Audi TT 1999 vs BMW Z4 2003
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.8 Petrol | 2.5 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain and belt | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 180 HP | 192 HP | |
| Torque: | 235 NM | 245 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.1 seconds | 7 seconds | |
|
BMW Z4 is a more dynamic driving. Audi TT engine produces 12 HP less power than BMW Z4, whereas torque is 10 NM less than BMW Z4. Due to the lower power, Audi TT reaches 100 km/h speed 1.1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.2 | 8.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.0 l/100km | 9.5 l/100km | |
|
The Audi TT is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Audi TT consumes 0.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the BMW Z4, which means that by driving the Audi TT over 15,000 km in a year you can save 105 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Audi TT consumes 0.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the BMW Z4. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 56 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 680 km in combined cycle | 610 km in combined cycle | |
| 870 km on highway | 790 km on highway | ||
| 620 km with real consumption | 570 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 (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: | 420'000 km | 440'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 5 years | 7 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 6 other car models, including Volkswagen Golf, Skoda Octavia, Audi A3, Seat Leon, Seat Toledo | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including BMW 5 sērija, BMW 3 sērija, BMW X3 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Audi TT might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.04 m | 4.09 m | |
| Width: | 1.76 m | 1.78 m | |
| Height: | 1.35 m | 1.30 m | |
|
Audi TT is smaller, but higher. Audi TT is 5 cm shorter than the BMW Z4, 2 cm narrower, while the height of Audi TT is 5 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 220 litres | 240 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 260 litres | |
| Audi TT has 20 litres less trunk space than the BMW Z4. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10 meters | 9.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Audi TT is 0.2 metres more than that of the BMW Z4. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`640 | 1`560 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | high | above average | |
| Audi TT has slightly fewer faults. Deffect rate in annual technical inspection is similar for both cars, it's slightly higher for BMW Z4, so Audi TT quality could be a bit better. | |||
| Average price (€): | 4800 | 8400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Audi TT has
|
BMW Z4 has
| |