO X as I think it will be surprisingly quick, probably 16s region."

i do 30-120mph in 12 seconds


----------



## mrdemon (Apr 20, 2005)

quote 2

"my Mustang which has nearly 600BHPand 60-120mph would be sub 9s, that car was epic quick."

My car does 9.4


----------



## Gibbo205 (Dec 22, 2010)

TTRS_500 said:


> Are you quoting American quarter mile figures or uk only because that makes a difference, I'm quoting uk only the yanks are always alot quicker for numerous reasons. As for torque steer on the vag chassis with 360 hp no not really. Anyway the point I'm making is look at the 2.0tfsi term speed of 115mph, that pretty much shows how quick that car is to get up to that terminal speed after a difficult fwd launch. Take away the launch and put in a 30 rolling start instead at 3rd gear and you should now be able to appreciate that a 360bhp fwd gti/Cupra will probably beat the 400hp Evo, whilst a stage 1 Ttrs is about two car lengths in the same 30-120 sprint against the tuned 2.0tfsi


Nope UK. But thats an EVO 8 FQ-400, very quick car, not a very drivable one though, due too peak boost not coming in until 5200rpm.

Sorry 360BHP through front wheels will cause torque steer, thats a fact. The very best FWD chassis start to struggle once you pass 260BHP, even the Focus RS with all its revo knuckle still has elements of torque steer. Fact is once your passing 300BHP you want RWD or 4WD unless all you care about is going in straight lines. For me I enjoy corners, track days etc. and a FWD car with that kind of horsepower is not fun and slow in the corners.

I can fully appreciate how fast a FWD 360BHP car will be, but what is the point when you cannot use its power in 1st or 2nd gear, out of corners or in the wet? I want a car I can use everyday, not one I can only use on dry days and in straight lines. If I wanted just straight line performance I'd get a Dodge Viper and aim for 1000BHP. 

Would a 360BHP Golf beat an EVO on a roll to 30-120mph who knows, because its not just about horsepower, gear ratios play a big part, transmission losses, speed of gear changes, traction, its all relevent.

What makes the TT RS so fast is its Haldex which provides the grip when needed to prevent wheel spin, 6-speed box keeps good acceleration in all gears and at 1450kg its not a heavy car either.

But I like a good all round car, a 360BHP FWD is not a good all round car, show it a windy B-road and it won't stand a chance against an EVO.

What is your take on Scoobs running 350-400BHP, would you say a 360BHP Golf would beat those as well?


----------



## Gibbo205 (Dec 22, 2010)

mrdemon said:


> quote 2
> 
> "my Mustang which has nearly 600BHPand 60-120mph would be sub 9s, that car was epic quick."
> 
> My car does 9.4


Mate that is quick, your gearing helps a lot though. 

This will make you laugh, top speed in each gear in Mustang was:-

2nd = 85mph
3rd = 115mph
4th = 168mph
5th = 240mph (not reachable)

It had incredibly tall gearing, but even so the immense power and torque still meant it could post such quick acceleration times, though the car literally accelerated very quickly to 168mph in 4th, never pushed it hard in 5th due to state of engine tune as stock engine was 300BHP, it was pushing out 577BHP on stock internals.

My rear-end gearing was 3:55:1, some of the guys US side drop in 4:10:1 gearing, which drops gears as follows:-
2nd = 70mph
3rd = 102mph
4th = 152mph

Thats roughish but when running the 4:10 gears its worth about 1/2 second in 1/4 mile and with drag radials gets Mustangs with close to 600BHP into 10s, there has been the odd one with very good drivers hitting 9.8s but its not easy launching a RWD car with 600BHP.

Anyway I shall give 30-130mph a good go, you ever thought of attending a 30-130mph MLR day, some of the quicker EVO's do it in 6s, though are far from standard.


----------



## mrdemon (Apr 20, 2005)

as I say a 1/10 th here or there all adds up

do a 30-120mph run as the 1st straight at vmax I was getting to 125mph

hence why I have the figures 30-120mph in 12 seconds

that will put it all to bed if you can match that.


----------



## TTRS_500 (Aug 29, 2010)

Until you drive a 360bhp vag you won't be able to appreciate that torque steer is not really an issue at all. There are vids on YouTube demonstating a 320bhp Cupra with no torque steer.

But anyway this isn't about fwd hatchec this is about comparisons of a 400hp Evo vs stage1 rs.

A 360hp fwd vag is quicker than a 400hp Evo, it's been proven loads of times, don't believe me go ask on seatcupra.net or mk5gtiforum and see what they say. 350-400hp scoobies are the same story.

But all of thos is irrelevant, go meet up with a stage 2 plus 2.0tfsi and a stage 1 Ttrs and see for yourself. It's bot until I myself beat 400hp evos convincingly that it opened my own eyes how quockthese tuned vags are even though everyone else on the forums where saying so.

It's like hwheb I play against my mates v8 rs4 or m3, it is ultimately like taking candy from a baby,


----------



## Gibbo205 (Dec 22, 2010)

TTRS_500 said:


> Until you drive a 360bhp vag you won't be able to appreciate that torque steer is not really an issue at all. There are vids on YouTube demonstating a 320bhp Cupra with no torque steer.
> 
> But anyway this isn't about fwd hatchec this is about comparisons of a 400hp Evo vs stage1 rs.
> 
> ...


Not disputing what your saying, but I've driven a Golf GTi the 30th anniversary model about 2-3 years ago, it had about 305BHP and yes it had torque steer. It was not bad, but it was there, but I will agree most other FWD cars with 300BHP would be a real handful, but torque steer exist on all FWD cars when pushing bigger horsepowers its just VAG handle it better.

I like all cars and don't get caught up with having a loyality to any brand but in all seriousness I think my 30-120mph will be just as quick if not quicker than a Golf with 360BHP, those new Golf's are pretty heavy. Like I say if it was a MK2 I'd not see what direction it went with that power.....

Here is a mates Scooby which is running 360BHP:-




12.2s @ 110.8mph

Thats not slow by any means and only 360BHP, his in-gear acceleration is very similar to mine as well, he has less power, but weighs less so upto 100mph very similar, but above 100mph the EVO X is faster as thats where BHP wins out.

Regarding V8 RS4, my M3 CSL on a roll was a 2-3 car lengths faster and well the EVO X now its got the exhaust is quicker than the M3 CSL.

Where I will agree is that the TT RS is one very quick car with fantastic tuning ability allowing it to accelerate in the leagues of the big boys for vast amounts less money.


----------



## [email protected] (Aug 4, 2009)

Gibbo205,
Welcome to the Dark side - I notice the usual suspects have made your acquaintance...

Back to your original post and picking up on a couple of points...your EVO is comparative to the TT-RS in the real world in terms of performance - mod or stock. In terms of build quality, I suspect the Germans are always a hard act to beat - you own a German product already so that is something you are probably aware about.

The Haldex Sports Controller is a must IF you intend to track the car otherwise it is a waste of money - circa £1k fitted depending on which options you go for. MULE and JonnyC have it fitted. I went for the RACE only version which splits torque 50/50 fr & re axle 100% of the time. Can I tell any difference even on fast street driving?...Nope! However, on the track you can really tell the difference - basically I can carry more speed in to bends and get on the power earlier out of bends...FANTASTIC! In terms of grip and stability, it keeps all four planted regardless of how rugged I am with the steering. It makes the car feel very nimble/adjustable especially in to and out of bends. It is a little box of magic often overlooked.

You are getting offers / opportunity to sample the TT-RS at close quarters - that is all well and good however you need to spend a week or so with the car to properly compare it with your EVO IMHO.

The one thing you have mentioned about the EVO which I like very much is the fact that with the addition of a TBE, there is no need to re-map as the ECU will self map...makes sense...I wonder why the VAG ECU need further re-map?

Anyway - am down the South and if you are ever coming down for a long weekend, PM me and I 'may' just leave you keys to my car for the weekend...so long as you fill her up again...and own up to all speeding tickets :wink:.

WB


----------



## TTRS_500 (Aug 29, 2010)

Vag ecu's will adjust themselves to bolt ons and adapt however a map is essential to get the full benefit.


----------



## mikef4uk (Jan 15, 2006)

My son has an EVO4 that he bought without me, turned out to be a 'pup' I ended up buying a low mileage EVO8 motor which I rebuilt with Forged rods and pistons, engine is currently running an EVO9 turbo at about 400-420 hp,

It is a quick thing, but is a different car to the TTRS, I love driving it, far more predictable than the TT, and I guess more fun as well, just chuck it at anything and catch the resulting slide!

But, would I own one? I must admit to thinking about an EVO10 before buying the TT, and I guess if pushed I would have probably taken a used RS4 over the EVO if I wanted '4' doors, but don't knock the EVO, there are some very quick one's out there 

PS, what a lot of EVO 'owners' do is go up and up in hp eventually ending up with a 'stroker' engine with huge hp only to find as an every day user they're not too good............too much lag and too much hp when it does arrive plus a grabby paddle clutch to take the hp, apparantly according to the experts in the EVO world this 'chasing hp' is all too common


----------



## conneem (Nov 4, 2006)

Gibbo205 said:


> I like all cars and don't get caught up with having a loyality to any brand but in all seriousness I think my 30-120mph will be just as quick if not quicker than a Golf with 360BHP, those new Golf's are pretty heavy. Like I say if it was a MK2 I'd not see what direction it went with that power.....


The MKV GTI is ~170kg lighter than an EVO X though, according to test weights by AMS 1,401kg vs 1,573kg (both manual)

It is a shame the German mags have done no tests of the FQ models. The only test for the normal 300ps manual version is from AMS.

0-100km/h 5,5s
0-160km/h 13,6s
0-200km/h 25,9s


----------



## TTRS_500 (Aug 29, 2010)

So in a nutshell the Evo is less powerful, noticeably heavier, less aerodynamic, and has greater drivetrain losses.


----------



## Gibbo205 (Dec 22, 2010)

996cab said:


> Gibbo205,
> Welcome to the Dark side - I notice the usual suspects have made your acquaintance...
> 
> Back to your original post and picking up on a couple of points...your EVO is comparative to the TT-RS in the real world in terms of performance - mod or stock. In terms of build quality, I suspect the Germans are always a hard act to beat - you own a German product already so that is something you are probably aware about.
> ...


Hi Mate

That box of tricks sounds excellent and if it transforms the car like that for 1k its money well spent in my book. Its a shame I don't live in Hampshire any more, I'd be taking you up on that offer and at same time let you have a blat in the EVO. With EVO's you do generally need to re-map to be honest its just the FQ-360's head their map programmed with some headroom, hence allowing a good improvement from a TBE but normally they'd need mapping, which ideally ecutek is the recommended option at £550+VAT, not cheap. But if you have an FQ300 or FQ330 no matter how many bolt-ons you throw on the best you will see is an extra 20BHP. Yet the FQ-300, FQ-330, FQ-360 and FQ-400 all use identical engines and turbo's, ye identical.

The FQ-300 is stock, FQ-330 has hardpipe kit, HKS filter and remap for 330BHP. The FQ-360 has HKS exhaust, some other fettling and map for 360BHP. The FQ-400 has much better flowing exhaust and again some other fettling for 400BHP.

Hence most recommend just buy the FQ-300, get hard pipe kit, HKS panel filter, TBE system and an ecutek remap resulting in 400BHP with 410lb/ft. Some people fitted a modified turbo elbow which does wonders for spooling up the turbo quicker, talking peak boost at 3000rpm and it surging hard from just 2000rpm. With this some are making 420BHP with 440lb/ft but this does require a lot of money. The Elbow is £500, plus several hours fitting plus remap, its not cheap. The exhaust system for mine was £850, which got me to just shy of 400 horses. So I consider that good value, 40BHP for £850, but spending another 2k to get a further 20BHP I don't see good value but the torque improvement is nice.

I am gonna test drive a TT RS possibly tomorrow or Friday, will just be a test drive so not enough time really but also gonna look at 997 C2S and C4S too.


----------



## Gibbo205 (Dec 22, 2010)

mikef4uk said:


> My son has an EVO4 that he bought without me, turned out to be a 'pup' I ended up buying a low mileage EVO8 motor which I rebuilt with Forged rods and pistons, engine is currently running an EVO9 turbo at about 400-420 hp,
> 
> It is a quick thing, but is a different car to the TTRS, I love driving it, far more predictable than the TT, and I guess more fun as well, just chuck it at anything and catch the resulting slide!
> 
> ...


Yep most EVO owners do seem to get carried away, for me the car has enough horsepower to keep with other quick motors even in a straight line, but its on back roads where I've never seen anything come close to it, apart from well another EVO, he was a bit slower in corners but faster on straights, after a quick convo he was running 400BHP, same as me but he was an 8 and was only weighing approx 1350kg, even with quicker corner exits he could still catch and nearly pass me, just ran out of road. At a guess I'd put it as a 9.0-9.5s 0-100mph car, but for me the older ones are just too raw and tatty.

My car drives like a stock car, comes on boost 2000rpm and hits peak torque of nearly 400lb/ft at 3500rpm and pulls strong too 7700rpm limiter, so its very drivable and tractable. Like you say the cars biggest point is its handling, on a backroad it simply beats anything I've driven before which are cars like R34 GTR, M3 CSL, S2000, even my mate with an R35 GTR commented on how bloody good it was in corners and I do find that with the X its so chuckable and predictable which makes it such a great handling car. But once you start aiming for over 450BHP in an EVO I suspect they become more of a nightmare to run than fun. Thats the best thing with the X, 10k service intervals, very functional interior with satnav, 10 speaker system, dvd etc. its a nice place to be all though the plastics are cheap and not upto German quality by no stretch of the imaginsation but the recaro seats are fantastic.

I've done the EVO experience now and its been a great one and I am happy to share my thoughts here about it and any other past cars.


----------



## Gibbo205 (Dec 22, 2010)

conneem said:


> Gibbo205 said:
> 
> 
> > I like all cars and don't get caught up with having a loyality to any brand but in all seriousness I think my 30-120mph will be just as quick if not quicker than a Golf with 360BHP, those new Golf's are pretty heavy. Like I say if it was a MK2 I'd not see what direction it went with that power.....
> ...


Right this is the figures for an FQ-360 according to UK brochure and sources:-

0-100km/h 4.1s with LC
0-160km/h 10.6s
0-200km/h, no idea

The FQ-400 X is as follows:-
0-100km/h 3.8s with LC
0-160km/h 9.4-9.8s depending on what you read
0-200km/h, no idea

The fastest out of the box EVO the EVO 8 MR FQ-400 (Laggy as hell, crap car to drive)
0-100km/h 3.8s
0-160km/h 9.1s
0-200km/h, no idea

By no stretch of the imagination they are by no means slow, certainly not the models above 350BHP. Yes the old stock GSR models that had around 260BHP were pathetic above 60mph, likewise for a Subaru WRX.


----------



## conneem (Nov 4, 2006)

Gibbo205 said:


> The FQ-300 is stock, FQ-330 has hardpipe kit, HKS filter and remap for 330BHP. The FQ-360 has HKS exhaust, some other fettling and map for 360BHP. The FQ-400 has much better flowing exhaust and again some other fettling for 400BHP.


That is surprising, I always thought the higher powered FQ model's came with a different turbo. They certainly charge a serious premium for those modifications on the FQ 360. Does your's have different brakes ect.. compared to the normal FQ 300?


----------



## Gibbo205 (Dec 22, 2010)

TTRS_500 said:


> So in a nutshell the Evo is less powerful, noticeably heavier, less aerodynamic, and has greater drivetrain losses.


Depends which EVO, there are two more powerful models, FQ-360 and FQ-400. Lets not forget the EVO 9 MR FQ-360 either, those are bloody quick as they only weigh 1390kg and hit peak torque at just 3200rpm. One of those at 400BHP are crazy and certainly quite a bit quicker than my X at 400BHP.

Yes they are heavier on the X, weight is not a good thing, but again an EVO X RS or just buy an older one and they are lighter. The X is actually quite a big car, it makes my mates Subaru look small.

Not sure on aerodynamics, the EVO certainly looks like a brick in comparison but I know when it comes to aerodynamics there is a lot more to it than looks.

Does an EVO have greater drivetrain losses?

But now you could argue in favour of the EVO, can transport 5 in relative comfort, huge boot, far superior AWD system with its S-AWC, AYC, ACD, ASC which ultimately results in better road handling and when you disable ASC better handling on the track as well.
I've not driven a TT RS yet, but I have driven an R8, TT RS, RS4, S5 and the EVO's 4WD is without doubt best of them all and out of the box the EVO has the least understeer, bar the R8 which is very grippy, but thats mid-engined.

Each car is gonna do certain things better than the other for sure. 

Perfect example of handling/track work is:-
Bedford Autodrome West Circuit EVO Magazine Lap times:-

EVO 8 MR FQ-340 1:24.55
Audi TT RS 1:27.1

The EVO absolute kills the Audi there, which could be evidence that Mitsubishi AWC is superior to Audi's Haldex or just the EVO handles a lot better.


----------



## Gibbo205 (Dec 22, 2010)

conneem said:


> Gibbo205 said:
> 
> 
> > The FQ-300 is stock, FQ-330 has hardpipe kit, HKS filter and remap for 330BHP. The FQ-360 has HKS exhaust, some other fettling and map for 360BHP. The FQ-400 has much better flowing exhaust and again some other fettling for 400BHP.
> ...


On the older EVO's this may have been true.

But EVO X FQ-300, FQ-330 and FQ-360 are all identical mechanical, engine and drivetrain wise. The FQ-360 does have carbon front lip, rear diffuser and half leather recaros over the other models though, but engine/turbo wise nope the same.

The FQ-400 is same engine/turbo, but has better breathing, also has wider suspension track, even bigger brakes, 6-pot front and 4-pot rear on huge disc, more carbon fibre, but in all honesty the FQ-400 is a big waste of money, its 50k, am sorry thats nearly GTR money.

GTR obliverates all EVO's and TT RS fact. Don't talk but you can mod an EVO or TT RS, you can do the same to the GTR, fact is the GTR does 0-100mph in 7.9s stock, midly tuned they are hitting mid 6s area to 100mph now. 
Though I do preferre the EVO's chuckability, but a GTR in race mode is still quite chuckable. However running cost on GTR on far far higher than these cars.


----------



## TTRS_500 (Aug 29, 2010)

Gibbo205 said:


> conneem said:
> 
> 
> > Gibbo205 said:
> ...


New GTR costs 75k, and costs a hell of alot more to run than 911 turbo never mind a TTRS which costs pretty much the same as an Golf r20 like you say.

I looked into getting one, but running costs are that of a exotica, I dont enjoy heavy vehicles, and the smart money would go on a 2nd hand 911 pdk turbo which still blitzes the GTR tuned or not. A porsche 911 has won the moscow unlim for 5 years on the trot now too, many GTRs have tried to conquer it but failed.

I did myself want to get a evo X before I got into a audi RS as im still young but insurance on the evos and living in london was just mental!


----------



## TTRS_500 (Aug 29, 2010)

Gibbo205 said:


> TTRS_500 said:
> 
> 
> > So in a nutshell the Evo is less powerful, noticeably heavier, less aerodynamic, and has greater drivetrain losses.
> ...


The evo produces downforce, the TT RS has some uplift.

The 4wd system in the evo is very good, engineered for its purpose to excel on the road and track. However more nannies that make a mediocre driver look like a driving god, and more stuff to go wrong. Im not knocking it though.

The aim of the audi true Quattro is slightly different to that of the evo, audis have to drive like an audi dont forget but the S4 with the sport diff is similiar to that of the evo and is very good.

Audis haldex isnt audis, Its just a technology of 4wd system that audi use along with tons of other manufacturers. A audi can handle as well as the evo, but to do so you need to get rid of the inbuilt audi characteristics that the audi eng.marketing dept have installed into the car to make it softer and appealing to a wider audience. We know that the TT chassis is a excellent one due to it racing success its just a case of removing the susper soft bushes, engine mounts etc.

hockenheim short

85. Audi TT-RS Coupe 1:14.30 126 '09 340 / 1450 sportauto
204. Audi TT-S Roadster 1:17.50 121 '08 272 / 1455 sportauto 08/2010
205. Mitsubishi Lancer EVO IX 1:17.60 121 '05 290 / 1482 sportauto
216. Mitsubishi Lancer Evo X MR 1:17.80 120 '08 295 / 1585 sportauto

Autozeitung test track

44. Porsche Cayman S 1:41.20 '05 295 / 1406 Autozeitung
50. Mitsubishi Lancer Evo X MR 1:41.60 '08 295 / 1585 Auto Zeitung
53. Audi TT-RS Coupe 1:41.80 '09 340 / 1450

nurburgring (no source on what tyres best motoring used)

100. Audi TT-RS Coupe 8:09.00 152 '09 340 / 1450 SportAuto
108. Mitsubishi Lancer EVO IX 8:11.00 151 '05 290 / 1482 Best Motoring
125. Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution VIII MR 8:15.00 150 '05 290 / 1455 Best Motoring

But anyway all this is silly as these two vehicles target audience is completely different ultimately.


----------



## TTRS_500 (Aug 29, 2010)

Gibbo205 said:


> conneem said:
> 
> 
> > Gibbo205 said:
> ...


Hurdys Golf GTI Ed30 did 0-160kmh in 9.9 secs with 360bhp and a fwd launch.


----------



## conneem (Nov 4, 2006)

Gibbo205 said:


> Perfect example of handling/track work is:-
> Bedford Autodrome West Circuit EVO Magazine Lap times:-
> 
> EVO 8 MR FQ-340 1:24.55
> ...


Where did you get that time for the TTRS, the one I see online is 1:26.30. Also the track changed between the time these two cars were tested (it was altered in 2008 and became longer) 

http://www.germancarforum.com/internal- ... s-gt2.html

But anyway I thought we were comparing the EVO X to the TTRS.

On the new Bedford layout EVO managed 1:29.30 for an Evo X FQ 300.

The only track time for the Evo X FQ 360 I can find is on Anglesey National for the Auto Express PCOTY shootout where it posted a 1:04.0 but also in that test was a TTS which posted 1:05.5.

Because there are not many mag track tests of the Fq 360 I'll compare more tests of the TTS (272ps) with the regular Evo X (300ps) just for an example 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TTS . . . . . . Evo X
Angelsey National . . . . . . 1:05.5 . . . . . 1:06.4
Hockenheim Short . . . . . 1:16.10 . . . . 1:17.80
Circuit de Nevers . . . . . . 1:26.63 . . . . 1:28.88
Ring Knutstrop . . . . . . . . 1:15.7 . . . . .1:16.8 (SST)

I would say the extra ~150kg the Evo has on the TTS hinders it round a track even though it has a power & torque advantage.


----------



## Gibbo205 (Dec 22, 2010)

GTR's are not 75k.....
My mate was on the waiting list so got the original launch price and at 15% VAT, think he paid 55-58k on the road. Are Nissan really charging 75k now? They are on Pistonheads for 50k and less than a year old, I thought the new price now was 60k region, certainly not 75k.

I've been fortunate enough to drive both the 997 Turbo and GTR R35, the Porsche is quicker once moving but generally most drivers will be quicker in a GTR on a UK road, probably racetrack too as long as the GTR's tranmission does not cook itself.

However at the price point Nissan sell these cars for it is a 911 Turbo beater, as they cost a good 30-40k more and they don't give 30-40k more performance.

However a 911 Turbo is cheaper to run than a GTR thats for sure.

EVO's are stupid on insurance, I pay £850, the Mustang before it which was modded like crazy was £500, stupid really as your far more likely to die in a 577BHP RWD motor with no traction control compared to a 4WD less powerful car.

Yes TT RS and EVO X are two different target audiences.

My problem is I like all cars so much and love tuning them so I like them both, hopefully gonna visit Audi tomorow or Friday, see what kind of test drive I can arrange.


----------



## conneem (Nov 4, 2006)

Gibbo205 said:


> My problem is I like all cars so much and love tuning them so I like them both, hopefully gonna visit Audi tomorow or Friday, see what kind of test drive I can arrange.


Do you fancy a test drive in a manual or S-Tronic?

Over here (Ireland) the Evo is a no go vs a TTRS due to running costs. Firstly tax wise it is ~600 euro more/year then it is heavily weighted insurance wise as we have no performance specialists at all really. So I like debating the pro's and con's of each on here where you can focus more on the performance and what each car offers


----------



## Gibbo205 (Dec 22, 2010)

conneem said:


> Gibbo205 said:
> 
> 
> > Perfect example of handling/track work is:-
> ...


I got that time from EVO's online review of the TTRS. If your comparing with a none UK EVO X I am not sure what horsepower those are in all honesty, could be anywhere between 260-300BHP. Mitsubishi made all X's FQ models, exactly what Mitsubishi UK do if anything to suspension/brakes/GEO for UK roads I am not sure.

Could post numbers all night long, I stand by my argument that a EVO X as a fast UK road car is hard to touch as an all round package and should not be compared against a 360BHP highly modified Golf GTI, the Golf may indeed be faster in a straight line but its not gonna turn or handle as well. If manufacturers could make FWD cars drive so well, they'd not have 4WD options higher up the range.

Fact is a TT RS is fast, so are EVO's and pretty much any car over 300BHP unless its a 2 tonne heffer with slugh auto box, can think of a few Mercs in that category, lol.


----------



## Gibbo205 (Dec 22, 2010)

conneem said:


> Gibbo205 said:
> 
> 
> > My problem is I like all cars so much and love tuning them so I like them both, hopefully gonna visit Audi tomorow or Friday, see what kind of test drive I can arrange.
> ...


I am disliking modern DSG/Auto boxes these days, as quick as they are at changing they are just taking the fun out of driving.

I absolutely adore the F1 box on the Ferrari 360 and M3 CSL, but the R35 GTR is just found it not as good, too smooth, it takes the fun element away, I absolutely love the punch in the back you get in a CSL when its set too S6 or the F1 box gives.

I'd imagine the S-Tronic in the TT RS is very smooth and as such boring, so I'd take a manual. Plus S-Tronic's are newer and I have no intention of loosing 10-15k in one year ownership due to Audi depreciation which is massive.

I got my EVO X for 23k, last March, I've been offered 19k already as a trade in, selling privately will see me 20-22k so for a years motoring loosing 2-4k is good going. I certainly don't wish to loose more than 6k on a car in a year which a less than 1yr old TT RS will do unless purchased very very cheap or an extremely good deal.

So manual for me.


----------



## jaybyme (Mar 10, 2010)

Well set up light weight FWD cars can be very quick on track.
Here's a 350ps R26R Megane giving a GTR a hard time on track.
http://www.youtube.com/user/DijonAutoRa ... Vih5Hz-aPQ
One things for sure,you wouldn't buy a GTR and expect a Renault Megane to be constantly in your rear view mirror


----------



## LEO-RS (Apr 13, 2009)

Gibbo205 said:


> I'd imagine the S-Tronic in the TT RS is very smooth and as such boring, so I'd take a manual. Plus S-Tronic's are newer and I have no intention of loosing 10-15k in one year ownership due to Audi depreciation which is massive.


Not quite sure where you have got these figures from? Cheapest TTRS at the moment on Audi used car site is £38k

http://usedcars.audi.co.uk/

You have to consider that most people will get 7-12% off new order so take real depreciation from there. A £50k specced up RS should cost ITRO of £45k in real terms with discount, these are still easily selling for £40k at a year old.Talk of £10-15k in 1st year is ridiculous.

I do agree with you though, you should be looking at buying at 1yr old for best value for money. As to future depreciation, well, you only need to look at how well the TTS cars are holding value, TTRS cars are always going to be priced higher.


----------



## jamiekip (Nov 12, 2006)

I agree.
Mine was up for just shy of £52k
I got it for £45k.
It's well specced so should be worth £38k to £40k after a year. Depreciation slows after that


----------



## Gibbo205 (Dec 22, 2010)

jaybyme said:


> Well set up light weight FWD cars can be very quick on track.
> Here's a 350ps R26R Megane giving a GTR a hard time on track.
> http://www.youtube.com/user/DijonAutoRa ... Vih5Hz-aPQ
> One things for sure,you wouldn't buy a GTR and expect a Renault Megane to be constantly in your rear view mirror


An R26.R won't keep up with a GTR drivers been equal. What that video shows is a very well driven R26.R against a poorly driven GTR.

Here is a video of a very well driven R26.R on Advan AD08 sticky rubber against a well driven GTR, hey where did that GTR go, yep a lot faster and the R26.R not keeping up to any imagination of the mind:-






Drivers been equal the R26.R has no chance on track and even less chance on a UK road.

However having been in R26.R several times if I was buying a FWD performance car the R26.R in my view is one of the best out there, I'd take it over a lardy overweight Golf anyday, its handling ability is in another league due to how lightweight it is and its fantastic DIFF in the front. But unlike a Golf its got no creature comforts, plastic windows but when you buying a car for its ability you tend to overlook things such as road noise, interior etc. The R26.R is a very capable road and track car that is fun to drive, just like the EVO X is. Audi's/VW tend to be softer with a lot more creature comforts to cater for the typical Audi driver.


----------



## Gibbo205 (Dec 22, 2010)

jamiekip said:


> I agree.
> Mine was up for just shy of £52k
> I got it for £45k.
> It's well specced so should be worth £38k to £40k after a year. Depreciation slows after that


So basically Audi have a lot of play in their sticker prices then? Cheapest on Pistonheads at the moment is a 2009 car at 37k, I'd suspect one could maybe obtain that for 35k?

Thing that worries me its a 2009 car its not a year old yet and is listed at 37k, when its another year old so 2yrs old will they be going for 30k region? Then what about 3yr year, cars always take a hit in 3rd year as you come out of warranty period even if you extend warranty, could we see these cars by 2012 dipping 25-30k region?

If I buy one I will be aiming for a 2009 car, manual and pushing to pay 35k, I normally do quite well buying cars because I am aggressive and buy in quiet periods and end of month when sales people need to do desperate things to hit targets, like sell a car at what it owes them.

My EVO X was listed at 25,995, I got it at 22,930 with the private plate on it. A year later I can get 19k as a trade in, privately looking at 21-22k, if I get 21k I will be over the moon as thats 2k loss in a year on a car thats cost me nothing to run apart from a set of tyres and £850 for an exhaust, the exhaust which of course I could remove and return to stock and sell that for £500.


----------



## LEO-RS (Apr 13, 2009)

Gibbo205 said:


> jamiekip said:
> 
> 
> > I agree.
> ...


I doubt you will get it for £35k, and that's the cheapest possible car too that you have listed. Higher mileage, zero spec? You want to be looking at £40k cars and aiming to spend £37-38k imo.

Have a look at TTS prices, that will give you an indication of where the RS will be. These have held value remarkably well. I reckon 3yr old TTRS cars will be priced ITRO of around £30k. £45k initial purchase price, £5k pa depreciation loss holding 66% of value at 3yrs.

I dont mean to be rude, I'm just not a fan of the evo. Sure it is a quick car, sure it's a good handling car, but come on, it is pig ugly, the rear end on the X is hideous and it looks to be about 10yrs out of date. The interior is horrendous, the image is horrendous (boyracer saxo/corsa wetdream), the running costs are horrendous and you cant even launch the thing properly without fear of destroying the clutch (5 sec 0-60)

5-10yrs ago, evos and imprezas used to rule the roost, not anymore, they are cars with very little point to them nowadays. They are loud, in your face, expensive to run and offer relatively average performance. Give me German over japcrap any day of the week, well bar the GTR of course.

As you can tell, I'm not a big evo fan :lol: Each to their own and all that though.


----------



## LEO-RS (Apr 13, 2009)

Gibbo, I take it you're on about this car...

http://www.pistonheads.com/sales/2343196.htm

Very well priced in my opinion, spec is good, I doubt you'll get him down to £35k. £36.5k at best. Even at that, I'd snap his arm off.


----------



## jaybyme (Mar 10, 2010)

Gibbo205 said:


> jaybyme said:
> 
> 
> > Well set up light weight FWD cars can be very quick on track.
> ...


You are comparing a standard 230ps R26R, a 350 ps tuned car will be a completely different story on track and definitely on twisty A and B roads.
I never said it would beat a GTR,just that it stayed with it,which is surprising in it's self.
I have a tuned R26 and on track they will stay with far more powerful cars.They are a real bargain fun car.


----------



## LEO-RS (Apr 13, 2009)

To be fair, that GTR is being poorly driven, racing lines were rubbish.


----------



## jaybyme (Mar 10, 2010)

even so,it shows how quick a decent FWD car can be.
It's a shame there's no 997's,M3's on track at the same time.
Remember the standard 230ps R26R lapped the ring in 8:12 secs,8:17 secs on the press day.
That's mighty impressive on such a power circuit as the Nürburgring.
Bit off subject now,whoops


----------



## conneem (Nov 4, 2006)

jaybyme said:


> even so,it shows how quick a decent FWD car can be.
> It's a shame there's no 997's,M3's on track at the same time.
> Remember the standard 230ps R26R lapped the ring in 8:12 secs,8:17 secs on the press day.
> That's mighty impressive on such a power circuit as the Nürburgring.
> Bit off subject now,whoops


I've been in one driven very well around the Nurburgring and it was immense, the grip in the corners was unbelievable. But the tyres it comes with help a certain amount.


----------



## mrdemon (Apr 20, 2005)

quote
"So basically Audi have a lot of play in their sticker prices then? "

Deals were on the new show room Audi's because Audi were paying massive cash back deals to the dealers.

You will not get those deals off 2nd hand ones as there is NO bonus payout.
Hence why 2nd hand ones are quite strong money and not much room to give low offers.

It was all due to Audi paying bonus's a few people got good deals on cars already in the show rooms.

You also have to remember the TTRS will go up 2.5% now on new, which is good news for 2nd hand values.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

.


----------



## TTRS_500 (Aug 29, 2010)

Pfffft you wish toshiba more like te slowest rs on the forum lol.

The rs mitchy posted the link to has lost like what 6k in 18 months and there is no way he would sell for 35k cause the audi dealers have offered more than that.

As per vag depreciation I lost 2.2k on a brand new Leon Cupra k1 in 18 months and 20,000 miles, trade in


----------



## TTRS_500 (Aug 29, 2010)

And just to put things into perspective, my brand new Ttrs will loose as much in value in a year as my gas brand new corsa 1.2. Vag depreciation is good if you are a clever buyer.


----------



## mikef4uk (Jan 15, 2006)

jamiekip said:


> I agree.
> Mine was up for just shy of £52k
> I got it for £45k.
> It's well specced so should be worth £38k to £40k after a year. Depreciation slows after that


Theres better deals than that, mine was July 2010 reg with 90 (ninety miles) list of just under 53K new and mine at under 40K


----------



## Gibbo205 (Dec 22, 2010)

conneem said:


> jaybyme said:
> 
> 
> > even so,it shows how quick a decent FWD car can be.
> ...


Tyres literally transform the way a car handles and feels, the wrong tyres can make a good car feel rubbish.

Perfect example my EVO X came with Vredstein Ultrac Sessenta Tyres, which are actually a good all round tyre, but still the cars steering felt numb and its grip levels in the dry with just average with wet been good.
Changing the tyres for some Yokohama Advan AD08's literally transformed the, the car had excellent steering feedback and feel and the outright grip in the dry was sheer crazy with only a slight sacrifice in wet grip. Trust me a set of decent tyres can make a bigger difference than changing your whole suspension.

The video I posted on my mates R26.R is also running those same AD08's and he can't believe how good they are, plus I believe he is running around 265BHP not the stock 230BHP.


----------



## LEO-RS (Apr 13, 2009)

mikef4uk said:


> jamiekip said:
> 
> 
> > I agree.
> ...


You got a £52k car new and unregistered for under £40k? That's a whopping 24% off, just how did you manage that?

I didn't think the dealers had that kind of margin to play with, or did they rape you on P/X of your last car by massive amounts?


----------



## mrdemon (Apr 20, 2005)

we are all waiting for the super sports magic tyre lol


----------



## Gibbo205 (Dec 22, 2010)

Mitchy said:


> Gibbo205 said:
> 
> 
> > jamiekip said:
> ...


Well going to Audi tomorrow morning to test drive a TT RS, will probably only be a 20 min drive so not ideal, does anyone here know if they offer 24hr test drives?

If I go for one my aim will be 35k, you always buy aggressively, saves you money in the long run.

TTS right now are selling from 23k upwards at a quick glance so they have lost a lot of money and going quite cheaply indeed.

I quite like the look of the new EVO X and it has grown up a lot, but yes its still a bit chavvy and though I'd not say its pig ugly but its certainly not a pretty car like a TT RS. 
The interior in the EVO X is not horrendous its just basic/average, its not BMW, Audi quality by far but it is better than French and its very functional, the seats are immense and the sound system being Rockford Fosgate is very good system.

How on earth can you say running cost are horrendous though, your so far off the mile and clearly thinking old EVO's, some facts from an EVO X:-

10k service intervals of average £280 cost per service
No cambelt, timing chain, so no big expensive service
Average of 19-22MPG from an FQ-360 with above 30MPG on motorway

Mine in 1yr ownership has had:-
2 services (£490 cost)
Complete set of 4x 245/40/20 Advan AD08 Tyres (£750 cost)
Fuel
Brand new set of wheels due to slight corrosion, replaced under warranty
New AYC pump due to be fitted Jan, replaced under warranty
To extend warranty is circa £750 for additional 3yrs

How are these horrendous running cost? Compared to my M3 CSL its cheap in comparison.

I've never used LC in mine because yes am scared the clutch might fry, its still on its original clutch and approaching 50,000 miles, so clutch is not that bad, but I managed 4.7s when it was stock with a 3000rpm launch and now with the exhaust due to the turbo spooling faster even a gentle 3000rpm launch is 4.4s and I can do those all day long with no risk to the clutch. However Launch Control means dropping clutch at 5500rpm which should yield 3.8s if done spot on but with the miles on my car I am not gonna try that.

I can appreciate you not liking jap crap each to their own, but you also are so far off the mark its untrue, horrendous running cost been the main one, they simply are not on the newer ones and are far more drivable than previous generations.


----------



## Gibbo205 (Dec 22, 2010)

mrdemon said:


> we are all waiting for the super sports magic tyre lol


I can tell you now the Michelin Pilot Super Sport is and will be a very special tyre. In theory it will have the dry grip of an AD08 tyre, but the wet grip at least of the PS2. 

As many people made the mistake of thinking the Michelin Pilot Sport PS3 replaced the PS2, this was untrue, the Michelin Pilot Super Sport replaces the PS2. 

What tyres does the TT RS tend to run from the factory?


----------



## TTRS_500 (Aug 29, 2010)

Ttrs oem tyre is the ps2.

Evo x running costs are much improved, wonder war reliability will be like on those when tuned though. We have loads of tuned evos round my way that are driven hard every other weekend and seem to require considerably more tlc than vags.


----------



## mrdemon (Apr 20, 2005)

Gibbo you have mail btw 

As for the TTS I think they are over priced 2nd hand, I looked for a year and thought bollocks to this and bought a TTRS.

TTS was only 32k new a 3 year old one should be 16k 

any thing which can keep 50% after 3 years is a very good buy imho.


----------



## jaybyme (Mar 10, 2010)

there will also be TT RS's fitted with Toyo T1 sports.
Hopefully they will also be fitted with the Mich PSS's later next year


----------



## LEO-RS (Apr 13, 2009)

Gibbo, I'm 1 for facts and figures so lets quote some as i'll just show you bad the Evo is....

The biggy is obviously fuel. Audi quote a combined 31.4mpg for their 335bhp car. Mitsubishi quote 19.9mpg for their 360bhp car :lol: The difference is an astonishing 60% more

Please explain to me why the Germans extract 31.4m out of each gallon of fuel but the Japs only manage a paltry 19.9m? Performance between the 2 base cars is pretty much identical, but yet the jap car is extremely thirsty in comparison? Just where is all that extra fuel going? What were the Mitsubishi techs thinking, seriously where is it going?

Some maths...

Gallon of fuel = 4.545l. Cost of Tesco 99 = 127.9ppl, cost of gallon = £5.81 per gallon

Avg 12,000m pa cost in a TTRS = 12,000 / 31.4 = 382.16g of fuel used. (382.16 x £5.81 = £2220.35)
Avg 12,000m pa cost in an Evo X = 12,000 / 19.9 = 603.01g of fuel used. (603.01 x £5.81 = £3503.48)

*Difference in fuel = £1283pa*

Tax...

TTRS = 214g/km = £245
Evo X = 328g/km = £435

*Difference in tax = £190pa*

So already, in fuel and tax costs alone, we have nearly £1.5k worth of saving. Just why are the Japanese so bad in comparison to the Germans, just look at the C02 emissions, this is not some big V8 motor, it's a piddly 2.0T.

Now getting onto insurance, you have already stated that your insurance is expensive at £850, well im 27, and insurance on my RS is under £600pa. For you depending on age, 35+? I suspect you will save £400pa or so alone in insurance.

We are now upto £1900pa in savings.

How about servicing? Evo is fixed at 10,000m pa but yet the TTRS is on a variable that can lead it to 15-20k before servicing. My clock is showing 5000m and next service is due in 14,000m so for every service I do, you'll need to do 2. Say a saving of £300 there.

Tyres/discs/pads, not sure but going from old evos, they eat these up at an alarming rate. I'll probably be pi**ed if I have to change any of these before 30k, evos of old and all were dead by 15,000 easy.Admittedly, I dont know much about the X but youve already stated that you've spent money on tyres etc.

I've highlighted £2k pa in savings that you will make by ditching the Evo and buying an RS. I'd agree with myself and say yes, that is horrendous. Factor in servicing and wearable consumables into that equation also, then its way north of £2k pa. 3yrs ownership that's £6-8k extra easily.

Instead of bartering on price of car, find 1 that offers decent running costs ;-) Your evo is horrendous value for money. 360bhp and 19.9mpg/328g/km :lol: Come on, Yes I'll say it again...*that is horrendous*

Mitch ;-)


----------



## LEO-RS (Apr 13, 2009)

Even the 3.8 V6 used in the R35 GTR gives 22.8mpg, 3mpg more than the highly strained 2.0T in the Evo.

Misubishi should sack their entire fuel diagnostics department :wink:


----------



## Simon H (Jun 22, 2008)

I specced up a TT RS S-Tronic at the dealers today, and it came in at around £54.5k, i asked about a handsome discount, as im like every other chap, not wanting to spend money, and i was offered £800 off. I was actually looking for around 10% off, so i left disappointed. Were all the other discounted cars mentioned in this thread, off the showroom floor, or factory orders ?.I was also told around May delivery, far too long for me.This car will be fantastic with the S-Tronic, but the price is its stumbling block for me. This money buys a 2010 model GT-R with virtually no miles. Which would you rather have ?, as we are mostly performance orientated chaps here, regards, SIMON.


----------



## conneem (Nov 4, 2006)

Simon H said:


> I specced up a TT RS S-Tronic at the dealers today, and it came in at around £54.5k, i asked about a handsome discount, as im like every other chap, not wanting to spend money, and i was offered £800 off. I was actually looking for around 10% off, so i left disappointed. Were all the other discounted cars mentioned in this thread, off the showroom floor, or factory orders ?.I was also told around May delivery, far too long for me.This car will be fantastic with the S-Tronic, but the price is its stumbling block for me. This money buys a 2010 model GT-R with virtually no miles. Which would you rather have ?, as we are mostly performance orientated chaps here, regards, SIMON.


I don't know about the UK but I am guessing 10% off a factory order would be a huge amount. Re. the GT-R it is tempting but how deep are your pockets for running it?


----------



## Gibbo205 (Dec 22, 2010)

Mitchy said:


> Even the 3.8 V6 used in the R35 GTR gives 22.8mpg, 3mpg more than the highly strained 2.0T in the Evo.
> 
> Misubishi should sack their entire fuel diagnostics department :wink:


Problem is you rely on fact and figures too much, I rely on real usage, not paper figures.

The R35 GTR my best mate and work colleague owned one for 7 months, travelling on same roads daily and hooning them as much as we could I average 19-22MPG in the EVO. Him the GTR averaged 11-12MPG, infact it was even worse than my Mustang. Maybe Mitsubishi are a bit more honest with their MPG claims, in comparison to Nissan they certainly are. On the couple of days I drove the R35 GTR I was alarmed at how much fuel had to be put in, if your light footed and do mostly motorway miles it will do well but the moment you give it any loud pedal whatsoever you need a tanker following you. So NO THE GTR IN REAL USAGE IS NOT 3MPG BETTER, more like 5MPG worse, coming from someone who has driven both.

Your quoting book figures, what do you average in your TT RS? In my EVO I average 19-22MPG and I boot it as much as I possibly can because I love driving it how it should be. THe manual claims 19.9MPG combined at 26.9MPG motorway, I've seen 32MPG on the motorway on a 200 mile drive down South. Thats 5MPG better than facts.

Also when you say Horrendous costing, your comparing against the TT RS which yes the Audi is cheaper, in my oppinion the EVO is not horrendous because I am comparing it against cars I've previously owned and cars of friends who they haved owned.

Onto Mitsubishi vs German engines, economy and emmissions etc. well I am in full agreement Mitsubishi are terrible on emissions and MPG compared to the likes of VAG, Audi and Porsche for similar powered engines. The Germans are a lot more efficient, but ze Germans always have.

However as your so keen to state all these cost, then lets add into the fact that an EVO X FQ-360 brand new is 14k less to buy than a TT RS. This is book pricing yes, so better deals can be had from both.

So if you base the cars from their book pricing and as they both perform similar is the EVO not the cheaper car over a 3yr period even with that un-efficient engine?

Also Audi might claim 31MPG combined for the TT RS but if they do that when been driven as they should I will eat my own hat, I simply don't believe it, are they getting their combined figures by letting OAP's driving the cars? Seriously what do people get from their TT RS who don't live on a motorway and actually hunt down B-roads and have the throttle buried out of every corner and drive at national speed limits on enthusiestically? If your still getting 31MPG I'd be amazed, which again makes all your calculations on real world usage complete nonsense.

Figures, numbers on paper fact or not do not always represent real world usage, which is proven by what I found from driving an R35 GTR, if you believe what it says on paper you'd think it would use less fuel than a EVO, real world usage is the GTR is vastly worse.


----------



## Simon H (Jun 22, 2008)

conneem said:


> Simon H said:
> 
> 
> > I specced up a TT RS S-Tronic at the dealers today, and it came in at around £54.5k, i asked about a handsome discount, as im like every other chap, not wanting to spend money, and i was offered £800 off. I was actually looking for around 10% off, so i left disappointed. Were all the other discounted cars mentioned in this thread, off the showroom floor, or factory orders ?.I was also told around May delivery, far too long for me.This car will be fantastic with the S-Tronic, but the price is its stumbling block for me. This money buys a 2010 model GT-R with virtually no miles. Which would you rather have ?, as we are mostly performance orientated chaps here, regards, SIMON.
> ...


Hi Conneem,
Yes, you are spot on there, and that is a big consideration about the GT-R. Although reading between the lines, it seems to be acceptable if you are frugal with who you use for servicing, and which tyres you use, if you can actually get hold of any. There also seems to be a lot of rules and regs with the warranty, with transmission temps and the like, regards, SIMON.


----------



## Gibbo205 (Dec 22, 2010)

Mitchy said:


> Instead of bartering on price of car, find 1 that offers decent running costs ;-) Your evo is horrendous value for money. 360bhp and 19.9mpg/328g/km :lol: Come on, Yes I'll say it again...*that is horrendous*
> 
> Mitch ;-)


Its not horrendous though compared to cars I've owned.

R34 GTR cost vastly more, fuel average was 13-14MPG, servicing cost were double that of the EVO.
M3 CSL, this actually matched the EVO fuel wise over my average, but returned slightly higher motorway mileage, but I rarely commute on motorway, I seek out back roads. Servicing cost were a lot more, Inspection II service £700. Inspection I were circa £450 and generic Oil service circa £250.
Mustang - Averaged 14-15MPG, servicing cost, well zero, did it myself just oil and filter. Never broke down either!
R35 GTR - average 11-12MPG, servicing cost bloody expensive plus additional services and inspections if you do track days, consumables are very expensive too.

So no from cars I've owned the EVO X is actually the cheapest so far, also in my years ownership I've practically lost no money on my purchase price.

So for me no its not horrendous, I could buy an R35 GTR, Aston Martin V8 Vantage or Ferrari 360, now those do have horrendous running cost and the latter 2 are not exactly reliable either as everyday motors.

Is it horrendous compared to a TT RS it certainly cost more but horrendous would make people assume its gonna cost twice, maybe 3 times more to run, thats simply untrue. 
Out of interest how much do Audi charge for services on the TT RS?
What is the tyre size?
Then factor in the original buy price and depreciation.
I'd say after 2-3yr ownership the actual cost in running will not be horrendously different, because I simply doubt the way I drive my cars on my daily routes I'd ever see 31MPG from a TT RS, but most likely 24-26MPG.


----------



## LEO-RS (Apr 13, 2009)

Admittedly light footed motorway journey home but figures werent too shabby at 36mpg. Not much fun, although it did include a 6th gear limiter blast in there too.

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=186760&hilit=fuel+economy

As to Evo X...

http://www.motorbar.co.uk/evoxfq36008.htm



> Officially, the FQ-360 returns 19.9mpg for the combined cycle but be warned that really hard driving will see this model return *LESS than 10mpg*.
> 
> The CO2 emissions are 328g/km, so its £400 in road tax this year and £440 in 2009. Unfortunately, for this rate of fuel consumption the fuel tank is much too small with its 55-litre capacity - *expect around 220 miles between fill-up*


Jeremy Clarkson..

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/drivin ... 812271.ece


> And, worse, because there's no cruising gear the fuel consumption is dreadful.


I'm sure I can find another hundred or so reviews of the Evo X showing dreadful fuel consumption

Evo X 360 = £38k
TTRS = £44k

I make that £6k, not £14k ;-)


----------



## LEO-RS (Apr 13, 2009)

The new GTR R35 has been hiked in price upto £70k for 2011.


----------



## Gibbo205 (Dec 22, 2010)

Mitchy said:


> Admittedly light footed motorway journey home but figures werent too shabby at 36mpg. Not much fun, although it did include a 6th gear limiter blast in there too.
> 
> viewtopic.php?f=19&t=186760&hilit=fuel+economy
> 
> ...


Don't you listen?

You said a GTR gives better fuel consumption compared to an EVO based on paper figures.

I've driven both on my route to work, had first hand experience of driving both an R35 GTR with downpipe compared to an EVO X FQ-360 running Milltek, the R35 GTR managed 11-12MPG and the EVO managed 17-19MPG on the same route, both driven should we say rather quickly.

Are you seriously telling me that a TT RS will give me an average of 31MPG?

Also an FQ-360 GSR is £35,999 brand new which comes with SATNAV, Sound system, Aircon, Xenons all as standard equipment. A brand new TT RS with SATNAV, Bose, Aircon, Xeonons does not cost 44k brand new. So the difference is over 10k.


----------



## LEO-RS (Apr 13, 2009)

Gibbo205 said:


> Mitchy said:
> 
> 
> > Instead of bartering on price of car, find 1 that offers decent running costs ;-) Your evo is horrendous value for money. 360bhp and 19.9mpg/328g/km :lol: Come on, Yes I'll say it again...*that is horrendous*
> ...


In comparison to those cars then I agree, but I was comparing TTRS to Evo X. You're right, most people will see ITRO of 24-26mpg. 95% of my driving is up and down the motorways due to where I live and commute to work etc so personally I do average 30mpg quite easily.

Not sure on servicing costs, not done 1 yet, someone else may be able to help. Tyres are 255/35/19 or 245/40/18 so these are obviously going to be expensive either way. However, I would expect them to last longer in the Audi?

I used to have a TME Evo 6, I only kept it for 6mths or so before trading it in due to some expensive problems I had with it.


----------



## Gibbo205 (Dec 22, 2010)

Mitchy said:


> The new GTR R35 has been hiked in price upto £70k for 2011.


Aye but the new 2011 GTR is bloody good, somehow they made it better, mind boggling. This does make current GTR a lot cheaper though and imports are now sub 40k, great second hand buys for anyone who is willing to fork out the running cost. At the end of the day the GTR gives supercar performance, so its bound to have supercar running cost.


----------



## LEO-RS (Apr 13, 2009)

Gibbo205 said:


> Mitchy said:
> 
> 
> > Admittedly light footed motorway journey home but figures werent too shabby at 36mpg. Not much fun, although it did include a 6th gear limiter blast in there too.
> ...


Only going off of official manufacturer figures. R35 GTR claims to be better and that's all I can go off of.

You will probably not average 31mpg if you do not go near motorways no. Me, yes, I can easily average 31mpg on commute to work.

A little silly comparing bog standard spec vs optional extra spec. You should compare basic vs basic. There will be some goodies the Evo will have that the TT doesn't and vice versa. Xenon and aircon obviously standard spec on TTRS as I assume they will be on evo. Bose and satnav, you will pay a little extra for yes.


----------



## Gibbo205 (Dec 22, 2010)

Mitchy said:


> Gibbo205 said:
> 
> 
> > Mitchy said:
> ...


Yeah you see my daily journey involves built up area, country road blast, couple of mental roundabouts, then couple of very short dual carriage way blast, basically all acceleration, hence why I don't average great MPG in my cars, oh well what can I say I enjoy them. 

Servicing cost on the EVO ranges from £220 - £320 per service, my 50k service was a big one at £320 due to spark plugs and every filter getting changed, but at 10k intervals an average of just over £250 a time is very very reasonable.

EVO is 245/40/18, I only buy the best tyres, infact I have two sets, for Summer Advan AD08's and for winter Michelin Alpin Pilot PA3's so I can thrash around on the snow too. Tyre usage, in all honesty they'd both be about the same, the biggest factor in tyre wear is the tyre itself, unless your running crazy amounts of camber, but my EVO has factory GEO so it wears tyres evenly across. Most EVO owners like sticky rubber, as such expect 5000-6000 miles from a set of fronts and 8000ish from the rears. If you fit regular rubber like Michelin Pilot Sport 2 for example a set of fronts will do upto 15,000 miles and the rears 20,000 miles. So more than reasonable.

So your basing your cost on an EVO 6 that cost you a lot of money due to no warranty. Its hardly a fair comparison mate.


----------



## LEO-RS (Apr 13, 2009)

I think when you start approaching £75-80k on a Nissan, then badge snobbery comes into it for me. £80k for me would go straight into 1 of Porsches offerings, 2nd hand or not.

Sure the new 2011 is going to be phenominally quick, but at the end of the day £75-80k is a lot of money for a loud Nissan that I assume will depreciate very heavily.


----------



## Gibbo205 (Dec 22, 2010)

Thats why manufacturers claims sometimes should be taken with a pinch of salt, its real world usage that counts. The Skyline made me cry and my mate cry, hence why he sold it just after 7 months, it cost him way more than he expected to run it. Apart from that it was mental but at the same time it made going too fast too easy.

If I did do motorways I reckon my average would be 24-26mpg, but as I don't thats why my best daily average is 22MPG, though I have managed 28MPG but thats when the tank is empty and I am treating the throttle like an egg shell, lol.

Its not silly comparing bog standard against bog standard though if both bog standards equipments are different. All EVO X GRS's have SATNAV, Rockford Fosgate, DVD as standard in the base sticker price. So the Audi needs extras ticking to match the price.

However out of curiosity as I am testing driving a TT RS tomorrow what is the price of a brand new TT RS with no options? What are the important options to look at or make sure one has?


----------



## Gibbo205 (Dec 22, 2010)

Mitchy said:


> I think when you start approaching £75-80k on a Nissan, then badge snobbery comes into it for me. £80k for me would go straight into 1 of Porsches offerings, 2nd hand or not.
> 
> Sure the new 2011 is going to be phenominally quick, but at the end of the day £75-80k is a lot of money for a loud Nissan that I assume will depreciate very heavily.


On this I completely agree with you. 

I'd rather buy a 2nd hand GTR for 50k and maybe throw 5k of mods at it, get it too 600ish horses and maybe tighten the suspension up a bit.

Or like you just buy a used 997 Turbo with PDK and tune that to 600 or so horses, job done.


----------



## mikef4uk (Jan 15, 2006)

Gibbo205 said:


> Mitchy said:
> 
> 
> > Admittedly light footed motorway journey home but figures werent too shabby at 36mpg. Not much fun, although it did include a 6th gear limiter blast in there too.
> ...


I think you will find xenon and air con std on a TTRS, I don't understand why you are winding everyone up? you ask a question then defend the EVO so hard I do wonder why you are considering a TT? after all the EVO sounds like the better car


----------



## LEO-RS (Apr 13, 2009)

Anyway enjoy your test drive. The performance isn't going to blow you away coming from your previous cars but it is very strong through its wide rev range which makes it deceptively quick for me. Pulls effortlessly from around 2200rpm upto the red. Give the quattro a work out with 1st and 2nd gear too, should pin you back a little, brakes are good and for me the handling is spot on but then again, I'm a straight line mile muncher and not 1 for winding country B roads.


----------



## LEO-RS (Apr 13, 2009)

Gibbo205 said:


> Thats why manufacturers claims sometimes should be taken with a pinch of salt, its real world usage that counts. The Skyline made me cry and my mate cry, hence why he sold it just after 7 months, it cost him way more than he expected to run it. Apart from that it was mental but at the same time it made going too fast too easy.
> 
> If I did do motorways I reckon my average would be 24-26mpg, but as I don't thats why my best daily average is 22MPG, though I have managed 28MPG but thats when the tank is empty and I am treating the throttle like an egg shell, lol.
> 
> ...


Base price no options is £44k (2010) £46k (2011). Obviously options are personal preferance but I dont think a TTRS looks aggressive enough on the 18's. For me personally, I think it looks much better on the optional 19's so I would say these are a must as is the fixed spoiler. (Handling may be a bit bumpier on the 19's)

Options range from satnav to crusie control to bucket seats to styling packs, the Audi list is endless but standard spec is pretty good, heated leather, xenon with DRL lights, climate etc

They even offer a derestricted engine for £1200 taking off the 155 limiter for 174. However, a remap at a 1/3 of the cost will do the same thing so a complete waste of money as is the 'sports' exhaust.


----------



## TTRS_500 (Aug 29, 2010)

On the NLT forums I read a few threads about people moaning about their mpg, on the tt forums you don't get this. My friends 420hp Evo drinks alot more fuel at WOT than my TTRS does. A new fq360 is what 36k and you can pick up a year old one for 26k iirc looking at pistonheads.

But really all of this is irrelevant as they are two completely different cars with two completely different aims overall.

In stock form the Ttrs will probably bore you on full attack due to it's effortless and grown up nature. A few choice mods will quickly change that though


----------



## Gibbo205 (Dec 22, 2010)

> I think you will find xenon and air con std on a TTRS, I don't understand why you are winding everyone up? you ask a question then defend the EVO so hard I do wonder why you are considering a TT? after all the EVO sounds like the better car


Its a forum, a place for discussion and for putting one anothers oppinions forward. Yes I do think the EVO X is a good car, but I want to try something else. I see the TT RS as the cheaper car to tune and a faster car once tuned without a doubt because as you guys have shown 440-450BHP is possible from the TT RS wheras to get that on an EVO X will cost more and it weighs more, hence why the TT RS is such a quick car. I have openly admitted the TT RS is faster at Stage 1. My argument has been is they are not as slow or as expensive to run as some people thought. 

Its a discussion, a sharing of experiences and knowledge, certainly not meant to wind people up.


----------



## Gibbo205 (Dec 22, 2010)

Mitchy said:


> Gibbo205 said:
> 
> 
> > Thats why manufacturers claims sometimes should be taken with a pinch of salt, its real world usage that counts. The Skyline made me cry and my mate cry, hence why he sold it just after 7 months, it cost him way more than he expected to run it. Apart from that it was mental but at the same time it made going too fast too easy.
> ...


Yeah the TT RS does look better on 19's for sure and definetely agree on the fixed spoiler and I like a good sound system. Good advice on the speed limiter and exhaust, pointless when a remaps gives so much more for less.

How do Audi stand on warranty with 3rd party exhaust and remaps? Do they allow it or is it down to the dealer?


----------



## LEO-RS (Apr 13, 2009)

Due to the small size of the TT cabin, I feel the standard sound system is very good. There is an endless list of threads on here comparing the optional bose vs the standard audio and many state that the bose in the TT is a waste of money. I had bose in a courtesy car for a couple of days and in all honesty, I really couldnt tell the difference.

For exhaust noise, a lot of guys are fitting the 2nd cat bypass pipes, its a cheap mod at around £150 or so and takes 20mins to do. A lot lot cheaper than Audi's sports exhaust system which is basically the same (little more noise, no performance benefit)

On your test drive, make sure to press the S button and then the ESP button, throttle response will be a bit more lively, exhaust will sound deeper and the ESP shouldn't kick in unwelcomed.

Warranty is going to be down to dealer.


----------



## mikef4uk (Jan 15, 2006)

Gibbo205 said:


> Mitchy said:
> 
> 
> > Gibbo205 said:
> ...


19's ? my local dealer had a black one on RS4 20's..............now that DID look good 

I'm wondering the same, a couple of mapped TTRS's have done 1st gear, If I was an Audi dealer I think I would be looking for a 'get out' and the map would be exactly that. I don't think they look too hard but they do have a habit of performing a software update evry time the car goes in that wipes the paid for map requiring a re-flash.

I was thinking of the Revo, but tomorrow is the last day at discounted rate of £100off


----------



## TTRS_500 (Aug 29, 2010)

mikef4uk said:


> 19's ? my local dealer had a black one on RS4 20's..............now that DID look good
> 
> I'm wondering the same, a couple of mapped TTRS's have done 1st gear, If I was an Audi dealer I think I would be looking for a 'get out' and the map would be exactly that. I don't think they look too hard but they do have a habit of performing a software update evry time the car goes in that wipes the paid for map requiring a re-flash.
> 
> I was thinking of the Revo, but tomorrow is the last day at discounted rate of £100off


People have killed 1st gear with mapped TTRS? Who are they? All of the hardest driven TTRS on the forums seem to be ok so far?

6-7k on the TTRS will net 600hp apparently. The first two cars are in the workshop currently for developments and modifying.


----------



## LEO-RS (Apr 13, 2009)

TTRS_500 said:


> mikef4uk said:
> 
> 
> > 19's ? my local dealer had a black one on RS4 20's..............now that DID look good
> ...


I started a thread last week asking about this. sTTranger knackered his gearbox, Mule has knackered his 1st gear and the 3rd person hasn't made it public for whatever reason but Im sure you can hazard a guess :wink:


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

/


----------



## LEO-RS (Apr 13, 2009)

Toshiba said:


> Simon H said:
> 
> 
> > I specced up a TT RS S-Tronic at the dealers today, and it came in at around £54.5k, i asked about a handsome discount, as im like every other chap, not wanting to spend money, and i was offered £800 off. I was actually looking for around 10% off, so i left disappointed. Were all the other discounted cars mentioned in this thread, off the showroom floor, or factory orders .
> ...


There have been quite a few people who have secured a discount on a *new* RS Tosh. I think with you, you were 1 of the 1st to own an RS so you had to pay full price. The same is happening just now with the new RS3's. Come a year down the line and they'll be selling RS3's for -10% aswell.

Additionally, it's probably best trying to source an already specced built car rather than factory order and waiting. If you search the length and breadth of the country, there's bound to be 1 that fits the bill.

To Simon..I would shop around mate, I travelled 350m for the right car that was within my price range, was a used example, 3.5k miles on the clock, (no,not ex demo) spec was half decent (£48k) and I picked it up for £37k. Only just turned a year old.

There are bargains out there, some stealers offer nothing but some are offering a fair whack off. Macclesfield Audi, I can recommend, Mike also got a very good deal from them.

Keep your eye on here..(although it states used, there are many cars with <100m on the clock)

http://usedcars.audi.co.uk/?.html

I'll give you a tip, keep your eye on this 1...

http://usedcars.audi.co.uk/carview.aspx?id=601146409

From what I can tell about Macclesfield Audi, I reckon it will drop in the next month or so ;-)


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

.


----------



## Gibbo205 (Dec 22, 2010)

Mitchy said:


> Toshiba said:
> 
> 
> > Simon H said:
> ...


Macclesfield is my home town, that where your from mate, or you from Aberdeen?


----------



## mikef4uk (Jan 15, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> The cars people are talking about are ex demos.
> Personal i think you'd have to be a nutter to purchase one of these cars. i know when i have them i thrash the balls off them and do things i wouldn't do in my own car.


I must be that nutter, and this is the third time around as well and guess what? I have had no issues or faults at all (except the mechatronic unit on the TTS) I really don't see what the problem is, I have saved close to £13K on a car with 90miles showing and nearly 3 years warranty remaining and please tell me how you are going to thrash the nuts off a 155mph (restricted) car enough to do it any harm without ending up at her majesty's pleasure?


----------



## LEO-RS (Apr 13, 2009)

Gibbo205 said:


> Macclesfield is my home town, that where your from mate, or you from Aberdeen?


Aberdeen mate, I travelled down for the car as I was happy with the figures the guy gave me over the phone. No other dealer was getting close so it was a long day back and forward for me.

Keep your eye on the audi used website for discounts. I think I'd rather buy from Audi directly rather than privately as they put it through their Audi approved scheme, (tonnes of checks, mileage etc) Additionally, I also believe they are offering 2yrs free servicing just now aswell. That was a nice little bonus for me as I wasnt aware until I picked the car up. (Last month, Nov)


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

.


----------



## mikef4uk (Jan 15, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> Do you see how long it will bounce off the red line?
> Do you LC it when cold?
> Do you run it in?
> Do you drive it like you stole it?
> ...


All the above with the sales person sat next to them who don't forget has to sell this obviously knackered and f****d car after it comes off demo, I'll just keep the 13K thank you, and the 8K and 6K off the two before it....Happy Days!!!!!!!!!


----------



## TTRS_500 (Aug 29, 2010)

Toshiba said:


> Simon H said:
> 
> 
> > I specced up a TT RS S-Tronic at the dealers today, and it came in at around £54.5k, i asked about a handsome discount, as im like every other chap, not wanting to spend money, and i was offered £800 off. I was actually looking for around 10% off, so i left disappointed. Were all the other discounted cars mentioned in this thread, off the showroom floor, or factory orders .
> ...


My car was brand new with a sizeable discount. We arent talking about ex demos!


Toshiba said:


> TTRS_500 said:
> 
> 
> > Pfffft you wish toshiba more like te slowest rs on the forum lol.
> ...


I modded my Cupra a hell of alot more than I have my RS and sold it just fine thank you. Also as per warranty my mtae is a audi technician and he says they carry out warranty worked on modded cars all the time no question asked.

Again my highly modded seat was in and out of the dealership for numerous problems including clutch and gearbox, all under warranty, and they knew the car was mapped.

Dont be so frightned of loosing your warranty and live a little!


----------



## richieshore (May 17, 2010)

mikef4uk said:


> Toshiba said:
> 
> 
> > Do you see how long it will bounce off the red line?
> ...


The sales person doesn't give a sh*t, in fact they use the demo's as their 'company' car and they thrash them more than anyone!

If you're happy then it really doesn't matter if it's been thrashed, you have a guarantee anyway so who cares, personally I'm with tosh though, I'd rather pay the extra and wear it in as gently as I like! 

Just out of interest... I'm intrigued by the RS' only doing about 90 in 3rd? What's the reason for them to have shorter gear ratio's than the TT? I can get around 110 (be it on the clock) in 3rd in mine?


----------



## TTRS_500 (Aug 29, 2010)

Mitchy said:


> TTRS_500 said:
> 
> 
> > mikef4uk said:
> ...


Stranger had a bearing fail, mule was driver error and the third I suppose is the guy who has been quiet about alot for a while now I suppose!


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

.


----------



## conneem (Nov 4, 2006)

richieshore said:


> Just out of interest... I'm intrigued by the RS' only doing about 90 in 3rd? What's the reason for them to have shorter gear ratio's than the TT? I can get around 110 (be it on the clock) in 3rd in mine?


I think you'll find that that is 4th maxing out @ around 110. Auto drivers, don't even know what gear they are in :lol:

A manual TTS hits ~82mph in 3rd and then ~110 in 4th

A manual RS hits ~90mph in 3rd and ~120 in 4th


----------



## richieshore (May 17, 2010)

conneem said:


> richieshore said:
> 
> 
> > Just out of interest... I'm intrigued by the RS' only doing about 90 in 3rd? What's the reason for them to have shorter gear ratio's than the TT? I can get around 110 (be it on the clock) in 3rd in mine?
> ...


I've got a manual TT and can hit 110 in 3rd, prob 115 if I really pushed it... That's what the speedo says anyway, I know they're inaccurate but can't be out by that much surely?


----------



## conneem (Nov 4, 2006)

richieshore said:


> conneem said:
> 
> 
> > richieshore said:
> ...


Are you talking about km/h or mp/h and petrol or diesel.

The TDi manual will reach ~70km/h in 2nd and ~110km/h in 3rd. That is ~70mph in 3rd


----------



## richieshore (May 17, 2010)

conneem said:


> richieshore said:
> 
> 
> > Just out of interest... I'm intrigued by the RS' only doing about 90 in 3rd? What's the reason for them to have shorter gear ratio's than the TT? I can get around 110 (be it on the clock) in 3rd in mine?
> ...


Manual TT 2.0 TFSI petrol, 110mph in 3rd... It's the new 211ps model not that that should make any difference?


----------



## jamiekip (Nov 12, 2006)

Turning in to quite the thread this one lol

Tosh I had a 11% off my dream spec factory order. However I was quoted completely unrealistic timelines for a delivery. I ended up getting an unregistered demo with more toys for less money. 
Don't be bitter because you paid fu price 

Re: gearboxes, as mentioned the bearing failure was resolved under warranty, Mule has alluded to an oem gearbox upgrade. As for the other I can assure you that was nothing to do with the cars power.

Warranty - a dealer would be hard placed to prove a modification is the cause of an issue on the car. You're well within your right to insist a dealer proves any modification is the cause of a problem. In order for them to do this costs time and money so more often than not dealers will honour a warranty claim.

As for the Evo v TTRS debate.
Two very different cars for two very different markets. 
Both fast but both do it in different ways.
However through all that is said so far in this thread the S1 RS will be quicker in a straight line. Why I hear Gibbo ask.
It's lighter
It has less drive train losses
It has a wider power band
It holds peak torque for longer

When it come to twisties out of the box on the same tyres I'd expect them to perform at a similar level but the evo would be more 'fun'
However a few choice mods on the RS and you get a car that has a very responsive front end and the Gen4 haldex doing enough to bring the rear end to the party.

Having had 7 months of fun with my car modding it and tracking it I can safely say the car is massively under rated for what it is capable of!

Hope you enjoy the test drive gibbo


----------



## TTRS_500 (Aug 29, 2010)

richieshore said:


> conneem said:
> 
> 
> > richieshore said:
> ...


110mph in 3rd doesnt sound right :?:


----------



## richieshore (May 17, 2010)

TTRS_500 said:


> richieshore said:
> 
> 
> > Manual TT 2.0 TFSI petrol, 110mph in 3rd... It's the new 211ps model not that that should make any difference?
> ...


Hmmm, who knows then? It certainly does it, perhaps they've messed with the gearing for some reason on the my11 model? Oh well!


----------



## conneem (Nov 4, 2006)

Trying to find some vids on youtube and it seems that the A5 with the 211ps engine does reach ~110mph in 3rd too.






must be for better economy, as would be worse for acceleration compared to the old ratio's but then the new engine has a good dollop more torque.


----------



## TTRS_500 (Aug 29, 2010)

conneem said:


> Trying to find some vids on youtube and it seems that the A5 with the 211ps engine does reach ~110mph in 3rd too.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


that would explain it tbh.


----------



## richieshore (May 17, 2010)

conneem said:


> Trying to find some vids on youtube and it seems that the A5 with the 211ps engine does reach ~110mph in 3rd too.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Makes sense! Cheers!


----------



## jaybyme (Mar 10, 2010)

not to me,you wouldn't design a box with a high 3rd gear for economy,high 6th,7th yes


----------



## mikef4uk (Jan 15, 2006)

richieshore said:


> The sales person doesn't give a sh*t, in fact they use the demo's as their 'company' car and they thrash them more than anyone!
> 
> If you're happy then it really doesn't matter if it's been thrashed, you have a guarantee anyway so who cares, personally I'm with tosh though, I'd rather pay the extra and wear it in as gently as I like!
> 
> Just out of interest... I'm intrigued by the RS' only doing about 90 in 3rd? What's the reason for them to have shorter gear ratio's than the TT? I can get around 110 (be it on the clock) in 3rd in mine?


Theres a lot of dealers that are not allowed for insurance purposes to have cars like TTRS/R8 etc as their ''company car'' also I have yet to take a top end performace car out without the sales person sat next to me

Do you really think you can harm an engine by thrashing it for 30 minutes?

Most engines these days are run on the dyno at the factory and tested for max hp anyway, I witnesed this at the Porsche factory a few years ago, engines flat out/red hot manifolds etc.............and then your going to run it in gently, and then it WILL use oil, my last 3 ex demo's have not used a drop of oil between services.

IMHO ex demo's are generally v good value, you normally pay base line money for a nicely spec'ed car, and after all, once you have your ''brand new'' car home it's second hand anyway.

The most trouble I have ever had with a car was the ONLY new one I have ever bought (A3 2.0 FSI in 2004)
oil consumption (ran it in too gently)
wiper motor x2 (once in the 3rd lane torrential rain)
Kangeroo'd to a halt twice (fault code circuit 1 low pressure) they changed the ecu? then the fuel pump and controller (fixed) they had the car a total of 4weeks
rear shocks tapping noise, (they knackered one of my 17inch polished alloys)
Clutch noise like a hissing release bearing at every gear change


----------



## mikef4uk (Jan 15, 2006)

jamiekip said:


> Re: gearboxes, as mentioned the bearing failure was resolved under warranty, Mule has alluded to an oem gearbox upgrade. As for the other I can assure you that was nothing to do with the cars power.
> 
> Warranty - a dealer would be hard placed to prove a modification is the cause of an issue on the car. You're well within your right to insist a dealer proves any modification is the cause of a problem. In order for them to do this costs time and money so more often than not dealers will honour a warranty claim.
> 
> Hope you enjoy the test drive gibbo


Do you know what the oem gearbox upgrade was? When we raced the 911GT2's they would break the friction weld between the dog tooth ring and first gear if used too many times for standing starts (most were rolling starts in the British GT series)


----------



## conneem (Nov 4, 2006)

jaybyme said:


> not to me,you wouldn't design a box with a high 3rd gear for economy,high 6th,7th yes


All the gear are very high though

240+ km/h (~150mph) in 4th
300+km/h (~190mph) in 5th


----------



## jamiekip (Nov 12, 2006)

mikef4uk said:


> jamiekip said:
> 
> 
> > Re: gearboxes, as mentioned the bearing failure was resolved under warranty, Mule has alluded to an oem gearbox upgrade. As for the other I can assure you that was nothing to do with the cars power.
> ...


All I've heard is that an axle within the gearbox was redesigned and upgraded.


----------



## [email protected] (Aug 4, 2009)

Gibbo205 said:


> 996cab said:
> 
> 
> > Gibbo205,
> ...


The thread is getting a little laden with ERGOS as usual...which is always not very good.

Anyway, let us know how you get on with the test drives.

Yes, the Haldex upgrade is great...

The point about leaving a car unmolested is great and should be admired...am not sure why anyone buys a car then spends most of their lifetime worrying about its value dropping if you put any upgrade on it - cars in the UK are overpriced anyway so I pity those worried about values...then again who are we to question?

Italian cars I will leave as original because that is what I buy into...To a point, you can 'improve' a little on 911s specifically so mod is a matter of choice.

I luv the Porsche mantra...you buy a car for a given purpose and not try making each car type perform outside its given purpose so;
a) If you want a fast fleet then from the Boxster up to the 911 TT will do...depends where your budget is. 
b) Family hauler is Cayenne; 
c) Want to impress mates at that outlandish golf club or health club and voila, the Panamara. 
d) Want to go on the track a little then GT3 is yours Sir! 
e) Want to go on the track a little more then GT3 RS is yours Sir! 
f) Want to really compete at trackdays then GT2 RS is yours Sir! 
g) Got more money than sense then try a Cup car or LeMans built racer with factory support....just make sure your bank balance can support up to £1M p/a cheques!!!


----------



## mikef4uk (Jan 15, 2006)

996cab said:


> Gibbo205 said:
> 
> 
> > 996cab said:
> ...


When it comes to modding cars Porsche owners are just about the worst, we even used to pick cars up straight from the dealer for modding


----------



## Gibbo205 (Dec 22, 2010)

Hi there

Right rang Audi Stoke yesterday, requested test drive for today. Arrives at Audi 11am, to be met by sales guy on his day off but as its his car he come in so I could drive it. He gives me the keys immediately and off I go with him in the passenger seat.

I shall try to cover as much as possible but I was only driving for circa 45 minutes so in that short time its hard to give a full proper review, so lets get started:-

The car had 3700 miles, had pretty much every option including the Recaro seats which look nicer than those in the EVO, more upmarket but not quite as supportive but still damn good. The sound system is also excellent, its not quite as a good as the Rockford Fosgate system in the EVO, but the Audi sounds deeper due to the car been built better if that makes sense. Anyway start the car, press sport and turn ESP off to get things started.

First thing I notice is a much lower clutch biting point than the EVO, I nearly stalled, but after 2 mins adapted to the clutch and its nice and feels more meaty than the EVO's, certainly feels like it can be abused a lot more. The other instant thing I notice is the engine sound, its very fruity and nice, infact its surprising how good it sounds and I am talking engine noise not exhaust noise.

So I ask if I can take the car on my own route and the sales guy is yeah feel free, its my day off drive where you want, so I headed home, then towards OcUK and finally back to Audi to cover all my favourite roads. 

First of all lets talk about Audi's steering, first thing I dislike is the flat bottomed steering wheel, its just annoying. What I do notice though is the steering has excellent weighting, heavier than the EVO with a very good weighty/meaty feel. However it does suffer from Audi dullness, there is little to zero feedback and the steering is not as fast as the EVO's. However due to the TT's compact nature and sitting close to the floor I can feel the car communicate to me through my ass, so even though there is very little feel through the steering the car does communicate. If Audi added more feel and got rid of the flat bottom steering wheel it would be fantastic in this area as the weighting is spot on. So the steering, it could have been worse, but it could also still be better. Question is would fitting some different bushes or a different GEO setup improve feedback through the steering?

Handling and grip on this car is what impressed me the most. It was damp and 5c outside, the car had Summer tyres on and in these conditions the car was glued to the road just as much as my EVO on its winter tyres. Fair enough this Audi was on 19" wheels with much wider rubber so more mechanical grip. But every long sweeping corner I took it either matched the EVO or beat it in corner speed. This truely impressed me by the sheer levels of grip available, which I put down too Summer tyres, wider contact patch and the fact the TT RS is about 100kg lighter than an EVO X. Still this impressed me as the EVO X is a superb handling and grippy car. I then took the car to a local 30-40mph small roundabout which is very wide so great for testing a cars limits. The EVO X 30 mins earlier was happy going round here at 32mph in damp conditions, it was sliding by 33mph but with the EVO you just add more throttle and turn in harder and AYC will do its magic allowing you to increase speed to over 35mph (when its AYC works). The TT RS started to loose grip around the same point and then pushed wide, giving more throttle resulting in pushing more wide, tightening up the lock just pushed wider still, so on tighter stuff the Audi understeers and you can't add power to sling it around faster it just pushes more wide. Still however the difference is hardly noticable. I'd say the Audi has more mechanical grip on offer due to fatter tyres and because it weighs less but at the limit it just pushes wide. The EVO X has slightly less mechanical grip but its AYC system will let you go faster and it will also hang the back-end out and happily play, basically more fun. The EVO X also seems tighter in tighter turns and is happy to get on the power that bit earlier and sling shot you out the corner, wheras in the Audi you may have to wait or get in the power a bit slower otherwise you will run wide. Basically if you drive the Audi with in your mind that you need to be smooth in essence it will be near as damn it EVO quick on a country road. Wheras the EVO you can chuck it a lot more and get on the power a bit earlier and it will be ever so slightly quicker but slight.

The brakes were powerful and very sharp, certainly more than adequate and as good as the EVO's stopping wise, maybe just a little over assisted and not quite as progressive, but still very good indeed. The car stops very well!

Performance wise the TT RS deploys its power very well from 2000rpm it surges and by 3000rpm its on full boil and pulls very strong towards 7000rpm and the gearing is much longer and far better suited to all types of driving and that 6th cog is great for motorway cruising. The EVO is a little more explosive in its power delivery and pulls harder to redline but thats due to 390BHP and shorter gearing. I am sure if the TT RS had TT S gearing it would be mental in the lower gears, or give it 400BHP and am sure it pushes you back in your seat that much harder. In higher gears the EVO did seem to pull better but in fairness its gearing is shorter and its got 400BHP. I am sure a TT RS with 400BHP in 5th will pull ahead of the EVO, not hugely but enough but beyond 150MPH I can see the TT RS really getting a shift on. What I did notice is the TT RS has a much better 1st gear, due to power coming in so early it pulls very hard in first, infact it does not seem torque limited it just induces whiplash and flies off leaving you grabbing for next gear, even more so its all so easy to do and it feels as if the clutch is happy for you to do it over and over again. A fast launch in the EVO requires more revs and then its torque limited so it never feels that great in 1st, its not until 2nd it blast off. So performance wise the TT RS is very impressive and I can fully expect a Stage 1 TT RS to be an R8 beater and easily a match upto 100mph to an EVO X running 400 horses, the EVO will keep up due to shorter gearing, but beyond 120mph the TT RS will start to pull away. The other impressive fact is on my test drive I average 23MPG, in the EVO with same driving would be around 19MPG, so its an improvement there, but in top gear on the motorway 40MPG should be just about possible, thats a good 10MPG better but I don't buy cars based on motorway MPG as its rare I sit on motorways. But Audi's 2.5l engine is very efficient and has fantastic powerband, kudos to them as its superior to Mitsubishi 2.0 engine plus sounds better.

Quality wise well its an Audi been compared to a Mitsubishi, the Audi is a far nicer place to sit and its feels more solid in its controls, clutch, gearbox, weighty steering etc.

I feel the TT RS is a very capable car and with its tuning ability probably one of the fastest Audi's on offer if you throw 2-3k at one and aim for 450 horses your gonna be beating R8's and much powerful cars such as M5's for sure. As 450BHP in a 1450kg car is not gonna hang around!

The biggest downside of this car for me is its image and price tag. A new one is 54k when a new EVO X FQ-360 is 36k and the EVO has SATNAV, Xenons, Rockford Fosgate Sound, DVD all as standard.

Both cars depreciate a lot, but the Audi is gonna loose big bucks in the first two years, even now a 2009 car with sub 10,000 miles and less than a year old are going for 37-39k region. I asked the sales guy if he thought he'd be able to find me one with SATNAV, Bose, Recaros for mid 30's and his reply was "yes just give me some time" and suggested 37-39k would get one with that spec. Still it is of my oppinion anything over 35k is too much because at two years old I feel they will be in the 30-32k region.

I think 33k right now would be a steal, 35k would be good and 37k reasonable, but any higher and your looking to loose quite a bit in depreciation.

To summarise the EVO has faster steering and better feedback, plus its more chuckable and its AYC can make it turn tighter and faster resulting in more fun. Plus it can obviously steat 5 in comfort and its a far cheaper car, you can pick 2009 FQ-360 up for 25-29k.

The TT RS is just better everywhere else, engine sounds better, it goes just as well, more usable powerband, better gearing and 6 of them too. It seems grippier though it does understeer but that could be fixed with some thicker ARB's. Its a nicer place to be and its more grown up. For me it would probably save me £10 a week in fuel and £200 a year in tax so probably talking close to £1000 in savings on running cost. But than factor in Audi servicing cost and more expensive tyres and that saving will probably only be about £500 a year, but still a saving, not that I care but some may find that interesting.

If both cars were the same price, Audi TT RS everytime as its just as quick on the roads, every so slightly more grippy apart from real tight turns due to lack of AYC and is of a far higher quality. Plus the tuning capability for very little money is far greater than that of an EVO X. 2.2k gets you close to 450BHP. 3k on an EVO X will result in circa 410-420BHP and then more is huge money and it will become not as drivable.

But in used car terms the Audi TT RS is at present a good 10-12k more and its not that much of a better car, if I could get one at 33-35k I'd be very tempted but at the same time would sell it on in 6 months if they started depreciation a lot as Audi's can loose money very fast, but sometimes RS cars can also hold their value.

So yes it impressed me a lot, more so than I expected and yes I would like to own one, it can be made to handle just as well as the stock EVO X, but it can go a lot quicker in a straight line, it sounds a lot better whilst doing it and it looks better too. I am sure one running over 400BHP is one hell of a rocket. To state when running 440-450BHP they can hit 60mph in 3.6s and do the 1/4mile in 11.69s, thats not far off R35 GTR performance, but with much lower running cost. The only problem for me is its still just a TT and its overpriced right now. But in my view its a superior car to an EVO X but I need to test drive some other cars as well as 40k is a lot of money to put down, so need to make the right decision.


----------



## mikef4uk (Jan 15, 2006)

Good write up 

I'm with you all the way on the gimmacky flat bottomed steering wheel, it drives me mad :x


----------



## [email protected] (Aug 4, 2009)

Gibbo205 said:


> ...So yes it impressed me a lot, more so than I expected and yes I would like to own one, it can be made to handle just as well as the stock EVO X, but it can go a lot quicker in a straight line, it sounds a lot better whilst doing it and it looks better too. I am sure one running over 400BHP is one hell of a rocket. To state when running 440-450BHP they can hit 60mph in 3.6s and do the 1/4mile in 11.69s, thats not far off R35 GTR performance, but with much lower running cost. The only problem for me is its still just a TT and its overpriced right now. But in my view its a superior car to an EVO X but I need to test drive some other cars as well as 40k is a lot of money to put down, so need to make the right decision.


Well, glad you had the chance to play a little...makes a difference.

We cleared a couple of cars to make this accidental purchase and it has been nowt short of an excellent revelation...I expected to sell it after a short while as I also felt a 'TT' is not a proper sports car and cannot be taken serious...how we have been proven so wrong...once we spent a little(ish!!!) to mod, it is very capable indeed.

On the point of value - if it is real world speed/handling in a quality safe package then you are on the right track and as you may already appreciate, when one pays peanuts then one can only expect monkeys...

Hope you do find one at the right spec/price.


----------



## Simon H (Jun 22, 2008)

Gibbo,
Ive read all yout posts in this thread with interest. Could i ask you why you dont just buy an R35 GT-R, to replace the Evo ?.I completely understand about your buying theorys, and at the moment, i dont seem to be able to actually buy myself a toy car, because i think everything is too expensive, but, when you are talking near £40 k for a secondhand TT RS, you could get a low mileage 09 GT-R, for a few shillings more, and all the performance you require.And as you are into modding, a couple of grand on the R35 will turn it into a monster. I am always so surprised at how many low mileage secondhand GT-Rs there are for sale, and there must be a reason for that, maybe running costs ?, regards, SIMON.


----------



## TTRS_500 (Aug 29, 2010)

F1 cars have flat bottoms, doesn't bother me or hinder when driving at speed. Evos do have a massive push in the back on each gear change due to the ratios but I can assure you up to 100 the Ttrs will be a car length or two infront. When stock my Ttrs used to be left behind a 996 turbo by two car lengths, now mapped it beats him by two car lengths. I wish I could share the vids of me running tuned against the 996 turbo in a rolling and standing start. To summarise, the camera is in the porka, and all you can hear him say after the Ttrs pulled away at him in every gear is fookin hell, fookin hell, fookin hell lol.


----------



## Simon H (Jun 22, 2008)

TTRS_500 said:


> F1 cars have flat bottoms, doesn't bother me or hinder when driving at speed. Evos do have a massive push in the back on each gear change due to the ratios but I can assure you up to 100 the Ttrs will be a car length or two infront. When stock my Ttrs used to be left behind a 996 turbo by two car lengths, now mapped it beats him by two car lengths. I wish I could share the vids of me running tuned against the 996 turbo in a rolling and standing start. To summarise, the camera is in the porka, and all you can hear him say after the Ttrs pulled away at him in every gear is fookin hell, fookin hell, fookin hell lol.


Hi Mate, 
Whos map, and what mods do you have ?.


----------



## mrdemon (Apr 20, 2005)

Stage 1 is night and day v standard, again so is fitting the ARB's
I don,t think I would like to drive a standard one  I added the ARB's very quick after buying.

I cannot see the RS being 30k in two years because the TTS is so expensive, and look at RS4 prices they are crazy high.

The RS is very under rated, which is a great thing when you take people out in one.

at 40k there is nothing to touch it performance wise, and that's why I bought one, along with the very low running costs.
what other 10 plate car you going to look at with the same quality/performance for 40k ?

I have driven a EVO and hated it, the GTR is much the same, neither are fun to drive imho.
But then the TTRS is not that great as a fun car, not a patch on driving a Cayman or CSL, both of which had a bigger grin factor.

If you want to be at one with the road and have no under steer or aids what so ever there is only one car to own.

Noble 3R :wink:


----------



## LEO-RS (Apr 13, 2009)

TTRS_500 said:


> F1 cars have flat bottoms, doesn't bother me or hinder when driving at speed. Evos do have a massive push in the back on each gear change due to the ratios but I can assure you up to 100 the Ttrs will be a car length or two infront. When stock my Ttrs used to be left behind a 996 turbo by two car lengths, now mapped it beats him by two car lengths. I wish I could share the vids of me running tuned against the 996 turbo in a rolling and standing start. To summarise, the camera is in the porka, and all you can hear him say after the Ttrs pulled away at him in every gear is fookin hell, fookin hell, fookin hell lol.


Come on, get them on YouTube or at least send them to us ;-)


----------



## TTRS_500 (Aug 29, 2010)

Simon H said:


> TTRS_500 said:
> 
> 
> > F1 cars have flat bottoms, doesn't bother me or hinder when driving at speed. Evos do have a massive push in the back on each gear change due to the ratios but I can assure you up to 100 the Ttrs will be a car length or two infront. When stock my Ttrs used to be left behind a 996 turbo by two car lengths, now mapped it beats him by two car lengths. I wish I could share the vids of me running tuned against the 996 turbo in a rolling and standing start. To summarise, the camera is in the porka, and all you can hear him say after the Ttrs pulled away at him in every gear is fookin hell, fookin hell, fookin hell lol.
> ...


Ii was running nothing but a custom remap at the time. I then changed to revo which is evn quicker still.


----------



## TTRS_500 (Aug 29, 2010)

Mitchy said:


> TTRS_500 said:
> 
> 
> > F1 cars have flat bottoms, doesn't bother me or hinder when driving at speed. Evos do have a massive push in the back on each gear change due to the ratios but I can assure you up to 100 the Ttrs will be a car length or two infront. When stock my Ttrs used to be left behind a 996 turbo by two car lengths, now mapped it beats him by two car lengths. I wish I could share the vids of me running tuned against the 996 turbo in a rolling and standing start. To summarise, the camera is in the porka, and all you can hear him say after the Ttrs pulled away at him in every gear is fookin hell, fookin hell, fookin hell lol.
> ...


Sorry can't do, it might offend the jobsworth pc police.


----------



## LEO-RS (Apr 13, 2009)

Gibbo, I think you're being a little conservative with the running cost comparisons in your post. I'll eat my hat if the TTRS only achieves 4mpg more than the evo driven in the same manner. The difference will be night and day 7-10mpg easy. Evo combined at 19.9 vs 31.4. I've already linked to articles showing that when you drive the evo hard you'll be lucky to see 10mpg. You say you average 22, what with a combined cycle of 19.9? You must be driving it like miss daisy then :roll: Thats like me getting 33 in the TTRS.

Reference servicing, again, as stated before, TT's are on variable, evo being fixed so the evo is going to cost you more here too. (I dont need to service mine until 19k, you'll have done 2 to my 1) I have no idea how you managed to put that in favour of the evo? Tyre costs? You'll be going through tyres, pads, discs quicker in the evo than you do the TT so again I have no idea how you put these as more expensive in the RS. You totally dismissed insurance too which will save you another £3-400pa.

I suspect your £500pa savings are nowhere near the truth, treble, quadruple that easy. You have continued to defend the evo post after post reference their running costs. Buddy, in comparison to the TTRS, they are horrendous. No amount of you giving us your opinion on this subject is going to change my mind. I can google it, I can go across to the MLR forums for 2nd, 3rd, 4th opinions and I suspect the difference will be night and day in comparison. 19.9mpg ffs, you can't defend that as reasonable from a 360hp car with a lawnmower engine. It is appallingly bad, drive it hard as it should be driven and I'll link you to articles of 10mpg. To get more than the combined cycle, youre obviously not driving the thing properly.

It's an evo at the end of the day, a loud car with a horrid image, just stop harping on about it now. If we wanted to don our Burberry caps and shellsuits again, we would go and buy our evos :wink:

Nice review of the TTRS btw, just stop going on about the bloody evo now, It's a TT forum ;-)

TTRS values will remain strong, again you have totally dismissed the depreciation aspects that have already been covered in this thread. These cars are losing £5kpa max (in real terms) in their 1st year, thats it. Cheapest car at moment is £37k, so nowhere near £33k and then that is 1 single car, there are a handful between 37-40k and most are £40k+

These cars will fetch £30k at 3yrs old for sure. In 2 months timeon the 1st March, the oldest 09 TTRS cars will be 2yrs old and none are priced anywhere near £30-32k :lol: so i have no idea where you are getting this suspicion from? TTS values will confirm this, guys buying them for £31-32k new and over 2yrs later, they're still selling for £25-28k. Buy for £37k at year old, sell for £30k at 3yrs old and that will cost you a mere £3.5kpa, peanuts.

Even a decent specced 2.0T 211ps TT will cost you well north of £30k, even more so now with the VAT increase. With the base cars being priced so high, it's only a good thing for the values of the RS.


----------



## LEO-RS (Apr 13, 2009)

TTRS_500 said:


> Mitchy said:
> 
> 
> > TTRS_500 said:
> ...


There's no point in taking videos if youre not going to share them ;-)


----------



## Gibbo205 (Dec 22, 2010)

Mitchy said:


> Gibbo, think you're bring a little conservative with the running costs comparisons in your post. I'll eat my hat if the TTRS only achieves 4mpg more than the evo driven in the same manner. The difference will be night and day 7-8mpg easy. Evo combined at 19.9 vs 31.4. I've already linked to articles showing that when you drive the evo hard you'll be lucky to see 10mpg. You say you average 22, what with a combined cycle of 19.9? You must be driving it like miss daisy then.
> 
> Reference servicing, again, as stated before, TT's are on variable, evo being fixed so the evo is going to cost you more here too. You totally dismissed insurance which will save you another 3-400.
> 
> ...


Right same roads, same driving manner, so country roads, couple of full throttle blast down slip roads, then cruising in top gear for for a few miles, few roundabouts, about a good 20-25 mile run. EVO averages 17-19MPG, the TT RS managed 23-24MPG. Take the two lowest numbers, thats a 6MPG difference.
I don't give a flying beep beep about what articles you can link me to I am only interested in what in real life I get out of my cars and based on that at best the TT RS will give me 5-6MPG better fuel consumtion.

Service cost on the EVO is £250-£320 per service at 10k intervals or once a year.
Audi service plan works at £480 per year and servicing on the TT RS is 10k intervals or once er year.

So the Audi on servicing cost is £200 more per year and thats if you take out their service plan which supposedly saves you money.

Insurance cost, why do you think its £400 cheaper, that would make my insurance £450 fully comp on a 40k nearly brand new car, what a load of tosh. A quick quote works out to be £720, I could probably get that down to maybe £650 per year, so a £200 saving which outweighs the extra servicing cost.

So based on that lets go mental and say the TT RS save me £15 a week in fuel, which all facts considered is most likely to be £10, but lets see how much I save based on that which is £780, so lets round that upto £800, then factor in the £200 saved on tax.

So at best a TT RS will save me £1000 per year on fuel/tax. Factor in more expensive larger tyres then that saving reduces slightly.

So by your reckoning you think I'd save 4k a year you talk rubbish my friend, complete and utter rubbish. I've owned a lot of high performance cars now, the TT RS I agree and admit is a better car than the EVO but you seem to think its some magical thing that runs on water.

You also compare your experience of EVO ownership from an old EVO 6 which you purchased with no warranty and then it broke costing you a lot of money.

I am comparing my experience from actually driving both cars and actual how they made me feel to drive what their instant trip computers said for my run out, not something I've read in a magazine from their testing on a race track.

THe only time you see sub 10MPG in an EVO is on a track day when your always in it, on the road you can't always be in the throttle, you come to things such at 30 zones, dual carriage ways and its through these zones where the average MPG gets pulled up hugely. Infact the lowest I've seen on the road is 14MPG when I've done a good 20 mile country road B-blast with no hold ups, but then guess what you come to 30 zones and it starts to average back up.

The EVO is going, what is going to replace yet is unknown but many here I am sure are interested in how I felt it compared. The EVO does a few things better ever so slightly than the TT RS, the TT RS does many things better than the EVO. But fact is between the two, running cost are not hugely different, you seem to think they are, all I can say is I've owned an EVO X and moving over too a TT RS might save me 1k per year in ownership, but thats before we even factor in depreciation, so lets not go there otherwise your beloved TT RS might be the one that actually cost more.

I made my review as fair as possible and most here seem to agree with what I found but you well you had a bad EVO ownership experience, you seem to think a TT RS will save me £3000-£4000 per year in running cost, maybe more, yet for me it won't. Thing is the TT RS I liked it a lot, its a damn fine car and even if it cost me slightly more to run (it won't), but just saying if it did it would not put me off from buying one.

As your always so keen to quote figures from articles, then you will know the best an FQ-360 can do on MPG is 25.9MPG or 26.9MPG I can't remember which, but in that case how come I managed this:-
This is an average MPG for 27 mile trip into my old work:-










Thats all A and B roads, no full throttle but moving along smoothly with the traffic and been smooth on acceleration with speeds never exceeding 70mph though I did get too tempted at one roundabout and did a 4wheel drift. 

Thats what is possible if you drive like an OAP in an EVO, but its also proof as to why facts and figures should not be taken with concrete. I shall take a picture one morning next week from my average MPG from a mental drive into work.


----------



## LEO-RS (Apr 13, 2009)

Gibbo205 said:


> Mitchy said:
> 
> 
> > Gibbo, think you're bring a little conservative with the running costs comparisons in your post. I'll eat my hat if the TTRS only achieves 4mpg more than the evo driven in the same manner. The difference will be night and day 7-8mpg easy. Evo combined at 19.9 vs 31.4. I've already linked to articles showing that when you drive the evo hard you'll be lucky to see 10mpg. You say you average 22, what with a combined cycle of 19.9? You must be driving it like miss daisy then.
> ...


Since when has the RS been on fixed term servicing intervals? Have Audi changed their servicing criteria recently to fixed? My car is definitely on variable, 5k showing on the clock, 14k to go to next service. If you buy through Audi approved at the moment, you will receive 2 yrs free servicing. (I did, bought end november) so by the time I do 1 service, you will have done 2. Fact.

Insurance costs, I'm 27 and my insurance is £598pa. I assume you are older than me, I presume your premium will be cheaper than mine but of course I dont know if you live in a high risk area or not, just going off your own post a few pages back when you stated the *evo in particular* was expensive to insure.

Not £4kpa savings no. I'd say £1500-£2000 though if you do an average of 12k miles per annum, (£500 x treble/quadruple doesnt = £4k) ;-)

You say factor in larger tyres, but how about frequency of change? Evo or Audi, which car is going to get through a set of tyres/pads/discs first? Then tyre costs, there isnt that much in it, certainly nothing to shout home about and even if there was the RS actually comes on 18'' rubber, 19'' are optional. You also mention you need to spec an RS to Evo standard? Why? Does the Evo come with heated leather and xenons? Were 19's optional on the evo too? The evo even with every option ticked would get nowhere near the TT in terms of build quality/interior quality etc.

Defend your car fair enough but it's wearing a little thin now. If you buy an RS, all the best with it, if not, then enjoy your new car whatever it may be.

Happy new year Gibbo :-*


----------



## Gibbo205 (Dec 22, 2010)

Mitchy said:


> Gibbo205 said:
> 
> 
> > Mitchy said:
> ...


Insurance is heavily effected by postcode and annual mileage, more so than anything else. I am 31 by the way with 6yr NCB and I tend to use A-Plan for insurance. Free services I guess is down trying to negotiate that when buying the car, but as of now it seems to be an extra or maybe its dealer specific as well. Hence if I do go for a TT RS then hunt around, if you got 2yr free servicing from Macclesfield Audi then if I go for one then I will also visit that dealer to see if they can offer a better deal than Stoke, get them both to compete with each other.

But if servicing can't be had free, then a 3yr service plan works out at £40 per month which gets your 3 services upto 30,000 miles, which is clearly 10k per interval they are working on. If your is showing 14k until next service then maybe your the one driving like miss daisy. 
But that works out at £480 per service, per year.
The EVO last service cost me £280 (40k service), and the one I've just had done cost me £220 (50k service).

Tyre change intervals is down to type of tyre used, on a TT RS I'd fit the same summer tyres as the EVO the Advan AD08 because they are superb or when it comes out the new Michelin Pilot Super Sport. Both cars will wear tyres at a similar rate as long as same tyre is used and as long as no crazy camber or GEO setups are in place. I could fit Michelin PS2's and get 15-20k per set on both cars. Or I could fit AD08's and get 5-8k per set, so the AD08's cost a lot more, but the fun they provide is un-matched if you like your B-roads and track days. Brakes I'd imagine the EVO to be slightly harder as at end of day its got an additional 100kg to stop everytime.

How is it wearing thin, Id say your argument is wearing thin, you claimed EVO's cost horrendous amounts to service and run, its clearly evident a new EVO X is nowhere near as bad as maybe you thought. An old EVO yes it cost double at least to service compared to the new one so in comparison to a TT RS the old EVO could be considered horrendous to run. The new EVO X however is not, or certainly not from my year of ownership and certainly not compared to the Skylines, M3's and other cars I have owned.

But now having driven both the TT RS I like more and I fully expect one mapped is truly amazing. 
Happy new yourself Mitchy.


----------



## LEO-RS (Apr 13, 2009)

I'd leave the Audi service plan at £40pm well alone, I cant see the RS costing £480pa to service although there there is an oil change and main service to do so who knows. On variable servicing plans, I really dont think it's worth the money. Do it as an when required and save that £40pm.

As said though, buy through Audi approved and you should get 2yrs free servicing. I guess you'll need to rework your figures now :lol: :wink:

http://www.m25audi.co.uk/used-audi/free ... audis.html

edit...

http://www.stokeaudi.co.uk/brands/audi/ ... icing.aspx

May have expired last night, you would have to check with the dealership


----------



## mrdemon (Apr 20, 2005)

I run 245/40/18 that's a main tyre which must be the same as evo size .
cheap tax, 24 mpg and prob a service at 18k miles. I aways look at my monthly outgoings when buying.
I don't know about evo,s but people say they are expensive to run. And the only reason I sold my CSL was my monthly costs were very high and at the time BMW went crazy with ex warranty at £1200 so it went.


----------



## Gibbo205 (Dec 22, 2010)

mrdemon said:


> I run 245/40/18 that's a main tyre which must be the same as evo size .
> cheap tax, 24 mpg and prob a service at 18k miles. I aways look at my monthly outgoings when buying.
> I don't know about evo,s but people say they are expensive to run. And the only reason I sold my CSL was my monthly costs were very high and at the time BMW went crazy with ex warranty at £1200 so it went.


Hi mate

If I go TTRS will be going for 19" wheel option as in theory due to wider rubber there should be more mechanical grip, plus looks nicer too. 

Yes the CSL was quite expensive to run. I sold it to buy my Mustang back, long story. Basically owned Mustang for 2yrs, sold it, got an M3 CSL for 18 months and swapped it for Mustang back.....

I remember at the time been rather surprised by the fact the CSL only average 2MPG better average over the Mustang, so think I was averaging 16-17MPG from the CSL. The killer with the CSL was the servicing cost, as the car works out by itself when it needs service and well driving one hard and odd track day here and there, well before you know it the things wants a service. Its the servicing cost were expensive, think an oil service was £250-£300, Inspection 1 was £450-£600 and Inspection 2 service was £700-£900.

So the CSL was rather costly to run, it certainly cost a lot more than the EVO.

However the CSL is an epic machine, I'd advice anyone who has not owned one and enjoys their cars that its certainly a car to try and for me I think its the best car BMW have made, I'd take a CSL over anything else BMW makes. 

So has you have had both a CSL and Cayman S, which are two very driver focused cars any chance on any comments on how you'd say the two compared?


----------



## mrdemon (Apr 20, 2005)

My cayman was tuned to 340bhp it was the better all round car. 
But the only car I miss having is the CSL.

After taking 2 months to sort out the smg it was an amazing car, I think people who test drive CSL's slag the gearbox but it does take time to master.

I want a 997 GT3 now , I do much much less miles so costs to run are going to be a smaller issue, and for a weekend car I don't want 4 WD

If a cayman R was available 2 hand for 40k then I would have that, but I am not buying a new car again


----------



## Gibbo205 (Dec 22, 2010)

mrdemon said:


> My cayman was tuned to 340bhp it was the better all round car.
> But the only car I miss having is the CSL.
> 
> After taking 2 months to sort out the smg it was an amazing car, I think people who test drive CSL's slag the gearbox but it does take time to master.
> ...


I actually dismissed the CSL originally due to its gearbox but never drove one. Then a mate kindly gave me the keys to his and I was instantly sold, absolutely loved the SMG in the CSL. Same process everytime I drove it, Sport ON, DSC Off and set too S6. For me thats one of the best parts of the CSL is that wonderful SMG box. The new DSG type offerings are just too smooth.

My CSL never gave me any issues, was reliable, just servicing cost don't come cheap. Still its an epic car and I might go back to one sometime in the future as one thing is guaranteed they really don't depreciate any more.

Whats a Cayman R?


----------



## mrdemon (Apr 20, 2005)

Whats a Cayman R?

a Cayman with a proper suspension set up.

google it


----------



## Simon H (Jun 22, 2008)

Gibbo205 said:


> mrdemon said:
> 
> 
> > My cayman was tuned to 340bhp it was the better all round car.
> ...


Gibbo,
Have you driven an E92 M3 with the DCT box,
they have an explosive gearchange in S6 with DSC off, but the change is lightening quick because of the twin clutch, regards, SIMON.


----------

