C&D: 1M Takes Down Audi TT RS and Infiniti IPL G37 in First 1M Comparo Win

[darkvaderr]

Originally Posted by BBK

I was having a look through some Porsche forums and found them comparing the TT-RS to the Cayman S. Isn't it funny that a car held in so high esteem has no problem comparing an Audi to itself?

And yet everyone here is whinging as if their life is over because an Audi beat their hero...

All these cars are great, the Audi and Porsche are more expensive, but they are arguably more prestigious and rare and definitely are styled better. The 1M has its place in the comparo, I think its main problem is that it is an old platform/shape and will nearly be outdated a year after it is released...

And the TT isn't dated?....
I don't think anyone is whining because the Audi turns in faster times.
Since its also 16k more...
The point is that the 1M won the comparo based on what the reviewers felt was superior handling and driver experience, and people are coming here saying that its bullshit that the TT didn't win since it turned in a 0-60 time of 3.6seconds.
The point isn't that it isn't a great car or faster; even though the DSG won't be available in NA. The point is that the 1M is a BETTER HANDLING car, and all people seem to say is that C&D is a bullshit publication because the TT-RS is faster. As someone said earlier, its car and DRIVER.
I don't think Audi's are prestigious at all; Porsche yes, Audi no.
Better handling, better to drive, 16k cheaper.... sounds like a winner to me. If the TT-RS was the SAME price as the 1M, then I'd give it to you that it's the better car, but it's not. Spending 16k more to get a speeding ticket faster? I'd rather save the 16k for the better drive. For 16k, there's no reason not to buy a Cayman S instead, since its faster as well as better handling and better to drive.

[BMW86]

I love the 1M and the TT-RS and I would be stoked with either. If I had the choice I'd take the TT-RS, not taking anything away from the 1M. That's just me though, I've also owned a modified 135i for the past 2 years too so I'd likely want something different anyway, and the TT-RS would be a very nice change.

The TT-RS is a real head turner and I dig the interior. It also sounds amazing and the modding potential is there. The AWD gives it a huge advantage in launching and in the wet. I think Audi have done a great job. As much as I love the Audi R8, my head tells me the TT-RS is the way to go, it's a fraction of the price but it ticks all the same boxes.

The 1M is a head turner too, although no where near as hot as the TT-RS. I love that it comes with the full M treatment - LSD, suspension, widebody, quads etc. I wish it came with a carbon roof, M seats, a different hood and most importantly.... Dual Clutch Transmission! Also, the fact that in stock form it's slower than a 135i with a $500 piggy back sucks a bit too.

If the 1M came with DCT it would be much tougher decision for me but the TT-RS is the real winner in this comparo for me.

[lavaletta]

The fact is that the type of transmission counts. I think technology has now moved on to the point where we are no longer comparing apples with apples in setting up a 6MT against a DSG.

Who knows what the 1M would have pulled if it was a DSG? For that matter what it would have pulled if it was a DSG/AWD with launch control!!!

They are both brilliant cars! What is so challenging about that proposition? How small are some of the penises here!???

Personally, I would never in a pink fit buy a TT RS. That, however, is because of a subjective and irrational construct: the deep abiding conviction that for reasons which are beyond rational explanation - let's call it cultish conviction - I believe that BMW make the best cars in the world, pound for pound!!

And...I could not sleep at night knowing that ever single red-blooded male who pulled up at the lights next to me thought I was a hair-dresser (regardless of the 0-60 tmies)...sorry, cruel but true.

[BBK]

Originally Posted by lavaletta

And...I could not sleep at night knowing that ever single red-blooded male who pulled up at the lights next to me thought I was a hair-dresser (regardless of the 0-60 tmies)...sorry, cruel but true.

No offence but the 1series has just as much hairdresser girlie image than the TT for some reason...


If you think about it, a standard TT compares to the 125i, TTS to the 135i, then the TTRS to the 1M. I just think that M(arketing) has done less of a job than it should have. But for the money it has to take the cake.

[lavaletta]

Originally Posted by BBK

No offence but the 1series has just as much hairdresser girlie image than the TT for some reason...

Do you really think that will be a problem with the 1M? I doubt it! It looks like a bull-dog with a bee up its a$%!!

[///1M]

I don't see the 1M having a "hairdresser" image... whatever that means.

And FWIW, if people are so hellbent on 0-60, then for the sake of argument, why are they not driving an Ariel Atom to work? Those darned hypocrites! :-)

[BBK]

Originally Posted by lavaletta

Do you really think that will be a problem with the 1M? I doubt it! It looks like a bull-dog with a bee up its a$%!!

Point taken but still think the TTRS looks better

[M3Power79]

If the 1 M Coupé has a hairdressers image, then my hair is done by Charlie Sheen

[hwelvaar]

Originally Posted by poverty

where are the anti 1 posts that you speak of though

Sorry, my bad.

Personally, I love both TT RS and 1M as well.
I think 1M is a little more suitable as daily driver, and I want to (learn to) power slide so I need RWD. But the TT launches great, and its sound is incredible.

Both great cars.

[swamp2]

OK going to get a bit long here...Even a bit ugly...

Originally Posted by superchargedman

Well, I caved. Here’s my analysis. Let me approach each one of your points:

That is entertaining, you call that analysis? What a joke, really.

You still seem to think the numbered "background" points in my post (that were simply addressing a few prior misstatements made in this thread that occurred before my post) are my primary theme/point. This is not the case. My PRIMARY point again, for the 3rd or so time, is that the TT-RS with it's quoted specifications simply CAN NOT achieve anywhere close to the numbers it did here in THIS test. From there the only major factors are power and weight. Since the car was probably weighed, and even if not it is probably pretty close to the quoted figure, that leaves only power. Now if you believe in alien powered, magic or physics defing launch control and AWD then yes those are also "major" factors as well...

If you think arriving at this primary conclusion takes anything more than a casual observation, then we probably won't make any more progress here. Just stop reading now.

Anyway since it seems to be your "interest", let's get back to the minor nitpciking... Then, after that I will conclude with some additional evidence.

• Roll out: You're wrong it is used pretty much as a standard in all US mags as was already pointed out.
• We are not disagreeing on DSG vs MT.

• Originally Posted by superchargedman

  Previous references provided in this thread give 0-60 times. One of my points: you haven't looked at all of the evidence, including basic facts regarding the 1m.

  I am not talking about other test results, again you've COMPLETELY missed my point. The difference in these particular cars times if tested identically to 60 mph vs 100 kph will be right about 0.2-0.3 seconds. Period, that's it. I mean comparing each car to itself just varying the contest end speed. That should have been clear but I think you missed that point. I was not comparing the two cars to each other nor doing so at two different speeds.
  

• Originally Posted by superchargedman

  I agree with this point, but it doesn’t add to your conclusion that this is a ringer. In fact, it points to possible variation with contextual conditions (such as environmental/road conditions, which cannot all be accounted for in whatever physics calculations you are making) that may affect improved performance for the TTRS, as compared with previous results found by other magazines and owners.

  Sorry but environmental conditions and driver variation does not equate to a nearly 20% difference in power. Well I guess I take that back. A rookie driver, on oil soaked pavement at 100 degrees F, at 1 mile of altitude can cause variations that big. Also environmental conditions such as temp, altitude and friction can be very well accounted for by physics based vehicle performance simulation. In fact one of the greatest advantages of simulation is that ALL of these variations can be held absolutely perfectly constant across two different cars, providing a true "apples to apples" comparison.
  

• Originally Posted by superchargedman

  If we’re still referring to the 0-60 times, which is the main focus of this ongoing discussion/thread, this is absolutely affected by the launch control and good traction control. You go on to make a case for the effect of hp/wt ratio, but it’s not the only factor in this equation, as I stated above in this posting.

  Uhhh OK no disagreement here. I've stated nearly the exact same thing in my post. Although I also do not buy that the 1M is capable of the times it has achieved in this test with its stated power and weight. 0-60 absolutely is not the most significant factor in my bag of evidence, 0-100, 0-130, and 1/4 mi results are much more important.
  

• Originally Posted by superchargedman

  Again, I’ve already pointed out the invalid premises here. Just like a witness in court, you lose your credibility when you speculate and make up the facts as you have quite clearly here

  Which was in response to:
  
  

  Originally Posted by swamp2

  Now BMW is not innocent here either. They admit the overboost feature can crank up the torque on the 1M by about 15 ft lb to about 385 ft lb, but it leaves the hp unaffected. I strongly believe it also gains about 15 hp, making it closer to 350 hp. Those figures give simulations (see below) that agree pretty well with actual delivered results.

  Wow big words, big accusations. You really have a lot of nerve throwing around terms like credibility and speculation. All you have done here is run your mouth with nothing really to say. If you can post up some data for a car with the same actual power to weight ratio as the claimed TT-RS values which also gets times anywhere close to these go ahead. Until then I have not seen a SHRED of OBJECTIVE nor numerical evidence from you. Nothing but god d&^% mouth diarrhea. Seriously.
  
  Anyway, back on point this is also a totally secondary issue. The only potential speculation here is whether or not the 1M makes more than its quoted hp figure. Whether I am right or wrong about that is actually quite irrelevant to the case for the Audi being underrated. Totally separate issues. However, since you really want to see some of the simulation results for the 1M, I have posted them below (bottom left image is the 1M results).
  
  Type, Simulation, This test
  0-60, 4.3s, 4.5s
  0-100, 10.9s, 10.9s
  0-130, 20.3s, 20.1s
  1/4 mi time, 12.9s, 13s
  1/4 mi trap, 106 mph, 109 mph
  
  Pretty nice agreement. The one I am the least happy with is the trap speed, 3 mph is a pretty large variation and I've been a bit plagued by consistently low trap speed predictions. Some small problem with this software but I can not nail it down. But I know about it and admit it. Most other major values have been shown to quite accurately track a wide variety of performance cars. By the way this assumes the curb weight is the tested weight of the 1M from this article and it also assumes 350 hp, 384 ft lb, i.e. about +15 on each. If you have some (good) dyno evidence to the contrary that would be an acceptable form of evidence and proving me wrong.

Originally Posted by superchargedman

Post up the proof. You are making conclusions with missing data and inaccurate assertions. As I said, you may very well be right, but to me, there's no difference between your post and a post that says: it's a ringer because it's a TT.

Well the vs. 997S NUMBERS was some proof. The vs. E92 M3 numbers was some more proof. Even the magnitude of the acceleration spanking the 1M got is also proof. Here is some more proof from simulation. The "underrated" car (bottom right results) has 395 ft lb and 395 hp. Notice the strong correlation between this and the actual measured results. Again I am not talking about about a 20-30 hp difference here over the stated 335 figure. Maybe the "best fit" number is 375 hp, maybe it is 410 hp, maybe I have missed some effects. The number just is not 335 hp, period, period, period.

I'm not anti-TT-RS. I am anti lying manufactures and fanboys of all flavors that drink their koolaid. The 335i is underrated. The GT-R is underrated. The TT-RS is underrated. I've posted on all of these topics. As it turns out the M3 is not underrated. Although you can be assured if it was I would also be discussing that independently of whether or not I own one.

Really, if anyone still believes the TT-RS can get the results shown while actually having the factory stated power and weight then you are turning a blind eye to the painfully obvious.

[adrean8j]

^^^Oh man I am eating up all of this...this is the type of thread I wish we had more of (although lets keep it civil, ie no name calling ).

So can anyone name ANY vehicle in the 300-340hp range that can do 0-60, as fast as C&D's TT-RS, with a similar power/weight ratio???

[gazz]

Given that the measure of a cars performance is based on the manufacturer's quoted outputs then surely, in the cause of objectivity, all performance cars as tested by magazines should be independently dynoed.
If a manufacturer won't allow dyno testing of a sample car then they should be defaulted out of the results.
Athletes and horses are dope tested yet we are supposed to take car test results as an act of faith when there are huge amounts of money and prestige at stake based on these magazine articles.

[///1M]

^ yes

[adrean8j]

^Double yes....in a perfect world....

[conneem-TT]

@swamp2

Did you draw the power/torque curves for the cars? Just wondering as to how can that software estimate acceleration with accuracy with only peak values. Just asking because in your calculated figures the 1M seems to out launch the RS.

Oh and what gear ratio's did you use for TTRS?

Oh and I think the overboost feature only gives a noticeable effect over a portion of the rev range, judging by this z4 35is dyno.

[pyrat]

Originally Posted by BBK

I was having a look through some Porsche forums and found them comparing the TT-RS to the Cayman S. Isn't it funny that a car held in so high esteem has no problem comparing an Audi to itself?

And yet everyone here is whinging as if their life is over because an Audi beat their hero...

All these cars are great, the Audi and Porsche are more expensive, but they are arguably more prestigious and rare and definitely are styled better. The 1M has its place in the comparo, I think its main problem is that it is an old platform/shape and will nearly be outdated a year after it is released...

+1

But don't forget Porsche sees Audi as little brother, BMW sees Audi as playground rival...

[superchargedman]

[QUOTE=conneem-TT;9247371]@swamp2

Did you draw the power/torque curves for the cars? Just wondering as to how can that software estimate acceleration with accuracy with only peak values. Just asking because in your calculated figures the 1M seems to out launch the RS.

Oh and what gear ratio's did you use for TTRS?

Oh and I think the overboost feature only gives a noticeable effect over a portion of the rev range, judging by this z4 35is dyno.

[IMG]http://e89.zpost.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=431609

[superchargedman]

That last msg didn't work. Anyways, I was wondering the same thing as coneemtt.

As I said, I'm not going to go any further in this pissing contest with swamp. I just would like to clarify. I'm not trying to disprove his conclusion. There is likely some truth in his conclusion. My main issues are:
A. Hp/wt is not the sole determining factor here. It's the distribution of said power, as well as torque. It's putting that power down- tires, traction, driving conditions, awd launch, and traction.
B. I did not agree with the basic premises that he used to argue that these factors were not relevant or significant.
C. This is a forum, and I'm sure he's a knowledgeable guy, but I'm scrutinizing of info on forums, particularly from individuals who have their facts wrong. Thus, when I see someone being uninformed/making assumptions/speculating on basic info like the torque and hp of the 1m, I call their credibility into question.

Regardless, no more pissing for me, as I can sense this is causing a lot of anger on swamp's end. I only argue or discuss to seek more valid answers. This is going to devolve from here, so all the best, swamp.

[Raine]

Hell, styling is always controversial and online pics never resemble real life.

I remember falling in love with the Audi TT pics online (so beautiful in white), then I saw it irl and it didn't look that great.

The 1-series photographs like ass but looks 100x better irl and you love it more everyday.

[YVES1M]

Originally Posted by techthentic

Why are you guys still arguing over the Audi which is 16 grand more expensive lol
The true competitor is the RS3...
Actually, here in Canada, the competitor price wise, is the TT-S

and @poverty
fact is, Audi TT-RS recorded 0-60 times for the manual is ~4.6
even if I was to believe you, that 4.1 is attainable,
your car is still WAY more expensive.
There is no doubt that you bought a nice car, but why don't you brag to guys who are paying, or going to be paying the same amount of money for their cars... oh wait, thats cause everything at the TT-RS price point would kill it... Sorry!

+1

[YVES1M]

Originally Posted by as7920

I don't care.

I could have got a used TT-RS.
I could have got a RS3.
I could have got a 1M.
I could have got a used M3.
I could have got a used 911.

I don't give a damn.

I bought the 1M because it was the car I wanted. Period.

YEAH BABY!!!!

[p1rob]

^+1,audi ttrs owners slating the 1m,shut the door on the way out