Chrysler Crossfire 2003 vs Audi TT 2006
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 3.2 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain and belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 218 HP | 200 HP | |
| Torque: | 310 NM | 280 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 6.5 seconds | 6.4 seconds | |
| Chrysler Crossfire engine produces 18 HP more power than Audi TT, whereas torque is 30 NM more than Audi TT. Despite the higher power, Chrysler Crossfire reaches 100 km/h speed 0.1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.1 | 7.7 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 10.9 l/100km | 8.9 l/100km | |
|
The Audi TT is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Chrysler Crossfire consumes 2.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Audi TT, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Chrysler Crossfire could require 360 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Chrysler Crossfire consumes 2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Audi TT. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 590 km in combined cycle | 710 km in combined cycle | |
| 770 km on highway | 910 km on highway | ||
| 550 km with real consumption | 610 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 (Chrysler Crossfire) 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: | 480'000 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 Chrysler Crossfire engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 10 years | 4 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 8 other car models, including Mercedes C klase, Mercedes E klase, Mercedes ML | 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. Chrysler Crossfire might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| 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: | 4.06 m | 4.18 m | |
| Width: | 1.77 m | 1.84 m | |
| Height: | 1.30 m | 1.35 m | |
|
Chrysler Crossfire is smaller. Chrysler Crossfire is 12 cm shorter than the Audi TT, 7 cm narrower, while the height of Chrysler Crossfire is 5 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 215 litres | 290 litres | |
|
Audi TT has more luggage space. Chrysler Crossfire has 75 litres less trunk space than the Audi TT. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.3 meters | 11 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Chrysler Crossfire is 0.7 metres less than that of the Audi TT, which means Chrysler Crossfire can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`665 | 1`680 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | high | |
| Average price (€): | 6000 | 8400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Chrysler Crossfire has
|
Audi TT has
| |