BMW Z4 2003 vs Audi TT 1999
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.5 Petrol | 1.8 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain and belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 192 HP | 180 HP | |
| Torque: | 245 NM | 235 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 7 seconds | 8.1 seconds | |
|
BMW Z4 is more dynamic to drive. BMW Z4 engine produces 12 HP more power than Audi TT, whereas torque is 10 NM more than Audi TT. Thanks to more power BMW Z4 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.1 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.9 | 8.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.5 l/100km | 9.0 l/100km | |
|
The Audi TT is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification BMW Z4 consumes 0.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Audi TT, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the BMW Z4 could require 105 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, BMW Z4 consumes 0.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Audi TT. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 56 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 610 km in combined cycle | 680 km in combined cycle | |
| 790 km on highway | 870 km on highway | ||
| 570 km with real consumption | 620 km with real consumption | ||
| Audi TT gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
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 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: | 7 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including BMW 5 sērija, BMW 3 sērija, BMW X3 | 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 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| 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: | 4.09 m | 4.04 m | |
| Width: | 1.78 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.30 m | 1.35 m | |
|
BMW Z4 is larger, but lower. BMW Z4 is 5 cm longer than the Audi TT, 2 cm wider, while the height of BMW Z4 is 5 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 240 litres | 220 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
260 litres | no data | |
| BMW Z4 has 20 litres more trunk space than the Audi TT. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 9.8 meters | 10 meters | |
| The turning circle of the BMW Z4 is 0.2 metres less than that of the Audi TT. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`560 | 1`640 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | above average | high | |
| 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 (€): | 8400 | 5200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
BMW Z4 has
|
Audi TT has
| |