golfrvs audi s3 s-tronic

S

s3 k5p

Registered User
Joined
Feb 26, 2009
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Points
1
Location
NULL
hey guys
just wondering whats quicker standard the golf R or the s3 s-tronic?

and if both mapped upto about the same is there a diffrence?
 
S3 is better looking from the outside

Golf R is better looking on the inside

that's pretty much it. i'd go for the Golf tho, because it's nav is better and it's not going to be an "old shape" car in a year or two
 
Was looking at some vids on YouTube last night on both cars personally I love the s3 but then in Audi biased dads got S3 and ive got a A3 BE with brothers BE on order. Although tht golf is very nice and I've only seen about 6 since launched but S3 are becoming more and more common. (for good reason) 3 on my road for example!

Haven't seen many scirocco r though only one in a show room.
 
sub39h said:
S3 is better looking from the outside

Golf R is better looking on the inside

that's pretty much it. i'd go for the Golf tho, because it's nav is better and it's not going to be an "old shape" car in a year or two
Click to expand...

According to the motoring press the Mk7 is due in 2012 so in 1-2 yrs the Mk6 will indeed be the old shape.
So in reality they may be less than 12 months between the S3 being the old model and the Golf R being the old model.

It also means the R will still be being sold on the old plaform at the same time the A3 is on the new one.

In the meantime it doesnt make it any less of a car of course but worth thinking about if its a basis to make a purchase.

And as much as i like the MK6, lets not forget it is basically heavily facelifted Mk5. Certainly not the step change we had from MK4 to MK5.

That said, if the R looked like the Gti I would consider it, but I sat in traffic a few weeks back adjacent to an R and had a good gawk, and as much as i really wanted to like it the styling did absolutely nothing for me.
As a Golf fan the Mk6 is a missed opportunity IMO .

The Gti is too weedy, the R is .....errrr

Cheers
Paul
 
Last edited:
Agree with you the GTI is a better looking car. Not weedy at all tho?!

If I bought one I'd be putting a GTI kit on it
 
sub39h said:
Agree with you the GTI is a better looking car. Not weedy at all tho?!

If I bought one I'd be putting a GTI kit on it
Click to expand...

211bhp is pretty weedy dont you think?

Most of the sector below, Clios etc are around 200bhp out of the box nowadays.

VW were putting 200bhp inthe Mk5 6 years ago!
11bhp doesnt seem much like progress for a modern day hot hatch with the waistline of a Golf.
Just doesnt seem like progress.

Nice car, weak legs.:(

cheers
Paul
 
I'd go mk5 ED30. Quicker than the mk6 and nicely specced and being a special, will hold value very well.

Just look at the mk4 25th Annis still fetching 8k at 8 years old with 80k on them!
 
PaulAr said:
211bhp is pretty weedy dont you think?

Most of the sector below, Clios etc are around 200bhp out of the box nowadays.

VW were putting 200bhp inthe Mk5 6 years ago!
11bhp doesnt seem much like progress for a modern day hot hatch with the waistline of a Golf.
Just doesnt seem like progress.

Nice car, weak legs.:(

cheers
Paul
Click to expand...

that's one thing i kinda dislike about this place - headline figures aren't everything. the Clio's highly strung engine means you have to rag it silly to get the 200bhp out of it, whereas the GTI is producing it much lower down the rev range. it'll still be faster point to point.

case in point:

Clio 200 Cup - 1:34.0 around Top Gear test track
Golf GTI V - 1:33.7 around Top Gear test track

the GTI's heavier too. and a nicer place to be, not all stripped out.

the new car now has an electronic front diff and the 14bhp (197bhp plays 211bhp) is an increase in power of over 7%. that's not insignificant.

Lee_R said:
I'd go mk5 ED30. Quicker than the mk6 and nicely specced and being a special, will hold value very well.

Just look at the mk4 25th Annis still fetching 8k at 8 years old with 80k on them!
Click to expand...

i don't like the Ed30's bodykit, and the wheels look great on an A3, but the Monzas suit the GTI a lot better.

they've also mucked up the suspension so it doesn't handle nearly as well as a regular GTI or A3 2.0T S-Line. i know because i nearly bought one and drove the rims off it on a test drive.

the part leather and tartan interior is gorgeous tho.
 
Last edited:
Lee_R said:
I'd go mk5 ED30. Quicker than the mk6 and nicely specced and being a special, will hold value very well.

Just look at the mk4 25th Annis still fetching 8k at 8 years old with 80k on them!
Click to expand...

Agree.
Passed a Red one yesterday and its still a fine looking car IMO.
Look superb in white.

Paul
 
sub39h said:
that's one thing i kinda dislike about this place - headline figures aren't everything. .
Click to expand...

Pretty condescending remark that mate.
In fact a pretty ignorant generalisation.
Aim them elsewere in future please.


In the interest of making my point I will ignore the comment.

For me 200bhp just isnt enough. Had it, fun wore off very quickly.
Remap to 250bhp, that felt MUCH better. More satisfying to drive, more of a thrill, whether it was faster on a track, I couldnt tell you and it didnt matter.

Then 250bhp wasnt enough.
Now I have a 300bhp S3, and it fells just right and has for a good while.
Whats it like on the Top Gear track? Who cares, its FEELS really good on the road. And thats alot to do with the power.

My point is that Im a hot hatch buyer and have been for years.
I am fan of the Golf and have owned a couple.
But for VW to roll out its iconic GTi will a `paltry` 211bhp is completely underwhelming.
I for one, would not buy one on this basis.


cheers
Paul
 
PaulAr said:
Pretty condescending remark that mate.
In fact a pretty ignorant generalisation.
Aim them elsewere in future please.


In the interest of making my point I will ignore the comment.

For me 200bhp just isnt enough. Had it, fun wore off very quickly.
Remap to 250bhp, that felt MUCH better. More satisfying to drive, more of a thrill, whether it was faster on a track, I couldnt tell you and it didnt matter.

Then 250bhp wasnt enough.
Now I have a 300bhp S3, and it fells just right and has for a good while.
Whats it like on the Top Gear track? Who cares, its FEELS really good on the road. And thats alot to do with the power.

My point is that Im a hot hatch buyer and have been for years.
I am fan of the Golf and have owned a couple.
But for VW to roll out its iconic GTi will a `paltry` 211bhp is completely underwhelming.
I for one, would not buy one on this basis.


cheers
Paul
Click to expand...

forgive me if you find that comment offensive, but we'll have to agree to disagree on that. you are in effect saying that you wouldn't buy a GTI because you think that 211bhp (the aforementioned headline figure) isn't enough. from where i'm sitting that's how it's appeared to me, condescending or otherwise. feel free to set me straight if i've misenterpreted what you said.

i totally agree with you that how the car feels is what's most important. i've never been on a track either, tho i intend to rectify that soon-ish, and how the car feels in 99% of driving is far more important than how it feels in that rare 1%. but what you've essentially said is that VW have made an inferior product because of its power, and i've used the most fair and bias free way i know how to demonstrate that that opinion may not be entirely fair.

i'd also like to point out that you're probably in the minority of people who modify their cars, and have been driving fast cars for a long time to actually notice the difference. to most ppl the GTI is just a trim line, and to someone like me who loves cars but has just come from a 1.6, the 197 I have now is plenty quick enough. one day i may feel like you (and probably will do i admit), but i reckon for most ppl 211bhp in a shopping trolley is plenty.

there's also the practical consideration that they do have the R model above it that they need to justify in price by giving it a significant hike in power.

in any event, i tend to buy a car for more than just its power or go-faster ability. for example, i'd buy a Brera Spider knowing that it's crap to drive and despite my severe hatred of convertibles because of the way it looks, and because it's an Alfa. i'd buy a GTI because it looks fantastic, goes like stink (relatively speaking) can put the fight to much more exotic machinery on the road but is also quiet and comfortable, affordable and relatively economical.
 
OK, but unless you have the luxury of test driving every car thats released then you have very little to go on.

And Headline figures are pretty damn good place to start to make a judgement.
Track times are so variable and almost irelevent to the average punter anyway. I personally never look at them.

Headline figures are a much better barometer in that respect.

So, looking around at the Golfs peers with 2010 glasses on, then 211bhp isnt a lot.

Even 5 years ago I thought the Mk5 was a little bit behind in the power stakes and wouldnt have bought one if it wasnt so tuneable. 200ps didnt excite me coming fresh from a EP3 CTR but I like everything else about the Golf and always had a remap planned to address the power shortfall.

Even back then, look at what was around.

The CTR was the same but lighter and the Focus, Megane, VXR all had way more power.

The Golf was more money than all of them and arguably had the best chassis that could and should have had more grunt.

Fast forward to the Mk6 and, (IMO very arrogantly) VW stick and extra 15bhp on top of an already stingey power output.
It all feels very cynical to me.

I agree its not the `be all` and `end all` but its a fair assumption that if a car has high headline figures then it will Feel quick.
Usually because it is!

VW should at the very least be putting what the ED30 had under bonnet.

Whether an individual thinks 211bhp is `plenty` depends on what they are used to.
But you have to judge a car in its day in in comparison to what the rest of the market is doing, and again 211bhp in a premium iconic hatch aint much Im afraid.

Cheers
Paul
 
I think the A3 is nowadays soaking up the demand that there once was for the posher, but not totally sporting Golfs - V5, VR6, V6 4Motion etc. This is more naturally Audi A3 2.0T / 2.0T quattro / S3 territory these days.

The R32 and even the Mk6 GTi "look" more overtly sporty than their predecessors; trading a little class in the process IMO. Not that there's anythign wrong with that, but I think it helps differentiate the S3 as the more restrained and classier choice compared to the Golf R.
 
PaulAr said:
Headline figures are a much better barometer in that respect.
Click to expand...

we'll have to agree to disagree with that. i'd much prefer the wide torque curve of the GTI than that of the Clio for example, and that isn't represented in the headline figures

PaulAr said:
So, looking around at the Golfs peers with 2010 glasses on, then 211bhp isnt a lot.
Click to expand...

But the GTI isn't the top of the range anymore. 211bhp is fitting of it's position within the heirarchy.

PaulAr said:
I agree its not the `be all` and `end all` but its a fair assumption that if a car has high headline figures then it will Feel quick.
Usually because it is!
Click to expand...

drive a big Merc. an AMG one. cf. your S3. i'd put a lot of money on your S3 feeling faster, despite having around 60% of the power.

it's the same story with a lot of cars. my sister's SLK200 feels faster than my 2.0T despite the fact i have 25% more power and **** all over it even in the corners.


PaulAr said:
VW should at the very least be putting what the ED30 had under bonnet.
Click to expand...

so what you want is for the car to have a K04? but then you'd probably complain about the traction, so it'd need 4motion - they've already given you that in the form of the R.
 
Whether you or anyone thinks 211bhp is plenty is one thing.
The fact that its output is way below the competition is exactly that, fact.
Which was my point.

Anyway, think we have done this to death and be off topic at the same time.

Paul
 
The real problem with all these cars is weight ! be it 250bhp or 211bhp unless you put that in context its doesn’t mean a lot. I might be wrong but I think I once worked out that the 160bhp 16v mk II golf had an equal power to weight ratio as the 250bhp V6 A3.. the modern car is so lardy with all the extra weight of airbags/Aircon/Catalytic converters/electric everything its never going to have that snap your head back feel you got with carbs/accelerator pump and tin can bodywork..
Its always cheaper to shed weight than add power and it’s the same thing.
 
paddy said:
The real problem with all these cars is weight ! be it 250bhp or 211bhp unless you put that in context its doesn’t mean a lot. I might be wrong but I think I once worked out that the 160bhp 16v mk II golf had an equal power to weight ratio as the 250bhp V6 A3.. the modern car is so lardy with all the extra weight of airbags/Aircon/Catalytic converters/electric everything its never going to have that snap your head back feel you got with carbs/accelerator pump and tin can bodywork..
Its always cheaper to shed weight than add power and it’s the same thing.
Click to expand...

Underlining my (off topic) point further.
Which I thought was quite simple and pointed before the thread went 6 different ways.

211bhp isnt much in a modern Golf.

Whats so hard about that??

Im sure Sub will find another dozen or so of topic points loosely related to my comments to argue the toss about. Unfortunately I will be busy having my **** bleached or whatever....:huh:
 
Last edited:
PaulAr said:
211bhp isnt much in a modern Golf.
Click to expand...

Agree to disagree. Some sports cars of similar value have similar power figures and top speeds, if headlines are all that's important.

PaulAr said:
Im sure Sub will find another dozen or so of topic points loosely related to my comments to argue the toss about.
Click to expand...

What have I said before about disagreeing and being rude? I've not taken anything you've said out of context or made it up, it's all up there for the world to see.

Yet I've been accused of being condescending and now of being argumentative. It takes two to argue, and all my points are in direct relation to your statements.
 
Just to throw a spanner in the works, the mk6 is showing 220+bhp on RR's and maps higher than the mk5 GTI also.

To the OP; the golf R is an S3 with a lesser interior with a short run body. :thumbsup:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Dimitris
Audi s3 S-Tronic Issue
Replies
5
Views
607
dave_beastttt
dave_beastttt
oldlaw
S3 S- tronic
Replies
8
Views
1K
Audi Dynamik
Audi Dynamik
N
S3 S tronic?
Replies
6
Views
1K
klauster
klauster
P
A3 S Tronic gearbox S3 S tronic gearbox differences
Replies
7
Views
7K
h5djr
h5djr
DanielS3
HELP! Audi S3 S Tronic gearbox advice...
Replies
13
Views
1K
warren_S5
warren_S5
Top
Back