# Very favorable review by Consumer Reports on the base TT



## Vegas-RoadsTTer (Mar 17, 2013)

Yeah, most enthusiasts don't go to CR when shopping for a sports car, but CR tends to review cars as daily drivers as opposed to weekend track cars. It gets raves about its style, fit, finish, handling, and fuel economy (for a sporty car). While good, its handling still falls behind the Cayman and 235M. However, it still barely outpoints the Boxster in overall score. (The most recent Car & Driver edition laments the high cost of routine maintenance for Porsches, $350 oil changes and prices climb from there.) CR's biggest complaint is price (mine too). For about the same price you can buy everyone's pick for top sports car, the 235M, that outperforms the TT in every way. When it's time to replace my Mk 2 TT, the 235M is going to get a strong look from me. Not only are the MSRPs comparable, what I've seen on BMW forums indicates BMW is giving much bigger discounts and the price includes several years of free maintenance. The only backhanded advantage for the TT compared to the 235M is that you see 2 series BMWs everywhere whereas the TT sales are so poor you always get the feeling of exclusivity and "What's that?" questions from gawkers when driving one.


----------



## yip (Jul 14, 2003)

Vegas-RoadsTTer said:


> Yeah, most enthusiasts don't go to CR when shopping for a sports car, but CR tends to review cars as daily drivers as opposed to weekend track cars. It gets raves about its style, fit, finish, handling, and fuel economy (for a sporty car). While good, its handling still falls behind the Cayman and 235M. However, it still barely outpoints the Boxster in overall score. (The most recent Car & Driver edition laments the high cost of routine maintenance for Porsches, $350 oil changes and prices climb from there.) CR's biggest complaint is price (mine too). For about the same price you can buy everyone's pick for top sports car, the 235M, that outperforms the TT in every way. When it's time to replace my Mk 2 TT, the 235M is going to get a strong look from me. Not only are the MSRPs comparable, what I've seen on BMW forums indicates BMW is giving much bigger discounts and the price includes several years of free maintenance. The only backhanded advantage for the TT compared to the 235M is that you see 2 series BMWs everywhere whereas the TT sales are so poor you always get the feeling of exclusivity and "What's that?" questions from gawkers when driving one.


Have you sat in a 235M? Honestly I was shocked by how cheap the interior felt and it's overall design was a dissapointment at that price point.


----------



## Huey52 (Nov 10, 2010)

As was I. And I also appreciate Quattro, even in a sportscar. 

btw: I consider the 235M a sports coupe.

I seriously considered the 235M but am very happy I went Mk3 TTS.



yip said:


> Have you sat in a 235M? Honestly I was shocked by how cheap the interior felt and it's overall design was a dissapointment at that price point.


----------



## Vegas-RoadsTTer (Mar 17, 2013)

*Yes*



yip said:


> Have you sat in a 235M? Honestly I was shocked by how cheap the interior felt and it's overall design was a dissapointment at that price point.


I guess I was not as underwhelmed by the 235M construction/design as you. All the small beemers look similar to me so there is nothing novel about the exterior design. Unfortunately, buying a car is about trade-offs and $. For the Mk 3 vs the 235M for me it is the trade off of a unique (though now dated) design of the base Mk 3 TT that you rarely see on the road versus buying a 235M with overall performance that leaves the base Mk 3 TT in the dust and the 235M will cost me less to buy and maintain. The 235M is faster than the Mk 2 TTS on the track but will likely be slower than the Mk 3 TTS. Also you can still get the 235M with a manual tranny. After owning 3 TTs since 2001, I have not decided which way to go but I will give the 235M serious consideration.


----------



## TT412GO (May 14, 2009)

Vegas-RoadsTTer said:


> I guess I was not as underwhelmed by the 235M construction/design as you. All the small beemers look similar to me so there is nothing novel about the exterior design. Unfortunately, buying a car is about trade-offs and $. For the Mk 3 vs the 235M for me it is the trade off of a unique (though now dated) design of the base Mk 3 TT that you rarely see on the road versus buying a 235M with overall performance that leaves the base Mk 3 TT in the dust and the 235M will cost me less to buy and maintain. The 235M is faster than the Mk 2 TTS on the track but will likely be slower than the Mk 3 TTS. Also you can still get the 235M with a manual tranny. After owning 3 TTs since 2001, I have not decided which way to go but I will give the 235M serious consideration.


For a former TT owner you seem surprisingly negative about the marque. I haven't driven the 235M or the new TT, but my wife has an older 235 which I have driven a lot. 

Of course buying a car is a trade-off, but I'm not sure I understand you ambivalence. If it's a just a dollar issue, go with the cheapest. If its looks, go with whichever you prefer. If it's a manual or nothing, why are you even writing about considering the TT? 

The ultimate track performance is meaningless unless a significant reason for buying the car is to track it. If I were to compare the TT and BMW, I think the TTS is the appropriate comparison to the 235M. The TTS would not be "left in the dust" by any objective or subjective criteria. I am guessing that the TTS and 235M will have similar track times, but the BMW and the TT are such very different driving experiences that I honestly can't imagine not being able to tell which one you prefer.


----------



## Vegas-RoadsTTer (Mar 17, 2013)

*Yeah, I am dissapointed in the Mk 3*



TT412GO said:


> For a former TT owner you seem surprisingly negative about the marque. I haven't driven the 235M or the new TT, but my wife has an older 235 which I have driven a lot.
> 
> Of course buying a car is a trade-off, but I'm not sure I understand you ambivalence. If it's a just a dollar issue, go with the cheapest. If its looks, go with whichever you prefer. If it's a manual or nothing, why are you even writing about considering the TT?
> 
> The ultimate track performance is meaningless unless a significant reason for buying the car is to track it. If I were to compare the TT and BMW, I think the TTS is the appropriate comparison to the 235M. The TTS would not be "left in the dust" by any objective or subjective criteria. I am guessing that the TTS and 235M will have similar track times, but the BMW and the TT are such very different driving experiences that I honestly can't imagine not being able to tell which one you prefer.


Unfortunately, based on sales, I'm not alone in my disappointment. Buyers are staying away in droves. The Mk 2 exterior design was not a winner, again judging by very poor US sales as compared to the Mk 1. The Mk 3 exterior design is nearly identical to the Mk 2. Except for the grill, you have to look real close to tell the difference. My point being that the Mk 3 needed to be a revolutionary design instead of evolutionary to revitalize the marque. Many of us were hoping for a look of a mini-R8.

The TT interior is a home run. The only thing I wish they still offered were baseball seats identical to those the Mk 1s I used to have.

Handling in the base TT is a dramatic improvement over the Mk 2 but still falls well short of the BMW 2 series according to all professional reviewers. However, the base TT engine has virtually the same performance as the 2011+ Mk 2.

Price of TTs have increased about $5K from a few years ago when I bought my Mk 2 which puts the new base TT against the 235M for the first time from a cost perspective.

I disagree on your position on track performance. IMO, the better a car is on a track, the better I will be able to enjoy myself on my frequent twisty-turny rides.

I agree that just as the 235M is the performance version of the 228, the TTS is the performance version of the base TT. I also think that the Mk 3 TTS will beat the 235M on the track and worth the premium price as compared to the 235M. Unfortunately, as a die hard convertible owner for the past 30 years, I have no interest in coupes and I was VERY disappointed when Audi announced that a TTS roadster would not be sold in the US. Had it been offered, I'd probably be driving one now. So when I shop I am faced with the base TT roadster or the much more capable 235M for almost identical pricing. So my trade-offs are the low production uniqueness of owning a TT with a superior interior, or a better driving 235M with a relatively bland exterior and be able to drive a fun manual tranny again. Do I go for uniqueness or performance? Without a TTS to entice me into an early, for me, trade-in, I'm going to defer my decision for a year or so and see what the CPO market brings. When I've compared CPO beemers to TTs in the past, the TT has always been much cheaper due to larger initial depreciation.


----------



## Huey52 (Nov 10, 2010)

I thought the Mk I & II looked very similar but the MkIII definitely has the look of a mini-R8, especially from the front.

The MkI & II as you cited do have more of an Art Deco theme (I was close to buying a MkI back in the day for that and related reasons), whereas again I feel the Mk III is "edgier" with much sharper lines, which is the more typical definition.

Anyway I guess all eye of the beholder and I am very pleased with my choice.


----------



## TT412GO (May 14, 2009)

Vegas-RoadsTTer said:


> I disagree on your position on track performance. IMO, the better a car is on a track, the better I will be able to enjoy myself on my frequent twisty-turny rides.


When I say ultimate track performance, I was referring to attributes that make a car faster on the track but impractical (or hard to live with) on the street. For example, brake pads that need to be hot to bite, soft, low-tread tires that are skittish in the wet and last for precious few miles, suspension settings that would be intolerable on real-world roads, high octane race fuel - the list goes on and on. 

I was not talking about having a good-handling daily driver - certainly most everyone on this forum wants that - but surely you must admit that both the TTS and M235 fit that bill easily in OEM form and can be easily tweaked with minor suspension/wheel mods for even sharper handling if desired. 

My point continues to be that comparing the (likely similar) track times of a TTS and M235 is not all that helpful in deciding which car you'd actually prefer and purchase. I still maintain that the cars are so different in driving feel that the decision would be easier than you think. Of course, if it's to be a convertible with a manual, that takes the TTS out of the running a makes the comparison a moot issue.


----------



## Vegas-RoadsTTer (Mar 17, 2013)

*I'd be happy with a TTS too*



Huey52 said:


> I thought the Mk I & II looked very similar but the MkIII definitely has the look of a mini-R8, especially from the front.
> 
> The MkI & II as you cited do have more of an Art Deco theme (I was close to buying a MkI back in the day for that and related reasons), whereas again I feel the Mk III is "edgier" with much sharper lines, which is the more typical definition.
> 
> Anyway I guess all eye of the beholder and I am very pleased with my choice.


As I said, I think the TTS is a superior car and worth the extra $. Just pissed there is no TTS roadster.


----------



## Vegas-RoadsTTer (Mar 17, 2013)

*The track data I use is the Car & Driver Lightning Lap comparisons*



TT412GO said:


> When I say ultimate track performance, I was referring to attributes that make a car faster on the track but impractical (or hard to live with) on the street. For example, brake pads that need to be hot to bite, soft, low-tread tires that are skittish in the wet and last for precious few miles, suspension settings that would be intolerable on real-world roads, high octane race fuel - the list goes on and on.
> 
> I was not talking about having a good-handling daily driver - certainly most everyone on this forum wants that - but surely you must admit that both the TTS and M235 fit that bill easily in OEM form and can be easily tweaked with minor suspension/wheel mods for even sharper handling if desired.
> 
> My point continues to be that comparing the (likely similar) track times of a TTS and M235 is not all that helpful in deciding which car you'd actually prefer and purchase. I still maintain that the cars are so different in driving feel that the decision would be easier than you think. Of course, if it's to be a convertible with a manual, that takes the TTS out of the running a makes the comparison a moot issue.


Every year C&D takes about a dozen new stock production cars equipped with their best handling options from the factory and takes them to the track in Richmond to be exercised by professional drivers. No mods are made to the car for tracking. They are the cars equipped as most enthusiasts would buy them on the lot. Every year, C&D publishes the results along with the results from past years.

I agree that performance alone is not the sole judge for some folks. They will choose a lower performer because it feels right for them. If performance alone were the sole judge we would all be driving Camaro SSs which leave any variant of TT ever produced in the dust on the track for a lot less money, or pay some extra $ for a corvette that had the second fastest track times ever recorded, including super exotics.


----------



## Huey52 (Nov 10, 2010)

I have to ask, how would someone with such an obvious long term loyalty to Audi migrate to BMW? Heck, you're an ACNA member for life.  

I'm one of those for whom raw performance is not the top priority (albeit fairly high however). The interior quality (fitment/materials), styling refinements, technology, etc. count for a great deal as we of course spend far more time driving the car than say looking at the exterior. I have really grown to appreciate Quattro AWD as well, in any clime and place.

Again, the 235M is very worthy of consideration, and I did, but at the end of the day the TTS scored highest in my very subjective ranking. 




Vegas-RoadsTTer said:


> Every year C&D takes about a dozen new stock production cars equipped with their best handling options from the factory and takes them to the track in Richmond to be exercised by professional drivers. No mods are made to the car for tracking. They are the cars equipped as most enthusiasts would buy them on the lot. Every year, C&D publishes the results along with the results from past years.
> 
> I agree that performance alone is not the sole judge for some folks. They will choose a lower performer because it feels right for them. If performance alone were the sole judge we would all be driving Camaro SSs which leave any variant of TT ever produced in the dust on the track for a lot less money, or pay some extra $ for a corvette that had the second fastest track times ever recorded, including super exotics.


----------



## mremg (May 10, 2015)

M235i is definitely a worthy consideration instead of a TTS. BMW interiors have always been a bit lacking for the price, but I still think the M235i is a great package. For around $48k you can get a great I6 engine, Getrag 6-speed, M-sport suspension and a mechanical LSD and usable back seats. Not to mention, I've always preferred BMW steering feel over Audi. I suggest you test drive one. My only gripe with M235i is the bland looks. If you can get past that, the M235 is definitely a worthy if not better car than the TTS.


----------

