SimianSpeedster

Car and Driver offers up a brief 1 page review of the TTS in the March 2016 issue. Much like the longer TT review from a couple months back, the author spends an inordinate portion of the article agonizing over the meaning of the TTS in the current marketplace, and the MK3 styling as it relates to earlier editions. Perhaps he thinks that everyone buying a car is in a state of deep philosophical pondering, if not a full-blown identity crisis, but it's tiresome how much some reviewers overthink the TT/TTS because (my read) they can't comprehend how an exercise in style has evolved into a sporty car, and now a sports car in the opinion of many.

When the author actually get to talking about how the TTS drives, he notes the additional power of the engine and its different (i.e. focused on higher revs) power curve, the alarming speed for a stock production 4-cylinder (0-60 in 4.2, 0-100 in 10.7, and the 1/4 mile in 12.8 @ 108 mph), the general intelligence of the DSG transmission (though the author, like many others, laments the lack of a manual option), the sometimes rough ride (the test car had 20s which certainly didn't help), and the seemingly endless grip which accompanies all that beefy rubber.

One thing I learned from the article: the author says DSG in the TTS has closer gear ratios than the TT -- maybe that's common knowledge around these parts, but I missed it previously. And one potential oversight: the author complains about how slow the throttle reacts to input which suggests that he didn't put the transmission in dynamic mode for the performance driving portions of his test drive. Admittedly, when I'm tootling around in rush hour traffic with DSG set to comfort, it takes a strong right foot to evoke a gear change (let alone 2), but I find DSG to be quite responsive in Dynamic mode in almost all situations. Also, I'm deeply thankful that the TTS doesn't suffer from the hair-trigger throttle tip-in that so many other cars have today. I always prefer a throttle response which takes a little more deliberation than one I can accidentally provoke with an errant toe twitch.

In the end, the author mentions the Cayman (obligatory) and concludes that, while the TTS is great to drive, similar capabilities can be found in more useful cars like S3 and Golf R. And as much as I admire both of those cars, I find it odd that a magazine with a disproportionate reader base of sports car enthusiasts makes the argument that the cheaper, more practical options are better than the pure breed. Then again, the article starts with the question of why the TT/TTS exists as "a tiny high-style coupe adrift in an ocean of SUVs." Funny, they never seem to ask that question about the Boxster or Cayman. I firmly believe that, had the MK1 and MK2 models never existed, and Audi were to introduce the 2016 TT/TTS as a new sports car option, the reviews would be more gushing, but the baggage of the TT lineage is holding the new model back to a large extent. No matter -- I'd rather drive a rare car anyhow.

Huey52

Thanks very much for the write up and I quite agree, unique is a very good thing!

ocean1

Awesome summary. Thanks.

Vegas-roadster

I'd have to strongly disagree with the reference to "similar capabilities". If the author had bothered to read his magazine's own Lightning Lap results (IMO the best and most objective measure of a car's performance), he would have found the that S3 is slightly faster on a track than the Golf R and far slower than the old Mk 2 TTS. The increased HP and dramatically improved handling of the Mk 3 TTS as compared to the Mk 2 TTS will provide even better track times (I'm predicting that when the do the TTS Lightning Lap it will be comparable to the Mk 2 TTRS which C&D raved as one of the best bang for the buck cars at that time.) So a statement that a Golf R or S3 is "similar" is ludicrous.

I agree with your comment about the TT baggage. The Mk 1 was a huge success due to the many kudos it got for styling. While it fell short of the Porsche offerings at the time for performance, the styling knocked your socks off and performance was better than the SLK or Z3. The introduction of the Mk 2 was a disaster. They lost the styling, they lost the manual tranny for the 2L engine, and the original 2L engine had less performance than the Mk 2 225HP version that most enthusiasts bought. While the latter issue was fixed in 2011, few people noticed and the damage was done. Initial year sales of the Mk 2 were less than half the Mk 1 initial years. Unfortunately, the Mk 3 initial sales are trending to be about half of the Mk 2. Why? IMO unless you are an avid follower of the TT family, the Mk 3 styling looks virtually identical to the Mk 2, Audi's emphasis on the digital dash in their press coverage marginalized the dramatic handling improvements, the base TT engine is nearly identical to the late models Mk 2, and the car is about $5K more expensive than the Mk 2 was just a few years ago. The TTS is clearly the crown jewel of the Mk 3 family and is a great bang for the buck. I was all set to order my TTS roadster because Audi refused to sell us a Mk 2 TTR roadster and now they won't sell me a TTS roadster either. While the Mk 3 is better than my 2011 Mk 2, there is not enough there to make me want to trade in my present ride earlier than normal for me.

Huey52

That's what we get for even bothering with Car & Driver "professional" reviews.

And why I prefer Road & Track The 2016 Audi TT is Closer Than Ever to a True Sportscar

cr8nA4

Here are a couple of recent (January 2016) reviews from Motoman, and he promises a TTS soon: