Stable Mates: Audi RS3 Sportback v VW Golf R

And of course there is its USP: what you’re looking at is one of the very last five-cylinder cars on sale, from the people who brought you the first – at least in terms of those powered by petrol. It’s still got that charm too: it’s not quite the force it once was, even though with nearly 400bhp it’s more powerful than ever. Its voice seems a touch manufactured, the throttle response could and should be better and there’s notable turbo lag too, but there’s nothing else that sounds like it out there, it still goes like hell once properly roused and anyone old enough to remember the Group B Quattros doing their thing will find themselves in transports of delight. Pun entirely intended.

It has faults – the whole human machine interface is pretty poor with horrible haptic steering wheel switches and a small central display that make you squint to read the CarPlay screen, the dual-clutch gearbox it shares with the Golf is nothing like as snappy as it should be and it’s not particularly refined while cruising. But none of these is a reason in and of itself not to buy the car. A perhaps more compelling reason for that can be found in the price.

The Golf is waiting for us. It looks smart, but to me the Audi has the more purposeful, attractive appearance. And while the VW at least has a decent sized central screen it’s even more difficult to operate than that in the RS3. Of course it’s better than in the original eighth-generation Golf, but it still amazes me that VW has yet to properly sort it out. And while the interior materials are largely acceptable, there is still quite a lot of scratchy hard plastic in here, which you’d not blink at in a base Golf at half the price, but are less welcome here. As an aside, and in case you’re wondering, there’s no such thing as a Golf at half this price: a basic Golf Life with a 1.5-litre, 113bhp engine now costs £28,895. Surprised? I certainly was.

Then again, parked next to the £64,920 Audi, the £45,070 Golf R seems positively cheap; nor does it seem exactly unreasonable to charge so much when a standard Golf GTI, some 67bhp and a couple of driveshafts worse off as it is, still costs over £41,000.

The old but still game 2-litre motor fires up. When my wife first travelled in the car she thought it might be a diesel, which I think is a bit harsh, but like the Audi and so many other petrol cars – we noticed it particularly on the naturally aspirated Porsche 718 Cayman GTS – its voice has become muffled by emissions legislation. It’s not notably quieter (perhaps thanks to £3500 of optional Akrapovic exhaust work), but sounds instead like it’s learning how to be a ventriloquist, talking while barely moving its lips, so all the sharpness and edges are removed from its voice, leaving something still recognisable but less crisp, distinct and interesting.

But goodness me it’s still fast and, actually, whatever the acceleration figures show, on the road it feels perhaps a fraction slower than the Audi but no more. Certainly when driven with real purpose at all speeds conducive with safe conduct in public, it will just sit on the RS3’s tail. You’d need a track to really see the difference, and these are not track cars, nor are they trying to be.

And even then I suspect the difference would not be that great. Indeed it may not be there at all. Why? Because the Golf may be a little behind on powertrain, but its chassis is streets ahead, far more so than you might expect from two performance hatchbacks sharing the same platform and suspension architecture. Before I explain why, I just need to make one thing clear: the test Golf came with adaptive damping and if there’s a better way of spending £755 on a car, I don’t know what it is. And I can be very certain of what I say here because this is not the first time we’ve tried to do this test. We had to abandon the same story a few weeks back for reasons too boring to explain (no, we didn’t crash) and when we reconvened both cars were new, the Golf now had the trick dampers and the difference felt like the old days when you had to tune the telly by hand and you suddenly found exactly the right wave length. Everything just starts zinging.

So while the Audi was enjoyable on that road – quick, safe and adjustable in a way such cars never used to be – the Golf was something closer to a revelation. Both cars come with highly configurable chassis, but even if you left it in Comfort it felt both more lithe and alive than the Audi. Its steering is lighter and has more feel, its better by far over the bumps, has superior throttle response, is easier to steer by both hand and foot and, above all, in the filthy weather we encountered, imparted a level of confidence that was simply not available in the Audi.

The difference is simple really: the RS3 was quick, fluent and objectively quite impressive even if at times its ride was a little too firm for its own good. But fun? I guess yes, to a limited extent which may be enough for many or even most drivers. But for those of a more discerning bent, who want their car not merely to talk the talk, but be able to walk the walk, the Golf is the clear choice.

And the clear winner here. The test car did come with all kinds of extras that pushed its list price quite close to that of the RS3, but you could remove them all and I’d only miss the dampers.

But why do they feel so different given their shared underpinnings? I think there are a few reasons. First, the Audi is 92kg heavier than the Golf, which down here in the tonne-and-a-half bracket is actually quite a lot. Second and probably of greater significance is where that additional weight is, which is mostly on or ahead of the front axle.

Then there’s tyre choice – both cars come with what I’d call fast road rubber, but nothing you’d choose for a track day, but while both have 19in rims, the Golf wears a 235/35 section front boot, the RS3 a 265/30. Now maybe it needs to be that way to make up for the additional work its weight is creating for its tyres, but I suspect it’s a decision led more by philosophical than practical considerations. What it says to me is that the good folk of Audi Sport still think their punters place grip ahead of feel on their priority list. Even so, the geeks among you will also be interested to note that the RS3 is part of a club so exclusive I think it may be the only current member that has wider tyres at the front than back, a 245/35 being fitted astern. Evidently Audi is aware of its reputation for understeer and is working hard to exorcise it. But it still feels more wooden than the Golf.

Indeed it seems the opposite view is taken by colleagues up the other end of the country in Wolfsburg, who know that the wider the tyre the worse the feel. And, finally, you just can’t help but think VW’s engineers tried harder.

The bottom line is this: I know why Audi reckons it can charge so much for the RS3 – the engine provides a unique appeal and its brand positioning is far ahead of humble VW. But to drive, the Golf is clearly superior and wins the test with ease. I liked the RS3 more than I’d expected to, but I’d not sell the Golf to get one, nor would I even if they were the same price, which they are emphatically not. That is the margin of victory here.

Photography by Dean Smith