Audi RS3

[blschaefer1]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

Regarding ever increasing size, the RS3 is much closer in size to our B7 S4 than the B9 S4 is. For example the RS3's wheelbase is within an inch of the B7 while the B9's wheelbase is 7 inches longer than the B7. So from our point of view, the RS3 ain't that small.

Excellent point. The manufacturers have lost perspective on this.

[cotmfk]

Originally Posted by doberzus

If you want a track car, forget the RS3/TTRS or even F8x for that matter. Just buy an M2 or 718 Cayman/S, you’ll have the better tool for the job.

If you want a car that 99% of the time is faster on road, in “real-world” situations, with actual traction? The RS3/TTRS is your ticket.

Nurburgring times, 1/4 mile times, and other track times are cool to bring up, but I could care less. After owning a 707hp Hellcat and two F80s(6MT/DCT+ZCP) I am truly done with overpowered RWD cars. Sad part is the “fun” RWD, performance cars are some of the best looking and most visceral.... that wears off quite quickly when all you’re doing is spinning at the sight of uneven, cold, wet, debris filled roads we experience on a daily basis.

On a side note, cars are becoming larger and larger. All the people complaining about the “small-size” of the RS3/TTRS. That is what drew me to the car. The F80 is bigger than the old E60 M5, and the new 5 series is bigger than the older gen 7 series.

I agree with the general gist of what you are saying, but some of the info in there is bugging me.

F80 is the same size as an E39 M5. Was the E39 M5 bigger than E60? Don't think so.

M4 is better track beast than M2. Much better cooling and brakes in a stock M4 vs. stock M2. After a lap or so, M2 needs a rest to cool off.

[M-Pilot]

Originally Posted by cotmfk

I agree with the general gist of what you are saying, but some of the info in there is bugging me.

F80 is the same size as an E39 M5. Was the E39 M5 bigger than E60? Don't think so.

M4 is better track beast than M2. Much better cooling and brakes in a stock M4 vs. stock M2. After a lap or so, M2 needs a rest to cool off.

I completely agree. With proper tires on both cars (e.g. NT01), M4 will outperform M2 on most tracks and I'm totally ok with M2 being slightly quicker on certain very short tracks. The reason is, I track my car but at the same time I don't live on race tracks either. M3 and M4 are dual purpose cars. You can have so much fun on track with an M2 but M2 (as well as any Cayman) is significantly slower on the street/highway. I love how fast the F80/2 is on any sort of pull. Similarly, I'm sure RS3 or TT RS is very quick off the line but they probably aren't as fun as an F8x on the track (in the stock power, suspension etc). In the meantime, I can also cary my track tires or fit 2 full size adults in the backseat of my M4 comfortably. I just configured a TT RS the way I wanted and it exceeded $70K easily. I don't think I would pay $70K+ just for off the line acceleration. Again, all my comparisons and justifications are based on the fact that these cars are stock. I don't care how fast an F8x can go with BM3 flash tune or a TT RS with APR etc.

[JoeFromPA]

Originally Posted by ASAP

I 300% agree with you... it is the worst handling BMW ever made... the short chassis when combined with non run flats makes the car a god damn trampoline in the rear w the suspension play... however; I had enough mods on it to allow it turn rather quick (especially with wide 235 front PSS tires) and one thing it would never do was understeer unless you were going very fast.

2016 S3 was what I drove.

....wait, you are comparing a modified 135i that was worked over suspension/tire wise to provide quick turn-in and balanced handling, to a stock s3, and saying the s3 plowed at 30mph while acknowledging the stock 135i also had major handling issues stock?

I don't get this comment series

I owned a 2006 honda civic SI, a 2008 Subaru Legacy GT 5mt (with mild suspension mods), a 2005 Saab 9-2x aero (stock), and a few other vehicles. All would plow stock, yet all were great fun to drive hard into a corner or sweeping turn.

Almost every car made that is not built for the track is built to understeer at the limit instead of readily rotating. I don't get the general derision towards mild understeer anymore, if the chassis is playful and responsive.

Haven't driven an rs3 yet, but I look forward to tossing it into a corner hard at 30mph and seeing what happens. If it sucks, it sucks.

[ASAP]

Originally Posted by JoeFromPA

....wait, you are comparing a modified 135i that was worked over suspension/tire wise to provide quick turn-in and balanced handling, to a stock s3, and saying the s3 plowed at 30mph while acknowledging the stock 135i also had major handling issues stock?

I don't get this comment series

I owned a 2006 honda civic SI, a 2008 Subaru Legacy GT 5mt (with mild suspension mods), a 2005 Saab 9-2x aero (stock), and a few other vehicles. All would plow stock, yet all were great fun to drive hard into a corner or sweeping turn.

Almost every car made that is not built for the track is built to understeer at the limit instead of readily rotating. I don't get the general derision towards mild understeer anymore, if the chassis is playful and responsive.

Haven't driven an rs3 yet, but I look forward to tossing it into a corner hard at 30mph and seeing what happens. If it sucks, it sucks.

The comment goes to show I do not have bias towards a 135i since I owned one and goes further to prove a point that while I do accept its flaws, my particular car never had understeer issues... and still steered faster at 30 mph than an S3 I test drove... again, I have not driven an RS3, but the S3 scared me a bit.

[blschaefer1]

Originally Posted by ASAP

... and still steered faster at 30 mph than an S3 I test drove... again, I have not driven an RS3, but the S3 scared me a bit.

Comments from Car and Driver here mirror my own experience with our S3. It appears several improvements were made in 2017, including reworking the diffs and Haldex to allow 100% of power and torque to be applied to any wheel, along with suspension changes, etc.

Despite these changes, I can't imagine the '16 you drove was so bad in the understeer department that it 'scared' you.

It means that all the decisions about the S3’s handling, ride, and stability are now made in one spot, from one set of data, at the same time. So the same brain that decides when to wake up the rear diff also decides how much work to give it, how much traction each tire can handle, and when grip is getting a bit iffy. It’s meant to make the car react more quickly and cohesively, and it works. Reworked differentials also play a role, with both the front and rear diffs now capable of taking 100 percent of the engine’s power and torque. That alone would give the car’s electronic brain a wider range of torque-management options. Audi doesn’t make much fuss about it, but the electrohydraulic steering programming has been changed, too.

It Can Handle the Power

These alterations imbue the S3 sedan with handling that feels even more positive and precise at the start of every corner, which imparts a higher level of confidence in the car’s ability to cope with anything you can throw at it. The S3 we drove showed up with its optional 19-inch aluminum wheels ringed with 235/35 Hankook rubber, and the car still rides well, even if we did detect a smidgen more harshness overall. The S3 has more grip, in every direction, than sane people will ever exploit. It can be hurled into any tight corner with an utter lack of mechanical empathy, and instead of curling up in a ball of mewling understeer, the S3 will shuffle the torque around, briefly pinch a brake caliper here or there, and just bite and go.
There is an accuracy and a nuance to the lightly weighted steering that wasn’t there before, and the driver always knows exactly what grip remains and what the car has just done. It also punches out of corners brilliantly, disdaining power-on understeer and shooting squarely where you’ve aimed it. It’s difficult to convince the S3 that its abilities finally have been exceeded, but when they are, it smoothly and surreptitiously works its voodoo to get everything under control again.

Full article here:
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...t-drive-review

[dkhm3]

Originally Posted by blschaefer1

Comments from Car and Driver here mirror my own experience with our S3. It appears several improvements were made in 2017, including reworking the diffs and Haldex to allow 100% of power and torque to be applied to any wheel, along with suspension changes, etc.

Despite these changes, I can't imagine the '16 you drove was so bad in the understeer department that it 'scared' you.[/url]

fyi, Audi is moving away from its current AWD systems in favor of BMW's electronic multi clutch based AWD in their newer models.

There is significant understeer at the limits and that is the problem with AWD. While the issue has been more and more minimized with tech, it is exacerbated with the Audi front heavy, front axle engine placement. It is developed this way because of economics, the Audi sedans, for the most part, were specifically designed and sold as front wheel drive cars. AWD variants are then built on FWD platforms. Both the A3 and TT are built on VW FWD GOLF platforms.

When a sports car is specifically designed from the beginning as AWD, the understeer issues are more mitigated- see GT-R, Lambo's, 918 spyder, etc. Engines can be designed to be mounted as far back from the front axle as possible, rear wheel steering, etc. The track times will always tell you the true story.

Even with my near perfect 50/50 on my x5m, and the trick differential, the understeer is evident whenever the car is pushed above 8/10's, the lap times are stunningly fast for AWD (faster than the f8x at Willow Springs-Randy Pobst), but the car is not as fun to drive.

Watch this video:

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by dkhm3

Even with my near perfect 50/50 on my x5m,

Who said a 50:50 weight distribution is ideal?

Ah yes, BMW Marketing. Hint: it’s not .

[ASAP]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

Who said a 50:50 weight distribution is ideal?

Ah yes, BMW Marketing. Hint: it’s not .

yes, u would want a bit more to the rear... making audis even worse

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by ASAP

yes, u would want a bit more to the rear... making audis even worse

[clutchdj]

Originally Posted by cntzl

I completely agree. With proper tires on both cars (e.g. NT01), M4 will outperform M2 on most tracks and I'm totally ok with M2 being slightly quicker on certain very short tracks. The reason is, I track my car but at the same time I don't live on race tracks either. M3 and M4 are dual purpose cars. You can have so much fun on track with an M2 but M2 (as well as any Cayman) is significantly slower on the street/highway. I love how fast the F80/2 is on any sort of pull. Similarly, I'm sure RS3 or TT RS is very quick off the line but they probably aren't as fun as an F8x on the track (in the stock power, suspension etc). In the meantime, I can also cary my track tires or fit 2 full size adults in the backseat of my M4 comfortably. I just configured a TT RS the way I wanted and it exceeded $70K easily. I don't think I would pay $70K+ just for off the line acceleration. Again, all my comparisons and justifications are based on the fact that these cars are stock. I don't care how fast an F8x can go with BM3 flash tune or a TT RS with APR etc.

You are right and that is why I will probably jump into another f80. Can haul family, strollers, junk, and play on the wet skid pad all day. I spent 4 hours on the skid pad in Greenville last week working on drifting and it’s such a cool platform. With all nannies off it demands respect but its great at the limit and itll expose your mistakes without trying to kill you. The rs3 is a special can of beans but does still handle like an audi which is not necessary a bad thing. Just have to manage the understeer. With software tweaking I’m sure the rs3 will throttle-over when provoked. I think we are fortunate to have these choices beteween manufacturers.

[Funf6cyl]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

Who said a 50:50 weight distribution is ideal?

Ah yes, BMW Marketing. Hint: it’s not .

Very good point. The best handling cars (current and through time) have a bias towards the posterior. 911s, Ferrari’s, the Boxster/Cayman, Lamborghini, Mclaren, etc all bias to the rear.


How many here have actually driven a new RS3? Seems based on reviews it’s a very solid handler. The now transverse mounted engine that is nearly 60 pounds lighter, a wider front track, wider tires and a newly revised AWD sound like they’ve worked well in what seems like a special package.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by Funf6cyl

Very good point. The best handling cars (current and through time) have a bias towards the posterior. 911s, Ferrari’s, the Boxster/Cayman, Lamborghini, Mclaren, etc all bias to the rear.


How many here have actually driven a new RS3? Seems based on reviews it’s a very solid handler. The now transverse mounted engine that is nearly 60 pounds lighter, a wider front track, wider tires and a newly revised AWD sound like they’ve worked well in what seems like a special package.

The engine has always been transversely mounted in the A/S/RS3 chassis

They did make the engine significantly lighter with this version of the I-5 in the RS3 mostly due from going from a cast iron to aluminum for the block.

We did go for two extensive test drives when we ordered ours. The RS3 does fell quite nimble and playful, more so than the F8X at street speeds. I am pretty sure it wont keep up with an F8X on a track though.

[Funf6cyl]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

The engine has always been transversely mounted in the A/S/RS3 chassis

They did make the engine significantly lighter with this version of the I-5 in the RS3 mostly due from going from a cast iron to aluminum for the block.

We did go for two extensive test drives when we ordered ours. The RS3 does fell quite nimble and playful, more so than the F8X at street speeds. I am pretty sure it wont keep up with an F8X on a track though.

Did not know that regarding the engine. Thought it was previously longitudinally mounted but it makes sense given the space. Massive weight reduction though off the front axel. Magnesium oil pan sounds exotic too.

I’d imagine the RS3 would push at the full on limit in the track whereas the M you’re going to need to be quick on the oversteer. I’d venture to say the RS with AWD will be easier to drive quickly but think it really excels as a street car but it did seem to move in the APR track video which looks exciting.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by Funf6cyl

Did not know that regarding the engine. Thought it was previously longitudinally mounted but it makes sense given the space. Massive weight reduction though off the front axel. Magnesium oil pan sounds exotic too.

I’d imagine the RS3 would push at the full on limit in the track whereas the M you’re going to need to be quick on the oversteer. I’d venture to say the RS with AWD will be easier to drive quickly but think it really excels as a street car but it did seem to move in the APR track video which looks exciting.

In stock form, the M4 also understeers at the limit on track. Albeit it understeers less than the E46 and E92 M3s I had before it.

[JoeFromPA]

Originally Posted by Funf6cyl

Magnesium oil pan sounds exotic too.

I have to smile at this. When the f8x came out, it came with a magnesium oil pan. Mine has it.

Somewhere in the first year, they switched off mag oil pans. I BELIEVE for a combination of cost-savings and ease of servicing.

[Funf6cyl]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

In stock form, the M4 also understeers at the limit on track. Albeit it understeers less than the E46 and E92 M3s I had before it.

When you’re really pushing it does, but most cars will at that level. I agree on the succession too. I found it has gotten far better than the E46 and E9 series.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by Funf6cyl

When you’re really pushing it does, but most cars will at that level. I agree on the succession too. I found it has gotten far better than the E46 and E9 series.

My wife let me take her B7 S4 at the track once when my E92 M3 was in the shop. It was fun to drive but it had heavy understeer under power when tracking out of corners, which killed its exit speed. At least, you can get some rotation under power with a RWD car. The RS3 seems more eager to rotate, but I have not driven it on a track yet.

[dkhm3]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

Who said a 50:50 weight distribution is ideal?

Ah yes, BMW Marketing. Hint: it’s not .

ok, just to clarify:

50/50 is the best we can hope for in a front engined car.

[dkhm3]

Originally Posted by Funf6cyl

Very good point. The best handling cars (current and through time) have a bias towards the posterior. 911s, Ferrari’s, the Boxster/Cayman, Lamborghini, Mclaren, etc all bias to the rear.

Rear Mid Engined like the boxter/cayman or f1 race cars are ideal vs Rear Engined 911, from what I understand.

[Funf6cyl]

Originally Posted by dkhm3

Rear Mid Engined like the boxter/cayman or f1 race cars are ideal vs Rear Engined 911.

I agree the mid-rear engines cars seem most ideal, but the current day 911s vs the older ones are as good if not better when it comes to handling. I don’t think given current technology and suspension technology you’re going to find a material difference (especially given the engine continues to move towards a mid rear in the 911 and who knows for the future given the 911 RSR). Results from LeMans history are enough to show you how potent those rear engines 911s were and still are. Rear mid engines also do happen to spin very quickly and it can be quite scary the first time when you spin like a top. PMOI.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by dkhm3

ok, just to clarify:

50/50 is the best we can hope for in a front engined car.

Corvette Grand Sport: