I didn't realise that they came with a 3.2 engine !
I shall be a little more respectful when coming up behind one next time.
|
Don't worry Mark!
Import the Firehawk. No problem.
Kevin...
|
|
|
|
And the surprise is that Audi are going to supply these to the British market in RHD form before the continent get their LHD ones!
|
|
dunno about "going to", I was following one yesterday, although not for long.
|
|
I hope you wasn't racing mark
|
|
Ah, but you don't get the DSG on the smaller engines.
|
|
|
|
Power difference over the current 225 is negligible.
Given the number of 225's that are chipped, these remian the quicker car, they just dont sound as nice.
|
Maybe it's living where I do (SW London) but 9/10 Audi TTs would be quite happy with the 1.6, 100 bhp engine from the Golf/A3.
Obviously people buy more powerful versions, because they can, and it's a status symbol, but the way the TT is driven has nothing to do with outright performance and everything to do with style and status.
I know it's only getting an extra 15-ish bhp from 1.4 litres more, but it's a better cruiser, sounds nicer, and says to others that mine is bigger than yours/the one I probably otherwise wouldn't have traded in.
Otherwise, when the car still looks right after four years, and is still worth maybe £18k against £24k new, what incentive is there to change unless there is a new, 'prestige' model?
|
I've often read that four wheel drive can give too much grip from a standing start in the dry, unless power is brutally used.
Last Saturday afternoon:
Audi TT cabrio pulls up alongside at the lights, odious subwoofer base pumping out everywhere, throttle blipping, and two 'look at me' poseurs inside.
My Volvo V70 2.4T alongside, five up. Request from passengers to do the opposite of what I was going to do (ignore the TarT next door). Lights go green, and no other cars at any other branch of the junction. A brief squeak from the tyres as the clutch was let up at 1500 RPM, throttle then nailed, and an instant disappearing act on a wave of torque.
Audi TT, bogged down off the line with insufficient revs, and totally spanked.
Traffic light Grand Prix are potentially dangerous and certainly illegal. Sometimes though, they can be highly satifying.
TT came whilstling past on the first stretch of dual carriageway, posuer gazes fixed straight ahead...
|
|
6 points. £250 fine. £350 costs!
|
|
Volvo V70 2.4? Make that a £400 fine!
|
|
|
|
Yes but thats the driver error not the car, 225tt will leave a front drive v90 for my money, and in the wet forget it.
|
Yes - must agree with jud -
I have never heard of
four wheel drive can give too much grip from a standing start in the dry, unless power is brutally used"
If you tried racing me, I would just smile (think suitable thoughts) and let you go.
|
>>four wheel drive can give too much grip from a standing start in the dry, unless power is brutally used"
For once TrevP I'm amazed you're not up to speed on this one. It is said that full power standing starts are so harsh on clutches that it is better to allow a 2WD to spin the wheels and let the tyres act as a clutch....tyres being cheaper/easier to replace.
Furthermore it is said a 4WD has so much grip that spinning the wheels is near impossible hence the forces are concentrated further up the drivetrain with possible expensive damage.
I can relate this to my old Triumph Herald(!?). That would happily spin its original 5.20 crossplys away from a junction....but when I fitted it with a set of 180mm rally tyres on 5" rims the first time I dumped the clutch in a big way the tyres gripped and the diff exploded!
If you trained on a Herald you would never ever worry about a tame modern FWD in a lift-off oversteer moment.
M.M
|
"Furthermore it is said a 4WD has so much grip that spinning the wheels is near impossible hence the forces are concentrated further up the drivetrain with possible expensive damage."
May well be right.
But as I have never done a "full power standing start" in mine, (or even close)
- I cannot confirm the theory with practical experience.
|
|
|
|
I've driven both, I'd like to see that comparison. The 225 TT was nice but quick off the mark it is not!
The 2.4T with low pressure turbo is, and from memory in an S60 certainly feels quicker off the mark.
|
"an S60 certainly feels quicker off the mark."
perhaps because it does it with so much more drama?
|
No drama, have you tried one? See HJ's road test. I was surprised how good the 2.4T engine is.
The T5 would be dramatic because I have one of those (C70).
The TT is no match for that. I expect to 3.2 will be closer.
|
Seems that SjB has succeeded in turning this in to a speeding thread.
As for why anyone would buy the 3.2, in addition to the new gearbox and other points already made, ther is the advantage that the 3.2 is a non-turbo engine. As HJ says, you do not have the hassle with the 3.2 of remembering to "simmer" at the end of a hot run.
|
When Merc put their 3.2 into the SLK it certainly made a big difference. Really smooth, nice drive without that rather coarse 2.3 Komp.
That was well worth the extra. The TT certainly needs more than that 1.8T - which is not very smooth and doesn't give the poke it looks deserve.
|
|
|
|
|
and my bruvver's bigger than your bruvver. LOL.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
