Audi TT 2002 vs Honda S2000 1999
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.8 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain and belt | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 240 HP | |
| Torque: | 210 NM | 208 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.9 seconds | 6.2 seconds | |
|
Honda S2000 is a more dynamic driving. Audi TT engine produces 90 HP less power than Honda S2000, but torque is 2 NM more than Honda S2000. Due to the lower power, Audi TT reaches 100 km/h speed 2.7 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.2 | 9.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.6 l/100km | 10.1 l/100km | |
|
The Audi TT is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Audi TT consumes 1.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Honda S2000, which means that by driving the Audi TT over 15,000 km in a year you can save 255 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Audi TT consumes 1.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Honda S2000. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 56 litres | 50 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 680 km in combined cycle | 500 km in combined cycle | |
| 870 km on highway | 630 km on highway | ||
| 650 km with real consumption | 490 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 (Honda S2000) 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 | 280'000 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: | 9 years | 10 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 9 other car models, including Volkswagen Passat, Volkswagen Golf, Audi A4, Skoda Octavia, Audi A3 | 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. Audi TT might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| 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 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 | 4.14 m | |
| Width: | 1.76 m | 1.75 m | |
| Height: | 1.35 m | 1.28 m | |
| Audi TT is 10 cm shorter than the Honda S2000, 1 cm wider, while the height of Audi TT is 7 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 220 litres | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 10 meters | 10.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Audi TT is 0.8 metres less than that of the Honda S2000, which means Audi TT can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`635 | 1`220 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | above average | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 5200 | 23 000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Audi TT has
|
Honda S2000 has
| |