EVO tests the Audi TT-RS

[footie]

Originally Posted by urbo73

Ahh, that's what that means Journalist talk! A 911's brakes don't act up and the tires last. For the TT it seems slow in, slow out is the way (after that one lap to publish in a magazine of course)!

Again I am struggling to understand why the brakes when off so quick, tyres again should have lasted longer than one lap, even Michelin PS2s. I've tracked a far few Audis over the years, including the TT and on every occasion the tyres lasted a lot longer than one lap, though I will say that up until recently the brakes weren't Audi's strongest point but recently the new S and RS models have been very good and the brakes on the TT-RS is really good.

I didn't read these problems with the Sportauto test so maybe the EVO example was an unlucky one.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by footie

Again I am struggling to understand why the brakes when off so quick, tyres again should have lasted longer than one lap, even Michelin PS2s. I've tracked a far few Audis over the years, including the TT and on every occasion the tyres lasted a lot longer than one lap, though I will say that up until recently the brakes weren't Audi's strongest point but recently the new S and RS models have been very good and the brakes on the TT-RS is really good.

I didn't read these problems with the Sportauto test so maybe the EVO example was an unlucky one.

We know fanboy, we know, Audi is great, "Audi brakes" are great and "Audi tires" are great...

[footie]

Originally Posted by swamp2

We know fanboy, we know, Audi is great, "Audi brakes" are great and "Audi tires" are great...

No swampie old mate, I will openly admit that Audi brakes in the past were awful for track work but I honestly couldn't say that now. Look at the size of the front and rear discs on the TT-RS and compare to the M3, and remember the Audi is using proper calipers. The rubber is more believable, it's not using semi-race rubber like the RS4 or M3 so it's quite possible to abuse them easier.

Regarding the Fanboy claim, I call it as I see it. I see plus points and minus points in all brands and just because I am posting on a BMW forums I will not praise BMW when they do something wrong. Likewise when any other brand being discussed gets it wrong I will speak out about it, including Audi.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by footie

No swampie old mate, I will openly admit that Audi brakes in the past were awful for track work but I honestly couldn't say that now. Look at the size of the front and rear discs on the TT-RS and compare to the M3, and remember the Audi is using proper calipers. The rubber is more believable, it's not using semi-race rubber like the RS4 or M3 so it's quite possible to abuse them easier.

Regarding the Fanboy claim, I call it as I see it. I see plus points and minus points in all brands and just because I am posting on a BMW forums I will not praise BMW when they do something wrong. Likewise when any other brand being discussed gets it wrong I will speak out about it, including Audi.

I know, I don't really think you are a fanboy, you are just guilty of talking about Audi too much on a BMW forum, nearly always in the best light possible. I did note the beautiful brake system on the TT-RS in the photos (I think you posted prior). Just goes to show that looks does not equal performance.

[footie]

Originally Posted by swamp2

I know, I don't really think you are a fanboy, you are just guilty of talking about Audi too much on a BMW forum, nearly always in the best light possible. I did note the beautiful brake system on the TT-RS in the photos (I think you posted prior). Just goes to show that looks does not equal performance.

Listen swamp, the brake system isn't just flashy, they are mighty ventilated disc brakes measuring 370 millimeters at the front and 310 millimeters at the rear, the M3 as comparison only measured 360mm at the front. So that heat dissipates quickly, the front friction rings are perforated. They are then connected to four-piston brake calipers made of aluminum not single piston floating units.

I can tell you that something had to be wrong because the brakes on the TT-RS are REALLY up to the job.

Here's a sweet wee photo just to remind you.


Also here's two video featuring Z4Ms, one racing a TT-RS and the other an RS4. Guess which one pulls the longest and hardest.

[u2b]Rgw282Q602k&feature=related[/u2b]

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by footie

I can tell you that something had to be wrong because the brakes on the TT-RS are REALLY up to the job.

I suppose I tend to agree with you. It absolutely is not only good looking it looks good on specs as well.

Originally Posted by footie

Also here's two video featuring Z4Ms, one racing a TT-RS and the other an RS4. Guess which one pulls the longest and hardest.

So what is the conclusion from this small bit of video evidence? TT-RS is faster than the RS4? That I seriously doubt.

[footie]

Originally Posted by swamp2

So what is the conclusion from this small bit of video evidence? TT-RS is faster than the RS4? That I seriously doubt.

Well strange as it might seem that is exactly what I am suggesting. It may be a very close call but I think the TT will prove to be the quicker. Less frontal area should help it reach those higher speeds a little sooner.

[!Xoible]

it costs $148k crazy! it's like made for asians only dammit

[Jonmartin]

lol another Audi wishing to be an M car thread wahahaha.

Footie dont you get bored starting threads talking about Audi's on a BMW forum you know that they have forums for you right? People might even agree with you.

And I totally agree with what someone said before that the TT-RS is like a 135/370z competitor. No one is going to buy that car over an M3 that knows anything about driving unless you live in an igloo somewhere and need AWD.

[footie]

Originally Posted by Jonmartin

lol another Audi wishing to be an M car thread wahahaha.

Footie dont you get bored starting threads talking about Audi's on a BMW forum you know that they have forums for you right? People might even agree with you.

And I totally agree with what someone said before that the TT-RS is like a 135/370z competitor.

Yes it's main rival will be the 370z and Cayman but when you are talking about high performance cars especially the coupe versions then practicality usually takes a back seat and it's purely about the performance, handling, looks, etc that pricks the interest and potential sale. If you believe someone would consider buying a 997 if also considering an M3 then there's no different to expect someone to consider the TT, 370z or Cayman S.

Originally Posted by Jonmartin

No one is going to buy that car over an M3 that knows anything about driving unless you live in an igloo somewhere and need AWD.

Now who's the fanboy here. The amount of great awd cars is vast, 997turbo, GTR, RS4, R8, Gallardo, etc.

Originally Posted by !Xoible

it costs $148k crazy! it's like made for asians only dammit

I didn't know it was even officially available in the US, I wonder have you mistaken the R8 price and not the TT-RS?

[Jonmartin]

Originally Posted by footie

Yes it's main rival will be the 370z and Cayman but when you are talking about high performance cars especially the coupe versions then practicality usually takes a back seat and it's purely about the performance, handling, looks, etc that pricks the interest and potential sale. If you believe someone would consider buying a 997 if also considering an M3 then there's no different to expect someone to consider the TT, 370z or Cayman S.



Now who's the fanboy here. The amount of great awd cars is vast, 997turbo, GTR, RS4, R8, Gallardo, etc.

Those are all great cars but a TT isnt the same category as it is an R8 V8 can barely hang on by a thread against an M3 but yet somehow the TT is also a competitor I dont think so..

[footie]

Originally Posted by Jonmartin

Those are all great cars but a TT isnt the same category as it is an R8 V8 can barely hang on by a thread against an M3 but yet somehow the TT is also a competitor I dont think so..

I'm interested in your thinking that the R8 is somehow only able to, how was it you put it 'barely hang on by a thread' to an M3.

I think you will find yourself in a minority with that statement, sure if you look at it from a purely acceleration point of view the R8 and M3 are direct competitors posting near enough identical times but in terms of handling the R8 is of a level well above the M3, but then again it should be as it costs the best part of twice as much and is a purpose built sportscar and not based of a saloon chassis.

The TT not only competes on a performance perspective but also is very close in lap times and grip, though the two are worlds apart in practicality they share a similar place on the performance ladder.

If you want to talk about the merits of each product or some others not mentioned then I'm all ears but don't turn this in to an Audi vs BMW debate, it's simply a fine product that seems to be worthy of being classed as a rival to the M3 in much the same as a Cayman, 997, GTR or any other.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by Jonmartin

No one is going to buy that car over an M3 that knows anything about driving unless you live in an igloo somewhere and need AWD.

Hey easy man, I grew up in Alaska. Of course I never lived in an igloo but I built a few a kid for fun.

[footie]

I'm not the only one to consider both the M3 and TT-RS as rivals, it appears that Autozeitung also felt the same way and actually tested both together to see which as best (in their opinion). Surprisingly they voted the TT 1st with the narrowest of margins (11 points).

http://www.autozeitung.de/node/381577/tabelle

For someone to even consider doing a comparison test give credibility to my claim but for the TT-RS to actually win almost proves I was right.

[mPlasticDesign]

To 100mph it would be close, maybe like 0.5sec diff, but thats when the party is over for the TT. To 150mph the gap opens up to 2.7sec!!! How many car legnths is that? 'one-thousand-one, one-thousand-two, one-thousand.....' you get the picture! And those are the M3 saloon/sedan numbers I'm comparing to. I expected more from the RS...


For comparison, same mag:
http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/carg...m3_saloon.html

[Jonmartin]

Ring times:

R8 8:04
BMW M3 8:05

I call that barely hanging in there....

[mPlasticDesign]

Originally Posted by footie

Also here's two video featuring Z4Ms, one racing a TT-RS and the other an RS4. Guess which one pulls the longest and hardest.

[u2b]Rgw282Q602k&feature=related[/u2b]

I think the Mcoupe perfomed quite well next to that RS4. This just makes me want an Mcoupe again.

[footie]

Originally Posted by ///Metak

To 100mph it would be close, maybe like 0.5sec diff, but thats when the party is over for the TT. To 150mph the gap opens up to 2.7sec!!! How many car legnths is that? 'one-thousand-one, one-thousand-two, one-thousand.....' you get the picture! And those are the M3 saloon/sedan numbers I'm comparing to. I expected more from the RS...


For comparison, same mag:
http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/carg...m3_saloon.html

You ask how much distance the M3 will have pulled on the TT, good question, lets see.

M3 - -TT-RS
0-30 2.0 - 1.6
0-40 2.8 - 2.5
0-50 3.9 - 3.5
0-60 4.9 - 4.4
0-70 6.2 - 5.9
0-80 7.6 - 7.3
0-90 9.1 - 8.8
0-100 10.7 - 11.1
0-110 12.9 - 13.2
0-120 15.3 - 15.6
0-130 17.9 - 19.3
0-140 21.8 - 23.3
0-150 25.8 - 28.5

I'm best guess is the TT-RS would be doing approximately 145-6mph when the M3 reached 150mph so work out what distance 4mph you will have travelled at 4-5mph after 2.7s. I'm guessing it wouldn't be very much.

Now lets look at the in-gear times to see if the M3 is still pulling ahead.

IN-GEAR TIMES (3RD)
M3 -----TT-RS
20-40 3.3 - 2.8
30-50 3.1 - 2.4
40-60 3.0 - 2.4
50-70 3.0 - 2.5
60-80 3.0 - 2.6
70-90 3.1 - 2.8

IN-GEAR TIMES (4TH)
20-40 4.2 - 4.3
30-50 4.2 - 3.3
40-60 4.1 - 3.1
50-70 3.9 - 3.3
60-80 4.0 - 3.4
70-90 4.2 - 3.5
80-100 4.3 - 3.7
90-110 4.5 - 4.0

IN-GEAR TIMES (5TH)
20-40 4.8 - 6.3
30-50 4.8 - 4.7
40-60 4.9 - 4.1
50-70 4.8 - 4.1
60-80 4.5 - 4.3
70-90 4.9 - 4.5
80-100 5.3 - 4.6

IN-GEAR TIMES (6TH)
30-50 6.2 - 8.3
40-60 6.2 - 6.9
50-70 5.9 - 5.8
60-80 5.8 - 5.5
70-90 5.9 - 5.9
80-100 6.2 - 6.2

In every gear bar sixth the TT-RS destroyed the M3 and even in sixth is right on terms with the M3. Where is all this mighty torque at the wheels that so many people talked about.

If you guys can't see that the TT-RS is every bit the rival to the M3 as any other car of this caliber then you can't admit to the fact that Audi are capable of rivalling BMW as a brand. It's a bit like not seeing the wood for the tree.

[footie]

Originally Posted by Jonmartin

Ring times:

R8 8:04
BMW M3 8:05

I call that barely hanging in there....

I think you will find that time has been revised to either 8:01 or 7:58, can't recall which was the official one. The 8:04 was done without MR (Magneticride suspension) and it was remarked that it didn't appear to be pulling well at the top end, a major problem on the final straight just before the finish. But else where the R8 almost always pulls clear air between it and the M3 on other tracks, don;t think anyone would argue with that fact.

[Jonmartin]

Originally Posted by footie

I think you will find that time has been revised to either 8:01 or 7:58, can't recall which was the official one. The 8:04 was done without MR (Magneticride suspension) and it was remarked that it didn't appear to be pulling well at the top end, a major problem on the final straight just before the finish. But else where the R8 almost always pulls clear air between it and the M3 on other tracks, don;t think anyone would argue with that fact.

What other proof is there?

[footie]

Originally Posted by Jonmartin

What other proof is there?

Audi R84.2FSI vs M3 (M3 times are on the right )

Nordschleife 8:01.90 (FL) 8:05
Hockenheim Short 1:12.7 1:14.3
Vairano Handling Course 1:18.460 1:20.910
Bedford Autodrome West Circuit (2004 - 06/2008) 1:22.10 1:26.60
Oschersleben 1:47.57 1:47.20
Willow Springs 1:33.20 1:36.92
Laguna Seca 1:40.8 1:42.964
Virginia International Raceway 3:04.6 3:05.6
Zolder 1:45.88 1:49.31
Autozeitung test track 1:39.8 1:40.1
Balocco 2:52.78 2:56.51
Bedford Autodrome East Circuit 1:04.1 1:07.1
Contidrom 1:33.46 1:35.41
SportAuto wet handling test 1:29.0 1:32.4
Bedford aut.wet handling test 51.95 54.50
Nurburgring GP (3.7 km) 1:44.11 1:44.86
Rockingham 1:23.83 1:25.58
Serres Racing Circuit 1:30.95 1:33.05
Inta 1:11.08 1:12.36
Auto Club Speedway 54.34 56.39
Autocar Wet Handling Track 1:08.20 1:16.9
Willow Springs - Streets of Willow (1.7 miles) 1:10.66 1:12.70
El Toro 41.12 42.74
Camden Airport 1:11.87 (wet) 1:13.40
Circuit de Nevers Magny-Cours 1:24.22 1:27.40 (19"rims)
Kyalami 2:04.8 2:05.4

I highlighted all the ones where the R8 was quicker by more than one second, boy I nearly ran out of red ink.

[southlight]

Footie, the official Sportauto time is still 8:04. I don't know where the 8:01 comes from. (Not that it would change much ).


Best regards,
south