Audi TT

1468910

Comments

  • cirrus9977cirrus9977 Member Posts: 1
    I can't get a solid answer from the dealers and I am calling Audi USA Thursday to see what I can find out, but does anybody know WHEN the 2003 TT's will appear i the show rooms and will the NON-Quattro still be available WITH a five speed stick ?
  • vinnynyvinnyny Member Posts: 764
    Woody:

    You can't be serious about toting kids around in a TT! You might be able to squeeze a kid back there, but I don't know how you'd get him out! (LOL)
    If your wife goes for this, you should be able to get away with just about anything! Normally, I'd suggest trying to get away with a road trip with the boys to a ballgame, but if she goes for the TT "family wagon", you should go straight for the menage a trois with her hottest friend!

    Sorry for the humor, but I had to buy my wife a Tahoe before she signed off on my TT Roadster. I'm just jealous! Good luck!
  • spi9959spi9959 Member Posts: 14
    In regard to chipping, it's my understanding that, for it not to be detected, you need an extra ECU (stock) and a way to delete the low voltage fault code which appears when ECUs are switched. All-in-all, a costly proposition for a 30 horsepower gain in the 180.
  • vinnynyvinnyny Member Posts: 764
    APR claims that their chips are undetectable by normal diagnostic machines. They say that the ECU must be physically inspected to reveal the chip. Do you have reliable info to the contrary (I'm interested because my car was chipped by the dealer and I'm worried about potential problems if I move and have to use another dealer).

    As far as the expense is concerned; I think it's a great bargain. You can buy a chipped ECU from APR for about $900 plus shipping. Some people pay $1000 for performance exhaust systems that yield only half the horsepower. Plus, the chipped ECU takes only 30 minutes to install and can be re-sold when you trade in the car. The exhaust takes hours to install and won't have much value when you're done with it.

    As long as you don't get caught with it, the chip is really a great performance value.
  • ohloneohlone Member Posts: 55
    tried this myself one day. It doesn't work unless you move the front seat way up. And if you're anywhere near 6' it means forget about it.

    If your kids are over 30 lbs, I would just buckle them up in the already kid size back seats in the back - forget the car seat. The law may not agree with this method, but it seems safe enough to me.

    If you have an infant, that's another story.
  • ohloneohlone Member Posts: 55
    some will argue that the value of a car is set by those willing to shell out the $$.

    The (Y2K quattro) used TT I purchased was originally sold for over $40k! I purchased it for under under $30k 18 months later. To me the car was a glorified VW bug that looked alot nicer, only it listed for twice the cost of the bug.

    Now that Nissan has introduced it's new 300ZX for less than $30k and it has 6 cyl to 4 for the TT, can anyone argue that the value of the TT will continue to loose it's appeal?

    I still like the TT, but value can be determined by the competition as well. You have to take your hat off to the Japanese for delivering value and creating pressure to other manufacturers to keep up.
  • spi9959spi9959 Member Posts: 14
    APR's chips are undetectable by "normal" diagnostic procedures, but, if the dealer should suspect chipping, there is nothing stopping him from physically inspecting the ECU. If this is the case and the dealer finds a chipped ECU, kiss your factory warranty good-bye, at least as it applies to the ECU and ECU-controlled functions such as a blown turbo. Even with a spare stock ECU, changing ECUs leave a low voltage fault which, unless deleted by use of a Vag.com or similar tool, can tip the dealer off.
  • huma1huma1 Member Posts: 5
    i am trying to decide to buy a used 2000 TT quattro with 18k. in very good condition it might need new tires soon, i got the price down to $26,700 from $29,000. it has the performance package. my other choice was a new wrx, but the tt is fun to drive. is this a good price, any troubles with the 2000's. not sure if buying the first year production is a bad idea. i would appriciate any feedback and quick so i dont miss out on the deal. many thanks
  • jgillitzerjgillitzer Member Posts: 12
    I just purhcased a red TT Coupe 180 HP. I am thinking of chipping it and putting in a turbo timer to allow the turbo to cool down before the car turns off. What do you think about this? Actually, the 180hp seems pretty sufficiet to me, but more is good. Also, I asked the service advisor about the chip, and basically they said they would fix anything even if the turbo blows. The chip I am getting is by MTM,

    Thanks,
    Jeremy
  • habitat1habitat1 Member Posts: 4,282
    Excuse my ignorance, but I have a few questions regarding "chipping":

    1. If claims of getting 10,20 or 30 hp boosts out of "chipping", WITHOUT long term adverse engine consequences, were truthful, why don't the manufacturers themselves simply program the engines differently? Surely, it seems, there is performance war going on and it seems highly illogical to me that Audi, Porsche, BMW and others would leave so much extra horsepower on the table.

    2. My local BMW sales manager formerly worked for Ruf and Brabus. She is a certified car / racing nut. She claims that "chipping" is modern day snake oil. By itself, it produces either no performance increase or, if it does, it is at the expense of engine strain. It only adds value when done in combination with significant other engine and exhaust modifications, that require a chip to reprogram the engine to the new components.

    Sorry this is somewhat off topic to the "TT", but this seems to be the car that many posters are interested in increasing the performance of. I, for one, was also interested in better performance than the TT offered, and therefore elected to buy an S2000 instead. If it's as simple as adding a chip to turn a TT into a Boxster S, I might have decided differently. But I am highly skeptical.

    Any informed insights / responses would be appreciated.

    P.S. Just to put it in another perspective, since July 1, I have lost 5-7 pounds. But it's been through running 5+ miles a day and hitting the health club at night. Not some painless pill or asian herbs. I don't believe we can "chip" our bodies either.
  • nyccarguynyccarguy Stamford, CTMember Posts: 14,674
    So you ended up with a TT? Enjoy it! You might want to learn to become a better driver before you chip your car. That's the best way to get more performance out of the car is to become a better driver.

    2001 Prelude Type SH, 2017 Pilot Touring AWD, 2019 Tacoma TRD Sport 4WD

  • jgillitzerjgillitzer Member Posts: 12
    Do I still need all season tires for a car with quattro..That is what people have been telling me. ALso, As far as chipping..I think that if you don't beat the S**** out of your car, increasing the HP by 16 is not going to ruin it.

    Thanks,
    Jeremy
  • nyccarguynyccarguy Stamford, CTMember Posts: 14,674
    w/ all season tires and Quattro.

    2001 Prelude Type SH, 2017 Pilot Touring AWD, 2019 Tacoma TRD Sport 4WD

  • jgillitzerjgillitzer Member Posts: 12
    Do I still need all season tires for a car with quattro..That is what people have been telling me. ALso, As far as chipping..I think that if you don't beat the S**** out of your car, increasing the HP by 16 is not going to ruin it.

    Thanks,
    Jeremy
  • vinnynyvinnyny Member Posts: 764
    First, the analogy relating automotive performance to weight loss is specious at best. However, let's assume it's a good analogy...

    You lost 5-7 pounds by running and hitting the health club at night. Impressive results! Was your goal to lose the maximum amount of weight or was it to improve strength and endurance? Was your purpose to increase aerobic capacity or to build maximum muscle mass? Did you have all day to work out or did you hold down a job and take care of a family as well? The point of my questions is to determine your priorities and to point out that while some of these goals are complementary, they are also exclusionary. You simply CAN'T be the best long distance runner in the world AND the most powerful weight lifter. There must be some trade-offs. While you could work out several hours each day to achieve your fitness goals, that wouldn't leave much time to spend with your family and probably wouldn't help your career (unless you're a fitness instructor). Car companies make trade-offs too. They have to choose the right combination of horsepower and torque relative to fuel economy, driveability, reliability and economics. The performance envelope of any car is, by definition, a compromise among these competing goals. You only have one person to answer to when it comes to your fitness goals--the car companies have millions of potential buyers. My automotive performance goals simply aren't the same as my 75 year old grandfather's, yet BMW, Porsche and Audi would love to sell both of us a car! We each end up with a car that doesn't maximize our competing desires. That's where aftermarket experts step in. My grandfather can buy softer, cushier, shocks for his car while I can buy a performance chip for mine.

    Getting back to your analogy...did you work out with a personal fitness trainer or on your own? Did you go to the latest high-tech gym, or the old sweatshop at the Y? You must be assuming that car companies have the best engineers and the best facilities if you think that stock, unmodified cars are the best performers. I'm not sure that a group of dedicated, well-financed, computer wizards whose only goal is to satisfy high performance freaks can't outdo Audi's engineers who must answer to the corporate bean counters.

    While I'm skeptical of those companies who claim huge horsepower or fuel econeomy gains from a $5 magnet, I'm even more suspicious of those "snake oil" salesmen who try to sell me $200,000 cars that get spanked by the $50,000 Corvette Z06.
  • habitat1habitat1 Member Posts: 4,282
    Whoa, big boy, you took my weight loss analogy way too seriously.

    Since I admittedly don't know much about "chipping" and apparantly you do, please go back and re-read my questions and try to give me more direct answers.

    We aren't talking about cars that make trade-offs to please your 75 year old grandfather. I was referring to cars that are sports / performance oriented from the outset. Why would Audi continue to produce a TT that many prospective roadster buyers agree is somewhat underpowered, if a relatively inexpensive aftermarket chip could substanially improve performance? I'm sure Audi could reprogram the engine at the factory for next to nothing if it was that easy. I don't dispute that a full combination of major engine, exhaust, suspension, etc. modifications like those packaged by Ruf, Brabus and even a back yard engineer can significantly improve performance. But I am still skeptical that a "chip" alone can have much effect without long term damage (or perhaps adverse trade offs like big fuel efficiency drops, like you suggest).

    Try again, please. Tell me what exactly a "chip" does, how much performance increase it can really produce by itself, and what are the adverse trade-offs. Thanks.

    P.S. I own and run a development company, have a wife and two young daughters that are my top priority and am trying to get back to my Golden Glove's boxing shape of 1978. Yeah, I know about trade-offs.
  • vinnynyvinnyny Member Posts: 764
    Damn! When do you sleep?

    I'm not the expert on how the chips do their magic and I think most of their claims are absurd. In my case, I drove my car for months before I got it chipped. I think I told you earlier that I drove stock and modified cars back to back before I had my car done. After the modification was completed, there was a noticeable difference in my car. Not quite day and night, but enough of an improvement to get my attention. I haven't really noticed a significant change in driveability, but the fuel economy dropped about 1 mpg or so. The turbo definitely kicks in much harder. It could be that this chip optimizes the performance aspects, but trades off the fuel economy. It's all in the software.

    Speaking of trade-offs and the TT: think about who the TT targets. I think you have said before that the TT is more of a luxury GT than an all-out performance car. It costs about 43K, so it probably caters to an older, affluent clientele. So, it might not be wrong to assume that any compromises would be made in favor of luxury and smoothness versus screaming performance. I think that Audi probably left alot of performance on the drawing board for this reason. That's what makes it a ripe target for aftermarket improvements. A car like the S2000 has a different target audience. Most S2000 drivers are looking for exceptionally strong performance, so Honda probably wrung as much power out of it as it could--nobody builds better high performance engines. Therefore, because the S2000 suffers from fewer compromises, it would be much tougher to improve upon.

    Another factor that makes the TT a better candidate for improvement through chipping is the turbocharger. One of the easiest performance mods on modern cars is to crank up the boost. The TT's boost is set rather conservatively because its target audience probably would be less tolerant of that kick in the back you get from a high boost turbo. A car like the S2000 has no equivalent "easy" modification becaue it doesn't suffer from the same weakness.

    The boost issue calls to mind your point about durability. The stress of a high boost turbo is bound to have a negative effect on longevity. Personally, I'm not concerned about engine life because I don't keep my cars long enough for it to be a factor. As long as it doesn't blow up during the two years I'll be driving it, I don't care. I'm sure that Audi cares because they're responsible for warranty repairs.

    I guess what I'm really trying to say is that auto manufacturers must make compromises to make their cars attractive to the widest possible audience, but they do target specific market segments. My TT suffers from compromises that make it slower than it should be. The chip corrected some of the resulting deficiencies.

    Perhaps the best proof of this concept is the changes Volkswagen made to the Jetta 1.8T between the 2001 and 2002 models. They altered the software to increase turbo boost and gained 30hp!. (180 vs. 150) That's essentially the same thing chip makers offer to the rest of us.

    By the way, I hope I didn't offend you--that wasn't my intent.
  • vinnynyvinnyny Member Posts: 764
    In case you don't have time for my rambling diatribe above, the simple answer is TURBO BOOST. I would be as skeptical as you about claims for non-turbo, high performance cars like your S2000. However, for a turbocharged car like the TT, turning up the boost (via a chip) results in turning up the fun factor. As you suggested, it also increases the likelihood of engine failure.
  • jgillitzerjgillitzer Member Posts: 12
  • jgillitzerjgillitzer Member Posts: 12
    If I do chip my 180TT, and drive it sensibly, what are my chances of engine failure? The guy who was going to do it said that I would have to really beat it up for any engine damage. He also said that I do not need a turbo timer. Any comments would be deeply appreciated.
    Thanks,
    Jeremy
  • jgillitzerjgillitzer Member Posts: 12
  • jgillitzerjgillitzer Member Posts: 12
    Do I need to change them to all season? If so, how will the all season differ from the performance?

    Thanks,
    Jeremy
  • huma1huma1 Member Posts: 5
    i feel unloved nobody answered my last post #259. i am trying to decide to buy a 2000 180 quattro. it has 18,700miles on it looks great , has had some minor trouble with rattles but nothing serious, they were asking $28,900 and have come down to $26,700. any imput will be greatly appreciated. please let me know your thoughts, thanks in advance.
  • habitat1habitat1 Member Posts: 4,282
    No previous offense was taken and I greatly appreciate your response. I hadn't considered that the fact that the TT was turbocharged added another (significant) factor that could be reprogrammed by chipping.

    We have three TT's residing within two or three blocks in our neighborhood and another interesting factor is that they are all "daily drivers" (i.e. they are all the second car in a husband/wife household). Two of the three couples are recent empty nesters. Our S2000 is a third car and although I drive it almost daily, from a practical standpoint we cannot afford to give up my sedan or my wife's SUV. Perhaps that's also one of the trade offs. With it's added luxury, less "hard edge" performance orientation and front or all wheel drive, the TT is a bit more versitile than the S2000.

    Thanks again for the response and best wishes.
  • vinnynyvinnyny Member Posts: 764
    Huma1: Sorry for ignoring you! Audi TT's are some of the best used car values around. They are well made cars with excellent warranties and FREE maintenance. So, the car has probably been taken care of pretty well. I'd be more concerned with a car like a Porsche Boxster--it's a great car, but costs a lot to maintain.

    Without knowing all the options, it's tough to get a true value on the car. However, assuming that it has the performance package and the xenon lights, Edmunds puts the value at: $21,749 (trade-in); $23,693 (private party); and $25,623 (dealer retail). Considering the fact that it will need tires soon ($1,000+), I 'd say $26,700 is alot to ask.

    Are you buying it from an Audi dealer? If so, is it "Audi Assured"? That program extends the warranty to 60 months and 75,000 miles (it adds about $1,000 to the value).

    You might want to take a look at E-Bay to see what cars sold there for recently. Don't even consider what the Black Book or Kelly Blue Book tell you for values--they are written BY the dealers FOR the dealers.

    Finally, I would take the VIN number to the local Audi dealer and check the car's history. Because of the free maintenance, the history should be fairly complete (no repairs done by the local auto hobby shop). If you're really nice to the sevice rep, he might give you the original owner's name so you can talk to him.

    Good luck!
  • ugly1ugly1 Member Posts: 52
    You didn't say if you live in an area that has a a true winter, i.e. snow, or not. Performance/summer tires will not work in snow/ice conditions. I live in the Cleveland area and opted to go with winter tires mounted on a second set of wheels. This not only gives me added confidence it also saves the shiny stock wheels. All seasons would of worked but since I was wanting to change the set for winter why not go for the real thing. This part I'm not sure of but it would make sense. I don't believe that the compound of the performance tire will respond as well in colder conditions which would be another reason to change over to an all season tire. The tire rack @ tirerack.com has a great selection of tires and wheels for the TT. Hope I've helped.
  • huma1huma1 Member Posts: 5
    vinny: thanks for the info. when i looked it up on edmunds i found these values $23,000 trade in, $25-26000 private and $27-28000 dealer. how come they are so different from what you found. this 2000tt is in excellent condition, it has the performance package. i did speak with the old owner who said the car is great no trouble what so ever. the service person told me he really cared for it well. i got the price down to $25,700 and half off the extended warranty from the company that audi uses the most. let me know what you think. many thanks
  • vinnynyvinnyny Member Posts: 764
    The values I came up with used only the xenon lights and performance package. Perhaps you used all the equipment actually on the car. Also, I used my own zip code and the values are based on the area (theoretically). I guess the market for TT's is softer here. Did the owner tell you what he got for it (in real cash terms)? If you could find that out, you'd know how much the dealer can give it to you for without losing money.

    As for the warranty, I recommend you read all the fine print and check the 'net for reviews of that particular provider. I think Intellichoice provides ratings...Other than that, it sounds like you've covered all the bases. Of course, you could try the last minute "Would you take $25 for it?" ploy as you walk out the door...

    Good luck!
  • huma1huma1 Member Posts: 5
    one last question is it a bad idea to buy used and have to get an extended warranty. is it wrong to lease a used car? i am such a bad decision maker. any imput is helpful.
  • vinnynyvinnyny Member Posts: 764
    The only correct answer to your questions is: IT DEPENDS.

    There are too many variables to consider. You might want to check out Intellichoice for true costs of ownership and discussions on leasing vs. buying. There must be info on the leasing vs. buying decision here on Edmunds too...
  • thor8thor8 Member Posts: 303
    You wrote;
    "While I'm skeptical of those companies who claim huge horsepower or fuel econeomy gains from a $5 magnet, I'm even more suspicious of those "snake oil" salesmen who try to sell me $200,000 cars that get spanked by the $50,000 Corvette Z06."

    While you made some eloquent and well reasoned statements your last sentence caugth my attention and here is why.
    There are many things to consider, like if cheap performance is the most fundamental (I say cheap because I could buy a big block and for a relatively small amount I can wring out of it 700+hp) then manufacturers would have a clear and simple objective, performance at the lowest price will bring us to hairy numbers. Which makes me think what is the highest possible speed in the US? 75mph tops maybe. It took me a long time to realize that the manufacturers are a lot more sensible than the buying public, so instead of sheer speed and power they offer the public other things, like refined handling at the sporty level, exclusivity, craftmanship, style, etc, things other than speed and brute power that brings joy and pleasure with safety for everybody involved.(Since this is a TT topic, be aware that Audi is a most capable engine developer, the Audis R8 are unbeatable, 3 Le Mans wins, 1,2,3- 1,2- 1,2,3 never recorded record like that, plus a 96% win record at road racing, and that heritage goes back to prewar years when they were the main competition for Mercedes, known then as Auto Union, their V12's at the GP races exceeded 250mph, that was 65 years ago)

    I have a Porsche and I had a few times taken the car to unbelieveable speeds, afterwards I said to myself, are you crazy? somebody could have pulled out of a driveway or anything like that and pieces would have been scattered for hundreds of feet or if a cop caugth me I would have gone straigth to jail, enough is enough, yes the maunfacturers are rigth just give them a little trill, they dont need more.(I mean as an street car)

    The engineering staf of the top marquees could produce awesome cars, like the Porsche 917K30, out of a 5.3L engine they produced 1500hp at 2 bar boost, 0 to 60 in 2 sec and 0 to 200 in 13sec, that was 30 years ago, still the most awesome race car ever built, computers were in diapers back then, sure today they could surpass those numbers, but they are sensible, the masses do not need that, just give them something that they will enjoy, like a TT, a very good looking car and a pleasure to drive.
  • vinnynyvinnyny Member Posts: 764
    Hey Huma:

    Did you buy the TT?
  • vinnynyvinnyny Member Posts: 764
    I agree with all that you've said. I was merely alluding to the fact that there are several manufacturer's and even more aftermarket tuners who try to sell you "supercars" costing 4 times what the Vette costs. I understand that some of these cars offer attributes that the Vette fails to deliver, but when a car is portrayed as a performance car, it better be able to outperform a car costing 1/4 the price! In bang for the buck, nothing tops the Z06.

    Before I bought my TT, I looked very hard at the Corvette convertible. I absolutely loved the Vette in every way but one--the KMart-inspired interior. I decided on the TT because it truly is a superb car in almost every respect. In addition to being sporty, I think it's well made, beautiful, and is somewhat luxurious. However, it leaves something to be desired in the engine compartment--that's why I modified mine.

    What it all comes down to is that the manufacturers can't give everybody everything they want in one car. So, they make compromises and we consumers make compromises and we all get something close to what we want.

    Now, if Audi had put a Corvette engine in my TT or Chevy had put a TT interior in the Corvette convertible, I'd be in heaven!
  • thor8thor8 Member Posts: 303
    I understand, maybe Audi should have installed a bigger engine or upgrade the performance, if is any consolation that engine is very capable, last year I was at Road Atlanta, at the Petit Le Mans race, by chance I stumbled at the Reynard (British) team while they were servicing this car, a P675 class, I noticed the VW emblem on the car, then I started looking at the engine, and it was a very odd sigth, this huge car with all the room for an engine and this little engine seating there about the size of a sewing machine, I started talking to one of the drivers, he told me they won the 24hrs of Le Mans last year with this engine (P675 class) the engine was the 1,8T developing over 500hp and if you think about, it went 24 hrs all out!! It tells us this is a very tough little engine, in fact my wife has a Passat with the 1,8T engine, 5spd, and I love to drive the car once in a while.

    I had a vette in the 70's, a 454, 4spd, and I am cured from the Vettes, I am very aware that for the dollar amount one gets the more bang for the dollar, but you must agree there must be something more to it than that, there is a long waiting list on all the exotics costing three and four Z06's, if that was not the case they all would be closing shop and Chevy raking up all the business. In the last three years I bougth two new Porsches (traded the first one) the irony is that the dealer is also a Chevy dealer, the Vettes were at the other side of the showroom but I never made it that far.
    Rigth now before I get too old I am waiting for the GT Carrera or the VW W12 if they dont take too long before I lose interest because of age.

    All in all I always liked the TT, I think they are one of the best looking cars on the market, I think the lexus SC got its cues from the Audi.

    I was fixing to close but I read your post one more time and I decided to jot down one more thougth, in the begining you are saying this cars costing more they better outperform the Z06, then I recalled all the races I have been in this last few years, ALMS, and I realized but they do, not on paper in a magazine but in open race, Porsches and BMW's outrace the vettes in GT class, yes, they have won GTS twice in Le Mans but those cars are not Z06, they are especial bored out engines to 7 liters with an investment of a million per car.

    Regards,
  • leonivleoniv Member Posts: 120
    Buying used with an extended warranty isn't too bad. If the car is expensive to service, an extended warranty is well worth it. I've heard leasing a used car is a rip-off most of the time b/c you'll be outside of the warranty towards the latter part of the lease. Nothing worse than paying for major repairs on a car you don't own. Good luck.

    Leon
  • vinnynyvinnyny Member Posts: 764
    I agree will all but your closing comment. I'll put a STOCK Z06 taken off the showroom floor against virtually any STOCK exotic taken off the showroom floor. (Of course, that wouldn't be fair because you couldn't just get a Ferrari or Lambo directly off the showroom floor unless you ordered today and we waited 2 years for it to arrive!)

    Seriously though--I can't think of a serious performance car that offers more bang for the buck than the Z06. Better yet, you can buy one today at any of a thousand Chevy dealers and won't have to worry about where to get it serviced either. While it may not have the absolute performance or panache of a select few exotics, most relatively successful Americans can afford to buy one AND actually drive it everyday.

    I appreciate most exotic cars and would just about kill for a Ferrari F355 Spyder. Unfortunately, I haven't made it to CEO yet, I can't shoot 3-pointers, my name isn't on the short list for an Oscar, and I refuse to traffic in narcotics. So, it's just me and my Audi...
  • thor8thor8 Member Posts: 303
    I guess we will continue this little chat, is interesting and amicable.
    Since the only thing we do not agree upon is my last statement that is the only point I see worth discussing.
    I will start by comparing numbers between the Z06 and the Porsche GT2, both stock cars, the Z06 is rated at 405hp and 400ft/lbs, 0-60 around 4 sec top 176mph, the GT2 456hp and 457ft/lbs around 4sec 0-60 and top 198mph.
    The GT2 costing around 120,000$ more that the Z06, impossible to argue the bang for the money arguement, but head to head in a race track the GT2 will outrun the Z06 by many reasons, the principal reason is thet the GT2 is a more race oriented car, more track ready, more of a tool of the trade if you will, all the elements in the car are derived from actual track designs with over 30 years of the same chassis and mechanical layout, the newest thing in racing is ceramic brakes which comes standart in the GT2 (pioneered by Porsche although Mercedes claims the same) with this brakes you can scrub off speeds of 200mph time after time, you could order the car with a roll cage (is a factory option)the seat is race ready, with it you are ready for the track, you can even adjust the suspension for the particular track condition, standart equipment. The cooling system will handle the heat generated by keeping the car at full throtle, suspension steering transmission everything is built for that kind of abuse. I dont know what kind of exposure you had to road racing, but is very different than to watch on TV, being on the track in person you can feel the brutality that the machines are subjected, one wonders how in the hell can they take it. The GT3 Porsche is even more race oriented (not legal in the US for street use) but is a stock car available in Europe, is the bread and butter of all private teams, at around 220,000$ for the R, is a bargain for the racing teams, here is why, from the box you go to the track, all you have to do is tune it for the temp and humidity of the day, have the support personnel and equipment and driver and you are in the racing business.

    You could not do that with any other Vette not even with a Z06, everything would have to be heavily modified, by the time you are finished you have invested more than the cost of a GT3 and you still do not have a vehicle as finely engineered as Porsche would.

    If buying a 50,000$ Z06 gives a car that blows the competition of the track, every team would have one, the truth is that they are notoriuosly absent where the competition is stiff, like the American Le Mans series. The truth is that there is a good bit of hype surrounding the car, and I am not taking nothing away from the car, for what you pay for street use is unbeatable, and like you said service is readily obtained.

    I give you a link to the results of the ALMS series results for this year so far, again notice the absense of Vettes and the number of wins, the GTS class winner is not a Z06 but a heavily modified C5 with a 7 liter engine, virtually nothing is stock in that car.
    Again there must be a compelling reason for the corvette absense, and is just like I said, good numbers in the magazines pages and impressive in the soft hands of the public but not an industrial tool of the trade.

    http://www.wspr-racing.com/results/alms/alms2000.html

    Regards,
  • thor8thor8 Member Posts: 303
    You mention the Ferrari and Lambo, same thing there, good numbers on paper but no race material, I can't recall a recent race where a Lamborghini won or even competed, the few sporadic appearances that a Ferrari made in the ALMS recently nothing to brag about, most never finished, they are pretty blvd cars but not industrial tool grade, although no arguememt with Ferrari's success at F1.
  • vinnynyvinnyny Member Posts: 764
    Once again, I find myself agreeing with you. However, I think you missed the point of my posts. The focus of your post is on a sport in which few Americans have any serious interest--grand prix racing. That's why the sport seems to come and go like soccer in this country. Besides, all the winners you cited have multi-million dollar programs to get their names on that list. I was comparing the Z06 to the so-called exotics, not GP race cars. It seems that I'm talking about quarterhorses while you're talking about thorobreds.

    I guess I should have made it clear that my remarks were confined to the type of performance in which most Americans are interested--street racing, showroom stock drag racing and perhaps autocross. From that perspective, I think most people would agree that you can't beat the stock Z06.

    Not for nothing, but I think IF Americans were interested in GP, the American manufacturers COULD produce a car that would blow the competition away.

    Audi fans: sorry for cluttering up the board with Corvette stuff!
  • habitat1habitat1 Member Posts: 4,282
    Since you started it, I just want to add another perspective to your "most bang for the buck" theory on the Corvette.

    I have a friend who is moving into a brand new 6,500 square foot house on a golf course 25 miles out in Timbukto. Architectural style - big box. Exterior materials - a little brick and a lot of vinyl. Cost - roughly one half as much as our 3,500 square foot house built in the 1920's would sell for. Architectural style: Arts & Crafts. Materials: wood, stone, slate. Neighborhood: not Timbuktu.

    He's happy. He thinks he got the most "bang for his buck". He is a "size" junkie. We're happy. Our priorities are more neighborhood oriented and lean much more towards architectural quality than quantity of rooms.

    IMO, the Corvette and Ferrari 360 don't compete, except in the car magazines and the minds of those that can't afford either (or at least the latter). How in the world can Audi sell a single TT, when an S2000 will run circles around it. Different priorities of different buyers, I submit.

    If you want to compare a Corvette to other American made muscle cars like the Viper, Mustang or others, that's reasonable. But to compare it to a Ferrari 360 would be like saying a new Toll Brothers house at 5,000 square feet is better than Frank Lloyd Wright's "Fallingwater", since it's only 4,500 square feet. Perhaps to you, not to me.
  • sphinx99sphinx99 Member Posts: 776
    Of course, you haven't exactly told us *why* you'd prefer the 4500sqft house. I suppose it's a valid question to ask what a Ferrari F360 gives you that a Z06 doesn't. It certainly won't give you significantly improved straight line performance and by all accounts, it won't give you significantly better performance on curves either. The Z06 has a GM parts bin interior, but I don't think Ferrari's won accolates for interior design either. The Corvette is probably not quite as durable as a Honda Accord, but judging by edmunds own long term F550, Ferrari is not quite as durable as cotton candy, so that's a wash. There's no question that the F360 is sexy, and there's points to be added there. It's also scarce. So the question is, does Ferrari get away with a $100k premium on style and scarcity alone, over the Z06, or it it a better engineered car? If so, how so?

    I'm not qualified to answer this, but I'd love to hear some specifics from someone with expertise in both. (As opposed to one of the generic "well Ferraris are really well engineered, so it is better and you can't compare it to GM because the XLR will suck" posts.)

    One difference I have noticed with the exotics are top speed ratings. The six-figure exotics routinely are rated for stability at speeds approaching and sometimes exceeding 200mph. This is something I don't see with the less expensive muscle (Vipers, Z06s) even though these cars may technically be encroaching on the same terrority. High dollar exotics seem to be unique in being rated for 200mph by the manufacturer, something that I don't see Chevy doing with the vette anytime soon.
  • cybersaxcybersax Member Posts: 18
    And sales are down 27% this year, through May.


    http://www.autosite.com/editoria/asmr/svolsc.asp


    Ouch!


    If that wasn't bad enough, the Volkswagen group finished dead last in JD Power's 2002 Initial Quality survey of the major automakers:


    http://www.detnews.com/2002/autosinsider/0206/03/b01-502833.htm


    And the Euro has appreciated 20% vs. the dollar in the past few months. Goodbye profit margins; hello bankruptcy!


    Ouch! Ouch! Ouch!

  • habitat1habitat1 Member Posts: 4,282
    Bad as it is, the TT sold 5 times as many as the Z3. There are even more Ferrari 360's being sold than Z3's!!!

    And where is the Honda S2000?? I know I'm not the only person with one.
  • vinnynyvinnyny Member Posts: 764
    Are you kidding me? You're driving the new GM "Robocar" and you have the audacity to criticize the looks of the TT?

    You're driving the Catera 2 and you're talking about quality? Check out the Catera forums for some insight into what you have to look forward to...

    I'm a GM fan (I've owned 3 F-Bodies, 1 Catera, and 1 Tahoe over the last 8 years), but I wouldn't even dream about comparing GM quality to Audi. Initial quality surveys mean NOTHING! Check back in three years and let us know how your Cadi is holding up.
  • cybersaxcybersax Member Posts: 18
    "Initial quality surveys mean NOTHING!"

    So a car that has more problems now will be less likely to break down in the future, than a car that has less problems now.

    OK. Thanks for that brilliant update, chief.

    Volkswagen/Audi are the alltime queens/kings of poor quality. And while General Motors has made significant progress in bridging the reliability gap (if current trends persist, they'll top Toyota and Honda in the rankings within 5 years), Volkswagen/Audi have shown that they are still in the dirt and are making little progress to dig themselves out.
  • thor8thor8 Member Posts: 303
    More or less, I always said; this best thing to do with them is read them if you are waiting for a phone call at the office, afterwards make a nice and tigth little ball and see if you can make the trash can in one shot.

    Most of those surveys are so subjective and full of little nit picks that blurrs reality, Ahh, my ligth bulb came on the other day, I swear I never buy this car and bla bla bla. I owned GM and Ford products for decades, their salesman could not drag me in their showroom with a winch. My wife has a Passat for 4 years and not one problem to report, one of this days she is going to get a new one, some much for dirt quality, plus is more fun to drive than any GM I had. My daugther had a Camry and had plenty of problems, the Camry is history now.
  • vinnynyvinnyny Member Posts: 764
    Out of patriotism, I'm not going to disparage GM. I truly hope that GM continues to improve its vehicles for the sake of the country ("As GM goes, so goes the nation"). The sad part is that if it weren't for truck sales, GM would be in real trouble now. In fact, if you eliminate truck sales and secondary business (such as financing), GM doesn't even make enough to honor its retirement plan commitments.

    While initial quality surveys might have some validity in the short term (90 days), most consumers are concerned with long-term quality. Initial quality has as much to do with dealer prep as it does actual quality. Long-term quality results from solid engineering and materials. Remember the story of the tortoise and the haire?

    While my 99 Catera looked and ran great in the first 90 days it proceeded to fall apart over the next 31 months. (I left off the last two months because it spent those two at the Cadillac dealer on a lift until the lease expired.)

    Like I said, check back with me in three years. Good luck!
  • lngtonge18lngtonge18 Member Posts: 2,228
    I have one big problem with the way you read the report. That is: I dont think you even read it! You claim VW hasn't made the big strides in improving initial quality like GM has, when in actuality, VW's initial quality improved more then GM's did over the past 2 years. Look at the table and do some simple mathematics. I find it so funny when people herald these meaningless initial quality reports. A minor squeak or misaligned glovebox costs just as much as a failed tranny or engine, so it's difficult to tell which cars have the real problems and which ones just have annoyances. And 65,000 polled people is a very small number to conduct a meaningful statistical analysis. Taken into account that GM sells over 3 million cars and trucks in 1 year, there is no way these reports talk to enough owners to get a good feeling for overall quality control. As others have said, wait until the cars are 3-5 years old before boasting how great they are.
  • cybersaxcybersax Member Posts: 18
    "A minor squeak or misaligned glovebox costs just as much as a failed tranny or engine"

    Sorry, that doesn't let you off the hook. Show me the evidence that states that all of Volkswagens problems come from minor glitches, whereas everyone else's has to do with powertrains, brakes, and such. Until then, the only evidence we have to go by is that Volkswagen has the highest problems per vehicle. We can't go making random assumptions now can we? For all you know, it could be Honda, Toyota, and GM with the minor glitches, and Volkswagen with the major troubles.

    "The sad part is that if it weren't for truck sales, GM would be in real trouble now. In fact, if you eliminate truck sales and secondary business (such as financing), GM doesn't even make enough to honor its retirement plan commitments."

    LMFAO. That statement was so arbitrary and pointless. That's like me saying, "well, if you eliminate car sales, then Volkswagen is just a bunch of German guys carrying on Adolf Hitler's grand automotive vision with not much to show for it".

    Hell, throw in the cars and that statement is still true. LOL.
  • vinnynyvinnyny Member Posts: 764
    "LMFAO. That statement was so arbitrary and pointless."

    The point, genius, is that GM is supposed to be the number one automobile company in the world. Yet their cars have reached the point where they need rebates and other incentives that are almost double those offered by the foreign competition in order to sell them. While truck sales are hot now, it might not always be that way. GM is currently maintaining market share, but it is only doing so because of the number of light trucks it sells. If gas prices go way up, demand for the behemoths we buy now will diminish and GM will be in HUGE trouble. As much as I dislike Ford, at least they make one decent small car (the Focus) AND they're not burdened by retirement commitments larger than most small nations. God forbid the Japanese learn how to make a full-sized pickup truck!

    "well, if you eliminate car sales, then Volkswagen is just a bunch of German guys carrying on Adolf Hitler's grand automotive vision with not much to show for it". Hell, throw in the cars and that statement is still true. LOL."

    This statement merely shows that you are not only an ignoramus, but a racist as well. Does the term "Troll" ring a bell? I'm sure you've heard it before...
Sign In or Register to comment.