Golf R in Motor Mag this month in Perfomance Comparo

[ethosguy]

Thanks Ideo - you are spot on, a good 0-100 time in the manual R is damn near impossible
because of the gearing.

If 1st & second were slightly taller, you could hit 100 in second & you would be easy mid 5 seconds, the gear change to third kills you because you drop off the boost curve.

Believe me, I have been beta testing the stage 1 APR upgrade TTRS & have done many, many 0-100 runs in this car - I can pull a flat 4 seconds (manual transmission) repeatable. But the car reaches it
with ease in second gear.

Thats also why our Golf R manual even with 250kw @ all wheels still only runs 0-100 in the 5 second range (also tested by motor magazine)- let me change the gear ratio's to suit & I would have different figures for sure

I'm curious to looking into where the manual looses time compared to a DSG to decide if it matters to me (probably out grown - my wallet -launching), at least.

Guy,
Notwithstanding the DSG reaction moment in LC, does DSG computer controlled clutch slip optimise the engagement period when compared to the manual.

Getting the clutch slip just right in a manual can be tricky and easily add, I dunno, .5sec if revs fall too much or too much slip is held???

Will a tuned R tolerate the rev limiter & dump launch?
How many times?
What is the weak link? Is the transmission as robust as the TTRS sounds to be? ...better than a Cayman ?
How 'tuned' does an R need to be to generate 4 wheel slip on an 'only time matters' launch to stay on boost?

Everone else:
Has anyone an acceleration graph (G-tech?) showing the manual gear ghange time cost and what they add up to?

[Sharkie]

Um... cause the Golf R and Golf GTI, after mods, also beat the Porsches, Lotus', and everything else - even after THEIR mods!

Only because it was wet .... .... and only because the majority of cars was set up for the dry. If you read that article properly, you would see that the consensus of the testers was that in the dry it would have been a totally different story ..... with the Lotus tipped to be king ....

[Tim]

that lotus looked downright scary in the wet!

[Corey_R]

Only because it was wet .... .... and only because the majority of cars was set up for the dry. If you read that article properly, you would see that the consensus of the testers was that in the dry it would have been a totally different story ..... with the Lotus tipped to be king ....

Yes, you could say that about the R and it being AWD and all. But it's not like APR got to reconfigure their cars either. And the GTI is only FWD....

[Sharkie]

Yes, you could say that about the R and it being AWD and all. But it's not like APR got to reconfigure their cars either. And the GTI is only FWD....

I'm not saying that at all ... the testers in that article are the ones saying it .... who are we to question their knowledge of the day and the conditions ....

I'd stop making excuses and trying to find justification and just accept that the many testers there on the day who do this for a living come up collectively with the correct results .... ..... whether the collective audience here like it or not.

[Guy_H]

I'm pretty sure a certain Cayman Turbo would have flogged the Lotus (Wet & Dry) if the testers had not broken it. It was faster through the 1/4 mile traps even on warmup & pulled up (100-0) within cms' of the Lotus - and it has already stared breaking track records..... Anyway, that's all hypothetical - the Cayman Broke, it rained. There is every chance it could rain again this year - would you crown a car the best tuner car if you couldn't take it out on a cloudy day?

Oh, our cars ran a dry set up too - the only thing you could adjust through the whole event was suspension (so we adjusted our damping). Anyway, we were top VAG car there, thats what mattered to us

[Guy_H]

I'm curious to looking into where the manual looses time compared to a DSG to decide if it matters to me (probably out grown - my wallet -launching), at least.

Guy,
Notwithstanding the DSG reaction moment in LC, does DSG computer controlled clutch slip optimise the engagement period when compared to the manual.

Getting the clutch slip just right in a manual can be tricky and easily add, I dunno, .5sec if revs fall too much or too much slip is held???

Will a tuned R tolerate the rev limiter & dump launch?
How many times?
What is the weak link? Is the transmission as robust as the TTRS sounds to be? ...better than a Cayman ?
How 'tuned' does an R need to be to generate 4 wheel slip on an 'only time matters' launch to stay on boost?

Everone else:
Has anyone an acceleration graph (G-tech?) showing the manual gear ghange time cost and what they add up to?

The problem with some of the Magazine 0-100 testing (certainly on the tuner challenge) is they were running on a prepared drag strip, so setup & tyre choice favoured cars that had a "drag" type setup - this obviously showed that the cars that did fantastic in the 1/4 mile & 0-100 did pretty miserable on the track. On a regular surface (dirty bitumen) you can launch an R hard & break all 4 wheels loose - but it really is a side step of the clutch @ around 4000 rpm - it's not nice & fluff it up & your clutch is sick. Do it on a drag strip & its much harder - more likely to slip the clutch than the wheels. If clutches were $10 each & cost $10 to install, I'm sure more owners would try it, fry one clutch launching & it's thousands of dollars (and not covered under warranty of course - even in an unmodified car).

Biggest issue is consistency, and I think that is what shows out in press tests, the manual box gets inconsistent numbers, the DSG seems to get repeatable numbers.

The transmission seems plenty strong, as far as I understand the transmission & drivetrain on the TTRS & Golf R are of the same generation - I have not checked into clutch size, but the gear ratios are very different.

How many times? - I dont know - too many factors, as above, one bad launch in a standard car on a sticky surface & clutch is fried, drive nicely & you will probably get 250,000 km's out of one

[Sharkie]

I'm pretty sure a certain Cayman Turbo would have flogged the Lotus (Wet & Dry) if the testers had not broken it. It was faster through the 1/4 mile traps even on warmup & pulled up (100-0) within cms' of the Lotus - and it has already stared breaking track records..... Anyway, that's all hypothetical - the Cayman Broke, it rained.

Well I, for 1 am certainly looking forward to seeing that Cayman in action again. As you said, it had barely a few weeks of tuning after all the kit went on, what would it be like after a whole year of development .... it looks awesome everytime I see it .... so much so that I have ditched my plan on getting a Boxster S and am now aiming for a Cayman S sometime this year .... just no turbo on it .... initially ....

There is every chance it could rain again this year - would you crown a car the best tuner car if you couldn't take it out on a cloudy day?

Well, there are many tuned cars out there that you simply cannot take out on a rainy day .... My MK1 Turbo was best left at home when it rained .... and the GTI was more than a bit suspect as well .... ....

[Corey_R]

I'd stop making excuses and trying to find justification and just accept that the many testers there on the day who do this for a living come up collectively with the correct results .... ..... whether the collective audience here like it or not.

I'm not making exuses dude. I'm just pointing out that there are always more than pure numbers. Also, just because someone writes for a magazine, or tests cars, or even presents on a car show, doesn't mean they know everything about cars either (that could actually be a rather humours thread if we started one on that topic).

In any case - numbers can be deceiving. Test conditions can vary. Dyno numbers are only good for comparing cars on that day... take everything with a grain of salt

[Ideo]

Not at all. Give or take a few tenths, boring is still boring. It was a hot hatch test after all, not a clash of V8s at the drag strip.
It depends what you're after though. I'm sure same comparo done by New Idea or Women's Weekly would have trashed the other three contenders, badly

I don’t even read Motor. It’s a pathetic excuse for a car mag. However, in proper magazines such as Evo, they have given the Golf R excellent reviews – 4.5 stars with the only negatives being price (fair enough in the UK – it is more expensive than the S3) and that ACC is only optional. If a car is boring to drive, even if it is technically great and fast, they will criticise it. The Audi RS5 only got 3 or 3.5 stars as their was no enjoyment in it.

The Renault fanbois are just as bad as the Golf R fanbois. Both cars have their good and bad points. Work out which one you prefer and enjoy it. Doesn’t mean you still can’t respect what are damn good cars, either way.