Golf R -v- Golf GTI

[Corey_R]

Other manufacturers seem to be able to include side airbags in similar seat upgrades (eg Clio 200 Cup).

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.

[AdamD]

This is all getting very silly. The R is the better car period!

With all due respect, you think it's better. That's fine, you're entitled to. I disagree. We're entitled to our opinions. Please don't belittle mine with such a sweeping statement.

Just try to bear in mind when you make such comments that there are always two sides to a coin. There are those of us who do actually prefer the lower weight of the GTI, the earlier torque peak, and the somewhat more sprightly feel that comes as a consequence. Damn, even the fuel economy. These points may not be of value to you, but please don't assume that they're not to others - including the journalists who, presumably, are writing to express an opinion and make a recommendation not exclusively tied to their own wants and needs, but to an analysis of what they believe their reader demographic prefers on average.

The only people I can see who are unhappy about the R are current MkVI GTI owners and those who can't stump up the difference between them.

How does this make their view invalid? I, and other GTI owners, don't feel like sore losers - sorry to disappoint you! Maybe we bought the GTI with eyes wide open, because we prefer it? I could happily afford an R if I decided it was what I wanted. This time round (for the MkVI), I didn't.

[HPSOV]

What comfort or driveability exactly is being sacrificed going from a GTI to R?

The suspension on the R is firmer than the GTI. For my daily commute in traffic I'd rather be in a car with the smoothest ride. I just did a 600km round trip in the last couple of days on some sometimes poor roads, for 95% of it I was stuck behind a Camry or similar, 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).

In my test driving I found the GTI to be much nicer to drive in traffic with its power coming on at 1700rpm. There is definite turbo lag in the R, its dead below about 2200rpm (compounded by the DSG's singular focus of being in the highest gear possible at all times). I just found for 'traffic' driving the GTI was much less effort to drive than than the R.

At the end of the day I got the R because I do track days, and thats where the R will have it all over a GTI.

[Tony_Mitchell_1983]

This is all getting very silly. The R is the better car period!

Hmmm... Don't quite get that...

I'm pretty sure the APR GTI is quicker around a track then the APR R. Which doesn't make sense to me but I think I heard that from Mr APR Oceania himself.

There are a million ways to say one is better then the other, but by track potential, it seems the GTI may be better.

[Corey_R]

With all due respect, you think it's better. That's fine, you're entitled to. I disagree. We're entitled to our opinions. Please don't belittle mine with such a sweeping statement.

<snip>

including the journalists who, presumably, are writing to express an opinion and make a recommendation not exclusively tied to their own wants and needs, but to an analysis of what they believe their reader demographic prefers on average.

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

Even WJ says that the R is better, but he has a GTI already and it's not better enough to swap (although, he has mentioned a few times that he's still mulling over it! lol)

And btw... if we really based this on an "analysis of what the reading demographic prefers on average", then the Toyota Corolla will always win

[Corey_R]

Hmmm... Don't quite get that...

I'm pretty sure the APR GTI is quicker around a track then the APR R. Which doesn't make sense to me but I think I heard that from Mr APR Oceania himself.

There are a million ways to say one is better then the other, but by track potential, it seems the GTI may be better.

Whilst the GTI came close, the R beat it at the Motor Tuner Challenge at Eastern Creek. It was pretty wet though.

[Tony_Mitchell_1983]

And btw... if we really based this on an "analysis of what the reading demographic prefers on average", then the Toyota Corolla will always win

Lucky I can't read then...

[triode12]

With all due respect, you think it's better. That's fine, you're entitled to. I disagree. We're entitled to our opinions. Please don't belittle mine with such a sweeping statement.

Just try to bear in mind when you make such comments that there are always two sides to a coin. There are those of us who do actually prefer the lower weight of the GTI, the earlier torque peak, and the somewhat more sprightly feel that comes as a consequence. Damn, even the fuel economy. These points may not be of value to you, but please don't assume that they're not to others - including the journalists who, presumably, are writing to express an opinion and make a recommendation not exclusively tied to their own wants and needs, but to an analysis of what they believe their reader demographic prefers on average.



How does this make their view invalid? I, and other GTI owners, don't feel like sore losers - sorry to disappoint you! Maybe we bought the GTI with eyes wide open, because we prefer it? I could happily afford an R if I decided it was what I wanted. This time round (for the MkVI), I didn't.

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.

This criticism of the R began even before the car landed on our shores (coincidently by MkVI GTI owners) and before local reviews and comparisons. 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?

[Tony_Mitchell_1983]

oooohh... It's getting nasty. I love it when this happens.

Personally I think the mkII GTI is better than either. And so is my mkV.

[triode12]

Personally I think the mkII GTI is better than either. And so is my mkV.

I have to agree that MKII GTI (16V) was the epitome of the GTI label. The MkV brought it back after the failure of the MkIII and MKIV GTIs to live up to the GTI label.