Golf R in Motor Mag this month in Perfomance Comparo

[REXman]

The R didn't finish very highly, but considering the model they used I am impressed on some results.

It beat the 224KW Focus RS, and also the megane RS250 on the long straight by quite a bit! 219.6something km/h for the R, the Focus managing 214km/h.

And that was in a manual GOLF R without DSG or ACC! (just quietly I can't believe that VW sent that model down for the "performance day". Possibly VW had no optioned cars to give them. It's not like I saw Subaru send down the STI in automatic.

They also said the that R was lifeless in feel or some ****.. I come from a host of WRXs, a 425 HP skyline, BMW.. And to me the R is the best all round ride I have ever owned, and puts a phat smile on my face every time I warm it up.

[pologti18t]

t beat the 224KW Focus RS, and also the megane RS250 on the long straight by quite a bit! 219.6something km/h for the R, the Focus managing 214km/h.

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".

[REXman]

You 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".

Actually I did say it didn't perform very well. You might have missed that.

Also, having DSG, ACC and 19s is the optimal set up for the track. No doubts the DSG alone would make up the 0.9 sec slower it was.

They even clearly said that in the review. I believe it went something like "I dont know why VW didnt send us a car with 19s and ACC, as we know these would rid it of most/the understeer we experienced."

I also believe that DSG would have been faster, because.. it is faster.

Not sure what this moot business is, Like I said, you can get an STI in automatic which does the 100km/h sprint in 7 secs.. but you dont see that being represented.. no no its the proper-for-track specced model representing in this case, Subaru.

The R was the slowest car on the day, but it got a real good speed on the straight, and also beat the Megane and Focus on turn one.. by a bit too.

In the tighter turns, where it lost out, you gotta ask if thats where the DSG, ACC and 19s would have helped make up a sec on a track that takes just under 2 mins to complete..

Who knows. And we wont know till its done.

[DDTW]

Just bought the Mag during lunchtime after reading your post Rexman!

Yeah I have no idea why most of the Rs tested by magazines are the manual ones! 6.8s to 100km/h is really a let down. That's a GTi's performance which is very respectable for 200bhp.

Why can't they test the cars based on dollar to dollar value say a $60k STi VS a $60k optioned up R. That was the same issue with the recent Australia's best cars where the 135i won! Argh!

[REXman]

Hey DDTW, not a bad issue hey, and I love reading about my car.

Even the english guy on youtube, got low 6's in the manual and he had the air con on.. And his shifts werent exactly slamming.

Yeah so the STI was a fully specced up R version, with the mad seats.. and manual. Which is the best performance variant of that car.

I mean I didn't even mention that if the R had the Recaros it would have got that much more brownie points also, considering they have previously referred to those seats as some of the finest in motoring.

It was a track day.. so gimme the track weapon R.. not the slowest variant possible!

I think considering the genuine supply issues of an R, i don't think they (VW) are worried..

[brisgtimkv]

Just bought the Mag during lunchtime after reading your post Rexman!

Yeah I have no idea why most of the Rs tested by magazines are the manual ones! 6.8s to 100km/h is really a let down. That's a GTi's performance which is very respectable for 200bhp.

correction, that's a manual gti time.

[Danny]

So disappointing. My old Renault crew are going off, so embarrassing. I got 6.6 seconds out of My 182 cup (granted it was a Monday car, and was modded but still was good for 6.9s stock)!!

What the goddamn christing f*** is this 6.8 0-100 business?!!?? This is the sort of thing that could make or break my order. It's been postponed 3 months now, I'd love to know why MOTOR got 6.8 out of this car. DSG owners are getting 5.3 STOCK!! an extra 1.5 seconds for the manual. to quote Sheila Broslovski; "What what WHAT!!??"

Manual or DSG the Golf R is not a slow car. What in Jesus Tapdancing H Newton Christ happened here?

What have other manuals been getting? i know topgear had one for a while didn't they get 5.8 out of it?

[Angryman]

Clearly the numb-nut driving wasn't a competent driver - Its like movie reviewers in the paper, seriously if you believed the bull**** they publish no one would goto the movie's, Police Academy 9 clearly should've gotten 5 stars

[pologti18t]

All that matters on the day are the times extracted by the test drivers.
In all likelihood the acceleration times were all done on the same day by the same driver.

Not sure why "DSG" is being mentioned as all cars were manual. Even less why the Recaros in the STI are mentioned. It was mentioned that they weren't nearly as good as those in the Megane (std) or Focus (std).

Clearly the numb-nut driving wasn't a competent driver -

Warren Luff

[runningmanz]

Send them an email and tell the idiots to compare apples to apples and not apples to oranges!! If the DSG is faster and it is why not test the Golf R WITH IT. They are testing the other cars in the optimum configuration so why not the R?!! *face palms*