Thanks for the thanks, first one ever!

Thanks for the 'thanks' for the thanks.

... in fact it really surprised me after hearing all the comments on here at how bad the car supposedly handles

I agree.

It handles just fine... with me at the wheel anyway.

Bad workmen blaming their tools, eh?

My brakes died pretty quick though :P

Yeah, they don't like getting beasted, do they?

That said, I don't think they deserve the ripping they often get on here.

Under 'normal' driving they work just fine and I don't know about anyone else, but mine are so powerful that they can even lock the wheels (were it not for the ABS)!

A little OT, but still relevant...

Just a thought, but will those TT'Tdi clocks fit a fabia?

If the TT facia fits physically, for sure. It would be an easier job than one a mate of mine did, putting a TT facia into a VW Corrado, and getting all the instruments, even the computer, to work.

'Geometric understeer' was actually a maths/driving quip combo.

See how bad the understeer rapidly gets as we move along the graph:

Exponential growth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ah. Making pure maths jokes to an engineer is a bad idea!!

Ah. Making pure maths jokes to an engineer is a bad idea!!

How so?

And I can assure you, I am no mathematician, metallurgist, nor inorganic chemist.

How so?

And I can assure you, I am no mathematician, metallurgist, nor inorganic chemist.

We just don't get them.

Thanks for the 'thanks' for the thanks.

I could say thanks, and so on but wont

Agree'd my standard beeza handled fine imho, however the brakes are bloody rubbish in std 288mm form! Maybe I brake alot

A little OT, but still relevant...

Just a thought, but will those TT'Tdi clocks fit a fabia?

AFAIK (recalling distant conversations with a mate) the TT runs more advanced CANBUS systems or more automated/modular systems. It is likely that the dash won't work in a Fabia context without significant faffing around. How many CELs do you want to see, save, investigate and fix? Any that's if you can get it to work at all.

J.

I have a standard 1972 MGB Roadster currently in storage waiting for a new fuel pump, a pair of batteries and the wire wheels need some attention.

Hilarious to drive, certainly not quick but some of the best fun I have had on the road and sounds great too!

Mine was a hoot in the lanes - 60 in that felt like 100 in a modern car - my 12 year old loved it, and I do miss the old nail. But it helped buy the Furbie so it had to go............

We just don't get them.

Then I shall aim my quips a tad lower in future. :P

Maybe I brake alot

:eek:

Go easy with them, bud.

They only slow you down.

Nah the 123D is a Diesel Sports car. 200+bhp and RWD too, as it should be.

I woul dthink the current king of Diesel sports cars is the 335D beemer. very quick car:eek:

Nah the 123D is a Diesel Sports car. 200+bhp and RWD too, as it should be.

I woul dthink the current king of Diesel sports cars is the 335D beemer. very quick car:eek:

Ah, but how many MPGs can the 123D do?

Mr Audi's claim, the one the entire thread is questioning, is that the TT TDI is The World's First 53mpg Sports Car.

Ah, but how many MPGs can the 123D do?

Mr Audi's claim, the one the entire thread is questioning, is that the TT TDI is The World's First 53mpg Sports Car.

BMW claim something similar. 54.3 Combined

Oh and it is only a 138 g/km car too

BMW claim something similar. 54.3 Combined

Oh and it is only a 138 g/km car too

"54.3 Combined". :eek:

Not even close! :P

Not even close! :P

Which the Audi’s or the Beemers?

the Beemer will do a real world 43mpg with mixed driving and obviously more if you stick to the speed limits.

"54.3 Combined". :eek:

Not even close! :P

Driven legally a 123D can do around 47-48mpg, so it’s not too bad considering the weight, performance and low emissions. It’s also quite a bit quicker than the TT.

TT 53mpg.....don't make me laugh either. A friend of mine has just got rid of her company car version and she was always whinging about the disappointing mpg.

Mind you she has just bought a small Ford Convertible so her car choices are very suspect:D

I don't suppose anyones mentioned the engine differences?

The TT will no doubt be the CR unit and the VRS is obv the PD unit.

Which is better? PD or CR?

Not all MKII TT's are...

But the TT in question' date=' the TDI, is 4WD.[/quote']

I don't think it's very cleaver to paraphrase someone else post in a quote then plagiarise a point made in the part you edited out.

is the tt 4wd??

Not all MKII TT's are' date=' the TFSI are FWD but the 3.2, TDI and TTS are 4wd. My mate who has test driven both reckons there isn't much benefit of 4wd in them

[/quote']

:(

I don't think it's very cleaver to paraphrase someone else post in a quote then plagiarise a point made in the part you edited out.

:(

Terrible isn't it.

He regurgitates stuff already posted and when anyone tries to discuss the point or brings up the fact he contradicts himself and often gets things wrong he will try to tie the poster up by splitting hairs over the smallest of details which will then result in tennis match tit for tat point scoring.

Leave him well alone as he will just try to wind you up. Better still add him to your ignore list, it's what I did and now his posts are irrelevent.

Edited 2 October, 200817 yr by Decron

I don't suppose anyones mentioned the engine differences?

The TT will no doubt be the CR unit and the VRS is obv the PD unit.

Which is better? PD or CR?

Should be the CR. Better emissions for a start.

I don't think it's very cleaver to paraphrase someone else post in a quote then plagiarise a point made in the part you edited out.

:(

Clever or not, I was simply answering the question actually being asked :

"is the tt (you know, the TDI, not any other variant) 4wd??"

Terrible isn't it.

He regurgitates stuff already posted and when anyone tries to discuss the point or brings up the fact he contradicts himself and often gets things wrong he will try to tie the poster up by splitting hairs over the smallest of details which will then result in tennis match tit for tat point scoring.

Leave him well alone as he will just try to wind you up. Better still add him to your ignore list, it's what I did and now his posts are irrelevent.

Yup, that sounds like me alright!

Such a shame you've got me on your ignore list as you're missing yet more points being scored any time you spill some wisdom.

Which the Audi’s or the Beemers?

the Beemer will do a real world 43mpg with mixed driving and obviously more if you stick to the speed limits.

Well, if the 123D can really do 54.3mpg then Mr BMW should have Mr Audi shopped for false advertising!

The Audi manages only 53mpg.

And that's rounded up!

Well, if the 123D can really do 54.3mpg then Mr BMW should have Mr Audi shopped for false advertising!

The Audi manages only 53mpg.

And that's rounded up!

Both cars can no doubt meet their targets in the Lab, but in the real world the two just don’t as don’t any other cars I have had the pleasure of driving………..or is that just my driving?

It also depends on when you define the point of a Diesel being a sports car, or indeed what the definition of a Sports car is. Is it a Convertible? A car that can crack a 100mph in under 20 seconds? A top speed of 150mph? who knows. But in testing by magazines the 123D is more economical than the Audi, has as already mentioned low emissions and is an amazing engine. I would say the straight line performance is similar to a 175bhp Fabia in broad terms and the top speed perhaps a little higher. I will wait to see if the VAG 200bhp engine is better when it appears next year, if it is, then we are all winners as competition strengthens the breed.