The new Audi TTS is a good competitor to the Z though, not sure I am still on board with the styling of it but it is a solid performer. I really hope that euro model (not sure of its name) makes it to the US, it is a 5 cylinder Audi TT or something.

That would be the TTRS and its a speed demon. I think I would take that over the GT-R but dont think its coming here atleast not for awhile. Its 0 60 is 3.8 secs. But Im waiting for a good SC for the Z to come out and then the Z will fly like crazy.

For twice the price I would certainly hope it came with a bunch of extras!!

I was referring to the 2009 TTS earlier when I said 0-60 in 5.6s. I was comparing the 2009 Audi to the 2009 Mazda. The 2010 Mazdaspeed3 is heavier and slower than the outgoing model, and the new Audi appears to be faster than the outgoing Audi. I looked up the specs on the 2010 TTS , and yes, it hits 60 mph in 4.9 sec with its quattro AWD. But to say it's faster beyond 60 mph is nonsense. It has the same hp than the Mazdaspeed3, a lot less torque, and the extra drivetrain losses of AWD, which makes it slower from anything but a dig.

2009 and 2010 TT-S models didn't have any engine changes made so they are both just as fast hitting the 0-60 in about 4.8-4.9 range. The one thing that could've played a role in the times you looked up was a transmission update that was needed. My friend has a 2009 TT-S and trust me that thing holds it's own across the whole powerband. I've driven it and it is in no way slow after 60 mph. MS3 is not as fast as TT-S, period.

Edit: I'm pretty sure your 5.6 time is of the convertible TT-S not coupe..

I'm certainly not one to critique an honest opinion. But is there a lack of knowledge of basic physics here, or what is going on? Please explain to me how a car that is heavier and is putting less power to the ground is faster than a lighter car putting down more power?

I never said it was slow beyond 60 mph. I just said slowER than a lighter car with more wheel hp and torque. And yes, the drivetrain losses from an AWD car are higher than a FWD or RWD car.

alot of stuff goes into consideration not just weight and power. aerodynamic drag, suspension, tires, and other factors come into play also when it comes to straight line performance. Yes I am aware that AWD drivetrain losses may be higher but that doesn't mean the drivetrain in the MS3 is on par performance-wise with the one in the TT-S. I myself have an altima coupe with the V6 and I've raced him and he blows my car out of the water at any speed. Sure my car is around 100 lbs heavier than the TT-S but I believe the MS3 would be a more suitable competitor to my Altima than the TT-S

Audi TT-S Drag coefficient: .31
Mazdaspeed3 Drag coefficient: .32
Suspension, though not much of a factor, is already a variable in dyno testing. The Speed3 puts down more power than a stock TT-S.
Tires? The TTS comes with better tires than a Mazda. Part of the price tag. Mazda gets shitty tires.
Other factors? Please elaborate.

The last time I checked the 3.5 Altima has a 15 sec. quarter mile time compared to 14 flat for the Speed3.

I personally have run a 14.5 with 98 F weather and in other forums people have run 14.1 completely stock. Yes I agree the MS3 is faster than the Altima I never questioned that part. My point is that the MS3 and Altima would be more evenly matched. I insist that tires alone can play a vital role in dig races along with the suspension. And after 60 mph, while I haven't been in a MS3 or driven one, I bed to differ that the MS3 would be substantially faster if not the TT-S faster.. While I know people really dont like to go by magazine articles for saying which car is faster I have to say that all the numbers I have read are too big of a margin to not believe them. Seeing the numbers again I can see where the MS3 is certainly faster from 100-155 yet, I also see a reasonable margin for the TT-S to be faster from say 0-110 and anything in between.

Car and Driver numbers:

Audi TTS
Zero to 60 mph: 4.8 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 12.4 sec
Zero to 130 mph: 32.7 sec
Street start, 5–60 mph: 6.0 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 13.5 sec @ 104 mph

MS3
Zero to 60 mph: 5.8
Zero to 100 mph: 14.8
Zero to 130: N/A

The dsg makes it faster too with shorter shift times. And german know how.

Audi is quattro actually which means AWD only when it needs it then its FWD. Engine compression ratio can be a factor too. Launch control with AWD is a factor too. Funny you threw the magazine facts out and now that someone trumped your mag with another mag you want to play physics now. My chipped 2.0T K03 turbo (smaller than K04) FWD (not quattro) TT (not TTS) did 0 60 in 5.5 secs on the street.

What is an Audi doing in this thread? :icon14:

wow I just read this trash

I'd rather drive a Prius than a souped up Cobalt

Exactly. :tup:

I worked on couple Prius'!
They start automatically its crazy and they're possibly the best car to drive for drive bys. SO quiet!

A prius drive by would be halarious , sad but halarious. I could just picture a bunch of thugs shooting out of a prius saying "atleast were going green"

370Z
0-60 4.7
1/4 13.3 at 105 mph

So are you telling me that the Audi TT-S is as fast as the 370Z then despite having a 70 hp disadvantage and the same weight? AWD cars are always going to be fast from a standstill acceleration test. It's the roll-on acceleration that gets them. I also see you managed to find the slowest numbers for the Mazda. Below are figures for the Mazda from Road and Track with links.

Road and Track:
RoadandTrack.com -- Long Term Road Tests - Long-term 2007 Mazdaspeed3 Modified! (11/2008)

MS3
0-60 5.7 sec
0-100 13.8 sec
0-120 20 sec
1/4 14.1 sec at 101mph

MS3 with intake alone (Road and Track's car)
0-60 5.5
0-100 13.1
1/4 13.9 at 103mph

The only time the Audi is going to be faster than the MS3 is from a standstill--that's the benefit of AWD. The Audi practically ties the 370Z from a stop to 100 mph as well but the Z is obviously the faster car.