RE: 2004 Audi TT

Page 1 of 3  
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 ass, since the turbo won't stop spooling, which is why the 3.2 is
only a tad slower now. Now, get an ettinger 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
snipped-for-privacy@mb-m10.aol.com...

already
APR's
see
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<< 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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<snip>

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Was that really in the dry?
twcKa.70$% snipped-for-privacy@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net...

in
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<< 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-ass 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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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.
snipped-for-privacy@mb-m27.aol.com...

least
powered
only
it on

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

imagine.
was
than
weather.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Of course, all the cars you mention do not offer the level of comfort or exclusivity of an S4, and there are none except for Evos and Imprezas where I drive, but the fact remains, your pride cannot remain unaltered if you're overtaken by a car that costs just half of what you are driving and you're driving a car with an S badge - for Sports, that's supposed to be.
YtIKa.1417$ snipped-for-privacy@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net...

at
S4
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Maturity is a wonderful thing, and if you ever get there, you'll understand the answer to your question.
/daytripper '00 s4 6spd. It's just a car, son...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

by
it
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
FoLKa.1623$ snipped-for-privacy@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net...

door
but
faster
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<< Maybe something much cheaper, as the Subaru Impreza or the Mitsu Evo >>
If you want to get into a price to performance equation, both of the cheap, ugly rally-mobiles get thrown out. There's always Caterham and Westfield cars, or the Atom. How about motorcycles? A Honda CBR1100XX or Ducati 996 will smash most anything on 4 wheels in a straight line, and be cheaper. I'm aware of how fast the STi and EVO are, but they'll never offer the combination of luxury, comfort, and performance that an S4 does, which is why you pay more for the Audi. And on a wet track, with good drivers, I'm betting the S4, with a 0-60 time of 5.2 seconds (on the sub-par stock tires) doesn't fall to far behind an EVO or STi.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What do looks have to do with it? The WRX and Evo are both "boy racer" cars, and targetted at a different market than the S4. As Steve says, a motorcycle can blow away all the cars under discussion, but I doubt any S4 owner will say "damn, if I had only spent a quarter of the coin in order to get *that* thing..." No, the S4 buyer is likely to be more informed and less status-oriented.

"Further-evolved"? In what technical way?

What would the advantage be? The real advantage that would offset the licensing fees?

Another blowhard claim without support.
Spider
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Because that's why the S4 is differentiated from the Evo/WRX. The S4 competes in the same segment as the M3. While I understand that your main focus is on how fast the car goes, others may want more. Thus, a carmaker might target *that* audience. Funny how that works, huh?

Then everyone would buy Civics. 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. Or, on a more pedestrian level, the Evo over the regular Lancer, or the WRX over the regular Subaru sedan or wagon. Your contempt for marketing or your ideas about "bang for the buck" are not shared by all.

Or some combination thereof. You forgot luxury, which Audis have, and Evos and WRXs don't.

No, maybe their bank account is smaller. Or they do not need or desire the luxury of an S-car. But suggesting that an Audi purchaser is well-informed DOES NOT suggest that others are buying on a whim. It suggests that S-car buyers probably know already the performance parameters. And thus are not going to be regretting it when a boy-racer type buys a faster car.

LOL. I would also choose it as a rally car, and not the S4. Ground clearance is down the list somewhat!

Now you are getting it. The Evo can carry passengers, but not like what you would get in an Audi. And over long distances? Would you really want to take a long trip in an Evo?
The S4 is a more refined vehicle.

Which might suggest fewer repair bills as the miles pile up. The Evo and the WRX are wound pretty tight.

Sophistication? Then they don't know what sophistication is. The Evo and the WRX are far from sophisticated!

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.

This doesn't explain how that happens. Just saying something doesn't mean it's true. But it is a nice set-up for your strawman...

All I see is you claiming something without a shred of evidence. If you have links to technical explanations, then that's a start.
Spider
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<< 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.
<< 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
<< 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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (Steve Grauman) wrote in message

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.

Yeah, the stock tires suck. On my A4, that was the first thing to go. Uprated rubber REALLY makes a difference.

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<< 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?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

B6
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".

superiority
superiority?
On rough roads and in every situation that requires nimble behaviour and bursts of acceleration maybe?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (Steve Grauman) wrote in message

No need to be an asshole. 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.

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.

ISTR that the base 'Vette and the base 996 perform similarly. I do not have the numbers right in front of me.

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.

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.

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. :)

I've seen MY2k S4s out there for under $30k. Not many, but a couple. I would not bank on their mechanical condition, however. :)

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. :)

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.