Audi TT 2002 vs BMW Z3 1996
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.8 Petrol | 1.8 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain and belt | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 115 HP | |
| Torque: | 210 NM | 168 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.9 seconds | 10.5 seconds | |
|
Audi TT is more dynamic to drive. Audi TT engine produces 35 HP more power than BMW Z3, whereas torque is 42 NM more than BMW Z3. Thanks to more power Audi TT reaches 100 km/h speed 1.6 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.2 | 7.8 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.6 l/100km | 8.4 l/100km | |
|
By specification Audi TT consumes 0.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the BMW Z3, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Audi TT could require 60 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Audi TT consumes 0.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the BMW Z3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 56 litres | 51 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 680 km in combined cycle | 650 km in combined cycle | |
| 870 km on highway | 860 km on highway | ||
| 650 km with real consumption | 600 km with real consumption | ||
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 Z3) 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: | 440'000 km | 440'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 9 years | 9 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 9 other car models, including Volkswagen Passat, Volkswagen Golf, Audi A4, Skoda Octavia, Audi A3 | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including BMW 5 sērija, BMW 3 sērija | |
| 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. | |||
| Audi TT 2002 1.8 engine: The weakest link in this engine is the turbine, whose failure is contributed to by a faulty catalytic converter. The oil pump and chain tensioner also tend to have problems. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.04 m | 4.02 m | |
| Width: | 1.76 m | 1.69 m | |
| Height: | 1.35 m | 1.29 m | |
|
Audi TT is larger. Audi TT is 2 cm longer than the BMW Z3, 7 cm wider, while the height of Audi TT is 6 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 220 litres | 165 litres | |
|
Audi TT has more luggage capacity. Audi TT has 55 litres more trunk space than the BMW Z3. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10 meters | 10 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`635 | 1`410 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | high | high | |
| Audi TT has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data BMW Z3 has serious deffects in 255 percent more cases than Audi TT, so Audi TT quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 5200 | 7600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Audi TT has
|
| |