Golf R -v- Golf GTI

[AdamD]

Well these journalists said that the R is better, but whether it's worth the additional money is questionable. And that is the theme we've seen. The R is always better, just whether it's worth the extra money given the limitations of our roads

Well, again, I respectfully disagree. There are times when, irrespective of money, I'd rather be in my GTI than in an equivalent-specced R! As you and many others have repeatedly pointed out, the price difference is really fairly marginal considering many of the clear and significant advantages of the R.

I am not an R basher. Love what it does, think it's great value, and is very well fit for purpose. Coincidentally, I think the same of the GTI. To me, it's a bonus that I believe the GTI does a few things better than the R. As I own a GTI, that makes me a satisfied customer.

[AdamD]

My post was a reaction to the number of posts by MKVI GTI owners putting up reviews that are in favour of the GTI so as to justify their purchases.
<snip>
If is not a case of sour grapes, why do we keep seeing Golf R vs GTI posts (usually with reviews stating that the GTI is a better buy) being put up by MkVI GTI owners then?

Well, everyone wants to justify their purchase, right? But that in of itself doesn't make their reasons for choosing one car over the other invalid. I can see where you're coming from, and I agree that criticising one car to make oneself feel better about a regretted purchase decision is not the best look. But we're not all doing that, mate!

It's fairly clear that, money no object, most consumers would choose the R over the GTI. I probably would too. Point is, however, that even when you take into account that the R is more expensive, there are some things that some people believe the GTI does better. Journos point this out. And consumers probably notice it too. After all, the GTI still outsells the R, and perhaps by a proportion that's not completely explained by the modest price differential.

[runningmanz]

Well, everyone wants to justify their purchase, right? But that in of itself doesn't make their reasons for choosing one car over the other invalid. I can see where you're coming from, and I agree that criticising one car to make oneself feel better about a regretted purchase decision is not the best look. But we're not all doing that, mate!

It's fairly clear that, money no object, most consumers would choose the R over the GTI. I probably would too. Point is, however, that even when you take into account that the R is more expensive, there are some things that some people believe the GTI does better. Journos point this out. And consumers probably notice it too. After all, the GTI still outsells the R, and perhaps by a proportion that's not completely explained by the modest price differential.

Hey Adam,

the main beef I had with that article and alot of others probably do as well is with the descrepancy and nonsensical score given to the R in regards to safety. The R is definitely the safer car as it has awd, bi-xenon headlights and better brakes yet receives a silly rating seemingly heavily weighted by the inclusion of the Recaro seats and consequent loss of some airbags. Its final safety rating and overall score given just does not make sense and reeks of lazy and incompetent journalism.

In regards to the GTI vs R, each to their own. They have their pluses and minuses but I'd still argue the R is the better car. Still either way you can't go wrong as they are both amazing cars!

[AdamD]

the main beef I had with that article and alot of others probably do as well is with the descrepancy and nonsensical score given to the R in regards to safety. The R is definitely the safer car as it has awd, bi-xenon headlights and better brakes yet receives a silly rating seemingly heavily weighted by the inclusion of the Recaro seats and consequent loss of some airbags. Its final safety rating and overall score given just does not make sense and reeks of lazy and incompetent journalism.

Agreed ref the article. My comments aren't in defence of its errors - and I think we can all agree there's some strange and unexplained inconsistencies there (safety being key). I'm only trying to point out that some points of difference are subjective, and not everyone thinks the same way.

In regards to the GTI vs R, each to their own. They have their pluses and minuses but I'd still argue the R is the better car. Still either way you can't go wrong as they are both amazing cars!

And I'm sure many people - probably most - would agree with your argument - you make good points, and the R is a fantastic car. I just don't like the subjective stated as fact, or the inferral that by stating I prefer my car and justifying my purchase thus I've got a case of "sour grapes". 'Cause I don't. Full credit to you for choosing your R - I'm sure it's right for you.

[Converted]

there's some strange and unexplained inconsistencies there (safety being key).

Taking a stab in the dark here, is there a possibility that the safety ratings are based (or weighs more) on 'in the event the crash occurs' as opposed to 'accident prevention'? Hence the points system/scores.
The AWD, bi-xenon and brakes mentioned comes under 'prevention' and airbags, well a 'live saving feature in the event of a crash'.

[dave_r]

for that 95% of the time I'd have rather been in the Camry (actually lets not get silly here, a car with softer suspension lets say).

Should've got ACC

As far as an R being better for the track, I think the differences between the 2 cars (stock for stock) actually reduces in that instance. (IMO anyway)

that makes me a satisfied customer

We can't have any of those!

[AdamD]

Taking a stab in the dark here, is there a possibility that the safety ratings are based (or weighs more) on 'in the event the crash occurs' as opposed to 'accident prevention'? Hence the points system/scores.
The AWD, bi-xenon and brakes mentioned comes under 'prevention' and airbags, well a 'live saving feature in the event of a crash'.

Whichever way you look at it, rating the R (any Golf) as 2.5/5 for safety is preposterous. The MkVI is a 5-star NCAP car, and from what I've read, the safest car crash-tested by Euro-NCAP in 2009. You could be sitting on a wooden bench-seat and it'd still be safer than half the cars on the market today. (Joke, but you get the idea.)

[Corey_R]

Whichever way you look at it, rating the R (any Golf) as 2.5/5 for safety is preposterous. The MkVI is a 5-star NCAP car, and from what I've read, the safest car crash-tested by Euro-NCAP in 2009. You could be sitting on a wooden bench-seat and it'd still be safer than half the cars on the market today. (Joke, but you get the idea.)

Exactly. It was the safest car EVER tested up until the end of 2009.
So whether you have the TSI/TDI/GTI/GTD or R, it is a very safe place to be. The active (airbag, electronic TLAs) and passive (chassis/body etc) are identical between the R and the GTI, therefore they should both be a 4.5/5.0. If the AWD and Xenon etc were taken into account, the R could be higher. The issue surrounding the motorosports seats is arguable (and there is no conclusive tests either way from what I can find), but the main result is simply flawed.

[Danny]

That has been mentioned many times before. Again, whilst the Clio has a "Recaro" label on the seats, they are clearly far inferior to the series of Recaro seats being used in the Golf, and Audis and other cars which have them and don't feature the side airbag.

The Clio seats are far flatter and have substantially less side bolster - even less so than the "standard" GTI and R seats. It would be entirely possible for the torso of a Clio driver to dislodge from those seats and therefore they require the airbag.

The Recaro Motorsports seats used by VW and Audi are a different design, and the addition of a side airbag would very likely be useless, which I would presume is why such "safety conscious" companies don't fit it.

So again, back to my point. Unless people have crash tests which prove otherwise, Car Sales and many others are just making presumptions that it reduces safety by not having it.

Sorry Corey, I'm still a big Frog fan, and Credit where credit is due mate. I still considered a 200 Trophee as my next car, I also spent a lot of time in the Recaro seats of both 200 and the R and need to say that I felt a lot more held into the Clio's Recaro's than the R's. Lack of airbags is a BIG reason as well as cost as to why I opted against them.

Clio 200 Recaros




Golf R Recaro's




It is clear to see just by looking at them, that the 200 Trophee has more prominent and snug lateral support on the backrest where the R's taper out wide a little more close to the waist (and certainly better than the stock seats on the R/GTI), something that I backed up by driving the two. The leg bolsters on both cars are close to similar in look and feel. However I felt more secure from lateral movement in the Renault seat.

I don't assume what you know/don't know Corey, and can't even assume that you haven't sat in them back to back as I have, but I think that the Clio 200 Recaro Seats deserve much more credit than you gave them earlier on. They're a fantastic seat. and a $4500 Renault option (Std on the Trophee Pack).

-Dan

[Corey_R]

As you can see from the pictures you provided, the side airbags are an afterthought addition by Renault.
They were probably sick and tired of having to explain this stuff to the press and potential clients who think the only thing that matters in safety is airbags and so stuck them on the side so they no longer had to have this discussion!

IF the seats hold you how you say, how are you going to come in contact with the side airbag?
If the Reno Clio 200 doesn't have curtain airbags, then maybe it has benefit in that situation for your head, but if the seats are as good as you complain, the side airbag is not doing anything for your torso.