Audi owners in here!
- Thread starter GinG
- Start date
God no, but as @Vertigo1 says, it's poor value compared to the S3 (and S4 for that matter if you'd rather have more than 4 cylinders), and poor value compared to the competition from BMW. If there were anything other than paltry discounts available on the RS3 (I only know of one person who got just under £2k off) then it might be possible for it to start to make sense. If it's purely a heart over head decision (not sure why it would be, you could get something far more exotic if you really didn't have your sensible head on) then I kind of get the lust for it, but it's still have to be a Saloon, so there's another few £k from the off!
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 5,937
- Location
- Essex
Whilst I don't have much praise for the RS3, to say it's pretty much an expensive S3 is crazy talk. The S3 is a far inferior car to an RS3.
The M2 isn't comparable to an RS3 / A45, it's less practical due to being a coupe and pretty useless in poor weather.
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 8,607
I think Fox has a notification on for whenever a BMW is insulted 
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 5,937
- Location
- Essex
In comparison to anything with Quattro / 4Matic, yes, I believe useless is a reasonably accurate description.
Unless of course you want to drive your M2 around like a grandma of course, at which point it will happily go around without the traction control cutting in and the back sliding out with minimal provocation.
So what you are really saying is that if you want to drive too fast for the conditions in the wet then the S3/RS3 will be better than an M2? I tend to drive to the conditions personally.
If you're going beyond simply wet roads (such as snow/ice) then tyre choice makes more of a difference than simply adding more driven wheels. I had no issues getting my 330d up a snow covered Alp to the highest ski resort in Europe, all that took was the right tyres. Plenty of other people in 4wd cars having to stop to fit chains...
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 5,937
- Location
- Essex
You and I know that if everyone was driving "to the conditions" nobody would ever need more than a 1.2 Polo.
In England, in typical rainy weather, an AWD car will be far more capable / safe than the equivalent RWD car.
What benefit do you gain on the public road from RWD over AWD?
I disagree, you can still drive to the conditions with more power, indeed it makes overtaking far simpler.
As for what RWD gives you over AWD is a more involved drive (usually). My "underpowered" MX5 is a more involving drive, but definitely harder to get past dawdling traffic with.
As for what RWD gives you over AWD is a more involved drive (usually). My "underpowered" MX5 is a more involving drive, but definitely harder to get past dawdling traffic with.
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 5,937
- Location
- Essex
and what characteristics make it more "involving"? Less grip, more like it's about to slip and slide about under you?
In what way is the RS3 "far superior"? It has more power and the handling is tuned to be a bit more "lively" and err, that's about it. Hardly "far superior", plus you've just claimed that you don't want "lively" handling anyway.
Nah, my MX5 definitely has more grip, you can't provoke a slide in the dry at all, it's even hard in the wet. It's more involving because you can feel EXACTLY what the front wheels are doing (only the steering), and the way the car applies power to the rear means you have to be more understanding of driving dynamics to get the most out of powering through corners, etc. Just a better driving experience overall. Not a better Commuting or travelling experience though, you need creature comforts for that.
There are many things that go towards an involving drive. Steering feel (Audi is poor at this, sadly BMW has never been that good but they have gotten worse) is important to many. This means the steering feels more connected to what the road is doing, it provides delicacy and you can't really understand that if you have never driven a car with exceptional feedback such as a 964, 996 GT3, Noble M400, Caterham or a well set up MX5 (not a standard one as they are far from optimised). Then you have balance and how the car deals with weight, BMW is usually better at this than Audi as they have focused on the weight distribution more. Then there is braking feel, how much feel does the car give you into a bend or on different surfaces, something Audi is mostly crap at. Then you have damping which is how well the car handles the road undulations, cambers, bumps, surface changes. Audi again has a habbit of building for German roads, super smooth often and when put on bumpy British roads it starts to go wrong. It's the balance of all of these elements that provide enjoyable feedback and the driven wheels have a significant impact on this as front drive (be it 2WD or 4WD) will corrupt that over a car that just steers and suspends at the front.
Audi makes safe cars, but the reason they constantly get a hard time (outside of things like my R8 which to quote Harris is "so unlike and Audi") in the motoring press is most of those drivers get to drive all cars so know what good can be. If you don't then you won't care or know or if you don't think those elements are important you are not someone who drives for the sheer challenge of it. Nothing wrong with that, but to me I found the RS3 a fast, nice looking (saloon) well put together place to be, but a somewhat detached and blunt drive, if fast and nice sounding.
Chose the bits important to you, buy the car you want. Simple, no right and wrong, but facts are facts.
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 5,937
- Location
- Essex
It’s significantly quicker, is more exclusive, has a more sporty software setup for the haldex system, has the 5 cylinder engine which brings the obvious noise benefit.
The S3 is closer in spec to a standard A3 than the S3 is to the RS3.
I dunno, those Audis can be a bit speedy too. Perhaps one of these might suit you better?
Exclusivity doesn't make something "superior" and is thus irrelevant. The Haldex changes are marginal and don't radically alter the handling of the car, just make it a bit more lively but then you've already said that's not important.
So only major differences are it's faster and makes a nicer noise. In the scheme of everything that makes up a car, those hardly make it "far superior".
That's a completely subjective argument which depends entirely on what criteria you choose for the comparison. If we're focusing on performance, which seems to be the main selling point of both models, the S3 is a far bigger jump over the most potent A3 than the RS3 is over the S3.
Chuckling at this banter..... this review seems to sum up well
https://www.autotrader.co.uk/content/car-reviews/audi-rs3-review-saloon-2017.
Or to my thinking,
The Audi RS3, a hot hatch for people who like play stations but don't like real driving.
They made it very quick in a straight line, possibly the least important feature to get right from a "drivers" point of view.
So it under steers, is numb with little feedback, with poor steering and brake feel, auto, but does it very quickly and easily. So that puts a very fast weapon in the hands of incompetent drivers, nice !!
I spec'd one up the other day, came to about 54K I think... 20K more than a real RS, ie one made by Ford.
4WD doesn't stop any quicker on a wet road than any other type of drive.
My RWD Zed 4 has been just fine in the wet over the last couple of weeks.
https://www.autotrader.co.uk/content/car-reviews/audi-rs3-review-saloon-2017.
Or to my thinking,
The Audi RS3, a hot hatch for people who like play stations but don't like real driving.
They made it very quick in a straight line, possibly the least important feature to get right from a "drivers" point of view.
So it under steers, is numb with little feedback, with poor steering and brake feel, auto, but does it very quickly and easily. So that puts a very fast weapon in the hands of incompetent drivers, nice !!
I spec'd one up the other day, came to about 54K I think... 20K more than a real RS, ie one made by Ford.
4WD doesn't stop any quicker on a wet road than any other type of drive.
My RWD Zed 4 has been just fine in the wet over the last couple of weeks.