Very interesting........

[gilford]

Saw this on another RS3 forum, very interesting and a credit to Nick for writing it up -


"I ordered a back issue of Audi Driver (Feb 12) because they had a review of the RS3. They are scientific in the way they measure acceleration etc, tho i don't know if they have the usual 2-up with full tank etc.

Anyway, for those interested in their results i thought i'd post them. The numbers in brackets are for their tests on TTRS manual, RS4 saloon, RS6 avant and RS5 respectively:

0-50mph 3.2s {3.6 3.7 3.5 3.7}

0-60 4.3 {4.6 4.3 4.5 4.7}

0-80 7.0 {7.8 7.0 7.1 7.3}

0-100 11.0


In my view, the following is more important in the real world and it's damn impressive!

30-50 (3rd gear) 1.5 {2.7 2.9 2.2 1.8}

50-70 (3rd gear) 2.5 {2.6 2.8 2.6 2.3}

[Overall mpg: 24.7]


Aside from their reservations about the firmness of the ride (one i don't share) the 4 page review is very positive (as you'd expect from this mag), but i think they do make the point that most reviews havn't: "...when you look back at the history of the RS models, virtually all of them have been Avants. In a way then the RS3 was bound to be a mini-estate..."




I think Audi have more or less succeeded on creating a niche of it's own for the RS3, because there are few direct comparisons, eg 1M is a saloon (tries too hard for my liking), M3 is a coupe/saloon (there's millions of them) , M135 is coupe but 3 dooor (if it was a person it'd be uglier than Ann Widdecombe). And personally, i don't think 40k is a steep price when you think that you get a prestige car and this performance. Put another way, when i have a minute i'm going to look through EVO and see what you have to pay for other cars that can get to 60 in 4.6s (official figure), and the list of 5 seater cars with comparable performance must be very short indeed.


Anyway, hope the above is of some interest.

Nick"

[P_G]

There is no doubt that the RS3 has low down grunt which perhaps in todays world of speed restriction etc is needed but form personal experience the RS4 was just getting into its stride from 40mph upwards and by three figures the RS3 is starting to feel at the edge of its power band in OEM whereas the RS4 is in the sweet spot.

The one bit that does nark me on the RS3 now that I can properly use it is Haldex wheel spin, a controller is definitely on the books with proper tyres first of all. Not liking the Conti's at all. I'll do a write up and proper comparison of the RS3 vs RS4 soon, still only 1300 miles and early days in the 3.

[MikeFish]

Six figures? Did you mean 3 figures i.e. 100mph?

Never been a fan on the Contis. My wife alwyas used to use them on her BMWs and her new S3 came with contis too and I'm not impressed by the grip they offer.

[gilford]

It really seals to me why I bought the RS3, VERY quick to 100mph which in the real world is what everyone wants.

The figures above cement what I have thought since I bought it, and is why I prefer it to the RS4, much more usable power

[P_G]

You say that though but the RS4 is no slouch at low speeds. If anything out of D mode in the 3 I found the RS4 with its gearing easier (less work) to use in 2nd, 4th and 6th. And on motorways when at say 60, in the RS4 in 6th you'd put your foot down and it just goes, the RS3 needs at least 3 knock downs from 7th to 4th to get the surge you got in the RS4 and for me doesn't give as reassuring a motorway drive and overtaking capacity and if in D-mode takes a few seconds to work that out.

The seamless shift will make the RS3 quicker off the line than manual changes and the RS4 has to be in the right gear the rest of the time. On twisties I reckon the 4 will still have the 3 as the suspension in the 3 doesn't feel as good and the 4's DRC is sublime compared to the 3's body roll which doesn't inspirer the confidence I had in the 4 to plant it into bends but again some of that is tyres. I imagine if you have never had a 4 with DRC the handling in the 3 is seen as good, most who have been in mine say it is but for me it feels wallowy.

[HYFR]

Can't see how the RS 3 is faster than the RS TT given the TTRS is lighter?

I get my RS 3 on Friday morning...but I would swap it in a heartbeat for a RS 4 B7

[gilford]

Each to their own I suppose, I'm happy with the RS3 and wouldn't swap back

I've had loads of SMG type cars and really like them, but then if I was coming from a manual RS4 which I'd had for years I can see your concerns, it will be interesting to touch on this conversation in 12 months when it's second nature to you.

[Dave_Hedgehog]

Can't see how the RS 3 is faster than the RS TT given the TTRS is lighter?

I get my RS 3 on Friday morning...but I would swap it in a heartbeat for a RS 4 B7

Manual v duel clutch ?

[MikeFish]

Can't see how the RS 3 is faster than the RS TT given the TTRS is lighter?

I get my RS 3 on Friday morning...but I would swap it in a heartbeat for a RS 4 B7

What is stopping you?

[P_G]

The RS3 is a company car and the RS4 would be a private purchase..... look; like it or not the RS3 is not perfect, neither is the RS4 or any other car. People are entitled to their opinions.

[geek]

I have picked up the same back issue; the TTRS tested was a manual, they couldn't shift the box quick enough hence the slower times.

My view is that the B7 RS4's chassis is dynamically better than the 3 however within reasonable limits on the road, exploiting the difference will see you in front of a judge! The 3s torque driven low down grunt for me wins the comparison. Nothing has ever put such a big smile across my chops....and I don't need to be on the limit to generate the grin!

My 15 year old lad proclaimed that the 3 nukes the M5 - praise indeed!