Thoughts please> Z4Coupe 3.0si vs Audi TT 3.2V6 S-tronic.
- Thread starter easty027
- Start date
the tax is the same as the 3.0si coupe providing you get an s-tronic version. the manual is up at £455 a year tax. The only thing that puts me off the Z4M is the stupid service costs, i have a million other things i will rather spend the best part of a grand on than handing it to a dealer.
Made the dealer do my service before I got the car, saved £1100 and I doubt it will need servicing before I sell it on. If you look and push the deals are there, got nearly £5k out of my dealer in the end, they are desperate to get rid of cars. Market is flat, infact the dealer I got my old car from rang me up out of the blue and asked if i had bought a new car and tried to steal the sale and offered to buy my car. The whole market is in desperation! Got a stupid deal on the finance too!
Tom Scott
Tom Scott
Can't comment on the Z4 Coupé but can comment on the TT 3.2V6 S-Tronic which was my last car. In all I owned 3 TTs the last two being 3.2 V6s & DSG and S-Tronic equipped respectively (Mk1 & Mk2). No trouble with the DSG/S-Tronic boxes at all over 6 years and some 70k total mileage. On track the Z4 may well be quicker but in everyday road driving the Z4 will find it extremely difficult to show the TT a clean pair of heels, particularly in the wet. Compared to the Z4 I now have, the Audi was better built - panel fit better and shut lines much tighter and more consistent and the bits not immediately visible e.g. wing attachments under the bonnet etc, the Audi was much better engineered. Overall mpg came out as 26mpg for both the V6s. Servicing costs were pretty reasonable and came up every ~20k miles so overall servicing costs were, in fact, quite low over 3 years. Reliability was very good for the Mk2 with no failures over three years - something that can't be said of the two Mk1's I owned! Overall, the TT is, IMHO, a good bet.
mason storm
Active member
Garvin said:
Nice to hear someone with a good experiance (at least of the new model) makes for a balanced thread. Still don't think the TT looks as sexy/cool though
docttor999
Member
I jumped ship from a 2.0 TT DSG to the Z4 maunal 2.5si. The Z4 is far the better car, more reliable, feels more solid, more fun to drive. I had 2 DSG gearboxes replaced under warranty in under 2 years and numerous other breakdown issues. Stay well away from Audi in my experience!
doc
doc
Garvin said:
thanks for the input, i was hoping somebody had owned one previously.
Mason Storm
yes i think the z4 is slightly sexier, however i can add TTS/TTRS bumpers alloys etc to the car as i can have them at staff discount, not that i am trying to make it look like its something its not, but i can certainly make it look a bit different from the norm.
Owned both a Z4 3.0i (as you know) and now a TT 2.0T.
As a drivers machine the Z4 has the TT licked. As a motorway cruiser the TT wins everytime. Regarding straight line performance, there is little it it, however the TT is easier to drive faster via point A to B.
I think the TT looks better than the Z4 but I've probably upset lots of people posting that on a Z4 forum so must qualify that comment with "however that is my opinion". The MK2 TT (2006)is a newer design then the Z4 (2003) and feels more modern as does it also feel more like a quality product in terms of interior design.
Both are good cars and my advice to you would be drive them both then decide. There are some steals about in terms of 3.2 TT and if you get the DSG box and a low mile example you will be quids in come resale time.
Good luck with your decision and remember winter is on its way, know what I'd rather be in as last time I had a RWD BMW with little weight over the rear axle it really struggled in snow!
Think it may boil down to..... whether you want a drivers car, a la Z4, or more of a mature relaxed driver that certainly looks the part, hence the TT.
As a drivers machine the Z4 has the TT licked. As a motorway cruiser the TT wins everytime. Regarding straight line performance, there is little it it, however the TT is easier to drive faster via point A to B.
I think the TT looks better than the Z4 but I've probably upset lots of people posting that on a Z4 forum so must qualify that comment with "however that is my opinion". The MK2 TT (2006)is a newer design then the Z4 (2003) and feels more modern as does it also feel more like a quality product in terms of interior design.
Both are good cars and my advice to you would be drive them both then decide. There are some steals about in terms of 3.2 TT and if you get the DSG box and a low mile example you will be quids in come resale time.
Good luck with your decision and remember winter is on its way, know what I'd rather be in as last time I had a RWD BMW with little weight over the rear axle it really struggled in snow!
Think it may boil down to..... whether you want a drivers car, a la Z4, or more of a mature relaxed driver that certainly looks the part, hence the TT.
audi = 
there is no way that Audi looks half as good as the Z. One of my friends has the new RS6 Wagon - and no one thinks that looks nice either... Audi just don't get it
personally I couldn't own a sports car unless it was RWD - AWD just kills the enjoyment in it for me.
I test drove a Boxster / TT and Z4 before I bought the z4, and I didn't feel like the Audi was even the same level as the other 2 - anyhow that's just my opinion. But you should def. test drive both and you will know straight away lol
ohh and your friends really would call you a hair dresser in an audi :ROFL2:
there is no way that Audi looks half as good as the Z. One of my friends has the new RS6 Wagon - and no one thinks that looks nice either... Audi just don't get itpersonally I couldn't own a sports car unless it was RWD - AWD just kills the enjoyment in it for me.
I test drove a Boxster / TT and Z4 before I bought the z4, and I didn't feel like the Audi was even the same level as the other 2 - anyhow that's just my opinion. But you should def. test drive both and you will know straight away lol
ohh and your friends really would call you a hair dresser in an audi :ROFL2:
I think Dannyboy makes some good points, it was a hard choice when I bought my e89 over the TT, however I was looking at a tdi TT and not the 2.0 TSI Quattro s-tronic , if I had considered that I'm not entirely positive that I would be driving this Zed, not because of the looks, its just more practical I think and I have to say Audi definitely lead in the quality department, I believe that BMW place profit over quality, just listen to the Audi standard stereo over the BMW one, no contest
So this would be my suggestion, look at a 2.0 TSI quattro if you can and not the 3.2, IMO to much mass over the front wheels.
So this would be my suggestion, look at a 2.0 TSI quattro if you can and not the 3.2, IMO to much mass over the front wheels.
Bradders75
Senior member
I think the TT in Roadster form looks really effeminate and whenever I see a bloke driving a TT with the roof down it makes me cringe! The coupe looks great though, especially the RS.
Should try on a pair. I used to say that, my normal purchase was £35 levi's or similar. Years ago tried more expensive jeans since and for me the fit is just better, and seem to last longer too. Oh and you get the right length and size. A 34 inch leg for example really is 34 inches, not 33.25 as you may find with cheaper brands.gannet said:£100 on jeansIve never paid that much...
Back on topic, don't rule out an //M. In my opinion (and my experience) the MPG difference between the Si and M is really not as bad as it appears on paper. My previous 3.0Si my car retrurned slightly worse than the official stats while the M much better in my hands. Like for like driving when I first switched to the M I seem to remember the diference being around 3mpg. My average never drops less than 27.6MPG according to the OBC over the average of at least a few days
Hotride said:audi =
personally I couldn't own a sports car unless it was RWD - AWD just kills the enjoyment in it for me.
I test drove a Boxster / TT and Z4 before I bought the z4, and I didn't feel like the Audi was even the same level as the other 2 - anyhow that's just my opinion. But you should def. test drive both and you will know straight away lol
ohh and your friends really would call you a hair dresser in an audi :ROFL2:
Should I have been able to only afford the E85, 986 or TT MK1, my decision may have been different. That said, I have owned 3 E85s, 3 MK1 TTs and am now on my first MK2 TT so fairly well qualified to judge the characteristics of each.
IMO opinion the E85 is now an outdated design bettered by the new MX5 in terms of driver involvement and indeed driver comfort. Yes I agree it is the driver's choice in terms of upto £10k budgets, however to dismiss the 986 as you have done shows a lack of insight and indeed knowledge into "driver's cars".
Upto £10k, low mileage pristine E85, upto £20k MK2 TT, £25k+ Mk2 TTS or E89 3.0l upwards.
To dismiss the TT as you have done illustrates you have neither driven a MK2 or indeed sat in one. But, as said, most peoples choice of motor is depicted by their budget which arguably says it all.
Would I pump £15k into an E85 (non M), no chance. Would I pump £15k into a MK2 TT? Certainly would if those were the only two choices on offer.
Besides as E85 prices have dropped it seems the "driver type" has also changed but suppose that is to be expected as with the E46 and indeed E36.
I had a TTS for a week on loan from Audi when I was considering having one as a company car. It was pretty quick (probably very similar to 3.0 E86. The interior was nice but dark and quality was about the same as the E89. It had a characterless engine though, and the whole car felt souless. After a week I was already getting bored.
For me Audi's are cars for people who want to get from A to B quickly and are prepared to sacrifice most of their driving pleasure in the process. If I had a £1 for everytime people mention their winter practicality I could retire. Why that is so important to people in England I don't know. We've had 20 years of mild winters and just because we have a couple of bad snowfalls, where we are inconvenienced for a few days maximum, all of a sudden people start acting as if they live in the Artic Circle. Four wheel drive is heavy, blunts handling and enjoyment and is largely unnecessary for most of us. Just buy a set of spare wheels and put winter tyres on them - it will be more than enough precaution for all but the severest climates.
I personally think Audi's are boring cars, with exceptionally dull designs - the A3/4/5/6/7/8 are just dreadful. That's why most enthusiasts give them a wide berth.
For me Audi's are cars for people who want to get from A to B quickly and are prepared to sacrifice most of their driving pleasure in the process. If I had a £1 for everytime people mention their winter practicality I could retire. Why that is so important to people in England I don't know. We've had 20 years of mild winters and just because we have a couple of bad snowfalls, where we are inconvenienced for a few days maximum, all of a sudden people start acting as if they live in the Artic Circle. Four wheel drive is heavy, blunts handling and enjoyment and is largely unnecessary for most of us. Just buy a set of spare wheels and put winter tyres on them - it will be more than enough precaution for all but the severest climates.
I personally think Audi's are boring cars, with exceptionally dull designs - the A3/4/5/6/7/8 are just dreadful. That's why most enthusiasts give them a wide berth.
I can appreciate the merits of both brands, but then I own an example of each brands product.
The Z4MC speaks for itself (in this forum ). The Audi A6 Avant makes for a perfect family wagon. Safe, spacious and exudes quality (for the price point).
Maybe I'm fortunate in not being forced to make a choice...?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
The Z4MC speaks for itself (in this forum
). The Audi A6 Avant makes for a perfect family wagon. Safe, spacious and exudes quality (for the price point).Maybe I'm fortunate in not being forced to make a choice...?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk