Wednesday 9th March 2011

Driven: Audi RS3 Sportback

At £40k, Audi's new RS3 'hatch' has some pretty tasty rivals

---

There's a lot to like about Audi's new RS3 Sportback - but it has serious competition at the price

Without wishing to sound too much like some sort of automotive Gok Wan, it seems that, for the aspiring hot-hatch-about-town of the 'teenies', 300 is the new 200. (Are you Gok Wan? Ed.)

RS3 Sportback has a 'bespoke' flavour...

Two decades ago, you were doing distinctly well if you could muster 150bhp from your fast hatch. Then, at the turn of the century, Honda got all feisty and brought the fast hatch top-end up to 200bhp (all right, 197bhp, but close enough), while Audi had the original S3 with its 210bhp turbocharged 1.8.

Now, though, we live in a world where even a front-wheel-drive Ford Focus can summon more than 300bhp. So the 335bhp Audi RS3 Sportback doesn't seem quite as outrageously powerful as it would have done a few years ago, despite churning out damn near as many gee-gees as a BMW M3 would have done just five years ago.

It's not just power that's been on the up, though; even in its most basic trim (and we suspect few buyers will escape the Audi dealership without having first ticked-off several thousands of pounds of options) the RS3 still costs £39,900. Which is a lot of money to pay for a hatchback, however hot it is.

...and goes like stink. Is that enough?

It's a measure of just how far up the performance car food chain the RS3 is being positioned that Audi's press material cites the Mercedes C63 AMG and BMW M3 as 'rivals', against which the £15k cheaper RS3 represents conspicuously good value.

In some respects this is a clever trick for Audi to play. On the one hand it subtly distances the car from its most obvious competitors - the likes of the Ford Focus RS500 or the Subaru STi Cosworth - while at the same time emphasising the car's premium credentials. On the other hand, it does set up the RS3 against some fairly serious competition.

The big question, then, is this: can the RS3 cut it as a bargain alternative to the fast German saloon norm, or us it really just a hot hatch with a painfully heavy price tag?

Even the engine is well-dressed

First impressions, it has to be said, are good. The basic performance stats of 0-62mph in 4.6secs and an electronically governed top speed of 155mph are spot on the mark, while 332lb ft of torque available 1600rpm and 5300rpm provides serious real-world punch, especially when overtaking. And the RS3 comfortably bests its more glamorous V8 German cousins when it comes to economy, with a claimed 31mpg on the combined cycle (no, we don't care all that much about economy, but when fuel prices are nudging £1.40 per litre it does become a little bit important).

There are the sort of bespoke touches you would expect of a fast German, too - the five-cylinder 2.5-litre turbocharged motor is made with vermicular graphite (makes it lighter, apparently), while the front wings are of carbon fibre reinforced plastic. The suspension is 25mm lower and the car sits on a wider, 1564mm track, too.

RS3 could be any hot Audi from here

These are all definitely moves in the right direction, but it doesn't really feel specialised enough to compete with its higher-end rivals. The whole effect is a bit too reliant on flared wheel arches, a deep front spoiler and chunky 19-inch wheels to differentiate itself sufficiently from more ordinary Audis - and that sounds like the sort of tricks a hot hatch would employ to us.

On the road it's another case of nearly-but-not-quite for the RS3. Its offbeat five-pot thrum is distinctive, its thrust undeniable, and its four-wheel-drive traction and grip are unquestionable, but it just isn't as involving, as enjoyable as you hoped it would be.

It covered the ground on our twisty Alpes-Maritimes test route with searing pace, and you would emerge from a particularly challenging section filled with the tingling buzz of adrenaline. But that excitement came more from sheer speed and the sense of having attacked a road with some fairly precipitous drops on it than from anything innate to the RS3's dynamic behaviour.

Sportback adds practicality around to

The problem, as is so often the case with fast Audis, is that the RS3 just doesn't flow with you down the road. It feels safe, grippy and predictable, but there's precious little sense of adjustability to the chassis, whether on the approach to, in the middle of, or exiting a corner.

The gearbox can be a bit finicky out of really slow corners, too, the ratios of the 7-speed S tronic twin-clutch effort making the car too eager in first and too lethargic in second.

In the RS3's dynamic defence, however, both the gearbox and chassis are more comfortable with fast flowing sections of road, and the fact that the gearbox doesn't change up automatically at the red line is a welcome nod to the enthusiast driver.

Nice in red, too...

It's one of few genuine nods to the hardcore driving enthusiast, though. Like the TT RS and RS5 before it, the RS3 seems to represent a further move away from hardcore performance in favour of something a little softer - and arguably more civilised.

That's not necessarily a bad thing, mind. An RS3 will appeal to those who want to enjoy a fast, safe, comfortable and well-built car, and who want to know that there are deep reserves of grip and pace available should they wish to plumb them. Those who want that nth degree of driver involvement, however, probably ought to look elsewhere. Still, the RS3 has an undeniably wide spread of abilities, and Audi will no doubt find more than enough buyers for the 500 or so it plans to bring to Blighty.

As for whether the RS3 is a hot hatch or a super-saloon, I'm going to have to draw a woolly conclusion on this one and say neither. Just as the 'Sportback' bodystyle won't be easily pigeon-holed into any one category (Audi has chosen it mainly to distance the car further from the TT RS than if it had a three-door body), so the RS3 doesn't seem to sit easily into any one category. It's definitely too refined and sophisticated to be called a hot hatch, but it's a few cylinders and several percentage points of commitment short of bearing comparison with an M3 or C63.

[anonymous-user]

What a really nice looking, tidy little car. Shame Audi's are usually driven by cks.

[anonymous-user]

B.J.W said:

Excellent, yet another well informed and constructive post to kick this thread off in the best possible way.

There have been some right tts joining PH recently

Sorry for having an opinion. I forgot they're not allowed.

[anonymous-user]

Crimp a Length! said:

Yeah and he's a cock when it comes to cars

You're all a very sensitive bunch aren't you. I'll choose my words more carefully next time.

[anonymous-user]

would have been extra special with a detuned V8 engine up front..

The RS label is becoming more diluted..Should have stuck with the s3 and called it this the S3 plus...

[anonymous-user]

SpeedEight said:

Why? One up with a splash of fuel and this thing will no doubt hit 60 in 4 seconds. That's as fast or faster than the RS4. I'm not knocking the RS4 (great car!) but the RS3 will do 31mpg on the combined cycle. I don't see the point of a big V8 in this model when the 2.5 5-cylinder is a peach of an engine.

Once upon a time the RS was used on one model at a time. To me the RS label is pretty high up there and this RS just doesn't feel that special over a S3.

31mpg, I would love to see if that actually is the correct mpg, I am betting more mid 25's in the real world..

A big V8 just because Audi could..

[anonymous-user]

doogz said:

So you'd rather it was basically a slow RS4 Avant?

The V8 doesn't really fit in that chassis anyway. It could be made to, but it'd just add more weight to the front end, and the drivetrain would be a pig.

The point I wanted to make, was the RS car should be more special..A modified s3 engine to me just doesn't seem enough for a RS badge..

Like I said earlier I think the RS badge is becoming more of a marketing tool over a pure breed performance tool..

Edited by black pipebandit on Wednesday 9th March 16:00

[anonymous-user]

mat205125 said:

..... and whilst he's at it, check that he isn't thinking that the standard S3 uses the 5 cylinder engine too. This cars engine is only shared with the TTRS and the concept quattro as far as I am aware.

Yep I failed that question, and my grammer is rubbish..I am tired sorry..

Edited by black pipebandit on Wednesday 9th March 16:01

[anonymous-user]

PSBuckshot said:

What a really nice looking, tidy little car. Shame Audi's are usually driven by cks.

I see a stupid post, look at the join date and just sigh shaking my head... always the new ones.

[anonymous-user]

Legacywr said:

There is just something visually wrong with the 1 series coupe to me. It's pretty, but it just looks like a baby car for some reason!?

+1

the correct term is mini-me of 3 series

[anonymous-user]

MetalFoot said:

jake15919 said:

MSTRBKR said:

I see a stupid post, look at the join date and just sigh shaking my head... always the new ones.

Just askin', but do you seriously think the number of months a person has been a member reflects the validity of their view? I'm not commenting on the accuracy of the OPs view just asking about your value system.

A journalist for a popular car magazine decides 9.3.2011 to join Pistonheads

Mr Bloggs has been with us for 34 months and has driven no more than a Corsa


so Mr Bloggs is genious and Mr Car Journalist is retarded, correct?

I'm not saying every new member is like this and I've not said anyones views are invalid (?), but 9 times out of 10 if there is a stupid post like that one it is a new member. I have no idea why.

[anonymous-user]

CampDavid said:

Do you not see the massive irony in tarring all new posters with the same brush while quoting someone saying that all audi owners are s?

When did I tarr all new posters with the same brush? I said 9 times out of 10 when there is a stupid post it is a new member, I did not say all new members make stupid posts; there is a difference.

[anonymous-user]

Jandywa said:

True. they are excellent.

But in comparison to a Bentley or Aston is just deluded. They are well built well but blanded than a bland man in blandsville. Similar to BMW blandness. Comparison to a bespoke interior is like comparing McDonalds to a Michelin starred restaurant.

[anonymous-user]

doogz said:

Read it again and tell me where it was compared to a Bentley or Aston.

Cheers.

To me indicating they are excellent put it on pair with them, I was just responded to that.

Don't have a cow man it's only the Internet.