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

[graider]

um...tt is a chick car no? regardless, it is not an m3 competitor. maybe to a 135i.

[e46e92love]

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).

While on the subject of mis-statements of fact, the M3's 0-60 is 0.2 slower than the suggested TT-RS times if you are talking the 6MT. The M-DCT is officially listed in all of the 2009 M3 brochures from the factory at 0-60 in 4.5

I know I am splitting hairs here, but facts are facts......

Cheers,
e46e92

[footie]

Originally Posted by Sticky

Yes, there are markets beyond the USA, just smaller ones. California just happens to be the worlds biggest. The car isn't available here so Audi can strap it with booster rockets for all I care.

Maybe individually but when you take the likes of Europe as a lot it's a much bigger market. Also Audi's world sales seem to do pretty well within having to discount their cars heavily in the US markets like BMW do. Really what you should have said is me myself is the sole importance and if I can't buy it then no one Else's opinion cares.

Originally Posted by Sticky

The TT is not the drivers car the M3 is. The only car you mentioned that is a true replactement for the M3 or alternative would be the 911. If someone puts an emphasis on rear seats, the M3 still remains the choice.

Funny that, it would have been my last choice of the rivals I listed. You said you were interested in the driving but chose the poser's choice.

You showed your true colours and what is most important to you.

Originally Posted by Sticky

The TT is cute, glad Audi is trying. I wonder if it will be anywhere near an M coupe, lets not leap to the M3.

Hey, if I am wrong in the opinion that the TT-RS isn't all that great and doesn't match the M3's abilities on the track I will admit it. But based on the spec many people are suggesting I believe it will be quicker or as quick as the M3 on everything other than the Nurburgring.

Originally Posted by Sticky

You are posting videos of other cars and expecting that to have some kind of relevance to the TT-RS? When you have the final specs, I'll be glad to remind you the M3 spanks it

I thought these videos to be very relevant. The norm is for Audi S models to be a lot less track oriented that their RS versions and based on the achievements that this humble TT-S did, one would expect the TT-RS to be significantly better.

[Sticky]

Originally Posted by footie

Maybe individually but when you take the likes of Europe as a lot it's a much bigger market. Also Audi's world sales seem to do pretty well within having to discount their cars heavily in the US markets like BMW do. Really what you should have said is me myself is the sole importance and if I can't buy it then no one Else's opinion cares.



Funny that, it would have been my last choice of the rivals I listed. You said you were interested in the driving but chose the poser's choice.

You showed your true colours and what is most important to you.



Hey, if I am wrong in the opinion that the TT-RS isn't all that great and doesn't match the M3's abilities on the track I will admit it. But based on the spec many people are suggesting I believe it will be quicker or as quick as the M3 on everything other than the Nurburgring.



I thought these videos to be very relevant. The norm is for Audi S models to be a lot less track oriented that their RS versions and based on the achievements that this humble TT-S did, one would expect the TT-RS to be significantly better.

Are you kidding me? Europe as a whole? BMW sells more cars in California than Audi does in all of Europe, look at the numbers.

You purposely mis-state the M3's numbers to make the TT appear stronger vs. it. It isn't an M3 competitor, it never will be, pretty simple to understand.

The 911 is the poser's choice? Get real, that would be Audi, they have yet to make a drivers car and yet to make one without all the weight hanging on the front. Oh, I know, the R8, but we should be thanking Lamborghini for that one.

[Sticky]

Originally Posted by Congoman775

Ok.

may i remind you that the M3 was utterly outclassed and embarrassed by two cars in its price range being the Z06 and base GTR.

the M3 is a great car, but its not bulletproof.


ps. for people with enough money the RS6 is already available in the US

The M3 vs. the Z06 and GTR, brilliant. Thanks for that, a lot of help.

[footie]

I love that statement, more cars in California than Audi sell in Europe.

There is no doubting your favourites sticky, no matter how wrong it is. By the way BMW sell 300,000 more cars than Audi do when you exclude the mini (approx). So it take it each of you guys in SoCal own about 1200 each.

As for me misquoting the figures, they are there in black and White in all of BMW websites. Get an them not me, I was only highlighting the similarity of the TT-RS figures and where they were better.

P.S.
The Gallardo is an Audi product from the very first drawing, the design, the engine, everything with the exception of the awd system which they reworked anyway. And yes the R8 would be my first and only choice if I could justify the price of owning another car as well, as I can't I am very happy with the M3 for now.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by e46e92love

While on the subject of mis-statements of fact, the M3's 0-60 is 0.2 slower than the suggested TT-RS times if you are talking the 6MT. The M-DCT is officially listed in all of the 2009 M3 brochures from the factory at 0-60 in 4.5

I know I am splitting hairs here, but facts are facts......

Cheers,
e46e92

Facts are not always facts. When quoting specifications there is always a gray area. BMW is well known to be extremely conservative with regards to performance specs, especially 0-60. Any dolt who can press the pedal can get the time they quote. But what is fair? Should you quote the absolute best time achieved by any magazine? I don't really think so myself but if you do you would have the M3 0-60 at 4.1. I think an average of magazine times a better figure to use. What is really means is that specsmanship should always include a reference and explanation and those who play the game almost never do. Cheers.

[MrAdams]

Don't want to be a smart ass BUT! I just got back from Audi sales training (unfortunately to sell BMW my dealer makes me sell Audi aswell) but the TT RS is not going to be the name because Porsche does not want the "RS" name to be placed after anything but a Porsche model. so if anything RS-TT but they don't think they will call it that. Unless Porsche decides to change their mind or something we are still waiting on the name of your wifes future TT.

[Powerslide]

It will be interesting to see what an "RS" version of the TT can do. Based on the latest Car and Driver Lightning Lap 2008 cumulative results (2006 to present), the Audi models have not fared very well against their BMW counterparts. The 335i did the lap in 3:10.5, vs. the S5 at 3:14.6 (despite the S5 having a 50hp advantage), whereas the M3 was 3:05.6 vs. the RS4 at 3:11.2...

The Nov. 2008 issue of C&D with the Lightning Lap article was not very praiseworthy of the S5 on the track - basically said that while Audi has moved the mass of the engine slightly more aft, it still resides fully forward of the front axle centerline - if that's the case, how is that not going to be the case with the upcoming RS5? Seems to me that given the A5/S5 design/architecture, the RS5 would need a FI, 450hp powerplant just to match the M3 on the track (again, this is admittedly just a somewhat skeptical assumption on my part, so Audi could very well prove me wrong...)

The above does not mean that the TT-RS cannot be a fantastic performer. Nevertheless, I'm going to have to see the actual numbers to truly believe it...

[footie]

Originally Posted by Powerslide

It will be interesting to see what an "RS" version of the TT can do. Based on the latest Car and Driver Lightning Lap 2008 cumulative results (2006 to present), the Audi models have not fared very well against their BMW counterparts. The 335i did the lap in 3:10.5, vs. the S5 at 3:14.6 (despite the S5 having a 50hp advantage), whereas the M3 was 3:05.6 vs. the RS4 at 3:11.2...

The Nov. 2008 issue of C&D with the Lightning Lap article was not very praiseworthy of the S5 on the track - basically said that while Audi has moved the mass of the engine slightly more aft, it still resides fully forward of the front axle centerline - if that's the case, how is that not going to be the case with the upcoming RS5? Seems to me that given the A5/S5 design/architecture, the RS5 would need a FI, 450hp powerplant just to match the M3 on the track (again, this is admittedly just a somewhat skeptical assumption on my part, so Audi could very well prove me wrong...)

The above does not mean that the TT-RS cannot be a fantastic performer. Nevertheless, I'm going to have to see the actual numbers to truly believe it...

No point getting into a debate as to the merits of C&D, if they found both Audis to be this much slower than their BMW counterparts then it has to be true.

Maybe the US Audis have a different suspension setup than in Europe but I have yet to see where the 335i has been any quicker than an S5 in tests conducted over there, maybe a few tenths but not by four seconds. So I conclude that either the Audis are indeed different or C&D are very biased towards BMW products.

There is a difference between RS4 and M3, that has been proved on both sides of the water so I believe this to be true but again never the kind of improvement see here with C&D.

If your opinion is that a nose heavy car like the RS4 and S5 can't possibly compete on the track then you haven't seen any of the results for the RS6 against the M5. On averaged on a lap of Hockenhiem the RS6 is a full two seconds quicker and that is a car which weighs 300Kgs more than the M5, so in theory it shouldn't handle, change direction or brake as well as the M5 and this excessively heavy nose should in theory at least led to excessive understeer, all things which should by your reckoning make it slower isn't.

Maybe you need to change your own opinions and the choice of magazine you read and get less biased reviews.

As for the TT-RS (yes it will be called RS after Porsche backed down) I only started to thread to make people aware of what figures are being talked of in the press and other forums and how the figures compared to the M3. I don't know if it will be as good as the M3 but when you see how well the TT-S is doing in group tests and it's lap times compared to the 335i and others, one must assume that it should be pretty close.

[Sticky]

Originally Posted by footie

No point getting into a debate as to the merits of C&D, if they found both Audis to be this much slower than their BMW counterparts then it has to be true.

Maybe the US Audis have a different suspension setup than in Europe but I have yet to see where the 335i has been any quicker than an S5 in tests conducted over there, maybe a few tenths but not by four seconds. So I conclude that either the Audis are indeed different or C&D are very biased towards BMW products.

There is a difference between RS4 and M3, that has been proved on both sides of the water so I believe this to be true but again never the kind of improvement see here with C&D.

If your opinion is that a nose heavy car like the RS4 and S5 can't possibly compete on the track then you haven't seen any of the results for the RS6 against the M5. On averaged on a lap of Hockenhiem the RS6 is a full two seconds quicker and that is a car which weighs 300Kgs more than the M5, so in theory it shouldn't handle, change direction or brake as well as the M5 and this excessively heavy nose should in theory at least led to excessive understeer, all things which should by your reckoning make it slower isn't.

Maybe you need to change your own opinions and the choice of magazine you read and get less biased reviews.

As for the TT-RS (yes it will be called RS after Porsche backed down) I only started to thread to make people aware of what figures are being talked of in the press and other forums and how the figures compared to the M3. I don't know if it will be as good as the M3 but when you see how well the TT-S is doing in group tests and it's lap times compared to the 335i and others, one must assume that it should be pretty close.

Biased? The RS6 has not been tested in the US, its weight and balance will hurt it on a tight circuit where its motor won't save it.

The Audis were crushed in the lightning lap. What, Car and Driver has some Audi vendetta? They tell the professional drivers to go slower in them? The Audi's are weak around the track, period.

[footie]

Originally Posted by Sticky

Biased? The RS6 has not been tested in the US, its weight and balance will hurt it on a tight circuit where its motor won't save it.

The Audis were crushed in the lightning lap. What, Car and Driver has some Audi vendetta? They tell the professional drivers to go slower in them? The Audi's are weak around the track, period.

I am not going to argue with someone who clearly have no idea how tight the Hockenheim circuit is. This track plays to well balanced and nimble cars more than most others, it's why Sport Auto use it combined with the Nurburgring during their Supertests, to give a balanced evaluation of both high speed course and ultra tight.

Have C&D got an agenda?

Don't ask me, but when it contradicts everything we are seeing on this side of the water it means only one of two things, either Audis are set up differently than here or they are biased.

[Powerslide]

Just a couple of questions Footie,

1) Do you doubt that the S5's entire engine mass is forward of the front axle centerline (if you do, identify the source of information you're relying upon - other than Car & Driver of course)...; and

2) Do you doubt that approx. 56% of the Audi S5's weight is on the front axle? Again, if you do, what is your source?

Again, you cite to European publications generally to say Audi and BMW are close - I've read this in several such publications (and I do not doubt the quality of those magazines or their drivers)... I would like for you to identify, by specific magazine title, issue and article a single publication where the S5 outperformed the 335i... If your smugly confident generalizations are correct, there should be plenty of "unbiased" publications demonstrating the 50hp advantage the S5 has over the 335i...

Time to throw your cards down on the table...

[AMJ_77]

Is it just me or did someone just get called out hard? Oh Snap!

[footie]

Originally Posted by Powerslide

Just a couple of questions Footie,

1) Do you doubt that the S5's entire engine mass is forward of the front axle centerline (if you do, identify the source of information you're relying upon - other than Car & Driver of course)...; and

2) Do you doubt that approx. 56% of the Audi S5's weight is on the front axle? Again, if you do, what is your source?

None of the above isn't true. The mass at the front is over 55% but this is not a problem with handling, it never has been, fwd cars cope amazingly well with even worse weight balance.

Originally Posted by Powerslide

Again, you cite to European publications generally to say Audi and BMW are close - I've read this in several such publications (and I do not doubt the quality of those magazines or their drivers)... I would like for you to identify, by specific magazine title, issue and article a single publication where the S5 outperformed the 335i... If your smugly confident generalizations are correct, there should be plenty of "unbiased" publications demonstrating the 50hp advantage the S5 has over the 335i...

Time to throw your cards down on the table...

BMW 335i data
Audi S5 data

Hockenhiem time: Audi S5 1:17.2 vs 335i 1:17.8 (Audi quicker by 0.6s)

Nurburgring time: Audi S5 8:26 vs 335i 8:26

autozeitung test track: Audi S5 1:44.6 vs 335i 1:45.8 (Audi quicker by 1.2s)

SportAuto wet course: Audi S5 1:29.8 vs 335i 1:35.8 (Audi quicker by 6s)

Only in the C&D track does the result reverse and the 335i is quicker. What does that tell you. To me it says either FIX or Audi's setup is different, I personally believe the first one.

Sadly Autocar no longer have the data available on their web site to prove that here too the S5 is quicker in the dry and comfortably so in the wet but the data above should be enough evidence on what I was saying it FACT.

[Sticky]

Originally Posted by footie

I am not going to argue with someone who clearly have no idea how tight the Hockenheim circuit is. This track plays to well balanced and nimble cars more than most others, it's why Sport Auto use it combined with the Nurburgring during their Supertests, to give a balanced evaluation of both high speed course and ultra tight.

Have C&D got an agenda?

Don't ask me, but when it contradicts everything we are seeing on this side of the water it means only one of two things, either Audis are set up differently than here or they are biased.

The lightning lap was at VIR, a fairly robust, long course. So every other car performed like it should but Car and Driver took their aggression out on the Audi's? The Audi's freaking got crushed, what do you want? They are inferior around a road course, period. That is what you get with nose heavy, power sapping, understeering, boner shrinking, Quattro. Quattro is best for getting groceries in the snow or racing during a blizzard. An S5 isn't even in the same sentence with the M3, the car is a joke in comparison.

What the hell are we even talking about anymore? Audi is the red headed step child of the Germans. Mercedes, Porsche, BMW, all far more appealing as drivers cars. Yes, that is how bad it has gotten, Mercedes is working Audi around the track, HARD.

[footie]

Originally Posted by Sticky

The lightning lap was at VIR, a fairly robust, long course. So every other car performed like it should but Car and Driver took their aggression out on the Audi's? The Audi's freaking got crushed, what do you want? They are inferior around a road course, period. That is what you get with nose heavy, power sapping, understeering, boner shrinking, Quattro. Quattro is best for getting groceries in the snow or racing during a blizzard. An S5 isn't even in the same sentence with the M3, the car is a joke in comparison.

What the hell are we even talking about anymore? Audi is the red headed step child of the Germans. Mercedes, Porsche, BMW, all far more appealing as drivers cars. Yes, that is how bad it has gotten, Mercedes is working Audi around the track, HARD.

FANBOY.

You class the C&D track as a road course of merit in comparison to the Nurburgring, the road course of preference of all manufacturers and used by many to promote their products. It's over twice as long in both distance and time and yet the S5 and 335i are identical here, a far cry from the 4 seconds that C&D got on a much shorter and less demanding track.

You talk about handling as if you have a wealth of experience but you have shown you hand to be dragstrip racing, a very skilled sport but requires no skill at turning the wheel. I would explain the merits of both awd and how to drive them but feel it would be a wasted exercise and would most likely go right over your head.

If you feel be comfortable with the idea that Audi and Quattro products are inferior than BMW products and that BMW are the only product worthy of interest than I am pleased for you, your shallow ideals are not worth listening to.

[Sticky]

Originally Posted by footie

FANBOY.

You class the C&D track as a road course of merit in comparison to the Nurburgring, the road course of preference of all manufacturers and used by many to promote their products. It's over twice as long in both distance and time and yet the S5 and 335i are identical here, a far cry from the 4 seconds that C&D got on a much shorter and less demanding track.

You talk about handling as if you have a wealth of experience but you have shown you hand to be dragstrip racing, a very skilled sport but requires no skill at turning the wheel. I would explain the merits of both awd and how to drive them but feel it would be a wasted exercise and would most likely go right over your head.

If you feel be comfortable with the idea that Audi and Quattro products are inferior than BMW products and that BMW are the only product worthy of interest than I am pleased for you, your shallow ideals are not worth listening to.

The Nurburgring? Nissan has effectively turned the Nurburgring into a giant joke.

I put faith into a test where all the cars are tested on the same course on THE SAME DAY.

We have seen how much ring numbers change based on drivers and conditions making comparing various times worthless, come on, you are smarter than that.

What does what I do decide to do with my car have to do with Audi's being weak on the track? Is the discussion about me or Audi's? You do realize I track my car on the road course as well don't you? Would you like me to PM you every time I get in so you know exactly how and when I use my own vehicle?

Shallow? You started a thread comparing a car that doesn't even exist with finalized specs yet to the M3 and are calling me shallow because I don't buy into your biased numbers. Come on, everyone called you out on how you portrayed the M3. Audi has a long way to go before a TT is on the M3's level. Considering the balance and the way it is set up, it will never be a true alternative. That is not me saying it won't be a great car, I'm sure it will be, just like the RS4 is a great car.

[footie]

Originally Posted by Sticky

The Nurburgring? Nissan has effectively turned the Nurburgring into a giant joke.

I put faith into a test where all the cars are tested on the same course on THE SAME DAY.

We have seen how much ring numbers change based on drivers and conditions making comparing various times worthless, come on, you are smarter than that.

I doubt if the results I provided whether showing a different picture and the 335i being the quicker that you would be saying what you just did.

The fact that on ever track the 335i was slower is proof enough that the S5 is worthy of it's position as a rival and contender. But it's case is even more compelling when you look at the wet lap times, because it shows that it's massively quicker in the wet without compromising it's dry weather handling and that has always been the point of Quattro.

Originally Posted by Sticky

What does what I do decide to do with my car have to do with Audi's being weak on the track? Is the discussion about me or Audi's? You do realize I track my car on the road course as well don't you? Would you like me to PM you every time I get in so you know exactly how and when I use my own vehicle?

As I already said, if you feel more comfortable believing in this idea than I am happy for you, even if it's misconceived.

Originally Posted by Sticky

Shallow? You started a thread comparing a car that doesn't even exist with finalized specs yet to the M3 and are calling me shallow because I don't buy into your biased numbers. Come on, everyone called you out on how you portrayed the M3. Audi has a long way to go before a TT is on the M3's level. Considering the balance and the way it is set up, it will never be a true alternative. That is not me saying it won't be a great car, I'm sure it will be, just like the RS4 is a great car.

SHALLOW???????

How is discussing the possibilities of the new TT-RS in relation to the M3 shallow. We all discuss many a car here prior to it's release, the GTR, Gallardo, the next M3 engine choice, everything in fact is discussed prior to the complete picture is known.

My only reason for the thread was the spec of the car that was being suggested and how close these figures were to the M3. Unlike you I have driven the TT-S and know how well this car compares not only to the S5 but the 335i. Give it some QuattroGmbH tweaking with a healthy dose of extra performance and it very much could match the M3 in the handling stakes, never mind the acceleration stakes as well. I know the M3 in theory can accelerate quicker than claimed by BMW but I also know how difficult it is to achieve these figures on the road on demand and having owned a quattro I also know how easy it is to make it perform time and again. So based on that these two will be pretty close if it appears as specced and they do meet on the street.

P.S.

It's sad that this thread has turned into the farce it is because some people can't imagine Audi matching BMW.

[Powerslide]

Originally Posted by footie

None of the above isn't true. The mass at the front is over 55% but this is not a problem with handling, it never has been, fwd cars cope amazingly well with even worse weight balance.



BMW 335i data
Audi S5 data

Hockenhiem time: Audi S5 1:17.2 vs 335i 1:17.8 (Audi quicker by 0.6s)

Nurburgring time: Audi S5 8:26 vs 335i 8:26

autozeitung test track: Audi S5 1:44.6 vs 335i 1:45.8 (Audi quicker by 1.2s)

SportAuto wet course: Audi S5 1:29.8 vs 335i 1:35.8 (Audi quicker by 6s)

Only in the C&D track does the result reverse and the 335i is quicker. What does that tell you. To me it says either FIX or Audi's setup is different, I personally believe the first one.

Sadly Autocar no longer have the data available on their web site to prove that here too the S5 is quicker in the dry and comfortably so in the wet but the data above should be enough evidence on what I was saying it FACT.

Fantastic - you upheld your end of the bargain by citing specific sources. However, I'm still skeptical of Audi competing head to head with comparable BMW models because even as your own examples show, the only test where the S5 dominated the 335i was on the wet course (AWD vs. RWD - no surprises there). I don't understand how one can explain why a car with such a noticeable horsepower advantage cannot translate a noticeable track time advantage - the S5 has considerably more horsepower and torque, yet even when tested by sources that you yourself consider more reliable than C&D, there is, at best, a very slight advantage going to car that should be dominating (i.e., S5). It is a good thing for Audi's sake the 335i doesn't make 350 hp or more torque (no offense Footie - I know you're very knowledgeable about cars, and you can call me a fanboy, but even your own data fails to convince me that Audi can stand toe-to-toe with comparable BMW models.

Even your example with the RS6 v. M5 - the RS6 needs a massive hp advantage over the M5 to compete. I'm not saying that Audi's are not great cars, nor am I saying that their engineering is anything less than impressive. In my opinion, however, as solidified by the the data that you yourself cited, I just don't think Audi (overall) is quite as good in overall track handling as BMW...

[Sticky]

Originally Posted by footie

I doubt if the results I provided whether showing a different picture and the 335i being the quicker that you would be saying what you just did.

The fact that on ever track the 335i was slower is proof enough that the S5 is worthy of it's position as a rival and contender. But it's case is even more compelling when you look at the wet lap times, because it shows that it's massively quicker in the wet without compromising it's dry weather handling and that has always been the point of Quattro.



As I already said, if you feel more comfortable believing in this idea than I am happy for you, even if it's misconceived.



SHALLOW???????

How is discussing the possibilities of the new TT-RS in relation to the M3 shallow. We all discuss many a car here prior to it's release, the GTR, Gallardo, the next M3 engine choice, everything in fact is discussed prior to the complete picture is known.

My only reason for the thread was the spec of the car that was being suggested and how close these figures were to the M3. Unlike you I have driven the TT-S and know how well this car compares not only to the S5 but the 335i. Give it some QuattroGmbH tweaking with a healthy dose of extra performance and it very much could match the M3 in the handling stakes, never mind the acceleration stakes as well. I know the M3 in theory can accelerate quicker than claimed by BMW but I also know how difficult it is to achieve these figures on the road on demand and having owned a quattro I also know how easy it is to make it perform time and again. So based on that these two will be pretty close if it appears as specced and they do meet on the street.

P.S.

It's sad that this thread has turned into the farce it is because some people can't imagine Audi matching BMW.

Footie, if you feel the TT-RS is going to match and M3 just because you have taken a spin in a TT-S, you need to wake up.

No matter what paper slalom figures the TT-RS has, no matter what skidpad numbers, it will not feel like an M3. It will always be a compromised nose heavy design that has more in common with a front wheel drive.

The farce is Audi and your faith in them, not the thread.

[Garissimo]

Originally Posted by footie

Only in the C&D track does the result reverse and the 335i is quicker. FACT.

Nope. The Fifth Gear test, done on your side of the pond, also shows the 335i faster. Not by much, but extrapolated over a longer & more demanding course (like VIR), C&D's results are believable.

Fifth gear test

I don't see any compelling proof to support the "C&D conspiracy against Audi" theory or the theory that Audi's suspension setup is softened up for U.S. spec. cars.