Test Drive: RS 3 Sedan

[AudiNutta]

Here we go, it will have the same pop/bang setup as the TTRS. The garage sound is beastly.

 

[yoi]

Here we go, it will have the same pop/bang setup as the TTRS. The garage sound is beastly.

There's the proper downshift sound.
The exhaust is just music and the main reason I've ordered the rs3 sedan instead of getting the rs5 (also saves me a lot of cash). The new rs5 just doesn't sound as good to me.

 

[big residual]

#dsgfarts4life

 

[D0C]

I think it's fair to say the FL isn't quite loud as the pre-FL. However, you are getting a slightly faster engine which still sounds the mutts nuts.

 

[hsjyes]

Always difficult to tell on a video but certainly that particular start up seems a bit quieter. I started mine the other day in the works car park and reckon it nearly cracked the wall behind it! Likewise, the dynamic mode doesn't seem quite as raucous. But then perhaps the exhaust needs a few miles on it and I'll reiterate, always hard to say on a vid.

Regardless, it's still an epic sound and it should also be comfortably faster than the 367ps engine.

Enjoy!

It's only 0.1 seconds do faster, so not that comfortable.


Sent from my CPH1607 using Tapatalk

 

[D0C]

0.2s actually, if you go by Audi's own claims. Which we know to never be right. And that's only to 62mph/100kmh. I would expect it to keep pulling away into the higher speeds where greater power becomes more noticeable.

Let's see what the testers achieve once it's properly out. But judging by what the TTRS is being timed at, I think you'll find it is indeed 'comfortably' -but not ridiculously - quicker.

 

[Terminator x]

Current one gets to 60 in 3.6s so a few hp more not gonna make much difference or be that noticeable tbf. Might be quicker to 100 though as supposed to have a torque advantage.

TX.

Sent from my STV100-4 using Tapatalk

 

[mattvandyk]

Current one gets to 60 in 3.6s so a few hp more not gonna make much difference or be that noticeable tbf. Might be quicker to 100 though as supposed to have a torque advantage.

TX.

Sent from my STV100-4 using Tapatalk

Really? The stock 2016 RS3 goes 0-60 in 3.6?! Wow. That is seriously impressive. According to this, the "real numbers" (as opposed to Audi's numbers) on the new engine is that it produces 404 bhp and 404 ft-lb resulting in 3.6 0-60 time. Amazing that the old engine is doing that with less power and less torque, but if that's true, I agree that the improvement should be marginal to non-existent (at least, in this regard).

http://www.gt-innovation.de/wordpress/projects/audi-ttrs-8s-509ps/

 

[ComputerControlled]

Really? The stock 2016 RS3 goes 0-60 in 3.6?! Wow. That is seriously impressive. According to this, the "real numbers" (as opposed to Audi's numbers) on the new engine is that it produces 404 bhp and 404 ft-lb resulting in 3.6 0-60 time. Amazing that the old engine is doing that with less power and less torque, but if that's true, I agree that the improvement should be marginal to non-existent (at least, in this regard).

http://www.gt-innovation.de/wordpress/projects/audi-ttrs-8s-509ps/

0.2 secs, 0.1 secs lol... doesn't really matter. It's hardly like we all live on different parts of a race track!
F/L SB will look immense though. Was behind a F/L S3 and it looked great.

 

[mattvandyk]

0.2 secs, 0.1 secs lol... doesn't really matter. It's hardly like we all live on different parts of a race track!
F/L SB will look immense though. Was behind a F/L S3 and it looked great.

I'm just expressing surprise that the '16 does 3.6 (or even 3.7) stock. Didn't realize it was that fast.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[AudiNutta]

Current one gets to 60 in 3.6s so a few hp more not gonna make much difference or be that noticeable tbf. Might be quicker to 100 though as supposed to have a torque advantage.

TX.

Sent from my STV100-4 using Tapatalk

In totally exceptional conditions it might do that, but it would also be very rare. Most are 4.1-4.2. I saw the timed launch of one last week that was 4.4 seconds!

 

[AudiNutta]

I'm just expressing surprise that the '16 does 3.6 (or even 3.7) stock. Didn't realize it was that fast.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Take a look at my post before this, it isn't that fast.. it's extremely rare they are that fast.. you are talking 0.7 seconds faster than Audi's quote? Most are close to 4 seconds.

 

[mattvandyk]

Take a look at my post before this, it isn't that fast.. it's extremely rare they are that fast.. you are talking 0.7 seconds faster than Audi's quote? Most are close to 4 seconds.

That makes way more sense. Thanks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Terminator x]

In totally exceptional conditions it might do that, but it would also be very rare. Most are 4.1-4.2. I saw the timed launch of one last week that was 4.4 seconds!

Rubbish imho. LC will give virtually the same launch every time. It simply teleports down the road no joke.

TX.

Sent from my STV100-4 using Tapatalk

 

[D0C]

Evo magazine. Timed at 3.6s to 60mph.

As we know, the pre-FL typically puts out between 380-400bhp on a rolling road. I'm pretty confident the FL will have about 20bhp more than pre-FL once you get a few side by side on a rolling road.

I'm already getting an itch and trying to avoid scratching by getting mine stage 1'd!

 

[D0C]

Take a look at my post before this, it isn't that fast.. it's extremely rare they are that fast.. you are talking 0.7 seconds faster than Audi's quote? Most are close to 4 seconds.

I completely disagree. Most are under 4 seconds. I had a race with an RS3 in my old Golf R that had a tuning box. It clocked a confirmed 0-60 in 3.9s and the RS3 edged me. Anyway, you won't be worried about the speed when you're being deafened by that noise!

 

[AudiNutta]

Rubbish imho. LC will give virtually the same launch every time. It simply teleports down the road no joke.

TX.

Sent from my STV100-4 using Tapatalk

I can't recall where I saw the video, but it was something like 4.38 seconds to 60 from a launch on a dry surface, without any bogging down. The RS3 is a 4 second to 60 car all day long.

Yes I agree, it is like a bullet on a launch. Back last year when I had one for the day, I forgot just how fast it was on launch and it took me by surprise, it was a clenching moment haha. I did a few that day and every one left 11's on the mildly damp road surface.

The S3 is quick on a launch, but the RS3 is a rocket.. cannot beat it.. it's a weapon.

 

[AudiNutta]

I completely disagree. Most are under 4 seconds. I had a race with an RS3 in my old Golf R that had a tuning box. It clocked a confirmed 0-60 in 3.9s and the RS3 edged me. Anyway, you won't be worried about the speed when you're being deafened by that noise!

Agreed, the extra power in the FL doesn't bother me, day to day it will go unnoticed. I'd prefer to retain the PFL noise, is there is any lost. Nothing beats that soundtrack, I envy you all.

 

[AudiNutta]

Evo magazine. Timed at 3.6s to 60mph.

As we know, the pre-FL typically puts out between 380-400bhp on a rolling road. I'm pretty confident the FL will have about 20bhp more than pre-FL once you get a few side by side on a rolling road.

I'm already getting an itch and trying to avoid scratching by getting mine stage 1'd!

That is awesome, can't beat it I wonder if Mercedes will try to bring out another A45 to break the 400hp RS3 and fail again..

 

[D0C]

Merc need to sort the gearbox out (not as good as DSG/S-Tronic) and their launch control which isn't as good. It also sounds gash IMO.

 

[AudiNutta]

Merc need to sort the gearbox out (not as good as DSG/S-Tronic) and their launch control which isn't as good. It also sounds gash IMO.

I had one do a few launch controls outside my workplace back a couple of months ago, it was loud and definitely not standard. When comparing to the S3, it sounded good and very aggressive.

But in comparison to the RS3, it sounded like it belonged in the S3 lineup haha. I don't think anything will beat the 5 cylinder for noise.

 

[weaks4uce]

Great post and thank you for the pics and details... I noticed the radar at the bottom of the grille in these pics for the first time as none of the other demo/review cars I've seen have had it. I ordered my car with the Driver Assistance package because I really wanted the adaptive cruise control, but the location of the radar kinda bothers me...

I feel like it's going to be even more noticeable with the front plate delete. Am I crazy?

 

[mattvandyk]

Great post and thank you for the pics and details... I noticed the radar at the bottom of the grille in these pics for the first time as none of the other demo/review cars I've seen have had it. I ordered my car with the Driver Assistance package because I really wanted the adaptive cruise control, but the location of the radar kinda bothers me...

I feel like it's going to be even more noticeable with the front plate delete. Am I crazy?

You're not crazy. It's a pretty common complaint. I personally think all of the upside of DAP far outweighs the little blemish in the grill, but there are plenty of others who disagree.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ken-yyz]

I won't see the grill when I'm behind the wheel, so I'm cool with small minor blemishes that provide cool functionality.

 

[big residual]

I won't see the grill when I'm behind the wheel, so I'm cool with small minor blemishes that provide cool functionality.

Same here -- it'd be better if it was invisible, but I like ACC a lot on our SQ5 and Golf R and am interested to see if the traffic jam functionality works at all-- the wart doesn't outweigh the benefits to me.

 

[AudiNutta]

You're not crazy. It's a pretty common complaint. I personally think all of the upside of DAP far outweighs the little blemish in the grill, but there are plenty of others who disagree.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why would you delete the plate when it's illegal?

It wouldn't be that noticeable. Think yourself lucky, on the PFL if you had the radar you lost the Quattro badge in the grill! That would have stopped me ordering the radar! Now you have the badge and radar.

 

[Snake Pliskin]

I hate this too and would not spec ACC becuase of this alone - it really looks horrible - on the A3 and Golf.

It totally detracts from the aesthstics of the front end of the car & would annoy the hell outa me.

But I understand those that are not bothered about such things too, so thankfully (for now) it is not standard kit, so we all have a choice.

 

[infernox]

I hate this too and would not spec ACC becuase of this alone - it really looks horrible - on the A3 and Golf.

It totally detracts from the aesthstics of the front end of the car & would annoy the hell outa me.

But I understand those that are not bothered about such things too, so thankfully (for now) it is not standard kit, so we all have a choice.

Well the Facelift Golf's got the ACC sensor integrated into the VW logo, so you don't even notice it. I was hoping Audi would have the same.

 

[weaks4uce]

Thanks for the input everyone. The response seems to be overwhelmingly in favor of the ACC despite the ugly sensor. At least they did a better job integrating it than in the pre-facelift.

In the past I had ACC on my A4 Avant (albeit without the "stop & go" feature) and really enjoyed it. I don't drive in traffic regularly, but just got back from a 1500 mile trip where it would have been amazing to have.

I guess if it really bothered me in the future I could remove the sensor and buy the non-radar grille...

 

[D0C]

ACC is brilliant. I would definitely tick it if I was getting a FL.

 

[Snake Pliskin]

Lol we are talking the RS3 here guys ... do you people wanna drive this beast or let the car drive itself

Forget ACC on the motorway ... take the back roads & enjoy the car like it's meant to be driven !!!!

Jeeeees I didn't even spec regular cruise ha ha

 

[JonoNZ]

Lol we are talking the RS3 here guys ... do you people wanna drive this beast or let the car drive itself

Forget ACC on the motorway ... take the back roads & enjoy the car like it's meant to be driven !!!!

Jeeeees I didn't even spec regular cruise ha ha

I dunno, ACC can be pretty handy if you're in a long tiring queue on the motorway....

 

[mattvandyk]

I dunno, ACC can be pretty handy if you're in a long tiring queue on the motorway....

Yeah, it's a best of both worlds situation. Kind of like why Tesla P100D owners like the ability to go 0-60 in 2.5 seconds when desired and the ability to have the thing drive itself when desired.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Snake Pliskin]

I dunno, ACC can be pretty handy if you're in a long tiring queue on the motorway....

Yeah I know I was only having a laugh

I don't do many motorway miles so thankfully cruise & acc not high on my priority list .... wide tyres, mag ride & sports exhaust are where my money went

 

[D0C]

I still can't tell the difference between comfort and dynamic with regards to the magnetic dampers...Just seems ****** hard to me all the time! I'd have probably given up mag ride for ACC. However, as mag ride comes with the sports exhaust in the UK it's not an option.

 

[Terminator x]

I'm on the motorway all the time so CC is handy. I'm old school so don't like the idea of that radar thingumybob!

TX.

Sent from my STV100-4 using Tapatalk

 

[Snake Pliskin]

I still can't tell the difference between comfort and dynamic with regards to the magnetic dampers...Just seems ****** hard to me all the time! I'd have probably given up mag ride for ACC. However, as mag ride comes with the sports exhaust in the UK it's not an option.

Agreed ... mag ride is good but I wouldn't say essential. It is compliant & comfortable but hit speed bumps & you have to slow to a crawl. It is very much on the firm side. Great to put it in dynamic for twisty B roads though. Like you I got it mainly for the exhaust.

 

[Radman]

I got the car for the engine and the exhaust note. ACC on a performance car is about as much use as a chocolate fire guard. Fact. What an absolute waste of money.

 

[andyt99]

I got the car for the engine and the exhaust note. ACC on a performance car is about as much use as a chocolate fire guard. Fact. What an absolute waste of money.

What a bizarre thing to say. For most people I'd suggest that their RS3 is also their daily driver, their commuter car and it spends time crawling in motorway traffic. I dearly wish mine had ACC for those times. It's driven as "a performance car" on rare occasions where conditions allow.

 

[mattvandyk]

I got the car for the engine and the exhaust note. ACC on a performance car is about as much use as a chocolate fire guard. Fact. What an absolute waste of money.

If I was looking for a pure performance car, it wouldn't be a 4-door compact sedan. This car is a compromise car -- a good compromise, but a compromise nonetheless. That's how it's billed and that's why it's intriguing to many of us. When you consider that, features like ACC are as important as things like the lighter engine block.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk