Audi TT 2007 vs BMW Z4 2006
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 200 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 280 NM | 200 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 6.7 seconds | 8.2 seconds | |
|
Audi TT is more dynamic to drive. Audi TT engine produces 50 HP more power than BMW Z4, whereas torque is 80 NM more than BMW Z4. Thanks to more power Audi TT reaches 100 km/h speed 1.5 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.8 | 7.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.6 l/100km | 7.6 l/100km | |
|
The BMW Z4 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Audi TT consumes 0.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the BMW Z4, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Audi TT could require 45 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Audi TT consumes 1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the BMW Z4. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 700 km in combined cycle | 730 km in combined cycle | |
| 880 km on highway | 980 km on highway | ||
| 630 km with real consumption | 720 km with real consumption | ||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Audi TT) have better traction on slippery roads and when climbing hills, better fuel economy, and are less expensive to purchase. On the disadvantage side, FWD cars usually have less towing capacity, poorer acceleration and harder handling. Rear-wheel drive cars (BMW Z4) have better handling on dry roads, better acceleration, more even weight distribution and more fun to drive. RWD is also better for towing large loads. The cons of rear-wheel drive are less interior and trunk space and more difficulty maneuvering in wet and snowy conditions. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 350'000 km | 420'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used, but under equal conditions the average life of a BMW Z4 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 10 years | 11 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Audi A3, Volkswagen Passat CC, Volkswagen Beetle | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including BMW 3 sērija, BMW 1 sērija, BMW X3, BMW X1 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. BMW Z4 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.18 m | 4.09 m | |
| Width: | 1.84 m | 1.78 m | |
| Height: | 1.36 m | 1.30 m | |
|
Audi TT is larger. Audi TT is 9 cm longer than the BMW Z4, 6 cm wider, while the height of Audi TT is 6 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 250 litres | 240 litres | |
| Audi TT has 10 litres more trunk space than the BMW Z4. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | 9.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Audi TT is 1.2 metres more than that of the BMW Z4, which means Audi TT can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`615 | 1`520 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | high | above average | |
| Audi TT has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data BMW Z4 has serious deffects in 190 percent more cases than Audi TT, so Audi TT quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 5200 | 14 800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Audi TT has
|
BMW Z4 has
| |