Audi TT-S revealed

[GAM3OVR85]

looks nice, but there is no space in the back.

[94JZA80]

Originally Posted by footie

I wonder how close this will get to the Z4M in term of driving experience?

well the article said nothing about Quattro, but some people here claim that it will come equipped with Quattro. so not only is it making less powerthan the M right off the bat, but the difference grows by the time that power reaches the ground, as Audi's Quattro will suck up more power/torque than BMW's RWD drivetrain. in addition, if the motor is the ONLY means of reducing the TT's weight, than it can't be that much lighter than its overweight predecessors. it might come close in performance to the M, but i have my doubts...and in terms of pure driving experience, i don't think this new TT will come close to the M.


...but i guess we'll just have to wait and see


EDIT: just saw the published weight figures on page 2. that's a promising drop in weight over the previous TT. its lack of power to the wheels still makes me a skeptic though. and you can't really argue that Quattro will save the TT when the M Coupe already handles so well. when is this TT-S due to hit the streets anyways? they look worlds better than the previous body style...

[phantom330]

Not to be a hater but I've always thought of the TT as a "girly man" car.

[335i4u2nv]

its a womans car!

[hks786]

Originally Posted by 335i4u2nv

its a womans car!

wow such mixed opinion on this car. Personally I think Audi did a great job with the new TT. I love the S-line, S and now it appears that there will be a RS model too

[Hawkeye]

Originally Posted by Crimson92

should give a z4m a run for the money...if the suspension is tuned properly

This is just comical. It might give the Z4 3.0si a run for it's money, but definitely not the M.

[omg516]

The z4m in the hands of a capable driver should be able to have its way with the TT-S. Granted I'm sure that it will be much easier for an average driver to drive quickly and confidently with the TT-S.

[94JZA80]

Originally Posted by omg516

The z4m in the hands of a capable driver should be able to have its way with the TT-S. Granted I'm sure that it will be much easier for an average driver to drive quickly and confidently with the TT-S.

agreed.

[footie]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye

This is just comical. It might give the Z4 3.0si a run for it's money, but definitely not the M.

If you were purely talking about straight line speed and acceleration then I would totally agree with that, the TTS would be capable to compete as it's only about 150lbs lighter and is down 70hp. But on a average road with imperfections then I would expect the TTS to do more than sit on it's rear bumper, I would be expecting it to have the lights flashing and the indicator going to tell the Z4M driver to pull out of the way and let the quicker car through.

[94JZA80]

Originally Posted by footie

If you were purely talking about straight line speed and acceleration then I would totally agree with that, the TTS would be capable to compete as it's only about 150lbs lighter and is down 70hp. But on a average road with imperfections then I would expect the TTS to do more than sit on it's rear bumper, I would be expecting it to have the lights flashing and the indicator going to tell the Z4M driver to pull out of the way and let the quicker car through.

hmm...i'm not really sure how you logically came to that expectation...especially when ///M's are known for carving up corners, not just being fast in a straight line, and they maintain that reputation more so than Audi does. also, that 70hp difference in crank HP is actually a larger difference at the wheels because the TTS loses more power/torque through the AWD drivetrain than does a Z4M through its RWD drivetrain (specifically, according to simple calculations, the Z4M will put down in the neighborhood of 85 WHP more than the TTS). and the last time i checked, a deficit of 150-lbs is not enough to offset a deficit of 85whp, on the straights OR in the turns. anyways, we could throw numbers back and forth all day, but the truth will never be known until someone can test the two out side by side. in the mean time, based on pure speculation, i'll have to assume that the Z4M will be the "quicker" car.

[southlight]

Originally Posted by footie

...the TTS would be capable to compete as it's only about 150lbs lighter and is down 70hp..

Best regards, south

[Hawkeye]

Originally Posted by footie

But on a average road with imperfections then I would expect the TTS to do more than sit on it's rear bumper, I would be expecting it to have the lights flashing and the indicator going to tell the Z4M driver to pull out of the way and let the quicker car through.

You apparently have never driven a Z4, much less an M. It handles wonderfully on a "normal" road with imperfections, and it will still not just overpower the Audi but it will out handle it as well. I would be willing to put money on this.

[footie]

South,

You where correct, when I checked the TTS and the Z4M Coupe their respective weights were 1395Kgs and 1495Kgs which is 100Kgs (220lbs) of a difference.

94JZA80,

You reckon that the AWD system in the TT will sap power in the same way as it does in the RS4, sorry mate but the TT is a Haldex system which in normal use is putting 95% of the power to the front and everyone knows that fwd car lose less power to the wheels than rwd systems so lets just say that they are about even to save arguments.

Back to my original comments, an average road means with bumps, bad surfaces and the occasional pot hole, all of these give the Z4M Coupe problems, it's steering is very twitchy and such a road would require a very brave pilot to keep the foot planted. I know that the TT is a very capable car and it's grip at the front it extremely good, how much better the TTS will be is unknown but I reckon it will be right up there with the Cayman S which the last time I looked was ahead of the Z4M.

Like I said straight line racing it will be a victory for the BMW but I think you will all be surprised by the TTS when it gets tested.

[footie]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye

You apparently have never driven a Z4, much less an M. It handles wonderfully on a "normal" road with imperfections, and it will still not just overpower the Audi but it will out handle it as well. I would be willing to put money on this.

Actually I have not only driven all forms of the Z4 Roadster and Coupe from the 2.5L up to the 3.2 M versions and the Z4M Coupe is the worst behaved of all the Z4s on the road. The best without a doubt is the Z4 3.0S Coupe and on the road it's steering and suspension is better suited than the M version which in my opinion is brilliant on the track but less so on the road. Tell me have you driven the Z4M Coupe because your comments lead me to believe you haven't.

P.S.

It's PTW is just behind the E92 M3 and yet it's only capable of 8:15 on the ring, a full 10 seconds slower than the M3, it may handle well on a race track but on a road which the ring basically is it isn't as good as you think.

[southlight]

Originally Posted by footie

South,

You where correct, when I checked the TTS and the Z4M Coupe their respective weights were 1395Kgs and 1495Kgs which is 100Kgs (220lbs) of a difference.

Originally Posted by footie

South, I understand what you are saying about the ptw between the TT/S and the Z4M but the Audi does look to be punching above it's weight, 5.2s to 60mph isn't the sort of figures one expects from something weighing 1470Kgs (remember to add 75kgs) and having 272hp. I reckon the true figure may be closer to 290hp.

Best regards, south

[94JZA80]

Originally Posted by footie

94JZA80,

You reckon that the AWD system in the TT will sap power in the same way as it does in the RS4, sorry mate but the TT is a Haldex system which in normal use is putting 95% of the power to the front and everyone knows that fwd car lose less power to the wheels than rwd systems so lets just say that they are about even to save arguments.

but it is this simple fact - the fact that FWD saps less power/torque than RWD - that causes the common misconception that FWD gets a larger percentage of power/torque to the ground. you're forgetting all about traction. suppose two cars, one Haldex AWD and the other RWD, have identical weight and weight distribution, and both make the same HP/TQ at the crank. it then follows that, upon launching from a stand-still, the rear ends of both cars will squat, transferring load to the rear. likewise, the fronts of both cars will lift upwards, removing the load (and a fair amount of weight) that holds those front wheels to the ground. this plays to the advantage of the RWD car and to the disadvantage of the AWD car (unless by some ungodly reason the Haldex AWD car has enough weight over the front axle to keep the front tires from breaking loose under hard acceleration - and if it DOES have enough weight to keep the front tires from spinning badly, then the car is not balanced very well - aka its front heavy). but for now lets assume that it isn't front heavy, and that it isn't too heave over the front axle. then if follows that, despite losing only minimal power/torque through the Haldex, the front wheels WILL spin, and the Haldex WILL transfer much more than 5% of the power/torque to the rear wheels, at which point the Haldex AWD system is sapping just as much power as any other AWD system. in other words, the only time it doesn't sap as much power as other AWD systems is during normal/daily/non-intense driving. under hard driving, that Haldex is no longer splitting power/torque 95/5, and it is no longer sapping as little as 12% of crank HP/TQ - it is sapping more than that.

but for argument's sake, let's suppose that the Haldex AWD car only saps as little as 12% of crank HP/TQ when 95% of HP/TQ is going to the front wheels. let's also suppose that the RWD saps 15% of its HP/TQ, and that both cars make 300 crank HP. based on these drivetrain loss percentages, the Haldex AWD would make 264hp at the front wheels and the RWD would make 255whp. now add the fact that the moment they launch, the shift in weight toward the back (and away from the front) of the vehicles will play to the advantage of the RWD and cause the Haldex AWD to transfer all sorts of HP/TQ to the rear wheels. as the HP/TQ split of the Haldex AWD system approaches 50/50 front/rear, so does the drivetrain loss approach 25% just like any other AWD system...all of the sudden the AWD car's 9whp advantage doesn't seem so significant, especially when traction issues are induced in a launch situation, or any intense driving situation for that matter.

now let's treat the situation realistically. wheel HP would be in favor of the RWD car b/c the Haldex AWD will never sap as little as only 12% when the HP/TQ split is anything other than 95/5. in fact, during a launch, when the Haldex may be transferring as much as 50% of the HP/TQ to the rear wheels, it is sapping closer to 25%, resulting in closer to 200whp. so again, all other things being equal (such as crank HP output), the RWD puts more power to the ground (despite making less HP at the wheels) than the Haldex AWD operating in FWD mode simply because of the initial traction problems that cause the front wheels of the Haldex AWD system to spin and the front/rear HP/TQ split to approach 50/50, causing greater drivetrain loss than a RWD car of identical crank HP.


EDIT - holy crap i just realized how long a response that was

[T Bone]

Originally Posted by footie

South,

You where correct, when I checked the TTS and the Z4M Coupe their respective weights were 1395Kgs and 1495Kgs which is 100Kgs (220lbs) of a difference.

94JZA80,

You reckon that the AWD system in the TT will sap power in the same way as it does in the RS4, sorry mate but the TT is a Haldex system which in normal use is putting 95% of the power to the front and everyone knows that fwd car lose less power to the wheels than rwd systems so lets just say that they are about even to save arguments.

Back to my original comments, an average road means with bumps, bad surfaces and the occasional pot hole, all of these give the Z4M Coupe problems, it's steering is very twitchy and such a road would require a very brave pilot to keep the foot planted. I know that the TT is a very capable car and it's grip at the front it extremely good, how much better the TTS will be is unknown but I reckon it will be right up there with the Cayman S which the last time I looked was ahead of the Z4M.

Like I said straight line racing it will be a victory for the BMW but I think you will all be surprised by the TTS when it gets tested.

You are forgetting the most important technical argument....

You need to be a girl to drive the TTS, which means that it is of no interest to anyone on this board

[footie]

Originally Posted by 94JZA80

now let's treat the situation realistically. wheel HP would be in favor of the RWD car b/c the Haldex AWD will never sap as little as only 12% when the HP/TQ split is anything other than 95/5. in fact, during a launch, when the Haldex may be transferring as much as 50% of the HP/TQ to the rear wheels, it is sapping closer to 25%, resulting in closer to 200whp. so again, all other things being equal (such as crank HP output), the RWD puts more power to the ground (despite making less HP at the wheels) than the Haldex AWD operating in FWD mode simply because of the initial traction problems that cause the front wheels of the Haldex AWD system to spin and the front/rear HP/TQ split to approach 50/50, causing greater drivetrain loss than a RWD car of identical crank HP.


EDIT - holy crap i just realized how long a response that was

Long response but still interesting.

You are quite correct that when the Haldex system does transfer more power to the rear is will sap more power be the reality is it never takes as much as the true original quattro system which many believe takes 25% ,myself I seem to doubt this based on comparison tests RS4 vs M3 but for argument sake lets say it saps 20%. So in the 1s that the front wheels break traction that 50% of power is shifted to the rear before being shifted again to the front over the next say 1.5s the TTS will only be making 220hp for the first second and about 240hp for the further 1.5s before the full power is returned. The lose of power and the extra traction will cancel each other out, but the fact remains it will get to 60mph in 5.0s, still not quick enough to equal the Z4M but that was never my argument in the first place.

I was and still remains, that the TTS on anything other than a perfectly surfaced road will be as quick if not quicker than the Z4M Coupe. And I won't be surprised to hear if in the hand of SportAuto it's quicker than the Cayman S on the track.

[footie]

Originally Posted by T Bone

You are forgetting the most important technical argument....

You need to be a girl to drive the TTS, which means that it is of no interest to anyone on this board

That board is actually for non-BMW cars which means it is of interest to them, it might not be of interest to you but than again unless it has a BMW badge nothing ever is.

[T Bone]

Originally Posted by footie

That board is actually for non-BMW cars which means it is of interest to them, it might not be of interest to you but than again unless it has a BMW badge nothing ever is.

Not what I meant, I will be more explicit so that even you understand. TTS = Girl, no girls on this board.

[TheAcAvenger]

I'd agree with you for the last generation, T Bone. This generation TT doesn't seem as feminine at all. I was at a light beside one last weekend and it really caught my eye. Well, at least in coupe form.

[footie]

Originally Posted by T Bone

Not what I meant, I will be more explicit so that even you understand. TTS = Girl, no girls on this board.

So what you are basically saying is no girls are allowed on this board and that is according to you and your rules.

Who died and made you king.

P.S.

I think if you check, BMW employ a certain lady to drive their new M3 Taxi around the ring and I don't bet, I know she would comfortably whip your arse in a car but oh no that impossible because she's a girl.

T-Bone your Audi remarks are getting old and wearing thin.