2010 Audi TTRS = wunderengine

[legav05]

http://www.germancarblog.com/2009/08...s-cracker.html

It’s a compact unit, as it must be to fit across a nose, with slightly undersquare bore-stroke dimensions. It makes 335bhp from its 2480cc, not surprisingly with the help of a turbocharger (another original-Quattro commonality), available all the way from 5400 to 6700rpm. The 332lb ft torque plateau ends just 100rpm earlier, at 5300rpm, having started at 1600rpm. Like an R8 V10’s, this engine shows every sign of delivering energy with the unstoppable thrust of a steam engine even if it can’t quite match an R8’s ultimate crankshaft speeds.

What doesn’t change is the claimed 4.6sec 0-62mph time. This is one fast TT, and so it feels. With the Sport button depressed it’s a loud one, too, with a deep, guttural note released via a now-open valve by the left-hand tailpipe. That valve opens anyway at high speed and load, so Sport doesn’t make the RS go any faster, and after a while the bassy boom gets wearing. However, the button also sharpens the throttle response (it’s pretty crisp to begin with) and firms the optional magnetic dampers.

If only Subaru could do the same thing with 2.5L... 332ftlbs @ 1600 rpm puts v8's and v10's to shame. Sounds like a fun car to drive.

* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.

[amanichen]

Originally Posted by legav05

If only Subaru could do the same thing with 2.5L... 332ftlbs @ 1600 rpm puts v8's and v10's to shame.

Or even just one of these would be nice: http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/show...1#post27524084

[Derbagger]

Originally Posted by legav05

http://www.germancarblog.com/2009/08...s-cracker.html


If only Subaru could do the same thing with 2.5L... 332ftlbs @ 1600 rpm puts v8's and v10's to shame. Sounds like a fun car to drive.

um, what like getting a 4.6 0-60 time out of 2.5l in a hatchback? yeah...too bad.

Don't get me wrong, I love this new Audi 5 (especially the sound) but the WRX motor is quite sweet. Now just some DI to help MPG.

[Masterauto]

They accomplished what Subaru did in the STI 5 years ago. I owner an Audi TT Q turbo and the WRX drove far better at half the cost. The TT was a nice looking non performing slush bucket.

[bal00]

Originally Posted by Derbagger

um, what like getting a 4.6 0-60 time out of 2.5l in a hatchback? yeah...too bad.

0-62 usually takes 10% longer than 0-60, plus the Audi gets 10% better mileage and makes peak torque at 1600 rpm.

[E. Nick]

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/06/04/p...r-its-closeup/

Looks pretty nice to me - maybe a DSG Roadster for the wife - TT's always struck me as girl's cars, but this one I could drive in a pinch and not feel too gay.

[legav05]

Originally Posted by Derbagger

um, what like getting a 4.6 0-60 time out of 2.5l in a hatchback? yeah...too bad.

Don't get me wrong, I love this new Audi 5 (especially the sound) but the WRX motor is quite sweet. Now just some DI to help MPG.

Reality check, Subaru's only get these 0-60 times when you launch them hard to avoid turbo lag. I could get 0-60 in 4.0 seconds if I launch at 5k, assuming my clutch can handle it (which it can't right now). Reality is more like 6 seconds with everyday transmission, clutch, and passenger friendly driving. The Audi should get the 4.6s without this.

What's the 5-60 time for a wrx? 7.6 seconds? 8 seconds? it's a long damn time that's what.

[PseudoKirby]

Yay, Bringing back the I5

[JuggernautTCW]

Originally Posted by legav05

Reality check, Subaru's only get these 0-60 times when you launch them hard to avoid turbo lag. I could get 0-60 in 4.0 seconds if I launch at 5k, assuming my clutch can handle it (which it can't right now). Reality is more like 6 seconds with everyday transmission, clutch, and passenger friendly driving. The Audi should get the 4.6s without this.

What's the 5-60 time for a wrx? 7.6 seconds? 8 seconds? it's a long damn time that's what.

Quote For Truth... finally someone else being objective enough to give Audi some credit instead of saying a modded WRX can do 0-60 in 5 seconds years ago.

[Spenk]

as in "wunderwhenit'llbreak"?

[Derbagger]

Originally Posted by bal00

0-62 usually takes 10% longer than 0-60, plus the Audi gets 10% better mileage and makes peak torque at 1600 rpm.

0-62 usually takes another 10th, unless the gearing requires a second shift.

And I mentioned the MPG, which is subpar on the Subie.

What I'm saying is that for the $$, Subaru could easily match this. Except the sound. Love that I-5 sound.

[SoSuMi]

Originally Posted by Masterauto

They accomplished what Subaru did in the STI 5 years ago. I owner an Audi TT Q turbo and the WRX drove far better at half the cost. The TT was a nice looking non performing slush bucket.

I'm guessing that you had a first gen TT, which was known for not only having middling handling but dangerous handling... until Audi made a few changes.

Anyhow if that's the case, I can tell ya that the new one with the two liter engine drives pretty darn nice. As for the RS, I have no idea but I have read that some of the reviewers prefer the TTS over the TTRS. Speed isn't every thing.

OTOH, the dealer where I bought my car currently has a deal on a nice little R8 with only 2k miles on it. You could pick that up for around $120k.

It seems someone bought it and a few months later traded it in for the R8 V10. For him it was about speed (and obviously he had $$ to burn).

[Blitzkrieg]

Originally Posted by Spenk

as in "wunderwhenit'llbreak"?

Sort of like the batch of 09 wrx motors....

Every car has a history of breaking something.

[KidCorporate]

Originally Posted by Blitzkrieg

Sort of like the batch of 09 wrx motors....

Every car has a history of breaking something.

A history and THE history are different things

In all seriousness the TTRS is really impressive, and I'm not one to be impressed by most hairdresser whips

[subySerb]

Originally Posted by legav05

http://www.germancarblog.com/2009/08...s-cracker.html


If only Subaru could do the same thing with 2.5L... 332ftlbs @ 1600 rpm puts v8's and v10's to shame. Sounds like a fun car to drive.

all tractor/truck motors have great torque figures.

[bal00]

Originally Posted by Derbagger

0-62 usually takes another 10th, unless the gearing requires a second shift.

No. If the car does 0-60 in 4.8 seconds, the average rate of acceleration is 0.08 sec/mph, so that'd be an extra 0.16 sec. However, that's the _average_ acceleration over the whole run and at 60-62 mph it'll be below average because you're in 2nd and past the torque peak. 0.25-0.30 secs for the extra 2 mph is more like it.

US mags also let the car move 12" before starting the clock and that typically takes another 5% off the car's 0-60 time.

[hondahata]

Sweet little car. Other than this being a Subaru site, the comparison is....well... just pointless. As far as the modded Suby thing, as some one who spent 10's of thousands on an '04, the question you end up asking yourself is--why? Just buy cars that perform like you want them to perform and save yourself the headache.

[legav05]

Originally Posted by subySerb

all tractor/truck motors have great torque figures.

They don't rev to 7000+ rpm and do 0-60 in 4.6 seconds.. What is your point?

[E. Nick]

I just read not for USA. Audi screws us over here - no V8 or V12 Diesels, no RS6, no RS4 Avant, no RS3, and now no TTRS. Sad banana.

[Not-EWRX]

Still a TT

[Derbagger]

Quote:
Originally Posted by legav05 View Post
Reality check, Subaru's only get these 0-60 times when you launch them hard to avoid turbo lag. I could get 0-60 in 4.0 seconds if I launch at 5k, assuming my clutch can handle it (which it can't right now). Reality is more like 6 seconds with everyday transmission, clutch, and passenger friendly driving. The Audi should get the 4.6s without this.

What's the 5-60 time for a wrx? 7.6 seconds? 8 seconds? it's a long damn time that's what.

Originally Posted by JuggernautTCW

Quote For Truth... finally someone else being objective enough to give Audi some credit instead of saying a modded WRX can do 0-60 in 5 seconds years ago.

quote for spoof....

C&D 5-60 is 6.3

Obviously the 4.6 0-60 is a product of AWD traction and clutch abuse, but the fact is that much more power and efficiency would be possible at 40% more $$, which is where the Audi sells at.

Don't get me wrong, I love this new Audi motor, and I hope it gets into more than just the TT, as a 2.5T Golf or RS3 in the high 30ks would be on my list. It's just not a monster of technical achievement.

[Lboogie]

Ford/Volvo I5 in the Focus RS puts out power similar to this without direct injection. So the Audi has good numbers, but nothing revolutionary.

[legav05]

Originally Posted by Lboogie

Ford/Volvo I5 in the Focus RS puts out power similar to this without direct injection. So the Audi has good numbers, but nothing revolutionary.

74 more ft lbs and 70 more hp that the new legacy engine?? I wish I could buy "nothing revolutionary" from subaru.

[bal00]

Originally Posted by Derbagger

Obviously the 4.6 0-60 is a product of AWD traction and clutch abuse, but the fact is that much more power and efficiency would be possible at 40% more $$, which is where the Audi sells at.

Don't get me wrong, I love this new Audi motor, and I hope it gets into more than just the TT, as a 2.5T Golf or RS3 in the high 30ks would be on my list. It's just not a monster of technical achievement.

That depends on what you're looking for. How many turbo engines make peak torque from 1600 to 5300 rpm? That's much more of achievement than slapping on a bigger turbo and making 450 hp at the expense of driveability.

[HybridBoxer]

Originally Posted by bal00

That depends on what you're looking for. How many turbo engines make peak torque from 1600 to 5300 rpm? That's much more of achievement than slapping on a bigger turbo and making 450 hp at the expense of driveability.

This...

I noticed that when reading through as well and thought that's impressive.