Leaked: Audi TT RS details and images emerge on the web

if you want the 35 k high preformance car go for the nissan

but not everyone likes quality. Peole buy AIWA sound systems because the have 1,000 wats of power and blue lights.

— IamEvilHomer (View Profile)

Posted on 2/23/2009 3:03:55 AM | | Votes: 1   

Since you don't comprehend what the TT-RS can do, I would assume you are calling it a $35K car because this is all you can afford and you wish it were $35K. I understand that $55-65 is too expensive for you, but don't sound stupid by trashing an incredible sports car.

— 1uberaudi (View Profile)

Posted on 3/10/2009 3:37:31 PM | | Votes: 1   

Different engines for different vehicles, the 3.0T is a more refined engine. The 2.5T will be more sporty. The 3.0T gets very good fuel economy as it's able to use very good gearing.

You are comparing the lowest performance TT to the highest performing RS model. There is a huge difference between 340 and 170. And Audi always makes plenty of changes handling wise for RS models.

— chewy (View Profile)

Posted on 2/22/2009 1:33:55 AM | | Votes: 1   

Audi both tested a 3.0 Supercharger and Twin Turbo, the supercharged turned out better. But offcourse since you know better they really should change it.

And this will go around a corner like a proper sports car. Whereas the lardish 135i can only just keep up with an Audi S3.

— Heyhuub (View Profile)

Posted on 2/22/2009 8:20:41 AM | | Votes: -1   

chewy:

> The 3.0T gets very good fuel economy as it's able to use very good
> gearing.

That's exactly what it didn't get. Despite having one gear more, the 2009 S4 consumed 13,5 l/100 km while the BMW 335xi managed with 12,7 l/100 km [1]. Both cars have all wheel drive. TorSen-based all wheel drive works against Audi, but one gear more and a gearbox with a standard clutch, not torque converter (maybe BMW has a lockup one, if so, then only one gear more works for Audi advantage) help. Yet the 3.0 TFSI is significantly less fuel efficient. This is due to the supercharger sucking engine power, I bet.

In the other comparison, 6-speed manual S4 returned 14,1 l/100km, the RWD 335i 12,4 l/100km [2]. AWD will not account for that much difference.

Considerably though, the ECE test, suited for comparing cars, not gettin real life fuel economy, suggest Audi edge over BMW:
- AWD S4 7-speed S-tronic: 9,4 l/100km
- AWD 335xi: 9,7 l/100km
- AWD S4 6-speed manual: 9,7 l/100km
- RWD 335i: 9,1 l/100km


Heyhuub:

> And this will go around a corner like a proper sports car. Whereas the
> lardish 135i can only just keep up with an Audi S3.

Well, 135i is anything but lardish. However, I was astounded to find the less powerful and slower front wheel drive S3 with a Haldex clutch posted virtually the same laptimes as the more powerful RWD 135i coupe:

http://www.fastestlaps.com/index.php?page_id=compare&car1=459a7e3125a10&car2=473d6e85e5770

[1] http://www.autozeitung.de/vergleichstest/mittelklasse-sportler&show=messwerte
[2] http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/vergleichstest/audi-s4-gegen-bmw-335i-sportliche-sechszylinder-im-doppeltest-943267.html

— downtoearth (View Profile)

Posted on 2/22/2009 9:01:17 AM | | Votes: 1   

The A4 is a bigger car than 3 series. And those tests proved that it was quite a bit quicker which means it's putting out a decent amount of horsepower over the 335. A better judgment of fuel economy would be a longer drive. Car and Driver often does trips of 500 or more miles, these type of tests give better indication of fuel economy than ride around town a little and go do some 0-60/laps testing.

— chewy (View Profile)

Posted on 2/22/2009 4:59:43 PM | | Votes: 0   

Audi doesn't say that the S4 competes with a given BMW, but in performance and price the S4 most resembles the 335 as the RS4 does the M3 for the highest performance models.

The base A4 can be sporty depending on the engine, etc. but the S4 is meant to push the performance farther as the 335 does the 3 series. It's not perfect, but that is as close as you can get.

— JMB1013 (View Profile)

Posted on 2/22/2009 12:26:09 PM | | Votes: 2   

I haven't seen the TT-S American magazine tested, but Audi says that it gets to 60 in a little under 5 seconds. The TT-RS should be able to do the same in low 4 seconds range.

— chewy (View Profile)

Posted on 2/22/2009 5:01:56 PM | | Votes: 0   

I haven't seen the TT-S American magazine tested, but Audi says that it gets to 60 in a little under 5 seconds. The TT-RS should be able to do the same in low 4 seconds range.

— chewy (View Profile)

Posted on 2/22/2009 5:01:57 PM | | Votes: 0