BMW Z4 vs Audi TT
- Thread starter gwilson30019
- Start date
A
Anonymous
Guest
LeeZ4MR said:
Funnily enough, my friends have a 2011 TTS DSG which I have had a couple of goes in. Yes it is very laggy but I like the drive of it because somehow the engine with its big turbo gives it a bit of attitude and perhaps character. The DSG gearbox does seem to be a lot better in this than the one in my old 3.2. Probably the same box perhaps just better software and or newer clutch packs.
Agree the later Z4 is more of a cruiser than drivers machine. BMW went squarely after the SLK with the G2 Z4.
One thing going for the TT coupe is that it was quite practical, hatchback with folding rear seats.
my best friend has just bought a 2003 TT 3.2 V6 with DSG! 66k on the clock and paid £5000!
in 3rd at 50mph on the motor way we both put our foot down! now considering i had my 17 stone brother in the passenger seat, there was nothing in it all all, he wasn't pulling away and neither way i! if my fat brother hadn't been there i swear i would have been edging forward from him!
in 3rd at 50mph on the motor way we both put our foot down! now considering i had my 17 stone brother in the passenger seat, there was nothing in it all all, he wasn't pulling away and neither way i! if my fat brother hadn't been there i swear i would have been edging forward from him!
Yes the TTS suits us at the minute as we think it looks nice it has a decent turn of pace and it accommodates our 6 year old daughter at the moment but the rear seats are useless for adults, we are both surprised how much we have taken to the TT as we both prefer bmw in terms of the driving experience but Z4/6 series aside the rest of the range are ugly in our opinion.sniffer said:
I quite fancy a 435d x drive as a friend has one and he describes the performance as awesome but the mrs just doesn't like the look of them and I agree if I am honest but I have never purchased a bmw for the way it looks it always been about the way it drives.
Hi
Just signed up this evening and, since I've had both, thought I'd chip in.
Had 57 plate Mk2 TT roadster 2.0 Tfsi FWD from about 18 months old for 3 years. Swapped to MX5 for 18 months and traded to a 2009 Z4 23i at the end of 2013.
For me, the Z4 is the better, more complete and nicer car. In truth, the open tops have only really been used as fun cars but the TT was only really of interest to me in that mode whereas the Z4 makes a very pleasant coupe too.
Positives for TT revolve around the cabin plastics which are nicer and less creak / rattle prone. Negatives were that torque steer was never entirely absent, undermining any sense of real security, the radio was rubbish, digitised and 'fuggie' yet the iPod interface sounded great. Ride was OK on 18" wheels but the car was no better in the snow than my 5 series, so winter tyres would be every bit as imperative for proper winter use. The roof seemed a little porous too despite Audi saying it was fine, so condensation was an ongoing winter feature. Gut feeling that service costs with the TT might be a little lower. Until, of course, the timing belt requires attention.
Xenon lights were an extra back then too, although our one had them and they were good.
The Z4 has 17" wheels and I've just swapped to non run-flats. The changes brought are considerable. Most of the rattles simply stopped and it rides much better. Ahead of the TT on 18's, I'd say. Fuel economy is better too, I think (early days) but probably ahead of the older TT. Later Audis will have doubtless improved. For me, seat comfort in the Z4 (sports seats) is a little ahead of the TT too even though I'm fat and the Z4 seats a little narrow.
The Z4 has the upgraded but not top spec stereo and it's powerful enough if just a bit boomy in the bass. It's mainly adjustable via tone controls but not entirely. I cracked and got the BMW integrated TomTom and it's better in most respects than the iDrive in the 5 series, if far less cool.
Just signed up this evening and, since I've had both, thought I'd chip in.
Had 57 plate Mk2 TT roadster 2.0 Tfsi FWD from about 18 months old for 3 years. Swapped to MX5 for 18 months and traded to a 2009 Z4 23i at the end of 2013.
For me, the Z4 is the better, more complete and nicer car. In truth, the open tops have only really been used as fun cars but the TT was only really of interest to me in that mode whereas the Z4 makes a very pleasant coupe too.
Positives for TT revolve around the cabin plastics which are nicer and less creak / rattle prone. Negatives were that torque steer was never entirely absent, undermining any sense of real security, the radio was rubbish, digitised and 'fuggie' yet the iPod interface sounded great. Ride was OK on 18" wheels but the car was no better in the snow than my 5 series, so winter tyres would be every bit as imperative for proper winter use. The roof seemed a little porous too despite Audi saying it was fine, so condensation was an ongoing winter feature. Gut feeling that service costs with the TT might be a little lower. Until, of course, the timing belt requires attention.
Xenon lights were an extra back then too, although our one had them and they were good.
The Z4 has 17" wheels and I've just swapped to non run-flats. The changes brought are considerable. Most of the rattles simply stopped and it rides much better. Ahead of the TT on 18's, I'd say. Fuel economy is better too, I think (early days) but probably ahead of the older TT. Later Audis will have doubtless improved. For me, seat comfort in the Z4 (sports seats) is a little ahead of the TT too even though I'm fat and the Z4 seats a little narrow.
The Z4 has the upgraded but not top spec stereo and it's powerful enough if just a bit boomy in the bass. It's mainly adjustable via tone controls but not entirely. I cracked and got the BMW integrated TomTom and it's better in most respects than the iDrive in the 5 series, if far less cool.
A
Anonymous
Guest
YC09 said:
Very interesting. I have often heard the MK2 TT in FWD was very good and in some ways better than the V6 4WD variant. I knew people who had the FWD and they thought they were very good.
Welcome to the forum.
Welcome to the forum toosniffer said:YC09 said:
Very interesting. I have often heard the MK2 TT in FWD was very good and in some ways better than the V6 4WD variant. I knew people who had the FWD and they thought they were very good.
Welcome to the forum.
I agree with you regards the Bose stereo in the TT it sounds very lacklustre when the radio is on yet when we play music via the iphone is sounds awesome and I have never really understood why, also agree I think ours would be better as FWD rather than Quattro to be honest because it behaves like a FWD car anyway with its epic understeer but maybe with 268 bhp it would torque steer a bit so I suppose at least it gets the power down better with 4WD.
Suspect the 4wd is preferable at your TTSs power output level.
Pulling away at junctions on damp roads could be a frustration too, since the stability control kicked in and left me sitting without any power at all.
With Quattro audis these sorts of situation don't even register. They just apply power and go.
Pulling away at junctions on damp roads could be a frustration too, since the stability control kicked in and left me sitting without any power at all.
With Quattro audis these sorts of situation don't even register. They just apply power and go.
ruggedscot
Member
Ive an Audi A6 for regular daily hack - 2.7 tdi its got 130k on it now - I put on around 80k without any surprises. Would take it anywhere without worry....
Audi make great interiors and a brilliant finish......
The Z4 ? Its got the lines and looks great with the dual purpose roof / convertible its a fun car. However Ive had a dodgy roof and a cracked alloy. this on a 2009 with 25k on it.
For dependability it would be he Audi with my experiences to go on. However we dont buy with the head. I tested a TT before the Z4 and yes it was great inside but it drove quite dull. even one with the 3.2 engine was a little unimpressive. I ended up going for the BMW as when its going great and the roof down its a great place to be - living the dream so to speak. I also felt that the Audi gave the impression of trying too hard where as the Z felt more relaxed and more of a drivers car as it had the fluidity and balance that a decently setup RWD chassis provides.
Audi make great interiors and a brilliant finish......
The Z4 ? Its got the lines and looks great with the dual purpose roof / convertible its a fun car. However Ive had a dodgy roof and a cracked alloy. this on a 2009 with 25k on it.
For dependability it would be he Audi with my experiences to go on. However we dont buy with the head. I tested a TT before the Z4 and yes it was great inside but it drove quite dull. even one with the 3.2 engine was a little unimpressive. I ended up going for the BMW as when its going great and the roof down its a great place to be - living the dream so to speak. I also felt that the Audi gave the impression of trying too hard where as the Z felt more relaxed and more of a drivers car as it had the fluidity and balance that a decently setup RWD chassis provides.
I loved shape of the Mk2 TT when it came out. A friend had one in Daytona Grey and it looked stunning.
But... there are far too many on the roads for my liking. I like something a tad rarer and that's where the E89 scores...
But... there are far too many on the roads for my liking. I like something a tad rarer and that's where the E89 scores...
I had a 3.0 Z4, 2.0 Z4 and 3.2 Mk2 TT with Stronic gearbox. IMO all different types of car. As many have said the TT is more comfortable and nicer inside the cabin. The car pulled like a train and sounded immense with little fuss. So easy n relaxing to drive even when gunning it. 3.0 Z4 is far more driver focused, as fast as the TT but you need to put more 'in' to get the same performance out. Harder ride, manual box, stiffer steering etc makes for a mini workout! 2.0 Z4 is a nice compromise if you want all the looks of the other 2 without the performance, but also without the running costs! Many people on here will say the 3.0 doesn't cost much more to run vs 2.0 but that's only true if you don't drive many miles/week (29 mpg vs 39mpg).
Genuinely IMO I'd stick with the TT, it's faster, more economical and has nicer cabin and exterior than 2.0 (my opinion lol
)
Genuinely IMO I'd stick with the TT, it's faster, more economical and has nicer cabin and exterior than 2.0 (my opinion lol
)