Audi TT 1998 vs Mazda RX-8 2003
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.8 Petrol | 1.3 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 180 HP | 192 HP | |
| Torque: | 235 NM | 220 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 7.8 seconds | 7.2 seconds | |
|
Mazda RX-8 is a more dynamic driving. Audi TT engine produces 12 HP less power than Mazda RX-8, but torque is 15 NM more than Mazda RX-8. Due to the lower power, Audi TT reaches 100 km/h speed 0.6 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.1 | 10.8 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.0 l/100km | 13.0 l/100km | |
|
The Audi TT is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Audi TT consumes 2.7 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 405 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Audi TT consumes 4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda RX-8. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 61 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 670 km in combined cycle | 560 km in combined cycle | |
| 870 km on highway | 730 km on highway | ||
| 610 km with real consumption | 460 km with real consumption | ||
| Audi TT gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| 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 (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: | 420'000 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: | 5 years | 9 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 6 other car models, including Volkswagen Golf, Skoda Octavia, Audi A3, Seat Ibiza, Seat Leon | 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. | |||
| Audi TT 1998 1.8 engine: The engine is considered reliable, with a lifespan from 300,000 km.
The primary causes of unstable operation include air leaks through the crankcase ventilation system, throttle body malfunctions, idle air ... More about Audi TT 1998 1.8 engine Mazda RX-8 2003 1.3 engine: This rotor motor is very specific and capricious. It will suit the true enthusiast who is prepared to put up with high fuel and oil consumption as well as relatively frequent maintenance and repair work. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.04 m | 4.43 m | |
| Width: | 1.76 m | 1.77 m | |
| Height: | 1.35 m | 1.34 m | |
|
Audi TT is smaller, but slightly higher. Audi TT is 39 cm shorter than the Mazda RX-8, 1 cm narrower, while the height of Audi TT is 1 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 270 litres | 290 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
540 litres | 290 litres | |
| Audi TT has 20 litres less trunk space than the Mazda RX-8. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Audi TT (by 250 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Audi TT is 0.6 metres less than that of the Mazda RX-8, which means Audi TT can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight: | 1`665 kg | 1`820 kg | |
| Net weight: | 1`280 kg | 1`373 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 385 kg | 447 kg | |
| Audi TT load capacity (permitted cargo and passenger weight) is par apmēram 16 procentiem less than Mazda RX-8. Therefore, Mazda RX-8 is more suitable for longer family trips or transporting heavier loads. | |||
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 4600 | 5000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Audi TT has
|
Mazda RX-8 has
| |