RE: 2004 Audi TT
#31
Guest
Posts: n/a
RE: 2004 Audi TT
Hairy One Kenobi <abuse@[127.0.0.1]> escribió en el mensaje de noticias
8UvMa.1490$nP.1477@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net...
> "JP Roberts" <12345@wanadoo.es> wrote in message
> news:bdsum6$4ig$1@news.ya.com...
> >
> > > Everybody? LOL!
> > >
> > > That's going to be a hard claim to prove.
> >
> > Most magazines state that while the S4 may be safer and easier to drive,
> and
> > maybe a tiny bit faster on well-paved fast bends - especially when wet,
> the
> > M3 is sharper, gives you a better rush of adrenaline and provides more
> > direct feel to the wheels. Now, I believe specialized magazine editors
are
> > more creditable than just any given one claiming otherwise.
>
> Erm.. except Top Gear? They have a magazine, as well as run a TV
programme,
> y'know ;o)
>
> Incidentally, the last-model M3 inpressed more because of its smoothness
> around a track, rather than out-and-out performance. IIRC the new model
has
> a smidge more power and a smidge more weight. While spinning wheels and
> kicking the back end out around corners might look good for magazine
> photographs, the only reason to do that on a (paved) track is to slow down
> when you've misjudged the entry speed to a corner.
>
> <snip>
>
> > While I'd love to have and buy an RS6 right now, and I must say I look
up
> to
> > those who have one like Mr Bell, I'm right now thinking of replacing my
> '98
> > 1.8TQ with a '04 one, namely the stock 190PS and have it tuned to
> 270-290PS,
> > which in my case should be nearly enough. Also, I can't wait to see the
> new
> > DSG implemented in the latest A4. With that and these turbo mods, the A4
> > could easily do the 0-100 in 5.6 s, which is the same as the new 04 S4.
I
> > know the S4 will be on the whole a much better car and more fun to
drive,
> > but then again it's going to cost a lot more, and consume accordingly
more
> > and I'll really enjoy seeing S4's faces when seeing an apparently plain
> > stock A4 is keeping pace with them.
>
> Hmm. Looks like you're going to be spending a fair amount of money (not
> least in insurance, unless the market is /that/ different in the US - in
the
> UK, taking the TTR225 to 270bhp is good for a 20% hike in costs. That gets
a
> /lot/ bigger once the other mods you'll need are fitted.. and you'll need
> more than a chip - that would simply push that car up to arounf the 230PS
> mark.
>
> Speaking as someone with a TT in that power range - a lighter car - you
are
> going to have a big shock with that 0-100 figure.
>
> 0-100km/h, yes, 0-100mph - wake up, you're dreaming!
>
> H1K
Quite, I was thinking 0-100 Km/h, of course. I am not so sure about
maintenance costs getting higher but of course you could be right there.
Even so, with the full setting up - no need to worry about insurance higher
costs here so far - a 270 HP A4 will need a bigger turbo, piping and
reprogramming as the stock 190 IC is generally OK, which should cost about
Euro 38,000 here. A new S4 will cost 60,000. Now that should be more than
double the money needed to cover any extra maintenance. And on that note, S4
parts are always far more expensive than those for plain A4s so I still
think basic maintenance is even more expensive for an S car.
#32
Guest
Posts: n/a
RE: 2004 Audi TT
Couldn't agree more on the point you make about the ABS - more brake fade
and maintenance expenditure for less grip.
I read something about active diffs in a magazine some time ago and they
definitely said that was a much more evolved solution. I'll see if I can
find any articles on that.
JP Roberts
Aaron Daniel <adaniel@triad.rr.com> escribió en el mensaje de noticias
pqyMa.126180$_w.6598811@twister.southeast.rr.com.. .
> "Spider" <beelzebubba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:73da2590.0307012130.38378559@posting.google.c om...
> > "JP Roberts" <12345@wanadoo.es> wrote in message
> news:<bdsvme$6go$1@news.ya.com>...
> > > Active diffs both at the front and the rear make the car grip a lot
> better
> > > on bends.
> >
> > This is not a technical description, but a re-iteration of your
> > original comment. Define the technical ways these drivetrain bits are
> > better, or more suitable to task, than the TORSEN system.
>
> I believe the Torsen center diff in Audi Quattro would compare to the
driver
> adjustable center diff in the WRX. The Audi Quattro electronically locking
> front and rear diffs would compare with the active diffs on the WRX. I'm
> sure I would prefer a Torsen to a driver adjustable center diff (since I
> don't race). I'm also sure that using ABS to make the Audi front and rear
> diffs maintain grip is a less than perfect solution. What is an active
diff
> as used in the WRX? How does it work?
>
> Aar
>
>
and maintenance expenditure for less grip.
I read something about active diffs in a magazine some time ago and they
definitely said that was a much more evolved solution. I'll see if I can
find any articles on that.
JP Roberts
Aaron Daniel <adaniel@triad.rr.com> escribió en el mensaje de noticias
pqyMa.126180$_w.6598811@twister.southeast.rr.com.. .
> "Spider" <beelzebubba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:73da2590.0307012130.38378559@posting.google.c om...
> > "JP Roberts" <12345@wanadoo.es> wrote in message
> news:<bdsvme$6go$1@news.ya.com>...
> > > Active diffs both at the front and the rear make the car grip a lot
> better
> > > on bends.
> >
> > This is not a technical description, but a re-iteration of your
> > original comment. Define the technical ways these drivetrain bits are
> > better, or more suitable to task, than the TORSEN system.
>
> I believe the Torsen center diff in Audi Quattro would compare to the
driver
> adjustable center diff in the WRX. The Audi Quattro electronically locking
> front and rear diffs would compare with the active diffs on the WRX. I'm
> sure I would prefer a Torsen to a driver adjustable center diff (since I
> don't race). I'm also sure that using ABS to make the Audi front and rear
> diffs maintain grip is a less than perfect solution. What is an active
diff
> as used in the WRX? How does it work?
>
> Aar
>
>
#33
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2004 Audi TT
oneactor1@aol.com (Steve Grauman) wrote in message news:<20030702024836.13678.00001478@mb-m25.aol.com>...
> << But to some folks, bang for the buck
> is NOT the most important factor. They buy M3s, and Porsches and Audi
> S- and RS-cars. >>
>
> There are only 3 or 4 other cars in the world that can match the S4's equation
> of performance and luxury for around the same amount of money. That's bang for
> the buck. The 996 Carrera 2 will pull 0-60 in 4.5-4.6 seconds, few other cars
> are as competant on the track, or as easy to turn fast times in, almost none of
> them brake as well. That's bang for the buck. There's not a sedan ON EARTH
> faster than the RS6, and even for $100,000; that's bang for the buck. Getting
> bang for your buck means knowing what you want and buying it. If all you're
> looking for is straight line numbers, used Ford Mustang Cobras can be had in
> the mid $20k range and run 5.1-5.5 in the 0-60 dash. How about a 1994 Corvette
> ZR1? 405Hp, 0-60 in like 5.0 seconds, limited edition, runs in the low $20k
> range. Or a 993 Carrera 2? 0-60 in 4.8 seconds, ultra well built, able to
> thrash 90% of anything else around a track, for $42-55k. And a CBR1100XX will
> take any of them in a 1/4 race.
Steve, "bang for the buck" is usually defined as how much performance
can be had for as little money as possible. The performance/dollar
ratio. And most folks don't consider the braking values in that
comparo.
A Porsche 996 is great, but if you want the most performance/dollar
spent, you are going to be shopping for a Corvette. While I would
agree that bargains can be had out there in the used car market, I
think we were all talking about new cars. Heck, I can get a used B5
S4 for less than the cost of a new, loaded A4. It's an apples/oranges
comparison, just like sportbike/sport sedan.
> << Or some combination thereof. You forgot luxury, which Audis have, and
> Evos and WRXs don't. >>
>
> I've got $100 that says a B6 S4 with nothing but upgraded tires will match or
> beat an STi or EVO on the track. The VW Golf R32 is only about 1 second slower
> on the track (the result of it's subpar tires) than either of the Japanese
> cars, and it's a hell of a lot nicer! Better tires on that baby, and you'll be
> able to keep up easily. Read the article on VWVORTEX.com
Yeah, the stock tires suck. On my A4, that was the first thing to go.
Uprated rubber REALLY makes a difference.
> << I would also choose it as a rally car, and not the S4. Ground
> clearance is down the list somewhat! >>
>
> I know someone who just bought an EVO, he lusts after the S4. He tells me that
> the EVO is damn near impossible to beat on ultra-rough roads. But he agrees
> that an S4 with better tires will eat him alive on a smooth track.
Rally-bred cars are going to do well in rally-type situations. But JP
seems to think that speed is the end-all, be-all. I prefer a total
package.
Spider
> << But to some folks, bang for the buck
> is NOT the most important factor. They buy M3s, and Porsches and Audi
> S- and RS-cars. >>
>
> There are only 3 or 4 other cars in the world that can match the S4's equation
> of performance and luxury for around the same amount of money. That's bang for
> the buck. The 996 Carrera 2 will pull 0-60 in 4.5-4.6 seconds, few other cars
> are as competant on the track, or as easy to turn fast times in, almost none of
> them brake as well. That's bang for the buck. There's not a sedan ON EARTH
> faster than the RS6, and even for $100,000; that's bang for the buck. Getting
> bang for your buck means knowing what you want and buying it. If all you're
> looking for is straight line numbers, used Ford Mustang Cobras can be had in
> the mid $20k range and run 5.1-5.5 in the 0-60 dash. How about a 1994 Corvette
> ZR1? 405Hp, 0-60 in like 5.0 seconds, limited edition, runs in the low $20k
> range. Or a 993 Carrera 2? 0-60 in 4.8 seconds, ultra well built, able to
> thrash 90% of anything else around a track, for $42-55k. And a CBR1100XX will
> take any of them in a 1/4 race.
Steve, "bang for the buck" is usually defined as how much performance
can be had for as little money as possible. The performance/dollar
ratio. And most folks don't consider the braking values in that
comparo.
A Porsche 996 is great, but if you want the most performance/dollar
spent, you are going to be shopping for a Corvette. While I would
agree that bargains can be had out there in the used car market, I
think we were all talking about new cars. Heck, I can get a used B5
S4 for less than the cost of a new, loaded A4. It's an apples/oranges
comparison, just like sportbike/sport sedan.
> << Or some combination thereof. You forgot luxury, which Audis have, and
> Evos and WRXs don't. >>
>
> I've got $100 that says a B6 S4 with nothing but upgraded tires will match or
> beat an STi or EVO on the track. The VW Golf R32 is only about 1 second slower
> on the track (the result of it's subpar tires) than either of the Japanese
> cars, and it's a hell of a lot nicer! Better tires on that baby, and you'll be
> able to keep up easily. Read the article on VWVORTEX.com
Yeah, the stock tires suck. On my A4, that was the first thing to go.
Uprated rubber REALLY makes a difference.
> << I would also choose it as a rally car, and not the S4. Ground
> clearance is down the list somewhat! >>
>
> I know someone who just bought an EVO, he lusts after the S4. He tells me that
> the EVO is damn near impossible to beat on ultra-rough roads. But he agrees
> that an S4 with better tires will eat him alive on a smooth track.
Rally-bred cars are going to do well in rally-type situations. But JP
seems to think that speed is the end-all, be-all. I prefer a total
package.
Spider
#34
Guest
Posts: n/a
RE: 2004 Audi TT
What is an active
> diff
> > as used in the WRX? How does it work?
>
> It uses electronics and a computer to mimic a "true" Limited Slip
> Differential (LSD) under certain circumstances.
What kind of diff is it if it's not a "true" limited slip one?
> It has the benefit of acting like a normal diff in normal use, but of
> putting power down when you've lost grip on the other wheel on an "axle".
> Using an LSD on the road isn't that much fun.. although it's a very good
way
> of exploring hedges (if you're into that sort of thing ;o) if you "boot
it"
> on a slippery straight road.
While this is true of the diff in the front axle of the new Focus RS, no
magazine ever said an Evo was difficult to drive except if you brought it to
its very limits, so could you elaborate on that?
> In the wrong hands, think of it as "torque steer on steroids".. very
useful
> for sliding your way around bends though (which looks terribly good, but
is
> usually slower than using a bit of planning and having adequate grip in
the
> first place)
>
> H1K
>
>
> diff
> > as used in the WRX? How does it work?
>
> It uses electronics and a computer to mimic a "true" Limited Slip
> Differential (LSD) under certain circumstances.
What kind of diff is it if it's not a "true" limited slip one?
> It has the benefit of acting like a normal diff in normal use, but of
> putting power down when you've lost grip on the other wheel on an "axle".
> Using an LSD on the road isn't that much fun.. although it's a very good
way
> of exploring hedges (if you're into that sort of thing ;o) if you "boot
it"
> on a slippery straight road.
While this is true of the diff in the front axle of the new Focus RS, no
magazine ever said an Evo was difficult to drive except if you brought it to
its very limits, so could you elaborate on that?
> In the wrong hands, think of it as "torque steer on steroids".. very
useful
> for sliding your way around bends though (which looks terribly good, but
is
> usually slower than using a bit of planning and having adequate grip in
the
> first place)
>
> H1K
>
>
#35
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2004 Audi TT
"JP Roberts" <12345@wanadoo.es> wrote in message
news:bduqh2$cat$1@news.ya.com...
<snip>
> Quite, I was thinking 0-100 Km/h, of course. I am not so sure about
> maintenance costs getting higher but of course you could be right there.
> Even so, with the full setting up - no need to worry about insurance
higher
> costs here so far - a 270 HP A4 will need a bigger turbo, piping and
> reprogramming as the stock 190 IC is generally OK, which should cost about
> Euro 38,000 here. A new S4 will cost 60,000. Now that should be more than
> double the money needed to cover any extra maintenance. And on that note,
S4
> parts are always far more expensive than those for plain A4s so I still
> think basic maintenance is even more expensive for an S car.
Hmm. You seem to have a very cheap tuner in mind.. using the Audi
Configurator, the base price of the car (no including options, apparently,
although my Spanish is minimal) is EUR32k for what appears to be a 163PS
model (!).
That price is starting to look a little tight for a turbo, plumbing, and
fitting costs.. don't know any tuners in Spain, so let's take a peep at some
UK prices from AmD: OK, turbo upgrade £2500; rechip "from GBP450", typical
seems to be GBP700; sports exhaust (cat-back only) GBP405; new (working!)
DV, GBP80. Now, let's add the VAT and get GBP3685. Let's assume that the
Euro is still as strong against the pound as it is at the moment (unlikely,
IMHO), and we get around EUR5250. Without fitting or handling mods.
Not sure how much fitting on that little lot would be (bearing in mind that
we've already spent that EUR38k) - probably a couple of thousand Euros. No
real information on the handling packages that you'd need to get close to an
S4 - just "from GBP1475" [EUR 2100] for the brakes and "from GBP275" [EUR
320] for the springs and dampers.
Add the fact that you've just voided the warranty on your new car in pretty
much all areas, and I'd say that you'd probably have to spend EUR45k to
mimic an S4.
But that's not all - I don't know the market in Spain, but it's quite hard
to sell a heavily modified car over here - it's just too specialist - and
you should not expect to claw back a penny (or cent!) that you've spent on
the mods - often the reverse.
So, in your effort to be frugal, you've "saved" EUR15k, but will immediately
lose a proportional amount of 13k (your car will follow the depreciation of
an A4, the S4 will still have residual demand from its rarity).
In other words, this approach may end up /costing/ you money..
...not that I've any problem with this - the world would be a very boring
place if everyone thought alike. OTOH, maybe it's a good idea to think again
about "your" car being that much cheaper than an S4.
Oh. And there's no guarantee of the power getting close to what you're
after, although a full Nitrous kit, custom manifolds, Front-Mounted
Intercooler and ceramic cats (call that an additional EUR6000) should get
you 350bhp, as measured on B3VES in the UKTTOC. At least in short bursts.
H1K
news:bduqh2$cat$1@news.ya.com...
<snip>
> Quite, I was thinking 0-100 Km/h, of course. I am not so sure about
> maintenance costs getting higher but of course you could be right there.
> Even so, with the full setting up - no need to worry about insurance
higher
> costs here so far - a 270 HP A4 will need a bigger turbo, piping and
> reprogramming as the stock 190 IC is generally OK, which should cost about
> Euro 38,000 here. A new S4 will cost 60,000. Now that should be more than
> double the money needed to cover any extra maintenance. And on that note,
S4
> parts are always far more expensive than those for plain A4s so I still
> think basic maintenance is even more expensive for an S car.
Hmm. You seem to have a very cheap tuner in mind.. using the Audi
Configurator, the base price of the car (no including options, apparently,
although my Spanish is minimal) is EUR32k for what appears to be a 163PS
model (!).
That price is starting to look a little tight for a turbo, plumbing, and
fitting costs.. don't know any tuners in Spain, so let's take a peep at some
UK prices from AmD: OK, turbo upgrade £2500; rechip "from GBP450", typical
seems to be GBP700; sports exhaust (cat-back only) GBP405; new (working!)
DV, GBP80. Now, let's add the VAT and get GBP3685. Let's assume that the
Euro is still as strong against the pound as it is at the moment (unlikely,
IMHO), and we get around EUR5250. Without fitting or handling mods.
Not sure how much fitting on that little lot would be (bearing in mind that
we've already spent that EUR38k) - probably a couple of thousand Euros. No
real information on the handling packages that you'd need to get close to an
S4 - just "from GBP1475" [EUR 2100] for the brakes and "from GBP275" [EUR
320] for the springs and dampers.
Add the fact that you've just voided the warranty on your new car in pretty
much all areas, and I'd say that you'd probably have to spend EUR45k to
mimic an S4.
But that's not all - I don't know the market in Spain, but it's quite hard
to sell a heavily modified car over here - it's just too specialist - and
you should not expect to claw back a penny (or cent!) that you've spent on
the mods - often the reverse.
So, in your effort to be frugal, you've "saved" EUR15k, but will immediately
lose a proportional amount of 13k (your car will follow the depreciation of
an A4, the S4 will still have residual demand from its rarity).
In other words, this approach may end up /costing/ you money..
...not that I've any problem with this - the world would be a very boring
place if everyone thought alike. OTOH, maybe it's a good idea to think again
about "your" car being that much cheaper than an S4.
Oh. And there's no guarantee of the power getting close to what you're
after, although a full Nitrous kit, custom manifolds, Front-Mounted
Intercooler and ceramic cats (call that an additional EUR6000) should get
you 350bhp, as measured on B3VES in the UKTTOC. At least in short bursts.
H1K
#36
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2004 Audi TT
"JP Roberts" <12345@wanadoo.es> wrote in message
news:bdurng$dr8$1@news.ya.com...
> What is an active
> > diff
> > > as used in the WRX? How does it work?
> >
> > It uses electronics and a computer to mimic a "true" Limited Slip
> > Differential (LSD) under certain circumstances.
>
> What kind of diff is it if it's not a "true" limited slip one?
An electronically controlled one - a "true" LSD is the sort of thing you
would see in a 1960s track Mini, and is purely mechanical.
> > It has the benefit of acting like a normal diff in normal use, but of
> > putting power down when you've lost grip on the other wheel on an
"axle".
> > Using an LSD on the road isn't that much fun.. although it's a very good
> way
> > of exploring hedges (if you're into that sort of thing ;o) if you "boot
> it"
> > on a slippery straight road.
>
> While this is true of the diff in the front axle of the new Focus RS, no
> magazine ever said an Evo was difficult to drive except if you brought it
to
> its very limits, so could you elaborate on that?
Sure. A normal diff is used to equalise the speeds of the two wheels as the
vehicle describes an arc - basically, the outer wheel has to go a further
distance (larger radius), and hence moves faster.
The problem is, if one wheel loses grip altogether, then *all* power is sent
to that wheel - the result being that you get bogged-down.
The solution, then is to limit the amount of movement - or "slip" - that the
differential will provide. This means that the wheel /should/ no longer
spin, but will always supply power to the road.
Of course, this also means that, each time you try to turn-in, you are
fighting the LSD. (Bear in mind that I'm not talking pootling to the shops
(a Smart would be perfect, if that's all you're looking at doing ;o), but
when pressing-on along a track or clear, empty road)
Which is one problem.
The other is that, when, say, you're on an empty road with a slippery
surface, one tyre can get momentary grip, causing the car to lurch sideways.
On a sufficiently narrow road (e.g. a Clubman rally), the driver needs
supurb reflexes to avoid close inspection of hedges, trees, gullies, etc.
It's also the reason why, on jumps, you'll notice that WRC cars tend to
lurch sideways on landing much more than a "normal" car.
H1K
news:bdurng$dr8$1@news.ya.com...
> What is an active
> > diff
> > > as used in the WRX? How does it work?
> >
> > It uses electronics and a computer to mimic a "true" Limited Slip
> > Differential (LSD) under certain circumstances.
>
> What kind of diff is it if it's not a "true" limited slip one?
An electronically controlled one - a "true" LSD is the sort of thing you
would see in a 1960s track Mini, and is purely mechanical.
> > It has the benefit of acting like a normal diff in normal use, but of
> > putting power down when you've lost grip on the other wheel on an
"axle".
> > Using an LSD on the road isn't that much fun.. although it's a very good
> way
> > of exploring hedges (if you're into that sort of thing ;o) if you "boot
> it"
> > on a slippery straight road.
>
> While this is true of the diff in the front axle of the new Focus RS, no
> magazine ever said an Evo was difficult to drive except if you brought it
to
> its very limits, so could you elaborate on that?
Sure. A normal diff is used to equalise the speeds of the two wheels as the
vehicle describes an arc - basically, the outer wheel has to go a further
distance (larger radius), and hence moves faster.
The problem is, if one wheel loses grip altogether, then *all* power is sent
to that wheel - the result being that you get bogged-down.
The solution, then is to limit the amount of movement - or "slip" - that the
differential will provide. This means that the wheel /should/ no longer
spin, but will always supply power to the road.
Of course, this also means that, each time you try to turn-in, you are
fighting the LSD. (Bear in mind that I'm not talking pootling to the shops
(a Smart would be perfect, if that's all you're looking at doing ;o), but
when pressing-on along a track or clear, empty road)
Which is one problem.
The other is that, when, say, you're on an empty road with a slippery
surface, one tyre can get momentary grip, causing the car to lurch sideways.
On a sufficiently narrow road (e.g. a Clubman rally), the driver needs
supurb reflexes to avoid close inspection of hedges, trees, gullies, etc.
It's also the reason why, on jumps, you'll notice that WRC cars tend to
lurch sideways on landing much more than a "normal" car.
H1K
#37
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2004 Audi TT
<< Steve, "bang for the buck" is usually defined as how much performance
can be had for as little money as possible. >>
That's pretty much where I was going with my last post, did you read it?
<< And most folks don't consider the braking values in that
comparo. >>
Then somethings wrong. The overall performance of a car is defined by much more
than it's 0-60 time or 1/4 time. Handling and braking need to be part of the
equation, or you're not getting the most performance for your buck, you're
simply getting the fastest 0--60 for your buck.
<< A Porsche 996 is great, but if you want the most performance/dollar
spent, you are going to be shopping for a Corvette. >>
No you most certainly would not. If you were looking at Vettes' at all, it
would be the Z06, not the lackluster base model. On the other hand, Porsche's
911 GT2 does 0-60 in 3.6 seconds, has a 190+ MPH top speed, pulls around 1g on
the skidpad, and will thrash 99% of everything else ever made. It's a hell of a
lot more expensive than a Z06, but look at what you're getting for the money.
Besides, if all you want is 0-60, thos Superbikes are still tops.
<< While I would
agree that bargains can be had out there in the used car market, I
think we were all talking about new cars. >>
Then you're never really getting maximum bang for you buck. 1st year
depreciation is a killer!
<< Heck, I can get a used B5
S4 for less than the cost of a new, loaded A4. >>
Low mileage S4s still sell in the mid $30k range here, almost as much as a B6
3.0. But it's a hell of a lot more car for the money.
<< It's an apples/oranges
comparison, just like sportbike/sport sedan. >>
Not in this context it isn't. We're talking about getting the most performance
for you money. You're going to get a lot more from a used car than from a new
one. It's a simple matter of cost.
<< Rally-bred cars are going to do well in rally-type situations. But JP
seems to think that speed is the end-all, be-all. I prefer a total
package. >>
I just find it amusing that STI and EVO owners tout their car's superiority
simply because of it's (marginally) quicker 0-60 time. An S4 with upgraded
tires will beat it, hands down, on a smooth track. So where's the superiority?
can be had for as little money as possible. >>
That's pretty much where I was going with my last post, did you read it?
<< And most folks don't consider the braking values in that
comparo. >>
Then somethings wrong. The overall performance of a car is defined by much more
than it's 0-60 time or 1/4 time. Handling and braking need to be part of the
equation, or you're not getting the most performance for your buck, you're
simply getting the fastest 0--60 for your buck.
<< A Porsche 996 is great, but if you want the most performance/dollar
spent, you are going to be shopping for a Corvette. >>
No you most certainly would not. If you were looking at Vettes' at all, it
would be the Z06, not the lackluster base model. On the other hand, Porsche's
911 GT2 does 0-60 in 3.6 seconds, has a 190+ MPH top speed, pulls around 1g on
the skidpad, and will thrash 99% of everything else ever made. It's a hell of a
lot more expensive than a Z06, but look at what you're getting for the money.
Besides, if all you want is 0-60, thos Superbikes are still tops.
<< While I would
agree that bargains can be had out there in the used car market, I
think we were all talking about new cars. >>
Then you're never really getting maximum bang for you buck. 1st year
depreciation is a killer!
<< Heck, I can get a used B5
S4 for less than the cost of a new, loaded A4. >>
Low mileage S4s still sell in the mid $30k range here, almost as much as a B6
3.0. But it's a hell of a lot more car for the money.
<< It's an apples/oranges
comparison, just like sportbike/sport sedan. >>
Not in this context it isn't. We're talking about getting the most performance
for you money. You're going to get a lot more from a used car than from a new
one. It's a simple matter of cost.
<< Rally-bred cars are going to do well in rally-type situations. But JP
seems to think that speed is the end-all, be-all. I prefer a total
package. >>
I just find it amusing that STI and EVO owners tout their car's superiority
simply because of it's (marginally) quicker 0-60 time. An S4 with upgraded
tires will beat it, hands down, on a smooth track. So where's the superiority?
#38
Guest
Posts: n/a
RE: 2004 Audi TT
>
> Low mileage S4s still sell in the mid $30k range here, almost as much as a
B6
> 3.0. But it's a hell of a lot more car for the money.
Do they really sell for this price? Here they generally cost some 25k but I
don't think I'd like to buy one unless I knew the owner. Now, in my opinion
the old S4 is better than the new one because it offers so much room for
tuning. I would also be interested in buying a second hand S4 if I lived in
the US, but here they tend to be imported in parallel and you never know
wether they might have been "write-offs out of the beauty salon".
> I just find it amusing that STI and EVO owners tout their car's
superiority
> simply because of it's (marginally) quicker 0-60 time. An S4 with upgraded
> tires will beat it, hands down, on a smooth track. So where's the
superiority?
On rough roads and in every situation that requires nimble behaviour and
bursts of acceleration maybe?
> Low mileage S4s still sell in the mid $30k range here, almost as much as a
B6
> 3.0. But it's a hell of a lot more car for the money.
Do they really sell for this price? Here they generally cost some 25k but I
don't think I'd like to buy one unless I knew the owner. Now, in my opinion
the old S4 is better than the new one because it offers so much room for
tuning. I would also be interested in buying a second hand S4 if I lived in
the US, but here they tend to be imported in parallel and you never know
wether they might have been "write-offs out of the beauty salon".
> I just find it amusing that STI and EVO owners tout their car's
superiority
> simply because of it's (marginally) quicker 0-60 time. An S4 with upgraded
> tires will beat it, hands down, on a smooth track. So where's the
superiority?
On rough roads and in every situation that requires nimble behaviour and
bursts of acceleration maybe?
#39
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2004 Audi TT
"JP Roberts" <12345@wanadoo.es> wrote in message news:<bduq32$bqd$1@news.ya.com>...
> > > Most magazines state that while the S4 may be safer and easier to drive,
> and
> > > maybe a tiny bit faster on well-paved fast bends - especially when wet,
> the
> > > M3 is sharper, gives you a better rush of adrenaline and provides more
> > > direct feel to the wheels. Now, I believe specialized magazine editors
> are
> > > more creditable than just any given one claiming otherwise.
> >
> > That's why Car and Driver chose the new S4 over the M3. I guess,
> > then, that your "most magazines" is just mere hyperbole?
>
> Did I ever say the M3 was overall better? Just learn to read better.
And I quote:
"Everybody except apparently you seems to agree that the M3 is much
more fun
to drive."
Since you have stated over and over about this being the penultimate
reason for buying a car, one must assume that "More fun to drive" =
"better."
But it's a nice weasel.
[snip]
> > > and I'll really enjoy seeing S4's faces when seeing an apparently plain
> > > stock A4 is keeping pace with them.
> >
> > But if you can afford all that, then surely you can afford an RS6,
> > right? After all, that's your line of reasoning.
>
> You're beating about the bush once more.
Hardly.
> I said here most people who can
> afford a new S4 will be able to get an RS6 and that considering bang for the
> buck that's a far better and cleverer buy.
You can state it over and over and it still won't be true. If you can
afford a certain thing, it is not immediately evident that you can
afford a thing OVER TWICE AS EXPENSIVE. (S4 vs RS6 in the U.S.)
> > > See above on why you might regret a new S4 not having a turbo.
>
> > I wouldn't regret it for a second. Extracting the very last ounce of
> > performance out of a car is not my style. Especially on a daily
> > driver.
>
> If this is so, why didn't you buy a non-S badge?
I did.
> Surely, it would have done
> the same service to you as a daily driver.
It does.
> > If you have done your research, and know what you want, then you won't
> > be disappointed. Well-informed buyers know the possibilities, and
> > make choices accordingly.
> >
> > Only a fool would think otherwise.
> >
> > Spider
>
> Of course anyone's choice is respectable and that doesn't mean they are
> fools. I was only giving you a hint on the fact that it's a pity that the
> new 04 S4 is not a bit more powerful.
It is. Over 90 HP more powerful than it's predecessor.
And 11 HP more powerful than it's direct competetor.
Spider
> > > Most magazines state that while the S4 may be safer and easier to drive,
> and
> > > maybe a tiny bit faster on well-paved fast bends - especially when wet,
> the
> > > M3 is sharper, gives you a better rush of adrenaline and provides more
> > > direct feel to the wheels. Now, I believe specialized magazine editors
> are
> > > more creditable than just any given one claiming otherwise.
> >
> > That's why Car and Driver chose the new S4 over the M3. I guess,
> > then, that your "most magazines" is just mere hyperbole?
>
> Did I ever say the M3 was overall better? Just learn to read better.
And I quote:
"Everybody except apparently you seems to agree that the M3 is much
more fun
to drive."
Since you have stated over and over about this being the penultimate
reason for buying a car, one must assume that "More fun to drive" =
"better."
But it's a nice weasel.
[snip]
> > > and I'll really enjoy seeing S4's faces when seeing an apparently plain
> > > stock A4 is keeping pace with them.
> >
> > But if you can afford all that, then surely you can afford an RS6,
> > right? After all, that's your line of reasoning.
>
> You're beating about the bush once more.
Hardly.
> I said here most people who can
> afford a new S4 will be able to get an RS6 and that considering bang for the
> buck that's a far better and cleverer buy.
You can state it over and over and it still won't be true. If you can
afford a certain thing, it is not immediately evident that you can
afford a thing OVER TWICE AS EXPENSIVE. (S4 vs RS6 in the U.S.)
> > > See above on why you might regret a new S4 not having a turbo.
>
> > I wouldn't regret it for a second. Extracting the very last ounce of
> > performance out of a car is not my style. Especially on a daily
> > driver.
>
> If this is so, why didn't you buy a non-S badge?
I did.
> Surely, it would have done
> the same service to you as a daily driver.
It does.
> > If you have done your research, and know what you want, then you won't
> > be disappointed. Well-informed buyers know the possibilities, and
> > make choices accordingly.
> >
> > Only a fool would think otherwise.
> >
> > Spider
>
> Of course anyone's choice is respectable and that doesn't mean they are
> fools. I was only giving you a hint on the fact that it's a pity that the
> new 04 S4 is not a bit more powerful.
It is. Over 90 HP more powerful than it's predecessor.
And 11 HP more powerful than it's direct competetor.
Spider
#40
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2004 Audi TT
oneactor1@aol.com (Steve Grauman) wrote in message news:<20030702152547.02096.00000034@mb-m07.aol.com>...
> << Steve, "bang for the buck" is usually defined as how much performance
> can be had for as little money as possible. >>
>
> That's pretty much where I was going with my last post, did you read it?
No need to be an . Sheesh.
When magazines do these kind of "bang for the buck" articles, they
aren't talking about cars that are in the $75k-$120k and up price
ranges. I mean, why compare an S4 to a GT2? That just doesn't make
any sense. I guess we could compare a Golf TDI to an S4, if we're
gonna go that way...
When you start talking about exclusive sports cars and sedans, "buck"
becomes much less important, and "bang" is where it's at.
> << And most folks don't consider the braking values in that
> comparo. >>
>
> Then somethings wrong.
Maybe. I don't write the articles, and I didn't make up the phrase.
Mostly, these mag guys talk about cars under $40k when they start
throwing around the phrase "bang for the buck," and they then limit it
to acceleration performance, rather than the whole package.
If you have a problem with the way they use the phrase, don't gripe at
me.
> << A Porsche 996 is great, but if you want the most performance/dollar
> spent, you are going to be shopping for a Corvette. >>
>
> No you most certainly would not. If you were looking at Vettes' at all, it
> would be the Z06, not the lackluster base model.
ISTR that the base 'Vette and the base 996 perform similarly. I do
not have the numbers right in front of me.
> On the other hand, Porsche's
> 911 GT2 does 0-60 in 3.6 seconds, has a 190+ MPH top speed, pulls around 1g on
> the skidpad, and will thrash 99% of everything else ever made. It's a hell of a
> lot more expensive than a Z06, but look at what you're getting for the money.
I would say that someone shopping for a Z06 would not just pop for
the, what, DOUBLE, extra scratch for a GT2. "I can afford a Golf, but
I guess I'll buy an S4 instead?" Doesn't make much sense.
> Besides, if all you want is 0-60, thos Superbikes are still tops.
Exactly right. Every performance purchase has it's trade-offs, and if
it's pure numbers/dollar spent that is your goal, it's impossible to
beat a superbike.
> << While I would
> agree that bargains can be had out there in the used car market, I
> think we were all talking about new cars. >>
>
> Then you're never really getting maximum bang for you buck. 1st year
> depreciation is a killer!
In practice, I agree. I think buying a new car is a sucker's game.
I'd rather buy a car just off warranty (with a full service history,
verifiable, complete and unblemished) than take a gamble on a new car
(built on a Monday after a drinking holiday, etc, etc.)
But when you open the discussion up like that, talking about Evos,
WRXs and S4s has not too much meaning. I looked in the paper today -
I can get a 993 for well under $40k. Pretty good bang for the buck,
if you ask me.
> << Heck, I can get a used B5
> S4 for less than the cost of a new, loaded A4. >>
>
> Low mileage S4s still sell in the mid $30k range here, almost as much as a B6
> 3.0. But it's a hell of a lot more car for the money.
I've seen MY2k S4s out there for under $30k. Not many, but a couple.
I would not bank on their mechanical condition, however.
> << It's an apples/oranges
> comparison, just like sportbike/sport sedan. >>
>
> Not in this context it isn't. We're talking about getting the most performance
> for you money. You're going to get a lot more from a used car than from a new
> one. It's a simple matter of cost.
Depends on how the car was used/abused. If you blow up a 2.7TT motor
right after you've bought that "bargain" used S4, I'm afraid you'll be
spending the equivalent (in total) of a new S4, AND have no warranty
after you're all done. Not much of a bargain.
That's why it's simpler to compare new to new, and not open it up to
the endless parameters of used cars. Hell, we could start pitching in
mods, too.
> << Rally-bred cars are going to do well in rally-type situations. But JP
> seems to think that speed is the end-all, be-all. I prefer a total
> package. >>
>
> I just find it amusing that STI and EVO owners tout their car's superiority
> simply because of it's (marginally) quicker 0-60 time. An S4 with upgraded
> tires will beat it, hands down, on a smooth track. So where's the superiority?
He seems to think on rough roads, and when you need to accelerate.
Well, 'round these parts, even the dirt roads are pretty smooth, and
if the suspension is up to the task, then the S4 could actually come
out on top. It's not as cut and dried as JP thinks.
But if I were running in a rally-type event, I'd sure want an Evo.
Spider
> << Steve, "bang for the buck" is usually defined as how much performance
> can be had for as little money as possible. >>
>
> That's pretty much where I was going with my last post, did you read it?
No need to be an . Sheesh.
When magazines do these kind of "bang for the buck" articles, they
aren't talking about cars that are in the $75k-$120k and up price
ranges. I mean, why compare an S4 to a GT2? That just doesn't make
any sense. I guess we could compare a Golf TDI to an S4, if we're
gonna go that way...
When you start talking about exclusive sports cars and sedans, "buck"
becomes much less important, and "bang" is where it's at.
> << And most folks don't consider the braking values in that
> comparo. >>
>
> Then somethings wrong.
Maybe. I don't write the articles, and I didn't make up the phrase.
Mostly, these mag guys talk about cars under $40k when they start
throwing around the phrase "bang for the buck," and they then limit it
to acceleration performance, rather than the whole package.
If you have a problem with the way they use the phrase, don't gripe at
me.
> << A Porsche 996 is great, but if you want the most performance/dollar
> spent, you are going to be shopping for a Corvette. >>
>
> No you most certainly would not. If you were looking at Vettes' at all, it
> would be the Z06, not the lackluster base model.
ISTR that the base 'Vette and the base 996 perform similarly. I do
not have the numbers right in front of me.
> On the other hand, Porsche's
> 911 GT2 does 0-60 in 3.6 seconds, has a 190+ MPH top speed, pulls around 1g on
> the skidpad, and will thrash 99% of everything else ever made. It's a hell of a
> lot more expensive than a Z06, but look at what you're getting for the money.
I would say that someone shopping for a Z06 would not just pop for
the, what, DOUBLE, extra scratch for a GT2. "I can afford a Golf, but
I guess I'll buy an S4 instead?" Doesn't make much sense.
> Besides, if all you want is 0-60, thos Superbikes are still tops.
Exactly right. Every performance purchase has it's trade-offs, and if
it's pure numbers/dollar spent that is your goal, it's impossible to
beat a superbike.
> << While I would
> agree that bargains can be had out there in the used car market, I
> think we were all talking about new cars. >>
>
> Then you're never really getting maximum bang for you buck. 1st year
> depreciation is a killer!
In practice, I agree. I think buying a new car is a sucker's game.
I'd rather buy a car just off warranty (with a full service history,
verifiable, complete and unblemished) than take a gamble on a new car
(built on a Monday after a drinking holiday, etc, etc.)
But when you open the discussion up like that, talking about Evos,
WRXs and S4s has not too much meaning. I looked in the paper today -
I can get a 993 for well under $40k. Pretty good bang for the buck,
if you ask me.
> << Heck, I can get a used B5
> S4 for less than the cost of a new, loaded A4. >>
>
> Low mileage S4s still sell in the mid $30k range here, almost as much as a B6
> 3.0. But it's a hell of a lot more car for the money.
I've seen MY2k S4s out there for under $30k. Not many, but a couple.
I would not bank on their mechanical condition, however.
> << It's an apples/oranges
> comparison, just like sportbike/sport sedan. >>
>
> Not in this context it isn't. We're talking about getting the most performance
> for you money. You're going to get a lot more from a used car than from a new
> one. It's a simple matter of cost.
Depends on how the car was used/abused. If you blow up a 2.7TT motor
right after you've bought that "bargain" used S4, I'm afraid you'll be
spending the equivalent (in total) of a new S4, AND have no warranty
after you're all done. Not much of a bargain.
That's why it's simpler to compare new to new, and not open it up to
the endless parameters of used cars. Hell, we could start pitching in
mods, too.
> << Rally-bred cars are going to do well in rally-type situations. But JP
> seems to think that speed is the end-all, be-all. I prefer a total
> package. >>
>
> I just find it amusing that STI and EVO owners tout their car's superiority
> simply because of it's (marginally) quicker 0-60 time. An S4 with upgraded
> tires will beat it, hands down, on a smooth track. So where's the superiority?
He seems to think on rough roads, and when you need to accelerate.
Well, 'round these parts, even the dirt roads are pretty smooth, and
if the suspension is up to the task, then the S4 could actually come
out on top. It's not as cut and dried as JP thinks.
But if I were running in a rally-type event, I'd sure want an Evo.
Spider
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)