# TTS MPGs



## kpiskin (Apr 6, 2007)

This may seem silly, but I am curious why the TTS gets 27mpg when the S3 and Golf R both get 31mpg. I figure it might be better in the TTS since it's lighter and maybe more aerodynamic. Maybe it's the gearing?


----------



## kpiskin (Apr 6, 2007)

I think it is due to gearing after all. TTS has the shortest gears of the following:
TTS
Gear ratios: 1st 2.933 
Gear ratios: 2nd 1.957 
Gear ratios: 3rd 1.379 
Gear ratios: 4th 1.026 
Gear ratios: 5th 1.061 
Gear ratios: 6th 0.872 
Gear ratios: Reverse 3.263 
Gear ratios: Final Drive 1st - 4th, 4.769 5th - 6th, 3.444
TT 
Gear ratios: 1st 2.923 
Gear ratios: 2nd 1.792 
Gear ratios: 3rd 1.185 
Gear ratios: 4th 0.829 
Gear ratios: 5th 0.862 
Gear ratios: 6th 0.686 
Gear ratios: Reverse 3.263 
Gear ratios: Final Drive 1st - 4th, 4.769 5th - 6th, 3.444
S3
Gear ratios: 1st 2.923 
Gear ratios: 2nd 1.833 
Gear ratios: 3rd 1.308 
Gear ratios: 4th 0.969 
Gear ratios: 5th 1.037 
Gear ratios: 6th 0.812 
Gear ratios: Reverse 3.263 
Gear ratios: Final Drive 1st - 4th, 4.769, 5th - 6th, 3.444
A3
Gear ratios: 1st 2.923 
Gear ratios: 2nd 1.792 
Gear ratios: 3rd 1.143 
Gear ratios: 4th 0.778 
Gear ratios: 5th 0.800 
Gear ratios: 6th 0.639 
Gear ratios: Reverse 3.264 
Gear ratios: Final Drive 4.769 / 3.444


----------



## aaronz (Oct 27, 2009)

That, plus they know the TTS is more fun to drive and we will have a heavier foot 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Tailwagger (Nov 30, 2008)

Interesting and a little annoying. Considering a TT-S vs TT at the moment. If you run the calculation from the numbers above the S is turning 2930 @75 mph versus 2305 for the TT. The S3 is turning 2762. My GLA45 is turning ~2100. Given manual downshifts in the TT are lightning, at least on my test drive, I really cant figure out why top gear isnt more efficient at least for the US. No Autobahns here. Not like many of us are concerned with maximum acceleration from 146 to 156 MPH. (max speed in 5th and 6th). Even if you forget about the fuel economy, I'm not wild about the added revs and presumably elevated noise level on multi-hour highway drives. Hmmm... at $57K they should be sending us the 7 speed anyway.


----------



## caj1 (Feb 16, 1999)

I guess they figured someone choosing the sportier version of a model would appreciate the emphasis on performance over slightly increased noise and 2-3mpg.. I know I do..


----------



## Tailwagger (Nov 30, 2008)

caj1 said:


> I guess they figured someone choosing the sportier version of a model would appreciate the emphasis on performance over slightly increased noise and 2-3mpg.. I know I do..


Given, as I mentioned, 5th will run to over 140mph, exactly what performance advantage are you referencing? Slightly harder acceleration when upshifting at buck thirty? Mash you foot down at 75 in anything other than manual and my guess is you'll drop two cogs at least. Does somehow jumping up to 4K from 2.5k instead of 3K revs represents a serious performance penalty? Perhaps the usual clientele fancies generically higher revs and db as somehow being more representative of sportiness but AFAIC this is a fun commuter car, not a track weapon. In that circumstance, I prefer to choose when I'm going to get loud or waste fuel rather than have it dictated to me. You can always tool around in 4th or 5th on the highway if you care to. But then YMMV, so to speak.


----------



## caj1 (Feb 16, 1999)

At 75 mph and above, aerodynamics have far more of an impact on mpg than your engine dropping 500rpms, which may net you 1mpg savings if you're lucky. The gearing of the TTS ensures the engine is in it's sweet spot 90% of the time without having to downshift to quickly accelerate.

I don't equate performance to top speed, at least while I'm driving in this country..


----------



## Tailwagger (Nov 30, 2008)

caj1 said:


> At 75 mph and above, aerodynamics have far more of an impact on mpg than your engine dropping 500rpms, which may net you 1mpg savings if you're lucky.


...ahh... no. Given its sibling is nearly an identical car, the aero is the same. Even on paper the TT is rated 3mpg better and its pretty clear from real world info that its better than that. BTW, after talking someone who should know, he confirmed the 7sp will indeed becoming in the near future for exactly this reason. Not likely in time for me, sadly.


----------



## caj1 (Feb 16, 1999)

Tailwagger said:


> ...ahh... no. Given its sibling is nearly an identical car, the aero is the same. Even on paper the TT is rated 3mpg better and its pretty clear from real world info that its better than that. BTW, after talking someone who should know, he confirmed the 7sp will indeed becoming in the near future for exactly this reason. Not likely in time for me, sadly.


no what? A simple google search will tell you aerodynamics is the single highest contributing factor to mpg above 50 mph.. Does the EPA base their highway MPG off of traveling at 75 mph?

Sounds like a Prius is more your style.. Good luck with your search


----------



## zergs (Jul 30, 2016)

The engines themselves are slightly different--TTS has a completely different turbo. Like in most things, the tradeoff between the quicker, more responsive model and the standard is lower overall efficiency with sustained loads.

TT, TTS, S3 all have the same city and effectively the same combined mileage. Only real difference is the TTS chewing through more fuel while cruising, which isn't surprising considering the whole point of the TTS is to be better for "spirited" driving.


----------



## Tailwagger (Nov 30, 2008)

caj1 said:


> no what? A simple google search will tell you aerodynamics is the single highest contributing factor to mpg above 50 mph.. Does the EPA base their highway MPG off of traveling at 75 mph?
> 
> Sounds like a Prius is more your style.. Good luck with your search


Aero has nothing to do this discussion. Instead of throwing slurs, lets see if you can open the mind a little to see that yours isn't the only valid viewpoint. The gear spec is above, no need to repeat. A similarly simple search of the Audi website yields the following numbers. 

TT:
Curb weight (lb) 3,164
Drag coefficient (Cw) .30

TT-S:
Curb weight (lb) 3,241
Drag coefficient (Cw) 0.30

They have the exact same drag coefficient, so by definition, aero is not a variable. Any difference in fuel consumption between a TT to a TT-S is down driveline differences with a slight nod to the added 77 pounds. 55MPH, 65MPH, 117MPH, matters not. Hence my ...ah...no. Aero drag has no part to play in why the two cars vary in highway consumption. A few other points.

1. Dont need a Prius, have a TDI. That TDI is going back to Audi whose paying me something like $4k more that I bought it for. 
2. And when all those TDIs are fixed and prices are in the dumper, I'll probably buy another one, just cause its a fun car to beat the crap out of.
3. Now if my chief concern was power over all else and wanted to waste fuel to no purpose, in this price range, I'd buy an M240x, for less money.
4. But it isnt, and since Audi is treating me pretty well, I have 95% decided to be loyal and do a TT or S with the remaining 5% resting on the notion of a '17 S3 if it gets the 7sp... doubtful.
5. Supposedly Nov 1, I hand the TDI over, so I have exactly the right amount of time to place an order and then 11/1 waltz in, drop the TDI off and drive the TT/S variant home. 
6. Why an TT-S over a TT? Because in the US we cant get the S-line with bigger brakes and magshocks and thats the stuff I care about. 
7. What about the 70 extra HP? Last thing I care about. True speed is in the corners, everything else is something any ass hat can do. Lat acceleration is far more entertaining.
8. I've accepted we don't get sticks anymore, but doing so means that I drive my DSGs in manual 100% of the time. Not only do I not have any problem downshifting for extra go, I welcome it. Its called driver involvement.
9. Yes, the turbos are producing a tad more boost given the extra 600 rpm. Apparently something like 3mpg's worth. And yes longer gearing would might mean an extra .2 or .3" more to spool to full chat.
10. So frigging what? If you seriously value instantaneous throttle response, power in top gear, you don't buy a small displacement turbocharged engine in the first place. Nope, you buy big displacement, preferably with MFI or carbs. 

Perhaps for most owners this car is an aspirational toy. Not for me. In either guise, TT or S, its clearly a road car, an everyday driver, an appliance. You might see it otherwise, but if so that is the essence of the difference between us. Something more enjoyable than most for sure, but don't kid yourself, its not an Elise or 4C, a Caterham or GT4 let alone an actual race machine. And frankly for what I intend to use it for, thank God for that. The TT(S) ticks most of the boxes I require, relative carefree winter driving in the NE, respectable handling given the available rear bias, park-ability, reasonable luggage capacity, level of refinement, decent power to economy tradeoff, etc. But like any bit of commercial engineering, it has made a set of decisions and compromises to attract a certain set of customers. At least on paper and in short test drives, most I'm fine with. But where the close ratio box trades some efficiency to make it possible for a 2L to equal cars with far larger displacement...up to a point, unlike you, given this cars position in the automotive universe, light, responsive, efficient, I find no rational reason to continue practice into 6th and IMO the car would be more versatile without it. So lets just agree to disagree and leave the stupid Prius BS out of it.


----------



## caj1 (Feb 16, 1999)

Again, at 75mph, gearing has far less to do with fuel consumption compared to aerodynamics. The point? The TT and TTS are probably getting close to the same highway mileage at that speed. 

After reading your post I assume you drive at 55mph on the highway, so yes, the TT is the better choice if you want to save a couple bucks at each fill up. I'll take the better acceleration.. to each their own


----------



## kpiskin (Apr 6, 2007)

caj1 said:


> Again, at 75mph, gearing has far less to do with fuel consumption compared to aerodynamics. The point? The TT and TTS are probably getting close to the same highway mileage at that speed.
> 
> After reading your post I assume you drive at 55mph on the highway, so yes, the TT is the better choice if you want to save a couple bucks at each fill up. I'll take the better acceleration.. to each their own


I wasn't trying to get people to argue, but it seemed odd to me that the TT gets 3 more mpg than the TTS considering you're not in boost at highway speeds, so gearing is the only other reason I can think of.


----------



## Tailwagger (Nov 30, 2008)

kpiskin said:


> I wasn't trying to get people to argue, but it seemed odd to me that the TT gets 3 more mpg than the TTS considering you're not in boost at highway speeds, so gearing is the only other reason I can think of.


Indeed. The CD for the R is .32, the S3 is .33, both higher than the TT and TTS; given the engines are the same, the difference is certainly down to gearing. The issue hasn't gone unnoticed in Europe. Several threads on MPG and the limited highway range of the S. One of the many relevant threads (remember numbers are, of course imp, not US). Until the 7 speed shows up, just the way it is. Decisions, decisions.


----------



## kpiskin (Apr 6, 2007)

I was told by a sales rep that the 7 speed wasn't going on the TT or TTS.


----------



## Tailwagger (Nov 30, 2008)

Actually, I've heard the opposite from someone who has a pretty good channel, but no precise time frame, certainly nt in the next few months. I'm not holding my breadth, particularly since were not getting it in the S3 at this point either.


----------



## kpiskin (Apr 6, 2007)

I was told it was due to weight and it wouldn't make the car any faster, merely provide a minor mpg bump.


----------



## Tailwagger (Nov 30, 2008)

In the end after several drives in the TT and TTS, I went TTS. Despite the short sixth, I found the sum of the S upgrades made the overall package appreciably stronger. M240, C43, lovely, but just too ponderous. And so the waiting begins.


----------



## Huey52 (Nov 10, 2010)

I predict you'll be very happy with your choice! :thumbup:



Tailwagger said:


> In the end after several drives in the TT and TTS, I went TTS. Despite the short sixth, I found the sum of the S upgrades made the overall package appreciably stronger. M240, C43, lovely, but just too ponderous. And so the waiting begins.


----------



## caj1 (Feb 16, 1999)

Tailwagger said:


> In the end after several drives in the TT and TTS, I went TTS. Despite the short sixth, I found the sum of the S upgrades made the overall package appreciably stronger. M240, C43, lovely, but just too ponderous. And so the waiting begins.


:thumbup:

You'll find the instant acceleration in 6th on the highway far outweighs the negligible fuel economy and noise difference


----------



## Tailwagger (Nov 30, 2008)

Huey52 said:


> I predict you'll be very happy with your choice! :thumbup:


Thanks and no doubt. Hard not to be as there really isn't anything comparable to it, assuming you drive it year round and live in the snow belt.


----------



## Tailwagger (Nov 30, 2008)

caj1 said:


> :thumbup:
> 
> You'll find the instant acceleration in 6th on the highway far outweighs the negligible fuel economy and noise difference


Thanks, but I won't. I've own well over a hundred automobiles in my life, literally from Austin-Healeys to Datsun, yes Datsun, Zs and driven street, track, AX and licensed racing with some success, done the coast to coast jaunt multiple times etc... I have a pretty well defined idea of what I want, the variety of circumstances I want it for and the tradeoffs involved. Had the TT been available, as it is outside of the US, wth the S-Line/brakes/mag suspension, I would unhesitatingly have ordered that instead. I view the S's added power as not all that useful in the context of street driving and find 75-100MPH acceleration times in top gear as completely uninteresting. OTOH, I see a fifteen percent MPG loss at highway speed versus the R/S3 as anything but negligible. In isolation, I will always trade the 'inconvenience' having to anticipate and tap off a downshift shift for an extra 60 miles of range and a free ~1500 miles for every 10K highway miles driven. But no car is ideal. Looking across other manufacturers offerings as well the MQB range, yes I considered the R/S3 as well as holding out for an RS, I went with the S version as the best compromise despite, as I see it, this flaw. While likely we agree on many other aspects of the engineering decisions Audi made, we just disagree on this one. :thumbup:


----------



## caj1 (Feb 16, 1999)

Tailwagger said:


> Thanks, but I won't. I've own well over a hundred automobiles in my life, literally from Austin-Healeys to Datsun, yes Datsun, Zs and driven street, track, AX and licensed racing with some success, done the coast to coast jaunt multiple times etc... I have a pretty well defined idea of what I want, the variety of circumstances I want it for and the tradeoffs involved. Had the TT been available, as it is outside of the US, wth the S-Line/brakes/mag suspension, I would unhesitatingly have ordered that instead. I view the S's added power as not all that useful in the context of street driving and find 75-100MPH acceleration times in top gear as completely uninteresting. OTOH, I see a fifteen percent MPG loss at highway speed versus the R/S3 as anything but negligible. In isolation, I will always trade the 'inconvenience' having to anticipate and tap off a downshift shift for an extra 60 miles of range and a free ~1500 miles for every 10K highway miles driven. But no car is ideal. Looking across other manufacturers offerings as well the MQB range, yes I considered the R/S3 as well as holding out for an RS, I went with the S version as the best compromise despite, as I see it, this flaw. While likely we agree on many other aspects of the engineering decisions Audi made, we just disagree on this one. :thumbup:


Understood - hope you enjoy it regardless


----------



## kpiskin (Apr 6, 2007)

The only car I remotely compare the TTS to is the M2. However, there is a lot of debate whether it's worth it or save the money and get an M240i. There are lots of BMWs, not many TTS.


----------



## Huey52 (Nov 10, 2010)

In almost a year of ownership now I have yet to see another Mk3 TT/TTS on the road in my southern New England area. Compared with Bimmers every time I venture forth. Distinctive indeed!



kpiskin said:


> The only car I remotely compare the TTS to is the M2. However, there is a lot of debate whether it's worth it or save the money and get an M240i. There are lots of BMWs, not many TTS.


----------



## Tailwagger (Nov 30, 2008)

kpiskin said:


> The only car I remotely compare the TTS to is the M2. However, there is a lot of debate whether it's worth it or save the money and get an M240i. There are lots of BMWs, not many TTS.


Quite remotely IMO, especially in the NE if you plan on driving it year round. That said, a couple of decades ago, I drove an e30 M3 several winters with no ill effects, quite a lot of fun actually. Once had a guy following me too close in a snow storm. Some sort of FWD Chrysler thingy, so I sped up a bit (45-50ish) to avoid him smacking me in the ass. He mistakenly decided to follow suit. Went into a sweeper that was quite icy, caught the car and got through with a bit of sidewise sliding. As I glanced in the mirror, I saw him plow straight off the road onto somebody's lawn, snow spraying up 15 feet high like it was a frozen log flume ride. Nearly wrecked from laughter. One of my all time favorite cars actually (and moments in them... the guy suffered no physical damage, but presumably took some well deserved mental lumps). 

I'm suspicious that the modern calibrations of the M cars, given the added power and the somewhat stupefying meme that street cars can make good track cars and vice versa is a bit too much for winter driving here***. As I tend to say ad nauseum, its a commuter. Drove the M235 quite a bit, nice, but really it was sort of in no mans land. Great motor as always, but porky, handling fractionally sluggish, almost the same interior they had 25 years ago. Good, but a rather blah, boring, kinda good. Didn't get any time in the M2, of course, and while I'm sure its a sharper tool, no test drive makes the car a non-starter regardless. If I trusted half the reviews I read of the TTS I never would have even looked at one. The car that actually came in second was the C43 Merc. Most might not consider them competitors given the vast difference in character, but I suppose I'm not like most. IMO, from a commuting first perspective they have many overlapping characteristics. Good handling, power, modern enjoyable interior, decent practicality, well screwed together and roughly the same cost for configuration, ie. a German AWD coupe. Voluptuous sophisticate versus svelte tomboy. Each has its charms. In the end, despite my advancing years and a growing desire for a little less road noise, I went TTS. Its really the first AWD I've driven since my old '96 C4, that is truly playful. 

Some cars are the angel on your shoulder, others the devil. In the greats they both ride along and let you decide who you want to be. The ones I enjoy the most remind me of puppy dogs. Happy, innocent, feisty, capable of a growl or bark, but overall just glad to see you and anxious to find out what we're going to do today. The TTS is really the first AWD I've driven that captures that spirit. Maybe the M2 can deliver a similar experience as well, dunno, but having experienced and greatly enjoyed the character of the TTS. I'm perfectly happy with the decision.

----------
*** There are reasons why race cars have wet and dry setups, adjustable brake bias, shocks, full cages, harnesses, hans, extinguishers, etc and street cars don't. Ever hear tell of someone popping a tire wall and the airbag goes off in their face while wearing a helmet... not good. Disable the airbag and put in a cage and harnesses? Take a look at crash videos and note how far you come out of the seat. No hans, no helmet on the way to the mall and theres a decent chance if you have the misfortune to t-bone someone running a red light that you cave in your skull on a bar or snap you head off. Not to say you can't or shouldn't track your road car, its a hoot. But if and when you graduate to the level where you are utterly confident in driving at and over the limit in every corner, something more easily learned with far less HP and torque than any of these cars, its past time for dedicated ride and tow vehicle. Far safer, thought certainly more costly. Not a cheap pursuit sadly.


----------



## kpiskin (Apr 6, 2007)

I understand your perspective and you're right about BMW interiors. Comfortable but no real attention to modernizing it. I was on a list for an M2, but after driving the TTS felt it was more for me.

I found the YouTube video comparing the Alfa against the TTS and thought it was a stupid comparo. Both interesting cars and of course the reviewers picked the Alfa, but it really only has one purpose. And that's fine for some people, but I like to drive my cars and enjoy being comfortable. Maybe I'm more of a GT type guy. I also considered a Cayman and while it's a wonderful car just got tired of getting nickeled and dimed for options that are on much less expensive cars and when I asked, but yeah, it's a Porsche. I didn't drink the koolaid. It's kind of like would you rather have the SQ5 or Macan GTS/Turbo? They are close cousins but the Porsche can cost 50% more, and I really don't think there is 50% more to be had over the Audi.


----------



## Tailwagger (Nov 30, 2008)

kpiskin said:


> I understand your perspective and you're right about BMW interiors. Comfortable but no real attention to modernizing it. I was on a list for an M2, but after driving the TTS felt it was more for me.
> 
> I found the YouTube video comparing the Alfa against the TTS and thought it was a stupid comparo. Both interesting cars and of course the reviewers picked the Alfa, but it really only has one purpose. And that's fine for some people, but I like to drive my cars and enjoy being comfortable. Maybe I'm more of a GT type guy. I also considered a Cayman and while it's a wonderful car just got tired of getting nickeled and dimed for options that are on much less expensive cars and when I asked, but yeah, it's a Porsche. I didn't drink the koolaid. It's kind of like would you rather have the SQ5 or Macan GTS/Turbo? They are close cousins but the Porsche can cost 50% more, and I really don't think there is 50% more to be had over the Audi.


Saw that video too. I found it amusing up to the point where they, somewhat predictably, declared the 4C the winner. We're talking marriage here, not a one night stand. Sure if you owned five cars and were looking to make an even half dozen, the 4C would likely be higher up the list than a TTS given you'd be spending far more time looking at it than driving it. I'd bet money though that if someone offered them either car free providing they drove it a minimum of 50 miles every single day in all conditions for three years but if they took even a single day off, they'd have to pony up the cost of the car, I guarantee they'd pick the TTS. I haven't had the masochistic pleasure of testing the Alfa, but given my race car has no power anything, weighs quite a bit less than the 4C and is a bear to steer just getting into and out of the pits, I suspect that daily driving that sex pot would either turn you into a Schwarzenegger or kill you dead. I suppose if wrestling wth your mistress puts you six feet under, at least you expire with a smile on your face. Maybe thats where they were coming from. 

But I'm with you. Comparing the TTS to the M2, Cayman, XF and especially the 4C misses the basic point AFAIC. Yes, they are all performance coupes, but none of them share the Audi's most prominent feature... the ability to tote home a 55" flat screen in a blizzard. Lets test them all ice racing in Norway on two year old snow tires with a Samsung in the back and see who crosses the line first. Nope, forgetting the LCD aspect, the comparo the MT jamokes should have done was against another car I considered fairly seriously, its bigger step brother, the 911 C4. Coupe, 2+2, AWD, engine hanging outside the wheels, just different ends and price points is all. In absolutes the TTS loses, being down 80HP, .3 slower to 60, its pathetic 155MPH top end and most especially due to the general world vibe, Clarkson not withstanding, which mandates that the 911 is cooler than anything else short of the Ferraris and McLarens of the world. Hell, AFAICT its even cooler than them. I owned a Ferrari once and swear to you in the presence of the almighty I sold it to buy a 911. So its the truth, I speak from personal experience, the 911 is totally way cooler than just about anything else. But I'm still buying a TTS if for no other reason than its 90% the car at less than half the cost.

Tossing aside al silliness, fantasy and in particular all the garbage about which car is best (best for what? All these cars perform far, far, far beyond the capabilities of at least 90% of the folks who own them anyway), where we actually pay real $$$ for them and then for the insurance, fuel, maintenance... drive them in sun, rain, fog, snow, in town, cross town, cross country... park them in a corner at Wall Mart or Starbucks and all while try to find ways to save for our kids education and wangle a way to retire rather than drop dead at a desk, its just possible that while the TTS might not wipe the floor with all of the above at the track, taken full on, it does just that in day to day life. Thats what I'm banking on and why I ordered one. Sepang/Rotor S/Tech/B&O just for the record. Can't wait. :thumbup:


----------



## kpiskin (Apr 6, 2007)

A JB1 will get you near TTRS acceleration performance, obviously doesn't do anything for handling.


----------



## Huey52 (Nov 10, 2010)

Nice choice!!


Tailwagger said:


> ... well said ... Thats what I'm banking on and why I ordered one. Sepang/Rotor S/Tech/B&O just for the record. Can't wait. :thumbup:


----------



## kpiskin (Apr 6, 2007)

Yes very nice indeed. Did you also get 20" wheels or the standard 19s?

I like the wheels on the launch edition. They seem standard in Europe but unavailable in the US.


----------



## Tailwagger (Nov 30, 2008)

kpiskin said:


> Yes very nice indeed. Did you also get 20" wheels or the standard 19s?
> 
> I like the wheels on the launch edition. They seem standard in Europe but unavailable in the US.


I went with the stock rims. Would have loved to get the BBS's in 19s, but alas not possible. Had they been available, I might have opted for the 19s from the black optic TT version which are a bit like the launch edition ones. Didn't go 20s for three reasons. First I tested one with 20's and it felt a little nervous...tap,tap,tap,tap like running over pebble road. Wasn't horrible, but had the sense that it would drive me nuts after a while. Though who knows, they might have had 50 PSI in the tires and wasn't entire certain which mode the suspension was in. Most importantly, in NE, every spring there are significant potholes and theres just no doubt that eventually I'd blow a tire and likely bend one. The 19s stand a better chance, my winters will certainly be 18s. And finally, just my personal opinion, the 20's are just too much rim for such a small car. I get some people like the look, but to my eye it makes the TTS look a little too much like a hot wheels car. Really wish they had had a anthracite wheel option for the standard rims at least. Less dust visibility and likely would look pretty good given the blue/gray combo. Maybe I'll have them powder coated.


----------



## Tailwagger (Nov 30, 2008)

Huey52 said:


> Nice choice!!


Right back at ya!


----------

