What's new
By:
ClioSport.net

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Read more here.

2016 Audi RS3

Yeah @ 70mph I get nearly 40mpg.

@ 80 I get 34ish mpg.

I average 34 over most tanks which includes mixed driving. A tank with no motorway driving will still return 33mpg, then again I don't drive like a c**t.
 
Same with anything, my daily will do 55mpg @70, 50mpg@80 and 49-51 sat in commuter traffic doing 40, but if I nip over the hill (B roads and lots of tight corners and gradient changes it's down to 38-43 depending.
If you went from 10% town and 90% motorway to all town or backroads you'd be back below 30 I bet, but that doesnt matter for your application and its still damned impressive a car with ~400bhp can manage to be above 30 at all, let alone on average since new!
 
Waitey said:
It doesn't physically feel that fast. Bare in mind it isn't as fast when rolling as the 'launch' figures would suggest.

Sounds awesome now though!
Click to expand...
I wonder if the 'feel' would be improved with some kind of 'un-map'. Remap the engine to have the same peak power but reduce the low down torque so the torque curve is an incline rather than just a flat line. Encouraging you to rev the engine more and shift into lower gears.
 
cs_rich said:
I wonder if the 'feel' would be improved with some kind of 'un-map'. Remap the engine to have the same peak power but reduce the low down torque so the torque curve is an incline rather than just a flat line. Encouraging you to rev the engine more and shift into lower gears.
Click to expand...
Sounds like you'd end up with a slower car that's more frustrating to drive as a daily.
 
So to feel physically fast it would need to be gutless until 3000rpm as apposed to maximum torque at 1750rpm? People say the c63 is brutal as it's torque comes on strong from very low down but doesn't have much more torque/tonne more than the rs3 really.
I know the jag is a different beast but how did that compare physically?
 
Jeff simply said:
Sounds like you'd end up with a slower car that's more frustrating to drive as a daily.
Click to expand...
Yeah, you probably would.

I'm actually a fan of the flat torque curve but that probably comes from driving diesels for the best part of a decade.

A lot of journos seem to criticise that kind of delivery though talking about how they miss chasing the red line.
 
Let's be realistic, it's an RS3 is not a slow car. But I get the point that the 0-100mph time is M5 (older shape) territory, once moving however it is probably not nearly as fast as an M5.
 
Takes close to 6 seconds to go from 60-100 which is quick but not as quick as it's 0-60 would suggest. Shows how good these 4wd systems are and how well it can deliver its torque low down. it is basically a modern equivalent of an evo 8 fq400 in its stats, only returning very good mpg. Excellent progress imo. Thought it would feel like a beast though TBH. Not too fussed on numbers personally I would.prefer to go to a 100mph a second slower but have my cheeks wrapped around the headrest.lol.
 
TBH its the 4wd system that when once moving saps all the power. In gear times are still good though. They'd be better with 2wd.
 
Waitey said:
TBH its the 4wd system that when once moving saps all the power. In gear times are still good though. They'd be better with 2wd.
Click to expand...

Surely once you're moving and no longer grip limited, it reverts largely to FWD anyway so the transmission losses will disappear?

I thought that was one of the advantages of the FWD Haldex platform, i.e. AWD only when you need it.
 
Under wide open throttle it keeps the rear active at between 10-15% in the RS models. You have to remember the drag in the system is there regardless of power going through it. Yes its less than having a fixed 4wd system but its a lot more than FWD.
 
Waitey said:
Under wide open throttle it keeps the rear active at between 10-15% in the RS models. You have to remember the drag in the system is there regardless of power going through it. Yes its less than having a fixed 4wd system but its a lot more than FWD.
Click to expand...
Did not know that. Is that different to the Golf R / S3 then?
 
cs_rich said:
Did not know that. Is that different to the Golf R / S3 then?
Click to expand...
All of them are calibrated differently so I have no idea.

Even with it disengaged you still have another set of difs, driveshafts and a prop to spin.
 
Waitey said:
All of them are calibrated differently so I have no idea.

Even with it disengaged you still have another set of difs, driveshafts and a prop to spin.
Click to expand...

Doesn't it disengage 'upstream' of most of that so you just end up spinning half a propshaft back to the Haldex clutch-pack?
 
Hans. said:
@gally
Click to expand...

595dfb450bb674f9b8f7a91629da6ddd.jpg
 
182Trophy said:
So to feel physically fast it would need to be gutless until 3000rpm as apposed to maximum torque at 1750rpm? People say the c63 is brutal as it's torque comes on strong from very low down but doesn't have much more torque/tonne more than the rs3 really.
I know the jag is a different beast but how did that compare physically?
Click to expand...
Jag seemed faster as it pulled from lower down and there was zero lag. The RS3 can be a bit laggy sometimes.

Just did a tank of fuel with no motorway driving or long journeys. 32.1mpg lol.
 
I bloody love this model. Never really been a fan of audis but the most recent rs3 is a proper win for me. Love how you use it as a proper commuter aswell
 
Cribert said:
I bloody love this model. Never really been a fan of audis but the most recent rs3 is a proper win for me. Love how you use it as a proper commuter aswell
Click to expand...
Its averaged 508 miles a week so far. Which is actually quite low for me! Although thats still nearly 1.5 tanks of super a week, or 6 a month. Maybe I should have a diesel.

Just worked it out:

Fuel a month RS3 = £330
Fuel a month in a Diesel doing 50 mpg = £200

Ouch.....
 
So roughly £1500 a year more to run, I wouldn't say that's a huge amount in great scheme of things, depreciation etc.

Specially if you really enjoy it.
 
philmots said:
So roughly £1500 a year more to run, I wouldn't say that's a huge amount in great scheme of things, depreciation etc.

Specially if you really enjoy it.
Click to expand...
I guess not. RS3's have good residuals too. I'll probably sell this at 2 years old on 50k ish. I'll owe £25k on it at that point, so it should be worth around that considering 5 year old ones with 50k on are worth that currently.
 
Sooooooo

My rear brakes aren't working at all. Bit annoying. Audi don't seem interested with the claim I've put in for brakes all round.

Good job the fronts are 8 pots.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

W
182 FF Blower not working
Replies
8
Views
1K
WillRR
W
daveski
daveski's 2025
Replies
13
Views
3K
Mr Burns
Mr Burns
E
Timing Jump
Replies
7
Views
640
chazza114
chazza114
Martin_172
Martin's 1.2 16v Dynamique Time Warp!
Replies
15
Views
2K
Martin_172
Martin_172
Jason_E
Back in a CS, this time a 172!
Replies
17
Views
1K
Jason_E
Jason_E
Back
Top