RE: VW Golf R: PH Fleet

[Darsettian]

PK0001 said:

Agree the Subaru is a more rewarding car to drive

However Golf R is :

More comfortable
More economical
Has smarter interior
Is more refined
Has a better image[*]
Has better residuals
Can use it for business meetings, could not do that in Subaru

Each to their own though as you say

[*]I think what you may mean is: you prefer the image that you take to be associated with the VW Golf.

The 'image' of a given car may be interpreted by different people in different ways. There's also variance in people's ideas of desirable brand values.

I accept there's a broadly held idea that VAG products are relatively classy/high quality. What I don't accept is that a) this idea should be taken for granted without reference to demonstrable facts; or b) even if brand values are factually demonstrable, that that would necessarily make one brand 'better' than another.

I see brands as myths. Stories. A manufacturer will make myths about its products--within its scope to do so, of course. They're not the SOLE authors of their own myths; the press, the public, and circumstances all contribute. But certainly, the repetition of an idea over a long period of time, if not loudly refuted, will begin to stick.

Key thing I tell myself is: be aware of the part myth-making plays in your choices. And refrain from allowing it to spoil rational, independent thought.

Above all, enjoy your purchase. You've most likely earned it.

Edited by Darsettian on Friday 10th April 08:20

[GravelBen]

PK0001 said:

Agree the Subaru is a more rewarding car to drive

However Golf R is :

More comfortable ... Probably yes, different compromise between comfort and driver involvement
More economical ... Tests and owners reports suggest very similar fuel economy in the real world
Has smarter interior ... See first point, though looks are subjective
Is more refined ... see first point
Has a better image ... matter of personal taste, may be relevant to your choice but to assume the same for others is a non-argument
Has better residuals ... real numbers (previous models etc)suggest otherwise
Can use it for business meetings, could not do that in Subaru ... 5th point repeated. And why couldn't you?

Each to their own though as you say

Playing devils advocate a bit with your points above, but basically you're saying several times that it has a more comfortable interior, and you think it looks more respectable.

Personal taste though, obviously thats more important to you (and many others) than the extra degree of driving involvement/enjoyment while I'd probably go the other way myself.

Edited by GravelBen on Friday 10th April 06:17

[ORD]

A lot of what is wrong with the R isn't really VW's fault:-

(1) The stupid combined cycle gives very unrealistic mpg and CO2 figures for 4 cyl turbo engines.

(2) The stupid government sets VED and BIK rates by reference to those stupid CO2 figures.

(3) Business customers and (stupid) private customers attach huge weight to the above.

These factors rule out using a NA 6 cylinder engine. This results in needing to use embarrassing fake engine noise.

(4) The motoring press and most 'car enthusiasts' are obsessed with headline power and, especially, torque figures.

(5) Likewise for 0-60 times.

These two factors rule out retaining a FWD only platform, as it wouldn't cope with 300bhp or give an impressive 0-60 time.
(6) The general public has swallowed hook, line and sinker the idea that you need AWD to pootle along on a damp road.

This makes it inevitable that AWD is seen as a good thing by most buyers, even though it largely kills driving pleasure, adds weight and cost and makes the car pretty much dead on public roads.

I bet a lot of the real driving enthusiasts at VW would have much preferred to use a peaky V6 driving the front wheels, but that's not really on the table.
BMW had real advantages with the 135i in that it has a turbo 6 pot that can cheat the tests, and it had a RWD platform so could put in lots of power without needing AWD to get it down.

[nickfrog]

A RWD car is undriveable in the wet.

[ORD]

nickfrog said:

A RWD car is undriveable in the wet.

Either utterly brilliant piss-take or something to be put in "Stupid things non-petrolheads say".

[TC33]

I've done this before, but its almost the same as a 1.2 shopping trolley one. I don't see how its "impressive"..





OOOOOOO I love spot the difference
1. Top photo missing trees in background
2. Top Photo missing string fence in background
3. Bottom photo has white lines on floor which are not in top photo
4. Top photo missing shack in background.
- It's getting tough now!! Must be something different with the cars, just need to look harder -
5. Ahh I got it Top photo car is RHD and bottom is LHD.
Boom! What do I win?
Edit .. 6. Found another, very small bench in background of bottom photo not in top.

Edited by TC33 on Friday 10th April 11:08

Edited by TC33 on Friday 10th April 11:09

[Blown2CV]

We, as Brits, don't like it when people go on about something bring good. We find fault, to knock it down a peg or two. All of the discussions on the Golf R are driven by that, and defensive reactions to it. It's a car, not a religion. Very few (no?) cars in that price bracket offer no compromises, or don't have some kind of failings.

Compared with the PH mainstay, TVR, it's as fast as my old 5L, less of an event and less raw, but more practical and comfy. In my head, that's about it. In life, you compromise. Next time I'll have something more raw maybe, or maybe something bigger. I like to change up the cars that I have, rather than just doggedly insist that only one car can meet my needs and everything else "is st".

I like it, one of my better cars tbh, but this endless arguing is really boring.

[ORD]

Blown2CV said:

We, as Brits, don't like it when people go on about something bring good. We find fault, to knock it down a peg or two. All of the discussions on the Golf R are driven by that, and defensive reactions to it. It's a car, not a religion. Very few (no?) cars in that price bracket offer no compromises, or don't have some kind of failings.

Compared with the PH mainstay, TVR, it's as fast as my old 5L, less of an event and less raw, but more practical and comfy. In my head, that's about it. In life, you compromise. Next time I'll have something more raw maybe, or maybe something bigger. I like to change up the cars that I have, rather than just doggedly insist that only one car can meet my needs and everything else "is st".

I like it, one of my better cars tbh, but this endless arguing is really boring.

I think the R is a useful focus for a lot of discussions about cars more generally. For example:-

(1) It is a mega-hatch / performance hatch. A new car type, and one that raises a lot of interesting questions about why we like fast cars.

(2) It is an AWD "sporty" car, which always attracts debate.

(3) It is a go-faster version of a standard car. These usually generate little rants

(4) It has an interesting engine - high output, smallish capacity turbo with a big difference between official and real world mpg. A couple of points for discussion there.

(5) It is obtained almost uniquely on lease, giving rise to the usual lease rants.

I understand the frustration, but nobody is really criticising the car. It's a good car. It just represents a lot in terms of industry developments, and there are plenty of people who have things to say about developments like the move to 4cyl turbo engines and AWD in "sporty" cars.

[anonymous-user]

TC33 said:

I've done this before, but its almost the same as a 1.2 shopping trolley one. I don't see how its "impressive"..





OOOOOOO I love spot the difference
1. Top photo missing trees in background
2. Top Photo missing string fence in background
3. Bottom photo has white lines on floor which are not in top photo
4. Top photo missing shack in background.
- It's getting tough now!! Must be something different with the cars, just need to look harder -
5. Ahh I got it Top photo car is RHD and bottom is LHD.
Boom! What do I win?
Edit .. 6. Found another, very small bench in background of bottom photo not in top.

Edited by TC33 on Friday 10th April 11:08

Edited by TC33 on Friday 10th April 11:09

These are the kind of points my Mum would make about those photos. Like you, she knows nothing about cars.

[nickfrog]

ORD said:

nickfrog said:

A RWD car is undriveable in the wet.

Either utterly brilliant piss-take or something to be put in "Stupid things non-petrolheads say".

I'll let you decide which it is ;-)

[bitchstewie]

nickfrog said:

ORD said:

nickfrog said:

A RWD car is undriveable in the wet.

Either utterly brilliant piss-take or something to be put in "Stupid things non-petrolheads say".

I'll let you decide which it is ;-)

Where did this myth come from?

I grew up believing that if I ever set foot behind the wheel of any BMW I was as good as dead at the first drop of rain.

[nickfrog]

I am not sure where it comes from. Maybe the lack of understanding of the traction circle. I grew up with my dad driving a 505 Turbo with brutal power delivery, old tech tyres and no aids. Loved it.

[andrewparker]

TC33 said:

I've done this before...

And I bet it wasn't nearly as entertaining the first time.

[andrewparker]

Darsettian said:

I see brands as myths. Stories. A manufacturer will make myths about its products--within its scope to do so, of course. They're not the SOLE authors of their own myths; the press, the public, and circumstances all contribute. But certainly, the repetition of an idea over a long period of time, if not loudly refuted, will begin to stick.

Absolutely, this is what all successful brands do. They create brand ambassadors, because having "someone" talk about your brand is far more credible than "you" talking about it. The "myths" as you put it are in fact brand values. Reinforce these brand values and personality traits in everything you do and it will start to stick eventually. Non of it can ever be considered factual - you either buy into it or you don't.

[Mtnboarder]

Just found this after not using the site in a number of years..

Recently test drove a Golf R, after protracted and dismal communication with several salesmen, one of whom was barely literate. I have to say it was extremely competent, just dull. Apart from being stiff to the point of discomfort (was running on 19's, 18s would ride better, but are just fugly) it just felt like a Golf that happened to be fast.

Also tested M235i and A45 AMG, found the variable steering rack far too vague around dead ahead, then too quick, too suddenly into a corner.

Picking up the A45 next week- It was the only one where I came away from the test smiling. And the manmaths put it only slightly more money than the Golf once nav/leather/ACC/DSG was added...

[Driver101]

andrewparker said:

Darsettian said:

I see brands as myths. Stories. A manufacturer will make myths about its products--within its scope to do so, of course. They're not the SOLE authors of their own myths; the press, the public, and circumstances all contribute. But certainly, the repetition of an idea over a long period of time, if not loudly refuted, will begin to stick.

Absolutely, this is what all successful brands do. They create brand ambassadors, because having "someone" talk about your brand is far more credible than "you" talking about it. The "myths" as you put it are in fact brand values. Reinforce these brand values and personality traits in everything you do and it will start to stick eventually. Non of it can ever be considered factual - you either buy into it or you don't.

People aren't talking about it positively though, they are taking the piss.

How is the R a successful brand ambassador?

People only lease them as they were cheap. Before the special deals nobody really talked that much about the 7R and previous R models were rare.

Now people have bought them, they have to justify them.

Selling out so many cheap Rs is only going to have a negative effect on all the other Golf range. Nobody is paying £25k for a Golf GTI when you can lease an R for £200 per month.

The Golf R in many ways is a modern version of what the Citroen Saxo VTS was in my youth. A good performance little hatch that attracted loads of aggressive young boys due to the cost. I remember Citroen gave teens a year free insurance on the VTS.

I read these thread about the Golf and especially the R and just laugh.

Owners seem to think the car has rewritten the rule book of motoring. If you sit back and look for 5 minutes it hasn't brought anything new to the table.

It's not the best looking hatch(nothing wrong with it though) it isn't the fastest hatch( lost track battles to lesser powered FWD cars, isn't on the same page as the RS3 or A45 AMG)

However I keep reading how this car can do so much more than anything else and gives you high respect taking it to a business meeting. It doesn't. Most people will overlook it as much as they do a Focus or Astra, you just blend in as ordinary to most.

It's a fast Golf. It's not a Porsche slayer, it won't command the respect of a nice saloon at a business meeting, it doesn't command the respect of petrolheads as owners suggest. It's the bad image that ruins the last bit as it is a good car.

You've got a good fast Golf and the rest is just getting way out of proportion with all this self belief.

Edited by Driver101 on Friday 10th April 14:03

[ORD]

bhstewie said:

nickfrog said:

ORD said:

nickfrog said:

A RWD car is undriveable in the wet.

Either utterly brilliant piss-take or something to be put in "Stupid things non-petrolheads say".

I'll let you decide which it is ;-)

Where did this myth come from?

I grew up believing that if I ever set foot behind the wheel of any BMW I was as good as dead at the first drop of rain.

It is a really weird one, isn't it?! A lot of perfectly sane, intelligent people seem to think that a modern RWD car will be snappy on a damp road. Nothing could be further from the truth. I cannot even imagine being able to get a C-class, for example, to do anything other than mild understeer at remotely legal speeds.

I have recently been trying to goad my wife's 320i into behaving slightly unpredictably in the wet (i.e. accelerating early in a corner, steering a bit sharply), and it is absurdly sure-footed and simply doesn't have enough power to get itself into trouble. By contrast, my car (Cayman S) has enough power to get into trouble but crazy amounts of mechanical grip even in the wet. To be honest, both feel a lot safer even in heavy rain than any shopping car that I have driven.

[bitchstewie]

ORD said:

It is a really weird one, isn't it?! A lot of perfectly sane, intelligent people seem to think that a modern RWD car will be snappy on a damp road. Nothing could be further from the truth. I cannot even imagine being able to get a C-class, for example, to do anything other than mild understeer at remotely legal speeds.

I have recently been trying to goad my wife's 320i into behaving slightly unpredictably in the wet (i.e. accelerating early in a corner, steering a bit sharply), and it is absurdly sure-footed and simply doesn't have enough power to get itself into trouble. By contrast, my car (Cayman S) has enough power to get into trouble but crazy amounts of mechanical grip even in the wet. To be honest, both feel a lot safer even in heavy rain than any shopping car that I have driven.

That's my point though, the first RWD I had was a 987 Boxster, so not absurdly fast but reasonably pokey and RWD - in the snow I cried like a girl (which is probably more to do with it being light and mid-engined so no weight on the wheels) but apart from that I never had a single issue in any kind of road conditions and certainly never gave a second thought to using it on wet roads and it's not as if I ever saw the traction control/ESP kick in.

[Derwins Revenge]

TC33 said:

I've done this before, but its almost the same as a 1.2 shopping trolley one. I don't see how its "impressive"..





OOOOOOO I love spot the difference
1. Top photo missing trees in background
2. Top Photo missing string fence in background
3. Bottom photo has white lines on floor which are not in top photo
4. Top photo missing shack in background.
- It's getting tough now!! Must be something different with the cars, just need to look harder -
5. Ahh I got it Top photo car is RHD and bottom is LHD.
Boom! What do I win?
Edit .. 6. Found another, very small bench in background of bottom photo not in top.

Edited by TC33 on Friday 10th April 11:08

Edited by TC33 on Friday 10th April 11:09

Thanks for that, you're right the R is very unimpressive looking. I'm happy that the R I'll be taking delivery of soon looks pretty much the same as a standard version. We don't all want massive wings flared arches etc to show people how much we know about cars or how 'fast' we are.

In fact, the only time I want my car to stand out is if I ever buy a proper sports or super car (unlikely), as the design is there for a reason generally. No hot hatch, quick saloon needs to look 'sporty'. Now, if only the R had the same exhaust exits as the shopping trolley model I'd be even happier, let's face it, they are st. I'm pretty sure the VW marketing people made the exhausts so ridiculous on purpose, so they can improve them for the MLF or the Mk8 and sell new versions to existing owners. Sorry, leasers.

Oh and my R will be a company car, very cheap lease deal. Those complaining that neds and chavs have access to the R... does this mean I am a chav, or I work for a chav company? Or maybe we just made best use of budget, saved some money over the cost of a 3 series for a couple of years, ending up with a half-decent drive for me? Albeit somewhat of a BiK hit, but I think it will be worth it compared to being forced to drive a 320D for the last three years.

[ORD]

Derwins Revenge said:

Thanks for that, you're right the R is very unimpressive looking. I'm happy that the R I'll be taking delivery of soon looks pretty much the same as a standard version. We don't all want massive wings flared arches etc to show people how much we know about cars or how 'fast' we are.

In fact, the only time I want my car to stand out is if I ever buy a proper sports or super car (unlikely), as the design is there for a reason generally. No hot hatch, quick saloon needs to look 'sporty'. Now, if only the R had the same exhaust exits as the shopping trolley model I'd be even happier, let's face it, they are st. I'm pretty sure the VW marketing people made the exhausts so ridiculous on purpose, so they can improve them for the MLF or the Mk8 and sell new versions to existing owners. Sorry, leasers.

Oh and my R will be a company car, very cheap lease deal. Those complaining that neds and chavs have access to the R... does this mean I am a chav, or I work for a chav company? Or maybe we just made best use of budget, saved some money over the cost of a 3 series for a couple of years, ending up with a half-decent drive for me? Albeit somewhat of a BiK hit, but I think it will be worth it compared to being forced to drive a 320D for the last three years.

Spot on with the last bit. The fewer 320Ds on the road, the better. Lovely chassis ruined by a really unpleasant engine that, apart from sounding horrific, messes with the car's dynamics.