# Interesting RS3 review (RS3 owners DON'T watch)



## CWJ (Aug 24, 2010)




----------



## simno44 (Aug 25, 2012)

I'd still bag the Audi.


----------



## jamman (May 6, 2002)

simno44 said:


> I'd still bag the Audi.


By a country mile :lol:

(whatever that means)


----------



## CWJ (Aug 24, 2010)

I agree that I would take the RS3 but the understeering and chassis issues are interesting to note on an RS car.

1M is a different story though...


----------



## simno44 (Aug 25, 2012)

There not fair to put together if you ask me. 
Don't get me wrong I'm a fan of both. I looked at a younger 1 series before I got my TTr and I am soft towards BMW but Audi is just more appealing to me.

And it looks so much better. That shouldn't stand as an argument for however.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Interesting review, all the same negatives apply with the TTRS too unfortunately.
Depends what you want and why, no doubting the 135 is a great drivers tool.

Audi need to up their game for the next versions.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

simno44 said:


> There not fair to put together if you ask me.


I think it's a very fair comparison. They're in the same class and have similar power levels. They seem fairly evenly matched too. The main thing Harris highlights is the massive difference in how much fun the two cars are to drive.

What I'm curious about though is that even after watching that fairly damning video (from a very well regarded motoring journalist), people who've driven neither would still automatically chose the RS3. Is a badge really the only reason people buy cars these days?


----------



## CWM3 (Mar 4, 2012)

As usual with Audi when it comes to driving dynamics, it's a dumb blonde, all the looks, but not much up top.
I said it in a thread the other day, BMWs chassis engineers give the Audi boys nightmares and that proves it.

Shame the 1 series is such a pig to look at.


----------



## Demessiah (Jan 27, 2009)

RS3 still smoked it around the track and that was in the dry, test again in the wet and see with car is in a different league 8)

Harris can be as biased as he wants but the figures cant lie.


----------



## CWM3 (Mar 4, 2012)

Demessiah said:


> RS3 still smoked it around the track and that was in the dry, test again in the wet and see with car is in a different league 8)
> 
> Harris can be as biased as he wants but the figures cant lie.


That was not disputed, nor did he hide that, he was not biased in the report IMO, but it was about the better driving feel and experience, and that's where most Audis roll over and die.

Sometimes people need to look past their bias to one make and understand what's really out there. Audi makes decent looking cars, nice places to live in, but full short in the driving experience stakes.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Demessiah said:


> RS3 still smoked it around the track and that was in the dry, test again in the wet and see with car is in a different league 8)


'Smoked it'?? It was only something like 0.9 of a second difference, wasn't it? That's one of the reasons why I think it's perfectly fair to compare these two cars. On paper AND on the track, they're very similar. The main point of all this is that despite all these apparent similarities, they manage to deliver completely different driving experiences.



Demessiah said:


> Harris can be as biased as he wants but the figures cant lie.


If figures are all you look for in a car, then fair enough. But I think what Harris was trying to say there (and I agree) is that figures tell you absolutely nothing about what makes a car good.


----------



## Demessiah (Jan 27, 2009)

For me the audi ticks all the boxes for a daily driver, total safety on the road through all weather conditions and still smokes nearly everything going.

If I want a pure driving experience and driving feel ill take out the atom :roll:


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Demessiah said:


> For me the audi ticks all the boxes for a daily driver, total safety on the road through all weather conditions and still smokes nearly everything going.
> 
> If I want a pure driving experience and driving feel ill take out the atom :roll:


You're defending your own car ownership for some reason. No one is questioning why you personally have a TTRS, they're talking about the comparison between the RS3 and the M135.


----------



## Demessiah (Jan 27, 2009)

Yeah but the rs3 is not a track car or a drift machine. It is an all round car that IMO as a road tool cannot be beaten. Its easy to see why journalists who are thrown a set of keys for a day and do nothing but thrash the car trying to slide it everywhere are down on the rs3. Their opinion doesnt reflect the reality of living with cars day to day.

If you want a fast road car, I cant think of a better one than an rs3.


----------



## dbm (Apr 17, 2008)

Not surprisingly, this has been talked to death on the RS3 forum over at RS246.

Is the RS3 perfect? No. Will it understeer at the limit of adhesion? Yes. Does that make it a bad car? No. Would I buy one? Yes I did.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Demessiah said:


> Yeah but the rs3 is not a track car or a drift machine. It is an all round car that IMO as a road tool cannot be beaten. Its easy to see why journalists who are thrown a set of keys for a day and do nothing but thrash the car trying to slide it everywhere are down on the rs3. Their opinion doesnt reflect the reality of living with cars day to day.
> 
> If you want a fast road car, I cant think of a better one than an rs3.


The M135 isn't a track car or drift machine either (it's not a 1M... It doesn't even have an LSD). It's an all round car too. Did you see Harris get the back end out at all there? No, because he was comparing them, for the most part, on public roads doing the sort of driving you'd reasonably expect of an RS or (sort of) M badged car. But lets not pretend the RS3 is a sensible shopping car here. It's a performance version which you would expect to be aimed at people who don't see driving simply as a means to get from A to B. If it purports to be a 'drivers car', then it should be judged as one.



dbm said:


> Is the RS3 perfect? No. Will it understeer at the limit of adhesion? Yes. Does that make it a bad car? No. Would I buy one? Yes I did.


I don't think anyone (including Harris) is saying it's a bad car.


----------



## dbm (Apr 17, 2008)

Spandex said:


> I don't think anyone (including Harris) is saying it's a bad car.


I honestly don't care what Harris thinks about the car, it makes me smile when I drive it and that's what counts. It is a somewhat blunt instrument, but it cracks a lot of nuts. 

Time after time, though, the ability to power slide is touted as the mark of a 'good' car, which must surely mean journos think the lack of power slides is the sign of a 'bad' car? Think of all those Fifth Gear reviews for a start...


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

dbm said:


> Time after time, though, the ability to power slide is touted as the mark of a 'good' car, which must surely mean journos think the lack of power slides is the sign of a 'bad' car? Think of all those Fifth Gear reviews for a start...


At no point in this review did Harris get the tail out in the M135, nor did he complain about the RS3 not being able to. I also dislike those Top/Fith Gear power slide 'reviews', but RWD does not automatically equal power slides. That's not what people mean when they say it's a better drivers car.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

I dont think it's about power slides, its just really dull and not rewarding to drive as a car. its about the feed back when driving.
plus the cabin esp on the A3 is really really dated now.

RS3 has one thing going for it - the engine, 
RS3 has one thing against it - the A3 body/chassis its sat on/in. :?

However, if you want more seats and a boot vs the TT RS....


----------



## gcp (Aug 8, 2002)

RS3 is nearly 10k more than M135, optioned up that'd probably close a bit but not much.

Depreciation probably lower on the RS3

Wouldn't mind either but more likely to own the BMW for cost reasons.


----------



## msnttf10 (Jul 30, 2007)

If the only issue is cost you'll get one for 35k so that means they cost the same.
When they were new you could get 6k off them.

...still id take the BMW every day and twice a day on weekends.


----------



## Smoke (Aug 30, 2011)

RS3 for me thanks :twisted:


----------



## vanilla_ice (Jan 24, 2009)

RS3 for me, just.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Interesting..
lots of people saying RS3, but... i bet if they were in a position to spend 40k on a car they WOULD NOT spend THEIR money on one if it came down to it.


----------



## Matt B (Apr 8, 2007)

The sad thing is they dont even need to road test it against the 1M - which lets face it would be a walk over.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Toshiba said:


> Interesting..
> lots of people saying RS3, but... i bet if they were in a position to spend 40k on a car they WOULD NOT spend THEIR money on one if it came down to it.


To be honest, I'd struggle to justify the price of either of them. It's like the worst of both worlds - you get the increased maintenance, insurance and fuel costs of a performance car, with the looks of a boring, sensible family car. No matter how fast it is, I just can't see a hatchback as truly desirable. And for £40k, I want desirable.


----------



## CSMatt (Jun 15, 2011)

The noise that bmw makes alone is a better reason to have it over the rs3


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Spandex said:


> Toshiba said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting..
> ...


Try justifying 100k on a car then :lol: 
But yep, 40k gets you MUCH MUCH better cars than an RS3 - and thats my point, its ok people saying id take X, but if they could afford to do it very few would. Lets face it - its the RS3 is a bit of a lame dog. 40k for a hot hatch :lol: :lol: 
Just wait 6 months if you want the A3, they will be down to 25k is my prediction.


----------



## simno44 (Aug 25, 2012)

With respect..you can fit this argument into most fields.
Ie.. Why would you spend the best part of 6k on a brand to fairly new Toyota yaris.. When you can spend the same amount and come away with a well looked after, average mileage 03-06 plate TT.

Similar concept really. Putting performance to one side.


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

Having gone through a similar exercise (with much bigger, slower cars), I'd like to throw in my two penneth.

When we got rid of the TT, I wanted something much bigger, but that was still 'quick'. I make no bones about the fact that our default choice was going to be the A6 3.0TDi. But they were a little too new for us to pick one up SH for the price we wanted/could afford to pay.

So, after much deliberating, and recommendations from multiple people and sites, we went for the 530d M Sport. It was easily as quick as our standard TT and, despite it's size and weight, was excellent to drive.

As with most people, I didn't go screaming around corners on opposite lock with the back end out - it would be hard to in normal circumstances because the traction control and ESP programmes would cut in anyway.

Most of you will have read the problems we had with the car. The E60/E61 now seems to be recognised as a particularly fragile model and all the problems that that model suffers, ours did. Some twice. Plus many others too numerous to mention.

The end result is that the car itself soured our relationship. Had it been fault-free in the time we owned it, it might be a different story, but the fact remains that I cannot see us buying another BMW.

So after the car was paid off, we, or rather, I, toyed with the idea of actually putting some money in the bank for a change, but the missus wanted rid of it immediately - and we got the A6 3.0TDi that we chould have bought the last time.

I know it's not comparing like for like, as the models in the video are 'drivers' cars, but the principal remians that sometimes you choose the car YOU prefer rather than the car which is 'better'.

Otherwise no one would buy Astons over Porsches. They break down, they're more expensive, they tend to be slower. But they look beautiful.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

simno44 said:


> With respect..you can fit this argument into most fields.
> Ie.. Why would you spend the best part of 6k on a brand to fairly new Toyota yaris.. When you can spend the same amount and come away with a well looked after, average mileage 03-06 plate TT.
> 
> Similar concept really. Putting performance to one side.


I think Kells synopsis is correct in this regards - you pick a style first then work backwards from there arriving at a preference.

If you take emotion or performance out of the equation then everyone would buy the Yaris.
Its more reliable, its cheaper to run and deprecates less.


----------



## simno44 (Aug 25, 2012)

Toshiba said:


> simno44 said:
> 
> 
> > With respect..you can fit this argument into most fields.
> ...


Surely the depreciation of a yaris is far greater than a TT... Especially the mark 1.

Your talking up to a reasonable 6k for 2001 plates in very good condition. There are not many 12 year old cars that can brag that.

Where as if you take a 6-7k brand new yaris and slap 12 years on its clock and good care... I can't see more than a grand to e expected.

Anyway.. I digress.. My point was you can get a lot more for your money If you know exactly what it is your looking for and in what area.

People buying new every day run around cars make me cringe. Sports cars I can understand. They are bespoke and special. Buying a brand new "school run car" for the sake of a wArrenty that will no doubt be riddled with loop holes makes no monetary sense to me .

I would genuinely chose the Audi though.. Iv lost interest in BmW over the last few years. Witch is a shame.. As they are a good manufacturer


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

simno44 said:


> Toshiba said:
> 
> 
> > simno44 said:
> ...


Percentage wise, maybe, but actual money-wise then no. A 6k Yaris will only ever lose a possible 6k - and that's assuming that you give it away when you're done with it. That may well be 100% of its value, but 6k-0k is less than, say, 25k-6k.

A friend of mine's boss, had a Masser Quatroporte which he bought for 90k and sold three years later for 30k. So it may have retained more than 30% of its value, but he still lost £60,000 on it.


----------



## simno44 (Aug 25, 2012)

Kell said:


> simno44 said:
> 
> 
> > Toshiba said:
> ...


Good reasoning.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Maybe that's my biggest problem with a £40k hot hatch (or even a £30k one). I can't ignore the fact that for £40k I could get a significantly better second hand car.

I completely understand that people primarily chose the car they like the look of (it's why I bought a TT), but I don't see why that means they then have to glue a pair of blinkers firmly to their head and refuse to accept that it might not actually be the best handling or performing or whatever. It seems to be a bit of a bloke thing - women are happy to just say "I bought it because it looks pretty", but a man feels that he is supposed to know about cars, so his ego won't let him admit that he didn't really care that much about handling when he bought his car (or, even more ego damaging, didn't even realise it handled badly).

Oh and Kell, my E60 545i was bulletproof over the 2-3 years I owned it. Don't remember the forums being full of particularly serious faults either, although there are a lot of expensive electronics to fail in there, so when something does go wrong it's often not cheap.


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

Spandex said:


> Oh and Kell, my E60 545i was bulletproof over the 2-3 years I owned it. Don't remember the forums being full of particularly serious faults either, although there are a lot of expensive electronics to fail in there, so when something does go wrong it's often not cheap.


*[off topic]* E60's were better as they didn't have the tailgate or the self-levelling suspension problems. Mine had both. And it had the self-levelling one twice. BMW wanted £3,500 to fix it. *[/off topic]*


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Toshiba said:


> Try justifying 100k on a car then :lol:
> But yep, 40k gets you MUCH MUCH better cars than an RS3 - and thats my point, its ok people saying id take X, but if they could afford to do it very few would. Lets face it - its the RS3 is a bit of a lame dog. 40k for a hot hatch :lol: :lol:
> Just wait 6 months if you want the A3, they will be down to 25k is my prediction.


I think justifying a £100k car is much easier. At that price point, there are no practical decisions to make -you simply decide if you like it enough to give them the money. It's like buying a piece of art or some jewellery.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Kell said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> > Oh and Kell, my E60 545i was bulletproof over the 2-3 years I owned it. Don't remember the forums being full of particularly serious faults either, although there are a lot of expensive electronics to fail in there, so when something does go wrong it's often not cheap.
> ...


You let BMW look at it?? Jesus! I think they'd want £3,500 if you asked them to change a bulb.


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

Spandex said:


> Kell said:
> 
> 
> > Spandex said:
> ...


Long story which I shouldn't go into on an RS3 thread, but I will.

The suspension pump failed and we needed a new one - which cost £700 for the part alone. As the car was out of warranty at this point I was going to an independent. Everything seemed fine, but then the car did it again. Was trailed on a lorry back to the independent and miraculously came back up. Went through a period of the back end working then not for ages. Seems obvious now, but the problem was not the pump (though that was replaced and it seemed to cure it), but a loose connection in one of the plugs.

The reason it went to BMW is because the original pump (which had failed) was bought from BMW and part was under warranty. They couldn't figure out what was wrong either and it was plugged in to their systems and diagnosed remotely via the centre in Brackley.

That was how they came to work out it was this one connector. They then said they couldn't replace the connector on its own and wanted £1,300 for a new, full wiring loom, plus 20 hours (@ £100) to remove the entire interior, fit the new loom and put it all back together.

The independent, however, told me that he could cut the plug from an old car they were breaking and fit it for about £180.

Guess which one I used.

PS. Sorry OP for the thread hijack, but yoiu can see now why I don't really trust BMW.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

simno44 said:


> People buying new every day run around cars make me cringe. Sports cars I can understand. They are bespoke and special. Buying a brand new "school run car" for the sake of a wArrenty that will no doubt be riddled with loop holes makes no monetary sense to me .
> 
> I would genuinely chose the Audi though.. Iv lost interest in BmW over the last few years. Witch is a shame.. As they are a good manufacturer


But the mk1 has NEVER been a sports car. It's a sports "looking" coupe with a really bad MK4 Golf chassis.
Nothing bespoke about it like the aluminium construction on the MK2.

Like with all things, you have a choice... Not all people are the same.


----------



## Matt B (Apr 8, 2007)

Toshiba said:


> simno44 said:
> 
> 
> > People buying new every day run around cars make me cringe. Sports cars I can understand. They are bespoke and special. Buying a brand new "school run car" for the sake of a wArrenty that will no doubt be riddled with loop holes makes no monetary sense to me .
> ...


You better get on to Wikepedia and tell them to change their entry then lol

The Audi TT is a two-door sports car manufactured by the German automaker and Volkswagen Group subsidiary Audi since 1998.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audi_TT


----------



## simno44 (Aug 25, 2012)

Toshiba said:


> simno44 said:
> 
> 
> > People buying new every day run around cars make me cringe. Sports cars I can understand. They are bespoke and special. Buying a brand new "school run car" for the sake of a wArrenty that will no doubt be riddled with loop holes makes no monetary sense to me .
> ...


I wasn't really suggesting it was buddy. 
I do think the TT is special. But then I wouldn't class the S3 a sports at rather. A sports hatch yes. But it's not a lambo.


----------



## Howzit37 (Feb 13, 2013)

Even thought he figures are similar, the Audi is a much better looking car and that would be the clincher for me.

Any idea why did both cars had flashing headlights at some points when they were racing around the track?


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Howzit37 said:


> Even thought he figures are similar, the Audi is a much better looking car and that would be the clincher for me.
> 
> Any idea why did both cars had flashing headlights at some points when they were racing around the track?


Not sure it was the headlights, but any light that's being dimmed using PWM will probably flicker on camera as it's not going to be synched with the frame rate of the video.


----------



## dbm (Apr 17, 2008)

Spandex said:


> To be honest, I'd struggle to justify the price of either of them. It's like the worst of both worlds - you get the increased maintenance, insurance and fuel costs of a performance car, with the looks of a boring, sensible family car. No matter how fast it is, I just can't see a hatchback as truly desirable. And for £40k, I want desirable.


Actually, it's no more expensive to run than my TTS was. It gets the same MPG on a motorway run, and costs about the same to have serviced. And whilst you may not find it desirable (fair enough) it actually turns heads in car parks. My missus took the car to the supermarket a couple of weeks ago as they have a valet service in the car park. When she came back there was a man inspecting it in great detail. She thought it was one of the valet guys, but no, it was an admirer. That never happened with my TTS.

A cayman or 911 might be a better drivers car, but I couldn't go away for the week on holiday in one of those - my wife doesn't travel light. I want a performance car I can drive every day.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

dbm said:


> Actually, it's no more expensive to run than my TTS was. It gets the same MPG on a motorway run, and costs about the same to have serviced. And whilst you may not find it desirable (fair enough) it actually turns heads in car parks. My missus took the car to the supermarket a couple of weeks ago as they have a valet service in the car park. When she came back there was a man inspecting it in great detail. She thought it was one of the valet guys, but no, it was an admirer. That never happened with my TTS.
> 
> A cayman or 911 might be a better drivers car, but I couldn't go away for the week on holiday in one of those - my wife doesn't travel light. I want a performance car I can drive every day.


As I said, you get the increased maintenance, insurance and fuel costs of a performance car... Like a TTS, for example (or, more likely the TTRS, seeing as it shares a lot of components).

It's not just the RS3 I don't find desirable, it's fast hatchbacks in general. I struggle a bit with the idea that sticking a powerful engine and nice bodykit on an otherwise nondescript car makes it appealing. I'd even extend that to other types of car though - I was once considering an E46 M3, but couldn't bring myself to spend the extra money on a car that was effectively just a quicker version of the 330ci I used to own. And when I was thinking of changing my E60 545i, I ruled out the M5 because it wouldn't feel special enough.

I got a 911 in the end and I can assure you, a weeks holiday is no problem. The boot is pretty big and the back seats fold flat, giving you loads of additional storage space.


----------

