Brad Willis

The link below will take you to some detailed information regarding the TTs engine. I've had a hard time finding out what the TT's gas mileage is. In the article, it is stated that the 180hp version consumed 8.0 litres in 100 km. Converting 8.0 litres to 2.08 gallons and 100 km to 62 miles would give this engine an average fuel economy of almost 30 mpg (29.8 to be exact). Bottom line, this is a performance car that should get very good gas mileage. Premium gas is around $1.85 here in San Diego, so I'll appreciate that good mileage. Anyway, here's the link: <ul><li><a href="http://www.sae.org/automag/newenginereview/audi.htm">Audi TT Engine Review</a></li></ul>

Brad Willis

The article also states that the 225 hp engine uses 9.2 liters of fuel in 100 km. Again, converting the 9.2 litres into 2.392 gallons and 100 km into 62 mpg gives this engine configuraton a rating of around 5 mpg less than its' smaller brother, or 25.9 mpg.<p>Also, the media is quoting the 0-60 times as slower than they actually are. The 0-100 km speed for the 225 is 6.4 seconds and the 180 hp is 7.4 seconds. However, 100 km is 62 mph, not 60. This extra 2 mph adds about 3.33% to the 0-60 speeds. Therefore, I've calculated the true 0-60 speeds by multiplying the 0-100 km times by .9667. So, the actual 0-60 for the 180 hp is 7.15 seconds, and the 225 is really 6.19 seconds. It's not a huge deal, but as focused as many seem to be on 0-60 speeds, let's at least be accurate. <p>

Brad Willis

Let's get way ****. Actually, 100 km is 62.15 mph. Therefore, the correct conversion factor is .964167. So...the 225 clocks 0-60 at 6.17 seconds and the 180 at 7.13 seconds. There, we've knocked almost 3/10ths of a second off of the TT's speed ratings and it didn't cost us a penny, nor did we have to void our warranties!

Dave Ulrich

<br>If you want some interesting reading on voided warrantees, check out the Total Audi Performance (TAP) website. They claim just chip swapping doesn't void the warrantee, it must be proven that it was caused by the swap. ("From what is said above, it is clear that a warranty cannot be voided merely because an aftermarket part is installed on a vehicle.") See what you think, I'm inclinded to trust them because...its what I want to hear!<ul><li><a href="http://www.tap1.com/warranty/">Total Audi Performance warranty info</a></li></ul>

Benson

Brad: If you really want to get picky, you have to ask what the local acceleration is near 60, not the average. The speed vs. time plot gets less steep as speed increases so the decrease in time is actually more than you're estimating.

Brad Willis

nt

Brad Willis

As a former Police Officer and the son of a Law Professor, I certainly understand that common sense and the law are not necessarily one and the same. That having been said, TAP's stance does not seem to make sense, so far as I am concerned. Imagine the number of potential variables as relating to aftermarket equipment of whatever variety. The potential variables are almost infinite.<p>It is most impractical to require that Audi "prove" that defects were the direct result of an aftermarket part. The time and costs involved would be prohibitive. Therefore, it seems logical that the burden of proof would be on the vehicle's owner and/or whomever else might have taken some part in the modification.<p>Looking at things from a different angle, if you read the article that the father of this thread refered to, you would see that there is on heck of a lot of time and moey spent on the engineering of this engine. Why potentially invalidate all of that engineering and potentially your warranty by modifying the design.

Todd Templeton

You are wrong on this one Brad. The burden of proof is on Audi to prove that an aftermarket part was directly responsible for any damage done that they refuse warranty service for. It's the law. I don't remember the name of the law specifically, but I'm sure you can find out any information at the link below.<p>You are taking the side of the manufacturer, and that's fine, but just know that they made the bed they now lie in with situations like I am about to describe.<p>My wife had a VW CD changer in her new (then) '95 VW Cabrio which quit working. The dealer told my wife that they wouldn't replace it under warranty because of the aftermarket suspension we had installed. They said it cause the changer to stop working. I went to the dealership, reminded them of the law, and suddenly she had a brand new CD changer! Interestingly, when they took the old one out, it turned out that it had been installed with the horizontal/vertical orientation switch in the wrong position. That had made the internal suspension system of the changer a moot point. We left the dealership knowing that they had a lot of egg to clean off of those faces!<ul><li><a href="http://www.sema.org/fedleg/warranty/">Consumer Bill of Rights</a></li></ul>

Todd Templeton

nt

John Ireland

A rechipped ECU is not just an aftermarket replacement part, it is a significant change in the engine and emmissions management, and not done to replace a malfunctioning unit (that is still under warranty) but is done to increase horsepower. Horsepower produces heat...heat produces wear and tear...and anyone who thinks they are going to replace or alter a factory ECU and then get the manufacturer to pay for the damage...well you're in inhaling gasoline additives. Any increaase in horsepower in the amount we are discussing is a definite change in the vehicle design "gestalt"...and a manufacturer can easily prove that the dynamics of clutch wear, brake wear, axle and drive line wear, have all been accellerated by the additional horspower. Rule of logic says, if you want to play, be ready to pay.