Golf R -v- Golf GTI

[AdamD]

I figure that's the "lag" that everyone is talking about... whether it's technically lag or not...

If it looks like lag and smells like lag...

But seriously - I wonder if the EA113 + K04 off-boost is in fact less torquey than the EA888 + K03 off boost (irrespective of the fact that the GTI is tuned to come on boost sooner)?

On that, how much of the perceived low-down torque hole is due to simple tuning (ECU preventing the turbo from spooling up), as opposed to the larger turbo requiring more revs to spin up and causing increased back-pressure until it does so (ie: lag)? As many have said, the K04 ain't that much bigger than a K03 really... if it's down to the tune, perhaps it's for economy reasons? (There seems to be a huge gap in fuel consumption between the two cars; and yes I know there are many other contributing factors for that, including weight.)

I used to drive my dad's old Mitsubishi Cordia Turbo (AB series, 110kw, 980kg) every once in a while... it was light so it was quick on-boost, but wow that had lag. Scary in the wet when it finally came on strong.

[Big_Dave]

Yeah they were fast in a straight line.
Voted "most likely to take a life" by a number of car mags. (didn't like corners)

But a hell of a lotta fun!

[Corey_R]

Awesome video of a Euro Cup Race @ Sepang Circuit - MK6 GTIs and RS250s.

APR GTI FTW!!!! The exhaust is hoon! RS250s seem to understeer a lot.

That's a cool race. I so wish we had more oppportunities for racing here in Australia.
For all the froggies ripping into VW recently, this clearly shows that the cars are quite even when all is said and done... well, maybe the VW's have the slight edge... either that, or better drivers buy VW's instead of Renaults

It's interesting to note how deep into the corners this guy can drive his GTI. We know from things like the MOTOR Hot Tuner challenge that even with upgraded brake kits, the Golf still "struggles" a bit. I wonder what chassis work he has done to help with the braking?

The other interesting thing to note, that APR USA is also doing really well in the Grand-Am Continental Tire Sports Car Challenge. Their drivers are in the 1 and 2 spots in the "Street Tuner" class, as well as #1 Team spot for APR and Volkswagen. Though being the USA, there is no Renaults (there are Subaru's and BMW's etc in their class though...)

[WhiteJames]

The Golf has a very good chassis design. After driving the Renault Megane RS250, I wouldn’t say that the Golf MKV/MKVI is beginning to feel its age, but it could be improved on in some respects. The Golf MK7 platform will offer a wider track as in the case of the Renault RS250. The wider track should improve handling of the MK7 Golf with a lower centre of gravity. A Revo-Knuckle and proper LSD would further improve the GTI.

Suspension tunes these days, on nearly all hot hatches, are tuned to offer slight to mild understeer without any nasty lift-off oversteer as some early model hot-hatches did. Nearly all hot-hatchbacks have grown up in terms of handling dynamics in this respect. XDS and DCC also aids in the reduction of understeer in the Mark 6 GTI. XDS works very well at higher speeds as the YouTube video of the race shows.

Going back to the last review of GTI – RS250:

Have to mention that the coarse chip bitumen roadways around Canberra didn’t help the GTI in terms of grip levels. Wasn’t a much of a difference in the different makes of tyres between the two (Bridgestone –v- Michelin). Coarse chip bitumen is okay for the wet where water sinks into the crevices, but in the dry it can compromise grip levels, even with XDS. A proper LSD was leagues ahead in this type of roadway. The difference between the two on smooth and grippy bitumen is not so pronounced.

Also have to mention that at 60-80kph speeds on rough country roadways the DCC suspension has only firmed up to a certain level, even in Sport setting. Over 100kph the DCC becomes firmer again, improving the GTI’s agility and control over rough roadways. Although the GTI doesn’t offer the amount of spring rate or suspension finesse that the Megane RS250 offers.

Cheers
WJ

[WhiteJames]

In respect to the results of the most recent Dyno Day Thread (NSW) on this forum & taking into account the highest posted outputs for the modified Golf R and Golf GTI ... both with like for like bigger KO4 turbos (aftermarket BTK in case of GTI) and the following upgrades:

EA888 TSI - Stage II Golf GTI - 222kW.
EA113 TFSI - Stage II+ Golf R - 198kW.

Would it be safe to say that the newer EA888 motor in the Mark 6 Golf GTI is better than the older EA113 Golf R to the tune of about 25kW?

Generalised quarter miles times for the same GTI (KO4) and similarly upgraded Golf R (Stage II+)?

GTI (KO4): 13.0 sec dead.
Golf R: 13.3 sec.

Cheers
WJ

[Corey_R]

*shakes head*

They weren't using an engine dyno buddy. They were using a chassis dyno. The AWD cars read lower than the FWD cars because of additional drivetrain losses, and possibly other factors. DeanCorp's EA113 TFSI "Stage II+" Pirelli GTI did 219kW, AND it was in the proper gear, 4th, and not in 3rd gear... so now where's the difference?

As for the 13.3 sec Golf R time. That was a Stage I time.
So lets not start mis-interpretting/misrepresenting figures to support your case

[brad]

EA888 TSI - Stage II Golf GTI - 222kW.
EA113 TFSI - Stage II+ Golf R - 198kW.

Would it be safe to say that the newer EA888 motor in the Mark 6 Golf GTI is better than the older EA113 Golf R to the tune of about 25kW?

No, not really. The R has greater driveline losses. From my experience the FWD only loses about 15%, whereas AWD loses closer to 30%. Work on that & you'll find the guestimated flywheel figure to be pretty close.
Totally non-bias as I've been running an EA888 block for almost 3 years now.

I really don't believe the design of the EA888 was for power - more for reduced manufacting costs, greater fuel economy, easier servicing & to stop people bitching about 4 yearly timing belt replacements.

[WhiteJames]

Fair enough. Went back & had a look at the actual video to see AWD cars tested on AWD dyno. Assumed Mainline disabled the Haldex and ran the front only for dyno testing. Couldn't find any Pirelli GTI with 218kW on that list. Highest GTI Pirelli was 181kW with the other at 168kW ... well shy of the 222kW KO4 Mark 6 GTI.

Here's what mainline have to say about 3rd and 4th gear testing:

Just to clarify some of the comments in here regarding what gear you should use etc. The "number" you see on your dyno printout on a Mainline Dyno includes measured power at the rollers (plus Atmos correction), inertial losses of the dyno and windage (pumping) losses of the dyno, this ensures you will get very close power readings regardless of the gear tested in. What we don't do, is factor in "assumed" vehicle losses that some other dyno manufacturers do.
If a car happens to make slightly more in 3rd that 4th on a Mainline Dyno, it is solely due to the cars wheels consuming the power as road speed increases.
I tested a few cars in 3rd and 4th on the day just for my own curiosity, and there was about 3-5kw worst case between a 3rd or 4th gear run on a Golf R at about the 180AWKW level. As your power goes up it is entirely likely you will make more power in 4th than 3rd as tyre losses increase.
There is no "must use" gear to dyno a car in, the gear chosen is simply one of three overall ratios bewteen the engine and the dyno roller, there is the gear used, the final drive ratio and then the tyre to roller ratio. The stigma of using 4th gear relates back to an old conventional RWD platform car where when 4th gear was used the power was transmitted straight through the gear box via the main shaft, whereas if 3rd was used there would be extra losses due to the helical shape of the gears causing end thrust on the cluster gear assembly.
I have used 3rd gear for AWD VW/Audis at these dyno days for 4 years now, and only keep doing so, so people can make valid comparisons, as there is always a lot of guys who always return.
In future, if 4th gear is what the "gurus" want to see, so be it.
One of the cars I tested had a graph sitting on the passenger floor from the shop who does the Melbourne Dyno Day, and I tested this car in 4th gear, and it was 3kw less than his graph stated when tested in 4th, for a comparative result.
Bottom line, using 3rd is not cheating, it is merely a testing method. Hope this helps.

Has anyone with a Stage II/II+ Golf R cracked the 13.0 sec barrier for the 1/4 mile?

Cheers
WJ

[AdamD]

Has anyone with a Stage II/II+ Golf R cracked the 13.0 sec barrier for the 1/4 mile?

Ferret has.

[adzy]

The Golf has a very good chassis design. After driving the Renault Megane RS250, I wouldn’t say that the Golf MKV/MKVI is beginning to feel its age, but it could be improved on in some respects.
WJ

I have never mentioned this before but since day one of owning my MKV GTI I was amazed and appalled at how soft the chassis is; as in torsional rigidity. I have never owned a car before that was so sloppy in chassis stiffness to the point that you can HEAR the ruber window seals creaking every time you enter a drive way??? It still eats away at me and is now even more pronounced since I have a firmer suspension set up. It becomes even more evident how torsionally sloppy it is when you hear the sub-frame bolts ticking/clicking in similar circumstances.
Love my VW's but I would never say the MKV, MKVI chassis' come any where near the poise and rigidity of the RS250.