# 2016 Lightning Lap results for TTS



## JohnLZ7W (Nov 23, 2003)

Surprised to see it's only about a second quicker than the mk2 TTS. I thought with more horsepower and in theory much improved handling it'd be quicker than that. It is quite a bit quicker than the S3 showing the inherent platform advantages of a coupe over a sedan.











For comparison:
2012 TTRS - 3:04.8
2016 TTS - 3:07.7
2009 TTS - 3:08.4
2015 S3 - 3:11.2

http://www.caranddriver.com/feature...results-historical-lap-times-and-more-feature


----------



## Tailwagger (Nov 30, 2008)

Lets bear in mind a few things about how useful such exercises are. First you're at the mercy of the skill level of their editors. Some are likely good, some not so much. I've watched some previous video of one or two of them and came away rather unimpressed. You can come to your own conclusions, but they are anything but driving the cars flat out at least in the video I've seen. In that regard I far prefer MTs methodology regarding times and comments via Pobst. Far more reliable and trustworthy source with the trophies to back it up.

More importantly, tires along with temps, track conditions, etc make a huge difference and this changes from year to year. Even in the same year, its pretty easy to game things. The Focus, for example, ran Sport Cup2s...R-compounds. Even a track novice knows that Rs are worth at least a second or two per mile over a max street performance tire. On a 4.1 mile course, even a second a mile puts the TTS down below the RS time. If you don't believe that tires are huge, look at the time laid down by the MX-5 Cup which has half the HP, a max trap speed of 113 and bested the TTS lap time. And as usual they gave no information at all about performance settings, techniques employed, brake fluid, pads etc, all of which can make many seconds of difference. 

Add it all up and while I'm sure its a fun event for those involved, there are far too many variables to come away with anything scientific. And in particular the TTS generational comparison, given different years and presumably weather conditions, track temps, different tires, drivers and bear in mind that VIR was resurfaced in the interim (2014) means such year to year comparisons are even more worthless.


----------



## caj1 (Feb 16, 1999)

JohnLZ7W said:


> Surprised to see it's only about a second quicker than the mk2 TTS. I thought with more horsepower and in theory much improved handling it'd be quicker than that. It is quite a bit quicker than the S3 showing the inherent platform advantages of a coupe over a sedan.


What's much improved about the handling over the mk2?


----------



## Vegas-RoadsTTer (Mar 17, 2013)

*Can't give specifrics but all pro reviewers say it is much better than the Mk 2*



caj1 said:


> What's much improved about the handling over the mk2?


Just as the Mk 2 had a great improvement in handling compared to the Mk 1. I have not driven the Mk 3 but was very impressed with the improvement when I went from Mk 1 to Mk 2 and I expect to be similarly impressed when I finally get a Mk 3.


----------



## JohnLZ7W (Nov 23, 2003)

Tailwagger said:


> Lets bear in mind a few things about how useful such exercises are. First you're at the mercy of the skill level of their editors. Some are likely good, some not so much. I've watched some previous video of one or two of them and came away rather unimpressed. You can come to your own conclusions, but they are anything but driving the cars flat out at least in the video I've seen. In that regard I far prefer MTs methodology regarding times and comments via Pobst. Far more reliable and trustworthy source with the trophies to back it up.


My mistake... I thought this was the one where they had Pobst drive all of the cars. This is definitely less useful than I had thought.




caj1 said:


> What's much improved about the handling over the mk2?


It's supposed to be improved however from looking at the diagrams Audi has shown I don't see very much difference in the front and rear suspension layout, certainly not like going from the mk1 to mk2. The mk3 is lighter and likely stiffer than the mk2 so that will help. Fine tuning with spring/damper rates and bushings can all make a difference too. I need to get a test drive in a TTS at some point. I'm curious just how much better they've made it.


----------



## Tailwagger (Nov 30, 2008)

caj1 said:


> What's much improved about the handling over the mk2?


I havent driven a MK II in a very long time, but what I can say is that when I did I wasn't blown away while on my recent extended test drive of the current one I was. (at least when driven at 6 or 7/10ths... which for a street car is pretty much all I care about. Perhaps it could get ragged when pushed really hard, dunno haven't and likely never will try it, though the worst I've ever read is a tendency to push at the limit, but in my classic on-off ramp testing, the car felt pretty neutral in dynamic). From the feature set, one would expect overall the handling would be improved substantially. The structure is stiffer, the wheelbase longer with overhangs shorter hence more weight between the wheels, the car is lighter with a lower center of gravity, the AWD can be rear biased. On the downside, I assume the mark II had a hydraulic rack so perhaps a bit more feedback. That coupled with more power, shorter gearing, etc certainly would cause one to suspect that the new car would gap the old one fairly handily over 4 miles.


----------

