Click the image above for a high-res gallery of the Audi TT 2.0 TDI quattro.
Audi has been on a diesel-fueled kick in the last couple of months, first with the unveiling of the R8 V12 TDI concept in Detroit and then followed earlier today by the R8 V12 TDI Le Mans. Both pieces of oil-burning exotica stoke the flames in our diesel-desiring hearts (through compression ignition), but they remain – for the time being – unobtainium. However, Audi maintains that diesel power and driving prowess aren't mutually exclusive, so to prove the point, Audi unveiled the TT 2.0 TDI Quattro. The iconic coupe and roadster are both equipped with a 2.0-liter turbo diesel producing 170 hp and 258 lb.-ft. of torque, with power transmitted through a six-speed manual gearbox and through Audi's legendary Quattro all-wheel-drive system. Puttering along on the U.S. combined cycle in the coupe will net you 44.3 mpg, while the drop top version gets an equally impressive 42.7 mpg.
We've assembled a handful of live pics and press images in the gallery below, and you can read through Audi's press release in full by checking out our previous post.
REPORT: Racer dies in 24 Hours of LeMons crash
VIDEO: Danica Patrick hits crew member on pit lane at Indy
Nick Hogan sentenced to 8 months in jail
Pontiac El Cami-"NO"
Spy Shots: Baby Cayenne caught on 'Ring!
Future Classic: 1984 Chrysler Minivans
Autoline on Autoblog with John McElroy
First Drive: 2009 Volkswagen Jetta Sportwagen
Project Track Slut, Part One: Pick a weapon on the cheap
By the Numbers: April 2008
_thumbnail.jpg "Lamborghini Reventon unboxed in Las Vegas")
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
kingabdullah @ Mar 4th 2008 7:54PM
Audi is so grand. I love there automobiles much. The Z4 is such a big dump compared to TT. Audi needs more options on interiors.
3seriesisking @ Mar 4th 2008 11:19PM
Kind of all over the place abdullah.
Valentino Amoro @ Mar 4th 2008 8:01PM
Love the TT but in this day and age ot 270+ Accords/Maximas, Pointiac G8's with 360 HP for 30K and Mazaspeed 3's I think 170 HP is simply unacceptable.
The TT is not lightweight Lotus and is pricey.
zamafir @ Mar 4th 2008 8:03PM
... it's diesel. Here's a clue, if all you care about is HP go with the TT-S, not the TT designed to provide over 40mpg with awd. is it really that hard?
Valentino Amoro @ Mar 4th 2008 8:13PM
Let's get this straight from an actual TT owner (myself).
TT looks great.
Gas version is nose heavy. (Like most Audis).
Haldex Quattro is heavy and front wheel drive biased.
Diesel engines are heavier, meaning the Audi is even more nose heavy than its petrol counterpart and less powerful.
The diesel engine has 170HP which is just ridiculously slow for a 'sports car'.
Audi diesels are $$$. I wouldn't be surprised if this car cost somewhere upwards of $42K.
That defeats the whole purpose of having a diesel.
zamafir @ Mar 4th 2008 8:20PM
So... you're a tt owner who's gut reaction is to compare a four cylinder diesel car with sedans powered by V6's and V8's? Alright we'll move past that.
Diesel is heavier? of course. Defeats the purpose? Nope, having driven my share of VAG products producing 250lb ft of torque at the front wheels I can easily understand why audi choose haldex instead of fronttrack.
Sure, the car will cost over $35,000 but that doesnt defeat anything, where does it say this is for the North American market? What's Audi's primary market? Europe. And what outsels ALL petrol luxury brand cars in europe, regardless of make or model? Diesel. will this sell like hotcakes in europe like every other Diesel car? Yup.
If you consider this car, and the use of the technology provided, in the context of it's intended market it makes perfect sense.
Valentino Amoro @ Mar 4th 2008 8:31PM
No need to get feisty here. Comparing a 4 pot diesel to V6's is not the point..and yes, I do own a TT and love it. (Quattro, 225)
I concede. If this is for the European market I think it makes sense. The savings from diesel will be substantial and in Europe hot hatches are considered powerful and fast so although this will still be (relatively) slow + heavy, it will still be popular.
I still dont think this makes any sense States Side. There are lots of lucrative 'sports cars' for that price here.
chewy @ Mar 4th 2008 8:34PM
ok, this TT TDI is made for Europe. It gets 46% more MPGs than the gasoline 2.0T. This makes sense when you have gas prices that are about double what we have in the US. The diesel TT will cost a thousand or so more Euroes (in a 30,000 or so Euro car in Europe) and it makes total sense in Europe. It doesn't make sense in the Us, that's why it isn't coming here.
Valentino Amoro @ Mar 5th 2008 2:18AM
Nagma,
First of all, relax.
Secondly, let's talk about the effect of having more mass on the nose. Understeer. Subaru and particularly the Evo doenst have that problem because its AWD is rear wheel biased. This allows for the car to rotate better.
In the Evo the AWD system goes a notch above with torque vectoring. It allows it to pull .99G on the skid pad.
And please dont bring in the TSX or Civic Si in this example. No body calls them "sports Cars' and they are not in the same price league.
HeyHuub @ Mar 5th 2008 3:33AM
@ Valentino
So you have the old TT, well then you have no right to talk about the new TT like that because it's a tottaly diferent car.
And 0-60 in 7 seconds isn't terrible slow in my book. Especially with the milage it does.
chuck goolsbee @ Mar 4th 2008 8:06PM
I wonder what the MPG would be on the TDI TT if they lost the weight of the AWD?
I would love to replace my 2002 Jetta TDI with a fun 2-seat, drop-top, without losing the efficiency of the "oelmotor."
Bring it Audi, and I'll buy it.
--chuck
http://chuck.goolsbee.org
nagmashot @ Mar 5th 2008 2:13AM
sorry autoblog server mixed soemthing up this was a reply to Valentino
MikeW @ Mar 5th 2008 12:20PM
The TSX isn't 67% front heavy.
The TSX stick is 60/40
nagmashot @ Mar 5th 2008 2:10AM
nose heavy? LOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
The TT is not more nose heavy as other cars with travers mounted 4 banger...
60/40% TT Mk I
58/42% TT MKII
that is the same as
2008 Mitsubishi Lancer 60/40
2004 Subrau WRX STI 58/42
never heared a internetkid claiming both nose heavy with exactly the same nose heavy layout as the TT
60/40 in the old TT MKI is better as
better as 2008 Honda Civic SI Coupe with 61/39%
better as Accura TSX 67/33%
not to talk about the 58/42% of the new MK II
This TT quattro TDI weights 3030lbs
2007 RX-8 2970lbs RWD
2005 WRX STI 3290lbs AWD
2008 EVO X GSR 3344lbs AWD
you call that heacvy????????
Boy you have absolutley no plan what you are talking about!!!!!!!!!!!
Valentino Amoro @ Mar 4th 2008 8:19PM
"with power transmitted through a six-speed manual gearbox and through Audi's legendary Quattro all-wheel-drive system"
I would hardly consider the HALDEX Quattro legendary. The original Audi Quattro rally car was legendary. It has a 50-50 AWD split. The Quattro AWD system that is famous is the Torsen (Torque Sensing) system that Audi has on it's sedans. It's famous because it doesnt need wheel sensors to measure wheel slip before distributing power, hence is not a reactive AWD system.
Even then, Audi realizes this needs updating to counter understeering tendencies of its cars and is thus introducing a torque vectoring (sidewards) system in its new cars for the next gen Torsen Quattro.
This is already present in Nissan GTR and Evo X.
PJ @ Mar 4th 2008 8:35PM
170 hp is not the relevant figure here. 258 lb/ft of torque, on the other hand... Couple that to a proper clutch-dumpable six-speed and AWD traction, and you've got a car with big, fat, juicy off-the-line oomph.
If memory serves, Audi estimates 7.5 seconds 0-60. How much more do you need on public roads?
Moreover, the TT seems the perfect candidate for this sort of powertrain application. It's a stable, drive-from-the-fingertips smoothie rather than a sports car, and suits the sort of driving style you'd adopt for max MPG. Drop it in sixth, soak up the interior ambiance, and feed it a few hours of Interstate...
Valentino Amoro @ Mar 4th 2008 8:41PM
"Moreover, the TT seems the perfect candidate for this sort of powertrain application. It's a stable, drive-from-the-fingertips smoothie rather than a sports car, and suits the sort of driving style you'd adopt for max MPG. Drop it in sixth, soak up the interior ambiance, and feed it a few hours of Interstate..."
You've never driven a TT clearly.
First of all, Audi calls it a 'sports car', including this diesel so they would disagree with you.
Secondly, your description of driving hours on the interstate is not what the TT is designed for. You're talking about a GT car. The TT's ride is harsh and really hard. Even with the adaptive dampening.
PJ @ Mar 4th 2008 9:35PM
I've driven the current 2.0T coupe and convertible, as well as the 3.2 Quattro coupe, on road and track.
Drive any of them back-to-back with a Boxster, S2000, Z4, 350Z, RX-8, or equivalent. The TT is a tourer. An attractive, capable, and stable tourer, certainly, but emphatically not a sports car. It owes its roots to the GTI, and its ride is most definitely not harsh in the context of its class.
So Audi's marketers call it a "sports car." Big surprise, right? Do you believe that every Dodge, Buick, and Mercury on the road is "European-" or "Race-inspired," too?
Sheesh. I was trying to pay the car a compliment...
HeyHuub @ Mar 5th 2008 3:36AM
With that kind of torque in such a light car, overtaking will be easy.
dean @ Mar 5th 2008 1:00AM
Though the TT is a sports car, I was under the impression that it was a bit of a "soft" sports car (at least with the 4-banger).
Perhaps this diesel mill is better suited for the A3. If I had the cash and Audi interiors (most) weren't so dour and black, I'd choose the 2.0 diesel over the 2.0 gasser.