|
|
03-05-2009, 05:27 PM | #309 | |
Banned
79
Rep 2,244
Posts |
Quote:
Another thing, with no DSG, I am going to guess it won't be US market at first? |
|
Appreciate
0
|
03-06-2009, 02:32 AM | #310 |
Lieutenant General
634
Rep 10,407
Posts |
OK back on topic...
Very nice looking car. Those composite rotors, esp. the aluminum hats are a piece of art. 0-200k in 15.9s, ain't going to happen with this power and weight. I'd say more like 18s. South where did that number come from? With the specifications as listed I don't think this car will be much of an M3 (nor RS4) competitor, track or strip. |
Appreciate
0
|
03-06-2009, 03:36 AM | #311 |
Major General
1207
Rep 8,034
Posts |
Those figures are from Audi themselves and considering the S4 with same power and torque does the 200km/h in the 18.Xs then something with over 200kg less has a fighting chance.
Who knows, maybe Audi are telling lies about the actual power. |
Appreciate
0
|
03-06-2009, 05:32 AM | #312 |
S0THPAW
8943
Rep 7,860
Posts |
OFF TOPIC, but Sticky hey interesting about your father surviving the WWII in a concentration camp etc. My grandparents kept 2 jewish children in their ranch in WWII which was prohibited by the Germans as we all know...and after WWII the children went to Canada by boat for a new live. My grandparents(both already RIP) haven't heard of them eversince....
Anyway, we Dutch are a victim of WWII but still sarcastic in our WWII humour. For example this bad joke so don't read it if you don't feel comfortable: "My grandfather died in a concentrationcamp in WWII, he fell off the watchtower" Anyway back ontopic. Cheers Robin |
Appreciate
0
|
03-06-2009, 07:04 AM | #313 | |
Moderator / European Editor
1583
Rep 6,754
Posts |
Quote:
Best regards, south
__________________
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
03-06-2009, 08:13 AM | #314 | |
Major General
1207
Rep 8,034
Posts |
Quote:
According to Porsche the C4 covers the one kilometer in 23.8s, that only 0.5s slower than what BMW quote for the M3 to cover the same distance. Will the TT-RS be any quicker than the C4 given it's extra torque and less weight..........? That's the $64,000 question. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
03-06-2009, 11:44 AM | #315 | |
Moderator / European Editor
1583
Rep 6,754
Posts |
Quote:
Best regards, south
__________________
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
03-06-2009, 12:13 PM | #316 | |
Major General
1207
Rep 8,034
Posts |
Quote:
Cayman S vs TT-RS vs S4 vs E46 M3 weight: 1350kgs vs 1450kgs vs 1650kgs vs 1495kgs Horsepower: 325hp vs 340hp vs 333hp vs 343hp Torque: 370Nm vs 450Nm vs 440Nm vs 365Nm 0-100km/h: 4.7s vs 4.6s* vs 5.0s vs 4.8s 0-200km/h: 18.2s vs 15.9s* vs 18.6s vs 16.8s * claimed and the M3 figures are also from SportAuto. Based on the M3 vs TT-RS figures which the M3 weighing 45kgs more and producing 85Nm less torque the TT-RS figures maybe are optimistic but not by much. It's as believeable as an E46 M3 doing 200km/h in 16.8s. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
03-07-2009, 06:33 AM | #317 | |
Moderator / European Editor
1583
Rep 6,754
Posts |
Quote:
Best regards, south
__________________
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
03-07-2009, 06:55 AM | #318 |
Major General
1207
Rep 8,034
Posts |
Hallelujah, someone with the same opinion as my own and that's is the cars supplied by manufacturers (press cars) have a little bit more grunt than your average car off the showroom floor.
So what is a realistic figure for all of these cars? |
Appreciate
0
|
03-08-2009, 09:06 PM | #319 |
Brigadier General
544
Rep 4,021
Posts
Drives: 2008 335xi Coupe
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The land where we kill baby seals
|
Sorry for jumping into this thread late but over in the M5 world, there is much talk about the metric 60-130 mph as measured by Vbox (GPS based "accelerometer"). In that specific context it was a Dinan Stroker M5 vs. an ASR Nitrous M5.
But the good news with the 60-130 mph benchmark, there is a body of confirmed times. Personally, I love this benchmark since it tests, power, drivetrain, aerodynamics and weight..... Anyone dredge up times for the cars discussed here? (BTW, anything sub 10 seconds is good) 3.9*900+ rwhp Supra, 88mm turbo, 30 psi, TH400 Auto, ET Drags 4.74*996TT 890 rwhp, Divexxtreme 2-shifts 4.9 - 940 rwhp Supra (35 psi) 5.1 - 840 rwhp Supra (30 psi) 5.4 - 1,000 rwhp TT Viper 5.6 - Bugatti Veyron (estimate based off of verified 100 - 200kph time of 4.8) 5.9 - GSXR 1000 with bolt-ons 5.98*C5 Vette with big motor and NOS 6.1 - Saleen S7 Twin Turbo 6.69*Dr. Jitsu / 996 GT2 / 700 crank HP / 1-shift 6.9 - Mosler MT900S 7.0 - Ferrari Enzo 7.3 - Porsche Carrera GT 7.56*C5 Z06TT (APS Turbo, no cats, stock muffler, 573 rwhp @ 9.5 psi) / 1 shift 7.73*997TT with ECU flash / 2 shifts 7.86*Corvette C6 Z06, stock, Divexxtreme / 2 shifts) 8.07*Lamborghini LP640 / 2 shifts 8.86*Stock 997TT / 32 degrees, Tiptronic (0 shifts) 8.9 - Mercedes SLR McLaren 9.10*993 Ruf R Turbo 490 HP / 2 shifts 9.4 - Lamborghini Diablo VT 6.0 9.5 - Ferrari F430 9.6 - Ferrari F50 10.06*996TT with ECU flash / 1 shift 10.9 - Lamborghini Murcielago 11.7 - Ferrari Challenge Stradale 12.1 - Lamborghini Gallardo
__________________
"Aerodynamics are for people who cannot build engines"......Enzo Ferrari
|
Appreciate
0
|
03-09-2009, 01:20 AM | #320 |
Lieutenant General
1204
Rep 12,446
Posts |
...are you shitting me? How?
__________________
Past: '08 E92 335i|ZPP|ZSP|6AT
Past: '15 Mustang GT|401A|PP|6MT Current: '20 Shelby GT350|6MT |
Appreciate
0
|
03-09-2009, 12:39 PM | #322 |
Brigadier General
544
Rep 4,021
Posts
Drives: 2008 335xi Coupe
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The land where we kill baby seals
|
Don't shoot the messenger. Do a google on 60-130 for various list of times.
__________________
"Aerodynamics are for people who cannot build engines"......Enzo Ferrari
|
Appreciate
0
|
03-25-2009, 09:44 PM | #323 |
New Member
0
Rep 5
Posts |
I would say the TT-RS isnt quite a direct rival to the M3, but if you're looking for something smaller and potentially quicker than the M3, this might just be it.
Interesting article here http://www.wheels24.co.za/Content/Ne...ker_than_an_M3 Some real life pics of the car... |
Appreciate
0
|
10-06-2009, 02:45 PM | #325 |
Colonel
35
Rep 2,406
Posts |
is it just me or the overall shape and rims are pretty ugly? I can't find anything attractive about it.
I can't see how anyone would take this over the m3. i hate the cayman, but I think it still look better than this tt. |
Appreciate
0
|
10-06-2009, 02:55 PM | #326 |
Captain
114
Rep 750
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-06-2009, 04:24 PM | #327 |
Colonel
35
Rep 2,406
Posts |
the z4 m coupe is better looking than the tt-rs and if bmw put the m3 v8 in it just like how they put the e46 m3 engine in it. Then it would be a hit. I would choose the z4 m coupe over the tt any day even with it current hp.
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-06-2009, 05:34 PM | #328 | |
Major General
1207
Rep 8,034
Posts |
Quote:
BTW, I love the look of the new Z4 far more than the old one but where BMW has positioned the new car (i.e. closer to the SLK than Cayman) I don't see it as a competitor to the TT anymore. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
|
|