S3 V 170 TDi Quattro

S

samuelt

Registered User
Joined
May 27, 2006
Messages
383
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Location
perth
Hi All

Before i go any further i am not trying to say that my 170 Quattro is faster than an S3 I know it is not! I am just interested on how Audi's faster A3 Diesel matches up against there S3 Petrol, in a real scenario race.

Tech data

170 Quattro - 170BHP (some say 180) - 258lbs foot torque - 0-60 in 7.9 seconds
S3 - 265BHP - also 258lbs foot torque - 0-60 in 5.7 Seconds.

Now say these two cars are in a 30 zone both sitting side beside at there optimum gear for accelerating. They enter a 70 limit and accelerate. How far apart would are they when the first car (guessing S3) would brake the national speed limit? Also if they kept going let’s say till the S3 got to 120mph how fast would the 170 TDi be going?

Now I have never driven an S3 but i do know that my 170 is so much quicker at this stuff than my old 130. When the Turbo kicks in you get that proper thump in the back that you would expect from a Petrol Turbo.

Has any one driven both cars got an opinion?
 
These are hard questions to answer!

I think what you need to do is find someone in Perth with an S3 and ask them to take you for a drive :yes:
 
My S3 aint faster than a fiesta with 4 ppl in. One overtook me today, granted he was in a 40 zone in the oncoming traffic lane.. Pillock
 
My younger cousin has a 170 TDI quattro, I have driven his and he has driven mine short distance only & at normal speeds there is not much in them. Only when you do something like an overtake then the S3 is much much nicer and easier - no gear changes when wrong side of road etc . In a situation when sharp corners, etc the S3 ability to pull in a higher gear and wider rev range soon becomes apparent and pulls away . Turbo comming on boost in the TDI does seem a bit more noticable - S3 is more smooth, and for some odd reason the S3 does feel more stable over bumpy roads. Found the TDI quite tiring when driving fast on bendy roads where lots of gear changes etc, trying to keep its in its optimum rev range.

Forgot to say my cousin is alaway saying it good on fuel - he got a bit upset last week when he found out the average over 5K miles is only 10 mpg better than mine !

Richard
 
Well I found the figures on autocar for the S3 vs TT TDI 170 ( which is lighter than A3 170 Quattro )

0-60 5.8 vs 7.7
0-100 13.6 vs 22.8
30-70 5.1 vs 8.7
50-70 in 5th 4.8 vs 6.2
0-1000m 25.5 @ 130.4 vs 30.2 @ 111

So I reckon the TDI would be left for dead!
 
thanks Richard for the comparison, I must get myself out in an S3!

Mike i can find the S3 data but not the tt170 Data can you psot a link.

13.6 to 100 that is great time! it's amazing that the 170 takes a further 15 seconds to do 60-100 against 7 for the S3.
 
My last car was a 170 TDI and my present is an S3. The 170 in is own right is a very capable car with a nice dollop of mid range but in comparrison to the S3 it runs out of steam where the S3 still pulls hard and for longer in any set gear. At 100mph plus in top gear is where the S3 would really kill the TDI. I went to Audi in my TDI for a very long and enthusiastic test drive of an S3 and that was it I had one! Not putting the TDI down, as said it is a very good car but built for a very different purpose.
 
thanks Mike for the link and Kris for your comparison.
 
comparing the TDI agaisnt Mark 1 Civic Type-R and on paper in-gear speeds are faster in the TDI!! although it looses 0-100 by 4 seconds (type-R 18.4). Now how do i drop my 0-100 from 22.8 to 17.5!!

170tdi 30-50mph in 3rd/4th* 3.1 / 5
type-R 30-50mph in 3rd/4th* 3.8 / 5

170tdi 40-60mph in 4th/5th* 4.6 / 6.4 sec
type-R 40-60mph in 4th/5th* 5.2 / 6.7 sec

170tdi 50-70mph in 5th* 6.2 sec
type-R 50-70mph in 5th* 7.1 sec

170tdi 60-0mph* 2.75 sec
type-R60-0mph* 2.95 sec
 
Samuel, i just need to point out:

1 -
type-R 30-50mph in 3rd/4th* 3.8 / 5
Click to expand...

A -Would be done in 2nd gear in half that time, wheras the tdi wouldnt stretch to 50 in second.

2-
type-R 40-60mph in 4th/5th* 5.2 / 6.7 sec
Click to expand...

A -Again would be done in 2-3rd gear in half that time, wheras the tdi wouldnt stretch to 60 in third with any steam left.

3-
type-R 50-70mph in 5th* 7.1 sec
Click to expand...

A - Still in 3rd and pulling extremely hard (vtec) so again, u could totally slash that time wheras the tdi would be out of puff needing the gearchange for another dollop of torque.

In a nutshell, a very unfair comparison to be honest
 
samuelt said:
comparing the TDI agaisnt Mark 1 Civic Type-R and on paper in-gear speeds are faster in the TDI!! although it looses 0-100 by 4 seconds (type-R 18.4). Now how do i drop my 0-100 from 22.8 to 17.5!!

170tdi 30-50mph in 3rd/4th* 3.1 / 5
type-R 30-50mph in 3rd/4th* 3.8 / 5

170tdi 40-60mph in 4th/5th* 4.6 / 6.4 sec
type-R 40-60mph in 4th/5th* 5.2 / 6.7 sec

170tdi 50-70mph in 5th* 6.2 sec
type-R 50-70mph in 5th* 7.1 sec

170tdi 60-0mph* 2.75 sec
type-R60-0mph* 2.95 sec
Click to expand...

The 0-100 time says it all.
The CTR is faster, by a fair margin.
4 secs is a lifetime when comparing performance figures like these.

cheers
Paul
 
in gear times might be good in the tdi the but the rev range is very narrow. With all of the in gear times quoted i would just drop a gear in the type r and then im pretty sure it would be a different story!!!

Are those times ek9 or ep3?
 
L60N said:
2-

A -Again would be done in 2-3rd gear in half that time, wheras the tdi wouldnt stretch to 60 in third with any steam left.
Click to expand...

Not getting involved in the whole which is faster debate as its obvious which is but the TDI will do over 60 in 3rd, if not 70 and still be in its power band.
 
L60N i have to agree with matt (fellow 170 driver) that the 170's will do these 1 gear lower as well, these are the times that would be intresting. After having a VVT engined car i know they loved to be reved where as TDI's give so much power low down. Also the TDI has100lb/f torque more than a type R at a MUCH lower RPM.
 
just out of intrest a 170 is 5 seconds quicker to 100 than a 140 22.8/27.8 how much differnce to 100mph would chiping a 170bhp to 205(ish)bhp make?
 
Just to get myself involevd, I used to have a 190bhp celica VVTL-i celica. It was very much like the CTR in the fact that it has a V-tech derived engine which revved to 8,200rpm. It changed onto power cam at 6,000 rpm and seemed to take off. But below the magical 6,000 rpm it was dog slow, no torque and little power. This made the in gear acceleration rubbish.

I now have a 140 tdi, and at motorway speeds I am 100% sure it is much faster than the celica, so I recon a 170 tdi would be quicker in real world driving than a ctr.

This is only my opinion obviously. )-60 and 0-100 times dont really mean anything in the real world. A better indication of acceleration is 30-60 or 50-70. These should be done in which ever gear is more efficient that thoes speeds though. SO its a fair point o say 50-70 in 5th gear in a ctr is no real comparrison as it should be done in 3rd and the audi should be doing it in 4th. imo

A!
 
Despite the seeming logic of it all, in fact you're comparing apples and oranges: diesel and petrol engines have different power delivery characteristics, as has been alluded to above.

A diesel engine is all about torque, which it makes from low 'n' slow. That's what makes diesels good for ambling around town or pootling along the motorway; you can basically leave it in gear and the torque will carry you through. But does that give you acceleration? For the most part, no, unless the car has really clever gearing. A diesel generally runs out of puff -- totally -- at around 5,000 rpm. Actually, there's not much point taking any of the current VAG diesels beyond 4,500 rpm. So, if you want to make a diesel accelerate as fast as it can you need to row through the gears...but to make a cruiser, the gearbox -- even a 6 or 7 sp remains a compromise and you'll run out of gears with a low enough ratio to maintain the acceleration.

Whereas a modern T/C motor such as the 2TFSI in the S3 has the torque AND can rev out in the gears. So, you can grab a gear and rev it out to 6,500 before grabbing the next one. Hence it will leap away from the diesel.

5th/6th gear passing tests also aren't all the 'real world' as you learn to drive both cars differently. At 2,500 rpm in the diesel, I know it is right in it's sweet spot, so will lumber away very nicely when I press the pedal; whereas in the S3, that's be driving liking granny, so I drop it back a couple of cogs, and whoosh!

How do I know? Well, we have both. My car is an 8P S3, and my wife has a Mk V Golf GT TDI with DSG. In Australia, the GT TDI has the 125Kw (=170hp) DPF motor. I like driving them both, but for different reasons. The Golf is great for a cruise :blackrs4: the S3 great for a spirited drive :racer:
 
In gear times, power delivery etc are all very interesting, but the CTR is quicker 0-60, 0-100, has a better power/weight ratio and has a higher top speed.
So, the CTR is the faster car is it not?

The main difference is that between 2 given speeds (30-60 say), one is revving its nuts off, the other one isnt, but ultimately the CTR will get you from A to B quicker.
Fact.

Cheers
Paul
 
Agreed the CTR is obviously a faster car, I dont think anyone is arguing that.

The point I was trying to make is if you are off the power cam in a v-tec engine you get very little from it. So a person in a diesel can easily upset a ctr if the person driving the ctr is caught off gaurd. By the time the person in the ctr has had to change down a gear or two to get up into the high rev range, the chap in the torquey diesel would have already pulled a few lengths on him.

The ctr and simlar engined cars are also such a slog to drive, you have to work them really hard to get anywhere near the maximum potential out of them. I used to get out of my celica after a decent drive pretty nackered. High revving antics are not all they have cracked up to be.

For example in the celica you could only ever get to the power cam in 1st and 2nd gears within the speed limit. And when you climb onto cam in 1st gear the front wheels break traction anyway. then when you do get onto the power cam in second gear you get a thump of power and its all over in a second or two. The celica used to take AGES to get to 110mph (on a tarck) but the audi does it effortlessley.

I would also not for one second suggest that a diesle would get anywhere near an S3 or simlar. My point is against V-tec engines.....
 
i loved my ctr and if i needed to save a bit of cash i would go back to one in a breath.

I know the celica/corolla 190 bhp models were of a similar nature however the ctr imo was a much better car/engine.

A sharp engine with which imo if people ignore the "lack" of torque on paper is one of the best 2.0 n/a lumps and if driven properly will certain stick to and s3/r32. (Weather permiting)
 
A ctr would not get near a new S3 or R32. The CTR is faster than the celica, but I have driven quite a few and the difference is not really noticable, imo.

I do like the ctr really, but I think it is over hyped and give a legendry stats it does not deserve by young guys and top gear presenters.

Its only my opinion tho...........:nyah:
 
As has been said the two cars are completly different and purposefully bred that way. However a little tid bit for you.
A lad at work had a boxter s (previous gen) and I had a fabia VRS which was standard apart from a green panel filter. Now I was interested at which engine had the most flexibility around town so on a dual carrigeway where the limit changed from 30-40 we tried accelerating in 4th and then the same test in 5th. The furby won both just due to the low down pull. So I would have argued that the furby was a more flexible engine real world under 50 mph. Obviously the moment stepped out of town it would blitz me and a lot of other stuff......... Now my motorbike at 2.6 - 60 thats a different story!

Its all about being happy with what you have and suprising the odd fool here and there, love your car and play to its strengths.
 
trust me a type r WILL keep with an r32 all day long and an s3 may pull a few car lengths but no a huge margin.

My previous car was an ep3 and my current car is an s3, i also have friends with an ep3 and an r32.
 
APL TDi said:
Agreed the CTR is obviously a faster car, I dont think anyone is arguing that.

The point I was trying to make is if you are off the power cam in a v-tec engine you get very little from it. So a person in a diesel can easily upset a ctr if the person driving the ctr is caught off gaurd. By the time the person in the ctr has had to change down a gear or two to get up into the high rev range, the chap in the torquey diesel would have already pulled a few lengths on him.

.....
Click to expand...

Ok.
The key point here is `driving style`, you cant drive a CTR like a diesel and vice versa as you will not get the best from either car.

Race a 170 in a CTR `off cam`and you will be spanked, drive the CTR the way it was intended and its a different story.

Similarly if you drive a 170 in a fashion it wasnt intended, (revving the nuts of it) it wont perform neither.

Very different cars, requiring very different driving styles to get the most benefit.
When comparing cars like this you have to assume the respective drivers arent complete numpties.

Ive had a CTR and loved it, but for the record I prefer a more torquey lump (petrol Turbo for me) and do agree that to get the best from a revvy engine you feel like a bit of tit driving it hard all of the time.
Turbos rule, End of!:arco:

cheers
Paul
 
PaulAr said:
Ok.
The key point here is `driving style`, you cant drive a CTR like a diesel and vice versa as you will not get the best from either car.

Race a 170 in a CTR `off cam`and you will be spanked, drive the CTR the way it was intended and its a different story.

Similarly if you drive a 170 in a fashion it wasnt intended, (revving the nuts of it) it wont perform neither.

Very different cars, requiring very different driving styles to get the most benefit.
When comparing cars like this you have to assume the respective drivers arent complete numpties.

Ive had a CTR and loved it, but for the record I prefer a more torquey lump (petrol Turbo for me) and do agree that to get the best from a revvy engine you feel like a bit of tit driving it hard all of the time.
Turbos rule, End of!:arco:

cheers
Paul
Click to expand...

nice way to sum up.:salute:
 
i think some people are missing the point I know that a type-R will thrash a 170 quattro down a 1/4 mile or to 100+. BUT in the real world if driven properly a 170TDI will keep up if driven properly.

I also know that my 170 a3 is so much faster in gear than my a4 130 and it 100kg heavier!

Timbo-S3
Regards S3 to 170 TDI, you are right an S3 is a sprint car and a 170 a great cruisng car. I was just keen to find out the difference in performance and it is vast. Bringing the Type_r into the equasion was to comapre it to a hot hatch rather than a 'super' hot hatch.

My over all point is that TDI's are now getting so much closer to the hot hatches (not super hatches like the S3/VXR/GTA). In the end it comes down to what you like to drive, I like the fact that even at 60 (legal speeds) in 6th i can put my foot down and pull away from the average car. To get away from me a Type-r would have to go into 3rd/4th? and then get the revs up by then a 170 would be gone.
 
samuelt said:
i think some people are missing the point I know that a type-R will thrash a 170 quattro down a 1/4 mile or to 100+. BUT in the real world if driven properly a 170TDI will keep up if driven properly.
Click to expand...

In the real world we all accelerate from 0-30 at a normal pace, or from 30 up to 70 at a normal pace...

I guess im saying, i dont get ya :)

So the 170 will hit 70 in 3rd? Wow, going from memory i bet the torque at that point is non existant? Mine had power between 1500 to 3500rpm after that it was like hitting a massive headwind.

Im not knocking diesels, i loved my 155bhp 400nm 2.2tdci every minute till i let her go.

In my previous post I was merely trying to state that the power bands are soo incredibly different, that you cant accurately compare the 2 cars within confines such at 30-50 in 3rd etc etc to gauge which performs better overall.

Peace and love
 
samuelt said:
i think some people are missing the point I know that a type-R will thrash a 170 quattro down a 1/4 mile or to 100+. BUT in the real world if driven properly a 170TDI will keep up if driven properly.
.
Click to expand...

Not if the CTR is also driven properly.

Agree that TD Hot hatches have made HUGE leaps though, and now have performance that was unthinkabkle a few years back.

Once upon a time it was either economy OR performance, these days you can have both.

Cheers
Paul
 
L60N said:
In the real world we all accelerate from 0-30 at a normal pace, or from 30 up to 70 at a normal pace...

I guess im saying, i dont get ya :)

So the 170 will hit 70 in 3rd? Wow, going from memory i bet the torque at that point is non existant? Mine had power between 1500 to 3500rpm after that it was like hitting a massive headwind.

Im not knocking diesels, i loved my 155bhp 400nm 2.2tdci every minute till i let her go.

In my previous post I was merely trying to state that the power bands are soo incredibly different, that you cant accurately compare the 2 cars within confines such at 30-50 in 3rd etc etc to gauge which performs better overall.

Peace and love
Click to expand...

Absolutely.
Hence why we have such 0-60, 0-100, 1/4 mile yardsticks in the first place.

Paul
X
 
*Shudders*

I wondered how long it would take for a Type R to be mentioned on here since I joined.

VTEC is an altogether different beast to a diesel engine, no comparison IMO. Where the 170 is probably designed for cruising etc the CTR is built to rag the nuts off it and have it on 3 wheels round any given corner(almost sounds like I like them which I don't!).

I'm thinking of selling my DC2 Type R for a 170 as I have a baby on the way and fancy the comfort/build quailty/torque!/mpg but I can't do it, an LSD one of the best chassis ever made with a screamer of an engine is too much to part with.

Looks like bub will be in the Type R until I grow up and the 170's come down in price in bit more, I wouldn't let my 99'T with 78k go for less than 6k.

Anyway, back to work!
 
L60N said:
So the 170 will hit 70 in 3rd? Wow, going from memory i bet the torque at that point is non existant? Mine had power between 1500 to 3500rpm after that it was like hitting a massive headwind.
Click to expand...

But my point is that the peak power is around 4,000 rpm. Its not like driving say, a 140 TDI where the best way to drive fast in that is to change up early.

Basically with the 170 its well worth ringing out all the revs. It has the power throughout the rev range.

Still dont think it'd match any of the cars mentioned here though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MPP
TDi 170 quattro
Replies
2
Views
902
MPP
MPP
N
  • Start Poll
A3 tdi 170 quattro
Replies
4
Views
768
Noogie10
N
W
170 tdi quattro flywheel
Replies
1
Views
608
Sayam
Sayam
SteveTDCi
140 v 170
Replies
13
Views
2K
stevehsv868
stevehsv868
D
S-Line 170 TDI or Sport 170 Quattro
Replies
17
Views
3K
Davidb67
D
Top
Back