Mk2 172 full fat vs S3?

[len_beach]

What should be quicker?
Had a jaunt with one and I was quite disappointed by the Audis pace.
Anyone else had any experiences?

 

[BigD]

On paper the S3 has more bhp per ton, is quicker 0-60 by about half a second and has a higher top speed.

Shouldn't be a contest but it would also depend on the driver and the road....

 

[Justin182]

Hmmm? Well, to be honest i dont really know much about the A3, but first thoughts would be that it would be quicker. However, they prob weight quite alot and put out about 220 bhp so maybe not... not too sure. I once had a go against a lotus elise and came out on top so was pretty chuffed with my self until in noticed the driver looked way beyond retirement and sounded as though he didnt go past 4000rpm... so what i am basically saying is that it may be down to driver involvement.

 

[len_beach]

I RAC'd the private plate and it came out as being a '99 S3 which would make it 210bhp.
I was 4 up though which really suprised me as I was considerably quicker.
He was definately trying.
Though I have done a 180bhp Leon and A3 Quattro in my old 2.0 16v Chavalier in the past so they may be a poor engine in standard trim.

 

[BigD]

A3 Quattro is 180bhp (my brother has one) standard and its nippy but not earth shatteringly quick, the standard Leon Cupra despite having 180bhp is heavy and not a patch on the R version imo.

And the S3 is 225bhp standard not 210, puts out 166bhp per ton to the 172's 156, not a huge amount of difference but the S3 is quicker and has a higher top end, so a 172 shouldn't be that much of a problem for it depending on the road and the human being behind the wheel.

 

[Turkish]

i had a few drag races with S3's when i had my 172 and found there was nothing in it, each time there would be points where one of the two cars would put a nose ahead then the other would pull it back. As for down an a road i cant comment as i've never come up against one there.

 

[Lucas]

Early S3's were 210bhp. latter ones although called 225s actually only put out about 220 in reality. I was looking into getting one of these at the time I got my 182. Nice cars, the thing that put me off was the dull steering and lack of chuckability. More of a cruiser really IMO. The 0-60 times are flattered by 4WD, and until motorway speeds there shouldn't be a lot in it.

 

[SOHROB]

s3 should have no probs in a straight line with a decent driver

 

[corp]

Early S3's were 210bhp. latter ones although called 225s actually only put out about 220 in reality. I was looking into getting one of these at the time I got my 182. Nice cars, the thing that put me off was the dull steering and lack of chuckability. More of a cruiser really IMO. The 0-60 times are flattered by 4WD, and until motorway speeds there shouldn't be a lot in it.

By all accounts in reality the 225 engine produces 222BHP according to the manufacturer. However, it seems that these engines when put on the dyno produce 230-240BHP. The power figures are quite conservative according to SEAT CUPRA R owners (same engine). And...lets not forget the torque of these engines.

 

[Ad]

s3 should have no probs in a straight line with a decent driver

Having driven one agree, although the turbo makes it feel quicker than it is. Loved the 4 wheel drive!!!

 

[stevoversteer]

True about the 225 engines. They are well documented to chuck out about 230-240bhp out of the box. S3's are not amazingly quick as standard due to their weight (the haldex 4wd systems are damn heavy), but still I wouldnt expect a 172 to be able to match it. Give the S3's a remap though and they are much better, more power compliments the chassis nicely

 

[Mondial172]

4WD robs the S3 of a lot of speed though. Compared to a LCR anyway.

 

[len_beach]

This was a '99 S3 so will have been a 210. The back end was rather low so he may have had passengers but I was 4 up as well.
Still, I wasn't impressed considering I was going to save for one.
I bet they are killer in the wet though.

 

[Lucas]

Are the 210's supposed to produce more than book figures too? 210bhp and 1375kg only makes for about 153bhp/tonne if the calc on my phone serves me correctly, so could be close?

In the back of Evo they've also got the tested book figures for the 225bhp S3 as 6.6 to 60 and 17.5 to 100, which is exactly the same as the tested figures for a full fat 182.

I know reality often differs from paper figures, and Evo do get it wrong from time to time.

 

[len_beach]

Parkers give the 210 0-60 in 6.6 and the 225 0-60 in 6.4.
My 136bhp Cavalier was just quicker than both a 180bhp A3 Quattro and a 180bhp Leon cupra. That is a deficit of 44bhp in what I would think was a lighter car.
With the Clio at approx 169bhp, that would give a deficit of 41bhp, again in a lighter car so I suppose it adds up if you get my strange logic.

 

[Lagerlout]

Not as much in as some may think. Nothing to speak of between my 172 and my mates S3. Below a ton anyway.

 

[Turkish]

as above ^^^ you can argue togque and bhp figures all day long but the S£ weighs more and has the additional transmission losses that 4wd gives you. THere's feck all between the two cars on the road. Up to 110 from a standing start in my experience you cant split the two

 

[len_beach]

It's not what i would have expected though. A supposed Scooby rival which is no quicker than a shopping trolley. Good for a laugh though.

 

[Jim172CUP]

just take it to jabba or amd then it'll win

 

[Lucas]

just take it to jabba or amd then it'll win

True, but the majority of owners don't. I personally would be straight down AmD!

 

[ChrisO182]

Had a play with one of these a while back, and to be honest it was fairly even, infact i think if it had moved out of the way i would have krept past a bit, this was exiting a roundabout and down a clearish stretch of dual carriage way, not sure what age car it was though and he was deffinately giving it some.