Audi TT 2006 vs Chrysler Crossfire 2003
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 3.2 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain and belt | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 200 HP | 218 HP | |
| Torque: | 280 NM | 310 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 6.4 seconds | 6.5 seconds | |
| Audi TT engine produces 18 HP less power than Chrysler Crossfire, whereas torque is 30 NM less than Chrysler Crossfire. Despite less power, Audi TT reaches 100 km/h speed 0.1 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.7 | 10.1 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.9 l/100km | 10.9 l/100km | |
|
The Audi TT is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Audi TT consumes 2.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Chrysler Crossfire, which means that by driving the Audi TT over 15,000 km in a year you can save 360 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Audi TT consumes 2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Chrysler Crossfire. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 710 km in combined cycle | 590 km in combined cycle | |
| 910 km on highway | 770 km on highway | ||
| 610 km with real consumption | 550 km with real consumption | ||
| Audi TT gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
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 (Chrysler Crossfire) 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: | 360'000 km | 480'000 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 Chrysler Crossfire engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 4 years | 10 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 5 other car models, including Audi A4, Skoda Octavia, Audi A3, Seat Altea, Seat Leon | Installed on at least 8 other car models, including Mercedes C klase, Mercedes E klase, Mercedes ML | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Chrysler Crossfire might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Audi TT 2006 2.0 engine: This engine is often noted for its excessive oil consumption and significant carbon buildup, which primarily affect intake valves and the intake geometry adjustment mechanism. The oil consumption issue can be ... More about Audi TT 2006 2.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.18 m | 4.06 m | |
| Width: | 1.84 m | 1.77 m | |
| Height: | 1.35 m | 1.30 m | |
|
Audi TT is larger. Audi TT is 12 cm longer than the Chrysler Crossfire, 7 cm wider, while the height of Audi TT is 5 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 290 litres | 215 litres | |
|
Audi TT has more luggage capacity. Audi TT has 75 litres more trunk space than the Chrysler Crossfire. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | 10.3 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Audi TT is 0.7 metres more than that of the Chrysler Crossfire, which means Audi TT can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`680 | 1`665 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | high | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 8400 | 6000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Audi TT has
|
Chrysler Crossfire has
| |