2009 Audi TTS - Turbocharged 2.0

only 272 bhp? what's wrong with audi and their engines? the z4 m coupe has 60 more horsepower and yet it only weights 100 more pounds.

what audi should have done is just ripped out quattro all together to save 200 lb off tt's "aluminum space frame" or gave it a beefier, healthier engine. then it could actually be more of a gentleman's mazdaspeed 3. it'd be theoretically fun to drive with 10 more horsepower and 100 lb less than the mazdaspeed, assuming that removing quattro takes off 200 lbs.

fyi, bmw should stuff the 4.0l v8 from the m3 into the z4 m coupe before they redesign it. i know they're working on a brand new z4 replacement, but the v8 would probably fit just fine. plus the v8 engine would be 33 lb lighter than the i6 330 bhp powerplant it has now.

The S series of cars are not meant to compete with BMW's M division. That is what the RS cars are for. The S series of cars are basically the top of their normal line with sports packages. Case in point, the S5 is meant to compete with the 335i Coupe, and the RS5 against the M3.

If they ever come out with a TT-RS then that would take on the Z4 M coupe.

i understand audi's effort to squeeze more power from vw/audi's 2.0t while trying to save weight. they made the this engine for the s3 and they were probably looking for another opportunity to use this engine.

however, there is no excuse for them to not fit a more powerful engine into the tt-s, because this is going to be a very expensive car considering it only has 265 bhp.

the only likely 'fix' would be to fit a v6 tt that is rumored to be in development, if that ever comes out, but that won't come out for a while.

so basically the debut of the tt-s would be a disappointment if we were expecting it to be a true sports car.

What do you people want? First it's all about stopping the horsepower wars and make cars lighter.
Now Audi makes the car significantly lighter with only a minor hp boost and it's still not good.

This is more of sports car then the 306hp 135i coupe which weighs 1500kg.

The TT 3.2 with 250hp and 1410kg does 0-60 in 5.9 seconds.
The Audi S3 with 265hp and 1440kg does 0-60 in 5.7 seconds.
This is gonna be around 1340kg with 272hp, excpect 0-60 in around 5.2 - 5.4 seconds. Not to mention the cornering, the normal TT already outhandles the comperative Z4.

the 265hp 2.0t engine is not a very good engine. there's tons of turbo lag from the huge turbines.

according to jeremy clarkson:
"[The engine in Audi's S3 is] not very nice. It’s harsh when you rev it, and there’s far too much turbo lag when you don’t.

And it’s not like they were stuck for something thrusty and powerful to give this sporty car some extra oomph. Why didn’t they go for the V6 currently used in the Golf R32? And even more strangely, why not the exquisite, light and compact V8 from the RS4?

So the engine’s wrong, along with the feel of the thing when you’re driving it. Unusually for an Audi it rides quite well most of the time and is therefore a comfortable companion, but when you push it, and that’s surely the point of a car with stiffened springs and fat wheels, it feels woolly and cumbersome."

and autoexpress talks about the s3 in this review:
"The S3 employs familiar hardware under the bonnet. But the Golf GTI's 2.0-litre FSI has been uprated, with a new alloy head, bigger turbocharger and modified intercooler, all of which translates into 350Nm and 261bhp. Such torque levels, coupled with traction from the quattro four-wheel drive system, means acceleration off the line is impressive - at the test track, the S3 blitzed the 0-60mph sprint in 5.6 seconds. But there's no escaping this engine is better in standard 197bhp guise. Full boost arrives later, power delivery isn't as smooth or consistent and while Audi claims to have developed something it calls a "sonorous acoustic profile", it sounds flat. At least the black brake callipers, complete with S3 badging, deliver firm stopping power, and the short-throw gearlever provides slick shifts. It feels eager from the word go too - which, combined with stiff suspension that delivers a bouncy ride on broken tarmac, can make it tiring to drive. But then, these cars are meant to be fun! Unfortunately, the S3 fails to capitalise on this advantage. Although fast across country thanks to the turbo's accessible power and the grip and traction of four-wheel drive, it is not especially rewarding. Chiefly to blame for this is the slow-witted steering, which doesn't feel that well-engineered or positive."

the tt-s and s3 both share the same underlying platform, so why should we expect any difference with the tt-s when it comes out?

btw, i highly doubt that the tt-s is more of a sports car than the 135i. many magazines have hailed 135i's excellent composure on roads and its fun-to-drive factor. in the past, many magazines prefered 130i's naturally aspirated 265 bhp 3.0l i6 over s3's engine. and the new 135i's engine is even sweeter than its predecessor.

i also doubt that the tt outhandles the z4. just because the new tt is a tremendous upgrade to the previous generation doesn't make it automatically better than other cars in its class.

here's 5th gear admitting that the new tt is slower around the track compared to the z4 in this 2007 tt 3.2l quattro vs. z4 3.0si

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qFlYYdPd_k

The new TT uses magnetic ride suspension which the S3 doesn't. This makes the car unusually comfertable when you want it, hardened up when you'd like.

Plus look up some magazine tests such as Sport Auto or Autozeitung.
Some hockenheim times by Sport Auto:
The base FWD 200hp Audi TT - 1:18.8
The 280hp Nissan 350Z did 1:18.7
The 245hp mid engined base Porsche Cayman did 1:18.5
The comparetive 210hp BMW Z4 2.5Si did 1:19.7

Or maybe the 265hp Audi S3 which did 1:17.5
Pretty damn good seeing as the 343hp BMW Z4M did a 1:17.2
Or the 306hp BMW 135i which did a 1:17.4
Notice the power differences.
Not to mention it was faster then the 450hp Aston Martin DB9 which did a 1:17.7 , or maybe the Lotus Europa S and even the Subaru WRX STI which both did a 1:17.9.

Now seeing as the TT-S is gonna be about 100kg lighter and even a bit more powerfull then the S3, just imagine how fast this is gonna be.

so tt with fwd only is faster than a z4 2.5si but slower in its quattro form against z4 3.0si? well hopefully audi does magic with this quattro variant because it'll definitely need something other than AWD and 20 more horsepower to beat the z4m.

100kg seems like a stretch, 100lb tops is more realistic. we'll see in a few months. note that MT's estimate puts the tt-s only less than 100 lb lighter than the s3.

here is tt 3.2 quattro in a comparison against 135i. 135i won in all performance related categories, except for traction.
http://www.autozeitung.de/online/render.php?render=0097237

There is no quattro form of the base 200hp TT. The 265hp BMW Z4 3.0 did a 1:18.1, this is a bit faster then the TT 3.2 Roadster which did a 1:18.2. But this whas the roadster, the coupe is allot faster. But the Z4 is still allot slower then the S3 which has the same power.

And 100kg doesn't seam like a stretch. The S3 weighs 1450KG, The Audi TT 3.2 weighs 1410kg, that is already 100LBS lighter then the S3, the TT-S will be another 30-50KG or 70-100LBS lighter.

And yes about the Autozeitung, that was the TT 3.2 with only 250hp against the 135i which has 306hp. And still the TT kept up really well being only a few tenths slower on the track and acceleration.

the point is that there's currently no car in audi's tt and a3 lineup that is faster than bmw's z4 lineup. and the tt-s will have to be faster than the s3 to beat the z4m.

your estimate only puts the tt-s 40kg lighter than the s3, which is like the same difference between a 135i and 335i and that's not much at all. the only noticeable difference between the 135i and the 335i is 1-series' shorter wheelbase and fade-free brembo brakes. tt's shorter wheelbase compared the a3's may help tt-s' handle better than the s3, but until the actual specs of the tt-s is released we don't know. tt-s could be longer or the same as rest of audi's tt lineup.

so the tt-s will need to be a lot faster than the s3 despite sharing its engine and platform with its sibling. tt-s' magnetic suspension won't make it faster seeing how stiff s3's suspension already is, unless the new dampening system is miraculously lighter than s3's oil dampening which i highly doubt. the magnetic ride module alone adds weight and the system only improves ride comfort on roads less than desirable.

and then there's the comparison between the z4m vs. the s3. the fact that a 330hp z4m is faster than a 265hp s3 on a track is the same as how a 300hp 335i is faster than a 354hp s5 on a track. one car is ultimately faster than the other car if that's all you're trying to find out.

in the end, it's apparent that the tt has always been underpowered and will continue to be so, unless audi stop being lazy about their engine lineup for the tt.

considering that it will get to 60 in under 5 seconds, or just about as fast as the m coupe,

nothing

doubt it'll get to 60 in under 5 seconds since the s3 isn't even close to achieving that, unless audi tosses a better engine in there.

but they won't.

You aren't making any sence. Do you know what an Audi S3 is and do you know what an Audi TT 3.2 is?

I'll explain it one more time and read carfully. Because you don't seam to understand a thing i'm saying.

In the A3 lineup you've got the Audi A3 3.2 quattro and the Audi S3. The Audi A3 3.2 has the heavy 3.2 V6 producing 250hp and weighs close to 1500kg. The Audi S3 uses the light 2.0 Turbo with 265hp and weighs 1450kg. That's 50kg lighter or more then 100LBS.

Now because the new TT uses an advanced hybrid aluminium/steel chassis technology it's allot lighter then the A3.
The TT 3.2 with the same V6 weighs 1410kg compared to the near 1500kg of the A3 3.2. that's almost 100kg lighter or a full 220LBS.
The TT-S is gonna use the same 2.0 Turbo as the S3, for the S3 this meant a 50kg shaved of the weight from the A3 3.2. The TT-S will probably do the same compared with the Audi TT 3.2. So seeing as the TT 3.2 weighs 1410kg, shave 50 from that and you have a remarkable 1360kg for the TT-S.
As you can notice then compared to the 1450kg of the Audi S3 this is a full 90kg or 200LBS lighter. And 7hp more.

Now seeing as the Audi S3 was allready faster then all the 265hp BMW rivals with both the 130i and the Z4 3.0i, and wasn't far of of the 135i (0,1 sec)and Z4M (0,3sec) on the track dispite only having 265hp compared to the 300+ of the BMW's and being heavier then both.

Now imagine if it was just as light as the Z4 with 4wd and more power and handling then the S3, i think the 135i is an easy target and even he Z4 M would be a potential target.

And for the record, on that track the Audi S5 (354hp) was just as fast as the Z4M with a 1:17.2, this was 0.6 seconds faster then the 335i which did a 1:17.8.

Take a look
http://www.fastestlaps.com/track7.html

The front is so sexy.

Very nice car.

Audi will launch a 350 horsepower TT-RS. That should give the Z4M some stiff competition.

wait for the next z4... with the 335i engine.. and lets see if they throw that m3 v8 in the next z4m.. i sure hope so

actually, the aluminum alloy v8 is 400hp and 33 lb lighter than the cast iron 330hp i6 they currently have in the z4 m coupe. and it should be compact enough to fit where the i6 currently is, all the way back in the hood for a perfect 50/50 distribution.

Stop racing these cars on paper, it's only speculation until someone actually has their hands on one at a track. People also seem to be forgetting that the aftermarket is huge for the TT. A TT-S with an ECU upgrade (about $500-$600) will yield, I'm guessing, more than 300hp with a nice bump in torque also (regular 2.0T #'s go from 200/207 to 250/300 with just ECU upgrade). The Z4 is RWD and has a nice engine as well but IMO, it sucks and rides like absolute garbage compared to any Audi I've ridden in.

Anybody can push #'s, let someone put this car on a track and tell us what it says. And by the way, I don't understand the comments about turbo lag, etc. Has anyone ever driven a STi or EVO? Those cars have their share of turbo lag but no one would argue their track prowess.

if there's no point in discussing potential differences in these cars then why are we having this discussion in the first place? if it's just looks we're going after then why release numbers and specs etc. because these numbers don't mean anything unless you compare it to its siblings and its rivals.

and evos do have a good amount of turbo lag, but because good reviews about their performance on the track doesn't mean that the turbo lag isn't there. oh, it's definitely there, believe me.