BMW Z3 2000 vs Audi TT 1999
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.9 Petrol | 1.8 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain and belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 118 HP | 180 HP | |
| Torque: | 180 NM | 235 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.4 seconds | 8.1 seconds | |
|
Audi TT is a more dynamic driving. BMW Z3 engine produces 62 HP less power than Audi TT, whereas torque is 55 NM less than Audi TT. Due to the lower power, BMW Z3 reaches 100 km/h speed 2.3 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.8 | 8.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.5 l/100km | 9.0 l/100km | |
|
The BMW Z3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification BMW Z3 consumes 0.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Audi TT, which means that by driving the BMW Z3 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 60 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, BMW Z3 consumes 0.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Audi TT. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 51 litres | 56 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 650 km in combined cycle | 680 km in combined cycle | |
| 850 km on highway | 870 km on highway | ||
| 600 km with real consumption | 620 km with real consumption | ||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
| 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: | 470'000 km | 420'000 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 BMW Z3 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 9 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on BMW 3 sērija | Installed on at least 6 other car models, including Volkswagen Golf, Skoda Octavia, Audi A3, Seat Ibiza, Seat Leon | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
| Audi TT 1999 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 1999 1.8 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.05 m | 4.04 m | |
| Width: | 1.74 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.29 m | 1.35 m | |
| BMW Z3 is 1 cm longer than the Audi TT, 2 cm narrower, while the height of BMW Z3 is 6 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 165 litres | 220 litres | |
|
Audi TT has more luggage space. Despite its longer length, BMW Z3 has 55 litres less trunk space than the Audi TT. This could mean that the BMW Z3 uses more space in the cabin, so the driver and passengers could be more spacious and comfortable. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10 meters | 10 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`490 | 1`640 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | high | high | |
| Audi TT has slightly fewer faults. Deffect rate in annual technical inspection is similar for both cars, it's slightly higher for BMW Z3, so Audi TT quality could be a bit better. | |||
| Average price (€): | 7600 | 5200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
BMW Z3 has
|
Audi TT has
| |