Choosing between Audi TT & 350z
Hi,
I'm in the process of getting a car to replace my 91 corsica. I've narrowed it
down to the 2003 Audi tt 180hp coupe or a used Nissan 350z. Also, I'm looking
for an automatic. According to my insurance agent it will cost me about $630
for 6 months. Car insurance for the 350Z is a little over $600 for 6 months.
And I was checking out a recent consumer reports that mentions that the
reliability rating for the 350z is approximately +35%. The Audi is approx.
-35%. From what I've been reading online about customer complaints is that
the Nissan has some front alignment problems causing the tires to thread.
Does anyone know if the threading problem was fixed in the 2003 Nissan?
The Audi supposedly seats 4 but are the back seats big enough for average
sized people? Does anyone have any experience with either of these cars? I'd
like to get some pros & cons to help me decide.
I'm in the process of getting a car to replace my 91 corsica. I've narrowed it
down to the 2003 Audi tt 180hp coupe or a used Nissan 350z. Also, I'm looking
for an automatic. According to my insurance agent it will cost me about $630
for 6 months. Car insurance for the 350Z is a little over $600 for 6 months.
And I was checking out a recent consumer reports that mentions that the
reliability rating for the 350z is approximately +35%. The Audi is approx.
-35%. From what I've been reading online about customer complaints is that
the Nissan has some front alignment problems causing the tires to thread.
Does anyone know if the threading problem was fixed in the 2003 Nissan?
The Audi supposedly seats 4 but are the back seats big enough for average
sized people? Does anyone have any experience with either of these cars? I'd
like to get some pros & cons to help me decide.
Comments
I have see several of them, and reviews. I can say if a relatively tall guy like me, seat in the driver seat, that there will be absolutely no place for the legs of the rear passenger. I have exactly the same problem with the 206 cc of my wife.
Originally posted by mello
Does anyone have any experience with either of these cars? I'd
like to get some pros & cons to help me decide.
I just recently went to the Dallas Auto Show here and sat in the Audi TT. All I can say is I hope you are a small person. I have sat in many small cars most with plenty of room. The Audi TT has to be the smallest interior I have ever sat in. I always loved the Audi TT and thought of it as a car I would consider to buy. This changed after I sat in it only to find I could not even see out out of the thing it was so short of a roof that the side framing cut into my line of sight. It was awful to sit in.
I also sat in the mini Cooper and the mini felt spacious which was strange. The Audi TT felt like you were a dark cave and could not see out of it.
Fellows
for the Nissan as well. I wanted to do test drive with the TT at the Audi
dealership but they didn't have any automatics that I could drive. I'll be trying
out the nissan instead tomorrow. I'm also a little worried about how low
these cars are. I live in an apartment building & there is an incline into the
garage. I'm worried about possibly scraping the bottom of the car.
The rice-burners have a superior QC record. The kraut-burners have farvegnugen.
Thorough review of the Z from people who drive *very* high performance cars on regular basis:
http://www.autospeed.com/cms/A_1839/article.html
If I was looking at anything remotely like the Z and TT, I'd pick RX-8 for sure. Have you considered it?
I mean, it's supposedly better handling, has more usable space (2 real back seats), looks better than the other cars (which is subjective, sure), and is actually pretty cool/exotic considering the engine and all that.
Just thinking aloud..
For looks I would say they're all on a par with eachother, all have different qualities. The TT is the most common, and costs the most for the least performance, its styling is also, whilst it is very well made, very feminine. The 350z is supposed to be the most macho, it has the best performance out of the three, while the rx-8 is a bargain as-so-to-speak, it's engine may be a little weak ( concerning torque), but it's supposed to be great fun, it goes to 9000rpm if I'm not mistaken. It does have pratical space, due to the small engine - 1.3 litres (don't be fooled by this though, it's faster than the TT 180bhp).
I didn't notice mello wanted an *automatic*. I think that seals the Z's fate then. (I didn't even know they made the Z's in automatic, but I checked and wow! - they do.)
Of the two original options only the TT makes any sense.
An RX-8 would still make a pretty nice "lazy driver's car" with automatic I suppose. The auto model even has better low end torque than the manual.
I need to shut up now.
Though this has zero relevance to the thread, here's a link that shows the best side of the manual RX-8... the tachometer.
http://gallery.n3dst4.com/albums/use.../RX8%20024.jpg
Originally posted by Gon
Oops.
I didn't notice mello wanted an *automatic*. I think that seals the Z's fate then. (I didn't even know they made the Z's in automatic, but I checked and wow! - they do.)
Of the two original options only the TT makes any sense.
An RX-8 would still make a pretty nice "lazy driver's car" with automatic I suppose. The auto model even has better low end torque than the manual.
I need to shut up now.
Though this has zero relevance to the thread, here's a link that shows the best side of the manual RX-8... the tachometer.
http://gallery.n3dst4.com/albums/use.../RX8%20024.jpg
Well what I want to know is, why an automatic? considering that a 350z is an option, and lets face it, it reallys is the 'drivers' car out of the hot coupes, it's kinda of a no brainer to have a manual gearbox. each to his own, I suppose. I think the RX-8 is great, but as you mention, an automatic version would not be as fun to drive...
Automatics usually do well when coupled with engines with abundant torque output. With its sheer engine displacement and torque output, I'd say that makes the 350Z a natural winner here. Torque output on a TT or a RX8 does not suggest them as particularly good performers with the auto tranny.
Per a recent magazine feature, the 350Z and Honda S2000 are virtually neck and neck, performance-wise. Similarly, the S2000 and RX8 are given frequent comparison, but mostly in terms of how the engine delivers performance. I would think either choice make for venerable handling. The TT, I'm not sure how it compares here. If it's the FWD model, that probably suggests some positive handling traits given up to the aforementioned RWD choices. An AWD TT may bring some handling benefits, but at the expense of extra weight (less acceleration), typically not enough power to really make the AWD advantages shine. More likely, it won't really justify itself unless you are privy to frequent bad traction/weather conditions.
Nahh . . . nothing against the Z, but personally, I like the TT a lot better. Aside from the prestigue (in comparison with Nissan) that comes with an Audi . . . I just think the styling is beautiful. The lines are clean, the shape is sexy, and it looks high-class, yet . . . incredibly sporty too. In fact, the TT pulls the sporty/sexy/look-at-me-I-make-more-money-than-you look better than any other car I can think of save the BMW Z4.
It certainly will not seat four adults very well, but neither will the Z.
About my Nissan quip above . . it mostly stems from the Xterra. The Xterra is the ugliest SUV produced currently, and it has been the ugliest SUV, along with the slightly-better-looking Pathfinder, for 10 years. Yet everone I talk to likes it. Seriously, this is the type of thing psychologists need to be studying! The Xterra is the most gaudy, Tonka-link, asymmetrical, unclean, stupid looking thing ever (ok, the Astek is worse . . . so is the Element . . . but everyone agrees with me on those, so they dont count)! ahh! I SERIOUSLY dont get America's Love-Affair with the Xterra.
The Z is damn fine, although the handle really sucks. The exterior handle alone is responsible for why I am not so crazy about the Z. But . . . the handle isnt everything, obviously.
RX-8
Originally posted by Mac OS X
Hmm . . . yes! Ill follow that last post up with this: there are two distinct camps when it comes to modern Nissan styling. One camp is composed of people who hate it. The other is composed of retarded people.
Nahh . . . nothing against the Z, but personally, I like the TT a lot better. Aside from the prestigue (in comparison with Nissan) that comes with an Audi . . . I just think the styling is beautiful. The lines are clean, the shape is sexy, and it looks high-class, yet . . . incredibly sporty too. In fact, the TT pulls the sporty/sexy/look-at-me-I-make-more-money-than-you look better than any other car I can think of save the BMW Z4.
It certainly will not seat four adults very well, but neither will the Z.
About my Nissan quip above . . it mostly stems from the Xterra. The Xterra is the ugliest SUV produced currently, and it has been the ugliest SUV, along with the slightly-better-looking Pathfinder, for 10 years. Yet everone I talk to likes it. Seriously, this is the type of thing psychologists need to be studying! The Xterra is the most gaudy, Tonka-link, asymmetrical, unclean, stupid looking thing ever (ok, the Astek is worse . . . so is the Element . . . but everyone agrees with me on those, so they dont count)! ahh! I SERIOUSLY dont get America's Love-Affair with the Xterra.
The Z is damn fine, although the handle really sucks. The exterior handle alone is responsible for why I am not so crazy about the Z. But . . . the handle isnt everything, obviously.
The Xterra is certainly not eh ugliest SUV, the new Nissan Titan is!
As for the rest of your post, it betrays a general badge cachet anxiety.
The TT IS unique and rather pure, if a little dishonest, with a big lump of engine sitting in front of the front wheels on what's basically a golf IV platform. Still it looks nice, and the added AWD weight and clutch system help redress the weight distribution problems. It will still look good in 20 years, and should be collectable because the styling is so brave/pure.
The Z4 only exudes money in the badge it wears. It might be dynamically brilliant, but it's awkward as hell and only avoids being downright ugly when viewed head on, at which point it's just boring. Actually, the whole design is rather offensive in that it banks on brand recognition in lieu of aesthetic goodness. We're supposed to accept that the design as exciting/daring because its a BMW, when really it's just awkward and undeveloped and wouldn't get any quote-worthy copy if it came from Pontiac, which it darn well could have. The only real message a Z4 gives the world is: I may not have style, but I have money, see you at starbucks with the rest of the privledged poseurs.
The 350 looks much better, as does the G35, even if both are more reserved and not terribly interesting.
BTW, Nissan currently makes the two best looking trucks on the market, the Murano and the Infinity FX35/45. I don't care for the Altima or Maxima exteriors, but their new minivan is also one of the better styling exercises out there.
Stylistically, BMW no longer impresses nor offers anything over the best from Japan.
The FX45 brings an old school flair, its got muscle car genes.
Originally posted by Matsu
The Murano is more utlitarian, but quite nice in metallic orange. You have to get the fully optioned interior though. Otherwise the interior looks a bit too spartan.
Contrast this to me who would gladly save weight by not having air conditioning in a car
To each his own indeed.