Chevrolet Camaro 2011 vs Audi TT 2006
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 3.6 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain and belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 312 HP | 200 HP | |
| Torque: | 377 NM | 280 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | n/a seconds | 6.4 seconds | |
| Chevrolet Camaro engine produces 112 HP more power than Audi TT, whereas torque is 97 NM more than Audi TT. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 11.1 | 7.7 | |
|
The Audi TT is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Chevrolet Camaro consumes 3.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Audi TT, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Chevrolet Camaro could require 510 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 72 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 640 km in combined cycle | 710 km in combined cycle | |
| 850 km on highway | 910 km on highway | ||
| Audi TT gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
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 (Chevrolet Camaro) 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: | 420'000 km | 360'000 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 Chevrolet Camaro engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 11 years | 4 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Chevrolet Equinox | Installed on at least 5 other car models, including Audi A4, Skoda Octavia, Audi A3, Seat Altea, 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 2006 2.0 engine: This engine is often noted for its excessive oil consumption and significant carbon buildup, which primarily affect intake valves and the intake geometry adjustment mechanism. The oil consumption issue can be ... More about Audi TT 2006 2.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.84 m | 4.18 m | |
| Width: | 1.92 m | 1.84 m | |
| Height: | 1.38 m | 1.35 m | |
|
Chevrolet Camaro is larger. Chevrolet Camaro is 66 cm longer than the Audi TT, 8 cm wider, while the height of Chevrolet Camaro is 3 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 320 litres | 290 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
no data | 700 litres | |
|
Chevrolet Camaro has more luggage capacity. Chevrolet Camaro has 30 litres more trunk space than the Audi TT. | |||
| Turning diameter: | no data | 11 meters | |
| Gross weight: | 1`700 kg | 1`680 kg | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | high | |
| Average price (€): | 17 000 | 7800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Chevrolet Camaro has
|
Audi TT has
| |