The designer, Freeman Thomas, now at Daimler-Chrysler (designing Chrysler, I believe), designed both the TT and the new Beetle. The inspiration for the TT came from the Tourist Trophy races (hence the TT) on the Isle of Mann in the 30's which the Audi car had these huge wheels. Thomas wanted to acccentuate the wheels - his original design, I think had the wheels at 18 or 19 inches.

The back end, before the spoiler came, was more like the A6. The front end and the way the fenders are tightly draped over the wheels is no resemblence to the Beetle. The roof uses some type of laser welding specifically developed for the TT.

The haldex awd system is different and was used because it is more compact than the regular Audi version. The TT is is driven by the front wheels until a correction is needed and adjustments are made by the rear wheels in conjunction with the other systems (ESP, braking etc).

As to the design of the original TT being faulty, the facts put beforehand are incorrect. The design of the original TT is fine. But when people were driving over 125 mph and decided to brake and turn in a sudden fashion, this lifted the back end, which resulted in problems. Not enough downforce was being applied by the back end in these cases So, amongst other changes, they softened up the rear suspension a bit and put the spoiler on and made ESP standard equipment.

As to the chassis, it began on the Golf platform and Audi replaced 80% of it.

As to problems with the car, they are the typical ones you see on this board. On 2001 models on, you will see some complaints of faulty fuel gauges and problems with instrument clusters, and some clunking when shifting from 1st to 2nd. The clunking was solved by a new tranny oil. They have the same problems with the anti-pinch windows - they will open by themselves or not close completely and will have to be reset. And if you believe the TT is a tight compartment, then most people would not agree. The MB front compartment is only slightly roomier in my opinion. Most are surprised by how roomy the TT is for a smaller car.

I own the TT and the C230 and live with 'em everyday. Like 'em both. Let's not get too negative over our comments about another car. Everyone has different tastes.

 

Duffer,

I now see where your defensiveness comes from. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Just to set the record straight, I love the TT, just not as much as I love the Boxster. My neighbor has a 225 Quattro Roadster and it is very stylish. I hear the TT-S is coming, closer to 260hp. That'd be nice, but I still wish it had a more sporty character.

 

ummm, not being defensive, in terms of taking it personally.

But there were some bad facts and just wanted to set the record straight. I hang around the TT Forum and pick up some things.

As to the sporting nature, heck, I think the stock TT is more of a GT car than sports car. It is too heavy and could use a better chassis, and should be lowered an inch with better springs and shox. Heck, it comes with Monroe shox! -- Audi should know where not to cut corners - engine, chassis and suspension. As to hp, we know of no RS version in the States but Audi fine tunes that basic 1.8 ltr engine to whatever market it is trying to get hold of with a particular model.

I understand the turbo Beatle S, while rated at 180 hp is really closer to 200hp - maybe the best deal for the money.

 

in fact because of the Golf/Jetta platform (transverse vs longitutional engines) the TT is actually fitted with the VW 4Motion system instead of the traditional genuine Quattro system that found in other audi cars

 

Hmm, inadequate downforce on the rear of the TT still sounds like a severe design flaw to me. Not enough downforce, factory recall, many cars written off due to this "little" handling problem, new spoiler and ESP to address the issue...the only conclusion can be that the original design was definitely faulty!

I always though the TT was loosely modeled after the NSU TT (the NSU name is gone now but it's part of the VW-Audi group). I even think there's a sort of general similarity in the look of these cars, though the NSU is very square-rigged in comparison to the blobular TT. NSU also made a faster TTS, so I've been patiently waiting for the Audi TTS to appear.

I wish NSU would come back, the Ro80 killed them, a decade before Mazda perfected Wankel sealing. Other than its lame engine, the Ro80 was an amazing car, way ahead of its time.

Also, sorry for referring to the TT's 4WD as Synchro - the new marketing name for the same system is of course 4Motion, as Gab kindly pointed out. Still, this sort of 0%-100% default system is not even close to the best 4WD systems such as Quattro for driving dynamics in low traction situations.

 

for an Audi TTS, that is.

News is that the 180 fwd will have a triptronic in the fall. If Audi boosts the hp, it will be by tricking up the engines as they usually do, ie see the VW beetle turbo now having about 185-195 hp, or the 180 TT to a 225 hp (they just did what the tuners do). If you want something like a TTS, just buy a 225, get an APR or GIAC chip for $500 and add a forge or APR exhaust for $895. Then you will have a 260 hp screamer, like I have now.

BTW, many people did not retro fit their old TTs to the new suspension except for the ESP system. They actually preferred the old system. Does that mean they are driving flawed cars? Actually, what Audi did was dummy up the suspension so that it would not break out of a turn as soon or at least gave more warning. So if you define a design flaw as a car breaking out of a turn going 125 mph after applying brakes and turning -- then that is your definition. Every car has limits -- Audi wanted to nip everything in the bud (based on their history) and that is why they did the overkill (so to speak) on the recall.

 

Design flaw or not, aerodynamically speaking, other roadsters are designed better in this respect. Apply the brakes while turning at 125 mph is not the best decision obviously. However, you didn't see tons of Boxster autobahn accidents in the German newspapers did you? Whether you admit it or not, it was a problem, and it needed fixing.

 

It was a potential problem that turned into a disaster.

Not saying they designed the original in a completely safe manner for very high speeds but I think one must be careful in criticism. And some people on this board on this subject really went to town.

If Audi had any type of analysis of that rear end they could tell that it applied less downforce than Boxster or SLK. Just adding the rear spoiler, I believe, from what I have read before, places more downforce than both the above cars.

But as I was driving the TT to work this morning after having driven the C230k the last 2 days, it was, well, refreshing to let loose and go. The TT as I have modded it, is just a heckuva lot of fun. You point it . . . and it goes in and out of lanes so easily. . . but the C230, does a good job -- just can't wait to see what it does once modded a bit.

 

I think this one beats them both for downforce!





BT