Vegas-roadster

Some folks, myself included, have been considering the S3 as a potential alternative to the base Mk 3 TT. The base price for both is nearly identical but the S3 has the Mk 3 TTS engine. Car and Driver has just published their annual Lightning Lap results that included the S3. IMO Lightning Lap is one of the best methods of comparing the total performance of cars.

The S3 had a lap time of 3:11.3 which was 1 second faster than the VW Golf R and over 3 seconds faster than the VW GTI, both of which were also tested this year. As a point of historical perspective, the S3 is as fast as the 2007 RS4 which received rave reviews at that time. Unfortunately, C&D has never tested a base TT in Lightning Lap. They did test a Mk 2 TTS in 2009 which had a time of 3:08.4.

I predict that the Mk 3 TTS, if tested next year, will be very close to the Mk 2 TTRS time of 3:04.8. The Mk 3 has less HP, but less weight, better suspension, and a better Quattro system. The TTRS was the best performance for the buck Audi offered, being as fast as the V8 version of the R8 for about $60K The Mk 2 TTS would leave the S3 in the dust and the Mk 3 TTS will be even better and is worth the $9K premium as compared to the S3.

Unfortunately, the comparison of the Base Mk 3 TT versus S3 still remains unknown. However, the Mk 2 TTS, with all the limitations of that platform (as compared to the Mk 3) still far outperformed the higher HP S3 gives you some indication. The Mk 3 base TT has the same torque spec and less weight than the Mk 2 TTS but less HP. I'm guessing that the base Mk 3 TT will be comparable to the S3 in lap time. Therefore the decision would be dictated by your preference of body style since costs are similar.

In terms of bang for the buck, Chevy is the clear leader. The latest generation Stingray with a price in the low 60s beats out many Ferraris, Lambos, and Porsches costing double (and also the TTRS). The old Camaro SS is 3 seconds faster than a TTRS but sells in the high 30s. The Camaro version just released should be even faster. The new Corvette Z06 recorded the second fastest time ever, beating out cars costing 2-4 times more.

Huey52

Very nice analysis Vegas-roadster and I agree.

But I still wouldn't want a 'Vette, or a Camaro.

911sOldnNew

Vegas, I don't disagree with your analysis of performance, but as you know, most buyers of TT's and S3's don't track them, and typically don't drive beyond 80% of the car's capability on the street.

From a street performance standpoint, the extra 5 inches in wheelbase of the 3 series vs the TT series is probably more noticeable when trying to get a car through a corner at less than 80% of its potential than the 3 seconds or so on a track that comes from pushing a car beyond 80% of its potential.

Street handling enjoyment for me these days comes from lighter weight cars with shorter wheelbases that turn in quicker and are flatter at the apex to enable getting power down earlier, regardless of whether I'm pushing it at 60% or 80% of its potential.

Vegas-roadster

I agree that almost all driver's street abilities are far less than the pros who do the Lightning Lap. 80% may be generous even though most of us feel we could win LeMans if we had the right car and a little practice But 80% of a car that is 25% (just to pick a number) more capable is still 25% better for me. Sounds like you are saying that you feel you are an 80% driver for a wheelbase like the TT but a poorer driver for a longer wheelbase. Or maybe you just don't like the feel of bigger wheelbase cars. I don't know that the average non-track enthusiast feels that way. If the R8, which has about a 6" longer wheelbase than the base TT and also heavier, were the same price as a TT then you would still buy the TT? Most would buy the better performing R8 because wheelbase is only one of the many factors in the driving experience. If everyone followed your trend, we would all be driving Chevy Smarts, Fiats, or Coopers.

911sOldnNew

Either my written communication skills are lacking or you're trying to draw conclusions, fill in gaps, make assumptions, and/or put words in my mouth.

I have a couple of cars that weigh under 2500 lbs and have wheelbases under 90". I have two other cars that have 96" and 100" wheelbases and weigh about 3100-3200 lbs. The latter two cars can outperform the two former cars with my grandmother driving them. (And she's been dead for years). So no, neither me nor you nor anyone would be a better driver on my shorter wheelbase cars.

But from a pure enjoyment standpoint, the lighter cars with shorter wheelbases are just more fun to drive. For me. YMMV.

Please don't follow my trend though. Do what works for you. Be well.