Golf R -v- Golf GTI

[team_v]

I never said anything about a DSG. If they're so much faster why didn't Guy buy one?

IIRC they had a manual with 30k spent on it which did 0-100 in 5.6 seconds or something (I haven't got the mag in front of me right now).

I believe it is because they wanted one of the first ones avaialbe so they could do testing on it before the rest of the R's start rolling in.
To do that they had to sacrifice DSG and pick up a manual (which would be my choice as well)

[Corey_R]

I never said anything about a DSG. If they're so much faster why didn't Guy buy one?

As team_v said, Guy did want one, but it just wasn't to be. His dealer couldn't get one so he had no choice but to take the manual in order to be able to start developing all the products for us consumers.

I believe he has a DSG R on order now though.

I believe everyone when they talk to the experience of of a stage 1.. I think I will just enjoy it stock for a while to ensure it is all bed in properly and see how it goes down the track.. I fear that the smoothness of the DSG and its already amazing performance will get me into trouble.. a chip upgrade would potentailly make that more problematic

Yeah, enjoy it stock for a while and then upgrading is a good strategy.
As for a chip potentially making getting into trouble more problematic... yeah, quite possibly! But the chip also helps with low end torque and turbo spool up, so it helps just as much with every day driving within the constraints of the speed limit as well

[SilvrFoxX]

As team_v

Yeah, enjoy it stock for a while and then upgrading is a good strategy.
As for a chip potentially making getting into trouble more problematic... yeah, quite possibly! But the chip also helps with low end torque and turbo spool up, so it helps just as much with every day driving within the constraints of the speed limit as well

that is indeed a good thing..

[MkVIGTI]

The article states "The first R32 cost $63,000. It was followed by the R36 at $55,000."

Now I know is it very unlike the News Limited press to get a story wrong , but did I miss a particular Golf variant somewhere along the line?

EDIT - just read the posts at the bottom of the article. LOL. No point discussing this one further, it has no credibility (runs off to try and hit the dashboard buttons whilst holding the gear knob )

I think they may be refering to the Passat R36? Just the R line in general not necessarily the Golf.

[hooba]

the R is more fun to drive. But that is my opinion. The GTI lacks that extra bit of power that takes it over the edge/that overcomes the extra refinement built into it - it lacks the edgyness of the R.

Most insightful, non-bitchy post you made so far.

You've summed it up perfectly, for a Sunday morning blast the R is the weapon of choice, no argument.

I've said this before, the GTI is quick and leaves you with a smile, but when the R's boost kicks in for the first time it leaves you wondering who yelled out "punch it chewie!".

[REXman]

The day I ordered my R in June, I tested the R and a GTI in CSG back to back.

The R was. The clear choice to me, it was just about me being able to stretch to it. I could so I bought it.

Then my delivery date changed from the 30 OCT to 30 Nov. I was really anti waiting for the R (or any car) so I test drove the GTI against the R again in the same day.

I definitely could not take the GTI even with less wait, once I had experienced and could get, the R.

The GTI was pretty cool in it's own right but it's definitely a different car to drive to the R.

The R was just a ton more "nasty" (read; exciting) and fun. Louder, faster and more tune-able. Whilst still being sleek and understated..

As David Chapelle said - "Perfect"

[triode12]

If it ain't fun to drive, it ain't a GTI. It isn't all about all out performance either. The MkI GTI wasn't that much more powerful (70ps vs 100ps) or faster than the standard Golf. It is about having enough power to make the car more exciting to drive.

The MK3 and MK4 GTIs were introduced with powerplants that didn't overcome their increases in both weight and refinement causing them to provide only lacklustre driving experiences (compared to the Mk1 and Mk2). In the case of the Mk4, the 1.8T powerplant came too late in it's life help save it's poor reputation as a hot hatch.

The MkV GTI brought back the fun in 2004/5. But now it seems, they have gone and dumbed down the MkVI GTI too by adding more refinement. A GTI needs to be a bit rough around the edges. In stock form, the MkVI GTI is more a luxury hatch, when it is supposed to be a hot hatch. If the MkVI had 20-30kw more in stock form, it could have been just that. But perhaps doing so would've made the R a harder car to market.

[Mountainman]

If it ain't fun to drive, it ain't a GTI. It isn't all about all out performance either. The MkI GTI wasn't that much more powerful (70ps vs 100ps) or faster than the standard Golf.

I reckon owners of the 50ps 1.1L Golf would have found a bigger difference getting into a 110ps GTI than even I would swapping my 90kw TSI for a 155kw GTI.

[REXman]

Hey Triode12 good honest comments, good read.

I do reckon they could have made the GTI with a standard 175-odd KWs and the R with around 220KW.. So it could have been done.. But then the tuning would be more limited perhaps

[triode12]

Hey Triode12 good honest comments, good read.

I do reckon they could have made the GTI with a standard 175-odd KWs and the R with around 220KW.. So it could have been done.. But then the tuning would be more limited perhaps

Thanks Rexman,

I've recently finished reading a book on the History of the Golf GTI (Mk1 to Mk5). It details the heritage of the GTI and what makes the GTI a GTI. It is really a good read.

Wrt to tuning, didn't Guy tune his R to 315kw?