Honda S2000 1999 vs Audi TT 1999
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 1.8 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain and belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 240 HP | 180 HP | |
| Torque: | 208 NM | 235 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 6.2 seconds | 8.1 seconds | |
|
Honda S2000 is more dynamic to drive. Honda S2000 engine produces 60 HP more power than Audi TT, but torque is 27 NM less than Audi TT. Thanks to more power Honda S2000 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.9 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.9 | 8.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 10.1 l/100km | 9.0 l/100km | |
|
The Audi TT is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Honda S2000 consumes 1.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Audi TT, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Honda S2000 could require 255 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Honda S2000 consumes 1.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Audi TT. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 50 litres | 56 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 500 km in combined cycle | 680 km in combined cycle | |
| 630 km on highway | 870 km on highway | ||
| 490 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 (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: | 280'000 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 Audi TT engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 10 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | 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. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| 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 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: | 4.14 m | 4.04 m | |
| Width: | 1.75 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.28 m | 1.35 m | |
| Honda S2000 is 10 cm longer than the Audi TT, 1 cm narrower, while the height of Honda S2000 is 7 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 220 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.8 meters | 10 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Honda S2000 is 0.8 metres more than that of the Audi TT, which means Honda S2000 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`220 | 1`640 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | no data | above average | |
| Average price (€): | 23 000 | 5200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Honda S2000 has
|
Audi TT has
| |