# Chances of the RS3 in NA



## Canthoney (Aug 5, 2012)

What do you guys think the chances are for the RS3 here? I've been reading mixed messages. Some say yes, but only sedan. And some say only if the CLA45 AMG sells well.


----------



## S4orceaudi (Oct 20, 2004)

I have heard from a respected source that we will be getting it.


----------



## Travis Grundke (May 26, 1999)

Canthoney said:


> What do you guys think the chances are for the RS3 here? I've been reading mixed messages. Some say yes, but only sedan. And some say only if the CLA45 AMG sells well.


I think there's a very, very high likelihood of us getting the RS3. I think the better question is: what format will it be? Will Audi throw the wagon crew a bone and bring the RS3 as the Sportback, or will they bring it as the sedan? Either way I don't see it being introduced for the US market until after the mid-cycle refresh - but that's just a guess.


----------



## MaX PL (Apr 10, 2006)

Travis Grundke said:


> I think there's a very, very high likelihood of us getting the RS3. I think the better question is: what format will it be? Will Audi throw the wagon crew a bone and bring the RS3 as the Sportback, or will they bring it as the sedan? *Either way I don't see it being introduced for the US market until after the mid-cycle refresh - but that's just a guess.*




that sounds horrible so i hope youre wrong.

either way, as much as i hate sportbacks, id get one if that was the only RS3 body available.


----------



## Canthoney (Aug 5, 2012)

Travis Grundke said:


> I think there's a very, very high likelihood of us getting the RS3. I think the better question is: what format will it be? Will Audi throw the wagon crew a bone and bring the RS3 as the Sportback, or will they bring it as the sedan? Either way I don't see it being introduced for the US market until after the mid-cycle refresh - but that's just a guess.


I'm guessing sedan. Which is fine by me. I saw a recent interview with Quattro on MotorTrend where the head of Quattro said that RS products are going to start coming out closer to the introduction of a new generation. He said two years out instead of the end of the life cycle. So I'm guessing late 2015 or 2016.


----------



## VeeDubDriver (Oct 1, 2001)

My question is whether a manual transmission is too much to hope for?


----------



## Canthoney (Aug 5, 2012)

VeeDubDriver said:


> My question is whether a manual transmission is too much to hope for?


Possibly, if I recall correctly the last RS3 only came with a S-Tronic 7-Speed. I think Audi is moving away from manuals in pretty much all of their cars, which is unfortunate. If it's in your price range I would look at the upcoming M3.


----------



## VeeDubDriver (Oct 1, 2001)

Canthoney said:


> Possibly, if I recall correctly the last RS3 only came with a S-Tronic 7-Speed. I think Audi is moving away from manuals in pretty much all of their cars, which is unfortunate. If it's in your price range I would look at the upcoming M3.


Unfortunately, an M3 will not be my price range. I am really hoping for a manual RS3 or Golf RS. Otherwise I will be looking at a Golf R again, S4 or perhaps an ATS-V (if not too pricey).


----------



## S4orceaudi (Oct 20, 2004)

My fear is not that its not coming, its that its not going to come with a 6-speed manual.


----------



## notavr (Aug 28, 2012)

chris harris talks about us getting the rs3 @5:45


----------



## DaLeadBull (Feb 15, 2011)

Canthoney said:


> Possibly, if I recall correctly the last RS3 only came with a S-Tronic 7-Speed. I think Audi is moving away from manuals in pretty much all of their cars, which is unfortunate. If it's in your price range I would look at the upcoming M3.


Yep, I think pretty much all RS cars will be exclusively dual clutch going forward, not just in the US but worldwide. 

I would love a manual but its going away which sucks. I'm just gonna consider myself lucky I was able to get a manual Golf R.

For my next car, I'll definitely be looking at the M3 especially with a twin turbo 6 which should have a lot of tuning potential. I'm also hoping for an RS3 especially if its a sportback. I'm in no hurry though, still love my Golf R to bits!


----------



## cooperrf (Mar 27, 2013)

notavr said:


> chris harris talks about us getting the rs3 @5:45


We (NA) won't be getting the RS4 because we wanted the RS3 instead.


----------



## Canthoney (Aug 5, 2012)

cooperrf said:


> We (NA) won't be getting the RS4 because we wanted the RS3 instead.


I don't know. I would rather have a small, light, 5 pot sedan over a heavier twin turbo 6 cylinder wagon. Of course I would also like both.


----------



## Rudy_H (Jul 6, 2012)

Canthoney said:


> I don't know. I would rather have a small, light, 5 pot sedan over a heavier twin turbo 6 cylinder wagon. Of course I would also like both.


Depends on where that weight is located though, and how it gets to the road...

Personally I would rather get the small light inline-5 (and lighter on the pocket) over the more expensive V6 /w IMO better Quattro system (that I can't afford), but defeats the point of the 'proper sport sedan / wagon' which the RS4 most certainly is.

Hate that the S4 is almost 600 lbs more then that's for sure


----------



## Canthoney (Aug 5, 2012)

Well it's been confirmed in UK to compete against the A45. Raises chances here!! 
http://m.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/quick-news-mg6-goes-green-audi-confirms-new-rs3


----------



## cooperrf (Mar 27, 2013)

Canthoney said:


> Well it's been confirmed in UK to compete against the A45. Raises chances here!!
> http://m.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/quick-news-mg6-goes-green-audi-confirms-new-rs3


:laugh::thumbup::wave::heart:


----------



## DaLeadBull (Feb 15, 2011)

Canthoney said:


> Well it's been confirmed in UK to compete against the A45. Raises chances here!!
> http://m.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/quick-news-mg6-goes-green-audi-confirms-new-rs3


Well wasn't that a given? I hope we hear something about them bring the RS3 to the states, now that would be good news!


----------



## Canthoney (Aug 5, 2012)

DaLeadBull said:


> Well wasn't that a given? I hope we hear something about them bring the RS3 to the states, now that would be good news!


Well, it hadn't been confirmed that it was even being made yet. But my thinking is that if they create a RS3 hatch for A45 then they have to create a sedan version for the CLA45. I think the earliest we will hear about the car is Geneva, but I'm guessing a 2015 launch. . But I'm wondering what the pricing is going to be.


----------



## VeeDubDriver (Oct 1, 2001)

Canthoney said:


> But I'm wondering what the pricing is going to be.


I have to think that an RS3 would have to be priced in line with an S4. Especially since that is about where the CLA45 AMG pricing is at.


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

We may have the new S4 by the time we get an RS3, though. If they wait for the mid-life PI to bring the RS3, it's fairly likely that will be the case.


----------



## VeeDubDriver (Oct 1, 2001)

Dan Halen said:


> We may have the new S4 by the time we get an RS3, though. If they wait for the mid-life PI to bring the RS3, it's fairly likely that will be the case.


I don't see that as an issue. Since F30 3-series pricing didn't go up that much, Audi would have to keep the price of the next A4/S4 in line with it. This would mean that the next S4 would be priced close to where it is today.


----------



## DaLeadBull (Feb 15, 2011)

Canthoney said:


> Well, it hadn't been confirmed that it was even being made yet. But my thinking is that if they create a RS3 hatch for A45 then they have to create a sedan version for the CLA45. I think the earliest we will hear about the car is Geneva, but I'm guessing a 2015 launch. . But I'm wondering what the pricing is going to be.


I'm still hoping for a sportback RS3 but I'll take a sedan if that's all we'll get.

If I can get a nicely equipped RS3 for 50-55k, I'd be happy.


----------



## VeeDubDriver (Oct 1, 2001)

DaLeadBull said:


> I'm still hoping for a sportback RS3 but I'll take a sedan if that's all we'll get.
> 
> If I can get a nicely equipped RS3 for 50-55k, I'd be happy.


Ditto, as long as there is a third pedal. No manual, no sale.


----------



## ChrisFu (Jun 9, 2012)

VeeDubDriver said:


> Ditto, as long as there is a third pedal. No manual, no sale.


Unfortunatey, I think there is zero percent chance of this in the USA. :banghead:


----------



## DaLeadBull (Feb 15, 2011)

VeeDubDriver said:


> Ditto, as long as there is a third pedal. No manual, no sale.


I would love a manual but I'm not holding my breath for it. We'll be lucky if we get the car at all.

Sportback/Sedan/Manual/S-tronic, it doesn't matter too much as long as the price is right!


----------



## VeeDubDriver (Oct 1, 2001)

DaLeadBull said:


> I would love a manual but I'm not holding my breath for it. We'll be lucky if we get the car at all.
> 
> Sportback/Sedan/Manual/S-tronic, it doesn't matter too much as long as the price is right!


Not me, I want a manual and if it is not an RS3, I will also look at the ATS-V, the next Golf R or just get a B8 S4.


----------



## DaLeadBull (Feb 15, 2011)

VeeDubDriver said:


> Not me, I want a manual and if it is not an RS3, I will also look at the ATS-V, the next Golf R or just get a B8 S4.


Yea, I feel you. I would love a manual too but let's face it, it's going away gradually. If the Europeans start buying more DSG's than manuals, then we're doomed (which I think is happening). I don't think we'll see any RS cars with manuals anymore. 

I'm more than happy with my Golf R so I'm in no rush but I'll be looking at the next M3/M4 and perhaps the next S4 too (don't like the styling on the current one too much especially the interior), of course I'll also look at the next Golf R. 

My heart does lust after the RS3 though, as a sportback with a turbo 5 cyl engine it can be a really unique car and I like unique!


----------



## Travis Grundke (May 26, 1999)

ChrisFu said:


> Unfortunatey, I think there is zero percent chance of this in the USA. :banghead:


I think there's zero chance of a three pedal RS model, period.


----------



## Canthoney (Aug 5, 2012)

Travis Grundke said:


> I think there's zero chance of a three pedal RS model, period.


I've read some negative reviews about the manuals Audi has been offering on their current cars. It would be great if they could borrow Porsches 7-Speed rev matching manual, but I think manuals are going the way of the dodo .


----------



## ChrisFu (Jun 9, 2012)

Canthoney said:


> It would be great if they could borrow Porsches 7-Speed rev matching manual


A rev-matching manual is completely missing the point!

Whats left of the manual drivers are not buying them to eek out the last bit of performance. This is lost on the OEMs.


----------



## Travis Grundke (May 26, 1999)

ChrisFu said:


> A rev-matching manual is completely missing the point!
> 
> Whats left of the manual drivers are not buying them to eek out the last bit of performance. This is lost on the OEMs.


Yeah, I agree with ChrisFu on this: people don't drive manuals necessarily because of performance but because of the engagement it adds to the driving experience. I could care less about shifting two tenths of a second faster or improved acceleration or whatnot - it's just not as engaging a driving experience as when I have the stick and third pedal.


----------



## Cajetan (Feb 1, 2012)

I'd love it, but they need to remedy that clunky 2.5 sitting at the front of a FWD biased car. S3 weighs less and seeing what they can do with Golf Rs now makes RS3 numbers for much less in an easier to maintain package. I know that the RS3 looks much better and that 5 pot can make huge numbers, but it's just not a North American thing to spend 60k on a compact and drop a guap on tuning it when that budget will put you into a 911 or an M3. Besides, seeing as how we have only gotten 2 door RS models this decade so far, I see the trend going TTRS coupe, RS3 cabriolet, and RS5 coupe/cab.

Just my opinion, not hating (too much) on the RS3.


----------



## Canthoney (Aug 5, 2012)

ChrisFu said:


> A rev-matching manual is completely missing the point!
> 
> Whats left of the manual drivers are not buying them to eek out the last bit of performance. This is lost on the OEMs.


The point I was trying to make is that they should continue developing the manual, plus you don't have to use rev matching. I think 6-7 speeds on a manual is the optimal number of gear ratios.


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

Travis Grundke said:


> Yeah, I agree with ChrisFu on this: people don't drive manuals necessarily because of performance but because of the engagement it adds to the driving experience. I could care less about shifting two tenths of a second faster or improved acceleration or whatnot - it's just not as engaging a driving experience as when I have the stick and third pedal.


If you have to rely constantly moving that stick around while stepping on the clutch, then you are not driving the car hard enough. Better get rid of the syncros so one has to double clutch and constantly focusing on getting that shift w/o the grind.


----------



## dmorrow (Jun 9, 2000)

ChrisFu said:


> A rev-matching manual is completely missing the point!
> 
> Whats left of the manual drivers are not buying them to eek out the last bit of performance. This is lost on the OEMs.


If you can switch it off why wouldn't you want it? I am assuming it is pretty simple to control the throttle with current electronics. 

May sway some to go with the slowly disappearing transmission. Not continuing to develop the manual is a way to help it go away even quicker.


----------



## DaLeadBull (Feb 15, 2011)

dmorrow said:


> If you can switch it off why wouldn't you want it? I am assuming it is pretty simple to control the throttle with current electronics.
> 
> May sway some to go with the slowly disappearing transmission. Not continuing to develop the manual is a way to help it go away even quicker.


This!

As long as you can turn it off, I'm totally fine with it. Car manufacturers need to continue to put effort into developing the manual if it has any chance of survival. They need to look at including things like launch control, no lift shift etc. 

Also look at different clutch materials etc., to make it last longer, easier to use while still being able to handle a lot of torque. 

I'm glad Porsche and Chevy are trying to do something with manuals. It is troubling that even Porsche only offers PDK on its highest trims.


----------



## ChrisFu (Jun 9, 2012)

dmorrow said:


> If you can switch it off why wouldn't you want it? I am assuming it is pretty simple to control the throttle with current electronics.


Well clearly I hadn't done any homework regarding "rev-matching manual transmissions", so I had no idea this was a selectable feature.

If you can disable it thats great, no harm no foul.


----------



## lotuselan (Apr 9, 2008)

Well if this is any indication of what the price would be like http://fourtitude.com/news/Audi_New...e-australia-february-81900/?utm_source=feedly then it doesn't matter to me if it comes or not nor what kind of transmission it has.


----------



## EZ (Jun 22, 1999)

Keep in mind what 81k will buy you in Australia. Looks like A6s start in the mid 70k range there, while here in the states they start in the mid 40k range. So if a Q3RS is going to be slightly more than a base A6, it would suggest that an A3RS would likely be under 50k in the US.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

OZ dollar double in value lately. You think imported cars would have halved in value, making Audis cheaper than locally made GMs, etc. Who knows, maybe these foreign mfg bought OZ dollar futures 10 yrs into the future and are buying AUD at the exch rate of 5 yrs ago.


----------



## Crocodile (May 21, 2009)

My London, UK dealer suggests that the RS3 will be available as a Sportback and Sedan initially. A convertible will come later. 

The other rumour is that Audi will offer an A3 Avant as Mercedes-Benz is definitely planning a CLA Shooting Brake (wagon). This might also be offered as an RS3 model, but since the Avant has yet to be confirmed, no one can say for sure. 

The RS3 Sedan should definitely make it Stateside as well as being on sale in Europe from September 2014. My guess is that it will reach US customers sometime after Easter 2015. 

What makes an increased number of RS3 model types likely is that Audi plans to distance the next TT from the A3. With more powerful engines in the TT, Audi will no longer need to worry about model overlap. 

There's been a lot of chat about VW producing a new narrow-angle V6. This is a definite, although it is more likely to be a compact 3.0-litre V6 than a narrow-angle one. It'll be shared with Audi and be shorter than the current 2.5-litre five so will easily fit the MQB architecture. It'll be a twin turbo (rather than supercharged) and is expected to be used in the TT, A4 and models above. 

I'd love to see it in the RS3. More in this on the RS3 thread.


----------



## DaLeadBull (Feb 15, 2011)

Crocodile said:


> My London, UK dealer suggests that the RS3 will be available as a Sportback and Sedan initially. A convertible will come later.
> 
> The other rumour is that Audi will offer an A3 Avant as Mercedes-Benz is definitely planning a CLA Shooting Brake (wagon). This might also be offered as an RS3 model, but since the Avant has yet to be confirmed, no one can say for sure.
> 
> ...


Hmm, I have not heard that they plan to distance the TT from the A3. So the TT RS will be V6 while the RS3 is 5 cyl? Source?


----------



## cooperrf (Mar 27, 2013)

Crocodile said:


> More in this on the RS3 thread.


Is there another RS3 thread going somewhere?


----------



## Crocodile (May 21, 2009)

DaLeadBull said:


> Hmm, I have not heard that they plan to distance the TT from the A3. So the TT RS will be V6 while the RS3 is 5 cyl? Source?


West London Audi is the largest Audi dealership in Europe. They're very plugged in. 

I don't know for sure that the TT-RS will get the new 3.0-litre V6, but it seems likely given a large number of UK motoring press stories about this engine. The drift is that prestige models get the twin turbo 4.0-litre V8 while low-end models get the 2.0-litre I4 turbo. The current supercharged 3.0-litre V6 has little further development potential, so Audi is switching to a twin turbo set-up in a brand new (lighter more advanced) engine. 

One of the issues here is that pushing the 2.5-litre five to higher outputs isn't a problem, but fuel consumption is. Once you get to around 360-380 bhp, economy falls off a cliff. A V6 with more cubic centimetres and slightly less turbo pressure delivers increased power with a less penalty at the pumps. 

Whatever happens, the TT will be lighter than the A3. Where the RS3 gets an engine with 340 bhp the TT will get one with a 20-40 bhp advantage. 

A KEY ASPECT OF BRINGING THE RS3 TO THE USA IS ENSURING THAT THE 2.5-LITRE ENGINE DELIVERS AGAINST US EPA REQUIREMENTS WITHOUT SACRIFICING POWER AND FUEL CONSUMPTION. AS IT IS, THE ENGINE IS A BEAST. BUT IT NEEDS TO EVOLVE AND OFFER IMPROVED CONSUMPTION AND EMISSIONS. IF QUATTRO GMBH JUST STICKS IN A HIGHER OUTPUT VERSION OF THE EXISTING UNIT WITH AN INCREASED PENALTY AT THE PETROL PUMP, A LOT OF BUYERS COULD SWITCH TO THE MORE FRUGAL A45 AMG WHICH PROVIDES 350 BHP IN A 40 MPG CAR. NICE. OF COURSE, IF AUDI OFFERS AN RS3 WITH A 4-CYLINDER ENGINE INSTEAD OF A FIVE, I FOR ONE WON'T CHANGE. THAT MAKES A V6 A POSSIBILITY. 

WHAT I'M HOPING IS THAT AUDI WILL HAVE DONE SOME SERIOUS DEVELOPMENT WORK ON THE 2.5-LITRE FIVE. I THINK THE NEW RS3 NEEDS 380 BHP AND 40 MPG IN PA ACKAGE THAT DOES O-60 IN WELL UNDER 4.5 SECONDS.


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

Wait. You're saying there's consideration for a twin turbo V8 in a TT chassis?! They're going to have to make it out of papier mache to keep the car from being a nose-heavy pig.


----------



## DaLeadBull (Feb 15, 2011)

Crocodile said:


> WHAT I'M HOPING IS THAT AUDI WILL HAVE DONE SOME SERIOUS DEVELOPMENT WORK ON THE 2.5-LITRE FIVE. I THINK THE NEW RS3 NEEDS 380 BHP AND 40 MPG IN PA ACKAGE THAT DOES O-60 IN WELL UNDER 4.5 SECONDS.


That's what I'm hoping for as well. The 5 cyl is such a wonderful engine and it represents Audi's heritage so I hope they put some work into it.



Dan Halen said:


> Wait. You're saying there's consideration for a twin turbo V8 in a TT chassis?! They're going to have to make it out of papier mache to keep the car from being a nose-heavy pig.


No I think he's saying twin turbo V6 in TT and the V8 being used in higher end RS models like the RS6 and RS7.

I wonder what the next gen RS4/RS5 will have under the hood...


----------



## VeeDubDriver (Oct 1, 2001)

Based on a brief email conversation I had with the A3 Product Manager at Audi of America, I think we will see the RS3 (no idea of the powertrain, but I am guessing it will be similar to the TT-RS), but I think the chances of a manual transmission in it (and any other future Audis) is zero.


----------



## ChrisFu (Jun 9, 2012)

VeeDubDriver said:


> B I think the chances of a manual transmission in it (and any other future Audis) is zero.


:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::facepalm:


----------



## DaLeadBull (Feb 15, 2011)

ChrisFu said:


> :banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::facepalm:


Sooner rather than later all top of the line performance models will be dual clutch only. Look at what's happening over at Porsche. 

BMW seems to be still offering manuals on their halo cars but we'll see how long that lasts.


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

VeeDubDriver said:


> Based on a brief email conversation I had with the A3 Product Manager at Audi of America, I think we will see the RS3 (no idea of the powertrain, but I am guessing it will be similar to the TT-RS), but I think the chances of a manual transmission in it (and any other future Audis) is zero.


I was o.0, then I was -_-, then I realized you have an "in" with your career position, and I was o.o.

:laugh:


----------



## VeeDubDriver (Oct 1, 2001)

Dan Halen said:


> I was o.0, then I was -_-, then I realized you have an "in" with your career position, and I was o.o.
> 
> :laugh:


I actually sent the email from my personal account, so the person I was talking to had no idea who I worked for. Believe it or not, industry types always clam up, when it comes to future products, when they know who they are talking to. Of course, that is completely understandable. 

Even so, there was nothing confirmed or denied about the RS3 or a manual transmission, but there was a lot that could be inferred. I hope I am right about the former and wrong about the latter.


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

DaLeadBull said:


> That's what I'm hoping for as well. The 5 cyl is such a wonderful engine and it represents Audi's heritage so I hope they put some work into it.
> 
> No I think he's saying twin turbo V6 in TT and the V8 being used in higher end RS models like the RS6 and RS7.
> 
> I wonder what the next gen RS4/RS5 will have under the hood...


The 5 cylinder 2.5T was just by chance something Quattro GmBH can use from VW's line of underperformers as the core for their engine. Either that or the VR6, which if they added a turbo to it, would have weighed more than Aventador's 7.0 engine.

Not much info on the new 3 liter VR6, but I hope it is a lightweight high tech design. VW is not known for doing anything advanced, never having designed their own valvelift, turbo, FSI or alum engine, usually having to wait for Audi to put it on one of these transverse engine for the TT so VW can eventually use it. Although they did seem to have done some of that in their latest 1.4/1.6 engine, but those aren't high performance engines.


----------



## DaLeadBull (Feb 15, 2011)

LWNY said:


> The 5 cylinder 2.5T was just by chance something Quattro GmBH can use from VW's line of underperformers as the core for their engine. Either that or the VR6, which if they added a turbo to it, would have weighed more than Aventador's 7.0 engine.
> 
> Not much info on the new 3 liter VR6, but I hope it is a lightweight high tech design. VW is not known for doing anything advanced, never having designed their own valvelift, turbo, FSI or alum engine, usually having to wait for Audi to put it on one of these transverse engine for the TT so VW can eventually use it. Although they did seem to have done some of that in their latest 1.4/1.6 engine, but those aren't high performance engines.


Well, if the RS3 is in fact the best selling RS model for Quattro GmBH then why can't they build an all new 5 cylinder engine? 

They built the 4.2 V8 exclusively for the RS4/RS5 right?

With the anticipated expansion of the A3 line, wouldn't it make financial sense too? They can use it in a RS3 Sportback, RS3 Sedan, and even in the TTRS. 

Anyone with any inside connections heard anything about the 2.5 5 cyl that's supposed to be in the RS3? Is it just the last gen motor updated or is it an all new motor? I for one hope its significantly updated or all new. I don't think the last gen motor was very good in terms of fuel economy, was it?


----------



## mike3141 (Feb 16, 1999)

*oxymor*

Oxymoron: RS3 fuel economy


----------



## DaLeadBull (Feb 15, 2011)

mike3141 said:


> Oxymoron: RS3 fuel economy


Not really, look at what the CLA45 AMG is supposed to get. Audi has to be competitive.


----------



## Canthoney (Aug 5, 2012)

I would estimate fuel economy around 19/27 like the Golf R. The older RS3 got around 24.6 US gallons combined (31 EU combined*20 percent). So the new one will probably be like 26 combined?


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

DaLeadBull said:


> Well, if the RS3 is in fact the best selling RS model for Quattro GmBH then why can't they build an all new 5 cylinder engine?
> 
> They built the 4.2 V8 exclusively for the RS4/RS5 right?
> 
> ...


The RS3 might be the best selling model, but it is not their flagship model, thus it only got to play with VW's engine graveyard.

The 4.2 was designed by Quattro GmBH, but was derived from their race car, which later was adopted for the Gallardo's V10.

Audi and its race sports division are likely to put all their chips on flagship models, or else how can you explain the brand new engine for the Gallardo and Murcielago. It could have chgged away with its dinosaur v12 engine like Aston, Jaguar or Range Rover, but lots of money were thrown into them to make them not just look exotic, but also have the latest technologies.

As for the 2.5T, they are not going to do a brand new 2.5T, but there was the recent TT lightweight design where they lightened it as much as possible, including the engine (I doubt the block is new), so some of that implementation could make its way to newer cars with the 2.5T


----------



## DaLeadBull (Feb 15, 2011)

LWNY said:


> The RS3 might be the best selling model, but it is not their flagship model, thus it only got to play with VW's engine graveyard.
> 
> The 4.2 was designed by Quattro GmBH, but was derived from their race car, which later was adopted for the Gallardo's V10.
> 
> ...


Nonetheless, I hope they show the RS3 some love this time. As successful as it was last time, you can't argue that it seemed more like a afterthought.

I'm hearing that the US will get the RS3 in place of a RS4/RS5 this time, so I hope they manage to make it special.


----------



## Crocodile (May 21, 2009)

Dan Halen said:


> Wait. You're saying there's consideration for a twin turbo V8 in a TT chassis?! They're going to have to make it out of papier mache to keep the car from being a nose-heavy pig.


Not really. The Mk 1 TT had a 3.2-litre V6 in it and although somewhat prone to understeer, that engine was lighter than the 2.5-litre five and the car went well.

Also, the MQB platform that will be used for the next RS3 and TTRS, mounts the engine much further back. This reduces weight over the front wheels and thus understeer. I see that the MQB S3 has much better handling than the previous 8P model. 

The whole point about the new compact V6 is that it is smaller and lighter than the 2.5-litre five. The nature of V6 blocks is that they can be inherently stronger and lighter than longer in-line units. If you're making the block out of aluminium that matters. 

As things stand, the next RS3 and TTRS are bound to get an updated version of the current 5-cylinder 2.5-litre in-line unit. Audi is being very tight-lipped about what they doing to improve this unit, but, whatever they do, let me underline this point: *They cannot simply give it 20 bhp extra and no more - they must lighten it, make it more fuel efficient AND give it more power. *

If I'm wrong and that new compact 3.0-litre V6 with 400 bhp ends up in a Golf R, Audi will have scored a spectacular own goal. If it ends up in a TT, A3 drivers will want it too. Of course, Audi doesn't usually make mistakes like that. So my bet is that the new V6 will only be used in the A4 and above. 

All this is just pure speculation, but it is interesting to debate such things.


----------



## Canthoney (Aug 5, 2012)

Crocodile said:


> Not really. The Mk 1 TT had a 3.2-litre V6 in it and although somewhat prone to understeer, that engine was lighter than the 2.5-litre five and the car went well.
> 
> Also, the MQB platform that will be used for the next RS3 and TTRS, mounts the engine much further back. This reduces weight over the front wheels and thus understeer. I see that the MQB S3 has much better handling than the previous 8P model.
> 
> ...


Fixed


----------



## Canthoney (Aug 5, 2012)

Crocodile said:


> Not really. The Mk 1 TT had a 3.2-litre V6 in it and although somewhat prone to understeer, that engine was lighter than the 2.5-litre five and the car went well.
> 
> Also, the MQB platform that will be used for the next RS3 and TTRS, mounts the engine much further back. This reduces weight over the front wheels and thus understeer. I see that the MQB S3 has much better handling than the previous 8P model.
> 
> ...


I'm assuming you meant Golf RS. I personally would rather have the Inline 5 just because it is a unique engine, but a lightweight twin turbo V6 would be awesome too.


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

Crocodile said:


> Not really. The Mk 1 TT had a 3.2-litre V6 in it and although somewhat prone to understeer, that engine was lighter than the 2.5-litre five and the car went well.
> 
> Also, the MQB platform that will be used for the next RS3 and TTRS, mounts the engine much further back. This reduces weight over the front wheels and thus understeer. I see that the MQB S3 has much better handling than the previous 8P model.
> 
> ...


Audi's recent TT Ultra Concept lightened the venerable 2.0T by 25kg w/o a complete redesign, thus this might be possible in the 2.5T, which although uses a stronger iron than the unremarkable 2.5, did not seem to have really lighten it up, just made it stronger.

Also, since the 3.0 V6 is actually a VW designed VR6, I don't think any engines designed by VW has been made for longitudal mount (the 2.0 is used for longitudal application, but only after Audi's redesign of it into the 2.0T).


----------



## Crocodile (May 21, 2009)

LWNY said:


> Also, since the 3.0 V6 is actually a VW designed VR6, I don't think any engines designed by VW has been made for longitudal mount (the 2.0 is used for longitudal application, but only after Audi's redesign of it into the 2.0T).


I think VW's new 3.0-litre isn't a Volkswagen-developed product at all. I think Audi has developed it and VW will simply share it. Why is VW getting the credit and not Audi? Pure marketing. VW needs a good engine story and needs a V6. V6s are nothing new to Audis. if you look at every major engine across the VW range, they are shared by multiple brands. Audi's engine development department is a true center of excellence and if anyone can achieve a breakthrough in design it these guys. 

The important thing about the new V6 is that I believe it will get an aluminium block. V6 blocks are inherently stronger equivalent in-line units. That allows aluminium to be used for the block without loss of integrity. The result is an engine that is lighter, more fuel efficient and more powerful than a 2.5-litre five. 

I am not writing-off the 2.5-litre five. But engine design has moved on dramatically over the last five years as EU emission standards set higher benchmark requirements. As things stand, the 2.5-litre five is heavy and thirsty. This was fine in 2010, but not so now. 

That's why I think Audi has to give the RS3's engine a bit of love, and a lot more tech.


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

Crocodile said:


> I think VW's new 3.0-litre isn't a Volkswagen-developed product at all. I think Audi has developed it and VW will simply share it. Why is VW getting the credit and not Audi? Pure marketing. VW needs a good engine story and needs a V6. V6s are nothing new to Audis. if you look at every major engine across the VW range, they are shared by multiple brands. Audi's engine development department is a true center of excellence and if anyone can achieve a breakthrough in design it these guys.
> 
> The important thing about the new V6 is that I believe it will get an aluminium block. V6 blocks are inherently stronger equivalent in-line units. That allows aluminium to be used for the block without loss of integrity. The result is an engine that is lighter, more fuel efficient and more powerful than a 2.5-litre five.
> 
> ...


VW use to design lackluster engines and much of their current line were beefed up by Audi, but the VR6 was always their baby designed purely for compactness, not weight, hence its iron block and not able to get it to over 80hp/liter.

Audi does do lightweight, high revving engine for the longitudinal cars, but I don't think they have put that much resources into the transverse engines, given that it will automatically be snatched up by VW to put in their cars, thus everything they did were just rehash of VW's old beater engines like the 2.0 and 2.5. Look at even the new 4 cylinder engine. Audi just improved on the EA888 with some new manifold, but it is still heavy. Meanwhile, VW's parallel development of a smaller 4 cylinder, they came up with a clean sheet design on the EA211, which has cylinder deactivation and is ultra light weight (that's where you keep hearing the 27XX LB A3's with the 1.4T engine).


----------



## DaLeadBull (Feb 15, 2011)

I'm not sure we should be viewing VW and Audi as two different entities. Its only natural that VW Group is going to use better tech in Audi's but there is a lot of sharing going on between the two moreso than other companies. Especially with the introduction of MQB and MLB platforms.

To me when you go above a certain price point, the engine better be something "special", something more than the "standard" 2.0T. This is one of the reasons why the CLA45 AMG doesn't interest me.

The 2.5T is a unique engine and I hope Audi doesn't settle with it but continues to make it better. Like Crocodile said, they can't just up the boost a little and give it more power. They need to do more.

My vision for the RS3 is this:
- 2.5T 5 cyl engine with all the latest bells and whistles like start/stop etc.
- More aggressive AWD system (perhaps a LSD of some sort too)
- More aggressive body kit with flared fenders and wider wheels
- More use of lightweight materials in the body

If they make these improvements over the S3 and price it right then me want very much! :heart:


----------



## Crocodile (May 21, 2009)

DaLeadBull said:


> My vision for the RS3 is this:
> - 2.5T 5 cyl engine with all the latest bells and whistles like start/ stop etc.
> - More aggressive AWD system (perhaps a LSD of some sort too)
> - More aggressive bodykit with flared fenders and wider wheels
> ...


I agree. And you may need to get your cheque book ready...

Germany's premier motoring magazine, Auto Motor und Sport, has just run a piece on the new 2015 Audi TT. In the article, it mentions that both the TTRS and RS3 will get an upgraded 2.5-litre five generating 380 bhp. 

If that's correct, it's excellent news. I am hoping that Audi has reduced the weight of the engine block by about 30-40 kg. That combined with stop-start technology, improved turbocharging and other tweaks should do a lot to reduce fuel consumption and emissions. Add an improved Haldex set-up with more default power going to the rear wheels and we could be in for a real treat.

If we get a new RS3 with 40+ bhp in a car that weighs 100-120 kg less, then a 0-60 mph time of close to 4.1 seconds should be doable. Heck, a 'Ring time of close to 8 mins should be possible. 

But as you say, it has to look the part.


----------



## DaLeadBull (Feb 15, 2011)

Crocodile said:


> I agree. And you may need to get your cheque book ready...
> 
> Germany's premier motoring magazine, Auto Motor und Sport, has just run a piece on the new 2015 Audi TT. In the article, it mentions that both the TTRS and RS3 will get an upgraded 2.5-litre five generating 380 bhp.
> 
> ...


I really hope Audi doesn't disappoint us. lol

Anyone know how much the MQB S3 weighs? If they can keep the RS3 within 100 lbs of that, that would be awesome! Is that expecting too much?


----------



## VeeDubDriver (Oct 1, 2001)

DaLeadBull said:


> I really hope Audi doesn't disappoint us. lol
> 
> Anyone know how much the MQB S3 weighs? If they can keep the RS3 within 100 lbs of that, that would be awesome! Is that expecting too much?


From the Audi S3 Sportback press release:

Lightweight construction also contributes significantly to the very dynamic performance of the Audi S3 Sportback. This five-door car has a curb weight of 1,445 kilograms (3,185.68 lb) – 70 kilograms (154.32 lb) less than the previous model. Most of this reduction in weight is on account of the body. A large amount of ultra-high-strength steel was used for the passenger cell. The front fenders and the hood are made of aluminum


----------



## DaLeadBull (Feb 15, 2011)

VeeDubDriver said:


> From the Audi S3 Sportback press release:
> 
> Lightweight construction also contributes significantly to the very dynamic performance of the Audi S3 Sportback. This five-door car has a curb weight of 1,445 kilograms (3,185.68 lb) – 70 kilograms (154.32 lb) less than the previous model. Most of this reduction in weight is on account of the body. A large amount of ultra-high-strength steel was used for the passenger cell. The front fenders and the hood are made of aluminum


Thanks, a 380hp 3300 lb RS3 would be awesome!


----------



## Waterfan (Aug 9, 2012)

Regarding engines, does anyone know why VWAG has seemingly abandoned the seemingly-awesome twincharged format (low rpm supercharger + largish turbo for mid-high rpm)? Example is the 1.4TT.

In a 2.0L format with all the other go-fast and economy features (VVTL, MPI, Cylinder deact, forged everything, etc), it seems to me that this would be quite a potent or maybe even perfect combination of power, responsiveness and economy.

Too much weight and vastly more complex compared to known solutions in larger displacements?

Just curious.


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

Waterfan said:


> Regarding engines, does anyone know why VWAG has seemingly abandoned the seemingly-awesome twincharged format (low rpm supercharger + largish turbo for mid-high rpm)? Example is the 1.4TT.
> 
> In a 2.0L format with all the other go-fast and economy features (VVTL, MPI, Cylinder deact, forged everything, etc), it seems to me that this would be quite a potent or maybe even perfect combination of power, responsiveness and economy.
> 
> ...


probably because it was too expensive. Its like putting a twin turbo on a 4 cylinder. Plus it did not vastly increase the power output, just torque over a wider range of RPMs.

Their solution is cylinder deactivation, which is designed into VW's smaller range 4 cylinder engines.


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

Crocodile said:


> I agree. And you may need to get your cheque book ready...
> 
> Germany's premier motoring magazine, Auto Motor und Sport, has just run a piece on the new 2015 Audi TT. In the article, it mentions that both the TTRS and RS3 will get an upgraded 2.5-litre five generating 380 bhp.
> 
> ...


30-40kg off the 2.5T engine is not likely given that it is just a slight tweak of the existing engine. A 2.5T w/380hp was shown on the concept car a few years ago, so that was a sneak peak of what this engine can put out. Haldex 5 is just a lighter and simpler version of Haldex 4, getting rid of the whole mechanical pump, instead relying on centrifugal force to create the pressure required. Getrag had some interesting rear biased AWD w/torque vectoring front axle for transverse engined car, but nobody seem to have picked it up.

The last RS3's 0-60 was tested to be 3.8 sec, so this one should be faster.


----------



## DaLeadBull (Feb 15, 2011)

LWNY said:


> 30-40kg off the 2.5T engine is not likely given that it is just a slight tweak of the existing engine. A 2.5T w/380hp was shown on the concept car a few years ago, so that was a sneak peak of what this engine can put out. Haldex 5 is just a lighter and simpler version of Haldex 4, getting rid of the whole mechanical pump, instead relying on centrifugal force to create the pressure required. Getrag had some interesting rear biased AWD w/torque vectoring front axle for transverse engined car, but nobody seem to have picked it up.
> 
> The last RS3's 0-60 was tested to be 3.8 sec, so this one should be faster.


Is it really that hard to just use a different material for the block? If I recall correctly, the 2.5T weighs around 400 lbs if they can drop 50 lbs that'd be great.

I know Haldex 5 is essentially just a lighter more efficient haldex 4 but they really should add some type of LSD like the one that's on the MK7 performance pack GTI but just put it in the rear. The can also alter the programming of the Haldex controller to send more power to the rear by default like how the aftermarket companies like HPA do it.

Was the last gen RS3 really clocked at 3.8 to 60? That is pretty damn fast but sounds overly optimistic. I think mid 4's is more like it.


----------



## Waterfan (Aug 9, 2012)

LWNY said:


> probably because it was too expensive. Its like putting a twin turbo on a 4 cylinder. Plus it did not vastly increase the power output, just torque over a wider range of RPMs.
> 
> Their solution is cylinder deactivation, which is designed into VW's smaller range 4 cylinder engines.


The raw output was surely limited by the small 1.4L displacement.

What I had in mind was a supercharger delivering near-peak torque at low rpm until a BIG turbo could take over from ~4-7k rpm. On 2.0L, using the peak HP of the APR GTX2867R stage 3 as a benchmark, this engine could make ~450hp and tq at the crank with a torque curve as flat as the Midwest.

450 should be plenty for the RS3 and the 4cyl packaging keeps it relatively lightweight. And add-in cylinder deact for fuel economy gains while at constant velocity.

Anyway, just something I thought would be cool.

Got the idea from reading this project recently (1.8T 20V twincharged estimated at 450whp): http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthre...arged-jetta-1-8t-project&highlight=twincharge


----------



## venom600 (Sep 9, 2002)

DaLeadBull said:


> I know Haldex 5 is essentially just a lighter more efficient haldex 4 but they really should add some type of LSD like the one that's on the MK7 performance pack GTI but just put it in the rear. The can also alter the programming of the Haldex controller to send more power to the rear by default like how the aftermarket companies like HPA do it.


First, Haldex by design can never be more than 50/50 with all the wheels having traction. Haldex tuning simply affects how long and how often that split is active. 

Second, the LSD you are asking for already exists. GM used in the Saab Turbo X and now in the Buick Regal GS. For whatever reason Mercedes, Volvo, VAG and everyone else who use Haldex have chosen not to use it, which is a damn shame because it makes a big difference in the cars that do.


----------



## kevlartoronto (Jun 10, 2012)

Here's a review of the Q3 RS by autoexpress. I would expect the rs3 to have the same transmission engine set up. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VWUBNh8wcJc


----------



## DaLeadBull (Feb 15, 2011)

venom600 said:


> First, Haldex by design can never be more than 50/50 with all the wheels having traction. Haldex tuning simply affects how long and how often that split is active.
> 
> Second, the LSD you are asking for already exists. GM used in the Saab Turbo X and now in the Buick Regal GS. For whatever reason Mercedes, Volvo, VAG and everyone else who use Haldex have chosen not to use it, which is a damn shame because it makes a big difference in the cars that do.


Yep, I know the LSD already exists I just hope Audi uses it!

About the 50/50, I know about that too. I think the standard distribution is more like 90/10 in VAG haldex cars. They can improve that a bit, maybe 75/25 and better yet they can alter the programming to make the power transfer to the rear happen sooner and quicker.


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

DaLeadBull said:


> Is it really that hard to just use a different material for the block? If I recall correctly, the 2.5T weighs around 400 lbs if they can drop 50 lbs that'd be great.
> 
> I know Haldex 5 is essentially just a lighter more efficient haldex 4 but they really should add some type of LSD like the one that's on the MK7 performance pack GTI but just put it in the rear. The can also alter the programming of the Haldex controller to send more power to the rear by default like how the aftermarket companies like HPA do it.
> 
> Was the last gen RS3 really clocked at 3.8 to 60? That is pretty damn fast but sounds overly optimistic. I think mid 4's is more like it.


The 2.5T is not an engine that is designed from scratch from Audi, but a repurposed VW engine. It cannot use a weaker material with the same casting w/o extensive redesign of the block and mfg process, that is why they probably just went with the vermicular graphite option, which is a stronger material, thus made the block stronger w/o doing anything else to it. What I am disappointed is Audi rehashing all these diesels with vermicular graphites blocks, while BMW are coming out with diesels using alum blocks. Audi can't keep tooting that vermicular graphite horn when their competitor has out-done them already.

Maybe Audi will take some lessons from the TT Ultra concept, which reduced 25kg from the ironblock I4 and reduce the 2.5T's weight in a similar manner.



Maybe they thought there is no point in a rear LSD like Haldex Gen III given the most slip that is taking place are in the front wheels, thus providing LSD to the rear would not alleviate that. The GTI is adding electronic locking of the front diff, I don't know why this is not implemented in the S3's PTU. The reflashed haldex controller probably puts more wear and tear on the clutchpack, thus making them not lifetime maint free items anymore. There are some haldex ppl who keeps their car in race mode all the time whom have reported worn out clutchpacks.

fastestlaps listed its 0-60 as 3.8s

http://fastestlaps.com/cars/audi_rs3_sportback.html


----------



## DaLeadBull (Feb 15, 2011)

LWNY said:


> Maybe they thought there is no point in a rear LSD like Haldex Gen III given the most slip that is taking place are in the front wheels, thus providing LSD to the rear would not alleviate that. The GTI is adding electronic locking of the front diff, I don't know why this is not implemented in the S3's PTU. The reflashed haldex controller probably puts more wear and tear on the clutchpack, thus making them not lifetime maint free items anymore. There are some haldex ppl who keeps their car in race mode all the time whom have reported worn out clutchpacks.


Like someone else mentioned earlier, other cars like Buick of all brands already implement a rear LSD with Haldex. There's no reason why Audi shouldn't at least consider it.

Well if slip is taking place at the front then the most of the torque is sent to the rear wheels right? Then in that case, having a rear LSD will help reduce understeer at the limit by vectoring torque to the outside rear wheel.

The standard front/rear split doesn't even matter to me. I'm fine with 90% of the torque going to the front wheels under steady state conditions. The Haldex is fast enough to send torque to the back almost instantaneously. The weakness of the Haldex is that when driving at the limit, it will still push. So as I described above, a rear LSD should help with that correct?


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

DaLeadBull said:


> Like someone else mentioned earlier, other cars like Buick of all brands already implement a rear LSD with Haldex. There's no reason why Audi shouldn't at least consider it.
> 
> Well if slip is taking place at the front then the most of the torque is sent to the rear wheels right? Then in that case, having a rear LSD will help reduce understeer at the limit by vectoring torque to the outside rear wheel.
> 
> The standard front/rear split doesn't even matter to me. I'm fine with 90% of the torque going to the front wheels under steady state conditions. The Haldex is fast enough to send torque to the back almost instantaneously. The weakness of the Haldex is that when driving at the limit, it will still push. So as I described above, a rear LSD should help with that correct?


the haldex rear diff locking clutch integrated with the haldex AWD module was a Gen III thing that nobody adopted, and it can't be frankenstein'd onto a Gen IV or V AWD unit.

As for how the torque/power distribution will work in the Haldex AWD unit, if the front wheels are slipping, then both axles would be locked in unison, thus the rear axle would take up more of the load until the front wheel stop slipping. In that process, at most 1/2 the power from the front will be diverted to the rear, and if front tires has at most 50% less power being applied to it and has stopped slipping, then that diverted power would not be enough make the rear wheels lose grip. Of course, if you apply more power after that, the front wheels will start slipping first again because it is bearing 60% of the load.

Given that if the haldex locks hard and there are slipping going on, the rear axle will turn at the same rate as the front axle. Given that the rear wheels follows the front wheels, creating a smaller radius than the front, the rear wheels, having the same rotational rate as the front wheels, will overdrive the wheels in relation to the path the tires want to take, thus will force the rear wheels to take a wider radius in trying to follow the same path as the front wheels, in effect rotating the rear around like much of the torque vectoring rear diffs.


Another point, the LSD would not lock unless one of the rear wheel loses grip, otherwise you would get binding. So it won't cure any understeer if only the front wheels are slipping.


----------



## DaLeadBull (Feb 15, 2011)

LWNY said:


> the haldex rear diff locking clutch integrated with the haldex AWD module was a Gen III thing that nobody adopted, and it can't be frankenstein'd onto a Gen IV or V AWD unit.
> 
> As for how the torque/power distribution will work in the Haldex AWD unit, if the front wheels are slipping, then both axles would be locked in unison, thus the rear axle would take up more of the load until the front wheel stop slipping. In that process, at most 1/2 the power from the front will be diverted to the rear, and if front tires has at most 50% less power being applied to it and has stopped slipping, then that diverted power would not be enough make the rear wheels lose grip. Of course, if you apply more power after that, the front wheels will start slipping first again because it is bearing 60% of the load.
> 
> ...


Damn you went all Sheldon Cooper on me. lol

Let me see if I understand you right, you're saying that at most 50% of the power can go to the rear axle even if the fronts are slipping?

I thought if the fronts are slipping, almost all torque would be diverted back (maybe not 100% but more than 50%). I get that the transfer of power to the back will help rotate the car compared to a FWD car. What I'm saying is having the outside rear wheel get more of the torque will further help rotate the car in theory correct? 

Again I don't know if this is even possible with Haldex 5 so I'm just thinking out loud here. So the current cars with Haldex + LSD are gen 3? 

As far as LSD not locking unless slip is detected, can't it be proactive like the current haldex as well as the eLSD in the upcoming GTI. Thus taking into account yaw angle, throttle position etc. instead of just wheel slip?


----------



## Crocodile (May 21, 2009)

LWNY said:


> The 2.5T is not an engine that is designed from scratch from Audi, but a repurposed VW engine. It cannot use a weaker material with the same casting w/o extensive redesign of the block and mfg process, that is why they probably just went with the vermicular graphite option, which is a stronger material, thus made the block stronger w/o doing anything else to it. What I am disappointed is Audi rehashing all these diesels with vermicular graphites blocks, while BMW are coming out with diesels using alum blocks. Audi can't keep tooting that vermicular graphite horn when their competitor has out-done them already.Maybe Audi will take some lessons from the TT Ultra concept, which reduced 25kg from the ironblock I4 and reduce the 2.5T's weight in a similar manner.
> 
> Maybe they thought there is no point in a rear LSD like Haldex Gen III given the most slip that is taking place are in the front wheels, thus providing LSD to the rear would not alleviate that. The GTI is adding electronic locking of the front diff, I don't know why this is not implemented in the S3's PTU. The reflashed haldex controller probably puts more wear and tear on the clutchpack, thus making them not lifetime maint free items anymore. There are some haldex ppl who keeps their car in race mode all the time whom have reported worn out clutchpacks.
> 
> ...


I agree. Vermicular graphite blocks are heavy low-tech lumps. I don't think that the existing 2.5 five could be recast in aluminium for the reasons you suggest. As you say, it is a legacy engine re-engineered for high performance applications. That means it wasn't very expensive to engineer and put into production, so maybe Audi can afford to spend some money developing it, especially as it has proved so popular. 

With EU6 Emission Standards looming on one side and Mercedes-Benz highly efficient 2.0-litre four pushing out 350 bhp on the other side, Audi has to finesse the 2.5-litre engine. The thing is that buyers of high-end performance cars like a bit of tech, certainly in Europe. So I was thinking that I'd like to see Audi develop a brand new aluminium block....

..that was until I saw that Tesla has just launched the Model S in the UK. I drove one the other day half thinking it would be a joke. I was blown away by this car. The acceleration, handling, ride comfort, serenity, and general sense of effortless progression simply blew me away. I haven't felt so buzzed by something since I first held the original iPhone in my hand in 2007.

Of course, the problem with the Tesla is a paltry 200 mile range, the exorbitant purchase price, and the lack of highway charging points (especially in Europe). Hopefully the Model E will address all these points when it arrives. Whatever, I think we're reaching a tipping point where electric / fuel cell cars will soon become mainstream alternative to internal combustion engine cars. I'd say the timeline is around 5 years. 

Meanwhile, all of the established manufacturers, Audi included, seem stuck in the dark ages. I think this is why Wolfgang Durheimer was fired by the Group. Wouldn't it be cool if the next RS3 had an all electric engine, did 0-60 in 3.7 seconds and went 400 miles on a single charge. 

(Apologies for hijacking the thread)


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

DaLeadBull said:


> Damn you went all Sheldon Cooper on me. lol
> 
> Let me see if I understand you right, you're saying that at most 50% of the power can go to the rear axle even if the fronts are slipping?
> 
> ...


A locking rear LSD will not help the rear rotate around more because if the rear are not slipping, the a non locked will allow the outer wheel to turn more than the inner wheel. If the diff are locked, both wheels will rotate at the same rate and each wheel getting 50/50 torque distribution. This causes the outer wheel to turn less than it should, and the inner wheel more than it should fighting to get itself to lose grip, which it will be the first to do given that it is less loaded than the outer wheel, and once that happens, torque split changes to greater torque being applied to the outer wheel (but the outer wheel will still not turn any faster due to the locked diff).

A LSD is always possible, but the Haldex III's LSD was integrated with the AWD unit, reducing the cost and complexity. Nobody really adopted the Gen III.

if electronic locking rear LSD is deployed, it could work just like the haldex AWD unit, pre-engaging based on throttle position, yaw angle, etc.

They could just use the electronic torque vectoring that VW has implemented as std equipment on their Golf VI cars and others like Porsche charges a fortune for.


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

Crocodile said:


> I agree. Vermicular graphite blocks are heavy low-tech lumps. I don't think that the existing 2.5 five could be recast in aluminium for the reasons you suggest. As you say, it is a legacy engine re-engineered for high performance applications. That means it wasn't very expensive to engineer and put into production, so maybe Audi can afford to spend some money developing it, especially as it has proved so popular.
> 
> With EU6 Emission Standards looming on one side and Mercedes-Benz highly efficient 2.0-litre four pushing out 350 bhp on the other side, Audi has to finesse the 2.5-litre engine. The thing is that buyers of high-end performance cars like a bit of tech, certainly in Europe. So I was thinking that I'd like to see Audi develop a brand new aluminium block....
> 
> ...


Not sure if Audi gave Quattro GmBH as much resources as it should have for the RS3. If there was no TT-RS, then there probably would not have been an RS3 (or at best, it would have used the 3.6 VR6 from VW). The RS3 might be their biggest seller but it is not their halo car. It is like Nissan tooting their horn on the Sentra SE-R when they got the money losing GT-R to push. This was the case with Audi throwing money on designing new chassis/engine for Lamborghini which would sell in the hundreds or low thousands, or MB letting AMG have the resource to design the SLS from scratch when its sales figure would be insignificant, while the CLA 45 will use the same base engine as the CLA 250 when it will be selling much more than the SLS.


----------



## DaLeadBull (Feb 15, 2011)

LWNY said:


> A locking rear LSD will not help the rear rotate around more because if the rear are not slipping, the a non locked will allow the outer wheel to turn more than the inner wheel. If the diff are locked, both wheels will rotate at the same rate and each wheel getting 50/50 torque distribution. This causes the outer wheel to turn less than it should, and the inner wheel more than it should fighting to get itself to lose grip, which it will be the first to do given that it is less loaded than the outer wheel, and once that happens, torque split changes to greater torque being applied to the outer wheel (but the outer wheel will still not turn any faster due to the locked diff).
> 
> A LSD is always possible, but the Haldex III's LSD was integrated with the AWD unit, reducing the cost and complexity. Nobody really adopted the Gen III.
> 
> ...


Maybe I am misunderstanding you or maybe I'm just stupid.  Can you explain the difference between locked and unlocked when it comes to an LSD? What my understanding is that an LSD will allow more torque to go to the outside wheel when cornering thus helping rotate the car thus reducing understeer. Intuitively this makes sense to me. So are you saying that a rear LSD will not help the car rotate more?

I thought the SAAB XWD has Haldex 4 with eLSD. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_XWD and http://www.autoblog.com/2007/11/30/saab-xwd-haldex-4-0-all-wheel-drive-system-up-close/

That is what I'm talking about, since Haldex 4 and 5 are very similar, something like that in the RS3 will be beneficial, no?


----------



## venom600 (Sep 9, 2002)

DaLeadBull said:


> Maybe I am misunderstanding you or maybe I'm just stupid.  Can you explain the difference between locked and unlocked when it comes to an LSD? What my understanding is that an LSD will allow more torque to go to the outside wheel when cornering thus helping rotate the car thus reducing understeer. Intuitively this makes sense to me. So are you saying that a rear LSD will not help the car rotate more?


A basic LSD doesn't do torque vectoring. It is purely mechanical and it limits the amount of wheel speed differential between the left and right wheels using a clutch or gears. That means one wheel loses traction and it makes the car rotate more easily. When fully open the left wheel could be stationary and the right could be spinning at 100mph. When fully closed both wheels are spinning at the same speed and turning without losing traction is impossible. 

Modern electronically controlled LSDs can alter the amount of torque sent to each wheel to create a more dramatic effect. In a RWD sports car like a Stingray or a Ferrari 458, it can work in conjunction with the stability control to ensure that no matter how much throttle you give the car in at turn, you get neutral handling with little to no oversteer. In an AWD application like the S4 it allows for the computer to send power to over drive the outside wheel causing the car to rotate like a RWD car, despite the design of the car with a heavy engine in front of the wheels. 

As for the assertions that only Haldex 3 had an LSD, the Saab Turbo X and the current Buick Regal GS use Haldex 4 and both have XWD and it made a dramatic difference, despite the 50/50 torque split. 



Car And Driver said:


> Although the Saab’s front-drive architecture is usually a recipe for understeer, the XWD and the eLSD do an effective job of masking this trait. *Playful oversteer is easily invoked with simple throttle modulation.*


http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2008-saab-9-3-turbo-x-first-drive-review

and a pic of the eLSD for good measure:


----------



## DaLeadBull (Feb 15, 2011)

venom600 said:


> A basic LSD doesn't do torque vectoring. It is purely mechanical and it limits the amount of wheel speed differential between the left and right wheels using a clutch or gears. That means one wheel loses traction and it makes the car rotate more easily. When fully open the left wheel could be stationary and the right could be spinning at 100mph. When fully closed both wheels are spinning at the same speed and turning without losing traction is impossible.
> 
> Modern electronically controlled LSDs can alter the amount of torque sent to each wheel to create a more dramatic effect. In a RWD sports car like a Stingray or a Ferrari 458, it can work in conjunction with the stability control to ensure that no matter how much throttle you give the car in at turn, you get neutral handling with little to no oversteer. In an AWD application like the S4 it allows for the computer to send power to over drive the outside wheel causing the car to rotate like a RWD car, despite the design of the car with a heavy engine in front of the wheels.


Thank you, a torque vectoring LSD is what I meant. I guess I just assumed all modern LSD were torque vectoring differentials. 

So, what I'm really asking for in the RS3 is some type of torque vectoring LSD. I don't think the brake based fake LSD works that well in high powered cars.


----------



## venom600 (Sep 9, 2002)

DaLeadBull said:


> Thank you, a torque vectoring LSD is what I meant. I guess I just assumed all modern LSD were torque vectoring differentials.
> 
> So, what I'm really asking for in the RS3 is some type of torque vectoring LSD. I don't think the brake based fake LSD works that well in high powered cars.


What you are asking for is Audi/VW to start including the optional rear eLSD. My sneaking suspicion is that they won't to keep their higher end offerings more exclusive, like how Porsche limits the Cayman in favor of the 911. Think about it... the average person who walks into a dealer with an S3 sedan and an S4 making similar HP (within 30hp). The S3 is is far more fuel efficient and big enough for their needs while being just as fast in most instances, and it sells for $10-20k less. Why buy the S4 at that point?

As for the brake based torque vectoring, you'll have to tell Nissan that it doesn't work well. The GT-R (which is pound for pound the best handling car in the world) uses an open rear differential and does torque vectoring through the brakes.


----------



## DaLeadBull (Feb 15, 2011)

venom600 said:


> What you are asking for is Audi/VW to start including the optional rear eLSD. My sneaking suspicion is that they won't to keep their higher end offerings more exclusive, like how Porsche limits the Cayman in favor of the 911. Think about it... the average person who walks into a dealer with an S3 sedan and an S4 making similar HP (within 30hp). The S3 is is far more fuel efficient and big enough for their needs while being just as fast in most instances, and it sells for $10-20k less. Why buy the S4 at that point?
> 
> As for the brake based torque vectoring, you'll have to tell Nissan that it doesn't work well. The GT-R (which is pound for pound the best handling car in the world) uses an open rear differential and does torque vectoring through the brakes.


They use the eLSD in a GTI, so why not use it in a RS3 which is their top of the line Haldex-front drive based car? I'm disappointed that the next Golf R doesn't have a similar eLSD setup, let alone the RS3!

As for the GT-R, its predominantly rear biased AWD which in itself helps handling plus it has various other computer systems at work there. Its apples and oranges here, you can't really compare the two. You can't really attribute its handling prowess to the fact that it uses brake based torque vectoring.


----------



## venom600 (Sep 9, 2002)

DaLeadBull said:


> They use the eLSD in a GTI, so why not use it in a RS3 which is their top of the line Haldex-front drive based car? I'm disappointed that the next Golf R doesn't have a similar eLSD setup, let alone the RS3!
> 
> As for the GT-R, its predominantly rear biased AWD which in itself helps handling plus it has various other computer systems at work there. Its apples and oranges here, you can't really compare the two. You can't really attribute its handling prowess to the fact that it uses brake based torque vectoring.


The GTI uses a front eLSD, and the issue isn't with the front wheels. You want a REAR eLSD to help the car rotate and overcome the inertia of that engine mounted forward of the front wheels. The GTI only benefits from being able to put all of it's power down in the corners. It will still push and understeer (though to a significantly lower degree) like any FWD car with high power. It definitely won't rotate like an AWD car will. 



DaLeadBull said:


> As for the GT-R, its predominantly rear biased AWD which in itself helps handling plus it has various other computer systems at work there. Its apples and oranges here, you can't really compare the two. You can't really attribute its handling prowess to the fact that it uses brake based torque vectoring.


Not entirely, but it is an integral part of the system that allows the car to handle as well as it does. There can be no doubt that the car would not handle as well without it.


----------



## DaLeadBull (Feb 15, 2011)

venom600 said:


> The GTI uses a front eLSD, and the issue isn't with the front wheels. You want a REAR eLSD to help the car rotate and overcome the inertia of that engine mounted forward of the front wheels. The GTI only benefits from being able to put all of it's power down in the corners. It will still push and understeer (though to a significantly lower degree) like any FWD car with high power. It definitely won't rotate like an AWD car will.


No I realize that. I'm just saying if they can put a front eLSD in the "lowly" GTI, they can sure as hell give us a rear eLSD in a car that cost more than double what the GTI costs.


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

DaLeadBull said:


> Thank you, a torque vectoring LSD is what I meant. I guess I just assumed all modern LSD were torque vectoring differentials.
> 
> So, what I'm really asking for in the RS3 is some type of torque vectoring LSD. I don't think the brake based fake LSD works that well in high powered cars.


LSD requires a slip on one wheel for the torque to transverse to the other wheel, it is not vectored at will, but based on the condition of the road.

Porsche and Mclaren both use brake based torque vectoring, and Porsche charges you extra for that.



DaLeadBull said:


> No I realize that. I'm just saying if they can put a front eLSD in the "lowly" GTI, they can sure as hell give us a rear eLSD in a car that cost more than double what the GTI costs.


I don't know why Audi's transverse platform, either FWD or AWD are getting any type of traction enhancement. the Mk VI GTI got electronic torque vectoring (EDL), and the Mk VII GTI got electronic torque vectoring (XDS). None of those features seem to have made it to Audi A3/S3. One reason is packaging since the PTU for the AWD probably intrudes or is completely different than the XDS's design. Other reason is there is much less need for rear torque vectoring due to the much less load the rear wheels take up compared to the front wheels. If they want a system where the rear rotates out easily, they could just drive the rear axle at a slightly higher rate than the front (by driving the PTU gear at more than 1:1), and when the AWD are in full lock, you got an overdriven outer rear wheel.


----------



## steve111b (Jun 2, 2011)

The facelift A3 has EDL on the FWD car as well as EDL on both axles of the AWD car.

There is an eLSD on the FWD cars. However it only works on dry pavement "engages when driving on curves."

The only advancement that I know of for the Gen V Haldex is a 5 Kg saving in weight.


----------



## venom600 (Sep 9, 2002)

LWNY said:


> I don't know why Audi's transverse platform, either FWD or AWD are getting any type of traction enhancement. the Mk VI GTI got electronic torque vectoring (EDL), and the Mk VII GTI got electronic torque vectoring (XDS).


What are you talking about? EDL (electronic differential lock) has been around since the MKIV cars, and it wasn't GTI or GLI specific. Everything with ESP has EDL, it's not a performance feature, and it only works up to 30mph. XDS came with the MKVI GTI and is enhanced in the MKVII.


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

venom600 said:


> What are you talking about? EDL (electronic differential lock) has been around since the MKIV cars, and it wasn't GTI or GLI specific. Everything with ESP has EDL, it's not a performance feature, and it only works up to 30mph. XDS came with the MKVI GTI and is enhanced in the MKVII.


I meant that MkVI had XDS (brake based torque vectoring) and MkVII has VAQ (clutchpack based diff lock).

I read the Golf R will have XDS+ for the front and rear axle, which seem to be clutchpack based (but then why would there be VAQ).


----------



## djdub (Dec 30, 2001)

Could it be possible that the RS3 (if made in a Sedan for the USA) would be wider than the A3/S3 Bodystyle? Just curious as I'm thinking about just waiting now because the S3 seems like it's still a ways out anyway...(And there's no sign of a Sportback)

This is how I imagine the RS3 would look as well: http://www.vwvortex.com/news/volkswagen-news/volkswagen-2013-sema-show/

I dislike sedans but that shape looks epic.


----------



## DaLeadBull (Feb 15, 2011)

djdub said:


> Could it be possible that the RS3 (if made in a Sedan for the USA) would be wider than the A3/S3 Bodystyle? Just curious as I'm thinking about just waiting now because the S3 seems like it's still a ways out anyway...(And there's no sign of a Sportback)
> 
> This is how I imagine the RS3 would look as well: http://www.vwvortex.com/news/volkswagen-news/volkswagen-2013-sema-show/
> 
> I dislike sedans but that shape looks epic.


Well, Mr Rabboto who works at a Audi dealership mentioned that Audi might be looking at a widebody RS3 sedan for the US. So, yes it is possible.

I would really like a RS3 sportback with flared fenders but I guess I would take a sedan as well.


----------



## venom600 (Sep 9, 2002)

LWNY said:


> I meant that MkVI had XDS (brake based torque vectoring) and MkVII has VAQ (clutchpack based diff lock).
> 
> I read the Golf R will have XDS+ for the front and rear axle, which seem to be clutchpack based (but then why would there be VAQ).


Ahh... i hate these acronyms. XDS+ still uses the brakes afaik... the plus is that it works on the rear wheels. There was some talk of the R getting VAQ for the front wheels, but I don't think that happened. There certainly hasn't been any mention of it anywhere.


----------



## djdub (Dec 30, 2001)

DaLeadBull said:


> Well, Mr Rabboto who works at a Audi dealership mentioned that Audi might be looking at a widebody RS3 sedan for the US. So, yes it is possible.
> 
> I would really like a RS3 sportback with flared fenders but I guess I would take a sedan as well.


+1 but it's highly unlikely we will even see a sportback outside the E-Tron. (For like 3 years anyway) I'm sofa king tired of waiting already. It seems like it's going to take forever before we get substantial information on these cars. Lolz. Anyway, I guess this gives me time to save up. I'm hoping I don't get bored waiting though and get something else. hehe...


----------



## Mr. Rabboto (Oct 6, 1999)

The RS3 sedan was brought up in another meeting yesterday as most likely for the US.


----------



## DaLeadBull (Feb 15, 2011)

Mr. Rabboto said:


> The RS3 sedan was brought up in another meeting yesterday as most likely for the US.


So is it almost positive that we will get some version of the RS3 in the states? :laugh:

I still want a sportback tho and I'm sure I'm not alone.  It would just make the RS3 that much more special and will further help separate it from the S3 in the US.


----------



## Mr. Rabboto (Oct 6, 1999)

Yeah, one thing's for sure, nothing's for certain! But that is the second time I've heard it from corporate and that was during a presentation on the A3 rollout.

The A3 sedan was built because we couldn't sell sportbacks. The only way I can see them doing a sportback is if they do a european version and
decide that it would be more cost-effective.


----------



## Canthoney (Aug 5, 2012)

Mr. Rabboto said:


> Yeah, one thing's for sure, nothing's for certain! But that is the second time I've heard it from corporate and that was during a presentation on the A3 rollout.
> 
> The A3 sedan was built because we couldn't sell sportbacks. The only way I can see them doing a sportback is if they do a european version and
> decide that it would be more cost-effective.


I would rather have the sedan if it's lighter. But the sport back would be more useful, but I'm guessing unlikely?? They should take a page from Mercedes book and start letting people just order the car you want (ex:E63 AMG wagon)


----------



## DaLeadBull (Feb 15, 2011)

Well, they've been calling the A3 a mini A6. So, maybe we'll get A3 and S3 sedans similar to A6 and S6 sedans. Likewise maybe we'll get the RS3 sportback similar to the RS6 avant?  I'm probably reading too much into this. haha


----------



## Mr. Rabboto (Oct 6, 1999)

That's funny, I didn't know that and I've been calling it a mini A6. :thumb up:

While the lid is small, the actual trunk is huge and the rear seats fold down.


----------



## Tcardio (Mar 19, 2009)

well time to put the rumors to rest: RS3 sedan is coming to US...confirmed


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

tcardio said:


> well time to put the rumors to rest: RS3 sedan is coming to US...confirmed


Citation needed.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Canthoney (Aug 5, 2012)

tcardio said:


> well time to put the rumors to rest: RS3 sedan is coming to US...confirmed


Ain't over till the fat lady sings.


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

venom600 said:


> Ahh... i hate these acronyms. XDS+ still uses the brakes afaik... the plus is that it works on the rear wheels. There was some talk of the R getting VAQ for the front wheels, but I don't think that happened. There certainly hasn't been any mention of it anywhere.


i thought XDS+ must be similar to XDS, except for this video that says otherwise. Sounds like VAQ to me though:


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 9, 2004)

tcardio said:


> well time to put the rumors to rest: RS3 sedan is coming to US...confirmed


Is your source dealer side, Herndon or Germany? I spoke to a German contact within the last few weeks and he suggested that while the Sportback is a done deal for Europe, the debate over a sedan for North America is ongoing. With German pricing of the Sportback over 50,000 Euros, pricing for the sedan would be equally salty.


----------



## DaLeadBull (Feb 15, 2011)

[email protected] said:


> Is your source dealer side, Herndon or Germany? I spoke to a German contact within the last few weeks and he suggested that while the Sportback is a done deal for Europe, the debate over a sedan for North America is ongoing. With German pricing of the Sportback over 50,000 Euros, pricing for the sedan would be equally salty.


I guess it depends on the demand right?

Europe for sure has to be getting a Sportback RS3 right? So would it be cheaper for Audi to just send a few of those our way or would it make more financial sense for them to offer us a sedan version?


----------



## venom600 (Sep 9, 2002)

[email protected] said:


> With German pricing of the Sportback over 50,000 Euros, pricing for the sedan would be equally salty.


I can kind of see why they wouldn't want to bring the RS3 here. What does it offer that the S4 doesn't? They would both be priced similarly (if the TTRS was any indication) and the S4 would likely offer greater performance due to it's superior AWD system and 7 speed DSG.

I guess the question to ask ourselves is "would we be willing to spend $55,000 on an RS3 that performs similarly to the $50,000 CLA45 and S4?"


----------



## Mr. Rabboto (Oct 6, 1999)

It offers a limited production quattro Gmbh built work of art that should smoke the cars you mention, especially considering the S3 will be close to the performance of both of them. I think it's safe to say, the B9 S4 will be moving up market a bit.


----------



## Travis Grundke (May 26, 1999)

Before any decision is made I would expect Audi to want some good data about S3 sales here in North America. If they have a hard time moving S3s at the $40-$44 mark they're going to have a harder time moving an RS3 at the $50-$55k level. 

Part of me also thinks that they would want something unique in this segment, ala an RS3 Sportback. This way it doesn't step on the toes of the S4 and it also gives customers a unique option.

Either way, I wouldn't expect an RS3 for North America until after the mid-cycle change.


----------



## DaLeadBull (Feb 15, 2011)

Travis Grundke said:


> Part of me also thinks that they would want something unique in this segment, ala an RS3 Sportback. This way it doesn't step on the toes of the S4 and it also gives customers a unique option.


I didn't think about that but that makes a lot of sense. Hopefully, Audi sees it that way too. RS3 sportback :heart:!


----------



## venom600 (Sep 9, 2002)

Mr. Rabboto said:


> It offers a limited production quattro Gmbh built work of art that should smoke the cars you mention, especially considering the S3 will be close to the performance of both of them. I think it's safe to say, the B9 S4 will be moving up market a bit.


I'd be really surprised if the S3 was anywhere near the performance of the CLA45. It may match the S4, but the CLA is an absolute beast. There's video of it beating a CLS63 (which has 200 more hp) in a drag race. RS cars are very rarely faster than the equivalent AMG (the V10 BiTurbo RS6 is the only example that comes to mind), so I'd expect the S3 to get spanked.


----------



## Mr. Rabboto (Oct 6, 1999)

The S4 was rated by Audi with 0-60 of 4.9, it does 4.4. The S3 is rated the same 4.9 by Audi.

The CLA has hit 0-60 in 4.2

The TTRS in 3.6.

While the RS3 will be slightly heavier, I think it's safe to say a sub 4 second 0-60 in the RS3 is a distinct possibility. opcorn:


----------



## lotuselan (Apr 9, 2008)

Motor Trend has tested the AMG version of the CLA

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/1311_2014_mercedes_benz_cla45_amg_first_test/

If the MB AMG CLA45 is priced at US$48-58,000 Then I would assume the new S3 and RS3 to be similar. Is there market enough for a small high performance car at that price? Personally I'd go for a Lotus Elise, but that's only because I'm nuts.


----------



## Mr. Rabboto (Oct 6, 1999)

There are $46k + CLA 250's out there. :screwy:


----------



## DaLeadBull (Feb 15, 2011)

Mr Rabboto, a troubling proposition just popped into my head. Could Audi possibly be setting up the S3 as a direct competitor to the CLA45 AMG? There is nothing between a CLA250 and a CLA45 AMG, so could Audi just say the A3 competes with CLA250 and S3 competes with CLA45 AMG?

If they jack up the price of the S3 and don't bring us the RS3 because of this, I'll be really disappointed.


----------



## anti suv (Sep 26, 2013)

MB doesnt really have a S3 equivalent. They seem to have skipped straight to a RS3 level car with the cla45 amg.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Mr. Rabboto (Oct 6, 1999)

Not likely at all, with the volume they are looking for and the ultimate goal of getting new people into the brand, it's going to have to be competitive in the segment. While Audi isn't in the business of blow out lease specials of inferior product like it's competitors, when matched option for option they are always competitively priced. Mercedes only has two variations of the CLA. In the first year, Audi will have 5 variations of the A3 and then the etron sportback and hopefully the RS3 making a total of 7. Pretty sure that their goal is to have something for everyone and the MQB is seemingly making this a pretty easy task. :thumbup:


----------



## djdub (Dec 30, 2001)

I just hope that we get a solid answer if the RS3 is coming to the USA before the S3 is available. That or I'm going to have a very hard time not pulling the trigger on the S3 beforehand.


----------



## Canthoney (Aug 5, 2012)

Mr. Rabboto said:


> Not likely at all, with the volume they are looking for and the ultimate goal of getting new people into the brand, it's going to have to be competitive in the segment. While Audi isn't in the business of blow out lease specials of inferior product like it's competitors, when matched option for option they are always competitively priced. Mercedes only has two variations of the CLA. In the first year, Audi will have 5 variations of the A3 and then the etron sportback and hopefully the RS3 making a total of 7. Pretty sure that their goal is to have something for everyone and the MQB is seemingly making this a pretty easy task. :thumbup:


I really hope, I'm pretty sure they will bring an RS3 sedan version here just because they basically designed the sedan for the U.S. and China market. Also, the RS3 was their best selling RS model. I think they definitely have the CLA beat on feature to feature and price with their other models.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 9, 2004)

Mr. Rabboto said:


> The S4 was rated by Audi with 0-60 of 4.9, it does 4.4. The S3 is rated the same 4.9 by Audi.
> 
> The CLA has hit 0-60 in 4.2
> 
> ...


I'd expect it to have DSG too, which would only strengthen the 0-60 argument.


----------



## djdub (Dec 30, 2001)

DSG ftw...


----------



## mookieblaylock (Sep 25, 2005)

Canthoney said:


> , I'm pretty sure they will bring an RS3 sedan version here just because they basically designed the sedan for the U.S. and China market..


i'm pretty sure they will bring an RS3 hatch version here just because it will already be built for the row


----------



## Canthoney (Aug 5, 2012)

mookieblaylock said:


> i'm pretty sure they will bring an RS3 hatch version here just because it will already be built for the row


We'll see. They didn't last time (of course they didn't bring the S3 over either). If it's limited production that may be more likely. I just hope they bring any version over.


----------



## DaLeadBull (Feb 15, 2011)

Canthoney said:


> We'll see. They didn't last time (of course they didn't bring the S3 over either). If it's limited production that may be more likely. I just hope they bring any version over.


Yea me too, I hope they bring any version. I would like it to be a sportback tho cus I think it'll help it make it more special and separate it from an S3 and the rest of the A3 lineup.


----------

