# X-Post : Autobild: M235i vs S3 vs CLA45 vs Golf R



## Rudy_H (Jul 6, 2012)

Beware before clicking : 
http://forums.fourtitude.com/showthread.php?6937045-Autobild-M235i-vs-S3-vs-CLA45-vs-Golf-R


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

A coupe, a hatch, and two sedans. Okay, guys. That doesn't even touch the transmission disparity, that I know they could have at least equalized between the Golf and the S3. :laugh:

The S3 sucks; I'm selling out and buying a BMW.


----------



## DaLeadBull (Feb 15, 2011)

Dan Halen said:


> A coupe, a hatch, and two sedans. Okay, guys. That doesn't even touch the transmission disparity, that I know they could have at least equalized between the Golf and the S3. :laugh:
> 
> The S3 sucks; I'm selling out and buying a BMW.


lol, still surprising that the Golf R was faster around the track than the S3 even though its manual against S-tronic.


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

DaLeadBull said:


> lol, still surprising that the Golf R was faster around the track than the S3 even though its manual against S-tronic.


Yeah, I can't read any of that, so I can't really frame up anything. Surely they had the same driver in all four cars? I can't imagine the weight distribution of the S3 sedan is that much of a penalty. It's... odd, to be sure.


----------



## MaX PL (Apr 10, 2006)

i was planning to go test-drive that m235 due to all the hype, but the reality is that i can't stand that old bmw interior, won't buy rwd unless its in a monster, and prefer the look of the audi.


----------



## The DarkSide (Aug 4, 2000)

Looks like the S3 ran a 13.1x in the 1/4 and weighs about 3,333 lbs. So, a 100lb increase over the US model may not be as I thought. Unfortunately I couldn't recognize anything that looked like a trap speed.


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

MaX PL said:


> i was planning to go test-drive that m235 due to all the hype, but the reality is that i can't stand that old bmw interior, won't buy rwd unless its in a monster, and prefer the look of the audi.


Yeah. I think it's also worth noting that the gap between the M235i and the S3 is roughly the same as the gap between the S3 and GTI PP, were one only interested in the recorded lap time. All other factors considered, I think the M235i has to to be less car "more" than the S3 than the S3 is over the GTI PP, if that makes sense. In simple terms, I don't care one iota that the BMW is two seconds or so quicker around than the S3. 

The most impressive story out of this review that I can't even read isn't about any of the four test cars, but rather the GTI PP. VW really brought a whopper with that car.


----------



## Rudy_H (Jul 6, 2012)

One needs to remember of course we are talking about a S3 vs M or AMG. As for the R, I would think it would be a better 'track car' vs the S3, where the S3 will have a nicer / comfy interior, finally with the RS3 coming with a big stick to beat some ugly into the competitors.

IMO, minus the R, the S3 is pretty much where it should be 'right under the big boys' yet above the '228i / A3 2.0T Quattro / CLA 250'. 

Still looking to see if someone translated the article. One thing I can say right now...

Look at the tires between the R and the S3, you will notice right away where a lot of the performance is being swayed towards the Golf R...


----------



## Wiley337 (May 1, 2002)

DaLeadBull said:


> lol, still surprising that the Golf R was faster around the track than the S3 even though its manual against S-tronic.


One thing that bugs me about the “faster” on any of these track tests is it is in within 1% or so of a difference. 101 seconds vs. 102 seconds. Penny to a dollar. There was another thread with a BMW vs. Audi video and the commentary was the BMW soundly beat/destroyed/crushed (or some other hyperbolic adjective) the Audi. But it was a difference of 1.2 seconds or something on 100+ seconds of track time. The point is humans cannot tell this difference % difference, only clocks can.

Now how does the drive feel, that is something different. It is much more interesting to hear how hard the driver had to work for the lap time, other sensations (vibration, tracking, sounds, etc). Or perhaps more localized time checks, as in time around certain curve, etc. In fact on the video I saw it looked like the Audi was much easier to drive to achieve the time, mostly due to AWD. But overall lap time? They are essentially the same.


----------



## MaX PL (Apr 10, 2006)

Wiley337 said:


> One thing that bugs me about the “faster” on any of these track tests is it is in within 1% or so of a difference. 101 seconds vs. 102 seconds. Penny to a dollar. There was another thread with a BMW vs. Audi video and the commentary was the BMW soundly beat/destroyed/crushed (or some other hyperbolic adjective) the Audi. But it was a difference of 1.2 seconds or something on 100+ seconds of track time. The point is humans cannot tell this difference % difference, only clocks can.
> 
> Now how does the drive feel, that is something different. It is much more interesting to hear how hard the driver had to work for the lap time, other sensations (vibration, tracking, sounds, etc). Or perhaps more localized time checks, as in time around certain curve, etc. In fact on the video I saw it looked like the Audi was much easier to drive to achieve the time, mostly due to AWD. But overall lap time? They are essentially the same.


the other point is that track times mean nothing to a large portion of us as these will not be track cars and will be underutilized 90% of the time.

i don't consider cars much faster than these as track cars let alone these small sedans/hatches which will be daily driven.


----------



## ecaedus (Feb 18, 2014)

Rudy_H said:


> One needs to remember of course we are talking about a S3 vs M or AMG.


m235i is a m performance car, not a m car. Why r there lots of m letters on the car, because BMW made it so.

S3 compares to m235i, cla 350 if there is ever going to be one, and the golf r

A3 compares to the 228i, gti, cla 250

RS3 to m2, cla amg, golf r evo maybe

To me this comparison means it's game over for s3, no amount of "luxury" interior advantage this has over the golf can make up for the fact that using the same powertrain it was ranked dead last... I'm certainly gonna drive all the cars except for the amg since that's in another price range, but it seems to me the s3 isn't causing that much of a stir in the media as the other cars


Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Wiley337 (May 1, 2002)

ecaedus said:


> game over for s3 […] it was ranked dead last...


This is an example of taking rankings on small percent differences and drawing huge conclusions! So what you are saying is 1 second out of 100 makes all the difference to invalidate the car's performance?


----------



## ecaedus (Feb 18, 2014)

Wiley337 said:


> This is an example of taking rankings on small percent differences and drawing huge conclusions! So what you are saying is 1 second out of 100 makes all the difference to invalidate the car's performance?


I'm not talking about track times, I don't care about track times because I'm not going to be able to drive any of these cars to the limit. 

S3 got ranked to the last place due to many reasons, track performance being one of them but that's not the determining factor I suppose. I don't understand German so I can't tell what they said about the feel of the car, but from the ranking i can at least make an educated guess that the s3 was not up to snuff in the feel department either. Not good enough at least to displace its advantage in the looks and interior department.

Otherwise why did only a second of difference in the lap time caused golf r to be ranked two places before the s3?

Oh btw since you are so fixated on discussing track times, apparently the golf r is faster than the s3 even when it's using a manual and the s3 DSG. Now imagine the golf using DSG.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## MaX PL (Apr 10, 2006)

i imagine that the mag ranked the R higher due to value and not due to the cars abilities over the S3. 

this test should really be between the M235 and the S3. the CLA45 is an AMG in terms of performance and price; it can be optioned out to $70k. the R is obviously very much similar to the S3 in terms of platform, engine spec, etc. but its not a luxury car and thus comparing it on value doesn't make sense when doing a compare of mostly luxury cars.


----------



## The DarkSide (Aug 4, 2000)

Speculating and then arguing over a review in a different language is awesome. :laugh:


----------



## FractureCritical (Nov 24, 2009)

ecaedus said:


> I'm not talking about track times, I don't care about track times because I'm not going to be able to drive any of these cars to the limit.
> 
> S3 got ranked to the last place due to many reasons, track performance being one of them but that's not the determining factor I suppose. I don't understand German so I can't tell what they said about the feel of the car, but from the ranking i can at least make an educated guess that the s3 was not up to snuff in the feel department either. Not good enough at least to displace its advantage in the looks and interior department.
> 
> ...


has it occured to you that maybe (just maybe) the Golf might have been faster than it's brother from another mother at least in part BECUASE it had a stick? There's a lot to be said for a good driver feathering a clutch to distribute power and having the ablity to skip gears in the shift gate without fumbling around the steering wheel trying to find the shift paddle on the turning wheel.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 12, 2001)

FractureCritical said:


> has it occured to you that maybe (just maybe) the Golf might have been faster than it's brother from another mother at least in part BECUASE it had a stick?


I would doubt that very, VERY much. I am just as much the fan of the manual transmission as the next guy, and I have enough (not a ton like some people, but enough) track experience in a variety of cars with both types of transmission to be able to say that unless the person driving a double clutch is a totally incompetent boob there is no way that the manual trans version of two otherwise equivalent cars is going to be faster than a double clutch version. A good double clutch transmission is just going to make a good driver faster, period.

-Tim


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

The DarkSide said:


> Speculating and then arguing over a review in a different language is awesome. :laugh:


The highest and most egregious form of armchair quarterbacking... 



FractureCritical said:


> has it occured to you that maybe (just maybe) the Golf might have been faster than it's brother from another mother at least in part BECUASE it had a stick? There's a lot to be said for a good driver feathering a clutch to distribute power and having the ablity to skip gears in the shift gate without fumbling around the steering wheel trying to find the shift paddle on the turning wheel.


Sure, we can assume that may be the case. We can also assume that they weren't all driven by the same driver, or that the weight distribution of the Golf is more favorable, or that the RE050 is a more well-suited tire than the CSC5P, or that blue paint is faster than grey paint, or that...

What we can much more realistically assume is that, for most of us looking at any of these four cars, we'll be buying substantially more car than what we currently have. Ergo, any of these four will be some form of upgrade for us. I've precisely zero ****s to give that my S3 will have placed fourth against the Golf, the M235i, and the CLA45. As I alluded in my first post in this thread, this comparison isn't even particularly worthwhile for me. Of the cars they listed, I'd only even consider two. The Golf gets the strike due to being a hatch, and the M235 gets the strike for being a coupe. So we're left with the CLA and the S3. The CLA gets the strike for being substantially more expensive than the S3, for being tacky for the sake of show, and because Mercedes. They just don't do much that interests me. I appreciate the achievement represented in the CLA45 motor, but that's not enough to get me interested.

I'd buy a Golf R for my wife. :laugh:


----------



## DaLeadBull (Feb 15, 2011)

Wiley337 said:


> One thing that bugs me about the “faster” on any of these track tests is it is in within 1% or so of a difference. 101 seconds vs. 102 seconds. Penny to a dollar. There was another thread with a BMW vs. Audi video and the commentary was the BMW soundly beat/destroyed/crushed (or some other hyperbolic adjective) the Audi. But it was a difference of 1.2 seconds or something on 100+ seconds of track time. The point is humans cannot tell this difference % difference, only clocks can.
> 
> Now how does the drive feel, that is something different. It is much more interesting to hear how hard the driver had to work for the lap time, other sensations (vibration, tracking, sounds, etc). Or perhaps more localized time checks, as in time around certain curve, etc. In fact on the video I saw it looked like the Audi was much easier to drive to achieve the time, mostly due to AWD. But overall lap time? They are essentially the same.


Check the link, they give times for certain sections of the track as well. The R was faster on pretty much all the sections, the S3 just had a higher top speed on the straight section which might be due to DSG vs manual.


----------



## Drof (Jun 27, 2013)

Im guessing so, but does the upcoming S3 have the xds plus system?

also I would guess that the small differences given that the golf is a manual and the s3 dsg would be tires/chassis/weight

there is no way that having a manual is a benefit over a dsg when tracking the car and the powertrain is identical in both cars. that leaves parts that can be switched like tires....and the main difference between the two cars, the chassis


----------



## FractureCritical (Nov 24, 2009)

Dan Halen said:


> The highest and most egregious form of armchair quarterbacking...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't think my wife would drive a Golf R. you've got a keeper.

You have to know that it's fundamentally inevitable that BMW will offer a 4-door 2 series 'gran touring' version of the car, just like the 6 series and that sweet, sweet 4 series.

will that change your calculus at all?


----------



## jrwamp (Mar 25, 2011)

FractureCritical said:


> I don't think my wife would drive a Golf R. you've got a keeper.
> 
> You have to know that it's fundamentally inevitable that BMW will offer a 4-door 2 series 'gran touring' version of the car, just like the 6 series and that sweet, sweet 4 series.
> 
> will that change your calculus at all?


I would seriously consider an m235i gran coupe, and I'm sure it's coming.... 

But being in the here and now, only two cars in that comparison are in my sights. The Golf R and the S3. I personally am going for the S3 just because I feel like the Golf R isn't aggressive looking enough in Mk7 form, and I just want to step up into a more refined package. And the way police are in my area, a VW with modifications gets more attention than an Audi... they think I'm some 20 year old with weed until they walk up to my car.


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

FractureCritical said:


> I don't think my wife would drive a Golf R. you've got a keeper.
> 
> You have to know that it's fundamentally inevitable that BMW will offer a 4-door 2 series 'gran touring' version of the car, just like the 6 series and that sweet, sweet 4 series.
> 
> will that change your calculus at all?


What's a 2GC going to cost? It would have to put the Audi at a fairly substantial price premium to get me interested. I've no interest in driving a BMW. I don't care to attract that kind of attention. That doesn't even touch the point that I'm only slightly better than lukewarm on BMW's styling.

If Audi has their way, they'll get the same kind of attention in the future. For now, though, the S3 is the "lay low" comparable alternative.


----------



## Wiley337 (May 1, 2002)

DaLeadBull said:


> Check the link, they give times for certain sections of the track as well.


Good call, I noticed that after I posted. But once again it showed they were all very close, so close I believe adjectives of faster or even a ranking do not mean much. These cars are all in the same performance class. Clearly the R8 was the big difference in the list. As would a 1966 VW bug.

The star rating went from 3.6 to 4.2, so a larger difference there, but still relatively close. Yet looking at that the highest vs. lowest (BMW and Audi) the difference was "Emotion" with a 5/5 on BMW and a 3/5 on the Audi. My take away is there are some similar and great performing cars, and a person's emotional response and other wants (2 vs. 4 door, styling, some potential features/comfort) will be the differentiators. It is great having choices in this performance class.

I still have my sights on a prestige S3 with magride.


----------



## jrwamp (Mar 25, 2011)

Wiley337 said:


> Good call, I noticed that after I posted. But once again it showed they were all very close, so close I believe adjectives of faster or even a ranking do not mean much. These cars are all in the same performance class. Clearly the R8 was the big difference in the list. As would a 1966 VW bug.
> 
> The star rating went from 3.6 to 4.2, so a larger difference there, but still relatively close. Yet looking at that the highest vs. lowest (BMW and Audi) the difference was "Emotion" with a 5/5 on BMW and a 3/5 on the Audi. My take away is there are some similar and great performing cars, and a person's emotional response and other wants (2 vs. 4 door, styling, some potential features/comfort) will be the differentiators. It is great having choices in this performance class.
> 
> *I still have my sights on a prestige S3 with magride.*


:thumbup: +1


----------



## caliatenza (Dec 10, 2006)

i don't understand how the S3 came in last in this test....is it that bad compared to the other 3 cars?


----------



## ecaedus (Feb 18, 2014)

Dan Halen said:


> I've no interest in driving a BMW. I don't care to attract that kind of attention. That doesn't even touch the point that I'm only slightly better than lukewarm on BMW's styling.
> 
> If Audi has their way, they'll get the same kind of attention in the future. For now, though, the S3 is the "lay low" comparable alternative.


If you don't mind me asking where do you live that attracts attention when you are driving a bmw to the point that you won't even consider one? 

I'm just curious that all, since in LA they are literally everywhere, in a decent neighborhood people treat 3 series like corollas.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ecaedus (Feb 18, 2014)

caliatenza said:


> i don't understand how the S3 came in last in this test....is it that bad compared to the other 3 cars?


I don't think the s3 is bad by any standard, it all depends on what people look for in cars and what company they are being compared against. If I want a fast, luxury, small, four door sedan I would give the s3 a serious look. 

The way I see it the market for small enthusiast awd sedan is a rather tiny one. Theres the WRX, STI, S3, evo and?.... Out of these choices the s3 is the balance between tech, lux, and performance. The rest either has to much of one or the other. 

But if you are looking work a bigger criteria then obviously you are gonna be looking at more competitors.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2


----------

