Baldness must be hereditary in the i30 family because before too long, you’ll notice a circular recession of carpet under your SR’s accelerator pedal.
You have to remind yourself that stepping on the accelerator pedal harder, when it’s already got a mouthful of carpet, will not magically reveal another 15kW and 30Nm.
And that’s one of our dominating memories of the i30 SR around Winton: throttle firmly pinned wide open.
On track, the i30 SR’s tall gears wed Winton nicely, but with its peak of 209 naturally-aspirated newtons hiding in the clouds at 4700rpm, it also meant you’re fixated on the tachometer, willing it to wind clockwise a little faster.
Tip into a corner and on a track and the i30’s chassis blemishes are exposed in all their nudity, too, given it tries hard to escape its passenger car origins, but just can’t quite get there.
I arrived at Winton with reasonable expectations for the i30 SR having belted one up my favourite road. I found its handling friendly and it earned my respect it for its surprising competence.
Unfortunately on the track understeer afflicts the i30 SR and affects its mid-corner grip. Let the numbers show the i30 SR logged the second-slowest apex speed behind the Mini.
The brakes were pretty crook, too, and before long it wasn’t just the accelerator pedal wearing a spot in the firewall carpet. Gulp. Of all the cars at Bang 2014, the SR took the longest to stop at 41.85 metres.
Corner encounters end with the i30 SR inevitably fleeing to the safe bosom of understeer. But in the faster stuff, with a lot of provocation, the i30 SR will oversteer, too. It’s not easy, but not impossible, and requires melon-sizes testes to make it happen.
It’s only when you climb into something like the Kia Proceed GT, immediately after the SR, that you also realise the little i30 has quite a few focus areas for development if it wants to wrestle with the big kids that get invited to MOTOR’s events.
But the i30 SR isn’t a terrible car. It’s blessed with an enthusiastic engine and its $27,990 price curried favour with the Bang formula, helping the underdog i30 SR take a few scalps during our testing.
In fact, the i30 SR finished 17th outright, embarrassing the five cars that finished behind it. Not bad for a wicked-up hatch trying hard to overcome its passenger car origins.
And that’s sort of the i30 SR in a nutshell: enthusiastic and zippy but held back by its genes. Baldness included.
Results $0-50K placing – 12th Overall placing – 17th Judges’ ranking – 21st
0-100km/h – 8.50sec (20th) 0-400m – 16.37sec @ 140.49km/h (20th) Lap Time – 151:50sec (20th) Price – $27,990 (3rd)
Specs Engine: 1999cc inline-4, DOHC, 16v Power: 129kW @ 6500rpm Torque: 209Nm @ 4700rpm Weight: 1356kg Gearbox: 6-speed manual Suspension: struts, anti-roll bar (f); torsion beam, coil springs, anti-roll bar (r) Brakes: 280mm ventilated discs, single-piston caliper (f); 262mm solid discs, single-piston calipers (r) Wheels: 17 x 7.0-inch (f/r) Tyres: 225/45 R17 91V Hankook Ventus Prime2 (f/r)
Get your free weekly report from the world of fast cars – subscribe to the MOTOR newsletter!
Slowness and expensiveness are a guaranteed way to turn the Bang formula a bit pale.
So you can forgive Bang’s mathematical digestive system for getting in a knot when it ate the numbers for the Abarth 595 Turismo.
Taking 8.99 seconds to hit 100km/h and an is-the-handbrake-still-on 16.55 seconds to cover the quarter, the Abarth was officially the slowest car in a straight line at Bang 2014.
Its $33,500 price – $7510 more than the Fiesta ST – helped it like a punch in the head, too.
But the Abarth surprised the judges who had driven it previously on the road, who found a tiresome car with seats firm in all the wrong places, road noise like the stereo was blaring static at full volume, and suspension like it was nicked from Kmart mountain bikes.
Then there’s the cruise control (lack of), interior plastics made from recycled milk lids, and a gearbox with five gears.
The engine is enthusiastic enough with 230Nm at 3000rpm, and makes an effort with the exhaust note. But it has to pull through long-ish gear ratios, intended to help the Abarth’s fuel consumption (we assume), and it really hurts the Abarth’s straight-line punch.
Fortunately, despite an 149.25km/h Winton v-max – dead last – you’d think the acceleration, which feels like the Abarth is steam-driven, would cause more pain to its lap time. But surprising mid-corner grip, and strong brakes, come to its rescue.
An apex speed of 53.59km/h (8th in class) and a 100-0km/h braking performance of 37.95m (7th in class) combine to help the Abarth claw back valuable time around Winton.
It’s dead last for 0-100km/h, 0-400m and lap v-max, but ends up crossing the line 12th thanks to its sheer ability to divebomb corners.
The stiff suspension might send you nuts on the road but chuck it in and you’ll find a nice tenacious OEM tyre to lean into.
The experience around Winton thus is one of checking your watch down straights, but geeing yourself up to see how late you can brake and how much speed with which you can swoop at the next apex.
When you reach the limit, wielding a super-sized steering wheel comical in a car this small, you’ll encounter an understeer that feels more natural than annoying.
But flick the thing into a fast elbow like Winton’s turn four and you’ll discover an encouraging wriggle of front-drive oversteer.
Unfortunately the fun turns to frustration as the ESP kills the joy, and you can’t turn it off. There’s not even an ESP button.
It’s a shame because while chucking around the upright, grippy, tiny-wheelbase Abarth might well be disastrous without ESP, it could also be hilarious. Sadly, we’ll never know.
Results $0-50K placing – 13th Overall placing – 21st Judges’ ranking – 20th
0-100km/h – 8.99sec (21st) 0-400m – 16.55sec @ 142.50km/h (21st) Lap Time – 151.10sec ( 19th) Price – $33,500 (7th)
Specs Engine: 1368cc inline-4, DOHC, 16v, turbo Power: 118kW @ 5500rpm Torque: 230Nm @ 3000rpm Weight: 1035kg Gearbox: 5-speed manual Suspension: struts, anti-roll bar (f); torsion beam, anti-roll bar (r) Brakes: 284mm ventilated discs, 4-piston calipers (f); 240mm ventilated discs, single-piston calipers (r) Wheels: 17 x 7.0-inch (f/r) Tyres: 205/40 R17 Michelin Pilot Sport 3 (f/r)
Get your free weekly report from the world of fast cars – subscribe to the MOTOR newsletter!
No matter which angle you chose to look at it, the Golf R’s performance at BFYB 2014 was extraordinary.
Against its VW kin? Against other VAG competitors sharing MQB underpinnings? As a hot hatch, a small car or an all-paw turbo hero? In the context of the entire 21-strong field? Take your pick. From whichever viewpoint you choose, it kicked major bottom.
Before I dissect the R’s stunning $50K-100K in-class dominance, let’s talk fast Golfs.
Debate has and continues to rage among petrolheads – and BFYB judges alike – as to whether the R or the GTI, here in battle-sharpened Performance Pack trim, is the smarter ownership choice.
One camp argues for the R’s more lavish all-round, all-paw spec, the other camp counters that, on value, the GTI – specifically the base version – is 90 percent the car for what has traditionally been roughly 75 percent the R’s outlay.
At BFYB 2014, though, the case for Golf R got stronger. Just $3500 separates an R manual from GTI PP, and the yet the pace advantage the all-paw Golf displayed over its front-driven kin was formidable to say the least.
The R’s 4.92sec was 1.9sec quicker to 100km/h, its 13.21sec some 1.7sec swifter to 400m, its 3.16sec 80-120km/h quicker by 0.7sec. And the R (at 35.92m) braked 2.6 metres shorter than the GTI.
It goes on. Around Winton, the R’s 1:01.9 lap was three seconds quicker, its 57.71km/h corner speed was a couple of kliks swifter, its 173.62km/h V-maxes on track and strip faster by some measure.
It seems as if Volkswagen is now plugging a larger wedge between its flagship all-paw hatch and its more affordable, front-driven GTI sibling.
However, with the GTI fighting in the sub-$50K group, none of this demonstrates the eye-opening tenacity the R brought to the $50-$100K fight which it went on to emphatically win.
Of its eight direct competitors, only the ($52,490) SS-V Redline is more affordable to buy, and by a scant $2500 margin. Bear in mind, too, that the category average pricepoint is a far pricier $69,803.
Oh, and together with its mechanical twin the Audi S3, the 206kW/380Nm Golf R was the equally the least-powerful car in class…
…And yet, it was the quickest device to 100m, and only the M235i was swifter to 400m, by just eleven-hundredths, where the R’s terminal speed was fourth fastest of the eight competitors.
Despite the patent horsepower disadvantage, the Golf was also third-quickest in class to lunge from 80km/h to 120km/h, which is nothing short of miraculous effort.
In a nutshell, it was a display of engineering efficiency at its finest – the Golf R was channeling its energy into forward motion more effectively than any of its rival could.
Then came the braking test. And the Golf R pulled up from 100km/h in a shorter distance than any its rivals in a distance than could be measured in old-school feet.
Next up were the hot laps. And right here the Golf R broke the BFYB barn doors open and did its bolt.
Only the SS-V Redline could muster up grippier pace in Turn Seven and only the M235i and Chrysler could top its 173.62km/h V-max.
But the real surprise was once the all-paw VeeDub flashed past the finish line because it was the only $50-$100K competitor to clock a One-Oh-One lap time, eight-tenths up on the BMW and pretty much increasing daylight to the rest of the $50K-$100K class.
As a pace-setting pointy-ender for the entire 2014 BYFB field, and with little hope of any front-driven prospect matching its accelerative prowess, one conclusion is easily drawn: the Golf R is, on balance, the quickest and most ferocious hot hatch on planet Earth.
And yet it’s not merely a case of heroic pace alone. It’s simply brilliant to drive. The engine is incredibly punchy and flexible, its dynamic reflexes are razor sharp and, as the timesheet proves, it works with the driver to extract its maximum potential.
Such a joy, in fact, that the judges gave it first place in class for enjoyment and X-factor.
Wunderbar, Volkswagen!
Results $50-100K placing – 1st Overall placing – 3rd Judges’ ranking – 2nd
0-100km/h – 4.92sec (1st) 0-400m – 13.21sec @ 168.97km/h (2nd) Lap Time – 1:41.90sec (2nd) Pricing – $54,990 (15th)
Specs Engine 1984cc inline-4, DOHC, 16v, turbo Power 206kW @ 6200rpm Torque 380Nm @ 1750rpm Weight 1435kg Gearbox 6-speed dual-clutch Suspension struts, adaptive dampers, anti-roll bar (f); multi-links, adaptive dampers, anti-roll bar (r) Brakes 340mm ventilated discs, single-piston calipers (f); 310mm ventilated discs, single-piston calipers (r) Wheels 19 x 8.0-inch (f/r) Tyres 235/35 R19 Bridgestone Potenza RE050A (f/r)
Get your free weekly report from the world of fast cars – subscribe to the MOTOR newsletter!
If you’ve been reading our BYFB 2014 coverage thus far in sequential, last-to-first-place order – as we’d expect you have – you already know be aware that the relatively cut-priced ($59,990) Audi S3 Sportback all but trounced it’s $22K-pricier, RennSport-badged RS Q3 sibling in the competitive proceedings.
But to score second place against the class of the finest and fastest sub-$100K performance car of the past 12 months or so? That, readers, is some serious merit.
Underpinned by VAG’s clever, modular MQB architecture, the new version is an S3 transformed.
But then again, so too are four other MQB-based BFYB combatants this year: Audi’s SUV, the Skoda and the two Golfs.
Conspicuous by its absence in the pages thus far, it’s fair to say that the Golf R – the S3’s mechanical twin corporate cousin – was the Sportback’s biggest nemesis.
The raw spec bore out the S3’s slight disadvantage. Unlike the more powerful Euro-spec S3, the Aussie version gets 206kW and 380Nm…which is exactly what the Golf R is rated at.
But the more upmarket Audi tips the weighbridge scales with an extra 85kg or so across the board whether you opt for conventional or twin-clutch manuals in either marque’s models.
And that extra premium sheen of the Audi crop? Well, it accounts for a difference of $8000 in favour of the Volkswagen (in manual form).
Frankly, the S3 needed to pull a miraculous effort. And in ways it did.
First up, the drag strip. As one of the two least-powerful $50K-$100K competitors, the Audi hatch was also only one of two to slip into the ‘fours’ for the 0-100km/h sprint (4.99sec).
And by the 400m mark its 13.28sec pass was just edged out to third quickest by BMW’s 235i. In short, the slick-looking five-door was taking the scalps of pricier and more powerful all- and rear-drivers left, right and centre. Bravo!
The problem was that pesky Golf R. The bugger was fractionally quicker – if slightly slower in 400m trap speed – everywhere. And it didn’t help matters that the Golf pulled up shorter to a standstill from 100km/h either.
Around the tighter confines of the Winton circuit, you could feel that the Audi isn’t quite as light on its feet and keen to change direction as the lighter Volkswagen.
But, boy, was it still quick. The hierarchy that had played out on the strip was maintained around the track, the Audi scoring the third quickest lap time behind the VW and the BMW, with all other comers jostling for more minor placings.
That said, its actual Apex speed (53.34km/h) through Turn Seven wasn’t spectacular, which hurt its overall points score, though the S3 (with 172.90km/h) was in the top half of category’s measured V-max speeds.
No surprise, then, that the VW-BMW-Audi status quo remained intact in the eye of subjective judgment.
On the plus side, the S3 offers incredibly punchy engine delivery, a light level of accuracy in its chassis’ dynamics, beautifully clear steering and a sense of edginess and potency that not just the RS Q3 only hoped for but was also lacking in most of its class competitors.
On the downside, the Golf R was a sharper device again, and the 235i provided a more intimate, playful and lively driving character when you started wringing necks.
The S3’s deception is also a big part of its appeal. Surely the Sportback is the most mature, classy, sophisticated and upmarket small hatchback good money buys. To a point where it’s easy to forget just how capable a performance device it actually is under that suave skin.
But whether it’s potent enough to dispatch the sub-$50K hotties in buck-banging overall standing still remains to be seen. – CD
Results $50-100K placing – 2nd Overall placing – 12th Judges’ Ranking – 7th
0-100km/h – 4.99sec (2nd) 0-400m – 13.28sec @ 169.84km/h (3rd) Lap Time – 1:43.4sec (3rd) Pricing – $59,990 (17th)
Specs Engine: 1984cc inline-4, DOHC, 16v, turbocharger Power: 206kW @ 5100-6500rpm Torque: 380Nm @ 1800-5100rpm Weight: 1445kg Gearbox: 6-speed dual-clutch Suspension: A-arms, struts, coil springs, anti-roll bar (f); multi-links, coil springs, anti-roll bar (r) Brakes: 340mm ventilated discs, single-piston calipers (f); 310mm ventilated discs, single-piston calipers (r) Wheels: 18 x 7.5-inch (f/r) Tyres: 225/40 R18 92Y Continental ContiSportContact5 (f/r)
Get your free weekly report from the world of fast cars – subscribe to the MOTOR newsletter!
After the wilful, sometimes spiteful little gadget that was the BMW 1M Coupe, I have to admit to wondering what the German maker could pull out to tame the beast.
After all, here was an enticing concept combining raw power with rear-wheel-drive and sophistication all wrapped up in a tight little ball of muscle.
Except the 1M blew. Okay, not blew, but it did exhibit a fairly nasty side when pushed at somewhere like a race circuit.
Of course, experience with the 235i Bimmer, which follows the new naming system of taking an even-number model designation because it’s a two-door and not a sedan, suggests that BMW had, indeed, sought to inject some sneeze-factor into the basic concept.
The result is, of course, that the 235i is a much nicer car than the 1M but what would happen when we unleashed it on a track? And, in the context of BFYB, could it overcome that almost-$80K price-tag?
Like all good BMWs, the guts of things is that straight-six engine. It measures three litres but with clever turbo-tech punches out 240kW of power and a substantial 450Nm of torque.
That it does so with eerie smoothness and a raspy little growl (a hard combo to manage) is just icing on the PULP cake. Thing is, of course, that even though it’s compact in a new-world-order way, it’s not actually a lightweight and with 1470kg to shunt around, that could play against it.
At the drag-strip, that didn’t really seem to show up and the 0-100km/h time of five seconds flat placed the Bimmer third outright just a single hundredth and eight-hundredths respectively behind the Audi S3 and the Golf R, both of which use all-wheel-drive grapple to get out of the hole in the first instance.
This superior launch was brought to light 400m later when the BMW had run both VAG cars down to record a standing quarter-mile of 13.1 seconds at 177.7km/h, the fastest 400m of the lot. So, yes, the 235i has some serious top-end rush.
Somewhere in between the sprints is the car’s 80-120km/h time which, with a 2.9 second result, puts the car in second place outright, shaded only by the sheer litres of the Chrysler 300C Core.
The eight-speed auto helps no end in this endeavour and although a clutch pedal would be nice for us old blokes, the conventional auto with paddles does a mighty fine job in this age of robot-clutched manual trannies.
But what, I hear you asking, about the lap-time? Indeed. That bogey of the old 1M. Well, the extra wheelbase of the new 2-Series has pretty much addressed the bad habits of the old car and with Brendo at the helm, the 235i blasted around Winton in a 1.42:7, second fastest of the category.
But that bit about having somebody like B. Reeves in the dad seat is important, because the 235i is not the easiest car from which to extract the absolute best. No, it’s no 1M – as we established right off – but it doesn’t really encourage you to try for that last tenth, mainly because it’s all a tiny bit hairy when you get there.
It can feel a bit light through the wheel and, at the risk of sounding like a sook, it felt to me as if what I thought initially was balance was actually that it felt a bit loose at both ends simultaneously.
It’s still happy to change lines and do all that race-car stuff, but as I got closer to the limit, I also had the feeling that I was challenging it rather than we were working as a team.
But hey, BFYB aint about reservations of that sort, it’s about hard numbers and when you crunch ’em, the 235i wound up third. I’ll shut up now.
Results $50-100K placing – 3rd Overall placing – 9th Judges’ ranking – 5th
0-100km/h – 5.00sec (3rd) 0-400m – 13.10sec @ 177.77km/h (1st) Lap Time – 1:42.70sec (2nd) Pricing – $79,390 (19th)
Specs Engine: 2979cc inline-6, DOHC, 24v, turbocharger Power: 240kW @ 5800-6000rpm Torque: 450Nm @ 1300-4500rpm Weight: 1470kg Gearbox: 8-speed auto Suspension: A-arms, struts, adaptive dampers, anti-roll bar (f); multi-links, coil springs, adaptive dampers, anti-roll bar (r) Brakes: 340mm ventilated discs, 4-piston calipers (f); 345mm ventilated discs, 2-piston calipers (r) Wheels: 18 x 7.5-inch (f); 18 x 8.0-inch (r) Tyres: 225/40 ZR18 88Y (f); 245/35 ZR18 92Y (r) Michelin Pilot Super Sports
Get your free weekly report from the world of fast cars – subscribe to the MOTOR newsletter!
No turbochargers here. No all-wheel-drive. No red carpet, no free champagne and absolutely no attempt to be anything but a goddam, look-at-that-Martha muscle car.
Hallelujah.
Behold the numbers: 6.4 litres; 347kW;631Nm. Oh, and 1938kg. Ahem.
Now, bald numbers don’t always tell the whole story in cases like this, but when it comes to the 300 Core, maybe they don’t require as much interpretation as they do in other cases.
See, you can really break our results down into two categories: Going straight, and going ’round bends.
In the first category, the 300C is shatteringly good. It creamed the standing 400m in 13.3 seconds (bearing in mind that kerb weight and rear-drive) on its way to a terminal speed of 177.4km/h.
That’s well up the pointy end of this lot and included getting to 100km/h in 5.2. The mid-range straight-line stuff is spectacular, too, with 80-120km/h despatched in a class-leading 2.75 seconds with daylight second.
And then we come to second category. Erm, not so sharp. The 300C’s lap-time was 1.46:3 which was second slowest.
Comparing straights with corners yet again, the Chrysler’s V-max down the straight was a second-best 177.2km/h while its speed through Turn-7 was just 50.6km/h; stone last.
It’s not just weight transfer and a relative lack of grip, though. Braking is hardly a long-suit, either and not only was the 100-0km/h distance on the wrong side of 40m, the stoppers got pretty AWOL after about two laps.
The 300C’s five-speed tranny does it no favours around Winton and, in fact, it emerged as a two-gear car (second and third only). Oh for the eight-speed auto in some Jeep models…
But don’t fret, because all is not lost. See, the 300C Core has one more trick up its sleeve that helped save the day. And that trick is that it’s an absolute hoot to pedal.
Okay, so it never feels anything other than heavy, but the front end is pointy enough to hide some of that. But to drift it is to love it.
Okay, there’s the ultimate question of what’s going to happen if you continue to poke it with a stick and it can feel a bit light through the front end, but use it as the big, boofy muscle car it is, and you’ll walk away with a big grin.
Big enough to make it fourth outright in class.
Results $50-100K placing – 4th Overall placing – 15th Judges’ ranking – 14th
0-100km/h – 5.20sec (4th) 0-400m – 13.30sec @ 177.40km/h (4th) Lap Time – 1:46.30sec (13th) Price – $56,000 (16th)
Specs Engine 6417cc V8, OHV, 16v Power 347kW @ 6100rpm Torque 631Nm @ 4150rpm Weight 1983kg Gearbox 5-speed auto Suspension struts, coil springs, anti-roll bar (f); multi-links, anti-roll bar (r) Brakes 360mm ventilated discs, 4-piston calipers (f); 350mm ventilated discs, 4-piston calipers (r) Wheels 20 x 9.0-inch (f/r) Tyres 245/45 R20 Goodyear Eagle F1 RS-A2 (f/r)
Get your free weekly report from the world of fast cars – subscribe to the MOTOR newsletter!
Which car at Bang 2014 was slowest in class down the straights but had the most mid-corner grip?
The IS350? Maybe the S3? Think again, it’s the SS-V. And judging by photos like the one on the front page, you’d be forgiven for thinking all us MOTORers need to go back to driving school.
Yep, a lack of grunt hurt the SS-V – something we’d never thought we’d say about an Aussie sedan with 270kW and 530Nm – but mid-corner grip helped it claw back lost ground. Another sentence we never thought we’d utter about an Aussie four-door.
But so the story went: to 100km/h the SS-V’s 5.7sec was second last, beaten by everything except the Lexus. Which means that yep, an Audi SUV on ‘roids would show you up at the lights.
After 400 metres, the SS-V has pipped the smart-arse Audi but despite a respectable 13.8sec quarter, it’s still third last.
It’s not even your normal diagnosis of the big, boofhead Aussie sedan struggling to put its power down, either. Its 400m trap speed was fourth last, its 80-120km/h time of 3.5 seconds wasn’t flash and as, err, aforementioned, its lap v-max of 166.39km/h was slowest in class.
Yep, in this company the SS-V needs more grunt. But grip? Got plenty, thanks.
A 58.22km/h apex v-max plonks the SS-V in first place (!) for mid-corner clinging, beating all in class – including giants like Golf R and M235i. Respect.
Mixing the lack of grunt with a surfeit of grip produces a midfield fourth-placed laptime, too, of 1:43.5sec – behind the Golf R, S3 and M235i, about where you’d expect to plonk an SS-V. The SS-V finished about midfield for braking, too, its 100-0km/h of 38.15m putting it fifth.
When you weave the SS-V’s performance data with its $52K ownership fee (the cheapest car in class) the Bang mathematical digestive system spits the SS-V out fifth.
What the numbers don’t tell you is the SS-V curried favour among the judges for, well, have a gander at the pic below.
For going sideways, 270kW and 530Nm is more than enough when you’ve only got two contact patches to work with. Snappy steering, a proper diff and a Goldilocks wheelbase mean Holden should be exporting the drift-happy SS-V to Japan, not America.
It’ll wriggle sideways and stay there until you run out of corner or balls it up from laughing too hard – whatever comes first.
It’s a hoot to drive and, frankly, there’d be nary a judge who didn’t feel a bit proud flogging this Aussie muscle car around Winton. For $52K, it’s that good.
But while we admired its cornering keenness for something weighing 1741kg, its fade-free brakes, its sweetly weighted-steering and the fact it’s just an all-round cracking package, in this company it needs more oomph.
Results $50-100K placing – 5th Overall placing – 11th Judges’ ranking – 9th
0-100km/h – 5.70sec – (8th ) 0-400m – 13.80sec @ 168.41km/h (7th) Lap Time – 1:43.50sec (6th) Pricing – $52,490 (14th)
Specs Engine: 5967cc V8, OHV, 16v Power: 270kW @ 5600rpm Torque: 530Nm @ 4400rpm Weight: 1741kg Gearbox: 6-speed manual Suspension: strut, anti-roll bar (f); multi-links, anti-roll bar (r) Brakes: 355mm ventilated discs, 4-piston calipers (f); 324mm ventilated discs, single-piston calipers (r) Wheels: 19 × 8.5-inch (f); 19 x 9.0-inch (r) Tyres: 245/40 R19 Bridgestone Potenza (f); 275/35 R19 Bridgestone Potenza (r)
It’s fitting that the model most closely aligned with Volvo’s V8 Supercar campaign, the S60 Polestar, is the Swedish marque’s most potent flagship performance car to date.
And 2014 brings improvements to cure the last-gen version’s shortcomings of lead-tipped dynamics, undercooked brakes, recalcitrant auto character and a general lack of feel-good edginess.
The revised S60 Polestar retains that manic 257kW/500Nm 3.0-litre turbo six but adds adaptive Ohlins dampers, stiffer spring rates, revamped (Polestar-tuned) auto with – hallelujah – paddle-shifters, revised Haldex tuning and one of the most serious sets of (370mm six-pot) Brembo stoppers this side of motorsport’s pitwall.
A more aggro appearance, launch control and more bolstered seating are welcome additions, as is the $10K price drop that sneaks the Smurf-blue Swede under BFYB’s $100K price cap by a mere fifty bucks.
Add a long list of premium equipment and it looks a bargain in the company of similarly sized, equally potent Euros.
Here, though, its relatively big-budget ticket is the Volvo’s anchor. It’d want to be fast. Really fast.
Down the strip, the Polestar marches off the line with gusto, nailing 5.39sec to 100km/h and a mid-13 (13.58sec) at the 400m mark.
It’s quick enough to shake the cardigan stigma but well short of Volvo’s 4.9sec claim, though something of a middling average for BFYB’s eight-strong $50K-100K field.
Clearly the immediate threat is that two of the category’s other AWD competitors are 0.4sec quicker to the tonne.
Nor is the 400m trap speed (a fairly lowly 167.95km/h) or in-gear 80-120km/h acceleration (a solid if unspectacular 3.37sec) anything boastworthy. On song, the S60 certainly feels swift, but perhaps more than it actually is.
Those massive brakes, however, pull the scoring Volvo’s way, the S60’s impressive 36.97m stop from 100km/h the second shortest of the group.
Around the circuit, by the seat of the pants, the new S60 certainly feels tauter, firmer and sharper than old model.
That said, in the company of some of the friskiest chassis on the market, the revised Polestar tweaks can’t quite shake the slightly ponderous character ingrained in the base car’s DNA.
The auto is better, but not great. Grip is impressive, though dynamics still err towards predictability rather than heady driver engagement.
Safe rather than thrilling transit, then, and the judges scored it down accordingly in the crucial ‘subjective’, some 20 percent of the overall score.
It’s lap-time of 1:04.40 wasn’t shabby at all, around two seconds quicker than both the Chrysler or the Lexus. Against the class-leading Golf R, though, the Volvo was 2.5 seconds – and daylight – behind the leading pace.
A workmanlike effort, then, for the priciest car of the entire field. – CD
Results $50-100K placing – 6th Overall placing – 20th Judges’ ranking –19th
0-100km/h – 5.39sec (5th) 0-400m – 13.58sec @ 167.95km/h (5th) Lap Time – 151.10sec ( 7th) Price – $99,950 (21st)
Specs Engine: 2953cc inline-6, DOHC, 24v, turbo Power: 257kW @ 5700rpm Torque: 500Nm @ 3000-4750rpm Weight: 1770kg Gearbox: 6-speed auto Suspension: struts, anti-roll bar (f); multi-links, anti-roll bar (r) Brakes: 370mm ventilated floating discs, 6-piston calipers (f); 302mm ventilated discs, single-piston calipers (r) Wheels: 19 x 8.0-inch (f/r) Tyres: 235/40 R19 Bridgestone Potenza (f/r)
Get your free weekly report from the world of fast cars – subscribe to the MOTOR newsletter!
The RS Q3 is the most performance-savvy SUV we’ve ever had at BFYB.
The most affordable RS-badged Audi to date should’ve given this year’s event a bigger shake than second-last in $50-$100K category. So what gives?
Forget excuses of family-friendly packaging: the RS Q3 packs RennSport-spec hard-ware fit for BFYB battle.
A bespoke 228kW/420Nm turbo five, twin-clutcher quattro drive, huge brakes and, with 255mm of tyre at each corner, more footprint than any other 2014 BFYB competitor.
Sure, it’s a hefty 1730kg, but it’s not the heaviest of the field by a long mark. Nor, at $81,900, the priciest.
Even a cursory glance at the numbers tells the story. Its 5.52sec 0-100km/h and 13.81sec 0-400m times were better by most, including a two-tonne Chrysler.
But the
Ingolstadt’s cheaper, more humbly endowed hatchback was also quicker than RS Q3’s 3.57sec 80-120km/h time. And the difference in braking between the Audis was just eight centimetres from 100km/h to a dead stop.
Yes, S3 with S-tronic is 210kg lighter, but the Volvo, which is 50kg heavier than the hyper-SUV, scored better numbers in all straight line tests bar none.
That RennSport-fettled chassis, with its (theoretical) grip advantage, had a chance to turn the table on the circuit. But of the eight class competitors, its 1:05.30sec lap was third slowest, only ahead of the big boy Chrysler and Lexus IS350 F-Sport.
Nor was it’s corner speed anything to brag about. And while the RS Q3 was quicker through Turn Seven than this little brother S3, the $22K-more-affordable and less-powerful device from the German marque was a clear 1.9sec quicker around the Winton circuit. Go figure…
Perhaps the RS Q3 is a case of the right badge, price and raw ingredients, but a formulae not fully resolved. Frankly, the SUV format shouldn’t, on paper, hamstring the RS Q3 for anything bar a weight penalty.
Instead, this sprog-hauler sits unnecessarily high – perhaps adversely affecting its centre of gravity – and can’t muster up the sharpness and grip we’ve come to expect from RennSport-badged Audis.
This, together with what feels a too soft and conservative tune by the RS skunkworks, has left what couldn’t been a hell-raising SUV feeling a bit nobbled to its true potential. And, thus, the judges scored it accordingly.
Results $50-100K placing – 7th Overall placing – 19th Judges’ ranking – 17th
0-100km/h – 5.52sec (7th) 0-400m – 13.81sec @ 161.81km/h (8th) Lap Time – 1:45.30sec (9th) Price – $81,900 (20th)
Specs Engine 2480cc inline-5, DOHC, 20v, turbo Power 228kW @ 5200rpm Torque 420Nm @ 1500rpm Weight 1730kg Gearbox 7-speed dual-clutch Suspension struts, anti-roll bar (f); multi-links, anti-roll bar (r) Brakes 365mm drilled/ventilated discs, 8-piston calipers (f); 310mm drilled/ventilated discs, single piston calipers (r) Wheels 19 x 8.5-inch (f/r) Tyres 255/40 R19 Dunlop SP QuattroMaxx (f/r)
Get your free weekly report from the world of fast cars – subscribe to the MOTOR newsletter!
The unfortunate reality of any competition is that something has to come last, and this year, in the $50-100K category at least, it’s the Lexus IS350 F Sport.
Sadly for the Lexus, Bang for your Bucks is a numbers game, and in all the major categories – 0-100km/h, 0-400m, 80-120km/h, lap time – the Lexus occupied the bottom rung of the class ladder.
But it’s not all bad news for the IS350 though, because the fact that it trails the field in terms of performance is more due to the incredible pace of the other contenders rather than any deficiency on the Lexus’s part. The Golf R’s 4.92sec sprint to 100km/h would’ve put it at the pointy end of a PCOTY field not too long ago.
The IS350’s 3.5-litre V6 produces a handy 233kW/378Nm, and it puts every single one to good use, cracking 100km/h in 6.10sec and flashing through the quarter mile in 14.10sec.
With better traction it would go even faster, but it’s all too easy to break into wheelspin off the line thanks to the lack of a limited-slip diff.
It sounds the business, too, howling furiously down Winton’s main straight like it wants to be an E46 M3 when it grows up.
Hot-lapping was never part of the IS350’s design brief, but it makes a remarkably good fist of it. That open diff hurts it badly, effortlessly spinning the inside wheel at the slightest provocation, but the steering is sharp and accurate, there’s reasonable grip and the brakes copped a full day’s punishment with few complaints.
The biggest improvement, though, lies with the chassis balance. The last IS350 F-Sport was almost comically oversteery on track; it was like the V6 was mounted in the boot.
It had turn-in oversteer, mid-corner oversteer and power oversteer, constantly wagging its tail like the happiest dog in the land. It was fun, until you wanted it to settle and do a clean lap.
This new generation is far more neutral, but still allows you to subtly play with the balance at will. Brendo was a huge fan, ranking it third, though everyone else was more reserved in their praise, Morley and Dupriez feeling it lacked that final few percent that separates the good from the great.
While it earns the class wooden spoon, punching its numbers into the overall field lifts the Lexus above both the Audi RS Q3 and Volvo S60 Polestar, a more accurate representation of its ability, as it’s a more enjoyable car to drive hard than either.
Results $50-100K placing – 8th Overall placing – 18th Judges’ Ranking – 11th
0-100km/h – 6.10sec (11th) 0-400m 14.10sec @ 167.91km/h (10th) Lap time – 1:46.50sec (15th) Price – $73,800 (18th)
Specs Engine 3456cc V6, DOHC, 24v Power 233kW @ 6400rpm Torque 378Nm @ 4800rpm Weight 1685kg Gearbox 8-speed automatic Suspension A-arms, adaptive dampers, anti-roll bar (f); multi-links, adaptive dampers, anti-roll bar (r) Brakes 334mm ventilated discs, 4-piston calipers (f); 310mm ventilated discs, single-piston calipers (r) Wheels 18 x 8.0-inch (f); 18 x 8.5-inch (r) Tyres 225/40 R18 (f); 255/35 R18 (r) Bridgestone Turanza
Get your free weekly report from the world of fast cars – subscribe to the MOTOR newsletter!
