RE: Audi RS Q3 - official

[anonymous-user]

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?

so you're saying SUVs are pointless!? Name something and SUV does better than an alternative style car

[RemyMartin]

Not sure why I came into this Audi thread, Audi threads disillusion me.

Theres me thinking this is a site for lovers of cars and the like and yet again, people are slagging it off, for no real actual reason. Guess its a case of 'haters gonna hate'

For the record, I really like this, but then again I'm biased as I'm one of the rare people who enjoys Audis. Guess I'm not a real petrolhead....hey ho I can live with that.

[toppstuff]

Kolbenkopp said:

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.

I'm not sure. I think it is.

I was pondering just why Audi seems to polarise opinions. It seems to me that they are so bloody ubiquitous, so commonplace these days , that they have become the single talisman for the "aspirational but affordable" sector of the car industry.

They have become a bit like Apple, or Superdry. And their sheer popularity is starting to repel some people.

I confess for quite actively disliking ordinary FWD Audis, which seem all style and little substance for the prices they command. The Quattro, S and RS models however, I like a lot. Including this RS Q3.

It happens in other sectors all the time. Things change, anyway. Give it another decade or so and another brand will have its turn. Maybe it'll be Mercedes next..

[car crazy]

Anybody heard a price on this yet? My Audi rep is off sick

[Killboy]

Is there actually an Audi people like?



Something fresh at least, in a sea of bore eco wagons.

[Clivey]

E-B said:

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.

That's the thing though: If you're going to the bother of modifying a car for a rally, choose the right base vehicle to start with. - I bet this isn't even as capable as a Freelander, judging by regular Q3 models.

What Audi should make is an RS4 Allroad...

E-B said:

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....

See; that sounds infinitely better.

[lenny007]

I know it's been a while but seeing as the thread is back up and running, allow me to respond.

Clivey said:

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.

I wasn't misquoting, i was paraphrasing - there's a difference. Also, as point 5 basically said Audi drivers are helmets, of course i was running low on genuine points...

Clivey said:

The devil is in the detail.

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.

The devil is indeed in the detail. The Impreza wasn't, as far as i can recall, designed as a rally car. It was a road car converted into one. The Forester is a jacked up rebodied version of the road car. Yes, it has a layout which has been converted into a superb rally vehicle but who's to say that Audi / VW couldn't do the same? Where do you stop this point? Seat have been running touring cars for years - the Leon is a rebodied Golf / A3 / Q3. Does this give the Q3 a fabulous basis for a track car? No.

Of course, this is all IMHO - just as your comments that the Q3 is based on the "poorly received" (paraphrasing) RS3 "but on stilts" - are your HO.

Clivey said:

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.

Where to start on Clarkson? He's a professional antagonist and that's pretty much all. However, this thread, as nearly all on Audi's these days, bring out the "haterz" (God i despise that phrase) in their droves. It starts well as a critique of the car, then degenerates into people who trot out the "nice interior, bad to drive" claptrap as if they can tell the difference in the last tenth on their way to work. On the motorway.

Was i scraping the barrel? I don't think so. More mocking those who believe that "knobbers" drive a sort of car - "first choice of knobbers" - do you honestly believe that crap and inconsiderate drivers choose a car to be knobs in or is it more likely that there are awful drivers in every single car but until some social commentator makes a point to jump up and down shouting "look here, knobs drive X car, what sad losers the people who drive these cars are", the collective hive mind goes "oh yeah, they're right".

Clivey said:

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

I agree that the choice of cars on the roads is being diminished, despite the ever increasing choice of cars available to buy. Oxymoron? Not especially. I can't imagine it's easy to inject brand specific characteristics into a Seat / Skoda / VW / Audi when it's fundamentally the same underneath. Personally, it's not a characteristic if the interior is essentially the same but graded differently due to the materials its made in. That's purely building to cost.

Regarding design, everything is sort of blending into one another. Take the Golf market for example.









We are talking degrees of difference in the side profiles of these cars. Yes, the fronts are different but the backs are much of a muchness also.

However, i do think that the main difference in cars these days is that they are uniformly "good". There are very few "bad" cars out there. Does that mean the characterful cars are diluted to become uniform - probably. However, the paying masses would rather have a reliable appliance than something which is fantastic but always at the dealers. Quirks aren't really allowed these days.

I suppose this is ambling towards "good but niche", which nicely describes the RSQ3 i suppose...

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.

True but we don't all need to buy straight six equipped RWD saloons either. There seems to be a contradiction in your argument that we are being deprived of choice and then bemoaning some of the choices...

Clivey said:

Well don't let us stop you...

I can't exactly froth at the mouth and take an anti-Audi stand when i drive an A3 and the wife drives an A2 now can I...

[Wills2]

The launch of the Macan made me have a look at these again, but with the spec I'd like it's 50k! So you can get the macan petrol S with a good spec for that plus it's from the next range up size wise.

I think the Macan is going to make the RSQ3 and Q5 look dear.

[aeropilot]

g3org3y said:

Question is, will BMW be making an X1M or X3M to compete?

BMW ///M were well advanced with a X3M about 2 years ago, but the BMW board canned it.

There are however rumours that a X1M might soon be on the cards though.

[scherzkeks]

Clivey said:

The devil is in the detail.

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.

The Impreza is not an econo box platform converted for rally sport? Ok.

[Clivey]

scherzkeks said:

The Impreza is not an econo box platform converted for rally sport? Ok.

That's not what I said.

The Impreza chassis was originally designed with a lot more attention being paid to things such as balance, weight distribution etc. - certainly more so than a Golf / A3. - The first cars didn't really need a lot of "converting" to turn them into the WRX. In fact with Imprezas, it's as if the WRX / STi versions are designed first, then they go about seeing how they can remove bits and bobs to make the base models. The R32 version of the Golf is a prime example of the opposite - seeing how much engine / performance you can cram into a shopping car.

[scherzkeks]

Clivey said:

scherzkeks said:

The Impreza is not an econo box platform converted for rally sport? Ok.

That's not what I said.

The Impreza chassis was originally designed with a lot more attention being paid to things such as balance, weight distribution etc. - certainly more so than a Golf / A3. - The first cars didn't really need a lot of "converting" to turn them into the WRX. In fact with Imprezas, it's as if the WRX / STi versions are designed first, then they go about seeing how they can remove bits and bobs to make the base models. The R32 version of the Golf is a prime example of the opposite - seeing how much engine / performance you can cram into a shopping car.

Impreza WRXs are built on a front wheel drive architecture with weight balances of approx. 60/40 and an engine that is set forward of the front axle. Same formula as a Mitsu EVO, A45 AMG, or a Golf R32.

[Clivey]

scherzkeks said:

Impreza WRXs are built on a front wheel drive architecture with weight balances of approx. 60/40 and an engine that is set forward of the front axle. Same formula as a Mitsu EVO, A45 AMG, or a Golf R32.

Once again, you're only telling half the story.

Do the Evo, A45 AMG or Golf R32 have boxer engines that give equal length driveshafts (less torque steer) and a lower CoG than a regular in-line engine? No. This is what I mean by "balance". Even the base Imprezas have boxer engines (I always thought the non-WRX cars were strange animals).

Also, you're over-simplicating weight distribution when you just say "front/rear" (the old WRX was 58/42 IIRC but I'm not sure about the new one). - The RS3, for example, might only be slightly more "front heavy" according to that measurement at 60/40 but there is more weight ahead of the front axle where it has the effect of a massive anvil hanging off the nose. - Not good if you actually like your cars to turn corners. Mitsubishi on the other hand went to such lengths as locating the Evo X's washer bottle in the boot. That kind of attention to detail (combined with a better AWD system) goes a long way to explaining why the Evo / Impreza are more adjustable, feel better balanced and are faster than the equivalent BHP Golf-platform stuff…

...having said that though, from what I hear, the new 8V S3 is much better than the 8P. - Some at Audi have realised that their traditional nose-heavy balance does them no favours and even since the development of the A5, they've been in conflict as to what to do about it.

Anyway…back on topic: I stand by my assertion that the RS Q3 is a silly idea and that an S4 / RS4 Allroad would make more sense.

[aeropilot]

Clivey said:

Anyway…back on topic: I stand by my assertion that the RS Q3 is a silly idea and that an S4 / RS4 Allroad would make more sense.

Especially if they put the 5-pot lump in it and turn it the right way around, and turn it into a 'proper' Audi

[anonymous-user]

aeropilot said:

Clivey said:

Anyway…back on topic: I stand by my assertion that the RS Q3 is a silly idea and that an S4 / RS4 Allroad would make more sense.

Especially if they put the 5-pot lump in it and turn it the right way around, and turn it into a 'proper' Audi

The Q3 does have a much smaller foot print than the A4, however the 5 pot in the A4/5 would be fantastic

[Clivey]

MonkeyMatt said:

The Q3 does have a much smaller foot print than the A4, however the 5 pot in the A4/5 would be fantastic

Indeed. The "Quattro Concept" used the 5-pot; they should've built it (but not priced at £80k or whatever they were thinking ).

The idea of a small, sporting SUV is a good one, particularly for developing markets with unsurfaced roads or for countries that have harsh winters / weather...but the execution of this one (& the Q3 in general) is poor I feel.

[scherzkeks]

Clivey said:

Once again, you're only telling half the story.

I would say it's rather you who is doing so, in addition to simply making things up.

Clivey said:

Do the Evo, A45 AMG or Golf R32 have boxer engines that give equal length driveshafts (less torque steer) and a lower CoG than a regular in-line engine? No. This is what I mean by "balance". Even the base Imprezas have boxer engines (I always thought the non-WRX cars were strange animals).

A minor improvement that no other company offers, but quite honestly, for a road-going car this can be accounted for through the geometry of the suspension and other tweaks to improve roll stiffness. I have no idea why you are talking about torque steer; it is non-existant on all of the cars we are talking about.

Clivey said:

Also, you're over-simplicating weight distribution when you just say "front/rear" (the old WRX was 58/42 IIRC but I'm not sure about the new one). - The RS3, for example, might only be slightly more "front heavy" according to that measurement at 60/40 but there is more weight ahead of the front axle where it has the effect of a massive anvil hanging off the nose. - Not good if you actually like your cars to turn corners. Mitsubishi on the other hand went to such lengths as locating the Evo X's washer bottle in the boot. That kind of attention to detail (combined with a better AWD system) goes a long way to explaining why the Evo / Impreza are more adjustable, feel better balanced and are faster than the equivalent BHP Golf-platform stuff…

Lets cut the hyperbole and keep this objective please. The weight dist. for the Golf-based cars is virtually identical to that of the others being discussed. As for the engine position, the only car with its engine almost entirely ahead of the front axle is the Mitsubishi, which would explain why they went to "such lengths" to improve its weight distribution.

Clivey said:

...having said that though, from what I hear, the new 8V S3 is much better than the 8P. - Some at Audi have realised that their traditional nose-heavy balance does them no favours and even since the development of the A5, they've

That is a gross blanket statement. The Audis that were notorious for being nose heavy were the earlier Torsen cars, and anyone who is familiar with the engineering compromises involved knows why. The 8V A/S3 will be slightly better balanced than the 8P because the engine is lighter and the front axle has been moved just a tick forward. Given how good the 8P was, I am excited to drive a new one.

Edited by scherzkeks on Thursday 28th November 15:50

[anonymous-user]

Clivey said:

Indeed. The "Quattro Concept" used the 5-pot; they should've built it (but not priced at £80k or whatever they were thinking ).

The idea of a small, sporting SUV is a good one, particularly for developing markets with unsurfaced roads or for countries that have harsh winters / weather...but the execution of this one (& the Q3 in general) is poor I feel.

It has just got a slating in TG magazine! I do quite like the idea of the concept maybe the V40 Cross Country with the T5 is a better bet

[Clivey]

scherzkeks said:

I would say it's rather you who is doing so, in addition to simply making things up.

Then you go on to say:

scherzkeks said:

As for the engine position, the only car with its engine almost entirely ahead of the front axle is the Mitsubishi, which would explain why they went to "such lengths" to improve its weight distribution.

So you're saying that the RS3's engine isn't ahead of the front axle? Let's see then shall we?

Audi RS3:



Mitsubishi Evo X:





Stick that RS3 in reverse and it'll become a Carrera 4!

scherzkeks said:

A minor improvement that no other company offers, but quite honestly, for a road-going car this can be accounted for through the geometry of the suspension and other tweaks to improve roll stiffness. I have no idea why you are talking about torque steer; it is non-existant on all of the cars we are talking about.

You cannot fully compensate for a higher CoG by stiffening the suspension, nor can you compensate for the weight being in the wrong place. It's physics! That's why the RSQ3 won't handle as well as the RS3.

Regarding the torque steer; that applies to the FWD models (that you mentioned) of the A3 / Impreza. My point is that Subaru's engineers thought it worthwhile to make the effort even on the base car, making it a better platform to build on for the performance / rally models than it would otherwise have been.

scherzkeks said:

Lets cut the hyperbole and keep this objective please. The weight dist. for the Golf-based cars is virtually identical to that of the others being discussed.

OK, when talking about weight distribution, I would like to know exactly how much of that weight is ahead of the front axle on each car. - There's a reason why some Audis are known for being nose heavy…and opening the bonnet and having a look at the layout of an A/S/RS3 engine bay tells you what it is.

scherzkeks said:

That is a gross blanket statement. The Audis that were notorious for being nose heavy were the earlier Torsen cars, and anyone who is familiar with the engineering compromises involved knows why. The 8V A/S3 will be slightly better balanced than the 8P because the engine is lighter and the front axle has been moved just a tick forward. Given how good the 8P was, I am excited to drive a new one.

So why have they done this?

Answer: To improve the weight distribution and therefore balance - i.e. addressing the very thing I'm criticising. - The reviews I've read even state that the 8V feels more neutral than the older cars…and still my point remains: If you want ultimate performance, a transverse layout with lots of weight ahead of the front wheels, and with front-biased AWD is not the ideal starting point.

[scherzkeks]

Clivey said:

scherzkeks said:

I would say it's rather you who is doing so, in addition to simply making things up.

Then you go on to say:

scherzkeks said:

As for the engine position, the only car with its engine almost entirely ahead of the front axle is the Mitsubishi, which would explain why they went to "such lengths" to improve its weight distribution.

So you're saying that the RS3's engine isn't ahead of the front axle? Let's see then shall we?

Audi RS3:



Mitsubishi Evo X:





Stick that RS3 in reverse and it'll become a Carrera 4!

scherzkeks said:

A minor improvement that no other company offers, but quite honestly, for a road-going car this can be accounted for through the geometry of the suspension and other tweaks to improve roll stiffness. I have no idea why you are talking about torque steer; it is non-existant on all of the cars we are talking about.

You cannot fully compensate for a higher CoG by stiffening the suspension, nor can you compensate for the weight being in the wrong place. It's physics! That's why the RSQ3 won't handle as well as the RS3.

Regarding the torque steer; that applies to the FWD models (that you mentioned) of the A3 / Impreza. My point is that Subaru's engineers thought it worthwhile to make the effort even on the base car, making it a better platform to build on for the performance / rally models than it would otherwise have been.

scherzkeks said:

Lets cut the hyperbole and keep this objective please. The weight dist. for the Golf-based cars is virtually identical to that of the others being discussed.

OK, when talking about weight distribution, I would like to know exactly how much of that weight is ahead of the front axle on each car. - There's a reason why some Audis are known for being nose heavy…and opening the bonnet and having a look at the layout of an A/S/RS3 engine bay tells you what it is.

scherzkeks said:

That is a gross blanket statement. The Audis that were notorious for being nose heavy were the earlier Torsen cars, and anyone who is familiar with the engineering compromises involved knows why. The 8V A/S3 will be slightly better balanced than the 8P because the engine is lighter and the front axle has been moved just a tick forward. Given how good the 8P was, I am excited to drive a new one.

So why have they done this?

Answer: To improve the weight distribution and therefore balance - i.e. addressing the very thing I'm criticising. - The reviews I've read even state that the 8V feels more neutral than the older cars…and still my point remains: If you want ultimate performance, a transverse layout with lots of weight ahead of the front wheels, and with front-biased AWD is not the ideal starting point.

1. It's getting quite difficult to have a straight forward discussion with you. I did not say the RS3's engine was not ahead of the front axle. I said it was ahead of the front axle, just as with all of the cars we are discussing. You suggested that the Subaru's wasn't earlier on.

2. No one said the RS3 and RSQ3 would handle the same. And fully account for what differences in CoG? None of these cares are ideal in this respect. In road going cars in which the chassis are already compromised (basically all sedans and hatches), lowering the engine will not have any major appreciable effect on a cars overall performance, considering that OEMs build in changes to the suspension geometry and adjust spring rates to account for roll forces in their sports-oriented road going models to begin with. This is compromise engineering at its best.

3. You think other OEMs didn't take measures to improve the base chassis for their sports models? In line with your example, the R32s had trunk mounted batteries. How is that any different than Mitsu moving a washer fluid bottle? I don't see this as representative of extensive effort to make the EVO or R32 a track monster. I see it as compromise engineering for a road car that needs to handle a tick better than the base chassis.

4. You miss the point. The question was never why they did it. I pointed out to you that the cars you are currently criticizing were actually not the cars most criticized for being nose heavy. The point is that the smaller VAG cars have traditionally had better balance than the earlier Torsen cars. This changed with the latest models, as Audi was able to reengineer where the transmission and engine sit in the chassis and push the front axle forward a bit.

5. But, again, no one said that a chassis based on a front drive architecture was the ideal starting point for building a sport-focused car. It can however be very good indeed. As with all road going cars, engineering compromise allows us to arrive at a reasonably good solution that allows a road car to perform it's daily driver and sporting functions in one package. If you want an optimal chassis for sports driving, there are several mid-engined AWD and RWD chassis on the market, though none will do a great job hauling your kids and groceries around.