Not sure when the coil pack issue was fixed, although my patner had an A4 1.8 petrol on load a while back on a 51 plate and that had coil issues.
Your probably best to search on the net or use the CBCB.
|
Check when the cambelt was last done. Also see if you can live with the interior. Its lovely to look at but I found it quite claustrophobic with the tiny side windows.
|
|
|
|
>>Leon Cupra faster more economical more practical and much better
looking. >>
Not faster than a 225 and better looking, you have gotta be joking !!
|
|
I'm with cheddar on looks. Cheaper granted. But the TT Bauhaus inspired design is very good. I remember going to the motorshow in the NEC when it was first shown (1998?) over here and I liked it a lot. A flat mate nearly put a deposit down for one at the show itself.
|
They can suffer from dashpod failure. £700-900 to replace according to CBCB. But I think you can get them repaired more cheaply at a place called BBA REMAN. They repair all sorts of units that are known to be unreliable, sometimes on an exchange basis, depending on what it is. They are on the web.
Just in case you buy one and it happens!
|
We service a few of these and I suppose we see one at least once a fortnight.
You really want a 2003-on car, they are better built and had a few of the bugs ironed out. Coil packs will have all been replaced by now.
Main engine is good for high miles, and you'd be unlucky to see a turbo give trouble at less than 100k miles - the petrol turbos give less trouble than diesel turbos.
At 100k+ you will start to see some deterioration of suspension bushes, not necessarily enough to fail MoT, but enough to start ot affect handling. Bushes are dead cheap and readily available but obviously labour cost will be an issue. ARB bushes also start to go, again very cheap but labour needs to be considered if you cant DIY. Ditto shocks, which are not dear and tend to deteriorate gracefully.
A number of these proved too quick for their owners driving skills, so look out for prior front end damage and damage to subframes, struts, steering track rods, where owners have drifted wide in a corner and hit kerb.
Instrument packs are well known issue and dear if they do play up, but most will have been dealt with by now.
Basically buy the newest car you can that looks like its been looked after (trim is tough, so scratches and tears mean hard use) a lot of thesse were bought by jack the lad estate agent types who couldnt really afford to run them.
I think the outside of the car looks great but cant personally get on with the cockpit. It always feels very tight and claustrophobic to me and persoanlly its not a car Id want to own, but it all boils down to taste in the end.
Should add that cambelts can have a hard time on this engine so change promptly. They also a bit difficult to work on because space is tight.
Edited by WorkshopTech on 16/01/2010 at 19:36
|
'where owners have drifted wide in a corner and hit kerb.'
That'll be the bland and rather predictable handling. Understeer central.
|
Thanks all, re rtj70's comments, I was at a conference at the Munich Airport Kempinski Hotel, early '98, they had a TT on a plinth, an Audi launch activity, I had only seen it as an artist's impression before that.
EDIT: I was not attending the Audi launch, rather it happened to be on at the time I was there.
Edited by cheddar on 17/01/2010 at 11:06
|
Check you can live with the seats. My partner has the new shape TDI TT, but i hate the seats in it and on long journeys always have backache. I dont think the seat design has changed that much so something you may want to look out for.
I think this is a trait on sporting Audi cars. My old boss swapped his A4 S-line after 6 months as he was having back problems due to the harsh ride and firm seats.
Also if your tall you may find it claustrophobic. I dont mind short journeys but I couldnt live with one to do high miles.
|
TBH I find it a little claustrophobic though it is unlikely that it would be used for long journeys. I have driven one and found a quite comfortable driving position, also I like firm seats and firm suspension. Re handling they feel assured, very high levels of grip though not as sharp a turn in as the FocuST (or the Mondeo for that matter) and not the same level of feedback either.
WT, what was changed from 2003?
My research so far shows no material changes (only minor spec changes) to the 1.8T 180 and 225 throughout their life, of course the 3.2 V6, 1.8T 150 2WD and TDi were launched later.
|
VAG tend to make changes through the life of the car.
In 2003 the Hungarian factory was closed for a short time a revamped. A lot of minor changes were made to the car, including modifications to accept DSG, changes to valve drive to make the timing belt less likely to fail, improvements to suspension bush specs to make them more durable.
The 2003-on cars are noticeably better built than the earlier ones and premature coil pack failure is unlikely on these (they can still fail though. like on any car. The instrument pack problems were largely sorted by 2005.)
The mark1 TT up to 2006 was based on the A4 platform (shared with golf mk4, octavia mk1) and will never be the worlds best handling car for that reason, although its not bad. The mark2 2006-on is based on A5 platform (golf 5, octavia mk2 ) and is a noticably better car all round, including handling.
The TTs are quite dear because you pay for the styling. If you can tolerate a hatchback the Leon mk2 FR, is a very well sorted and rapid car and takes some beating in the value for money stakes. They are also cheap to run for that sort of car.
|
The 2003-on cars are noticeably better built than the earlier ones >>
So would a higher mileage, say 100k, 2003 car be a better bet than a lower mileage, say 60k, older car.
EDIT: And how can you tell the later car if looking at a car reg'd in 2003?
Thanks.
The mark1 TT up to 2006 was based on the A4 platform (shared with golf mk4 octavia mk1) and will never be the worlds best handling car for that reason although its not bad. >>
I know and agree though the best handling MkIV is the 4Motion, similar chassis to the 4WD TT.
The mark2 2006-on is based on A5 platform (golf 5 octavia mk2 ) and is a noticably better car all round including handling.>>
The Golf V is better handling than the IV though the interior is inferior, the Octavia II is simply bland (and very noisy in PD form) and the TT II does not look as good as the Mk I, all IMO of course.
The TTs are quite dear because you pay for the styling. If you can tolerate a hatchback the Leon mk2 FR is a very well sorted. >>
Dynamically the Leon might compare though we are not buying a TT for the dynamics, the FocuST is already ahead in that regard. Wife wants a TT for the looks and image not the practicality or carrying capacity, it's just like comparing two different handbags and justfying the cheaper one because she could get my camera in it ;-).
Edited by cheddar on 17/01/2010 at 12:47
|
...wife wants a TT for the looks and image not the practicality or carrying capacity...
There are plenty worse reasons for buying a car.
|
wife wants a TT for the looks and image not the practicality or carrying capacity........
We've rather moved away from the original User Requirement of 1.4 Clio or Fiesta!!!:-)
|
You will find the manufacturing date by looking at things like a/c hoses, stickers on headlamps etc. - the car is covered in date coded components. You can also read the date off the glass code. will also tell you if the car has had work.
I wouldnt want a pre-2003 TT or one with over about 75k personally. I know people will say high mileage is not a problem, but it is. Once you get to 100k plus then things are starting to wear out. Beware noises from the 4WD system, it is staggeringly expensive to rectify. Older and higher mileage cars are less of a problem if you can DIY and bit of an enthusiast, but if you are paying labour charges they could turn out ot be a moneypit. Cars like TTs will usually have had a harder life than a golf of the same age and miles.
If wife just wants looks and image then think about a hyundai couple sIII. Nice looking, go OK, reliable and fairly cheap to run, could be better value than a TT.
|
Found an 03 225, 100k miles though no indication of a service since 73k miles, 15 months ago, any thoughts? Could it be on long-life?
If wife just wants looks and image then think about a hyundai couple sIII. >>
Yes the latest coupes look OK though "image" and "Hyundai" are mutually exclusive in my book yet alone the wife's!!.
|
|
We ran a 2004 MX5 last year and can thoroughly recommend. Absolutely fantastic handling, beautiful build and lovely to behold. Cheap parts available everywhere too. I'm sure the other half would approve!
|
Thanks Bazza, no, doesnt want a convertable.
|
Found an 03 225 100k miles though no indication of a service since 73k miles 15 months ago any thoughts? Could it be on long-life?
Its impossible to say really, there are so many variables, this is a high mileage car, complex mechanicals and 7 years old, so would need thorough inspection.>> If wife just wants looks and image then think about a hyundai couple sIII. >> Yes the latest coupes look OK though "image" and "Hyundai" are mutually exclusive in my book yet alone the wife's!!.
Surely, driving a ford focus, you cant be image concious? If wife is concerned then debadge the hyundai, half the population will think its something very expensive and the remainder wont have any idea what it is and probably wont be interested anyway.
|
|
Neighbours of ours have a Jag XF and a Hyundai Coupe. Both newish. Not sure which model / engine the coupe has but knowing them it'll be the top of the range. Interestingly enough and fairly inexplicably in my view, the keys which apparently get fought over the most are the ones to the Hyundai. Must be something good about it. Certainly looks nice in the black they have chosen.
|
|
The 2.0 are OK but the 2.7 is really a great car and much underrated. its hyundai a version of the mistsubishi 6A12 engine, which is a lovely unit and very reliable. we fitted Eibachs to one of these for one of our customers, and with uprated front and rear arb's it drove superbly. They are also very reliable, we saw some of the older ones with gearbox problems (rough synchro) but more recent ones seem to be fine. Sells well in many other countries I am told, including germany, so cant be too bad.
|
|
Just been nosing around Alfa GTs on AT Cheddar. Don't know if I'd have the nerves for one but they do look the puppies and aren't too dear now.....
|
>> Yes the latest coupes look OK though "image" and "Hyundai" are mutually exclusive in my book yet alone the wife's!!. >>
Surely driving a ford focus you cant be image concious? >>
WT, your advice is appreciated though is that an example of your anti Ford ways?
So what should I drive, a Skoda? A Seat? However good a car a Hyundai is, and the new coupe is surely a fine car, the brand simply does not match up to Skoda and Seat yet alone the likes of Ford, VW, Audi etc.
EDIT: Now you are talking HB, Alfa or Hyundai hmmm lets see .....
Edited by cheddar on 17/01/2010 at 19:46
|
>>However good a car a Hyundai is, and the new coupe is surely a fine car, the brand >>simply does not match up to Skoda and Seat yet alone the likes of Ford, VW, Audi etc.
In what way? Reliability? Better than all of them
Image? Do people buy Fords for their superior image?
Sounds like you havn't quite made your mind up yet!
|
Sounds like you havn't quite made your mind up yet!
No we havent though we know what is on the list, a new Fiesta, a nearly new Clio and an older TT, all for different reasons. Though not a Hyundai Coupe.
|
>>However good a car a Hyundai is and the new coupe is surely a fine car the brand >>simply does not match up to Skoda and Seat yet alone the likes of Ford VW Audi etc.
I'll take that with a little more than a pinch of salt until VW/Audi/Skoda and Ford have enough faith in their products to offer a standard 5 year unlimited mileage warranty...
|
>> Surely driving a ford focus you cant be image concious? >> WT your advice is appreciated though is that an example of your anti Ford ways?
I find you quite baffeling. In what way is that anti-ford. Surely a focus is almost the ultimate in a car that no one notices? They are everywhere and have no image. In my opinion thats not a bad thing becuase I dont believe in all this image nonsense that kids today are mad about.
In any case, park a hyundai coupe next to a focus and which car are people going to look at?
So what should I drive a Skoda? A Seat? However good a car a Hyundai is and the new coupe is surely a fine car the brand simply does not match up to Skoda and Seat yet alone the likes of Ford VW Audi etc.
Maybe not Audi, but I think youre behind the times. Hyundai will soon be a major player in the UK and their recent cars are a match for anything the other mass-market manufacturers put out, class for class.
|
Cheddar, my partner has a 52 plate TT and she is made up with it. Only problem has been front suspension bushes - but not too expensive anyway. They do wear tyres quickly though.
Very good to have 4-wheel drive in the recent bad weather.
|
I don't know why people worry about image so much.
Presumably, the OP's good lady believes the TT's image to be positive. However, many people take a dim view of the model as a poseur's or hairdresser's car. In other words, some people will admire the car (which I imagine is the point of the lady's desire for one based on image), however a similar number will snigger and mock. The latter being undesireable to the purported lady, I expect. Is this a form of denial, buying a car for its image when it has positive and negative images?
Somebody upthread said that there are far worse reasons for buying a car than image. I disagree. That's got to be the worst imaginable reason for buying a car.
Buy one because you like it and it does the things you want it to do, you can afford to run it and it isn't an SUV ;-). Why factor in to your buying decision that others will admire you, when many people will not?
|
I don't know why people worry about image so much. .... Why factor in to your buying decision that others will admire you, when many people will not? >>
Ditto Alanovich's post in full.
I had the same thought when reading Cheddar's last sentence here:
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=81730&...e
" ... in 3 years or so, after all in age perception terms in two or three years time both cars with a private plate on them would be much of a muchness. ... "
I realised then that it was a thread that I could not contribute to. In this thread though, I should say that my preference is for the Hyundai Coupe over Fiesta, Clio, TT or Focus ST any day.
I thought Hyundai were offering cracking discounts on new Coupe, but cannot find it listed on their web site as a current model any more.
Edited by jbif on 18/01/2010 at 14:53
|
I had the same thought when reading Cheddar's last sentence here: " ... in 3 years or so after all in age perception terms in two or three years time both cars with a private plate on them would be much of a muchness. ... " I realised then that it was a thread that I could not contribute to.>>
Why contribute now then jbif? And what is wrong with that statement? We have a private plate, if it is put on a new car or a year old car today there would be little to tell them apart in a few years time, is that clear?
this thread though I should say that my preference is for the Hyundai Coupe over Fiesta Clio TT or Focus ST any day.
There is no accounting for taste and/or you have not driven a Focus ST, or a TT 225 for that matter.
I thought Hyundai were offering cracking discounts on new Coupe but cannot find it listed on their web site as a current model any more.>>
Ok ..
*** WE DO NOT WANT A HYUNDAI ***
Edited by cheddar on 18/01/2010 at 21:59
|
We have a private plate, if it is put on a new car or a year old car today there would be little to tell them apart in a few years time, is that clear? >>
Perfectly clear therefore that perceived image is what it is all about.
There is no accounting for taste .... . >>
;-) Irony, oh, irony!
Edited by jbif on 19/01/2010 at 11:49
|
Perfectly clear therefore that perceived image is what it is all about.>>
You have lost me there ... the point about image related to used Audi TT, the point above relates to the difference between a year old or a new car a few years on.
;-) Irony oh irony!
Irony, yeah, its ironic how one asks questions about 6 + year old Audi and is pointed in the direction of a Hyundai.
So would it be OK to want a £20k new Hyundai for its image though not a second hand Audi worth less than half as much?
|
>>I don't know why people worry about image so much.>>
Hang on a minute, we are not worried about image, if we were we would spend twice as much or more on a car, we can afford it, however we are not worried about image so we wont.
The point about image was raised when someone suggested a Hyundai and a a discussion around relative image ensued, we did not and still do not want a Hyundai so it is all conjecture.
>>Presumably, the OP's good lady believes the TT's image to be positive.>>
In my opinon and hers (our opinions on cars do not always concur) the TT MkI is great looking car, perhaps a future classic.
|
Any thoughts on a 3.2V6 DSG?
A strong chain cam engine though any mileage or (lack of) service related gear box issues to watch out for?
Thanks.
|
>>any thoughts on a 3.2V6 DSG?
My thoughts would be that if you can find a resaonably priced one, then it would be an immense purchase, and something that you might end up fighting over the keys for.
My only concern with a 3.2 V6 would be how heavy it would be. I had a 2.8 V6 Golf, and ive heard from a few people that it isnt much slower than the R32 (same engine i assume?) becuase of the extra weight.
Bit rarer than the 1.8T so almost certainly a future classic.
|
My thoughts would be that if you can find a resaonably priced one then it would be an immense purchase and something that you might end up fighting over the keys for.
Agreed though the ST is a sharper handler.
My only concern with a 3.2 V6 would be how heavy it would be. I had a 2.8 V6 Golf and ive heard from a few people that it isnt much slower than the R32 (same engine i assume?) becuase of the extra weight.
>>
I cant see that the 3.2 units is much heavier than the 2.8, they are basically the same engine. The 2.8 in the Golf is quoted as 204bhp where as the 3.2 in the TT is quoted as 250, cant recall what they quote for the R32, 230 rings a bell.
Bit rarer than the 1.8T so almost certainly a future classic.
>>
The only question is DSG repair costs, I suspect that a new 1.8 engine + box would cost less than a DSG box alone.
|
Hang on a minute we are not worried about image The point about image was raised when someone suggested a Hyundai
???
cheddar, you said:
"Wife wants a TT for the looks and image".
|
cheddar you said: "Wife wants a TT for the looks and image".
Perhaps read the full sentence in context.
|
Perhaps read the full sentence in context.
I did, it still says she wants it for image reasons, so a disucssion around image ensued.
I have no idea what you're getting at.
|
I have no idea what you're getting at.
Actually I was wrong, the point about image was first raised when someone suggested a Seat not a Hyundai.
However my comment was in relative terms, a TT relative to a Leon, if image was all important we would put more of our resources into a car and buy something other than a second hand Audi.
|
cheddar you said: "Wife wants a TT for the looks and image".
Its the only reason anyone buys one, practical - no, value for money - no, economical - no.......................
1.8T, manual (with a remap) would be my choice, have a cam belt and water pump with steel impeller fitted and you've several years trouble free motoring
|
I thought I made this point yesterday, no idea where the post went though I will try again.
I spend years defending the virtues of various Fords, Renaults etc relative to more expensive though no more virtuous VWs, Audis, BMWs, MBs etc and the minute I mention that I might like a few grands worth of second hand Audi I get all but accused of being a snob!
|
There's nothing wrong with having what you want, its not a rehearsal after all.
Porsche 964 would be on my short list too ;o)
|
Drove a 3.2 V6 DSG yesterday, the box is quite fun, punchy engine, steering felt a bit wooden after the FocuST.
Strange that while using the paddle shift it would not change from first to second while going around a roundabout, I wonder it it could be a clock spring type issue in the column, a loose connection while on lock.
Reckon we will look for a 225, prefer a manual frankly.
|
''So would it be OK to want a £20k new Hyundai for its image though not a second hand Audi worth less than half as much? ''
Excellent point very well made Cheddar!
And noting your various comments about why you want a TT I'll be respectful of your choice and keep my comments about it's handling to myself, although I think you recognise what it's like.
In which case I reckon you're spot on about a manual 225. Friend's 3.2 DSG has horrendous thirst and I find the box fascinating for its technology but ultimately boring.
I think the most interesting point here is that you think it may be a future classic. hadn't thought about it like that. Nothing else looks like it. Wish we could FF 20 years and see. Old fast Fords with rally history pretty valuable - thought about the options there? I know the rally history isn't the same but I wonder how a MK1 Focus RS will look in 20 years.
|
So would it be OK to want a £20k new Hyundai for its image though not a second hand Audi worth less than half as much? >>
1. No one says you should buy a Hyundai for image.
2. It is Cheddar and/or his wife who have announced on here that one of the reasons for wanting the TT is image (maybe even be the primary reason considering how much Cheddar is trying to protest about the mention of "image").
3. IMO, Cheddar's reference to a "private plate" masking the real age of a car clearly demonstrates that image matters a lot to him.
It is a free country, Cheddar can buy the TT for whatever reason he wants to. He posts on an open forum asking for opinions and let it slip that image matters to him. So he gets opinions expressing the counter point of view, i.e. how other people perceive a TT.
|
Quite funny that anyone would buy a TT for anything image related - sure it has an image, but its not one id want. Conjures up images of excessive hair products and sunglasses collections - a successful hairdresser or perhaps Julian Clarys new squeeze. I think id rather walk!
Nice cars though, I know a guy with the 3.2 and he rates it... he has alot of sunglasses though...
|
I almost bought a TT when they came out, but changed my mind as they only had 4 cylinder engines initially. In 2003 I considered a 3.2 DSG but finally went for an M3 instead. I still find the styling of the Mk1 TT attractive and almost ageless.
The 4wd versions with the more complex chassis and independent rear suspension are also very good to drive. I've driven TTs over long distances and found the interior a nice place to be once I got used to the claustrophobic feel, though the absence of a centre armrest is annoying as is the lack of a graphic Navigation System. The ride is firm but not as uncomfortable as other Audis, particularly the A3.
I found the discussions about image frankly hilarious. I've no idea what the perceived image of a TT is in the UK, but it has a desirability factor due to the styling, handling (4wd version) and fabulous interior detailing which you don't find with a Seat hatchback or Hyundai.
|
3.2 is powerful but this engine does have a modest rep for some big blow ups.
We see DSG's and by and large they are OK, as usual with modern high tech stuff the downside is that is one DOES go wrong you are will into 4 figures before the box is even in bits. The customers that weve seen with problems on DSG's have to go to VAG (indpendents I know cant fix them) and you are looking at 3-4k.
4-cyl manual is best bet in an older car and a much more realisitic long term prospect.
|
4-cyl manual is best bet in an older car and a much more realisitic long term prospect.>>
Thanks, that is my conclusion.
|
|
Thanks WT, I was umming and ahing about getting a VW with DSG and this has made my mind up to avoid them!
|
|
A girl I know has just bought an '04 TT. I asked her if she had considered a 350Z as an alternative and she had not heard of it. When I pointed one out to her she thought it far better looking than the TT, very surprising as I would not have thought it appealed to feminine taste.
|
|
|
