RE: Volkswagen Golf R 400
Discussion
RoverP6B said:
What I said was that it has an inherently superior chassis.
Except that the chassis isn't inherently superior. In fact, from a performance perspective, it is just as compromised. It is heavy, dimensionally too large to really be agile, has an engine position that is only marginally better than the Golf and certainly not optimal from a true performance perspective (not that I think it has to be optimal for a car of this type), and will require an LSD and a real sports-oriented suspension. In the case of your car, it also has neither of the last two items and can't even get out of its own way power-wise. The Golf on the other hand already has a very well sorted suspension, full-time AWD that can achieve a rear torque bias, a decent weight distribution, and is a smaller and more tossable chassis. It's transverse engine is mounted lower and is physically shorter and is lighter than the 5er's, so I'd say its a wash there. Oh, and it now comes with 400 horsepower.
What was your point again?
Lost soul said:
Clivey said:
RoverP6B said:
I think I might prefer a Trabant to be honest... cheap, cheerful, unpretentious and sends its puny 'power' to the correct wheels.
Err...the Trabant is front wheel drive.
So RoverP6B would happily drive one of the worst cars in the world because he thought it was RWD. Are you perhaps confusing a Trabant with a Skoda??
Another useful nugget in this whole FWD and engine position argument, have you ever worked on or been in a Honda Integra/EK9 ? Widely acknowledged as among the best FWD cars ever made yet the engine sits in front of the axle line.......
Further evidence that if a chassis is designed with the engine layout it doesn't have to be the major hindrance that some here are making out.
scherzkeks said:
Except that the chassis isn't inherently superior. In fact, from a performance perspective, it is just as compromised. It is heavy, dimensionally too large to really be agile, has an engine position that is only marginally better than the Golf and certainly not optimal from a true performance perspective (not that I think it has to be optimal for a car of this type), and will require an LSD and a real sports-oriented suspension. In the case of your car, it also has neither of the last two items and can't even get out of its own way power-wise.
The Golf on the other hand already has a very well sorted suspension, full-time AWD that can achieve a rear torque bias, a decent weight distribution, and is a smaller and more tossable chassis. It's transverse engine is mounted lower and is physically shorter and is lighter than the 5er's, so I'd say its a wash there. Oh, and it now comes with 400 horsepower.
What was your point again?
The Golf R is lighter by such a piffling amount (I read a figure of about 1620kg with fluids, which is only 60kg less than the E39) that it really doesn't matter in the slightest, its front track is marginally wider than the E39 (just under an inch) and its rear track is less than half an inch narrower than the E39. The only significant differences are in the length (both wheelbase and overall, the former a bit under 8 inches, the latter just over 21 inches), which also contributes to its vastly superior weight distribution. However, I would argue that the Golf's wheelbase is too short for good stability when putting down 400bhp - and you could make the BMW shorter and lighter by losing some of the massive boot and perhaps some of the wheelbase (at the expense of legroom) and you'd still have a superior chassis. I find it interesting that the E39 is significantly longer yet not significantly heavier! The E39's suspension is quite firm enough, body control is excellent, LSDs are a pretty bad idea from what I've heard in terms of what they do to the suspension and inducing understeer. The Golf's part-time (NOT full) Haldex AWD CANNOT achieve a rearward bias except when you're understeering severely.The Golf on the other hand already has a very well sorted suspension, full-time AWD that can achieve a rear torque bias, a decent weight distribution, and is a smaller and more tossable chassis. It's transverse engine is mounted lower and is physically shorter and is lighter than the 5er's, so I'd say its a wash there. Oh, and it now comes with 400 horsepower.
What was your point again?
RoverP6B said:
scherzkeks said:
Except that the chassis isn't inherently superior. In fact, from a performance perspective, it is just as compromised. It is heavy, dimensionally too large to really be agile, has an engine position that is only marginally better than the Golf and certainly not optimal from a true performance perspective (not that I think it has to be optimal for a car of this type), and will require an LSD and a real sports-oriented suspension. In the case of your car, it also has neither of the last two items and can't even get out of its own way power-wise.
The Golf on the other hand already has a very well sorted suspension, full-time AWD that can achieve a rear torque bias, a decent weight distribution, and is a smaller and more tossable chassis. It's transverse engine is mounted lower and is physically shorter and is lighter than the 5er's, so I'd say its a wash there. Oh, and it now comes with 400 horsepower.
What was your point again?
The Golf R is lighter by such a piffling amount (I read a figure of about 1620kg with fluids, which is only 60kg less than the E39) that it really doesn't matter in the slightest, its front track is marginally wider than the E39 (just under an inch) and its rear track is less than half an inch narrower than the E39. The only significant differences are in the length (both wheelbase and overall, the former a bit under 8 inches, the latter just over 21 inches), which also contributes to its vastly superior weight distribution. However, I would argue that the Golf's wheelbase is too short for good stability when putting down 400bhp - and you could make the BMW shorter and lighter by losing some of the massive boot and perhaps some of the wheelbase (at the expense of legroom) and you'd still have a superior chassis. I find it interesting that the E39 is significantly longer yet not significantly heavier! The E39's suspension is quite firm enough, body control is excellent, LSDs are a pretty bad idea from what I've heard in terms of what they do to the suspension and inducing understeer. The Golf's part-time (NOT full) Haldex AWD CANNOT achieve a rearward bias except when you're understeering severely.The Golf on the other hand already has a very well sorted suspension, full-time AWD that can achieve a rear torque bias, a decent weight distribution, and is a smaller and more tossable chassis. It's transverse engine is mounted lower and is physically shorter and is lighter than the 5er's, so I'd say its a wash there. Oh, and it now comes with 400 horsepower.
What was your point again?
RoverP6B said:
The Golf R is lighter by such a piffling amount (I read a figure of about 1620kg with fluids, which is only 60kg less than the E39)
Source? I find that very suspect given that Autoblog report a kerb weight of 3,011 lb, which is 1366kg in English and therefore somewhere in the region of 300kg or 20% lighter than an E39.RoverP6B said:
The Golf R is lighter by such a piffling amount (I read a figure of about 1620kg with fluids, which is only 60kg less than the E39) that it really doesn't matter in the slightest, its front track is marginally wider than the E39 (just under an inch) and its rear track is less than half an inch narrower than the E39. The only significant differences are in the length (both wheelbase and overall, the former a bit under 8 inches, the latter just over 21 inches), which also contributes to its vastly superior weight distribution. However, I would argue that the Golf's wheelbase is too short for good stability when putting down 400bhp - and you could make the BMW shorter and lighter by losing some of the massive boot and perhaps some of the wheelbase (at the expense of legroom) and you'd still have a superior chassis. I find it interesting that the E39 is significantly longer yet not significantly heavier! The E39's suspension is quite firm enough, body control is excellent, LSDs are a pretty bad idea from what I've heard in terms of what they do to the suspension and inducing understeer. The Golf's part-time (NOT full) Haldex AWD CANNOT achieve a rearward bias except when you're understeering severely.
HUH, few points. The Golf R400 is widely being reported as weighing 1420KG kerb weight - so 75kg driver, 30kg fuel, plus some luggage. You may want to read up a bit on what LSDs are and do, they do not change the suspension for one! Im somewhat confused as every car I have driven with a LSD allows you to put a frankly obscene amount of power through the wheels without having as much torque steer or understeer. I'm thinking along the lines of old RS Turbos, Honda Accord type Rs, Golf GTIs etc.
If anything by having LSDs all be it electronic ones they are there to increase the threshold before understeer/oversteer become a problem. If the LSDs are set up correctly in conjunction with the suspension and geometry of the steering components you can reduce the effects of too much power - or more to the point you can compensate for drivers who are only capable of stamping on a throttle.
RoverP6B said:
The Golf R is lighter by such a piffling amount (I read a figure of about 1620kg with fluids, which is only 60kg less than the E39) that it really doesn't matter in the slightest, its front track is marginally wider than the E39 (just under an inch) and its rear track is less than half an inch narrower than the E39. The only significant differences are in the length (both wheelbase and overall, the former a bit under 8 inches, the latter just over 21 inches), which also contributes to its vastly superior weight distribution.
Piffling? The Golf R weighs 1476 kg vs. 1680 for the 5er -- or 450 lbs of difference. It is also some 22 inches shorter than the 5er (190,6 inches to 168,3).So not even close. I would assume weight dist is BMW typical 52-53% on the front vs. the Golf's 58. So not a massive difference.
RoverP6B said:
However, I would argue that the Golf's wheelbase is too short for good stability when putting down 400bhp -
I would trust the engineers who have spent thousands of hours testing the car in all possible conditions that it isn't.RoverP6B said:
and you could make the BMW shorter and lighter by losing some of the massive boot and perhaps some of the wheelbase (at the expense of legroom) and you'd still have a superior chassis.
Yes, and I could turn the Golf into a Cayman with some welding equipment and a few wrenches. Removing the boot an losing wheelbase? RoverP6B said:
The E39's suspension is quite firm enough, body control is excellent, LSDs are a pretty bad idea from what I've heard in terms of what they do to the suspension and inducing understeer. The Golf's part-time (NOT full) Haldex AWD CANNOT achieve a rearward bias except when you're understeering severely.
The E39 in non-M form has a suspension designed for heading to the shops. LSDs are a very good idea for allowing a 2WD car to put down it's power properly, though admittedly on yours I concede that this is not an issue.Haldex can achieve a 50/50 bias before slip, which is more than enough to induce neutrality and is ideal for mixed surfaces/conditions. However, we need to keep in mind how often slip occurs in the diff (not wheelspin.) Due to dynamic weight distribution, the rear axle receives more torque than the front in many situations (acceleration, hard cornering).
In my old S3, this was confirmed via tire wear (among other indicators), as the rears consistently wore 1-2mm quicker than the fronts across the tread.
Lastly, the newest cars incorporate a more advanced form of the e-torque vectoring from previous cars, which with the seemingly less conservative suspension tune, seems to have made the latest cars a bit more playful.
Here's what the most recent Golf R ACTUALLY weighs - note that it's nearly 100kg heavier than VW's claimed weight.
http://www.zeperfs.com/en/fiche3066-vw-golf-vi-r.h...
The E39 isn't a shopping trolley, it was designed to be the world's best all-round sports saloon for its time. OK, mine's a Touring, but it drives the same and it's still bloody superb. I assure you there's a reason it won every award going and was widely acknowledged on its replacement by the E60/1 to still be the class-leader by a country mile. 50:50 F:R weight distribution compared to about 60:40 on the Golf, it's a big difference!
LSDs: Chris Harris explained on the McLaren P1 thread that they have all sorts of undesirable characteristics, including inducing understeer mucking up the rear suspension geometry when they lock, which is why McLaren won't use them (Lotus won't touch them for the same reasons) - and I think you'll agree that, with 903bhp, the P1 definitely does need all the traction it can get.
Oh, and everything I've read about the MQB-platform Haldex system suggests it's putting 90 or more % of the power through the fronts until you get understeer.
The point I was making about losing boot and wheelbase is this: that the comparably-wide E39 platform, which is a fair bit longer, could be trimmed in the CAD with a shorter boot and a bit less wheelbase to get it down to Golf size. The current 1-series has essentially the same track widths as my 5-series (which is MAD! Whatever happened to SMALL cars?!) but is 5.5 inches shorter in wheelbase and 18.3 inches shorter overall - so BMW have, in terms of the end result, done exactly what I suggested.
http://www.zeperfs.com/en/fiche3066-vw-golf-vi-r.h...
The E39 isn't a shopping trolley, it was designed to be the world's best all-round sports saloon for its time. OK, mine's a Touring, but it drives the same and it's still bloody superb. I assure you there's a reason it won every award going and was widely acknowledged on its replacement by the E60/1 to still be the class-leader by a country mile. 50:50 F:R weight distribution compared to about 60:40 on the Golf, it's a big difference!
LSDs: Chris Harris explained on the McLaren P1 thread that they have all sorts of undesirable characteristics, including inducing understeer mucking up the rear suspension geometry when they lock, which is why McLaren won't use them (Lotus won't touch them for the same reasons) - and I think you'll agree that, with 903bhp, the P1 definitely does need all the traction it can get.
Oh, and everything I've read about the MQB-platform Haldex system suggests it's putting 90 or more % of the power through the fronts until you get understeer.
The point I was making about losing boot and wheelbase is this: that the comparably-wide E39 platform, which is a fair bit longer, could be trimmed in the CAD with a shorter boot and a bit less wheelbase to get it down to Golf size. The current 1-series has essentially the same track widths as my 5-series (which is MAD! Whatever happened to SMALL cars?!) but is 5.5 inches shorter in wheelbase and 18.3 inches shorter overall - so BMW have, in terms of the end result, done exactly what I suggested.
Edited by RoverP6B on Tuesday 29th April 16:40
Edited by RoverP6B on Tuesday 29th April 16:44
Has this thread has become an argument as to which of an old BMW 5 series and a brand new performance hatchback handles better? Just checking. Nutters.
The Golf would destroy the 5 series on any given track (even giving it the same bhp and torque). It would do so in part because of clever electronic stuff that the BMW does not have, but that clever stuff is not a form of cheating any more than is tuning suspension.
Some of us would still prefer to drive a RWD car (even with much less power), but that doesnt make any RWD "better" (whatever that means) simply because it sends its power to the best place for good turn-in and feel.
I dislike performance hatchbacks (at least at a price of around £40k) because I would prefer a balanced sports car that relies less on driver aids and more on basic layout and chassis characteristics. But that is not to say the Golf isnt an incredible piece of work (and wont corner very well indeed).
I think all of us - whether RWD lovers or otherwise - should applaud VW for doing two things (if it does them):-
(1) Managing to make a FF platform cope with 400bhp (albeit with the help of an AWD system etc).
(2) Selling the results!
The Golf would destroy the 5 series on any given track (even giving it the same bhp and torque). It would do so in part because of clever electronic stuff that the BMW does not have, but that clever stuff is not a form of cheating any more than is tuning suspension.
Some of us would still prefer to drive a RWD car (even with much less power), but that doesnt make any RWD "better" (whatever that means) simply because it sends its power to the best place for good turn-in and feel.
I dislike performance hatchbacks (at least at a price of around £40k) because I would prefer a balanced sports car that relies less on driver aids and more on basic layout and chassis characteristics. But that is not to say the Golf isnt an incredible piece of work (and wont corner very well indeed).
I think all of us - whether RWD lovers or otherwise - should applaud VW for doing two things (if it does them):-
(1) Managing to make a FF platform cope with 400bhp (albeit with the help of an AWD system etc).
(2) Selling the results!
ORD said:
Has this thread has become an argument as to which of an old BMW 5 series and a brand new performance hatchback handles better? Just checking. Nutters.
The Golf would destroy the 5 series on any given track (even giving it the same bhp and torque). It would do so in part because of clever electronic stuff that the BMW does not have, but that clever stuff is not a form of cheating any more than is tuning suspension.
Some of us would still prefer to drive a RWD car (even with much less power), but that doesnt make any RWD "better" (whatever that means) simply because it sends its power to the best place for good turn-in and feel.
I dislike performance hatchbacks (at least at a price of around £40k) because I would prefer a balanced sports car that relies less on driver aids and more on basic layout and chassis characteristics. But that is not to say the Golf isnt an incredible piece of work (and wont corner very well indeed).
I think all of us - whether RWD lovers or otherwise - should applaud VW for doing two things (if it does them):-
(1) Managing to make a FF platform cope with 400bhp (albeit with the help of an AWD system etc).
(2) Selling the results!
Clever electronics cannot compensate for an inherently flawed chassis. I used my E39 as an example because it's what I know well. The current 1-series is also comparable, also being RWD and with the same track widths as my E39, though shorter in wheelbase and overall. The Golf would destroy the 5 series on any given track (even giving it the same bhp and torque). It would do so in part because of clever electronic stuff that the BMW does not have, but that clever stuff is not a form of cheating any more than is tuning suspension.
Some of us would still prefer to drive a RWD car (even with much less power), but that doesnt make any RWD "better" (whatever that means) simply because it sends its power to the best place for good turn-in and feel.
I dislike performance hatchbacks (at least at a price of around £40k) because I would prefer a balanced sports car that relies less on driver aids and more on basic layout and chassis characteristics. But that is not to say the Golf isnt an incredible piece of work (and wont corner very well indeed).
I think all of us - whether RWD lovers or otherwise - should applaud VW for doing two things (if it does them):-
(1) Managing to make a FF platform cope with 400bhp (albeit with the help of an AWD system etc).
(2) Selling the results!
The 1 Series handles fairly averagely according to most credible reviewers. I am driving one on Saturday and will revert. It has the same bhp as the Mazda 3 that I test drove the other day (which handled nicely), so I will be able to give a view on whether or not FR is so inherently better than FF...
ORD said:
The 1 Series handles fairly averagely according to most credible reviewers. I am driving one on Saturday and will revert. It has the same bhp as the Mazda 3 that I test drove the other day (which handled nicely), so I will be able to give a view on whether or not FR is so inherently better than FF...
Which may be down to run-flat tyres or simple suspension set-up. Considering the M135i absolutely destroyed the RS3, I'm inclined to believe that, when fairly well set-up, the 1-series platform really is vastly superior to the Golf platform. Clivey seems to think that there's also still plenty of unrealised potential in the M135i and I bow to his greater knowledge on the subject.Of course, fitting the wrong engine can also wreck a car - the E90 320d I had for a week had a genuinely lovely chassis balance, but the all-or-nothing power delivery of the engine completely spoiled the whole experience. An E90 325i or 330i could be a very pleasurable thing to drive indeed.
RoverP6B said:
Here's what the most recent Golf R ACTUALLY weighs - note that it's nearly 100kg heavier than VW's claimed weight.
http://www.zeperfs.com/en/fiche3066-vw-golf-vi-r.h...
That, as the title quite clearly says, refers to the Mk6- as does the power output, date and all other relevant statistics. We're talking about the Mk7.http://www.zeperfs.com/en/fiche3066-vw-golf-vi-r.h...
Edited by ManOpener on Tuesday 29th April 20:03
ManOpener said:
That, as the title quite clearly says, refers to the Mk6- as does the power output, date and all other relevant statistics. We're talking about the Mk7.
I thought the new one was the Mk6? The Mk5 arrived in 2005 IIRC and ended production last year, having had a minor facelift along the way. I just cannot believe the new Golf is a quarter of a ton lighter than its predecessor, anyway! The figures in that link also show that VW real-world figures are over 100kg heavier than those claimed.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff