RE: Audi RS Q3 - official
Discussion
car crazy said:
Well said Lenny 007, I own an Audi nobody that's ever met me has called me a numpty to my face and my old cerbera was recently clocked at 202 mph at bruntinthorpe so I cannot be accused of not liking driver's cars (ok the new owner has put a 5.7 V8 in it
) This and many other anti Audi threads are bandwagons jumped on by sheep that probably have never even driven an Audi
I have driven and owned Audi's in the past and the whole experience left me numb. I sold my A3 (3.2) after 3 months because I hated it so much. Nice interior but it was left wanting in every other department. ) This and many other anti Audi threads are bandwagons jumped on by sheep that probably have never even driven an AudiVery valid points made by Lenny007. This car does nothing for me personally, and I'd rather have an S4.
Clarkson is renowned for having a pet car maker that changes every 6 months or so. He raved about the RS4 when he raced against 2 mountaineers, it was "epic". Then his allegiance switched to Mercedes, then BWW and back to Merc when the 3 numpties pitted an M3 agains the RS4 and a Merc against each other. So predictable.
Clarkson is renowned for having a pet car maker that changes every 6 months or so. He raved about the RS4 when he raced against 2 mountaineers, it was "epic". Then his allegiance switched to Mercedes, then BWW and back to Merc when the 3 numpties pitted an M3 agains the RS4 and a Merc against each other. So predictable.
Escort3500 said:
Clarkson is renowned for having a pet car maker that changes every 6 months or so. He raved about the RS4 when he raced against 2 mountaineers, it was "epic". Then his allegiance switched to Mercedes, then BWW and back to Merc when the 3 numpties pitted an M3 agains the RS4 and a Merc against each other. So predictable.
It's TV entertainment show! Why do people insist on taking it seriously? Even then at the end of that piece they all agreed how great all three were.
MonkeyMatt said:
carlosbutler said:
Q3RS - pointless. There is no reason anyone needs one. In every sector that it compete is in, there is something better.
Like what? interested to know?Speed - well it's effectively a very tall hatchback, so there's a plethora of cars available at this price bracket
Styling - well the wheels are far to big and look out of proportion, from the bottom of the windows up it looks too squashed and the front is nothing special - I'm not saying I don't find the styling interesting, but the car as a whole is in my opinion completely pointless, near enough every sporty SUV is the same for me. X6, X1, X3, that funny Mercedes thing (GLK?), Juke-R... I hate pretentious things and those are all examples of just that.
You either have an off-road high up vehicle that can actually pass a mountain range, or you have a saloon that is fun to drive quick, not a miss-mash of the two where neither is done properly. I don't dislike the Q3 more than the others, just that this came up.
The same applies with the Cayenne Turbo S and the G65, the only exception is that they are simply ludicrous which is why I somewhat like them
RichTBiscuit said:
The only reason you would buy a q3 over an s4 is to show off.
How about that an RS model will retain it's value much more than an S model? Or that the RS is going to be a much rarer car on the roads? Or that you simply prefer the looks? Or that you don't want to drive an estate? Or that you need a a bit more ground clearance than an S4? Or that you'd prefer to get the top of the range model, rather than "just" the S of another? There are plenty of reasons.It's down to the individual at the end of the day buying the car. Yes you might not buy it, but then why does that make it stupid and pointless?
My guess is Audi did a bit more indepth market research into the target demographic of this car, rather than just "those couple of blokes on PH think it's stupid so we shouldn't bother"
Leebo310 said:
How about that an RS model will retain it's value much more than an S model?
No it won't. It used to, because RS models were ultra rare and produced for only a short period of time in limited quantities. That obviously isn't the case anymore - especially with this RS model which is less powerful and slower than the S model A4.lenny007 said:
To condense the responses thus;
1 It's not an RS and it's diluting the RS brand
2 It's not a proper RS as it's only got one tailpipe
3 It's not a proper drivers car as it's big and fat and will fall over in corners.
4 It's not like a proper fast SUV like a Cayenne because thats been in a rally
5 All Audi drivers and owners are helmets (probably, i'm just guessing thats been said at some point)
When you have to misquote someone in an attempt at point scoring in a debate, you're showing that you're running low on genuine arguments and valid points.1 It's not an RS and it's diluting the RS brand
2 It's not a proper RS as it's only got one tailpipe
3 It's not a proper drivers car as it's big and fat and will fall over in corners.
4 It's not like a proper fast SUV like a Cayenne because thats been in a rally
5 All Audi drivers and owners are helmets (probably, i'm just guessing thats been said at some point)
lenny007 said:
Incidentally, is the RS not just the "sporty" side of the business tuning up what could be described as a soft roader? Bit like this really
Did that dilute the brand?
Is that not a proper STI?
Is that a proper drivers car?
Is that a proper fast SUV?
Are all drivers of this helmets?
(and before anyone states that it's basically a rebodied Impreza, isn't the Audi basically a rebodied RS3?)
The devil is in the detail.Did that dilute the brand?
Is that not a proper STI?
Is that a proper drivers car?
Is that a proper fast SUV?
Are all drivers of this helmets?
(and before anyone states that it's basically a rebodied Impreza, isn't the Audi basically a rebodied RS3?)
The difference between the Forester and Q3 is that the Impreza platform is that of what is essentially a road-going rally car to begin with. The Q3 and A3 are Golf-based to start with so you're starting off on the wrong foot and making a lot of compromises (transverse, haldex) before you then try and spruce one up. Trying to take that platform further than something like the Golf GTI results in products that just aren't as good (how many times have we heard it said that the GTI is a better car than the R32?). The RS3 has hardly received glowing reviews from those actually interested in driving. Putting it on stilts with no additional ability (on or off road) isn't going to improve that. Not is any of this offset by significantly greater practicality than a regular car (a similarly-priced S4 Avant actually has 30 litres more boot space) - again, unlike the Forester which is the opposite to this car - function over form.
lenny007 said:
More pertinently, is everyone not just on a massive Clarkson fuelled bandwagon lynching of a successful brand which is quite rightly bringing out products to the marketplace which it know a) won't sell that much but b) will get the market talking about their cars and quite possibly getting a few bums in seats on models lower down the price range.
Bringing Clarkson into this is yet another sign of scraping the bottom of the barrel. Does watching football automatically make you a hooligan? Certain cars were the first choice of knobbers long before he became involved. However, if I prioritised others' opinions, I wouldn't drive a BMW 3-Series. - If you like the car, drive one...I'm just giving my opinion (which you are of course entitled to disagree with) that the RS Q3 looks like it's going to be a useless trinket compared to what Audi already sell. This is a discussion forum and I'm not here to blindly agree that every new gimmick is fantastic.lenny007 said:
It's quite amazing this place sometimes. You'd think that every B road in the country was perpetually occupied by "hooners" drifting RWD naturally aspirated low weight drivers cars.
You say that like it'd be a bad thing...
I can garner driving pleasure from my car without needing to have smoke pouring off the tyres. That, for me, is reduced when I drive the more generic equivalents and newer replacement models.
Actually, the main thing I'm concerned about is that all cars morphing into rebodied / badged versions of the same generic hardware is gradually depriving all of us of choice. I'd rather have the 997's hydraulic power steering (and pay the minute difference in fuel costs & some extra tax*) than the 991's electric setup. - Who buys a 911 to prioritise fuel economy over the driving experience? The way things are going, there won't even be a RWD 911 in a few years...
* Though CO2-based RFL is clearly ridiculous
lenny007 said:
I drive on B roads - i'm not bombarded by driving heroes on full lock as i make my merry way. I'm more likely to experience someone coming in the opposite direction in their diesel hatchback just trying to get to home or work.
I became depressed through commuting in my diesel hatchback...now I have a straight six petrol RWD saloon. It cost me less than half of what I paid for the shopping car, costs less to maintain despite being older and is a much better drive. We don't all need to drive ecoboxes or fashion over function blinged-up SUVs.lenny007 said:
I always love threads which contain new Audis. Brings out the diddly wacks at such a rate to froth over their keyboards.
Well don't let us stop you...
Fox- said:
Leebo310 said:
How about that an RS model will retain it's value much more than an S model?
No it won't. It used to, because RS models were ultra rare and produced for only a short period of time in limited quantities. That obviously isn't the case anymore - especially with this RS model which is less powerful and slower than the S model A4.
k jesus christ and doggy style mary, how is 155mph slow, have you ever done a 155mph on an A road at 4am in a TT with the roof off, let me tell you it don't feel slow if anything the TT would be slightly quicker over my 8 mile run to work than the cerbera which you had to let warm up a bit. TT (3.2) would hit speed limiter on a 2 mile strip of dual carraige way. This Q3 RS thing would be even quicker 310hp to the tt's 240 and its detuned to that so easily put back to 340 which is enough for the real world in which you don't seem to live.Clivey said:
I became depressed through commuting in my diesel hatchback...now I have a straight six petrol RWD saloon. It cost me less than half of what I paid for the shopping car, costs less to maintain despite being older and is a much better drive. We don't all need to drive ecoboxes or fashion over function blinged-up SUVs.
So, as an enthusiast, why are you in a 323 and not an M3? Not a dig - I'm guessing it ticks your boxes, but to discount something else out of hand because it doesn't tick your boxes seems a bit, well, blinkered. Unless you've driven it, in which case I think we'd all like to know about it car crazy said:
Fk jesus christ and doggy style mary, how is 155mph slow, have you ever done a 155mph on an A road at 4am in a TT with the roof off, let me tell you it don't feel slow if anything the TT would be slightly quicker over my 8 mile run to work than the cerbera which you had to let warm up a bit. TT (3.2) would hit speed limiter on a 2 mile strip of dual carraige way. This Q3 RS thing would be even quicker 310hp to the tt's 240 and its detuned to that so easily put back to 340 which is enough for the real world in which you don't seem to live.
Who mentioned top speed? 155mph is irrelevnet, its the top speed of every half decent German car from a 530d to an RS6.k jesus christ and doggy style mary, how is 155mph slow, have you ever done a 155mph on an A road at 4am in a TT with the roof off, let me tell you it don't feel slow if anything the TT would be slightly quicker over my 8 mile run to work than the cerbera which you had to let warm up a bit. TT (3.2) would hit speed limiter on a 2 mile strip of dual carraige way. This Q3 RS thing would be even quicker 310hp to the tt's 240 and its detuned to that so easily put back to 340 which is enough for the real world in which you don't seem to live.I'm talking about acceleration.
It's 'only' 310bhp. Sure this is quite powerful, but it's not Audi RS powerful. It's the same power as a diesel 5 Series. The same power as a 335i. *LESS* power than an Audi S6 or an Audi S4.
Which is my point. There is nothing wrong with this car, but calling it an RS? Really?
It's an S Q3 and should be badged as such.
Fox- said:
It's 'only' 310bhp. Sure this is quite powerful, but it's not Audi RS powerful. It's the same power as a diesel 5 Series. The same power as a 335i. *LESS* power than an Audi S6 or an Audi S4.
Which is my point. There is nothing wrong with this car, but calling it an RS? Really?
It's an S Q3 and should be badged as such.
You have a point there Fox, the new S3 is what 300ps? The Q3 is the SUV of the 3 range I guess so it should have the 340ps output. Which is my point. There is nothing wrong with this car, but calling it an RS? Really?
It's an S Q3 and should be badged as such.
Wills2 said:
It's TV entertainment show!
Why do people insist on taking it seriously? Even then at the end of that piece they all agreed how great all three were.
Indeed. - It's just that some take Clarkson & Co.'s jokes and deliberately silly comments too literally. Do they think that his CLK Black actually shook his fillings out and broke his back? No. He just meant the ride was very stiff.Why do people insist on taking it seriously? Even then at the end of that piece they all agreed how great all three were.
Are all Alfa-Romeos going to bankrupt you? No. Some are just unreliable and need more attention.
Are all Audi / BMW etc. drivers "cocks"? No. Just some of them are...but of those, many will be in the "sport" SUVs.
In fact, I've just read Clarkson's review of the new RS4 and, glossing over his mucking about, he seems to agree with what other testers have said - it looks great and I want one.
bigandclever said:
So, as an enthusiast, why are you in a 323 and not an M3?
In a word: Money. That's also why I don't have a Discovery 2 TD5 expedition vehicle, a Singer 911 and a steroidal Nissan GTR. 
bigandclever said:
Not a dig - I'm guessing it ticks your boxes, but to discount something else out of hand because it doesn't tick your boxes seems a bit, well, blinkered. Unless you've driven it, in which case I think we'd all like to know about it
It's not that it doesn't tick my boxes. - I just fail to see how it ticks any over and above the likes of the RS3 or S4 apart from "bling". It's not especially practical (less so than the S4), it's not good off road - I've personally seen a Q3 hopelessly stuck in a dry field that an old 205 diesel drove straight over, it probably won't handle as well as Audi's Torsen-equipped vehicles and it'll no doubt be slower as well.If it had a purpose (anything besides being the automotive codpiece I described earlier), I might change my mind.
Fox- said:
car crazy said:
Fk jesus christ and doggy style mary, how is 155mph slow, have you ever done a 155mph on an A road at 4am in a TT with the roof off, let me tell you it don't feel slow if anything the TT would be slightly quicker over my 8 mile run to work than the cerbera which you had to let warm up a bit. TT (3.2) would hit speed limiter on a 2 mile strip of dual carraige way. This Q3 RS thing would be even quicker 310hp to the tt's 240 and its detuned to that so easily put back to 340 which is enough for the real world in which you don't seem to live.
Who mentioned top speed? 155mph is irrelevnet, its the top speed of every half decent German car from a 530d to an RS6.k jesus christ and doggy style mary, how is 155mph slow, have you ever done a 155mph on an A road at 4am in a TT with the roof off, let me tell you it don't feel slow if anything the TT would be slightly quicker over my 8 mile run to work than the cerbera which you had to let warm up a bit. TT (3.2) would hit speed limiter on a 2 mile strip of dual carraige way. This Q3 RS thing would be even quicker 310hp to the tt's 240 and its detuned to that so easily put back to 340 which is enough for the real world in which you don't seem to live.I'm talking about acceleration.
It's 'only' 310bhp. Sure this is quite powerful, but it's not Audi RS powerful. It's the same power as a diesel 5 Series. The same power as a 335i. *LESS* power than an Audi S6 or an Audi S4.
Which is my point. There is nothing wrong with this car, but calling it an RS? Really?
It's an S Q3 and should be badged as such.
car crazy said:
Same size as a Focus RS Turbo but with 60 more horses, sounds quick to me or is the Focus not a proper RS either
Ford RS and Audi RS are two completely different and unrelated brands which simply happen to share the same two letters in the name.BTW, the Mk2 Focus RS had 302bhp, so it's only 8bhp more powerful than that.
I'm not sure why you can't see the point I am making. Go and look at the performance statistics of every RS badged Audi ever made and you can see that the RS Q3 is a massive outlier. It fits in nicely with the S range but I remain confused why they've badged it RS.
Fox- said:
Ford RS and Audi RS are two completely different and unrelated brands which simply happen to share the same two letters in the name.
BTW, the Mk2 Focus RS had 302bhp, so it's only 8bhp more powerful than that.
I'm not sure why you can't see the point I am making. Go and look at the performance statistics of every RS badged Audi ever made and you can see that the RS Q3 is a massive outlier. It fits in nicely with the S range but I remain confused why they've badged it RS.
Me too; they're just promoting it on the back of the proper (and well deserved) RS reputation and diluting the reputation in the process!BTW, the Mk2 Focus RS had 302bhp, so it's only 8bhp more powerful than that.
I'm not sure why you can't see the point I am making. Go and look at the performance statistics of every RS badged Audi ever made and you can see that the RS Q3 is a massive outlier. It fits in nicely with the S range but I remain confused why they've badged it RS.
Fox- said:
No it won't. It used to, because RS models were ultra rare and produced for only a short period of time in limited quantities. That obviously isn't the case anymore - especially with this RS model which is less powerful and slower than the S model A4
What does that have to do with anything though? They're different models so how can you compare them?I thought the S8 has more power than the RS4 so by your logic that means the RS4 is also incorrectly badged?
Also not sure how so many people can deem the car "not powerful enough" when no-one has actually driven one... Why are people so hung up with numbers? Yeah power, top speeds and 0-62 times give an indication but there's more to a good fast car than that.
I wouldn't complain if someone gave me one to rally.
In fact if someone would give me one I'll get it prepped and shipped to Iceland for the Championships up there this year and we'll see how it gets on shall we? Good ol' Grp N spec stuff, Interior out, cage in, belly/sump guards and we'll be off. It'll save me having to take my Range Rover.
Oh and if anyone knows of a Trans-Siberia Cayenne up for grabs......
Quick SUV?
How about a Range Rover Classic running an M Power 3.2 Evo motor. If i ever get it on an empty stretch of dual i'll clock the 0-60 & 0-100mph times....
In fact if someone would give me one I'll get it prepped and shipped to Iceland for the Championships up there this year and we'll see how it gets on shall we? Good ol' Grp N spec stuff, Interior out, cage in, belly/sump guards and we'll be off. It'll save me having to take my Range Rover.
Oh and if anyone knows of a Trans-Siberia Cayenne up for grabs......
Quick SUV?
How about a Range Rover Classic running an M Power 3.2 Evo motor. If i ever get it on an empty stretch of dual i'll clock the 0-60 & 0-100mph times....
lenny007 said:
I always love threads which contain new Audis. Brings out the diddly wacks at such a rate to froth over their keyboards.
Don't think this is about Audi really. IMVHO, the problem with the RS Q3 is the design brief. What problem is this car trying to solve? Is it: seat 5, be pretty quick, have some cargo capacity, use AWD powertrain, off roading not a priority? Then why start with a SUV?
Kolbenkopp said:
Don't think this is about Audi really. IMVHO, the problem with the RS Q3 is the design brief. What problem is this car trying to solve?
Is it: seat 5, be pretty quick, have some cargo capacity, use AWD powertrain, off roading not a priority? Then why start with a SUV?
Probably because an SUV is one of the biggest selling models worldwide. And plus there's not really much else about that is a direct rival.Is it: seat 5, be pretty quick, have some cargo capacity, use AWD powertrain, off roading not a priority? Then why start with a SUV?
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff