This new RS3...

[Axionknight]

I work in Aberdeen too, BoD, and the plague of diesel Audis is truly incredible.

fk them all, I say, but mainly because I'm a miserable sod.

[Camoradi]

kmpowell said:

It's a very valid point indeed. I for one recently bought a new outgoing B8 RS4 because of the Quattro, choosing it over the new C63. If you look at the on-paper stats the C63 should annihilate the RS4... however, throw British weather into the mix and it changes the story completely. Point to point I think it's the perfect family estate suitable for everything this country can throw at it.

If you want proof, here you go... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VvRLMMMO48

cough... Steve Sutcliffe recommends the C63 over the Audi at the end of the video It isn't always raining here.

[Chiefbadger]

Camoradi said:

cough... Steve Sutcliffe recommends the C63 over the Audi at the end of the video It isn't always raining here.

He also refers to the previous generation RS4 as the 'B4' so has clearly done his homework

[topless360]

I actually test drove the new RS3 this weekend, shortly after I had a go in the A45 AMG. I've traditionally been a bit of an Audi hater so I surprised myself with my feedback.

Many comments on this thread complain about the price, but it really is £10k more car than it's rivals. It felt savagely fast compared to the A45 which actually felt lacking in straight line performance. The interior is also a much nicer place to sit, and the engine sounds miles better than any of the 4 pot hot hatches.

During the test drive we ended up behind the new Civic Type R with a clear bit of road in front. Assuming the other driver was using full revs, the RS3 is comfortably quicker.

One thing I would say is that the fuel consumption is shocking. The test drive was around 30 minutes, a mix of enthusiastic driving and gentle cruising and we achieved 13.6mpg (I reset it before the test drive). I'm fairly sure my V8 Ferrari will do better.

The test drives did make me realise that maybe a Hot Hatch isn't what I personally need right now, but if I was in the market for one the RS3 would be top of my list.

With regards to understeer, if you drive to within reasonable limits on the road it really isn't noticeable. And you wouldn't really take a car like that on the track, so the comments are irrelevant for road driving.

[Conscript]

Tickle said:

Blanchimont said:

What I don't understand is that why (I presume) Audi use the haldex system. Why not charge a little more (it's 40k basic, why worry about an extra 2k) and put the proper Quattro system the use in the R8 and the RS6; cars which don't suffer from understeer.

In the case of the R8, recalibrate it a little so it's predominantly Rear driven, but then send up to 50% to the front, rather than the 30% the R8 sends that way.
It baffles me.

IMHO Audi know there target market aren't to bothered if it understeers.

I was going to say, is the understeer going to be noticeable driving on the road? Unless you're absolutely going for it, I'd suspect not. In which case, I doubt many would even care.

The RS3 doesn't particularly interest me, but I wonder if the fact that it has a bit of understeer is really a massive problem. Or am I mistaken and it's noticeable on the road as well?

EDIT: According to the above post, I guess not

[Quickmoose]

topless360 said:

I actually test drove the new RS3 this weekend, shortly after I had a go in the A45 AMG. I've traditionally been a bit of an Audi hater so I surprised myself with my feedback.

Many comments on this thread complain about the price, but it really is £10k more car than it's rivals. It felt savagely fast compared to the A45 which actually felt lacking in straight line performance. The interior is also a much nicer place to sit, and the engine sounds miles better than any of the 4 pot hot hatches.

During the test drive we ended up behind the new Civic Type R with a clear bit of road in front. Assuming the other driver was using full revs, the RS3 is comfortably quicker.

One thing I would say is that the fuel consumption is shocking. The test drive was around 30 minutes, a mix of enthusiastic driving and gentle cruising and we achieved 13.6mpg (I reset it before the test drive). I'm fairly sure my V8 Ferrari will do better.

The test drives did make me realise that maybe a Hot Hatch isn't what I personally need right now, but if I was in the market for one the RS3 would be top of my list.

With regards to understeer, if you drive to within reasonable limits on the road it really isn't noticeable. And you wouldn't really take a car like that on the track, so the comments are irrelevant for road driving.

An good, interesting insight...apart from the last paragraph. You have the mother of all hot hatches, 4WD, spend alot to get one and then..... drive within reasonable limits. Now that's kind of spound sensible and certainly good legal advice.
What however has this car been designed to do? I would suggest the power and stuff it has suggests somthing akin to driving it outside reasonable limits.... depending on your definition of reasonable of course

[nickfrog]

Diderot said:

Blanchimont said:

zeDuffMan said:

50k is for one with ceramics, which neither the 4C or the F-Type have as standard.

So it's a 40k hatch then, and you'll probably say that's still a lot for a hatchback. But I bet if they make another TTRS with that engine, it'll be absolutely fine, because it'll be less practical and somehow that makes more sense.

What I'm trying to say is this RS3 work 10k more (at £40k) than a Golf R/M135i/Focus RS? I know some people don't like the Golf R or the BMW, but for 10k you can make one of them a lot more special. The Focus RS is it's biggest rival, but I can't see the Focus being 40 grand basic?

Easy enough to get an M135i to £40k. I think ours was £38k ish IIRC last year.

Mine was £26k after discount and a few options. Like for like there is a significant difference in price, certainly more than £10k after respective discounts.

RS3 can't even match a Golf R https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3jWVTKYcP0

[Dblue]

nickfrog said:

Diderot said:

Blanchimont said:

zeDuffMan said:

50k is for one with ceramics, which neither the 4C or the F-Type have as standard.

So it's a 40k hatch then, and you'll probably say that's still a lot for a hatchback. But I bet if they make another TTRS with that engine, it'll be absolutely fine, because it'll be less practical and somehow that makes more sense.

What I'm trying to say is this RS3 work 10k more (at £40k) than a Golf R/M135i/Focus RS? I know some people don't like the Golf R or the BMW, but for 10k you can make one of them a lot more special. The Focus RS is it's biggest rival, but I can't see the Focus being 40 grand basic?

Easy enough to get an M135i to £40k. I think ours was £38k ish IIRC last year.

Mine was £26k after discount and a few options. Like for like there is a significant difference in price, certainly more than £10k after respective discounts.

RS3 can't even match a Golf R https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3jWVTKYcP0

Probably best not to watch Fifth Gears test or read EVO this month if you have the BMW.

[nickfrog]

I totally agreed with EVO's conclusions, and it did reflect why I prefer the BMW - didn't see 5th Gear though : when was it on ?

Edited by nickfrog on Tuesday 4th August 22:55