Golf R in Motor Mag this month in Perfomance Comparo

[Danny]

Or, some of us just prefer manuals because of personal preference.

It seems the only people going on about gearbox choice are those with DSG. But perhaps I'm the only person in Australia that is getting a manual R

I did, AND now I am seriously concerned about this car not being much quicker than my 182 cup ClioSport. (even though it felt so much quicker in the test drive!! WTF!?)

I would expect at least high fives considering the DSG is getting around 5.3 in comparos (faster than VW claims). But 6.8 is embarrassing. That means me not being Warren luff can look forward to what? 7.5 seconds? great. What a joke. I'd give anything to know what the deal was here..

I feel so bitterly disappointed.... I love the feel of a manual and don't fancy myself a "real driver" at all. If this sort of performance is going to be the norm with manual r's then I'm seriously going to consider maybe not going through with the order of what I once thought was my dream car, until I find something that really gets me going.

[Ideo]

Have a look at the other results cars are getting in other tests.

I'm coming from an S3 which has similar 0-100 times as stock (6.6). I've modded the car a fair bit. From seat of the pants, even with less noise, the R feels a lot faster. Most other mags are getting low 6's from what I have seen and read. But, I think the issue is to do with the gearing. I think the manual R needs a gear change just before 100, which would account for a few tenths of a second easily. And when do drivers ever test exact 0-100 times?

Did you drive it before you bought it? were you happy? If so, who cares about one magazine test that got much lower than any other mag? And if it is an issue, go visit APR

I didn't get an R because it was the fastest thing money could buy. I got it because it is a great all rounder at a good price.

Edit, Autocar did a test and got low 6 seconds for a five door manual with the air conditioning on.

[elisiX]

Danny seriously - who gives a toss what the numbers in reviews say.

Real world figures from people on this forum with equipment show better results.

And all that really matters is your own experience - not some bull**** magazine.

[TimmyR]

With the manual R 2nd gear just seems to miss out on the 100km/h mark.. so 3rd gear is needed which could explain some of the times going around.

[brisgtimkv]

Traditional manuals have not been faster in racing since... I don't know, even as a child in the mid 80's when I started watching F1 and Indy they'd both had already abandoned them. The only people who still think traditional manuals are the "performance choice" appear to be Motor Magazine journalists and car enthusiasts who claim to be "real car enthusiasts who need real gearboxes".

if people want a manual, they should go buy one and enjoy it, i totally respect that. just don't buy a manual thinking it's faster than a dual clutch gearbox. the advantage you get from dsg is enough to make relatively underpowered cars like the gti punch well above their weight and it gets worse once you leave a straight line. dsg means being able to brake later, brake harder, focus on corner entry and apex and getting out of the corner faster than a manual. my stock mkvi gti will keep right up with my mate's stock wrx in twisties and my old stage 1 mkv used to walk all over him.

a stock dsg r should be south of 5.5 seconds and will do that all day every day with the driver eating a pie. in a manual, a gun shifter will struggle to get anywhere near that. imagine what joe average will get.

when it comes to enthusiasm i'll take dsg like a 458 italia over manual like an mx5 any day. both will deliver great driver experiences but one is just faster, end of story.

having watched some motor mag videos and seen how they test the cars, the 0-100 test in their hands is biased against vws. it's rev to the limit and dump the clutch well out of our engine's power band. i don't know how you can be a motoring journalist and not know basic stuff like how the engine you're testing develops power.

[Sharkie]

hehe Golf R owners with their noses out of joint.. Its even more interesting to read than the actual article

yeahh ... what a laugh. Its a good article, backs up everything I experienced on my mutliple test drives ....

[Capercat]

It came onto the str8 about 5 km/h+ faster than the RS/Megane and was only 3km/h faster at the end of the str8. Sounds like the RS/Megane have the legs on the Golf R. The 80-120km/h times back this up.
You also didn't mention that the Focus and Megane beat it round Philip Island and both were as fast or faster than the Golf R in the 0-100km/h and 0-400m run. Both car finished higher in the overall drivers' ratings.

Whether it had DSG or ACC is a moot point as customer's car may or may not have these "options".

I think these cars were tested a while back with the same outcomes. The Megane RS doesn't come in dual-clutch so I think the choice of manual transmission was fair in this case.

[adzy]

Over the years I have been gobsmacked with Motor's pathetic 0-100 and 0-400m times, so I would not get too excited over the results guys. We know what the R is capable of.

I dont know if it is their busy schedule or lack of care to get the best out of each car but no doubt their times are mostly low compared to other publications/tests.

Love them or not, dual clutch is the future, if you are that concerned with numbers.... go the DSG.

[BezzyR]

Over the years I have been gobsmacked with Motor's pathetic 0-100 and 0-400m times, so I would not get too excited over the results guys. We know what the R is capable of.

I dont know if it is their busy schedule or lack of care to get the best out of each car but no doubt their times are mostly low compared to other publications/tests.

Love them or not, dual clutch is the future, if you are that concerned with numbers.... go the DSG.

Amen Adzy. sums it up nicely... :p

[triode12]

faster ≠ more fun

+1000