<img src="http://www.autoweek.nl/images/800/5/8ab1479b932d6088ff0e3b216bb44775.jpg">
<img src="http://www.autoweek.nl/images/800/b/08c33accac59595eb71caaff21afab9b.jpg">
<img src="http://www.autoweek.nl/images/800/6/14a05984608647a945bfbbae39a44b96.jpg">
<img src="http://www.autoweek.nl/images/800/3/85bd8066196811afae6fbdd620c9ee23.jpg">
<img src="http://www.autoweek.nl/images/800/f/3aca5a3c3ec24bc976f739230ad246ff.jpg">
<img src="http://www.autoweek.nl/images/800/8/6e2e33884b453f64a2af0b3ecc6c7e98.jpg">

<center><img src="http://cars.msn.co.uk/pidl/113649209/auditt13.jpg"></center><p>Here is an site view aspect of the S-Line body kit.
If you take a look you can see differences.
To start with the S-Line logo on the front fender/mudgard.
Furthermore is the rear bumper so differently that you no longer can see the exhaust like it is the case at the ordinary TT Mk2.
Also the front bumper have much improved IMHO.

Hans.

Here is the one on the new TT.

<img src="http://www.autoweek.nl/images/800/8/6e2e33884b453f64a2af0b3ecc6c7e98.jpg">



The one on the Cayman is so clean and simple (plus it looks even better in person)...Audi could have just copied P-car and not even of had to work so hard to design something that's so inferior:

<img src="http://www.autoblog.it/uploads/porsche_cayman_s_uff_spoiler.jpg">

...<font color="003366"> the rear bulkhead it can take whatever space is needed to raise and lower the spoiler to its requisite height. All they have to do is protect for the struts and the motor/mechanism to actuate them. On the other hand the TT's rear spoiler has to fit into a rear hatch/trunk lid while preserving as much cargo space as possible. The packaging and weight limitations of this forced the scissor link. rather than soemthing like the rising struts on the Porsche.

It's all part of Automotive Packaging 101.</font>

. . . and German design can do better? The damn thing almost works, but for that set of headlamps and an overpronounced rear bumper that approaches the Eclipse in "too much". Will the RS get a more radical/individual treatment?

<ul><li><a href="http://www.autovisie.nl/redactioneel/fotos/fotohoek/film_audi_tt/">CLICK HERE FOR THE MOVIE!!!</a></li></ul>

The TT wing moves in path very much different from the simple up-down motion of the Porsche Cayman wing. The Audi's wing changes in angle of attack, vertical height and in the horizontal plane. I really doubt this complex range of motion could have been accomplished with a simpler, and more elegant approach, especially considering the packaging requirements of mounting a moveable wing on hatch. Some may argue that a cover could be placed over the "offending" mechanism similar to that found on the Porsche 911; however, the 911 spoiler allows for air flow to bleed into the engine compartment. One of Audi's core competences is in aerodynamics and this is reflected in the design of the wing.

Some, again, may argue that the original TT was aerodynamically flawed and required the use of a spoiler. All product development is a series of compromises. Some time one group wins at the expense of the others. The original TT was/is stable but the could exhibit drop-throttle oversteer if ineptly handled. The solution, in essence, was to dumb down the handling by modifying the front control arms, decreasing rear lift, and adding a stability control program to the automobile. This "dumbing down" of the acute handling of the original TT is reflected in the negative comments about the TT's handling made by the press over the product life.

The TT mkII definitely reflects less compromise made regarding engineering and technology. This time around the designers did the bulk of the compromising.

-J