Golf R -v- Golf GTI

[adzy]

Having said that, it's also lighter and has a lower centre of gravity than either the Golf GTI or R, so it's likely to still be just as fast in a competent driver's hands. The reality of AWD is, that it's slower than 2WD in all situations but acceleration where the power exceeds the grip levels, which means only standing starts or very slow speed corners on a dry race track. A lot of people have misconceptions about AWD in Australia due to Godzilla vs the V8's and stuff - but they could've been FWD and they'd still have beat the stone age V8's at that point.

Any corner on a circuit in 2nd gear in a gti can induce wheel spin when you are on the limit and more so when the tyres are starting to let go. The golf r is consistently 2 secconds a lap (or more) quicker than the gti on a few circuits that I have seen comparisons done on. Not quite convinced that it would be just the extra 33kw giving such a gain as the r is 116kg heavier. When driving at ten tenths u would be surprised at the true benefit of awd, especially the updated haldex system.

[sabloke]

That doesn't explain why the R is slower than Scirocco, pretty much a hybrid version of GTI and R. I know there are some differences here and there but they're not that different, really. At least two other FWD cars (we all know which ones) are beating the R around the track. Personally, I can't see the point of carrying an extra 120 kg for a system that makes the car more expensive, slower around a track and less fun to drive than a properly sorted FWD. Add to that the lack of snow in Adelaide in the last gazillion years and you see why I'd settle for a GTI if I was to chose from VW's hot hatch stable.

[adzy]

That doesn't explain why the R is slower than Scirocco, pretty much a hybrid version of GTI and R. I know there are some differences here and there but they're not that different, really. At least two other FWD cars (we all know which ones) are beating the R around the track. Personally, I can't see the point of carrying an extra 120 kg for a system that makes the car more expensive, slower around a track and less fun to drive than a properly sorted FWD. Add to that the lack of snow in Adelaide in the last gazillion years and you see why I'd settle for a GTI if I was to chose from VW's hot hatch stable.

Well they are results for one racetrack only which is pretty flowing. A great example is at the nordschleife. Hans Stuck done a time of 8:23 in the golf r and 8:30 in the scirrocco r, keeping in mind that the power to weight ratio of the scirocco spanks the golf r's, the awd seems to be effective.
Gti or Golf R depends on each buyers wants and needs, the R makes a lot of sense once tuned, just look at what Fab's can do where a Gti making such power would be losing all that potential through wheelspin. Think of snow and wet weather driving also. Each to their own, I know I will be changing my mind every couple of months before I buy next year

[Corey_R]

Any corner on a circuit in 2nd gear in a gti can induce wheel spin when you are on the limit and more so when the tyres are starting to let go. The golf r is consistently 2 secconds a lap (or more) quicker than the gti on a few circuits that I have seen comparisons done on. Not quite convinced that it would be just the extra 33kw giving such a gain as the r is 116kg heavier. When driving at ten tenths u would be surprised at the true benefit of awd, especially the updated haldex system.

And yet at Eastern Creek, in torrential rain, with a GTI and R, both Stage 3 conversions, there was only 1.7 seconds difference between the GTI and the R. The worst track conditions = the best situation for AWD and only 1.7 second difference...

With stock cars, I think that the diff between the GTI and the R has more to do with the operating efficiencies of their turbos. Whilst the R may have 33kw more power (or 44kw in these international reviews), that power is all up the pointy end of the RPM's where you're at racing around a track. Whereas a stock GTI has lost its steam by the time you get up to those RPMs.

[adzy]

And yet at Eastern Creek, in torrential rain, with a GTI and R, both Stage 3 conversions, there was only 1.7 seconds difference between the GTI and the R. The worst track conditions = the best situation for AWD and only 1.7 second difference...

With stock cars, I think that the diff between the GTI and the R has more to do with the operating efficiencies of their turbos. Whilst the R may have 33kw more power (or 44kw in these international reviews), that power is all up the pointy end of the RPM's where you're at racing around a track. Whereas a stock GTI has lost its steam by the time you get up to those RPMs.

True, I was amazed at those results, it was a 1.6 seccond difference on the creek and a 1 seccond difference on the motorkhana... compared to all other data this doesn't make that much sense especially in the rain, however I don't have much respect for Motor magazines data and with Paul Morris driving I am suprised the cars didn't end up on their roof. Its got to be saying something though, the GTI.. much lighter and that LSD would be helping a lot, its trap speeds did spank the R's in that test also (with less kw@wheels).
Sounds like you want to trade in for a GTI Corey?

[Corey_R]

No, I won't be trading in my R. I love it!

But I must admit that AWD and the weight that it adds vs the benefit that it actually gives (basically only during the traffic lights GP) is probably the biggest thing I ponder over. So as fuel prices go up and we're forced to be more efficient, AWD will be the first thing that is crossed over my "new car criteria". And I won't miss it...

For most people, AWD is simply not necessary. Whilst in the old days before "electronics" AWD made an appreciable difference, in this day and age, with a competent current model car such as a Golf GTI, you really have to be driving irresponsibly to get into a situation where having AWD would have saved you. Don't believe me? Go to one of the VW Driver training days and have a go on the skid pan and see for yourself (or look at everyone's comments on that subject).

You also just have to look at the performance car market. Porsche 911 Turbo is AWD as it is the "GT" of the line and the one that all the rich people buy for status. Yet, get one of the "drivers" 911's where the luxuries have been removed, and so has the AWD in favor of RWD. And they're faster that way too (look at GT2 times on the ring for example. The difference in seconds is more than the slight diff in power). Lamborghini also have RWD models. Other manufacturers who are AWD on the roads usually have race oriented versions which drop the AWD to save weight and increase track performance.

The Nissan GTR has an awesome AWD and yaw control system and it is used to great effect to "fool proof" a car with so much power than the majority of punters who purchase the car could otherwise probably not deal with. But then, Ferrari manage much the same thing with their e-Diff providing yaw control and torque vectoring through the rear wheels only on their 458 and 599. Nissan also drop the AWD for all their race series they compete in. (I haven't watched the Japan Super Touring for a while now, but even back in Gozilla days, the teams only put the AWD into their GTRs if they knew the entire weekend was going to be wet).



Having said all that. "Quasi-AWD" systems such as electric motors in the front wheels of a RWD car or Ferrari's new 4RM system in the new Ferrari FF are an interesting option. I don't know if you've looked at the Ferrari 4RM system, but they've managed to come up with an "AWD" system which adds only 30kg to the weight of the car. The FF is really a RWD car (engine up front, gearbox in the rear for weight distribution), and the car runs in RWD most of the time. However, they also have a special "simplified 2sp gearbox/dual haldex clutch (one for each front wheel) PTU (Power Take-off Unit)" which connects directly to the crank at the front of the engine and operates the front wheels during gears 1 to 4 when the car is set to "snow" or "comfort".

[SilvrFoxX]

I think there is a fair bit of truth in there and largely agree, the challenge is getting all that performace through the front wheels. sure the Focus and the megane are on the boundaries and there is a penalty but you can see that if the demand is there then as in the R AWD is the solution.

The GTI gets a stage 1 lift and wheelspin and the electronics start having coniptions

[adzy]

Agree with what you have said there mate and thats the thing, each buyer has to ask themself.. am I going to be driving the nuts off this thing to the point where I will even need the benefit of AWD? Weight is the ultimate enemy at the end of the day.

I thought I would ask that question to see if you were regretting the R a bit, good to hear that u dont.

[triode12]

Adzy,

Have you had the opportunity to test drive both the R and mkVI GTI?

[Corey_R]

Yeah - I haven't driven a MK6 GTI which has been modified to Stage 1 or 2, but I did own a MKV GTI which was Stage 2. From a "safety" point of view, you could stomp on the pedal in that in any conditions and the electronics would keep you in line, so you still wouldn't get in trouble.

For those who don't drive around mindlessly, if you adapt to the road conditions you can still get moving without the electronics interferring. And if you listen to people like WhiteJames, the XDS only makes the MK6 even better around corners than the MKV was.

The GTI can handle a K04 turbo fine as well, as long as the driver is willing to drive (i.e. think about what they're doing when). Just look at Sammy125TDI's WSID 1/4 mile results. Whilst a Stage 1 R would beat Sammy's car in a 0 to 100 time, Sammy's car beats it in the 1/4 mile, and thus would absolutely trounce the R in a rolling start (say 40km/h and above).


Meanwhile, either car is more competent than the speed limits on public roads allow. With all the idiots out there, many of the great "driving roads" are seeing their limits dropped to cringeworthy levels. The old Pacific Highway between Sydney and Gosford is now as low as 60km/h, with the majority 70km/h. It used to be 90-100km/h. You can put the R on cruise control and not even use the brake once for the entire stretch. You can no longer drive that road. That's just not fun....


I don't know... I guess I've been looking at some of the guys in the MKI forum and seeing some of their driving videos and longing for something that is missing from all these modern cars. The ability to really DRIVE them. You look fast, and sound fast, but aren't really THAT fast, and as such you get to drive them and be excited without losing your license if you chose your road well. Whereas the Golf R is truly fast (especially with Stage II+), but 60 comes in <2 seconds and then you're done!



I'm excited about the new Polo GTI. NOT because of the standard one, but because of the work which Guy Harding has already done with their development car. New ECU, intercooler, exhaust, intake(?) for the 1.4TSI, plus coil over suspension, sway bars, and Alcon 1 and 2 piece brake packages. It looks to be a ripper of a car. And whilst going from a Golf R to a Polo GTI is an obvious step down in quality and features, moving to say an Audi A1 is not. Maybe my next car might be an Audi A1 1.4TSI with some of these upgrades.

Or maybe none of these upgrades and instead I'll use the change between it and a "tuned R" that I save to go out and buy a Superkart and a trailer and drive a seriously quick car where I can really drive it (on the track) and have a more sensible car on the roads where we can't.