Golf R -v- Golf GTI

[REXman]

I could, and I didn't. To be fair the R wasn't released when I ordered.

To be fair then, you didn't have the choice. It wasnt out when you bought your GTI?

So you couldn't and you didn't.

Very true. And yet apparently anyone who chooses a GTI but can afford an R is out of their mind. Sigh.

No no not at all. I definitely don't think that. I know this is the Internet and you don't know me from a bar of soap. But me saying one car higher in the range, is better than a car lower in the range, has nothing to do with my/your/anyones financial status.

I live in an area where people roll around in pieces of ****, and know for a fact that they are worth millions. I have come from a working class background and would never assume a car is someones limit in life.

So I don't doubt you, me or anyone could not have bought a Porsche for all we know.
Only someone very naive would link a car to someones financial status, especially car under $100k.

Some people roll around in there R, or SS or 350Z and have been borrowed up to the hilt to get it.

Some people buy an R because they can't be bothered buying another X5M for $200K.

So no, I don't think any less of you as a person for choosing a GTI. What i think of you as a person is unrelated to me comparing 2 (similar) cars with you. It's a great car. And has it's advantages in some areas like making wheel spin (fun), and the classic Jacky interior, and ofcourse the low down response.

But for the full Monty, and performance - you get the R. AWD, Classy black interior, Bigger turbo, better engine, better suited to track use( doesn't syphon oil like the GTI motor - well documented), DRLs in the bumper, LED tails, all the parking sensors included, much more tuneable and able to produce great acceleration repeatedley, etc etc.

And it's not much more than a GTI. $9.5K!! Great value upgrade which would cost a GTI at retail thousands to upgrade to.

I didn't buy the R, like probably most R owners, so I can potter around town below 60.

I hit my mates track and really flog the thing. The GTI as explained above is not as raw and wouldn't appreciate that as much.

I have read some GTI owners say that they just wanted the car to hoon below 60km/h, have fun at the speed limit.

That's cool. But it doesn't make it have the edge that the R has for true performance (and tuneability/track/hard driving).

[triode12]

To be fair then, you didn't have the choice. It wasnt out when you bought your GTI?

So you couldn't and you didn't.



No no not at all. I definitely don't think that. I know this is the Internet and you don't know me from a bar of soap. But me saying one car higher in the range, is better than a car lower in the range, has nothing to do with my/your/anyones financial status.

I live in an area where people roll around in pieces of ****, and know for a fact that they are worth millions. I have come from a working class background and would never assume a car is someones limit in life.

So I don't doubt you, me or anyone could not have bought a Porsche for all we know.
Only someone very naive would link a car to someones financial status, especially car under $100k.

Some people roll around in there R, or SS or 350Z and have been borrowed up to the hilt to get it.

Some people buy an R because they can't be bothered buying another X5M for $200K.

So no, I don't think any less of you as a person for choosing a GTI. What i think of you as a person is unrelated to me comparing 2 (similar) cars with you. It's a great car. And has it's advantages in some areas like making wheel spin (fun), and the classic Jacky interior, and ofcourse the low down response.

But for the full Monty, and performance - you get the R. AWD, Classy black interior, Bigger turbo, better engine, better suited to track use( doesn't syphon oil like the GTI motor - well documented), DRLs in the bumper, LED tails, all the parking sensors included, much more tuneable and able to produce great acceleration repeatedley, etc etc.

And it's not much more than a GTI. $9.5K!! Great value upgrade which would cost a GTI at retail thousands to upgrade to.

I didn't buy the R, like probably most R owners, so I can potter around town below 60.

I hit my mates track and really flog the thing. The GTI as explained above is not as raw and wouldn't appreciate that as much.

I have read some GTI owners say that they just wanted the car to hoon below 60km/h, have fun at the speed limit.

That's cool. But it doesn't make it have the edge that the R has for true performance (and tuneability/track/hard driving).

Have to agree with most of what you said except the bit about having fun below 60km/h or the speed limit in a mkVI GTI. It is not possible to because as you said, it is not as raw so you don't get that sensation of speed. The driver is too cossetted from the elements that driving even at 80km/hr is rather boring.

[markwid]

The driver is too cossetted from the elements that driving even at 80km/hr is rather boring.

Exhaust mod?

[triode12]

Exhaust mod?

Might help a little esp if it was a TBE not just a catback. The car is just too refined/polite.
Perhaps remove the door cards and insulation too.

[AdamD]

To be fair then, you didn't have the choice. It wasnt out when you bought your GTI?

So you couldn't and you didn't.

True, I wasn't in a position to drive the R at the time. The spec had been hinted at, and plenty of people had advanced orders. I could have waited (as many others - such as Corey_R - did), but chose not to based on the info I had at hand. Anyhow...

So I don't doubt you, me or anyone could not have bought a Porsche for all we know. Only someone very naive would link a car to someones financial status, especially car under $100k.

Sorry, wasn't insinuating that. I was specifically replying to your statement:

Anyone in their right mind would take an R over any lesser model if they could afford it.

...which implies, to me, that you're suggesting that anyone sensible would take the R over the GTI if it were within their means to do so. Hey, if that's your opinion then that's fine, but I do disagree with it. As for tying financial status to car ownership, well, the correlation is pretty tenuous, as you say.

But for the full Monty, and performance - you get the R. AWD, Classy black interior, Bigger turbo, better engine, better suited to track use( doesn't syphon oil like the GTI motor - well documented), DRLs in the bumper, LED tails, all the parking sensors included, much more tuneable and able to produce great acceleration repeatedley, etc etc.

[snip]

I didn't buy the R, like probably most R owners, so I can potter around town below 60.

I hit my mates track and really flog the thing. The GTI as explained above is not as raw and wouldn't appreciate that as much.

I have read some GTI owners say that they just wanted the car to hoon below 60km/h, have fun at the speed limit.

That's cool. But it doesn't make it have the edge that the R has for true performance (and tuneability/track/hard driving).

I absolutely agree with all of that (with the possible exception of raw - the R can be pretty smooth and down-to-business at speed, where the GTI is a bit lairier with wheelspin and less weight to tie it down). As I won't be tracking my car, as I do spend most of my time driving round in metro areas (trying not to get booked, hehe), the R's extra potential is not only wasted, it's unwanted for its (few) detrimental (to me) qualities. Doesn't mean I think the GTI is a better track car, or a faster car, or brakes quicker, etc. The R does provide a real performance edge.

I'm sure triode12 will melt down at this, but if I could have an R with an EA888 and K3, tuned to stage 1 level from the factory, I'd take it. That'd be the best of both worlds for me - great power, great grip, great brakes, great suspension and weight distribution, great style, and great low-down response. As I can't have that, I'll make do with the next best option for me.

[Corey_R]

REXman, the Porsche 911 Turbo is $380,000. It does 0 to 100 in 3.7 seconds, produces 368kW and 650Nm from it's 3.8L Turbo, has AWD and weighs 1645kg.
The Porsche 911 GT3 is $280,000. It does 0 to 100 in 4.1 seconds, produces 320kW and 430Nm from it's 3.8L NA, has RWD and weighs 1395kg.

Yes, the Turbo is $100,000 more, but that doesn't automatically mean it's better. Many people who can afford to and could buy the 911 Turbo buy the 911 GT3 as they prefer the naturally aspirated engine over the turbo. They prefer the RWD instead of the AWD. They prefer the fact that it's 250kg lighter.

So it's not simply a Holden Commodore SS vs a HSV GTS argument here where they've got the same basic drivetrain, engine and weight but one is just a more worked version of the other and is clearly better. In the Porsche example you have two distinctive cars with distinctive characteristics.

The Golf GTI vs the Golf R is somewhat the same.

The GTI has a K03 turbo which gives it plenty of low down torque and driveabiltiy from 1500rpm to 3500rpm. The Golf R has a K04 which has NOTHING from 1500rpm to 2500rpm, slowly starts getting there to 3500rpm and then flies to the redline when you're already past the speed limit.

The GTI has FWD so it can lose some traction and be a bit lairy.
The R has AWD and has no chance of losing traction in a straight line, mostly not even in the wet. No lairiness there.

The GTI weighs 125kg less than the R and between the reduced weight and the K03 being more "ready to please" feels more agile and frisky, compared to the R which in stock form is rather docile and laidback until the K04 cuts in.

So yes, the Golf R costs more than the GTI. Yes, the Golf R is the "halo model". But it's not a straight cut one is better than the other full stop situation.

Both sides, please stop insulting each other for their choices. If you're happy with your purchase, then YOU are right. Move on.


(Edit, written before I saw AdamD's post. Use of "lairy" is pure coincidence! lol).

[triode12]

True, I wasn't in a position to drive the R at the time. The spec had been hinted at, and plenty of people had advanced orders. I could have waited (as many others - such as Corey_R - did), but chose not to based on the info I had at hand. Anyhow...



Sorry, wasn't insinuating that. I was specifically replying to your statement:



...which implies, to me, that you're suggesting that anyone sensible would take the R over the GTI if it were within their means to do so. Hey, if that's your opinion then that's fine, but I do disagree with it. As for tying financial status to car ownership, well, the correlation is pretty tenuous, as you say.



I absolutely agree with all of that (with the possible exception of raw - the R can be pretty smooth and down-to-business at speed, where the GTI is a bit lairier with wheelspin and less weight to tie it down). As I won't be tracking my car, as I do spend most of my time driving round in metro areas (trying not to get booked, hehe), the R's extra potential is not only wasted, it's unwanted for its (few) detrimental (to me) qualities. Doesn't mean I think the GTI is a better track car, or a faster car, or brakes quicker, etc. The R does provide a real performance edge.

I'm sure triode12 will melt down at this, but if I could have an R with an EA888 and K3, tuned to stage 1 level from the factory, I'd take it. That'd be the best of both worlds for me - great power, great grip, great brakes, great suspension and weight distribution, great style, and great low-down response. As I can't have that, I'll make do with the next best option for me.

LOL - my dislike of the MKVI GTI doesn't stem from the fact that it isn't a good car (technically) but that it is too good (for my taste). Putting the EA888 in it's current state would probably make the R like the GTI and subsequently kill what I like about the R besides the looks.

I found the R more edgy than I did the GTI on the 3 occasions I drove the them both back to back.
[shrugs]

If the car that is marketed as a hot hatch doesn't make you feel like you are driving one (not only perform like one), (IMO) kinda defeats the purpose of owning it.

Given a choice, I would take a lesser car (performance wise - e.g. MkIV Polo GTI) that gives me the kicks of driving a hot hatch than one that does perform but isn't fun to drive.

As always - YMMV.

[AdamD]

If the car that is marketed as a hot hatch doesn't make you feel like you are driving one (not only perform like one), (IMO) kinda defeats the purpose of owning it.

Given a choice, I would take a lesser car (performance wise - e.g. MkIV Polo GTI) that gives me the kicks of driving a sports car than one that does perform but isn't fun to drive.

Definitely. I'd love having a proper raw performance car, if only it wasn't my daily. Used to fang about in a modified series 1 MX-5 (somewhat stripped out, low and firm, chassis bracing, tough racing diff etc), and it was incredibly good fun - if a bit scary in tight corners in the wet - whilst not actually being very fast in a straight line. But there's no way I could live with it every day.

I've not had any extended experience with the EA113 so I'm not in a position to comment on its rawness. While the MkVI GTI is a bit clinical at times, it's that same quality that makes it the perfect compromise for me. But if I had two cars, I'd probably be more inclined to go with something like an R36 and an S15, or maybe even an RS250.

[Whistler]

I didn't for a moment question him. Didn't state his mates were wrong; wouldn't dare insinuate that. Just pointed out that the one other guy (other than himself) who'd bought a Golf bought a GTI, and provided non-monetary reasons for choosing it. I'm not stirring, I'm continuing the conversation.

No, I was the one who provided non-monetary reasons for him choosing it. He borrowed to the hilt the get the GTI and even if he wanted to couldnt stretch to the R. So, no, he didnt have the choice....but that's fine; There are lots of keen car fanatics who stretch themselves to get a car they want.

I could, and I didn't. To be fair the R wasn't released when I ordered, but if I had the decision over, I'd make the same call. May well go with an R for MkVII though. What I dislike about the R - or, rather, why I find it less enjoyable than the GTI - is that it feels quite a bit laggier at low speeds and in traffic, whereas I prefer the GTI's low-rpm urge and enthusiasm, which is a real point of difference for me, for 90% of the driving I do - in metro areas.

Fair point.

Very true. And yet apparently anyone who chooses a GTI but can afford an R is out of their mind. Sigh.

No one said anyone who chooses the GTI over an R is out of their mind....but they are indeed rare.
I guess my original point was that out of 12 guys, 11 (non Golf owners) said they would take an R over a GTI and that it was a "no brainer". One guy who did own a GTI said that was the car for him. To be a fairer contest anyone with bias should be taken out of the vote. I own an R and did not vote. So, the actual result is that 11 out of 11 car educated guys on the day would prefer the R.
Now, I dont know how many of them have driven either car, but what this would appear to tell us is that those 11 believe the R is a more "desirable" car from the outset - and the "Golf R -v- GTI" title of this forum leaves a pretty broad defenition of what is being compared - and desirability is a pretty important factor in purchsing a car. Obviously its the things that make it desirable that make it the car you want.

Individual driver's/owners opinions - once behind the wheel - will differ and people do buy cars for different reasons and purposes and may be limited by the traffic thay have to dive in and how they are able to use their drive.

The current Wheels mag (for what it's worth) quotes:
"The burning question in the minds of many would-be GTI buyers, is this 'Should I spend the extra and get the R?'. In the sense that it offers more of a good thing, the simple answer is 'yes' "

So, I think they sum it up pretty well with "more of a good thing" There's no doubt that was the aim for VW when they developed the R.

And, to be fair, wheels then suggests if you spend your days just doing the commute in traffic then it is arguably less worthwhile outlaying the extra. (but hey, if that was me I would change jobs, not the car! Hate commuting! lol)

So, I guess it's GTI for those who commute and R for those who get to drive. Makes sense I suppose.

[AdamD]

Now, I dont know how many of them have driven either car, but what this would appear to tell us is that those 11 believe the R is a more "desirable" car from the outset - and the "Golf R -v- GTI" title of this forum leaves a pretty broad defenition of what is being compared - and desirability is a pretty important factor in purchsing a car. Obviously its the things that make it desirable that make it the car you want.

For sure. Don't think anyone would argue that the R is absolutely the more desirable drive. Faster, better specced... if I had to choose without extensive drives and/or background knowledge (and applying same to my own requirements), I'd choose the R too.

So, I guess it's GTI for those who commute and R for those who get to drive. Makes sense I suppose.

Quite a few journos have summed it up that way. I'd probably not go as far as to conclude that, though, because there are a ton of guys (and girls?) on this forum whose primary use of their R is for the daily grind, and still prefer it over the GTI. To me it's all down to personal preference.