Audi TT [Merged]

[Tha_Mann]

wala bang additional pics nung naka-pink? :inlove:

i think she is ariani (arianney), a commercial model and can be seen in itaktak mo segment of eat bulaga.

http://www.pbase.com/hochiabaya/arianiraiza

*with apologies to the owner of the pics

swerte, 3 girls are holding the TT

[Horsepower]

From worldcarfans.com

170 hp sports car with 42+ mpg

Proven performance, acclaimed styling and over 42 miles per gallon, what more could you possibly ask for in a sports car. The USA is aiming for a 2020 35 mpg standard but Audi raises the bar already today in their latest addition to the TT range, the Audi TT Coupe and Roadster 2.0 TDI which also happen to meet the strict Euro 5 standard.


Let me get straight to the point and throw the numbers at you: 125 kW (170 hp) with 350 Nm torque (258 lb-ft), uses 5.3 liters (Coupe) and 5.5 liters (Roadster) of diesel per 100 km (44.38 mpg and 42.77 mpg), the Coupe is capable of doing zero to hundred km/h in 7.5 seconds with a top speed of 226 km/h (140 mph), the Roadster is just a little slower (7.6 seconds and 223 km/h) while the Coupe weighs just 1,370 kg and the Roadster 1,415 kg.


Of course the Audi TT TDI quattro comes with permanent four-wheel-drive (85% of power goes to the front and 15% to the rear), it will be sitting on 16 inch cast aluminium wheels (255/55 R16), a track width of 1,572 mm and optional is Audi's magnetic ride (shock absorber system).

[Type 100]

Autocar UK reported on this too...they say this might be the cheapest way into TT ownership.

[Horsepower]

Yeah imagine being all luxuriously sporty and fast, tapos ang tipid.

It's a dream come true kasi we all like flooring the car and going past 200kmh but it's a pain paying at the refill esp if your V8 Car consumes 2km/L. hehe. hehehe.

Audi R8 is coming up with V12 TDI. The engine is so powerful they can't put DSG on it because it breaks. As of this time, it only comes with manual transmission.

I hope BMW follows suit with M3, M5, M6 in V10 Diesels Twin Turbos.

[mazdamazda]

Audi R8 is coming up with V12 TDI. The engine is so powerful they can't put DSG on it because it breaks. As of this time, it only comes with manual transmission.

I hope BMW follows suit with M3, M5, M6 in V10 Diesels Twin Turbos.

That wouldn't happen (at least for the next 5 years or so)... big displacement diesel engines are just soooo much heavier than their petrol counterparts that it upsets the balance of the car (especially if you're thinking about performance cars).

For example... a 520d is a lot more flickable around a tight slalom course than a heavier 530d.

The TT's 2.0L diesel engine is just spot-on for a front-engine car of this size. Not to heavy and more importantly - enough torque.

The R8 goes around this problem since it is a mid-engined car. So there's no heavy front to worry about when doing tight turns or braking hard... the weight of the engine is where you want it.

As with BMW, I'm pretty sure that the M1 will stay as the only mid-engined BMW for a long, long time.

__________________

bigbigcar.com Review: Suzuki Alto

[Blackraven]

Ano ba iyan? Only 170hp? I guess this is a base-model then (no?)

Now that I start to think about it, even with the high amount of torque, the engine horsepower isn't enough to rev it past 4800 rpm (which is a waterloo for diesel engines under 6-cylinders).

In fact, Audi would tell you that if speed is what you're looking for in a sports car, then TDI is not the way to go. Kaya nga meron silang TFSI for that.

I checked the Audi press releases just to educate myself on the matter and make sure that there is proof to this. Surprisingly, the 2.0 TFSI engine still nails the TDI sibling's ass.

0-100 km/h (0-62mph) (Both cars are Coupe with S-tronic DSG auto tranny)
TT 2.0 TDI = 7.5 seconds
TT 2.0 TFSI = 6.4 seconds

http://www.worldcarfans.com/2060606....coupe-in-depth

Talk about smoked!!!

But 0-100/0-62 are for straights. What about something that covers variants in general? Well, let's check the weight and power relationships then:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weight-to-power_ratio

Weight-to-power ratios (Both cars are Coupe with S-tronic DSG auto tranny)
TT 2.0 TDI => 1350 kg/170 hp = 7.94 kg/hp
TT 2.0 TFSI => 1260 kg/200 hp = 6.3 kg/hp

Smaller weight-to-power ratio = better

Power-to-weight rations (Both cars are Coupe with S-tronic DSG auto tranny)
TT 2.0 TDI => 170 hp/1350 kg = 0.13 hp/kg
TT 2.0 TFSI => 200 hp/1260 kg = 0.16 hp/kg

Bigger power-to-weight ratio = better

So yeah, you can already tell that the TDI WILL BE THE SLOWEST VARIANT OF AUDI TT. This is the main reason why the 2.0 liter TFSI engine is the ONLY engine from Volkswagen Auto Group that is in the Ward's 10 Best Engines List for the three years now.

So since, it's the slowest, you can expect it to be the cheapest variant......but would this hold true?

I guess we won't know for sure so this will be dependent in the outcome. However if the question is: Will diesel engines make waves in the sports car industry? From what we have, I don't expect such to happen till year 2020.

Current diesel engines are good because of their fuel economy benefits and high amounts of torque.........under the correct applcations. Diesel engines have benefits in heavy vehicles where torque is needed to pull its heavy body and help shield it from added weight to the vehicle. It is also good for common cars because of fuel economy and whatnot. Their powerband favors low to midrange (usually from around 2000 rpm to around 3800 rpm). Some high performance models can squeeze that to 4000 rpm (see Audi Q7 V12 TDI production model) and that's the forte of diesel engines in current form.

Yet once you take these to sports cars, then I'm afraid that they are not up to it yet. You see, it's important to know that in sports and racing cars, it's all about revs. REV IS KING where most of the time, the accelerator is floored to the max majority of the time.

Case in point, if diesel engines are meant for sports/racing and pure speed & whatever, then they are not up to the task yet and that's why their petrol/gas siblings are called into fill those roles. When you want high RPMs in the fastest time possible, then these are the engines that you need (not revless diesel engines that only max out at most at 4000-4250 rpm).

What about fuel economy then? Unfortunately, it is blasphemy to talk about fuel economy in the context of sports/racing cars. It's just like oil and water - they don't mix. Look at the BMW M5 and M6. They use powerful V10 engines but people often complain that it sucks too much fuel (like 1000 pesos of Petron Blaze can be finished in 12 hours of non-stop driving). Yet, does FC even mean **** if you're buying high-end performance cars like these?!?!?

And what the hell? Diesel engines in BMW M vehicles?!?!?!? For the sake of FC with risking lower power output? Hell no. BMW won't be stupid to do such suicidial moves to their M Motorsport division. In short, if you want an M5/M6 badly, then get S85B50 engine. 5.0 liter V10 Double Vanos and 500 hp to boot

Otherwise, if you can't afford it, then don't buy it at all (simple as that). No point begging to even put diesels on BMW M vehicles or even on the S and RS lines of Audi.

Oh and going back to Audi, that 2.0 TFSI engine has now been improved further to power the all new Audi TT-S.

http://www.worldcarfans.com/9080111....of-naias-debut

70 extra horses (from the ordinary 2.0 TFSI model) and 350nm (same torque as 2.0 TDI). Plus, since you even bring up fuel consumption talk to sports/race cars here's some FC figures then. This TT-S only consumes 12 km/liter on NEDC fuel test cycle (only .5km/liter less than the 2.0 TFSI regular version). Win-win situation without losing on acceleration and speed.

Summary:
-Diesel engines for SUVs, regular cars : Petrol/gas engines for sports/racing
=Based on the current status, it won't appear that diesel powerplants can set the stage for sports/racing applications that demand very high revving. So far, the only candidate is the Audi V12 TDI engine (in the Q7) but other than that, no other diesel engine can venture into such teritorry as of now.
-TT diesel only worth it if it is the cheapest variant available
=170 horses, slower acceleration, more worse power-to-weight & weight-to-power over its 2.0 TFSI siblings and heaviery body mean base model. If it's not going to be the cheapest, then don't bother and just go for 2.0 TFSI variants instead.
-The point of sports/racing cars IS NOT about FUEL CONSUMPTION
=Leave that out of the dust for at the moment, you can only have either one. In short, it's either you buy an Audi RS6 wagon with the lone 5.0liter twin turbo V10 TFSI engine or don't buy it at all. Plus, there's no use to even beg Audi (or any maker) to put diesel on their performance division cars.

You really have to sacrifice $$$ if you want faster oomph in shortest amount of time. Kung hindi mo matanggap ang kondisyong iyan, eh di wag ka na lamang umasa na makabili ng sports/racing na kotse.

This vehicle segment is dedicated ONLY for people with lots of $$$ to burn and/or those who would do anything and sacrifice everything just to go past 300 km/h and beyond and reach the redline of their tachometers/revmeters whilst in the top gear/highest gear of their car's trannies. If you're not willing to pay to the bleeding edge to exceed your adrenalin, then don't ever bother with this vehicle segment

Better to stick to regular cars where diesels would work best there.

[niky]

While I have been critical of the assumptions that diesel is better than gas during the Audi R10 program, that is only because I believe the current LeMans rules actually handicaps the gasoline-powered entrants un-necessarily. But for your other assumptions and contentions in your post... well, I'll take issue with them...

Ano ba iyan? Only 170hp? I guess this is a base-model then (no?)

Now that I start to think about it, even with the high amount of torque, the engine horsepower isn't enough to rev it past 4800 rpm (which is a waterloo for diesel engines under 6-cylinders).

In fact, Audi would tell you that if speed is what you're looking for in a sports car, then TDI is not the way to go. Kaya nga meron silang TFSI for that.

I checked the Audi press releases just to educate myself on the matter and make sure that there is proof to this. Surprisingly, the 2.0 TFSI engine still nails the TDI sibling's ass.

0-100 km/h (0-62mph) (Both cars are Coupe with S-tronic DSG auto tranny)
TT 2.0 TDI = 7.5 seconds
TT 2.0 TFSI = 6.4 seconds

http://www.worldcarfans.com/2060606....coupe-in-depth

Talk about smoked!!!

O-100 km/h times actually only covers full bore acceleration till redline. In real world driving, the amount of instant torque available is very important. This is why modern diesels actually do well in racing, because they give you a cushion of torque to lean upon if you miss a downshift or if your corner exit occurs at an rpm level that takes you out of the powerband.

But 0-100/0-62 are for straights. What about something that covers variants in general? Well, let's check the weight and power relationships then:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weight-to-power_ratio

Weight-to-power ratios (Both cars are Coupe with S-tronic DSG auto tranny)
TT 2.0 TDI => 1350 kg/170 hp = 7.94 kg/hp
TT 2.0 TFSI => 1260 kg/200 hp = 6.3 kg/hp

Smaller weight-to-power ratio = better

Power-to-weight rations (Both cars are Coupe with S-tronic DSG auto tranny)
TT 2.0 TDI => 170 hp/1350 kg = 0.13 hp/kg
TT 2.0 TFSI => 200 hp/1260 kg = 0.16 hp/kg

Bigger power-to-weight ratio = better

So yeah, you can already tell that the TDI WILL BE THE SLOWEST VARIANT OF AUDI TT. This is the main reason why the 2.0 liter TFSI engine is the ONLY engine from Volkswagen Auto Group that is in the Ward's 10 Best Engines List for the three years now.

Well...

Consider that the 2.0 TFSi produces only 280 Nm of torque, while the TDi produces 350 Nm of torque. That gives you a torque-to-weight ration of:

0.22 Nm/kg - TFSi
0.26 Nm/kg - TDi

A measure which counterbalances the hp/kg metrics nicely. To whit, the TFSi has a 23% hp advantage, while the TDi has an 18% torque advantage. What this doesn't tell you, though, is where that torque is produced. Again, the lower down the torque is produced, the better this is for racing, because it gives you that extra cushion low in the rpm band to squirt out of a corner.

[niky]

So since, it's the slowest, you can expect it to be the cheapest variant......but would this hold true?

I guess we won't know for sure so this will be dependent in the outcome. However if the question is: Will diesel engines make waves in the sports car industry? From what we have, I don't expect such to happen till year 2020.

It will most likely be cheaper than the "high output" TFSi. 170 bhp from a 2 liter diesel isn't so impressive anymore. The BMW 120d makes that, and the Focus TDCi likely produces 160-170 bhp, based on testing and observation.

Current diesel engines are good because of their fuel economy benefits and high amounts of torque.........under the correct applcations. Diesel engines have benefits in heavy vehicles where torque is needed to pull its heavy body and help shield it from added weight to the vehicle. It is also good for common cars because of fuel economy and whatnot. Their powerband favors low to midrange (usually from around 2000 rpm to around 3800 rpm). Some high performance models can squeeze that to 4000 rpm (see Audi Q7 V12 TDI production model) and that's the forte of diesel engines in current form.

Yet once you take these to sports cars, then I'm afraid that they are not up to it yet. You see, it's important to know that in sports and racing cars, it's all about revs. REV IS KING where most of the time, the accelerator is floored to the max majority of the time.

Revs aren't King. Power is king. Most importantly, power under the curve.

I'm not one of those neanderthals who keep claiming "horsepower sells cars, torque wins races"... but the extra torque gives you a lot of power. My car makes more power than a TDCi Focus (proven on the dyno, against a TDCi on the same dyno), but much less torque. It also weighs some 120-180 kgs less. And, against the clock, my car reaches 100 km/h 0.4 seconds faster. Yet, on the road, the TDCi walks me time and again, and I only catch up once we've hit double digit speeds. So, yes, horsepower is important? Uh... turns out that the TDCi's "overboost" mode turns off after a few seconds of straight full-throttle in-gear, which means if you've got your foot down in fourth gear, before you reach the top, you're down around 15-20 hp when the boost turns off after a few seconds. How humiliating... ...I only win because the computer cuts off the diesel's power.

But you've brought up an important point... weight. Weight is unavoidable on modern cars. Your current 140 hp gasoline car takes 8-9 seconds to get to 100 km/h. A 140 hp car from fifteen years ago in the same size category could do it in 7 seconds. As vehicle weight rises, torque becomes even more important. A torquey car will lose less acceleration than a revvy car when you load it down with sound insulation, extra structural stiffeners and a full load of passengers.

[niky]

Case in point, if diesel engines are meant for sports/racing and pure speed & whatever, then they are not up to the task yet and that's why their petrol/gas siblings are called into fill those roles. When you want high RPMs in the fastest time possible, then these are the engines that you need (not revless diesel engines that only max out at most at 4000-4250 rpm).

What about fuel economy then? Unfortunately, it is blasphemy to talk about fuel economy in the context of sports/racing cars. It's just like oil and water - they don't mix. Look at the BMW M5 and M6. They use powerful V10 engines but people often complain that it sucks too much fuel (like 1000 pesos of Petron Blaze can be finished in 12 hours of non-stop driving). Yet, does FC even mean **** if you're buying high-end performance cars like these?!?!?

Revs equal engine wear. A motor that produces more power at lower revs is great for racing. Which is why turbos were banned in F1. With turbocharging, F1s can produce more power at low revs, too much power... in the interest of safety, F1 regs have been limiting the engine technology more and more. The end of the V10 era had 3 liter engines pushing 1000 hp... the turbocharged era had 1.5 liter engines producing 1500+++ hp.

But the best of all for endurance racing is an engine that produces lots of power and lots of torque at durability friendly revs. This is why the Chevrolet Corvette has been a mainstay at the sharp end of the endurance crowd (huge, unstressed engine) and why the Audi R10 is a runaway success at LeMans... basically, the rules ignore one fact. Bigger blocks and turbodiesels that produce the same horsepower as high-revvers often produce much more torque. And they'll last longer, too. I'm against the R10 revolution because the rules haven't caught up to it, yet, but I give props to diesels in endurance racing. A BMW 120d wiped the field clean at a Nurburgring 24 hour race not so long ago, and a Focus TDCi almost won the four hour Subic enduro (if not for a sticking rear brake, the product of extensive rallying before the event).

And fuel consumption... yes, it does matter. When you buy a car to do 250 km/h plus on the autobahn on a cross-continental tour, it sucks to pull into a gas station every hour or so for gas. Some people don't think this way (I know I don't give a damn...) but for the uber-rich who buy performance cars, having to whip out your card and deal with the proletariat five or six times a day is a hassle... a hassle that diesel car owners put up with nearly 50% less of the time.

And what the hell? Diesel engines in BMW M vehicles?!?!?!? For the sake of FC with risking lower power output? Hell no. BMW won't be stupid to do such suicidial moves to their M Motorsport division. In short, if you want an M5/M6 badly, then get S85B50 engine. 5.0 liter V10 Double Vanos and 500 hp to boot

This I actually agree with. I'm actually glad that BMW is shunning turbocharging per se for their M cars. While an M3 or even the M5 may not have the instant torque of an Audi RS6 (or even the lowly Mitsubishi Evolution), the high-revving song of these M-engines is pure mechanical nirvana.

Otherwise, if you can't afford it, then don't buy it at all (simple as that). No point begging to even put diesels on BMW M vehicles or even on the S and RS lines of Audi.

Oh and going back to Audi, that 2.0 TFSI engine has now been improved further to power the all new Audi TT-S.

http://www.worldcarfans.com/9080111....of-naias-debut

70 extra horses (from the ordinary 2.0 TFSI model) and 350nm (same torque as 2.0 TDI). Plus, since you even bring up fuel consumption talk to sports/race cars here's some FC figures then. This TT-S only consumes 12 km/liter on NEDC fuel test cycle (only .5km/liter less than the 2.0 TFSI regular version). Win-win situation without losing on acceleration and speed.

Well, we'll have to wait and see how much it costs. But note that you can produce turbodiesels that will do 200 hp or more out of 2 liter blocks. The state of the art for diesels is now pushing forward faster than with gasoline engines (sadly for me).

Summary:
-Diesel engines for SUVs, regular cars : Petrol/gas engines for sports/racing
=Based on the current status, it won't appear that diesel powerplants can set the stage for sports/racing applications that demand very high revving. So far, the only candidate is the Audi V12 TDI engine (in the Q7) but other than that, no other diesel engine can venture into such teritorry as of now.

Again, racing = power, economy and durability, not revs. F1 and other series only use/require high revs because the rule limitations stipulate engines built to these exact specs. In other contests with more liberal rulings (Le Mans, enduros, Paris Dakar) diesels are making tremendous in-roads.

-TT diesel only worth it if it is the cheapest variant available
=170 horses, slower acceleration, more worse power-to-weight & weight-to-power over its 2.0 TFSI siblings and heaviery body mean base model. If it's not going to be the cheapest, then don't bother and just go for 2.0 TFSI variants instead.

If it costs the same as the base 200 hp TFSi, it'll be worth it, for reasons illustrated above. Believe me.

-The point of sports/racing cars IS NOT about FUEL CONSUMPTION
=Leave that out of the dust for at the moment, you can only have either one. In short, it's either you buy an Audi RS6 wagon with the lone 5.0liter twin turbo V10 TFSI engine or don't buy it at all. Plus, there's no use to even beg Audi (or any maker) to put diesel on their performance division cars.

Audi is working on a diesel R8. They've stalled on the turbo V8 due to heat considerations, but the diesel version may push through.

RE: the point of racing cars is to get to the finish line first. For short sprints, this means gasoline cars. For endurance racing (or anything beyond 25 laps) diesel cars have a decided edge. And again, regarding the high revs? To finish first, first, you must finish...

You really have to sacrifice $$$ if you want faster oomph in shortest amount of time. Kung hindi mo matanggap ang kondisyong iyan, eh di wag ka na lamang umasa na makabili ng sports/racing na kotse.

This vehicle segment is dedicated ONLY for people with lots of $$$ to burn and/or those who would do anything and sacrifice everything just to go past 300 km/h and beyond and reach the redline of their tachometers/revmeters whilst in the top gear/highest gear of their car's trannies. If you're not willing to pay to the bleeding edge to exceed your adrenalin, then don't ever bother with this vehicle segment

Better to stick to regular cars where diesels would work best there.

Well... the performance car segment is dedicated to gearheads, and some of them don't have such a narrow viewpoint (sorry)... There are those who won't consider a Mercedes SLR because it isn't naturally aspirated... instead, preferring the high-revving Ferraris and their ilk (I must admit, I love screamers myself), but there are those who would dearly love to go blindingly fast, no matter what is under the hood... be it a quad-turbocharged W16 engine, a high-revving V10 or a twin-turbocharged 3.8 V6.

These people love technology. And they love being different. And having a diesel-powered supercar that can break 200 mph counts as different. Jay Leno already has a diesel-powered road vehicle that can hit over 200 mph... but it's a motorbike (gas, alcohol, diesel compatible gas turbine engine).

I have my own issues with turbodiesels, but fact-of-the-matter is, they're here. And they're going to be around for a long time. Whatever issues we may have with them, the low revs, the low power output compared to turbo gasoline motors, can be fixed... when gasoline engines were introduced,, the thought of a 9000 rpm redline in a mass-produced motor (Honda, Mazda) that could put out over 100 hp per liter was pure fantasy, but here we are now... and turbodiesels have their advantages... the stout blocks mean that turbocharging is easier than with gas engines, the fuel economy is outrageous for their specific outputs, and a turbodiesel sportscar will anger the greenies much less than a gasoline one.

I'm in favor of gasoline performance engines, myself, I've contemplated trading in the Lynx for a TDCi a few times, but despite its flaws, I still love the sound and drama. But I'm not going to deny the fact that CRDis are here to stay, and that a CRDi performance car might be in my near future...

[Type 100]

I don't think the whole point of the TT was to go racing anyway.

The TT is a poser's car first and foremost...it was made to look good and to attract a lot of appeal. The first-generation TT wasn't really great to drive according to most motoring magazines.

Granted the driveability of the new TT has improved a lot, but that's more of a side-effect of its donor platform (the Mk.5 Golf). Most TT buyers don't really care if they can outrun 95% of the other cars out there; they just want a handsome looking coupe that isn't too expensive but has premium concept-car appeal...and Audi successfully delivered on that.

[Horsepower]

from BMW:



Twin-Turbo Diesel with more Torque than an M6...

Forget the irrelevancies about range, lose your diesel snobbery, and appreciate this car as a handsome (and possibly wider-looking) coupe with a charismatic engine. You may find the similarly performing 630i petrol, which is only about 5mpg thirstier and £4,600 cheaper, a tempting package. But, the characteristics of TWMPDE make the 635d a more entertaining car to drive, and therefore a much better proposition.

Plus, without any current rivals, the latest addition to the 6 Series range may be alone, but it surely won't be long before others are following suit when they see the likely sales rise as a result. A staggeringly good all-rounder, it's our favourite BMW 6-Series.

[emanzano]

I don't think the whole point of the TT was to go racing anyway.

The TT is a poser's car first and foremost...it was made to look good and to attract a lot of appeal. The first-generation TT wasn't really great to drive according to most motoring magazines.

Granted the driveability of the new TT has improved a lot, but that's more of a side-effect of its donor platform (the Mk.5 Golf). Most TT buyers don't really care if they can outrun 95% of the other cars out there; they just want a handsome looking coupe that isn't too expensive but has premium concept-car appeal...and Audi successfully delivered on that.

true, most people buy the TT for the looks, period. But if you really wanted to, you can set it up to go racing. As a matter of fact, the TT mk1 placed 1st and 3rd overall in the 2002 DTM championship (the 2nd place went to MB CLK)

when you say "poser," what do you exactly mean? do you refer to people who buy porsches but never ever drive them above 3000 rpm? or do you refer to people who solely base their opinions on what they read but have never actually driven, much less, owned the cars they comment on? i honestly mean no offense bro. all i'm saying is, let's not be quick to generalize.

i actually own a '01 TT, and i do care if i'm faster than 95% of the cars out there. unless one has driven and/or owned one, one wouldnt believe how fast that thing goes. i used to own an e36M3 euro and believe me, the 1.8T TT would probably lead up to 180kph before the M3 could leave it behind.

honestly, i bought it cuz in my eyes it was drop dead gorgeous. the fact that it can smoke most cars out there today is just a bonus.

[creepy]

There's nothing wrong with buying a car solely for its looks. Plenty of people make even bigger decisions (marriage!! haha) solely on looks, even if they won't admit it. Hehe.

[maginoong_kalog]

may nag aalok sa akin ng Audi TT 2000 model. 225k pesos ang katumbas.
162k KM already ran.
natest drive ko to ok naman pati ang engine ok pa rin ang andar.
please tell me kung good buy ba ito sa presyo nya gayong 2k model na..
thanks.. dito ako sa qatar. it is 18k qatar riyals. kinombert ko lang sa peso.

[1p4TSI]

true, most people buy the TT for the looks, period. But if you really wanted to, you can set it up to go racing. As a matter of fact, the TT mk1 placed 1st and 3rd overall in the 2002 DTM championship (the 2nd place went to MB CLK)

when you say "poser," what do you exactly mean? do you refer to people who buy porsches but never ever drive them above 3000 rpm? or do you refer to people who solely base their opinions on what they read but have never actually driven, much less, owned the cars they comment on? i honestly mean no offense bro. all i'm saying is, let's not be quick to generalize.

i actually own a '01 TT, and i do care if i'm faster than 95% of the cars out there. unless one has driven and/or owned one, one wouldnt believe how fast that thing goes. i used to own an e36M3 euro and believe me, the 1.8T TT would probably lead up to 180kph before the M3 could leave it behind.

honestly, i bought it cuz in my eyes it was drop dead gorgeous. the fact that it can smoke most cars out there today is just a bonus.

Hi sir, if you don’t mind can you share more on your ownership experience of the audi tt when it comes to maintaining this car. I’m doing my research since I’m interested of owning an mk1 in the near future. I have 1.4tsi 7dsg jetta and a 2 door 99 golf mk4 tdi (same platform with audi tt mk1). First problem with the mk4 is door latch mechanism but I now know how to fix it. The audi though might be vacuum operated which will be tough i guess to repair but I know a mechanic who overcame it.

[StockEngine]

mukhang hindi ata nag login si edu manzano since 2008 🤔

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tsikot Forums mobile app

[1p4TSI]

true, most people buy the TT for the looks, period. But if you really wanted to, you can set it up to go racing. As a matter of fact, the TT mk1 placed 1st and 3rd overall in the 2002 DTM championship (the 2nd place went to MB CLK)

when you say "poser," what do you exactly mean? do you refer to people who buy porsches but never ever drive them above 3000 rpm? or do you refer to people who solely base their opinions on what they read but have never actually driven, much less, owned the cars they comment on? i honestly mean no offense bro. all i'm saying is, let's not be quick to generalize.

i actually own a '01 TT, and i do care if i'm faster than 95% of the cars out there. unless one has driven and/or owned one, one wouldnt believe how fast that thing goes. i used to own an e36M3 euro and believe me, the 1.8T TT would probably lead up to 180kph before the M3 could leave it behind.

honestly, i bought it cuz in my eyes it was drop dead gorgeous. the fact that it can smoke most cars out there today is just a bonus.

yes sir agree with you. Haven't driven an Audi TT but I have an mk6 Jetta 1.4 TSI (TFSI if in Audi terms) twin charged which can run 250kph (only made 220kph so far I think there is a limiter) and I can say a real quick car and very stable really fun to drive and what more an Audi TT with a 1.8T or 2.0 TFSI!

[1p4TSI]

Yeah imagine being all luxuriously sporty and fast, tapos ang tipid.

It's a dream come true kasi we all like flooring the car and going past 200kmh but it's a pain paying at the refill esp if your V8 Car consumes 2km/L. hehe. hehehe.

Audi R8 is coming up with V12 TDI. The engine is so powerful they can't put DSG on it because it breaks. As of this time, it only comes with manual transmission.

I hope BMW follows suit with M3, M5, M6 in V10 Diesels Twin Turbos.

My Jetta 1.4 TFSI twin-charged 7-DSG (160 HP 250n-m) consumes 8-9km/L if I floor it and quickly goes to red line and it's a hell lots of fun

[minicarph]

mukhang hindi ata nag login si edu manzano since 2008 🤔

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tsikot Forums mobile app

sa twiiter na lang siguro saka alam ko instagram account ni lucky, swede siguro PM

[StockEngine]

sa twiiter na lang siguro saka alam ko instagram account ni lucky, swede siguro PM

i bet youre the forefather of memes