RE: Audi S3 revelation: PH Blog

[BFleming]

jsc15 said:

BFleming said:

Neighbour's house...

exact same car, is he a journo?

Yeah, I think so. He generally doesn't share many cars with Harris though!

[Clivey]

nickfrog said:

Clive I don't think motorsport is his thing. He's only discovered track driving last tuesday.

nickfrog said:

I keep inviting him at the Ring for a chat and a couple of laps but he keeps ignoring me... I am there early May btw, Scherzkeks. Will you be there or are you revising the Haldex technical documentation ;-) ?

Oh btw, last time I checked, at least 2/3 rds of my N52 engine were behind the front axle so tarring all hatches with the same brush is not exactly fair...

The really frustrating thing with the smaller Audis (before MQB) in particular is that if done "properly", they could have been like mini-Nissan GTRs in terms of capability and performance. - Generally, AWD should give a massive advantage and if they really were as sophisticated as certain people would have you believe, they'd leave the competition a long way behind against the clock in most situations - just as the original Quattro did, despite the heavy nose, back in the '80s. That they don't and in some circumstances even get beaten by 2WD cars on greasy and/or wet tracks speaks volumes.

I like variety and If the 5-pot TT drove more like a Mini-R8, it would be as desirable to me as a straight six RWD BMW. I like variety and a broad automotive landscape...which brings me to the only negative in moving the engine back etc. etc.: You could say that the nose-heavy handling gave these cars character.

[Coddy85]

Actus Reus said:

The Golf R IS better, or at least as good, in every way, bar its interior.

So the only bit I would have to see constantly....

[Coddy85]

I'm torn between this and the S4, I think the A4 is due a version change soon, so I'm holding off another 6 months anyway.

I think the blend of economy, speed and the fantastic interior make this generation S3 a great buy. Depreciation is generally slower on "S" models, even more so if you spec Satnav, Bose/B&O etc. It would fall less than the 135i or the Golf R, I would imagine. I want one in Imola Yellow or one of the blues (I have Estoril Blue right now but would love Mugello or Sepang).

I've taken the local demo model out a few times now, love the S-tronic box as with my past 2 Audis. I love the exhaust pops when coming down the gears. But don't forget that Audi put speakers in the dash to amplify engine noise.

I take the point about money, my S3 spec comes out at nearly £40k!

[AGK]

jsc15 said:

Has anyone got any PCP examples from Audi for the 3-door S3? Deposit/monthly/APR etc

Looking to see what sort of ballpark they're in before I go and adopt the position for my trade-in offer, thanks

You're looking at a final value of 17k after 4 years on a 3 door DSG. APR is 6.8% or 7.1%.

[the-photographer]

scherzkeks said:

Clivey said:

My feeling is that they are describing every road car and every FWD/Haldex car ever made! What do you think?

Perhaps a discussion on the interplay between suspension design and wheelbase would be more productive than your "feelings."

Clivey said:

The RS3 has a boat anchor of an engine in front of the front axle, hence the need for wider front tyres, a stiff setup etc. etc.



This makes me shudder when I see it. - I mean; the whole engine is ahead of the axle FFS! The only thing they could have done worse is make it taller...oh, yeah they did that too. Also see the comment above about the TTS handling better than the RS. Now they've moved on to the MQB platform with, amongst other things, better weight distribution and a reduced front overhang is it a surprise the new cars (Golf R and S3) are much improved?

Here we go again. The engine position is the same as virtually every other sport compact on the market -- and from a handling standpoint, is even better than last-gen big Audis, where the entire engine really was ahead of the axle and positioned higher than the equivalent transverse app.

Also that "boat anchor" is particularly compact and weighs just 30 kg more than the newestlightweight TFSI in the 8V (the older one obviously being heavier). The RS also employed carbon fiber body panels up front to offset the marginal weight difference, and has the same weight bias same as the current S3.

Moving on...

From http://jalopnik.com/5163423/2010-audi-tt-rs-haben-...

Ultra compact, and weighing in at a low 183kg, the new TFSI engine is a perfect accompaniment to the lightweight aluminium and steel hybrid TT bodyshell, helping to keep the kerb weight of the RS Coupe down to 1,450kg. The New S3 is a little lighter at 1395Kg.

So, is 183Kg lots for a 4-cylinder turbo engine?

[the-photographer]

jsc15 said:

Has anyone got any PCP examples from Audi for the 3-door S3? Deposit/monthly/APR etc

Looking to see what sort of ballpark they're in before I go and adopt the position for my trade-in offer, thanks

See here for a 48(!) page thread about Golf R leasing (Audi cant be too different)

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

Say around £320p/m with £1900 deposit.

Edited by the-photographer on Wednesday 14th May 19:04

[the-photographer]

Some random figures from Autocar/Autoexpress

0-60

Golf 4.5sec
AMG 4.6sec
RS3 4.5sec

Golf only

1/4 mile 13.4 105mph
0 - 100 12sec
50-70 3rd 2.7sec

M135i

1/4 mile 14.0 107mph
0 - 100 12.2sec

[Actus Reus]

Coddy85 said:

Actus Reus said:

The Golf R IS better, or at least as good, in every way, bar its interior.

So the only bit I would have to see constantly....

Yes, but generally I drive my cars and don't just sit in them. But yes, Audi does interiors better than most. I still ordered the Golf.

[Adam B]

nonuts said:

LA167 said:

Leins said:

Chrome mirrors were an option on the original S3 IIRC

Chrome mirrors are standard, body coloured mirrors are a no cost option.

Can we just clear this one up, I don't know if they still are but on the original S3 they weren't Chrome they are solid aluminium and for that reason alone I used to really like them.

Ah go on then.

The first S3, the 8L model from1999-2003, had aluminium mirror casings as a COST option, was about £250. I remember as I imported one from Europe, the done thing at the time for anyone with sense, and was very pleased to see in Europe they were a NCO, so I saved a further £250.

They were solid aluminium as proved when an old biddy in a Volvo veered towards me and we clipped mirrors, hers exploded, not a scratch on mine!

[RoverP6B]

Clivey said:

Both.

One of the reasons I prefer the E46 3-Series over the newer models is the steering. Same with BMW Minis (R53 is better than the R56 - we've had 2 of the former and 3 of the latter in the family) and plenty of others. Not all electric steering is terrible - it can suit a car's character. I liked the systems in the Citroen C4, C6 and Jaguar XF but all of the standout cars I've driven have had feelsome hydraulic systems.

Clivey, just to let you know, the Jaguar XF, like all current JLR products as far as I am aware, uses hydraulic assistance.

the-photographer said:

So, is 183Kg lots for a 4-cylinder turbo engine?

When GM's 7-litre LS7 V8 is 175kg... you flippin' bet it is! It's reasonable to suggest that a 4-cylinder based on the LS7 would weigh about 120kg - and that would be a 3.5 litre engine still! No forced induction of course, and the LS7 only makes 72bhp/litre stock (under half the Audi's specific output) - but then it's an engine designed for extremely long service intervals and/or extreme levels of tuning, with a forged steel crank and titanium con-rods - it's possible to get huge power gains even without forced induction (and, with it, distinctly the wrong side of 1000bhp is easily achievable). So, I understand the Audi engine is quite highly strung, it has to take a lot of boost etc - but can I understand it weighing THAT much? Not really! My BMW M54B22 2171cc straight six is 170kg for what it's worth - and a good two thirds of it is behind the front axle...

Somewhat puzzled to see Harris enthused by the latest Ingoldstadt dishwasher. Everything I've heard of the new S3, including from a friend who test-drove one (he's very pro-Audi btw), is that it's completely dull, numb, lacking adjustability and otherwise more of the same from Quattro GMBH.

[Dave Hedgehog]

Contigo said:

But lost alot of the S/RS charisma unfortunately. I don't think you can beat the B5 era RS's

the B5 RS4 was not very good, I owned number 11, under steered far worse than any of the later cars and pretty much devoid of any feedback / feel, with a great pudding shifter of a stick

great engine thou

[Actus Reus]

the-photographer said:

See here for a 48(!) page thread about Golf R leasing (Audi cant be too different)

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

Say around £320p/m with £1900 deposit.

Edited by the-photographer on Wednesday 14th May 19:04

When I looked an Audi was about 60% more - though VW prices will have come upwards somewhat since then.

[the-photographer]

RoverP6B said:

the-photographer said:

So, is 183Kg lots for a 4-cylinder turbo engine?

When GM's 7-litre LS7 V8 is 175kg... you flippin' bet it is! It's reasonable to suggest that a 4-cylinder based on the LS7 would weigh about 120kg - and that would be a 3.5 litre engine still! No forced induction of course, and the LS7 only makes 72bhp/litre stock (under half the Audi's specific output) - but then it's an engine designed for extremely long service intervals and/or extreme levels of tuning, with a forged steel crank and titanium con-rods - it's possible to get huge power gains even without forced induction (and, with it, distinctly the wrong side of 1000bhp is easily achievable). So, I understand the Audi engine is quite highly strung, it has to take a lot of boost etc - but can I understand it weighing THAT much? Not really! My BMW M54B22 2171cc straight six is 170kg for what it's worth - and a good two thirds of it is behind the front axle...

Thanks for the info, is that GM engine all alloy?

I suspect much of the 183Kg comes from Audi using grey cast iron for the block.

The smaller 1.8T is only 131Kg.

[RoverP6B]

the-photographer said:

Thanks for the info, is that GM engine all alloy?

I suspect much of the 183Kg comes from Audi using grey cast iron for the block.

The smaller 1.8T is only 131Kg.

Yeah, it's all alloy. Surprised at Audi using grey iron rather than compacted graphite iron which is much stronger and lighter - but more expensive.

I suppose that the GM engine being overhead-valve, cam-in-block will also make a significant difference. Lighter heads. That might explain how it, as a 7-litre V8, weighs only 5kg more than my (also all-alloy) DOHC 2.2l straight six.

[twoblacklines]

Would be a hard choice for me between used RS3 and nearly new 8V S3.

Consider an RS3 can be tuned to a reliable 470hp and the limit currently of the 8V is a remap so around 360hp, 110hp more to the RS3.... What would you pick between the two?

[Adam B]

Dave Hedgehog said:

the B5 RS4 was not very good, I owned number 11, under steered far worse than any of the later cars and pretty much devoid of any feedback / feel, with a great pudding shifter of a stick

great engine thou

Still look bloody cool though, unlike the M3 of the same era

[RoverP6B]

Adam B said:

Still look bloody cool though, unlike the M3 of the same era

Excuse me, since when has any M3 not looked the dog's bks?