Golf R -v- Golf GTI

[bcm]

With all due respect WJ you're talking left handed. You can buy a brand new manual Evo X in the low to mid 50s if you haggle. They are the ones you want in any case as the SST is prone to overheating when given a flogging, the SST cars weigh more and they cost more. There's a reason the RS is still a manual.

I had KW Variant 3's on my first Evo 9 and gained a second a lap from a mid 50s lap on the short track at Barbagallo from that change alone. If you've done any sort of motorsport you'll understand that a second is a substantial improvement from a single change.

[Mountainman]

Santa: Can we please have a Golf R vs Everything else (except a Golf GTI) thread for Xmas?

Here you are:

Golf R man - $49990 1476kg, 188kw, 330nm, claimed 0-100 5.9 secs, "Wheels"10/2010 test 0-100 6.63 secs, 0-400m 14.6 secs
Subaru WRX man - $39990 1455kg, 195kw, 343nm, claimed 0-100 5.3secs, "Wheels"01/2009 test 0-100 5.9 secs, 0-400m 13.9 secs
Subaru STI hatch man - $61990 1520kg, 221kw, 407nm, claimed 0-100 4.9 secs, "Wheels"12/2009 test 0-100 5.6 secs, 0-400m 13.7 secs

Which performance-wise makes an R slower than a $10,000 cheaper WRX as you would expect with more weight and less power, but as you know it isn't all the story and I know which one I'd take to own and use every day. And besides, it seems everyone on this forum into modding just like those on the WRX forums?

[Corey_R]

Pfft. Sif use Golf GTI/R manual times. The Golf GTI/R manuals suck. It's as if Volkswagen haven't bothered with it because the DSG is so great.

If we change the above to a Golf R DSG, the cost goes up by only $2500 (and back down by $1500 if you pick the 3 door instead of door), the weight goes up by 20kg, and the claimed acceleration goes down to 5.7 second. However, the tested acceleration, depending on which magazine performed it, would put it at between the two WRX's to better than the STI - if the STI is still a manual. If the STI is the Auto, then that's slower than the WRX, so Golf R DSG then wins out big time.


But yes. VW's manual gearboxes = big weakness. (At least when it comes to acceleration times)

[ethosguy]

This post isn't exactly GTI V's R but maybe that is a too narrow constraint.

There's a $30+K gulf between the contenders which gives scope for mods to turn the OE spec into your prefered drive.

I've got the WRX + suspension, brakes, inlet, computer, exhaust and I'm very fussy about my wheel alignment settings.

All reputable parts - not the lowest prices either. I looked into a 2.5 WRX when they were released and almost laughed at how bad it was compared to my car! Under sprung & damped, dull power, even more nasty plastics inside.

I decided to keep what I had. My car might not be to everyones tastes, bit hard, bit loud. But it handles (better), still grips and pulls well with far less lag than stock. I spent close to $10k sorting it. But it still, ultimately it predominantly understeers: Never been truely statisfied. I want 'power on' settling on the outside rear wheel kind of balance. Not turn in, power on/off jigger the brakes hunt for cornering balance...

The Focus RS, nice heritage, (mosthighly rated, only relevant?) front driver out there but tacky, expensive with limited availability (for now). and FWD.

Not keen on an STi, expensive, nasty interior materials. A strong contender in dynamics but I've had a soured new car experience with my Subaru and a delightful one with our Tiguan (2yrs in). Maybe a low K used one, if I'm brave or stupid?

New wide track WRX...doesn't have the necessary AWD system to shuffle torque to the rear so I've scratched that idea; maybe I should go for a test drive anyway?

Golf GTI is a delightful car but FWD so ultimately it is traction limited, IMO.

Evo X, too expensive but I wasn't aware they would haggle so far. Still, nasty detailing.

So the R with VW fit & finish credentials, low hassle power upgrade options, and again low cost AWD tuning options I can have a very neat drivers car with class and practicality for far less ($$$ not time) than what else is on the market. I'm planning 5 door manual, ACC, leather APR Stage 1 and Haldex controller. I might be swayed into a DSG. I'm asuming with wheel alignment and Haldex controller I can find a chassis balance to my liking.

...Oh, one more very seldom discussed point. Driving position.
The VW's let me have straighter legs (6'1" long legs) without having to sit too upright or too much reach for the steering wheel. Nothing else gets close (even with reach adjustments) to thier ergos. In the day and age of airbags, ANCAP, and insurance I not prepared to change the steering wheel/pedal relationship to my preference thorough mods.

No easy tow bar options has given me cause to think hard about my use patterns and stalled the idea.

Tweeked S3, appealing but probably too expensive even low use used units. Probably lower risk than a used STi and more practicle. Will accept a towbar.

Golf R is ATM the strongest package/compromise for my requirements & coin.

[Capercat]

Is all this DSG 0-100 times in reference to Launch Control being activated?

[Corey_R]

Is all this DSG 0-100 times in reference to Launch Control being activated?

You would have to assume that with the DSG, any 0 to 100 time is via "Launch Control", as it is not possible to "rev" the car at a standstill without using launch control. Note however that the "Launch Control" is not a completely automated system such as in Ferrari and the Nissan GTR etc. The process of enabling Launch Control in a VW actually disables the traction control, so you still need to appropriately adjust the gas pedal to prevent wheel spin and achieve the optimal launch (more of an issue in the GTI than the R obviously).

[Mountainman]

Pfft. Sif use Golf GTI/R manual times. The Golf GTI/R manuals suck. It's as if Volkswagen haven't bothered with it because the DSG is so great.

If we change the above to a Golf R DSG, the cost goes up by only $2500 (and back down by $1500 if you pick the 3 door instead of door), the weight goes up by 20kg, and the claimed acceleration goes down to 5.7 second. However, the tested acceleration, depending on which magazine performed it, would put it at between the two WRX's to better than the STI - if the STI is still a manual. If the STI is the Auto, then that's slower than the WRX, so Golf R DSG then wins out big time.


But yes. VW's manual gearboxes = big weakness. (At least when it comes to acceleration times)

Manufacturers' 0-100 claims =
Golf GTI man 6.9secs
Golf GTI DSG 6.9secs
Golf R man 5.9secs
Golf R DSG 5.7secs
Doesn't seem much of an advantage.
Subaru WRX 5.3secs
Subaru STI 4.9secs
Now that's an advantage when judged by acceleration alone.

But how can you say VW manuals suck? I didn't think critical remarks like that were allowed on this forum. I thought they now have a reputation of some of the best manual changes around.

[Capercat]

Interesting, I've only LC'd a PDK tranny so I'm guessing its similar to Nissan & Ferrari.
I've never LC'd a DSG, but I'm looking forward to it, I like the idea it's not completely automated.

[triode12]

Manufacturers' 0-100 claims =
Golf GTI man 6.9secs
Golf GTI DSG 6.9secs
Golf R man 5.9secs
Golf R DSG 5.7secs
Doesn't seem much of an advantage.
Subaru WRX 5.3secs
Subaru STI 4.9secs
Now that's an advantage when judged by acceleration alone.

But how can you say VW manuals suck? I didn't think critical remarks like that were allowed on this forum. I thought they now have a reputation of some of the best manual changes around.

That GTI Man 0-100 of 6.9secs must be a misprint. The old MKV GTI Man did 0-100 in 7.2secs. Surely, the DSG in the MKVI is as good as the old one and shifts faster than the manual.

[MkVIGTI]

If you your person that just want to beat other quick cars off the lights to the next set of lights get or live where it snows get a vw golf r / evo 10 / subaru sti.

Evos are famed for their excellent handling too...