Golf R -v- Golf GTI

[G-rig]

the best comparison i have seen was the one where it said get the GTI for the road and the R for the track, except i would swap the R for a lotus/mx-5 as it would be more functional for track work imho.

Unless you have a lot to throw at motorsport I'm also thinking something more dedicated/faster/cheaper would be better to throw around a track. Not against modding as there are some good ones for the street but would lose too much comfort going all out so that it's properly track ready.

[walbjj]

Not sure what "real world" u guys live in, but my one involves a 45km round trip every day stuck in Sydney traffic along military road and thru chatswood. Rarely do I see speeds beyond 100km and no twisty roads to speak of. Fml

But seriously, I owned a evo9 before and a wrx as well as an s2000, and my brother had a b5 rs4 for many years, in my real world experience, none of the power delivery made that much of a difference to how I drove, except the s2000 was very tail happy and more fun than any of the other cars I've ever driven
IMO awd in proper real world where people suffer the monotony of life has no impact.

[AdamD]

Having driven the GTI in the wet it performs very well, all the electronic aids help you do exactly what you want for every day relatively spirited driving.

The electronics are great, and I'd describe the GTI's traction as exceptionally good for a front driver, but the 4Motion will still outdo it for rapid ham-fisted slow/tight corner exits every time - wet or dry.

However - and here's the kicker for me - while the GTI will wheelspin (on takeoff, in slower corners, etc etc), it won't degenerate into messy understeer or nasty axle-tramp unless you're intentionally driving like a tool. It stays nicely composed and feels very quick. The R just grips and goes: it's massively effective, but I find it isolates you from the action a little.

Your mileage may vary.

[Mountainman]

IMO awd in proper real world where people suffer the monotony of life has no impact.

Real world - drive a reasonably powerful front drive car without traction control in the wet especially with hilly starts - Brisbane has heaps of them - and then see the difference awd makes. I know exactly what it's like comparing our old V6 Camry manual with the Forester.

[team_v]

The electronics are great, and I'd describe the GTI's traction as exceptionally good for a front driver, but the 4Motion will still outdo it for rapid ham-fisted slow/tight corner exits every time - wet or dry.

You still have to be wary of throttle control with the 4Mo though.
If you plant your right foot, it will break traction and understeer if the road is slippery enough (oil on the road from old falcadores etc)
Smooth acceleration with 4Mo will get you away quicker but how often will it be utilised in day to day driving?

Even when i come home at 5am i still end up being stuck behind some tradie ute most of the drive so i can't fang it.

[AdamD]

Real world - drive a reasonably powerful front drive car without traction control in the wet especially with hilly starts - Brisbane has heaps of them - and then see the difference awd makes. I know exactly what it's like comparing our old V6 Camry manual with the Forester.

Granted there'd be a big difference there between the vehicles you've mentioned. But this isn't comparing apples with apples by a long shot.

My GTI has vastly better power-down than the last two Hondas I've had - neither of which had as much power as the VW. The last Camry V6 I drove was worse again.

[AdamD]

You still have to be wary of throttle control with the 4Mo though.
If you plant your right foot, it will break traction and understeer if the road is slippery enough (oil on the road from old falcadores etc)

Agreed. Assuming you're invulnerable to wheelspin and traction issues with a 4Motion is just asking for trouble. Mind you, I don't think the poster above was raising that issue - we're all sensible guys who know that all cars have limits.

[dave_r]

Not sure what "real world" u guys live in

Mine involves buying the car I decide is better, not what some guy told me (regardless of his experience, never heard of this Derek).

IMO awd in proper real world where people suffer the monotony of life has no impact.

So wouldn't a stage 3 (GTI or R) be pointless in 45kms of traffic?

[walbjj]

Mine involves buying the car I decide is better, not what some guy told me (regardless of his experience, never heard of this Derek).


So wouldn't a stage 3 (GTI or R) be pointless in 45kms of traffic?

Derek smith owns and operates European autotech, google it. It's one of the most respected Audi and vag independents in Sydney.
I listen to him as he knows his stuff, plus i have asked around and many people say similar things

Plus, I never said I was going stage 3 apr, or for that matter, any mods. I've been there with previous cars. And while it's fun for that time period I'm no longer motivated by such things. I just want something nice

[Corey_R]

Mine involves buying the car I decide is better, not what some guy told me (regardless of his experience, never heard of this Derek).

So wouldn't a stage 3 (GTI or R) be pointless in 45kms of traffic?

Derek is from European Autotech and is a well known and respected guy in Euro circles. Works on VW's Audi's Porsche's all the time, and the odd BMW and Merc.

His comments are completely valid in the context of Stage 3 machines on the track. The Motor Magazine Hot Tuner challenge just confirms this - less than 2 seconds between the R and the GTI in the wet!

But Stage 3 machines cost $35k more than stock and replace the intake, turbo, full exhaust, several other ancillery engine stuff. They also replace the brakes, suspensions, wheels, roll bars, clutches, diffs. There is a huge difference between them and even a "Stage 2/2+" car. Which is why Derek's comments are valid in their context.

But it's a silly argument to use his comments to justify the purchase of a stock or even Stage 1 or 2 GTI over an R for street use etc. (imo)