2016 Audi RS3

AdDaMan · Jul 7, 2016

That's awesome mate. Serious numbers they are.

Addicted · Jul 7, 2016

AdDaMan said:
That's awesome mate. Serious numbers they are.

All while returning 35mpg average, fking bonkers. Couldn't get 35mpg in the Golf if I tried (average), and that's way quicker rofl!

alistairolsen · Jul 7, 2016

Addicted said:
All while returning 35mpg average, fking bonkers. Couldn't get 35mpg in the Golf if I tried (average), and that's way quicker rofl!

Remember that when @Waitey isnt doing 'performance testing' late at night, most of his mileage is at 80 on cruise. I wouldn't imagine that 34mpg would last long blasting up and down B roads.

AdDaMan · Jul 7, 2016

Exactly, he's constantly on the motorway. The golfs would do that too.

Waitey · Jul 7, 2016

Yeah @ 70mph I get nearly 40mpg.

@ 80 I get 34ish mpg.

I average 34 over most tanks which includes mixed driving. A tank with no motorway driving will still return 33mpg, then again I don't drive like a c**t.

alistairolsen · Jul 7, 2016

Same with anything, my daily will do 55mpg @70, 50mpg@80 and 49-51 sat in commuter traffic doing 40, but if I nip over the hill (B roads and lots of tight corners and gradient changes it's down to 38-43 depending.
If you went from 10% town and 90% motorway to all town or backroads you'd be back below 30 I bet, but that doesnt matter for your application and its still damned impressive a car with ~400bhp can manage to be above 30 at all, let alone on average since new!

Ex-User (19928) · Jul 7, 2016

Yep, say what you want about emission regulations etc but technology in cars is going in a good direction!

The Psychedelic Socialist · Jul 7, 2016

Waitey said:
It doesn't physically feel that fast. Bare in mind it isn't as fast when rolling as the 'launch' figures would suggest.

Sounds awesome now though!

I wonder if the 'feel' would be improved with some kind of 'un-map'. Remap the engine to have the same peak power but reduce the low down torque so the torque curve is an incline rather than just a flat line. Encouraging you to rev the engine more and shift into lower gears.

Ex-User (19928) · Jul 7, 2016

cs_rich said:
I wonder if the 'feel' would be improved with some kind of 'un-map'. Remap the engine to have the same peak power but reduce the low down torque so the torque curve is an incline rather than just a flat line. Encouraging you to rev the engine more and shift into lower gears.

Sounds like you'd end up with a slower car that's more frustrating to drive as a daily.

182Trophy · Jul 7, 2016

So to feel physically fast it would need to be gutless until 3000rpm as apposed to maximum torque at 1750rpm? People say the c63 is brutal as it's torque comes on strong from very low down but doesn't have much more torque/tonne more than the rs3 really.
I know the jag is a different beast but how did that compare physically?

The Psychedelic Socialist · Jul 7, 2016

Jeff simply said:
Sounds like you'd end up with a slower car that's more frustrating to drive as a daily.

Yeah, you probably would.

I'm actually a fan of the flat torque curve but that probably comes from driving diesels for the best part of a decade.

A lot of journos seem to criticise that kind of delivery though talking about how they miss chasing the red line.

Ex-User (19928) · Jul 7, 2016

Let's be realistic, it's an RS3 is not a slow car. But I get the point that the 0-100mph time is M5 (older shape) territory, once moving however it is probably not nearly as fast as an M5.

182Trophy · Jul 7, 2016

Takes close to 6 seconds to go from 60-100 which is quick but not as quick as it's 0-60 would suggest. Shows how good these 4wd systems are and how well it can deliver its torque low down. it is basically a modern equivalent of an evo 8 fq400 in its stats, only returning very good mpg. Excellent progress imo. Thought it would feel like a beast though TBH. Not too fussed on numbers personally I would.prefer to go to a 100mph a second slower but have my cheeks wrapped around the headrest.lol.

Waitey · Jul 7, 2016

TBH its the 4wd system that when once moving saps all the power. In gear times are still good though. They'd be better with 2wd.

The Psychedelic Socialist · Jul 7, 2016

Waitey said:
TBH its the 4wd system that when once moving saps all the power. In gear times are still good though. They'd be better with 2wd.

Surely once you're moving and no longer grip limited, it reverts largely to FWD anyway so the transmission losses will disappear?

I thought that was one of the advantages of the FWD Haldex platform, i.e. AWD only when you need it.

AdDaMan · Jul 7, 2016

Exactly. There's hardly any transmission losses over a normal FWD once moving.

Waitey · Jul 7, 2016

Under wide open throttle it keeps the rear active at between 10-15% in the RS models. You have to remember the drag in the system is there regardless of power going through it. Yes its less than having a fixed 4wd system but its a lot more than FWD.

The Psychedelic Socialist · Jul 7, 2016

Waitey said:
Under wide open throttle it keeps the rear active at between 10-15% in the RS models. You have to remember the drag in the system is there regardless of power going through it. Yes its less than having a fixed 4wd system but its a lot more than FWD.

Did not know that. Is that different to the Golf R / S3 then?

Waitey · Jul 7, 2016

cs_rich said:
Did not know that. Is that different to the Golf R / S3 then?

All of them are calibrated differently so I have no idea.

Even with it disengaged you still have another set of difs, driveshafts and a prop to spin.

The Psychedelic Socialist · Jul 7, 2016

Waitey said:
All of them are calibrated differently so I have no idea.

Even with it disengaged you still have another set of difs, driveshafts and a prop to spin.

Doesn't it disengage 'upstream' of most of that so you just end up spinning half a propshaft back to the Haldex clutch-pack?

Ex-User (19928) · Jul 7, 2016

cs_rich said:
Doesn't it disengage 'upstream' of most of that so you just end up spinning half a propshaft back to the Haldex clutch-pack?

Yeah but there's still a diff turning that propshaft.

The Psychedelic Socialist · Jul 7, 2016

Jeff simply said:
Yeah but there's still a diff turning that propshaft.

A very cromulent point.

Herr Flick · Jul 7, 2016

cs_rich said:
A very cromulent point.

@gally

Cub. · Jul 8, 2016

Hans. said:
@gally

Gally · Jul 8, 2016

Hans. said:
@gally

Flol!!! Adults are speaking Richard!

Waitey · Jul 12, 2016

182Trophy said:
So to feel physically fast it would need to be gutless until 3000rpm as apposed to maximum torque at 1750rpm? People say the c63 is brutal as it's torque comes on strong from very low down but doesn't have much more torque/tonne more than the rs3 really.
I know the jag is a different beast but how did that compare physically?

Jag seemed faster as it pulled from lower down and there was zero lag. The RS3 can be a bit laggy sometimes.

Just did a tank of fuel with no motorway driving or long journeys. 32.1mpg lol.

Ian_182 · Jul 12, 2016

That's really good mpg @Waitey I get that on no motorway journeys in my 200bhp FN2 type R.

Waitey · Jul 12, 2016

ian 182 said:
That's really good mpg @Waitey I get that on no motorway journeys in my 200bhp FN2 type R.

Off boost it's quite a economical motor really.

It seems to average the same at 50 as it does at 70 which is odd though!

Silent_Scone · Jul 15, 2016

Not a touch on mine. Managed 20 last week, I was very impressed.

Crybert · Jul 15, 2016

I bloody love this model. Never really been a fan of audis but the most recent rs3 is a proper win for me. Love how you use it as a proper commuter aswell

Waitey · Jul 15, 2016

Cribert said:
I bloody love this model. Never really been a fan of audis but the most recent rs3 is a proper win for me. Love how you use it as a proper commuter aswell

Its averaged 508 miles a week so far. Which is actually quite low for me! Although thats still nearly 1.5 tanks of super a week, or 6 a month. Maybe I should have a diesel.

Just worked it out:

Fuel a month RS3 = £330
Fuel a month in a Diesel doing 50 mpg = £200

Ouch.....

philmots · Jul 15, 2016

So roughly £1500 a year more to run, I wouldn't say that's a huge amount in great scheme of things, depreciation etc.

Specially if you really enjoy it.

Waitey · Jul 15, 2016

philmots said:
So roughly £1500 a year more to run, I wouldn't say that's a huge amount in great scheme of things, depreciation etc.

Specially if you really enjoy it.

I guess not. RS3's have good residuals too. I'll probably sell this at 2 years old on 50k ish. I'll owe £25k on it at that point, so it should be worth around that considering 5 year old ones with 50k on are worth that currently.

Herr Flick · Jul 16, 2016

I'll give you £20k for it at 2 years old. Great deal.

Waitey · Jul 29, 2016

Sooooooo

My rear brakes aren't working at all. Bit annoying. Audi don't seem interested with the claim I've put in for brakes all round.

Good job the fronts are 8 pots.

Philip. · Jul 29, 2016

Seems reliable enough.

Waitey · Jul 29, 2016

Philip. said:
Seems reliable enough.

Apparently they have never worked bar the electric handbrake haha.

Knuckles · Jul 29, 2016

You're blatantly blacklisted.

When they type your Reg in there'll be a big flashing box saying 'no warrenty work to be carried out for this yob'

Philip. · Jul 29, 2016

Waitey said:
Apparently they have never worked bar the electric handbrake haha.

You'll break that soon too 😂

_Tom · Jul 29, 2016

So, you got your name down for a RS3 saloon yet?

2016 Audi RS3

aka Herman Ze German

Formerly Mashed up egg in a cup

aka Herman Ze German

Similar threads