# Driven: 2011 Audi RS 3 Sportback



## [email protected] (Apr 9, 2004)

Like most markets, Audi Canada operates its own driving experience and, not surprisingly, the Canuck take includes lots of snow and ice. That it’s focus is Audi’s prowess on the slipper stuff is to be expected though when we were offered the chance to drive the company’s all-new Euro-only RS 3 Sportback we found its temporary presence in Canada quite unexpected. Eh?

* Full Story *


----------



## tp.wannabe.s3 (May 21, 2010)

1st


----------



## tiptronic (Apr 18, 1999)

Thank You Sir for the story!!! :thumbup:


----------



## JRutter (Nov 25, 2009)

Roof rails, sweet!


----------



## TroySico (Apr 20, 2002)

First of all, it's not fair that we don't get anything remotely this cool in the US. The fact that this car is in its last year makes it even more insane.

Secondly, I find it interesting that this car has the Sport Seats...no Recaro action? I think maybe only the two doors have Recaros for some reason?

Thirdly, who is going to make some of these parts available. I want:
1) Rear Spoiler
2) Leather covered Interior center console buttresses (unless they're more expensive than the Osir carbon ones)
3) Complete body shell, drive-train and chassis. 

Lastly, this car epitomizes why I love Germans and the cars they build. The only cars that come close in their pure insanity are:
GT-R (let's face it, this car can't be profitable)
CTS-V Coupe and the SRT-8 Cherokee (insane)
Various hi-spec V8 powered Aussie Holdens and Fords (mad)

All praise quattro gmbh!


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

Since it does no have XWD's locking diff, does it at least incorporate the electronic torque vectoring XDS that VW uses in their Mk VI cars?


----------



## JRutter (Nov 25, 2009)

Could probably go VR6T with Osir front fenders and older S3 front bumper for about the same $ as trading the A3. Hmmmm.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 9, 2004)

TroySico said:


> First of all, it's not fair that we don't get anything remotely this cool in the US. The fact that this car is in its last year makes it even more insane.
> 
> Secondly, I find it interesting that this car has the Sport Seats...no Recaro action? I think maybe only the two doors have Recaros for some reason?
> 
> ...


Read the piece. It is being considered for USA. That doesn't mean it's been confirmed but the fact that it's being considered is welcome news to me.


----------



## greyjetta (May 3, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> Read the piece. It is being considered for USA. That doesn't mean it's been confirmed but the fact that it's being considered is welcome news to me.


also the car does come with rs3 recaro seats with red stiching


----------



## Rub-ISH (Aug 8, 2006)

Like's This :thumbup:


----------



## TroySico (Apr 20, 2002)

greyjetta said:


> also the car does come with rs3 recaro seats with red stiching


I just got the new issue of Top Gear magazine and the press car has the Recaros... It's freaking perfect! I'd pony up $50k. The motor reminds me of my 2006 Volvo V70R but in a car that's 400lbs lighter and with a superior tranny. I loved the Volvo's snarl...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## drew138 (Dec 3, 2006)

Thanks George. Must have been nice to get in the rs3 and ttrs back to back. 

I'm suspect that we will see this car since we'd also likely get the s3 at that point as well. Maybe I am just a bit jaded. But I'd love to see it come here and i think at those performance specs you might find a few buyers. I'd have to give it a hard look for sure. The facelift a3 is doing really well here in the ba area. They are everywhere so i wouldn't be surprised to see them milking the 8p a little longer but I didn't think they would keep 2 runs in production at the same time. 

In any event, thanks again. Should have liberated her to the USA,


----------



## fjork_duf (Jul 13, 2001)

HOT DAMN!!! I want this car. At first I was pretty stoked on the TTRS, but needs will be eventually changing so a five door would be optimal. Plus it's 5 cyl with decent mileage, DSG, high fun factor! I want this car. I hope audi brings it over!!! 7 Speed DSG please. Makes sense since the TTRS will be the manual choice.

I also would take a manual, but it wouldn't be as perfect for awful traffic. I can't wait to see an announcement on this ride. The sooner the better! George you're a lucky dude.


----------



## A3Scott (Dec 9, 2005)

Thanks for the write up. I'd buy this car in a heart beat if they brought it to NA. Was there any talk of price point ?


----------



## VWAddict (Jun 12, 1999)

From the article:



> And while kit is nice and all, the real story here is *aboot* the engine.


-You can tell that it was in Canada, eh?

:biggrinsanta:


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 12, 2001)

TroySico said:


> First of all, it's not fair that we don't get anything remotely this cool in the US.





[email protected] said:


> Read the piece. It is being considered for USA. That doesn't mean it's been confirmed but the fact that it's being considered is welcome news to me.


Plus, we are getting the TT-RS, so it's not like we're _totally_ left out in the cold. Personally, I'd love to see this car here (as it would be a lot easier to sell my wife on something like this than a TT when we have a little guy in a car seat to deal with), but we'll have to just wait and see!

-Tim


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 9, 2004)

drew138 said:


> Thanks George. Must have been nice to get in the rs3 and ttrs back to back.
> 
> I'm suspect that we will see this car since we'd also likely get the s3 at that point as well.


I doubt the S3 will happen. If RS 3 does happen it'll be a parting shot. Plus, S3 would be effectively the same drivetrain as Golf R and I'm not sure that'd be a smart move.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 9, 2004)

fjork_duf said:


> HOT DAMN!!! I want this car. At first I was pretty stoked on the TTRS, but needs will be eventually changing so a five door would be optimal. Plus it's 5 cyl with decent mileage, DSG, high fun factor! I want this car. I hope audi brings it over!!! 7 Speed DSG please. Makes sense since the TTRS will be the manual choice.


This is a question of economies of scale. TT RS with MT6 is already federalized. I5 wiht 7-speed DSG is not. If it comes it will likely be MT6.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 9, 2004)

A3Scott said:


> Thanks for the write up. I'd buy this car in a heart beat if they brought it to NA. Was there any talk of price point ?


No talk of price yet... at least in front of me.


----------



## pjunk1 (May 13, 2010)

me likey!!!

i doubt the wife would let me buy one but i would love to get behind the wheel. 

sweetness!!!


----------



## Uwe (Jan 16, 2000)

Bring it to the US with proper 3-pedal tranny and I'll be one of the first in line, but I have no interest in it if it's only got two pedals.

-Uwe-


----------



## Uber-A3 (Feb 23, 2002)

Uwe said:


> Bring it to the US with proper 3-pedal tranny and I'll be one of the first in line, but I have no interest in it if it's only got two pedals.
> 
> -Uwe-


Exact opposite for me.


----------



## fjork_duf (Jul 13, 2001)

[email protected] said:


> This is a question of economies of scale. TT RS with MT6 is already federalized. I5 wiht 7-speed DSG is not. If it comes it will likely be MT6.


Well I would take it with a manual which I prefer, but for traffic it would suck. This car is awesome. I hope it comes to the USA


----------



## fjork_duf (Jul 13, 2001)

Oh boy:


----------



## drew138 (Dec 3, 2006)

Oh, that video is awesome. Bring It.


----------



## neu318 (Feb 18, 2003)

Makes me wish it snowed in FL so I can try some of those maneuvers in my 3.2Q :laugh:


----------



## keithermadness (Mar 26, 2007)

To Audi: Can I has one?


----------



## NY_Avant (Jan 10, 2009)

I'll buy one


----------



## drew138 (Dec 3, 2006)

Interesting. Audi's official Twitter just put up a post asking if we want the RS3 coming to the USA. This is a VERY carefully curated Twitter account and it is unlikely they would stoke that fire unless there were VERY real prospects of this happening. Just like the TTRS campaign ran by Audi. That thing was coming all along.

Here is the Tweet:

http://twitter.com/#!/Audi/status/27478443155263488

Anyone on here with a Twitter account should re-tweet it just for good measure.


----------



## Uber-A3 (Feb 23, 2002)

drew138 said:


> Interesting. Audi's official Twitter just put up a post asking if we want the RS3 coming to the USA. This is a VERY carefully curated Twitter account and it is unlikely they would stoke that fire unless there were VERY real prospects of this happening. Just like the TTRS campaign ran by Audi. That thing was coming all along.
> 
> Here is the Tweet:
> 
> ...



X2 it looks like it might actually be coming


----------



## jack0131 (Mar 19, 2007)

*:thumbup: Wonder what tires are on the beast...*

:thumbup:


----------



## ArcticA3 (Aug 5, 2006)

Damn, just ordered a 135i as I was fed up with Audi and the lack of S3/RS3 to the USA. If they brought it to the US, how long till we see? If the TTS is 50K+ so will the RS3? I don't think they would be teasing on twitter if they were not serious about importing. If only the S4 avant was being imported... Audi would have an order now. 

Nice to see things may be changing in a good way for USA market.


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

awesome video. wonder how they get the tail to just start sliding out with Haldex. Powering the tail out? Haldex wouldn't be doing that in a straightaway. Pulling of the handbrakes? Don't see any rear wheel locking. Flicking of the steering wheel in the opposite direction before turning in? Don't see much evidence of that. It almost look like the tail comes out from hitting the brakes on ice. It then floats into position with almost no countersteer.


----------



## Bezor (Jan 16, 2007)

ArcticA3 said:


> Damn, just ordered a 135i as I was fed up with Audi and the lack of S3/RS3 to the USA. If they brought it to the US, how long till we see? If the TTS is 50K+ so will the RS3? I don't think they would be teasing on twitter if they were not serious about importing. If only the S4 avant was being imported... Audi would have an order now.
> 
> Nice to see things may be changing in a good way for USA market.


Stick with the BMW and you'll be able to sleep at night.


----------



## Uber-A3 (Feb 23, 2002)

Bezor said:


> Stick with the BMW and you'll be able to sleep at night.


Yeah cuz the RS3 gets the ladies, the ones that don't like to sleep at night.


----------



## TBomb (Sep 23, 2009)

Bezor said:


> Stick with the BMW and you'll be able to sleep at night.


BMW has their own share of engine woes with the N54. Although the thing is a monster when it's running


----------



## Gryphon001 (Apr 25, 2008)

Well, I may be wrong on this... 

To the best of my knowledge, there is noway to register and plate a vehicle with regular Ontario plates, unless it has been OK'd by the government up here for sale in Canada.... all those cars were fitted with Ontario plates. The series of plates was also stamped about 2-2.5 years ago (mine are BDLB and they were issued almost three years ago)... not sure if that means anything.

That's a pretty good sign the way I see it. 

... just hope I'm not wrong here... lol


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

Maybe the plates are just for looks, given that they drove the car in some track instead of on the public road?


----------



## TroySico (Apr 20, 2002)

Did anyone notice the following from the video:
The rear part of the rear fenders look like they have a little extra 'flap' that acts to help with spray from the rear wheels. They look to be attached to the top of the section of the rear bumper that completes the rear fender wells. They look like black plastic and stick out maybe 1/2" or so. I've been wanting to add this type of thing to my car since I'm running 245 width tires. I was going to source these off of a MB SLK55 AMG or Jaguar XKR but if these become available I might bite on these. Hello OEMplus??? ECS? Anyone...


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 12, 2001)

ArcticA3 said:


> Damn, just ordered a 135i as I was fed up with Audi and the lack of S3/RS3 to the USA. If they brought it to the US, how long till we see? If the TTS is 50K+ so will the RS3? I don't think they would be teasing on twitter if they were not serious about importing.


Well, first let me say that I don't have any insider info on this, but if you look at pricing in other markets (in a relative sense) the RS3 is priced a bit lower than the TTRS and a bit higher than the TTS. In Germany, the TTS goes for €46,500, the RS3 goes for €49,900, and the TTRS for €56,750. In the UK, the TTS is £35,590, the RS3 is £39,900, and the TTRS is £45,810. This suggests placement between the TTS and the TTRS, but a bit lower than the middle of the difference. In the US, a TTS starts at $47,000, and the TTRS will be about $58,500 or so. This would _suggest_ that the RS3 would be about $50,000 or so were it to come here. Of course, Audi has used different pricing positioning strategies for the US market when compared to the European one in the past, and that may happen again here, too.



Gryphon001 said:


> To the best of my knowledge, there is noway to register and plate a vehicle with regular Ontario plates, unless it has been OK'd by the government up here for sale in Canada.... all those cars were fitted with Ontario plates. The series of plates was also stamped about 2-2.5 years ago (mine are BDLB and they were issued almost three years ago)... not sure if that means anything.


I have to start by saying that I know _nothing_ about Canadian law as far as plating cars goes, but is there not a provision somewhere for auto manufacturers to plate cars that are brought in for Testing & Evaluation purposes? US manufacturers do this on a regular and frequent basis. In fact, Audi had a German market TTRS here on full plates for almost a year. In the US, plates like that are marked "Manufacturer," or "Mfr. HQ" or the like, but otherwise they are full, normal plates.

-Tim


----------



## A3Scott (Dec 9, 2005)

Gryphon001 said:


> Well, I may be wrong on this...
> 
> To the best of my knowledge, there is noway to register and plate a vehicle with regular Ontario plates, unless it has been OK'd by the government up here for sale in Canada.... all those cars were fitted with Ontario plates. The series of plates was also stamped about 2-2.5 years ago (mine are BDLB and they were issued almost three years ago)... not sure if that means anything.
> 
> ...


I believe this was covered earlier in the earlier RS3 thread. The RIV of Ontario has a provision that allows show and test car to be temporarily imported and plated. This is likely how the plate came to be. 

That said, the video is a pretty strong indication that the car is likely headed our way. The investment to bring the car in, shoot the video, have all the attendees etc etc tells me the car is on it's way. 

I'll take the one in the video. They don't even need to clean it.


----------



## Audi'sRevenge (Mar 24, 2008)

Gryphon001 said:


> Well, I may be wrong on this...
> 
> To the best of my knowledge, there is noway to register and plate a vehicle with regular Ontario plates, unless it has been OK'd by the government up here for sale in Canada.... all those cars were fitted with Ontario plates. The series of plates was also stamped about 2-2.5 years ago (mine are BDLB and they were issued almost three years ago)... not sure if that means anything.
> 
> ...


Yep I said pretty much the same thing in the other thread  It doesn't have to be okayed for sale though, just okayed for import (which are nearly one and the same after you satisfy the import requirements).

However importing one from Europe (where cars are even more expensive than here) would likely cost you more than just buying a TT-RS, all said and done. And the TT-RS is a better car (other than the lost the cargo room) and should be available here for sure or at least in the US where cars are _cheaper_ and importing would actually benefit you financially lol.

That said this car looks amazing and I dare say I'd rather own an RS3 than an RS4/5...


----------



## Audi'sRevenge (Mar 24, 2008)

A3Scott said:


> I believe this was covered earlier in the earlier RS3 thread. The RIV of Ontario has a provision that allows show and test car to be temporarily imported and plated. This is likely how the plate came to be.


RIV is a federally appointed division, it only determines what cars are importable and not importable into the country. Provinces set their motor vehicle standards separately, and in order to get a permanent plate in Ontario you would have to have a car that is able to permanently remain in the province.

Unlike many states, once a car is plated there are no safety checks or other tests the car has to pass periodically (other than emissions testing) in order to maintain the plate. Only when the car changes owners do you have any requirement to do a safety check. (Motor vehicle standards are seriously lax in this province.) Therefore a "temporary" car under RIV should never be able to get permanent (blue or black in the case of a truck) plates in ON province because once the car has those plates they cannot revoke them or refuse to issue a plate sticker when the fee is paid, unless you have
-not passed emissions test requirements
-have unpaid parking tickets or 407 tolls
-the registered owner / plate holder has not paid child support where they have been ordered by a family court in Ontario to do so
-sold the car/changed owners
-and a possibly a few other things related to various legal matters, but not the car itself


----------



## NY_Avant (Jan 10, 2009)

drew138 said:


> Interesting. Audi's official Twitter just put up a post asking if we want the RS3 coming to the USA. This is a VERY carefully curated Twitter account and it is unlikely they would stoke that fire unless there were VERY real prospects of this happening. Just like the TTRS campaign ran by Audi. That thing was coming all along.
> 
> Here is the Tweet:
> 
> ...


If numbers are an indicator the TT's sales are non existent right now at less then 2k units last year vs. 6k for the A3 in the US, the RS3 would bridge the gap to the next generation A3 as the RS4 did for the B7 to B8 A4


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 12, 2001)

NY_Avant said:


> the RS3 would bridge the gap to the next generation A3 as the RS4 did for the B7 to B8 A4


Which is _exactly_ why it's being discussed at all.



-Tim


----------



## drew138 (Dec 3, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> Well, first let me say that I don't have any insider info on this, but if you look at pricing in other markets (in a relative sense) the RS3 is priced a bit lower than the TTRS and a bit higher than the TTS. In Germany, the TTS goes for €46,500, the RS3 goes for €49,900, and the TTRS for €56,750. In the UK, the TTS is £35,590, the RS3 is £39,900, and the TTRS is £45,810. This suggests placement between the TTS and the TTRS, but a bit lower than the middle of the difference. In the US, a TTS starts at $47,000, and the TTRS will be about $58,500 or so. This would _suggest_ that the RS3 would be about $50,000 or so were it to come here. Of course, Audi has used different pricing positioning strategies for the US market when compared to the European one in the past, and that may happen again here, too.
> 
> -Tim


Thank you for posting what I've been way too lazy to research myself. $50k feels about right for this car. Not sure what the nicely spec'd 135i goes for right now, but you can option up the current 2011 A3 up to about $41k in the USA. So the RS3 which doesn't have much in the way on "options" @50k is pretty ok. Although I'd love to see this come in at 47k or so.



NY_Avant said:


> If numbers are an indicator the TT's sales are non existent right now at less then 2k units last year vs. 6k for the A3 in the US, the RS3 would bridge the gap to the next generation A3 as the RS4 did for the B7 to B8 A4





[email protected] said:


> Which is _exactly_ why it's being discussed at all.
> 
> 
> 
> -Tim



:thumbup::thumbup: I'm feeling it.

My prediction is that Audi will run some gimick on Twitter/FB to rally support and we'll hear something in the next few weeks. These things are usually pretty well planned out. So we should have it as a 2012 model year, which means they could be on shore this year.


----------



## terje_77 (Dec 19, 2005)

drew138 said:


> Thank you for posting what I've been way too lazy to research myself. $50k feels about right for this car. Not sure what the nicely spec'd 135i goes for right now, but you can option up the current 2011 A3 up to about $41k in the USA. So the RS3 which doesn't have much in the way on "options" @50k is pretty ok. Although I'd love to see this come in at 47k or so.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You just gave a chubby Drew!


----------



## Uber-A3 (Feb 23, 2002)

Geor[email protected] said:


> This is a question of economies of scale. TT RS with MT6 is already federalized. I5 wiht 7-speed DSG is not. If it comes it will likely be MT6.


 I thought the TT RS is available in both DSG and 6mt in the states. If so I would guess that the RS3 is only going to be made available in DSG.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 12, 2001)

Uber-A3 said:


> I thought the TT RS is available in both DSG and 6mt in the states. If so I would guess that the RS3 is only going to be made available in DSG.


No, actually. The USA is only getting the TTRS with a 6MT.

-Tim


----------



## terje_77 (Dec 19, 2005)

[email protected] said:


> No, actually. The USA is only getting the TTRS with a 6MT.
> 
> -Tim


I just got another chubby!


----------



## krazyboi (May 19, 2004)

Sounds yummy :beer:


----------



## emkay2 (Aug 8, 2010)

they didnt test drive the rs3. they test drove the crap one. (DSG)
get the manual rs3, and youll be driving the actual beast


----------



## Audi'sRevenge (Mar 24, 2008)

emkay2 said:


> they didnt test drive the rs3. they test drove the crap one. (DSG)
> get the manual rs3, and youll be driving the actual beast






worldcarfans said:


> DSG gearbox helps take the TT RS from 0 to 100 km/h in 4.3 seconds -* 0.3 seconds quicker than the 6-speed manual *


Emphasis added.

Read more: http://www.worldcarfans.com/110100628847/audi-tt-rs-gets-7-speed-dsg-gearbox#ixzz1BbCUlCfa



mycarportal said:


> This enables the TT RS with *S tronic to accelerate even faster* than with a manual transmission.


Emphasis added.

http://www.mycarportal.net/2010/10/audi-tt-rs-gets-a-7-speed-dsg-gearbox/

I must have forgotten that "actual beasts" are slower than "non-actual" ones!

But really we don't need a lame DSG v. obsolete clutch-pedal manual argument here do we? I'm sure it's been covered many times before.


----------



## djdub (Dec 30, 2001)

Hmmm, This will be the hardest choice I make. If I get the Golf R in a year, I would not be able to swing the RS3 if it were to come out in the US. Hopefully we will have some more info on the RS3 by this time next year. 

Looks amazing! I've wanted an S3 since the Nogaro Blue one was available in the UK. 










To have an RS version would be even better!!!


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 12, 2001)

emkay2 said:


> they didnt test drive the rs3. they test drove the crap one. (DSG)
> get the manual rs3, and youll be driving the actual beast


Well, right now there is no such thing as a manual RS3. It is offered only in DSG.

There is some speculation (on our part) about the fact that the drivetrain is already certified for the US with the 6MT for the TTRS, so it's _possible_ that if they wanted to bring it here they _might_ do a 6MT for our market as it might be a little cheaper, but that's all speculation.

-Tim


----------



## Uber-A3 (Feb 23, 2002)

[email protected] said:


> Well, right now there is no such thing as a manual RS3. It is offered only in DSG.
> 
> There is some speculation (on our part) about the fact that the drivetrain is already certified for the US with the 6MT for the TTRS, so it's _possible_ that if they wanted to bring it here they _might_ do a 6MT for our market as it might be a little cheaper, but that's all speculation.
> 
> -Tim


Man am I gonna be bummed if the RS3 comes here and isn't offered in a DSG.


----------



## drew138 (Dec 3, 2006)

Uber-A3 said:


> Man am I gonna be bummed if the RS3 comes here and isn't offered in a DSG.


The car will most likely not be offered in a DSG. The 7 Speed Dual Clutch transmission it probably one of the most advanced systems on the market and is the future. Although the DSG only 2nd generation R32 was a deal breaker for many if I recall.


----------



## Uber-A3 (Feb 23, 2002)

drew138 said:


> The car will most likely not be offered in a DSG. The 7 Speed Dual Clutch transmission it probably one of the most advanced systems on the market and is the future. Although the DSG only 2nd generation R32 was a deal breaker for many if I recall.


Yeah but the RS3 is only offered in Europe in the DSG and they usually get a choice if anybody does. It would seem to be easier to get the DSG certified than to retool the whole production line for both.


----------



## drew138 (Dec 3, 2006)

Uber-A3 said:


> Yeah but the RS3 is only offered in Europe in the DSG and they usually get a choice if anybody does. It would seem to be easier to get the DSG certified than to retool the whole production line for both.


I agree. For a limited production car I think if we get it; we get it as-is. I'm also thinking the reason they brought over one w/o the Recarro buckets is so that they don't want to bait and switch the market.


----------



## 85GTI (Dec 19, 2000)

Wonder what kind of mileage it gets?


----------



## Uber-A3 (Feb 23, 2002)

85GTI said:


> Wonder what kind of mileage it gets?


they claim about 25mpg


----------



## DjSherif (Apr 27, 2005)

Would love one!


----------



## 85GTI (Dec 19, 2000)

Uber-A3 said:


> they claim about 25mpg


Not bad considering the performance level. Visually this 3 is very appealing to me. The normal US 3 is kindof meh.


----------



## feels_road (Jan 27, 2005)

George, it's _Sonntag Fahr*t*_ for the drive, and _Fahrer_ for the driver. 




LWNY said:


> Since it does no have XWD's locking diff, does it at least incorporate the electronic torque vectoring XDS that VW uses in their Mk VI cars?


The XWD isn't locking - it just distributes the torque between the rear wheels. Any Torsen-type diff would do almost the same job, and that is a very common and useful mod on Haldex cars like the R32.

XDS works in the front for FWD GTIs - and you won't want that on a car like this. In case a front wheel - typically the inner one in a curve - starts to slip, you want the rear take over the power, and have as much traction available for steering at the front (outer wheel) rather than burdening it with yet more driving torque. That's the beauty of Haldex - it does exactly that for you, automatically. The rear could use some help, as I mentioned above, via a simple LSD.


----------



## GTINC (Jan 28, 2005)

Encouraging to see that, in Europe at least, Audi Design still has resisted adding the tacky exposed cup-holders we get in the USA models. The European customers have aesthetic taste, and use their cars for driving and not rolling lunch rooms, it appears.


----------



## SilverSquirrel (Jul 24, 2006)

feels_road said:


> The XWD isn't locking - it just distributes the torque between the rear wheels. Any Torsen-type diff would do almost the same job, and that is a very common and useful mod on Haldex cars like the R32.
> 
> .


in other words, a peloquin or quaife unit to replace the REAR diff. is a common mod?


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

feels_road said:


> George, it's _Sonntag Fahr*t*_ for the drive, and _Fahrer_ for the driver.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The XWD's eLSD is based on clutchpacks that shares many things with the LSC. Hence it is an open differential that closes up based on electronic input. It would be better and cheaper than a LSD since it would be based on the existing haldex unit.

XDS is their word for brake based torque vectoring, just like what Porsche has and what was announced by Ford.

I think on the RS5, it has electronic torque vectoring for the front wheels since the can't fit the sport differential with all its multitude of gear multipliers and clutchpacks in the front axle.


----------



## djdub (Dec 30, 2001)

Hi Tim, speaking in Dumb and Dumber terms for coming to the US...






Happy Friday Everyone!


----------



## fjork_duf (Jul 13, 2001)

I hope the guy with the dumb and dumber video clip is wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## 3G3T7I (Sep 30, 2005)

I would / will buy it when or if it becomes available to the US market . And I'll take the dsg over a manual.


----------



## Fantomasz (Aug 15, 2001)

to expensive for me but bring it !!!


----------



## mookieblaylock (Sep 25, 2005)

there is a full page blurb in r&t or car and driver i read today. I think audi might just bring it. When the twitter poll comes out its a done deal. Saving my paychecks


----------



## sworksguy (Apr 25, 2002)

VWAddict said:


> From the article:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Does that mean we can buy it in Canada??? I didn't get that from the article......


----------



## Uber-A3 (Feb 23, 2002)

sworksguy said:


> Does that mean we can buy it in Canada??? I didn't get that from the article......


No it still has not been said that it will be released for Canada or the USA. Although the signs are looking good for it to happen.


----------



## dmorrow (Jun 9, 2000)

If there planning on bringing it they better hurry. According to this article the new A3 will be here summer of 2012 - 

http://rumors.automobilemag.com/all-new-volkswagen-golf-due-late-2012-15027.html 


_It won’t, however, be the first to use MQB — Audi’s new A3, due next summer, will likely bear that honor.
_


----------



## Uber-A3 (Feb 23, 2002)

dmorrow said:


> If there planning on bringing it they better hurry. According to this article the new A3 will be here summer of 2012 -
> 
> http://rumors.automobilemag.com/all-new-volkswagen-golf-due-late-2012-15027.html
> 
> ...


It would be the 3rd quarter of 2011 if they release it


----------



## lschw1 (Apr 21, 2003)

*Marketing genius or simpleton?*

This article says that "Stefan Reil chose the S-tronic as the sole option after carefully reviewing sales reports of the less potent S3 Sportback". 

Lets apply that marketing approach to VWOA. I have carefully reviewed the sales of Volkswagens in America and have come to realize that more people buy Jettas then all other VWs combined. In addition most people opt for the automatic transmission (because they no longer stock manuals on the lot, but are available upon request). And the most popular color for a Jetta is silver. Therefore, from now on the only VWs to be sold in America will be silver Jettas with automatic transmissions.


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

lschw1 said:


> This article says that "Stefan Reil chose the S-tronic as the sole option after carefully reviewing sales reports of the less potent S3 Sportback".
> 
> Lets apply that marketing approach to VWOA. I have carefully reviewed the sales of Volkswagens in America and have come to realize that more people buy Jettas then all other VWs combined. In addition most people opt for the automatic transmission (because they no longer stock manuals on the lot, but are available upon request). And the most popular color for a Jetta is silver. Therefore, from now on the only VWs to be sold in America will be silver Jettas with automatic transmissions.


 That is only if 90% of the Jettas sold are silver and the repair of each color of paint requires completely different set of parts and is applied completely differently from other colors of paint.


----------



## fjork_duf (Jul 13, 2001)

Who cares about jettas, I think we're more interested in the RS3 on this thread. Audi needs to stop screwing around and BRING IT. I'm ready to buy!


----------



## Maitre Absolut (Aug 5, 2009)

i'm still on the fence on whether i'm a buyer or not. 

I estimate the MSRP to be 59k canadian (more than the TT-S, just like in europe). 

I got a steep discount when i purchased my A3 (MSRP of 50.5k, purchased for 40.5k), but chances are the RS3 will be sold at MSRP. I'm not sure 80hp and bigger wheels is worth the 20k difference. 

On top of that, at 60k there are a TON of options out there (We're talking a nicely optioned S4 or S5) and the RS3 will be the one with the least "perceived value" among 99% of the population. It will always carry the "entry level audi" tag. 

So i guess the only way i would get into one is if my dealer orders one, it sits for a few months, and they accept my lowball offer


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

I thought women buys cars with the smallest available engine, and men buys cars with the biggest available engine option. So a woman might perceive a 710i to be better than a M3, it is the opposite for men.


----------



## Maitre Absolut (Aug 5, 2009)

LWNY said:


> I thought women buys cars with the smallest available engine, and men buys cars with the biggest available engine option. So a woman might perceive a 710i to be better than a M3, it is the opposite for men.


 unfortunately even at 60k the RS3 doesn't have the "largest" available engine. 

S4 and S5 have bigger engines for cheaper, and so does the 335xi and 1M. 

The more you look at it, the less sense this car makes (assuming it costs 60k).


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

Audi has been moving in the direction of forced induction, so engine size is relative. 

And given the limited size of the transverse engine platform. A forced induction VR6 3.2 or 3.6 would have been possible, but more engine weight meaning more front end weight bias, thus more understeer.


----------



## Uber-A3 (Feb 23, 2002)

Maitre Absolut said:


> On top of that, at 60k there are a TON of options out there (We're talking a nicely optioned S4 or S5) and the RS3 will be the one with the least "perceived value" among 99% of the population. It will always carry the "entry level audi" tag.


 Yeah but they are totally different cars, one is small sporty hatch and the others are huge full size cars. I'm glad I'm in the 1% that realizes how much bang for the buck this car packs. I'll be at the dealer putting my order in for sure if it gets brought here.


----------



## YlwNewBug (Jan 5, 2000)

Uber-A3 said:


> Yeah but they are totally different cars, one is small sporty hatch and the others are huge full size cars. I'm glad I'm in the 1% that realizes how much bang for the buck this car packs. I'll be at the dealer putting my order in for sure if it gets brought here.


 No Audi model packs bang for the buck anymore. If you want bang for your buck german, go vw. Even a 3 series is cheaper than an equally equipped A4 now when you consider financing offers and bmw's free service. The wife just sold her Infinti G37s and got an FX35 because she saw it as such a better deal than anything Audi offered. To stay in her price range she would have had to give up all the amenities she was accustomed to in the G. Audi better be careful. The only thing that keeps me sticking with Audi is the user experience. If I used my head rather than my heart, I'd be long gone.


----------



## TBomb (Sep 23, 2009)

LWNY said:


> I thought women buys cars with the smallest available engine, and men buys cars with the biggest available engine option. So a woman might perceive a 710i to be better than a M3, it is the opposite for men.


 Duh, M3 = 3 series = entry level.  

Personally, if I had the cash I would be buying an RS3 in a heartbeat if it comes to the US. I would pick it over a TTRS, S4, or S5 (or even RS4 or RS5) any day. Just because a car is the most affordable doesn't necessarily make it "entry level". That method of comparison only works if the only thing you judge value on is the price tag. The RS3 is a huge bang for your buck, especially since with only an ECU flash it will likely be pushing 400HP and 450ft-lbs. Add to that the sportiness and convenience of the sportback and to me it is one of the best all-around packages in the $50K price point. Sure you can get the same or better performance for less, but you are going to be sacrificing something in the process. 

I get tired of the A3 being labeled as the "entry level" to Audi as though all of us who drive them really, really wished we could have gotten an A4 or an A6 but just couldn't afford it...or maybe one day we will "trade up" for one. In reality, those other cars are oversized and sluggish compared to the smaller A3, which is why I picked the A3 over the A4. You do lose some of the luxuries that Audi puts in its bigger cars, but you gain a ton in the overall sportiness, which makes the A3 the best of both worlds for me. 

All just my opinion, of course, and as we all know...


----------



## fjork_duf (Jul 13, 2001)

TBomb said:


> Duh, M3 = 3 series = entry level.
> 
> Personally, if I had the cash I would be buying an RS3 in a heartbeat if it comes to the US. I would pick it over a TTRS, S4, or S5 (or even RS4 or RS5) any day. Just because a car is the most affordable doesn't necessarily make it "entry level". That method of comparison only works if the only thing you judge value on is the price tag. The RS3 is a huge bang for your buck, especially since with only an ECU flash it will likely be pushing 400HP and 450ft-lbs. Add to that the sportiness and convenience of the sportback and to me it is one of the best all-around packages in the $50K price point. Sure you can get the same or better performance for less, but you are going to be sacrificing something in the process.
> 
> ...


 Well said. I agree 100% with you. Don't forget this car will achieve much better mileage than the RS4 for instance, and the 5-cyl turbo is a cool engine too. This car WILL be a good deal, and it will fill my needs. Currently I have 2 cars because this car doesn't exist in the US market. I hope audi brings it soon. I can't wait.


----------



## Fantomasz (Aug 15, 2001)

exactly :thumbup: 
now i own 4 door rabbit and this is perfect size for me plus hatch practicality.I don't like midsize cars.They are to big for me. 
so having small A3 with all that power make me  
but can't afford it


----------



## eddiefury (Aug 5, 2007)

I'd hit it!


----------



## Tcardio (Mar 19, 2009)

this thread should be named the vasectomy thread cuz that car ain't coming


----------



## Maitre Absolut (Aug 5, 2009)

you guys are totally missing it 

for an A3 variant to compete at that price point it has to be better than those other cars a la Nissan GT-R in order to overcome its handicap (being essentially a tuned 30k car) 

the problem is that it doesnt offer anything better than the competition at that price. 

im all about hot hatches, i paid more than anyone here for one, but there is a limit.


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

TBomb said:


> Duh, M3 = 3 series = entry level.


 To the uninformed, that is the case. M3 GT = 318i, so they view why get a 3 series when they could get a 710i, a larger car for less money. But enthusiast sees otherwise.


----------



## TBomb (Sep 23, 2009)

Maitre Absolut said:


> you guys are totally missing it
> 
> for an A3 variant to compete at that price point it has to be better than those other cars a la Nissan GT-R in order to overcome its handicap (being essentially a tuned 30k car)
> 
> ...


 Define "better"? That is highly subjective and depends on a number of things. I could get a 135i decked out for about the same price, but it would still be down on power compared to the RS3. Sure, the 135i would probably be quicker around the track, but it would be a real PITA when I tried to haul my kid to school or go to the ski hill with some buddies, etc. Also, the decked out $46,000 135i is based off of the $30,000 128i though so I probably shouldn't even consider it since it is essentially a tuned 30k car. 

Also, as far as the GT-R is concerned, while it is an amazing car for what it is, it appeals to a certain crowd. It might be able to keep up with a 911 GT-2 around a race track, but the guy thinking about buying a 911 GT-2 isn't going to say "oh, I'll get the GT-R instead and save myself the extra $120,000" just like the guy buying the GT-R isn't going to say "I'll just keep saving and get that Porsche one day..." 

Also, congrats on paying more than anyone else here for your car...I'm not sure what that says about you


----------



## warren_s (Apr 26, 2009)

Maitre Absolut said:


> im all about hot hatches, i paid more than anyone here for one, but there is a limit.


 Nope. I paid more than you.


----------



## DjSherif (Apr 27, 2005)

The main competition for the RS3 is the new BMW 1M. The Bimmer is going to start at a price of 47K. I expect the RS3 will be pretty close to that price point. I'm going to say 47K-49K.


----------



## mookieblaylock (Sep 25, 2005)

Maitre Absolut said:


> you guys are totally missing it
> 
> for an A3 variant to compete at that price point it has to be better than those other cars a la Nissan GT-R.


 i think you are missing it. RS3 would be a low volume and very limited run car.That alone adds value. The rs3 buyer probably doesn't even have the gtr on his radar . Chances are it competes against the s4 and ttrs and appeals to someone who values versatility not found in sedans or pure sports cars.


----------



## Maitre Absolut (Aug 5, 2009)

warren_s said:


> Nope. I paid more than you.


 ouch seriously for a 2.0T? 



mookieblaylock said:


> i think you are missing it. RS3 would be a low volume and very limited run car.That alone adds value. The rs3 buyer probably doesn't even have the gtr on his radar . Chances are it competes against the s4 and ttrs and appeals to someone who values versatility not found in sedans or pure sports cars.


 You missed my point. I was using the GT-R as an analogy, not comparing it to the RS3. It being a nissan in the high end segment, it had to offer exceptional performance to be taken seriously. As the GT-R has gained respect from skeptical buyers, its MSRP has also significantly increased over the years. 

A tuned A3 coming into the 60k segment better have more to offer than its competition.


----------



## neu318 (Feb 18, 2003)

warren_s said:


> Nope. I paid more than you.


 How much did you pay?

I bought my A3 used but the sticker price was still in the glove box.

Back in 06 the Previous owner paid $38k which I thought was insane..lol


----------



## YlwNewBug (Jan 5, 2000)

neu318 said:


> How much did you pay?
> 
> I bought my A3 used but the sticker price was still in the glove box.
> 
> Back in 06 the Previous owner paid $38k which I thought was insane..lol


 Mine MSRP'd for 36.5k in late 2007. 2008 Misano Red DSG S-line with every option except bluetooth. No Titanium either, it was just coming out, and I didn't want it. Not sure how he got to 38k in 06?


----------



## Maitre Absolut (Aug 5, 2009)

YlwNewBug said:


> Not sure how he got to 38k in 06?


 3.2q....


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

Maitre Absolut said:


> ouch seriously for a 2.0T?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 The datsun fairlady competes in the all out econobox segment, along with other rattleboxes like Subaru WRX, Mitsubishi EVO and crossing into areas where Dodge Viper occupies. 

Datsun created a pseudo badge called infiniti to slap onto some of the cars so that it is not perceived as a low end rattlebox. 

For VW to have a equivalent to the fairlady, they would be introducing a RS3 equiv in their Skoda line.


----------



## neu318 (Feb 18, 2003)

YlwNewBug said:


> Mine MSRP'd for 36.5k in late 2007. 2008 Misano Red DSG S-line with every option except bluetooth. No Titanium either, it was just coming out, and I didn't want it. Not sure how he got to 38k in 06?





Maitre Absolut said:


> 3.2q....


 exactly ^^ It came with almost every option except the cold weather package and Navi. I wish it came with the heated seats though even though I live in miami


----------



## Uber-A3 (Feb 23, 2002)

Mine came with everything, WHO GIVES A CRAP!!! Both you are equally bad at buying cars.


----------



## fjork_duf (Jul 13, 2001)

mookieblaylock said:


> i think you are missing it. RS3 would be a low volume and very limited run car.That alone adds value. The rs3 buyer probably doesn't even have the gtr on his radar . Chances are it competes against the s4 and ttrs and appeals to someone who values versatility not found in sedans or pure sports cars.


 Exactly! It's fine to say this car or that car would be better, or you could mod to get a better car blah blah. This car is RS from the factory with the suspension tuning, brakes, performance, and exhaust sound, and you get a full warranty from audi. For me the car is small, and lighter than other audis, haldex (which I actually like because you can tune it if you want) turbocharged, and has the audi interior etc. 

Sure a heavily modded STI would be great, or an evo, or a VW modded blah blah, but you won't get the factory engineered quality from one of those cars. Also being someone who has test driven and shopped those cars knows they're noisy inside, quality isn't as good as audi, and when you get service from those companies you get treated like a red-headed stepchild. I've had previous audis and the dealers around here are head and shoulders above vw and subaru (from personal experience) and the audi dealers are better than BMW as well. 

Also if you haven't been inside a 1 series then you'd know how cheaply that car is built. There is a reason why the 1 M Coupe is the 'cheapest' M car. Those cars may perform well, but I have a friend that has had 3 fuel pumps, ecu flashes, the carpet is peeling, it rattles horribly, and the interior just seems really cheap. You get what you pay for. 

I know some people are bitching that the A3 is 'old' but to me that means it's a proven platform, and you're not going to have the issues you could have with other younger platforms. This car is going to be sweet, and I really hope they bring some to the USA. It's definitely a front-runner for my needs on paper at least at the moment. 

Also let's not forget it's a MAJOR sleeper. Most people outside of the enthusiast community won't know what it is, or that it is that fast/sporty. 

The RS3 can justify it's EXPECTED price of around 50k, and I think it's a good deal. I am hoping they charge less, but 50k seems fair especially if the car is loaded.


----------



## TBomb (Sep 23, 2009)

fjork_duf said:


> Exactly! It's fine to say this car or that car would be better, or you could mod to get a better car blah blah. This car is RS from the factory with the suspension tuning, brakes, performance, and exhaust sound, and you get a full warranty from audi. For me the car is small, and lighter than other audis, haldex (which I actually like because you can tune it if you want) turbocharged, and has the audi interior etc.
> 
> Sure a heavily modded STI would be great, or an evo, or a VW modded blah blah, but you won't get the factory engineered quality from one of those cars. Also being someone who has test driven and shopped those cars knows they're noisy inside, quality isn't as good as audi, and when you get service from those companies you get treated like a red-headed stepchild. I've had previous audis and the dealers around here are head and shoulders above vw and subaru (from personal experience) and the audi dealers are better than BMW as well.
> 
> ...


 
Exactly. The RS models are geared at Audi enthusiasts. The majority of people who are going to buy RS3s are people who are already Audi fans and/or A3 owners and want an RS model. Not people who are just out shopping around for the most affordable hot hatch on the market. For the people it is geared towards, the RS3 provides exceptional bang for your buck when you consider the car as a whole.


----------



## eddiefury (Aug 5, 2007)

Uber-A3 said:


> Mine came with everything, WHO GIVES A CRAP!!! Both you are equally bad at buying cars.


 :laugh:opcorn::laugh:


----------



## jasonknezo (May 17, 2002)

I would be at the dealer the day it showed up here. So cool.


----------



## fjork_duf (Jul 13, 2001)

jasonknezo said:


> I would be at the dealer the day it showed up here. So cool.


  

Same here dude!


----------



## Uwe (Jan 16, 2000)

> I get tired of the A3 being labeled as the "entry level" to Audi as though all of us who drive them really, really wished we could have gotten an A4 or an A6 but just couldn't afford it...or maybe one day we will "trade up" for one. In reality, those other cars are oversized and sluggish compared to the smaller A3, which is why I picked the A3 over the A4.


 Exactly. The A3 is simply more fun to drive than the bigger Audis. We have a C6 A6; my wife drives it most of the time. It's a fine car, and it has really grown on me, but it's not particularly "fun". Just today, I took back a 2008 A5 we had leased for the last 3 years. We got it because it was the first VAG car which used the new UDS/ODX protocols. It even had proper 3-pedal transmission, but driving it never made me smile like my A3 does. The biggest flaw the A3 has is too little traction at low speeds; an RS3 obviously wouldn't have that problem. As I said before, I'd be all over an RS3 if it comes with 3 pedals; and if doesn't, well the Golf-R definitely will. 

-Uwe-


----------



## drew138 (Dec 3, 2006)

Uwe said:


> The biggest flaw the A3 has is too little traction at low speeds; an RS3 obviously wouldn't have that problem.


 I hope that is the case. That is a lot of power to keep on the ground even with quattro.


----------



## Bezor (Jan 16, 2007)

Sorry, but I'd pass. My car has everything except 2 cylinders, nav and quattro. It was a decent buy for the price I paid for a show room model with zero miles. Knowing how I use the car and where I live, I'd never get my money out of an RS3. 

It's a sweet looking ride though.


----------



## warren_s (Apr 26, 2009)

neu318 said:


> How much did you pay?
> 
> I bought my A3 used but the sticker price was still in the glove box.
> 
> Back in 06 the Previous owner paid $38k which I thought was insane..lol


 2.0T Quattro Premium starts at about $39,000. Nav, upgraded audio, metal paint to that, and it's $44,000.


----------



## Uber-A3 (Feb 23, 2002)

drew138 said:


> I hope that is the case. That is a lot of power to keep on the ground even with quattro.


 It's a true awd setup from what I have read, not a fwd that sends power when the front starts slipping.


----------



## azoceanblue (Aug 13, 2006)

neu318 said:


> How much did you pay?
> 
> I bought my A3 used but the sticker price was still in the glove box.
> 
> Back in 06 the Previous owner paid $38k which I thought was insane..lol





warren_s said:


> 2.0T Quattro Premium starts at about $39,000. Nav, upgraded audio, metal paint to that, and it's $44,000.


 My 09 S-tronic Quattro 2.0T (weird year for naming packages, no sline or prem; or prem or prem +) had everything but sport springs or mag ride topped out at $40k, bought used with 8k on the odo, for 25% less  

This thread is about the beast, I will most likely buy used, unless a pile of cash suddenly appears.


----------



## Maitre Absolut (Aug 5, 2009)

Uber-A3 said:


> It's a true awd setup from what I have read, not a fwd that sends power when the front starts slipping.


 im pretty sure it uses the same haldex as the 09+ a3 quattros (gen IV), which sends power before slippage (pro active system). It isnt torsen thats for sure


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

Maitre Absolut said:


> im pretty sure it uses the same haldex as the 09+ a3 quattros (gen IV), which sends power before slippage (pro active system). It isnt torsen thats for sure


 Maybe it has the HPC unit? Somebody gotta climb under the car and check the PN


----------



## Uber-A3 (Feb 23, 2002)

Maitre Absolut said:


> im pretty sure it uses the same haldex as the 09+ a3 quattros (gen IV), which sends power before slippage (pro active system). It isnt torsen thats for sure


 Ive read it both ways now. What does the TT RS use?


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

Uber-A3 said:


> Ive read it both ways now. What does the TT RS use?


 Whoever said it uses torsen is just plan making it up. The race division is given a platform and told to tweak it, so they got the 2.5, beefed it up and added a turbo to it. They don't have the R&D to redesign a whole AWD system, let alone adopt something that is impossible to fit without redesigning the chassis/engine/transmission block. The question is whether they threw in the Haldex sports controller in.


----------



## Uber-A3 (Feb 23, 2002)

LWNY said:


> Whoever said it uses torsen is just plan making it up. The race division is given a platform and told to tweak it, so they got the 2.5, beefed it up and added a turbo to it. They don't have the R&D to redesign a whole AWD system, let alone adopt something that is impossible to fit without redesigning the chassis/engine/transmission block. The question is whether they threw in the Haldex sports controller in.


 Yeah maybe they installed an aftermarket type Haldex controller to achieve the 50:50. I read it on Top Gear blog when it first came out: 

"Using the same Haldex-equipped quattro drivetrain as the TT RS, the RS3 doesn’t get a rearward torque bias like the R8, unfortunately. Instead, power is split 50:50, although the system can apportion muscle to the wheel with the most grip." 

http://topgearnew.blogspot.com/2010/11/audis-rs3-storms-in.html


----------



## Tcardio (Mar 19, 2009)

you guys do know that marcel has been very busy working with VW for the past year


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 9, 2004)

LWNY said:


> Whoever said it uses torsen is just plan making it up. The race division is given a platform and told to tweak it, so they got the 2.5, beefed it up and added a turbo to it. They don't have the R&D to redesign a whole AWD system, let alone adopt something that is impossible to fit without redesigning the chassis/engine/transmission block. The question is whether they threw in the Haldex sports controller in.





Uber-A3 said:


> Yeah maybe they installed an aftermarket type Haldex controller to achieve the 50:50. I read it on Top Gear blog when it first came out:
> 
> "Using the same Haldex-equipped quattro drivetrain as the TT RS, the RS3 doesn’t get a rearward torque bias like the R8, unfortunately. Instead, power is split 50:50, although the system can apportion muscle to the wheel with the most grip."
> 
> http://topgearnew.blogspot.com/2010/11/audis-rs3-storms-in.html


 The system is Haldex for sure. Torsen style system is only used on cars with longitudinally mounted engines, which is A4 on up pretty much. Cars with transversely mounted engines (A3 and TT) get Haldex which is a front-wheel drive based system that uses a hydraulic clutch center differential to send power to the rear as needed. 

There are advantages to both I suppose. Torsen drives around at 40:60 while Haldex drives around as FWD but reacts more quickly. Torsen is mechanical while Haldex is controlled by software so different cars with Haldex might feel different in their driving dynamic based on what software they're running. Aftermarket Haldex controllers offer even more aggressive locking of the system but, as you might expect, a clutch-based system may likely wear out faster if you're driving around in 50:50 all the time so while most aftermarket setups are more aggressive they're likely not driving around all the time with the clutch engaged. 

There are other versions of Haldex worth mentioning. When Volvo went to their XC90 V8 they were the first to implement a non-return valve that allowed the diff to lock while stationary so that it could launch with 50:50 much as Torsen does. I'm not clear as to which Audis may benefit from this upgrade. 

Next is XWD as seen in the Saab Turbo X. Basically, this setup uses a hydraulic clutch rear diff that apportions power to the inner and outer rear wheel and this is basically the same functionality you see in the Sport Differential in the S4. No Audis yet use this iteration of Haldex which'd require a re-tooling of floorpan stampings in order to make it fit... likely the reason we haven't seen it yet. 

Without a Sport Differential (XWD to Haldex) you still need to flick the car or at least let off and let the weight come around before you can oversteer. It's not a throttle-on oversteer experience as one would encounter in a Sport Differential-equipped S4. 

Audi doesn't need to go to the aftermarket for Haldex software. They develop their own as needed and work with Haldex the OE supplier, etc. The Volkswagen Group is one of Haldex's biggest customers (if not THE biggest) and Haldex is now owned by Borg Warner. I believe companies like HPA in the aftermarket also work with Haldex though I'm not clear whether their software is HPA proprietary or if it is Haldex developed. 

I hope this clears things up on the car's AWD.


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

[email protected] said:


> There are advantages to both I suppose. Torsen drives around at 40:60 while Haldex drives around as FWD but reacts more quickly. Torsen is mechanical while Haldex is controlled by software so different cars with Haldex might feel different in their driving dynamic based on what software they're running. Aftermarket Haldex controllers offer even more aggressive locking of the system but, as you might expect, a clutch-based system may likely wear out faster if you're driving around in 50:50 all the time so while most aftermarket setups are more aggressive they're likely not driving around all the time with the clutch engaged.


 Thanks for the info. I thought Torsen does not need to react given that the diff locks as soon as one axle tries to apply a twisting force to the differential, causing the worm gear to bind. Hence no slipping has yet to occur before diff locks. 



[email protected] said:


> Next is XWD as seen in the Saab Turbo X. Basically, this setup uses a hydraulic clutch rear diff that apportions power to the inner and outer rear wheel and this is basically the same functionality you see in the Sport Differential in the S4. No Audis yet use this iteration of Haldex which'd require a re-tooling of floorpan stampings in order to make it fit... likely the reason we haven't seen it yet.


 Isn't XWD a single clutchpack that locks the rear axle together, hence more like limited slip diff than a sport diff (with dual clutchpacks) that could overdrive either wheel above what the rear diff is providing, hence giving that oversteering feeling? 



[email protected] said:


> Audi doesn't need to go to the aftermarket for Haldex software. They develop their own as needed and work with Haldex the OE supplier, etc. The Volkswagen Group is one of Haldex's biggest customers (if not THE biggest) and Haldex is now owned by Borg Warner. I believe companies like HPA in the aftermarket also work with Haldex though I'm not clear whether their software is HPA proprietary or if it is Haldex developed.


 So the haldex controller would be different on different cars? Such as the A3 to S3 to RS3? If so, gotta go to the junkyard to look for a TT-S or TT-RS haldex unit.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 12, 2001)

LWNY said:


> Whoever said it uses torsen is just plan making it up. The race division is given a platform and told to tweak it, so they got the 2.5, beefed it up and added a turbo to it.


 I realize that I harp on this a lot, and it's a tangent to the thread, but the 2.5T engine as in the TTRS and the RS3 is not just a beefed up version of the 2.5 from the Jetta / Golf. It shares a lot of architectural elements, but they are _extremely_ different engines when you look at the parts content, etc. For example, the block on the 2.5T is made out of an entirely different material (CGI, or compacted graphite Iron) than the block on the normal NA 2.5 is. The valvetrain is also different, as are all the internals, etc. I don't want to be a broken record, but I think there is a perception out there that they took the NA 2.5 engine and "slapped a turbo on it" to create the 2.5T, which isn't the case. The 2.5T is an incredible engine, and quattro spent an awful lot of time and money designing it. As George has mentioned, of all the engines that all of the different brands in the VW group produce, only the W16 quad turbo in the Veyron Supersport has a higher output per liter of displacement than the 2.5 does. It's an incredible little mill. 

-Tim


----------



## warren_s (Apr 26, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> I realize that I harp on this a lot, and it's a tangent to the thread, but the 2.5T engine as in the TTRS and the RS3 is not just a beefed up version of the 2.5 from the Jetta / Golf. It shares a lot of architectural elements, but they are _extremely_ different engines when you look at the parts content, etc. For example, the block on the 2.5T is made out of an entirely different material (CGI, or compacted graphite Iron) than the block on the normal NA 2.5 is. The valvetrain is also different, as are all the internals, etc. I don't want to be a broken record, but I think there is a perception out there that they took the NA 2.5 engine and "slapped a turbo on it" to create the 2.5T, which isn't the case. The 2.5T is an incredible engine, and quattro spent an awful lot of time and money designing it. As George has mentioned, of all the engines that all of the different brands in the VW group produce, only the W16 quad turbo in the Veyron Supersport has a higher output per liter of displacement than the 2.5 does. It's an incredible little mill.


 There could be an interesting article opportunity here for Fourtitude, comparing and contrasting the standard VW 2.5 with this new 2.5T engine. Would make great reference material for those of us who find themselves needing to explain it to the "whatever, it's just a Golf with a turbo" crowd.


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

[email protected] said:


> I realize that I harp on this a lot, and it's a tangent to the thread, but the 2.5T engine as in the TTRS and the RS3 is not just a beefed up version of the 2.5 from the Jetta / Golf. It shares a lot of architectural elements, but they are _extremely_ different engines when you look at the parts content, etc. For example, the block on the 2.5T is made out of an entirely different material (CGI, or compacted graphite Iron) than the block on the normal NA 2.5 is. The valvetrain is also different, as are all the internals, etc. I don't want to be a broken record, but I think there is a perception out there that they took the NA 2.5 engine and "slapped a turbo on it" to create the 2.5T, which isn't the case. The 2.5T is an incredible engine, and quattro spent an awful lot of time and money designing it. As George has mentioned, of all the engines that all of the different brands in the VW group produce, only the W16 quad turbo in the Veyron Supersport has a higher output per liter of displacement than the 2.5 does. It's an incredible little mill.
> 
> -Tim


 I am not saying the RS3's engine is a low end 2.5 with a turbo. Obviously much of it is redesigned, but i don't think Quattro GmBH has the ability to design something from scratch. Although it does do a bit more work than many of these super tuners that strips an engine and replace many OEM parts with beefed up ones, but not having the ability to make changes like the sump system, casting method or variable timing/lift cams. 

They could have thrown in a flat plane crank though.


----------



## fjork_duf (Jul 13, 2001)

So the main question is for the Tim and George When will we hear news that Audi is bringing this sweet ride to the USA?


----------



## Uber-A3 (Feb 23, 2002)

fjork_duf said:


> So the main question is for the Tim and George When will we hear news that Audi is bringing this sweet ride to the USA?


 X2:thumbup::thumbup:


----------



## mike3141 (Feb 16, 1999)

LWNY said:


> I am not saying the RS3's engine is a low end 2.5 with a turbo. Obviously much of it is redesigned, but i don't think Quattro GmBH has the ability to design something from scratch. Although it does do a bit more work than many of these super tuners that strips an engine and replace many OEM parts with beefed up ones, but not having the ability to make changes like the sump system, casting method or variable timing/lift cams.
> 
> They could have thrown in a flat plane crank though.


 
The RS3's 2.5 has no resemblance to the weaker 2.5. Obviously it is a tuned 2.0T TSI with an extra cylinder. 


I also have one other question: 

Why no fog lights??


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 12, 2001)

mike3141 said:


> The RS3's 2.5 has no resemblance to the weaker 2.5. Obviously it is a tuned 2.0T TSI with an extra cylinder.


 It's not, actually. See my post above. 

-Tim


----------



## drew138 (Dec 3, 2006)

Audi is debuting the TT RS at the Chicago Auto Show Feb 9 - 20th. I'm sure they do not want to rain on its parade so hopefully we'll see some RS3 news / announcements after the show. Or maybe they will surprise us with an announcement @ the show; but I doubt it.


----------



## Bezor (Jan 16, 2007)

LWNY said:


> They could have thrown in a flat plane crank though.


What a wicked engine sound that would produce!


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 9, 2004)

LWNY said:


> Thanks for the info. I thought Torsen does not need to react given that the diff locks as soon as one axle tries to apply a twisting force to the differential, causing the worm gear to bind. Hence no slipping has yet to occur before diff locks.


We're probably talking semantics here. If my B8 S4 slips at the front wheels it sends torque to the rear via the mechanical differential. In the case of Torsen slip must first occur for torque to be shifted front to rear or rear to front. In the case of Haldex, most operational software parameters also use slip as the factor for torque transfer (to the rear because it's operating FWD under normal conditions). I say "Haldex is faster" because I seem to remain (and I'd have to re-check this) that torque transfer happens in a shorter degree of wheel rotation before torque is actually transferred. Haldex may be faster but the torque is already split on Torsen so it's not a wash but it's not as simple as one being faster. Another key difference is that software can be used to proactively send torque and this can be set to other parameters beyond ABS wheel spin sensors such as yaw sensor in the ESP system or steering angle, etc.



> Isn't XWD a single clutchpack that locks the rear axle together, hence more like limited slip diff than a sport diff (with dual clutchpacks) that could overdrive either wheel above what the rear diff is providing, hence giving that oversteering feeling?


From what I understand, no. It can overdrive a given wheel. Here's a reference.

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

Here's quote.

*To ensure immediate traction, torque distribution can be transferred to the wheel with the most grip in fractions of a second, and using the two couplings the XWD system can send 85% of available torque to a single rear wheel. The ability to transfer torque laterally between the rear wheels is similar to Mitsubishi's Super Active Yaw Control or Honda/Acura's Super Handling-All Wheel Drive.*

It's also similar to the S4's Sport Differential and actually when I had my S4 on the lift over at APTuning this week, they remarked how similar the rear Sport Differential looked to the Haldex unit on an R32.

I also asked Stefan Reil about this once. Stefan is basically head of quattro GmbH. I asked more about why the TT RS did not have Haldex Generation 4 (a.k.a. XWD). I was told that this was largely to floorpan stampings of cars like the TT RS and A3 already being in place and that they'd have to be modified to accept XWD. Based on that conversation I'd bet upcoming transverse cars such as next-gen A3 and TT will use it or something like it.




> So the haldex controller would be different on different cars? Such as the A3 to S3 to RS3? If so, gotta go to the junkyard to look for a TT-S or TT-RS haldex unit.


I'm not positive it'd be physically different. I'd imagine the differences are software... maybe that the non-return valve in the diff itself ***might*** be a physical difference but they all might be using that setup by now. Changing to a controller/software from a TT RS or RS 3 would likely be more aggressive than an A3/S3/TT/TTS setup and more streetable than the more aggressive and more racing oriented aftermarket controllers... though I must admit I have no practical experience with aftermarket controllers and don't know how aggressive they are. Assessment of that would be better left to those who own them and have logged miles. I've driven TT RS, TTS, TT, RS 3, S3 and A3 but none with the aftermarket controllers.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 9, 2004)

warren_s said:


> There could be an interesting article opportunity here for Fourtitude, comparing and contrasting the standard VW 2.5 with this new 2.5T engine. Would make great reference material for those of us who find themselves needing to explain it to the "whatever, it's just a Golf with a turbo" crowd.


I'll see if I can find some time to work something in. In the meantime, use the search particularly in the Car Lounge for threads on this subject. I know I've participated in several with Shomare who is an engineer at Audi and has quoted interesting facts about that motor. I think there are two foundries in the world who can make that alloy block. I know I recently compared power levels (in the article this thread points to) and the motor in less-powerful RS 3 guise is still second only to the Bugatti Veryron SuperSports in hp per liter under the VAG umbrella. That means all Lambos, Bentleys and even the more pedestrian Bugatti Veyron (non SuperSports) are less efficient in terms of power in regards to displacement.

Just because the engines may share some geometry means very little. Even suggesting this car is half a Gallardo engine is simplifying things quite a bit.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 9, 2004)

LWNY said:


> I am not saying the RS3's engine is a low end 2.5 with a turbo. Obviously much of it is redesigned, but i don't think Quattro GmBH has the ability to design something from scratch. Although it does do a bit more work than many of these super tuners that strips an engine and replace many OEM parts with beefed up ones, but not having the ability to make changes like the sump system, casting method or variable timing/lift cams.
> 
> They could have thrown in a flat plane crank though.


Actually it's not that simple. First, they don't start with the Rabbit 2.5 and say "okay, let's modify this". VAG does use modular design principals in its engine design so a W8 is really two VR4s, which are done by cutting one cylinder off of each bank of a VR6... but even then it's not that simple. This is done more for shared parts or part designs (not always materials) across a range. There are savings to be had in lower costs of developing a whole range of engines depending on power of efficiency needs.

If you're not an engine person or an engineer, think about it like their chassis development. The lowest A4 and the highest A8 W12 are all now MLB. This means certain shared geometries (mainly steering hardware as it relates to engine placement) are shared. Other things like fiber optic data transfer, etc. can be shared or cost can be minimized in taking an existing part and re-speccing it for a new application rather than designing a new part. The A4 shows Audi's best ability to cost save in a more price conscious segment where the A8 makes use of expensive materials such as magnesium, aluminum (space frame) and higher grade leathers in a less conscious application where performance and luxury are a higher priority than cost and of course there's the push to want to show off what Audi can do with the A8 and represent the brand in the public eye.

In many ways that TT RS engine represents the brand and even VAG. It is an exotic engine (more hp per liter than Bugatti Veyron) in a down-sized and more efficient package. The block is a different alloy. Nearly every part must be of much higher tolerances than that of the Jetta's 2.5 because of the power levels on hand here. You might say it's half an RS 6 but even that is a misnomer because the RS 6 does not have to deal with these sorts of inertial stresses. On the other hand, the 2.5 in the Jetta has been designed mainly to keep costs down and keep the Jetta in a price point. While one's been engineered up for performance, the other has been engineered down for price.

As for quattro GmbH, they are fully integrated into the Volkswagen Group. An engine developed by quattro GmbH goes through the same testing, endurance evaluation, etc. as any other engine. Picture Piech, Winterkorn and Stadler driving these cars in far off African locales just as they would the more widely sold 2.0T or 3.0T. Picture these engines on dynos for as many hours as those higher volume engines. You get the idea. quattro GmbH doesn't modify engines as a tuner would. They develop engines fully as Audi or Volkswagen do because they are in fact part of Audi and thus part of the Volkswagen Group.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 9, 2004)

fjork_duf said:


> So the main question is for the Tim and George When will we hear news that Audi is bringing this sweet ride to the USA?


It is currently under evaluation. That doesn't mean it'll happen but we've confirmed they're considering it and that's a step in the right direction. I'd expect to hear something by summer if it's going to happen.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 9, 2004)

mike3141 said:


> The RS3's 2.5 has no resemblance to the weaker 2.5. Obviously it is a tuned 2.0T TSI with an extra cylinder.
> 
> 
> I also have one other question:
> ...


Again, it's not as simple as an extra cylinder on a 2.0T. Tolerances are higher.

As for foglights, I believe they do that for max airflow.


----------



## SilverSquirrel (Jul 24, 2006)

Regarding Haldex XWD: read this info carefully, and explore the site to find the truth...

http://www.haldex-xwd.com/

From my reading, the XWD is a modular add-on to the Gen4 Haldex coupling, sharing the electronics and hydraulic pump with the center coupling. Gen4 or Gen4+XWD option (saab, now volvo... but not audi)

The XWD is an eLSD, or electronic limited slip for the REAR diff, functioning as a locking LS clutch for the left and right rear axles, and can be controlled very precisely by the computer, in little bursts, to stabilize the car. There is a great read on the math involved with yaw cotnrol..

This is different from the electronic "fake" limited slip which uses the abs/esp/braking to control wheel slip, either front or rear. Its a real hydraulic coupling.

XWD is very different from the Audi sport rear diff. 

The audi sport diff has TWO electronic controlled hydraulic couplings, one on each side, with hollow shafts and overdrive gearing that can be engaged under computer control, like the ones banned in rally racing, and on Ferrari 430 production cars. This provides more torque to the needed wheel, to go around a corner faster. The XWD cant do that. 
There is a great writeup with diagrams and torque flow charts that appeared in AUDI DRIVER magazine (Aug 2009), but short of scanning my copy, I cant find a link.


----------



## dmorrow (Jun 9, 2000)

[email protected] said:


> We're probably talking semantics here. If my B8 S4 slips at the front wheels it sends torque to the rear via the mechanical differential. In the case of Torsen slip must first occur for torque to be shifted front to rear or rear to front. In the case of Haldex, most operational software parameters also use slip as the factor for torque transfer (to the rear because it's operating FWD under normal conditions). I say "Haldex is faster" because I seem to remain (and I'd have to re-check this) that torque transfer happens in a shorter degree of wheel rotation before torque is actually transferred. Haldex may be faster but the torque is already split on Torsen so it's not a wash but it's not as simple as one being faster. Another key difference is that software can be used to proactively send torque and this can be set to other parameters beyond ABS wheel spin sensors such as yaw sensor in the ESP system or steering angle, etc.


With the Torsen system for new Audi's the normal torque split is 40:60 front to rear so there is no reacting to send torque to the rear. Under normal conditions with the Haldex it doesn't send any torque to the rear unless it thinks there is a reason. I would think at the minimum it would affect steering as the Haldex will drive like a FWD car unless there is some reason to change.

http://www.audiusa.com/us/brand/en/exp/innovation/quattro.html

_In Audi vehicles with a longitudinal engine configuration, quattro® is essentially a mechanical system with a self-locking center differentialCenter DifferentialTo compensate for the different wheel velocities between the front and rear suspensions, quattro® permanent all-wheel drive has an additional center differential between the front and rear suspensions. Center Differential and continuously variable torqueTorqueTorque is what causes rotational speed to change. Just as greater net forces cause greater linear accelerations, greater torques cause greater rotational or angular accelerations.Torque distribution. quattro® instantly responds to wheel speed differences and dynamically adjusts power to the wheels with the best traction. It is supported by advanced electronic control systems that together offer numerous benefits over other all-wheel drive systems. Featuring a 40:60 rear torque bias, the latest version of quattro® offers sports car-like performance and handling with uncompromised all-wheel drive traction._


----------



## SilverSquirrel (Jul 24, 2006)

dmorrow said:


> With the Torsen system for new Audi's the normal torque split is 40:60 front to rear so there is no reacting to send torque to the rear. Under normal conditions with the Haldex it doesn't send any torque to the rear unless it thinks there is a reason. I would think at the minimum it would affect steering as the Haldex will drive like a FWD car unless there is some reason to change.


going around a bend, or hitting the gas going in a straight line is enough difference in front to rear wheel speed to engage the haldex coupling, so its working more than you realize.


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

[email protected] said:


> We're probably talking semantics here. If my B8 S4 slips at the front wheels it sends torque to the rear via the mechanical differential. In the case of Torsen slip must first occur for torque to be shifted front to rear or rear to front.


Isn't torsen based on torque sensing, instead of slip sensing? It locks when there is a difference in torque applied to the the axles.



[email protected] said:


> Another key difference is that software can be used to proactively send torque and this can be set to other parameters beyond ABS wheel spin sensors such as yaw sensor in the ESP system or steering angle, etc.


That's what is said about the potential capability of the crown differential, although if it requires significant slip for the crown gear to spread and tighten the clutch, then it would be kind of a step back from torsen.






[email protected] said:


> From what I understand, no. It can overdrive a given wheel. Here's a reference.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_XWD
> 
> ...


I sense it is not:

http://www.autoblog.com/2007/11/30/saab-xwd-haldex-4-0-all-wheel-drive-system-up-close/

Their quote:

*The eLSD works in much the same way as the LSC, a feeder pump and pressure relief valve are used to control hydraulic pressure on the differential clutch pack. This allows for complete control of the rear differential lock-up without the need to wait for wheel slippage to occur. *

Hence, lockup. It does have the advantage of electronic so being able to preemptively take action.


Haldex presentation also mentions no over/under run for torque vectoring due to cost:

http://www.haldex.com/Global/Tracti... Wheel Drive - edit 070620 - presentation.pdf





[email protected] said:


> In many ways that TT RS engine represents the brand and even VAG. It is an exotic engine (more hp per liter than Bugatti Veyron) in a down-sized and more efficient package. The block is a different alloy. Nearly every part must be of much higher tolerances than that of the Jetta's 2.5 because of the power levels on hand here. You might say it's half an RS 6 but even that is a misnomer because the RS 6 does not have to deal with these sorts of inertial stresses. On the other hand, the 2.5 in the Jetta has been designed mainly to keep costs down and keep the Jetta in a price point. While one's been engineered up for performance, the other has been engineered down for price.


They do alot more performance upgrades than even super tuners that does extensive mods (e.g. tuners can never recast the block), but their mods seems to be beefing up of parts and could only be within the confines of what VAG dictates. I mean CGI is an improvement, but it was pulled from the TDI bin. They could have gone with aluminum block, but that would probably meant a redesign of the whole block to take into account of the weakness of aluminum. Flat plane crank? probably out of the scope. Dry sump? probably out of the scope, especially when the chassis can't allow a lower engine mount. I do see they use Audi's valvelift on it, something not on the stock 2.5.



[email protected] said:


> As for quattro GmbH, they are fully integrated into the Volkswagen Group. An engine developed by quattro GmbH goes through the same testing, endurance evaluation, etc. as any other engine. Picture Piech, Winterkorn and Stadler driving these cars in far off African locales just as they would the more widely sold 2.0T or 3.0T. Picture these engines on dynos for as many hours as those higher volume engines. You get the idea. quattro GmbH doesn't modify engines as a tuner would. They develop engines fully as Audi or Volkswagen do because they are in fact part of Audi and thus part of the Volkswagen Group.


It is obvious they do thorough testing, or else they would just chip their car, giving it crazy boost to a stock 2.0 or 2.5 engine and call it the day. But they have to live with the reliability, reputation and warranty claims. If they just went with a stage 3 setup of a aftermarket modder, you would soon see the RS3 or TTRS being the least reliable car in the long term.




SilverSquirrel said:


> going around a bend, or hitting the gas going in a straight line is enough difference in front to rear wheel speed to engage the haldex coupling, so its working more than you realize.


You have to sort of know how haldex works and operate your car so it thinks it is anticipating what you are doing, like when going around a turn, don't trail brake and then smash the throttle right away since haldex could not have anticipated that you were going to go all out and couldn't transfer torque right away. If you get on the throttle moderately and then mash the throttle, the haldex unit would have anticipated you getting on the gas and engage the rear wheels before you gave it full gas.


----------



## mike3141 (Feb 16, 1999)

[email protected] said:


> Again, it's not as simple as an extra cylinder on a 2.0T. Tolerances are higher.
> 
> As for foglights, I believe they do that for max airflow.




I found an article on the TT RS with the development history of the RS 2.5 and it came from the NA 2.5. That just goes to show that I'm not an engine designer....

As for fog lights--it doesn't matter to me but what will those who drive with them on at night all the time do without them??


----------



## fjork_duf (Jul 13, 2001)

[email protected] said:


> It is currently under evaluation. That doesn't mean it'll happen but we've confirmed they're considering it and that's a step in the right direction. I'd expect to hear something by summer if it's going to happen.


I hope we end up getting a firm answer soon-ish. Otherwise I'm going to need some time to figure out how to justify a TTRS purchase. 

:laugh:


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 9, 2004)

dmorrow said:


> With the Torsen system for new Audi's the normal torque split is 40:60 front to rear so there is no reacting to send torque to the rear. Under normal conditions with the Haldex it doesn't send any torque to the rear unless it thinks there is a reason. I would think at the minimum it would affect steering as the Haldex will drive like a FWD car unless there is some reason to change.


Yes and no. You're right, the torque is already split under normal conditions. However, if there is wheel spin at the front then more than 60% is pushed to the rear. That's what I mean by "reaction".


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 9, 2004)

SilverSquirrel said:


> Regarding Haldex XWD: read this info carefully, and explore the site to find the truth...
> 
> http://www.haldex-xwd.com/
> 
> ...


Good stuff. I'll check it out. I'd heard the Volvo setup used brakes to apply to the inner rear wheel while sending torque to the rear (thus sending to the outer rear wheel). It's sort of Haldex augmented by creative use of ABS and much like slip control in a FWD car might operate. My understanding of XWD was that it could drive a given rear wheel. I'll have to read up after your link and dig up that back issue of Audi Driver. Thanks for the tip.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 9, 2004)

LWNY said:


> Isn't torsen based on torque sensing, instead of slip sensing? It locks when there is a difference in torque applied to the the axles.


Yes, the Haldex senses slip. They still both react to variances and thus "slip".



> They do alot more performance upgrades than even super tuners that does extensive mods (e.g. tuners can never recast the block), but their mods seems to be beefing up of parts and could only be within the confines of what VAG dictates. I mean CGI is an improvement, but it was pulled from the TDI bin. They could have gone with aluminum block, but that would probably meant a redesign of the whole block to take into account of the weakness of aluminum. Flat plane crank? probably out of the scope. Dry sump? probably out of the scope, especially when the chassis can't allow a lower engine mount. I do see they use Audi's valvelift on it, something not on the stock 2.5.


These engines are signed off on by the board. At the time of this engine (and the R8 4.2, V10, etc.) this was managed by Wolfgang Hatz who was the board member in charge of engine development. Hatz was involved in this engine and the high-rev concepts and they can and do add what they need as dictated by costs, expected volumes, etc. as they would with any engine Audi or VW build. 4.2 high-rev got dry sump in the R8 and RS 5 applications but was not included in RS 4... maybe a performance evaluation, maybe one of cost... not sure. They pick and choose but any engines developed by quattro GmbH are developed with as much of the VAG resources as any other Audi engine.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 9, 2004)

mike3141 said:


> I found an article on the TT RS with the development history of the RS 2.5 and it came from the NA 2.5. That just goes to show that I'm not an engine designer....
> 
> As for fog lights--it doesn't matter to me but what will those who drive with them on at night all the time do without them??


There have been a LOT of articles on the TT RS that say it's built from the Jetta engine. There are also many that say it's half a Gallardo or half an RS 6. In actuality it's not really any of these. It's got FSI and valvelift so it might be closer to the Gallardo LP560 or RS 6 and and development costs were probably saved based on shared design parameters with all three but saying it's just a Jetta or just half a Gallardo/RS 6 is a huge oversimplification.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 12, 2001)

mike3141 said:


> I found an article on the TT RS with the development history of the RS 2.5 and it came from the NA 2.5. That just goes to show that I'm not an engine designer....



George has hit this already, but I love the 2.5T, so I'll chime in also. When magazines say that the 2.5T was developed from the NA 2.5, or _is_ the NA 2.5 with a turbo on it, they're either misunderstanding or misinformed.

Like George said, the whole VW group has a concept of "modular" engines, just like they have "modular" chassis designs. In the same way that they can use similar or the same chassis components throughout a family of cars, they can do that with engines. A good example of this is the current TT and the Golf. Although they share a lot of subcompnents and some geometry, they're NOT the same chassis any more. The TT is aluminum based, the Golf is not, etc.

Same deal with the engines. They work out an overall set of geometry, bore spacing, stroke length, etc, that work, and then they can share that across different engine families. The V10 from the R8, the NA 2.5 and the 2.5T all share overall geometry, but they're all very different engines. This allows them to share some of the development costs across the family, yet still develop very different engines for very different purposes.

Some of the differences between the NA 2.5 and the 2.5T:
The NA block is a plain old Iron block, the 2.5T block is a special alloy called CGI, or Compacted Graphite Iron. Like George said, there are only a few forges in the world that can even make this stuff, and it's not cheap.
The 2.5T has different (forged) internals than the NA 2.5.
The 2.5T has a different head and different valvetrain than the NA 2.5.

It goes on from there, and I don't have an exhaustive list, but like George said, the 2.5T is really a pretty exotic engine, and it says something about what Audi wanted to do with the TTRS that they went to the lengths that they did to develop the engine for just that car. I'm very glad to see it making an appearance in the RS3 also.

These engines have _incredibly_ smooth and even power delivery for a turbocharged engine. They're awesome to drive, and honestly, hearing one start up in a cold garage in the morning is almost as big an event as an R8 - that's saying a lot for a car that's got a turbo in the exhaust path.

-Tim


----------



## fjork_duf (Jul 13, 2001)

Tim or George, can you answer why this car has differing wheel sizes in the front and back? I understand the front is bigger for traction since the haldex works the way it does, but is there a reason why they chose to make the back tires 10mm smaller? Is it because of clearance/rubbing or some other reason?

It just seems unnecessary for a tire longevity perspective. It would be nice to be able to rotate the tires. :laugh:


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

[email protected] said:


> These engines are signed off on by the board. At the time of this engine (and the R8 4.2, V10, etc.) this was managed by Wolfgang Hatz who was the board member in charge of engine development. Hatz was involved in this engine and the high-rev concepts and they can and do add what they need as dictated by costs, expected volumes, etc. as they would with any engine Audi or VW build. 4.2 high-rev got dry sump in the R8 and RS 5 applications but was not included in RS 4... maybe a performance evaluation, maybe one of cost... not sure. They pick and choose but any engines developed by quattro GmbH are developed with as much of the VAG resources as any other Audi engine.


The RS5 got a dry sump because it was developed for the R8 already. I don't think the Quattro division would have been able to re-engineer the engine to take that. Same as aluminum block, probably not re-engineerable given that the block design would have to be completely different.




fjork_duf said:


> Tim or George, can you answer why this car has differing wheel sizes in the front and back? I understand the front is bigger for traction since the haldex works the way it does, but is there a reason why they chose to make the back tires 10mm smaller? Is it because of clearance/rubbing or some other reason?
> 
> It just seems unnecessary for a tire longevity perspective. It would be nice to be able to rotate the tires. :laugh:


Given the haldex unit will always be fwd based, it will have a tendency to understeer, no matter how much you program the haldex controller to be pro-active. They could either give the front more grip as in larger front, or give the rear less grip via larger RSB. They probably opted for more overall grip. It also has the advantage of always priming the differential pump, even when going straight.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 12, 2001)

LWNY said:


> Given the haldex unit will always be fwd based, it will have a tendency to understeer, no matter how much you program the haldex controller to be pro-active. They could either give the front more grip as in larger front, or give the rear less grip via larger RSB. They probably opted for more overall grip. It also has the advantage of always priming the differential pump, even when going straight.


Yes. The front tires gave a larger contact patch in an attempt to help quell understeer.

It should be noted, though, that the center differential (or clutchpack, really) works differently with GenIV Haldex as in this car than it did with previous generations. The hydraulics that control the clutchpack are now electronically controlled, and no longer need to wait for a mechanical reason to "prime the pump" so to speak. The ECU can decide to do so based on a number of factors, including throttle position and speed of throttle input, steering angle, etc.

-Tim


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 9, 2004)

LWNY said:


> The RS5 got a dry sump because it was developed for the R8 already. I don't think the Quattro division would have been able to re-engineer the engine to take that. Same as aluminum block, probably not re-engineerable given that the block design would have to be completely different.
> .


I'm not sure why the impression keeps remaining that quattro GmbH is somehow just a factory tuner. quattro GmbH produces the R8 FYI. They were in charge of the car's development. They are a team within Audi that focuses on the highest-performance cars but that doesn't mean they have access to less resources. I've toured the R8 facility and I've seen their other production facilities. They're part of the Neckarsulm plant.


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

[email protected] said:


> I'm not sure why the impression keeps remaining that quattro GmbH is somehow just a factory tuner. quattro GmbH produces the R8 FYI. They were in charge of the car's development. They are a team within Audi that focuses on the highest-performance cars but that doesn't mean they have access to less resources. I've toured the R8 facility and I've seen their other production facilities. They're part of the Neckarsulm plant.


I don't imply they are just a factory tuner, nor do I think they are a wholly separate subdivision the way Audi is from VW. It is no different from BMW's M division or MB's AMG. That's why it was such big hoopla when AMG build a car on their own dedicated chassis. They might not have less resources, but they don't have the usual R&D period for a new design given that their model usually comes in the midst of a product cycle so they have to throw together a car with what's available to them, whether it is CGI technology as a substitute for cast iron, dropping in the valvelift from an Audi engine to the 2.5 (which I'm sure VW will take, like they took the S3's engine for the R20).

I presume the R8 platform was originally designed for Lamborghini Gallardo, the project given to quattro gmbh since the lamborghini guys were still doing tubed chassis and had no idea how to do an ASF design.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 9, 2004)

I believe the Typ42 chassis (R8, Gallardo) was evaluated across the group. Remember the VW W12 Nardo concept or the Bentley Hunaudieres... probably evaluation concepts used to determine if there was potential for the chassis under these brands as well.

Once the go ahead was given I'm sure it was up to Audi's lightweight design group (also in Neckarsulm) to develop the structure. Designs by each brand (Luc Donkerwolke I think did the Gallardo and I'm not sure who specifically did the R8 design) tailored the exterior and chassis development (suspension, brake, etc. settings and hardware finalization) then went to Lamborghini and quattro GmbH though quattro likely uses developmental teams in Neckarsulm... I don't know this for sure though it would make sense. These cars all go out to remote testing where top VAG executives drive each of them.

I say this because the 2.5T FSI is much the same. This engine was signed off on at the highest levels and I wouldn't be surprised to see it in various states of tune and at various costs of components. It could go into something of the highest price (production quattro Concept) or maybe be de-tuned and used in transverse applications like a Volkswagen CC R (nothing to do with Creedence Clearwater  ).


----------



## fjork_duf (Jul 13, 2001)

[email protected] said:


> ...
> 
> I say this because the 2.5T FSI is much the same. This engine was signed off on at the highest levels and I wouldn't be surprised to see it in various states of tune and at various costs of components. It could go into something of the highest price (production quattro Concept) or maybe be de-tuned and used in transverse applications like a Volkswagen CC R (nothing to do with Creedence Clearwater  ).


I doubt you'll see this engine in VW. Just look at what they're doing to the Jetta and the new Passat. I think audi would be better off keeping this engine to themselves as a differentiator.


----------



## Tcardio (Mar 19, 2009)

I am very knowledgable in regards to the current engine in the RS3....it's faster nuff said


----------



## Uber-A3 (Feb 23, 2002)

tcardio said:


> I am very knowledgable in regards to the current engine in the RS3....it's faster nuff said


and


----------



## Tcardio (Mar 19, 2009)

Don't forget...


[IMG]http://i704.photobucket.com/albums/ww46/tcardio/hater_tots11.jpg[/IMG]


----------



## JRutter (Nov 25, 2009)

Fun thread - glad to see Fourtitude people in the A3 forum! If I do not have a VR6T when the RS3 hits the US, then I will try to find a way to make it happen for me!

Re: semantics of "torque" and "slip"

Since torque is by definition an applied force, a wheel that is slipping has less force being applied. So even early gen Haldex can _theoretically_ send 100% of the engines applied force (torque) to the rear wheels in dynamic situations. Right?


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

fjork_duf said:


> I doubt you'll see this engine in VW. Just look at what they're doing to the Jetta and the new Passat. I think audi would be better off keeping this engine to themselves as a differentiator.


I don't think it is up to Audi. VW took Audi S3's engine and first dropped it in the Sirocco and then into the much lower priced R20.

The only thing Audi has up its sleeve is the valvelift.


----------



## azoceanblue (Aug 13, 2006)

JRutter said:


> Fun thread - glad to see Fourtitude people in the A3 forum!


X2

Thanks George and Tim :beer:

Great explanations for us non-gearheads :thumbup:

I hope the RS3 makes it here. I may even get a euro delivery and get the tour at Ingolstadt that got cancelled on me back in September.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 9, 2004)

fjork_duf said:


> I doubt you'll see this engine in VW. Just look at what they're doing to the Jetta and the new Passat. I think audi would be better off keeping this engine to themselves as a differentiator.


Never say never. Look at the V10. That engine debuted rather exotically in the Gallardo. Further updates saw it gain various states of tune with various states of cost and component differentiation - FSI, FSI high-rev, biturbo and fitted in various price ranges of VAG products from the S6 on up to the Gallardo LP560-4. If VAG wants to maximize their investment, they'll do more. For now you have extremes - this very low cost and low hp 2.5 and this very high cost and high performance TT RS engine.


----------



## fjork_duf (Jul 13, 2001)

[email protected] said:


> Never say never. Look at the V10. That engine debuted rather exotically in the Gallardo. Further updates saw it gain various states of tune with various states of cost and component differentiation - FSI, FSI high-rev, biturbo and fitted in various price ranges of VAG products from the S6 on up to the Gallardo LP560-4. If VAG wants to maximize their investment, they'll do more. For now you have extremes - this very low cost and low hp 2.5 and this very high cost and high performance TT RS engine.


Well I understand that. But isn't that the philosophy of the 'old vw' not the new 'we want to crank out crap cars to compete with toyota and GM' vw?

Anyway... RS3... Do WANT!


----------



## YB1 (Feb 1, 2011)

Wow, very interesting thread! 

My wife and I talked a fair bit today about trading in our old RS2 for an RS3. I'm going to try and test drive one in Liechtenstein later this month. Wonder what they're gonna do for me, trade-in wise...


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 9, 2004)

YB1 said:


> Wow, very interesting thread!
> 
> My wife and I talked a fair bit today about trading in our old RS2 for an RS3. I'm going to try and test drive one in Liechtenstein later this month. Wonder what they're gonna do for me, trade-in wise...


jealous on both counts.


----------



## SilverSquirrel (Jul 24, 2006)

YB1 said:


> Wow, very interesting thread!
> 
> My wife and I talked a fair bit today about trading in our old RS2 for an RS3. I'm going to try and test drive one in Liechtenstein later this month. Wonder what they're gonna do for me, trade-in wise...


Keep the RS2, and park the RS3 right next to it. :wave:


----------



## YB1 (Feb 1, 2011)

It's not the raciest of colors- I was going for maximum stealth, but it's only got 75k KM on the odo and still runs phenomenal. Me and Frau are the original owners (in her name cuz she's got the FL passport), and it gets driven a month or two a year since 1995, except the first 18 months we had it when we were living over in Euroland.


----------



## SilverSquirrel (Jul 24, 2006)

YB1 said:


> It's not the raciest of colors- I was going for maximum stealth, but it's only got 75k KM on the odo and still runs phenomenal. Me and Frau are the original owners (in her name cuz she's got the FL passport), and it gets driven a month or two a year since 1995, except the first 18 months we had it when we were living over in Euroland.


 I would LOVE to own that car. Want to trade for an A3 3.2Q?


----------



## mike3141 (Feb 16, 1999)

Audi rep at Chicago Auto Show says RS3 not coming to U.S.:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3JycTvS_9A

Go to 3:40

Of course the guy is the TT RS product manager for AoA so he's got his own agenda....


----------



## YB1 (Feb 1, 2011)

[email protected] said:


> jealous on both counts.


We may be driving the RS2 a bit longer (fine by me), as of last week the RS3 production for 2011 was already all sold out as far as AMAG-that's Swiss and F.L. distributor.


----------



## drew138 (Dec 3, 2006)

mike3141 said:


> Audi rep at Chicago Auto Show says RS3 not coming to U.S.:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3JycTvS_9A
> 
> ...



Actually, the guy stops and does a long pause. All he does is reinforce the current status which is that it is not coming to the USA.


----------



## mike3141 (Feb 16, 1999)

drew138 said:


> Actually, the guy stops and does a long pause. All he does is reinforce the current status which is that it is not coming to the USA.


"Currently the RS3 is not in the plan..."

"...but right now it looks like it will not make it to the U.S. shores"

Sounds pretty negative to me--let's hope he's wrong.


----------



## drew138 (Dec 3, 2006)

mike3141 said:


> "Currently the RS3 is not in the plan..."
> 
> "...but right now it looks like it will not make it to the U.S. shores"
> 
> Sounds pretty negative to me--let's hope he's wrong.



You left out this part....

*...however, the option is always open,*

The RS3 is a bit overlapping with the TTRS so it is not surprising that they wouldn't pre-announce anything so as to not give anyone a reason to not buy the TTRS. Especially given that this guy is the TTRS advocate. 

It does seem apparent that the RS3 will not come as a 2012 model year.


----------



## r32breeze (Feb 8, 2008)

There is always a hope... RS3 is in my list to buy if it ever makes to USA...

BTW I am a bit confused with RS3's all whell drive system. Which AWD does it have? Haldex 2nd gen or Haldex 4th gen?


----------



## Maitre Absolut (Aug 5, 2009)

r32breeze said:


> There is always a hope... RS3 is in my list to buy if it ever makes to USA...
> 
> BTW I am a bit confused with RS3's all whell drive system. Which AWD does it have? Haldex 2nd gen or Haldex 4th gen?


seeing as the 09+ have 4th gen, i highly doubt they went back to genII


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

Maitre Absolut said:


> seeing as the 09+ have 4th gen, i highly doubt they went back to genII


the question is, whether they custom coded the haldex unit, or did they just put fatter tires in the front to cure the understeer. if they left the quattro as stock, it would be pretty lame given the rs5 has a completely new crown differential.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 9, 2004)

LWNY said:


> the question is, whether they custom coded the haldex unit, or did they just put fatter tires in the front to cure the understeer. if they left the quattro as stock, it would be pretty lame given the rs5 has a completely new crown differential.


They don't just one software setup. TTS is more aggressive for instance than TT.


----------



## r32breeze (Feb 8, 2008)

[email protected] said:


> They don't just one software setup. TTS is more aggressive for instance than TT.


Found it. Audi RS3 has latest Haldex system which is Haldex 4th gen I guess. 

http://www.insideline.com/audi/rs3/2011/2011-audi-rs3-first-drive.html


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

r32breeze said:


> Found it. Audi RS3 has latest Haldex system which is Haldex 4th gen I guess.
> 
> http://www.insideline.com/audi/rs3/2011/2011-audi-rs3-first-drive.html


It is obvious it has Haldex Gen IV (which the stock A3 also has), but does it tune it for more aggressive AWD performance (less understeer, more neutral balance). 

We know that Quattro group tried to make the balance more neutral, that is why they made the front tire fatter. But did they reprogram the haldex unit for earlier engagement, more aggressive anticipate engagement, harder engagement and more time staying engaged?

If as George said they did, then couldn't the A3 guys go buy some TT-S/TT-RS/S3/RS3's haldex unit from ebay or the junkyard and get unheard of performance from their stock A3?


----------



## oempls (Aug 9, 2004)

Wish we'd get it.


----------



## drew138 (Dec 3, 2006)

Nice cross post on German Car Blog.

http://www.germancarblog.com/2011/0...log+(The+German+Car+Blog)&utm_content=Twitter


----------



## drew138 (Dec 3, 2006)

Supposedly ETKA was just updated with the RS3 parts. The rear spoiler is:

8P4 827 933 B GRU

If you're into that kind of thing.


----------



## drew138 (Dec 3, 2006)

@Audi twitter account makes another mention of the S3 with regards to their latest twitter campaign asking what car to bring to North America:

http://twitter.com/#!/Audi/status/39426426809753600

http://twitter.com/#!/Audi/status/39444119021555712

Ironically, a bunch of folks are asking for the TTRS. :banghead: It coming already.


----------



## Uber-A3 (Feb 23, 2002)

If that new A3 is coming here I would bet they are bringing the RS3. This might make it worth the cost of federalizing the 5 cylinder with 7 speed dsg drivetrain. Fingers crossed


----------



## YB1 (Feb 1, 2011)

That would be wild. How many RS3's do they have to sell to make it worth their while, I'm guessing 500.


----------



## Uber-A3 (Feb 23, 2002)

YB1 said:


> That would be wild. How many RS3's do they have to sell to make it worth their while, I'm guessing 500.


I'm not sure if it boils down to an actual number, I think Audi would release the RS3 here for different reason then strictly profit. The chassis is old news and they are already making it for Europe so the only question is would the US buy it. I don't think they would be trying to hit the jackpot with it profit wise, it's more to keep people interested in the model until the new one is brought here.


----------



## drew138 (Dec 3, 2006)

Uber-A3 said:


> I'm not sure if it boils down to an actual number, I think Audi would release the RS3 here for different reason then strictly profit. The chassis is old news and they are already making it for Europe so the only question is would the US buy it. I don't think they would be trying to hit the jackpot with it profit wise, it's more to keep people interested in the model until the new one is brought here.


Agreed. It's actually pretty impressive how much press the RS3 got in the news considering they did a superbowl ad for the TDI version last year and no one really even gave to cents.


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

drew138 said:


> Agreed. It's actually pretty impressive how much press the RS3 got in the news considering they did a superbowl ad for the TDI version last year and no one really even gave to cents.


But RS3 won't move cars off the dealers' lot. Apparently, the TDi did.


----------



## drew138 (Dec 3, 2006)

LWNY said:


> But RS3 won't move cars off the dealers' lot. Apparently, the TDi did.


The rs3 would draw a lot of customers into the show room and some would buy the a3 and some would upgrade to the a4; and they would sell some rs3s. Much like the r8 gave Audi a ton of publicity. Brand image is key and the rs3 would be a statement car for them.


----------



## cnimativ (Jul 21, 2010)

[email protected] said:


> This is a question of economies of scale. TT RS with MT6 is already federalized. I5 wiht 7-speed DSG is not. If it comes it will likely be MT6.


MT RS3 will be so sexy!!!


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

drew138 said:


> The rs3 would draw a lot of customers into the show room and some would buy the a3 and some would upgrade to the a4; and they would sell some rs3s. Much like the r8 gave Audi a ton of publicity. Brand image is key and the rs3 would be a statement car for them.


R8 is one thing, RS3 is another. Most people don't even know there is an A3, let alone a RS3.


----------



## mookieblaylock (Sep 25, 2005)

LWNY said:


> Most people don't even know there is an A3, let alone a RS3.


hence the rs3 to generate more interest. And since it appears the 2.5 t /dsg is in the pipeline for future a3 models a dsg rs3 might make sense


----------



## drew138 (Dec 3, 2006)

mookieblaylock said:


> hence the rs3 to generate more interest. And since it appears the 2.5 t /dsg is in the pipeline for future a3 models a dsg rs3 might make sense



I will be driving the RS3 on March 3rd!!!! via the official Audi iPhone RS3 Game 

http://www.fourtitude.com/news/publish/Audi_News/article_6637.shtml

Note the contest for the game with the winner actually winning an A3! Pretty cool. 

_The contest is being offered in Germany, Australia, Belgium, China, France, the United Kingdom, Hong Kong, Japan, Canada (except for Quebec), Mexico, the Netherlands, Austria, Russia, Switzerland, Spain, South Korea and the *United States *(including the District of Columbia). Participants must be of full legal age and possess a valid driver’s license. _


----------



## terje_77 (Dec 19, 2005)

drew138 said:


> I will be driving the RS3 on March 3rd!!!! via the official Audi iPhone RS3 Game
> 
> http://www.fourtitude.com/news/publish/Audi_News/article_6637.shtml
> 
> ...


Lol, thanks for including the disclaimer!


----------



## fjork_duf (Jul 13, 2001)

So to AUDI: WTH?? Are we getting this car or not? That TTRS video didn't bode well, but perhaps George or Tim have an update.


----------



## drew138 (Dec 3, 2006)

fjork_duf said:


> So to AUDI: WTH?? Are we getting this car or not? That TTRS video didn't bode well, but perhaps George or Tim have an update.


I don't think we're going to find out for a few months. And don't think we'll see this till mid/late 2012 as a MY2013 car at this point.


----------



## vw_fiend (Jul 28, 2000)

Uwe said:


> Bring it to the US with proper 3-pedal tranny and I'll be one of the first in line, but I have no interest in it if it's only got two pedals.


I'll be standing in the same line. Euro Delivery please!


----------



## dmorrow (Jun 9, 2000)

*Car and Driver First Drive*

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/11q1/2011_audi_rs3_sportback-first_drive_review

Car and Driver First Drive of RS3


----------



## rawaudi (May 15, 2010)

[No message]


----------



## djdub (Dec 30, 2001)

I hope we get wind of this car coming before the Golf R gets here. I will save up for this instead! :thumbup:


----------



## vw_fiend (Jul 28, 2000)

Nice promo video. I don't think I'd go for red, but I like what I see. Come one Audi... bring this to the US... you can do it!! (with a manual )


----------



## drew138 (Dec 3, 2006)

I think that is literally porn music from the 80s in the background of that video. Hysterical.


----------



## terje_77 (Dec 19, 2005)

drew138 said:


> I think that is literally porn music from the 80s in the background of that video. Hysterical.


Wait! There was actual music playing? I thought the porn music was in my head!

baow shik a baow wow!


----------



## fjork_duf (Jul 13, 2001)

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests...medium=Microblog&utm_campaign=Twitter+Traffic



Too bad we don't get the DSG. In that article they say it holds redline.


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

Optional 255 front tires. Hope they at least put it on wider rims so that the front wheels don't look stretched compared to the back.

I guess that's the way instead of going way fat on the RSB. No throttle lift oversteer, no inside rear wheel lifting.


----------



## vw_fiend (Jul 28, 2000)

> Too bad we don't get the DSG. In that article they say it holds redline


So will a manual if you just, don't, shift.  No computer to fight with or shift for you.


----------



## mike3141 (Feb 16, 1999)

We don't know _if_ we're getting it and what transmission it would have.


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

vw_fiend said:


> So will a manual if you just, don't, shift.  No computer to fight with or shift for you.


But you can't upshift with the manual in the middle of a turn, like you can with the DSG.


----------



## Uber-A3 (Feb 23, 2002)

It has DSG software written to hold the gear in M so it won't shift. There is no way the US gets a manual and Europe DSG only.


----------



## terje_77 (Dec 19, 2005)

I get a hardon every time I think about this car.


----------



## vw_fiend (Jul 28, 2000)

LWNY said:


> But you can't upshift with the manual in the middle of a turn, like you can with the DSG.


That's why you shift into the right gear before a turn. Race car drivers have been using manual transmissions for how many years? 

I'm just repeating the fact that I'd take this car, tomorrow, only if it has a manual transmission in the hopes that someone up there hears me and makes it happen.


----------



## vw_fiend (Jul 28, 2000)

Uber-A3 said:


> It has DSG software written to hold the gear in M so it won't shift. There is no way the US gets a manual and Europe DSG only.


It could happen. BMW fitted the E60 M5 with a manual for the US market. 

Plus, the engine has already been federalized with a manual in the TT-RS.


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

vw_fiend said:


> That's why you shift into the right gear before a turn. Race car drivers have been using manual transmissions for how many years?


If you enter a turn too fast, you can upshift on a DSG without upsetting the car's weight distribution much. Something you can't do with a manual and something that did not exist as a thing to do before quick shift automated manuals. It will save your a$$ when you go into a turn too fast and has been mentioned by a few auto rag testers.


----------



## Uber-A3 (Feb 23, 2002)

vw_fiend said:


> It could happen. BMW fitted the E60 M5 with a manual for the US market.
> 
> Plus, the engine has already been federalized with a manual in the TT-RS.


 Yeah but rumor is that this is what a few yet to be released Audi's will be using. So they may federalize the DSG, seems cheaper then retooling a factory.


----------



## drew138 (Dec 3, 2006)

Uber-A3 said:


> Yeah but rumor is that this is what a few yet to be released Audi's will be using. So they may federalize the DSG, seems cheaper then retooling a factory.


 The manual transmission for the usa rumor is odd. If it comes here I think it will be in a DSG.


----------



## automobiliben (Feb 19, 2010)

Uber-A3 said:


> Yeah but rumor is that this is what a few yet to be released Audi's will be using. So they may federalize the DSG, seems cheaper then retooling a factory.


 RS model cars are actually finished/built in Neckarsulm, so a "factory" doesn't need to be re-tooled...


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 12, 2001)

automobiliben said:


> RS model cars are actually finished/built in Neckarsulm, so a "factory" doesn't need to be re-tooled...


 Yes, but the line at that factory isn't currently set up to produce an RS3 with a 6MT. They would have to retool the line to do that, which is I think what he meant. 

-Tim


----------



## Subaruski1 (Oct 22, 2010)

I'll take mine in white with the all black interior :wave:


----------



## Uber-A3 (Feb 23, 2002)

Subaruski1 said:


> I'll take mine in white with the all black interior :wave:


 That's not white, it's Suzuka Gray


----------



## mike3141 (Feb 16, 1999)

According to the German Audi configurator the only colors we're likely to be able to choose from are: 

Ibis White 
Daytona Grey, pearl effect 
Misano Red, pearl effect 
Phantom Black, pearl effect 

I don't know if you can order an RS3 with the additional charge non-standard paint option or not. 

Also the interior that's been photographed with the red contrast stitching is an Audi Exclusive interior so don't plan on ordering that. The U.K. configurator shows the standard RS3 interior looks pretty much like our "normal" A3 interior (except for the FBSW): 










Of course we'll get the N.A. console with the cup holders.


----------



## Maitre Absolut (Aug 5, 2009)

Uber-A3 said:


> That's not white, it's Suzuka Gray


 whatever colour that is, only one song comes to mind 

"Jizz...in...my pants"


----------



## Uber-A3 (Feb 23, 2002)

Here is what I found from a site and I read somewhere that the "white one" photographed was Suzuka Gray. 

The choice of finishes includes five exterior colors - Ibis White, Suzuka Gray metallic, Misano Red pearl effect, Daytona Gray pearl effect and Phantom Black pearl effect - in addition to an unlimited array of custom paints.


----------



## mike3141 (Feb 16, 1999)

You're right--I missed "Suzuka Grey, metallic".


----------



## vw_fiend (Jul 28, 2000)

LWNY said:


> If you enter a turn too fast, you can upshift on a DSG without upsetting the car's weight distribution much. Something you can't do with a manual and something that did not exist as a thing to do before quick shift automated manuals. It will save your a$$ when you go into a turn too fast and has been mentioned by a few auto rag testers.


I think you meant _downshift_. Upshifting isn't going to help much if you're going too hot into a turn. 

I'm a big believer in slow in, fast out on the track. Something that I don't envision these magazine testers following because they're out there to rag on the car and report on how bad it understeers and takes their abuse. They're using a transmission to save the car because of a lack of familiarity at these test track press events. DSG is not a safety net. 

Just to give you an idea on how hard they run the cars... the first reported case of a BMW 335i overheating and going into limp mode was at the hands of a mag tester at a press event. 

DSG is a technological advancement, no doubt. However, I like having 3 pedals and enjoy rowing my own gears. Thankyouverymuch.


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

vw_fiend said:


> I think you meant _downshift_. Upshifting isn't going to help much if you're going too hot into a turn.
> 
> I'm a big believer in slow in, fast out on the track. Something that I don't envision these magazine testers following because they're out there to rag on the car and report on how bad it understeers and takes their abuse. They're using a transmission to save the car because of a lack of familiarity at these test track press events. DSG is not a safety net.


 I mean upshift. If going too fast into a turn, instead of lifting off the throttle, which is a no-no, upshifting puts the gear ratio and engine where lower amount of torque is transferred to the wheel, hence a bit of slowing down while the wheels are still being driven, so no plowing, no tail out.


----------



## JRutter (Nov 25, 2009)

fjork_duf said:


> Too bad we don't get the DSG. In that article they say it holds redline.


 My DSG holds redline w/o upshifting :laugh:


----------



## Uber-A3 (Feb 23, 2002)

JRutter said:


> My DSG holds redline w/o upshifting :laugh:


 Mine also


----------



## theblue (Aug 16, 2001)

LWNY said:


> I mean upshift. If going too fast into a turn, instead of lifting off the throttle, which is a no-no, upshifting puts the gear ratio and engine where lower amount of torque is transferred to the wheel, hence a bit of slowing down while the wheels are still being driven, so no plowing, no tail out.


 that makes no sense since easing off the throttle would do the same thing. If you enter a turn too hot the last think you would want to do is upshift since you would be left with no ability to modulate throttle. 

My best guess would be that you're trying to say if you enter into a turn and hit redline you can more fluidly flat-foot upshift and keep the chassis balanced.


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

theblue said:


> that makes no sense since easing off the throttle would do the same thing. If you enter a turn too hot the last think you would want to do is upshift since you would be left with no ability to modulate throttle.
> 
> My best guess would be that you're trying to say if you enter into a turn and hit redline you can more fluidly flat-foot upshift and keep the chassis balanced.


 that's the point. when you put much throttle and feel the car starting to break away, it is harder to modulate that throttle ever so slightly than upshift and take some of the power away. No tricky playing with the just the right amount to lift off, plain upshift and you are back on line.


----------



## vw_fiend (Jul 28, 2000)

LWNY said:


> that's the point. when you put much throttle and feel the car starting to break away, it is harder to modulate that throttle ever so slightly than upshift and take some of the power away. No tricky playing with the just the right amount to lift off, plain upshift and you are back on line.


I disagree. You want the car to respond quickly to throttle inputs. Upshifting so that you're out of power band (especially with a turbo charged engine) takes away the ability to modulate the throttle which could make the situation worse. If you've gone into a corner so fast that your last resort is to upshift, you're probably headed off course. 

I've sat in many HPDE classrooms and talked to instructors with regional and national championships under their belt. Never once was upshifting to get yourself out of trouble suggested. I have a hard time visualizing an instructor saying..."Going into a corner too hot? Don't worry. Just apply the brakes, upshift and you'll be just fine." Brake before the turn and re-applying the throttle can help pull you out of a turn. :beer:


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

vw_fiend said:


> I disagree. You want the car to respond quickly to throttle inputs. Upshifting so that you're out of power band (especially with a turbo charged engine) takes away the ability to modulate the throttle which could make the situation worse. If you've gone into a corner so fast that your last resort is to upshift, you're probably headed off course.
> 
> I've sat in many HPDE classrooms and talked to instructors with regional and national championships under their belt. Never once was upshifting to get yourself out of trouble suggested. I have a hard time visualizing an instructor saying..."Going into a corner too hot? Don't worry. Just apply the brakes, upshift and you'll be just fine." Brake before the turn and re-applying the throttle can help pull you out of a turn. :beer:


 Nobody is talking about old school talk with things like brake, step the clutch, then upshift. We are talking about dual clutch here (no power delivery interruption) where a flick of the flappy paddle is all that is needed to rein that understeering nose in. Even if you are out of the power band, all it requires is another flick of the flappy paddle and you are ready to power out of the rest of the turn.


----------



## mike3141 (Feb 16, 1999)

BTW--in case nobody has noticed--there is no Open Sky option for the RS3.


----------



## vw_fiend (Jul 28, 2000)

LWNY said:


> Nobody is talking about old school talk with things like brake, step the clutch, then upshift. We are talking about dual clutch here (no power delivery interruption) where a flick of the flappy paddle is all that is needed to rein that understeering nose in. Even if you are out of the power band, all it requires is another flick of the flappy paddle and you are ready to power out of the rest of the turn.


It's an unnecessary shift. Just keep it in gear, let off the throttle and the nose will start to turn in. 

You can have your flappy paddles and I'll keep rowing my own gears. :beer:


----------



## Uber-A3 (Feb 23, 2002)

vw_fiend said:


> It's an unnecessary shift. Just keep it in gear, let off the throttle and the nose will start to turn in.
> 
> You can have your flappy paddles and I'll keep rowing my own gears. :beer:


 Why not start a new thread for this discussion?


----------



## drew138 (Dec 3, 2006)

mike3141 said:


> BTW--in case nobody has noticed--there is no Open Sky option for the RS3.


 I didn't notice that! Thanks.


----------



## djdub (Dec 30, 2001)

+1 for buying an RS3 in White (US Please!!!)


----------



## drew138 (Dec 3, 2006)

I am in love.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9DGOzHJ3R0


----------



## drew138 (Dec 3, 2006)

More love:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQmnc1PM2oA&feature=player_detailpage


----------



## tp.wannabe.s3 (May 21, 2010)




----------



## drew138 (Dec 3, 2006)

0 - 100 = FAST

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsJ7rHaNLco&feature=related

Seriously, I think audi may have under-reported performance figures for this car to keep the TTRS sales up.


----------



## tp.wannabe.s3 (May 21, 2010)

start at 1:00


----------



## drew138 (Dec 3, 2006)

This guy kinda a hater; but he like it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SlI4EoSEC4&feature=player_detailpage

There are english subtitles if you hitup the [CC]


----------



## drew138 (Dec 3, 2006)

tp.wannabe.s3 said:


> start at 1:00


WHy he keep reaching down like he's shifting or something?


----------



## mike3141 (Feb 16, 1999)

He's in manual and using the shifter instead of the paddles?


----------



## drew138 (Dec 3, 2006)

mike3141 said:


> He's in manual and using the shifter instead of the paddles?


Ahh, thanks. Good eye.


----------



## mike3141 (Feb 16, 1999)

drew138 said:


> 0 - 100 = FAST
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsJ7rHaNLco&feature=related
> 
> Seriously, I think audi may have under-reported performance figures for this car to keep the TTRS sales up.


That was 0-100 km/hr = 0-62 mi/hr.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 12, 2001)

drew138 said:


> 0 - 100 = FAST
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsJ7rHaNLco&feature=related
> 
> Seriously, I think audi may have under-reported performance figures for this car to keep the TTRS sales up.





mike3141 said:


> That was 0-100 km/hr = 0-62 mi/hr.


Exactly. And it looked like about 3 and some change seconds. The TT RS with DSG and using launch control does it in about 3.6, so this is in line with that.

-Tim


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

That speedometer seem to be in logarithmic scale. when will this trickle down to the bottom of the line cars?


----------



## fjork_duf (Jul 13, 2001)

Any news on this? I would like to know if the RS3 will show up in the USA.

I think they could definitely sell a bunch of these cars with no issues. They need to DO IT!


----------



## TBomb (Sep 23, 2009)

fjork_duf said:


> Any news on this? I would like to know if the RS3 will show up in the USA.
> 
> I think they could definitely sell a bunch of these cars with no issues. They need to DO IT!


Not going to happen.


----------



## fjork_duf (Jul 13, 2001)

Is that confirmed at this point? I was wondering if George or any other of the fortitude guys have confirmation on the car not being brought to the USA.


----------



## TBomb (Sep 23, 2009)

fjork_duf said:


> Is that confirmed at this point? I was wondering if George or any other of the fortitude guys have confirmation on the car not being brought to the USA.




http://forums.fourtitude.com/showth...lan-McNish&p=71839134&viewfull=1#post71839134


----------



## drew138 (Dec 3, 2006)

fjork_duf said:


> Is that confirmed at this point? I was wondering if George or any other of the fortitude guys have confirmation on the car not being brought to the USA.


They were originally stating that it was a 500 limited run in the UK. Recent press have switched to 500 for this year. So I think there is still some outside chance this makes it here. Need the TTRS to sell out here in the USA.!


----------



## fjork_duf (Jul 13, 2001)

TBomb said:


> http://forums.fourtitude.com/showth...lan-McNish&p=71839134&viewfull=1#post71839134


That seriously blows.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 9, 2004)

fjork_duf said:


> Is that confirmed at this point? I was wondering if George or any other of the fortitude guys have confirmation on the car not being brought to the USA.


A source of mine who'd know told me the decision's been made and it's not coming. Fingers crossed for RS 3 sedan on next platform.


----------

