Golf R -v- Golf GTI

[AdamD]

That's fine! We all view/feel things differently and I respect your POV/Opinion.

My comparisons (several occasions) have always turned me towards the R as being more fun to drive and it wasn't all about about speed. At the end of the day the OP has to drive both cars and make his decision - however he should at least give the R a go before excluding it.

100% agree - everyone's different, and a buyer will always be in a better position if they drive and evaluate every car themselves, rather than relying on the opinons of others!

[G-rig]

I believe the OP (original poster - Whitejames) has driven both cars fairly extensively (moreso than most people would on a test drive) and decided he's not trading in his GTI.

The R and GTI are both fun in different ways, but whether it's a MPS or GTI you can't really launch it with a real heavy foot and expect it not to wheelspin. I imagine (and heard) that the MPS torque steers a lot more though.

Agree with Adam just drive both, also comes down to how much you want to spend.

[Corey_R]

Yeah, the 1st-gen MPS torque steers so badly that I've seen/heard some motoring journalists call it "irresponsible". From memory, it was not taken seriously on either Fifth Gear or Top Gears hot hatch roundups (on TV) for this reason and it's general lack of handling. There have been videos of it on youtube over the years showing MPS' literally changing lanes under acceleration without the driver turning the steering wheel!

The 2nd-gen MPS appears to have addressed this issue. Buuuuut, it's not by improving the suspension or drive-train, it's simply by limiting the torque accessible in lower gears.

I haven't driven the 2nd-gen, but I have driven the 1st. I would agree that rolling acceleration was fun. But the rest of the car is simply no match to a Golf GTI. Although I never had the opportunity to test them side-by-side, I felt that the rolling acceleration of my MKV Stage II GTI was more fun than that of a MPS. And as has been noted above, the MPS has always felt quicker than it really is due to its peakier torque curve and lack of refinement. So for a GTI to "feel" quicker, I'd say it's probably substantially quicker in measured numbers (just my opinion having driven both... I've no numbers to prove it, and don't really even care enough about the MPS to spend time looking...)

[REXman]

The 2nd-gen MPS appears to have addressed this issue. Buuuuut, it's not by improving the suspension or drive-train, it's simply by limiting the torque accessible in lower gears.

The 2nd Gen MPS 3 actually got a LSD, so its a major upgrade in the drivetrain dept. It does however tame the torque driven to the wheels in the first 3 gears as it can be a bit too much for the wheels.

The MPS 3 was benched against the GTI (and WRX for that matter) and had a G force rating of 0.92 compared to the GTI's 0.93. So the MPS fared a pretty good handler. REXY was the weakest at holding surprisingly!!

And as for the MPS "feeling" fast.. Its got 195KW and 380nm torque (more than a pre-2009 STI or EVO IX {or Current R by 50nm!!}), stock!!. The thrust from a MPS 3 in higher gears is amazing for what it is. I would not be surprised If it is underrated.
As for lack of refinement, thats a bit harsh.. xenons, Bose audio, keyless, bluetooth, part leather, a fantastic gearbox and everything is soft to the touch like the GTI inside.. and there is no rattle either..

I am now a VW'er now so I like golf's better anyway but, credit where its due..

[G-rig]

Agree REXman it's a good package for the price, as is the XR5 Turbo as well.

[Corey_R]

"goodies" like Xenons, crappy stereos (yes, Bose), bluetooth and even leather etc are not what makes a car refined....

[ddre78]

"goodies" like Xenons, crappy stereos (yes, Bose), bluetooth and even leather etc are not what makes a car refined....

No rattles are, and the like. My GTI has more rattles than my MPS did by a factor of 10:1. Having had both in my garage at the same time, I think I can make a good comparison... No doubt the stock MPS vs GTI S1 is much quicker. Do I have times to back it up, no. But its obvious, and anyone who has been in both my cars commented as such. GTI has much more wheelspin and axle tramp, KW for KW. Also the setup of the TC in the GTI is horrible, the power cut is excessive.

GTI is an awesome cruiser, it will cover long distances quickly with minimum fuss. But its not really good bang for buck in my opinion.

Everyone has different opinions and different requirements. Thank God we don't all drive the same thing, life would be boring.

[Dan_3MPS]

No rattles are, and the like. My GTI has more rattles than my MPS did by a factor of 10:1. Having had both in my garage at the same time, I think I can make a good comparison... No doubt the stock MPS vs GTI S1 is much quicker. Do I have times to back it up, no. But its obvious, and anyone who has been in both my cars commented as such. GTI has much more wheelspin and axle tramp, KW for KW. Also the setup of the TC in the GTI is horrible, the power cut is excessive.

GTI is an awesome cruiser, it will cover long distances quickly with minimum fuss. But its not really good bang for buck in my opinion.

Everyone has different opinions and different requirements. Thank God we don't all drive the same thing, life would be boring.

Interesting post - thanks for putting it up. I'm also at the point where I can sort the things most annoying me about my MPS (suspension!) and be $$$ up...hrrmmm...decisions decisions. $20,000 (diff between trade in for MPS and a new GTI) buys plenty of goodies...

Oh, there was a post above about the Gen 2 MPS getting a LSD, Gen 1 has it too. All they did for the Gen 2 was change the ECU programming a bit to make the power delivery less violent in 1-2-3. Unfortunately Mazda gave us Gen 1 owners this 'update' at our 40,000km services...it really took the "oh *****" factor out of the car

[Corey_R]

Oh, there was a post above about the Gen 2 MPS getting a LSD, Gen 1 has it too. All they did for the Gen 2 was change the ECU programming a bit to make the power delivery less violent in 1-2-3. Unfortunately Mazda gave us Gen 1 owners this 'update' at our 40,000km services...it really took the "oh *****" factor out of the car

Thanks for this information. I was sure when I posted before that there was no drive train changes between the generations!

[WhiteJames]

Fuel Consumption:

Two trips from Sydney South Coast to Queensland’s Gold Coast via the Pacific Hwy have had fuel consumption at 6.85 litres/100km average for the new Mark 6 GTI. The old MKV GTI would have returned 7.0l/100km or slightly more depending on conditions.

The Mark 6 EA888 motor has a different four lobe operated Bosch fuel pump and six-hole injectors that meter the fuel with greater precision than the single-hole injector on the EA113 motor of the MKV GTI. Like direct injection – 6 hole injectors are stated to improve fuel consumption.

I was interested to see how the new Mark 6 GTI fared in a range of driving conditions in the one day in respect to fuel usage. Route involved 315km of Freeway, City and Fringe of City driving:

First trip from Surfers Paradise to Brisbane CBD one-way on 23 degree day yielded 6.9 litres/100km – pretty good fuel consumption for predominantly highway going. The days route continued along Mt Crosby Road to just before Ipswich with return to Brisbane via the Ipswich Motorway for lunch at Breakfast Creek Hotel just East of Brisbane CBD. After lunch, onto Redcliffe with a seaside slow boulevard cruise along beaches of Sandgate and Redcliffe for part of the way. Trip home from Redcliffe over Gateway Bridge Tollway and Gold Coast Hwy involved being stuck in early peak hour Brisbane traffic from south of new Gateway Bridge. Once returned to Surfers Paradise – the fuel usage for the day was 7.2 litres / 100km.

Very good fuel economy considering I was stuck in slow moving and stop/start traffic around Mt Gravatt and Springwood for @ 30min.

Cheers
WJ