Monday 15th April 2013

2013 Audi S3 (8V) | Review

It's extremely competent and satisfyingly quick, but the new S3 still lacks a little 'je ne sais quoi'

---

The cooking versions of the new Audi A3 have already gone down well, with awards and reviews heaping accolades on its smart but conservative character. Par for the course, then. This being PH we've waited for the 300hp S3 before getting in on the new A3 party, all the while hopeful that the praise heaped on the dynamic ability of the new MQB platform on which this and the new Golf GTI are based live up to the hype. With the S3 going up against the BMW M135i it's going to have to.

So, the new S3, then. To look at, it's... well, as you might expect, really. Sharp in all the right places, with a hint of menace, but very much in-keeping with Audi's design language and a short step from the old car, rather than a huge leap. 'Implied' air vents in the front bumper, as Audi describes them, raised a chuckle, but the rest is a tad on the dour side - though it should be said that the M135i isn't the world's greatest looker either.

Inside, more of the same. The dash is nicely built and looks OK, but there's not much in here to distinguish S3 from A3, with the exception of some natty sports seats. The optional one-piece jobs are even better, mind, and look great with diamond-stitch quilting.

So far, so S3, then, but is it the same story out on the road? Well, in a word, yes. There's still the same plentiful grip from the Haldex style Quattro system, here set up with a 95:5 front/rear bias, making it to all intents and purposes a front driver under full-friction conditions. The system can divert up to 50 per cent of the power to the rear wheels, after which point the ESC starts to cut in and brake the front wheels.

That rarely happens, though, as the chassis balance is excellent with the standard suspension; remarkably neutral and exceptionally forgiving. It's utterly consistent and will perform faithfully in the exact same way, corner after corner, without any surprises. Same goes for the steering, which is a progressive system, but doesn't feel invasive with it. However, it is rather dull and wooden - it feels as though Audi has added weight to compensate for a lack of feel, giving it an appealingly solid meatiness but without much in the way of involvement. Audi does offer its Magnetic Ride Damper Control system as an option on the S3, and it can be adjusted through the Drive Select system; however, we're not sure it needs it.

The new from the ground up 2.0-litre TFSI engine doesn't quite tick all the boxes aurally - there's an electromechanical sound actuator in the bulkhead that feeds sound into the cabin, as well as a sound flap in the exhaust, but despite the additional volume the S3 doesn't snarl like a Focus ST or a Megane 265. That said, the new engine is a strong bit of kit, offering 300hp and 280lb ft. That means a 0-62 time of 5.2 seconds in the manual example we're testing here, though while it's punchy, it never feels quite as fast as it is.

That's actually a sentiment you can apply to much of the new S3. For many it'll be the perfect hot hatch, combining all-weather performance, balance, comfort, fuel economy and quality into a smart-looking package that's competitively priced. It's good to drive fast, too. And for that combination of talents, it should be applauded. However, it lacks that final layer of sparkle that'd make it a truly great hot hatch - and for that reason, those seeking truly exhilarating driving thrills will probably be better off elsewhere. No need yet for the M135i to be quaking in its boots.

---

SPECIFICATION | 2013 AUDI S3 (8V)
Engine: 1,984cc 4-cyl turbo
Transmission: 6-speed manual (6-speed S Tronic optional), four-wheel drive
Power (hp): 300@5,500-6,200rpm
Torque (lb ft): 280@1,800-5,500rpm
0-62mph: 5.2 sec (S Tronic: 4.9 sec)
Top speed: 155mph (electronically limited)
Weight: 1,395kg
MPG: 40.4 (NEDC combined; S Tronic; 40.9)
CO2: 162g/km
Price: £30,500 (S Tronic: £31,980)

[Kawasicki]

One exhaust for each cylinder.

[Kawasicki]

Alucidnation said:

Yep, liking that, probaby not in white though.

Good to see the reviewers are spouting the same drivel, ready for the PH masses to repeat.

What drivel? The bit about it being good to drive? It might be!

[Kawasicki]

SuperchargedVR6 said:

So why is it the exalted M5 can get away with mechanical and dynamic flaws, but an Audi can't?

You failed to list the M5's dynamic flaws.

[Kawasicki]

aka_kerrly said:

scherzkeks said:

Article has it wrong Audi's standard Haldex power split is 85/15 -- it's right on the corporate Web site! And the S and RS models have controllers that are tuned to the vehicle (also on the site and in the marketing materials).

better than that, the Gen5 Haldex can send 100% of the power to the rear and 100% to one rear wheel should conditions require.

Also worth noting that in some driving conditions that 95% is FWD, but the rear is never disconnected, it is always ready to accept torque. This alone accounts for the 15% fuel reduction that VW are claiming vs the older Gen 4 equipped cars.

It is also worth mentioning that the Gen5 is a full time AWD system which is customisable so it could be made more aggressive if that is what people require.

It can only send more torque to the rear axle if the front is already struggling for grip. Practically that means it can't really use the torque to balance the handling, because while the front tyres are already at the limit, accelerating the vehicle by using the rear wheels takes vertical load off the front and makes the grip potential of the front axle even worse. To put it simply, sending the torque to the rear when the front can no longer handle it is great for traction, but a super bad idea for balanced handling. Understeer just gets worse as the cornering speed gets higher and the vertical load on the front tyres gets less. It's daft.

[Kawasicki]

aka_kerrly said:

Kawasicki said:

It can only send more torque to the rear axle if the front is already struggling for grip. Practically that means it can't really use the torque to balance the handling, because while the front tyres are already at the limit, accelerating the vehicle by using the rear wheels takes vertical load off the front and makes the grip potential of the front axle even worse. To put it simply, sending the torque to the rear when the front can no longer handle it is great for traction, but a super bad idea for balanced handling. Understeer just gets worse as the cornering speed gets higher and the vertical load on the front tyres gets less. It's daft.

In theory yes but in the scenario you describe wouldn't the Ediff and EDC (if i have my acronyms right) begin to brake the inside front wheel allowing it to tighten up to the corner whilst letting the back push around?

Braking the inside front wheel to generate a yaw moment is ineffective while understeering, in fact it is possible it would again make the understeer worse.

[Kawasicki]

aka_kerrly said:

Kawasicki said:

Braking the inside front wheel to generate a yaw moment is ineffective while understeering, in fact it is possible it would again make the understeer worse.

But isn't that effectively what a traditional limited slip diff does but from my experience every fwd LSD car i've been in understeers less and allows more power earlier exiting a corner than a open diff equivalent.

I think a lsd on fwd reduces understeer by sending torque to the outside front wheel, which is an effective method to generate an understeer cancelling yaw moment. From my experience go too far with the throttle and the outer front tyre then gets too much torque and the resulting understeer is pretty big.

[Kawasicki]

scherzkeks said:

Kawasicki said:

aka_kerrly said:

scherzkeks said:

Article has it wrong Audi's standard Haldex power split is 85/15 -- it's right on the corporate Web site! And the S and RS models have controllers that are tuned to the vehicle (also on the site and in the marketing materials).

better than that, the Gen5 Haldex can send 100% of the power to the rear and 100% to one rear wheel should conditions require.

Also worth noting that in some driving conditions that 95% is FWD, but the rear is never disconnected, it is always ready to accept torque. This alone accounts for the 15% fuel reduction that VW are claiming vs the older Gen 4 equipped cars.

It is also worth mentioning that the Gen5 is a full time AWD system which is customisable so it could be made more aggressive if that is what people require.

It can only send more torque to the rear axle if the front is already struggling for grip. Practically that means it can't really use the torque to balance the handling, because while the front tyres are already at the limit, accelerating the vehicle by using the rear wheels takes vertical load off the front and makes the grip potential of the front axle even worse.

False. This stopped being the case with Haldex 3. Do you understand why Haldex four has an individual pump to control the clutch pack? This means the clutch pack can be locked by the electronics at 50/50 torque split without slip. WITH slip on the front axle, the car can and does become rear biased in certain situations.

Edited by scherzkeks on Thursday 22 August 22:08

So my statement is false...

It can only send more torque to the rear axle if the front is already struggling for grip.

And your statement is true...

WITH slip on the front axle, the car can and does become rear biased

Are we not saying the same thing? If the front tyres are on ice, and the rears are on a grippy surface then the rears will get 99.9% of the torque...the car will be very rear biased...yet still very, very understeery.