AUDI TTS Roadster (8J) · Facelift 2010
Car comparison
AUDI TTS Roadster (8J) · Facelift 2010 2.0 TFSIvsKTM X-Bow GT 2.0 Turbo
Compare specs, acceleration, fuel consumption, dimensions, practicality, and estimated running costs side by side.
New comparisonKTM X-Bow GT
2.0 Turbo
Comparison overview
Use the estimates as comparison hints and verify exact figures before making decisions.
Best choices
KTM X-Bow GT 2.0 Turbo
- Quickest 0-100 km/h4.1 s
- Most powerful285 hp213 kW
- Highest torque420 Nm310 lb-ft
- Lightest847 kg1,867 lb
- Best power-to-weight336 hp/t251 kW/t3.0 kg/hp
- Best overall score55/100
- Best performance score68/100
AUDI TTS Roadster (8J) Facelift 2010 2.0 TFSI
- Fastest top speed260 km/h162 mph Unrestricted250 km/h155 mph Restricted
- Lowest combined fuel consumption8.1 L/100 km29.0 mpg US34.9 mpg UK
- Best estimated range741 km460 mi
- Best economy score85/100
- Best practicality score30/100
Specification comparison
| Model | AUDITTS Roadster (8J)Facelift 20102.0 TFSI | KTMX-Bow GT2.0 Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| Power | 272hp203kW | 285hp213kW |
| Torque | 350Nm258lb-ft | 420Nm310lb-ft |
| Curb weight | 1,455kg3,208lb | 847kg1,867lb |
| Gross weight | 1,775kg3,913lb | - |
| Top speed | Unrestricted 260 km/h162 mph Restricted 250 km/h155 mph Calculated | 231 km/h 144 mph |
| To 99% top speed | 74.8s99% target: 257 km/h / 160 mph Calculated | 43.1s99% target: 229 km/h / 142 mph Calculated |
| 0-100 km/h | 5.6s | 4.1s |
| 0-200 km/h | 20.0s Calculated | 17.0s Calculated |
| 0-60 mph | 5.3s Calculated | 3.9s Calculated |
| Fuel consumption | 8.1L/100 km29mpg US34.9mpg UK | 8.3L/100 km28.3mpg US34.0mpg UK |
| Fuel consumption city | 10.9L/100 km21.6mpg US25.9mpg UK | - |
| Fuel consumption highway | 6.4L/100 km36.8mpg US44.1mpg UK | - |
| Quarter mile | 13.7s Calculated | 12.3s Calculated |
| Power-to-weight | 187hp/t139kW/t85hp/1000 lb Calculated | 336hp/t251kW/t153hp/1000 lb Calculated |
| Torque-to-weight | 241Nm/t161lb-ft/ton Calculated | 496Nm/t332lb-ft/ton Calculated |
| Estimated range | 741km460mi Calculated | 482km299mi Calculated |
| Displacement | 1,984cc121cu in | 1,984cc121cu in |
| Length | 4,198mm165in | 3,738mm147in |
| Width | 1,842mm73in | 1,915mm75in |
| Height | 1,350mm53in | 1,202mm47in |
| Wheelbase | 2,468mm97in | 2,430mm96in |
| Front track | 1,555mm61in | 1,672mm66in |
| Rear track | 1,546mm61in | 1,626mm64in |
| Trunk volume | 250L | - |
| Doors | 2 | - |
| Seats | 2 | 2 |
| Fuel tank | 60L | 40L |
| CO2 emissions | - | 189g/km |
Performance charts
Use the estimates as comparison hints and verify exact figures before making decisions.
Dyno simulation
Estimated stock-style power and torque curves by engine speed.
- AUDI TTS Roadster (8J) Facelift 2010 2.0 TFSI: Power / Torque
- KTM X-Bow GT 2.0 Turbo: Power / Torque
| Vehicle | Peak power RPM | Peak torque RPM | Max engine speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| AUDITTS Roadster (8J)Facelift 20102.0 TFSI | 6,000 rpm | 2,500-5,000 rpm | 6,250 rpm |
| KTMX-Bow GT2.0 Turbo | 6,400 rpm | 3,200 rpm | 6,650 rpm |
Acceleration curve
Estimated speed over time for selected vehicles.
| Metric | AUDITTS Roadster (8J)Facelift 20102.0 TFSI | KTMX-Bow GT2.0 Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| Acceleration checkpoints | ||
0-60 mph 0-97 km/h | 5.3 s | 3.9 s |
0-100 km/h 0-62 mph | 5.6 s | 4.1 s |
0-200 km/h 0-124 mph | 20.0 s | 17.0 s |
| Top speed | Unrestricted 260 km/h162 mph Restricted 250 km/h155 mph Limited | 231 km/h 144 mph |
| Drag race simulation | ||
60 ft 18 m | 2.3 s | 2.0 s |
330 ft 101 m | 6.0 s | 5.3 s |
1/8 mile 201 m | 9.0 s | 8.0 s |
1000 ft 305 m | 11.6 s | 10.3 s |
1/4 mile 402 m | 13.7 s | 12.3 s |
Trap speed 1/4 mile 402 m | 170 km/h 105 mph | 180 km/h 112 mph |
Power comparison
Bar comparison chart for Power. Higher is better · hp / kW
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| AUDITTS Roadster (8J)Facelift 20102.0 TFSI | 272 hp 203 kW |
| KTMX-Bow GT2.0 Turbo | 285 hp 213 kW |
KTM X-Bow GT 2.0 Turbo has 13 hp more than AUDI TTS Roadster (8J) Facelift 2010 2.0 TFSI.
The biggest power difference is between AUDI TTS Roadster (8J) Facelift 2010 2.0 TFSI and KTM X-Bow GT 2.0 Turbo: 13 hp (10 kW).
Torque comparison
Bar comparison chart for Torque. Higher is better · Nm / lb-ft
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| AUDITTS Roadster (8J)Facelift 20102.0 TFSI | 350 Nm 258 lb-ft |
| KTMX-Bow GT2.0 Turbo | 420 Nm 310 lb-ft |
Curb weight comparison
Bar comparison chart for Curb weight. Lower is better · kg / lb
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| AUDITTS Roadster (8J)Facelift 20102.0 TFSI | 1,455 kg 3,208 lb |
| KTMX-Bow GT2.0 Turbo | 847 kg 1,867 lb |
Top speed without limiter comparison
Bar comparison chart for Top speed without limiter. Higher is better · km/h / mph
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| AUDITTS Roadster (8J)Facelift 20102.0 TFSI | Unrestricted 260 km/h162 mph Restricted 250 km/h155 mph |
| KTMX-Bow GT2.0 Turbo | 231 km/h 144 mph |
0-100 km/h comparison
Bar comparison chart for 0-100 km/h. Lower is better · seconds
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| AUDITTS Roadster (8J)Facelift 20102.0 TFSI | 5.6 s |
| KTMX-Bow GT2.0 Turbo | 4.1 s |
The biggest 0-100 km/h difference is between KTM X-Bow GT 2.0 Turbo and AUDI TTS Roadster (8J) Facelift 2010 2.0 TFSI: 1.5 s.
Fuel consumption comparison
Bar comparison chart for Fuel consumption. Lower is better · L/100 km / mpg US / mpg UK
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| AUDITTS Roadster (8J)Facelift 20102.0 TFSI | 8.1 L/100 km 29.0 mpg US 34.9 mpg UK |
| KTMX-Bow GT2.0 Turbo | 8.3 L/100 km 28.3 mpg US 34.0 mpg UK |
Power-to-weight comparison
Bar comparison chart for Power-to-weight. Higher is better · hp/t / kW/t
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| AUDITTS Roadster (8J)Facelift 20102.0 TFSI | 187 hp/t 139 kW/t 5.3 kg/hp |
| KTMX-Bow GT2.0 Turbo | 336 hp/t 251 kW/t 3.0 kg/hp |
Estimated range comparison
Bar comparison chart for Estimated range. Higher is better · km / mi
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| AUDITTS Roadster (8J)Facelift 20102.0 TFSI | 741 km 460 mi |
| KTMX-Bow GT2.0 Turbo | 482 km 299 mi |
Performance spider chart
Radar chart comparing normalized performance and fuel-consumption scores.
| Vehicle | Power | Acceleration | Top speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| AUDITTS Roadster (8J)Facelift 20102.0 TFSI | 272 hp 203 kW | 5.6 s | Unrestricted 260 km/h162 mph Restricted 250 km/h155 mph |
| KTMX-Bow GT2.0 Turbo | 285 hp 213 kW | 4.1 s | 231 km/h 144 mph |
Most attractive quadrant
Scatter chart with performance score on the X axis and practicality score on the Y axis.
| Vehicle | Performance score | Practicality score | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AUDITTS Roadster (8J)Facelift 20102.0 TFSI |
|
| ||||||||||||||
| KTMX-Bow GT2.0 Turbo |
|
| ||||||||||||||
Performance vs fuel economy
Cars closer to the top-right corner combine stronger performance with better fuel economy scores.
| Vehicle | Performance score | Fuel economy score | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AUDITTS Roadster (8J)Facelift 20102.0 TFSI |
| 8.1 L/100 km 29.0 mpg US 34.9 mpg UK | ||||||
| KTMX-Bow GT2.0 Turbo |
| 8.3 L/100 km 28.3 mpg US 34.0 mpg UK | ||||||
KTM X-Bow GT 2.0 Turbo is closest to the top-right balance target for performance and fuel economy.
Acceleration vs fuel consumption
Cars closer to the lower-left corner offer a better mix of quick acceleration and low fuel consumption.
| Vehicle | Fuel consumption, L/100 km | 0-100 km/h, s |
|---|---|---|
| AUDITTS Roadster (8J)Facelift 20102.0 TFSI | 8.1 L/100 km 29.0 mpg US 34.9 mpg UK | 5.6 s |
| KTMX-Bow GT2.0 Turbo | 8.3 L/100 km 28.3 mpg US 34.0 mpg UK | 4.1 s |
Power-to-weight vs fuel consumption
The shaded area favors higher power-to-weight with lower combined fuel consumption.
| Vehicle | Power-to-weight, hp/t | Fuel consumption, L/100 km |
|---|---|---|
| AUDITTS Roadster (8J)Facelift 20102.0 TFSI | 187 hp/t 139 kW/t 5.3 kg/hp | 8.1 L/100 km 29.0 mpg US 34.9 mpg UK |
| KTMX-Bow GT2.0 Turbo | 336 hp/t 251 kW/t 3.0 kg/hp | 8.3 L/100 km 28.3 mpg US 34.0 mpg UK |
Detailed score breakdown
| Vehicle | AUDITTS Roadster (8J)Facelift 20102.0 TFSI | KTMX-Bow GT2.0 Turbo | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power | 272 hp 203 kW | 285 hp 213 kW | ||||||||||||||||
| Torque | 350 Nm 258 lb-ft | 420 Nm 310 lb-ft | ||||||||||||||||
| Acceleration | 5.6 s | 4.1 s | ||||||||||||||||
| Top speed | Unrestricted 260 km/h162 mph Restricted 250 km/h155 mph | 231 km/h 144 mph | ||||||||||||||||
| Lightness | 1,455 kg 3,208 lb | 847 kg 1,867 lb | ||||||||||||||||
| Fuel consumption | 8.1 L/100 km 29.0 mpg US 34.9 mpg UK | 8.3 L/100 km 28.3 mpg US 34.0 mpg UK | ||||||||||||||||
| Practicality |
|
| ||||||||||||||||
| Range score | 741 km 460 mi | 482 km 299 mi | ||||||||||||||||
| CO2 score | - | 189 g/km | ||||||||||||||||
| Trunk score | 250 L 8.8 cu ft | - | ||||||||||||||||
| Power-to-weight score | 187 hp/t 139 kW/t 5.3 kg/hp | 336 hp/t 251 kW/t 3.0 kg/hp | ||||||||||||||||
| Overall | Fixed score | Fixed score |
Fuel cost and annual usage
Estimate running costs from combined consumption, your annual distance, and the fuel price in your local currency.
Enter the fuel price in your local currency, for example €/L, $/gal, £/L or any other local currency.
LC = Local Currency
| Vehicle | AUDI TTS Roadster (8J) Facelift 2010 2.0 TFSI | KTM X-Bow GT 2.0 Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| Consumption | 8.1 L/100 km29 mpg US34.9 mpg UK | 8.3 L/100 km28.3 mpg US34 mpg UK |
| Cost / 100 km | 14.17 LC100 km | 14.53 LC100 km |
| Cost / 100 mi | 22.81 LC100 mi | 23.38 LC100 mi |
| Annual fuel used | 1,215 L321 US gal267 UK gal | 1,245 L329 US gal274 UK gal |
| Annual fuel cost | 2,126 LC/year | 2,179 LC/year |
Head-to-head comparisons
AUDI TTS Roadster (8J) Facelift 2010 2.0 TFSI
- Has 29 km/h (18 mph) higher top speed
- Uses 0.2 L/100 km less fuel
- Has 259 km (161 mi) more estimated range
Pros
- Highest top speed
- Lowest combined fuel consumption
- Best estimated range
Cons
- Slowest 0-100 km/h
- Lowest power
- Heaviest
KTM X-Bow GT 2.0 Turbo
- Has 13 hp more
- Has 70 Nm more
- Is 608 kg lighter
- Is 1.5 s quicker from 0-100 km/h
- Has 150 hp/t better power-to-weight
Pros
- Quickest 0-100 km/h in this comparison
- Most powerful
- Highest torque
- Lightest
- Best power-to-weight ratio
Cons
- Highest combined fuel consumption
- Lowest top speed
Choose cars to compare
Popular comparisons























