I put my money down for a TTS with 6 speed, quat, and 225 hp about 2 months ago, now I read in Car & Driver that the TT will be out late spring with the cabrio to follow in 6 months, just as I had thought. Not a problem. C & D also says that the 225 hp motor will be held back a year from introduction, Problem. I don't really want to wait 2 years to get the car they should have put out in the first place. Why do the Germans pull this crap with the good motors all the time? Might just get an S4 and to hell with the TTS. Yea, that will really show Audi, right???

 

<br>It is standard marketing practice to bring out the bottom of the line first and then follow up with higher end versions on a regular schedule. Other automotive examples are the Mustang Cobra, Impala SS, Viper GTS, RX7 Turbo II, etc. One noteable exception was the Ur-Quattro which gave the marketing guys fits because the Homologation special came out before the 2wd base model coupe. <p>I hear your pain. Marketing bozos strike again.<p>Todd W

 

:-)

 

<br>My point was that it is a common marketing technique, because the bottom end cars pay the bills (remember the K-car?). The higher end versions are good for brand image, but have little direct effect on the bottom line.<p>Yes the Germans subscribe to this philosophy, like the M3 and M Roadster, but it is not their invention to the best of my knowledge. The difference is that the Germans, and in some cases the Japanese, keep the best versions for themselves. Pride is a factor, but so is the question of whether they can sell enough to recoup the costs of government approval.<p>The French and Spanish never successfully brought much of anything over the pond, and the British & Italian vehicles are a completely different market altogether. I don't know how to describe what the Swedes are doing. <p>I've gone rather far off on a tangent, but the point is that although we may feel like Audi, or the Germans, are dragging us along - they have no monopoly on the practice. It's just the nature of the beast (and what a beast it is to some of us)<p>Sorry for the long explanation, but since I didn't understand your point I figured you must not have understood mine.<p>Todd W

 

Concur.<br>I was considering putting $ down on the same car. I visited my local dealer last week. He gave a different time frame--about 6 months after introduction of the 180-hp TT, which puts it on par with the cabrio. If my dealer doesn't know, then perhaps AofA doesn't know, which means Car & Driver probably doesn't know, either. There's been so much misinformation (speculation?) printed about this car. It's getting annoying. <br>I feel your pain.<br>

 

The main reason for not having all versions (and sometimes the best ones) in the US is the DOT crash test requirements. Every version of each model that is intended to be sold in the US has to go through rigorous crash testing as a whole to prove it's viable for this market.<p>The DOT has specific guidelines as to what a certain model can be equipped with and how it should perform in a crash with that said equipment. If any one item does not comply, it cannot be used on that car.<p>Take, for instance, the '93 & '94 Porsche RS America. This car was identical to the Carrera 2 except for some minor weight reduction through less carpeting. The manual window cranks could not be used because Porsche would have to go through a whole new version for certification. The same applied if Porsche decided to market that car in the US with a more powerful engine, a transmission with different gear ratios, a sportier suspension, an aluminum hood or plastic windows. On the other hand, the electric mirrors could be eliminated because the manual mirrors did not make a difference.<p>Having said that, you certainly understand Audi's hesitation in such huge investments when it is unsure of how many cars of a certain model it will sell. The Cabriolet for instance, immediately received the 30V V6 engine in Europe (among others) but not here. That is because Audi did not sell enough of those cars to justify another huge US certification investment.<p>If Audi decides to ever become aggressive in the US, it will make more versions of its cars available here at a faster pace. If I were Audi, I would have in production, as we speak, a 1999 model of each of:<p>- A4 1.8T 180 HP<br>- S4 2.7T 265 HP<br>- A6 2.7T 230 HP<br>- A6 4.2 300 HP<br>- TT 1.8T 180 HP<br>- TT 1.8T 225 HP<p>I am certain that VAG can afford the investment to effectively market the above cars against the competition. Unfortunately, Audi does not seem to grasp the importance of this market.

 

Get real!......Audi gives us what we stupid Americans buy or do not buy!....unintended acceleration crap, remember!....never happened but US sales tanked but not drop anywhere else in the world. Audi is not forgetting this and is being ultra cautious with what and when it sends cars.

 

No reason for you to get upset or defensive. The days of unreliable and runaway Audis are gone. Today, everyone is ready and willing to buy exciting cars. Everyday, I hear BMW drivers mention the fact that they would rather be driving an Audi if it were a better performer. All Audi models sold in the US (save for the A4) are pretty boring to drive. The point it that Audi is capable to make more exciting cars (they do in Europe) but choose not to.<p>AoA is just plain confused as to the direction they want to take in this market.

 

I just returned from Munich a few weeks ago (Oktoberfest!) and there is a new Audi Center at the Munich airport. If I remember correctly, there were big TT banners all around and I believe they had either 31.10.98 or 30.11.98 on them. This would mean that they are going to be available for sale in Germany either on Oct. 31 or Nov. 30. How long it will take for them to go on sale in the US is a different story.

 

As mentioned earlier, Audi has to crash test ever model it sells in the US, usually multiple cars for each model. If they can't sell enough cars to offset the costs of crash testing, why bother. The S4/S6 (mid 90's) was discontinued from US markets due to lack of sales vs. continually meeting US crash standards. Making the customer happy at a loss is not the goal.