http://www.autoblog.com/2008/03/04/geneva-2008-audi-tt-2-0-tdi-quattro/ Autoblog Comments for Geneva 2008: Audi TT 2.0 TDI quattro http://www.autoblog.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.autoblog.com en-us Copyright 2008 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.autoblog.com/2008/03/04/geneva-2008-audi-tt-2-0-tdi-quattro/http://www.autoblog.com/2008/03/04/geneva-2008-audi-tt-2-0-tdi-quattro/The TT is not lightweight Lotus and is pricey.
]]>Mar 4th 2008 8:01PMhttp://www.autoblog.com/2008/03/04/geneva-2008-audi-tt-2-0-tdi-quattro/http://www.autoblog.com/2008/03/04/geneva-2008-audi-tt-2-0-tdi-quattro/Mar 4th 2008 8:03PMhttp://www.autoblog.com/2008/03/04/geneva-2008-audi-tt-2-0-tdi-quattro/http://www.autoblog.com/2008/03/04/geneva-2008-audi-tt-2-0-tdi-quattro/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.]]>Mar 4th 2008 8:13PMhttp://www.autoblog.com/2008/03/04/geneva-2008-audi-tt-2-0-tdi-quattro/http://www.autoblog.com/2008/03/04/geneva-2008-audi-tt-2-0-tdi-quattro/
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.]]>Mar 4th 2008 8:20PMhttp://www.autoblog.com/2008/03/04/geneva-2008-audi-tt-2-0-tdi-quattro/http://www.autoblog.com/2008/03/04/geneva-2008-audi-tt-2-0-tdi-quattro/
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.]]>Mar 4th 2008 8:31PMhttp://www.autoblog.com/2008/03/04/geneva-2008-audi-tt-2-0-tdi-quattro/http://www.autoblog.com/2008/03/04/geneva-2008-audi-tt-2-0-tdi-quattro/Mar 4th 2008 8:34PMhttp://www.autoblog.com/2008/03/04/geneva-2008-audi-tt-2-0-tdi-quattro/http://www.autoblog.com/2008/03/04/geneva-2008-audi-tt-2-0-tdi-quattro/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.]]>Mar 5th 2008 2:18AMhttp://www.autoblog.com/2008/03/04/geneva-2008-audi-tt-2-0-tdi-quattro/http://www.autoblog.com/2008/03/04/geneva-2008-audi-tt-2-0-tdi-quattro/
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.]]>Mar 5th 2008 3:33AM