# New RS 3 Due in Early 2014



## [email protected] (Apr 9, 2004)

Here’s the thing about the Audi RS 3. You can point to how it was panned by Chris Harris for having too much understeer, yadda, yadda, yadda… though you can’t argue with its success. Audi sold out of its stock of the RS 3 in record time and even built an additional run of the cars for the UK market. To this measure, this is the most successful RS car quattro GmbH has built thus far. Good news then for RS 3 fans (and also for those looking for a re-match in the aforementioned Chris Harris piece). The next-generation RS 3 will be available in early 2014.

A report published today by What Car? confirms that, instead of waiting until near the end of the A3 product lifecycle as was done with the current car, the release date of the new RS 3 is just over a year away.

Full Story: http://fourtitude.com/news/audi-rumors-renders-spy-photos/new-rs-3-due-in-early-2014/


----------



## fjork_duf (Jul 13, 2001)

GIMME!!!! NOW!.. NEED DSG Too!

I'm so sad the USA won't get the sportback. That REALLY sucks! But I guess I'd settle for a sedan.

@George: Can't you work on audi so they'll bring us the sportback?


----------



## djdub (Dec 30, 2001)

fjork_duf said:


> @George: Can't you work on audi so they'll bring us the sportback?


Make it happen capt'n...


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 9, 2004)

fjork_duf said:


> GIMME!!!! NOW!.. NEED DSG Too!
> 
> I'm so sad the USA won't get the sportback. That REALLY sucks! But I guess I'd settle for a sedan.
> 
> @George: Can't you work on audi so they'll bring us the sportback?


Right now it is unlikely, but perhaps if Sportback sales are brisk they will reconsider. It is a fluid situation so with luck...


----------



## Fellow Gaucho (Aug 3, 2011)

So does the mqb have gen 4 haldex still or different awd?


----------



## Rudy_H (Jul 6, 2012)

This is going to be an extremely long wait...:banghead:

...but where do I sign? I wish I had a price point to work with to decide what I want to do. If it keeps with what the folks in the UK said, if it's close to pricing of the S4 or below, I am sold. Anything more, and I am skipping the S3 and going for an A3 Quattro /w S-Line


----------



## Crocodile (May 21, 2009)

Yes, George, I saw the Chris Harris piece. Even before the review started you could see that he was lining-up the BMW to win. Ultimately, he simply wasn't objective in his analysis and ignored the facts. The RS3 beat the M135i on the track and it beat it in a straight line. The M135i only caught-up the RS3 at 155 mph, because the RS3 had a limiter. 

What really gets me is Chris Harris's complaints about understeer. All front wheel drive cars understeer on the limit. It's called physics. You can engineer AWD cars so that some of the drive is directed rearwards, but you compromise the safety in wet conditions. For me, half the fun of owning an RS3 is what you can do with it in the wet. It just slaughters any RWD car. Period. 

The RS3 is an easy car to drive fast. It flatters the driver. It is also very forgiving. That's what 99.9% of drivers want. And I can tell you for sure that 100% of all drivers don't want an inexperienced kid playing the hooligan on public roads in a RWD car that has more power than traction. The RS3 makes you back-off when you overdo it. That is what snaps the car into line and saves you crashing into an oncoming car. 

That said, the RS3 is quite nose heavy, more so than the S3. I wonder if the 8V (MQB) platform will reduce the amount of sprung weight over the front wheels? Whatever, I am eagerly anticipating the new RS3 and think it will underline Audi's grip on the high performance hatchback brief.


----------



## djdub (Dec 30, 2001)

Well said Crocodile.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 9, 2004)

Crocodile said:


> Yes, George, I saw the Chris Harris piece. Even before the review started you could see that he was lining-up the BMW to win. Ultimately, he simply wasn't objective in his analysis and ignored the facts. The RS3 beat the M135i on the track and it beat it in a straight line. The M135i only caught-up the RS3 at 155 mph, because the RS3 had a limiter.
> 
> What really gets me is Chris Harris's complaints about understeer. All front wheel drive cars understeer on the limit. It's called physics. You can engineer AWD cars so that some of the drive is directed rearwards, but you compromise the safety in wet conditions. For me, half the fun of owning an RS3 is what you can do with it in the wet. It just slaughters any RWD car. Period.
> 
> ...


Fair points all and well stated. I think most motoring journalists, Harris amongst them, tend to want a car that they can drift and easily dip into oversteer and then balance back out again.... dancing with the car that might be more fun on the track but is beyond most drivers or even beyond most commutes for drivers who are capable of such wheel work. On top of that I think there are also those drivers (journalists or otherwise) who relish the car that is harder to drive fast simply because it separates them from the 'lesser' driver, whereas in many Audis the amount of difference in performance between a really good driver and a relatively mediocre one is much less defined.


----------



## dmorrow (Jun 9, 2000)

Crocodile said:


> Yes, George, I saw the Chris Harris piece. Even before the review started you could see that he was lining-up the BMW to win. Ultimately, he simply wasn't objective in his analysis and ignored the facts. The RS3 beat the M135i on the track and it beat it in a straight line. The M135i only caught-up the RS3 at 155 mph, because the RS3 had a limiter.
> 
> *What really gets me is Chris Harris's complaints about understeer. All front wheel drive cars understeer on the limit. It's called physics. You can engineer AWD cars so that some of the drive is directed rearwards, but you compromise the safety in wet conditions.* For me, half the fun of owning an RS3 is what you can do with it in the wet. It just slaughters any RWD car. Period.
> 
> ...


If he is comparing two cars and one understeers far more than the other he shouldn't say anything about it because that's what you get with a FWD platform? If he's on a dry road and track comparing the two he shouldn't tell us that the RS3 has much more understeer and less steering feel? When an experienced driver is driving on a dry track I expect him to give his opinion, not what the average driver will experience in the rain on a city street.

Also, has anyone here driven the M135i? If not how can we say that he is wrong.


----------



## Crocodile (May 21, 2009)

@dmorrow

Apart from stating the obvious, that front wheel drive cars understeer, I don't see this is as a reason to say that the Audi RS3 is inferior to the BMW M135i. As George points out, motoring journalists like nothing more than to drive a car around a track. As fun as that is, and for all the skill it takes, it isn't a routine part of everyday driving. So why criticise a car for not doing something it was never designed to do? It's like trashing the Porsche 911 because it has such poor luggage space: it's true but irrelevant. People don't buy 911s for their trunk capacities. Same with RS3s. We want totally safe and predictable handling - especially in snow and ice. A fairer test of the RS3 would have been on a wet winter road. Despite the test taking place a dry track followed by a straight-line drag race, the RS3 still beat the M135i. 

@George

Any chance you could get Stephan Reil of quattro GmbH to do an interview about the challenges of developing the next RS3? It would be interesting to hear his views on how customers have responded to the current model and how the next one will respond to the threat post by Mercedes-Benz's new A-Class AMG model and, of course, the X-drive version of the M135i.


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

It is possible for Audi to make the RS3 neutral, or even tail happy, just by giving the rear lose its grip easily (which is what these anti-sway bars does). But then the overall grip will be less, and it might be dangerous for boulevard cruisers to show the car off in the street.

Its like the BMW's cars, nobody dares to drive it with stability control off...otherwise, you will see many of them wrapped around light poles.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 9, 2004)

Crocodile said:


> @dmorrow
> 
> Apart from stating the obvious, that front wheel drive cars understeer, I don't see this is as a reason to say that the Audi RS3 is inferior to the BMW M135i. As George points out, motoring journalists like nothing more than to drive a car around a track. As fun as that is, and for all the skill it takes, it isn't a routine part of everyday driving. So why criticise a car for not doing something it was never designed to do? It's like trashing the Porsche 911 because it has such poor luggage space: it's true but irrelevant. People don't buy 911s for their trunk capacities. Same with RS3s. We want totally safe and predictable handling - especially in snow and ice. A fairer test of the RS3 would have been on a wet winter road. Despite the test taking place a dry track followed by a straight-line drag race, the RS3 still beat the M135i.


I'd agree with your point if this were an A car, maybe an S car, but this is an RS. People will want to take it to the track. As such, while I love these cars and would probably have an RS 3 in my garage if they sold them here, I do recognize this point as valid. Many journalists, Harris amongst them, I feel over-emphasize this because it's where they prefer to live and it's where you'll live if you drive the car on the edge. 

I just spent several months in an R8 and swapped it for a TT RS for a week. The difference is glaring. The TT RS has all of the straight line pace of the R8 4.2, but where the R8 4.2 would break traction and even kick its tail out in aggressive intersection departure, the TT RS refuses to do that. It adds a level of excitement to the daily drive and definitely to the track experience that would be welcome in an RS model.

Longitudinal cars can do some of this with the Sport differential. Suspension settings are also there (and bit the original TT early on). I'd say this sort of suspension setup should be an option at least on a TT RS, because it's more of a performance-minded customer than the original TT was. The other would be Sport Differential torque vectoring.... they say the Haldex does this through braking but it's just not the same. A rear apportioning diff as used in Torsen cars is needed. Frankly, that's my only real beef with TT RS or RS 3. I really love the cars, but I think they'd be much better drivers and also much better reviewed by journalists if they had these options.




> @George
> 
> Any chance you could get Stephan Reil of quattro GmbH to do an interview about the challenges of developing the next RS3? It would be interesting to hear his views on how customers have responded to the current model and how the next one will respond to the threat post by Mercedes-Benz's new A-Class AMG model and, of course, the X-drive version of the M135i.


I'm working on a trip to Neckarsulm. I'd hoped to meet up with Stefan anyway, so I will make sure to ask him. At the very least, I expect to see him in Detroit in early January.


----------



## Pathfinder2041 (Sep 20, 2003)

Thanks for all of the good info and good luck on talking to the guys at Quattro to see what we can confirm is in store for the new RS3!!


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

[email protected] said:


> I'd agree with your point if this were an A car, maybe an S car, but this is an RS. People will want to take it to the track. As such, while I love these cars and would probably have an RS 3 in my garage if they sold them here, I do recognize this point as valid. Many journalists, Harris amongst them, I feel over-emphasize this because it's where they prefer to live and it's where you'll live if you drive the car on the edge.


Snap oversteer on the M135i when Harris was driving it on the track, and not a peep out of him on it? If a J6P drives that car, it would be around the light pole already.


----------



## dmorrow (Jun 9, 2000)

Crocodile said:


> @dmorrow
> 
> Apart from stating the obvious, that front wheel drive cars understeer, I don't see this is as a reason to say that the Audi RS3 is inferior to the BMW M135i. As George points out, motoring journalists like nothing more than to drive a car around a track. As fun as that is, and for all the skill it takes, it isn't a routine part of everyday driving. *So why criticise a car for not doing something it was never designed to do?* It's like trashing the Porsche 911 because it has such poor luggage space: it's true but irrelevant. People don't buy 911s for their trunk capacities. Same with RS3s. *We want totally safe and predictable handling - especially in snow and ice. A fairer test of the RS3 would have been on a wet winter road.* Despite the test taking place a dry track followed by a straight-line drag race, the RS3 still beat the M135i.


I would expect the RS3 to have been designed for the track. It also seems like the items above in bold could have been said about an Outback.

I don't see anything wrong with the RS3 not winning a comparison test. There are a lot of reasons to buy a car and what he is looking for may not be the same as what you are looking for.

When I bought my M Coupe (recently and of course used) I looked at the reviews and most said for the same money the Cayman S was a better track car. It didn't matter to me.


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

ridiculous test where they have to do a 0-160 to determine the winner (and boasting it as the M135i killed the RS3). You can see the numbers that they flashed across the screen that the RS3 was ahead in all acceleration numbers up to 100mph.

And how does 'track numbers' doesn't matter. If the RS3 was driven at the M135i's pace, would it still understeer the way it did?


----------



## velocipedio (Apr 26, 2006)

Crocodile said:


> @dmorrow
> 
> Apart from stating the obvious, that front wheel drive cars understeer, I don't see this is as a reason to say that the Audi RS3 is inferior to the BMW M135i. As George points out, motoring journalists like nothing more than to drive a car around a track. As fun as that is, and for all the skill it takes, it isn't a routine part of everyday driving. So why criticise a car for not doing something it was never designed to do? It's like trashing the Porsche 911 because it has such poor luggage space: it's true but irrelevant. People don't buy 911s for their trunk capacities. Same with RS3s. We want totally safe and predictable handling - especially in snow and ice. A fairer test of the RS3 would have been on a wet winter road. Despite the test taking place a dry track followed by a straight-line drag race, the RS3 still beat the M135i.
> 
> ...


Yes but the RS3 is not really FWD. It has a front bias but it is AWD, and the Gen IV Haldex is almost as fast as Torsen with the power distribution. You can do things in a Haldex car in the corners that you can't in a true FWD car. 

The review was clearly biased. I don't get the desire to have cars oversteer all over the place. Almost all factory cars (even the M135i) are set up to understeer at the limit and the oversteer characteristics of the M could be replicated with suspension and/or Haldex tweaks in the RS3. Look at the Mitsu EVO -- an AWS car with similar weight dist. and is arguably one of the best handlers out there. That said, the RS3 still outpeforms the M135 in almost every area other than "driver involvement." It's old hat at this point.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 9, 2004)

velocipedio said:


> Yes but the RS3 is not really FWD. It has a front bias but it is AWD, and the Gen IV Haldex is almost as fast as Torsen with the power distribution. You can do things in a Haldex car in the corners that you can't in a true FWD car.
> 
> The review was clearly biased. I don't get the desire to have cars oversteer all over the place. Almost all factory cars (even the M135i) are set up to understeer at the limit and the oversteer characteristics of the M could be replicated with suspension and/or Haldex tweaks in the RS3. Look at the Mitsu EVO -- a Haldex car with similar weight dist. and is arguably one of the best handlers out there. That said, the RS3 still outpeforms the M135 in almost every area other than "driver involvement." It's old hat at this point.


I've spent a fair amount of time in each of Audi's all-wheel drive cars. More recently I'd spent a year in 2010 with a Sport diff S4, 8 months in an R8 and now a TT RS in this last week. I've also had track time in each. I find the TT RS to be a truly wonderful car and of the three it is the one I'd likely buy for myself. Still, it does not push like the R8 and not even like the S4.

Haldex is great, don't get me wrong. It can be tuned to push, but in most cases (including the TT RS and RS 3 that I've also spent a few days in while in Le Mans last year) they do not push. Part of this is that a Haldex as we know it is a front wheel drive until it senses slip. This is determined by either wheel sensors or the hydraulic clutch center differential. The Torsen is all-time all-wheel drive with a 40:60 split and the R8 30:70 viscous coupling with rear-wheel drive until slip (with more weight in the rear to bring it around). While the Haldex is the fastest system of the three to react, Torsen second fastest and viscous third fastest, it cannot react faster than power that is already there. Under non-slip in a turn, it is front-wheel drive. Under non-slip in a turn for the S4 with Sport diff, 60% is already at the rear and the sport diff (through data from yaw sensor) is already apportioning power to that outer rear wheel... and thus the push.... even more of a stability program through throttle as is ESP through braking.

I would still argue that to be even better than it is, the TT RS and the RS 3 still need a vectoring rear differential like the Sport Differential. It would be nice if you could dial in rear bias as you can on the WRX STi as well. I can see why these wouldn't be needed for A3 quattro or S3, but for an RS car this should be the case.


----------



## Rudy_H (Jul 6, 2012)

Interesting read, just some items I found : 



> Ride and Handling
> 
> In standard driving mode, TT RS has a 20:80 power distribution from the front to rear but it can be adjusted to distribute all that power to the rear wheels under hard acceleration and cornering.


Would be interested to see what something like this does for handling characteristics :
http://www.hpamotorsport.com/haldex.htm

I think George needs to be sent out to BC for a week for a new blog post?

Yes there is additional cost associated to getting a tweaked controller, however if you are into racing and want optimal driving characteristics, it would be a worthy purchase. For the average Joe, it may not be needed, except of course for bragging rights.


----------



## velocipedio (Apr 26, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> I've spent a fair amount of time in each of Audi's all-wheel drive cars. More recently I'd spent a year in 2010 with a Sport diff S4, 8 months in an R8 and now a TT RS in this last week. I've also had track time in each. I find the TT RS to be a truly wonderful car and of the three it is the one I'd likely buy for myself. Still, it does not push like the R8 and not even like the S4.
> 
> Haldex is great, don't get me wrong. It can be tuned to push, but in most cases (including the TT RS and RS 3 that I've also spent a few days in while in Le Mans last year) they do not push. Part of this is that a Haldex as we know it is a front wheel drive until it senses slip. This is determined by either wheel sensors or the hydraulic clutch center differential. The Torsen is all-time all-wheel drive with a 40:60 split and the R8 30:70 viscous coupling with rear-wheel drive until slip (with more weight in the rear to bring it around). While the Haldex is the fastest system of the three to react, Torsen second fastest and viscous third fastest, it cannot react faster than power that is already there. Under non-slip in a turn, it is front-wheel drive. Under non-slip in a turn for the S4 with Sport diff, 60% is already at the rear and the sport diff (through data from yaw sensor) is already apportioning power to that outer rear wheel... and thus the push.... even more of a stability program through throttle as is ESP through braking.
> 
> I would still argue that to be even better than it is, the TT RS and the RS 3 still need a vectoring rear differential like the Sport Differential. It would be nice if you could dial in rear bias as you can on the WRX STi as well. I can see why these wouldn't be needed for A3 quattro or S3, but for an RS car this should be the case.


I understand the differences between the systems at the basic level, but from what I can tell, Haldex-type systems are probably more representative of what top AWD tech will be like for road cars in the future (vs Torsen). I have owned a "true" quattro car and even though it was not an S or RS model, it did feel a bit different compared to my current S3. 

Just not sure that the "push" from a rear-bias or "full-time" AWD system (the latter of which Audi also markets Haldex as) is even truly needed, other than to satisfy subjective requirements of "driver enjoyment." Audi's S and RS cars are always either neck-and-neck with or outperform their major RWD competitors by the numbers, so I don't see why some find it so critical to make the drivelines rear biased. There are advantages to a front-biased AWD system, too.


----------



## dmorrow (Jun 9, 2000)

velocipedio said:


> I understand the differences between the systems at the basic level, but from what I can tell, Haldex-type systems are probably more representative of what top AWD tech will be like for road cars in the future (vs Torsen). I have owned a "true" quattro car and even though it was not an S or RS model, it did feel a bit different compared to my current S3.
> 
> Just not sure that the "push" from a rear-bias or "full-time" AWD system (the latter of which Audi also markets Haldex as) is even truly needed, other than to satisfy subjective requirements of "driver enjoyment." Audi's S and RS cars are always either neck-and-neck with or outperform their major RWD competitors by the numbers, so I don't see why some find it so critical to make the drivelines rear biased. There are advantages to a front-biased AWD system, too.


I agree with you that the Haldex is all that is needed but it doesn't mean it is ideal. Also, having a car that posts lap times equal or slightly better than another car is only part of the reason to buy it. I still don't know of any performance reason to ever send a large percentage of torque to the front wheels.


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

velocipedio said:


> I understand the differences between the systems at the basic level, but from what I can tell, Haldex-type systems are probably more representative of what top AWD tech will be like for road cars in the future (vs Torsen). I have owned a "true" quattro car and even though it was not an S or RS model, it did feel a bit different compared to my current S3.
> 
> Just not sure that the "push" from a rear-bias or "full-time" AWD system (the latter of which Audi also markets Haldex as) is even truly needed, other than to satisfy subjective requirements of "driver enjoyment." Audi's S and RS cars are always either neck-and-neck with or outperform their major RWD competitors by the numbers, so I don't see why some find it so critical to make the drivelines rear biased. There are advantages to a front-biased AWD system, too.


The thing with Haldex, is that, in non-slip situation, pretty much all its power is laid onto the front wheel. You think, so what's the big deal, as long as haldex can react lightning fast. The problem is that compared to a 50:50 torsen, it with only half the power laid to the ground, it will start to slip. When torsen locks or Haldex fully engages, the car behaves slightly different because the front and rear wheels are not independently turning anymore.

One reason the RS3 displays plowing characteristics is because it is a FWD platform with an extremely forward mounted engine. That's why even the last Audi A4/A6, had some understeer characteristic too, given the engine was way in front of the front axle. Plus, the TT platform tried to correct as much of this design deficiency by making the front of the chassis as light as possible and left the rear relatively heavy. The new MQB platform fixes this problem slightly, but it will never drive like a mid-front platform.


----------



## velocipedio (Apr 26, 2006)

LWNY said:


> The thing with Haldex, is that, in non-slip situation, pretty much all its power is laid onto the front wheel. You think, so what's the big deal, as long as haldex can react lightning fast. The problem is that compared to a 50:50 torsen, it with only half the power laid to the ground, it will start to slip. When torsen locks or Haldex fully engages, the car behaves slightly different because the front and rear wheels are not independently turning anymore.
> 
> One reason the RS3 displays plowing characteristics is because it is a FWD platform with an extremely forward mounted engine. That's why even the last Audi A4/A6, had some understeer characteristic too, given the engine was way in front of the front axle. Plus, the TT platform tried to correct as much of this design deficiency by making the front of the chassis as light as possible and left the rear relatively heavy. The new MQB platform fixes this problem slightly, but it will never drive like a mid-front platform.


I don't know. I thought the newer versions of Haldex (4) preloaded the rear wheels so that torque was distributed more evenly across all 4 and so that the rears were always somewhat engaged. Also, when the rears are engaged fully, it is usually during sprited driving and in cornering situations. It would seem one would have a true advantage then: good turn in from the inital front bias, and some push to help sort out the rest once in the corner. You don't take corners the same in an AWD car (vs. RWD) anyways, regardless of whether it is Torsen, Haldex, etc.

Also, in a front-biased car, 60/40 is generally considered optimal weight dist., no? The understeer you talk about can largely be dialed out through suspension tuning. The Mitsu EVO, as mentioned, was also 60/40. The new MQB platform only moves the engine back 5 cm, and the old platform was not really as you describe -- weight dist. for the A3 averaged 58/42, which are hardly terrible numbers. From the tests I have seen in German mags, the weight dist. of the new MQB cars has actually gotten worse (61/39) -- despite tilting the engine and moving it back marginally.


----------



## dmorrow (Jun 9, 2000)

velocipedio said:


> I don't know. I thought the newer versions of Haldex (4) preloaded the rear wheels so that torque was distributed more evenly across all 4 and so that the rears were always somewhat engaged.


I don't think any torque is sent to the rear until the car thinks there is a need for it. So most of the time the car is putting all or close to all of the power to the front. This leads to less than optimum steering feel. Getting better but still not optimum.



velocipedio said:


> Also, in a front-biased car, 60/40 is generally considered optimal weight dist., no? The understeer you talk about can largely be dialed out through suspension tuning.


You're saying that in a car with too much weight on the front that 60% of the weight on the front is optimum? If you could get it closer to 50% it would be closer to optimum. No amount of suspension tuning will make a car with too much weight on the front handle as well as it could have if it had been closer to equal front to rear. 

Put a stiff rear bar on the rear and you will have less understeer but you will also have the two rear wheels unable to act to bumps as independently as they did before (personal experience on a GTI).


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 9, 2004)

Rudy_H said:


> Interesting read, just some items I found :
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I've got a TT S-line Competition on order. I was thinking about maybe installing one of these to get a better idea.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 9, 2004)

velocipedio said:


> I understand the differences between the systems at the basic level, but from what I can tell, Haldex-type systems are probably more representative of what top AWD tech will be like for road cars in the future (vs Torsen). I have owned a "true" quattro car and even though it was not an S or RS model, it did feel a bit different compared to my current S3.
> 
> Just not sure that the "push" from a rear-bias or "full-time" AWD system (the latter of which Audi also markets Haldex as) is even truly needed, other than to satisfy subjective requirements of "driver enjoyment." Audi's S and RS cars are always either neck-and-neck with or outperform their major RWD competitors by the numbers, so I don't see why some find it so critical to make the drivelines rear biased. There are advantages to a front-biased AWD system, too.


The Porsche 911 and the Bugatti Veyron use Haldex, but in reverse. They are RWD cars with Haldex apportioning forward. Handling is different because the power is first at the rear and then moved forward.

It is both faster than a VC or Torsen and also electronically programmable, so is superior in some ways. Running two-wheel drive with no slip is also better for efficiency... but for handling it has some downsides. You can run more to the rear as the HPA kit does, but this causes more wear on the hydraulic clutch so I'm not sure what that means for long-term maintenance.

The real difference for the Torsen cars isn't just torsen. What I really prefer is the Sport Differential. Vectoring between rear wheels is not just a performance enhancement, it's also a seriously effective stability tool. I'd love to see it added to a Haldex car, but am not sure that I fully understand the challenges this might cause because for torque to be vectored, you need torque back there before slip occurs under normal driving conditions (see my next post for more on this).


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 9, 2004)

velocipedio said:


> I don't know. I thought the newer versions of Haldex (4) preloaded the rear wheels so that torque was distributed more evenly across all 4 and so that the rears were always somewhat engaged. Also, when the rears are engaged fully, it is usually during sprited driving and in cornering situations. It would seem one would have a true advantage then: good turn in from the inital front bias, and some push to help sort out the rest once in the corner. You don't take corners the same in an AWD car (vs. RWD) anyways, regardless of whether it is Torsen, Haldex, etc.
> 
> Also, in a front-biased car, 60/40 is generally considered optimal weight dist., no? The understeer you talk about can largely be dialed out through suspension tuning. The Mitsu EVO, as mentioned, was also 60/40. The new MQB platform only moves the engine back 5 cm, and the old platform was not really as you describe -- weight dist. for the A3 averaged 58/42, which are hardly terrible numbers. From the tests I have seen in German mags, the weight dist. of the new MQB cars has actually gotten worse (61/39) -- despite tilting the engine and moving it back marginally.


With the launch of the Volvo XC90 V8, Haldex added a non-return valve to keep the clutch engaged even before there is slip. This was utilized mainly to lock the diff at launch because of the added torque of the Yamaha V8 in the Volvo. I believe this is still the standard operation of the unit to to this day although further 'torque vectoring' is also done via applying brake to an inner rear slipping wheel to send the torque to the outside. While fast, this process still needs to happen versus the torsen sport diff's setup whereby a yaw sensor sensing the steering angle and trajectory of the car proactively sends torque based on expected physics of the car.


----------



## velocipedio (Apr 26, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> With the launch of the Volvo XC90 V8, Haldex added a non-return valve to keep the clutch engaged even before there is slip. This was utilized mainly to lock the diff at launch because of the added torque of the Yamaha V8 in the Volvo. I believe this is still the standard operation of the unit to to this day although further 'torque vectoring' is also done via applying brake to an inner rear slipping wheel to send the torque to the outside. While fast, this process still needs to happen versus the torsen sport diff's setup whereby a yaw sensor sensing the steering angle and trajectory of the car proactively sends torque based on expected physics of the car.


Thanks. Good info. :thumbup: Also, this thread is an interesting read concerning the F/R power split in Audi's Haldex cars; Haldex 4 appears far more sophisticated than the Gen 2 used in the older cars, and according to some posters tests, seems to continuously transfer 40-50% of torque in normal driving without front wheel slip. Take a look: http://forums.audiworld.com/archive/index.php/t-2809359.html Not sure how accurate that is, but it seems Audi engineers are the only ones who really know what's going on.


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

dmorrow said:


> Put a stiff rear bar on the rear and you will have less understeer but you will also have the two rear wheels unable to act to bumps as independently as they did before (personal experience on a GTI).


Putting a stiff rear bar actually causes total net grip since the inner wheel likely will not be doing its part. That is why people would do it. Already less front grip + less rear grip = car going sideways = fun. GTI's with the rear wheel lifting up made the car more neutral.





velocipedio said:


> Thanks. Good info. :thumbup: Also, this thread is an interesting read concerning the F/R power split in Audi's Haldex cars; Haldex 4 appears far more sophisticated than the Gen 2 used in the older cars, and according to some posters tests, seems to continuously transfer 40-50% of torque in normal driving without front wheel slip. Take a look: http://forums.audiworld.com/archive/index.php/t-2809359.html Not sure how accurate that is, but it seems Audi engineers are the only ones who really know what's going on.


That is possible, and I have been saying it. Since Haldex is electronic based, it can predict the onset of slip based on multiple input, like steering wheel angle, how much the accelerator is depressed, lateral acceleration sensor, etc...and pre-engage. But it is not foolproof, and when you foot is not on the gas, it will not stay engaged, and if you transition from brake or no-gas to gas, there is no pre-engaging the moment you hit the gas pedal. That means if you just trail braked into a corner and hit the gas at the apex, you could encounter slip to the front wheel. If that slip occurred on a slippery surface, the car will understeer and continue to understeer even if torque has been transferred to the rear wheels since coefficient of drag on a object already sliding is lower than when it is not sliding. There are all sorts of ways to drive a FWD based haldex, just like a RWD based haldex (unless you want to spin out all the time), or differential based.

Plus, note, haldex unit is placed after the transmission, thus it will have to take the blunt of the torque after it has been multiplied by the transmission. Thus on low gear, even in full lock, your rear wheels will not be taking up as much power as the front wheels.

As for Haldex gen IV being much more advanced, it isn't really. It just utilize an electric pump instead of relying on a differential pump. You have to drive the Gen IV much like you drive a Gen II, or those little surprises will still catch you.


----------



## velocipedio (Apr 26, 2006)

> That is possible, and I have been saying it. Since Haldex is electronic based, it can predict the onset of slip based on multiple input, like steering wheel angle, how much the accelerator is depressed, lateral acceleration sensor, etc...and pre-engage. But it is not foolproof, and when you foot is not on the gas, it will not stay engaged, and if you transition from brake or no-gas to gas, there is no pre-engaging the moment you hit the gas pedal. That means if you just trail braked into a corner and hit the gas at the apex, you could encounter slip to the front wheel. If that slip occurred on a slippery surface, the car will understeer and continue to understeer even if torque has been transferred to the rear wheels since coefficient of drag on a object already sliding is lower than when it is not sliding. There are all sorts of ways to drive a FWD based haldex, just like a RWD based haldex (unless you want to spin out all the time), or differential based.




Not saying you are wrong, but I just don't quite get this example. If you are headed into a corner with your foot off the gas, it doesn't really matter what wheels are driven does it? Since no torque is coming from the engine, the car is just rolling at that point. When you hit the gas at the apex, a car with Haldex 4 should drive very similar to a Torsen car since it transfers torque immediately and seems to distribute based on (among other things) the drivers application of the gas... If the front wheels did slip, the even more torque would transfer to the rear, which would help avoid understeer I would think? Did you read that whole thread I linked? Some of the info. there was quite interesting (especially the stuff from "AudiAnnie"); but like I said, only Audi really knows what is going on in any given situation.



> As for Haldex gen IV being much more advanced, it isn't really. It just utilize an electric pump instead of relying on a differential pump. You have to drive the Gen IV much like you drive a Gen II, or those little surprises will still catch you.


I have heard mixed things about this. One thing that seems clear, though, is that it does not behave the same as the Gen II.


----------



## Fellow Gaucho (Aug 3, 2011)

velocipedio said:


> Not saying you are wrong, but I just don't quite get this example. If you are headed into a corner with your foot off the gas, it doesn't really matter what wheels are driven does it? Since no torque is coming from the engine, the car is just rolling at that point. When you hit the gas at the apex, a car with Haldex 4 should drive very similar to a Torsen car since it transfers torque immediately and seems to distribute based on (among other things) the drivers application of the gas... If the front wheels did slip, the even more torque would transfer to the rear, which would help avoid understeer I would think? Did you read that whole thread I linked? Some of the info. there was quite interesting (especially the stuff from "AudiAnnie"); but like I said, only Audi really knows what is going on in any given situation.


Don't think the point that no torque exists is true. You may lay off the gas, but there still is torque being transferred due to the gear being engaged and rpms > 0. Like when you are in 1st at a light there is still a torque on the wheels (the car moves foreward) same thing happens when you are turning.

Not sure exactly if this would result in a noticeable difference between torsen and haldex though.


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

velocipedio said:


> Not saying you are wrong, but I just don't quite get this example. If you are headed into a corner with your foot off the gas, it doesn't really matter what wheels are driven does it? Since no torque is coming from the engine, the car is just rolling at that point. When you hit the gas at the apex, a car with Haldex 4 should drive very similar to a Torsen car since it transfers torque immediately and seems to distribute based on (among other things) the drivers application of the gas... If the front wheels did slip, the even more torque would transfer to the rear, which would help avoid understeer I would think? Did you read that whole thread I linked? Some of the info. there was quite interesting (especially the stuff from "AudiAnnie"); but like I said, only Audi really knows what is going on in any given situation.


The fact that you can trick haldex into slipping momentarily before it transfers torque to the rear wheels is what makes it different from torque sensing differentials, where no slip needs to take place for the differential to lock, but just the sensing of differential in application of torque to the different axles.

Slipping in a dry condition is very different from slipping in a low grip condition like rain or snow, since coefficient of friction is similar for a sliding and non-sliding on a dry surface, thus reduction of power applied to the tires by 50% (now that the front and rear are applying the power to the road) would be enough for the tires to resume grip, but on a low grip surface, you don't just have a much lower friction when the tire is slipping, thus much harder for it to grip traction again, but it also has to fight the sliding that has started to take place.

I've read thru thru that thread, I already mentioned that the Haldex uses a multitude of factors to pre-engage in anticipation of slip. But I do not think she is right in her observations. If all 4 tires are on equal surface, is technically impossible for the rear axles to handle 55-60% of the torque. Even if the haldex was replaced with a driveshaft so the rear turns just as fast and just as much power as the front axle, you would only get 50% of the torque. Maybe she means the rear gets 55-60% as much torque as the front. Plus, as I stated earlier, Haldex clutch comes after the transmission, thus the engine's 300 or so ft-lb or torque gets multiplied by the gear ratio of the transmission, which in 1st gear could be 3-4x. The 750 ft-lb of torque transfer capability of the haldex clutch is not enough to keep the it at full lock, thus, 50% of power could never be applied at low gears.

Also, audiannie's description of haldex not unlocking when brakes are applied does not seem to jibe. First, it interferes with ABS and ESP, which requires independent control of individual axles. Secondly, there is a difference between no throttle and braking, so can't be sure which one she meants. Thirdly, taking alot of short turns in hard packed snow conditions, I've come to the realization that in order to make the turn, always have the foot on the throttle, but when the foot is off the throttle or on the brakes, the car will always go wide. This definitely indicates no locking of haldex when foot is on the brakes, thus rear axle cannot rotate at the same rate as the front (as is when throttle is applied), thus no overdriving of the rear wheels like a 'sports differential'.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 9, 2004)

I just want to thank you all. This is a fantastic thread.


----------



## webcrawlr (Oct 24, 2006)

LWNY said:


> The thing with Haldex, is that, in non-slip situation, pretty much all its power is laid onto the front wheel.


 Slip isn't the only condition that sends power to the rear. Acceleration of any type will also move power from the front to rear. HPA has a good set of graphs showing this with the OEM controller and their own. 



LWNY said:


> Also, audiannie's description of haldex not unlocking when brakes are applied does not seem to jibe. First, it interferes with ABS and ESP, which requires independent control of individual axles. Secondly, there is a difference between no throttle and braking, so can't be sure which one she meants. Thirdly, taking alot of short turns in hard packed snow conditions, I've come to the realization that in order to make the turn, always have the foot on the throttle, but when the foot is off the throttle or on the brakes, the car will always go wide. This definitely indicates no locking of haldex when foot is on the brakes, thus rear axle cannot rotate at the same rate as the front (as is when throttle is applied), thus no overdriving of the rear wheels like a 'sports differential'.


The OEM controller most definitely disengages the clutch when the brakes are applied.


When I heard the news the RS3 was coming I put all big build plans for the R on hold. 2014 can't come fast enough!


----------



## Rudy_H (Jul 6, 2012)

webcrawlr said:


> When I heard the news the RS3 was coming I put all big build plans for the R on hold. 2014 can't come fast enough!


Actually I was bored at work, and did some digging. The root of the rumour is coming from here from what I see linked on a few other blogs :
http://www.whatcar.com/car-news/audi-rs3-due-in-2014/264238

So we are seeing the hatchback in Britian out, and on this site. The hatchback RS3 is due out in early 2014...I bet we will actually see the RS3 SEDAN -> America, sometime in late 2014 / 2015...so another 2 years before we will likely see anything here.

See how timing goes with the A3 / S3 here, because I might just grab an A3 on a short term lease then grab a RS3 when it comes...or hold out. 

This is so bad...I want a S3, or A3 TDI (if it has 184hp diesel), or a RS3...but then maybe just get a A3 S-Line for now. 

The North American reveal can't come sooner can it?


----------



## steve111b (Jun 2, 2011)

This is a great discussion to follow.
Perhaps someone can find something useful about the haldex in the following:
Snow covered parking lot - I turn the wheel hard and with ESP off I stomp on the gas, the back end kicks out and I am doing donuts. It seems to me that the gen. 4 haldex has transformed a normal FWD car into a RWD. Is it possible to do donuts with a FWD car?


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

steve111b said:


> This is a great discussion to follow.
> Perhaps someone can find something useful about the haldex in the following:
> Snow covered parking lot - I turn the wheel hard and with ESP off I stomp on the gas, the back end kicks out and I am doing donuts. It seems to me that the gen. 4 haldex has transformed a normal FWD car into a RWD. Is it possible to do donuts with a FWD car?


If the haldex is locked, the rear axle will want to turn at the same rate as the front axle, but since the front wheels will carve a wider radius (the rear follows, thus never taking the same path, but a shorter one), the rear axle will 'overdrive' the wheels, thus its turning rate will mean it wants to follow the front axle's path, causing the rear to rotate out, that means the rear will lose grip, especially in a slippery surface.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 9, 2004)

LWNY said:


> If the haldex is locked, the rear axle will want to turn at the same rate as the front axle, but since the front wheels will carve a wider radius (the rear follows, thus never taking the same path, but a shorter one), the rear axle will 'overdrive' the wheels, thus its turning rate will mean it wants to follow the front axle's path, causing the rear to rotate out, that means the rear will lose grip, especially in a slippery surface.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but possibly also at play here is the lack of traction at the front sending torque to the back. I know on Torsen cars I've owned where I've left summer tires on too long or gone to a parking lot as seen above and then when I get on the accelerator with the wheels turned, they immediately lose traction... think hard launching a FWD car in the wet with the wheels turned. Weight transfers off those wheels, they spin and more power transfers to the rear. 

A summer tire setup on a torsen quattro in a tight, snow-covered parking lot can be downright dicey... lots of oversteer.


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

[email protected] said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but possibly also at play here is the lack of traction at the front sending torque to the back. I know on Torsen cars I've owned where I've left summer tires on too long or gone to a parking lot as seen above and then when I get on the accelerator with the wheels turned, they immediately lose traction... think hard launching a FWD car in the wet with the wheels turned. Weight transfers off those wheels, they spin and more power transfers to the rear.
> 
> A summer tire setup on a torsen quattro in a tight, snow-covered parking lot can be downright dicey... lots of oversteer.


The Gen IV has auto haldex lock at startup so car could launch better, thus both front and rear are turning the same. This will cause the rear to want to turn the same number of rotations while trying to take a shorter path that requires less rotation, thus the rear tires has to give away (either that or the front tires give away, but since most of the weight is in the front, the rear should lose traction first).


----------



## EuroPartsBin (Dec 11, 2012)

:thumbup:


----------



## Crocodile (May 21, 2009)

Spooked by the 350 bhp developed by AMG's new 2.0-litre in-line four for the upcoming A45 AMG version of Mercedes-Benz's new A-Class, quattro Gmbh has apparently been galvanised into action. 

Audi has sanctioned a fairly extensive revamp of the 2.5-litre in-line five to give it more power and lower emissions. We knew that such a development was likely, but now it has been confirmed by Stephan Reil in an interview with Australian online auto mag, Motoring.com.au. Not only does the engine have to be EU6 emission standards compliant, it needs more power. It makes me wonder whether the next RS3 will crack 400 bhp? The A3 sedan concept shown at Geneva two years ago was reported to have 407 bhp. While this was just a number on a concept car, it would be entirely possible. Check this out, if you haven't seen it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=df-yU-g6ljE&list=FLgezyKOe8pRCvXyRyl3RnCA

The other really interesting piece of news is the announcement of a new Haldex AWD system designed especially for the VW Group's MQB platform (Haldex 5?) This is identical to the set-up on the new AMG A45's AWD system - which is lapping the Nurburgring some 10 seconds faster than the RS3. It has a new central diff which is better at transmitting power between the wheels. 

The present RS3 laps the Nurburgring in around 8:20. The new one should do at least 8:10, but if the engine is significantly more powerful, that could drop to the magic figure of 7:59 - which would be truly impressive. 

We'll get some idea of how potent the new RS3 will be when the motoring press starts to test the S3 from March of this year. Expect to see the S3 Sportback at Geneva says my dealer. 

The bottom line is that the current RS3 has been an unqualified success for Audi. They'll want to turn the wick up on it to keep the customer satisfied. I can't wait.


----------



## djdub (Dec 30, 2001)

Here's to hoping that America gets at least one or all these little Beastie Hatches. :vampire:

I'll leave this here too: BMW Ugly Step Child Content that I would still love and cherish.


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

> The other really interesting piece of news is the announcement of a new Haldex AWD system designed especially for the VW Group's MQB platform (Haldex 5?) This is identical to the set-up on the new AMG A45's AWD system - which is lapping the Nurburgring some 10 seconds faster than the RS3. It has a new central diff which is better at transmitting power between the wheels.


Not sure how the A45's AWD is implemented, but most say it is rear biased clutch based. It is impossible to divert more power to the rear unless Haldex is completely redone, along with the transmission where either the front wheels has to be able to decouple from the transmission or not directly driven by it. Or if the drivetrain to the front wheels are kept as it, the rear wheels are over-driven and always engaged by the clutchpack.


----------



## mookieblaylock (Sep 25, 2005)

djdub said:


> Here's to hoping that America gets at least one or all these little Beastie Hatches. :vampire:
> .[/URL]


the beemer is the heartbreaker-6cyl turbo,rear biased awd sport variant but not for us


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

LWNY said:


> Not sure how the A45's AWD is implemented, but most say it is rear biased clutch based. It is impossible to divert more power to the rear unless Haldex is completely redone, along with the transmission where either the front wheels has to be able to decouple from the transmission or not directly driven by it. Or if the drivetrain to the front wheels are kept as it, the rear wheels are over-driven and always engaged by the clutchpack.


looking more into it. It looks like Mini's Getrag twinster is rear biased, with the rear being driven full time and front being differential-less and instead utilizing twin clutch to individually apply power to each wheel. Seems like haldex has been asleep the last few years, with haldex gen IV being so low tech compared to it (twinster was announced around 2005 and introduced in 2008). All it need is a PTU, which in the haldex cars, just has a diff and a 90 deg gear that goes to the driveshaft.


----------



## R90 STL (May 30, 2013)

The sportback is perfection. I better get saving!!


----------



## DaLeadBull (Feb 15, 2011)

If we get sportback RS3 with 5 cyl, haldex 5 & some type of LSD. Sign me up, I'll be trading in my Golf R.

What do you think the price point will be, higher or lower than TTRS?


----------



## 311-in-337 (Feb 19, 2003)

DaLeadBull said:


> If we get sportback RS3 with 5 cyl, haldex 5 & some type of LSD. Sign me up, I'll be trading in my Golf R.
> 
> What do you think the price point will be, higher or lower than TTRS?



Lower for sure!


----------



## jsausley (Dec 2, 2011)

DaLeadBull said:


> If we get sportback RS3 with 5 cyl, haldex 5 & some type of LSD. Sign me up, I'll be trading in my Golf R.
> 
> What do you think the price point will be, higher or lower than TTRS?


Me too, but I don't even require the LSD or Sportback. What I really want is an RS3 Sedan with the 5-cylinder! APR Stage 3... 500-600 HP... I'd love to laugh at all of my friends with their ///M cars. :laugh:


----------



## Crocodile (May 21, 2009)

Thinking about some of the comments stated here, affection for the RS3 shouldn't blind us to its faults. For me the biggest problem is the weight of the engine. It undoubtedly affects ride and handling. 

With the AMG A45, Mercedes-Benz has opted for a 2.0-litre in-line four boosted to 350 bhp. According to pre-release road tests, turn-in is much crisper and the car has a better balance. This is also partly due to AMG using a tweaked version of Haldex 4 that apportions more torque to the rear wheels. 

The new Golf GTI and Audi S3 have what is in effect a electronic LSD that vectors torque to the wheel with the most traction. I am sure Audi will used a tweaked version of Haldex 4 in both the S3 and RS3. (We certainly haven't heard the full story on the S3 yet.)

But, Audi has to do something about the 2.5-litre engine's weight. If it could make an all aluminium version like the new 2.0-litre EA888, that would be fantastic. I also want at least 380 bhp. 

Maintain the 7-speed DSG gearbox, give it a dose of the RS6's styling with aluminum detailing, and you've got it. 

I will order one as soon as the car is announced.


----------



## webcrawlr (Oct 24, 2006)

Crocodile said:


> Thinking about some of the comments stated here, affection for the RS3 shouldn't blind us to its faults. For me the biggest problem is the weight of the engine. It undoubtedly affects ride and handling.
> 
> With the AMG A45, Mercedes-Benz has opted for a 2.0-litre in-line four boosted to 350 bhp. According to pre-release road tests, turn-in is much crisper and the car has a better balance. This is also partly due to AMG using a tweaked version of Haldex 4 that apportions more torque to the rear wheels.
> 
> ...


 I've read in a couple of the trade rags that the RS3 is thought to be using a tuned version of the EA888 and that VWoA will be moving away from the 2.5l. They all seem to agree with you that the added weight really hurt other aspects of the car.


----------



## DudeLePowSki (Feb 9, 2011)

Please bring the sportback to Canada. 

Sent via Nerdroid mobile.


----------



## jsausley (Dec 2, 2011)

Can't see the weight of the 2.5L hurting much when it was only .2 seconds slower than the 4.2 R8 at VIR when strapped into a TT-RS.


----------



## Saracen (Sep 20, 2011)

DaLeadBull said:


> If we get sportback RS3 with 5 cyl, haldex 5 & some type of LSD. Sign me up, I'll be trading in my Golf R.
> 
> What do you think the price point will be, higher or lower than TTRS?


 The RS3 would be priced quite a bit lower than the TTRS, no question. The TT platform is considered to be the most premium car based on the MQB platform. 

I expect the RS3 to slot in right under $50k. If it comes with a stick I'll be trading my Golf R in for one as well.


----------



## Crocodile (May 21, 2009)

jsausley said:


> Can't see the weight of the 2.5L hurting much when it was only .2 seconds slower than the 4.2 R8 at VIR when strapped into a TT-RS.


 We're not talking about raw speed; the RS3 does very well on that score. We're talking about unsprung weight over the front wheels which makes turn-in less sharp, heightens the sense of oversteer, and makes the car harder to balance on the throttle. 

Price point will definitely be lower than TT-RS and it likely won't come with a stick shift. 

I wonder if the RS3 will debut Haldex 5 and other electronic trickery from Audi? 

@Webcrwlr 

It seems fairly certain that next RS3 WILL get 2.5-litre five cylinder. The question is whether it will be a tuned version of the current engine a lighter version of it. I don't think it will be the EA888, especially as German tuners are already talking about chipping the S3's engine. You could easily get a 320-40 bhp for S3 money. That being the case, who'd plump for an RS3 costing $10 K more? 

Audi is working on a short new twin-turbo 3.0-litre V6 to replace the current supercharged 3.0-litre unit. This will be used in A6 and A4, but maybe it could also find its way into the RS3. it would certainly fit. 

All things considered, my money is on a revised 2.5 five. If it could lose even 25 kg / 55 lb I'd be delighted.


----------



## DaLeadBull (Feb 15, 2011)

Yea, the 5 cyl is something special. I likely will not consider an RS3 if it came without it. Hopefully, Audi revises the motor and makes it a little lighter. Does anyone know if the MQB platform allows the engine to be mounted further back in the chassis with respect to the front axle?


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

Crocodile said:


> We're not talking about raw speed; the RS3 does very well on that score. We're talking about unsprung weight over the front wheels which makes turn-in less sharp, heightens the sense of oversteer, and makes the car harder to balance on the throttle.
> 
> Price point will definitely be lower than TT-RS and it likely won't come with a stick shift.
> 
> ...


 I don't know if they can make the 2.5T much lighter, given that its original casting is from the VW low performance 2.5 iron block. They can't just pour aluminum instead of iron in the casting. Also, since it is an engine designed by Quattro GmBH, they likely don't have the resource to create an engine from scratch for the bottom of the line car model. The 2.5T weighs around 400LB, AMG's 6.3 is quoted to be around similar in weight, so obviously some company can really put their effort to weight reduction while another can only modify a clunker that's in the parts bin. 

Substituting the EA888 would not be much use, given that it is still a heavy hog at 300+LB. The TT ultra concept had a 25KG reduction in weight on the EA888, with light crankshaft, lighter flywheel, and aux (?). 

The VW designed 1.6 is a lightweight, tipping the scale at around 200LB. They finally went with alum block. 

BMW are making their diesel engines with alum crankcase, so Audi has to catch up on their gas and diesel engines. They are not marketing 5000LB SUVs where nobody cares about weight optimization. They are the ones who are bragging some weights saved here and there, but still lugging the overweight 1.8T/2.0T/2.5T engine. 

I feel that Audi is not transferring much of their longitudinal engine technology to their transverse designs. If they do so, it will automatically be snatched up by VW to put it in their cars, thus losing any cachet the Audis has. Look how long valvelift took to get adapted to the transverse 2.0T. It seems like VW is doing no R&D and just relying on Audi to trickle their engine designs down, such as the 2.0T, 2.5T, valvelift, etc. VW is still giving us the 118hp 2.0, torsion beam, etc. 

As for the haldex, I heard Haldex Gen V does not offer performance increase over the Gen IV, only simplification of design and weight reduction.


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

DaLeadBull said:


> Yea, the 5 cyl is something special. I likely will not consider an RS3 if it came without it. Hopefully, Audi revises the motor and makes it a little lighter. Does anyone know if the MQB platform allows the engine to be mounted further back in the chassis with respect to the front axle?


 the front axle of the MQB has been moved forward by approx 2 inches, and all engines will tilt backward by the same amount, as opposed to the prev platform, where each engine is specifically adapted to the chassis, some tilting forward, others backward. 

As for it being lighter, it is unlikely, since it came from a VW 2.5 design, including the cast iron casting. All Quattro GmBH could do is cast it with a stronger metal (vermicular iron) not a weaker one like aluminum.


----------



## DaLeadBull (Feb 15, 2011)

LWNY said:


> the front axle of the MQB has been moved forward by approx 2 inches, and all engines will tilt backward by the same amount, as opposed to the prev platform, where each engine is specifically adapted to the chassis, some tilting forward, others backward.
> 
> As for it being lighter, it is unlikely, since it came from a VW 2.5 design, including the cast iron casting. All Quattro GmBH could do is cast it with a stronger metal (vermicular iron) not a weaker one like aluminum.


 Now that the VW 2.5 has been canned, maybe Audi Quattro is developing an all new 2.5 5 cyl turbo. I think the RS3 did really well in terms of sales so I would think that it would be worth it financially. 

If they can make a make a lightweight 5 cyl which sits further back in the chassis, that would make the RS3/TT RS a beast. This along with some type of LSD (not that using the brakes BS). 

Is it even possible to fit the rear differential found in the RS5 into a haldex car?


----------



## VR6Nikopol (Jul 11, 2001)

Can a VR6 engine be considered? All I hope is something bigger than a 4 banger.


----------



## Travis Grundke (May 26, 1999)

VR6Nikopol said:


> Can a VR6 engine be considered? All I hope is something bigger than a 4 banger.


 Considered? Yes. 

Likely? Absolutely not.


----------



## Crocodile (May 21, 2009)

LWNY said:


> I don't know if they can make the 2.5T much lighter, given that its original casting is from the VW low performance 2.5 iron block. They can't just pour aluminum instead of iron in the casting. Also, since it is an engine designed by Quattro GmBH, they likely don't have the resource to create an engine from scratch for the bottom of the line car model. The 2.5T weighs around 400LB, AMG's 6.3 is quoted to be around similar in weight, so obviously some company can really put their effort to weight reduction while another can only modify a clunker that's in the parts bin.
> 
> Substituting the EA888 would not be much use, given that it is still a heavy hog at 300+LB. The TT ultra concept had a 25KG reduction in weight on the EA888, with light crankshaft, lighter flywheel, and aux (?).
> 
> ...


 Thanks a lot for this. :thumbup:


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

DaLeadBull said:


> Now that the VW 2.5 has been canned, maybe Audi Quattro is developing an all new 2.5 5 cyl turbo. I think the RS3 did really well in terms of sales so I would think that it would be worth it financially.
> 
> If they can make a make a lightweight 5 cyl which sits further back in the chassis, that would make the RS3/TT RS a beast. This along with some type of LSD (not that using the brakes BS).
> 
> Is it even possible to fit the rear differential found in the RS5 into a haldex car?


 The Quattro division design engines from scratch for big projects, like the Lamborghini Aventador/Gallardo. The reason Audi even rolls out S3 and RS3 cars is because the engine are already there for the TT-S/TT-RS (a much more high profile car for Audi). I don't think Audi will do a brand new 5 cylinder from scratch, unless they decide it for dual use with their longitudal platform (but with a 2.0T and 3.0T, why would they bother). Maybe eventually when the EA888 gets a clean sheet design and they could graft a 5th cylinder for a new 2.5T. 

As for using the sport diff, it is impossible, since the haldex and rear diff are a single unit (even if they operate independently).


----------



## DaLeadBull (Feb 15, 2011)

LWNY said:


> The Quattro division design engines from scratch for big projects, like the Lamborghini Aventador/Gallardo. The reason Audi even rolls out S3 and RS3 cars is because the engine are already there for the TT-S/TT-RS (a much more high profile car for Audi). I don't think Audi will do a brand new 5 cylinder from scratch, unless they decide it for dual use with their longitudal platform (but with a 2.0T and 3.0T, why would they bother). Maybe eventually when the EA888 gets a clean sheet design and they could graft a 5th cylinder for a new 2.5T.
> 
> As for using the sport diff, it is impossible, since the haldex and rear diff are a single unit (even if they operate independently).


 Hmm, what about the VAQ electro-mechanical differential they have in the new GTI? 

Is it possible to have the haldex front-rear diff and a side to side diff in the rear?


----------



## Crocodile (May 21, 2009)

LWNY said:


> Maybe eventually when the EA888 gets a clean sheet design and they could graft a 5th cylinder for a new 2.5T.


 The EA888 is a relatively new design. It has chain cam drive versus the belt drive of the older EA113. But also new cylinder block design. Grafting an extra cylinder onto this unit would be ideal. It should save around 30-40 kg. 

It is definitely going to be interesting to see what Audi does. I am sure they won't disappoint us.


----------



## jetta9103 (Sep 21, 2003)

DaLeadBull said:


> Hmm, what about the VAQ electro-mechanical differential they have in the new GTI?
> 
> Is it possible to have the haldex front-rear diff and a side to side diff in the rear?


 It'll be a tight squeeze to put a front eLSD + the angle drive for the AWD on the same car - the current VAQ eLSD is designed only for a FWD car at this point. Theoretically possible, yes. 

If by side-to-side you mean something like the RS4/5/6's sport diff (torque vectoring), it's possible, but to my knowledge, VW's not working on anything like that. Not impossible though (GM/Saab did a rear eLSD on their Haldex 4 cars, and Mercedes is doing something similar on their new A-class I think). 

Not in this RS3, but maybe in 2 generations, I'd expect to see this (not the ICE/hybrid part, just the e-rear diff). That way, they CAN package in the front eLSD VAQ unit + AWD (via a rear electric motor)


----------



## DaLeadBull (Feb 15, 2011)

LWNY said:


> The Quattro division design engines from scratch for big projects, like the Lamborghini Aventador/Gallardo. The reason Audi even rolls out S3 and RS3 cars is because the engine are already there for the TT-S/TT-RS (a much more high profile car for Audi). I don't think Audi will do a brand new 5 cylinder from scratch, unless they decide it for dual use with their longitudal platform (but with a 2.0T and 3.0T, why would they bother). Maybe eventually when the EA888 gets a clean sheet design and they could graft a 5th cylinder for a new 2.5T.
> 
> As for using the sport diff, it is impossible, since the haldex and rear diff are a single unit (even if they operate independently).


I just looked at the curb weights of the TTS and TTRS and the weight difference is only 87 lbs. That to me is pretty acceptable, I'm sure most of the difference is probably the engine but it's not that bad. 

Does the RS use more light weight body parts compared to the TTS that I don't know about?


----------



## mookieblaylock (Sep 25, 2005)

since this thread is about the rs3 and not the hideous looking tt i googled the weights of the rs3 and a3 quattro

rs3 -3796 
a3q -3461

335 extra pounds over the front axle, thing is a pig, I still lust after one though


----------



## mrtonyxl (Dec 21, 2009)

George,

Any new rumblings about US rs3 (sedan/sportback/either) release timelines? I saw the post which placed s3 release around march which would be amazing - reasonable to assume late 2014 for an rs3 if it's coming?


----------

