EVO tests the Audi TT-RS

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by footie

...What was the times and speed for the 135i?

Very close at 13.3 and 105 mph. As the speeds rose, the 135i was a little stronger than the TT-S as you'd expect.

[footie]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Very close at 13.3 and 105 mph. As the speeds rose, the 135i was a little stronger than the TT-S as you'd expect.

Yeah that how we found it over here, no substitute for awd traction off the line but then there's no substitute for cubic inch as speed increases. All things considered the little 2.0L put up a good fight, in fact showing how weak in comparison the 35i engine really is.

P.S.
Compared to the 2.5TFSI the 35i is kids play, lbs for lbs it destroys it.

[Garissimo]

Originally Posted by footie

Yeah that how we found it over here, no substitute for awd traction off the line but then there's no substitute for cubic inch as speed increases. All things considered the little 2.0L put up a good fight, in fact showing how weak in comparison the 35i engine really is.

Let's not go overboard here. There is nothing weak about the N54. The 135i lost the comparison based on the shortcomings of its suspension. The R&T editors specifically mentioned that in all real world roll-on acceleration tests, the 135i put car lengths on the TT-S.

Originally Posted by footie

P.S.
Compared to the 2.5TFSI the 35i is kids play, lbs for lbs it destroys it.

Keep in mind that BMW deliberately detunes the N54 from the factory. I have no doubt that if BMW really wanted 340hp out of the N54, they could easily achieve that and still maintain emissions, driveability, longevity, etc.

[Jonmartin]

Originally Posted by Garissimo

Let's not go overboard here. There is nothing weak about the N54. The 135i lost the comparison based on the shortcomings of its suspension. The R&T editors specifically mentioned that in all real world roll-on acceleration tests, the 135i put car lengths on the TT-S.



Keep in mind that BMW deliberately detunes the N54 from the factory. I have no doubt that if BMW really wanted 340hp out of the N54, they could easily achieve that and still maintain emissions, driveability, longevity, etc.

+1 Lets see a few 11 second tt's Over the last week someone put down an 11.3@ 124mph on stock turbos hows that for "weak".

[footie]

Originally Posted by Garissimo

Let's not go overboard here. There is nothing weak about the N54. The 135i lost the comparison based on the shortcomings of its suspension. The R&T editors specifically mentioned that in all real world roll-on acceleration tests, the 135i put car lengths on the TT-S.



Keep in mind that BMW deliberately detunes the N54 from the factory. I have no doubt that if BMW really wanted 340hp out of the N54, they could easily achieve that and still maintain emissions, driveability, longevity, etc.

So defensive without understanding what I meant be the word weak. What Audi showed with the TT-S and it's 2.0TFSI is that BMW basically did no development work with the N54, an improvement of 30hp (10hp per litre) over the stock N/A version is extremely weak. The TT-S is extremely reliable and economical yet pushes 135hp/L compared to the N54 with only 102hp/L, even the M3 produces more per litre.

Sure the engine is capable of so much more but is that the point, even it's torque band width is nothing special. When you expect so much from BMW and get this it just says one thing to me........weak.

Originally Posted by Jonmartin

+1 Lets see a few 11 second tt's Over the last week someone put down an 11.3@ 124mph on stock turbos hows that for "weak".

Would a tuned TT-S be capable of this kind of speed? I seriously doubt it but then again there is some examples pushing 400hp so anything is possible.

[RealSanaii]

Footie,
As much as I love Audi , it is tiring to hear TT-RS as a 'rival' with M3.
Isn't Audi TT-RS smaller,lighter sports car compare to M3? Even the M3 coupe got some back seats available for 2 adults while TT could barley fit anyone.
And just because they have similar performance, doesn't mean that they are rivals. ( R8 vs. M3 on quartermile race is quite similar as well but I wouldn't dare compare the M3 to R8). I love the TT-RS and it's just a different car for different people.

[Garissimo]

Originally Posted by footie

So defensive without understanding what I meant be the word weak. What Audi showed with the TT-S and it's 2.0TFSI is that BMW basically did no development work with the N54, an improvement of 30hp (10hp per litre) over the stock N/A version is extremely weak. The TT-S is extremely reliable and economical yet pushes 135hp/L compared to the N54 with only 102hp/L, even the M3 produces more per litre.

I don't think I'm being that defensive and yes, I understood that you were driving at specific output when you used the term "weak". Frankly, I find the "Specific output" argument weak The fact is that the 135i bested the lighter TT-S in R&T's roll-on acceleration tests while returning virtually identical mileage over their test loop. And I don't know how you can come to the conclusion that BMW did no development work on an engine that won international engine of the year in 2007 and 2008.

Originally Posted by footie

Sure the engine is capable of so much more but is that the point, even it's torque band width is nothing special. When you expect so much from BMW and get this it just says one thing to me........weak.

The torque band is nothing special? I disagree in the strongest terms. After logging over 8,000 miles with one I can safely say that for daily driving, the N54's torque band is ideal. In fact, with the possible exceptions of Audi's new 2.7T engine, nothing it its class can touch it.

Seriously, I applaud Audi for turning up the wick on the 2.0T and really do hope they bring the TT-RS stateside. But the fact that Audi is finally bringing some decent firepower to the table doesn't diminish what BMW has done with the N54.

[Jonmartin]

Originally Posted by footie

So defensive without understanding what I meant be the word weak. What Audi showed with the TT-S and it's 2.0TFSI is that BMW basically did no development work with the N54, an improvement of 30hp (10hp per litre) over the stock N/A version is extremely weak. The TT-S is extremely reliable and economical yet pushes 135hp/L compared to the N54 with only 102hp/L, even the M3 produces more per litre.

Sure the engine is capable of so much more but is that the point, even it's torque band width is nothing special. When you expect so much from BMW and get this it just says one thing to me........weak.



Would a tuned TT-S be capable of this kind of speed? I seriously doubt it but then again there is some examples pushing 400hp so anything is possible.

Ya 400hp big wow tuned N54's are pushing over 400WHP easily gimme a break lol. And I've had two 335's one with 390whp (manual) and one with 415whp (Auto) and put over 55,000 miles on the older one with no issues whatsoever other then the sparkplugs needing to be changed more frequently due to the power lever but a set of sparkplugs every ~25,000 miles isnt even worth talking about at that power level.

[Year's_End]

Originally Posted by footie

So defensive without understanding what I meant be the word weak. What Audi showed with the TT-S and it's 2.0TFSI is that BMW basically did no development work with the N54, an improvement of 30hp (10hp per litre) over the stock N/A version is extremely weak. The TT-S is extremely reliable and economical yet pushes 135hp/L compared to the N54 with only 102hp/L, even the M3 produces more per litre.

Sure the engine is capable of so much more but is that the point, even it's torque band width is nothing special. When you expect so much from BMW and get this it just says one thing to me........weak.

I'm sorry Footie, but you have serious, serious issues with the N54. You've made it more than apparent in your posting history.

Swamp is right. You always talk of Audi in the best light, using words like "mighty" or whatever; words that you would never (have never, as far as I've read) use to describe any BMW.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by swamp2

In gear times are not very meaningful in the real world. This is the same type of data that big proponents of aftermarket diffs with higher FD ratios like to get confused about. Sometimes a diff helps with overall multi-gear acceleration but other times it can only help in gear numbers.

Beg to differ. These times show the TT-RS has grunt in each gear, while the M3 needs the right-hand side of the tach to really fly.

This is not a value judgment. Some folks love that grunt, and others love how the M3 comes alive and blows you away when hitting the big numbers.

I love both, but as I've mentioned before, there is no way you can get lazy speed out of an M3, so there isn't a way to drive under the radar, so to speak.

Bruce

[graider]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Beg to differ. These times show the TT-RS has grunt in each gear, while the M3 needs the right-hand side of the tach to really fly.

This is not a value judgment. Some folks love that grunt, and others love how the M3 comes alive and blows you away when hitting the big numbers.

I love both, but as I've mentioned before, there is no way you can get lazy speed out of an M3, so there isn't a way to drive under the radar, so to speak.

Bruce

I'm confused by your argument. what kind of speed under the radar are you referring to. the m3 can reach 70mph speed limit in pretty much all US highway in a blink of an eye even if you just keep the needle below 4k rpm.

And you don't get lazy when speeding. Speed means fast, both rpm and actual speed. That is what it is all about.

I mean if you just want lazy lazy speed, 95% of car on the road can give you that because that is how they are built. but you can only find very few with the high rev character of the m3, gt3, ferrari, r8. To me that is special.

low rev engine. well nothing really special to write home about. but sure they do give you that lazy driving feel.

[Jonmartin]

Originally Posted by graider

I'm confused by your argument. what kind of speed under the radar are you referring to. the m3 can reach 70mph speed limit in pretty much all US highway in a blink of an eye even if you just keep the needle below 4k rpm.

And you don't get lazy when speeding. Speed means fast, both rpm and actual speed. That is what it is all about.

I mean if you just want lazy lazy speed, 95% of car on the road can give you that because that is how they are built. but you can only find very few with the high rev character of the m3, gt3, ferrari, r8. To me that is special.

low rev engine. well nothing really special to write home about. but sure they do give you that lazy driving feel.

+1 Dunno what hes getting at lol.. I hit 80mph and not even realize it most of the time. I think everyone is too infatuated with the feeling of alot of torque and honestly I was one before when I had the 335 and 430wtq I didn't think the M3 would have any real chance of feeling impressive to me but in fact it does and more so. The Gearing in the M3 makes up for the so called lack of torque.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by graider

I'm confused by your argument. what kind of speed under the radar are you referring to. the m3 can reach 70mph speed limit in pretty much all US highway in a blink of an eye even if you just keep the needle below 4k rpm...

Lazy speed means you can get down the road effortlessly and very quickly from a low rpm in a higher gear...

...and no one is the wiser, including the significant other in the right seat, passersby, cops...

Your statement above is complete nonsense. Below 4k, you've got a moderately quick vehicle, and that's all. You need to be on the right side of the tach to reach the magic. Nothing wrong with that, and some folks wouldn't have it any other way - yourself included, I guess. Just don't put down cars that make torque with their horsepower. Effortless "lazy" speed is appreciated by some.

Bruce

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Beg to differ. These times show the TT-RS has grunt in each gear, while the M3 needs the right-hand side of the tach to really fly.

This is not a value judgment. Some folks love that grunt, and others love how the M3 comes alive and blows you away when hitting the big numbers.

I love both, but as I've mentioned before, there is no way you can get lazy speed out of an M3, so there isn't a way to drive under the radar, so to speak.

Bruce

Fine, I'll beg to differ right back. We (the forum) have had this same debate and I have had flavors of it with others on topics that are seemingly unrelated but in fact are basically the same debate. It IS a value judgement. I am not saying 30-50 in 6th is unimportant for all driving styles I am just saying if you choose to drive you car in a purposefully in a slow/crippled fashion you will get what you ask for, sure perhaps more so with the M3 that with a FI car but who really cares? I don't care if my car is loud when I am driving fast, hell I wish it was louder. IMHO even ignoring the very good acoustic isolation of the M3s cabin, the exhaust at WOT could be quite a bit louder. If you are so paranoid about a ticket from being observed by the police from your cars acoustics and based on that you want to do all of your aggressive driving at part throttle go ahead, have fun, but when I want to get on it I simply have no issues whatsoever using WOT, the right gear and all of the gears required.

The same debate surfaced in the torque vs. hp debate, the part throttle debate and in the FD swap debate as well. Sure, if you want to talk about in gear "grunt", part throttle performance, in gear acceleration times and instantaneous (or very short duration) acceleration feel then absolutely TT-RS all the way. But as soon as you allow for using what you have (meaning WOT, the best initial gear possible and the acceleration across multiple gears) it becomes a no brainer in favor of the M3. How many real races be them street, strip or track involve only a single gear? That was my point earlier to foot and now my point to you as well. I also not saying I personally don't like low rpm torque and the exhilarating feeling of strong in gear performance figures. But you have to accept that the enjoyment of these things is subjective and a preference rather than an overall measure of the best a particular car can offer.

[footie]

Swamp, I read your words but they make not sense. What you witnessed in the figures I provided was full acceleration from each car in the lower gears, the gears where the TT had the most difference over the M3.

[mPlasticDesign]

Originally Posted by footie

Swamp, I read your words but they make not sense. What you witnessed in the figures I provided was full acceleration from each car in the lower gears, the gears where the TT had the most difference over the M3.

Do these words make sense yet,

...the M3 is 2.7sec FASTER than the TT RS, and the distance between the two cars...? When the results are not in your favor your response:

Originally Posted by footie

.....2.7s. I'm guessing it wouldn't be very much.

If the tables were turned and the Audi was 2.7sec faster to 150mph I'm guessing the difference would go from "not much" to the Grand Canyon...lololol

[Jonmartin]

Originally Posted by ///Metak

Do these words make sense yet,

...the M3 is 2.7sec FASTER than the TT RS, and the distance between the two cars...? When the results are not in your favor your response:



If the tables were turned and the Audi was 2.7sec faster to 150mph I'm guessing the difference would go from "not much" to the Grand Canyon...lololol

2.7 seconds in a run is like at least 5 car lenghts at that speed. Where I'm from we call that an ass whooping.

[footie]

Originally Posted by ///Metak

Do these words make sense yet,

...the M3 is 2.7sec FASTER than the TT RS, and the distance between the two cars...? When the results are not in your favor your response:

Well we have discussed this numerous times before and I have always stuck to my guns. The fact remains that when the M3 reaches the magic 150mph mark the TT will only be about 4 mph behind it, look at the data and tell me I'm wrong.

Originally Posted by ///Metak

If the tables were turned and the Audi was 2.7sec faster to 150mph I'm guessing the difference would go from "not much" to the Grand Canyon...lololol

Not at all, but then just because I call it as it is and don't sugar cover everything BMW makes me somehow anti-BMW and somehow pro-Audi, I have defended quite a few brands and cars, Porsche, Nissan, Mercedes, VW, Audi and countless other but only when the data and fact seem right to me, oh and by the way I defend the M3 when required, but again only when the facts appear to be right and on this occasion they don't.

[footie]

Originally Posted by Jonmartin

2.7 seconds in a run is like at least 5 car lenghts at that speed. Where I'm from we call that an ass whooping.

I'm not so sure that you will see 5 lengths. The CXX that raced the F430 a while back beat it by roughly 5~8 car lengths and when you look at the data between them two and what we see between the TT and the M3 I don't see a match. My best guess is 3 car lengths at most but probably closer to 2.

Remember, the data we have is from a standing start, not rolling as GTBoard prefer, from a rolling start maybe you will get a bit closer to the 5 car lengths but until likewise test is done it's all guesswork.

M3 - -TT-RS
0-30 2.0 - 1.6 (-0.4)
0-40 2.8 - 2.5 (-0.3)
0-50 3.9 - 3.5 (-0.4)
0-60 4.9 - 4.4 (-0.5) Both shift after 60mph
0-70 6.2 - 5.9 (-0.3)
0-80 7.6 - 7.3 (-0.3)
0-90 9.1 - 8.8 (-0.3)
0-100 10.7 - 11.1 (+0.4) Change to 4th for the TT-RS, M3 shifts after 100mph
0-110 12.9 - 13.2 (+0.3)
0-120 15.3 - 15.6 (+0.3)
0-130 17.9 - 19.3 (+1.4) Change to 5th for the TT-RS, M3 shifts after 130mph
0-140 21.8 - 23.3 (+1.5)
0-150 25.8 - 28.5 (+2.7)

Looking at the data again, you can see that all of the M3's gains happen above the 120mph mark, it jumps over a second between 120mph and 130mph, this I know is a shift point to fifth for the TT-RS and one thing that isn't great about the TT is the gearshift. This opinion that the gear shift is affecting it's time between these speed markers seems to be correct because the M3 gains only 0.1s on the next 10mph segment. So I'm sticking to my guns and calling it 2~3 car lengths at best.

[mPlasticDesign]

Originally Posted by footie

.....Not at all, but then just because I call it as it is and don't sugar cover everything BMW makes me somehow anti-BMW and somehow pro-Audi, I have defended quite a few brands and cars, Porsche, Nissan, Mercedes, VW, Audi and countless other but only when the data and fact seem right to me, oh and by the way I defend the M3 when required, but again only when the facts appear to be right and on this occasion they don't.

Say what you want, either you just like to argue or you just can't hide your bias very well. When you use words like "destroy" to describe the in gear comparison of the TT vs. M3 and then you say several car legnths to 150mph in favor of the M3 is "not much", what else is there to say?

[footie]

Originally Posted by ///Metak

Say what you want, either you just like to argue or you just can't hide your bias very well. When you use words like "destroy" to describe the in gear comparison of the TT vs. M3 and then you say several car legnths to 150mph in favor of the M3 is "not much", what else is there to say?

YES, the TT-RS DOES destroy the M3 in-gear, the data is there as proof positive. That's not me being pro-Audi and anti-BMW or arguing for the sake of it, it's a fact.

YES the M3 is quicker in all out acceleration, again I'm not denying that as a fact and if you read all I have said at the start of the thread you would know this fact, but unless you drive your car flat open in every gear (which is very unlikely) the TT-RS is the quicker car for normal situations and normal day to day driving. Also factor in that on the track these two post similar times or close enough to be regarded rivals from a performance perspective. Whether you would chose a TT instead of the M3 is not important, others clearly will because even the magazines are making the comparison in group tests.

Edit:
This in-gear debate is my whole problem with the M3, always has been, but now we know that BMW will be shifting to FI for the next one I personally believe it will be a much better car because of this, especially so in normal daily driving. After all the M3 as so many of you highlight it's a practical family car and not an all-out sportscar.

[M&M]

Originally Posted by footie

YES, the TT-RS DOES destroy the M3 in-gear,.

Only if you force the M3 into a particulart gear out of powerband for the magazine in gear testing. In the real world I will kick the clutch & downshift to the lowest possible gear & smoke the TT. Any questions?