Audi TT-RS, is it a true M3 rival?

[footie]

I read in this week's Autocar that details have been leaked of the new Audi TT-RS. The spec is true is mighty impressive

Engine : 2.5L 5cyl supercharger+turbo (4.0v8 N/A)
Weight : 1400kgs (255kgs less than the M3)
Power HP : 335hp (80hp less than the M3) over 15hp per ton less than M3
Torque : 330ft/lbs (30ft/lbs more than the M3) a lot more ft/lbs of torque per ton than M3
Acceleration 0-100km/h : 4.5s (0.2s quicker than the M3)
Topspeed : 170mph (15mph more than the M3)
Price : £45K ( £6K less than the M3)
Economy : 28mpg (22mpg for the M3)
Co2 Levels : 210 (295 for M3)

When you consider how much quicker than S3 achieved on the ring beyond what was expected you have to consider that the TT-RS will also out perform expectations and could very well beat the M3 around the ring, among other tracks as well.

A serious contender for the crown wouldn't you think.

[Congoman775]

the numbers say yes to being competative, but somehow i doubt it will really translate into better track performance

[footie]

Originally Posted by Congoman775

the numbers say yes to being competative, but somehow i doubt it will really translate into better track performance

I disagree, on the track the S3 is proving to be quite a star with very little output. Given the fact the TT-RS will weigh less (150kgs), have a better weight distribution and has racing brakes and rubber, more advanced awd system (possibly), better suspension system (definite) and have way more hp and torque with less lag I can't see how the thing won't be lightening on the track.

[swamp2]

Looks like a pretty good competitor on paper. Again the question IMO will be how they compare in hard fast twisties or on the track. Also, your top speed for the M3 is incorrect (unless you want to quote with the limiter, in which case it is close but not the official number).

[footie]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Looks like a pretty good competitor on paper. Again the question IMO will be how they compare in hard fast twisties or on the track. Also, your top speed for the M3 is incorrect (unless you want to quote with the limiter, in which case it is close but not the official number).

Agreed, on paper it looks very bit the M3 rival and for good reason. If the TT-RS can perform anything like the TT-S in twistie sections, of which I have little doubt it will be miles better, then I would have to say that things are looking very favourable indeed. Also to achieve a 100km/h in 4.5s means that at the very least it should be capable of the 200km/h in 16.5s minimum, which is within striking distance of the M3.

As for the top speed of the M3, officially it's 155mph, unofficially it's 162mph but it's true unlimited speed could be as high as 190mph. I think if the TT-RS can do 170mph that might be it true top speed or at least very close to that, maybe a couple or three mph higher at best.

I can't see it offering to same entertainment that the M3 is capable of, even the best awd system are only approaching this good and the Haldex system is more about controlling the slid instead of prolonging it. If you can get your thrills from the sheer speed it's capable of cornering at or the way it can change direction then the TT-RS could be Audi best effort to date at dethroning the M3.

[mixja]

I'm somewhat dubious of those torque figures - to get that much torque the turbos will have to run something like 16PSI...I'd believe 300lbft from factory for a 2.5L...

This will run nicely against EVOs and STIs, but I don't think it will beat the M3...heaps of tuning potential though...

[Congoman775]

Originally Posted by mixja

I'm somewhat dubious of those torque figures - to get that much torque the turbos will have to run something like 16PSI...I'd believe 300lbft from factory for a 2.5L...

This will run nicely against EVOs and STIs, but I don't think it will beat the M3...heaps of tuning potential though...

i am going to say its not going to be a better track car than an M3.. BUT it will be able to run with the m3.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by mixja

I'm somewhat dubious of those torque figures - to get that much torque the turbos will have to run something like 16PSI...I'd believe 300lbft from factory for a 2.5L...

I'm curious as to how you got that number. I figure 10-12 psi ought to do it, assuming reasonable (albeit not miraculous) aftercooling.

Bruce

[footie]

I'm also curious how you came to those figures?

Without any info about the revs both figures are produced you are making guess based on what?

Maybe you missed the fact that it's reportably running a supercharger as well as a turbo. This will probably mean the supercharger handles the low revs and hands over to the turbo for the higher stuff, which might explain the reported zero lag the system is running.

Also, why assume it won't match the M3 on the track, is this an opinion based on the belief the BMW are somehow better than the rest and the M3 is an beatable foe. If the current S3 and TT-S are anything to go by then the TT-RS should be very capable indeed. It all depends on whether the people at QuattroGmbH do a similar makeover to the one they did on the S4 which produced the RS4.

[Heat00]

yea but does it have 4 doors and a comfortable back seat

[mixja]

I'm basing my experience on having owned a 1390kg Subaru STI Spec C (2.0L) with around 320HP from the factory and around 310lbft peak torque...in its factory configuration, I don't think it would beat the M3 although it would be close and certainly depends on the track configuration...

With regards to how much boost, just going off basic turbo sizing knowledge for a 2.5L engine. Certainly on the Subaru 2.5L Boxer engine, which runs around 14-15PSI, it makes around 300lbft of torque.

330lbft at say 4000RPM = ~250HP (@ 4000RPM). If you run the equations making some basic assumptions about ambient temperature (70F), post-intercooler temperature (95F), intercooler pressure drop (0.5PSI), BSFC, volumetric efficiency (should be 100% or better at peak torque), I come up with ~16PSI required @ 4000RPM to make this much torque. If the engine is going to make 330HP @ 6500RPM, the boost required @ 6000RPM is only ~12.5PSI - but more boost is required in the mid-range to make the peak torque figure of 330lbft.

Of course there are many variables in figuring this stuff out, and if the Audi engine is more advanced (e.g. intake/exhaust variable cam timing) you'd expect the engine to operate with a higher volumetric efficiency over a wider RPM range, which will reduce the boost requirements of the turbo. I still would suggest the turbo would at the very least need to push out 14PSI at peak torque to make the suggested 330lbft fiture...

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by mixja

I'm basing my experience on having owned a 1390kg Subaru STI Spec C (2.0L) with around 320HP from the factory and around 310lbft peak torque...in its factory configuration, I don't think it would beat the M3 although it would be close and certainly depends on the track configuration...

With regards to how much boost, just going off basic turbo sizing knowledge for a 2.5L engine. Certainly on the Subaru 2.5L Boxer engine, which runs around 14-15PSI, it makes around 300lbft of torque.

330lbft at say 4000RPM = ~250HP (@ 4000RPM). If you run the equations making some basic assumptions about ambient temperature (70F), post-intercooler temperature (95F), intercooler pressure drop (0.5PSI), BSFC, volumetric efficiency (should be 100% or better at peak torque), I come up with ~16PSI required @ 4000RPM to make this much torque. If the engine is going to make 330HP @ 6500RPM, the boost required @ 6000RPM is only ~12.5PSI - but more boost is required in the mid-range to make the peak torque figure of 330lbft.

Of course there are many variables in figuring this stuff out, and if the Audi engine is more advanced (e.g. intake/exhaust variable cam timing) you'd expect the engine to operate with a higher volumetric efficiency over a wider RPM range, which will reduce the boost requirements of the turbo. I still would suggest the turbo would at the very least need to push out 14PSI at peak torque to make the suggested 330lbft fiture...

I don't in fact get any of this.

By that, I mean I actually understand what you're saying, but feel that essentially none of it is in any way meaningful. 4000 rpm, 6500 rpm, bsfc, ambient, pre and post intercooler air temps, etc. all without any meaning in this context.

I offer the Audi direct injection 2.0 four as a single data point. 258 pound feet out of two liters with 12 psi max (flash to as much as 15).

Tell you what, though. Rather than get into an argument over the precise size of a dimple on a pimple on a flea's left nut (which is typical of what swamp and I argue about), how about I come up to 14 psi, since you've already come down to that. Deal?

Bruce

[V8convert]

Supercharger + turbo?

[mixja]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

I don't in fact get any of this.

By that, I mean I actually understand what you're saying, but feel that essentially none of it is in any way meaningful. 4000 rpm, 6500 rpm, bsfc, ambient, pre and post intercooler air temps, etc. all without any meaning in this context.

I offer the Audi direct injection 2.0 four as a single data point. 258 pound feet out of two liters with 12 psi max (flash to as much as 15).

Tell you what, though. Rather than get into an argument over the precise size of a dimple on a pimple on a flea's left nut (which is typical of what swamp and I argue about), how about I come up to 14 psi, since you've already come down to that. Deal?

Bruce

OK, the Audi 2.0L is a good reference point especially since the capacity per cylinder is identical, so if that's how much it is making at 12PSI, then you'd expect the 2.5L should be able to make 330lbft with not too much more boost...it all comes down to how advanced the engine is and clearly the newer Audi Direct Injection engines are more advanced than the aging EJ257 Subaru Boxer engine (of which I have a reasonable amount of knowledge)...

If Audi do offer it with 330lbft of torque, good on them, it will be a mean machine and will be a great "slow in, fast out" point and shoot car, and will probably be quicker than the M3 for 90% of drivers out there (unless the track is an especially fast track)...

Having owned a 2007 RS4 with sports suspension and ceramic brakes, I'd probably buy the TT-RS if it has that spec as a fun/track machine, M3 sedan as the daily driver...

[Sticky]

Audi's have nice figures on paper that never translate into great numbers in reality. So it will have ~330 torque on paper, so what? With the higher drivetrain losses to 4 wheels it will be putting down the same if not less peak torque to the wheels.

It will have the typical nose heavy characteristics as there is only one Audi that doesn't have the majority of its weight in the front, and that is the R8 (Gallardo jr.)

Some of the things you post are misleading as well, top speed being higher for one. The M3 is electronically limited, its actual top speed is much higher.

The 0-60 figures you are using are quoted numbers, who cares? Actual numbers for the M3 seem to be in the low 4 second range. Not to mention that 0-60 is a traction limited figure, the 0-100 mph numbers for the M3 will be significantly faster.

[footie]

Originally Posted by Sticky

Audi's have nice figures on paper that never translate into great numbers in reality. So it will have ~330 torque on paper, so what? With the higher drivetrain losses to 4 wheels it will be putting down the same if not less peak torque to the wheels.

It will have the typical nose heavy characteristics as their is only one Audi that doesn't have the majority of its weight in the front, and that is the R8 (Gallardo jr.)

Not the type of person to argue for the sake of it.

Haldex is not like the torsen quattro system used in the rest of the range, it is primarily a fwd system which only transfers power to the rear when extra grip is needed, so with the exception of the standing start which will shift power briefly and in corners where grip is more important than hp the transmission lose should roughly be the same or there about to the rwd M3. That means there will be more of the 340hp+330ft/lbs getting used and less waste than expected.

This nose heavy argument is a total smoke and mirrors thing that most BMW owners using to dis either awd or fwd cars, fact is that is a very misunderstood debate. Nose weight isn't all that bad, it's down to how the suspension is setup to how much understeer is introduced. Audi normally add understeer as a safety issue but that doesn't have to be the case and there is numerous fwd cars which hardly understeer at all. Another thing nose weight does not translate to poor speed through the corner, again another myth that some BMW owners believe is true. Look at the TT-S and see how good it is through the corners in comparison to the 335i.

Originally Posted by Sticky

Some of the things you post are misleading as well, top speed being higher for one. The M3 is electronically limited, its actual top speed is much higher.

The 0-60 figures you are using are quoted numbers, who cares? Actual numbers for the M3 seem to be in the low 4 second range. Not to mention that 0-60 is a traction limited figure, the 0-100 mph numbers for the M3 will be significantly faster.

I know the M3 is limited, I was only highlighting the fact that the M3's topspeed is 155mph according to BMW where as the TT-RS might be 170mph according to the latest info. I don't think anyone was reading more into it.

Again I was only highlighting the 0-100km/h times of the TT-RS and showing how it is a true rival to the M3 on performance terms, that's all. If you don't feel it's a rival then no harm done, I on the other hand see things different and do see it as an alternative to the M3 if the rear seats aren't really a major issue.

[E90ice]

I drove the new TT (not RS) on a very small track and it was really quick. I also drove the S4 a few minutes later and felt substantially slower and much less agile than the TT.

I guess we'll have to wait for some real track numbers to see. But being a smaller car, I don't really see it as an M3 competitor, but maybe a Z4 M competitor.

[dar2008]

The Audi TT is a 2seater. On that basis alone, it will not be a competitor to the 4/5 seater M3, imo.

If the number of seats in the car isn't a factor for you then of course this enters the field of play, along with lots of other 2seaters - Z4 M anyone?

[footie]

Originally Posted by dar2008

The Audi TT is a 2seater. On that basis alone, it will not be a competitor to the 4/5 seater M3, imo.

If the number of seats in the car isn't a factor for you then of course this enters the field of play, along with lots of other 2seaters - Z4 M anyone?

WRONG

The TT has the same number of seats and seatbelts as the E92, admittedly the rear seats are small and only really suitable for small adults/children. Think of the interior space of the TT as slightly better than a 997 and you will get my drift, to many people the M3 is a direct rival to the 997 so surely if the TT-RS is all but matching the 997C2 in performance and ability then surely it too is a rival for not only the Z4M like E90ice said but the M3 as well.

Logical really.

[dar2008]

No need to shout

[Congoman775]

long story short.


anything coming out of Germany that was made with track intentions is an M3 Rival.


how it actualy fares against the M3 doesnt tarnish its 'rival' status.

[Phelipcopter]

I think TTRS is aiming at Cayman - both considered as 'little' sport cars. I will take Cayman anytime. I have sat in TT before and it didnt feel sporty at all.

With 335hp, it is comparable to the new Cayman S.

M3 in more comparable to RS4/5 in terms of size/class/engine.