Originally posted by SpectraBlueIS300:
Ugh, do not get a bra, they are UGLY...
Take it from another IS 300 owner who has the Xpel, they are well worth the money.
SpectraBlueis300, do you have any pics of the Xpel application? Did you get both the top section and the bottom section. I think the top part is $99 and the bottom $149? My dealer told me that they have the IS300 BRA in stock so they do make it for the car. But how does it look? Bra better investment?
Just for your information........the intake and ECU is 595.00Originally posted by YELLLEX:
QuikVR6 thanks for the web site but over $400 for plastic? Don't know about that. It's just as bad as the $700 IS intake. I don't care if it has an ECU or not. Just my 2 cents on that guys. I know people are touchy. Also QuikVR6 I just sold my Denim BLUE TT. The car is AWESOME but no IS300 IMO.
In which way isn't it an IS300? Could it be space and cargo volume? because I would think that is the only lead the IS300 has over an Audi TT.Originally posted by YELLLEX:
Also QuikVR6 I just sold my Denim BLUE TT. The car is AWESOME but no IS300 IMO.
Originally posted by QuikVR6:
1.8 liter turbocharged 225hp 4 cylinder.
Quattro all-wheel drive.
Same model I had. GREAT car. Just no IS300.
See what I mean about the intake. That was just my OPINION. When it's all said and done it will run ya $700!!
Not to start a war, but there are a few other reasons why someone may prefer the IS300:Originally posted by QuikVR6:
In what way isn't better than the IS300?
Originally posted by DtEW:
Not to start a war, but there are a few other reasons why someone may prefer the IS300:
1. Reliability. Toyota/Lexus vehicles are well known as being as reliable as it gets. Not to say that Audi's aren't reliable, but they certainly aren't regarded as highly in that respect.
2. 215hp naturally-aspirated engine. Again, turbo engines are in general less reliable than NA engines. This is of course a non-issue right now, but it'll figure 5-7 years down the line, right about when many people will be unloading these older cars for new cars. It will be an issue for maintaining resale value.
3. Dedicated platform. And as we all know the TT Quattro's platform is based on the A3/Golf, which was originally penned as a FWD platform (which explains why it's the only Audi with a transverse engine orientation), but with a viscous (electrohydraulic) coupling, driveshaft, and rear axle grafted a la Mitsubishi Eclipse. Some people prefer non-adapted designs, not that adapted designs are necessarily lessers.
4. Not AWD. Although it is commonly agreed that AWD is the way to extract maximum performance when power is "more than adequate" and traction is the limiting factor, the 225hp/3274lbs of the TT Quattro is "well-powered", but certainly not R34 GT-S or Lancer EVO VI "well-powered". That's not to say that it doesn't help, but that fair weather advantages aren't all that major, if at all.
5. RWD. Again, AWD is the accepted method of extracting maximum performance when traction is a limiting factor relative to huge engine power. But its also common knowledge that many enthusiasts prefer the feel of RWD at more plebian power levels, especially for having the option of provoking low-to-mid speed power oversteer (think switchbacks), which is just about impossible to do with plebian-powered AWD.
And do remember that 0-60 in 6.3sec is for the manual version of the TT Quattro. The upcoming manual version of the IS300 will do that in 6.5sec. Not bad for being able to seat 4-5 adults.
THANK YOU DtEW!! Finally! Someone that knows what I was trying to say. You did not start a war. You've educated those that have questions! Very well. Enough said.