Audi's hot TT RS cauth on camera. ?

[Iceman]

The Article. (http://www.autocar.co.uk/news_article.asp?na_id=221951)

http://www.autocar.co.uk//Car/Audi/TT/218661029300.jpg
http://www.autocar.co.uk//Car/Audi/TT/218661030360.jpg
http://www.autocar.co.uk/Car/Audi/TT/218661031131.jpg

Hans.

[Iceman]

OK i have take a closer look at the pictures in photoshop.
And i have to say there is more to it, Autocar have hooked up something.
It look like a S-line body kit on the car, but with some small changes.
If you put the TT front view picture in photoshop and make it lighter you will see that there is a honeycomb structure in the side vents.
The S-line pics till now have bars in them.
Futher there are big brake's on the car compare to other TT picture's with the RS4 19" on.
Herr Dr Martin Winterkorn (CEO Audi AG) have test drive a TT with a 300+ hp 3.6 liter FSI VR6 engine in it recently.
Maybe this is the car with that engine in it, departing from the licence plate with ND.
ND = Neuburg-schrobenhausen (Neuburg a. d. Donau) all with in a few kilometers of Ingolstad.
I think this is the TTS 3.6 Quattro with 300+ hp and it can debut on the LA motorshow December 2006 or Detroit motorshow January 2007.

Hans.

[Erik]

Very interesting. Thanks Hans for you insight.

:ttaddict:

[QuattroFun]

TT is based on Golf technology and all engines so far are shared with A3 as was also the case for the previous TT - so why should we not expect the TT S to run the 265PS/350Nm 2.0 TFSI from S3, which is much lighter than a big 3.6 V6 benefiting handling?

[Leadfoot]

The most interesting part of this article is that sources are saying that Audi have developed a twin-turboed version of the GTI Golf engine. I would have thought personally that if this was the route that they wanted to go down (Twin-Charging), they would have use the technology from the Golf GT (Supercharger & Turbo).

I don't doubt that Iceman source is correct and this is the TT-S with the 3.6L engine, but QuattroFun says the lighter engine of the 2.0L would improve it's handling over the heavier V6, regardless of the weight of the turbos.

[nene]

I hope that if they are going to put the RS badge in it, it certainly looks a bit different though. Too close to the main line to be able to differentiate it. We need meaner bulges.

[Leadfoot]

After looking again at the picture you posted of the TT-S 3.6L and compared it to the white one, they basically look the same apart from the different alloys and with the TT-S having quad pipes. The funny thing about the front is the different grilles what with the two smaller ones in honeycomb and the middle one in egg box look. Why do one set different from the other.

One interesting thing you said was that the brakes are bigger. Could this model be using the brakes from the Shooting Brake Concept, if I'm right it used RS4 brakes at the front and also used the RS4 alloys as well.

I personally think that they will use a DSG/S-Tronic gearbox as standard with a 6-speed short-shift manual being a no-cost option, just like the new M3 will be. I might be wrong here but the more I think about it the more a believe that the white car in Autocar is as Iceman originally thought the TT-S would be, a S3 engined TT (265bhp) and the TT-RS being the 3.6L orange one with the quad pipes and the S6 alloys (302hp). Or is it possible that the white one is a club-sport version.

[Iceman]

Originally posted by QuattroFun
TT is based on Golf technology.....
The new TT is based on the Golf 6 and Passat technology.
And that is a totaly different ballgame.

Hans.

[QuattroFun]

Originally posted by Iceman
The new TT is based on the Golf 6 and Passat technology.
And that is a totaly different ballgame.

Hans.

Fine and nice observations in your original posts, but my point was: apart from ASF-application and magnetic ride, the new TT still uses a lot of VW-sourced - as opposed to Audi-sourced - hardware such as engines, suspension solutions and Haldex. Yes, VW is working on a Golf R36 and in the same spirit they could surely lift that engine into the TT as well and you might right that this is that one - and who knows you could be right, they may even end up calling it TT S for marketing purposes.

However, that would not make it a TT S in the same spirit as the S3 (more agile, lightweight-oriented and sporty than the corresponding A3 V6 3.2) - rather more a nose-heavy cruiser in the spirit of S6 - and let alone a TT RS. I very much doubt that Quattro GmbH would develop their car based on VW solutions. After all, they never called the TT Mk I 3.2 V6 a TT S and Quattro GmbH developed their TT Sport based on a bespokely upgraded 1.8 T.

[Iceman]

I can assure you this is not the TT RS.
Maybe it can be the TT QS (Quattro sport) with 265 hp 2.0T FSI S3 engine in it.

Hans.

[Leadfoot]

Hans,

So you are saying that the new TT is not based on the Mk 5 Golf, but is exactually based on the Mk 6 model. Can you tell what is the main differences between the two and put will be carried over from the Mk 5.

Is it mainly the bodyshell/chassis that is different? Ofcourse disregarding that it will look different.

[Iceman]

The main difference between Golf 5 and Passat/Golf 6 is that in the golf 5 engine bay layout is no room for the new 3.6 VR6/500 Nm 6 speed DSG combo.
The new TT have like the new Passat a new engine bay layout that make it possible to put in that combo.

Hans.

[Ruergard]

Now were talking! :hahahehe:

[Iceman]

Autocar have change there TT article from TT RS to TTS and from a 300+ hp 2.0 litre twinturbo 4 cylinder engine to 350 hp 2.5 litre 5 cylinder twinturbo engine.
"Autocar" so it seems likely that 2 turbo's will be used, perhaps in sequential layout.
They not yet mentioned that it will also have FSI.
You can reed more changes in the article.

Hans.

[Leadfoot]

Originally posted by Iceman
Autocar have change there TT article from TT RS to TTS and from a 300+ hp 2.0 litre twinturbo 4 cylinder engine to 350 hp 2.5 litre 5 cylinder twinturbo engine.
"Autocar" so it seems likely that 2 turbo's will be used, perhaps in sequential layout.
They not yet mentioned that it will also have FSI.
You can reed more changes in the article.

Hans.

Yeah, but remember all that they said regarding the R8 was BS, why is it not the same with the statement of twin turbos on the 2.5Litre engine.

Are they now saying that the 2.0 Litre Twin Turbo 4 cylinder is really the TTS and the 2.5 Litre is now the TT RS. Oh hell, it's getting very confusing all this different models and engine sizes, why not drop all the other models and just do the TT RS.:D

[Iceman]

Originally posted by Leadfoot
Are they now saying that the 2.0 Litre Twin Turbo 4 cylinder is really the TTS and the 2.5 Litre is now the TT RS.
No they say the 2.5 litre 5 cylinder turbo is the TTS.
Autocar is not mention the TT RS anymore in the article.

Hans.

[Leadfoot]

Originally posted by Iceman
No they say the 2.5 litre 5 cylinder turbo is the TTS.
Autocar is not mention the TT RS anymore in the article.

Hans.

Hans,

Be honest now, do you think that Audi will have a gap of 100hp between the top model (TT-S) and the next one (TT3.2L)? I understood that the 2.5L would put out 350hp so will it now be pegged back to 300hp.

Do you not feel as I do that Audi have done a brilliant job of putting out BS on what this two models will be powered by, because we have had everything from a 2.0L twinturbo, 3.6Lv6 to a 2.5L single and twinturbo form.

There is really only one thing we are sure of, that it will have a 2.0TFSi and a 3.2Lv6 and both of this models have the potential to produce more power than their are at present.

[Iceman]

Originally posted by Leadfoot
Hans,

Be honest now, do you think that Audi will have a gap of 100hp between the top model (TT-S) and the next one (TT3.2L)?
No, there will be a 280-300 hp TT Quattro between them.
The only thing is that Audi have not announce them yet.
But even i have no info yet what engines comes in what TT typ.
The car media pressume things like TTS and TT RS.

But the TT line-up will be simple:

1.8T FSI 160 hp 2WD.
2.0T FSI 200 hp 2WD.
2.0T FSI ??? hp Quattro.
3.2 VR6 250 hp Quattro.
280-300 hp Quattro. (R5 K03 turbo or 3.6 VR6 FSI)
2.5/2.6T FSI 350 hp Quattro. (in development)

Hans.

[Leadfoot]

Originally posted by Iceman
But even i have no info yet what engines comes in what TT typ.

Hans.

So Hans,

What is your relationship with Audi? It's something a bit more than just a customer and fan of their products.

[Iceman]

Originally posted by Leadfoot
So Hans,

What is your relationship with Audi? It's something a bit more than just a customer and fan of their products.
Yes. :D

Hans.

[Leadfoot]

Originally posted by Iceman
Yes. :D

Hans.

God, there's nothing I hate more than when someone knows something that I don't. :w:

And when they won't say what it is that they know. :cry: Hans, if you lived any closer I would drive round to your house and let your tyres down. But keep up the good work and info coming.:thumb:

[Lateknight]

3.2 fsi 250ps vs 3.6 fsi 280ps (based on a Passat - only model with both engines)

Same Head Casting & Cam Cover
Same Sump
Same Oil System
Same Water System (only 3 hoses are diiferent)
Same Conrods
Same Timing Chains setup and Adjusters for Cam Timing
Same Intake Manifold Unit
Same Injectors and Fuel Rail
Same Exhaust Manifolds (2 of)

Different Bore 86mm v 89mm (Different Block obviously)
Different Inlet Camshaft (Exhaust - same)
Different Exhaust Downpipe with Catalyst


It would be fair to say the 3.6 is largely based on the 3.2 looking at the above info, unless I am overlooking something?

The 3.6 uses Golf/Jetta engine mount brackets (1K0199262ar & 1K0199555s) - 1K is the chassis code for Golf / Jetta 5 - hence the first 2 digits in the part number.
The 3.2 uses the same right bracket (1K0199262ar), but a different left bracket (3C0199555t) - 3C is the passat chassis code.

Not boring you yet am I?

Tha passat has no listing for a DSG box for the 3.6 engine. Available in 6 speed Tiptronic Auto only.

Width between chassis rails on Golf/Jetta - 87cm (roughly - it not very easy to measure)
Width between chassis rails on Passat - 87cm ( " ")

I have no idea why either this engine will not fit a Golf / Jetta !!!!
If the 'new' DSG box for the 3.6 (if there will be one) will fit in a Passat, I'm damn sure it'll go in a Golf/Jetta.

(my 2 cents)




:idea:

[Leadfoot]

I see in this week's AUTOCAR they say that the TT-S will be getting the 2.5Lv5 engine and the 3.6L will replace the 3.2L giving a boost in power of 30hp.

Is this what you have heard ICEMAN or is this AUTOCAR BS again.

[Iceman]

Originally posted by Leadfoot
I see in this week's AUTOCAR they say that the TT-S will be getting the 2.5Lv5 engine and the 3.6L will replace the 3.2L giving a boost in power of 30hp.

Is this what you have heard ICEMAN or is this AUTOCAR BS again.
The Audi 2.5LR5 is under R&D.
And mine info at the moment is, that the 3.6 will be a extention not a replacement.
But there are always possibilities that thing change.
I think Audi had never put in the 3.2 VR6 in the first place, and offer directly the 3.6 VR6.

Hans.

[Leadfoot]

Originally posted by Iceman

The Audi 2.5LR5 is under R&D.
And mine info at the moment is, that the 3.6 will be a extention not a replacement.
But there are always possibilities that thing change.
I think Audi had never put in the 3.2 VR6 in the first place, and offer directly the 3.6 VR6.

Hans.

I see your point, but the reason why I think AUTOCAR is right is the fact that all other Audis use FSi in their petrol engines with the one exception, the 3.2VR6. Now the 3.6L is a FSi engine and I feel there is little need for a 250hp 3.2FSi when it more than likely that the TT will be getting the S3 engine and the standard 2.0TFSi will be upgraded to 220-230hp. Dropping the 3.2 for the 3.6 would give a nice power gap between models.

Ranging from the

1.8TFSi - 180-190hp
2.0TFSi - 220-230hp
2.0TFSi - 265hp
3.6FSI - 280-300hp
2.5R5 - 350hp

Why would they have three engine choice in such a narrow band?

3.2VR6 - 250hp, 2.0TFSi - 265hp & 3.6VR6 - 280-300hp, it wouldn't make sense. It wouldn't unless they feel that the V6's smoother power delivery would appeal to a different customer than the Turbo versions.

[Iceman]

There are 2 new pictures of the white TT.

http://www.audiforum.nl/phpBB2/files/tts-1_434.jpg
http://www.audiforum.nl/phpBB2/files/tts-2_375.jpg

Hans.

[Leadfoot]

Hans,

I see WCF are saying that this white TT is the illusive TT-S we have all been talking about and they also say it will use a up-rated version of the new S3 engine kicking out 280hp:jlol: lovely.

The only problem I see is that it will come without the S-Tronic gearbox, because if my dealer is correct, the reason it is not being offered in the S3 is that at present the gearbox can only handle 280-290 ft/lbs of torque reliably. And as the S3 engine is very tunable, this would push the torque beyond this point, so the decision was taken not to supply the S3 with S-Tronic. So if it ain't in the S3, it ain't going to be in the TT-S.:cry: At least for the foreseeable future.

Maybe in 2008 when the TT-RS comes out the will all be sorted.:dig:

[Lateknight]

Latest reports from German Car Fans is that the new TT rs will be a V6 turbo (back to that old rumour again)

I kind of liked the idea of a 5 pot Audi again.

Hope its wrong.

http://www.worldcarfans.com/spyphotos.cfm/country/gcf/spyphotoID/6061121.001/audi/spy-photos-more-audi-tt-rs

[Iceman]

Latest reports from German Car Fans is that the new TT rs will be a V6 turbo (back to that old rumour again)

NO, they say it will be a 350 hp 3.6 liter VR6 TSI as in "Twincharger".
350 hp is not that much for a 3.6 liter "Twincharger"
The VW 1.4 litre TSI have 140, 170 and 210 hp. (IROC Concept)
That would mean that a 3.6 can have between 360 and 540 hp based on the engine volume of 3.6 litre. :jlol:

Hans.

[Lateknight]

Yeah, I Ignored that part (TSI) Mainly because I thought it might be a typo, and it meant to read Tfsi. (Turbo Fsi)
The Tsi (in simple terms) was meant so that you could bolt a bigger turbo on a smaller engine so there would be little or no lag, and still produce larger engine sized power outputs.
That does not make much sense on 3.6 litre engine, unless they are gunning for really large outputs. :0:
A 3.6 turbo would put out 'at least' 350 hp, so are they looking for in excess of 400 ?? :thumb:
Thats getting toward R8 territory.

[Iceman]

I say max 365 hp.

Hans.

[Leadfoot]

I say it won't happen.

A 350hp+ TT would undermine not only the RS4 but the R8 as well and for a fraction of the price. Can you think of anyone in their right mind that would pay over the odds for a R8 when there was a TT that not only looked just as good but matched it in acceleration and if de-limited in topspeed as well,.......:vhmmm: ... no well me neither.:brag:

Some may say but the R8 will out handle it, I say so what, money saved is easier than money earned. And you know what I'd be right, so like I said it won't happen. The most we are likely to see in a TT is something around or just below the 300hp mark, but nothing more.:noshake:

Hell I hope I'm wrong because I would be first in the queue.

[markwm]

Not many people are willing to pay £35k for a TT....you have to remember that also.

[Leadfoot]

And even less will pay £75K+ for a R8 .... or had you forgot that one as well.

[Iceman]

I say it won't happen.
The most we are likely to see in a TT is something around or just below the 300hp mark, but nothing more.:noshake:
If Audi put the 300 hp 3.6 litre VR6 FSI in the TT i'll be happy.

Hans.

[Leadfoot]

I see the TT-RS is still popping up every few days in WCF. It looks like they are convinced that this red TT is the one.

http://www.worldcarfans.com/spyphotos.cfm/country/gcf/spyphotoID/6061121.001/audi/spy-photos-more-audi-tt-rs

Hans, it looks like they are agreeing with you that if it comes it will use a 3.6TSi engine.

[rs-6]

Hans, it looks like they are agreeing with you that if it comes it will use a 3.6TSi engine.
:idea: Text by Hans G. Lehmann
Copyright Lehmann Photo syndication


that might be an answer to your question you asked before in this topic :asian:


RS-6

[Leadfoot]

My only concern with this engine choice for the TT-RS is why so large. Think about it the reason VW developed the 1.4TSi engine, it was to produce the power of a much larger N/A with a lot better economy, a 3.6TSi producing 350-365hp is not exactly stretching the abilities of what power this technology can produce. If you do the maths the 1.4TSi produces 170ps so they would only need a 2.9TSi to produce the desired amount and that is based on a model (Golf GT) which was really only developed to produce power combine with economy, not all out power that one would expect from a RS version.

So back to my original question ........why so big. The objective of a turbo engine is to produce the power of a larger, heavier engine so why use an engine that can easily meet the desire amount in N/A form, why over-loading it with a supercharger and turbo that will push the already heavy engine's weight up another 50~60Kg, why not use the technology to the full and use a smaller engine something like a 2.0TSi or like original proposed 2.5R5TSi.

This is Audi back tracking to the same thinking that produced the B5 S4 a 2.7v6 bi-turbo kicking out 265hp, yeah right like it really stretching the abilities of the technology. If back then Audi could make the engine produce 380hp, why do they now need a larger 3.6L to produce less power.

Come on Audi you know you can do better.:nono:

[Iceman]

I also not seeing the need for TSI technologie on the 3.6 VR6 engine.
TSI on a 2.0 litre engine bring ± 300 hp, based on figures of the 1.4 litre 210 hp engine of the VW IROC Concept.
In that case i prever the 300 hp 3.6 VR6 FSI engine.
It will not weigh that much more than a 2.0 litre R4 with supercharger, turbo and intercoolers.
But i doubt Audi will use TSI technologie at all, if the TT RS get a forged engine it will be a 2.0T FSI R4 or a 2.5T FSI R5 IMHO.

Hans.

[Lateknight]

Why did the turbo R5 engine suddenly fall from the top of the 'RUMOUR' list for the TTrs ??

I agree as above. A 3.6 VR6 direct injection, turbo charged, supercharged lump is too heavy, too complex, too expensive, to make for the TT just to get around 360ps.

[Iceman]

Why did the turbo R5 engine suddenly fall from the top of the 'RUMOUR' list for the TTrs ??
I'm not sure but i think it has maybe to do with all the changes and cut backs with in VAG.
The R5 turbo FSI got only last may the green light for development.

Hans.

[Leadfoot]

I wouldn't write-off the R5 engine just because WFC says so, as yet there has been very little info from Audi sources so far as to whether the car will be built at all. The R5 will make it to production but maybe not in time for the as yet to be confirmed TT-RS, I reckon the engine will see service in the A4/5 first and then filter through the rest of the brand. Heck, Audi needs this engine, to get back to it's roots and give it it's own identity separate from VW and the rest of it's other brands.

After experiencing the 335i, a well developed turbo engine can be just as impressive on pick up from low revs as a big N/A engine and once the turbos are up to speed even more so. I still like the idea of a TSi engine just not that one. So what if like Hans says that a R4 2.0TSi engine will weigh as much as a N/A 3.6FSi, the latter will not be able to match the torque band produced by the smaller TSi, though it will rev more sweetly. Usually N/A engines that produce close to the magic 100hp/litre suffer from a torque level produced at very high revs, the exception to the rule being the RS4, if Audi can match it's ability in this 3.6FSi then it will make the TT-RS an even better car than the RS4 itself.

[Iceman]

VW Executive Director/Powertrain Development Dr. Rudolf Krebs says VW will not TSI bigger engines due to TSI having little "punch" on bigger engines like V6, V8 etc.

Hans.

[Lateknight]

Makes sense.
Would have to be a pretty big setup on a 3.6, losing the efficiency they have on the smaller engines.

How large will tsi go ??
Rumours of 1.6 ltr & 2.0 ltr versions in the pipeline I've seen quoted (abeit from unreliable sources)
Anybody shine any light on this.


(I know this is getting a little off topic - sorry)

[Iceman]

There are 3 power stages of the 1.4 TSI engine: 140 hp, 170 hp (Golf GT) and 210 hp (IROC Concept).
Based on these figures a 1.6 TSI can have a power range of 160 hp to 240 hp and a 2.0 TSI can have a power range of 200 hp to 300 hp.
If they put TSI on the 2.5 litre R5 engine we can have a power range of 250 hp to 375 hp.

Hans.

[Leadfoot]

From all the reported road tests that have been carried out, the 1.4TSi is a very promising and impressive power-plant, punching well above it's weight with a very smooth delivery from way down low to the highs it never lets up. Now some like Hans would like to see the TT-S with a 3.6FSi and I can see why, what with it's silky smooth power delivery and lovely sound, but I believe with what Audi has done with the new TT, pioneering new technologies such as ASF and magnetic ride into the mainstream of European car market and amazed road testers and rivals alike with their DSG gearbox that it would be fitting they should go with a TSi engine, something that can produce in the regions of 300hp.

On a different note, has anyone seen any figures from a road test that shows the performance figures for a S/Tronic 3.2 and lap times comparing it with some rivals? As yet in UK magazines there has been very little.

[Iceman]

Don't understand me wrong, i still hope to see a 2.5/2.6 litre R5 Turbo FSI in the TT.
But till that time i will be happy with the 300 hp 3.6 VR6 FSI.

Hans.

[RacerBice]

On a different note, has anyone seen any figures from a road test that shows the performance figures for a S/Tronic 3.2 and lap times comparing it with some rivals? As yet in UK magazines there has been very little.

I'll check my pile of magazines back home, I actually think I might have something there. One indication is Sport Auto's recent test, but if I remember correctly they tested a 6MT, and I'm guessing that that might actually be quicker around a race course than an S-tronic. At least for people who know how to use a manual stick properly (one of which I am probably not...) :eek:

Anyhow, they posted something like 1.19,0-1.19,5 around Hockenheim, about a second faster than the Z4 Coupé they compared it with but also half a second slower than the TT 2,0 TFSI they reported on in the previous issue.

Still, I'll doublecheck all of this as soon as I get home, I'm at my office right now..... :cry:

[Leadfoot]

Don't understand me wrong, i still hope to see a 2.5/2.6 litre R5 Turbo FSI in the TT.
But till that time i will be happy with the 300 hp 3.6 VR6 FSI.

Hans.

Sorry if it sounded like I was getting personal, it was not meant that way.:thumb:

It's just I feel they should be trying to show case new technology with the TT more so than another of it's models.

RacerBice,

If you are correct and the 2.0TFSi TT is quicker than the 3.2TT Quattro there is something badly wrong with the set-up of the TT compared to the Golf. On the Top Gear track the R32 is over 2 seconds quicker than the GTI and is would have been expected for the TT models to show a similar result, but which you are saying doesn't make sense. Who in their right mind would pay £5K more for a version that was slower than the cheapest model, not me as the resale of it would hit rock bottom as soon as it left the showroom.:cry:

If you are right which I hopefully doubt, then this proves that anything heavier than the engine from the fwd TT has a very bad effect on the handling of the car.

[Iceman]

If you are right which I hopefully doubt, then this proves that anything heavier than the engine from the fwd TT has a very bad effect on the handling of the car.
I have seen a German test between the VW Golf V R32 and the new Audi S3.
On a short track the S3 was almost 2 sec faster than the R32.
The R32 has 15 hp less and weight ± 100 Kg more than the S3.
Both cars get a very big :thumb: up.

Hans.

[Leadfoot]

I have seen a German test between the VW Golf V R32 and the new Audi S3.
On a short track the S3 was almost 2 sec faster than the R32.
The R32 has 15 hp less and weight ± 100 Kg more than the S3.
Both cars get a very big :thumb: up.

Hans.

So this proves that the lighter engine improves the already great handling of the R32. But I did have to admit that the R32 has a much better engine note than the S3 and though in the track the DSG would possibly be a disadvantage, I feel that it's benefits on the road where the cars are mainly used out-weigh it's deficiencies.

By the way Hans, what be you make of what Racerbice was saying that a 2.0TT is quicker than a 3.2TT Quattro?

[Iceman]

So this proves that the lighter engine improves the already great handling of the R32.
Not realy it only proves that the S3 is faster because of 100 Kg less weight and 15 hp more power.
Further, the S3 have more tendency to slide over de frontwheels then the R32 because of less wieght on the front axel.

By the way Hans, what be you make of what Racerbice was saying that a 2.0TT is quicker than a 3.2TT Quattro?
No i'm saying the TT 3.2 is quicker no doubt about it.
And i don't like 4 cylinder engines in a performance car, with or without a turbo.
There-fore a R32 over S3 24/7 for me.

Hans.

[Leadfoot]

Not realy it only proves that the S3 is faster because of 100 Kg less weight and 15 hp more power.
Further, the S3 have more tendency to slide over de frontwheels then the R32 because of less wieght on the front axel.

Hans.

The best will in the world, 100kg and 15 extra hp wouldn't solely make up a difference of 2 seconds on such a short track. Maybe the different drivers had something the play in the matter as well as the above, there approx 200kg of difference between an M3 and a S4 Avant but that only amounted to 7 seconds around the ring.


No i'm saying the TT 3.2 is quicker no doubt about it.
And i don't like 4 cylinder engines in a performance car, with or without a turbo.
There-fore a R32 over S3 24/7 for me.

Hans.

All thing equal I would totally agree with that statement, the 3.2 has a much better engine note and a smooth delivery but the lighter engine is giving the S3 a much better turn-in and a better overall balance to it's handling. The reason why I feel it's that much quicker than the R32 is it's Haldrex system is working better because there is less weight over the front wheels making it shift to the back have more effect on the balance of the car, something that the more nose-heavier R32 has less of.

Until I have a drive in the S3 I will not be able to see if my ideas are correct.

[RacerBice]

OK, here we go.

I know I will now refer to two tests made on different occasions. I know that test conditions can vary. I know that maybe they weren't carried through by the same drivers (although I am still guessing they were). I know that the drivers are only people like everyeone else and may have bad days. And most importantly, I know that we're only talking magazines here, with their own agendas and bias.

BUT;

Sport Auto reported on having tested a TT 2,0 T in the September issue and a TT 3,2 in the October issue. Both cars were 6MT and fitted with stock tyres. They got around Hockenheim in 1,18.8 with the four-cylinder and 1,19.8 in the six-cylinder.

In all justice, it should be noted that they managed only 6,6 secs to 100 and 15,5 to 160 in the 3,2, as compared to 6,8/15,8 in the 2,0T. This to me suggests that either conditions were poor (although pictures suggest the contrary) or more likely that there was something seriously out of shape with this particular 3,2 test car. Several other magazines have managed better acceleration times than that, although I have yet to see anyone take it below 6,0.

Having said all this, it is still very difficult to get around the fact that the simpler car with 50 BHP less and a lot less traction was an entire second faster around a proper, demanding race course. So no matter how you turn and twist this, I think Sport Auto's figures are a strong indication that you shouldn't be buying the 3,2 for reasons of it being quicker than the 2,0 T. And that's basically what the magazine concluded too. Rather, I guess it's the sound, character and feeling of a 6-cylinder that the 2,0 T cannot match. But seriously, are you really willing to pay an extra 6,000 Euro only for that....?! And then still be left behind on winding roads....?

My own personal theory?

Well, this is definitely not just a weight and balance issue. To start with, the 2,0 T engine is quite heavy for a two-litre four-cylinder, whilst the 3,2 is more on the light side for a V6. So expectedly, Sport Auto measured only a 138 kg weight disadvantage for the 3,2 (1.448 kg vs 1.310 kgs), whereof surely some 100 kgs must be down to the 4WD system. But the most interesting part here is that balance is almost identical (60,0/40,0 for the 3,2 and 60,3/39,7 for the 2,0 T). So what the hey is wrong? Forgive me for sounding like a parrot now, I know I've said this so many times before here on RS6. But these 3,2 V6's of Audis simply can not be putting out 250 BHP! Look at the R32 as well, it is being comprehensively beaten by the 250-260 BHP rivals time and time again up to 200 kph.

Again, though, this is just my own personal theory.

Incidentally, my memory is altogether crap. It wasn't the Z4 Coupé that Sport Auto compared the TT 3,2 with, it was an Alfa Brera. And the only view the TT seems to have had of the Brera is a tiny, tiny silhouette in the mirrors. Because the Brera was 3,5 secs slower around Hockenheim and 1 sec slower up to 100 kph, in spite of allegedly having 10 more BHP over the TT. No wonder, though, as it weighed in at 1.778 kgs (!!!).

But back to your original question, Leadfoot, I have actually found a comparing test between a TT 3,2 S-tronic and a Z4 Coupé. Swedish magazine "Automobil" took them around a track they designed themselves for purposes of testing chassi balance, traction, stability. cornering speed, etc. The Audi was clocked at 54,6 secs and the beemer at 55,7.

Let me also comment on the S3 and R32 figures. German magazines Auto Bild, Auto Strassenverkehr and Auto Zeitung have all concluded that the S3 beats the crap out of both the R32 and the 130i around a race course. 1-2 secs quicker in all three cases. And Auto Motor und Sport took the S3 to 160 kph in 13,7 secs....

I am eagerly awaiting Sport Auto's latest issue to arrive here in Sweden, it's already out in Germany but it usually takes a week for it to get here. Anyway, they are reporting on their comparison with the Mazda 3MPS and the 130i. That'll be quite interesting, since to me they seem to know more about how to put cars to the test than most other magazines.

Pheeewwww!!!

RB

[Iceman]

Maybe the different drivers had something the play in the matter as well as the above,
The Girl in the R32 is "Sabina Schmitz" a race instructor on the Nordschleife.
She did the ring in ±10.08 min in a Ford Transit for "Topgear"
I can asure you that girl can realy steer a car ad high speeds.
The guy in the S3 is "Tim schrick" a racecar driver.
I have to say this test have no value like this.
They have to do that test two time's and change the drivers.
If they both drive both cars and than take a average time of both cars it had more value.
But all the test aside i would take a "300 hp 3.6 VR6" over ervery R4 2.0 turbo 24/7 even a 3.2 VR6 for that matter.
If Audi put in a 2.5/2.6 litre R5 turbo FSI that will change mine choice completely. :jlol:

Hans.

[Leadfoot]

The Girl in the R32 is "Sabina Schmitz" a race instructor on the Nordschleife.
She did the ring in ±10.08 min in a Ford Transit for "Topgear"
I can asure you that girl can realy steer a car ad high speeds.
The guy in the S3 is "Tim schrick" a racecar driver.
I have to say this test have no value like this.
They have to do that test two time's and change the drivers.
If they both drive both cars and than take a average time of both cars it had more value.
But all the test aside i would take a "300 hp 3.6 VR6" over ervery R4 2.0 turbo 24/7 even a 3.2 VR6 for that matter.
If Audi put in a 2.5/2.6 litre R5 turbo FSI that will change mine choice completely. :jlol:


Hans.

Hans, I knew it was Sabina and know she is a hell of a driver, possibly one of the best around the ring.

When the Stig tests cars it's only him so the driver can up of a point be taken out of the equation and it's really only each car's ability to perform. You could say that he may feel more confident in one of the other but then that to me means that he feels one is better than the other and so it's time reflects this. I admit this will only work with cars that are closely matched in performance like the R32 and the S3.

The TT-S is by all accounts still going to be using a 2.0TFSi engine, at least that is what I have heard so you will have to hope that the TT-RS uses either the 3.6FSi or the 2.5/2.6 TFSi R5 to get your kicks.:jlol:

[RacerBice]

Leadfoot, no reaction to Sport Auto's TT 2,0 T figures...? :looking:

[Leadfoot]

Leadfoot, no reaction to Sport Auto's TT 2,0 T figures...? :looking:

Maybe I misreading it, are you saying the 2. 0TFSi TT is half a second slower than the 3.2 or is it the other way round?:brag:

If it's quicker than Audi has done a piss poor job with the TT 3.2Quattro:w:

[Iceman]

If it's quicker than Audi has done a piss poor job with the TT 3.2Quattro:w: h
I realy think the 3.2 VR6 day's are numbered in the TT. ;)

Hans.

[Leadfoot]

I realy think the 3.2 VR6 day's are numbered in the TT. ;)

Hans.

Well after speaking to the dealer, all I can say is 'don't hold your breath'. He said the 3.2 will soon be changed but only to a 3.2FSi with an amazing 5hp increase.:wo: Way to go Audi, that's showing the competition.:rolleyes:

[Iceman]

The only good thing is that it will use less fuel, because of the FSI.

Hans.

[Leadfoot]

The only good thing is that it will use less fuel, because of the FSI.

Hans.

Hans, I would like to pass the competition on the road, not pass them while their in filling up at the pump.:doh:

[RacerBice]

Maybe I misreading it, are you saying the 2. 0TFSi TT is half a second slower than the 3.2 or is it the other way round?:brag:

If it's quicker than Audi has done a piss poor job with the TT 3.2Quattro:w:

No, I was saying (on 26 November 00:46) among other things that Sport Auto figures suggest that the 2,0T may be a second faster than the 3,2 around Hockenheim. Depending though on whether or not the two separate tests are really comparable....

RB

[RacerBice]

S3 / 130i / 3MPS at Hockenheim = 1.17,5 / 1.19,6 / 1.19,6

:s3addict:

[Leadfoot]

S3 / 130i / 3MPS at Hockenheim = 1.17,5 / 1.19,6 / 1.19,6

:s3addict:

If the S3 can do it in 1:17.5 then there is no doubt that the TT3.2 is quicker.

[RacerBice]

If the S3 can do it in 1:17.5 then there is no doubt that the TT3.2 is quicker.

I don't understand what you mean.... Sport Auto did 1:17,5 in the S3 and 1:19,8 in the TT3,2. How does that make the TT quicker?

[m3fan]

So it the 3.6 fsi the engine for the RS TT or is the 2.5 tsi still a option? Will the RS TT make to the US?

[Leadfoot]

I don't understand what you mean.... Sport Auto did 1:17,5 in the S3 and 1:19,8 in the TT3,2. How does that make the TT quicker?


All I'm saying is that this TT must not be preforming to it's best. Sport Auto results put it no quicker than a R32 and I would very much doubt that this is really the case, especially as unconfirmed info has the TT3.2 with magnetic ride lapping the ring up there with the 335i BMW coupe. This is something I wouldn't expect the S3 capable of, though only time will tell.

This time round the TT is more than just a A3 in a pretty dress. Check out the how much stiffer the TT is than the S3 and all this should help them develop the handling of the car to a more precise standard. I just doubt what with all the development that Audi has put into the TT that a tuned A3 2.0TFSi quattro with tweaked suspension can put all of their hard work to shame because that is really all that the S3 is and I am not putting what has be done with the S3 down in any way.

[RacerBice]

OK, Leadie, good points. All of them. I especially agree that the TT should get away quite easily from the R32. But remember too that they took the 335i around Hockenheim in 1:17,3.

Of course, we mustn't stare too blindly at these numbers, since you would really need to compare head to head with drivers swapping cars etc, in order to draw even vaguely relevant conclusions. And also make sure that the cars as such are in good shape, have similar fuel weight on-board, similar tyre choices if not standard, etc. Nevertheless, these numbers are sitting handsomely as indications. And as such, there is absolutely nothing in them to suggest that the TT3,2 would outperform the S3 even with Magnetic Ride.

Concluding this is not a matter of putting the Audi work on TT chassis to shame, in my view. Especially not since the TT 2,0 T is stunningly quick given its "mere" 200 BHP. Instead, I maintain that the problem lies with the engine, which has basically just been carried over from other VW products.

RB

[Leadfoot]

OK, Leadie, good points. All of them. I especially agree that the TT should get away quite easily from the R32. But remember too that they took the 335i around Hockenheim in 1:17,3.

If memory serves me right, the new TT with it's trick suspension has done the ring in 8:24 which is only 2 seconds off the 335i so for the TT to be 2 seconds slower than it around Hockenheim would give the impression that the TT that Sport Auto used wasn't performing to it's best.


Of course, we mustn't stare too blindly at these numbers, since you would really need to compare head to head with drivers swapping cars etc, in order to draw even vaguely relevant conclusions. And also make sure that the cars as such are in good shape, have similar fuel weight on-board, similar tyre choices if not standard, etc. Nevertheless, these numbers are sitting handsomely as indications. And as such, there is absolutely nothing in them to suggest that the TT3,2 would outperform the S3 even with Magnetic Ride.

I agree that only when both are tested side by side will we get an objective result, but based on Sport Auto's results the S3 would look to be the quicker around this track.


Concluding this is not a matter of putting the Audi work on TT chassis to shame, in my view. Especially not since the TT 2,0 T is stunningly quick given its "mere" 200 BHP. Instead, I maintain that the problem lies with the engine, which has basically just been carried over from other VW products.

Sorry to disagree with this last statement, if a fwd TT or a tweaked A3 2.0TFSi Quattro (S3) can beat a equally as quick in acceleration and topspeed TT3.2 which has had even more development time and money spent on it then sorry, but in my opinion Audi have done a piss poor job of the TT. Though I do agree that the 3.2L is a problem not only in it character but also in the excessive weight it puts over to front axle, something I hope will be addressed when the 2.0TFSi TT-S arrives.:thumb:

[ültje1]

Hey guys look :ttaddict:


http://img418.imageshack.us/img418/7310/ttrsmg8.jpg

[Leadfoot]

All this picture is of a PS roadster with a S-Line bodykit, not a real picture of a RS version.

[Iceman]

6 more pics.
http://news.auto.cz/img/galleries/20_45484afc6a801.jpg
http://news.auto.cz/img/galleries/21_45484afc7353b.jpg
http://news.auto.cz/img/galleries/22_45484afc76fd2.jpg
http://news.auto.cz/img/galleries/40_45484afc79ac9.jpg
http://news.auto.cz/img/galleries/41_45484afc7e119.jpg
http://news.auto.cz/img/galleries/50_45484afc846ab.jpg

Hans.

[chewym]

Road and Track (that has recently acieved the best 0-60 times here in the states for several cars, several tenths quicker than the other magazines) tested the Audi TT 3.2 S-Tronic and the Porsche Cayman.

Audi TT 3.2 S-Tronic 0-60: 5.1 seconds
Porsche Cayman 0-60: 5.3 seconds

I think the new Audi TT with its lighter weight is very impressive in performance. Road and Track said that while the Cayman was a bit more of a pure drivers car it could not catch up to the Audi TT on the Hockenheim track. The TT was a lot more spacious and a much better every day car of course.

[Leadfoot]

What sort of road surface achieved a 5.1secs for a S-Tronic TT3.2? That's over half a second quicker than any other test I have read about.

[Iceman]

What sort of road surface achieved a 5.1secs for a S-Tronic TT3.2? That's over half a second quicker than any other test I have read about.

probably a dry gripy one.

Hans.

[Leadfoot]

:doh:

Hans, your power of observation never cease to amaze me.

OK, so what sort of tyres were they using and not say ones with plenty of grip.:lovl:

[Iceman]

:doh:

Hans, your power of observation never cease to amaze me.

OK, so what sort of tyres were they using and not say ones with plenty of grip.:lovl:
Yes that's the question.
Have they use normal street tyres or semi race tyres for road use.
Or did they use tyre warmers. :hahahehe:

Hans.

[Leadfoot]

This they used tyre warmers, I hope they were the knitted kind and with a nice pair of ear mufs for the wing mirrors.:D

But seriously, how did they achieve this time when no other magazine could? Especially with a S-Tronic which is far simplier to launch than a manual.

[Speedou]

To the downhill... with that power I just don't believe that.

[Leadfoot]

Yeah Speedou, downhill with a tail wind if you ask me. After sampling the 3.2 for myself I very much doubt a 5 seconds to 60mph was possible.

[3abdo]

the regular m3 has about 83 more horspower and the best i saw was around 5.2 5.3. maybe the cayman did it in 5.1 and the audi in 5.3 ????

[ültje1]

http://img398.imageshack.us/img398/1231/ttsvs0.jpg :ttaddict:

[chewym]

Well, American magazines usually get better acceleration times than their European counterpars (one reson is that 0-60 mph arrives a bit quicker than 0-100 kmph) Also as I said Road & Track has gotten times that have been couple tenths quicker than other magazines. But the old M3 has done 0-60 in 4.8 seconds here.

But the thing that really matters is that the Audi TT 3.2 was quicker (2 tenths) than the regular Cayman.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=3&article_id=4379

Performance specs not online yet.

[ültje1]

hey guys

i hope you´l like what you see

http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/1405/rsfc1.jpg

http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/2160/ttrswb3.jpg

bye

[Leadfoot]

ültje1,

Is these photoshop images done by yourself? If so they look the part, I just wish we could see the real thing instead of mock-up.:noshake:

[ültje1]

ültje1,

Is these photoshop images done by yourself? If so they look the part, I just wish we could see the real thing instead of mock-up.:noshake:

yep i made it by myself :dig: i am glad to hear that you like my pics

[Leadfoot]

I reckon the black one is nearer the truth.

[ültje1]

Hi guys are there any new information about the upcoming TT S RS ?????????

[Iceman]

Hi guys are there any new information about the upcoming TT S RS ?????????
No it's even uncertain of there will be a TTS/TT RS, it can be just a TT 3.6 Quattro with 280-300 hp.
There are a lot of changes going on within VAG, and all are based on cost cutting.
There are even rumours that say Audi stoped development on the R5 2.5T FSI engine due to cost cutting.

Hans.

[ültje1]

By the way i like these TT !!!!!!!

what do you guys think

http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/2239/ak31xajwkwe7jkbfxhu6.jpg

[Leadfoot]

No it's even uncertain of there will be a TTS/TT RS, it can be just a TT 3.6 Quattro with 280-300 hp.
There are a lot of changes going on within VAG, and all are based on cost cutting.
There are even rumours that say Audi stoped development on the R5 2.5T FSI engine due to cost cutting.

Hans.

I'm still not sure that a larger v6 is a good thing for the TT. Every and I mean every roadtest has put the basic 2.0fwd TT ahead on overall dynamics, now we all know that it's not a problem with the quattro system as it's doing it's job with the higher covering speeds and improved grip out of corners. The remarks are the 2.0 feels the more lighter on it's feet/wheels and changes direction better. This must be down to the extra weight of the engine over the front wheels and take notice BMW fans, the Quattro3.2 version has a better weight balance of 57/43 compared to the 2.0fwd of 60/40.

Picking the 2.0TFSi from the S3 might not give the musical notes of the v6 but will do wonders for the dynamics of the car, steering feel will improve, directional changes will be a lot better, even better than the basic 2.0fwd and the weight balance will greatly improve to a figure closer to 54/46 making the car pivot around the centre making it with it's awd system a lot closer to the Porsche Cayman on which it was meant to be compare with by Audi.

I feel sad to think that Audi with the R5 engine were so close to bring back it's rallying heritage only for it to be dashed because of cost cuts in the VAG group as a whole. Audi makes up 2/3 of all VAG's profit at present according to CAR and if true means VW are starving the thing that's making them money. To think that VW is a strong brand than Audi is total madness.

[Lateknight]

I feel sad to think that Audi with the R5 engine were so close to bring back it's rallying heritage only for it to be dashed because of cost cuts in the VAG group as a whole. Audi makes up 2/3 of all VAG's profit at present according to CAR and if true means VW are starving the thing that's making them money. To think that VW is a strong brand than Audi is total madness.

Your right.
If, what has been rumoured, that the R5 turbo has been cancelled - thats a real shame, and I feel Audi are missing out on a real drivers car TT.
I for one, hope the rumour is unfounded. I was quite looking forward to an Audi 5 pot again.

Oh dear, what to do with CAR magazine. :confused:
Audi 'only' make half of the VW groups profit total.
I say 'only' half - considering the Audi brand group only produce 25% of the whole groups cars - its still an impressive result.

On the subject of the Audi brand group, according to latest reports this is to be disbanded.
The seperate Audi brand group and Volkswagen brand groups are to be disbanded according to a report on the Volkswagen financial site.

http://www.volkswagen-ir.de/English_version.337.0.html

see story date 11.01.2007

Must have spent million seperating the groups. Now they are to merge again :confused:

[Leadfoot]

Your right.
If, what has been rumoured, that the R5 turbo has been cancelled - thats a real shame, and I feel Audi are missing out on a real drivers car TT.
I for one, hope the rumour is unfounded. I was quite looking forward to an Audi 5 pot again.

Oh dear, what to do with CAR magazine. :confused:
Audi 'only' make half of the VW groups profit total.
I say 'only' half - considering the Audi brand group only produce 25% of the whole groups cars - its still an impressive result.

On the subject of the Audi brand group, according to latest reports this is to be disbanded.
The seperate Audi brand group and Volkswagen brand groups are to be disbanded according to a report on the Volkswagen financial site.

http://www.volkswagen-ir.de/English_version.337.0.html

see story date 11.01.2007

Must have spent million seperating the groups. Now they are to merge again :confused:

Only 50%, well that's still to much and only a stupid chairman would kill an engine that will boost sales through links to it's rallying heritage and help fund the recovery of the company as a whole. But then again, of course they would, to spend millions separating the groups to only spends as much to bring them back together again speaks volumes to me.:doh:

Maybe Audi should go it's own way, at least they would be controlling their own destiny.:)

[ültje1]

hey guys any new news about the TTS or TTRS ?


mfg
www.alex-poellinger.de