RE: 2004 Audi TT
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
RE: 2004 Audi TT
The 225 S3 is already faster than the Golf R32. It goes without chipping
that if the 225 TT comes with the DSG, it'll give the 3.2 a pretty nice kick
in the ***, since the turbo won't stop spooling, which is why the 3.2 is
only a tad slower now. Now, get an Öettinger turbo for the 225 and you're in
the region of 300 horses. That is so very much faster than the 3.2!
The only thing the 3.2 will be good at is at being progressive and smooth,
so maybe more pleasurable to drive if you're not interested in pure
acceleration and speed. It's a pity Audi are getting rid of turbos. I mean
the new S4 is no M3 beater and it's newer. Had it had a turbo, it would have
been a completely different kettle of fish. Plus, with a turbo, petrol
consumption is much more under your control. If you drive a 225 sparingly
you'll get the kind of mileage a 3.2 can only dream of.
My two cents,
JP Roberts
Steve Grauman <oneactor1@aol.com> escribió en el mensaje de noticias
20030624041604.02066.00000164@mb-m10.aol.com...
> << By all accounts, the DSG is worth waiting for - I am. But then I
already
> have a 225 TT . >>
>
> I love the TT 225. I've heard a rumour of one rolling around near me with
APR's
> 280Hp chip, an H&R suspension, and a host of other mods. But I have yet to
see
> it.
that if the 225 TT comes with the DSG, it'll give the 3.2 a pretty nice kick
in the ***, since the turbo won't stop spooling, which is why the 3.2 is
only a tad slower now. Now, get an Öettinger turbo for the 225 and you're in
the region of 300 horses. That is so very much faster than the 3.2!
The only thing the 3.2 will be good at is at being progressive and smooth,
so maybe more pleasurable to drive if you're not interested in pure
acceleration and speed. It's a pity Audi are getting rid of turbos. I mean
the new S4 is no M3 beater and it's newer. Had it had a turbo, it would have
been a completely different kettle of fish. Plus, with a turbo, petrol
consumption is much more under your control. If you drive a 225 sparingly
you'll get the kind of mileage a 3.2 can only dream of.
My two cents,
JP Roberts
Steve Grauman <oneactor1@aol.com> escribió en el mensaje de noticias
20030624041604.02066.00000164@mb-m10.aol.com...
> << By all accounts, the DSG is worth waiting for - I am. But then I
already
> have a 225 TT . >>
>
> I love the TT 225. I've heard a rumour of one rolling around near me with
APR's
> 280Hp chip, an H&R suspension, and a host of other mods. But I have yet to
see
> it.
#2
Guest
Posts: n/a
RE: 2004 Audi TT
<< The 225 S3 is already faster than the Golf >>
When did a 225 S3 come out? Last I checked, the MKIV Golf based S3 made 210 Hp,
and was not faster than an R32. The MKV based S3 is soupposed to use the new
3.2, with 280Hp.
<< I mean
the new S4 is no M3 beater and it's newer. >>
A lot of people would disagree with this statement. The S4 may not be as quick
in a striaght line, but it'll hold a candle to the M3 on a track.
When did a 225 S3 come out? Last I checked, the MKIV Golf based S3 made 210 Hp,
and was not faster than an R32. The MKV based S3 is soupposed to use the new
3.2, with 280Hp.
<< I mean
the new S4 is no M3 beater and it's newer. >>
A lot of people would disagree with this statement. The S4 may not be as quick
in a striaght line, but it'll hold a candle to the M3 on a track.
#3
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2004 Audi TT
"JP Roberts" <12345@wanadoo.es> wrote in message
news:bdadfl$9hj$1@news.ya.com...
<snip>
> I mean
> the new S4 is no M3 beater and it's newer.
Ahem. Except against the clock.
A brief reminder of the televised test at Bedford - M3 half a car length in
front in a straight-line run (quarter mile or to 100mph, I forget). S4 a
second a lap faster (in the dry!).
H1K
news:bdadfl$9hj$1@news.ya.com...
<snip>
> I mean
> the new S4 is no M3 beater and it's newer.
Ahem. Except against the clock.
A brief reminder of the televised test at Bedford - M3 half a car length in
front in a straight-line run (quarter mile or to 100mph, I forget). S4 a
second a lap faster (in the dry!).
H1K
#4
Guest
Posts: n/a
RE: 2004 Audi TT
Was that really in the dry?
Hairy One Kenobi <abuse@[127.0.0.1]> escribió en el mensaje de noticias
twcKa.70$%a.1811@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net...
> "JP Roberts" <12345@wanadoo.es> wrote in message
> news:bdadfl$9hj$1@news.ya.com...
>
> <snip>
>
> > I mean
> > the new S4 is no M3 beater and it's newer.
>
> Ahem. Except against the clock.
>
> A brief reminder of the televised test at Bedford - M3 half a car length
in
> front in a straight-line run (quarter mile or to 100mph, I forget). S4 a
> second a lap faster (in the dry!).
>
> H1K
>
>
Hairy One Kenobi <abuse@[127.0.0.1]> escribió en el mensaje de noticias
twcKa.70$%a.1811@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net...
> "JP Roberts" <12345@wanadoo.es> wrote in message
> news:bdadfl$9hj$1@news.ya.com...
>
> <snip>
>
> > I mean
> > the new S4 is no M3 beater and it's newer.
>
> Ahem. Except against the clock.
>
> A brief reminder of the televised test at Bedford - M3 half a car length
in
> front in a straight-line run (quarter mile or to 100mph, I forget). S4 a
> second a lap faster (in the dry!).
>
> H1K
>
>
#5
Guest
Posts: n/a
RE: 2004 Audi TT
The fact still remains that being the new S4 a good year and a half newer
than the M3, they should have come up with something like 40 or 50 more
Horses, at least in order to save face, since at Euro 60,000 they are no
bargain. Just remember the RS6 is 100k and is a hell lot more of a car which
can easily be tuned to the 500-region horseriding land.
In my modest opinion, they are going to sell very few of the new S4s and
that's precisely because they offer little if no tunability at all.
My two cents,
JP Roberts
Hairy One Kenobi <abuse@[127.0.0.1]> escribió en el mensaje de noticias
twcKa.70$%a.1811@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net...
> "JP Roberts" <12345@wanadoo.es> wrote in message
> news:bdadfl$9hj$1@news.ya.com...
>
> <snip>
>
> > I mean
> > the new S4 is no M3 beater and it's newer.
>
> Ahem. Except against the clock.
>
> A brief reminder of the televised test at Bedford - M3 half a car length
in
> front in a straight-line run (quarter mile or to 100mph, I forget). S4 a
> second a lap faster (in the dry!).
>
> H1K
>
>
than the M3, they should have come up with something like 40 or 50 more
Horses, at least in order to save face, since at Euro 60,000 they are no
bargain. Just remember the RS6 is 100k and is a hell lot more of a car which
can easily be tuned to the 500-region horseriding land.
In my modest opinion, they are going to sell very few of the new S4s and
that's precisely because they offer little if no tunability at all.
My two cents,
JP Roberts
Hairy One Kenobi <abuse@[127.0.0.1]> escribió en el mensaje de noticias
twcKa.70$%a.1811@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net...
> "JP Roberts" <12345@wanadoo.es> wrote in message
> news:bdadfl$9hj$1@news.ya.com...
>
> <snip>
>
> > I mean
> > the new S4 is no M3 beater and it's newer.
>
> Ahem. Except against the clock.
>
> A brief reminder of the televised test at Bedford - M3 half a car length
in
> front in a straight-line run (quarter mile or to 100mph, I forget). S4 a
> second a lap faster (in the dry!).
>
> H1K
>
>
#6
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2004 Audi TT
"JP Roberts" <12345@wanadoo.es> wrote in message
news:bdc6fu$i9h$1@news.ya.com...
> Was that really in the dry?
Yes, really in the dry. And televised, and (apparently) watched by at least
two posters in this group. Plus several million more Britons, I'd imagine.
Look out for the BBC programme "TopGear"
The theory goes that the M3 would be even slower in the wet, but it was only
tested in the dry (unusual for the UK ;o)
H1K
> Hairy One Kenobi <abuse@[127.0.0.1]> escribió en el mensaje de noticias
> twcKa.70$%a.1811@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net...
> > "JP Roberts" <12345@wanadoo.es> wrote in message
> > news:bdadfl$9hj$1@news.ya.com...
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > I mean
> > > the new S4 is no M3 beater and it's newer.
> >
> > Ahem. Except against the clock.
> >
> > A brief reminder of the televised test at Bedford - M3 half a car length
> in
> > front in a straight-line run (quarter mile or to 100mph, I forget). S4 a
> > second a lap faster (in the dry!).
> >
> > H1K
> >
> >
>
>
news:bdc6fu$i9h$1@news.ya.com...
> Was that really in the dry?
Yes, really in the dry. And televised, and (apparently) watched by at least
two posters in this group. Plus several million more Britons, I'd imagine.
Look out for the BBC programme "TopGear"
The theory goes that the M3 would be even slower in the wet, but it was only
tested in the dry (unusual for the UK ;o)
H1K
> Hairy One Kenobi <abuse@[127.0.0.1]> escribió en el mensaje de noticias
> twcKa.70$%a.1811@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net...
> > "JP Roberts" <12345@wanadoo.es> wrote in message
> > news:bdadfl$9hj$1@news.ya.com...
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > I mean
> > > the new S4 is no M3 beater and it's newer.
> >
> > Ahem. Except against the clock.
> >
> > A brief reminder of the televised test at Bedford - M3 half a car length
> in
> > front in a straight-line run (quarter mile or to 100mph, I forget). S4 a
> > second a lap faster (in the dry!).
> >
> > H1K
> >
> >
>
>
#7
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2004 Audi TT
<< Yes, really in the dry. And televised, and (apparently) watched by at least
two posters in this group. Plus several million more Britons, I'd imagine. >>
The S4 is just a bad-*** track machine. Can't wait untill the 2 door S4 powered
cehicle comes along.
<< The theory goes that the M3 would be even slower in the wet, but it was only
tested in the dry (unusual for the UK ;o) >>
I can't think of anything in the S4's price bracket that'd be faster than it on
a wet track. The RS6 may be the only sedan on earth faster in wet weather.
two posters in this group. Plus several million more Britons, I'd imagine. >>
The S4 is just a bad-*** track machine. Can't wait untill the 2 door S4 powered
cehicle comes along.
<< The theory goes that the M3 would be even slower in the wet, but it was only
tested in the dry (unusual for the UK ;o) >>
I can't think of anything in the S4's price bracket that'd be faster than it on
a wet track. The RS6 may be the only sedan on earth faster in wet weather.
#8
Guest
Posts: n/a
RE: 2004 Audi TT
Maybe something much cheaper, as the Subaru Impreza or the Mitsu Evo, both
of them with 300 HP now and considerably better acceleration in the low
range of speeds?
I wouldn't like to be beaten by one of these after paying through the nose
for a new S4.
Steve Grauman <oneactor1@aol.com> escribió en el mensaje de noticias
20030626040333.20874.00001940@mb-m27.aol.com...
> << Yes, really in the dry. And televised, and (apparently) watched by at
least
> two posters in this group. Plus several million more Britons, I'd imagine.
>>
>
> The S4 is just a bad-*** track machine. Can't wait untill the 2 door S4
powered
> cehicle comes along.
>
> << The theory goes that the M3 would be even slower in the wet, but it was
only
> tested in the dry (unusual for the UK ;o) >>
>
> I can't think of anything in the S4's price bracket that'd be faster than
it on
> a wet track. The RS6 may be the only sedan on earth faster in wet weather.
of them with 300 HP now and considerably better acceleration in the low
range of speeds?
I wouldn't like to be beaten by one of these after paying through the nose
for a new S4.
Steve Grauman <oneactor1@aol.com> escribió en el mensaje de noticias
20030626040333.20874.00001940@mb-m27.aol.com...
> << Yes, really in the dry. And televised, and (apparently) watched by at
least
> two posters in this group. Plus several million more Britons, I'd imagine.
>>
>
> The S4 is just a bad-*** track machine. Can't wait untill the 2 door S4
powered
> cehicle comes along.
>
> << The theory goes that the M3 would be even slower in the wet, but it was
only
> tested in the dry (unusual for the UK ;o) >>
>
> I can't think of anything in the S4's price bracket that'd be faster than
it on
> a wet track. The RS6 may be the only sedan on earth faster in wet weather.
#9
Guest
Posts: n/a
RE: 2004 Audi TT
> > The fact still remains that being the new S4 a good year and a half
newer
> > than the M3, they should have come up with something like 40 or 50 more
> > Horses, at least in order to save face
>
> What do appearances matter when designing a performance car? You
> design to a design goal and price point.
Far from the point I'm making, I'm saying they should have given it a power
edge over its BMW competitor.
> > since at Euro 60,000 they are no
> > bargain.
>
> Performance car buyers aren't looking for a bargain, but for a
> performance car.
What I'm saying - if you can still read between the lines, which I doubt -
is that the car is clearly overpriced considering you will be stuck at 344
HP with rather a lot of weight.
> > Just remember the RS6 is 100k and is a hell lot more of a car which
> > can easily be tuned to the 500-region horseriding land.
>
> Not without spending a bit over the purchase price, which is 60%
> higher than the S4! "Oh, if I'm going to spend EU60k, I might as well
> spend EU1ook+?" What an idiotic suggestion.
This is no idiotic suggestion at all, maybe it is by your standards, but
here in Europe people who can afford 60,000 can also afford 100,000, but
maybe you can elaborate on your point from an American perspective - I hear
a lot of people go leasing in the US.
> > In my modest opinion, they are going to sell very few of the new S4s and
> > that's precisely because they offer little if no tunability at all.
>
> LOL. You've been wrong about most other stuff, so I'm sure Audi will
> be delighted with your "prediction."
I do not know that I've been wrong about anything, but if you're planning to
buy an S4, let me tell you something: A 225 HP S3 tuned to 300 HP - 450 Nm
torque - will beat you every time, everywhere, and at a much cheaper price
and petrol expenditure and maintenance.
JP Roberts
newer
> > than the M3, they should have come up with something like 40 or 50 more
> > Horses, at least in order to save face
>
> What do appearances matter when designing a performance car? You
> design to a design goal and price point.
Far from the point I'm making, I'm saying they should have given it a power
edge over its BMW competitor.
> > since at Euro 60,000 they are no
> > bargain.
>
> Performance car buyers aren't looking for a bargain, but for a
> performance car.
What I'm saying - if you can still read between the lines, which I doubt -
is that the car is clearly overpriced considering you will be stuck at 344
HP with rather a lot of weight.
> > Just remember the RS6 is 100k and is a hell lot more of a car which
> > can easily be tuned to the 500-region horseriding land.
>
> Not without spending a bit over the purchase price, which is 60%
> higher than the S4! "Oh, if I'm going to spend EU60k, I might as well
> spend EU1ook+?" What an idiotic suggestion.
This is no idiotic suggestion at all, maybe it is by your standards, but
here in Europe people who can afford 60,000 can also afford 100,000, but
maybe you can elaborate on your point from an American perspective - I hear
a lot of people go leasing in the US.
> > In my modest opinion, they are going to sell very few of the new S4s and
> > that's precisely because they offer little if no tunability at all.
>
> LOL. You've been wrong about most other stuff, so I'm sure Audi will
> be delighted with your "prediction."
I do not know that I've been wrong about anything, but if you're planning to
buy an S4, let me tell you something: A 225 HP S3 tuned to 300 HP - 450 Nm
torque - will beat you every time, everywhere, and at a much cheaper price
and petrol expenditure and maintenance.
JP Roberts
#10
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2004 Audi TT
"JP Roberts" <12345@wanadoo.es> wrote in message
news:bderjn$825$1@news.ya.com...
> Maybe something much cheaper, as the Subaru Impreza or the Mitsu Evo, both
> of them with 300 HP now and considerably better acceleration in the low
> range of speeds?
>
> I wouldn't like to be beaten by one of these after paying through the nose
> for a new S4.
Oops! We're missing like-for-like again!
If you want 4WD and low-speed acceleration, then none of the three will get
remotely close to a sub-GBP20k Dax Rush.
Which proves exactly zilch, as it's a completely different car from the
others. Now, let's see - a SCooby will set you back a snip under GBP30k,
with the Prodrive pack. What you'll get is a 100% shiny plastic facia, the
looks of a kitcar with a bad case of indegestion, and a superb car for
tackling the twisty stuff.
If you're planning to drive any distance, OTOH, then it's probably best to
hire either an M3 or an S4. Or a TT. Or just about anything else. If the
driving experience is all that matters, 100% of the time, then, by all
means, go for it.
Commuting from Reading into outer London in a Westfield is something that
I'll never either forget or regret, but I'm not disappointed to be driving a
TTR, even if it cost several multiples more to buy.
Ditto with a Scooby or Evo, I'm afraid. They're good translations of a Rally
car onto the road, but, to be honest, I can't see them getting particularly
close to a second-hand Ultima for the same sort of money. Looks,
performance, or even fuel economy[1]
But (again!) they're different cars, intended for different purposes.
Where's this going to lead to? Comparing a Smart with a Zonta? ;o)
H1K
[1] Just in case you don't believe me - http://tinyurl.com/fd09 185mph, 60
in 3.8, and just five miles from where I live (it's the middle one of the
three). I prefer the Spyder, but it's a bit impractical (the new Can-Am has
a hood - this onew doesn't. Although I guess that 170mph top-down is quite
something to be experienced ;o)
> Steve Grauman <oneactor1@aol.com> escribió en el mensaje de noticias
> 20030626040333.20874.00001940@mb-m27.aol.com...
> > << Yes, really in the dry. And televised, and (apparently) watched by at
> least
> > two posters in this group. Plus several million more Britons, I'd
imagine.
> >>
> >
> > The S4 is just a bad-*** track machine. Can't wait untill the 2 door S4
> powered
> > cehicle comes along.
> >
> > << The theory goes that the M3 would be even slower in the wet, but it
was
> only
> > tested in the dry (unusual for the UK ;o) >>
> >
> > I can't think of anything in the S4's price bracket that'd be faster
than
> it on
> > a wet track. The RS6 may be the only sedan on earth faster in wet
weather.
>
>
news:bderjn$825$1@news.ya.com...
> Maybe something much cheaper, as the Subaru Impreza or the Mitsu Evo, both
> of them with 300 HP now and considerably better acceleration in the low
> range of speeds?
>
> I wouldn't like to be beaten by one of these after paying through the nose
> for a new S4.
Oops! We're missing like-for-like again!
If you want 4WD and low-speed acceleration, then none of the three will get
remotely close to a sub-GBP20k Dax Rush.
Which proves exactly zilch, as it's a completely different car from the
others. Now, let's see - a SCooby will set you back a snip under GBP30k,
with the Prodrive pack. What you'll get is a 100% shiny plastic facia, the
looks of a kitcar with a bad case of indegestion, and a superb car for
tackling the twisty stuff.
If you're planning to drive any distance, OTOH, then it's probably best to
hire either an M3 or an S4. Or a TT. Or just about anything else. If the
driving experience is all that matters, 100% of the time, then, by all
means, go for it.
Commuting from Reading into outer London in a Westfield is something that
I'll never either forget or regret, but I'm not disappointed to be driving a
TTR, even if it cost several multiples more to buy.
Ditto with a Scooby or Evo, I'm afraid. They're good translations of a Rally
car onto the road, but, to be honest, I can't see them getting particularly
close to a second-hand Ultima for the same sort of money. Looks,
performance, or even fuel economy[1]
But (again!) they're different cars, intended for different purposes.
Where's this going to lead to? Comparing a Smart with a Zonta? ;o)
H1K
[1] Just in case you don't believe me - http://tinyurl.com/fd09 185mph, 60
in 3.8, and just five miles from where I live (it's the middle one of the
three). I prefer the Spyder, but it's a bit impractical (the new Can-Am has
a hood - this onew doesn't. Although I guess that 170mph top-down is quite
something to be experienced ;o)
> Steve Grauman <oneactor1@aol.com> escribió en el mensaje de noticias
> 20030626040333.20874.00001940@mb-m27.aol.com...
> > << Yes, really in the dry. And televised, and (apparently) watched by at
> least
> > two posters in this group. Plus several million more Britons, I'd
imagine.
> >>
> >
> > The S4 is just a bad-*** track machine. Can't wait untill the 2 door S4
> powered
> > cehicle comes along.
> >
> > << The theory goes that the M3 would be even slower in the wet, but it
was
> only
> > tested in the dry (unusual for the UK ;o) >>
> >
> > I can't think of anything in the S4's price bracket that'd be faster
than
> it on
> > a wet track. The RS6 may be the only sedan on earth faster in wet
weather.
>
>