RS3 (PFL) vs RS3 (FL)
- Thread starter D0C
- Start date
Good stuff bud, bet you can't wait, not long now eh.Escalated quickly this evening
Matt it's all about the banter lol
ooops - I did chuck that one in there as a total incendiary wind up. Anyway, if you can catch me then you can get me.
Good for you bud,glad your enjoying it and so you should do as there awesome cars, I've never felt one bit of understeer in mines, but saying that I've not used it since AITP.IMO the FL has a more refined exhaust sound. No I didn't buy this car just for the sound. I bought it because how special the car with the glorious 5pot. Sound can be subjective but the overall performance of the car isn't. The FL is a more rounded car and a better performer all day long. And yes I do care about the handling. I do push my car when I get a chance on round abouts and on twisties when permits. Guess what I haven't felt any understeer which the PFL suffers
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2016
- Messages
- 3,321
- Reaction score
- 3,180
- Points
- 113
Personally I love the fact the PFL sound is not refined...it's raw and utterly bonkers, and different to any other car. I do get confused that people keep saying it's the more rounded car. When I had a FL for the day, other than the quieter exhaust and sharper handling, it felt exactly the same car! Which of course, it mostly is.IMO the FL has a more refined exhaust sound. No I didn't buy this car just for the sound. I bought it because how special the car with the glorious 5pot. Sound can be subjective but the overall performance of the car isn't. The FL is a more rounded car and a better performer all day long. And yes I do care about the handling. I do push my car when I get a chance on round abouts and on twisties when permits. Guess what I haven't felt any understeer which the PFL suffers
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2015
- Messages
- 6,014
- Reaction score
- 7,302
- Points
- 113
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2016
- Messages
- 3,321
- Reaction score
- 3,180
- Points
- 113
Throw any car into a bend at a silly speed and it will go straight on.
In any case, an RS3 will never have the fluid handling of say, a Porsche Cayman. It's trump card is when it is slightly damp or wet (90% of the time in the UK!), and a PFL or FL will beat just about any other car around in those conditions with exceptions being 911 turbos and the like!
@Aoon_M has done some track work with his PFL. Admittedly it's been slightly tweaked! But perhaps he can comment on the understeer talk.
In any case, an RS3 will never have the fluid handling of say, a Porsche Cayman. It's trump card is when it is slightly damp or wet (90% of the time in the UK!), and a PFL or FL will beat just about any other car around in those conditions with exceptions being 911 turbos and the like!
@Aoon_M has done some track work with his PFL. Admittedly it's been slightly tweaked! But perhaps he can comment on the understeer talk.
I completely agree having tracked many cars - an understeer fail is totally driver error. Grip in minor corners gives an overconfidence in sharper bends - especially at the Ring where nearly every corner is blind! However, the FL is sharper into the turns due to the reverse stagger and the lighter front end - not night and day, but sharper. The Haldex tweak helps too.
Oh, and I should add that 911 Turbos are a total disaster on the track without all of the physics packages activated - the laws of physics work against them with all of the weight beyond the rear axle. Spin off city.
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2015
- Messages
- 6,014
- Reaction score
- 7,302
- Points
- 113
Well, here is a side by side comparison that I haven't seen before -
And a PFL v Fl drag -
And a PFL v Fl drag -
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2016
- Messages
- 3,321
- Reaction score
- 3,180
- Points
- 113
Brilliant video! Really demonstrates the difference in sound. Look guys, I know I'm biased, but the PFL sounds better in that video and in person. It's got a more deeper and throatier sound.
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2015
- Messages
- 6,014
- Reaction score
- 7,302
- Points
- 113
The drag race is BS imho, same one as posted by Leo a while back. There is no way the FL is that much quicker, simple physics tells you that eg 400hp vs almost 400hp. I'd love to see a honest drag race, standard vs standard though.
TX.
Sent from my STV100-4 using Tapatalk
TX.
Sent from my STV100-4 using Tapatalk
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2016
- Messages
- 3,321
- Reaction score
- 3,180
- Points
- 113
Regulations/to improve fuel economy is my guess. Same reason they changed the TTRS with an ECU update seen below
I'm not sure that is the case though when you compare Pre FL vs FL.
pre FL = co2 189
FL = cos 188
pre FL mpg = 34
FL = 34
????
teslaboy
Mythos black RS3 8v FL
Well that's if you believe the PFL has nearly 400. If that's the case and there is that much of a gap between the two then the FL must have nearly 430 !! We need someone to put an FL on the rollers.
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2015
- Messages
- 6,014
- Reaction score
- 7,302
- Points
- 113
Imho the drag race FL is mapped. Almost 500hp from a simple map and it would of course romp away.
As I say standard vs standard there really can't be much in it as both have similar power and weight.
TX.
Sent from my STV100-4 using Tapatalk
As I say standard vs standard there really can't be much in it as both have similar power and weight.
TX.
Sent from my STV100-4 using Tapatalk
teslaboy
Mythos black RS3 8v FL
It's does appear to pull quite a gap.
Maybe it has been fiddled with. The gap shouldn't be that much.
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2016
- Messages
- 3,321
- Reaction score
- 3,180
- Points
- 113
I'll try to dig it out, but a rolling road day had six PFL cars in. All of them ran at least 390, and one with the cats out ran 412. I'd guess the FL will on average have 20-30bhp more than a PFL. Even with the bit of weight saving, it still seems a massive gap that it pulls on the PFL.
I've mentioned before that Autocar roadtested both cars over the same stretch of road, same two guys, conditions etc, and it clocked something like 0.1/0.2s faster to 60/100mph respectively. That's more like it.
I will have the chance to on 2nd December, but my car would probably have 500 miles at most and it’s not enough to be worth doing it with.
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2016
- Messages
- 3,321
- Reaction score
- 3,180
- Points
- 113
Could be interesting to get it rolling roaded at 500 miles and then again with a few thousand on the clock to see if there's any difference?
Will have to wait and see, not sure how long I’m running it in for yet. I’m surprised most people are taking it to 1000 miles! I only did 350 in the S3, for as long as I’m running it in I will be piling the miles on it to be able to drive it properly :/ Don’t want to just waste 1000 miles.
Providing its run in I will put it on.
There is one on Youtube u/l this week.
Circa 350 at the wheels - 440+ at the crank if allowing 20% transmission loss. I will post it up later if you want.
Circa 350 at the wheels - 440+ at the crank if allowing 20% transmission loss. I will post it up later if you want.
A classy pearl Daytona - 355 at the wheels - say 443 at the crank with 20% loss
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2016
- Messages
- 395
- Reaction score
- 654
- Points
- 93
My car was one of the six cars tested that day. Lowest output was 390ps on a car that had covered around 1200 miles (my friends car), the 412ps car had secondary decats fitted but no ECU tweaks. Just fitting decats does not normally add any great benefits (other than sound of course) until the car gets mapped. However, the dyno tester said the engine in the 412ps car was exceptionally smooth on the rollers. We also tested a tuning box (MTM Cantronic) as a before and after comparison on the dyno (not worth the cash imo). Average power on the day was mid 390ps (not including the MTM Cantronic)
A couple of weeks later we took the cars to Santa Pod to do a 1/4 mile comparison. After a few practice runs the times were averaging between 12.3 to around 12.1 secs for a standard car, the faster runs were the cars with more miles on the engine.
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2016
- Messages
- 3,321
- Reaction score
- 3,180
- Points
- 113
Out of interest what gains did the tuning box give? Presumably small, but surely some?
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2016
- Messages
- 395
- Reaction score
- 654
- Points
- 93
Ahhh, the mysterious case of the MTM tuning box! On the dyno it showed no significant power gains (in fact a slight loss of power but a hint of extra mid range torque only). It had been on the car for around 8K miles and the owner swore that it made a difference to the performance over stock, he tested this by removing it for a test drive and then refitting it again and said he could definately feel the difference. We actually think that it was the little bit of mid-range torque (around 30/35nm only) that provided the 'placebo effect' that he was feeling.
This was proven at Santa Pod when he ran next to my stock power car, mine did 12.3 and his was 12.2secs for the 1/4 mile (I have a video of it).
I have never been a fan of tuning boxes, however I accept that some cars seem to run fine with them fitted (Golf R, AMG45 Merc). However, I know of a few people now who have fitted a tuning box to the RS3 ECU and experienced 'issues' after an initial positive response. They seem to work ok when first fitted, but after a period of time its like the sophisticated ECU on the RS3 knows that something is not right and tries to work out a way to control the eronious signals the tuning box is sending.
A bit of a harsh analogy - the PFL is a great car but I agree that the focus on this thread has generally been on one issue only which is somewhat near sighted rather than considering the overall package.
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2015
- Messages
- 6,014
- Reaction score
- 7,302
- Points
- 113