Audi TT 2002 vs BMW Z4 2005
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.8 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain and belt | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 210 NM | 200 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.9 seconds | 8.2 seconds | |
| Audi TT and BMW Z4 have the same engine power, but Audi TT torque is 10 NM more than BMW Z4. Audi TT reaches 100 km/h speed 0.7 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.2 | 7.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.6 l/100km | 7.4 l/100km | |
|
The BMW Z4 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Audi TT consumes 0.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than the BMW Z4, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Audi TT could require 105 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Audi TT consumes 1.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the BMW Z4. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 56 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 680 km in combined cycle | 730 km in combined cycle | |
| 650 km with real consumption | 740 km with real consumption | ||
| BMW Z4 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: | 440'000 km | 420'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 9 years | 11 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 4 other car models, including BMW 3 sērija, BMW 1 sērija, BMW X3, BMW X1 | |
| 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 | 4.09 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 | |
| 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`635 | no data | |
| 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 (€): | 5200 | 8400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Audi TT has
|
BMW Z4 has
| |