bioforger

iTrader: (1)

Sorry got it wrong, it was the time it took to reach 150mph, which was 2.5s quicker than the A45 tested last year

http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-review/...-0/performance

ditchmyster

iTrader: (7)

Pah! Sorry but I still remain un impressed by this new crop of hot hatches, sure they are nice inside and reasonably quick, but **** me the prices are silly £50k for some fancy seats and a nice steering wheel.

Because to me that is ultimately all they have over my cars, my V3 Type R was doing High 3 second 0-60 in 1997 without sh1tloads of electronic aids and my £4k PPP wagon does it in 4.8.

I honestly really don't see WTF all the fuss is about, every ****** else has finally caught up 20yrs later ok so they added a little refinement, but I honestly don't give a **** about that, I can buy comfy flashy seats, nice steering wheel etc for a couple of grand and some of the best suspension money can buy for a similar figure.

Sorry but none of these new hot hatches are for me, I can think of sooooo many better ways to spend £50k.

CutMasterT

iTrader: (2)

They wont be rusty tho


What power was your type r at to get to 60 in under 4 seconds?

Matteeboy

I'm sure the A45 is quicker than that?! They got sub 11 for the M135i to 100!
I've even seen mid 10s - very close to the RS3.

Now I know the M135i is quick but compared to these two? Definitely not close.

Must have been wet/uphill/gravelly?!

Shaun

Those autocar figures are crap. They were found out to have used the wrong gearbox mode.

bioforger

iTrader: (1)

lol, of course, you got a source for that?

M135i a 10s car?? lol again source?

Tidgy

hate t say it mate but by the time you;ve pissed about with the gearbox the other persn has gone,,,, lol

Matteeboy

Autocar used to be pretty reliable. Not any more.
They got a horrendous 0-60 time for the M235i too (4.6s for the M135i) - about 6.3s I thin and it's still in there. The M235i is almost the same car as the M135i!

Matteeboy

Yes you complete tool otherwise I wouldn't have said it.

http://fastestlaps.com/cars/bmw_m135i_f20.html

http://www.dragtimes.com/video-viewe...G90YjI&feature

figures at 17m34s

Quicker than yours eh?

Oh and note that only the second source uses the launch control, released in July 2013 - which mine has.

Shaun

Bioforger,
MB pulled them over the figures they produced, and it was discovered they didn't use the right settings. Autocar then corrected their 0-60 times from 5.2 - 4.2s. They obviously didn't rerun the tests, as the other stats remained the same.

Other mags achieved far superior figures to autocar, which has been backed up by countless other owners via VBOXs and Santa Pod etc.

A standard A45 will do 60mph in 4.1-4.2, 100mph in 10s dead and 60-100 in 5.8-5.9.

I would hope the RS3 is quicker..... It won't be anywhere near the difference as autocar portray.

bioforger

iTrader: (1)

lol

Tidgy

wasnt a standard v5 type r 4.2 0-60? only take audi, what 17 years to catch up?

sorry couldnt resist

ditchmyster

iTrader: (7)

3.8 seconds @ supposedly the gentleman's agreement of 280bhp but most were said to be around 300bhp, My V3 STI Type R was 331bhp with just full de-cat and remap for UK fuel, mine had a VF34 but the original turbo was good for similar numbers and that's without launch control and Anti-Lag which mine did have.

P.S; Mine is not rusty as it's lived in a garage for the last 10yrs and not been out of it for the last 4yrs.

fawor

iTrader: (3)

I laugh when i see Yours post about **** looking m135i (leasing or company car)and now even more when You post Your pictures here-rat size men jumping to others
Doors on Yours vw are bigger than You

I wouldn't spend 50k on rs3 but is way better looking, sounds better,has better interior quality than any other hatch on the market.

ditchmyster

iTrader: (7)

As if £50k to spend it will you a ever have, maybe Rubles in but the a working you a wash car K£50 be gona a long time you be have K £50 bank in.

Matteeboy

He's convinced I leased mine too.
Sorry Fawor, I bought it ALL WITH CASH. Mostly to spite people like you

Shaun

So to summarise..

- We start to discuss the RS3.
- We move on to quoting subjective figures about another car, to use as a comparison.
- We talk about how awesome a £4k Type R is in comparison.
- We talk about individuals ability or inability to spend £50k.

Next!?

ditchmyster

iTrader: (7)

On the rag week are we.

You should know how we all like to digress and my Type R was £7200 when I bought it spent another £2.5k on full service, wheels and tyres by the end of the first week then it blew up the week after that and spent another £6k fixing / up-rating it.

Tidgy

I'll take any type r's you can find like mine (with working engine) for 4k straight off you,,,,,,

Shaun

OK.... for those that are interested in some decent performance stats between the A45 and the RS3. Taken from a fellow contributor on the aclass forums: (who is borrowing an RS3 for some testing)

After reading the road test today and seeing the figures (seen here) -


I thought it might be worth chucking these in to the mix...

New RS3 (stock) vs A45 (stock)
Same day, same piece of track
Slight rain fall in between meant the A45 had a greasier surface to launch from and suffered with bad front wheel spin/hop and a poor-ish 0-60 time (usually 4.2), but the rest tells the tale...

RS3 -






A45 -






So to sum up - faster? Definitely! Monstered? Definitely not!

I would place the new RS3 somewhere in between a stock A45 and Stage 1 A45. However, when fettled, we may need to watch out!

With the new Facelift A45 rumoured to get 20-30bhp more, I dare say the stock cars will be honours even again and it will be down to personal choice really as the RS3 appears to be a big improvement on the last car judging by the pounding it gives ours on the circuit times, so on the whole it will have everything our A45's have (and maybe more), just with the 5 pot warble too. Definitely not as raw though.

Let's see what the new A45 has to bring to the table though.

Matteeboy

I hope the new A45 gives that RS3 a bloody nose. Just because modern Audi owners drive me nuts.

Shaun

It's certainly plausible that it will bridge the gap, based on what a tuning box does to these A45's. I suspect it's one of the reasons why MB have not released any final specs of the facelifted A45, although they've alluded to a power increase. Rumour has it that the haldex system will also be revised in it's setup. TBH though, I think it's the Golf R420 that's going to blow them both out of the water.

It's the in-gear performance where the grunt is needed, which I suspect the 5 pot is delivering more of in the shape of mid-range torque, over and above the standard A45. Which to be honest is what we were expecting, with the extra capacity.

But being realistic, even against the current A45, the in-gear times are pretty close. There is .1s in it on the 60-100 range, but things are being opened up within the 62-124 range, having a .8s difference.

All this competition is good for us, the consumer, imo.

banny sti

iTrader: (68)

Both nice cars, audi has the edge sound wise but the merc has the more aggressive stance. If I was pushed to pick one, I would go with the merc has more in common with the old school 90s JDM brigade

Matteeboy

M1/235i with a performance or BCS exhaust still blows them all out of the water for sound. Even standard, it sounds bloody awesome.
IMO.

Tidgy

Purely out of curiosity, have you got the same figure for a standard type R shaun as a comparison?

Matteeboy

I've seen a touch over 11s 0-100 for the Type R which is bloody good. Especially compared to a mk2 Focus RS. I think 0-60 was 5.7s.

EddScott

In Audi related news, one of the lads I race RC cars with works at some kind of test center for cars. They had an S1 in and there's a quiet bit of road they like to hammer the cars down. He said he had it going backwards without much effort Only reason he missed hedging it was he went through an open gate. Lots of power and short wheelbase, said the rear was very twitchy.

Shaun

When they relic came out they didn't have satellites, let alone VBOX's.

On a serious note though... I don't have that info.

Tidgy

would be good to see if the new can cut it with the 'relics', only had 17 years to try,,,,,,

Shaun

Not sure of there being any point in doing that. Youre comparing apples and oranges. Let's not forget that what you're alluding to, has also meant Subaru has gone backwards then with their recent models. That's quite an achievement!