Top Gear's Top Hot Hatches

[Tornado]

I fail to see the relevance of how getting horsepower out of the S3 compared to the R32 makes it a better hatch. Especially since you can buy a WRX STi for essentially the same as the S3 and then slaughter it.
I also guarantee the aftermarket for the WRX would be far more extensive, and that the WRX would be a far easier car to live with.
In addition, one could make a very fine argument on how the engine in the S3 just doesn't fit with the car very well, and how it would have been better off with the 3.2.
Then there is the problem the non-M Sport 130i presents, conisdering its lower pricetag over the S3.

 

[skip0110]

The Rex STi is giant killer in terms of performance, but as far as refinement/NVH goes, it's probably behind the S3.

 

[Tornado]

The Rex STi is giant killer in terms of performance, but as far as refinement/NVH goes, it's probably behind the S3.

One could argue that the S3 is behind the Golf R32 as well, for simlar reasons.

 

[Poverty]

This comment here Poverty, is not referring to the cost of aftermarket tuning, it isn't that expensive to get a VR6 engine up in power over here. At the very worst you can import the stuff from America. Rather that's referring to the deveopment of increasing the power of the engine in the factory. To buy parts to tune your engine aftermarket, you arn't spending anything on the research so the cost is far lower compared to a manufacturer trying to increase the spec of an engine. Hence, it was cheaper to just use an engine that they didn't need to do any further research on to achieve that or alternatively they didn't need to source any parts they didn't already have ect.

Yes but the tuner has to do the research, and he costs are offset onto the customer. It is cheaper to tune the 1.8T/2.0T. One only has to look at the TT forums to see that.

I fail to see the relevance of how getting horsepower out of the S3 compared to the R32 makes it a better hatch. Especially since you can buy a WRX STi for essentially the same as the S3 and then slaughter it.

The S3 is a better hatch than the R32, and the fact that chipping it will allow it to be a seriously fast car is even more appealing

A STI is 28k in the UK. A S3 is 27k. In a straight line I would put my money on the S3 outrunning the STI due to better aerodynamics, and less transmission loss. Also the S3 is easier to live, has a better interior, is better put together, and will hold its value much better. Oh and it would be cheaper to insure.

 

[Tornado]

Yes but the tuner has to do the research, and he costs are offset onto the customer. It is cheaper to tune the 1.8T/2.0T. One only has to look at the TT forums to see that.

I doubt it is cheaper to tune an Audi S3 than it is to tune a WRX.

A STI is 28k in the UK. A S3 is 27k.

An STi is £26,495, according to the Subaru website. The Audi S3 is £26,170, according to Audi.

In a straight line I would put my money on the S3 outrunning the STI due to better aerodynamics, and less transmission loss.

Well, in a straight line I would give it to the STi due to more horsepower and more torque. I don't see where you are getting the "less drivetrain loss," because I'm pretty sure the S3 doesn't have the SMG gearbox.

Also the S3 is easier to live

The STi is a four-door sedan. The S3 is a two door hatch. I doubt it.

has a better interior, is better put together, and will hold its value much better. Oh and it would be cheaper to insure.

All of which apply to the R32 as well, and in a couple of them even more so, if the last R32 was any indication.

 

[YSSMAN]

Yes but the tuner has to do the research, and he costs are offset onto the customer. It is cheaper to tune the 1.8T/2.0T. One only has to look at the TT forums to see that...

The S3 is a better hatch than the R32, and the fact that chipping it will allow it to be a seriously fast car is even more appealing.

Of course it is easier and cheaper to tune the 1.8T, it has been around for just shy of 10 years now. But there was quite a long time here in America where the aftermarket for that engine really didn't exist, that is until VW did a few updates in 2003, and made things a bit easier. The VR6 market has been there since the early '90s, and has been on a steady increase here in the US. Look at all of the Corrados and MKIII Jetta GLX's with turbochargers and superchargers and you get the idea.

Currently, the 2.0T is facing many of the same problems as the 1.8T in America. The aftermarket is pretty much non-existent due to the fact that it hasn't been around much longer than two years now. Certainly it is larger than it ever was before, but it is a steady growth that probably won't hit its' peak until SEMA time later this year. But even then, going on and on about an ECU reflash really isn't that big of a deal. We could do much the same with the 2.0T out of the GTI and achieve some similar figures to the S3 without too much trouble...

...But why work so hard when you've got the 3.2L VR6 to play with? A fatter power band with a better sounding exhaust, not to mention being held within a better-looking car at a cheaper price certainly seems appealing to me...

All of which apply to the R32 as well, and in a couple of them even more so, if the last R32 was any indication.

I completely agree. Given that the MKV-chassis models of the Rabbit/GTI/R32 versus that of the A3/S3 are nearly identical, I wouldn't expect anything different. And lets be honest, it is part of the reason why I'd only ever buy the A3 used... There isn't much of a reason to get either the A3 2.0T or A3 3.2 when VW offers better models for less money, with literally no sacrifices in the luxury or comfort department.

And depreciation?

Check out this R32, not too much depreciation for a car that is nearly four years old...

 

[Scaff]

A STI is 28k in the UK. A S3 is 27k. In a straight line I would put my money on the S3 outrunning the STI due to better aerodynamics, and less transmission loss. Also the S3 is easier to live, has a better interior, is better put together, and will hold its value much better. Oh and it would be cheaper to insure.

Drag Coef
Audi S3 Cd - 0.33 (Source Autocar)
WRX STi Cd - 0.33 (Source - Here and many other places)


Approx Frontal Area
Audi S3 - 1.765m(W) x 1.399m(H) = 2.469m (Source - Autocar)
WRX STi - 1.740m (W) x 1.44m (H) = 2.506m (Source - Subaru UK)


Power Output
Audi S3 - 261bhp (Source - Autocar)
WRX STi - 276bhp (Source - Autocar)


So it would appear that the only area of this that the Audi betters the WRX STi in, is that it has a slightly smaller frontal area. Drag co-ef are exactly the same and the WRX has more power (and do not try and claim greater drivetrain losses for the WRX unless you can prove that). WRX Sti's with poor Cd's disappeared years ago, the remodelled front ends may be ugly, but they did wonders for the cars aero. So it would appear from your statment that you would like to compare the old WRX Sti with the new S3, that would seem to be a little unfair (either that or again you are pulling info out of your backside).

Straightline the S3 has no significant advantage (and some would argue actually is at a disadvantage) over the WRX STi.

I would not argue that it is cheap to insure, and easier to live with, but that does not make it a better drivers car, nor faster point to point. Nor does it make it cheaper to modify or improve.

In addition this point...

extracting more power from the V6 was simply not possible without going to vast expense.

..needs to be kept in context. For a manufacturer a large amount of the additional cost comes from legally having to ensure that an engine fitted to a production car meets all current and future (during the projected life of the car) emmisions regulations, as well as offering a full warranty on the finished product. These are areas that aftermarket tuners do not have to worry about (with the possible exception of the warranty and even then many are limited to the fitted part not damage they may cause to other components).

You are using this quote from Autocar to try and argue that one is easier and cheaper to extract power from than the other, and taken out of context that's a reasonable assumption to make. Its just a pity it doesn't work when you put it into context of a manufacturer doing it.

Regards

Scaff

 

[Poverty]

So it would appear that the only area of this that the Audi betters the WRX STi in, is that it has a slightly smaller frontal area. Drag co-ef are exactly the same and the WRX has more power (and do not try and claim greater drivetrain losses for the WRX unless you can prove that). WRX Sti's with poor Cd's disappeared years ago, the remodelled front ends may be ugly, but they did wonders for the cars aero. So it would appear from your statment that you would like to compare the old WRX Sti with the new S3, that would seem to be a little unfair (either that or again you are pulling info out of your backside).

I did not know that the latest impreza was much better aerodynamically.

However seeing as the S3 has haldex, its pretty obvious that it will suffer much less drivetrain loss than the imprezas fulltime 4wd system. The S3 is only 2wd untill it requires the extra grip of 4wd, meaning it has lesser drivetrain loss, according to the scoobynet members. They say that is the reason why cars such as the R32 and S3 arent blown away by their imprezas, like they would expect them to, going by on paper figures.

There isn't much of a reason to get either the A3 2.0T or A3 3.2 when VW offers better models for less money, with literally no sacrifices in the luxury or comfort department.

Audi interiors are much better than VW interiors. MK5 GTI interior is nothing special at all. Also the audi A3 3.2 s-line is faster than the R32. The 'ring list proves this.

Currently, the 2.0T is facing many of the same problems as the 1.8T in America. The aftermarket is pretty much non-existent due to the fact that it hasn't been around much longer than two years now. Certainly it is larger than it ever was before, but it is a steady growth that probably won't hit its' peak until SEMA time later this year. But even then, going on and on about an ECU reflash really isn't that big of a deal. We could do much the same with the 2.0T out of the GTI and achieve some similar figures to the S3 without too much trouble...

Tuning the 1.8T/2.0T is pretty simple, and any good tuner should be able to do so with ease, and at much cheaper cost than the 3.2 VR6.

The 3.2 is a great engine, but like many publication have said including top gear, and 5th gear, the 2.0T is the enthusiasts choice, due to being the more fun engine.

You are using this quote from Autocar to try and argue that one is easier and cheaper to extract power from than the other, and taken out of context that's a reasonable assumption to make. Its just a pity it doesn't work when you put it into context of a manufacturer doing it.

No not really, the reason why I posted it here is so people can see that the S3 is far superior to the R32. For some reason they seem to be dismissing the logic that the 2.0T is a much better engine choice for a hatchback.

Plus seeing as most enthusiasts in the UK alone are remapping their cars its a added bonus of getting the S3, everyone likes more power, especially when a extra 50hp is available for £500. The same cant be said for the 3.2.

 

[YSSMAN]

Audi interiors are much better than VW interiors. MK5 GTI interior is nothing special at all. Also the audi A3 3.2 s-line is faster than the R32. The 'ring list proves this.

I completely and whole-heartedly disagree on every level possible there. Certainly the high-end Audi models like the A8, A6, etc are going to be better than that of the average Vee-Dub, but when you look at the A3 in a America, there is absolutely no difference whatsoever between the two outside of the few special Audi bits and the four rings on the steering wheel. Whoopdy-freakin-doo...

As for the A3 3.2 S-Line (aka R32 with bling), I'm not sure why it even matters if it is "slightly" faster around the 'Ring, as the price differences between the two really doesn't justify the purchase of the Audi whatsoever. People are buying what amounts to exactly the same car underneath, and in that purchase, they are pretty much just buying the name. I see no advantage for Audi in that situation.

Tuning the 1.8T/2.0T is pretty simple, and any good tuner should be able to do so with ease, and at much cheaper cost than the 3.2 VR6.

The 3.2 is a great engine, but like many publication have said including top gear, and 5th gear, the 2.0T is the enthusiasts choice, due to being the more fun engine.

Yes, any good tuner should be able to modify the old 1.8T with ease because it has been around for almost 10 years. The 2.0T is a completely different story, as the aftermarket (at least in America) has not yet caught up with the technology to tune the engine efficiently.

There is a BIG difference between what is available in Germany or the UK versus that of the United States, and you are completely failing to recognize that. Here in America it is cheaper to work with the VR6, as we have been doing it since the early '90s, and beyond that, the VR6 is going to be the choice of power in the land of the V8.

...That said, the 1.8T has an extremely loyal following, and I'm certainly a part of it, but when you ask any VW-guy what kind of powerplant he/she wants in their super-VW, chances are they are going to pick the 3.2L VR6. Why? HPA has had a lot to do with that, particularly when they are extracting nearly 600 BHP from a V6...

...As for what engine is "more fun," it likely depends on the person. Again, differences between America and Europe become evident, as we generally prefer V6 or V8 power whenever possible. That said, 8/10 people are likely to be in the same camp that I am in which they would usually pick the GTI over the R32, but that is a matter of preference, not necessarily based on solid fact. That isn't to say that none of us would have an R32, as a matter of fact it is the "Corvette of Volkswagens" here in America, but the GTI seems like a more reasonable choice that would better suit our budgets, etc.

---

All of this is very strange indeed. Two VAG fans going against each other. Hmmm. Odd that there is such hostility between a VW guy and an Audi guy.

 

[Dave A]

Yes but the tuner has to do the research, and he costs are offset onto the customer.

Olnly not to as high a degree as the manufaturers, who as has been pointed out, have far more to make the modifications compliant to than the aftermarket tuners do.

It is cheaper to tune the 1.8T/2.0T. One only has to look at the TT forums to see that.

Cheaper, yes. I never said it wasn't. Only that it wasn't that expensive to tune the VR6 as you implied.

The S3 is a better hatch than the R32, and the fact that chipping it will allow it to be a seriously fast car is even more appealing

That's a personal opinion, personally I'm not into the whole modding thing at all. For me, I think an S3 would appeal more, but not because it's faster or not, because it just has less of that boy racer image that the golf has which doesn't appeal to me as much.

A STI is 28k in the UK. A S3 is 27k. In a straight line I would put my money on the S3 outrunning the STI due to better aerodynamics, and less transmission loss.

The first two points (price and aaerodynamics) have already been corrected, the transmission loss is still just something tyour hazzarding a guess to. You don't know how much either car loses. But the bottom line is, the STi produces more power.

Also the S3 is easier to live, has a better interior, is better put together, and will hold its value much better. Oh and it would be cheaper to insure.

I doubt an S3 would be notably cheaper to insure than an Impreza. I couldn't see my dad getting an S3 for less than £300 a year, that's all he'd have to pay for an Sti. On the live with thing, change that to easier to park and that's the only area the S3 would be easier to live with.

I did not know that the latest impreza was much better aerodynamically.

no and you didn't check first either.

However seeing as the S3 has haldex, its pretty obvious that it will suffer much less drivetrain loss than the imprezas fulltime 4wd system. The S3 is only 2wd untill it requires the extra grip of 4wd, meaning it has lesser drivetrain loss, according to the scoobynet members. They say that is the reason why cars such as the R32 and S3 arent blown away by their imprezas, like they would expect them to, going by on paper figures.

blow away in waht regard, the STi accelerates a lot quicker than a 2.0 S3, the STi has a higher top speed, it's probably going to be more stable at high speed and round corners as well.

Audi interiors are much better than VW interiors.

Trim for trim they arn't that different actually.

MK5 GTI interior is nothing special at all.

Neither is the A3/S3.

Also the audi A3 3.2 s-line is faster than the R32. The 'ring list proves this.

What would the S3 3.2 S-Lines time be? What would the current gen Golf R23's time be? Can you provide proof of both please. I've checked a couple of lists and none have the S3 3.2 on them,nor do any have the new Golf R32, only the old one.

Tuning the 1.8T/2.0T is pretty simple, and any good tuner should be able to do so with ease, and at much cheaper cost than the 3.2 VR6.

Tuning the Golfs V6 isn't difficult. As for the cost. Like I said before, the V6 isn't that expensive to tune, more so than the older 2.0 in the S3, but it's not that expensive, so your comment about tuning the S3 at a much cheaper cost is wrong. Unless you want to prove otherwise and show some parts that are like for like covering both the engines and the prices.

The 3.2 is a great engine, but like many publication have said including top gear, and 5th gear, the 2.0T is the enthusiasts choice, due to being the more fun engine.

I've never heared any say that. They might have, but I've never seen that in writing before now in your post.

No not really, the reason why I posted it here is so people can see that the S3 is far superior to the R32.

It's not, TopGear doesn't think it's even worth the premium over the Golf GTi. The Golf R32 is cheaper than the S3 2.0. It's just two different choices for different folks. Why you can never see that is beyond me. Everything you compare has to at some level be compared to a germancar in which case the German car is better, and if Audi is involved then god forbid something should be considered better than the Audi. It's like the Jag XJ argument in the other thread, you said the A8 was a far better car and implied that anyone that thought the XJ was better was living on another plannet. Despite being shown that there wasn't much between them, and that plenty of people thought the XJ was better, you still couldn't stop typing quips like the A8 is just better. As I said in the other thread, put an imo before that, and that's fine. But state it as a fact and your just making yourself look ignorant.

For some reason they seem to be dismissing the logic that the 2.0T is a much better engine choice for a hatchback.

Better for what, it depends what you want your hatchback to do.

 

[Poverty]

If the R32 is better than the S3 why did audi bother making the S3 if they already have their own version of the R32, and why is the S3 selling like hotcakes, if its not worth the premium?

Yes, any good tuner should be able to modify the old 1.8T with ease because it has been around for almost 10 years. The 2.0T is a completely different story, as the aftermarket (at least in America) has not yet caught up with the technology to tune the engine efficiently.

There is a BIG difference between what is available in Germany or the UK versus that of the United States, and you are completely failing to recognize that. Here in America it is cheaper to work with the VR6, as we have been doing it since the early '90s, and beyond that, the VR6 is going to be the choice of power in the land of the V8.

This is a european list though. Im still not convinced that its cheaper to tune the 3.2 in the states either. In a nutshell all you have to do with the 1.8T and 2.0T is upgrade the turbo for a K04 (I think thats the one) for it to reach 400hp, combined with a remap and exhaust sytem. Obviously there will be some other parts required but in a nutshell thats basically all that needs to be done. Its cheap effiecient and proven.

If you need to spend 12k just for 400hp out of the 3.2 v6 sadly its not worth it, you might aswell keep the car stock and buy a 2nd hand evo or impreza.

As for the A3 3.2 S-Line (aka R32 with bling), I'm not sure why it even matters if it is "slightly" faster around the 'Ring, as the price differences between the two really doesn't justify the purchase of the Audi whatsoever. People are buying what amounts to exactly the same car underneath, and in that purchase, they are pretty much just buying the name. I see no advantage for Audi in that situation.

The A3 3.2 S-line existed before the MK5 R32. Also I presume that it was the S-line version that beat the R32 time round the 'ring, as the list doesnt specify wheter it was or wasnt. Either way a A3 3.2 v6 costs as much as the R32, but comes with a better interior.

That said, the 1.8T has an extremely loyal following, and I'm certainly a part of it, but when you ask any VW-guy what kind of powerplant he/she wants in their super-VW, chances are they are going to pick the 3.2L VR6. Why? HPA has had a lot to do with that, particularly when they are extracting nearly 600 BHP from a V6...

And I believe the german tuners have extracted nearly 600bhp from the 1.8T 4-pot...

Quite frankly tuning the 3.2 VR6 is a expensive business, 12 grand just for 400hp!!!!!!!

Olnly not to as high a degree as the manufaturers, who as has been pointed out, have far more to make the modifications compliant to than the aftermarket tuners do.

A good tuner package will have years of research behind it, and used in real life racing applications before given to the public. That is alot of money to be offset onto very few customers...

Also audi have developed a 270/280hp 3.2 v6 anyway which is better on fuel than the current 3.2 v6 so they could have just used that, but they deemed the 2.0t to be a much better choice.

Cheaper, yes. I never said it wasn't. Only that it wasn't that expensive to tune the VR6 as you implied.

I took my figures straight off the HPA website. For 400hp out of the 3.2 vr6 it will cost 12 grand.

That's a personal opinion, personally I'm not into the whole modding thing at all. For me, I think an S3 would appeal more, but not because it's faster or not, because it just has less of that boy racer image that the golf has which doesn't appeal to me as much.

The S3 appeals to me due to the interior, the engine and the ability to get a extra 50 hp for £500 and simply because its one of the fastest hothatches on sale today.

I doubt an S3 would be notably cheaper to insure than an Impreza. I couldn't see my dad getting an S3 for less than £300 a year, that's all he'd have to pay for an Sti. On the live with thing, change that to easier to park and that's the only area the S3 would be easier to live with.

I wouldnt be too sure on that. Alot of insurance companies wont insure under 25's on evos or imprezas. Also imprezas get stolen alot more often, are involved in more ram raids, getaway chases, and high speed crashes. A impreza costs more to insure than a ferrari would for most people. Also imprezas have extremly high running costs, are noisy (which appeals to many) and the comfort is low, compared to an S3.

I would hazard a guess that the S3 is the easier vehicle to live with day to day. Atleast you wont have every boy racer in their 1.0 vauxhall nova trying to race off the lights, like impreza drivers have to put up with.

blow away in waht regard, the STi accelerates a lot quicker than a 2.0 S3, the STi has a higher top speed, it's probably going to be more stable at high speed and round corners as well.

Im talking motorway action here. 50mph onwards, not 0-62 drag races. Imprezas are known to start running out of steam once they reach double figures. All according to experiences of the scoobynet gang.

Trim for trim they arn't that different actually.

Audi interiors improved over their last generation, the MK5 golf interior took a step back from the MK4, and the mk1 A3 was better then the MK4 golf interior aswell.

Neither is the A3/S3.

A3 s-line, and S3 interior is better than that of the E60 M5. IMO that makes it special.

What would the S3 3.2 S-Lines time be? What would the current gen Golf R23's time be? Can you provide proof of both please. I've checked a couple of lists and none have the S3 3.2 on them,nor do any have the new Golf R32, only the old one.

Sport Auto Hockenheim list, looking for an up to date for the 'ring.

Audi S3 ------------------------------------------------ 1.17,5 min
BMW Z4 3.0si Roadster ----------------------------- 1.17,7 min
Audi RS6 -------------------------------------------------- 1.17,6 min
BMW M5 E39 ------------------------------------------------ 1.17,6 min
Aston Martin DB9 ----------------------------------------- 1.17,7 min
Mercedes SLK55 (tested a second time) ---------------- 1.17,7 min
BMW 335i ---------------------------------------- 1.17,8 min
BMW Z4 3.0 Coupé ---------------------------------------- 1.17,8 min
Mercedes CLS 55 ---------------------------------------- 1.17,8 min
Lotus Europa S -------------------------------------- 1.17,9 min
Subaru Impreza WRX STi (265hp) ----------------------- 1.17,9 min
Mercedes E55 (476hp) ------------------------------------ 1.18,0 min
Mercedes SL 500 ------------------------------------------ 1.18,1 min
BMW Z4 3.0 SMG (231hp) --------------------------------- 1.18,1 min
Bentley Continental MTM ---------------------------------------- 1.18,1 min
Audi S4 Sedan (V8) ---------------------------------------- 1.18,1 min
Audi RS4 (old) --------------------------------------------- 1.18,2 min
Mitsubishi EVO 7 -------------------------------------------- 1.18,2 min
Audi RS4 Convertible (V8)------------------------------------------- 1.18,2 min
BMW M3 Convertible------------------------------------------- 1.18,4 min
BMW Z3M Roadster ---------------------------------------- 1.18,2 min
Porsche Boxster S (252 hp) -------------------------------- 1.18,3 min
Brabus-Mercedes CLK 5.8 (1998) -------------------------- 1.18,3 min

Mercedes SL 55 ------------------------------------------ 1.18,4 min
Mercedes CLK 63 ---------------------------------------- 1.18,4 min
Mitsubishi EVO 6 -------------------------------------------- 1.18,4 min
Maserati 3200 GT ------------------------------------------- 1.18,4 min
Mercedes CL 65 ---------------------------------------------- 1.18,4 min
Porsche Cayman 2.7 ---------------------------------------- 1.18.5 min
Mercedes SLK 32 ------------------------------------------- 1.18,5 min
Mercedes C55 --------------------------------------------- 1.18,6 min
Mercedes SLK 350 ----------------------------------- 1.18,7 min
Nissan 350Z ------------------------------------------------ 1.18,8 min
Audi S6 (435hp) --------------------------------------------- 1.18,8 min
Renault Sport Trophy ------------------------------------------- 1.18,8 min
Audi TT 2.0 TFSI --------------------------------------------- 1.18,9 min
BMW 650 Cabriolet ------------------------------------------ 1.18,9 min
Maserati Quattroporte Sport GT ---------------------------------------- 1.18,9 min
Mercedes SLK 350 ----------------------------------------------- 1.18,9 min
Morgan Aero 8 ----------------------------------------------- 1.18.9 min
Honda S2000 ------------------------------------------------ 1.18,9 min
Audi S4 Avant (V8) ---------------------------------------- 1.19,1 min
Maserati Coupé Cambiocorsa ------------------------------ 1.19,2 min
BMW 130i ----------------------------------------------------- 1.19,2 min
BMW 330xi (258hp) ---------------------------------------- 1.19,3 min
Subaru Impreza GT (218hp) ------------------------------- 1.19,4 min
Mercedes C43 AMG ------------------------------------------ 1.19,5 min
Mazda 3 MPS ------------------------------------------- 1.19,6 min
Mercedes SL 500 -------------------------------------------- 1.19,7 min
Audi TT 3.2 quattro (latest TT) ------------------------------- 1.19,8 min
Brabus-Mercedes C V8 Sportcoupé ------------------------ 1.19,8 min
Mazda 6 MPS --------------------------------------------------- 1.19,9 min
Corvette C5 ---------------------------------------------------- 1.19,9 min

Jaguar XK 4.2 ------------------------------------------ 1.20,0 min
Opel Astra GTC (265 hp) ----------------------------- 1.20,0 min
Ford Focus ST -------------------------------------------------- 1.20.1 min
Renault Clio Sport V6 (226hp) ----------------------------- 1.20,2 min
BMW 535d ------------------------------------------------------ 1.20,2 min
Golf R32 (250hp) --------------------------------------------- 1.20,3 min
Mini Cooper S (175hp) --------------------------------------- 1.21,4 min
Audi TT 1.8T quattro ---------------------------------------- 1.20,4 min
Jaguar XKR (1998) ------------------------------------------ 1.20,4 min
Audi A3 3.2 Q DSG ------------------------------------------- 1.20,6 min
Mercedes C32 ---------------------------------------------- 1.20,6 min
Golf R32 ----------------------------------------------------- 1.20,7 min
Skoda Octavia RS ---------------------------------------------- 1.20,9 min
Audi S3 (1999) ---------------------------------------------- 1.20,9 min
Honda Civic Type-R ----------------------------------------- 1.20,9 min
Audi S4 (old) ------------------------------------------------ 1.21,1 min
Volvo C30 T5 --------------------------------------------- 1.21,2 min
Mercedes SLK 230 (2001) ----------------------------------- 1.21,2 min
Audi A3 2.0 TFSI ------------------------------------------- 1.21,3 min
VW Golf GTI 200hp ----------------------------------------- 1.21,4 min
Volvo S60 R ------------------------------------------------------- 1.21.5 min
Jaguar S-Type R --------------------------------------------------- 1.22,1 min
BMW 320si ------------------------------------------------- 1.22,2 min
VW Polo GTI Cup Edition --------------------------------------- 1.22,5 min
Alfa 156 GTA ------------------------------------------------- 1.22,7 min
Golf GTI DSG (200hp) --------------------------------------- 1.21,8 min
Smart ForFour Brabus --------------------------------------- 1.22.6 min
Golf GTI 1.8T ------------------------------------------------ 1.22,9 min
Mini Cooper S Works ---------------------------------------- 1.21,8 min
Golf V6 4Motion ------------------------------------------- 1.22,9 min
BMW 320i ------------------------------------------------- 1.25,0 min


AutoBild Oberschleben track times:

Taken from RS6.com:

German AutoBild has taken the S3 around the DTM track at Oschersleben, and posted a time of 1.49:12. That was 3-3,5 secs (!!!) faster than the BMW 130i, the Mazda 3 MPS and the Golf R32 tested at the same time! And even more interestingly, it's 1,5 secs better than they managed in the TT 3,2. In my book, that's simply playing in two different leagues. In fact, their time in an RS4 Saloon (posted on a separate occasion) was only 4 tenths of a second quicker. Bear in mind though that Oschersleben isn't really a high-speed circuit where the RS4 can really benefit from its power advantage. Instead, it rather suffers slightly from its extra weight. At Nordschleife, I think the S3 would be miles adrift.

1.49:12 - Audi S3 (MK2) (faster than E46 M3, and evo 8)
1:55.80 - 114,00 km/h - Audi A3 3.2 quattro DSG
1:55.81 - 113,99 km/h - Alfa Romeo 147 GTA

1:56.06 - 113,74 km/h - Audi S3 (mk1)
1:56.11 - 113,69 km/h - Honda S2000
1:56.14 - 113,67 km/h - Mazda RX-8 Revolution
1:56.19 - 113,61 km/h - Audi S4 Cabrio (B6)
1:56.20 - 113,61 km/h - Kelleners BMW 120d
1:56.20 - 113,61 km/h - Sportec Seat Leon SR 270
1:56.20 - 113,61 km/h - Volvo V70R
1:56.29 - 113,52 km/h - Kelleners Mini Cooper S
1:56.34 - 113,47 km/h - AC Schnitzer ACS5 3.0d
1:56.45 - 112,38 km/h – Ford Fiesta 2.0 ST
1:56.47 - 113,34 km/h - Mercedes E 500 (W 211)
1:56.54 - 113,28 km/h - b&b Audi TT 1.8T roadster
1:56.60 - 113,22 km/h - JE Design Seat Leon Cupra R
1:56.64 - 113,18 km/h - MTM Skoda Octavia WSC
1:56.86 - 112,97 km/h - Mercedes C 30 CDI AMG
1:56.95 - 112,88 km/h - Jaguar XKR Cabriolet

1:57.00 - 112,83 km/h - Mercedes C 320 Sportcoupé
1:57.00 - 112,83 km/h - VW Golf R32 DSG
1:57.01 - 112,82 km/h - Honda Civic 2.0i Type-R
1:57.01 - 112,82 km/h - Opel Astra OPC
1:57.02 - 112,81 km/h - Alfa Romeo 156 GTA
1:57.27 - 112,57 km/h – VW Polo GTI
1:57.30 - 112,54 km/h - MG ZT 260
1:57.40 - 112,44 km/h - Renault Clio Sport 2.0 16V
1:57.52 - 112,33 km/h - SKN Mini Cooper S
1:57.60 - 112,26 km/h - Saab 95 2.3 Turbo Aero Kombi by Hirsch

Tuning the Golfs V6 isn't difficult. As for the cost. Like I said before, the V6 isn't that expensive to tune, more so than the older 2.0 in the S3, but it's not that expensive, so your comment about tuning the S3 at a much cheaper cost is wrong. Unless you want to prove otherwise and show some parts that are like for like covering both the engines and the prices.

For £500 you will get an extra 50hp out of the 2.0T. I dont think theres a single NA car that can boast similier power increase from a remap.
To further prove this point there are tons of tuners offering stuff for the turbo VAG units, yet I can only think of two german tuned cars using the 3.2 v6 with 255hp.

It's not, TopGear doesn't think it's even worth the premium over the Golf GTi. The Golf R32 is cheaper than the S3 2.0. It's just two different choices for different folks. Why you can never see that is beyond me. Everything you compare has to at some level be compared to a germancar in which case the German car is better, and if Audi is involved then god forbid something should be considered better than the Audi. It's like the Jag XJ argument in the other thread, you said the A8 was a far better car and implied that anyone that thought the XJ was better was living on another plannet. Despite being shown that there wasn't much between them, and that plenty of people thought the XJ was better, you still couldn't stop typing quips like the A8 is just better. As I said in the other thread, put an imo before that, and that's fine. But state it as a fact and your just making yourself look ignorant.

Your right on the part I should put IMO on the end of some of my sentences. I dont think audi is the best, I realise the A4 is flawed, but some people go on as if audi isnt a major player, and get fiercely critiscised yet they then go on to sing the praise of a rebadged vauxhall/opel.

There has been another test of luxo barges, which included the A8, new S, XJ and LS. The A8 came in first place, and the jag last.

 

[Scaff]

I did not know that the latest impreza was much better aerodynamically.

And as we see below you didn't take it on board at all.

However seeing as the S3 has haldex, its pretty obvious that it will suffer much less drivetrain loss than the imprezas fulltime 4wd system. The S3 is only 2wd untill it requires the extra grip of 4wd, meaning it has lesser drivetrain loss, according to the scoobynet members. They say that is the reason why cars such as the R32 and S3 arent blown away by their imprezas, like they would expect them to, going by on paper figures.

As an average FWD losses are in the region of 18% and 4wd in the region of 25% (source Race and Rally Car Source book), however a haldex system still has to utilise the diff to determine this and as such the differences are going to be smaller.

That is however that would only ever apply in a situation when all of the torque is being sent to the front wheels (the S3 does not have the ability to send 100% to the rear only to the front). So in almost any performance situation such as a full bore launch, hard cornering, high speed runs (front end lift) when front end traction is going to be an issue the haldex system will split the drive and effectively remove this advantage.

The true advantage of systems if this nature is not in reducing drivetrain losses in performance driving, rather in improving fuel consumption in everyday driving. I feel its only fair to let you know that this is a subject I have trained people on in the past.

No not really, the reason why I posted it here is so people can see that the S3 is far superior to the R32. For some reason they seem to be dismissing the logic that the 2.0T is a much better engine choice for a hatchback.

That was not the point I was making at all; you have been impling that the 2.0 is a cheaper engine to modify based upon the quote form Autocar saying it would have cost more for Audi to modify the 3.2 for the S3. I'm saying this is a flawed piece of logic. I'm not saying that the 2.0 is the wrong choice, nor am I actually saying that price wise you are even wrong (as I discuss below its too early to say that for sure), what I am saying is that your choice of quote and its use in this argument is wrong.

Plus seeing as most enthusiasts in the UK alone are remapping their cars its a added bonus of getting the S3, everyone likes more power, especially when a extra 50hp is available for £500. The same cant be said for the 3.2.

This is a european list though. Im still not convinced that its cheaper to tune the 3.2 in the states either. In a nutshell all you have to do with the 1.8T and 2.0T is upgrade the turbo for a K04 (I think thats the one) for it to reach 400hp, combined with a remap and exhaust sytem. Obviously there will be some other parts required but in a nutshell thats basically all that needs to be done. Its cheap effiecient and proven.

One slight problem does exist with this argument, which is you are basing it in tuning the current production versions of the 2.0 T FSI, which in most applications is running around 197bhp. Now it is easy and cheap to get gains out of that, a superchip will give you an extra 41bhp for £511.13. Compared to a gain of 16bhp for the 3.2 V6 from the R32, however the cost of that is £293.75. (that’s £12.47 per bhp gain for the 2.0 vs. £18.36 per bhp for the 3.2), the difference at this level is around £6 per bhp. However keep in mind that this will only bring the 2.0 up to the standard power of the 3.2 (197bhp + 41bhp = 238bhp vs. the 237bhp of the standard 3.2), so the cost argument starts to look a little shaky.


http://www.superchips.co.uk/curves/r32.pdf

http://www.superchips.co.uk/curves/vw2lfsiturbo.pdf

Now what you have to consider is that Audi have taken the standard 2.0 T FSI and worked it from 197bhp to 261bhp, a rather substantial increase to begin with. Now the aftermarket tuners have not had any experience in working on this particular variant of the 2.0 T FSI, and do not be so naïve as to think that its just a case of throwing more of what they already do onto the engine. In this state of tune its already running at 1.2bar on the turbo, so without massive reliability issues that’s a expensive area to work on. Quite simply the market does not yet have the experience of this particular engine version to say how expensive or not it will be, and any statements that it will be cheaper than ‘x’ or ‘y’ is pure speculation on your part.

Im talking motorway action here. 50mph onwards, not 0-62 drag races. Imprezas are known to start running out of steam once they reach double figures. All according to experiences of the scoobynet gang.

See I said you forgot about the improved aero in new WRX's.

You have not said (and maybe have no way of knowing) exactly what model these cars were, what age they were, what condition they were in, etc. Yet seem quite happy to use them as very specific examples, once again we have opinion being presented as fact.

I wouldnt be too sure on that. Alot of insurance companies wont insure under 25's on evos or imprezas. Also imprezas get stolen alot more often, are involved in more ram raids, getaway chases, and high speed crashes. A impreza costs more to insure than a ferrari would for most people. Also imprezas have extremly high running costs, are noisy (which appeals to many) and the comfort is low, compared to an S3.

The very article you pick to praise the S3 (this weeks Autocar) disagrees with you on this very point, saying that one of the downside of the S3 is that with its group 18 insurance it will be an expensive (or imposable) car to insure for anyone not in their mid 30's+ and with a fat bank balance.

In terms of Impreza's getting stolen a lot, well its rather interesting to see that they don't even make the top ten of most stolen cars in the UK..

1. Vauxhall Belmont
2. Vauxhall Astra Mk2
3. Ford Escort Mk3
4. Austin/Morris Metro
5. Vauxhall Nova
6. Ford Orion
7. Rover Metro
8. Austin/Morris Maestro
9. Austin/Morris Montego
10. Ford Fiesta Mks1, 2 and 3

Source - http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/about-us/news/car-theft-2006

Yes according to the 2006 Car Theft Index the Impreza is a high risk car in terms of theft, but so is the S3 quattro (pages 23 & 38 respectively), the S3 and S4 are also high risk for a greater registartion period as well..

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/CarTheft_Index_2006.pdf?view=Binary

...amazing what a bit of research does isn't it.

Thatcham (the body that determines insurance groupings in the UK) also give cars a 'star' rating on theft of and theft from, and guess what; the S3 and WRX Sti get identical scores. 5/5 for theft of and 4/5 for theft from (higher is better)...

source - http://www.thatcham.org/nvsr/index.jsp?page=200

...once again you are basing things on opinion and speculation, something I have no problem with as long as its not presented as fact. That however is the problem you are once again making this look like fact.


Now you may counter that the Impreza is a group 20 car against the group 18 of the S3 (or 42 vs 36 if you want to use the new ratings), and yes that will make it more expensive to ensure, but we are still talking about serious money for both here, unless you are over 35. Don't make the mistake of assuming that a higher group automatically is the result of theft risk (I've already shown that the WRX and S3 are rated identically), as repair times and costs from accident damage also play a major part. Now the S3 shares a lot more 'common' components with a base model (the A3) than the Impreza, and is also a much more common car for bodyshops to have day to day experience working on. Are you even aware, for example, that the exact location of the radiator will have an effect on insurance groups?



I personally think that the new S3 is likely to go down as one of the finest driving cars that Audi have made in a very, very long time; however with yourself as an advocate, spouting biased and poorly sourced rubbish to try and back this up is not exactly winning many people over. What I find amazing is the easy with which you throw out the label 'fan-boy' to others, yet your own bias is quite frankly both huge and obvious and does far more harm to your stance than anything else.

In this post alone I have again used correct information and sources (none of which are 'hidden' or hard to find) to correct biased nonsense that you have used. Yes a WRX Sti is a high theft risk, but so is any S or RS level Audi. Hell one of the most commonly used vehicles in armed robberies has always been said to be a Ford Transit, does that put it in the same class as a Scoobie?


Scaff

 

[YSSMAN]

Well, it is pretty obvious that no one is convincing anyone with anything here. I personally see no advantage to the S3 whatsoever, compared to the R32 or a modified GTI... There just isn't any justification for the price increase, even if the interior is "better" (it isn't) or if it is "faster" (not by much).

...I'll make my "everyman" Vee-Dub any day over an Audi, and I think that point has been driven home more than once. We won't see the R32 until August 2007 (crap), and the GTI is just getting the available upgrades it deserves...

 

[Pupik]

We get 4-5 of those choices in the US. Maybe if they added 1000 pounds, another row of seats, the option of 4wd, and an off-road suspension, we'd get more of them here.

:roll-and-eyes-and...:

 

[Poverty]

Well, it is pretty obvious that no one is convincing anyone with anything here. I personally see no advantage to the S3 whatsoever, compared to the R32 or a modified GTI... There just isn't any justification for the price increase, even if the interior is "better" (it isn't) or if it is "faster" (not by much).

...I'll make my "everyman" Vee-Dub any day over an Audi, and I think that point has been driven home more than once. We won't see the R32 until August 2007 (crap), and the GTI is just getting the available upgrades it deserves...

Have you sat in both to come to a conclusion whether the interior is better or not because there is a huge difference. VW interiors cant compete with audi ones, they arent meant to.

I dont see how 2 grands extra for the S3 isnt enough justification for the S3 over the R32. Two grands isnt exactly that much money for a much better car.

3 to 3.5 secs faster than the R32 and 130i around a track makes that a much faster car in my eyes. Hell it was faster than a M3, awesome car.

 

[Dave A]

Have you sat in both to come to a conclusion whether the interior is better or not because there is a huge difference. VW interiors cant compete with audi ones, they arent meant to.

Like I said before, trim for trim, there isn't much difference.

I dont see how 2 grands extra for the S3 isnt enough justification for the S3 over the R32. Two grands isnt exactly that much money for a much better car.

Better in only your opinion. and 2 grand on it's own is not a ridiculous ammount of money, but 2 grand more for two cars that are both pretty even in terms of performance and target buyers is a lot wen were talking about cars in the 20k bracket.

3 to 3.5 secs faster than the R32 and 130i around a track makes that a much faster car in my eyes. Hell it was faster than a M3, awesome car.

I'd love to see the conditions thoes cars all ran in. I doubt the S3 would be as fast as an M3 round the Ring, or the TopGear track, if both ran in good, dry conditions. In the rain, the the 4wd may well be a big enough advantage to turn the tables though. But I'm less concerned with how fast a car goes in the wet than the dry, I don't generally intend on tracking my cars, let alone doing it when it's wet. Without knowing the conditions that run was in, I could use the TopGear track times and say the 2005 Golf R32 is faster than a Porsche 911 Turbo.

 

[Famine]

Have you sat in both to come to a conclusion whether the interior is better or not because there is a huge difference. VW interiors cant compete with audi ones, they arent meant to.

Mitsubishi interiors can compete with this:

 

[Poverty]

Like I said before, trim for trim, there isn't much difference.

I disagree. Have you been in the Golf GTI? Its not very sporty inside, its a competent interior, but I wouldnt exactly say that it was nice. Its rather a bit plasticky at times, very high quality plastcis, but plasticky and a bit boring, but well put together.

GTI

R32

S3

Better in only your opinion. and 2 grand on it's own is not a ridiculous ammount of money, but 2 grand more for two cars that are both pretty even in terms of performance and target buyers is a lot wen were talking about cars in the 20k bracket.

No, not better in just my opinion but several professional reporters, and the S3 is also consistently faster on the track time after time, and not just by a small margin.

I can post several comparos where the S3 beats the R32, 130i etc.

I'd love to see the conditions thoes cars all ran in. I doubt the S3 would be as fast as an M3 round the Ring, or the TopGear track, if both ran in good, dry conditions. In the rain, the the 4wd may well be a big enough advantage to turn the tables though. But I'm less concerned with how fast a car goes in the wet than the dry, I don't generally intend on tracking my cars, let alone doing it when it's wet. Without knowing the conditions that run was in, I could use the TopGear track times and say the 2005 Golf R32 is faster than a Porsche 911 Turbo.

I bet the S3 matches the time of the S4 round topgear, if not beating it. That would put it ahead of the M3.

The S3 was also faster than the evo 8 rond obsherschleben race track. Also the S3 beat the 335i round hockenheim. That only proves what a rapid car the S3 is. If anything the R32 isnt worth the money over the GTI. The S3 is another story as it is actually much faster and has a much better interior. There isnt much between the GTI and R32 interior wise.

 

[TheCracker]

I see just as much plastic in the Audi interior as i do in the Golf.

 

[Poverty]

Golf interior looks a bit like that of a polo 1.2

 

[Famine]

Golf interior looks a bit like that of a polo 1.2

As does the real (not touched up and polished in Photoshop) image of an S3 interior that I posted. Silvery plastic abounds.

 

[Dave A]

I see just as much plastic in the Audi interior as i do in the Golf.

Exactley, theres not much difference in quality there. The bottom line is, you sit in an R32 and you sit in an S3, your not going to be thinking "my lord, this S3 is much more comfey than the R32." Because it's not. Both have leather seats, both have plastic dashboards, the S3 has a nicer steering wheel. Hardly worth shouting about. You get the sat nav in the Golf as well.

Do not confuse an interior with more alluminium look plastic, as being higher quality than one with less. They both have leather seats, are similrly specced in ways to make you comfortable, and both have pretty much the same leg room ect. Speaking of price, you can actually pick up a brand new Golf R32 for less than £23k. 3 or 5 door.

 

[Scaff]

No, not better in just my opinion but several professional reporters, and the S3 is also consistently faster on the track time after time, and not just by a small margin.

No one is disputing the speed of the new S3, but interior wise, Autocar did pass comment about it and not positively.

Scaff

 

[YSSMAN]

Have you sat in both to come to a conclusion whether the interior is better or not because there is a huge difference. VW interiors cant compete with audi ones, they arent meant to.

I dont see how 2 grands extra for the S3 isnt enough justification for the S3 over the R32. Two grands isnt exactly that much money for a much better car.

3 to 3.5 secs faster than the R32 and 130i around a track makes that a much faster car in my eyes. Hell it was faster than a M3, awesome car.

1) I've sat in my fair-share of Audi A3s and VW GTI's to know that I can't expect too much of a difference between the two, no matter what the model designation may be. It is important to point out that we have neither the S3 nor the R32 yet in America (should be here by the fall), however, based on similar models at lower levels... And hell, even model-to-model comparisons that include the Jetta, Passat, A4, A6, etc I'm throughly unconvinced that an Audi is really that much better than a Volkswagen, if even at all.

The good news? That means that Volkswagen interiors are very good for their segment, and when I can get a nearly-Audi-level interior in my Rabbit for $15K, I'd call that a screaming deal over the acres of plastic and whatnot found in the Civic and Corolla.

2) Pricing aside, you're looking at UK figures, not American ones. Take exchange rates, shipping rates, etc all into account and we're likely to see the price-gap between the S3 and the R32 grow fairly significantly here in America. There is a 14% price increase between the GTI and A3 here in America, and I personally find that to be pretty high considering that you are basically buying the same car. I'd more between the R32 and the S3, especially when the A3 3.2 S-Line starts north of $33K here. Simply outrageous, and I'm not buying into it at all...

3) Performance matters, don't get me wrong, but it isn't everything. However, there is an issue with the performance quote; Are we talking the 'Ring or what? That would generally lean towards the M3 in most cases, and if we would take a look at the Top Gear power-lap board...

- 1:30.4 - VW R32 (2005)
- 1:31.8 - BMW M3
- 1:31.9 - BMW 130i

Hmmmm. Notice the problem there?

When we get both in the hands of an American tester at an American track, I'd be happy to declare a clear winner...

 

[Poverty]

No one is disputing the speed of the new S3, but interior wise, Autocar did pass comment about it and not positively.

Scaff

The same can be said for the MK5 golf, as many people say it was a step backwards from the MK4, which was done due to cost cutting.

As for the pictures, the GTI one which I posted was a publicity shot just like the S3 one was.

Ive got a interior pic of a scoobynet members S3, so I will post that when I can find the thread, and then there should be no more arguments over the interior. 👍

 

[Famine]

Ive got a interior pic of a scoobynet members S3, so I will post that when I can find the thread, and then there should be no more arguments over the interior.

Err... dude?

 

[Poverty]

Err... dude?

The quality isnt very good, and the shiny metal bits arent plastic

 

[Dave A]

Your right, the shiny metal bit's arn't plastic, like shiny metal bit's tend to not be. The shiny aluminium lookalike bit's however, arn't.

As for the quality, that is coming from someone who used an airbrushed photo of the S3 interior and the compared it to a non airbrushed Golf photo that was around half it's resolution. Please. Like I said, theres not much to call to say one is higher quality than the other.

 

[Famine]

The quality isnt very good

Which is what we've been trying to tell you.

and the shiny metal bits arent plastic

The door handles are metal (brushed aluminium). The gearknob surround is metal (chromed steel). Nigh-on everything else in there is plastic - not to mention the acres of featureless grey/black plastic that forms the dash.

None of your touch-up photoshopping here - just a picture from a proud new owner.

 

[Poverty]

Your right, the shiny metal bit's arn't plastic, like shiny metal bit's tend to not be. The shiny aluminium lookalike bit's however, arn't.

oh really? prove it, cause last i knew plastic isnt cold to the touch.