Golf R -v- Golf GTI

[AdamD]

The general consensus is that:-

-> stock GTI vs stock MPS: MPS will win
-> stage 1 GTI vs stock MPS: pretty even, MPS will probably just take it
-> stage 2 GTI vs stock MPS: GTI will pull a car length or two
-> stage 2 GTI vs bolt-on MPS: MPS will inch out, but probably even if it was a stage 2+ GTI.

Motor magazine tested the GTI (DSG) against the current-generation MPS (manual) in their December 09 issue. The GTI managed 6.52 and 14.58 for the quarter. The Mazda's times were recorded for a previous (September) comparo but at a near identical temperature and at the same venue, and the MPS was timed at 6.61 and 14.72.

Maybe it's down to an easier launch with the GTI - the journos do say the MPS is a b***h to launch hard - but whichever way you look at it, the GTI pulled the better times, despite being 35kw and 100Nm down. Add a stage 1 to the mix and it's only going to look better for the Golf.

[REXman]

Motor magazine tested the GTI (DSG) against the current-generation MPS (manual) in their December 09 issue. The GTI managed 6.52 and 14.58 for the quarter. The Mazda's times were recorded for a previous (September) comparo but at a near identical temperature and at the same venue, and the MPS was timed at 6.61 and 14.72.

Maybe it's down to an easier launch with the GTI - the journos do say the MPS is a b***h to launch hard - but whichever way you look at it, the GTI pulled the better times, despite being 35kw and 100Nm down. Add a stage 1 to the mix and it's only going to look better for the Golf.

Yeah but they gave the R (in the R vs EVO edition) a 13.65 quater.. and then in the Performance showdown thing with the STI v EVO v R they gave it a 14.65!! It cant be that much different just cause of the transmission (A full second is heaps, especially if driven proper). Its good to gauge, but different months and different magazines it really hard to make a fair comparison!

[Dan_3MPS]

Motor magazine tested the GTI (DSG) against the current-generation MPS (manual) in their December 09 issue. The GTI managed 6.52 and 14.58 for the quarter. The Mazda's times were recorded for a previous (September) comparo but at a near identical temperature and at the same venue, and the MPS was timed at 6.61 and 14.72.

Maybe it's down to an easier launch with the GTI - the journos do say the MPS is a b***h to launch hard - but whichever way you look at it, the GTI pulled the better times, despite being 35kw and 100Nm down. Add a stage 1 to the mix and it's only going to look better for the Golf.

The MPS is a much quicker car than the GTI, they're just extremely difficult to get off the line. Rolling acceleration in them is just ridiculous.

I'm surprised the journos don't get better times from the R, mid 13's should be spot on.

But, it's not all about 1/4 mile times, if it was we'd all be driving something else

I better let this thread get back to GTI vs R comparison, will get my stuff sorted and order a car in the next couple of weeks.

[whichonetoget]

It seems rather easy to extract power out of a GTI. However, at what point in time would I start to need to do some handling mods to keep it from torque steering all over the place?

I am currently leaning towards a new GTI over an a R32 due to it having more potential to modify.

[triode12]

The MPS is a much quicker car than the GTI, they're just extremely difficult to get off the line. Rolling acceleration in them is just ridiculous.

I'm surprised the journos don't get better times from the R, mid 13's should be spot on.

But, it's not all about 1/4 mile times, if it was we'd all be driving something else

I better let this thread get back to GTI vs R comparison, will get my stuff sorted and order a car in the next couple of weeks.

Get the R even if you have to pare back on the options to get it. It is a much better car and a Stg 1 tune is all you need if you are not addicted to mods. It is IMO a better value over the GTI in terms of driving experience (read fun). And if you plan to track the car, you'll won't have to refill the engine oil that often. The new 888 engine in the MkVI GTI drinks oil when tracked.

[Corey_R]

Yeah but they gave the R (in the R vs EVO edition) a 13.65 quater.. and then in the Performance showdown thing with the STI v EVO v R they gave it a 14.65!! It cant be that much different just cause of the transmission (A full second is heaps, especially if driven proper). Its good to gauge, but different months and different magazines it really hard to make a fair comparison!

This is simply how good the DSG is mate. It doesn't matter whether you're an average driver or a race car driver, the DSG is well and truly over a second quicker on the quarter mile, and depending on the driver, around a second quicker 0 to 100. Best of all, the DSG will do the same time consistently each time, whereas you do 3 different runs in a manual and you'll get 3 different results.

As we're already seen, a stock DSG R is quicker in a 0 to 100 run for a Stage 3 manual R. You're talking a $2500 option vs a $13,000 mod (not including the better drivetrain/brakes/suspension mods also needed). Don't underestimate how much of an advantage the DSG is when doing straight line times...

[ddre78]

Motor magazine tested the GTI (DSG) against the current-generation MPS (manual) in their December 09 issue. The GTI managed 6.52 and 14.58 for the quarter. The Mazda's times were recorded for a previous (September) comparo but at a near identical temperature and at the same venue, and the MPS was timed at 6.61 and 14.72.

Hmm thats surprising. Ive just come from an MPS into an APR GTI and the MPS is still quicker. Even more surprising, considering in my opinion, the GTI is horrible at putting its power down in a straight line.

[AdamD]

Yeah but they gave the R (in the R vs EVO edition) a 13.65 quater.. and then in the Performance showdown thing with the STI v EVO v R they gave it a 14.65!! It cant be that much different just cause of the transmission (A full second is heaps, especially if driven proper). Its good to gauge, but different months and different magazines it really hard to make a fair comparison!

As coreying has said, the DSG is a phenomenon when it comes to acceleration. Just watch this video that compares a manual R and a DSG R:

YouTube - VW Golf R - DSG versus manual by autocar.co.uk

Same conditions, same road, same driver. The smallest gap was 0.6 seconds; the largest 0.9 - and this is an apparently good driver, not hanging around. Make no mistake, the DSG makes for fast, easily repeatable getaways. IMO, it was a great shame that Guy_H brough manual Golfs to the Hot Tuner shootout... the same cars equipped with DSG gearboxes would have put up some (even more) serious numbers (and sadly those shootouts seem to me to be too focussed on the numbers).

The MPS is a much quicker car than the GTI, they're just extremely difficult to get off the line. Rolling acceleration in them is just ridiculous. I'm surprised the journos don't get better times from the R, mid 13's should be spot on.

I agree, with all that power and torque, the MPS should simply demolish the GTI in a straight line (although a mid-13s might be a stretch). But as I said above, if the Golf is a DSG, it's not so clear cut - certainly from a standing start. Stage I the GTI and you'd manage equivalent in-gear acceleration, and as long as you can avoid too much wheelspin it should at least match the MPS at launch too - and that's before you consider the GTI's vastly-quicker shift times. Sounds like the best of both worlds to me.

Get the R even if you have to pare back on the options to get it. It is a much better car and a Stg 1 tune is all you need if you are not addicted to mods. It is IMO a better value over the GTI in terms of driving experience (read fun).

I respectfully disagree with you on that one. My personal feeling is that, day to day, the GTI is every bit as much fun as the R - if not moreso - although of course it is slower. I wrote this post comparing the two after driving the R.

[AdamD]

Hmm thats surprising. Ive just come from an MPS into an APR GTI and the MPS is still quicker. Even more surprising, considering in my opinion, the GTI is horrible at putting its power down in a straight line.

How are you measuring it to know it's quicker? As the MPS is more boosty, it may feel quicker, but the GTI has a more linear torque curve and hence feels less dramatic. The DSG's rapid shifts further reduce the drop-off/surge by keeping the engine nearer peak revs.

It's also worth pointing out that, as you're used to it, you may well be quite a bit better at launching an MPS than these journos.

My GTI feels a lot better in terms of power-down than the last two Hondas I had, which suffered from savage axle-tramp.

[triode12]

As coreying has said, the DSG is a phenomenon when it comes to acceleration. Just watch this video that compares a manual R and a DSG R:

YouTube - VW Golf R - DSG versus manual by autocar.co.uk

Same conditions, same road, same driver. The smallest gap was 0.6 seconds; the largest 0.9 - and this is an apparently good driver, not hanging around. Make no mistake, the DSG makes for fast, easily repeatable getaways. IMO, it was a great shame that Guy_H brough manual Golfs to the Hot Tuner shootout... the same cars equipped with DSG gearboxes would have put up some (even more) serious numbers (and sadly those shootouts seem to me to be too focussed on the numbers).



I agree, with all that power and torque, the MPS should simply demolish the GTI in a straight line (although a mid-13s might be a stretch). But as I said above, if the Golf is a DSG, it's not so clear cut - certainly from a standing start. Stage I the GTI and you'd manage equivalent in-gear acceleration, and as long as you can avoid too much wheelspin it should at least match the MPS at launch too - and that's before you consider the GTI's vastly-quicker shift times. Sounds like the best of both worlds to me.



I respectfully disagree with you on that one. My personal feeling is that, day to day, the GTI is every bit as much fun as the R - if not moreso - although of course it is slower. I wrote this post comparing the two after driving the R.

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.