RE: Battle for the B-road: WRX STI vs S3 saloon

[iloveboost]

Mr Whippy said:

This is exactly why the day to day driving is so important... and if you're fancy 'sports' shopping car is no different to the diesel ones with half the power and price in this job, then it's just a waste from my viewpoint.

Why bother?

I'd rather run a diesel A3 saloon and be building an Ultima GTR in the garage with the change!

Dave

I think you're only 54.23% serious, as it's a different market, but that's what some people do. Personally at some point (hopefully in the next few years) I'll modify an existing car to be good on regular track days, but still usable on the road. I know you need 'specialist' insurance for that as well, but track days are the safe, legal solution to everything.
Problem is that I think if I went on a track day every week, people would tell them I need to find an exciting but far cheaper hobby. Like base jumping.

[Mr Whippy]

iloveboost said:

I think you're only 54.23% serious, as it's a different market, but that's what some people do. Personally at some point (hopefully in the next few years) I'll modify an existing car to be good on regular track days, but still usable on the road. I know you need 'specialist' insurance for that as well, but track days are the safe, legal solution to everything.
Problem is that I think if I went on a track day every week, people would tell them I need to find an exciting but far cheaper hobby. Like base jumping.

I'm not sure I enjoy track driving. Setting a fast lap time is fun but it's not what track days are for.

To be competitive is another thing entirely.


So to just enjoy great cars, roads are just as good. It doesn't mean you have to drive stupidly fast or anything. All it needs is the right car that is enjoyable to drive.


That is the fundamental problem with cars like the S3 for me.

Then again I suppose lots of people maybe live around boring roads so an automatic cruiser type thing is more preferable to other stuff.


Just for me I think the products on offer for someone who wants a decent drivers every day car are getting pretty thin on the ground. The Scooby here should be celebrated.

I also think it's a joke that the S3 has 40mpg quoted efficiency.

The Euro/mpg thing needs fixing. What VAG are doing is essentially cheating the test which makes a mockery of the entire system of taxation on these vehicles 'greeness'

Dave

[Alucidnation]

Don't you get bored repeating yourself?

[Mr Whippy]

Alucidnation said:

Don't you get bored repeating yourself?

No.

No.

[DanielSan]

Every manufacturer is cheating the EU bullst mpg test though.

[Driver101]

DanielSan said:

Every manufacturer is cheating the EU bullst mpg test though.

There is some far more guilty than others.

I'm sure everyone expects not to achieve the claimed figures by a little margin, but when you are told over 40mpg average and only see 25mpg, that's far too far out. Probably one of the worst claimed to real life figures you will see.

I'm confused why people still defend it. You'll get someone posting a screenshot soon to prove 40mpg is possible. However they've driven a very easy trip nursing it to the absolute maximum and can't repeat the figures driving normally in mixed conditions.

The S3 saloon is a good looking car. I really like the one posted earlier in the thread.

[MC Bodge]

Mr Whippy said:

This is exactly why the day to day driving is so important... and if your fancy 'sports' shopping car is no different to the diesel ones with half the power and price in this job, then it's just a waste from my viewpoint.

Why bother?

I'd rather run a diesel A3 saloon and be building an Ultima GTR in the garage with the change!

I agree. A lot of people buy cars for the perceived prestige (although is there that much image difference between an S-line and an S to the general public?) and don't make much use of the capabilities (or even seek out opportunities or the ability to do so). I'm must be old, but I now realise that the driver/driving is more important than the car.

A competent car on decent rubber that you don't worry about scratching on an overgrown hedgerow on the local roads and is good on the motorway is my ideal daily driver.

... although I don't have an Ultima kit car in the garage -but I do have a Street Triple, which isn't a bad value substitute.

[Konan]

GravelBen said:

The Subaru is probably better built too, even if the interior materials don't feel as expensive.

The old ones seam to do OK after being subjected to 15 years of being driven around dirt tracks by a farmer with no concept of what a service is.

[Ved]

I'd choose the Subaru. Despite me now having three on the driveway now I've had various other brands and before buying the latest one (3.0R Outback, since you ask) I was strongly considering a new C class and 3 series. The interior design isn't as fancy but the materials are far from second class. And I know it'll look the same in 10 years time. The current non-WRX cars are let down by their awful range of engines but the engineering and overall quality remains very high for me. Badge snobs need not apply.

[Gompo]

Article said:

It's down 20lb ft on torque compared with the Subaru but subjectively pulls harder, its peak at just 1,800rpm compared with the WRX STI's 300lb ft at 4,200rpm.

This means it can pull away from the Subaru out of the corners.

This thing annoys me a little.

Can pull away, yes. But get any car in the wrong gear and you could be left for dead. If you were trying ('racing'), wouldn't the Subaru be in the higher rev range anyway and getting the full 300lb/ft? The driver knowing the strengths/weaknesses.

[nickfrog]

Indeed. Torque is quite misunderstood. The basic equation too, power = torque * rpm. I had a seized bolt on my bike and applied loads of torque. Zero movement.

[Konan]

nickfrog said:

Indeed. Torque is quite misunderstood.

By just about everyone that tries to explain that their Diesel is a supercar.

[big_rob_sydney]

Drivers car vs accountants car.

Subaru all the way.

[Mr Whippy]

Driver101 said:

There is some far more guilty than others.

I'm sure everyone expects not to achieve the claimed figures by a little margin, but when you are told over 40mpg average and only see 25mpg, that's far too far out. Probably one of the worst claimed to real life figures you will see.

I'm confused why people still defend it. You'll get someone posting a screenshot soon to prove 40mpg is possible. However they've driven a very easy trip nursing it to the absolute maximum and can't repeat the figures driving normally in mixed conditions.

The S3 saloon is a good looking car. I really like the one posted earlier in the thread.

On a run in my Z4, if I take it steady, I can get about 50mpg.

But average day to day on the hilly dales roads I use, about 27mpg.

But a reasonable average on a good mix of driving and it sees about 31mpg... exactly the book mpg figure! Wow



The test should be re-made to basically do about 200 miles of mixed driving, and include elements of accelerating at full throttle, not just pre-set rates. Ie, more powerful cars will use more of their power at certain stages because that WILL happen in real life... otherwise buy a 300bhp car if you still only accelerate at 75bhp worth of power output on the testing?

Dave

[macky17]

KarlMac said:

Still shocked and surprised the STI still carries the chav label. Round here there is nothing more council than a white audi.

Agreed.

Big wings, scoops, vents = fun imo. The scoob isn't a chav's car, it's a car for people comfortable in their own skin who love something which looks as fast as it is.

The irony is that genuine chavs seem to choose dull 'classy' German crap these days in a futile attempt to disguise themselves. It's called compensating.

[iloveboost]

nickfrog said:

Indeed. Torque is quite misunderstood. The basic equation too, power = torque * rpm. I had a seized bolt on my bike and applied loads of torque. Zero movement.

Yes and many years ago I used to think that if you only had one gear torque was all that mattered! However you need to have no gears at all for only torque at the engine to matter, as torque at the wheels comes from power and gearing.
I guess you could say 'an engine with more lb/ft than hp produces more power below max power, than an engine with less lb/ft and more hp, and the opposite is true.' Thing is we all know what a high/low torque engine means in practice.

[iloveboost]

Driver101 said:

There is some far more guilty than others.

I'm sure everyone expects not to achieve the claimed figures by a little margin, but when you are told over 40mpg average and only see 25mpg, that's far too far out. Probably one of the worst claimed to real life figures you will see.

I'm confused why people still defend it. You'll get someone posting a screenshot soon to prove 40mpg is possible. However they've driven a very easy trip nursing it to the absolute maximum and can't repeat the figures driving normally in mixed conditions.

The S3 saloon is a good looking car. I really like the one posted earlier in the thread.

I think (I'm not an engineer, etc) that the test has always been an indication of fuel economy, as a basis for comparisons. However as technology has moved on the test hasn't been re-designed to compensate for those changes, making it less and less accurate.
Turbo cars will be further away from the claimed figures than non-turbo cars, as they're not as efficient on boost, but in tests they're never really producing boost. I think start-stop will be even further away from the claimed figures, as some tests are carried out with a hot engine. For hybrids the test must also be even less accurate, as the cars always have fully charged batteries. Also the rate of acceleration is so low that they never use the petrol engine.
It's been debated a million times on here, but I think the reality is that whatever the test figures, a car with a similar transmission, engine capacity and compression ratio will have similar fuel economy.

[Clivey]

nickfrog said:

The M135i LCI is a decent improvement looks wise, even though those things remain subjective (I love the way they look even pre-FL compared to the above cars).

It happens to provide the best driving experience too (subjectively) out of that lot, so win-win for me ! It's also the cheapest.

I thought I was alone in liking the pre-LCI M135i's looks!

Having said that, the power upgrade etc. means it'd have to be a LCI car for me. I'd love to see a decent M135i LCI (with LSD) vs Golf R track test.

[Axionknight]

Gompo said:

This thing annoys me a little.

Can pull away, yes. But get any car in the wrong gear and you could be left for dead. If you were trying ('racing'), wouldn't the Subaru be in the higher rev range anyway and getting the full 300lb/ft? The driver knowing the strengths/weaknesses.

Exactly!

Imagine racing someone and changing down a gear to get the revs up and the turbo blowing!

Perish the though.

[Dblue]

nickfrog said:

British Beef said:

Focus RS will definately put the cat amongst the pigeons.

For my £30k - #35k :
Focus RS 1st, (assumption without driving!)
Scooby 2nd,
Golf R 3rd,
Drove S3 and too dull and BMW 135 just too ugly

It happens to provide the best driving experience too (subjectively) out of that lot, so win-win for me ! It's also the cheapest.

]

Edited by nickfrog on Thursday 9th April 22:31

I haven't read a single test of the Golf R against the M135i that had the BMW ahead.So whilst I agree about it being subjective its not proving a popular opinion when the 2 cars are driven back to back.