Huge spread on the S3 in Road & Track (uploaded here)
02-20-2015, 02:38 PM
#12
AudiWorld Member
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just read they have announced Australia will get a manual.
Audi S3 sedan now available with manual transmission
Audi S3 sedan now available with manual transmission
02-22-2015, 11:16 PM
#15
AudiWorld Super User
But to the much better point of Fairfax… we bought the right car. I still maintain that its the best car Audi has made in since the first 2.8 quattro A4. Just amazing.
02-23-2015, 11:41 AM
#16
AudiWorld Super User
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Fairfax Station, VA
Posts: 3,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I almost agree. The Audi 2.7T is a might fine motor, offering a lot more torque and power than the 2.8. Too bad the turbos on the 2.7T are so fragile. Last week, I drove all week due to the snow in the Washington DC area my old 2002 A6 with a manual transmission and 2.7T. What a wonderful car. Too bad that A6 car is 13.5 years old and simply wearing out to the point it's no longer reliable/economical to repair.
02-23-2015, 01:55 PM
#17
AudiWorld Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
0-60 vs 5-60 roll times
"Car and Driver[/I] also quoted a 4.4 second 0-60 time but I wasn't sure that it was a U.S. engine. In any case, the car is a beast."
I read from R&T 4.4 sec is the 0-60 time with LC. But the rolling start 5-60 takes 5.9 sec. I am wondering what's the cause of this. Other turbos have a differential of about 1 sec and manuals even better than that. May be if they shift manually in S, 5-60 roll start will improve.?
I read from R&T 4.4 sec is the 0-60 time with LC. But the rolling start 5-60 takes 5.9 sec. I am wondering what's the cause of this. Other turbos have a differential of about 1 sec and manuals even better than that. May be if they shift manually in S, 5-60 roll start will improve.?
02-23-2015, 02:19 PM
#18
AudiWorld Super User
Thread Starter
"Car and Driver[/I] also quoted a 4.4 second 0-60 time but I wasn't sure that it was a U.S. engine. In any case, the car is a beast."
I read from R&T 4.4 sec is the 0-60 time with LC. But the rolling start 5-60 takes 5.9 sec. I am wondering what's the cause of this. Other turbos have a differential of about 1 sec and manuals even better than that. May be if they shift manually in S, 5-60 roll start will improve.?
I read from R&T 4.4 sec is the 0-60 time with LC. But the rolling start 5-60 takes 5.9 sec. I am wondering what's the cause of this. Other turbos have a differential of about 1 sec and manuals even better than that. May be if they shift manually in S, 5-60 roll start will improve.?
02-24-2015, 10:57 PM
#19
AudiWorld Super User
Well I almost agree. The Audi 2.7T is a might fine motor, offering a lot more torque and power than the 2.8. Too bad the turbos on the 2.7T are so fragile. Last week, I drove all week due to the snow in the Washington DC area my old 2002 A6 with a manual transmission and 2.7T. What a wonderful car. Too bad that A6 car is 13.5 years old and simply wearing out to the point it's no longer reliable/economical to repair.
The 2.7 was one of my favorite motors, in some ways I like it better than the 2.0 in the S3.
02-25-2015, 12:05 PM
#20
I read the story in R&T and my biggest response was to wonder about the front suspension breaking. A rock the size of a shoe (I don’t know what a household shoe is, but a shoe I in general I do understand) should not break a cast suspension member IMO. Did the reviewer put that in there to sorta, kinda suggest the car is not robust? Beyond that, do I want a car where the front suspension breaks if I have to jump a curb to avoid a collision? I dunno, but to me it raised so many red flags. Anyone else have a similar reaction?