How Does Mark VI GTI Compare with Mark V

[Dubya]

My only fear is that the MK6 variants won't be as distinctive as in the MKV, the forthcoming MK6 GT diesel for instance, seems to be a lot like a GTI to me, perhaps too much so!

You know, the other thing too, Greg, is that with all this discussion about the subtlety of the changes between the Mark V and Mark VI Golfs, it is worth remembering that the changes between Marks III and IV were not that immense either, to the untrained eye, certainly nothing like the leap VW took from Mark IV to V.

In fact, I found it difficult to know whether I was looking at a Mark III or IV until I figured out the different styling cues around the headlights and more contemporary profile of the Mark IV.

I guess it's the case that a lot of VW Group products tend to evolve, rather than depart from, the DNA of their predecessors.

[Corey_R]

Not that I've ever had problems picking which MK a Golf is, even at distance, the MK I and II were also pretty similar in styling.

Having said that, the ONLY exterior panel or items that are shared between the MKV and MK6 are the standard 17" wheels, and the roof panel. Every single other panel and feature has changed. So when you see them side by side, they're really NOT that similar at all!

I'm quite impress with how much they have changed, considering the MK6 was always intended to just be a 'refinement' on the MKV to streamline the production process to return the Golf to profitability.

[Dubya]

Is the rim of the Mark VI GTI steering wheel thinner than the rim of the steering wheel of the Mark V GTI?

[Corey_R]

I haven't got a tape measure out to scientifically check, but the GTI felt about the same to me.
Have you had a drive of a MK6 yet Dubya ?

[Dubya]

I haven't got a tape measure out to scientifically check, but the GTI felt about the same to me.
Have you had a drive of a MK6 yet Dubya ?

I drove a Mark VI GTI yesterday and the steering wheel rim did not feel as thick as the one on the Mark V GTI (although around the thumb grips it felt the same so it was probably just my 'magination and they appear the same in their respective brochures).

However I do not believe that I was imagining significantly improved traction under hard acceleration (courtesy XDL I gather) which probably explains most, if not all, of the 0.3 sec improvement in 0-100km/h time which has dropped from from 7.2 to 6.9 sec.

I noticed that a digital speed readout has been added to the MFD and that it matched the speed indicated on the analogue speedo - so I wonder if they are accurate or if you can still get a more accurate speed reading from the climate control temperature display as, bizarrely, you could on the Mark V.

See here for the different data that may be read from the temperature display on Mark V Golfs and instructions on how to display them:
http://www.vwwatercooled.org.au/newf...do+temperature

While I've longed for a driver's seat with tilt adjustment since I got my GTI, I don't think what seem to be negligible improvements in driving position outweigh the downsides of having a motorised seat (slower to adjust, costlier, more likely to fail, more costly to repair - and no memory which would have made it all worthwhile!). So I will not be coughing up the $600 for that option. A manual tilt function (a la US GTIs) would have sufficed.

Apart from leather, sunroof and metallic paint, the only options that interest me are reversing camera, MDI + cables, rubber boot liner and floor mats. (Oh, I nearly forgot, a bit of rhinoplasty!) Any other must-haves?

Cheers

[Corey_R]

However I do not believe that I was imagining significantly improved traction under hard acceleration (courtesy XDL I gather) which probably explains most, if not all, of the 0.3 sec improvement in 0-100km/h time which has dropped from from 7.2 to 6.9 sec.

The XDL should have almost no effect on straight line acceleration unless one wheel starts losing grip whilst the other has full traction. The benefit of XDL is in the corners.

I noticed that a digital speed readout has been added to the MFD and that it matched the speed indicated on the analogue speedo - so I wonder if they are accurate or if you can still get a more accurate speed reading from the climate control temperature display as, bizarrely, you could on the Mark V.

Are you sure the digital speedo was matching the analogue? It shouldn't. It should be displaying about 7% lower than the analogue. The analogue complies with the ADR which means at 100 you should be doing about 93 - which should be accurately displayed on the digital speedo, and was in the MK6's that I've test driven, and seems to be that way on other forum members cars here based on past threads on that very subject.

See here for the different data that may be read from the temperature display on Mark V Golfs and instructions on how to display them:
http://www.vwwatercooled.org.au/newf...do+temperature

Coolies, thanks for that link. Wish I knew about that when I still had my MKV

While I've longed for a driver's seat with tilt adjustment since I got my GTI, I don't think what seem to be negligible improvements in driving position outweigh the downsides of having a motorised seat (slower to adjust, costlier, more likely to fail, more costly to repair - and no memory which would have made it all worthwhile!). So I will not be coughing up the $600 for that option. A manual tilt function (a la US GTIs) would have sufficed.

I agree, I'd LOVE to have tilt adjustment on the GTI's seats. They'd be the perfect seats almost then!
Btw, did the electronic adjustment have any memory buttons? To me that's the main reason I'd get an electronically adjustable seat, so I can program my seating position into one of the memory buttons, and my girlfriends into another. Nothing worse than having two very differently sized people driving the one car and constantly having to 'find the sweet spot' each time you swap.

Apart from leather, sunroof and metallic paint, the only options that interest me are reversing camera, MDI + cables, rubber boot liner and floor mats. (Oh, I nearly forgot, a bit of rhinoplasty!) Any other must-haves?

Xenons! Dynaudio if you like your music. Oh, and ACC if you plan on having 18" wheels and you feel the roads are crap

[elisiX]

Are you sure the digital speedo was matching the analogue? It shouldn't. It should be displaying about 7% lower than the analogue. The analogue complies with the ADR which means at 100 you should be doing about 93 - which should be accurately displayed on the digital speedo, and was in the MK6's that I've test driven, and seems to be that way on other forum members cars here based on past threads on that very subject.

EDIT

Nevermind - I misread.

Just to confirm though - A digital speedo will display 93 when traveling 100, but the analogue will be 100% accurate?

[Corey_R]

EDIT

Nevermind - I misread.

Just to confirm though - A digital speedo will display 93 when traveling 100, but the analogue will be 100% accurate?

No... the digital speed is accurate (as long as your wheels and tyres etc are still the factory rolling circumference), the analogue speedo is also displaying about 7-8% faster than what you're really doing, so that people dont accidently get caught speeding etc.

So yeah... you're driving along, thinking you're doing 100kph on the freeway because that's what your analogue speedo says you're doing, but you're really only doing 93kph.
On the MKV's and Polo's you can tell what you're really doing using GPS's or the average speed on the trip computer (if you reset it whilst doing '100' etc). And as Dubya has linked to above, there is a funky trick you can do with the old climate control system.
But with the MK6 you have a brand new digital speedo right there in the MFD!

Edit: Just to make sure that was clear. Digital = Accurate. Analogue = Inaccurate to comply with the ADR.

[elisiX]

So my girls Mazda 3 which has no digital display, is actually going 93 KM/H when the speedo shows 100 KM/H?... lol. Makes sense I guess - no wonder we never get tickets.

And if I upgrade wheels from say 17" stock to the 19" desired (depending on tyre choice), the analogue speed will then be accurate and the digital under reading? (or thereabouts?)

Or is the digital always correct due to it running off the GPS?

[Corey_R]

When you upgrade your wheels, you're meant to keep the same rolling circumference.
So the GTI has two options:
225/45R17 on 17" x 7.5" wheels.
225/40R18 on 18" x 7.5" wheels.

So you can see that when upgrading from 17" to 18" wheels, the profile of the tyre reduces so that you still have basically the same rolling circumference.
This means that when you go to 19" wheels, you need:
225/35R19 on 19" x 7.5" wheels.

With the GTI you can go to 8" wheel width with 235 width tyres and not have rubbing. But Alex from Harding Performance told me that people who run 245 width tyres have had issues with rubbing.

Anyway, there are good calculators on the internet for figuring this all out.
This one for example

Using this you can see that there is only a 0.5% inaccuracy (speedo reading slower than it should) between the difference 17" and 18" wheel. When you change to the 19" wheel it is then 0.9% slower.
If you go for 235/40R18 it'll be 1.7% too slow, and 235/35R19 will be 2% too slow.

What this all means, is that if you had the 235/35R19, if you're speedo was 100% accurate, at 100kph you'd be doing 102kph. But because VW has purposely made your speedo faster than your real speed, if 100kph used to be 93kph, with those 235/35R19's you'd now be doing 94.86kph.
Of course, because the digital speedo is showing the 'accurate' speed, when it says you're doing 100kph you'd actually be doing 102kph !

Edit: And of course, the digital speed's accuracy is important because your odometre, trip computer, and therefore average speeds, fuel consumption calcuations etc, are all dependant on having the rolling circumference matched as closely as possible so that the digital speedo is accurate. So if you really did ignore the tyre size calculator and went for something very different, you'd need to go somewhere to have the car re-calibrated.