RE: Volkswagen Golf R 400
Discussion
RoverP6B said:
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.
Just stop talking. Every time you open your mouth the hole you are digging gets deeper.
The current golf is the Mk7. It is lighter than the Mk6 that came before it.
The Mk 6 came out in 09. It was a bit more than just a facelift and introduced a number of new models, including the R. Which you have linked too.
You really couldn't make this thread up.
Although this thread has gone completely bonkers, it does raise one interesting question - why are hatcbacks now so heavy? 1,300 kg - 1,500kg seems to be considered normal, but that means that you are driving around about half a ton more than you used to in a hatch.
The Golf still has a small and fairly light engine, doesnt it? What on Earth is adding all that weight? Safety bumf?
The Golf still has a small and fairly light engine, doesnt it? What on Earth is adding all that weight? Safety bumf?
ORD said:
Although this thread has gone completely bonkers, it does raise one interesting question - why are hatcbacks now so heavy? 1,300 kg - 1,500kg seems to be considered normal, but that means that you are driving around about half a ton more than you used to in a hatch.
The Golf still has a small and fairly light engine, doesnt it? What on Earth is adding all that weight? Safety bumf?
In real terms, they've got lighter over recent years.The Golf still has a small and fairly light engine, doesnt it? What on Earth is adding all that weight? Safety bumf?
The MK7 Golf R weighs around the same as the original MK4 R32, despite being bigger, stiffer, and safer. Yes the new 4-cylinder will weigh less than the R32 lump, but still, its a great achievement.
Of course the weight ballooned over the MK1 to MK4 period, but it went from being a tin can (compared with todays cars) with skinny a-pillars and no crash protection, to a car which you could crash at 40mph and walk away from.
Size - there's not much difference in size between a current-gen 1-series and an E34 5-series. Ridiculous.
Is there REALLY any reason why BMW couldn't make a car today that had the same footprint and the same kerb weight (if not lighter) as the E30? VW at least still has a properly small car in the form of the Up!
Is there REALLY any reason why BMW couldn't make a car today that had the same footprint and the same kerb weight (if not lighter) as the E30? VW at least still has a properly small car in the form of the Up!
RoverP6B said:
I thought the new one was the Mk6?
The new one is the Mk7RoverP6B said:
The Mk5 arrived in 2005 IIRC and ended production last year
The Mk5 ended production in 2009RoverP6B said:
having had a minor facelift along the way.
I think the Mk5 received minor facelifts throughout its life but the Mk6, despite having the same underlying chassis (PQ35) is an entirely different model- the model codes are different (1K versus 5K), the body different, most of the engine choices different, the chassis, drivetrain and suspension revised, et cetera. In all fairness it is basically just an extensive facelift, but that's not how VW categorise it and therefore you can't really pretend that the new one is the Mk6 because, well, it isn't.RoverP6B said:
I just cannot believe the new Golf is a quarter of a ton lighter than its predecessor, anyway!
Well the figures on the site you posted are about right for the Mk6. An EU weight of 1613kg (so 90% fuel and 75kg driver) is, if anything a bit low for a claimed kerb weight of 1520kg (I don't know whether that's DIN or US, or what options were applied- things like DSG and larger wheels of course add weight). With the Mk7 being around 100kg lighter, give or take, across the entire range, its fairly believable. In fact, that 1613kg, minus 75kg for driver, minus say 25kg for fuel, minus 100kg for the weight saving between generations, minus 40kg (about the difference between DSG and manual) gives you pretty much exactly the quoted figure for a Mk7.Also, when you pulled figures from that page, did you not see the title?
Volkswagen Golf VI R 270 PS (2009-2012)
As far as I knew, that was the last Golf R to be made, I assumed this was some kind of limited run revival of it. I'm afraid the whoosh parrot has just flown past when it comes to all the different ways of weighing a car. Anyway, if an old E39T was cut down to Golf size in wheelbase and rear overhang (not that I'm advocating that someone break out the angle-grinder and welder...), it'd weigh about the same, I'd have thought - as does the BMW 1-series of today which shares the E39's track widths but not its length.
ORD said:
Although this thread has gone completely bonkers, it does raise one interesting question - why are hatcbacks now so heavy? 1,300 kg - 1,500kg seems to be considered normal, but that means that you are driving around about half a ton more than you used to in a hatch.
The Golf still has a small and fairly light engine, doesnt it? What on Earth is adding all that weight? Safety bumf?
Well for a start, new cars are generally considerably larger than their older predecessors. - Many of those who were driving Mondeos and Vectras a decade or so ago are now finding the same (or better) interior space in a Focus-sized car. As cars get larger, manufacturers generally drop the largest models in the range and add another in at the bottom (e.g Ford dropping the Scorpio and adding the KA, Vauxhall dropping the Omega and adding the Agila, Peugeot dropping the 607 and adding the 107) to redress the balance.The Golf still has a small and fairly light engine, doesnt it? What on Earth is adding all that weight? Safety bumf?
Part of it is that punters always want "more". More interior space, more gadgets, more safety etc. etc. and so the cars grow larger to accommodate. - Many people wouldn't buy the new version of a Golf, for example, if they don't perceive it to offer anything over and above what they already have.
RoverP6B said:
As far as I knew, that was the last Golf R to be made, I assumed this was some kind of limited run revival of it. I'm afraid the whoosh parrot has just flown past when it comes to all the different ways of weighing a car. Anyway, if an old E39T was cut down to Golf size in wheelbase and rear overhang (not that I'm advocating that someone break out the angle-grinder and welder...), it'd weigh about the same, I'd have thought - as does the BMW 1-series of today which shares the E39's track widths but not its length.
Surely the fact that this is a new model gave it away... Johnnytheboy said:
Threads like this are why I simultaneously love and hate PH.
I know, it's priceless, 'If I cut the ends off my 5 series estate it would be smaller and lighter than the Golf, and it would be better in every respect'. You couldn't make it up.I want to ignore this thread, but it's just too entertaining. Some people are trolls and genuinely don't even know it, it's hilarious.
Clivey and RoverP6B, please keep it up!
RoverP6B said:
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.
Right, we've been over the rest and the record seems to be stuck on repeat. But this bit is worth replying to. Edited by RoverP6B on Tuesday 29th April 16:40
Edited by RoverP6B on Tuesday 29th April 16:44
The McLaren uses a technology similar to VAGs new version of it's past EDS system, which is essentially a e-version of an LSD that uses brake force instead of a mechanical diff unit. So it has an LSD, more or less. They have also added other kit, as no 2WD car is going to put down that power without some help:
"The system consists of adjustable roll control for precise body lean control during high lateral acceleration cornering and it decouples for a better ride when in a straight line. The shocks are interconnected via hydraulics and adjust depending upon conditions and driver preferences. Finally it has a system called Brake Steer which brakes the inside rear wheel when braking into a corner and if spinning when accelerating out of a turn. Obviously brake steer is controlled via electronics and McLaren feels this eliminates the need for the more mechanically complex and heavier LSD. In other words, optimize chassis control and steering and the power delivery takes care of itself."
RoverP6B said:
Anyway, if an old E39T was cut down to Golf size in wheelbase and rear overhang (not that I'm advocating that someone break out the angle-grinder and welder...), it'd weigh about the same, I'd have thought - as does the BMW 1-series of today which shares the E39's track widths but not its length.
Not sure if serious. ....RoverP6B said:
As far as I knew, that was the last Golf R to be made, I assumed this was some kind of limited run revival of it. I'm afraid the whoosh parrot has just flown past when it comes to all the different ways of weighing a car. Anyway, if an old E39T was cut down to Golf size in wheelbase and rear overhang (not that I'm advocating that someone break out the angle-grinder and welder...), it'd weigh about the same, I'd have thought - as does the BMW 1-series of today which shares the E39's track widths but not its length.
... Christ.blindswelledrat said:
MiseryStreak said:
. Some people are trolls and genuinely don't even know it, !
That is a contradiction in terms and demonstrative of quite how overused that word is.PH now seems to thing that a troll is "anyone who types anything"
MiseryStreak said:
I know, it's priceless, 'If I cut the ends off my 5 series estate it would be smaller and lighter than the Golf, and it would be better in every respect'. You couldn't make it up.
I want to ignore this thread, but it's just too entertaining. Some people are trolls and genuinely don't even know it, it's hilarious.
Clivey and RoverP6B, please keep it up!
I'm not suggesting getting the grinder out on the E39, just that the longitudinal FR (or FR-based AWD) layout is inherently much more suited to a performance car than a transverse FF (or FF-based AWD) layout. Not that you can't make a performance car using an FF layout as a base. Furthermore, a front-based AWD system that won't in reality, rather than in the manufacturer's literature, allow the car to be adjustable is an economy, rather than performance, choice. That's why there are no high-end GT cars, supercars, sports saloons etc. that are laid-out like a Golf.I want to ignore this thread, but it's just too entertaining. Some people are trolls and genuinely don't even know it, it's hilarious.
Clivey and RoverP6B, please keep it up!
Now bearing that in mind, if it's a performance car you're after, the Golf R (at 300BHP and c£30k) is a more compromised choice than rivals at it's price point. Practicality and economy are pretty much it's only plus points.
Clivey said:
Now bearing that in mind, if it's a performance car you're after, the Golf R (at 300BHP and c£30k) is a more compromised choice than rivals at it's price point. Practicality and economy are pretty much it's only plus points.
Please state its rivals at £30k and why they are superior, as a performance car.Please bear in mind other people have differing tastes and priorities before assuming that having an FR layout (such as that in the M135i) means a car is automatically superior to any without, as this is nonsense.
RoverP6B said:
As far as I knew, that was the last Golf R to be made, I assumed this was some kind of limited run revival of it. I'm afraid the whoosh parrot has just flown past when it comes to all the different ways of weighing a car. Anyway, if an old E39T was cut down to Golf size in wheelbase and rear overhang (not that I'm advocating that someone break out the angle-grinder and welder...), it'd weigh about the same, I'd have thought - as does the BMW 1-series of today which shares the E39's track widths but not its length.
Which would be fair enough if that even remotely resembled anything related to the discussion but it doesn't. You claimed that the 7 R weighed the same as an E39 Touring, which is clearly false. You also claimed that VW had underestimated the car's weight by something like 20%, which is also utter bilge. Now you're claiming than an E39 Touring would weigh about the same as a Golf R if you made it about the same size as a Golf R. Err, yes. Generally, two similar things made of similar materials that are similar sizes and use similar amounts of those similar materials have similar weights. That's kind of how weight works.
RoverP6B said:
As far as I knew, that was the last Golf R to be made, I assumed this was some kind of limited run revival of it. I'm afraid the whoosh parrot has just flown past when it comes to all the different ways of weighing a car. Anyway, if an old E39T was cut down to Golf size in wheelbase and rear overhang (not that I'm advocating that someone break out the angle-grinder and welder...), it'd weigh about the same, I'd have thought - as does the BMW 1-series of today which shares the E39's track widths but not its length.
Why cut it down? Surely you can compress it far easier, you could call it the e39 touring concentrate then.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff