# 2009 Audi TTS to Launch in USA at End of 2008



## [email protected] (Apr 9, 2004)

AUBURN HILLS, MI - Audi took the wraps off a new sports car at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit on Sunday, January 13, 2008 with the Audi TTS, the top of the TT model line. It will be coming to U.S. dealer showrooms in late 2008. Under its hood lies a two-liter TFSI high-performance engine delivering a mighty 265 hp in the U.S.. This intense power propels the TTS Coupe to 60 mph from a standstill in just 4.9 seconds and on to a governor-limited top speed of 155 mph. The Audi TTS is available as both a 2 + 2-seater coupe and as a roadster.
* Full Story *


----------



## SF_VR6 (Jan 11, 2000)

*Re: 2009 Audi TTS to Launch in USA at End of 2008 ([email protected])*

I can't wait to find out the pricing!
my choices:
BMW 135i
Audi TTS
Audi A3 Sportback
Mini Cooper S
VW R32
http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## QUATTR0 (Dec 1, 2005)

*Re: 2009 Audi TTS to Launch in USA at End of 2008 ([email protected])*

AoA is moving away from its enthusiasts by not offering manual transmissions, especially in a S car... this is a sad trend:








TT 2.0T
TT-S
A3 2.0T Quattro
B8 A4 Avant
This is a car I would seriously consider if it had a stick.


----------



## yacoub (Apr 24, 2008)

*Re: 2009 Audi TTS to Launch in USA at End of 2008 (QUATTR0)*

Really looking forward to this. If it prices out under $40k it's a win. Probably won't though.


----------



## gmazzur32 (Jan 6, 2004)

No manual no purchase. BMW can make there cars with manual and automatic why can't Audi. Hope this doesn't go the way of the MKV R32 that no is buying because there is no manual option. I really don't understand them, this is an enthusiasts car with an automatic. Yes I have driven the DSG and I still like three pedals.


----------



## QUATTR0 (Dec 1, 2005)

*Re: 2009 Audi TTS to Launch in USA at End of 2008 (yacoub)*


_Quote, originally posted by *yacoub* »_Really looking forward to this. If it prices out under $40k it's a win. Probably won't though.









Expect $2-3K over the 3.2, so about $45-46K.


----------



## XM_Rocks (Jan 29, 2005)

*Re: 2009 Audi TTS to Launch in USA at End of 2008 (QUATTR0)*

VAG isn't listening to anything but their bottom line.
The real arguement to fight is the federalization of platforms through the US Government. That is the real evil no one speaks of.


----------



## brwilso84 (Dec 6, 2007)

*Re: 2009 Audi TTS to Launch in USA at End of 2008 (yacoub)*

I AGREE, I would really consider this car but unfortunately according to sources this car could reach $60,000 due to the Euro/Dollar value issue. Audi is profitting more overseas because of our horrible economy


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 9, 2004)

*Re: 2009 Audi TTS to Launch in USA at End of 2008 (XM_Rocks)*


_Quote, originally posted by *XM_Rocks* »_VAG isn't listening to anything but their bottom line.
The real arguement to fight is the federalization of platforms through the US Government. That is the real evil no one speaks of.

Audi is working on some alternatives for more manual transmissions. Nothing's solid yet and they're exploring some options so I won't say more, but there are those in Auburn Hills who are trying to make more available.


----------



## XM_Rocks (Jan 29, 2005)

*Re: 2009 Audi TTS to Launch in USA at End of 2008 ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
Audi is working on some alternatives for more manual transmissions. Nothing's solid yet and they're exploring some options so I won't say more, but there are those in Auburn Hills who are trying to make more available.

Without the federalization rules couldnt we in theory special order to spec a certain car?
Say an RS4 Avant in LHD?
They are making them for some other markets.
Or is it the emmisions and safety ratings?


----------



## QUATTR0 (Dec 1, 2005)

*Re: 2009 Audi TTS to Launch in USA at End of 2008 (brwilso84)*


_Quote, originally posted by *brwilso84* »_I AGREE, I would really consider this car but unfortunately according to sources this car could reach $60,000 due to the Euro/Dollar value issue. Audi is profitting more overseas because of our horrible economy









$60K would make no sense... the S5 is $50K. There is no way the TT-S would be priced above the S5.
Porsche doesn't seem to have problems making a buck with the base Cayman priced at $50K, so why should Audi? Although it's pretty sad when Porsche sells more Caymans than Audi sells TTs by a 2:1 margin.


----------



## yacoub (Apr 24, 2008)

*Re: 2009 Audi TTS to Launch in USA at End of 2008 (QUATTR0)*


_Quote, originally posted by *QUATTR0* »_
$60K would make no sense... the S5 is $50K. There is no way the TT-S would be priced above the S5.
Porsche doesn't seem to have problems making a buck with the base Cayman priced at $50K, so why should Audi? Although it's pretty sad when Porsche sells more Caymans than Audi sells TTs by a 2:1 margin.

Well if Audi keeps over-pricing their models it will continue. It's their own fault.


----------



## jperryrocks (Jan 26, 2006)

*Re: 2009 Audi TTS to Launch in USA at End of 2008 (yacoub)*

Edmunds said a 10% premium over the V6. Don't know how true that is, and how much standard equipment will be on the TTS.
My guess it that it'll come pretty much fully loaded and have few options. Maybe a navigation package and not much else.
Audi is not overpriced. They are finally on par with BMW and MB.
You can pay 50k for loaded 1 series BMW convertible, and it's not AWD.
http://www.edmunds.com/insidel...el..1.*


_Modified by jperryrocks at 12:40 PM 5/2/2008_


----------



## tomh009 (Nov 28, 2001)

*Re: 2009 Audi TTS to Launch in USA at End of 2008 ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
Audi is working on some alternatives for more manual transmissions. Nothing's solid yet and they're exploring some options so I won't say more, but there are those in Auburn Hills who are trying to make more available.

I'm keeping my fingers crossed but not holding my breath. At least not yet. But if Audi wants me to buy one (and I know they really, really do!







) they need to offer a manual gearbox ...


----------



## NeverOEM (Dec 17, 2007)

although I am, and will remain, an avid fan of DSG, I do not honestly understand Audi's reasoning. Its the same drivetrain as the S3, why not keep the 6MT? And I'm pretty sure S5 sales haven't been hurt by only offering manual... nor the RS4...... *shrug* I think the option should stay there, but DSG is still awesome


----------



## abeMKvGLi (Jul 23, 2006)

*Re: (NeverOEM)*


----------



## SolidSnake3035 (Nov 21, 2007)

*Re: (abeMKvGLi)*

It's really dumb that they wouldn't offer it in manual...
And seriously, when the hell are we gonna get a price already?


----------



## ZroDfx (Jul 15, 2005)

Sigh... How can people not get tired of whining about DSG?
"Hey, real drivers start their cars by twisting a crank into the grill. Anyone with a starter motor is a poseur!"
Times change, technology marches on. You can either adapt or become a dinosaur.


----------



## tomh009 (Nov 28, 2001)

*Re: (ZroDfx)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ZroDfx* »_Sigh... How can people not get tired of whining about DSG?
"Hey, real drivers start their cars by twisting a crank into the grill. Anyone with a starter motor is a poseur!"
Times change, technology marches on. You can either adapt or become a dinosaur.

I have no issues with DSG -- it's a great technology. And I respect people who prefer DSG. I'd just like the choice of a manual transmission for me (no, not for you, and not for anyone else who doesn't want one). If that makes me a dinosaur, I'm proud to be one.








As things stand, I'm waiting to see whether the A5 2.0T is offered with 6MT. If it is, I'll quietly choose that one instead of a TT, and *ZroDfx* can be happy since these forums will have one fewer dinosaur who prefers 6MT.


----------



## abeMKvGLi (Jul 23, 2006)

*Re: (tomh009)*

a4 will have mt available


----------



## XM_Rocks (Jan 29, 2005)

*Re: (tomh009)*


_Quote, originally posted by *tomh009* »_
I have no issues with DSG -- it's a great technology. And I respect people who prefer DSG. I'd just like the choice of a manual transmission for me (no, not for you, and not for anyone else who doesn't want one). If that makes me a dinosaur, I'm proud to be one.








As things stand, I'm waiting to see whether the A5 2.0T is offered with 6MT. If it is, I'll quietly choose that one instead of a TT, and *ZroDfx* can be happy since these forums will have one fewer dinosaur who prefers 6MT.

I have no problem with DSG... heck I owned one for 6 months.
I just prefer to row my own.
The reality with DSG is once the novelty wears off you remain in D for 99% of the time.


----------



## SolidSnake3035 (Nov 21, 2007)

*Re: (XM_Rocks)*

Honestly I think I would use the paddle shifters most of the time, at least when I'm not feeling totally lazy.
I have to say though, in traffic I would definitely appreciate the S-Tronic so I don't have to clutch every 5 seconds, which gets extremely annoying, but I don't know if the maybe 10% of the time I'd be in heavy traffic justifies not being able to shift on my own.
It's a tough choice, and ultimately I'd like to be able to have both somehow, but overall I think manual is the "safer" choice.

It'll all come down to a nice lengthy test drive though.


----------



## Tampavw (Nov 16, 2006)

*Re: (SolidSnake3035)*

Apparently that is about to change as Audi are currently working at a high-performance TT version that will wear the famous RS appellative. With an anticipated power output of 365 bhp, the new beast will give serious headaches to all those Porche Caymans and BMW Z4s out there starting with 2008. 








TT-RS will be Audi's answer to rival go-fast coupes such as the BMW Z4 M coupe and Porsche Cayman S. Rather than the 3.6-liter V6 engine as widely rumored, Inside Line can confirm the range-topping *TT is set to become the first Audi model to receive a new turbocharged version of parent company Volkswagen's long running 2.5-liter five-cylinder as found in North American versions of the Jetta.* Updated to accept the same cylinder head configuration as the 5.2-liter V10 used in the S8 along with the latest direct-injection technology from German specialist Bosch, the new Audi engine is said to deliver in the region of 365 hp. That's some 22 hp more than the Z4 M Coupe. As with the TT-S, the TT-RS will place its power to the ground via either a standard six-speed manual or an optional seven-speed version of Audi's S-Tronic double-clutch gearbox, with a Haldex-style four-wheel-drive system, which uses a multi-plate clutch instead of Audi's more traditional Torsen-based arrangement, apportioning drive to all four wheels.


----------



## ZroDfx (Jul 15, 2005)

*Re: (XM_Rocks)*


_Quote, originally posted by *XM_Rocks* »_The reality with DSG is once the novelty wears off you remain in D for 99% of the time.

Just wondering... When exactly is the novelty going to wear off? I've had the car just over one year, and the only time I'm ever in D is when I throw it over briefly while I mess with the stereo or nav system. The rest of the time, flicking through the gears using the paddles is sheer joy. Specially when flying in 6th, you decide to pass someone, tap that left paddle and INSTANT 5th gear torque. It's a thing of beauty.


----------



## nonobvious (May 27, 2008)

*Re: (ZroDfx)*

I honestly just want a 230hp base TT with a manual and quattro. I can live without the extra 40hp and $10k in cost.


----------



## 353S (May 24, 2008)

*Re: (nonobvious)*


_Quote, originally posted by *nonobvious* »_I honestly just want a 230hp base TT with a manual and quattro. I can live without the extra 40hp and $10k in cost.

Too bad that won't be a option for anyone on this side of the pond. BTW the 2.0Tq is 200hp and not the rumored 230hp. IMHO the TTS is great! http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## nonobvious (May 27, 2008)

*Re: (353S)*


_Quote, originally posted by *353S* »_
Too bad that won't be a option for anyone on this side of the pond. BTW the 2.0Tq is 200hp and not the rumored 230hp. IMHO the TTS is great! http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

An MY2009 TT with 200hp isn't going to get me out of my MY2000 S2000 with 240hp. Audi needs to step up their game.


----------



## JeffreyTT (Jun 11, 2001)

*Re: (nonobvious)*


_Quote, originally posted by *nonobvious* »_
An MY2009 TT with 200hp isn't going to get me out of my MY2000 S2000 with 240hp. Audi needs to step up their game.

I'd be willing to wager that the 2.0T w/ 200hp is going to easily take the S2000 off the line and 0-60. There is just no replacement for the low-down torque on the turbo. In the 1/4 mile, I suspect they'd be pretty even.
Then, for $500, you chip the 2.0T TT to 245hp and the s2000 is going to be left in the rear-view mirror, all while enjoying the fantastic and spacious Audi interior.


----------



## nonobvious (May 27, 2008)

*Re: (JeffreyTT)*


_Quote, originally posted by *JeffreyTT* »_
I'd be willing to wager that the 2.0T w/ 200hp is going to easily take the S2000 off the line and 0-60. There is just no replacement for the low-down torque on the turbo. In the 1/4 mile, I suspect they'd be pretty even.
.

It might be a comforting intuition, but all the data I've seen indicates it to be wrong. S2000s typically record mid to high 5s 0-6, and very low fourteens in the quarter mile. The 2.0T doesn't come close, and indeed the 3.2 struggles to match these kinds of times. The best determinant of acceleration is weight to power. The S2000 is lighter, and it has 20% more horsepower. Go read a physics book. What determines acceleration is torque at the wheels, not the crank. This is why an F1 car accelerates more quickly than the TT or an S2000.


----------



## M this 1! (May 17, 2000)

*Re: (nonobvious)*

stock for stock, yes your S2000 is quicker. But i think Audi is doing just fine with the stock rating. Todays cars need to be safe, fast and get good gas mileage. 
your Honda is no where near as safe (which = the weight)
it gets much less mpg than the 2.0T (your cars rating was on the old, impossible to get mpg ratings mfgs used to use) With the new ratings the TT still gets 5 mpg more. 
and 6 sec to 60 is plenty fast for the 'Base' TT. 
now most of us on this site enjoy some sort of alterings to a car. Stasis proved a 5.0 0-60 was doable with the power rating only going to 235hp. this was done with FWD for that matter. This software is keeping you factory warranty in tact and keeping your mpg un-affected in the negative. if you want to get into handling, they destroyed a Caymann S by adding their suspension to the car!!!! it beat it around Buttonwillow by 1.5 sec.........basically a year. 
The base 2.0t Quattro coming out will be an insanely good platform. it will have everything the current car has plus more traction. for those who do not want to step up to the TTS, can go again to Stasis for their warrantied turbo upgrade and have 300hp and north of that in the torque department. their FWD version did a mid 13s 1/4 on crap tires. just think what a Quattro would do!!!!

Your S2000 was a great, fun car. but just like cars of the past, they start loosing out on other variables other than just speed. 


_Modified by M this 1! at 11:22 AM 6-4-2008_


----------



## nonobvious (May 27, 2008)

*Re: (M this 1!)*


_Quote, originally posted by *M this 1!* »_stock for stock, yes your S2000 is quicker. 

Yes, it is. I'm glad we can all agree that the prior post asserting that the stock TT is quicker was false.

_Quote, originally posted by *M this 1!* »_
your Honda is no where near as safe 

Really? That's news to me. The government rates the MY2008 S2000, which is basically the same car except for the wheels and interior trim, as having a four star frontal rating, four star frontal passenger rating, five star side driver rating, and 5 star rollover rating. Crash tests for the TT appear not to be widely available--how about actually publishing the numbers for us ot back up your argument, assuming you didn't just make this up?

_Quote, originally posted by *M this 1!* »_
it gets much less mpg than the 2.0T (your cars rating was on the old, impossible to get mpg ratings mfgs used to use) With the new ratings the TT still gets 5 mpg more. 


I cna't tell you how many people post complaining about how they can't get the TT's rated mileage. Is that seriously your best argument? I guess after ten years of use, you might make back all the extra money you spent on the TT in the first place. However, if you want to actually step up to a TT that is *almost* as quick as the S2000, you can opt for the 3.2 TT, which costs about $12k more, puts out 10 more horsepower, and gets worse mileage. The TTS will actually be as fast as the S2000 in a straight line, perhaps a tad quicker. I wonder what its price tag and mileage will be?

_Quote, originally posted by *M this 1!* »_
and 6 sec to 60 is plenty fast for the 'Base' TT. 


6 seconds would have been pretty good ten years ago for a sports car costing $35k. Today, its pretty darn slow. 6 seconds is what I'd expect for a performance station wagon. At the end of the day, the 2.0T is basically an engine that is more appropriate for an economy GTI, like the golf, than a "luxury" sports car, like the TT. 




_Modified by nonobvious at 11:59 AM 6-4-2008_


----------



## M this 1! (May 17, 2000)

*Re: (nonobvious)*

we're not talking about the 3.2 are we? the 2.0T is brainless to get the mileage. find a nice 30 mile stretch or so, go 80mph and tell me what you get. it'll be above 30..........which you'll need a nice hill to get in the S2000. 
Oh lets see. safety: you have no side airbags, no traction control, no skid control. No there are no published crash ratings yet, but find the last time Audi didn't get 5 star front and side, hell if i remember right the old TT did better than yours in crashes. 
So the $500 dollars higher priced TT will take 10 years to justify with the gas increase?
http://autos.msn.com/research/...06302
your arguments are waining here. hell even you quicker to 60 by 0.5 sec isn't an argument. there's about 10 guys (all in their 20s) that don't mind waiting until 6k to actually have it not feel like a civic and start pulling. having over 50ft/lbs more torque than your car can even make, while only being at 1500 rpms is a very, very nice thing. it's called advancements in technology. 
obviously you ignored the basic $500 changes a chip would do but that's fine since it gets ugly after that. 
and unless the TTS gets real short gears, you'll see the same damn mileage! why? look up turbos 101


----------



## nonobvious (May 27, 2008)

*Re: (M this 1!)*


_Quote, originally posted by *M this 1!* »_ the 2.0T is brainless to get the mileage.

On brainlessness, I concede you are the expert.
First you claimed the TT had a better zero to sixty. It doesn't.
Then you claimed the TT is safer. You have no evidence for it.
You've already discredited yourself at this point. You're making up statements that are provably false, and its been shown in plain language that you're basically lying. But let's address your "new" arguments, again:
(Third), you need to resort to external modifications to somehow claim the car will be a greater performer. That's silly--we can always get into the modification game. I'm not ignoring the argument, it's just a dumb argument.
Fourth, you're argument is that the TT has better mileage. I haven't dispusted that the 2.0T gets better mileate. But I have pointed out that a TT which actually has similar performance to the S2000, the TT 3.2, gets worse mileage. That's not too hard to understand and follow, is it?
Fifth, as for pricing, the S2k has no options available. And even then its cheaper than the TT. But add anything to the TT at all, and it quickly costs a lot more. Buy a TT that actually is as quick as the s2000 is---eight years ago--and you need to spend $42.5k for a base model 3.2.
Sixth, go look at the mileage numbers for the various 2.0T trims on the A3 in europe, and again, you'll that higher output engines generally consumer more fuel. I hope this isn't news to someone in the car business, but given that you've pretty much made up the rest of your argumetn from thin air, it wouldn't suprise me.
Oh, and if you're an enthusiast and want a TT with a six speed manual, what exactly are your options?
You would think that after eight years, audi could come up with something better than an older Honda







.


----------



## M this 1! (May 17, 2000)

*Re: (nonobvious)*

since you want to go to the road of putting me down, go ahead and feel big about it. i for one, did not say it was faster, i said a stock TT was slower. i know if was a massive 3 posts ago, but look again. if traction control, skid control and more airbags are not safer, you know something the rest of the race does not. you can't use the 3.2 as your example since we're, well, not talking about 3.2. 
let me explain basic turbos for you. when not accelerating, that is maintaining speed on the freeway.....a turbo is not pressurizing the system. you can call it 'resting' if that makes it easier to understand. the wastegate opens up the system since boost is not needed at that moment and it doesn't matter if you have a big or little turbo.....the car is basically a 2.0 FSI motor sipping away. unless the gearing is different, the car will get the same freeway mpg as the lower powered version. hell even if it did have short gears........it'll destroy the archaic Vtech you're so very proud of. 
you obviously don't want an Audi TT. so don't get one. MANY, MANY others will. you could always get the Honda Civic Si. it has the next gen future of your Vtech engines


----------



## nonobvious (May 27, 2008)

*Re: (M this 1!)*


_Quote, originally posted by *M this 1!* »_since you want to go to the road of putting me down, go ahead and feel big about it. i for one, did not say it was faster, i said a stock TT was slower. i know if was a massive 3 posts ago, but look again. if traction control, skid control and more airbags are not safer, you know something the rest of the race does not. you can't use the 3.2 as your example since we're, well, not talking about 3.2. 
let me explain basic turbos for you. when not accelerating, that is maintaining speed on the freeway.....a turbo is not pressurizing the system. you can call it 'resting' if that makes it easier to understand. the wastegate opens up the system since boost is not needed at that moment and it doesn't matter if you have a big or little turbo.....the car is basically a 2.0 FSI motor sipping away. unless the gearing is different, the car will get the same freeway mpg as the lower powered version. hell even if it did have short gears........it'll destroy the archaic Vtech you're so very proud of. 
you obviously don't want an Audi TT. so don't get one. MANY, MANY others will. you could always get the Honda Civic Si. it has the next gen future of your Vtech engines









Don't be silly. I've actually recommended the TT to quite a few people. Actually, you've convinced me to buy one today. Can I call you for a quote?


----------



## abeMKvGLi (Jul 23, 2006)

*Re: (nonobvious)*

o m g, my 2 cents whether or not the tt performs better than the s2k it still feels better, i.e. interior quality/safety/performance. yes u pay more but people looking for a tt isnt looking fr a rice/race rocket. go back to the honda forums. the s2000 isnt even in the same class. imo. the end.


----------



## nonobvious (May 27, 2008)

*Re: (abeMKvGLi)*


_Quote, originally posted by *abeMKvGLi* »_o m g, my 2 cents whether or not the tt performs better than the s2k it still feels better, i.e. interior quality/safety/performance. yes u pay more but people looking for a tt isnt looking fr a rice/race rocket. go back to the honda forums. the s2000 isnt even in the same class. imo. the end.

I'm sorry, the Google language translater for babble-to-English is down. Can you translate that into complete sentences?


----------



## tomh009 (Nov 28, 2001)

*Re: (nonobvious)*


_Quote, originally posted by *nonobvious* »_You would think that after eight years, audi could come up with something better than an older Honda







.

Clearly you think they haven't. So why are you trolling here?


----------



## M this 1! (May 17, 2000)

*Re: (tomh009)*

probably to prove we're liars and brainless.


----------



## M this 1! (May 17, 2000)

*Re: (M this 1!)*

by the way, my GM just got back from ripping the TTS at Infineon. said the exhaust not is WAY different than normal 2.0Ts. It was very, very quick, and absolutely made the 3.2 seem heavy and slow. 
So i can't wait to see it for myself and see how it truely compares to cars here in the states. should be cool!


----------



## nonobvious (May 27, 2008)

*Re: (M this 1!)*


_Quote, originally posted by *M this 1!* »_It was very, very quick, and absolutely made the 3.2 seem heavy and slow. 


Exactly


----------



## TPE_A3 (Feb 5, 2008)

*Re: (nonobvious)*

Wow! Quite the spirited debate here!
I think both have you have really missed the point of buying a 2.0TFSI TT. It's not about the track times, lap times, acceration, etc.
It's about the overall package. A pristine interior, a novel design, smooth lines, great(adequate..whatever you want to call it performance) great ride, amazing driveability and safety. (here, Audi's reputation is stellar and there is no reason to think the TT is any different)
So what if a cheaper car can go faster? Lots of cars can! Doesn't make me want one. 
And if you really want something that lays waste to the streets...sure the TT is not for you! Neither is a S2000 either though!!
two cents from the peanut gallery
Resume argument!


----------



## abeMKvGLi (Jul 23, 2006)

*Re: (TPE_A3)*


_Quote, originally posted by *nonobvious* »_
I'm sorry, the Google language translater for babble-to-English is down. Can you translate that into complete sentences?


_Quote, originally posted by *TPE_A3* »_Wow! Quite the spirited debate here!
I think both have you have really missed the point of buying a 2.0TFSI TT. It's not about the track times, lap times, acceration, etc.
It's about the overall package. A pristine interior, a novel design, smooth lines, great(adequate..whatever you want to call it performance) great ride, amazing driveability and safety. (here, Audi's reputation is stellar and there is no reason to think the TT is any different)
So what if a cheaper car can go faster? Lots of cars can! Doesn't make me want one. 
And if you really want something that lays waste to the streets...sure the TT is not for you! Neither is a S2000 either though!!
two cents from the peanut gallery
Resume argument!


----------



## nonobvious (May 27, 2008)

*Re: (TPE_A3)*


_Quote, originally posted by *TPE_A3* »_
Resume argument!

He's a poo-poo and hit me first.

More seriously, before facts-from-fiction man jumped down my throat, my main point about the car is that I just wish Audi would juice up their engine line up a bit. It wouldn't take much--perhaps 30hp across the board, to be more consistent with the market. I actually like the car quite a bit, but its hard to rationalize spending $35k on a car that--in spite of having many great attributes--hasn't honestly kept pace in the engine department. Its especially odd given how easy it would be to push the hp numbers up, as has been pointed out with aftermarket devices. But many people want the car to come stock performing well.


----------



## ProjectA3 (Aug 12, 2005)

*Re: (nonobvious)*

if it helps
i just took a 2008 S2000 CR (club racer) in on trade on a 2008 TT 2.0T Roadster S-Line. the guy said the S2k was fun, but he felt like a boy racer in it (gee the big wing didnt warn you of that nor the bright blue color). but he felt severly let down by the interior of the Honda and having to rev the heck out of it to get power, when then deminished any fuel efficiency advantage it could ever show.
he loved the low-end torque of the 2.0t and the ridiculous powerband the 2.0T displayed vs. his Honda. he said the TT is heavier but feels soooooo much better made, and the interior was to die for while the Honda's interior felt very old and outdated.
he happily spent more money on the Audi. plus the 4 rings on the front and back felt better to him than the H did.


----------



## ProjectA3 (Aug 12, 2005)

*Re: (nonobvious)*


_Quote, originally posted by *nonobvious* »_
He's a poo-poo and hit me first.

More seriously, before facts-from-fiction man jumped down my throat, my main point about the car is that I just wish Audi would juice up their engine line up a bit. It wouldn't take much--perhaps 30hp across the board, to be more consistent with the market. I actually like the car quite a bit, but its hard to rationalize spending $35k on a car that--in spite of having many great attributes--*hasn't honestly kept pace in the engine department.* Its especially odd given how easy it would be to push the hp numbers up, as has been pointed out with aftermarket devices. But many people want the car to come stock performing well. 

ok i am targeting the bolded line above. direct injection, Turbo diesel, trubo's bolted to exhaust manifold to reduce turbo lag, valvelift systems, diesel powered LMP1 race cars, direct injection turbo charged race cars.... where is Audi not keeping pace in the engine department? am i missing something?
i think you are missing that Audi is getting great power out of our engines but also keeping fuel efficiency in mind. more power + more MPG is a good thing. power without torque = not a good thing


----------



## nonobvious (May 27, 2008)

*Re: (ProjectA3)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ProjectA3* »_
ok i am targeting the bolded line above. direct injection, Turbo diesel, trubo's bolted to exhaust manifold to reduce turbo lag, valvelift systems, diesel powered LMP1 race cars, direct injection turbo charged race cars.... where is Audi not keeping pace in the engine department? am i missing something?
i think you are missing that Audi is getting great power out of our engines but also keeping fuel efficiency in mind. more power + more MPG is a good thing. power without torque = not a good thing

Can you seriously tell me that the 3.2 makes good power for its fuel efficiency? Perhaps the issue is one of semantics. Yes, audi's engines are *well made.* But they are not competitive in terms of output. The A4 3.2 gets 17/25, while the 335xi gets 17/25 while making dramatically more hp and torque (and I've added in the awd on the bmw to "even the playing field). HOw is this class leading in fuel efficency? You can't buy an s2000 with only 200hp, but if you want to compare on a rough output/mass comparison, the civis Si is a reasonable comparison. It makes 20/29 city/highway, and is an ultra low emissions vehicle to boot. If you actually want an audi that makes acceleration, rather than horsepower, numbers close to competitors such as BMW you actually need to step up engine displacement quite a bit. It takes an eight cylinder S4 to keep pace with the six cylinder turob of the 335i. Guess what? The S4 gets 15/20 city/highway, and starts at $48k--hardly a deal on any dimension.
And as far as diesel powered race cars--give me a break.







What I'm obviously getting at is that on a dollar for dollar basis, audi isn't on pace with their competitors. Even if you consider the new A4 that you can't even buy yet, it will be down 30hp compared to: BMW, Lexus, and Infiniti.


----------



## nonobvious (May 27, 2008)

*Re: (ProjectA3)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ProjectA3* »_if it helps
*plus the 4 rings on the front and back felt better to him than the H did*.

Do you think he'd buy it if it had a big VW on the front?


----------



## ProjectA3 (Aug 12, 2005)

*Re: (nonobvious)*

your last comment about the VW thing shows me you really dont know about Audi.
VW is the parent company and helps audi develop big things like engines etc.. but not the car. the Audi shares very little as far as technology, engineering and components with the VW's. little parts yes, big parts nope.
Just like the BMW, most people wont option for the 335i, especially not the xi. with the bmw AWD cars you cannot add sports packages or M running gear, you get the car raised an inch, and improper design of the half shaft going through the middle of the oil pan, and the inability to transfer power front to rear. talk about an afterthought and lack of engineering.
the A4 2.0T, putting out more power than a 328, is250, C300 is the class leader in fuel and safety and offers something none others do. an all wheel drive system that is performance oriented rather than an afterthought because they just had to do it.
oh BMW can also thank Audi for pioneering direct injection along with turbo's. Mazda, Lexus, and Ford can also thank them for it too. Without Audi doing it in the R8 race car, and then the first to do it in street cars, bmw wouldnt have done it for the 335.. they also had to put a V8 in an M3 because they had to chase Audi, who did it first in 2004 in that class of car? The 2004 S4 sedan. then the C55, then the CTS and now 4 years later finally bmw.
read the quote in my signature

_Modified by ProjectA3 at 10:27 PM 6/6/2008_

_Modified by ProjectA3 at 10:29 PM 6/6/2008_


_Modified by ProjectA3 at 10:29 PM 6/6/2008_


----------



## Wyld (Feb 22, 2005)

*Re: (nonobvious)*


_Quote, originally posted by *nonobvious* »_down 30hp compared to: BMW, Lexus, and Infiniti.

"Horsepower sells cars, torque wins races."
-Carroll Shelby


----------



## tomh009 (Nov 28, 2001)

*Re: (Wyld)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Wyld* »_"Horsepower sells cars, torque wins races."
-Carroll Shelby

Indeed. Looking at RRI's actual measured torque/hp charts, we can see torque at the wheels:
TT: 280 Nm @ 3000 rpm
S2000: 160 Nm @ 3000 rpm
TT: 280 Nm @ 4000 rpm
S2000: 160 Nm @ 4000 rpm
TT: 280 Nm @ 5000 rpm
S2000: 160 Nm @ 5000 rpm
TT: 230 Nm @ 6000 rpm
S2000: 185 Nm @ 6000 rpm
S2000: 185 Nm @ 7000 rpm
S2000: 185 Nm @ 8000 rpm
Since power = torque x rpm, the TT also produces more power than the S2000, rpm for rpm, all the way to its redline. The S2000 does not reach TT's 5000-6000 rpm power plateau until 7000 rpm.
How often do *you* want to drive at 7000+ rpm to get more power to the wheels than the TT? I know *my* neighbours do not appreciate that ...


----------



## nonobvious (May 27, 2008)

*Re: (ProjectA3)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ProjectA3* »_your last comment about the VW thing shows me you really dont know about Audi.



_Quote, originally posted by *ProjectA3* »_
the A4 2.0T, putting out more power than a 328, is250, C300 

The A4 2.0T puts out 200hp. The 328i puts out 230hp. The is250 puts out 204hp. The C300 puts out 228hp. Maybe you need to brush up on your Audi knowledge, but that means the car puts out LESS power than all of these competitors.
Do you guys just make up facts to enforce your beliefs? Your arguments would be more persuasive if they weren't consistently full of misinformation.


----------



## nonobvious (May 27, 2008)

*Re: (tomh009)*


_Quote, originally posted by *tomh009* »_
Indeed. Looking at RRI's actual measured torque/hp charts, we can see torque at the wheels:
TT: 280 Nm @ 3000 rpm
S2000: 160 Nm @ 3000 rpm
TT: 280 Nm @ 4000 rpm
S2000: 160 Nm @ 4000 rpm
TT: 280 Nm @ 5000 rpm
S2000: 160 Nm @ 5000 rpm
TT: 230 Nm @ 6000 rpm
S2000: 185 Nm @ 6000 rpm
S2000: 185 Nm @ 7000 rpm
S2000: 185 Nm @ 8000 rpm
Since power = torque x rpm, *the TT also produces more power than the S2000, rpm for rpm, all the way to its redline*. The S2000 does not reach TT's 5000-6000 rpm power plateau until 7000 rpm.
How often do *you* want to drive at 7000+ rpm to get more power to the wheels than the TT? I know *my* neighbours do not appreciate that ...

Ooops. Minor detail you left out there. Why? Because your argument is inherently dumb. The TT produces more torque at euqal RPMs. Gee, really? Does it also produce more torque at equal RPMS as compared to an F1 race car? Answer: Yes. So what? In a straight line comparision of acceleration, the S2000 engine will run at a higher rpm, producing more torque at the wheels than the TT, resulting in higher acceleration. *You can quote anyone you want, I'll use Newton: F=MA. *
According to your silly argument, a VW diesel is a better sporting engine than that in the TT, because the old 1.9 liter with 99 hp put out more torque per rpm. This may come as a shocker, but when cars move forward, they don't all spin their engines at the same speed.


----------



## nonobvious (May 27, 2008)

*Re: (tomh009)*


_Quote, originally posted by *tomh009* »_
I know *my* neighbours do not appreciate that ...

Do your neighbors sit in your car or something when you drive? How odd. Well, whatever floats your boat.


----------



## ProjectA3 (Aug 12, 2005)

*Re: (nonobvious)*

nonobvious since you are in SF go to the corner of Taylor and Geary and take a look at the new A4 Sedan and Avant. they are parked on the curb at the Clift Hotel. look at them and see the kind of car that Honda wished it could build


----------



## nonobvious (May 27, 2008)

*Re: (ProjectA3)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ProjectA3* »_nonobvious since you are in SF go to the corner of Taylor and Geary and take a look at the new A4 Sedan and Avant. they are parked on the curb at the Clift Hotel. look at them and see the kind of car that Honda wished it could build


That's more a dying wail than an argument. LOL.
But since you bring it up, a Honda accord sedan puts out 268hp--more than a $45k 6 cylinder Audi A4. Why can't audi build a better engine?


----------



## ProjectA3 (Aug 12, 2005)

*Re: (nonobvious)*

so you are saying that all it takes to build a good car is a high horsepower motor?
Audi is ahead of all of its European competitors and has already met the 2012 European CAFE emissions standards. Horsepower is not everything and Audi is proving it by making nice engines that are smooth, reliable, and fun to drive, but also concentrating on the overall car and fuel efficiency.
I could ask why Honda chooses to use some of the cheapest plastics on the market to make their interiors. Why do companies like Honda and Acura, oh wait they are the same, buy Audi's every year to simply disassemble them to see how they are pur together. I know this because i sold VW's and Audis in Ohio about 30 minutes from Marysville, OH where Acura and Hondas are assembled. Every year we would sell about 5-10 cars to that plant just so they could take them apart and see how they are made. Audi and VW can make nice interiors in cars, why can't honda or any of the Japanese mfg's. They just dont choose to or they just dont have the means to.


----------



## M this 1! (May 17, 2000)

*Re: (nonobvious)*

comparing an Accord to an A4 (or an IS, C, 3 series) shows your interest levels nonobvious. and that's fine. you spin to the stats line of a magazine article and then maybe glance at the content. hell, that's your age level and that's fine. 
comparing the Accord to an A4, should have you looking at Honda's other products. why not save even more money and get a street bike? you'll gain more speed, more mpg and again save money. they're not even close to the same car. hell, you should be getting a Mustang GT!! there's your speed/$ car! if a complete package is not your cup of tea, so be it. it's easy, an Audi is not for you. 

I'd love to see a new A4 Quattro comparison test against the competition. The last one Road & Track (or C/D, can't remember) was when the 2.0T just came out. It destroyed the IS, 3 series, Infiniti, Subaru, and what ever else was there. It tied the 3 series in 0-60, 1/4 mile even though it was less powerful AND heavier. it destroyed the rest on fit and finish and one came close to it in handling. the new A4 is taking it to the next level and listened to the complaints: engine too far forward, too heavy a car, small back seat. and added MORE power and HUGE torque gains. That's advancement in technology at its finest! 
What does Honda do? they tell you to shove it and deal with what ever the hell they feel like making. whether their fans like it or not. 
you keep bringing up the 3.2.......i really don't know why since it's not the topic. i'm on page with you on that engine even though it's not done so bad since it was designed in the end of the 80's. it's also on it's last leg and probably won't even make the '10 model year. 
more gas mileage, power delivery, fit and finish, style, and safety is the all around package Audi delivers. not just one aspect.


----------



## nonobvious (May 27, 2008)

*Re: (M this 1!)*


_Quote, originally posted by *M this 1!* »_comparing an Accord to an A4 (or an IS, C, 3 series) shows your interest levels nonobvious. 


You seem to have lost track of this thread. I was simply responding to another posters' silly argument that honda somehow has a wish to build an A4. Of course they are different cars for different markets. But I am amused at the level of care you feel necessary to make this argument.


----------



## nonobvious (May 27, 2008)

*Re: (M this 1!)*


_Quote, originally posted by *M this 1!* »_
It tied the 3 series in 0-60, 1/4 mile even though it was less powerful AND heavier. 


I doubt your statistics, because throughout this debate every time I've checked your numbers they've been wrong. Besides, you admit you can't even remmember what source you think you might be remembering. How about actually posting some numbers and citing them since your arguments have such little credibility?
Edmunds just tested the new A4 six cylinder. It had a 0-60 of 6.9 seconds, and a quarter mile of 15 seconds. That's slower than the tested numbers for the 328ix, and FAR slower than the numbers for the 335i. Which isn't suprising, because its heaver than both and has much less power than both. The 2.0T will surely be even slower than the six cylinder version. Indeed, the current Audi S4 is about the same speed as the 335i.
And yes, in case you are concerned, a new honda Accord V-6 is pretty close to the Audi V-6 at around 7 seconds to 60 and 15.5 to the quarter mile.


----------



## nonobvious (May 27, 2008)

*Re: (nonobvious)*

http://www.edmunds.com/insidel...64259
Here the A4 gets wooped by the OLD bmw:
"It's the same story at the drag strip. *The A4 needed 7.7 seconds to accelerate from zero to 60 mph after a clutch-killing high-rpm, all-wheel-drive launch. In the 3.2-liter Avant, which weighs 300 pounds more, we ran a 7.9, and in the 330i, which spins its rear tires off the line, we ran a 6.6*. 
"
So again, where do you make these numbers up? Do you tell this misinformation to your clients?


----------



## M this 1! (May 17, 2000)

*Re: (nonobvious)*

you're such *** nut! you need to insult to try and make your point. you're obviously a short little man since you drive an S2000. 
since you do not somehow believe that ESP and added airbags is a safer car and i'm a "liar" because you don't agree, i doubt you'll be convinced with facts.
and since you want fact: it was R/T March '06 on page 65. do you need me to write out the entire article too u little puke?
2.0T Quattro: 0-60 6.5
BMW 6.5
2.0T 1/4 mile 15.0 @ 93.3mph
BMW 15.0 @ 91.4
HMMM, that's weird. Doesn't the BMW have more power? 

2.0T = 3880
BMW = 3780
HMMM, that's weird, shouldn't the weight make it slower not faster???








2.0T = 18.8 mpg (their driving)
BMW = 16.7 mpg

I've made no info up. you just refuse to listen. now go pedal your rice bowl where maybe your egotistical babble might be appreciated. 
nice chatting with you though


----------



## tomh009 (Nov 28, 2001)

*Re: (nonobvious)*


_Quote, originally posted by *nonobvious* »_Ooops. Minor detail you left out there. Why? Because your argument is inherently dumb.

Yes, indeed. Everyone who prefers an Audi over a Honda is dumb. Tell me again why you are trolling on these forums?

_Quote, originally posted by *nonobvious* »_So what? In a straight line comparision of acceleration, the S2000 engine will run at a higher rpm, producing more torque at the wheels than the TT, resulting in higher acceleration. 

Maybe this comes down to what you expect from a car. If you spend your days driving stoplight grands prix, and you treat your accelerator pedal as an on-off switch (full throttle or nothing), then, yes, the S2000 is absolutely faster, and the right car for you.
My everyday driving rarely sees me use full throttle, and the turbo engine's torque provides a more pleasurable driving experience -- for me -- than winding an engine up to 8000 rpm on each shift. There are times when I do drive hard, but since we're talking daily driver, that's a small minority of the time.
But maybe if you go back to the Honda forums you can find more people who think like you.


----------



## nonobvious (May 27, 2008)

*Re: (M this 1!)*


_Quote, originally posted by *M this 1!* »_you're such *** nut! you need to insult to try and make your point. you're obviously a short little man since you drive an S2000. 
since you do not somehow believe that ESP and added airbags is a safer car and i'm a "liar" because you don't agree, i doubt you'll be convinced with facts.
and since you want fact: it was R/T March '06 on page 65. do you need me to write out the entire article too u little puke?
2.0T Quattro: 0-60 6.5
BMW 6.5
2.0T 1/4 mile 15.0 @ 93.3mph
BMW 15.0 @ 91.4
HMMM, that's weird. Doesn't the BMW have more power? 

2.0T = 3880
BMW = 3780
HMMM, that's weird, shouldn't the weight make it slower not faster???








2.0T = 18.8 mpg (their driving)
BMW = 16.7 mpg

I've made no info up. you just refuse to listen. now go pedal your rice bowl where maybe your egotistical babble might be appreciated. 
nice chatting with you though









I think its quite amusing that you leave out the fact this is a comparison of the A4 vs. the bmw 325i. You're probably (but not necessarily) smart enough to know that bmw doesn't actually make the 325i any more. It is consistent with your total lack of candor in these discussions. The new 328 is markedly quicker than both the 325i, and the 328i. Oops. I guess if you sell used cars you might be correct.
I also appreciate your "rice bowl" comments. They are revealing, and I think they show what this is really about. Apparently you need to engage in racially prejudicial comments to try to make your point. You need to calm down. These are cars. Your decision to invoke anti-Asian slang terminology indicates that you are rather small minded. Your comment regarding being a "short little man" also indicates an inability to control your temper. I find it amusing that a simple disagreement in regards to your credibility, which has been demonstrated several times, results in such hate filled comments. You should look inward to correct your shortcomings rather than trying to invoke such base insults. Are you adult enough to recognize your shortcomings?


----------



## M this 1! (May 17, 2000)

*Re: (nonobvious)*

what ever makes you feel better. just keep on spitting it out. what was that thing about the kettle.............


----------



## ProjectA3 (Aug 12, 2005)

*Re: (M this 1!)*

I have driven the new a4 3.2 quattro and the BMW 328xi yes the current one, and i honestly, as a car guy, have to say the BMW is a very big let down compared to the new A4. Steering is the only thing that i felt the BMW had over the Audi. but steering, brakes, chassis control, transmission, and engine were all a LOT better in the Audi.
in the Edmunds thing, they pick the new A4 3.2quattro over the C350 Benz w/ RWD. they say the only thing the MB does better is go in a straight line a little faster. everything else was in favor of the Audi.
http://www.edmunds.com/insidel...el..1.*


----------



## ProjectA3 (Aug 12, 2005)

*Re: (nonobvious)*


_Quote, originally posted by *nonobvious* »_http://www.edmunds.com/insidel...64259
Here the A4 gets wooped by the OLD bmw:
"It's the same story at the drag strip. *The A4 needed 7.7 seconds to accelerate from zero to 60 mph after a clutch-killing high-rpm, all-wheel-drive launch. In the 3.2-liter Avant, which weighs 300 pounds more, we ran a 7.9, and in the 330i, which spins its rear tires off the line, we ran a 6.6*. 
D/Touche that old article is a 2.0T A4 vs. a inline 6 of the 330 how uncomparable are those two engines.
"
So again, where do you make these numbers up? Do you tell this misinformation to your clients?


----------



## nonobvious (May 27, 2008)

*Re: (ProjectA3)*

The point (duh) of comparing the old 330i acceleration with the present 2.0T (the article deals with the current A4 sold in the US) is that the engine was too weak then, and frankly, its particularly slow now given how much futher the competition has come. 
The new A4, not yet hold here, is unlikely to address this basic issue.
In fact, can you actually spend as much on the A4 as any "premium" branded car, and get LESS power? Can you get less with BMW, infiniti, lexus? I don't think they'll sell you a car with so little power even if you wanted to buy it.


----------



## tomh009 (Nov 28, 2001)

*Re: (nonobvious)*

So don't buy one. And go to some other forum that talks about cars that you *do* want to buy.
I have a (chipped) 1.8T, and somehow I am actually happy with the engine. More than that, I will likely buy an A5 if they will only offer it with the 2.0T.
But if you think Audi is ripping people off and Audi drivers are dumb, you are in the wrong forum. Unless you are just trolling for kicks.


----------



## M this 1! (May 17, 2000)

*Re: (tomh009)*

I too really hope they pop the 2.0T in the A5. That car would be a really cool car!!! talk about a nice balanced chassis!! 
I think we can all ignore little mister troll (i do feel bad for him though) and get on with the discussion of this uber cool TTS and the likes. hopefully Audi will leave one off here at the store soon. hint


----------



## ProjectA3 (Aug 12, 2005)

*Re: (M this 1!)*

the lexus ISW250 which will compete against the new 2.0T is only 204 HP and a horrible 185 ft-lb of torque and does 0-60 in 8.3 seconds that is freakin slow but yet you aren't bagging on that and the Lexus is rated at 20-28MPG while the Audi is rated at the same figures for an all wheel drive car with more powers
audi is claiming 0-60 in the new 2.0T QUATTRO at 6.5 seconds. Yet lexus is claming the IS is a sports sedan without adding an * in there saying its only the 350 and IS-F.


----------



## Zwei Bora Tdi (Apr 23, 2004)

*Turbo Motors are better*

Hey, that is why I think the way to o is the turbo motor, since it is lighter than a comparable V6 or V8. Most of VAGs 1.8's and 1.9s can be safely tuned to around 300 hp and 300 tq. Add some forged bits and bigger spool and you are in 400 hp land. Supercharged is the same way. Pro-charger for the M5 takes it to 520hp so a lighter platform scoots quicker. The time attack races show all of us one thing: Lighter cars make it around the track pretty quick. Cobalt won 2 years ago with a 2WD. Stasis won this year with a 2WD Audi TT. Personally, think the quattro is the way to go. But there is a big penalty for hauling around an extra 250 lbs of running gear. Just think what a 250hp V6 DIESEL would do! Ha! Now that is a motor!!! http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## cincyTT (May 11, 2006)

*Re: (nonobvious)*


_Quote, originally posted by *nonobvious* »_
It might be a comforting intuition, but all the data I've seen indicates it to be wrong. S2000s typically record mid to high 5s 0-6, and very low fourteens in the quarter mile. The 2.0T doesn't come close, and indeed the 3.2 struggles to match these kinds of times. The best determinant of acceleration is weight to power. The S2000 is lighter, and it has 20% more horsepower. Go read a physics book. What determines acceleration is torque at the wheels, not the crank. This is why an F1 car accelerates more quickly than the TT or an S2000.

Im sure my realatively stock MKI 2.0T will blow your s2k away. You cant beat lowend Tq








Plus my TT has plenty of room to be comfortable in compared to the tiny ass s2k (which feels smaller than my old mx-5)


----------



## nonobvious (May 27, 2008)

*Re: (cincyTT)*


_Quote, originally posted by *cincyTT* »_
You cant beat lowend Tq








Plus my TT has plenty of room to be comfortable in compared to the tiny ass s2k (which feels smaller than my old mx-5)

You have to be a serious dumb ass to think that torque and not horsepower is the ultimate determinant of acceleration. If the S2000 feels smaller than your old mx-5, you've put on a ton of weight since you owned your miata.


----------



## 20th-Hole (Feb 3, 2005)

*Re:*

Has anyone else seen this? 

_Quote, originally posted by *JDPower.com* »_
The standard transmission in the 2009 Audi TTS is a traditional 6-speed manual.


http://www.jdpower.com/autos/a...eview
Could this really be true???


----------



## sTTeve (May 13, 2008)

*Re: (nonobvious)*

My 08 2.0T TT with just a GIAC chip runs 0 - 60 in 5.7 seconds so I dont know where u r getting your info but the TT is doing just fine. Im looking at 300 tq to get me going.
Being FWD does slow things down a tad at the start but 5.7 is still damn good. I will be getting my Milltek DP and Remus axle back in the next few days and that should shave another .1 off that time. The I will have to find a track and do a 1/4 mile time. I would think very low 14s.


_Modified by sTTeve at 8:30 PM 7-16-2008_


----------



## sTTeve (May 13, 2008)

*Re: Re: (20th-Hole)*

The TTS is going to be the best of both worlds: fast and stylish/comfort.


----------



## nonobvious (May 27, 2008)

*Re: (sTTeve)*


_Quote, originally posted by *sTTeve* »_My 08 2.0T TT with just a GIAC chip runs 0 - 60 in 5.7 seconds so I dont know where u r getting your info but the TT is doing just fine. Im looking at 300 tq to get me going.
Being FWD does slow things down a tad at the start but 5.7 is still damn good. I will be getting my Milltek DP and Remus axle back in the next few days and that should shave another .1 off that time. The I will have to find a track and do a 1/4 mile time. I would think very low 14s.

_Modified by sTTeve at 8:30 PM 7-16-2008_

So with a few thousand dollars of mods and no warranty, you're closing in on the times a honda roadster could pull back in 2000? Not too shabby http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## sTTeve (May 13, 2008)

*Re: (nonobvious)*

500 for the chip aint doodoo. Hell the honda still looks cheap like most Hondas. The TT has style the Honda can only dream of. Hell the Saturn Sky looks better than the Honda and probably performs just as well. After 200,000 miles lets see whos car looks and performs better. Put all the extras my TT has in the Honda and your looking at several thousands more for the Honda and it will still look cheap. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
And its funny how someone will say one car is way better than another, then when they see that the other car can do just as good, they say yea but it costs more.

_Modified by sTTeve at 4:09 AM 7-17-2008_


_Modified by sTTeve at 4:17 AM 7-17-2008_


----------



## nonobvious (May 27, 2008)

*Re: (sTTeve)*


_Quote, originally posted by *sTTeve* »_500 for the chip aint doodoo. Hell the honda still looks cheap like most Hondas. The TT has style the Honda can only dream of. Hell the Saturn Sky looks better than the Honda and probably performs just as well. After 200,000 miles lets see whos car looks and performs better. Put all the extras my TT has in the Honda and your looking at several thousands more for the Honda and it will still look cheap. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
And its funny how someone will say one car is way better than another, then when they see that the other car can do just as good, they say yea but it costs more.

_Modified by sTTeve at 4:09 AM 7-17-2008_

_Modified by sTTeve at 4:17 AM 7-17-2008_

Hell, y'all like that word "Hell" don'cha?
The correct term is that the car does just as "well," not "good."
But it doesn't. A stock S2000 is quicker. Thanks for proving for all of us that a chip can't cure the essential deficiencies of a FWD platform typical of economy cars. It sounds like you spent a pile of money to make a FWD car break its tires loose.
Your TT doesn't have any "extras" I want. What made the TT appealing was the quality of construction and design, both of which were watered down and decontented when they moved from 1st to 2nd generation. That's why the car has subsidized leases availabe in its very first year. And frankly, after 200,000 miles I'll put my money on a honda any day. Audi's are expensive to maintain, which is partly why their residual values are so low (just compare them to a BMW for example).


----------



## sTTeve (May 13, 2008)

*Re: (nonobvious)*

Hell 500 aint nutin for 50 extra HP and 80 TQ. If you dont want any extras in a car then I think you just say that cuz you cant get them. All I said in my 1st post was with 300 TQ that gets my car to 0 - 60 in 5.7. I didnt compare it to any Honda or any other car, you took it that way. My point was the TQ gettin it going. Over yer head I guess. Or you have that I have or had a cheap Honda complex and are touchy about it. The TT is by far way better than a Honda S20 or any other Honda. Oh yea a 200,000 Audi will be way better than a 200,00 Honda any day. Hondas cant even hold their paint very long. And again we went from how a car performs to you talkin $$$ which is always a way of saying I cant afford an Audi so my Honda is better. Must not be able to afford those extras.
Oh just a note: warrenty is still good. Thats what a classy car/dealer does for ya. Yall come back now ya here


_Modified by sTTeve at 1:57 PM 7-17-2008_


----------



## Skybird (Jul 2, 2008)

*Re: (Tampavw)*

Guys... look what I've found... It seems to be on the road, I've never seen that before. And it looks like a real Beast... Waoow, I love the front.
But is it real... That's the question...


----------



## 353S (May 24, 2008)

*Re: (Skybird)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Skybird* »_Guys... look what I've found... It seems to be on the road, I've never seen that before. And it looks like a real Beast... Waoow, I love the front.
But is it real... That's the question...










No it's not real... far from. It is a CGI over a year old.


----------



## sTTeve (May 13, 2008)

*Re: (353S)*

I kinda like the grill better than what Ive seen on others. Man I just might have to trade in and get me a TTS. Still no pricing?


----------



## 353S (May 24, 2008)

*Re: (sTTeve)*


_Quote, originally posted by *sTTeve* »_I kinda like the grill better than what Ive seen on others. Man I just might have to trade in and get me a TTS. Still no pricing?

No price yet... rumor is tomorrow.


----------



## Skybird (Jul 2, 2008)

*Re: (sTTeve)*

Oh noooo! I was really enjoying this shape. Better than the TTS. I went to see one model in Audi's dealer. The car was white. And dirty cos it was the test car in here. I was so motivated when I saw the pictures... Too motivated... that I went down so fast when I saw the car...
The front is more impressive on a picture. I don't know, but something went wrong the first time I saw it in real.


----------



## tomh009 (Nov 28, 2001)

*Re: (nonobvious)*


_Quote, originally posted by *nonobvious* »_Your TT doesn't have any "extras" I want. What made the TT appealing was the quality of construction and design, both of which were watered down and decontented when they moved from 1st to 2nd generation. That's why the car has subsidized leases availabe in its very first year. And frankly, after 200,000 miles I'll put my money on a honda any day. Audi's are expensive to maintain, which is partly why their residual values are so low (just compare them to a BMW for example).

And yet, even though 10-year-old Hondas are so superior to anything Audi could even imagine of dreaming about conceiving, let alone anything they actually sell ... you are still trolling these forums, month after month.
I would have thought you would have been happy to stay in nirvana-land by now.
P.S. Since you're so keen to correct other posters' grammar, you should note that the plural of "Audi" is "Audis". "Audi's" is the possessive form ...


_Modified by tomh009 at 9:12 PM 7/17/2008_


----------



## M this 1! (May 17, 2000)

*Re: (tomh009)*

and to give some more correctness to the post.
Stasis chipped their TT coupe which does carry a warranty and Audi of America DOES get told you have a chip..........does consistent, back to back 5.0 0-60 times!!! They said they couldn't trick the tranny into letting them spin the car up higher and stay in 2nd, or it'd of had a 4.9. none the less, 5 flat and in 3rd gear is great for just software.

As far as subsidizing the rates. There isn't a bank around that isn't going to do that.......even in a cars first year. as the model year goes on, the residual HAS to go down. Has to! so to keep a lease price from actually climbing, the bank buys down the rate to match the depreciation.
On the point of BMW having a higher residual, BMW sales literally goes to BMW finance and buys the residual up..........do to them having some serious amounts of it laying around. Audi refuses to buy up their residuals. if you actually look at ALG (who sets the residuals for the market), you'll see that Audi is right at BMW levels. I believe that is Amer. Lease Guide..........can't remember. to the point of BMW having higher residuals and actually holding value better is false


----------



## sTTeve (May 13, 2008)

*Re: (M this 1!)*

plus the TTs are just bad ass


----------



## nonobvious (May 27, 2008)

*Re: (M this 1!)*


_Quote, originally posted by *M this 1!* »_I believe that is Amer. Lease Guide..........can't remember. to the point of BMW having higher residuals and actually holding value better is false

Classic. You can't remmember, but you're _sure _its true.
Call a BMW dealer and an Audi dealer and see what kind of residuals YOU, the consumer can actually get. BMWs are consistently better. You TT badge humpers have a common problem--denial of reality.
A reader admits his real life experience with a TT, proving that with 300hp he can't keep the front wheels on the ground, and pulls a slower 0-60 than an S2000. Followed by another denial, which is essentially a lie. Why? Because, if you actually bothered to look at the Stasis challenge TT cars that are pulling those times you would see that:
(1) The car has an upgraded K04 ($5k est)
(2) The car has an updated exhaust ($2k)
(3) The car has upgraded wheels and tires ($4k)
(4) The car has upgraded suspension ($2k)
and oh yeah
(5) A chip. ($500)
So a $35,000 car with well over $10k of upgrades is about as fast as a stock $31,000 honda built eight years ago. WOW, that's impressive. But hey, there are limits to what you can do with a drive train intended for a $20k hatchback.
Do you seriously think that that its the chip alone that impacts its acceleration? Of course not! The stasis car has better grip owing to its suspension and wheel/tire package. Ooops, minor (actually, several thousand dollar) omission on your part. But hey, if you can't win an honest argument, go ahead and make it up. That's your mantra here.
I'm not trilling this board--I'm just having an honest discussion. But pointing out basic realities seems to get your undies in a wad. So sorry.


----------



## sTTeve (May 13, 2008)

*Re: (nonobvious)*

again you ARE ASS uming I was comparing my time to the honda, but I wasnt. I said the 300 tq did get me going to reach that time. And all know FWD slips if floored but I dont floor it I give about 3/4 throttle then floor it a sec later. It might take a 10th off the time. And I said for 500 dollars I shaved 4 tenths of a sec off my 0 60 time and I said thats pretty good for the TT. YOU ASS umed I was comparing. And YOU were the one that went from performance to $$$ so, Yea the TT is more but the new S2000 is right up there now at $37,000 with fewer standard options than the TT. So now you get 3 tenths more speed and less options for the same price. And way less looks.


----------



## M this 1! (May 17, 2000)

*Re: (nonobvious)*

o.k. numb nuts, i said a chipped car. not the challenge car. 
you need to sloooow down, take some breaths and let your brain actually take in others knowledge. by doing so, you might also not come off as such an ******. 
if you call and ask Stasis what 0-60 they got on that same TT *before* they upgraded the turbo.......you'll hear that is was 5 flat. 
i do not have full internet access at work, so i can't look a lot of things up. but i said the NAME of ALG i was not sure of. BFD! it should be Automotive Leasing Guide. 

You are confusing what the residual at time of purchase is with what a car actually carries for value. again, now try the breathing thing, BMW buys their actual residuals up (corp. not the dealers)! they know the cars aren't actually that value........but they need to lease cars and this works in getting their payments competetive. this is not a knock on them. it's showing why they have higher new car residuals. checking ALG will show you they are right at or around Audi in reality. what does that mean to the buyer? nothing if he's going to just lease it and give it back........as long as it got the payment to where he can handle. but when the person buys the car and it ain't even close to where they said it'd be when new.........it sucks. 
it seriously would help if you tried a different approach. unless you just want me and others to want to pound your head back up your ass. all of your posts list put downs, belittlings, grammar lessons. it's completely useless.


----------



## M this 1! (May 17, 2000)

*Re: (M this 1!)*

here is some data on the TT residual, against the BMW Z4. both '08s this is of course using ALG's data
http://db.theautochannel.com/d...s.php
you end up with a 50.36 % depreciation over 3 years on the Z4
you end up with a 50.89% depreciation over 3 years on the TT 2.0t
both base cars. both roadsters. 
what was weird was the Z4 had a lower insurance est. MUCH less. i've never seen a BMW be less than an Audi on insurance. We also had a higher maintenance cost since Audi is not free, BMW is free. But then how'd they get $946 it'd cost you for the BMW on maintenance. Also Audi of course offers the maintenance for $650. those are the only things i can see as to how the Z4 got a better rating.
and since the S2000 has come up and Honda is at the lead as being best in not depreciating, here it is:
http://db.theautochannel.com/d...s.php 
it had only a 47.11% depreciation cost. but then it was rated as Poor in the end of their assessment due to the same things mentioned on the first result. 
so the crappy, worthless TT lost a whopping 3% more value than the S2000 in the real world over the first 3 years.


----------



## ibis TTS (Jul 17, 2008)

Interesting discussion... I come from a forum that would definitely shut down an argumentative thread like this. But of course moderators have to because they tend to easily get out of hand there. 
Being an S2000 owner myself, I can see where certain people are coming from, and with a TTS also on my wishlist, I can understand the other bias as well. 
Just to give my 2 cents here... I don't think too many cars can give a smile to one's face like the S2k especially for its price range. Straight line acceleration is moderate, but the handling of the car is simply unmatched to many cars that are even double its price. Given its tuning potential, if I were to make a street demon or track car, I would definitely keep the S2000 over getting a TTS. 
But I've chosen to get a TTS and sell the S2000 mainly because I'm ready to move on to something different. Yes, the Honda is cheap- close the door, trunk, knock on the panels... you can feel and hear it. but no one should ridicule Honda for this... If they built the S2000 to with the bells and whistles of an RL it simply would not drive the way it does, not to mention lose all its character... It would destroy the whole point of the car. It's a simple, lightweight, driver-oriented machine with the bare necessities thats meant for the track, and Honda did not fall short of these intentions one bit. In fact if you go to any local track event (not drag of course), there's tons of S2000's pulling some of the the best lap times... most with only simple tire and suspension modifications. And I have to mention Honda's move for 2008 to make the S2000 better: a tire-patch kit rather than a spare-tire to save weight, including A/C deletion and making it an option. VW/Audi wouldn't dare to do something like that... not even as a practical joke... but Honda's dead serious about it. Aftermarket tuning potential set aside, I think to compare these two cars just isn't right. 
I'm just more in for a classier car this time. Something that can offer a good balance of performance, comfort, sport and luxury out of the box... and of course, the convertible aspect. For me, the TTS is it. To be honest, I'm actually surprised there are no Cayman vs. TTS threads here. 


_Modified by ibis TTS at 3:34 PM 7-19-2008_


----------



## M this 1! (May 17, 2000)

*Re: (ibis TTS)*

Now that's the way to back your point of view like an adult. i appreciate your views on the S2000. honestly i've had some great times in an S2000 at a track. 
to throw out the spare to save weight is indeed a cool thing. actually Audi *has* been trying similar things. both the RS4 and TT moved the batteries out of the front, popped them in the trunk and then threw away the spares! the mkII uses a really good amount of aluminum and dropped over 10% from the smaller previous model. they didn't need to do this. the car has the same chassis as the A3..except the A3 is steel, has steel suspension pieces, and the wheel base is alittle longer.
i think those who drive the TTS will indeed be quite impressed. it's very, very well done......hit's 0-60 in 4.9 AND has plenty of style and sophistication.


----------



## sTTeve (May 13, 2008)

*Re: (ibis TTS)*

Thats more like it, a good civil statement which gets a civil statement in return. I think you will be very pleased with the TTS as it will easily be below 5s in the 0 to 60 times with a chip. Im sure Audi will only boost the turbo like normal so a chip will do wonders for it too and get the turbo/engine to its best operating level and still be safe. Plus you get the style and class of the Audi. I think that is what Honda is trying to do with the new S2000 which is why it is $37000 now but that big wing on the back will cheapen it some IMO. Also with the quattro and better suspension on the TTs now the handling will be excellent. My 08 TT handles way better than my 02 TT did so I know quattro will be awesome with the power of the TTS. I might trade in for one a year.


----------

