EVO tests the Audi TT-RS

[footie]

EVO tested the new TT-RS and the acceleration times aren't that far of those for an M3. Close enough to call it a driver's race, the same would be true for their respective Bedford lap times.

Full review of EVO

PERFORMANCE TT RS
0-30 1.6
0-40 2.5
0-50 3.5
0-60 4.4
0-70 5.9
0-80 7.3
0-90 8.8
0-100 11.1
0-110 13.2
0-120 15.6
0-130 19.3
0-140 23.3
0-150 28.5
0-160 35.8
1/4 mile sec 13
IN-GEAR TIMES (3RD)
20-40 2.8
30-50 2.4
40-60 2.4
50-70 2.5
60-80 2.6
70-90 2.8
IN-GEAR TIMES (4TH)
20-40 4.3
30-50 3.3
40-60 3.1
50-70 3.3
60-80 3.4
70-90 3.5
80-100 3.7
90-110 4
IN-GEAR TIMES (5TH)
20-40 6.3
30-50 4.7
40-60 4.1
50-70 4.1
60-80 4.3
70-90 4.5
80-100 4.6
IN-GEAR TIMES (6TH)
20-40 10.2
30-50 8.3
40-60 6.9
50-70 5.8
60-80 5.5
70-90 5.9
80-100 6.2
BRAKING
100-0 4.2
dist. ft 302.4
CONDITIONS: dry

Bedford Lap time and data

[armyav8tor]

Very nice car, but not for me though.

[swamp2]

I'm not entirely sure a full second to 100mph is exactly a drivers race. The range reported for the M3 is 9.4-10.6 s. 2.5 seconds to 150 is not much of a drivers race either. Sure 0-60 in 4.4 with AWD - that is a drivers race vs. the M3.

[330CIZHP]

Seeing the approximate trap speed times, it is more of a low-to-mid 13 second car. The M3 is a mid-12 second car so it is more of a 135/370Z competitor.

[footie]

Originally Posted by swamp2

I'm not entirely sure a full second to 100mph is exactly a drivers race. The range reported for the M3 is 9.4-10.6 s. 2.5 seconds to 150 is not much of a drivers race either. Sure 0-60 in 4.4 with AWD - that is a drivers race vs. the M3.

If you remove the 1ft rollout that most M3 times have then the majority are between 10.4~10.8s, this is one test conducted at Bruntingthorpe which is a concrete surface and nowhere near as grippy as tarmac. So I would expect a good run for the TT-RS to be closer to 10.4~6s which would be slap bang in M3 normal runs, an example of that would be the times achieved by Autocar, 0-60mph in 4.7s (4.4s for TT), 0-100mph in 10.6s (11.1s for TT), 0-120mph in 15.2s (15.6s for TT), Bedford lap in 1:26.6s (1:27.1s for TT).

I wouldn't deny that by the 150mph mark the M3 would have pulled clear but up to that point like I said it would be a driver's race, especially on the track.

[footie]

Originally Posted by 330CIZHP

Seeing the approximate trap speed times, it is more of a low-to-mid 13 second car. The M3 is a mid-12 second car so it is more of a 135/370Z competitor.

Remember the surface that those times were achieved on and then remember there was no rollout. This thing would be well clear of a 335i, it's muckh faster than an S4 (I know) and we all know that it's quicker than the 335i.

135/370z competitor my ass.

P.S.
Check out those in-gear times.

[330CIZHP]

Originally Posted by footie

Remember the surface that those times were achieved on and then remember there was no rollout. This thing would be well clear of a 335i, it's muckh faster than an S4 (I know) and we all know that it's quicker than the 335i.

135/370z competitor my ass.

P.S.
Check out those in-gear times.

Roll out only affects your 0-60 times and not your 1/4 mile times.

If you want to check M3 tested numbers explicitly without roll out, those were 0-60 in 4.6 seconds and 1/4 mile in 12.6 seconds@112 mph according to Edmunds.

http://www.edmunds.com/flipper/do/Me...deoId=20222858


With a power-to-weight ratio of 9.9 lbs per HP vs 8.5 lbs per HP on the M3, which is A LOT you will never convince me that this car is anything more than a 335 or 370Z competitor.

[urbo73]

What's with this silly drag racing thread? "Driver's race"

[footie]

Originally Posted by 330CIZHP

With a power-to-weight ratio of 9.9 lbs per HP vs 8.5 lbs per HP on the M3, which is A LOT you will never convince me that this car is anything more than a 335 or 370Z competitor.

You are saying that the rollout doesn't affect the 1/4mile, yes that is correct but you didn't understand my reference to rollout, the TT didn't post a 1/4mile time or speed only normal acceleration figures, you were making a guess as to it's possible time and speed based on these figures achieved on a less then grippy surface which in my opinion was wrong. Check out the European 1/4mile runs for the M3 and then it's acceleration, don't work from US times is my suggestion.

Also the TT-RS has a PTW of 235hp/ton, that is less than an M3 but it does have more torque per ton so it's might be closer than some here think, again something I already know. By the way both the HP and torque per ton figures far exceed those of either the 135/335 or 370z. If you had bothered to look you would have known this fact.

Hope you never meet a TT-RS on a back road in your M3 or 335 because unless you are a seriously talented driver it will walk all over you.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by footie

Hope you never meet a TT-RS on a back road in your M3 or 335 because unless you are a seriously talented driver it will walk all over you.

Come on foot are we comparing cars or drivers? With equal or even roughly equal drivers it will be the M3 substantially besting the TT-RS on the backroads, not the other way around.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by footie

You are saying that the rollout doesn't affect the 1/4mile, yes that is correct

Nope you are both wrong. For a car like an M3 the rollout will provide a 0.3-0.4 second difference to 60 and in the quarter mile. It is free distance hence free time of course it matters.

[Garissimo]

Originally Posted by urbo73

What's with this silly drag racing thread? "Driver's race"

I don't understand the comparison with the M3 but maybe there is some history to this debate that I missed. I think the TT-RS is meant to compete against the Cayman S and Z4 35 and will be priced accordingly when it comes stateside.

Only disconcerting thing in the EVO review was that the RS appeared to overheat the brakes and front tires after 1 lap on the Bedford West circuit.

[footie]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Come on foot are we comparing cars or drivers? With equal or even roughly equal drivers it will be the M3 substantially besting the TT-RS on the backroads, not the other way around.

On equal skill and on a road where the surface isn't like a race track (i.e. Back road) I would put any money on the TT-RS. It's EVO quick in such occasions.

[footie]

Originally Posted by Garissimo

Only disconcerting thing in the EVO review was that the RS appeared to overheat the brakes and front tires after 1 lap on the Bedford West circuit.

Agreed, this was not what I expected and still don't understand why this happened. The brake are huge for the weight involved.

[Singletrack]

Pretty sweet car. They've improved on the TT design/engineering so much since its inception.

[urbo73]

Quick over one lap in comparison to a supercharged Lotus Elise, but the steering is bad and the weight on the front doesn't help with the already bad understeer. Doesn't sound too promising there. It seems that the writer doesn't like the car, but yet makes some excuses for it for some reasons. Like this:

"The Audi may understeer, but treat it with sympathy and the traction, explosive power delivery, chassis stiffness and sheer grip make it very effective."

So it means, please go slow in this car!

[graider]

with the lighter weight and torque from the turbo, i'm not surprise it can hang with the m in the straight line race. but it is not really a competitor to the m3. more like cayman and 350z competitors. between those, i would pick the cayman s, tt, then z

however, i think the tt looks weird somehow especially that fuel cap, lol

[footie]

Originally Posted by urbo73

Quick over one lap in comparison to a supercharged Lotus Elise, but the steering is bad and the weight on the front doesn't help with the already bad understeer. Doesn't sound too promising there. It seems that the writer doesn't like the car, but yet makes some excuses for it for some reasons. Like this:

"The Audi may understeer, but treat it with sympathy and the traction, explosive power delivery, chassis stiffness and sheer grip make it very effective."

So it means, please go slow in this car!

Not go slow, after all it was only half a second slower than an M3 and quicker than a Elise SC which accelerates as fast as it. What the above comments mean is slow in, fast out which is the way to be quick in a 911.

[mixja]

Originally Posted by footie

Not go slow, after all it was only half a second slower than an M3 and quicker than a Elise SC which accelerates as fast as it. What the above comments mean is slow in, fast out which is the way to be quick in a 911.

Yeah but only for one lap

The in-gear acceleration times are comparable with DCT times....

[footie]

Originally Posted by mixja

Yeah but only for one lap

The in-gear acceleration times are comparable with DCT times....

The one lap thing bothers me, I've driven this car and I wouldn't have thought one lap would have killed both the brakes and rubber, most puzzling.

As for the data from EVO, 4.4s is mighty quick but not the quickest I have heard, if believed it's supposibly run a 4.1s to 60mph. Best 0-200km/h time came from Autozeitung at 16.4s, only 0.5s slower than there best time with an M3 and 0.9s quicker than their worse M3 time which I might add was the M3 is was tested against and best, so on the same day at the same track the TT was actually 0.9 of a second quicker to the 125mph mark, who would have thought it.

Autozeitung test TT-RS vs M3 DCT

[footie]

Originally Posted by 330CIZHP

Seeing the approximate trap speed times, it is more of a low-to-mid 13 second car. The M3 is a mid-12 second car so it is more of a 135/370Z competitor.

EVO didn't quote the 1/4mile times in the article but I found out it was 13.0s @ 109.3mph

Two European mags have tested and quoted 1/4mile times and speeds for the M3

Autocar : 13.3s @ 112mph
Automobile 13.3s @ 111mph (traction problems)

So as I said it appear that outside of the US the TT is very capable of matching and comparing to the M3.

[urbo73]

Originally Posted by footie

Not go slow, after all it was only half a second slower than an M3 and quicker than a Elise SC which accelerates as fast as it. What the above comments mean is slow in, fast out which is the way to be quick in a 911.

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)!