TT roadster design flaw

Oh dear. Thought we were on an enthusiast's froup, here.

Ah.

Um.

If you're claiming that your Volvo doesn't experience a "float", then I suggest that you retry and evaluate. At a higher speed.

Interesting.. you're specifically claiming that you've driven a TT? Which type? There are only four combinations to try for, so it should be fairly easy to remember. Ditto that warm hatch you're referring to...

Oh dear. To us old farts, RWD is luvverly, and the control that you can get while transiting a bend is desirable. Learning to conserve momentum is fine when you're dealing with a 1950s vehicle, but not quite as necessary on modern cars. Please explain why on-demand oversteer is A Bad Thing (tm)

Beg to disagree. YMMV, given a different vehicle. S03's are a great improvement when on the TR.

Leaving aside that you're dealing with a TTR270 here, rather than a 180, I'd seriously doubt that you'd get further than "The car in front's a Toyota. Wish it'd get out of the f**king way"

If you /could/ out-do an 225 wit a MGF then, well, he/she either deserved it or you were in the way ;o)

H1K

P.S. How do you define "blew away"? 1.2 Nova Traffic Light Wars or M25 in traffic? Or.. dare I say it..? A decent road that requires driving awareness and skill? Should beat me hands-down, as I only consider myself "average" ;o)

P.P.S "Blew the doors off" was - I thought - a more emotive phrase. "Racing" is for tracks or Santa Pod ;o)

Reply to
Hairy One Kenobi
Loading thread data ...

Now you see mate, i was with you up until the above point :) You flaw your entire argument by disagreeing with ever other car enthusiast in the world and claiming that, for its time, the 205 wasn't the best handling hot hatch available.

Reply to
Dan405

Enthusiasts of a manufacturer that makes no rear wheel drive cars...

Yep. TT225 Roadster, it belonged to a colleague, I bought a Rover 75 V6 manual at the same time. Had them for two years drove them both. Also drove the TT225 coupe a few times. Drives very much like a Golf GTI Turbo (but with more lag and more ultimate go) at legal speeds. Seat Leon Cupra is better to drive, more fun and probably as fast point to point, not driven the new one with the 225 engine.

On-demand is not, as long as it's at the demand of the driver, not at the whim of the chassis. RWD is luvverly, which is why the MGTF is more of a sports car than the TT. And probably why I anhialated (sp?) the TT cross country in an MGF.

Found SCII to be great all rounder, low noise, high grip. Not tried S03 but they are reported to be good.

I'm only average - but the MGF Trophy on the road was definitely faster than the TT (we swapped cars and the MG was still quicker) - less weight, no AWD, no electric hood, no aircon admittedly, but also 10 grand cheaper. Speed into and out of corners was higher, shorter gearing made acceleration roughly the same. TT felt bad under those conditions being pushed so hard. The T5 just romped away on the straight bits, passed him on a long straight bit but admittedly he'd catch on the corners.

Reply to
Tim S Kemp

It was the most dangerous hot hatch available. And French.

Reply to
Tim S Kemp

Hmm. Have you spotted a trend since 1935 (IIRC), or are just trolling? ;o)

I moved from RWD to AWD (admittedly with a FWD Mini Scamp in the mix there somewhere). Like RWD, prefer AWD in most day-to-day circumstances.

That sounds more like a driver boast, TBH. I've frequently annihilated MGFs in my old Westfield, and the TT leaves the Westie for dead.

Nothing to do with handling, I hasten to add - just sheer grunt. Both smaller cars have the significant advantage of much less weight, but lose out both on track-style late braking (prefer the "safely fast" mantra, but let's be honest - the TT stops in a fraction of the distance or either car) and in getting the power down past the apex.

As you said, the TT's a GT rather than a sports car, but it doesn't stop it being quite rapid when competently driven. If you don't mind being brutal, then the TT will have significantly higher entry and exit speeds. As I said, I prefer the smooth approach..

I find it very difficult to believe the bit about speed, unless the TT driver was being *very* conservative. As goes the straights.. hmm.. what gearchange points during acceleration?

formatting link
for a standard engine (note how low they are!), and
formatting link
for a chipped. As goes cornering - despite the very high levels of grip, (in general) if you aren't in a controlled drift then you can go faster.

Note that you can only do this with ESP turned off - if you leave it switched on, then it'll have something to say about things, and will activate brakes and cut power as it sees fit. You /did/ have it turned off, didn't you..?

As goes bang-for-buck then, yes, of /course/ there are more cost-effective cars. Starting with that Mini 850. How fast would an MGF have to go to beat a £150 Mini on a tight-and-twisty? ;o)

On a more serious note, a four grand Westfield would leave it for dead at anything up to about 75mph (where the brick-outhouse aerodynamics come into play). And that's also ten grand cheaper ;o)

H1K

Reply to
Hairy One Kenobi

day-to-day, unless you're madder than I am (unusual...) front/rear/all makes little difference. Only when on track or pressing on hard on road will there be any advantage.

Isn't a Westfield a lightweight Seven type thing with a V8 motor???

Didn't notice the MGF Trophy (AP brakes as standard) suffering on braking, or on nailing the power from the apex.

I don't think so. I think entry speeds of the TT are good, but exit crippled by turbo lag and mass.

Unsure - I drove the TT hard, probably upchanging at 5-6, the MGF was run to the redline (7000 iirc) but it's a while ago now!

Heh - chiptuning, the best thing about turbo motors...

I'll be honest, yes and no. If owner wasn't around I'd turn it off... But I think he always left it on.

heh! I used to love the mini, ours was a 1000 I think. How awfully unrefined compared to modern stuff though!

Where can I buy a new Westfield for 4 grand?

Reply to
Tim S Kemp

Hmm. Wouldn't say that - more of a balance thing. True, there are FWD cars where it's hard to tell whether you're being pushed or pulled, but it's usually fairly easy to tell once you start accelerating out of a bend (thinking chiefly of the ratio of grip between steering and acceleration)

a

Yep - a bit too close to the Lotus 7 S3 for Caterham's comfort. The SE was the result, looking a little bit different and with a better chassis (e.g. welded rather than brazed)

formatting link
is the nearest thing thatI have to a picture on the site. The SEiGHT is the V8 monster; mine was a lot more circumspect - an SE with a four-pot developing 128bhp (not that bad for a 29 year old engine ;o) Dry weight a tad over half a ton, and wet weight not much more (you don't get far on the "touring" tank ;o) 60 in five seconds dead.

Not suffering.. but not as extreme as the TT, I'd say. IIRC, talking standard cars, only the a Porsche stops more rapidly (hence it being a fairly popular mod). More on the power in a minute..

Mass, yes, but no turbo lag! On my chipped varient, there's a significant drop below 3000rpm (I prefer the peakier performance to the fat 'n' lazt standard approach - reminds me more of a tuned normally-aspirated engine ;o). The close-ratio box means that you have a fairly ample chance of finding yourself in the right gear, and of finding a more appropriate one if required.

4000-5500rpm is my preferred range. There's a small (260->250 ft-lb) drop between second and third (corresponding to about 55mph), but that's about it.

Believe it or not, that's a little high - the torque starts tailing quite rapidly from about 5000rpm (at 6500rpm, f'instance, torque has fallen from a peak of 220 to 180 ft-lb).

The K-series, of course, will happily have its nuts revved off (always did like that engine - shame that Rover didn't allow it to develop its promise)

Makes a big difference - I'd also think that probably accounts for the poor exit speed (on a typical British lane, the bumpy surface would have it activating brakes and cutting power all over the shop)

cost-effective

Oh yes. You only have to drive one to see how far we've come. And, perhaps, how much we lost on the way (e.g. the current Polo is larger than the original Golf)

New, you can't. Second hand, you can. (Yes, I know that we were talking about /new/ prices, but most kits are owner built). If you're talking new and unsullied (i.e. less than 500 dry miles), then realistically you're looking at around £10k for a pristine example (Vauxhall or Zetec), or about £12,500 for a V8.

(I was planning to drop in a few links, but NTL's DNS seems to have given up the ghost again & I can't remember the exact site that I used to look at)

H1K

Reply to
Hairy One Kenobi

60-0 - Audi TT 2.5, MGTF 135 2.6, MGTF 160 / trophy 160 has bigger brakes and tyres as standard, can't find figures for it. Also according Autocar, Jag S type , Renault Laguna, TVR Tuscan, Westfield FW400 and MG ZT do 2.5, Merc SL500, Porsche Boxster S / 911 Turbo do 2.4.

Ahhh... chipped....

But it's power that counts with accelleration, where's peak power for the TT?

K is a cracker of an engine range, small, light, rev-o-matic. I've read somewhere that the 5 valve head in the VW lump is actually quite restrictive.

Sign of poor suspension control - if wheel were maintaining contact with the ground then the ESP would do very little.

Reply to
Tim S Kemp

Only if it was a hairdresser driving it ;)

If you have any sense of how to really drive a car you can use the 'dangerous' handling traits in your favour. Guess you're not quite experienced enough as a driver. Better stick with your volvo and all its fancy electronic gubbins.

Reply to
Carl Gibbs

eh?

What happens when it becomes slightly slippy when you're coming out of a corner then?! Although saying that all modern RWD cars seem to be set up to understeer anyway. I'm itching to get a RWD 'old skool' car, just need some money :(

Reply to
Carl Gibbs

Hmmmm - XR4x4 owner for three years, I think I qualify.

Reply to
Tim S Kemp

This is both their strength and their weakness. To most people going from a RWD, the current 3-series feels broadly similar. Now if the driver concerned isn't an especially keen driver, they'll never ever know what the differences in handling are _until_ the first wintery frost.

My boss has a nice metallic grey 320d Tourer. He didn't know it was rear wheel drive (not even the tyre wear gave it away) but was protesting that it was "all over the place" in the frost, and "the ESP does nothing."

If you're gung-ho, it's possible to get them to behave as old school rear wheel drive machines, and the bosses diesel estate did give a little (wonderful diesel charge!) wriggle on a roundabout . . . but that said, they feel very much diluted.

Reply to
DervMan

Therein is the point of the TT. It's a car that anybody can feel good in, providing they like the car and the image.

For the keener driver, they perform well within certain limits, and certainly if you're law abiding, should be just fine.

For the more enthusiastic of us, and in some respects like the current crop of BMW and Mercedes Benz equivalents, they feel somewhat castrated.

Reply to
DervMan

errrrr, keep going down :)

Not for a few years yet!

Reply to
Carl Gibbs

Robin Hoods and Locusts come in a lot cheaper than that - but, as with most things, you can often get what you pay for. An enthusiast-built Locust is probably the better choice (ducks behind parapet ;o)

Did the swap in the middle of a stream of cold winters, back when everyone was talking about the possibility of running into a new Ice Age. Ten years on, apparently it's Global Warming. Hmm.

H1K

Reply to
Hairy One Kenobi

I can agree up to a point - the Mk.I was a very different beast, feel-wise.

With the extra power of a chip, however, even the Mk.II becomes a lot easier to exploit.

It's a long way from being the best handling car on the planet, and, as you say, there's the current handling trend of 8/10s.. 9/10s.. "where'd the road go?" to contend with. That said, as a package, it holds together pretty well. Provided you turn off the ESP ;o)

Maybe time to start a more general thread on best/sweetest/fastest cars, handling-wise? One's that people have driven, that is - no magazine quotes! ;o)

H1K

Reply to
Hairy One Kenobi

Heh! But it's subjective, though. My own preference puts handling and ride composure _way_ above power and linear performance, but this has been tempered by my wife's age and inexperience behind the wheel in the UK (insurance!). She did have a 5.0 litre, rear wheel drive V8 back in California, which although was probably only in the low 200 PS class, or maybe high 100s, had shed load of torque and was a proper old school ass-out handler. I found it wayward in the wet . . .

Best handling machine I've driven? Difficult, because I always take time to get into a machine, and harder still when you realise how expensive some are. :( But it's either the mark one MR2, or the Lotus Elise. Should be the Elise, but I have spent considerably more time behind the wheel of the MR2! I've not explored the bosses' M5's handling limits . . . oddly enough . . .

So at the moment, we're running the Ford Ka, which has handling qualities way ahead of the donk . . .

Reply to
DervMan

I know what you mean about the original MR2 (although I've only been a passenger in one) - the Elise, though.. if I'd been given the chance to drive one around Hethel /before/ ordering the TT, I might have had a more difficult choice ;o) The Lotus is better at coping with the poorer road surfaces we have locally, making it a better all-rounder than the Westfield/Caterhams, albeit at (much!) higher cost and lower outright performance.

I'd also put the Ultima up there (although, again, I've just been a passenger in one - but a passenger who kept an eye on the speedo to see the awesome cornering speeds on quite bumpy country roads. Plus brakes that lift you entirely out of the seat, even with a *correctly* adjusted 6-point harness) Cost is, of course, a bit of a problem ;o)

The Midtec Spyder - another Lee Noble creation, but with a case of the uglies - gets similar performance low-speed ( way ahead of the donk . . .

In terms of "sweet" handling (not necessarily neutral, but with the driver able to position the car exactly where he or she wants), I'd also include the older Mini, and, perhaps surprisingly, the MGB.

Slow, yes, but you could position them both precisely on (e.g.) the entry to a bend, know exactly what they were doing while going round it, and be able to adjust the attitude at any point. The 205 GTi was famous for that as well, with the 1.6 being considered a little "purer" than the 1.9 - the larger-engined variant has a reputation for being faster, but less dynamically adjustable (only been a passenger in the 1.9).

I guess what I'm saying is that you can have enjoyable handling without necessarily aiming at perfection.

Haven't tried the Ka, but I'd imagine that it falls more in this sort of category. This would make it quite an exception to many modern cars, that effectively let you do what you want, then succumb to violent breakaway at the limit, and often with little warning. Well, that's the excuse that people seem to use most often ;o)

H1K

Reply to
Hairy One Kenobi

LOL!!

Talking of turbodiesels and quick cars. Well, talking of turbodiesels - anyone know how much a 2.5TDI 140bhp 5-pot lump can be tuned up to just with a chip? What about going to extremes - anyone know what the most anyone's ever got out of that engine before, reliably? (Cue reply from Spider calling me selfish for wasting everyone's time when I could have just looked it up on google).

Well I made it to the end anyway!

Peter

Reply to
AstraVanMan

Sounds good - do you know if there was much of a fuel economy penalty?

Anyway, first things first - I haven't bought it yet, and even when I do, I think it'll go at least a few months to a year before I bugger with it (apart from silly little things like changing the oil).

Peter

Reply to
AstraVanMan

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.