Audi Fanclub

[Mrs. Famine]

This is GTPlant's point, I suspect. A contextless image which didn't explain itself.

You're right. It's almost as if you knew what I was thinking...

Anyway, my knowledge of Audi is not vast, i'm certainly not a fangirlie but being a motoring enthusiast, I try to know at least a little bit about every marque of car. I'm a Japanese fan mainly and I prefer older cars - hence my absolute admiration for the Quattro.

 

[Tornado]

You have confused me with that statement. Do you think that the TT is a really bad car engineering wise or styling wise as you seemingly changed your mind half way through the sentence.

I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. I was trying to state them on different levels. Engineering wise, the first Audi TT was just horrible. The second one is pretty decent. Styling wise, I think both are about equal (in my opinion, the front end of the original was better, though the back of the new one is better), though they are both pretty good.

but engineering wise your wrong.

(On the old Audi TT)It's wind cheating, space eating shape still has a coefficient of drag of .35. It was highly unstable at high speeds, as reported by Auto Motor und Sport when compared to its platform mates, arguably leading to the fatal crashes of the TT on the Autobahn in September and October of 1999 which forced Audi to recall 40,000 TT's in late 1999. At 120 MPH it had 418N / 567N front and rear lift when the Golf only had front and rear lifts of 19N / 340N, respectively. The rear liftback angle is between 30 and 40 degrees, which causes turbulance in the air above the rear deck. Most of the triumphs made in making the Golf platform somewhat sporty were ruined when they gave the TT the body it had, just like it did to the New Beetle.
And, to clarify, its the worst engineered car I've physically see that was made in a somewhat recent time period. I'm sure there are worse cars (MG's spring to mind), but I've never seen any.

 

[Danny]

As for the second point, this does depend on the version. Please don't even try and say that the original TT was a great car engineering wise, it simply was not. The current version I would agree have moved the game on in that area. It could be summarised that the original TT was style over substance and the current TT has reversed that.

It's really not that bad Scaff. Perhaps if there hadn't been a wave of new coupes of such a high quality, people would have judged the TT on its own merits. By that, I mean it's quick enough, capacious (in the boot, not back seats. Don't get me started on the pews in the back) and it's reliable. Adding to this that it holds its value well despite being ubiquitous, it's a generally well engineered and designed car. Although, it really isn't special enough to shine in the 350Z arena.

FYI - and apropos of nothing - it's "moot", not "mute". Though I mention it only for your future reference, and not in any form of attack.

As an aside, moot point originally meant a debatable point. It has since lost it's meaning though.

 

[Dave A]

It's a funny word becuase it means both debatable and osbolete, or of no meaning. However you are correct with regards to "moot point", however the meaning still actualy means it's a debatlabe point. It's like if someone say's this car is better becasue it handles off road better, you can say that's a "moot point" or you could say "that's debatable". Yes it handles off road better but does that make the car better if you'll never go off road. Anyone that uses it in a context otherwise is missusing the phrase.

Poverty's comment "styling is a moot point" was correct use, re-phrase it "styling is a debatable point" and it still makes sense.

 

[Scaff]

It's really not that bad Scaff. Perhaps if there hadn't been a wave of new coupes of such a high quality, people would have judged the TT on its own merits. By that, I mean it's quick enough, capacious (in the boot, not back seats. Don't get me started on the pews in the back) and it's reliable. Adding to this that it holds its value well despite being ubiquitous, it's a generally well engineered and designed car. Although, it really isn't special enough to shine in the 350Z arena.

I'm judging the original TT on my own experience of driving the car on a number of occasions, from shortly after its UK launch to around a year before the new version was launched.

From a style point of view I have always admired the car, it still looks great to this day (however it is a bit too common on UK roads), however as a drivers car its simple dull and uninvolving, its Golf roots far to obvious. Steering feedback for example is simply none existent, it not a car that wants to involve the driver on any level. I mean when the base FWD version is more fun to drive that the allegedly superior quattro versions then something is simply not right (a similar situation appears to be arising with the new TT as well which is interesting).

Its a well built car, but that's not the same as a well engineered car; nothing about the original TT was innovative or new from an engineering perspective. It failed to move the game along in this way at all.

Its competent and stylish, but its not a great car in engineering or driver terms in any way.

Regards

Scaff

 

[Danny]

I'm judging the original TT on my own experience of driving the car on a number of occasions, from shortly after its UK launch to around a year before the new version was launched.

From a style point of view I have always admired the car, it still looks great to this day (however it is a bit too common on UK roads), however as a drivers car its simple dull and uninvolving, its Golf roots far to obvious. Steering feedback for example is simply none existent, it not a car that wants to involve the driver on any level. I mean when the base FWD version is more fun to drive that the allegedly superior quattro versions then something is simply not right (a similar situation appears to be arising with the new TT as well which is interesting).

Its a well built car, but that's not the same as a well engineered car; nothing about the original TT was innovative or new from an engineering perspective. It failed to move the game along in this way at all.

Its competent and stylish, but its not a great car in engineering or driver terms in any way.

Regards

Scaff

Ok, the Golf wasn't a great driving car to base a coupe on, although you could do worse. The TT isn't really aimed as a sporting car. I think it's more the predictable cruiser, a car that won't step out of line in harsh conditions, but still won't thrill.

What do you mean the the term engineering?

At the risk of sounding a fool, are you refering to the engine, electrics, putting together or otherwise?

 

[skip0110]

New TT is a serious competitor...

 

[Scaff]

What do you mean the the term engineering?

At the risk of sounding a fool, are you refering to the engine, electrics, putting together or otherwise?

What I'm getting at here (and my apologies if its not been clear) is that any manufacturer can engineer a car, hell the likes of Kia and Daewoo can screw a car together to do the basics and be reasonably reliable. Moving the game on or producing something that is more than the sum of its parts is another matter altogether.

A few good examples of this would be Lotus or Porsche. Lotus have an engineering focus that drives everything they do, they innovate, but also take components that everyone has access to and work with them in a manner that is something more. Porsche took a flawed concept (rear engine layout) and made it work. The original Toyota MR2 with McPherson struts at each corner should not have been a great handling car, given the cheap and basic nature of the raw components, yet its a renowned car in handling terms. All these things Audi failed to do with the original TT, yes its competently engineered, but its certainly not well engineered. Quite simply I feel that Audi lacked the imagination to do it at the time, something I'm glad to see has started to change.

Regards

Scaff

 

[Danny]

What I'm getting at here (and my apologies if its not been clear) is that any manufacturer can engineer a car, hell the likes of Kia and Daewoo can screw a car together to do the basics and be reasonably reliable. Moving the game on or producing something that is more than the sum of its parts is another matter altogether.

A few good examples of this would be Lotus or Porsche. Lotus have an engineering focus that drives everything they do, they innovate, but also take components that everyone has access to and work with them in a manner that is something more. Porsche took a flawed concept (rear engine layout) and made it work. The original Toyota MR2 with McPherson struts at each corner should not have been a great handling car, given the cheap and basic nature of the raw components, yet its a renowned car in handling terms. All these things Audi failed to do with the original TT, yes its competently engineered, but its certainly not well engineered. Quite simply I feel that Audi lacked the imagination to do it at the time, something I'm glad to see has started to change.

Regards

Scaff

You raise some interesting points, but perhaps today we're expecting manufacturers to create such things too readily. The TT's handling was great, but it was adequate. The same could be said for other features of it. I think it a little unfair to be criticising a car for not being greater than the sum of it's part, a state which is difficult to acquire for any manufacturer, much less master.
I believe the TT's strength lies in it being a jack-of-all trades, and yes, master of none. It'll get you to work on time and won't try to kill you when the weather turns sour.

 

[Dave A]

Simply put it wasn't a proper performance car, it wasn't that fast, it wasn't that practical, it was a car for a trend imo. The styling set the world a liht, then got newspaper headlines because people were spinning out at sedate speeds, then Audi added that little spoiler to the back of the car, which did wonders for it's stability at speed. but as a drivers car it doesn't push any buttons, it just, drives. You get in, you go from a to b, there's no thrill, no feedback, no drama, no rush, nothing. You just get in, and drive, and get out. So to class it as a sportscar of any sort is imo missleading, there's no sport there, it can go fast for a non sports car, but most non sports cars don't have 225bhp. It's not particularly fast however, for a 225bhp sports car. The V6 livened it up a bit, but it tstill had no feeling or excitment in the drive, and it wasn't much quicker, the power increase was small and the car got heavier. The Audi TT sport quattro was the sportiest model, it had re0setup suspension, it was slightly lighter, but 40 something kg's and it had no rear seats, only a torsion bar where they should be. I don;t think that was a great performaer either, respective to other 240bhp sports cars, however it was probably a much better drivers car than the others. Probably what the TT should have been from the start and then had sportier models made of it.

 

[Poverty]

I agree with everything each of you guys have had to say. I never really was a MK1 TT fan as although it helped audi's cause for being rated alongside BMW and MB it was also the butt of many audi related jokes. I love the way the sport quattro model looks though I think its stunning to this day. Some of the other models are starting to look aged.

From what I gather the Audi TT was always meant to have been a bit of a half baked sports car, a all rounder like Ultrabeat has mentioned.

Ive come tot his conclusion due to the news we are hearing about the audi R4. On paper it sounds like a car just exactly like the TT, but with a mid positioned engine instead of a front positioned one. One would correctly assume that these two cars would be majorly stepping on each others toes right? Well from what were hearing out of Inglostadt is that the R4 will be a cayman beater, as it will be a real sports car with a aggressive sporting setup.

The MK2 TT like scaff has said is more fun to drive in FWD setup rather than quattro, but asfor now Id but that down to the engine. The 3.2 V6 is more of a cruiser, whilst the 2.0T is more urgent screamer. We will soon found out for certain though once more engines are introduced and mainly the "S" and "RS" versions.

 

[Venari]

Couple of fun things for you guys.