AUBURN HILLS, MI - Audi took the wraps off a new sports car at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit on Sunday, January 13, 2008 with the Audi TTS, the top of the TT model line. It will be coming to U.S. dealer showrooms in late 2008. Under its hood lies a two-liter TFSI high-performance engine delivering a mighty 265 hp in the U.S.. This intense power propels the TTS Coupe to 60 mph from a standstill in just 4.9 seconds and on to a governor-limited top speed of 155 mph. The Audi TTS is available as both a 2 + 2-seater coupe and as a roadster.

Full Story

my choices:

BMW 135i
Audi TTS
Audi A3 Sportback
Mini Cooper S
VW R32

TT 2.0T
TT-S
A3 2.0T Quattro
B8 A4 Avant

This is a car I would seriously consider if it had a stick.

Quote, originally posted by yacoub »

Really looking forward to this. If it prices out under $40k it's a win. Probably won't though.

Expect $2-3K over the 3.2, so about $45-46K.

The real arguement to fight is the federalization of platforms through the US Government. That is the real evil no one speaks of.

Audi is working on some alternatives for more manual transmissions. Nothing's solid yet and they're exploring some options so I won't say more, but there are those in Auburn Hills who are trying to make more available.

Without the federalization rules couldnt we in theory special order to spec a certain car?

Say an RS4 Avant in LHD?

They are making them for some other markets.

Or is it the emmisions and safety ratings?

Quote, originally posted by brwilso84 »

I AGREE, I would really consider this car but unfortunately according to sources this car could reach $60,000 due to the Euro/Dollar value issue. Audi is profitting more overseas because of our horrible economy

$60K would make no sense... the S5 is $50K. There is no way the TT-S would be priced above the S5.

Porsche doesn't seem to have problems making a buck with the base Cayman priced at $50K, so why should Audi? Although it's pretty sad when Porsche sells more Caymans than Audi sells TTs by a 2:1 margin.

Well if Audi keeps over-pricing their models it will continue. It's their own fault.

My guess it that it'll come pretty much fully loaded and have few options. Maybe a navigation package and not much else.

Audi is not overpriced. They are finally on par with BMW and MB.

You can pay 50k for loaded 1 series BMW convertible, and it's not AWD.

http://www.edmunds.com/insidel...el..1.*

Modified by jperryrocks at 12:40 PM 5/2/2008

I'm keeping my fingers crossed but not holding my breath. At least not yet. But if Audi wants me to buy one (and I know they really, really do! ) they need to offer a manual gearbox ...

AVDUBS ELITE MEMBER

And seriously, when the hell are we gonna get a price already?

"Hey, real drivers start their cars by twisting a crank into the grill. Anyone with a starter motor is a poseur!"

Times change, technology marches on. You can either adapt or become a dinosaur.

I have no issues with DSG -- it's a great technology. And I respect people who prefer DSG. I'd just like the choice of a manual transmission for me (no, not for you, and not for anyone else who doesn't want one). If that makes me a dinosaur, I'm proud to be one.

As things stand, I'm waiting to see whether the A5 2.0T is offered with 6MT. If it is, I'll quietly choose that one instead of a TT, and ZroDfx can be happy since these forums will have one fewer dinosaur who prefers 6MT.

AVDUBS ELITE MEMBER

I have no problem with DSG... heck I owned one for 6 months.

I just prefer to row my own.

The reality with DSG is once the novelty wears off you remain in D for 99% of the time.

I have to say though, in traffic I would definitely appreciate the S-Tronic so I don't have to clutch every 5 seconds, which gets extremely annoying, but I don't know if the maybe 10% of the time I'd be in heavy traffic justifies not being able to shift on my own.

It's a tough choice, and ultimately I'd like to be able to have both somehow, but overall I think manual is the "safer" choice.

It'll all come down to a nice lengthy test drive though.

TT-RS will be Audi's answer to rival go-fast coupes such as the BMW Z4 M coupe and Porsche Cayman S. Rather than the 3.6-liter V6 engine as widely rumored, Inside Line can confirm the range-topping TT is set to become the first Audi model to receive a new turbocharged version of parent company Volkswagen's long running 2.5-liter five-cylinder as found in North American versions of the Jetta. Updated to accept the same cylinder head configuration as the 5.2-liter V10 used in the S8 along with the latest direct-injection technology from German specialist Bosch, the new Audi engine is said to deliver in the region of 365 hp. That's some 22 hp more than the Z4 M Coupe. As with the TT-S, the TT-RS will place its power to the ground via either a standard six-speed manual or an optional seven-speed version of Audi's S-Tronic double-clutch gearbox, with a Haldex-style four-wheel-drive system, which uses a multi-plate clutch instead of Audi's more traditional Torsen-based arrangement, apportioning drive to all four wheels.

My Page
http://alexgomez.com/

Just wondering... When exactly is the novelty going to wear off? I've had the car just over one year, and the only time I'm ever in D is when I throw it over briefly while I mess with the stereo or nav system. The rest of the time, flicking through the gears using the paddles is sheer joy. Specially when flying in 6th, you decide to pass someone, tap that left paddle and INSTANT 5th gear torque. It's a thing of beauty.

Too bad that won't be a option for anyone on this side of the pond. BTW the 2.0Tq is 200hp and not the rumored 230hp. IMHO the TTS is great!

An MY2009 TT with 200hp isn't going to get me out of my MY2000 S2000 with 240hp. Audi needs to step up their game.

I'd be willing to wager that the 2.0T w/ 200hp is going to easily take the S2000 off the line and 0-60. There is just no replacement for the low-down torque on the turbo. In the 1/4 mile, I suspect they'd be pretty even.

Then, for $500, you chip the 2.0T TT to 245hp and the s2000 is going to be left in the rear-view mirror, all while enjoying the fantastic and spacious Audi interior.

STaSIS Power Kit Install http://forums.audiworld.com/tt2/msgs/20042.phtml

It might be a comforting intuition, but all the data I've seen indicates it to be wrong. S2000s typically record mid to high 5s 0-6, and very low fourteens in the quarter mile. The 2.0T doesn't come close, and indeed the 3.2 struggles to match these kinds of times. The best determinant of acceleration is weight to power. The S2000 is lighter, and it has 20% more horsepower. Go read a physics book. What determines acceleration is torque at the wheels, not the crank. This is why an F1 car accelerates more quickly than the TT or an S2000.

your Honda is no where near as safe (which = the weight)
it gets much less mpg than the 2.0T (your cars rating was on the old, impossible to get mpg ratings mfgs used to use) With the new ratings the TT still gets 5 mpg more.
and 6 sec to 60 is plenty fast for the 'Base' TT.

now most of us on this site enjoy some sort of alterings to a car. Stasis proved a 5.0 0-60 was doable with the power rating only going to 235hp. this was done with FWD for that matter. This software is keeping you factory warranty in tact and keeping your mpg un-affected in the negative. if you want to get into handling, they destroyed a Caymann S by adding their suspension to the car!!!! it beat it around Buttonwillow by 1.5 sec.........basically a year.

The base 2.0t Quattro coming out will be an insanely good platform. it will have everything the current car has plus more traction. for those who do not want to step up to the TTS, can go again to Stasis for their warrantied turbo upgrade and have 300hp and north of that in the torque department. their FWD version did a mid 13s 1/4 on crap tires. just think what a Quattro would do!!!!

Your S2000 was a great, fun car. but just like cars of the past, they start loosing out on other variables other than just speed.

Modified by M this 1! at 11:22 AM 6-4-2008

Yes, it is. I'm glad we can all agree that the prior post asserting that the stock TT is quicker was false.

Quote, originally posted by M this 1! »

your Honda is no where near as safe

Really? That's news to me. The government rates the MY2008 S2000, which is basically the same car except for the wheels and interior trim, as having a four star frontal rating, four star frontal passenger rating, five star side driver rating, and 5 star rollover rating. Crash tests for the TT appear not to be widely available--how about actually publishing the numbers for us ot back up your argument, assuming you didn't just make this up?

Quote, originally posted by M this 1! »

it gets much less mpg than the 2.0T (your cars rating was on the old, impossible to get mpg ratings mfgs used to use) With the new ratings the TT still gets 5 mpg more.

I cna't tell you how many people post complaining about how they can't get the TT's rated mileage. Is that seriously your best argument? I guess after ten years of use, you might make back all the extra money you spent on the TT in the first place. However, if you want to actually step up to a TT that is *almost* as quick as the S2000, you can opt for the 3.2 TT, which costs about $12k more, puts out 10 more horsepower, and gets worse mileage. The TTS will actually be as fast as the S2000 in a straight line, perhaps a tad quicker. I wonder what its price tag and mileage will be?

Quote, originally posted by M this 1! »

and 6 sec to 60 is plenty fast for the 'Base' TT.

6 seconds would have been pretty good ten years ago for a sports car costing $35k. Today, its pretty darn slow. 6 seconds is what I'd expect for a performance station wagon. At the end of the day, the 2.0T is basically an engine that is more appropriate for an economy GTI, like the golf, than a "luxury" sports car, like the TT.

Modified by nonobvious at 11:59 AM 6-4-2008

Oh lets see. safety: you have no side airbags, no traction control, no skid control. No there are no published crash ratings yet, but find the last time Audi didn't get 5 star front and side, hell if i remember right the old TT did better than yours in crashes.

So the $500 dollars higher priced TT will take 10 years to justify with the gas increase?
http://autos.msn.com/research/...06302

your arguments are waining here. hell even you quicker to 60 by 0.5 sec isn't an argument. there's about 10 guys (all in their 20s) that don't mind waiting until 6k to actually have it not feel like a civic and start pulling. having over 50ft/lbs more torque than your car can even make, while only being at 1500 rpms is a very, very nice thing. it's called advancements in technology.

obviously you ignored the basic $500 changes a chip would do but that's fine since it gets ugly after that.

and unless the TTS gets real short gears, you'll see the same damn mileage! why? look up turbos 101
[URL][/URL][URL][/URL]

On brainlessness, I concede you are the expert.

First you claimed the TT had a better zero to sixty. It doesn't.

Then you claimed the TT is safer. You have no evidence for it.

You've already discredited yourself at this point. You're making up statements that are provably false, and its been shown in plain language that you're basically lying. But let's address your "new" arguments, again:

(Third), you need to resort to external modifications to somehow claim the car will be a greater performer. That's silly--we can always get into the modification game. I'm not ignoring the argument, it's just a dumb argument.

Fourth, you're argument is that the TT has better mileage. I haven't dispusted that the 2.0T gets better mileate. But I have pointed out that a TT which actually has similar performance to the S2000, the TT 3.2, gets worse mileage. That's not too hard to understand and follow, is it?

Fifth, as for pricing, the S2k has no options available. And even then its cheaper than the TT. But add anything to the TT at all, and it quickly costs a lot more. Buy a TT that actually is as quick as the s2000 is---eight years ago--and you need to spend $42.5k for a base model 3.2.

Sixth, go look at the mileage numbers for the various 2.0T trims on the A3 in europe, and again, you'll that higher output engines generally consumer more fuel. I hope this isn't news to someone in the car business, but given that you've pretty much made up the rest of your argumetn from thin air, it wouldn't suprise me.

Oh, and if you're an enthusiast and want a TT with a six speed manual, what exactly are your options?

You would think that after eight years, audi could come up with something better than an older Honda .

let me explain basic turbos for you. when not accelerating, that is maintaining speed on the freeway.....a turbo is not pressurizing the system. you can call it 'resting' if that makes it easier to understand. the wastegate opens up the system since boost is not needed at that moment and it doesn't matter if you have a big or little turbo.....the car is basically a 2.0 FSI motor sipping away. unless the gearing is different, the car will get the same freeway mpg as the lower powered version. hell even if it did have short gears........it'll destroy the archaic Vtech you're so very proud of.

you obviously don't want an Audi TT. so don't get one. MANY, MANY others will. you could always get the Honda Civic Si. it has the next gen future of your Vtech engines

Don't be silly. I've actually recommended the TT to quite a few people. Actually, you've convinced me to buy one today. Can I call you for a quote?