We get terribly hung up over numbers when it comes to our cars, don't we? I'll put this down to the fact that before we could all actually drive we had two things to go on in order to rank the cars we dreamed over.
You could base argument on the quality of the reviewing journalist's adjectives and overblown metaphors. Or you could skip straight to the data panel at the end and go by the numbers. Those debates have moved from the playground and pub into the virtual world but data will always (top) trump purple prose, right?
Does the SEAT's value leave the Golf trailing?
Not necessarily! Obviously I have personal interest here in making the fuzzy stuff about how a car makes you feel and the more descriptive comparisons matter too. Furthermore, taking Matt's
Leon Cupra 280
along to the photoshoot for our
Golf GTI marketwatch
was very revealing. A back to back comparison with the VW booked in for modelling duties raised plentiful questions about value for money, perceived and actual.
Let's get some numbers out of the way first. A 280hp SEAT Leon Cupra 280 three-door with a manual gearbox like the basis of Matt's car would cost you £26,945. The commendably bare bones three-door 220hp Golf GTI manual we had lists at £26,330. Golf cheaper shocker.
Until you try and spec it to some sort of parity with the Leon. To get the VAQ diff the SEAT has as standard add £995, for 19s another £985 and for a basic nav (again standard on the Leon) a further £750, adding up to £29,060 - an additional £2,115. And even with the GTI Performance power bump it's still 50hp down.
Bring out the score cards and you've got a SEAT based on the same platform as the Golf with identical engine and transmission but more power and effectively costing over £2,000 less.
So why, given the choice - or perhaps a pair of test drives from respective dealerships - would I have driven away in the Golf, happily two grand and a few horsepower lighter?
Numbers only tell half the story in this comparison
I'd say it's an indefinable character, seasoned with a bit of vanity that'd make me willing to accept less power for more money. But that does a disservice to the giant spreadsheet I'd like to think exists somewhere in Wolfsburg that charts and plots the exact pricing and attributes for each platform sharing product. Both brand hierarchy and customer expectation need to be managed, after all.
From driving both I can see only one possible explanation - that SEAT was handed all the parts, permitted an on-paper power advantage for marketing benefit (torque is actually identical on both at 258lb ft and performance near identical) but instructed to make the package 5.95 per cent less satisfactory than the Golf by every key measure. OK, I made that figure up. But I bet there's a figure like it somewhere, I'll swear.
In practice this meant the SEAT's gearshift is 5.95 per cent more flaccid than the Golf's, the brakes 5.95 per cent more grabby, the steering 5.95 per cent less pleasing, the power delivery 5.95 per cent less modulated, the NVH 5.95 per cent less favourable and so on. Having driven the SEAT up to the shoot along a favourite B-road and been astonished by both the outrageous performance and total lack of involvement therein the Golf just felt ... nicer. And no slower.
At every level the SEAT screams bang for buck, value for money, hp per £ or whatever objective comparison you want to throw at it. But the moment your bum hits the tartan cloth of the Golf's seat there's just an involuntary sigh of (self) satisfaction. But maybe I'm just a sucker.