Golf R -v- Golf GTI

[Maverick]

I think you need to really ask yourself what results you were intending to find with your comparison, and maybe how clear and reasonable they actually were.

What do you mean by this? I found his review and opinion easy to follow.

[REXman]

I found the review easy to follow as well!!

I believe the way the article is written its very biased to be frank.

You want to say that the GTI is more practical, more torquey, and a better overall ride over its rival? the R.

Thats fine, but you cant say that it sounds better than an R whilst also being the more sensible of the 2.

The R is the more performance orientated model. No confusing that. I just get the feeling that WJ maybe trying to pry open the best of both worlds, where you may not in this case.

Its the slower more refined GTI against the more 'tude of the sportier R.

Its not the Rawness of the GTI against the poor little old R.

I hope you can see what I mean and how it might be sounding to a lot of R owners.

[emack]

.............it is easy to follow, but can't help but form the opinion that it is more about justifying his GTI than reviewing the R!

[Sharkie]

Can we please keep the "tiguan" out of this discussion. Thank you. Its neither a GTI or an R, or close in any aspects that I am interested in. Particularly when I like sporty cars.

I think you're missing the point I'm trying to make. I am able to buy either a GTI or an optioned R and have driven both. Neither of them are THAT special (in the same way that a 135i is) to drive and to be honest not much more special than our Tiguan.

And I have had I suspect many more "sporty" cars than you so I am able to make a judgement call on that .....

The crux of the matter is .... Would I pick the Tiguan over a R? .... if suitably enhanced (as in APR'd) I pick the R 100% every time ... it has all the things I'd like to have in my daily driver and with some subtle mods can be exactly what I want .... and would have had but for my dealer issues ....

Would I have purchased a GTI over the R ? .... and this is where the difference comes in .... NO .... Never, a R is superior to the GTI in all aspects, bar the age of its engine (with the known issues that has) and the extra weight it carries...... but then I'd pick a suitably enhanced Tiguan over a GTI ....

SO in the spirit of this thread .... R v GTI .... its R all the way .... or for me R > Tig > GTI ..... don't knock what you don't know until you've tried it ....

And, yes, WJs initial write up is a bit biased, but then so is anybody else here trying to justify a position, including me.

[Sharkie]

1 thing I think is not coming through clear enough in this thread (mainly because I suspect most don't undertand how important it is) is the difference AWD makes to the performance of a car ....

IT is the fundamental change / improvement the R has over the GTI ..... everything else is pure cosmetics ..... for me it is the fundamental reason to buy the R, nothing else matters .....

Having had a 12s quarter mile FWD VW (and other powerful FWD VWs) it is the 1 thing that I'd happily give up 200kgs for .... no FWD VW will ever handle as well or put the power down as well ....

Sure it takes a bit getting used to for the leagues of FWD only capable drivers who judge performance by tyres spinning and torque steer instead of actual forward motion .... but stick with it, its worth it ....

Classic example is the 2 recent Stg 3 APR cars .... their GTI and the S3 .... similar power .... completely different feel .... everybody who drove them thought the GTI was faster .... ???? .... WRONG .... think 5.5s GTI v 4.2s S3 .... and why? .... all down to AWD traction or lack of FWD traction ....

So unless you're unable to understand physics ... its R over GTI every time ...

[WhiteJames]

Whitejames: Can you clarify what you mean when you mention the fuel delivery felt more precise in the GTI compared to the R? Not sure I follow that point

Service Training

Self-Study Program 824803


The Volkswagen 2.0 Liter
Chain-Driven TSI Engine


Fuel System
38

High-Pressure Regulation


Fuel pressure and fuel quantity are regulated by Fuel
Pressure Regulator Valve N276. The signal from Fuel
Pressure Sensor G247 is used by the engine control
module as a parameter. This sensor is located in the
fuel rail.



Power demand has been reduced signifi cantly
through a newly designed fuel pressure regulating
valve and associated control concept.



At the start of delivery, Fuel Pressure Regulating
Valve N276 is activated only very briefl y. The intake
valve closes, fuel pressure builds up, and fuel
delivery immediately begins.



High-Pressure Pump


The demand controlled high-pressure pump by
Bosch is driven by a four lobed cam on the end of
the intake camshaft.



The pump piston is driven by the camshaft and a
cam follower. This reduces friction as well as the
chain forces. The results are smoother engine
operation and higher fuel economy.



The use of the four lobe cam has allowed a reduced
piston stroke compared to earlier versions of the
2.0L TSI engine. Due to the shorter stroke, the
individual delivery rates are lower. This, in turn,
results in reduced pressure fl uctuations. The
metering precision of the injectors is also improved,
as there is now one feed stroke per injection. The
advantage of this is improved oxygen sensor control
and fuel effi ciency.



The high-pressure pump produces a maximum
pressure of 2175.5 psi (150 bar). The fuel pressure
requested by the engine control module is adjusted
by Fuel Pressure Regulator Valve N276. The pressure
is regulated between 725.1 psi (50 bar) and 2175.5
psi (150 bar) depending on engine requirements.
The high-pressure pump now has its own pressure
limiting valve. This valve opens at approximately 2900
psi (200 bar) and admits pressure into the pump
chamber.



Previously, pressure was discharged into
the low-pressure circuit. Excessively high-pressures
can build up in overrun or when the engine heat
soaks after shut-off.



The pressure pulsations in the low-pressure circuit
are reduced by a damping element integrated in the
pump.

The above information is from a technical self-help guide for Audi tecnicians.

I saved a copy of this guide as I was interested in researching the cam follower issue on the EA113 -v- EA888 motors.

The four lobe cam of the EA888 gives greater precision in fuel delivery with each throttle application - improving fuel consumption & consistency in throttle repsonse.

The four lobe cam - fuel actuator is an improvement similar to the introduction of direct injection, but in a different area of the motor.

The remapping of the throttle is related to the software ECU tune of the motor.

The four lobe cam of the EA888 relates to a hardware improvement.

It's unlikey that a remap ECU tune will totally eliminate that fact that the EA113 motor does not have a four lobe camshaft - fuel follower actuator hardware upgrade.

You're welcome to put forth your opinions on each vehicle.

Healthy debate is encourgaged.

Cheers
WJ

[Sharkie]

LOL! I still want to see him take a corner like a GTI!

Happy to demonstrate the advantages of AWD to you Mav .... unless you're on a race track there is no corner on the open road that you'd have an advantage on in a stock GTI at semi-legal speeds .... recently chased a Stg2 Black Mk5 GTI through the roundabouts from the display homes at North Lakes and I had to reign in the Tig to prevent it from running over and into the back of the smoking poor GTI .... AWD and masses of low down power & torque (the advantage of the EA888 and even more so when tuned) outperformed the poor GTI .....

Which is exactly the reason for the R ... AWD and good power (needs tuning to extract the best though) .... unbeatable combination ...

[hooba]

.............it is easy to follow, but can't help but form the opinion that it is more about justifying his GTI than reviewing the R!

WJ gives his time to post one of the more well informed and well written posts on this forum, and you decide to accuse him of bias. Instead of playing the man, if you disagree strongly enough with what he has posted why don't you directly address with WJ the area where your own experience of driving the R and the GTI back to back differs?

[Maverick]

WJ gives his time to post one of the more well informed and well written posts on this forum, and you decide to accuse him of bias. Instead of playing the man, if you disagree strongly enough with what he has posted why don't you directly address with WJ the area where your own experience of driving the R and the GTI back to back differs?

x 2

WJ spends a lot of time putting together such detailed reviews and I respect what he has to say over 99.9% of the posters on here.

[Corey_R]

The above information is from a technical self-help guide for Audi tecnicians.

I saved a copy of this guide as I was interested in researching the cam follower issue on the EA113 -v- EA888 motors.

The four lobe cam of the EA888 gives greater precision in fuel delivery with each throttle application - improving fuel consumption & consistency in throttle repsonse.

The four lobe cam - fuel actuator is an improvement similar to the introduction of direct injection, but in a different area of the motor.

The remapping of the throttle is related to the software ECU tune of the motor.

The four lobe cam of the EA888 relates to a hardware improvement.

It's unlikey that a remap ECU tune will totally eliminate that fact that the EA113 motor does not have a four lobe camshaft - fuel follower actuator hardware upgrade.

You're welcome to put forth your opinions on each vehicle.

Healthy debate is encourgaged.

Cheers
WJ

Thanks for the post and clarification WJ. Just to clarify further though.
You could actually FEEL the different in fuel delivery DURING your test drive? Or you were just throwing that in there because you had read that above service article?