RE: Facelifted Audi RS3 Sportback revealed
Discussion
ToothbrushMan said:
"pestering 911's"? who writes this juvenile crap? it suggests buyers of RS3s et al get up in the morning with the sole intent of driving for the hell of it and tracking down cars that they know they can beat or want to beat.
Because lots of people who post in GG are obsessed with 0-62mph times and beating other people from the lights or least beating them on a thread in a form of internet top trumps, so the PH editorial team have to pander to that mind set to get clicks on the story.Quite an unbiased view, and from a German!
Skip to 4:30 for some fairly negative feedback...
Don't get me wrong, I want to like this but every fast Audi gives the same comments and they just aren't listening.
https://youtu.be/9BpXzQ5chNo
Skip to 4:30 for some fairly negative feedback...
Don't get me wrong, I want to like this but every fast Audi gives the same comments and they just aren't listening.
https://youtu.be/9BpXzQ5chNo
tty old hatchback 
Limpet said:
J4CKO said:
Can get a 140i for what, 27 grand from a broker, I reckon with a few twiddly bits this will be getting on from 20 grand more expensive as I dont think there are discounts available, cant imagine it will be significantly quicker in the dry.
There is going to be a lot of choice in the secondhand > 250 bhp market in years to come.
If you take finance and get the BMW finance contribution, the M140i deals are crazy at the moment. I've got a 5dr auto coming next month with a handful of options on it, including metallic paint, the poncy media package, HK stereo upgrade and adaptive suspension, and it came in at a whisker over £29k. BMW Finance are sticking £3k in, and the dealer dropped by £4k! There is going to be a lot of choice in the secondhand > 250 bhp market in years to come.
The RS3 has AWD security and is going to be quicker in anything other than bone dry conditions, but it's not even close to being a £20,000 better car IMHO. Each their own, of course.
Had more fun in the 3,500 miles I've had it than the whole time i had an RS6 or S6 or any of the other V8 Audi's I've had combined. Yes occasionally at low speeds pulling out of a junction or car park with a bit too much welly it's got it's back out but it has been very easy to control and bring back in line and I've found that I'm enjoying the car more knowing that you've got to respect the power and drivetrain, something you just don't get in the others.
Having test driven all options before buying it's worth noting that the M140 is massively better in the economy department than the others, mines averaged north of 31mpg. Course some will say it doesn't matter, but, it does as these are meant to be do all cars so if it's only doing 200miles to a tank that's not helpful!
Over on the baby bmw forum there's a fair few owners who have taken their on a rolling road, most are showing 360-370bhp across a variety of different rolling road types. None have been on or below the quoted figure.
QuattroDave said:
most are showing 360-370bhp across a variety of different rolling road types.
Almost all turbocharged cars are making more than the quoted figure, so I'm sure the RS3 will be too. BMW M3/4 are the 'worst' offenders I've seen so far.With these AWD cars we're seeing crazy acceleration figures the M-lite cars can dream about. 0-100mph in around 8 seconds was 911 turbo territory not long ago. Mind you would give up those two seconds for a mechanical rack, 50:50 weight distribution and some decent brakes.
Ahbefive said:
Looks about as exciting as lettuce.
Dynamics as interesting as pavement.
From Autocar's road test of the BMW M140i ...Dynamics as interesting as pavement.
"3.0-litre engine has been replaced with an even more powerful 335bhp six-cylinder motor."
"Unsurprisingly, with its six-cylinder turbocharged engine producing the same power and torque as the iconic 1M Coupé, the M140i is properly quick in a straight line. If you can get it hooked up (made all the more difficult thanks to the absence of a proper limited-slip differential), the hatch can complete the run from 0-62mph in just 4.6sec"
"There are limitations though. On really rough roads there's a point where the suspension finally cries enough and fails to react to multiple inputs. Mid-corner this can cause the car to feel unsettled and loose, and combined with the lack of a limited-slip diff and its overly light variable-ratio steering, a Mercedes A45 AMG or Volkswagen Golf R would leave the BMW for dust on a bumpy rural road."
981C said:
Almost all turbocharged cars are making more than the quoted figure, so I'm sure the RS3 will be too. BMW M3/4 are the 'worst' offenders I've seen so far.
With these AWD cars we're seeing crazy acceleration figures the M-lite cars can dream about. 0-100mph in around 8 seconds was 911 turbo territory not long ago. Mind you would give up those two seconds for a mechanical rack, 50:50 weight distribution and some decent brakes.
You're not wrong, I'd be rubbish at traffic light grand prix's in my m140, but it does have near as damnit 50:50 weight distribution, stops well enough for me and although steering is electric it does give better feedback than I was expecting.With these AWD cars we're seeing crazy acceleration figures the M-lite cars can dream about. 0-100mph in around 8 seconds was 911 turbo territory not long ago. Mind you would give up those two seconds for a mechanical rack, 50:50 weight distribution and some decent brakes.
My RS6 needed 700hp to crack 100 in 7.7 (it was comically fast but after that fairly dull)
QuattroDave said:
Over on the baby bmw forum there's a fair few owners who have taken their on a rolling road, most are showing 360-370bhp across a variety of different rolling road types. None have been on or below the quoted figure.
I'm always very sceptical of these dyno runs showing that BMW are giving people 40-50hp for free, a business that charges 1k for a 20-25hp remap and charges for options like a wounded rhino but suddenly starts giving everyone free power and underrating its cars. Modern turbo engines self correct for ambient temp and altitude but people stick them on dynos still set up to correct a correcting engine and then use a made up drive train loss number to get a big crank number.
There was a big thread on F80 post regarding the dyno numbers as people were dynoing stock F80s at 420-430hp at the wheels giving almost a zero drive train loss to the quoted crank number which clearly isn't right.
Autobild also did a piece on it comparing uncorrected/corrected numbers on a Porsche turbo and found the power was to spec once they used uncorrected dynos, previously it was over spec.
You might get another 5-10hp but not another 40-50hp.
Ahbefive said:
GranCab said:
From Autocar's road test of the BMW M140i ...
Are you on the wrong thread? I was describing the Audi.
I think he may have been quoting the m140 after my comment.
To bring back on subject the RS3 does sound great, I've had a thing for 5 cylinder turbos since my urquattro but even with the predictable uninvolving drive, it's the price that kills it for most. 50k (once options like seats and steering wheel have been checked) is just far too much for most to justify
Wills2 said:
I'm always very sceptical of these dyno runs showing that BMW are giving people 40-50hp for free, a business that charges 1k for a 20-25hp remap and charges for options like a wounded rhino but suddenly starts giving everyone free power and underrating its cars.
Modern turbo engines self correct for ambient temp and altitude but people stick them on dynos still set up to correct a correcting engine and then use a made up drive train loss number to get a big crank number.
There was a big thread on F80 post regarding the dyno numbers as people were dynoing stock F80s at 420-430hp at the wheels giving almost a zero drive train loss to the quoted crank number which clearly isn't right.
Autobild also did a piece on it comparing uncorrected/corrected numbers on a Porsche turbo and found the power was to spec once they used uncorrected dynos, previously it was over spec.
You might get another 5-10hp but not another 40-50hp.
Fair enough, I'm not 100% sold on the numbers either but perhaps a little less sceptical than you Modern turbo engines self correct for ambient temp and altitude but people stick them on dynos still set up to correct a correcting engine and then use a made up drive train loss number to get a big crank number.
There was a big thread on F80 post regarding the dyno numbers as people were dynoing stock F80s at 420-430hp at the wheels giving almost a zero drive train loss to the quoted crank number which clearly isn't right.
Autobild also did a piece on it comparing uncorrected/corrected numbers on a Porsche turbo and found the power was to spec once they used uncorrected dynos, previously it was over spec.
You might get another 5-10hp but not another 40-50hp.
To be honest when you've already got 335 at the rear wheels it's not many that'll notice an extra 20-30!
Almost every single thread I've seen on dyno'ing there's the obligtory "yeah but that model road is known to be generous, so your numbers don't mean s&*t!"
Begs the question, what IS an accurate way to measure engine power?
Wills2 said:
I'm always very sceptical of these dyno runs showing that BMW are giving people 40-50hp for free, a business that charges 1k for a 20-25hp remap and charges for options like a wounded rhino but suddenly starts giving everyone free power and underrating its cars.
Modern turbo engines self correct for ambient temp and altitude but people stick them on dynos still set up to correct a correcting engine and then use a made up drive train loss number to get a big crank number.
There was a big thread on F80 post regarding the dyno numbers as people were dynoing stock F80s at 420-430hp at the wheels giving almost a zero drive train loss to the quoted crank number which clearly isn't right.
Autobild also did a piece on it comparing uncorrected/corrected numbers on a Porsche turbo and found the power was to spec once they used uncorrected dynos, previously it was over spec.
You might get another 5-10hp but not another 40-50hp.
Manufacturers have to make cars that can make the quoted power in all regions, so 40C ambient and at altitude, acknowledging the ECU adjustments for variable conditions, etc.Modern turbo engines self correct for ambient temp and altitude but people stick them on dynos still set up to correct a correcting engine and then use a made up drive train loss number to get a big crank number.
There was a big thread on F80 post regarding the dyno numbers as people were dynoing stock F80s at 420-430hp at the wheels giving almost a zero drive train loss to the quoted crank number which clearly isn't right.
Autobild also did a piece on it comparing uncorrected/corrected numbers on a Porsche turbo and found the power was to spec once they used uncorrected dynos, previously it was over spec.
You might get another 5-10hp but not another 40-50hp.
The F80 example you cite is backed up by performance numbers also.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff