2004 Audi TT Coupe weight

[RazorRacer]

It's 250HP, all wheel drive, with beefed up suspension and brakes. It has the new double clutch transmission and paddles behind the wheel for shifting. The Coupe has 2 small seats in the back. It has everything I want but what is its weight? The old 2003 model weighed about 3,400 lbs (heavy). I hope they were able to drop some weight of the new model.

If you know or have a link to an article or know of a magazine that give the specs, please enlighten me.

[BlueSkyJaunte]

3,400lbs.??? That's damn porky.

How do they get these itty-bitty cars (TT, Z350) to weigh so much? My WRX tips the scales at only 3,080.

[CJFusco]

the 911 isn't exactly a lightweight anymore either

[RazorRacer]

yeah, but who wants a new 911??? I'm trying to find something comparable to my 78SC that's an automatic. The 2004 TT almost makes it, but I'm afraid it's too heavy.

Amazing that a 25 year old car is still hard to surpase on acceleration, cornering, and braking!!!

[D Hanson]

TT is not a sports car and will likely get bigger and heavier during its life cycle. I had one of the very first 225 Coupes delivered to the USA chipped at about 260 hp and torque. It was still a pig and nothing like anything Porsche. Bad lag, gears not tall enough, very light steering, smaller rear seat compartment, and etc. Mine sat parked and undriven in my parking lot for the last three moths of its lease. Walked right by it to get in a 996 ever morning. Hard to understand why one would prefer a TT over a 996.

[BlueSkyJaunte]

Ugh, I HATE the over-boosted power steering that's all the rage these days...

[RazorRacer]

Here is all I can find on the internet, but no wieight.

motor trend

motor cities

D Hanson, the Audi TT may not become a true sports car, but they are making steps in the right direction on this car. I just hope they managed to lower the weight, because I won't be interested if it's over 3,200 lbs. Still for $40K less than a new 911, it's looking good.

[dd74]

Yeah, I wouldn't worry about a TT against an SC. Our head of sales just bought a TT with triptonic. The car is cute, round, nice shape. But it weighs a ton or three. An auto SC might be able to take it, even as it gives away ten or so hp.

1,000 pounds is a big difference in the performance car world. Besides, as Blue says, the TT has long-since NOT been known as a sports car.

[RazorRacer]

dd74, I have test drivin both the 180HP auto and the 225 manual TT's. I guess my SC has me spoiled because they both svck as a sports car. But the 2004 3.2 Quattro TT has me interested in their new double clutch transmission, improved braking and suspension. I can't wait to test drive it. But if it still weighs like a pig (3,400lbs), forget it.

[RazorRacer]

Blue, what is over-boosted power steering? I'm not familiar with that term. Is it on the TT?

I did hear of BWM having a force feedback on it's new steering.

[dd74]

Originally posted by RazorRacer
dd74, I have test drivin both the 180HP auto and the 225 manual TT's. I guess my SC has me spoiled because they both svck as a sports car. But the 2004 3.2 Quattro TT has me interested in their new double clutch transmission, improved braking and suspension. I can't wait to test drive it. But if it still weighs like a pig (3,400lbs), forget it.

Yes, the 3.2 Quattro looks interesting, but here again, I harken back to the complexity and weight of the car. In my thought, there is no way something that big and complex could take an SC or even earlier 911 model.

Case in point is Tyson's "Scruffy." A '72 with 170 hp. I bet it would take apart a Quattro, especially a later model. If I were to get a Quattro, I'd make sure it had the 1.8 turbo, or whatever the 225 hp model is, switch out the turbo for a faster spooler like what they do with the Golfs (same engine, I believe), and lighten the thing as much as possible, while also re-gear it. Otherwise, I don't think I'd stand much of a chance against an earlier 911. An auto SC has a greater handicap, obviously. Then, I think the Quattro with a lot of torque might give it some trouble. Just my thoughts. YMMV.

[Stanley]

Car and Driver article: http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=19&article_id=6572

curb weight is 3350 pounds acording to the article

[BlueSkyJaunte]

It's just a term I use to refer to power steering that has no feedback and can be spun from lock-to-lock with one finger whilst parked on sticky asphalt.

I'll take good ol' rack-and-pinion non-power steering any day.

If driving was more "work" and less "luxury", people would pay more attention to what they were doing!

[D Hanson]

Just to be clear, I am not really knocking the TT. It is just more of a touring car and definitely good bang for the buck. Comparing it to a 996 is not really fair and they are apples and oranges.

[D Hanson]

Audi really screwed up with the 3.2 TT in my opinion. The performance is pretty much exactly the same as the TT 225 coupe. Really kind of pointless, especially when you can just add a $ 400.00 APR chip to a 225 coupe and beat the new 3.2. They need to produce one with about 325 + hp to enter the realm of sporty, but then you still have to contend with the clutch feel, steering that is too light, and etc. Drives much more like a car from Japan as opposed to a German Sports car. Some people may prefer. I know my wife hates driving my 88 911 and liked driving the TT okay because the 911 takes more work.

[RazorRacer]

dd74, yeah, an SC will tear up the TT now that I know the weight. Jeez, 3350 lbs. what were they thinking?

Stanley, thanks for that link. Do you think they will make an RS version (he he he).

Blue, yeah, I know what you mean. Good point.

D, so now I'm looking at a 1984 928S with automatic drive. It's selling for $7,800 and my wife can drive it when I use here Durango to take my karts to the track for the weekend. It's a mixed blessing that she won't drive my SC.

Thanks all. Audi, if you are listening - lighten it up!!!