# UK Car magazine reports that next RS3 will not get 5-cylinder engine



## Crocodile (May 21, 2009)

In the latest edition of the UK motoring magazine, Car, there is an article on the A3. It briefly mentions that the next RS3 will not get a 5-cylinder TFSI engine, but rather a further developed version of the S3's EA88 2.0-litre engine developing around 380 bhp.

I find this hard to believe. 

I love the present 2.5-litre 5-cylinder engine. I'd like to see the current unit developed so that it consumes less petrol and pushes out 400 bhp. I would think twice before exchanging it for a 4-cylinder model. Mind you, if the new one does indeed have 380 bhp from a 4-cylinder engine, it should certainly be interesting. 

George, please shed some light on this.


----------



## mookieblaylock (Sep 25, 2005)

Crocodile said:


> In the latest edition of the UK motoring magazine, Car, there is an article on the A3. It briefly mentions that the next RS3 will not get a 5-cylinder TFSI engine, but rather a further developed version of the S3's EA88 2.0-litre engine developing around 380 bhp.
> 
> I find this hard to believe.
> 
> ...


isn't the current rs3 kind of pigy at 3800 lbs? anything to hold that down i bet


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

the 2.5T is like a lead ballast, on par in weight with AMG's 6.2, which goes over 600hp in N/A form. An easy way to reduce 100LB is put in the 2.0T and crank up the boost.

If they go wild with the boost of their 1.6T, that would be another drop of 100LB in weight, although the built in intercooler might not be up to task for all that boost.


----------



## cyberpmg (Nov 27, 2001)

Just a guess, but maybe the current 2.5L turbo engine is not designed to fit into the MQB chassis? I would imagine that since they came up with a redesigned 2.0T for the S3, it would make sense to either keep the same engine and up the power... or offer a similarly updated inline 5 cylinder engine.

I only wish Audi would hurry up and give us the specs and pricing for the A3/S3 that's coming to the US. That would give us more to drool over while they work on what would be the next RS3.


----------



## GTI2Slow (Jun 23, 2007)

I don't see how further developing the 2.0T for would make financial sense. Audi has already developed the 2.5TFSI, it could use some refinement like the dual injection system to eliminate carbon deposits.


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

GTI2Slow said:


> I don't see how further developing the 2.0T for would make financial sense. Audi has already developed the 2.5TFSI, it could use some refinement like the dual injection system to eliminate carbon deposits.


Both are probably passe. The 2.5TFSI was a one off, developed by Quattro gmbh. They are a small specialty shop that doesn't have billions of euros in their pocket. So they found a engine in VW's inventory and upgraded everything that they can upgrade. Now if it was to design an engine for Lamborghini, that's a different thing...Audi would be throwing cash at them.


----------



## Crocodile (May 21, 2009)

There's no doubt that the revised 2.0-litre EA888 TFSI is a magnificent engine. The 300 bhp it develops in the S3 is likely to put this car almost on a par with the current RS3. 

So if the next MQB RS3 uses only a further tuned version of the new EA88 engine with, say 350-360 bhp, my concern is that it may not be a significant step-up versus the new S3? In fact, I'd like the next RS3 to have 380-400 bhp and I'm not sure that's possible with a 2.0-litre engine. 

Would I pay an extra $7,000-$10,000 for an RS3 that is essentially the same as the S3 with not much more than a 50 bhp hike in power d anthat doesn't put it significantly ahead of the 300 bhp car? I'm not sure I would. Of course, Audi could surprise us. 

However, the existing 5-cylinder engine is a gem. For anyone who hasn't experienced it, I heartily recommend a test drive. It pulls in any gear at any revs. The amount of torque is phenomenal. Then there's the sound... It's a truly special engine. Customers (like me) love it! I would be very sad if Audi retired this engine. I don't believe I am alone either. Perhaps its use in the RS Q3 suggests that there's life in the old dog yet. 

My hope is that Audi will develop the 2.5 five further. I'd like to see it lightened and given the same cylinder head design as the EA888 2.0-litre unit. 

What's the alternative? Audi is developing a new non-supercharged 3.0-litre V6. It could be lighter, more powerful and more frugal than the five. But the fact remains that the five is very on-brand. Fives are part of Audi's heritage. Can a five not balance the conflicting requirements for power and frugality better than a six? 

For all these reasons, I think the next RS3 will use a five cylinder engine. What is clear, however, is that it can't be an upgraded version of the existing unit. It is too heavy, thirsty and dirty. 

Anybody have any other ideas?


----------



## t.oorboh! (Feb 11, 2012)

there was an article last year. probably posted on fourtitude about the coming end of 5 cylinder engines. it mentioned the audi 2.5.


----------



## t.oorboh! (Feb 11, 2012)

found it. 

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/the-future-dims-for-the-five-cylinder-engine-feature


----------



## Crocodile (May 21, 2009)

That's depressing reading.


----------



## DjSherif (Apr 27, 2005)

That article is talking about the 5 cylinder engine in the jetta, golf, and passat. Not the 2.5T in the RS3 and TTRS.


----------



## velocipedio (Apr 26, 2006)

Losing that engine would be a huge plus for the next car. The 2.5 in the last RS3 was a big mistake, and was its achilles heel. Way to heavy up front. The TTS and S3 (8P) were fairly neutral handling cars, but the RS3 and TTRS, in contrast, were bogged down with that heavy engine. I think the next RS3 is going to be monumental.


----------



## Crocodile (May 21, 2009)

Volkswagen just showed a Golf GTI concept at Worthersee in Austria. It had a new narrow-angle 3.0-litre V6 developing 500 bhp. 

500 bhp? Are these guys nuts? I love it! Gotta hope that engine sees the light of day beyond its concept beginnings. 

It isn't clear what this engine is yet: a one-off development of the old VR6 that did sterling service in 1990 hot Golfs or a brand new unit that will be shared across all MQB performance cars from Audi and VW. 

From what I understand, this engine is lighter as well as more powerful than the existing 2.5-litre five in the RS3. 

I bet it sounds good.


----------



## Rudy_H (Jul 6, 2012)

TT-RS next gen is suppose to get I5 turbo...will be interesting.


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

velocipedio said:


> Losing that engine would be a huge plus for the next car. The 2.5 in the last RS3 was a big mistake, and was its achilles heel. Way to heavy up front. The TTS and S3 (8P) were fairly neutral handling cars, but the RS3 and TTRS, in contrast, were bogged down with that heavy engine. I think the next RS3 is going to be monumental.


Audi must not want to put much R&D into the transverse engines that VW will end up using too, given the EA888 was not a clean sheet design using the lightest components (such as alum crankcase). Even VW's new EA211 has gone the route of alum crankcase, saving significant weight compared to the prior generation's engine (while the EA888 only dropped a slight amount).

Same goes with the 2.5T, Quattro Gmbh grabbed an old VW engine, beefed it up, used a stronger cast iron and put a turbo on it. I understand Quattro gmbh doesn't have bottomless wallet and this is just an engine for the lowest end RS car, but still.

If BMW could go ultra lightweight on their diesel with alum crankcase, and MB C63 with the 6.3 engine doesn't make that car have a 70:30 weight distribution (thanks to a 6.3 engine that is the same weight as the 2.5T), then Audi has to really get its game going, especially on its low end stuff.

I did see the TT ultra quattro concept's engine has been lightened up by 25kg using the old iron block. Maybe some of that technology will migrate to the future EA888, if they already ditch it and go with a completely new lightweight design.


----------



## GTI2Slow (Jun 23, 2007)

Is there a turbocharger or even bottom end components in the VAG parts bin that could keep a 380bhp EA888 together?


----------



## Waterfan (Aug 9, 2012)

GTI2Slow said:


> Is there a turbocharger or even bottom end components in the VAG parts bin that could keep a 380bhp EA888 together?


Don't know about turbo in their parts bin, but the stock bottom end seems to already be capable of holding 380bhp.

My "evidence" is the current APR Stage 3+ kit for 2.0T which does not require bottom end work:
393 bhp / 364 ftlbs (basically just GT2871R Turbo, head porting and supporting mods - http://www.goapr.com/products/cylinder_head_20t_ea113.html (I looked at the "3+ 93 WHP" chart)

To match the ported stage 3+ head, maybe instead the RS will see the return of the awesome flowing 20V head?

To differentiate from S3, the RS3 could include even more 'exotic materials' to save weight/enhance performance (even more aluminum, magnesium, and maybe introduction of carbon fibre)


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

Waterfan said:


> Don't know about turbo in their parts bin, but the stock bottom end seems to already be capable of holding 380bhp.
> 
> My "evidence" is the current APR Stage 3+ kit for 2.0T which does not require bottom end work:
> 393 bhp / 364 ftlbs (basically just GT2871R Turbo, head porting and supporting mods - http://www.goapr.com/products/cylinder_head_20t_ea113.html (I looked at the "3+ 93 WHP" chart)
> ...



There is absolutely no chance that Audi will be selling a 380hp car based on the S3's EA888, let alone a stock EA888.

Audi didn't even think the stock EA888 engine will be reliable enough when pumped to 260hp, thus it beefed up the pistons, pins, rings, connecting rods, bearings, cylinder block. No way will it be using the S3 or stock A3 engine and crank out an additional 80-170hp.

Tuner shops just cares about cranking the boost to the max, they don't test 100k miles reliability with acceptable amount of failures. As long as the car doesn't blow up in the test drive by the owner, it could all be blamed on the driver afterward.


----------



## jsausley (Dec 2, 2011)

LWNY said:


> There is absolutely no chance that Audi will be selling a 380hp car based on the S3's EA888, let alone a stock EA888.
> 
> Audi didn't even think the stock EA888 engine will be reliable enough when pumped to 260hp, thus it beefed up the pistons, pins, rings, connecting rods, bearings, cylinder block. No way will it be using the S3 or stock A3 engine and crank out an additional 80-170hp.
> 
> Tuner shops just cares about cranking the boost to the max, they don't test 100k miles reliability with acceptable amount of failures. As long as the car doesn't blow up in the test drive by the owner, it could all be blamed on the driver afterward.


I agree with this, somewhat. I don't think tuners (in the modern day) are really just turning cars up with no care of reliability. I rarely hear about failures these days in cars tuned by the big companies (APR, UM, etc.). However, you're right about VWAG - they're not going to build a car with 380 HP on an EA888 because they have to guarantee a failure rate of about 2% or less in order to make the car profitable. If they sell 10,000 of these cars and more than 200 have engine failures EVER (I'm not talking about in the first 10,000 miles) then VWAG will either pay out of its own ass for warranties or lose customers due to the failures and therefore not sell future product.


----------



## Rudy_H (Jul 6, 2012)

What one needs to remember too, the new generation EA888 is generating a LOT more torque at lower RPM's. 

You start breaking things at low RPM with a lot of torque. So obviously they did a lot of work on the engine to get what they need to.

Factor in FSI direct injection, and potentially, and excuse the lack of marketing name...but variable turbine geometry, you can size a slightly larger turbo then potentially a K04. Suddenly 360-380hp isn't that far off when you find the right sized intercooler, and efficient piping.


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

Rudy_H said:


> What one needs to remember too, the new generation EA888 is generating a LOT more torque at lower RPM's.
> 
> You start breaking things at low RPM with a lot of torque. So obviously they did a lot of work on the engine to get what they need to.
> 
> Factor in FSI direct injection, and potentially, and excuse the lack of marketing name...but variable turbine geometry, you can size a slightly larger turbo then potentially a K04. Suddenly 360-380hp isn't that far off when you find the right sized intercooler, and efficient piping.


The torque capability of the old A3's EA888 was always there, it was just w/o the valvelift, it was not able to achieve that. Note the 2.0T engine in the A4, etc. it didn't have the beefed up bottom end, but was still fine with the increased torque.


----------



## Saracen (Sep 20, 2011)

The RS Q3 has the 2.5TFSI and sits on the MQB platform, I believe. Additionally, the A3 Quattro Concept had a 2.5TFSI under the hood. 

I don't see Audi offering two RS branded MQB-based vehicles with different engines. That would be very surprising.


----------



## Tcardio (Mar 19, 2009)

this is a masterbation thread. Does anyone think Audi is going to bring a badass HP version to the states. hell no! Let's face it , we are left on our own to fix what should have come from the factory and then threatened with TD1. I might add that it would be great to have 350 hp out of the box, but I do indeed like to build cars and having a beast at the start kinda takes the fun out of it.


----------



## Crocodile (May 21, 2009)

I've been thinking about this topic a lot. 

The current RS3 is the most successful RS model created to date. It truly breathed extra life into the ageing 8P platform. So it is absolutely certain that the model will be repeated with the MQB platform. What's even better news is that next RS3 likely to be available as a Sportback and Sedan, and possibly as a 3-door coupe too. I imagine that the USA will at least get the Sedan RS3. 

The current 340 bhp 2.5-litre in-line five is a superb engine. I agree that it has a weight problem. It makes the front end ponderous, reluctant to turn in and contributes to a lack of steering feel. Audi cannot offer the current 2.5-litre unit again without updating it. It might offer a different engine altogether. 

So when it comes to engines, there are a number of possible scenarios: 


Tweaked version of EA888 2.0 unit: 360 bhp 

Tweaked version of current heavy 2.5 unit: 380 bhp 

Lightweight version of current 2.5 unit: 380 bhp 

Lightweight narrow-angle V6 3.0 unit: 400bhp 

 

I think a 2.0-litre in-line four is unlikely. I could buy a standard S3 and chip it to achieve 350 bhp without paying an extra $7,000-$10,000. 

The current 2.5 unit will not pass EU6 emission standards which will come into force during the lifecycle of the next RS3, so this will have to be tweaked. The engine has been a great success for Audi and has one various awards in its class. So I don't think it is going to die or be left to be surpassed by any competitor's engine. 

I think the new 3.0 litre bi-turbo unit will be monstrous. However, I think it'll be served for the A4 and A6 series. 

Therefore, I think the most likely engine is a new 2.5-litre five with some degree of aluminium, possibly in a lightweight crankcase, or a lighter block. Whatever Audi does, it needs to reduce weight from 400 lb to 300 lb. 

380 bhp in a car 100 kg lighter than the current RS3 is going to be quick. I'm hoping for a sub-4 second 0-60 time.


----------



## DaLeadBull (Feb 15, 2011)

Crocodile said:


> I've been thinking about this topic a lot.
> 
> The current RS3 is the most successful RS model created to date. It truly breathed extra life into the ageing 8P platform. So it is absolutely certain that the model will be repeated with the MQB platform. What's even better news is that next RS3 likely to be available as a Sportback and Sedan, and possibly as a 3-door coupe too. I imagine that the USA will at least get the Sedan RS3.
> 
> ...


 A lightweight 2.5 five would be awesome. That does seem like the most likely scenario. I just hope that the theme of downsizing doesn't hit the RS3 and they use a further tuned 2.0T from the S3. This would be a big mistake and I hope Audi doesn't make it. 

Like people have said, the RS3 is the highest selling RS model for Audi. So I hope they put some cash into the RS3 and do it justice.


----------



## Waterfan (Aug 9, 2012)

the additional 7-10k cost of the RS3 need not be a result of power increases alone. price increase could also be justified with a balance of raw-but-modest power increases, addition of FR and/or RR LSD, ceramic brakes, and more extensive usage of weight-saving materials like magnesium, aluminum, CF, etc.


----------



## VR6Nikopol (Jul 11, 2001)

I just read that the next generation (MQB) A3 will have similar a size to the B5 A4. The B5 S4 had a 2.7l Twin Turbo V6 but it wasn't necessarely known as a nose heavy car and it had one extra cylinder (or 0.2l). Anyone know why the 2.5T RS 3 has been so plague by this when the 2.7l Twin Turbo was more balanced?


----------



## Waterfan (Aug 9, 2012)

VR6Nikopol said:


> I just read that the next generation (MQB) A3 will have similar a size to the B5 A4. The B5 S4 had a 2.7l Twin Turbo V6 but it wasn't necessarely known as a nose heavy car and it had one extra cylinder (or 0.2l). Anyone know why the 2.5T RS 3 has been so plague by this when the 2.7l Twin Turbo was more balanced?


You are comparing a S4 sedan with a longitudinal 2.7TT with Torsen AWD to a hatchback with a transverse 2.5T with Haldex. A sedan has comparatively more weight in its rear than a hatchback. longitudinal engine orientation and torsen AWD probably have significant differences and advantages as well (I don't know for sure)

TL : DR version: Apples to Oranges.


----------



## VR6Nikopol (Jul 11, 2001)

Waterfan said:


> You are comparing a S4 sedan with a longitudinal 2.7TT with Torsen AWD to a hatchback with a transverse 2.5T with Haldex. A sedan has comparatively more weight in its rear than a hatchback. longitudinal engine orientation and torsen AWD probably have significant differences and advantages as well (I don't know for sure)
> 
> TL : DR version: Apples to Oranges.


I would think a longitudinal engine orientation would be even worst on a AWD car than a transverse setup since the engine will be positioned completely in front of the front wheels (in order to have the transmission in-line with the front wheels) as a transverse engine can be almost in-line with the front wheels since the transmission in on one side of the engine...


----------



## Waterfan (Aug 9, 2012)

VR6Nikopol said:


> I would think a longitudinal engine orientation would be even worst on a AWD car than a transverse setup since the engine will be positioned completely in front of the front wheels (in order to have the transmission in-line with the front wheels) as a transverse engine can be almost in-line with the front wheels since the transmission in on one side of the engine...


Good point, I admit don't really know either way.


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

DaLeadBull said:


> A lightweight 2.5 five would be awesome. That does seem like the most likely scenario. I just hope that the theme of downsizing doesn't hit the RS3 and they use a further tuned 2.0T from the S3. This would be a big mistake and I hope Audi doesn't make it.
> 
> Like people have said, the RS3 is the highest selling RS model for Audi. So I hope they put some cash into the RS3 and do it justice.


The RS division usually don't do engines from scratch (especially for bottom of the line like RS3), so a lightweight 2.5 would be highly unlikely. Maybe with some lightweight parts swapped out such as con-rods, crank or oil pan. If there weren't a TT-RS, then Audi probably wouldn't be rolling out RS3's. Having said that, since the TT-RS is kind of a showcase car, the RS division might put some effort into getting the front end lighter. The prob is that they might just make the front end lighter, like the way they did it on the current TT, which is make the front end out of alum, which they will never do for the RS3.


----------



## Waterfan (Aug 9, 2012)

LWNY said:


> The prob is that they might just make the front end lighter, like the way they did it on the current TT, which is make the front end out of alum, which they will never do for the RS3.


Why not in the RS? Cost prohibitive? and/or other reasons?

how about the return of the twincharged strategy (supercharger for low end, BT on the high end) in a 2.0L displacement? is this even a credible option?


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

Waterfan said:


> Why not in the RS? Cost prohibitive? and/or other reasons?
> 
> how about the return of the twincharged strategy (supercharger for low end, BT on the high end) in a 2.0L displacement? is this even a credible option?


From what I know, the TT's hybrid ASF chassis is prohibitively expensive to mfg, since the std chassis are just a whole bunch of stamped steel sheets welded together by robots. The TT alum's structure is a combination of alum sheets, sections and cast alum part, feasible on R8 and A8, but totally unfeasible on an A3 (and out of the question on a limited production car like the RS3, where all the R&D required would make Audi lose hundreds of thousands of dollars on every car built).

Twincharge kind of came and went. Twin scroll would be more feasible solution.

The VR6 is making news again, so there could be one of that in the future.


----------



## jailbird (Jan 21, 2004)

*VR6 making news?*



LWNY said:


> The VR6 is making news again, so there could be one of that in the future.


What have you heard/seen?


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

jailbird said:


> What have you heard/seen?


The recent GTI concept had a new 3.0 VR6 turbo designed for the MQB platform.

http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/concept-cars/vws-extreme-496bhp-golf-gti-concept-wörthersee

http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/scoop/vws-new-496bhp-30-litre-vr6-engine


----------



## jailbird (Jan 21, 2004)

> The recent GTI concept had a new 3.0 VR6 turbo designed for the MQB platform.


Thanks. I didn't realize it was a VR6.

That would make the perfect replacement for my 3.2. Fingers crossed


----------



## Cajetan (Feb 1, 2012)

I highly doubt anything with a VW badge is getting a transverse VR6TT or a golf for that matter. They have already proven that the GTI can make V6 performance with 4cyl handling in the 2.0t and now MQB platform. I wouldn't be surprised to see this in the Q7 or as an NA in a passat/CC. 

As far as the 2.5T, I think it is a beast and capable of so much more in a longitudinal layout. But the 2.0T isn't too far removed from it and can cover those numbers and take up less weight. Like when the S4 dropped the V8 and a few pounds for a smaller engine, the MQB RS3 already has 200 lbs on the previous so the power/torque loss wouldn't affect it much.

$.02


----------



## Crocodile (May 21, 2009)

I'm 100% convinced that the next RS3 will indeed get a 2.5-litre in-line five. 

What's not clear is how the current engine will evolve. My preferred option would be a brand new 5-cylinder version of the new 2.0-litre in-line four (EA888) unit. I just don't think the existing heavy block is viable - unless it can deliver 400/40/198 (400 bhp and 40 mpg/ less than 200 g/km CO2 emissions).

A new engine is needed not only for the RS3, but also for the next Audi TT. Since the Mk III TT has to be credible to take on the new Porsche Boxter, as well as a raft of increasingly hot hatches and sports coupes from rivals, it will need a sensational engine. 

quattro GmbH having finished the RS6 and RS7, must now have the bandwidth to work on both the RS3 and TT-RS. Oh, to be a fly on the wall....


----------



## $øK (Sep 16, 2011)

I'm reporting that I don't believe UK Car magazine.


----------



## Waterfan (Aug 9, 2012)

> What's not clear is how the current engine will evolve. My preferred option would be a brand new 5-cylinder version of the new 2.0-litre in-line four (EA888) unit. I just don't think the existing heavy block is viable - unless it can deliver 400/40/198 (400 bhp and 40 mpg/ less than 200 g/km CO2 emissions).
> 
> A new engine is needed not only for the RS3, but also for the next Audi TT. Since the Mk III TT has to be credible to take on the new Porsche Boxter, as well as a raft of increasingly hot hatches and sports coupes from rivals, it will need a sensational engine.
> 
> quattro GmbH having finished the RS6 and RS7, must now have the bandwidth to work on both the RS3 and TT-RS. Oh, to be a fly on the wall....


I agree with your analysis, but I can't see how developing a radically different engine could be cost effective for them.

Does anyone know if they can reliably bore and/or stroke the new EA888.3 TSFI? Recently, I've been wondering if a ~2.2L TFSI could be the platform that could produce 'RS-credible' power.

Curious to hear what others think.


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

Waterfan said:


> I agree with your analysis, but I can't see how developing a radically different engine could be cost effective for them.
> 
> Does anyone know if they can reliably bore and/or stroke the new EA888.3 TSFI? Recently, I've been wondering if a ~2.2L TFSI could be the platform that could produce 'RS-credible' power.
> 
> Curious to hear what others think.


The EA888 exist in 1.8 and 2.0 form, so 2.2 is not impossible, especially easy by just extending the stroke. But the EA888.3 is not a clean sheet design and is not that much a lightweight. VW's EA211 is the recent clean sheet design but its largest engine is a 4 cyl 1.6.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 12, 2001)

LWNY said:


> From what I know, the TT's hybrid ASF chassis is prohibitively expensive to mfg, since the std chassis are just a whole bunch of stamped steel sheets welded together by robots. The TT alum's structure is a combination of alum sheets, sections and cast alum part, feasible on R8 and A8, but totally unfeasible on an A3 (and out of the question on a limited production car like the RS3, where all the R&D required would make Audi lose hundreds of thousands of dollars on every car built).


Remember, though, that all of this math is different with MQB than it was with previous platforms. One of the reasons that the current TT is so expensive is that the current platform was never designed with easy and inexpensive material changes in mind. Thus it was not cheap to use the aluminum componentry that makes the TT as light as it is. With MQB, this changes - for everything from the GTI right up through A3 and TT. VW has discussed their ability to do things like a carbon fiber roof on the GTI should they want to, and Audi could certainly do aluminum components like on the current TT but for much less money. I would not be surprised at all to see some cool lightweight tricks for the next RS3. (Don't read anything in to that, it's my own guess, but it's based on solid knowledge of the MQB platform.)



> The VR6 is making news again, so there could be one of that in the future.


Let's just say that the new VR6 is a really, really cool engine. 

-Tim


----------



## VeeDubDriver (Oct 1, 2001)

[email protected] said:


> Let's just say that the new VR6 is a really, really cool engine.
> 
> -Tim


Even cooler attached to a manual transmission? :laugh:


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 12, 2001)

VeeDubDriver said:


> Even cooler attached to a manual transmission? :laugh:


I wouldn't know, honestly. 

And I should probably clarify that the previous comment wasn't meant as a specific hint, just that the new engine is really pretty cool. I've seen one in person, and the exhaust note is amazing.

-Tim


----------



## VeeDubDriver (Oct 1, 2001)

[email protected] said:


> I wouldn't know, honestly.
> 
> And I should probably clarify that the previous comment wasn't meant as a specific hint, just that the new engine is really pretty cool.
> 
> -Tim


http://cdn.*************.net/instances/400x/22203982.jpg


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 12, 2001)

Sorry. 

It does have an incredible exhaust note, though. 

-Tim


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

[email protected] said:


> Remember, though, that all of this math is different with MQB than it was with previous platforms. One of the reasons that the current TT is so expensive is that the current platform was never designed with easy and inexpensive material changes in mind. Thus it was not cheap to use the aluminum componentry that makes the TT as light as it is. With MQB, this changes - for everything from the GTI right up through A3 and TT. VW has discussed their ability to do things like a carbon fiber roof on the GTI should they want to, and Audi could certainly do aluminum components like on the current TT but for much less money. I would not be surprised at all to see some cool lightweight tricks for the next RS3. (Don't read anything in to that, it's my own guess, but it's based on solid knowledge of the MQB platform.)
> -Tim


So the MQB would have section swap modularity? So will the alum section be ASF adaptation like the current TT or will it maintain the monocoque chassis and just use alum stamping instead of steel? Or would it be a fusion utilizing their their MSF or is it as capable as the MLB-evo?

As for the engine, nobody seem to be interested in the RS3, but all talk of the next TT-RS is that it will have more or less the same 2.5T boosted to 380hp.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 12, 2001)

LWNY said:


> So the MQB would have section swap modularity?


Basically, yes. The new strategy across all of the VWAG brand groups is to use totally modular platforms. This starts with MQB for the transverse stuff and goes right up through MLB for longitudinal stuff and MSB for sportscar class stuff. Each "kit" or Matrix can be used for a multitude of models - MQB can underpin anything from the Polo up to transverse SUVs, for example. It also allows for easy material / section swaps as well. Since the new platform is extremely modular, changing out a low cost, heavy material for a higher cost, lighter one is no problem. They did this in the current TT, but it was prohibitively expensive to do so. With MQB, it's not since that ability was designed in to the platform from the beginning. MQB and the overall strategy behind it is incredibly important to the future of the whole company. There is a pretty good summary of it here, which explains it in some detail.



> So will the alum section be ASF adaptation like the current TT or will it maintain the monocoque chassis and just use alum stamping instead of steel? Or would it be a fusion utilizing their their MSF or is it as capable as the MLB-evo?


I can't speak to specifics of the new design, because I haven't seen anything about it yet. However, with MQB the entire equation is a little different from the current platform since it is as capable as MLB-evo as they're both modular platforms and are designed using the same strategy behind them. The ONLY fixed thing about MQB is the front to rear distance between the front axle and the pedal box. Everything else is flexible - width, overhangs, materials, everything.



> As for the engine, nobody seem to be interested in the RS3, but all talk of the next TT-RS is that it will have more or less the same 2.5T boosted to 380hp.


I don't know engine specifics either, but Audi is arguing to retain the 2.5T for their use.

-Tim


----------



## $øK (Sep 16, 2011)

Has anyone else here actually driven a 2.5TFSI? Doesn't sound like it. And I know auto awards can be iffy but 4 years in row...and critics saying things like "It will likely be remembered as one of the greatest five cylinder engines in the history of internal combustion technology." http://www.ukipme.com/engineoftheyear/2_25.php

Sounds like it's time to throw it on the scrap heap.:facepalm:


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 12, 2001)

$øK said:


> Has anyone else here actually driven a 2.5TFSI?


Yes, several times in a TTRS. It's a wonderful engine with linear, smooth power delivery and a great sound.



> Doesn't sound like it. And I know auto awards can be iffy but 4 years in row...and critics saying things like "It will likely be remembered as one of the greatest five cylinder engines in the history of internal combustion technology." http://www.ukipme.com/engineoftheyear/2_25.php
> 
> Sounds like it's time to throw it on the scrap heap.:facepalm:


I don't know about that, but there are some legitimate issues with it. One, it's heavy for its size due to the fact that it uses an Iron block. Two, it is physically large - both long (it's longer than the 5.2L V10 in the R8, for example) and tall. It's a great engine, but it's not perfect, either.

I do know that Audi is making the case for keeping the engine around and exclusive for their use.

-Tim


----------



## Chimera (Jul 6, 2002)

So Tim, maybe this has been answered already, but what engine would you guess would be in the RS3 sedan if it were to materialize?


----------



## John Y (Apr 27, 1999)

[email protected] said:


> I wouldn't know, honestly.
> 
> And I should probably clarify that the previous comment wasn't meant as a specific hint, just that the new engine is really pretty cool. I've seen one in person, and the exhaust note is amazing.
> 
> -Tim


Come on, now!! So, where was it residing in when you saw it?

It occurs to me that if VW ever does build the occasionally-rumored Golf RS on the A7 platofrm, a turbocharged 3.0 VR6 would seem to check all the boxes...


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 12, 2001)

Chimera said:


> So Tim, maybe this has been answered already, but what engine would you guess would be in the RS3 sedan if it were to materialize?


If I had to *guess*, (and this IS a guess, again not based on any specific info) I would say it will still be a 2.5T. Quattro GmbH likes to use "special" engines in the RS models that are either totally uniquely developed by them or that are heavily overworked and massaged versions of standard Audi engines. Look at the 4.2V8 that they used in the B7 RS4 for an example, or the current 4 liter TT V8 in the RS6 and RS7.

If you look at the engines available to them in the range of sizes that would fit in the A3, you've got the various 4 cylinders, the 2.5T, and perhaps the new 3 liter VR6 as well. The 3 liter VR is being developed primarily for the Chinese market, and primarily by VW, so I wouldn't count on seeing that one. As far as the four cylinders go, I suppose a worked over version of the 2.0T making in the 330-ish HP range is a possibility (and would offer the advantage of being lighter, as well), but they've already got the development done on the 2.5T, it's an Audi-specific (and RS specific, in fact, as well as having been developed in house by Quattro GmbH) engine, it's got the 5 cylinder heritage thing, and it's already made it's name in the A platform RS cars with the current TTRS and RS3. Yes, it's heavy, yes, it's long, etc, like I mentioned above, but I think it's still got one good generation of use in it before it's replaced. That's my personal bet.

Or maybe I just really love the engine and want to see it used again. 

-Tim


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

[email protected] said:


> If I had to *guess*, (and this IS a guess, again not based on any specific info) I would say it will still be a 2.5T. Quattro GmbH likes to use "special" engines in the RS models that are either totally uniquely developed by them or that are heavily overworked and massaged versions of standard Audi engines. Look at the 4.2V8 that they used in the B7 RS4 for an example, or the current 4 liter TT V8 in the RS6 and RS7.
> 
> If you look at the engines available to them in the range of sizes that would fit in the A3, you've got the various 4 cylinders, the 2.5T, and perhaps the new 3 liter VR6 as well. The 3 liter VR is being developed primarily for the Chinese market, and primarily by VW, so I wouldn't count on seeing that one. As far as the four cylinders go, *I suppose a worked over version of the 2.0T making in the 330-ish HP range is a possibility* (and would offer the advantage of being lighter, as well), but they've already got the development done on the 2.5T, it's an Audi-specific (and RS specific, in fact, as well as having been developed in house by Quattro GmbH) engine, it's got the 5 cylinder heritage thing, and it's already made it's name in the A platform RS cars with the current TTRS and RS3. Yes, it's heavy, yes, it's long, etc, like I mentioned above, but I think it's still got one good generation of use in it before it's replaced. That's my personal bet.
> 
> ...


Surely I can't be the only one who thinks that just wouldn't be sufficient... 

The TT-RS is 360/343; that seems much more in line with what should be expected of the RS3. If they want to go with a turned-up 2.0T, fine- but 330hp isn't going to cut it, IMO.

Note that my questioning of the sufficiency of 330hp is not at all related to what may be practical on the street, but rather what should be expected out of Audi for an RS car. :thumbup:


----------



## VR6Nikopol (Jul 11, 2001)

You are not the only one. 

I too feel 330hp is falling short of adequate power for an RS version of the A3. The whole 4 cylinder scenario doesn't appeal to me at all for an RS car. Maybe because the performance of that engine is pretty much maxed-out; ruling out any possibility to tune it higher. OK, MB is coming out with their AMG CLA with a 4 banger, but whenever I talk about that car, it is not taken seriously. Maybe one day when we go all the way into that downsizing trend a 2.0L 4 cylinder engine will be considered a serious engine but for now, I think 5 has a good ring to it.

One of the reasons I ever owned a 2007 Rabbit (OK for 1 year) was due to the 2.5L 5 cylinder engine. Call me old fashioned, I just don't see myself in a 4 cylinder car.

Long live the VR6 !!!


----------



## $øK (Sep 16, 2011)

[email protected] said:


> Yes, it's heavy, yes, it's long, etc, like I mentioned above, but I think it's still got one good generation of use in it before it's replaced.
> 
> -Tim


I knew your answer Tim. I'm not blind to it's flaws but given it's positives and all the R&D and infrastructure invested I couldn't see them not keeping for at least one more gen. You said it best. I had completely forgotten the longer aspect. That's kinda crazy. Hopefully if they do end up using again they can move it a little further back as that is truly needed but still wouldn't be a deal breaker for me. Personally, I don't care what Chris Harris thinks. 2.5+MQB+DSG+USA would be sweet. But I'm not holding my breath. I've learned my lesson. Is it September yet?


----------



## JGreen76 (Aug 25, 2012)

$øK said:


> 2.5+MQB+DSG+USA would be sweet.



Amen brother!:beer:

My anticipation for getting my piece of this new platform is overwhelming. The thought of having the awesome sound of the 2.5, entirely different level. 

Continuing to keep my fingers crossed, and saving my pennies.


----------



## Leke (Jul 29, 2013)

Hey guys. I'm new to the forums, but figured I'd join the conversation 

On the topic of the 5-cylinder/RS3, I noticed that nobody had posted a link to an interesting - but rather old - quote from 2012.



> Little is known about the model, but quattro GmbH's chief told What Car? "Let's just say you will be seeing more of the five-cylinder engine." This likely implies the car will keep its turbocharged 2.5-liter five-cylinder that developed 340 HP (250 kW) and 450 Nm (332 lb-ft) of torque. Source


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

$øK said:


> I knew your answer Tim. I'm not blind to it's flaws but given it's positives and all the R&D and infrastructure invested I couldn't see them not keeping for at least one more gen. You said it best. I had completely forgotten the longer aspect. That's kinda crazy. Hopefully if they do end up using again they can move it a little further back as that is truly needed but still wouldn't be a deal breaker for me. Personally, I don't care what Chris Harris thinks. 2.5+MQB+DSG+USA would be sweet. But I'm not holding my breath. I've learned my lesson. Is it September yet?


 As said by Tim, the reason The RS3/TT-RS will likely use the 2.5T is that there is no likely alternative engine to use as a base unit to built up upon by Quattro GmBH. The transverse platform is not prestigious enough for them to develop a completely new engine from scratch, and being these 2 cars being the sole transverse platform that has this engine bay size, any development on such engine cannot be put into other RS cars. 

I cannot say they won't go with the 3.0 VR6 due to it being from VW, since the original 2.5 was a VW engine ready for the scrap heaps before Quattro GmBH, especially if it is a lightweight design. But then, the VR always had breathability problems and might not make a good base design for high performance engine....but then again, with forced induction, much of that issue could be circumvented.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 12, 2001)

LWNY said:


> I cannot say they won't go with the 3.0 VR6 due to it being from VW, since the original 2.5 was a VW engine ready for the scrap heaps before Quattro GmBH,


 Let's not forget, though, that the 2.5T is only loosely based on the NA 2.5 from VW. They share displacement and bore spacing, but not much else. Something on the order of 85% of the parts are unique, IIRC. The 2.5T is a wholly quattro GmbH developed engine, not an evolution of the NA 2.5. 



> But then, the VR always had breathability problems and might not make a good base design for high performance engine....but then again, with forced induction, much of that issue could be circumvented.


 The new 3.0R is going to be a hell of an engine, especially in TT form as has been shown lately. It's got monster potential. However, the latest out of the rumor mill that I've heard is that the new VR is going to stay a VW engine, and Audi is going to keep the 2.5 inline 5 format around for a while, both because it's an Audi developed engine and because of the Audi inline 5 heritage thing. I think the 3.0VR would make a great engine in RS product, but at the same time I like that they're staying distinct and keeping an internally developed engine around. 

-Tim


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

[email protected] said:


> Let's not forget, though, that the 2.5T is only loosely based on the NA 2.5 from VW. They share displacement and bore spacing, but not much else. Something on the order of 85% of the parts are unique, IIRC. The 2.5T is a wholly quattro GmbH developed engine, not an evolution of the NA 2.5.
> 
> The new 3.0R is going to be a hell of an engine, especially in TT form as has been shown lately. It's got monster potential. However, the latest out of the rumor mill that I've heard is that the new VR is going to stay a VW engine, and Audi is going to keep the 2.5 inline 5 format around for a while, both because it's an Audi developed engine and because of the Audi inline 5 heritage thing. I think the 3.0VR would make a great engine in RS product, but at the same time I like that they're staying distinct and keeping an internally developed engine around.
> 
> -Tim


 Even though the 2.5 is a completely rebuilt engine, it seem to utilize the 2.5's engine block, thus having to use something at least as strong as cast iron (in their case, vermicular cast iron, a close enough substitute). But apparently they didn't get the budget to design a engine from scratch or else it wouldn't be so heavy. 

They could strip the 3.0VR6 and make a 3.0T for transverse layout. I'm sure VW would be grabbing it for all their larger MQB cars.


----------

