[footie]

Originally Posted by Bavarian III

Eh, also noticed the 5 cylinders. Why the hell does that sort of engine even exist? I'm turned off.

Clearly you having hear or experienced this engine as of yet.

All I can say is you will love it's note and plain dead for it's poke because this is one really special engine.

Originally Posted by ptack

Thanks Footie. Though I'm sure enough money and horsepower can address a lot of things, it seems like the A3 is starting as a sow's ear with a weight distrabution that is far from ideal for a sports car. Probably part of the reason for the extravagent cost is that Audi has to first dig itself out of it's own hole before it even makes any real progress in terms of performance.

It's a misconception that the A3 chassis is a poor one, mainly rumors spread by BMW fans but the reality is that it generally outperforms the equivelant 1 series with similar power to weight which suggests people need to stop listening to rumors.

http://www.fastestlaps.com/compariso...udi_s3_8p.html

Facts are that the A3 will understeer at the absolute limit and quattro can only curb this ever so slightly which is why Audi fitted this tyres combination which might appear odd at first but actually works surprisingly well.

[pixelblue]

I had a B6 S4 prior to my 135. Loved the fit & finish and overall quality but I can tell you my 135 is a far more dynamic driving experience. mind you I have close to $10k invested in my suspension. I just don't understand why audi insists on placing the engine a head of the front wheels. major design flaw imo

[footie]

Originally Posted by pixelblue

I had a B6 S4 prior to my 135. Loved the fit & finish and overall quality but I can tell you my 135 is a far more dynamic driving experience. mind you I have close to $10k invested in my suspension. I just don't understand why audi insists on placing the engine a head of the front wheels. major design flaw imo

Well BMW have everyone brainwashed in to thinking their setup is right and that their engine placement is vital to driving dynamics but it's total and utter BS, Porsche place the 911's engine well beyond the rear axle but through engineering they have arguably the best dynamics of all.

What BMW do regarding where their engine placement works for them but their finer dynamics is more to do with their rwd setup than anything else because I'm not convinced the x-drive cars offer any better dynamics than quattro ones, in fact I rate them worse.

[pixelblue]

Originally Posted by footie

Well BMW have everyone brainwashed in to thinking their setup is right and that their engine placement is vital to driving dynamics but it's total and utter BS, Porsche place the 911's engine well beyond the rear axle but through engineering they have arguably the best dynamics of all.

What BMW do regarding where their engine placement works for them but their finer dynamics is more to do with their rwd setup than anything else because I'm not convinced the x-drive cars offer any better dynamics than quattro ones, in fact I rate them worse.

first off, I have no brand loyalty therefore your brainwash theory doesn't apply here. your porsche analogy works up to a point because of porsches rwd set up. however, even this set up has it's draw backs. I am sure you are aware of porsches mid-turn throttle off over steer issues. had a friend wreck his cayman S on the track right in front of me because of the same issue (I know mid engine setup). of course driver error played a major role but generally speaking front engine rwd setup is the proper setup for motorsports. audi makes great cars and I am a fan but until they address the front axle engine overhang I just can't consider such a setup for serious motorsports action.

[ptack]

Originally Posted by footie

Clearly you having hear or experienced this engine as of yet.

All I can say is you will love it's note and plain dead for it's poke because this is one really special engine.



It's a misconception that the A3 chassis is a poor one, mainly rumors spread by BMW fans but the reality is that it generally outperforms the equivelant 1 series with similar power to weight which suggests people need to stop listening to rumors.

http://www.fastestlaps.com/compariso...udi_s3_8p.html

Facts are that the A3 will understeer at the absolute limit and quattro can only curb this ever so slightly which is why Audi fitted this tyres combination which might appear odd at first but actually works surprisingly well.

The problems or challenges just get magnified as you try to push performance. I completely disagree that the forward engine placement is performance neutral. It's more to overcome. That doesn't mean you can't do it, but it help explains why it might make a hatchback cost $50k.

[Year's_End]

Originally Posted by footie

Well BMW have everyone brainwashed in to thinking their setup is right and that their engine placement is vital to driving dynamics but it's total and utter BS, Porsche place the 911's engine well beyond the rear axle but through engineering they have arguably the best dynamics of all.

What BMW do regarding where their engine placement works for them but their finer dynamics is more to do with their rwd setup than anything else because I'm not convinced the x-drive cars offer any better dynamics than quattro ones, in fact I rate them worse.

I can't agree with your comparison of BMW's FR to Porsche's RR setup. The fact that the engines are based around entirely different ends of the cars makes it impossible to draw a comparison of the effects their exact placement relative to the axles might have.

Having a majority of the weight behind the center of the car, no matter how big or small, would be more optimal than having it over the front. The more forward that mass happens to be, which having an engine directly over or past the front axle will easily create, is inferior. You know better than anyone that Audi's AWD tech and creative use of differentials allows them to overcome these issues under situations involving throttle, but the absolute limits will end up in time-sapping understeer more often than not.

Originally Posted by pixelblue

first off, I have no brand loyalty therefore your brainwash theory doesn't apply here. your porsche analogy works up to a point because of porsches rwd set up. however, even this set up has it's draw backs. I am sure you are aware of porsches mid-turn throttle off over steer issues. had a friend wreck his cayman S on the track right in front of me because of the same issue (I know mid engine setup). of course driver error played a major role but generally speaking front engine rwd setup is the proper setup for motorsports. audi makes great cars and I am a fan but until they address the front axle engine overhang I just can't consider such a setup for serious motorsports action.

Can't agree with this either. All of the top-performing motorsports incorporate mid-engined, RWD setups. Balance is optimal, typically being a little rear-biased, with better traction for the rear wheels and better overall braking capabilities and more neutral cornering attitudes.

Front-engined RWD setups are best for drifting. I can't see that setup being superior to any MR setup on asphalt from a speed standpoint.

[pixelblue]

^ I agree in theory mid-engine setup is ideal but if you follow any of the FIA GT races or even ALMS races you can't draw a distinct advantage to the mid-engine setups. Corvettes, Astons, M3 & even the GTRs compete and win just as much if not more than the Ferraris, Lambos or the Ford GTs. although the Maserati MC12s has been the car to beat in the last few years

[footie]

Originally Posted by pixelblue

first off, I have no brand loyalty therefore your brainwash theory doesn't apply here. your porsche analogy works up to a point because of porsches rwd set up. however, even this set up has it's draw backs. I am sure you are aware of porsches mid-turn throttle off over steer issues. had a friend wreck his cayman S on the track right in front of me because of the same issue (I know mid engine setup). of course driver error played a major role but generally speaking front engine rwd setup is the proper setup for motorsports. audi makes great cars and I am a fan but until they address the front axle engine overhang I just can't consider such a setup for serious motorsports action.

You talk about the 911 throttle lift off oversteer as if it defined the car, sorry but this isn't as noticeable as you are suggesting here, the 997Mk2 is a perfectly behaved sportscar now which was what I meant by engineered, Porsche have engineered the natural flaws out of it's chassis and now many regard it as the greatest driver's car of them all. As for the Cayman, well driver error was totally to blame there and it's mid-engine layout was not the cause, I know as I have spent time with Porsche, on their track with their tutors throwing every possible situation at the car and see what happens, with the Cayman I can't think of one car that behaves better or that I would trust at the limit.

Next the engine placement of the RS3, it isn't hanging out in front of the axle, it rests on the axle itself. Now to the whole fwd not being considered for serious motorsport action, hello, have you ever heard of the British Touring Car Championship (BTCC) or World Touring Car Championship (WTCC) both of these championships field fwd and rwd cars that complete in the same category, if you take the time and read the results over the years you will see that fwd is very competitive indeed.

Originally Posted by ptack

The problems or challenges just get magnified as you try to push performance. I completely disagree that the forward engine placement is performance neutral. It's more to overcome. That doesn't mean you can't do it, but it help explains why it might make a hatchback cost $50k.

Not what I said, yes the RS3 will naturally understeer and that it's quattro system will improve this but only up to a point which is why they are using the tyre setup they are and it will behave much better than you would ever have thought possible. But ultimately if you prefer the feel of a rwd car then the RS3 won't appeal to you at all, but if you are more open-minded then you may well like what you see.

Originally Posted by Nikkahtropolis

I can't agree with your comparison of BMW's FR to Porsche's RR setup. The fact that the engines are based around entirely different ends of the cars makes it impossible to draw a comparison of the effects their exact placement relative to the axles might have.

It was a simple example of how engine placement isn't as important as what BMW have tried to suggest in all it's years of marketing.

Originally Posted by Nikkahtropolis

Having a majority of the weight behind the center of the car, no matter how big or small, would be more optimal than having it over the front. The more forward that mass happens to be, which having an engine directly over or past the front axle will easily create, is inferior. You know better than anyone that Audi's AWD tech and creative use of differentials allows them to overcome these issues under situations involving throttle, but the absolute limits will end up in time-sapping understeer more often than not.

Having the weight in the middle or closer to the middle is better, no denying that, though it's not to say that any weight position can't be overcome to achieve the desire results. There is a sweet spot that is much greater than most would think and it's in either direction, the TT-RS has shown that this nose heavy setup can achieve blindingly good results, on par with the M3 and extremely close to the Cayman S, so we all need to accept that in terms of lap time the weight distribution isn't that vital at all.

I will give in that AWD cars in generally will ultimately understeer, though not all, but definitely the ones which place the engine in the front will. Though you need to look at the data and see when the understeer occurs and at what speeds, look at the lateral-g data for an M3 or TT-RS and see which grips the longest because it's the nose that eventually lets go on both, I think you will be surprised by the results.

Originally Posted by Nikkahtropolis

Can't agree with this either. All of the top-performing motorsports incorporate mid-engined, RWD setups. Balance is optimal, typically being a little rear-biased, with better traction for the rear wheels and better overall braking capabilities and more neutral cornering attitudes.

Front-engined RWD setups are best for drifting. I can't see that setup being superior to any MR setup on asphalt from a speed standpoint.

You are 100% right here and this holds true even when discussing AWD cars. Front-engined RWD is great for drifting and at this I personally thing BMW's 50/50 setup is most desirable which is why it might be so appealing as people (especially the younger ones) love to show off, I know I did a few years ago.

[A4rings]

Originally Posted by Bavarian III

Eh, also noticed the 5 cylinders. Why the hell does that sort of engine even exist? I'm turned off.

Haaaa you must not be into audis at all huh? what about the inline 5 turns you off? the fact that it sounds 100x better than a n54/55?

[Verbiage]

Originally Posted by pixelblue

That's the only redeeming thing about this car. The engine is basically 1/2 of the V10 engine. I think it won the engine of the year title last year

Word?

Originally Posted by footie

Clearly you having hear or experienced this engine as of yet.

All I can say is you will love it's note and plain dead for it's poke because this is one really special engine.

I think it was a bias my dad had underscored a while back about not liking 5 cylinder engines lol. So that was my first reaction. But I'd be more that willing to give this a shot.

Originally Posted by A4rings

Haaaa you must not be into audis at all huh? what about the inline 5 turns you off? the fact that it sounds 100x better than a n54/55?

You must not have read my previous posts about liking the car lol. and 100x better is a bit.. much? You must not be into BMW's at all, huh?

[footie]

Originally Posted by Bavarian III

I think it was a bias my dad had underscored a while back about not liking 5 cylinder engines lol. So that was my first reaction. But I'd be more that willing to give this a shot.

Hope I didn't come across as ill-mannered, just saying that when you get to actually hear it for real it's quite memorable and then when you get to experience that punch of it's acceleration you WILL be won over.

Originally Posted by Bavarian III

You must not have read my previous posts about liking the car lol. and 100x better is a bit.. much? You must not be into BMW's at all, huh?

Yeah a 100 times better is a bit mental but it is sonically better no doubt.

[wuufer001]

looks sweet for a little car
those seats don't look comfortable but surely looks like it can hug you real tight

[Verbiage]

Originally Posted by footie

Hope I didn't come across as ill-mannered, just saying that when you get to actually hear it for real it's quite memorable and then when you get to experience that punch of it's acceleration you WILL be won over.

No worries, man.

I hope to experience it one day, I'm sure it would be a blast!

Yeah a 100 times better is a bit mental but it is sonically better no doubt.

[henry418]

Originally Posted by tvrfan

2 reviews:

http://www.abhd.nl/video/audi-rs3-sportback

I completely understand what they're saying

[ptack]

I understood the words "extra power", but that's about it.

[Verbiage]

[Verbiage]

I am not a fan of the black with red time attack. At all.

Motor Trend has also reviewed it.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...ive/index.html

[Robert]

Originally Posted by pixelblue

I had a B6 S4 prior to my 135. Loved the fit & finish and overall quality but I can tell you my 135 is a far more dynamic driving experience. mind you I have close to $10k invested in my suspension. I just don't understand why audi insists on placing the engine a head of the front wheels. major design flaw imo

I think that's the 10k upgrade doing the talking. My stock 135i's suspension were good comparatively against other luxury cars but it was by no means good for a sports car.

[pixelblue]

Originally Posted by Robert

I think that's the 10k upgrade doing the talking. My stock 135i's suspension were good comparatively against other luxury cars but it was by no means good for a sports car.

agreed. my car feels like a totally different car now but somehow the rwd experience is way more exciting

[Raine]

Apparently it's 70k USD LOL

[Garduna]

Originally Posted by Raine

Apparently it's 70k USD LOL

That's a direct conversion from the euro cost. I honestly don't get why so many people get the this confusion of trying to figure out a north american cost with a euro/dollar conversion. That is never the case and it is a guarantee that our prices over here in NA will always be better priced than that of our European counterparts.

-_-;

[footie]

Originally Posted by Raine

Apparently it's 70k USD LOL

Where did you puck that price from, never mind I don't want to know.

Anyway, not on the Autocar website review of the RS3 but in the magazine article is the most revealing statement of all about the abilities of the RS3.

"I'd bet that on a road like this, an equally matched driver in a BMW M3 would struggle to see which way it had gone."

I've made this very argument about all RS models against their M model equivalents but was laughed it, well now Autocar are making the same sweeping statement and who's laughing now.