Golf R -v- Golf GTI

[WhiteJames]

Here's some Top Gear Footage of the Hot Hatch Shootout at Harewood Hillclimb course: Golf R -v- Golf GTI.

See links:

Stig hillclimb: VW Golf R - BBC Top Gear

Stig hillclimb: VW Golf GTi - BBC Top Gear

Cheers
WJ

[Maz]

Thanks for the links WJ. I'd love to see Top Gear put both the GTI and the R around their track.

[WhiteJames]

Better not forget the Sirocco R:

Stig hillclimb: VW Scirocco R - BBC Top Gear

Looks like the EDL/XDS limits some forward motion around the apex on the Sirocco R with the inside front wheel being braked to a degree. Sirocco R clocked 0.25 second slower than Golf R on this hillclimb.

Cheers.
WJ

[ConR]

man can that stig drive!

[G-rig]

Cool vids WJ.

[AdamD]

Cool vids WJ.

+1, thanks WhiteJames! I've got to say, that R looks composed and quick and just gets down to business!

[WhiteJames]

Fuel System

EA888 Motor

Injector


Each fuel injector has six individual fuel openings providing better mixture preparation. This also helps prevent “wetting” the intake valves and the combustion chamber surfaces during injection cycles. The angle of cone of the jet is 50°. These modifications have resulted in reduced HC emissions, particulate matter formation, and oil thinning.

Some hard core enthusiasts chasing big power gains on the older EA113 type motor in the Mark V GTI complain that the piston rings in the GTI are the weak link (think KO4). I’d agree to an extent. Part of the problem may also stem from the single port injector on the EA113 motor.


As mentioned above, the single port injector on the EA113 motor may have a tendency to wet the valves, more importantly, wetting the combustion chamber surfaces (cylinder bore). The excess fuel can cause the oil to thin or wash away, reducing the lubrication between the piston ring and cylinder bore, causing added heat friction, ultimately damaging the rings and bore. This may result in higher oil consumption in the longer-term. It’s a bit like driving with the choke on in an older vehicle with excess fuel washing away the oil.


The new EA888 has a multi-port injector with six individual fuel openings provides better mixture prep. The amount of fuel required for each rpm/load factor is metered with greater accuracy on the EA888 motor in the Mark 6 GTI. This may prevent the thinning or washing away of the oil that is trapped in the cross hones of the cylinder bores. The six individual fuel openings on the EA888 does not only improve fuel economy, but should improve the longevity of the motor & long term oil consumption as the oil trapped in the cross hones of the bore will not be as prone to be thinned out or washed away – esp. for those chasing big gains in horsepower in the EA888 motor of the Mark 6 GTI.

Cheers
WJ

[G-rig]

WJ, can you feel the difference when you're driving?

Ps the MK6 GTI is super responsive and the DSG is so fast and crisp when the engine is warmed up. Hopefully the R's DSG is as fast.

[dave_r]

WJ, can you feel the difference when you're driving?

I'm curious about that too. I quite like reading the technical analysis but I can't help to think that the fun police have stepped in and what either car is all about is being lost. Not going to be thinking about any of it mid corner on a twisty run!

[WhiteJames]

The compression ratio between the 2005 and 2006 build Mark 5 GTI varied: 10.5:1 –v- 10.3:1. The difference between model years in terms of driver feel was tangible. It’s been stated that the later 2006 build MKV GTI’s actually made a tad more power than the stated 147kW/280Nm of the original 2005 GTI. Additionally: The damper rate in the 2005 MKV GTI was lower than the 2006 MKV GTI. They’re subtle but notable differences that finely tuned butt-o-meter can decipher. Similar thing with, but not as pronounced, in driver feel in (APR) the High Pressure Fuel Pump (HPFP) on the Stage II MKV GTI –v- Stage II non-HPFP MKV GTI.


It’s worth noting the difference in compression ratio between the Mark 5 GTI –v- Mark 6 GTI does not enable direct apples for apples comparison. Mark 5 had 10.5:1/10.3:1, whereas the new Mark 6 GTI has 9.6:1 allowing it to run on 95RON. Even though the fuel metering of the EA888 has greater precision, the motor has been dulled down to a degree with the lower compression ratio. The Golf R runs 9.8:1 compression ratio with a larger KO4 turbo – again – apples and oranges due to greater KO4 lag. Mark V GTI and Golf R using the EA113 require 98RON.


On another issue:


Read MOTOR Magazine August 2010 issue re: EVO –v- Golf R whilst having my morning Latte. Interesting to see that the Golf R failed to out-brake the Golf GTI – maybe paying extra for consistency under repeated hard use, but not outright stopping power, as mention in my very first post write-up. Given that as a driver, I don’t plan on doing any launch control starts or travel up to 180kph, I paid particular attention to the 80-120kph acceleration test in this review. The 80-120kph is a great measure of real world performance for an everyday driver out on the public roadway – simulates overtaking that caravan or fully laden lorry etc. The EVO and Golf R being dead heat at 3.6 seconds for 80-120kph – the Golf GTI 0.2 seconds slower at 3.8 seconds (Manual in 3rd gear only) – testament to the usability, driveability and tractability of the Golf GTI and the EA888 motor.


Cheers
WJ