Audi TT 2006 vs Mazda RX-8 2008
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 1.3 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 200 HP | 232 HP | |
| Torque: | 280 NM | 216 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 6.4 seconds | 6.4 seconds | |
| Audi TT engine produces 32 HP less power than Mazda RX-8, but torque is 64 NM more than Mazda RX-8. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.7 | 12.7 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.9 l/100km | 13.1 l/100km | |
|
The Audi TT is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Audi TT consumes 5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda RX-8, which means that by driving the Audi TT over 15,000 km in a year you can save 750 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Audi TT consumes 4.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda RX-8. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 61 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 710 km in combined cycle | 480 km in combined cycle | |
| 910 km on highway | 570 km on highway | ||
| 610 km with real consumption | 460 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 (Mazda RX-8) 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 | 160'000 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 Audi TT engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 4 years | 9 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 6 other car models, including Audi A4, Skoda Octavia, Audi A3, Seat Altea, Volkswagen Passat CC | Used only for this car | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Audi TT engine has hydraulic tappets (lifters), providing quieter operation and no need for periodic adjustment, but they are more complex in design and can cause serious engine damage in case of failure. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.18 m | 4.46 m | |
| Width: | 1.84 m | 1.77 m | |
| Height: | 1.35 m | 1.34 m | |
| Audi TT is 28 cm shorter than the Mazda RX-8, 7 cm wider the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 290 litres | 215 litres | |
|
Audi TT has more luggage capacity. Even though the car is shorter, Audi TT has 75 litres more trunk space than the Mazda RX-8. The Mazda RX-8 may have more interior space, so the cabin could be more spacious and more comfortable for the driver and passengers. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Audi TT is 0.4 metres more than that of the Mazda RX-8, which means Audi TT can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`680 | 1`732 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | high | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 8200 | 3800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Audi TT has
|
Mazda RX-8 has
| |