Audi TT 2014 vs BMW 1 series 2017
| Body: | Coupe | Hatchback | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 230 HP | 184 HP | |
| Torque: | 370 NM | 290 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 6 seconds | 7.1 seconds | |
|
Audi TT is more dynamic to drive. Audi TT engine produces 46 HP more power than BMW 1 series, whereas torque is 80 NM more than BMW 1 series. Thanks to more power Audi TT reaches 100 km/h speed 1.1 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.9 | 5.7 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.2 l/100km | 7.6 l/100km | |
|
The Audi TT is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Audi TT consumes 0.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the BMW 1 series, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Audi TT could require 30 litres more fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Audi TT consumes 0.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the BMW 1 series. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 50 litres | 52 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 840 km in combined cycle | 910 km in combined cycle | |
| 1000 km on highway | 1100 km on highway | ||
| 690 km with real consumption | 680 km with real consumption | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
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 1 series) 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. | |||
| BMW 1 sērija 2017 2.0 engine: Compared to their predecessors, B48 engines are more robust and less prone to major failures. They are well-suited for chip tuning, which can noticeably enhance performance and responsiveness without ... More about BMW 1 sērija 2017 2.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.18 m | 4.33 m | |
| Width: | 1.83 m | 1.77 m | |
| Height: | 1.35 m | 1.42 m | |
| Audi TT is 15 cm shorter than the BMW 1 series, 7 cm wider, while the height of Audi TT is 7 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 305 litres | 360 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
712 litres | 1200 litres | |
|
BMW 1 series has more luggage space. Audi TT has 55 litres less trunk space than the BMW 1 series. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in BMW 1 series (by 488 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.96 meters | 10.9 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Audi TT is 0.06 metres more than that of the BMW 1 series. | |||
| Gross weight: | 1`630 kg | 1`930 kg | |
| Net weight: | 1`230 kg | 1`370 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 400 kg | 560 kg | |
| Audi TT load capacity (permitted cargo and passenger weight) is par apmēram 40 procentiem less than BMW 1 series. Therefore, BMW 1 series is more suitable for longer family trips or transporting heavier loads. | |||
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | high | above average | |
| Audi TT has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data BMW 1 series has serious deffects in 30 percent more cases than Audi TT, so Audi TT quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 20 200 | 11 200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Audi TT has
|
BMW 1 sērija has
| |