Audi TT (180bhp model)

[ts86net]

They do the Audi TT Coupe, which is a hard-top non-convertable, and the Audi TT Roadster, a soft-top convertable. Both are the same size (or physical dimensions).

They're fine handling cars, but your're right, it isn't great at all. For the same money of a brand new 225bhp one you can can get stuff like an Evo, Type-R, Alfa GTA, etc. etc. All true drivers cars.

I'm also actually convinced he wasn't having a laugh. I mean he had 3 attempts to leave me completely and really show me what it can do, but he didn't/couldn't. Personally, I'm happy, 'cos I KNOW some of his ego got lost (and I caught it ).

IMO, if you want a VW car, don't get one, get a Seat. It's the same engines, they look better and you basically save about £2k-4k and get more equipment anyway. If you want an Audi only get a "decent" one. E.g. RS6, and that's all I can think of

<font face="Verdana">-- T.
<font color="maroon">'98 Marea Weekend ELX (1.8 16v).</font id="maroon"></font id="Verdana">

 

[The Negotiator]

I was thinking of the larger one, maybe they stopped making it? Saab 93 size?

 

[ts86net]

Waaay early (Mk1) TT?

No idea...

<font face="Verdana">-- T.
<font color="maroon">'98 Marea Weekend ELX (1.8 16v).</font id="maroon"></font id="Verdana">

 

[The Negotiator]

I meant one of these, I think called Audi Cabriolet but maybe out of production, this is how an audi convertable should be:

 

[ts86net]

That's a soft-top Audi A4 thing I think.

I thought you were talking about the Audi TT Coupe and getting mixed up or something.

Never mind!

<font face="Verdana">-- T.
<font color="maroon">'98 Marea Weekend ELX (1.8 16v).</font id="maroon"></font id="Verdana">

 

[The Negotiator]

Don't want to be picky but did you say your car has a 0-60 of 8 seconds??

 

[ts86net]

No, 10secs, did I write it wrong?

Editted now. Cheers.

<font face="Verdana">-- T.
<font color="maroon">'98 Marea Weekend ELX (1.8 16v).</font id="maroon"></font id="Verdana">

 

[James M]

Originally posted by pghstochaj


I hate the idea of saying "I own a TT cabriolet" yet not being able to out run a Fiat despite having a nice audi badge and spending a lot more on it than you on your car.

Paul, I thought you weren't into racing people


That engine curve you showed doesn't really prove anything does it? To compare like for like, you need to have similar engine types, ie same number of cylinders. Obviously when you start getting really big, you get more torque, and at lower revs, but something like a Dodge viper, is still going to want to be revved, or a ferrari?

I'm well aware of kinetic energy and its pitfalls, but thats why an engine is balanced! Large electrical machines weigh much, much more than any car engine, and spin fast, thats fine, as long as you operate them correctly, but if they become unstable they would literally rip from the floor. This is a little different I know, but what I'm saying is that large objects can rotate quickly fine as long as they are in balance. (I know cos I studied it last year at uni)

Stilo TURBO!!!!(diesel)

 

[The Negotiator]

Hey hey hey James, that's slanderous! I meant in the safe confines of a heavily controlled and safe environment of a racing track with the correct safety systems employed

LOL, i know you know it a lot better than I do James!

I know the curve doesn't mean too much but it shows that in general, you get the most power in a larger engine at lower rev's hence why you usually keep it lower down.

Still, I think it stands, despite being low on evidence, that it isn't a good idea to over-rev a large engine (i.e. it is worse than doing it in a small engine) because of the extra forces involved and it also doesn't provide much extra in terms of performance.

I think this is why motorbike engines rev much higher than car engines - due to their difference in size.

Please don't quote the fact that F1 cars rev to 17k revs, i am well aware of this but it is a bit different to a 1.8 16v LOL.

I don't think many people would disagree that if you want to look after your engine as much as you can, sticking below 4k rev's will help.

BTW: I love the "Stilo TURBO!!! (diesel). I did the same when i drove my Dad's Renault Scenic 1.9 turbo ( diesel). It fooled a few of the less clever people in sixth form; "What car you got?" "drive my dad's scenic right now" "Oh, what engine" "1.9 turbo" "WOW!" "yup *smiles*" Once we pulled up to McDonalds and we looked pretty odd in a nice car like that and my friend goes:

"What car do you have mate?" and he replied with (unfortunately for him):
"Corsa"
"What engine?" (this is my cocky friend talking)
"1.4"
"Oh well, we have a 1.9 turbo in this"
It was fine until I restarted the engine and he heard the thumping of the diesel and my mate shouts "TURBO DIESEL THAT IS"

hehe.

Do you prefer diesel engines? It's weird I know, but I do. They seem to have so much more about them and just feel so much nicer to drive than a petrol. The sound, when accelerating hard, can't be beaten (i know most will disagree) by a petrol.

Now I am wishing I had that car back lol.

Paul

 

[ts86net]

The modern diesel engines own. They have SO much torque, makes town driving so fun. And the ECU remapping potential ....

Agree on the over-reving can screw up engine theory. It's fact. Doing it sometimes is fine though, and some argue it's ideal to "free" the engine.

<font face="Verdana">-- T.
<font color="maroon">'98 Marea Weekend ELX (1.8 16v).</font id="maroon"></font id="Verdana">

 

[HP]

Power curves are almost entirely dependant upon cam profiles.
You are right that to get a high power from a small engine you need a keen cam and plenty of revs, or a turbo, but to get high power from a big engine (thinking bhp per litre here) you need to do the same - look at Ferrari, you won't find one of them redlined at 6000 revs, the 355 V8 revs to 8500.
Thing is, a big engine can produce huge amounts of low end torque if designed to do so, making a nice lazy engine a-la Yankee V8's. Fiat's engines I wouldn't put into this class, they have always been more for the sporty driver than for the thrifty.

An engine is redlined at a speed determined by the design engineers, it is a safe maximum and there is no problem at all reaching this level. Naturally, a car engine which only ever gets driven at say half of it's rated max will last longer, but not by all that much. I had a 2.0 Mondeo which used to go like stink and I regularly took it to 6000 revs or more - it took it well and sounded like it could handle more, even with 135,000 miles on the clock.

Fiat say in the Cinq handbook, referring to the rev counter, "The vehicle should only be operated briefly at red area speeds" - so even they say it's ok to put it into the red for a bit.

Motorbike engines are a different kettle of fish, they produce relatively high bhp figures per cc compared to a car engine. This is mainly because they are intended to pull a comparitively light weight around and have a very peaky power curve on sports bikes, if fitted to a cinq for example would make smooth driving a little tricky.

Pete.
1242cc cinq,turbo cinq,Cinqs&Seis Yahoo group,Clubcento

 

[ts86net]

Based on that argument Pete, I think you're right. A car is basically designed to rev up to its limiter.

Other factors have to be considered too though. e.g. servicing, when you oil change etc.

Heck, for the past year I've engined flushed, changed oil filter and oil every 4k-5k miles!

<font face="Verdana">-- T.
<font color="maroon">'98 Marea Weekend ELX (1.8 16v).</font id="maroon"></font id="Verdana">

 

[James M]

Paul, yeah, I do prefer diesels, they perform effortlessly compared with petrol engines, and my fuel economy is excelent

It was one of my Mate's that convinced me of Diesel's he had a 1.2 Bravo, then chopped it in for a TD75, not the best of the diesel bunch but he loved it, he has gone to the dark side now and joined the 'get out of my way' bunch - he bought a golf GT TDi TBH, my Stilo is as good and cost 7k less

I used to drive a Scenic at work, a 98 model, so it was pre common rail I think, it was about 90bhp, it was good, but lacked the smoothness and real shove of my Stilo

Stilo TURBO!!!!(diesel)

 

[The Negotiator]

I have never driven the dCI common rail Renault engine but when my Dad did (wanted to update his Scenic) he felt it lacked power against his tranditional turbo diesel. Said it felt like it lacked the turbo and was disappointed. It could have been the car however.

I doubt Renault would have put a less powerful engine in. Never driven a stilo hence can't give my opinion between the two engines but due to the age difference it should be a lot better. 6 years a go 1.9's were giving out 80bhp odd, now you can get 140+bhp. There hasn't been such a gain in petrol engines and they are so satisfying to drive like you have said.

I don't tlel my mates my opinion...! The new reanult engines, just like most other marques (using common rail etc.) have come along way and make people want them!