LOL at Jases bird, how true.
ClioSport.net
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.
LOL at Jases bird, how true.
Well as 0-60 is considered a poor measurement of performance 0-100 the S3 is faster, in the low 16 secs I believe as standard for the 210bhp version. As much as I love the 172s and Cups as fast hatches, they are not in any invincible and there are many cars on the road capable of toasting them but not as many that are as fun to drive. I for one would readily swap my 172 for an S3. Any offers?
You seem to of contradicted yourself there, as you seem to of based a decision that an S3 is overall a better car because its faster in a straightline. Read the reviews, theres no secret to why audi dont sell a load of these cars. Theyre expensive, not as much space as a golf, chassis isnt entertaining, engine boring, youd have to spend thousands to make it any good. Id prefer a TT, at least they look nice. Or a Leon cupra R, a bargain and is much better than an S3 but same engine!!
Rob,
The S3 is as I said before a GT car - a luxury sports car.
People dont buy their S3s for performance alone its the overall package, stealth, image, exclusivity & style that appeals.
Please also remember the S3 was launched in Germany in 98 reaching the UK in early 99.
It has hence been for some time now & for a few years has been left alone, now with the new crop of hot hatches - it is compared to them & often put down. Back in 99 not many folk knew what an S3 was !.
Yes it could be described as an unexciting car to drive, but it still a very fast & fun with bags of grip making it a good car to drive quickly in all weather conditions.
Thousands to make them good ?? I only spent 650 pounds with APR & Im happy, yes if I was going to use it on the track then Id spend a bit more on shocks & brakes but Ive the caterham for that.
The Cupra R may be 7K cheaper but having test driven one for an hour I can see why, yes the steering is sharper & the brakes better but there are no Xenons, leather, the air con controls and dash look very dated.
And in the damp 210bhp through the front wheels is hard work & the extra power through chipping is wasted - the S3 on the other hand comfortably deals with the added horses.
P.S. I dont bother reading & quoting what I read in magazines I get out & test drive the car myself - as we are all inviduals & hence our tastes & driving styles vary.
Happy motoring.
Rob, given the choice between a 172/Cup and a S3, I would take the S3. I have test driven a S3 so this is an informed choice and not because of some magazine review. At the time I bought my 172, the S3 was still out of my price range and given the money I had £12K OTR for a brand new 172 is bloody excellent value considering the equipment levels. As you point out, the S3 may not have as much space as a Golf, it does have more space than a Clio, is better built and has better driving position.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m a great fan of my 172 and always take the long way home and is a blast on twisty roads. However, being a turbo, the S3 can be easily tuned to 260 odd bhp with a £350 AMD chip. Now you’d have to spend thousands on a Clio to get that sort of power. I agree the Clio is really fun to drive and enjoy taking it on twistier roads, however, I prefer to drive faster on A roads as its safer due to greater line of site. On these roads the S3 will have the edge especially if it’s on a wet day. Therefore the advantages that the Clio may have on a twisty road is not that great for me but still great fun in any case.
On the track I would hazard a guess that there wouldn’t be a huge difference in lap times either. At the end of the day, I considered many cars but the Clio172 gave the best compromise for price, performance and equipment, but that’s not to say there aren’t better cars out there, my previous car, a Fiat Coupe 20V Turbo LE ( which is even faster than the S3!), gave me bigger thrills than the Clio.
Its not about how fast it is round the track, its how much enjoyment you get, otherwise whats the point? I see capris and even smart cars on track days!
You seem to be just a speed freak Jon, and are missing out on 70% of the enjoyment in driving. The fact that S3 owners need to up the boost and chip their cars reflects the monotony of the car.
By the way Superchips do a 260bhp upgrade with a full warranty so i wouldnt make a decision based on price.
Ben - I think your mistaken, the S3 is also 4wd and is 50kg heavier than the TT
Yeah, I noticed that the S3 was 4WD too later, but someone on here said something confusing like it was FWD with some sort of torque transfer - anyway, made no sense at the time! I dont think that 50kg is really that appreciable when youre talking about c.1400kg, its + or - 3.5% or so. OK - so Id rather have 50kg less, but I dont reckon the average Joe will notice a huge difference when the car weighs that much. People with S3s and so on will probably be happy with their cars in stock form, but if theres a cheap/easy upgrade, then theyre obviously going tpo take it! To get similar gains with a NA Renault hot hatch would cost many thousands. People with all sorts of blown motors tune them - doesnt mean theyre cack!
I was actually surprised to beat a twin-tailpipe TT on a standing start the other day. He was lurching forward in the clutch and revving. I usually dont take the bait, but on this occasion I thought Id enlighten him to the fact that a 16v was no pushover (but still thought that the 4WD would give him a better start). Anyway, off we go and I pull a two car lead over him, which I managed to preserve until 80, when I slowed down. Id imagine I have a similar power-to-weight, since mines kicking out about 170bhp and weighs less than a ton.
I guess it could have been a 180bhp TT with upgraded tail pipes and wheels, but Id have thought that it would have been a more thorough spanking in that case.
lol i was that confusing person, i was talking about the Haldex diff, which basically transfers power or torque which it cant handle to the back. This means its essentially FWD a lot of the time.
50kg is like having a 13 year old in the car, i guess maybe a lot of people might not notice, but i would which is why its a big thing for me. Its why i prefer older cars in general, because theyre lighter, these new barges with just more power miss the point, it may look good on paper but for a good driver its a pile of poo. I wont make my point about S3s anymore as its getting long winded, you can keep them!
Well done on beating the TT..
Rob, Yes I am a speed freak!
hence I normally only achieve 200 miles from a full tank and love putting my foot down at any given opportunity (safely of course!). But I have learnt the hard way that high speed and twisty roads dont mix too well (hence no more Fiat Coupe!) and has therefore changed my driving style. As I said before, I love my Clio and was the best hatch at the time I bought it and do get full enjoyment when driving it. I wouldnt say chipping reflects the monotiny of the car, more like an extra 50bhp for £350 is very tempting. How many of us would spend £350 on their Clio if it will guarentee an extra 50bhp?
RS4
Will have to see how the Cooper S handles it in about 6-8 weeks.
200+ bhp through the front can be a handful especially if the chassis isnt designed for it, however, its not uncommon especially with new "hyper" hatches that are starting to appear. But Im happy to make do with "only" 172bhp.
200+bhp on a Clio will potentially highlight the limitations of the chassis, but that wont stop some people who want more be it with turbos or nitrous conversions
