audi tt's still cool?

Cavman

hey guys im thinking of getting a used audi tt in the price range of the early 20's etc, any one got any adice about used audi's etc what to look out for etc?

any do you guys think the tt is a cool car anymore for a young guy?
alot of my friends are very devided about it,some love it others hate it?

Lafortezza

Mazda RX8 ftw!

ando

I'd say its juuuust starting to age that little bit but still, I'd love one

NotInventedHere

new concept version to be revealed at frakfurt this year I think for release in 2007 so if you can wait.......

concepts

eth0_

I don't think the TT is a car for a man, sorry!

NotInventedHere

eth0_ wrote:

I don't think the TT is a car for a man, sorry!

I have to agree they are a bit hairdresser.

bruce wayne

i have to agree they are absolutly right....

180 to 225 BHP, perminant 4 wheel drive.....very girly

as an owner I advise you to go for it lovely car, very cool styling, serious build quality, fast, holds the road like you would'nt believe.

as for the waiting till 2007 for the next gen version....yea wait and start saving you'll need over 40 k to buy one.

I picked up a second hand black TT recently for the same money your talking...and I dont regret it at all. My advise look for as low a mileage as you can get (but then again thats a bit obvious really)

good luck

NotInventedHere

bruce wayne wrote:

i have to agree they are absolutly right....

180 to 225 BHP, perminant 4 wheel drive.....very girly

as an owner I advise you to go for it lovely car, very cool styling, serious build quality, fast, holds the road like you would'nt believe.

as for the waiting till 2007 for the next gen version....yea wait and start saving you'll need over 40 k to buy one.

I picked up a second hand black TT recently for the same money your talking...and I dont regret it at all. My advise look for as low a mileage as you can get (but then again thats a bit obvious really)

good luck

The a4 quattro or a6 quattro which also have many of the same characteristics and are good value , but I suppose its a case of love it or hate it and I dont like the tt

ssh

lafortezza wrote:

Mazda RX8 ftw!

Mazda RX7-Turbo FTW

I think TTs are nice cars - just when I see someone driving one, I think "There's someone who wanted (and got) a sporty car but has no imagination."

Praetorian

I don't like the TT's at all. Aren't they supposed to be virtually the same as a Golf GTi with a bodykit It's far too easy to smoke any of the TT's

Johnny Storm

ssh wrote:

Mazda RX7-Turbo FTW

I think TTs are nice cars - just when I see someone driving one, I think "There's someone who wanted (and got) a sporty car but has no imagination."

I don't think the TT was ever cool its a whored-up Golf for a start. :eek: EDIT: whoops - didn't see your earlier post Praetorian.

I just saw one of those RX7s in Bray this morning, a 1992. It's an extremely sexy and cool car !!!! I was very, very impressed. The way the back lights were kind of fared (sp?) into the body was way cool.
I like the RX8 but now having had a good look at the old RX7 I have to say that the RX8 (while a reasonably cool car in it's own right) is a actually big step backwards in the sex-appeal stakes

Raiser

Jelly mould - front looks the same as the back - originally would spin out of control if you took a bend at speed so they added that crappy, tiny spoiler for safety reasons [!] (ow) & definitely a bit girly to boot.

ssh

Johnny Storm wrote:

I like the RX8 but now having had a good look at the old RX7 I have to say that the RX8 (while a reasonably cool car in it's own right) is a actually big step backwards in the sex-appeal stakes

It's also a big step back in the price stakes as well, it has to be said.

I wish they'd make a 300ish BHP RX8. That would be incredible.

bruce wayne

ah well......each to their own....then again, I cant stand jap cars....but there you go. It is a design you either love or hate.....and I love it.

528i

they're alittle bit gay, maybe a Nissan 350z with 280bhp & rwd instead (although its a renault engine :eek:)

Girls will like the TT, but c'mon, girls are thick :cool:

Ernie Ball

All this talk about what's 'girly' speaks only to male insecurity. Who gives a toss what insecure Mondeo drivers think? There's nothing inherently 'girly' about a TT. If anything is 'girly', it's worrying what others think and wanting to be fashionable: e.g., Does my bum look big in this car?

I think TTs are very nice cars, well designed (with one exception) and built. Also, the ones with the more powerful engines will have serious poke. What I don't like are the very high door sills and the low roof. It's like you're looking out of a submarine or something. In general, the visibility is quite poor because of that design decision.

murphaph

TT is still cool and will always be cool I reckon. I've driven one once and loved it. I'm too big of constitution to own one however!

The thing about them leaving the road-they only did that under some extreme circumstances IIRC (flat out round a bend type stuff). Audi played very safe on that and the spoiler is the result. It did spoil the lines slightly but still great fun driving them.

bmoferrall

Though it's not my cup of tea from an ownership point of view, the TT does look good and will probably date very slowly (if ever).
Early model jap-import 350z's (Fairlady's I think they're called) should soon be available for around 30K. That's where my money would go...or maybe an imported RX8, if they had a bit more power (I'm sure the chassis would be up to it)

dahamsta

I loved them before they added that aforementioned tiny little spoiler, hate them now. Funny how such a tiny thing can absolutely ruin a car.

galwaytt

wow...........this post is a good barometer of the daftness that patrols the internet........

First, I sold my 2nd TT yesterday. I've had 2 since 2001, and am gunning for a 3rd.

Lemme see.......so many points raised above........
Small spoiler.........does not stop the car doing anything. Rather it was the accomanying suspension and ESP mods that 'cured' it.

Whored Up Golf.........mmm, you mean like a Seat, Skoda, Audi, VW.....therefore ye're all hoors too I guess. What kind of shed is it you procrastinators drive, anyway.........Mundano...Cornonary....Tartlet.....???

As for the original question, yes - they're still cool. And they are a class higher in terms of style/quality/finish over a Boxster. And as for the RX-8. Well I'd love one, but not at 19mpg or 2.6l rated insurance. And it'd have to have the Buck Rogers interior colours dumped out as well.........oh, and of course there's always the oil consumption. And the incredibly poor resale value. After 5 years, my TT still achieved 40% if it's now-current retail value. The Mazda.........mmm.......you'll be lucky to get 25%.

350Z...........worth even less than the Mazda. What do you expect from a car that costs Eur1343 per annum to tax? Looks cool though, although the interior is poor quality.

As for 'smoking the TT'.........well, considering that the 225 can out accelerates a Boxster....then I'd like to see what type of car you're talking about.

And, when the rain/hail/sleet/****e hits, all the bewinged/Neon/ICE crowd will be arsing around clogging up the roads whilst we are still accelerating with a surplus of grip...........

Bruce - considering the current 180 is now Eur54k, there's no way the new one will be 40.

Cavman - if you want, drop me a PM and I'll fill you in........all the detractors here are just wannabes and wouldn't know a piston from a pissy-bed.

iregk

Praetorian wrote:

I don't like the TT's at all. Aren't they supposed to be virtually the same as a Golf GTi with a bodykit It's far too easy to smoke any of the TT's

Not supposed to be, it is a golf with a body kit! That said, great car to build upon. I think they look good but I'd agree in that they are serious hair dresser cars. For me they are peoples cars who are seriously concious about image and looks and nothing about drive or mechanics. If your going to say your not into image, just get the golf!

jayok

I think they were a good looking car in their day, but time have moved on and they are far too common. Then again each to their own. I only know two people who own one - a girl and a gay guy. So my impression are probalby incorrectly based on that

As for 'smoking the TT'.........well, considering that the 225 can out accelerates a Boxster....then I'd like to see what type of car you're talking about.

Errr.. according to www.audi.ie the 0-100kph of the 1.8T 225BHP Quatro is 7.9seconds. My 1.6 Civic does 0-60 in that and it doesn't cost €54k

Ernie Ball

No way does a TT out-accelerate a Boxster. The only one that is in the same range is the 250hp 3.2 quattro DSG, which will do 0-100kph in 6.2 seconds (same as the Boxster).

I had no idea the TTs were as slow as that. Not that they're slow, but still. They must be really heavy, considering the horsepower.

[Edit:] Actually, I think there might be something wrong with the specs on the audi site since they have the 180bhp quattro and the 225bhp quattro with the same 0-100 times: 7.9. That can't be.

Neuro

NotInventedHere wrote:

I have to agree they are a bit hairdresser.

There are two aspects that we need to consider; aesthetics and 'coolness'. Aesthetics is a measure of a person's or objects's beauty, 'coolness' is a measure of a person's or object's desireablilty.

For example, a Honda Civic in a gaudy colour scheme with various bits of plastic hanging out of it is not aesthetically pleasing, but it is considered very 'cool' amongst many, mainly young, people.

The converse is true of The Audi TT. Most people would agree that it is a very attractive car. But the perception is it's a hairdresser's car because of the number of women/metrosexuals driving them. Therefore, it is not 'cool'.

For most people, 'coolness' is far more important than aesthetics. This is understandable; we are social animals and are therefore very concerned with other people's perceptions of us.

Personally, I too think you should buy an MX8.

Maximilian

I have a 225 TT roadster and its a seriously fast car and a blast to drive. Have to laugh at some of the comments above. How many of you have you actually driven one? A "hairdressers porsche" (to use the original phrase) refers to cheap cars that look faster and more expensive than they actually are viz. Hyundai coupes etc. I hardly think a TT fits the bill.

0-60 is 6.2 secs or thereabouts. Source. I'd say its more like 6.8 or 6.9 myself.

I would recommend one to anyone. Bear in mind you can't fit even a set of golf clubs in the boot of the roadster though.

Having said all that, I'm considering selling it and getting an S2000. Might look at the new TT when it arrives.

Ernie Ball

That is a typo on the audi site. If you look under the TT roadster's specs, you'll find that the 225bhp does 0-100 in 6.9 secs, not 7.9. It would stand to reason that the coupé would do just about the same, even if it's probably slightly heavier. So the 180hp does 7.9, the 225 does 6.9 and the 250 does 6.2.

Still, not wildly speedy.

Maximilian

Actually as far as I know the roadster is heavier and slightly slower than the coupe.

murphaph

Convertibles are usually heavier because they have to add stiffness bars to the chassis to make up for the lack up torsional rigidity normally provided by a light enough roof.

bmoferrall

galwaytt wrote:

After 5 years, my TT still achieved 40% if it's now-current retail value.

TBH, I wouldn't buy a less desirable car (i.e. TT vs 350z) just because it had better resale value. Fool that I am, I tend to buy with my heart more than my head...and worry about the financial slap in the arse down the road. The 350z would have to be second-hand though.

And the incredibly poor resale value. The Mazda.........mmm.......you'll be lucky to get 25%.

Actually, the RX8 seems to have excellent resale value, in Ireland at least.

And it'd have to have the Buck Rogers interior colours dumped out as well

Wouldn't argue with that

And as for the RX-8. Well I'd love one, but not at 19mpg or 2.6l rated insurance.
.
.
.
350Z...........worth even less than the Mazda. What do you expect from a car that costs Eur1343 per annum to tax? Looks cool though, although the interior is poor quality.

Fair points...both would only make sense as low-mileage, long-term propositions. I'd be prepared to suffer the lower mpg, higher tax and steeper depreciation (though Mazda seems to fare pretty well at the moment in this dept) for what all motoring Journos (at least that I've read) say are better driver's cars than the TT.

I would have mentioned the Alfa GT as well but it might be a bit pricey at the moment for the OP's budget.

ssh

bmoferrall wrote:

I would have mentioned the Alfa GT as well but it might be a bit pricey at the moment for the OP's budget.

Fantastic looking car... but a huge pity they didn't break from their tradition of FWD cars.

bmoferrall

ssh wrote:

Fantastic looking car... but a huge pity they didn't break from their tradition of FWD cars.

Looks like they'll be addressing that with a version of the upcoming Brera. Based on pictures of the Brera though, I think the GT is better proportioned and better looking. A RWD GT would be potential classic material...pity

Cavman

cheers galwaytt will do soon,

i'd love to have a 350z before a tt or even a rx-8 but i cant afford 40k which was the cheapest 350z i could find at 3 years old,even the cheapest rx-8 i could find was 31k i know its a great car and good on the resalve value etc then a third hand tt but its a matter of means that to get a rx-8 i need at least another 10k like i was even looking at second hand boxters etc the last model 2.5 as aposed to the 2.7 new model, since the styling was very similar
the cheapest 2.5 i found was 27k and teh 2.7's are a good 35 k.basically i could scrape a new golf but im not really into those cars, im buying more with heart not for resale value, ive seen some nice body kits on tt's and they look pretty sweet,

http://www.thettshop.com/dmc.asp?cat=3053#

i love the look of the black tt in this link,
im new to the idea of even kitting a car etc
if anyone's got any adice on that aspect i'd appricate it,


cheers for your help guys
good worlk!

FX Meister

Jasus, they both look cheap and tacky. And the spoiler and lights in the rear of the silver TT look like they came from a cornflakes packet.

galwaytt

jayok wrote:

My 1.6 Civic does 0-60 in that and it doesn't cost €54k

...yeah right...you should get that clock fixed.

How anyone thinks the RX-8 has good resale value when hasn't been out long enough to find out defeats me......the insurance is a real problem, but the small tax is a boon.......pity they don't actually tax it as the real cc's i.e. 1300 not the 1744 it says on the tax book. It'd be an even better buy then.....

The big Z is a fine car, but like 530D's.....they're 5 yr old value's will go off a cliff........when the tax approaches too high a percentage of the car's value it becomes unsaleable. Witness it's predecessor the 300ZX or the Mitsubishi 3000.

Funny you mention the Alfa GT....that's actually on my shopping list......drives well too. FWD?? Watched WTCC lately???? Or WRC??

rymus

Neuro wrote:

Most people would agree that it is a very attractive car.

In that case, most people need a guide dog and/or a white cane. I'd rather have a fiat multipla!

(or a BMW M5... whichever is in stock on the day )

Funxy

Great car and other car makers should look inside and take some notes. Its amazing looking inside and a pleasure to drive.

Cavman

cheers for your help guys

jayok

galwaytt wrote:

...yeah right...you should get that clock fixed.

The Honda Civic 1992-1995 1.6VTi does 0-100kph in 7.3s
The Honda Civic 1995-2000 1.6VTi does 0-100kph in 8.0s

At least when I didn't know the 0-100kph time of the TT I had the courtesy to look it up. You need to educate yourself about real cars :rolleyes:

zod

From honestjohn.co.uk

What's Bad
A spate of high-speed autobahn accidents led to a German recall for suspension modifications to be made, ESP system and a rear spoiler to be fitted. Some doubt as to whether these accidents were caused by the car, by lack of skill or by a rear suspension joint seizing up. A new hood for the Roadster costs £5,000. Timing belt, tensioner and waterpump need replacing at 60k miles, not the 80k Audi specifies. This is a difficult £500 job because access is poor. 1.8 20v engines are snapping their timing belts at 65k - 80k miles, often after the belt-driven waterpump seizes, and the extensive damage this causes is sometimes not repairable. Car will usually need a replacement engine. 1.8 20Vs suffering problems with air mass sensors which cost around £200 to replace. All 1.8 20V turbos built from around August 2001 to October 2002 can suffer from failure of one or more of the four ignition coils, which lead to a dispute butween VAG and a supplier and a severe shortage of coils from November 2002 to January 2003. No stars for pedestrian safety in NCAP tests. Dashpods seem to fail rgularly on older cars and cost £900 to replace. Poor only 75% breakdown free in 2003 Which survey (due to the coils problem). Audi had average warranty repair costs in 2003 Warranty Direct Reliability index (index 101.16 v/s lowest 31.93). Link:- www.reliabilityindex.co.uk Audi TT the 2nd least reliable car in 2005 Warranty Direct Reliability Survey with 59 repair claims per 100 cars. Link:- www.reliabilityindex.co.uk, largely due to the problem with ignition coils. Rated Poor for breakdowns, problems and faults in 2003 Which survey but probably almost all as a result of the coils problem. Mere 79% of cars up to 2 years old breakdown-free over previous 12 months in 2004 Which? survey, again most likely to be due to the coils problem.

paul moore

If your buying a sports car....simply buy JAPANESE ! The size of that engine in that TT Coupe and it does feck all,A 13 year old MR2 TURBO would leave that for dust...and thats 13 years old,......................BUY JAPANESE !!!

Ernie Ball

jayok wrote:

The Honda Civic 1992-1995 1.6VTi does 0-100kph in 7.3s
The Honda Civic 1995-2000 1.6VTi does 0-100kph in 8.0s

So, based on those stats and the ones available on the audi site (and taking account of the obvious typo in the 0-100kph time of the 225bhp quattro), we are left with the following, in order from fastest to slowest:

Audi TT 3.2 250bhp quattro: 6.2 seconds
Audi TT 1.8 225bhp quattro: 6.9 seconds
Honda Civic 1992-1995 1.6VTi: 7.3 seconds
Audi TT 1.8 180bhp quattro: 7.8 seconds
Honda Civic 95-2000 1.6VTi: 8.0 seconds
Audi TT 1.8 tiptronic: 8.4 seconds

Dan_B

Holy Sh!t ZOD.
Maybe one of the mods should remove all references to build quality in this thread!!! :eek:

jayok

So, based on those stats and the ones available on the audi site (and taking account of the obvious typo in the 0-100kph time of the 225bhp quattro), we are left with the following, in order from fastest to slowest:

Yep, this list looks about right to me. I wasn't arguing the 0-100kph times of the car, I was simply educating galwaytt about the incorrect statement that I needed to get my clock fixed - I don't.

BTW If we are expanding the list to include all Audi TT engines and not the 1.8T originally under discussion then might I add one more to your list:

Honda Civic 1998-2000 Civic Type R: 5.1 seconds
Audi TT 3.2 250bhp quattro: 6.2 seconds
Audi TT 1.8 225bhp quattro: 6.9 seconds
Honda Civic 1992-1995 1.6VTi: 7.3 seconds
Audi TT 1.8 180bhp quattro: 7.8 seconds
Honda Civic 95-2000 1.6VTi: 8.0 seconds
Audi TT 1.8 tiptronic: 8.4 seconds

And as I said before it doesn't cost €54k

From a performance point of view are some reasons to buy from different manufacturers, for example, if you want:

A V8 or V12 - buy a Mercedes
A straight six cylinder - buy a BMW
An NA I4 - buy a Honda
A Turbo charged monster - buy a Subaru

But if you want an adequately performing, overpriced, under spec'd car, that suffers poor performance (relatively) and reliability based on a good family car (the Golf) BUT that makes you think you're "cool" when nobody will even bother to notice - buy an Audi TT.

Audi have built some excellent cars (think RS6), but the TT is not one of them.

If looks are what really floats your boat then buy an Alfa GT.

Ernie Ball

jayok wrote:

Honda Civic 1998-2000 Civic Type R: 5.1 seconds
Audi TT 3.2 250bhp quattro: 6.2 seconds
Audi TT 1.8 225bhp quattro: 6.9 seconds
Honda Civic 1992-1995 1.6VTi: 7.3 seconds
Audi TT 1.8 180bhp quattro: 7.8 seconds
Honda Civic 95-2000 1.6VTi: 8.0 seconds
Audi TT 1.8 tiptronic: 8.4 seconds

And as I said before it doesn't cost €54k

A Type R costs €35K new and would be a lot less comfortable as a daily driver than a TT.

From a performance point of view are some reasons to buy from different manufacturers, for example, if you want:

A V8 or V12 - buy a Mercedes
A straight six cylinder - buy a BMW
An NA I4 - buy a Honda
A Turbo charged monster - buy a Subaru

But if you want an adequately performing, overpriced, under spec'd car, that suffers poor performance (relatively) and reliability based on a good family car (the Golf) BUT that makes you think you're "cool" when nobody will even bother to notice - buy an Audi TT.

That's a bit unfair. I take the point about reliability. But there's more to performance than straight-line speed and the handling of the TT quattro is superior to that of any Honda or Subaru you're likely to find. Personally, I'd rather have a 225 bhp quattro than a Type R.

Of course, I have no dog in this fight, being neither a TT nor a Honda owner.

jayok

A Type R costs €35K new and would be a lot less comfortable as a daily driver than a TT.

Actually the 1998-2000 TypeR has a 1.6 engine and was made for the JDM only as such you could / can only buy them second hand for about €15k. The new €35k 2 litre TypeR is as hard as hell and I agree, definately not one for a daily driver and the TT would probably be better here.

That's a bit unfair. I take the point about reliability. But there's more to performance than straight-line speed

Absolutely, but this is why there are so many different cars on the market. If I wanted pure acceleration and driver engagement I'd buy a TVR (or Zonda). If I wanted a practical daily drive with some serious poke I'd look at an M3. If I wasted a rally car I'd buy an Imprezza. If I was 18 again and looking for my first car I'd try to buy a Yaris. Performance is such a relative thing, but for me (with the stats to match) the TT doesn't do particularily well in any department. I am not trying to be unfair here but claims such as "smokes a Porsche Boxer" need to be put in perspective.

and the handling of the TT quattro is superior to that of any Honda or Subaru you're likely to find

Don't know about that. Sure, Audi's quattro system is great for the handling but Subaru's handling has been developed on the rally track. I would have doubts about Audi's quattro delivering superior handling to Subaru.

As for the Honda comparing the FWD to the quattro of couse the Audi is superior. But drive the RWD S2000 against the Audi and find out about handling.

528i

jayok wrote:

BTW If we are expanding the list to include all Audi TT engines and not the 1.8T originally under discussion then might I add one more to your list:

Honda Civic 1998-2000 Civic Type R: 5.1 seconds
Audi TT 3.2 250bhp quattro: 6.2 seconds
Audi TT 1.8 225bhp quattro: 6.9 seconds
Honda Civic 1992-1995 1.6VTi: 7.3 seconds
Audi TT 1.8 180bhp quattro: 7.8 seconds
Honda Civic 95-2000 1.6VTi: 8.0 seconds
Audi TT 1.8 tiptronic: 8.4 seconds

Don't believe everything you read on cruiseirl.com

PS. I wont feed the trolls / those who insult our intelligence by suggesting 'Alfa' as a credible ownership prospect.

The riaght funnie bhoys wha

paul moore

A little Toyota Starlet GT TURBO 1.3 !!!!

00 - 60 7.0 SECONDS ITS ONLY A 1.3 !!!!

Squirrel

0-100KPH means **** all IMHO. When those times are achieved the clutch rarely lasts more than a few runs, and in perfect conditions, with perfectally heated tyres. Through gear acceleration is the real test, or take a test drive of what you want. Personally I prefer the TT to a Civic and if I had to have one on my drive every day it would have 4 rings on the front

Ernie Ball

jayok wrote:

As for the Honda comparing the FWD to the quattro of couse the Audi is superior. But drive the RWD S2000 against the Audi and find out about handling.

<soapbox>Hey, you're preaching to the converted. If I could have afforded an S2000, I would have. But they were twice the price of the MR2 roadster I ended up getting. Having driven this RWD mid-engined gem for the last 6 months, I don't think I'll ever be able to drive a FWD car again.

Only problem is: it makes me want to spend piles of money on it. If I can get my insurance company to agree to it, I'm thinking about turbocharging it next year. Turbo kits usually bring the bhp up from 140 to over 200 (you can do more than that but then you've got to upgrade a lot of engine parts). This is in a car that weighs less than a tonne. A turbo MR2 roadster is the equal of pretty much anything out there both in a straight line and, especially, on the twisties.

</soapbox>

bmoferrall

528i wrote:

PS. I wont feed those who insult our intelligence by suggesting 'Alfa' as a credible ownership prospect.

OK 528i...I think we'll manage fine without the kind of sustenance you usually dish out though

bmoferrall

galwaytt wrote:

The Mazda.........mmm.......you'll be lucky to get 25%
...
How anyone thinks the RX-8 has good resale value when hasn't been out long enough to find out defeats me

Well, it hasn't stopped you from plucking a figure of 25% from thin air .

The Irish Times quoted annual car sale statistics earlier in the year and the RX8 proved to be a very strong seller in its class - IIRC around 230 sold in a short space of time. Nearly new RX8's are on sale for very close to list price, another good indicator. Based on this I think it's fair to extrapolate that the RX8 may fare well on resale in the future.
I suspect that the RX8 may appeal to a section of the population that the TT unashamedly gorges itself on...poseurs and dandies.

PS: no need for the condescending tone in your posts.