Audi TT Mpg?

Half Rhodesian

hey all,

Thinking of buying one of these, always wanted one for years now and will probably be 00 - 02 year as the budget aint exactly huge.
I will be doing a commute from clare to galway (mostly motorway), mon-fri fairly soon and im looking for any experience on the TT mpg from anyone in the know.

Ive read varying reports on 30-32mpg, which sounds pretty decent from a 1.8L, as thats what my 1.3L does at the moment. anyway.

Prob try and go for the 180bhp model too if i could. Not all that interested in putting the boot and trying to be a race car driver. i usually average 50-60 mph in my current wagon.

So basically all i want to know is do they cost a fortune to run because i aint a millionaire unfortunately or if anybody knows of any other pitfalls worth a mention then by all means let me know.

Thanks in advance

tossy

I personally wouldn't go for the 180, try for the 225 quattro model, it will make that drive on a pissing wet day more enjoyable/fun/safe lol. I just think a fwd TT is a bit meh.. (only my opinion)

I have a 00 S3, same car underneath (as a 225 model) . Mine is remaped but never in a month of Sundays would i see 30 or over, my average is 26, on an extended motorway run i can get that up to 28/29 with cruise control.

I guess the 180 would be similar in consumption to a later MK4 GTI or a Leon Cupra consumption wise,i think >30 mpg is still being optimistic. My rule of thumb when reading accounts of peoples economy and claimed MPG is subtract 5mpg from what they say they are getting

Hope that helps.

Brief_Lives

I hope you have test drove one, because if you are tall, it´s like driving in a balaclava..!!

mickdw

I had a 2000 180 bhp quattro.
Mpg would be 25mpg on average.
To be honest they are not expensive to run in terms of silly repairs being needed or anything like that but
tyre costs & fuel costs will be abit steeper than normal.
I wouldnt fancy one for a commute tbh. The fuel costs could get silly very quickly depending on how long your commute is.

jca

LIGHTNING wrote: »

I have a 225 TT and on the motorway off boost its not too bad on juice(30mpg+). I wouldn`t bother with the 180 model as you wont really make much of a saving fuel wise.

They are comfy enough on long cruises and most of the 225 ones are pretty high spec. Mine has heated seats, dual zone climate although its missing Cruise control I am thinking of getting it retrofitted.

Would it be difficult to get the cruise control retrofitted? I have DSG octavia and would love to get cc fitted I think it would make the car tbh.

MuppetCheck

jca wrote: »

Would it be difficult to get the cruise control retrofitted? I have DSG octavia and would love to get cc fitted I think it would make the car tbh.

It's a stalk and getting it activated via VCDS. I don't think the DSG would have any bearing on it.

jca

LIGHTNING wrote: »

It`s simple enough, you just need a stalk swapped in and have it enabled in the ECU. A number of places will do it, I think George Dalton in here does them.

That would be great. I'll have a look for cc stalks on the various sites. No need for extra sensors or anything?

Half Rhodesian

Brief_Lives wrote: »

I hope you have test drove one, because if you are tall, it´s like driving in a balaclava..!!

Yeah, im 6'4. never thought of that

Half Rhodesian

Thanks for the replies lads, The mpg sounds like a bit of a balls at the moment, will have to have a think on it. 90 miles everyday/5 days a week. Food would be out the window but at least id have a lovely looking car i suppose

mickdw

Half Rhodesian wrote: »

Thanks for the replies lads, The mpg sounds like a bit of a balls at the moment, will have to have a think on it. 90 miles everyday/5 days a week. Food would be out the window but at least id have a lovely looking car i suppose

You are looking at 25 quid min per day. If you use at all in the evening, you can say 30 quid per day petrol.
If you are 6' 4" forget it. At 5 10, I was just right. My mate at 6' 2" could drive it but not comfortably.

ronnie3585

Half Rhodesian wrote: »

Thanks for the replies lads, The mpg sounds like a bit of a balls at the moment, will have to have a think on it. 90 miles everyday/5 days a week.

Are you seriously considering this given your commute? You'll be driving approximately 20,000 miles a year which puts you firmly in derv category. Moreover, given your height you'll find a Mk1 TT very cramped. I'm 6'2 and I always found them extremely claustrophobic. Why not buy a cheap, boring diesel for the commute and save a little more for something nice for the weekends?

Food would be out the window but at least id have a lovely looking car i suppose

I laughed out loud at that one!

jca

MuppetCheck wrote: »

It's a stalk and getting it activated via VCDS. I don't think the DSG would have any bearing on it.

What I meant was, I think the cc would compliment the DSG.

MuppetCheck

jca wrote: »

What I meant was, I think the cc would compliment the DSG.

I got that bit, I don't know if the kit of the manual and dsg is the same. I'm guessing not and if it's not if it would have a bearing on me retrofit.

George Dalton

jca wrote: »

That would be great. I'll have a look for cc stalks on the various sites. No need for extra sensors or anything?

Don't. It will cost you more that way

jca

George Dalton wrote: »

Don't. It will cost you more that way

Good point George. Do you do an "all in" deal?

George Dalton

We get the parts from Audi and supply them at more or less cost price so the supply and fit job works out cheaper than if the customer sources their own parts via the online suppliers and just pays us for labour.

lomb

I don't know about
the coupe but in the roadster im 5 ft 7 and the seat is all the way back and would like another click and space to recline backrest more.
Fuel wise figure 30mpg on cruise off boost more if its mapped and in boost at set speed.
Cost wise depreciation is near zero and they are very very good cars for the money so it may be viable still for you. Its still a 50k car and in many ways nicer than say a new SLK although obviously now an older car with poorer economy.. Then again you have the Quattro system for safety and high cornering grip that's lacking on newer TTs for the most part. It would definitely get expensive on fuel on 25k miles maybe 6500 a year of the stuff vs 3500 in a diesel Passat say.

darragh o meara

Problem solved, just get the owner to sell you this:

http://www.ttforum.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=123003&f=2

A mk1 Audi TT diesel

Henry Ford III

In my view anyone starting a thread about a relatively high performance car's potential mpg is looking at the wrong type of car.

farna_boy

Henry Ford III wrote: »

In my view anyone starting a thread about a relatively high performance car's potential mpg is looking at the wrong type of car.

I really hate when people say this. Everyone should find out as much information about a car before they buy it. At the very least, it's a very good question to ask a seller to see how truthful they are being with you.

Henry Ford III

farna_boy wrote: »

I really hate when people say this. Everyone should find out as much information about a car before they buy it. At the very least, it's a very good question to ask a seller to see how truthful they are being with you.

On a high performance car fuel consumption shouldn't be the primary concern. It's reasonable to assume it'll be a bit higher than the norm.

Much more relevant imho is performance, handling, grip, brakes etc.

Of primary concern is "could I fit into this car?".

mickdw

Henry Ford III wrote: »

In my view anyone starting a thread about a relatively high performance car's potential mpg is looking at the wrong type of car.

Do not agree at all.
It's a cheap car with relatively standard running costs due to alot of golf running gear. Fuel cost would be the major difference and certainly worth investigating before buying. The fact that it is investigated does not mean he can't afford it or is looking at the wrong car.
It could be argued that someone looking at a porsche 911 and considering fuel economy was looking at the wrong car but a cheap TT is a different proposition.

Half Rhodesian

farna_boy wrote: »

I really hate when people say this. Everyone should find out as much information about a car before they buy it. At the very least, it's a very good question to ask a seller to see how truthful they are being with you.

your a breath of fresh air on boards.ie, thank you

coolbeans

Brief_Lives wrote: »

I hope you have test drove one, because if you are tall, it´s like driving in a balaclava..!!

Agreed. The interior is ridiculously small and claustrophobic place to be. The exterior of the mark 1 is a piece of automotive art though.

KNS

Have a 225 myself. Luckily don't have much of a commute or can cycle. If I had what your talking about op I'd need to live next to a petrol station. I've cruise control on mine and it makes a difference ion motorway driving alright.

In reality it'd also be very hard to drive conservatively everyday!!

Great car. Don't know why it gets the abuse it does at times. It'll be a classic in the future with it's design. Can't bring myself to change mine.

VeVeX

mickdw wrote: »

Do not agree at all.
It's a cheap car with relatively standard running costs due to alot of golf running gear.

The TT running gear has very little in common with a Golf unless your comparing it to a Golf R32 or Golf 4 Motion.

Its part of the reason a why TT weighs 250kg+ more than a Golf.

mickdw

VeVeX wrote: »

The TT running gear has very little in common with a Golf unless your comparing it to a Golf R32 or Golf 4 Motion.

Its part of the reason a why TT weighs 250kg+ more than a Golf.

I was referring to running costs and having owned one I found that most bits like brake pads and general service stuff was of the shelf in motors factors. The parts are common to other models as they certainly were not stocking bits for TT alone. That was my point. I agree that the actual running gear would only be shared with higher end Golf.

Half Rhodesian

Half Rhodesian wrote: »

90 miles everyday/5 days a week.

You are mad doing that mileage in a petrol car never mind thinking of buying a thirsty one.

mik_da_man

Bobby Wide College wrote: »

You are mad doing that mileage in a petrol car never mind thinking of buying a thirsty one.

I'd have to agree, and to echo what Mr Ford said above.
If you are doing high mileage and want a performance car you shouldn't be really asking about MPG, it's gonna be low!
Fine if you have plenty of cash for fuel, but if you are on a budget then it just makes no sense unfortunately.

Plus if you are keeping an eye on the fuel gauge it will wreck your head!

Completely

It takes the joy of owning the car away, watching the gauge going down, filling it up and seeing what it costs, not driving it like you want to due to the petrol you'll be using.

I was in a (sort of) similar situation.
The car I wanted made NO sense as a daily on a much shorter commute, so I bought a cheap small car for the weekly commute.
Now I can drive the car I want and the small car paid for itself in a year and now is saving me a decent bit every year. So much so that I could upgrade the weekend car.

The Man Maths worked out well

Jesus.

Henry Ford III wrote: »

In my view anyone starting a thread about a relatively high performance car's potential mpg is looking at the wrong type of car.

Henry Ford III wrote: »

On a high performance car fuel consumption shouldn't be the primary concern

Surely a 1.8L isn't anything remotely near a high performance car?

Neilw

Jesus. wrote: »

Surely a 1.8L isn't anything remotely near a high performance car?

Is a 180 or 225 bhp coupe a performance car? They both have 1.8 engines, plus a simple remap makes a huge difference with next to zero affect on durability or economy.

mik_da_man

Jesus. wrote: »

Surely a 1.8L isn't anything remotely near a high performance car?

Ask any insurance company...

Jesus.

I suppose this is Ireland after all....

Jesus.

Jesus. wrote: »

Surely a 1.8L isn't anything remotely near a high performance car?

Displacement isn't really what matters massive bhp can be achieved from a 2.0 engine for instance.

In any case anything from close to 200bhp would be starting to fall into the performance bracket (anywhere not just Ireland imo).

Jesus.

I'd be thinking along the lines of a Porche 911 or even an M3 moreso than an Audi TT as a performance car. You know, a V8 or a V6 rather than a 1.8L 4 banger. But maybe I'm being a bit pernickety. After all, the GT86 is a humble 2 liter and its no slouch

tossy

Why can't the likes of a GTI,TT,S3,Type R's and M3's,911s etc all be performance cars ? One category is just higher than the other but the are all performance cars. otherwise where do you stop? Maybe the M3 or 911 isn't a performance car but a gumpert apollo or Atom is? Or maybe the aren't performance cars and the only real performance cars are race cars?

I think no matter where in the world you are,anything with 4wd and a 0-100 time of in or around 6 secs (with a map) has to be considered performance, esp when the vast majority of the driving public of any nation favour N/A small engined petrols or torquey but low bhp diesels.

Jesus.

Jesus. wrote: »

I'd be thinking along the lines of a Porche 911 or even an M3 moreso than an Audi TT as a performance car. You know, a V8 or a V6 rather than a 1.8L 4 banger. But maybe I'm being a bit pernickety. After all, the GT86 is a humble 2 liter and its no slouch

As an example a lancer evo FQ440 gets 440 bhp from a 2.0. That would worry most V6's and V8.

As tossy said it's all about category's or just different levels of performance.

Neilw

Jesus. wrote: »

I'd be thinking along the lines of a Porche 911 or even an M3 moreso than an Audi TT as a performance car. You know, a V8 or a V6 rather than a 1.8L 4 banger. But maybe I'm being a bit pernickety. After all, the GT86 is a humble 2 liter and its no slouch

Yet the GT86 has the same 0-60 time as a 180bhp tt, 7.6 seconds...with the 225 coming in over a second quicker. No slouch eh

Capacity or displacement can have little bearing on performance, plenty of 4 bangers which are very quick, lotus exige, atom, caterham and the new alfa Romeo carbon fibre thingy.
Sure look at the bonkers 1.5 litre f1 cars which were making 1200+ bhp from a 4 cylinder.

farna_boy

My Point about asking about mpg was quite simple. Other than the the points I already made, the other question people want to know about performance cars is what happens if you are not trying to thrash it?

For example, it you have an S2000 but you don't "take advantage of VTEC" what would your real world MPG be like. Similarly, if you had something with a big/ high end turbo. What would happen if you kept it off boost?

For some high end performance cars, a question about MPG is pointless, but there is somewhere in between where you could drive it "economically" but be safe in the knowledge that if you really wanted to you could whoop anyone you wanted to.

Jesus.

tossy wrote: »

I think no matter where in the world you are,anything with 4wd and a 0-100 time of in or around 6 secs (with a map) has to be considered performance, esp when the vast majority of the driving public of any nation favour N/A small engined petrols or torquey but low bhp diesels.

Not the good ol' US of A

Neilw wrote: »

Yet the GT86 has the same 0-60 time as a 180bhp tt, 7.6 seconds...with the 225 coming in over a second quicker. No slouch eh ;

I don't know mate. 7 and a half seconds to 60 doesn't really sound like a performance car to me.

Its quick though, no doubt about that.

Neilw wrote: »

Capacity or displacement can have little bearing on performance, plenty of 4 bangers which are very quick, lotus exige, atom, caterham and the new alfa Romeo carbon fibre thingy.Sure look at the bonkers 1.5 litre f1 cars which were making 1200+ bhp from a 4 cylinder.

That's all fair enough but we're talking about an Audi TT here, not a one-seater roofless Atom or an F1 car.

farna_boy

farna_boy wrote: »

My Point about asking about mpg was quite simple. Other than the the points I already made, the other question people want to know about performance cars is what happens if you are not trying to thrash it?

For example, it you have an S2000 but you don't "take advantage of VTEC" what would your real world MPG be like. Similarly, if you had something with a big/ high end turbo. What would happen if you kept it off boost?

For some high end performance cars, a question about MPG is pointless, but there is somewhere in between where you could drive it "economically" but be safe in the knowledge that if you really wanted to you could whoop anyone you wanted to.

This is where the like of the GTD, VRs diesel etc come in. Extremely economical but plenty of power and torque on tap if you want to have some fun. If doing any sort of reasonable mileage but still want a fun car they are ideal.

lomb

The 225 with a map produces around 260 bhp. The other thing is that even if you have 500 bhp the power that can be put down at any time may still be 260 bhp say as it depends on grip too with too with traction systems kicking in. Also large v8s tend to be heavy and the handling suffers.
Ive been in a 2006 911 and apart from making a lot more ridiculous noise it didn't seem faster to me. Obviously a better car than a TT but not by the running cost margin to me at least.
Anyway personally if doing big miles Id buy something like a 3 series diesel coupe and remap it. That way you have a bit of style, comfort , handling , power and economy.

lomb

lomb wrote: »

it didn't seem faster to me.

Never use your perception to judge speed as it can give a very false feeling.

Get in a big tractor and drive it fast on a narrow road, it will feel fast. Then get in a 1.3 litre fiesta and it will feel like a rocket compared to the tractor. This holds true as you go up through the performance levels of a car.

Another way is drive a road fast as the driver...the as a passenger... It's a different world!!!

lomb

Bobby Wide College wrote: »

Never use your perception to judge speed as it can give a very false feeling.

Get in a big tractor and drive it fast on a narrow road, it will feel fast. Then get in a 1.3 litre fiesta and it will feel like a rocket compared to the tractor. This holds true as you go up through the performance levels of a car.

Another way is drive a road fast as the driver...the as a passenger... It's a different world!!!

A 911 has 'only' around early 300bhp so its not substantially more powerful than a mapped 225 at 260. The on paper figures aren't much better either,about a second quicker to 60.
Something like a TT RS Mk2 would destroy an oldish 911 or MK1 TT. 0-60 in the late 3 second range with launch control. It will be the performance bargain of the decade in a few years. It also looks like the MK2 should have to begin.

Sobanek

lomb wrote: »

A 911 has 'only' around early 300bhp so its not substantially more powerful than a mapped 225 at 260. The on paper figures aren't much better either,about a second quicker to 60.
Something like a TT RS Mk2 would destroy an oldish 911 or MK1 TT. 0-60 in the late 3 second range with launch control. It will be the performance bargain of the decade in a few years. It also looks like the MK2 should have to begin.

But it'll never be a 911.

There's a moment you know you want one.
There's the moment you first own one.

From its first moment on the road over fourty years ago, the 911 has ignited the kind of passion in drivers that only a Porsche can.

tossy

You can remap a TT, lower it, upgrade the brakes,suspension and even the Haldex control to make them a proper little weapon but even at that it wouldn't come close to any modern 911 for driver feel,handling or power.

I'm guessing the 911 you drove was the 320bhp 3.6? which weighs about 70kgs less, goes to 100kmph in around 1.5 secs quicker and has about a 30 secs better laptime around the 'ring. One is a car designed to look good with a few tasy bits fitted by Audi, the other is a sports car designed from the ground up to do one thing only, go and handle very well.

I had a nice little spin in a 3.6 997 a while ago, getting back into my remapped S3 was like stepping back in time, the 997 is the most complete car i've ever driven.

mickdw

tossy wrote: »

.......the 997 is the most complete car i've ever driven.

don't be saying things like that. I've been keeping an eye on 997 prices. They are reasonable now. You will have me tempted.

C0N0R

For what its worth, I've a 180bhp mark 4 gti and according to the trip computer over 40mpg can be achieved but this would be with conservative driving. Havent done a tank to tank check yet though.

Jesus.

Bobby Wide College wrote: »

Never use your perception to judge speed as it can give a very false feeling. Get in a big tractor and drive it fast on a narrow road, it will feel fast. Then get in a 1.3 litre fiesta and it will feel like a rocket compared to the tractor. This holds true as you go up through the performance levels of a car.
Another way is drive a road fast as the driver...the as a passenger... It's a different world!!!

It depends. The Tractor might feel like you're going faster than you are because you're more exposed to the noise of the engine, wheels, elements etc. If you take a Go-Kart around a track, it feels like you're bombing it even though you probably don't reach 30 mph. In a Fiesta the same speed would feel very slow.

I find turbo-diesel cars feel faster than an equivalent NA high revving petrols. It feels like you're going faster because the torque pushes you back into the seat whereas with the petrol you have to wring its neck and it feels like hard work. They're both probably doing around the same speed though.

Perhaps another person might feel the opposite.

Half Rhodesian

Thanks for all the replies folks, (even the one's i didnt like reading but made sense :P)
Yeah, it's a bit mad getting a TT if i'll be covering that distance so might just look at a diesel or something. maybe A4 or something.

TT will have to wait another while i suppose