Audi RS3 V Merc A45AMG

Author
Discussion

MrBarry123

6,028 posts

122 months

Tuesday 8th December 2015
quotequote all
I'd have to try both however I'd probably opt for the A45 with the Aero Kit eventually because I like spoilers and I detest the wheels on the new RS3.

topless360

2,763 posts

219 months

Tuesday 8th December 2015
quotequote all
I test drove both back to back on the same day so I'd like to think I'm qualified to provide some insight.

Firstly to correct the OP the A45 is significantly cheaper, less than £40k really.

My main thought after the test drives was that the RS3 is in a different league in terms of quality, performance and sound. Unfortunately it's also the best part of £50k once you spec it up.

I was very disappointed with the A45 AMG. I expected it to be a pocket rocket, a mini GTR perhaps. However it was slower than I expected, just lacking the punch I thought it would have.

In comparison jumping into the RS3, it felt quicker and more urgent. Just goes to show you that 1 extra cylinder makes all the difference.

To be fair I did drive the pre facelift 355bhp A45, maybe the updated model will be better but I doubt by much.

The interior is where the RS3 really does extend its advantage. It's such a nice place to be with some quality materials and touches. The A45 felt much cheaper and had that horrible tablet looking thing stuck to the dash.

The A45 isn't all bad and perhaps I'm being harsh, in isolation I'm sure it may be different. But compared to the RS3 it was no competition at all.

Both test drives were relatively short on public roads and I didn't have an opportunity to explore their limits. I've heard the RS3 is understeer prime but driving at say 80-90% it's absolutely fine.

neil1jnr

1,462 posts

156 months

Tuesday 8th December 2015
quotequote all
k-ink said:
neil1jnr said:
A45

Neither do it for me but, an RS3 vs Golf R review I watched suggested the R is the far better car and having not particularly thought much of the R anyway it would have to be the Merc...... which I haven't driven.
Do you have a link to that review?

Personally I think the golf r looks and sounds sooooo dull compared to the RS3. Yet it is a fine balance, as I like the more understated nature of the RS3. Especially compared to fast Fords, Honda or AMG.
See the youtube link below to the Evo review I was referring to.

I thought the opposite, I can't think of more underwhelming looking hatch than the RS3, I think the RS should look mental but it just looks bland, dull, A3 tdi s-line-ish in my eyes (very much not an Audi fan). Anyway I don't think the review did the RS3 any favours. I agree on the Golf R sounding dull, the sound actuator makes it sound fake, probably the worst aspect of the car, the RS3 sounds fantastic. VW should have done better, for example I found the symposer in the Fiesta ST to be a great sound.

neil1jnr

1,462 posts

156 months

Tuesday 8th December 2015
quotequote all
k-ink said:
Well the RS3 can be taken to 700bhp, so that should be fine for Tescos. If might even last long enough for the return trip.
Most hot hatches could be taken to 700bhp if you wanted to and could afford to.

MrBarry123

6,028 posts

122 months

Tuesday 8th December 2015
quotequote all
neil1jnr said:
k-ink said:
Well the RS3 can be taken to 700bhp, so that should be fine for Tescos. If might even last long enough for the return trip.
Most hot hatches could be taken to 700bhp if you wanted to and could afford to.
No they couldn't. Very few hot hatches can run 700bhp unless you do an engine transplant; in which case it's not really the hot hatch you started with.

The only two real contenders from an engine perspective that could run 700bhp for more than a few hours are the RS3 and the R32 and that's only when extensively modified.

The R shown below does run that kind of a number however only when fully wound up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xxE9QvTN7Y

Edited by MrBarry123 on Tuesday 8th December 15:03

neil1jnr

1,462 posts

156 months

Wednesday 9th December 2015
quotequote all
MrBarry123 said:
neil1jnr said:
k-ink said:
Well the RS3 can be taken to 700bhp, so that should be fine for Tescos. If might even last long enough for the return trip.
Most hot hatches could be taken to 700bhp if you wanted to and could afford to.
No they couldn't. Very few hot hatches can run 700bhp unless you do an engine transplant; in which case it's not really the hot hatch you started with.

The only two real contenders from an engine perspective that could run 700bhp for more than a few hours are the RS3 and the R32 and that's only when extensively modified.

The R shown below does run that kind of a number however only when fully wound up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xxE9QvTN7Y

Edited by MrBarry123 on Tuesday 8th December 15:03
I disagree. I didn't watch the whole video but I assume the engine enternals in that R are forged/strengthened and the turbo is larger, is it still 2 litres? And from the original post about the RS3 being 'taken up to 700bhp', in what respect? Just a re-map (most definately not), or a full engine build (more likely)

So from what you are saying only an Audi RS3 or Golf R32 can 'run' 700bhp, however you add a link to a Golf R that can run 700bhp...

Regardless, I still can't see why most hatches couldn't be tuned to 700bhp if you have the funds to do so.

Blown2CV

28,870 posts

204 months

Wednesday 9th December 2015
quotequote all
RS3 is 2.5L V5

ZesPak

24,435 posts

197 months

Wednesday 9th December 2015
quotequote all
Blown2CV said:
RS3 is 2.5L V5
V5? I did not know that!

CerberusRogue

734 posts

128 months

Wednesday 9th December 2015
quotequote all
ZesPak said:
Blown2CV said:
RS3 is 2.5L V5
V5? I did not know that!
No - it's a straight 5.

Blown2CV

28,870 posts

204 months

Wednesday 9th December 2015
quotequote all
CerberusRogue said:
ZesPak said:
Blown2CV said:
RS3 is 2.5L V5
V5? I did not know that!
No - it's a straight 5.
ok fair enough, i knew it was a 5cyl but i assumed it was the same config as the older VW V5

nickfrog

21,199 posts

218 months

Wednesday 9th December 2015
quotequote all
topless360 said:
.

Both test drives were relatively short on public roads and I didn't have an opportunity to explore their limits. I've heard the RS3 is understeer prime but driving at say 80-90% it's absolutely fine.
I reckon it only understeers beyond 100% of lat grip. ;-). I doubt very much either cars are drivable at more than 6/10ths on the public road anyway, as traffic, line of sight and licence preservation will always be the limiting factor (and skill obviously).

As for your point on number of cylinders, I totally agree. Try a 6-pot hatch next time, if they still make one :-).

W124

1,548 posts

139 months

Wednesday 9th December 2015
quotequote all
The S3 is a rival to both. It's quite a bit lighter than either and very well set up. I've not driven an RS3 but I will quite soon. The A45 doesn't feel much faster than the S3 IMHO. It's really sweet car, the S3, especially as a saloon in a dull colour and on the smallest wheels. All Audi's (and I've driven bloody LOADS of them before anyone asks) are better on the smallest wheel option. Without exception. Most of the Audi's I deliver are on the big shiny wheel option. It ruins them - you get into a low spec car and it's a blessed relief. There are still some excellent engineers at Audi in set-up terms and you can bet they all have small wheels on their cars. I drove two new A4's the other day. The one on the chav wheels was a bit of a mess truth be told. The smaller wheeled car? Excellent.

CorvetteConvert

Original Poster:

7,897 posts

215 months

Wednesday 9th December 2015
quotequote all
The A45 is a much nicer car on 18s I agree.
My stripped out mainly track-use Cayman S ran 17s and was all the better for it. The wheels were much lighter than the 19s and the ride was way better.

JockySteer

1,407 posts

117 months

Wednesday 9th December 2015
quotequote all
Definitely the RS3. Chasm of difference in the looks and noise department and give or take some milliseconds, as quick as each other.