New Audi S3

arcamalpha

arcamalpha

arcamalpha

Associate
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
1,145
I had really high hopes for this car. Not because I particularly want one, or that I could afford one, but I thought it might be Audi's next step into proper performance cars following on from the RS4.

We all knew a while back that it would use the 2.0T engine with >250HP and probably receive uprated brakes, suspension etc. I assumed that Audi would achieve a good result - the A3 is a fairly good handling car already and we know how well the Golf GTI and R32s go. Audi turned the rather dull A4 into the RS4 so I thought they'd have less work to turn the A3 into a superbly handling S3.

Every review seems to accuse the S3 of being somewhat rough in the engine departments with too much lag. They say grip is good, but you'd expect that with modern suspension, wide tyres and Quattro. However, they say the handling isn't very exciting.

So what the hell are Audi playing at? I'm pleased they've kept the 2.0T as I think it's a fantastic engine, but couldn't they have kept the same turbo and stuck to ECU/minor part replacement to achieve the power? I think Audi had a real opportunity to make another step ahead, but I think they've missed it.

Anyone else disappointed?

edited for sp.
 
Last edited:
Audi have never been noted for their driver involvement, so the handling is hardly unexpected.
The choice of the engine is the interesting part.
A straight four will never be as smooth as a good six, and the fact that they needed to have higher power than the Gold GTi ends up with the side effect of more lag (just as the VW diesel 170hp engine seems to be getting negative comments about lag when compared to the 150hp version). Looks like VW have found the point of driveability/power compromise to be between the GTi and S3 (probably where the Cupra is/was).
So you're right to question the use of a turbo 2ltr. Maybe they're planning on an RS version with a better engine.
Either way, makes the S3 look overpriced for what it is, especially when compared to the GTi.
 
Paras said:
the new RS3 looks good
http://www.autocar.co.uk/news_article.asp?na_id=207816
http://www.wheels24.co.za/Wheels24/News/0,,1369-1372_1522144,00.html
Click to expand...

There is no plan to build an RS3 they are very very old arcticles(hence both mentioning the S3 would be a V6, that was cleared up by Audi last year). The question has been asked and Audi said although they have no plans for one they didnt discount it either.

The 2.0T in the S3 uses a K04 Turbo unlike the normal 2.0T which uses the K03. Thats what is causing the lag but it should be good for over 300bhp with a remap. I wouldnt read to much into any reviews yet though as the car will still probably be tweeked more before release. Although I do think Audi have missed the boat somewhat with this car, it hasn't even got flared arches and looks to similar to standard models for the price they are commanding(around £32k with a few extras).
 
Forgot to mention earlier that the 2.0T is far more economical than a V6, which I guess will help sell them nowadays. Even at 265HP, it ought to be able to achieve more than 30mpg. A3s are geared to those who want an Audi for sensible money, rather than those who don't care about running costs.
 
My 2.0T Quattro isnt geared for ecconomy the gearing is pretty short even in sixth. Last time we did a motorway journey with three of us in the car@90-100mph over 130 miles it returned about 29mpg, although the car only had 3k miles on it so may well still have been a bit tight. To compare though my T4 did the same journey and same speed but with four and the boot full of luggage and returned 34mpg. The A3 is now a very heavy car ours weighs in at 1570kg(sportback though) and I cant see the S3 being much lighter.
 
The sportback is quite heavy and unfortunately the economy of the 2.0T does fall off rapidly after 70mph.

Mine's a 2.0T DSG 3dr (book weight is 1370kg) and I get 38-40mpg on my way to work doing 70-75 on the motorway and some town roads at each end.

Out of interest, mine does ~2800rpm at 70mph. What about your manual?
 
Not sure @70 will check in a minute as im going out in it. The sportback isnt much heavier than the 3dr book weight of our sportback is 1470kg and 90kg of that is the Quattro. The V5 weight with the extras we added make it 1560kg though.
 
Mr_Sukebe said:
Audi have never been noted for their driver involvement, so the handling is hardly unexpected.
Click to expand...
I think the point is that they've done such a good job with the RS4 that many hoped they'd turned a corner and future 'S' cars would also be very good handling.
just as the VW diesel 170hp engine seems to be getting negative comments about lag when compared to the 150hp version
Click to expand...
As I said elsewhere after test-driving one, I couldn't detect any significant difference in response twixt the 170 and 140 engines and what difference there was could easily be attributed to the tightness of the engine, having done only 900 miles.

What comments have you seen, out of interest?
Either way, makes the S3 look overpriced for what it is, especially when compared to the GTi.
Click to expand...
The S3 is proving to be a huge disappointment to many it seems. Once you've specced it up to the equipment levels most buyers would want, you're looking at well over £30k for a small 3-door hatchback with a 4 cylinder engine which is ridiculous.

If you want a small sporty hatchback to chuck about, get a GTi and save a packet. If you want something smoother and more refined to cruise in then get a 3.2 V6. The S3 is lost in a no-man's land between the two really.
 
arcamalpha said:
I had really high hopes for this car. Not because I particularly want one, or that I could afford one, but I thought it might be Audi's next step into proper performance cars following on from the RS4.

edited for sp.
Click to expand...

I think your comparison is a bit off, the RS cars are a completely different range compared to the S cars.
 
...the RS cars are a completely different range compared to the S cars.
Click to expand...

Very true, but since there is no RS3, this is the best comparison available in the A3 range.

I wouldn't expect the S3 to be as good as the RS4, but I had hoped that it might follow in the same vein as Vertigo1 says.
 
Cheers Dandle - same as my DSG then. I did notice economy improved by a few mpg once it had done 7000 miles or so. It's now at 10000 and it's levelled off to the figure I gave.

It's definately speeds above 70 where it's least economical though. Town driving normally gets me 25mpg, motorways a bit over 40.
 
At the moment ours is returning about 26mpg with my wife driving it to work over about 7 miles inc a couple on a dual carriageway. It gives about 24 with me doing the same journey. I agree with you on the ecconomy, it seems like the gearing for economy is best around 70ish. I just never really do 70 on the motorway :D

Out of interest what weight does you V5 say yours is?
 
Weight on mine says 1463kg unladen or 1538 "in service". No idea quite what that includes though!

Out of interest that spec is 2.0T DSG 3dr S-Line, 2006 spec, with sunroof and a few electric bits and bobs.

I guess 1463kg-1370kg is the weight of extras it's got - 90kg of extras!!

Wonder how that affects the performance figures...
 
Just checked on the Audi website and it says that 3dr 2.0T quattro is 1430kg whilst yours is 1470kg. 40kg is not bad at all for 2 extra doors and some more length.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom