RS3 vs 1M Coupe (likes and dislikes)

[LaArtist]

^
Haha..i think your right.
MB fans dont like small cars..
To me anything under a C class is not a Mercedes..

 

[footie]

So let me get this right, BMW using an engine from it mainstream line makes it "wrong", even ignoring the fact that it as good in every measurable way as the RS3 engine. But RS3 using a golf chassis is okay?

You are forgetting that to achieve the same results it's needed twice the amount of turbos, an extra cylinder and 500cc in capacity. And even then it hasn't as wide of torque band nor does it have as wide or as high a peak power rev point.

One is a very good FI engine and the other is an award winning engine.

Anyway you nor I seem to have as much of a problem with BMW's choice of engine as many others do, but the fact remains that one company felt their most performance focused version needed a special engine and the other felt it wasn't as important, only time will tell if that was a mistake.

At least the car will only be around for little over a year, so if it was the wrong decision this can be easily fixed come the time of it's replacement.

 

[footie]

^
Haha..i think your right.
MB fans dont like small cars..
To me anything under a C class is not a Mercedes..

Many reckon that neither the A-class or B-class are that great, so maybe your comment has some truth in it. One thing is definitely true, Mercs get better the bigger they get.

 

[Deleted member 25]

What are the times of the TT-RS and the RS3 ?

 

[Sunny]

BMW didn't say the lap time was 8:12. They said it is about 10 secs faster than E46 M3. No one knows what is the lap time for E46 M3 that BMW obtained/claims. 8:22 is the SportAuto time for E46 M3. So people are combining the two and assuming 8:12. Will HVS be also exactly 10 secs faster than E46 M3 in a 1M? I don't know, neither does anyone else, not even BMW unless they made him secretly test the car- which I doubt.

Also the 8:39 for 135 is by a different magazine that does a full lap vs the shorter configuration that sport auto does - bout 7 secs shorter.

 

[Sunny]

You are forgetting that to achieve the same results it's needed twice the amount of turbos, an extra cylinder and 500cc in capacity. And even then it hasn't as wide of torque band nor does it have as wide or as high a peak power rev point.

No, I am not forgetting anything, I replied to this bull shit before, but here it is again.

The tangible advantage of being 500cc smaller, and 1 less cylinder and one turbo would be weight, yet TT RS engine does't weight much lighter than N54 - 183kg vs 187kg. So, it kind of counts for nothing. On the other hand N54 is more responsive, probably cause it has two smaller turbos and an extra cylinder (at 1000 rpm it is making about 320NM vs TT RS's only 260NM), makes it's max torque at a lower rpm, makes 50 more NM on demand and it even revs higher than the TT RS engine (7000 rpm for N54 vs 6800 for TTRS) .

ps. there is one significant area where the TT RS engine is actually better, but knowing your ignorance when it comes to cars, especially Audis, I doubt you know what it is.

Yes, TT RS has a broader torque curve up top, but N54 is way stronger at the bottom and more responsive and makes 50NM torque on demand and revs higher - hence my assertions both have pros and cons and not really one better than the other.

One is a very good FI engine and the other is an award winning engine.

N54 has has won way more awards than the TT RS engine - it was the engine of year across all categories in 2007 and 2008 and best engine in 2.5 to 3 liters category in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 vs Audi TT RS just one best engine in the 2-2.5l category.

So sorry, but there is nothing more special about the TT RS engine than N54.

 

[EMpower]

What are the times of the TT-RS and the RS3 ?

2009 TT-RS is 8:09

BMW 1M Coupe runs the ‘Ring faster than outgoing M5 but loses out to Audi TT-RS - Zerotohundred.com

 

[footie]

^ we will agree to disagree on this one.

I respect your opinion and your belief that the N54 is as good and as strong across the entire rev range but numbers always tell the truth and since the TT-RS and 1M weigh the same then we can expect the two to be capable of the same acceleration times, after all one has awd which we all know saps power and should hand the 1M the advantage as speed grows.

We already have the times for the Audi, now all we need is the independent times for the 1M to see how it performs. Then we will come back this this argument.

P.S.
Which benefits acceleration, is it a stronger lower part of the rev range or strong at the top of the rev range?

 

[Sunny]

I respect your opinion and your belief that the N54 is as good and as strong across the entire rev range

Show me one place where I said that? All along, I said TT RS engine is stronger up top, where as 1M is better at the bottom.

but numbers always tell the truth and since the TT-RS and 1M weigh the same then we can expect the two to be capable of the same acceleration times, after all one has awd which we all know saps power and should hand the 1M the advantage as speed grows.

We already have the times for the Audi, now all we need is the independent times for the 1M to see how it performs. Then we will come back this this argument.

I doubt it is as straight forward - grip, gearing, aerodynamics, weight bias all come into effect, not just engine and weight. Obviously TT RS is going to have an advantage at lower speeds cause of AWD. At higher speeds, I doubt there will be much between a 1M and TT RS with 6 speed. BMW claims 0-200 of 17.3 secs. Even for a conservative manufacture's claims that is as fast, if not faster than most numbers I have seen for for 6 speed TT-RS.

I think the overboost function is going to play a big role in a straight forward acceleration runs - from what I read it is available for 7 secs in each gear - which means 1M will have +50NM through out a 0-200 race.

 

[coolraoul]

I'll take the 1M. Despite the lack of a proper M-engine, a true RWD M-beast with stunning wheel-archs and an M3-rear axle....

The RS3 looks like an average A3-SB, and has wider front tyres... Well that's now how you_ appeal to me.

Does it have a proper Torsen AWD-system or still the same "false" one (car behaving like an AWD and rear axle switched on only when grip is lost) like every other A3?

Anyway, being RWD with LSD is enough for me. Looking like that, well... I don't see myself in it, or else only in black. But it's one stunning little sportscar, while the RS3 doesn't look the part. And has an inferior chassis.

 

[FC123]

From a tuner's perspective...

How much boost will the respective engines actually handle? I don't really have any data to back it up, but I get the impression that the Audi S3 and RS3 engines are built to withstand high boost levels, whereas the N54 is designed for lower boost applications. As said, raw data appreciated.

For some tuning potential may make or brake the deal, I mean if it's suddenly easy to take one to 500 hp, whereas the other only goes to 400, that does create a whole new set of rules...

 

[Sunny]

^I doubt anyone can answer that with good authority as to which engine is reinforced better to take a higher boost pressure without going kaput. All you will get is just speculation and fanboy talk. There are extreme examples of both with 500+HP. N54 is good for 380-390 RWHP with just ECU reprogramming. That is 450+ HP at the crank considering the usual 15% drive loss. And that is with crappy 91 octane fuel here in Cal. One area where I expect N54 to be better at least theoretically is turbo lag as you increase the boost. 2 small turbos should respond better than one big one - which is also probably why BMW uses N54 instead of N55 for all the "is" cars and now 1M.

 

[martinbo]

Does it have a proper Torsen AWD-system or still the same "false" one (car behaving like an AWD and rear axle switched on only when grip is lost) like every other A3?

You mean "behaving like a FWD and rear axle switched on only when grip is lost'?

If so, then yes, in the RS3 this is still the typical front-wheel drive biased tranverse layout AWD utilising a Haldex LSC to direct power to the rear wheels with the onset of wheel spin at the front axle.

 

[FC123]

^I doubt anyone can answer that with good authority as to which engine is reinforced better to take a higher boost pressure without going kaput. All you will get is just speculation and fanboy talk. There are extreme examples of both with 500+HP. N54 is good for 380-390 RWHP with just ECU reprogramming. That is 450+ HP at the crank considering the usual 15% drive loss. And that is with crappy 91 octane fuel here in Cal. One area where I expect N54 to be better at least theoretically is turbo lag as you increase the boost. 2 small turbos should respond better than one big one - which is also probably why BMW uses N54 instead of N55 for all the "is" cars and now 1M.

I've actually heard the twin scroll setup is a little less laggy than the N54, but tails of towards the top end.
I think N55, might in fact be more of a desire for improved fuel economy.

I've not seen any 335i hitting 450 with only ECU reprogramming, but I can't rule it out.

 

[coolraoul]

You mean "behaving like a FWD and rear axle switched on only when grip is lost'?

If so, then yes, in the RS3 this is still the typical front-wheel drive biased tranverse layout AWD utilising a Haldex LSC to direct power to the rear wheels with the onset of wheel spin at the front axle.

Yeah of course I meant that... My bad...

Ok so it's still a Haldex system... Only reinforces my firm and easy choice of the 1M then!

 

[FC123]

Yeah of course I meant that... My bad...

Ok so it's still a Haldex system... Only reinforces my firm and easy choice of the 1M then!

The Haldex system has come leaps and bounds with the introduction of Haldex IV in 2007. But of course, it's no RWD fun fest.

 

[klier]

The big question now is....will RS3 come close to the 8:12 Nurburgring time of the M1????

I think it won't.

 

[Monster]

From a tuner's perspective...

How much boost will the respective engines actually handle? I don't really have any data to back it up, but I get the impression that the Audi S3 and RS3 engines are built to withstand high boost levels, whereas the N54 is designed for lower boost applications. As said, raw data appreciated.

For some tuning potential may make or brake the deal, I mean if it's suddenly easy to take one to 500 hp, whereas the other only goes to 400, that does create a whole new set of rules...

I am guessing the Audi's engine block is stronger because it is made from cast iron.

 

[footie]

Typically the 2.5TFSI makes more than per quota, normally this is around 355-365hp and similar amounts of torque, I believe Poverty can back this up. Another thing I do know is that the engine has been regularly tested with over 500hp during development testing of the parts and has been pushed to as high as 700hp on the testbed.

I'm not saying that the N54 isn't capable of the same, only that Audi developed the 2.5TFSI to be future proof, which it is.

The only thing negative I could ever say about the N54 is that it lack character, it does it's job efficiently enough but it offers nothing other than power when needed, it's not got any of the character of past M engines that made them special and it certainly doesn't have the character of the 2.5TFSI.

Is this really that important?

Does the 1M need an engine to feel special? Heaven knows as I haven't sampled it and very few here have but it will be a very different experience from past M cars. Sure the 1M has plenty going for it, what with the underpinnings of the M3, it's purposefully exterior and those wonderful alloys, it's definitely eye candy. But is that enough?

Does the RS3 engine make the car feel special? Absolutely, it's the underlinning reason why the TT-RS feels so special, the engine is the star and the thing most people mention after driving one.

Many would argue that Lotus have shown that it's all about the handling and driving experience and the engine plays second fiddle to all of this, but they hadn't a choice in the matter and did the best with what they had. I am sure given the choice they would have loved an engine as soulful as a Ferrari under the hood, no doubt it would have meant they would have won much more eCoty awards.

The bottom line is that the engine is the heart of any car but a hi-performance one it's especially important, every great car has had an engine with bags of character, without it the thing has no soul.

 

[footie]

The big question now is....will RS3 come close to the 8:12 Nurburgring time of the M1????

I think it won't.

The answer will only be known when both are INDEPENDENTLY tested and their times compared, taking into account the conditions at the time. Claiming a figure without it being independently verified means nothing, surely you understand that.

I stated on another forum that the TT-RS lapped the ring below 8 mins during testing with r-compound rubber. This later became 8:09 by Sportauto using non r-compound rubber. Now if the 1M does post 8:12 in their hands then hats off to BMW, they did a wonderful job, but until that day I will always be a little skeptical.