Does anyone out there know the performance difference between the FWD and the Quattro TT? I'm refering to the 180 models here. My dealer has told me that I can get a quattro maybe a month earlier than a FWD and although I will never be on snow or ice (probably), the thought of extra grip is appealing, but I don't want a car much slower than the FWD I drove, thanks.

 

Matt<p>Do you live on a farm?<p>If not, then why do you want a (4x4) Audi?<p>If you do, go for the quattro with plough attachment - it's far more fun than you'd imagine and it handles more sweetly than a '57 Chevvy!<p>Seriously (I hope we still have a sense of humor on this message board!)<p>The Haldex system on the TT, although acknowledged to sap at least 17% of the TT's more than adequate power, is worthwhile, especially if you consider yourself a less than average driver. There have been reports in the Scottish motoring press that the Haldex system has been 'burning out' in many Golf 4-Motions. Audi have admitted that they are reviewing their options and expect to make an announcement before the fall. Rumour has it the old quattro driveline will be reverse-engineered into the TTS - Haldex staying for the 180 and 225.<p>Also reported was the decision to fit a speed-limiter at 200kph on the TT quattro due to chronic high speed handling characteristics and the bad press after the recent pile up on a Frankfurt autobahn.<br> <br>Iain

 

<br>I have been "repeatedly" told by a VERY highly placed source at Audi that the 180hp Quattro will have a quicker time from 0-60 than the fwd and is faster overall. I realize that the numbers may not seem to add up to account for this, but this is an "unquestionable" source. And, as we all know, sometimes the numbers arent exactly as printed. <br> I have also had the opportunity to speak with several test drivers used for TT development that provided absolute verification of this.<br> Trust me on this one. For this very reason, my Quattro is on order already. <p><br>Jim<br>

 

Jim, do you work for a dealer or other entity associated with Audi. Your information seems pretty reliable and maybe a little more complete than mine. I must say, however, that the TTQ that I drove last summer was very short on power compared to the production FWD's that have been arriving, but this was probably due to being a pre-production car. Thanks.<p><br> Jason Dale<br> Audi Technician <br> Ken Garff Motors<br> Provo, UT<br>

 

Ian D., 17% amounts to 22,4 kW in the 180 hp, and 28,1 kW in the 225 hp. I believe you're familiar with how much power a couple of kW's is, from home heating or cooking. Can you imagine ten times as much, developing inside the poor Haldex and the rear axle? Without radiators and forces air cooling? Without a meltdown? Doesn't sound possible to me.

 

I have a deposit down at my dealer (Schneider/Nelson in NJ) on the 225HP Quattro. I drove the FWD version, and despite what Car and Driver says I found the torque steer very annoying, basically unacceptable in a sports car, and power was adequate although not spine tingling. If you were raised on Rabbits and Golfs I suppose it's just fine, but IMO it needs the help that I hope will be provided by the HO engine and AWD. Power loss or not, I think AWD is much more desirable. <p>Don't know when I'll get the big Quattro-- some sources say later this year, some say Spring of 2000. I can wait, but it ain't gonna be easy. Other than the FWD, I fell in love with the car, mainly the captivating design. Coming out of C5 Corvette, BTW, and before that an Acura NSX.<p>-Bob Larson

 

Between Lou's lap times which showed the 180 Q the slowest of the three models...and now the magazine reports out of Germany about the instability and unreliability of the Q versions, plus what we are reading in this thread...and in others (headlights, rattles, etc.) the TT seems to be having serious teething problems. On the good side, Audi has an excellent warranty program and if push comes to shove, (at least in California) we have the "lemon law." Still...if it turns out that my Quattro is limited to 120 because of instability at high speed...or if it is dog slow compared to the 180...it may just pay to sit back and wait for the next generation of TT to come along. The Haldex System does not seem to be as good as the real Audi Quattro system. Haldex might be great in a race car where life is measured in short time, but what I'm reading here isn't giving me confidence in it's longevity. I would not be surprised to see it replaced by a reengineed version of Audi's own system. The thing I find hard to understand is how the car could go into production with serious aerodynamic problems...and believe me, when a car gets loose at 100+ mph...that's serious. This should have been caught in the wind tunnel and prototype testing. I also don't understand how Porsche can make a four wheel drive system that only weights 100 or so pounds more than the two wheel system, while Audi is facing more than twice the weight penalty. Any comments from someone who has facts?

 

The tech specs are reachable from the front page.<p>What is interesting is the 0-80km times, FWD = 5.5 vs Quattro = 5.1. Then at 100km the times are the same. Basically Quattro helps acceleration at the beginning with traction but hurts the top end with the weight penalty of Quattro and/or lower gear rations then FWD. Bet the FWD passes the Quattro at speeds greater then 100km.<p>Why argue about acceleration, if you want fast 0-60 buy a Camaro SS. Buy the TT for the handling and style, especially get Quattro if you want handling.<p>Jeff R.<br>A4 1.8T FWD

 

<br>Jason,<p><br> The one you drove ws likely not optimized yet, that was an issue with the prototypes. Let me just say that my information comes from far above dealer level. Not trying to be mysterious, but I am not actually supposed to be providing info publicly. In this case, I thought it was important. My sources have told me, without question that the Quattro IS faster than the fwd. And again, trust me on this, at the level I speak of, its not possible for them to be wrong. I hope that helps. <p><br>Jim

 

Marius<p>Good point. I think Iain Dalgleish is a great big fibber-dibber!<p>TTony