# Official: Canadian S3 rated at 285 HP



## Allzonecars (Jun 16, 2013)

http://microsites.audiusa.com/ngw/14/brochures/FULL_LINE_English_v2/index.html

Page 101 of the document (103 including the cover page)

"Also launching in 2014 is a Canadian first, the new S3. Equipped with quattro all-wheel drive, the S3 uses its *285 hp* in typical S style, offering uncompromising handling, exhilarating acceleration and pure driving enjoyment."

Must be the same south of the border.

Been following this forum closely for awhile now and found it very interesting.

Here is my first contribution


----------



## qtroCUB (Mar 22, 2005)

Welcome and Great find!!!


----------



## jrwamp (Mar 25, 2011)

Great find, sounds like 285 it is!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

The number of wheel options on the A4-S4-allroad and A5-S5-RS5 make the lack of A3-S3 options downright inexcusable.


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

Also, how do we arrive at 285hp? That's not one of the four apparent levels for the S3 based on Arin's quote posted in another thread (265, 280, 290, 300). Odd.


----------



## lilmira (Feb 4, 2014)

Anyone remembers the HP on the leaked Audi.ca S3 page earlier? Should have saved a screen capture lol. Hopefully they release more info in the following weeks.


----------



## Bamm1 (Oct 17, 2013)

lilmira said:


> Anyone remembers the HP on the leaked Audi.ca S3 page earlier? Should have saved a screen capture lol. Hopefully they release more info in the following weeks.


285 horsepower and 260 lb-ft of torque


----------



## DaLeadBull (Feb 15, 2011)

Bamm1 said:


> 285 horsepower and 260 lb-ft of torque


If those are truly the right numbers, then I gotta say that's disappointing especially that torque figure. I don't see such a drastic drop as likely, I hope not at least.



Dan Halen said:


> Also, how do we arrive at 285hp? That's not one of the four apparent levels for the S3 based on Arin's quote posted in another thread (265, 280, 290, 300). Odd.


With all due respect to Arin, he has no control over that. VAG can rate the engine whatever they like especially when it comes to North America.


----------



## robopp (Aug 5, 2012)

Bamm1 said:


> 285 horsepower and 260 lb-ft of torque


Ouch! When I first heard about the S3 a year ago I was sold but, if those numbers are correct, I'm going to be holding onto my R for longer than I anticipated.


----------



## Travis Grundke (May 26, 1999)

Assuming that torque figure is accurate, it's a pretty disappointing number considering the stock 2.0T clocks in at 258 lb/ft.

Complete speculation here: if this is indeed the case, the likelihood of an RS model just went up.


----------



## Atxdawg2004 (Feb 16, 2014)

I have been eagerly awaiting the S3 for quite a while now and I have to say that the news thats been coming out lately regarding the specs are very disappointing. The main reason this car has an edge in my mind over another car like the Lexus IS is because of superior performance. This low torque number coupled with the lack of MPI for the US has really got me second guessing the S3. I am already concerned about reliability when it comes to an Audi vs other brands, so the lack of MPI and the potential carbon buildup problems that can occur as a result of that, are a very big issue for me.


----------



## The DarkSide (Aug 4, 2000)

Travis Grundke said:


> Assuming that torque figure is accurate, it's a pretty disappointing number considering the stock 2.0T clocks in at 258 lb/ft.
> 
> Complete speculation here: if this is indeed the case, the likelihood of an RS model just went up.


That's more disappointment for people that don't want to mod their car off the bat. But that makes a bit more sense if they are going to put a tweener model between the S3 and the RS3. That way they can disappoint with the S3+ and not have to put the RS3 up so high in HP figures that it wont encroach on higher models. (Kind of like how a DSG TT RS is faster than the R8 V8)


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

reso freak said:


> the 1200.1 is anawsome amp. HAve you seen the new kicker solobaric x sub? it's gonna keep on killing the competition! any way, look on the subs magnet the sticker will say if it is dual 2 ohm, asuming that is is you have a woofer that is for ohm, or 1 ohm . It all depends on how you wire up the coils. Then yes you will be runing at 1 ohm. and in a ported box you will not believe how much slam you have.<br>


Accurate in print and accurate in the real world are two different things. I'm going to make the bold assertion that there's no way they would send us an S3 with an actual 260TQ rating.

They're massively underrating it on paper.


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

What the blue hell? I quoted Travis in that post.


----------



## The DarkSide (Aug 4, 2000)

Haha :laugh:

I saw that, read the thread twice, and thought maybe you were quoting that out of some other thread.. But the context still didn't make sense. I decided not to touch it though. :laugh:


----------



## jrwamp (Mar 25, 2011)

Dan Halen said:


> Accurate in print and accurate in the real world are two different things. I'm going to make the bold assertion that there's no way they would send us an S3 with an actual 260TQ rating.
> 
> They're massively underrating it on paper.


I'm hoping so as well. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

The DarkSide said:


> Haha :laugh:
> 
> I saw that, read the thread twice, and thought maybe you were quoting that out of some other thread.. But the context still didn't make sense. I decided not to touch it though. :laugh:


That's out of some thread in the Car Audio forum from 2002. Not a chance in hell I could've found that, even if I tried. Possibly a Tapatalk bug...


----------



## jrwamp (Mar 25, 2011)

Dan Halen said:


> That's out of some thread in the Car Audio forum from 2002. Not a chance in hell I could've found that, even if I tried. Possibly a Tapatalk bug...


I mean, it is an awesome amp. But I haven't seen the new kicker sub...


:laugh:


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## phospher5 (Jun 21, 2012)

I dunno how worried we should really be about peak torque, I'm more focused on when in the rpm band the torque shows up. My R is laggy as all hell because torque is low until around 2400 rpm...... if the S3 makes the torque at 1700 rpm or there abouts, not gonna be much in the way of lag..... plus the 0-60 is supposed to be quicker than 5.0 seconds- so why is everyone freaking out ?


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

phospher5 said:


> I dunno how worried we should really be about peak torque, I'm more focused on when in the rpm band the torque shows up. My R is laggy as all hell because torque is low until around 2400 rpm...... if the S3 makes the torque at 1700 rpm or there abouts, not gonna be much in the way of lag..... plus the 0-60 is supposed to be quicker than 5.0 seconds- so why is everyone freaking out ?


I'd be lying if I said I wasn't concerned that the 4.7-second to 4.9-second to-sixty time we've seen may be subject to change. Basically, I've thrown out the window any figures we have seen previously. Audi needs to get this thing figured out and get it into the journalist community for testing. Right now, the best we have is the Euro S3 driving event in Monaco last November, and we know we aren't getting that car.


----------



## Feligula (Feb 22, 2014)

I want to know if whatever quoted 0-60 figure we are given in the future was obtained using launch control. I used a video editor to check the 0-60 time of an S3 using LC and it was around 4.4x seconds. Easily within the margin of error for the crude measurement style but it points to the figure being obtained using launch control.



Dan Halen said:


> I'd be lying if I said I wasn't concerned that the 4.7-second to 4.9-second to-sixty time we've seen may be subject to change. Basically, I've thrown out the window any figures we have seen previously. Audi needs to get this thing figured out and get it into the journalist community for testing. Right now, the best we have is the Euro S3 driving event in Monaco last November, and we know we aren't getting that car.


----------



## anti suv (Sep 26, 2013)

phospher5 said:


> I dunno how worried we should really be about peak torque, I'm more focused on when in the rpm band the torque shows up. My R is laggy as all hell because torque is low until around 2400 rpm...... if the S3 makes the torque at 1700 rpm or there abouts, not gonna be much in the way of lag..... plus the 0-60 is supposed to be quicker than 5.0 seconds- so why is everyone freaking out ?


Probably because several of the recent news and rumors about the US cars are negative.


----------



## Atxdawg2004 (Feb 16, 2014)

anti suv said:


> Probably because several of the recent news and rumors about the US cars are negative.


X2


----------



## The DarkSide (Aug 4, 2000)

Dan Halen said:


> I'd be lying if I said I wasn't concerned that the 4.7-second to 4.9-second to-sixty time we've seen may be subject to change. Basically, I've thrown out the window any figures we have seen previously. Audi needs to get this thing figured out and get it into the journalist community for testing. Right now, the best we have is the Euro S3 driving event in Monaco last November, and we know we aren't getting that car.


It still might squeak off a sub 5.0 sec 0-60 time due to awd, LC, and DSG despite the weight gain, slightly lower HP numbers, and moderately lower tq numbers. Audi's typical metrics on performance are usually under rated, so maybe they actually hit the mark this time or are only slightly higher with the "impairments" the car has suffered. Where it will really suffer is the actual quarter mile and trap speed. I'm starting to think it will be in the mid/high 13 sec range... which is on the opposite side of the mid 13's I wanted it to be on.


----------



## Allzonecars (Jun 16, 2013)

South of the border : 290hp and 280 lb-ft*. 

*Manufacturer's estimate

What happened with our 5 last horses?

http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/1fbdc32d#/1fbdc32d/39


----------



## anti suv (Sep 26, 2013)

The DarkSide said:


> It still might squeak off a sub 5.0 sec 0-60 time due to awd, LC, and DSG despite the weight gain, slightly lower HP numbers, and moderately lower tq numbers. Audi's typical metrics on performance are usually under rated, so maybe they actually hit the mark this time or are only slightly higher with the "impairments" the car has suffered. Where it will really suffer is the actual quarter mile and trap speed. I'm starting to think it will be in the mid/high 13 sec range... which is on the opposite side of the mid 13's I wanted it to be on.


Agreed. The awd, launch control and dsg help a lot in 0-60 and quarter mile times but trap speed is a much better metric of how the cars acceleration compares with other cars. 

I bet if you were to make a s3 with fwd, manual trans and no launch control you would probably end up with a ~5.5 0-60 time.


----------



## Professor Gascan (Sep 11, 2002)

I think everyone needs to take a deep breath, step back, and hold the tears until the numbers are 100% confirmed by Audi. Worrying about information that may or may not be true is wholly unproductive.


----------



## jrwamp (Mar 25, 2011)

Professor Gascan said:


> I think everyone needs to take a deep breath, step back, and hold the tears until the numbers are 100% confirmed by Audi. Worrying about information that may or may not be true is wholly unproductive.


But where's the fun in that, worrying about rumors is half the forum traffic :grin:


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## phospher5 (Jun 21, 2012)

jrwamp said:


> But where's the fun in that, worrying about rumors is half the forum traffic :grin:
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


That's true, I guess it's our version of gossip. OK I'm freaking out about the lack of confirmed fuel economy numbers for the canadian models..... better ?


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

It can't possibly get worse than what I get in my GLI. That's one less thing for me to worry over.


----------



## caliatenza (Dec 10, 2006)

Dan Halen said:


> It can't possibly get worse than what I get in my GLI. That's one less thing for me to worry over.


Oh Dan you slay us all :laugh:


----------



## davewg (Jul 30, 2001)

Dan Halen said:


> It can't possibly get worse than what I get in my GLI. That's one less thing for me to worry over.


And it undoubtedly handles better than my GMC.

+1


----------



## phospher5 (Jun 21, 2012)

http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?6925046-Possibly-more-engine-tech-missing-%28besides-MPI%29-on-US-version

According to Z, mpi is good to go, hp is different due to octane and other fuel considerations for NA.


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

phospher5 said:


> http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?6925046-Possibly-more-engine-tech-missing-%28besides-MPI%29-on-US-version
> 
> According to Z, mpi is good to go, hp is different due to octane and other fuel considerations for NA.


I'll continue to pretend we won't see it on the S3 to ensure I am not disappointed.


----------



## .:Ru4dubn¿ (Mar 14, 2012)

So….the argument is that we will get it because Audi/VW is incapable of borking a press release? I will continue to hope in one hand, but the other hand seems to be filling up with something decidedly different. On the off chance Audi/VW is not infallible, you might want to lower expectations.


----------



## ChrisFu (Jun 9, 2012)

phospher5 said:


> http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?6925046-Possibly-more-engine-tech-missing-%28besides-MPI%29-on-US-version
> 
> According to Z, mpi is good to go, hp is different due to octane and other fuel considerations for NA.





Dan Halen said:


> I'll continue to pretend we won't see it on the S3 to ensure I am not disappointed.





.:Ru4dubn¿ said:


> So….the argument is that we will get it because Audi/VW is incapable of borking a press release? I will continue to hope in one hand, but the other hand seems to be filling up with something decidedly different. On the off chance Audi/VW is not infallible, you might want to lower expectations.


I read the press release. I cant find a single mention of MPI. Someone show me the light.

http://media.vw.com/release/599/


----------



## ChrisFu (Jun 9, 2012)

Welp, I think I found the giant red flag.

The VW press release for the Golf R was edited at some point to remove mention of MPI.

Autoblog's story on Jan 8th pasted the text from the original press release from VW. It contained the lines as follows:



> The Golf R model's EA888 series engine has innovative engineering solutions such as water-cooled exhaust gas channels running through the cylinder head to the turbocharger (to help efficiently reduce full-load fuel consumption) *and a dual injection system with direct and multi-port injection*. Thanks to its new fully-electronic coolant control system, the Golf R TSI engine has much more efficient thermal management with a reduced warm-up phase that reduces frictional losses and fuel consumption. In addition, the TSI engine has variable valve timing on the intake and exhaust sides, as well as two-stage exhaust-valve lift. This helps enable optimal control of the charge exchange process for better performance, fuel economy, and lower emissions.


The current, live VW press release found on VW's newsroom reads:



> The Golf R model’s EA888 series engine has innovative engineering solutions such as water-cooled exhaust gas channels running through the cylinder head to the turbocharger to help efficiently reduce full-load fuel consumption. Thanks to its new fully-electronic coolant control system, the Golf R TSI engine has much more efficient thermal management with a reduced warm-up phase that reduces frictional losses and fuel consumption. In addition, the TSI engine has variable valve timing on the intake and exhaust sides, as well as two-stage exhaust-valve lift. This helps enable optimal control of the charge exchange process for better performance, fuel economy, and lower emissions.


----------



## .:Ru4dubn¿ (Mar 14, 2012)




----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

Oh, look... I'm not disappointed again!


----------



## OriginalBeast (Sep 16, 2011)

Dan Halen said:


> Oh, look... I'm not disappointed again!


I'm keeping my 2012 A3 and going stage 2 (280hp/300ft-lb)! I couldn't be happier. I will have a HATCHBACK this is fast, fun, reliable (whoop-di-doo every 60k miles a manifold clean), and most importantly not a sedan. I gave up after MPI was off the table and I'm not visually impressed with the Golf R...something about it just doesn't make me happy, maybe a modded one will look better, but then I might as just spend that mod money on a car that I already love


----------



## Professor Gascan (Sep 11, 2002)

OriginalBeast said:


> I'm keeping my 2012 A3 and going stage 2 (280hp/300ft-lb)! I couldn't be happier. I will have a HATCHBACK this is fast, fun, reliable (whoop-di-doo every 60k miles a manifold clean), and most importantly not a sedan. I gave up after MPI was off the table and I'm not visually impressed with the Golf R...something about it just doesn't make me happy, maybe a modded one will look better, but then I might as just spend that mod money on a car that I already love


So, if you aren't concerned with manifold cleaning, then MPI off the table should be a non-issue. ;-)


----------



## ChrisFu (Jun 9, 2012)

The Gen2+ EA888 of the current B8.5 cars has an extra injector in the manifold and a pretty complex oil separation system. 

Audi seems to believe this is sufficient to preclude the carbon buildup issue, and I am inclined to believe them as there have been FAR fewer reports for the later 2.0T engines.

So while the A3/S3 probably doesnt really _need _MPI solely for the carbon buildup reason, I am positive that it would help absolutely ensure its not a problem (in addition to other non-specific mileage and emmissions improvements).

The disappointment is that the EU models get this robust setup, and we will get the the cost-cut version of the Gen3 EA888 on even the top-of-the-line Audi 3-series. I am very curious to see what they do with the B9s.


----------



## The DarkSide (Aug 4, 2000)

ChrisFu said:


> The Gen2+ EA888 of the current B8.5 cars has an extra injector in the manifold and a pretty complex oil separation system.
> 
> Audi seems to believe this is sufficient to preclude the carbon buildup issue, and I am inclined to believe them as there have been FAR fewer reports for the later 2.0T engines.
> 
> ...


So I guess any B8.5 should have this setup? Ie, 2013 A4/5?


----------



## ChrisFu (Jun 9, 2012)

The DarkSide said:


> So I guess any B8.5 should have this setup? Ie, 2013 A4/5?


Yeah any CPMB code cars, so the 2013+ "220 HP" A4, A5 & Q5.

Not sure about the 2.0T A6, but I would guess its the same as well.


----------



## The DarkSide (Aug 4, 2000)

ChrisFu said:


> Yeah any CPMB code cars, so the 2013+ "220 HP" A4, A5 & Q5.
> 
> Not sure about the 2.0T A6, but I would guess its the same as well.


Hrm. I do HOPE they fixed it. But I'll remain slightly skeptical as I'm not sure there is a large enough data set of 2013+ cars with 60k+ miles on them yet. I blame the S3 for my skepticism!


----------



## caliatenza (Dec 10, 2006)

is the oil burning problem still an issue? My friend tells me he knows people with Audi A4s from 2012 that are still having that issue .


----------



## The DarkSide (Aug 4, 2000)

caliatenza said:


> is the oil burning problem still an issue? My friend tells me he knows people with Audi A4s from 2012 that are still having that issue .


I have a bad feeling yes? My 2011 A4 avant, was a quart low in 5k miles. Not really happy about that considering it has 24k on the clock, and it's a 40k+ car.


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2002)

The DarkSide said:


> I have a bad feeling yes? My 2011 A4 avant, was a quart low in 5k miles. Not really happy about that considering it has 24k on the clock, and it's a 40k+ car.


That's 4,000 miles more than what is deemed "acceptable" if the Audi side of the house sees it the same way VW does. Yes- a quart per 1,000 miles is considered "within spec." Why even bother doing an oil change? They should advertise the damn things with "self-changing oil" as a feature.

:banghead:


----------



## The DarkSide (Aug 4, 2000)

Dan Halen said:


> That's 4,000 miles more than what is deemed "acceptable" if the Audi side of the house sees it the same way VW does. Yes- a quart per 1,000 miles is considered "within spec." Why even bother doing an oil change? They should advertise the damn things with "self-changing oil" as a feature.
> 
> :banghead:


Actually, now that I think about it, it wasn't even a full 5k miles. The "service" message had been coming up for awhile, not because it hit X miles but because of the "time interval." IE, Whatever they set for service intervals 5k miles or X months. So yeah, I love the car (wife does too) but I'm watching a bit closer this time around to see what happens.


----------



## ChrisFu (Jun 9, 2012)

The DarkSide said:


> I have a bad feeling yes? My 2011 A4 avant, was a quart low in 5k miles. Not really happy about that considering it has 24k on the clock, and it's a 40k+ car.


2011 is the CPMA Gen2 EA888, and is different than the current 2013+ CPMB engine.

Audi updated the E85 sensor, metal intake manifold with 5th injector, and also I have heard small changes to compression, pistons, rods, etc. (according to Arin @ APR)


----------



## caliatenza (Dec 10, 2006)

ChrisFu said:


> 2011 is the CPMA Gen2 EA888, and is different than the current 2013+ CPMB engine.
> 
> Audi updated the E85 sensor, metal intake manifold with 5th injector, and also I have heard small changes to compression, pistons, rods, etc. (according to Arin @ APR)


do the newer engines have the oil burning thing still? Or was it just something that was prevalent on 2012 and earlier models?


----------



## ChrisFu (Jun 9, 2012)

I dont think anyone can definitively say one way or ther other. Doesnt seem like it, though. Theres not a lot of complaints on AZ or elsewhere from people with the CPMB.

I have about 10k on my car and no oil burning.


----------

