RE: Audi RS Q3 Performance: Review

[Housey]

Audi can make a good car, but they mostly make utter garbage drivers cars and have done from their very early days. How come, it bemuses me constantly. It's like they have 2 great engineers and once a decade they let them lose but the rest of the time it's the marketing boys and girls and some guy from HR who get to call the shots.

[anonymous-user]

A further abomination of what was once the great Audi RS brand. Audi RS is now a joke!

[Dave Hedgehog]

Housey said:

Audi can make a good car, but they mostly make utter garbage drivers cars and have done from their very early days. How come, it bemuses me constantly. It's like they have 2 great engineers and once a decade they let them lose but the rest of the time it's the marketing boys and girls and some guy from HR who get to call the shots.

They make cars for their customers not journo's and by the monumental amount they are selling they are doing it right

whilst it initially seams like sacrilege to make an RS SUV it has to be remembered that most of porsche's income comes from SUV's and audi have said they expect 45-50% of all cars they sell to be SUV type vehicles in the next few years so it makes very good financial sense, just not purist sense

[Housey]

Dave Hedgehog said:

Housey said:

Audi can make a good car, but they mostly make utter garbage drivers cars and have done from their very early days. How come, it bemuses me constantly. It's like they have 2 great engineers and once a decade they let them lose but the rest of the time it's the marketing boys and girls and some guy from HR who get to call the shots.

They make cars for their customers not journo's and by the monumental amount they are selling they are doing it right

whilst it initially seams like sacrilege to make an RS SUV it has to be remembered that most of porsche's income comes from SUV's and audi have said they expect 45-50% of all cars they sell to be SUV type vehicles in the next few years so it makes very good financial sense, just not purist sense

You miss my point. I get that they are popular, I drive a R8 V10 Plus, but it seems most are dire to drive. Now if they were all dire to drive I'd understand, but they do make the odd one that works really well so they can do it.

[Dave Hedgehog]

Housey said:

You miss my point. I get that they are popular, I drive a R8 V10 Plus, but it seems most are dire to drive. Now if they were all dire to drive I'd understand, but they do make the odd one that works really well so they can do it.

the customers buy the cars regardless of how they drive, so why change them

[anonymous-user]

Housey said:

You miss my point. I get that they are popular, I drive a R8 V10 Plus, but it seems most are dire to drive. Now if they were all dire to drive I'd understand, but they do make the odd one that works really well so they can do it.

I suspect that most people who buy these 'narcissist wagons' aren't remotely interested in how they are to drive. I'd say that they are more bothered that other people know how expensive they are and whether their phone links up sufficiently well via the bluetooth to send selfies on the move. The driving part is secondary!

[Bladedancer]

CharlieAlphaMike said:

toppstuff said:

Not if you have dodgy knees and prefer a high driving position - or prefer a high driving position anyway.

Just because you want a small SUV does not mean you have to put up with a boring diesel, does it?

Save yourself £20K and buy a Golf R (or equivalent) and a cushion + a 2nd hand Range Rover (with a petrol V8) for when you really want to utilise the true capabilities of an SUV.

RR isn't a SUV, its a proper off-roader. SUVs aren't really meant for off-road use and most won't ever see off-road, especially the alloys they usually use.
Thus they have 1 thing going for them - high riding position. Ok and in some cases 7 seats.

This is simply a higher riding, heavier and much more expensive RS3.

[Hi Stu X]

Andy20vt said:

Housey said:

You miss my point. I get that they are popular, I drive a R8 V10 Plus, but it seems most are dire to drive. Now if they were all dire to drive I'd understand, but they do make the odd one that works really well so they can do it.

I suspect that most people who buy these 'narcissist wagons' aren't remotely interested in how they are to drive. I'd say that they are more bothered that other people know how expensive they are and whether their phone links up sufficiently well via the bluetooth to send selfies on the move. The driving part is secondary!

Andy20vt, why are you always such a total tt in these forums? If any car isn't like your poxy car then you write it off as a mobile. fk off and stop reducing this to a bhing and name calling forum.

[Sten.]

Such a stupidly pointless car. It's a more expensive, heavier, slower, worse handling, worse looking RS3 which has a higher driving position.

But I quite like it!

[CABC]

Dave Hedgehog said:

Housey said:

You miss my point. I get that they are popular, I drive a R8 V10 Plus, but it seems most are dire to drive. Now if they were all dire to drive I'd understand, but they do make the odd one that works really well so they can do it.

the customers buy the cars regardless of how they drive, so why change them

Audis are very remote from the road. That's a benefit for most customers, the market speaks.
The cars are 'prestige', comfortable, accelerate quickly, go round corners and stop quickly. With no feel (annoying intrusions).
Not my thing at all, but i'm in a minority.

[Housey]

Dave Hedgehog said:

Housey said:

You miss my point. I get that they are popular, I drive a R8 V10 Plus, but it seems most are dire to drive. Now if they were all dire to drive I'd understand, but they do make the odd one that works really well so they can do it.

the customers buy the cars regardless of how they drive, so why change them

If they did both they'd sell more perhaps. This thread and forum is evidence perhaps.

[Housey]

Andy20vt said:

Housey said:

You miss my point. I get that they are popular, I drive a R8 V10 Plus, but it seems most are dire to drive. Now if they were all dire to drive I'd understand, but they do make the odd one that works really well so they can do it.

I suspect that most people who buy these 'narcissist wagons' aren't remotely interested in how they are to drive. I'd say that they are more bothered that other people know how expensive they are and whether their phone links up sufficiently well via the bluetooth to send selfies on the move. The driving part is secondary!

Wow.

Did an Audi driver bum your dad?

[anonymous-user]

After driving both the current RS3 and the RSQ3 the latter is the better drive.

This was a shock as it really should be the other way around.

£53,000 is far too much but as a second hand buy don't knock it until you have tried it.

Finally what is it about the exhaust only being a single pipe?

I hate the fact most cars have fake outlets just for the look.

[paul789]

Housey said:

Andy20vt said:

Housey said:

You miss my point. I get that they are popular, I drive a R8 V10 Plus, but it seems most are dire to drive. Now if they were all dire to drive I'd understand, but they do make the odd one that works really well so they can do it.

I suspect that most people who buy these 'narcissist wagons' aren't remotely interested in how they are to drive. I'd say that they are more bothered that other people know how expensive they are and whether their phone links up sufficiently well via the bluetooth to send selfies on the move. The driving part is secondary!

Wow.

Did an Audi driver bum your dad?

It's a very odd pastime - hate Audis, hate Audi drviers. Must comment on Audi threads. I love driving my offensive Audi; the fact that it winds people like this up is an added bonus.

[CharlieAlphaMike]

Bladedancer said:

CharlieAlphaMike said:

toppstuff said:

Not if you have dodgy knees and prefer a high driving position - or prefer a high driving position anyway.

Just because you want a small SUV does not mean you have to put up with a boring diesel, does it?

Save yourself £20K and buy a Golf R (or equivalent) and a cushion + a 2nd hand Range Rover (with a petrol V8) for when you really want to utilise the true capabilities of an SUV.

RR isn't a SUV, its a proper off-roader. SUVs aren't really meant for off-road use and most won't ever see off-road, especially the alloys they usually use.
Thus they have 1 thing going for them - high riding position. Ok and in some cases 7 seats.

This is simply a higher riding, heavier and much more expensive RS3.

'SUVs aren't really meant for off-road use and most won't ever see off-road'? 'Higher riding, heavier and much more expensive RS3' (and worse to drive than an RS3)? £53K just to sit a little higher?

Plus, it's chassis (PQ35) is Golf MK 5/6 (old tech).

Like I said...totally pointless!

[Hi Stu X]

CharlieAlphaMike said:

'SUVs aren't really meant for off-road use and most won't ever see off-road'? 'Higher riding, heavier and much more expensive RS3' (and worse to drive than an RS3)? £53K just to sit a little higher?

Plus, it's chassis (PQ35) is Golf MK 5/6 (old tech).

Like I said...totally pointless!

Not really a fair comparison. The RS3 is a much more "race" focused car, the RS Q3 is a compromise: RS3 engine/performance/sound without the spine breaking ride. They also have a higher residual value than the RS3

They share the same base platform but have different targets. Same way the old RR Sport shared the platform with the Disco but had a different target.

[anonymous-user]

Hi Stu X said:

Not really a fair comparison. The RS3 is a much more "race" focused car, the RS Q3 is a compromise: RS3 engine/performance/sound without the spine breaking ride. They also have a higher residual value than the RS3

They share the same base platform but have different targets. Same way the old RR Sport shared the platform with the Disco but had a different target.

You mean how Discovery's are normally bought by country types who live out in the sticks or by families perhaps towing caravans to take kids on trips to the beach etc, whereas RR sports often have their windows blacked out and appear to be driven by people of dubious morals?

Having driven the RS3 it's the most uninspiring of all the RS cars I've driven. Only thing good going for it is the 5cyl engine - otherwise it's a pretty poor job. Hobble it further with a higher centre of gravity, increased weight, paint in 'look at me white', up the price, and see the self important queueing up round the corner to buy it!

[CharlieAlphaMike]

Hi Stu X said:

CharlieAlphaMike said:

'SUVs aren't really meant for off-road use and most won't ever see off-road'? 'Higher riding, heavier and much more expensive RS3' (and worse to drive than an RS3)? £53K just to sit a little higher?

Plus, it's chassis (PQ35) is Golf MK 5/6 (old tech).

Like I said...totally pointless!

Not really a fair comparison. The RS3 is a much more "race" focused car, the RS Q3 is a compromise: RS3 engine/performance/sound without the spine breaking ride. They also have a higher residual value than the RS3

They share the same base platform but have different targets. Same way the old RR Sport shared the platform with the Disco but had a different target.

I didn't make the comparison. I was quoting someone else's previous comment.

[Hi Stu X]

Andy20vt said:

You mean how Discovery's are normally bought by country types who live out in the sticks or by families perhaps towing caravans to take kids on trips to the beach etc, whereas RR sports often have their windows blacked out and appear to be driven by people of dubious morals?

Having driven the RS3 it's the most uninspiring of all the RS cars I've driven. Only thing good going for it is the 5cyl engine - otherwise it's a pretty poor job. Hobble it further with a higher centre of gravity, increased weight, paint in 'look at me white', up the price, and see the self important queueing up round the corner to buy it!

No, you dickstink. Stop with all the generalisations and contribute to the conversation rather than being such a fkwit.

The Q3 is not simply a jacked up A3. Yes, it shares a platform with it, but it's not the same car. Same way the Octavia is not a Golf even though they are on the same platform. Same way the RR Sport is not a Discovery even though they are on the same platform.

I know you only have eyes for a B7 RS4 and won't consider anything else at all. And yes, any car that isn't a B7 RS4 must be rubbish because you say so. And yes, blah blah blah your B7 RS4 is better. YAAAAAWWWWWWNNNN, you bore.

When I drove the RS3 I loved it, really loved it, but the ride was way too stiff for my liking, I imagine the RS Q3 would be a great car to drive. Just because you didn't like it (no doubt compared to your B7 RS4) doesn't mean it's fair to rubbish so bluntly. "Pretty poor job" is absolutely not true as the car is well rated, it's an amazing car but was not too your liking. "Pretty poor job" is better applied to your submissions to this forum.

Your retarding assumptions and Audi bashing are boring.

[CerberusRogue]

I have an RS Q3. I love it, it's really a good car for what I wanted and ticked all the boxes for what I was after. Bought it for me, based on my likes, don't give a toss whether anyone else likes it or not. I agree with the earlier comment, I drove the RS3 and liked it but found the ride too hard for a daily driver. The RS Q3 was much nicer as a daily driver.

The Audi brand bashing is boring and unoriginal, but who cares? You could take the same spurious comments people make about Audi drivers and apply it to any other marque anyway.