Golf R -v- Golf GTI

[Mountainman]

You missed my point. Isn't this a big discrepancy between what VW is claiming?

Some more than others.
0-100 Manufacturer's Claims/Wheels Test:
GTI manual 6.9/7.2
GTI DSG 6.9/6.6
R manual 5.9/6.4
WRX 5.3/5.4

[orkers]

Appreciate what you are saying around the reported figures for WRX vs Golf R, but I've had a traffic light GP with a 2011 WRX on numerous occasions (the same one, guy from work) and i'm consistently in front when we hit (and instantly slow down) the 80km limit on this particular road.

We even swapped cars once and still the R was in front, so it is less likely (although not impossible) that it is driver error.

[Ideo]

What am I getting at? Exactly as I stated - no wonder the APR rush is popular with the new WRX spanking the GTI / R in acceleration like that.
In reality the Suby's have nothing on the VW? Huh? A second over the quarter on the R and almost 2 seconds to 100 over the manual GTI is hardly nothing.
WOW factor? Well it appears to me from the figures above that it is worth a WOW.

I'm sure most people who bought an R also test drove a WRX, or at least considered it. I did, wasn't as impressed as I was the R despite it being quicker.

Besides, if I wanted to go quick in a straight line there are countless other cars that are quicker in a straight line than a WRX.

If you base car buying decisions solely on 0-100 times then, good for you. Others don't.

[team_v]

I'm sure most people who bought an R also test drove a WRX, or at least considered it. I did, wasn't as impressed as I was the R despite it being quicker.

Besides, if I wanted to go quick in a straight line there are countless other cars that are quicker in a straight line than a WRX.

If you base car buying decisions solely on 0-100 times then, good for you. Others don't.

I can see where Mountainman is coming from.
A lot of the people who commented in this thread as prospective R owners used the "it's quicker than a GTI through corners or to 100km/h" as their argument for the purchase so i can't see how it is not valid now against another make/model in the similar price range.

Having said that i would never buy a new subaru because they look like the design team was on crack and studied picasso before drawing up designs for their newest models. And the fact that people are compromising more and more now to get a "bit of everything" vehicle rather than a dedicated 1 purpose vehicle.

Will be interesting to see who subaru compete against now with Mitsu pulling the plug on the Evo.

Some say that VW is about to become the new Toyota. If the new Passat is solmething to judge by well, I think they're right...

Sent from my MB525 using Tapatalk

I agree mate.
Debadge the Passat and you have an Aurion in my eyes.

[sabloke]

Some say that VW is about to become the new Toyota. If the new Passat is something to judge by well, I think they're right...

Sent from my MB525 using Tapatalk

[bwen]

But that doesn't explain why the WRX is a second quicker to 400m than an R when they would both be in 4th gear at that stage.

It would be good if you posted the 60ft time and also trap speed of the quarter mile times also as they also play a major role in comparing cars. The Golf R has plenty more power in them as they were 'detuned' for the Australian climate 199kw to 188kw which is still less than the WRX (I think). The WRX is a pretty good all-rounder straight from the factory floor, 2.5L turbo AWD compared to the R's 2L capacity but it still doesn't explain why people buy Golf Rs in the first place

[markwid]

The WRX is a pretty good all-rounder straight from the factory floor, 2.5L turbo AWD compared to the R's 2L capacity but it still doesn't explain why people buy Golf Rs in the first place

Superficial but the fact that WRX looks like it has been hit with the ugly stick, probably has a lot to do with this.

[dave_r]

The WRX is a pretty good all-rounder straight from the factory floor, 2.5L turbo AWD compared to the R's 2L capacity but it still doesn't explain why people buy Golf Rs in the first place

The WRX has good performance but not everyone likes the look of it or finds the interior a nice place to be. STI/Evo in the same category. Great performance but they're a horrible place to be day to day if you ask me. And not everyone likes the look at me attention of them.

[Transporter]

The WRX has good performance but not everyone likes the look of it or finds the interior a nice place to be. STI/Evo in the same category. Great performance but they're a horrible place to be day to day if you ask me. And not everyone likes the look at me attention of them.

It's hard to argue with that.

[littlejohn]

What am I getting at? Exactly as I stated - no wonder the APR rush is popular with the new WRX spanking the GTI / R in acceleration like that.
In reality the Suby's have nothing on the VW? Huh? A second over the quarter on the R and almost 2 seconds to 100 over the manual GTI is hardly nothing.
WOW factor? Well it appears to me from the figures above that it is worth a WOW.

That's not reality... well not for the large majority of owners of any of the vehicles that you mention.
I would hazard a guess that 99% of owners never see a drag strip, and about 98% will never do a traffic light drag either.
So in reality, ie the world where 99% of owners live, 1/4mile times and 0-100 times mean nothing. But in my case, seeing that I own both the WRX and a golf R. I can say the numbers you posted are not accurate for the cars I own. Perhaps I have a dud WRX, who knows, but it feels like every other stock WRX I've driven.

Don't get me wrong, the WRX is a great workhorse, but it's no powerhouse in stock form. My previous car to the Golf R was a RX8, adn that was way more fun than the WRX.