VW Golf 7 R -- Chipped -- 0 to 60 in 4 Seconds...
Discussion
The Golf 7 GTi which was already rated by many as a brilliant all rounder must be weeping in the corner thinking what did I do to deserve this? Poor thing.......all talk now seems to be (at least here on this forum) on this R and you rarely hear a thing about GTi's anymore.....
I remember a time when the Golf GTi got 197bhp then the headline writers were saying now you can get a "full fat" 227bhp limited edition. well its positively semi skimmed now by the sound of things......
Im waiting to see my first one being ragged senseless on Police Interceptors/Car Wars/Motorway Cops et al with an Evo on blues and twos up its backside.......
I remember a time when the Golf GTi got 197bhp then the headline writers were saying now you can get a "full fat" 227bhp limited edition. well its positively semi skimmed now by the sound of things......
Im waiting to see my first one being ragged senseless on Police Interceptors/Car Wars/Motorway Cops et al with an Evo on blues and twos up its backside.......
48Valves said:
It's funny how some go on about the 4 exhausts on the R, when I don't think I have ever heard a derogatory comment about the E46 m3's 4 exhausts, and the ones on the golf look much better.
It's just a marketing thing and that's ok. Clearly a 2.0T has no need for four exhausts, one would be enough but they are obviously going for a certain image. I personally think the M3 exhausts look far better and are clearly more suited to the big engine screamer.
Wills2 said:
zainster said:
Ah ok... if that figure is right then that's a case of aftermarket tuning making the standard car slower!
Car & Driver & Autocar tested the E60 M5 at 20.7 & 21.0 from 0-150 & the F10 at 18.3 (C&D) & 19.9 (Autocar).
http://performancecarstats.co.uk/performance-stats...
Sorry for taking this off topic!
I would dimiss the C & D times for various reasons for one they allow a 3ft roll out knocks about 0.5sec off the overall run, SoCal temps mean very sticky rubber, most runs done one way and only one up with low fuel etc...Car & Driver & Autocar tested the E60 M5 at 20.7 & 21.0 from 0-150 & the F10 at 18.3 (C&D) & 19.9 (Autocar).
http://performancecarstats.co.uk/performance-stats...
Sorry for taking this off topic!
The autocar run is more representive UK weather conditions, two up, full tank and a two way average.
But you're talking about 150mph I quoted 250kph which is 155mph and at that speed the extra 5mph will take at least 1.5-2 seconds add that to the autocar numbers and you arrive at 21.5-22 seconds to 250 kph pretty much as I stated in my post.
Still, adding 2 seconds to the F10 time takes it to 21.9 (not the slower time you quoted on Hartges site ;-) ) and 23 for the E60 to 155, would have thought with an extra 150 bhp over the E60 it would be quicker than two seconds is all I was questioning.
Just went to pick up some milk and saw a nice red GTI, thought it looked smart.
48Valves said:
It's funny how some go on about the 4 exhausts on the R, when I don't think I have ever heard a derogatory comment about the E46 m3's 4 exhausts, and the ones on the golf look much better.
Controversial maybe but I think the E46 M3 would look better with a twin, similar to it's predecessors. It's laughable when hatchbacks are coming standard with quads yet many crazy-power Japanese tuner cars have a single exit!
ORD said:
I can't say I have ever wanted more than 300bhp for the road. If you have more mid-range torque, it just means even less ability to plant your foot.
It's so strange that buyers have become more and more obsessed with insane power and performance while the roads have become less and less suitable for fast driving.
Whenever I hear something like '400 lb ft at 2000rpm', all I think is that the car will be impossible to drive remotely hard without losing your licence! It's similar with the insanely long gearing on Porsches- 80 odd mph in second gear!
If journos had to road test cars at sane speeds, they would stop obsessing about headline power and mid-range talk and would focus on handling, engine note and feel from the instruments - all the things that actually matter on the road. The Golf R is pretty bad by those metrics.
We would end up with gorgeous NA, short-geared cars of manufacturers stopped aiming at pub bore numbers and focussed on driving enjoyment.
Spot-on, nail hit squarely on head there.It's so strange that buyers have become more and more obsessed with insane power and performance while the roads have become less and less suitable for fast driving.
Whenever I hear something like '400 lb ft at 2000rpm', all I think is that the car will be impossible to drive remotely hard without losing your licence! It's similar with the insanely long gearing on Porsches- 80 odd mph in second gear!
If journos had to road test cars at sane speeds, they would stop obsessing about headline power and mid-range talk and would focus on handling, engine note and feel from the instruments - all the things that actually matter on the road. The Golf R is pretty bad by those metrics.
We would end up with gorgeous NA, short-geared cars of manufacturers stopped aiming at pub bore numbers and focussed on driving enjoyment.
And that's why I took my 940lb Fisher Fury (BEC - R1 engine) and desperately-short gearing (11mph/1000rpm in 6th - but it goes to 12K5+) over 270miles around south/mid wales today. And fecking loved it, totally involved even at 30mph.
ORD said:
I can't say I have ever wanted more than 300bhp for the road. If you have more mid-range torque, it just means even less ability to plant your foot.
It's so strange that buyers have become more and more obsessed with insane power and performance while the roads have become less and less suitable for fast driving.
Whenever I hear something like '400 lb ft at 2000rpm', all I think is that the car will be impossible to drive remotely hard without losing your licence! It's similar with the insanely long gearing on Porsches- 80 odd mph in second gear!
If journos had to road test cars at sane speeds, they would stop obsessing about headline power and mid-range talk and would focus on handling, engine note and feel from the instruments - all the things that actually matter on the road. The Golf R is pretty bad by those metrics.
We would end up with gorgeous NA, short-geared cars of manufacturers stopped aiming at pub bore numbers and focussed on driving enjoyment.
It's so strange that buyers have become more and more obsessed with insane power and performance while the roads have become less and less suitable for fast driving.
Whenever I hear something like '400 lb ft at 2000rpm', all I think is that the car will be impossible to drive remotely hard without losing your licence! It's similar with the insanely long gearing on Porsches- 80 odd mph in second gear!
If journos had to road test cars at sane speeds, they would stop obsessing about headline power and mid-range talk and would focus on handling, engine note and feel from the instruments - all the things that actually matter on the road. The Golf R is pretty bad by those metrics.
We would end up with gorgeous NA, short-geared cars of manufacturers stopped aiming at pub bore numbers and focussed on driving enjoyment.
And that is why the wife has the -R while I've got an import FD2 Civic Type R as my daily driver - even in a peaky n/a application, 220+bhp in 1200kg is, quite honestly, enough for most roads and most occasions and gives you plenty of opportunities to explore the upper reaches of the rev range...
havoc said:
ORD said:
I can't say I have ever wanted more than 300bhp for the road. If you have more mid-range torque, it just means even less ability to plant your foot.
It's so strange that buyers have become more and more obsessed with insane power and performance while the roads have become less and less suitable for fast driving.
Whenever I hear something like '400 lb ft at 2000rpm', all I think is that the car will be impossible to drive remotely hard without losing your licence! It's similar with the insanely long gearing on Porsches- 80 odd mph in second gear!
If journos had to road test cars at sane speeds, they would stop obsessing about headline power and mid-range talk and would focus on handling, engine note and feel from the instruments - all the things that actually matter on the road. The Golf R is pretty bad by those metrics.
We would end up with gorgeous NA, short-geared cars of manufacturers stopped aiming at pub bore numbers and focussed on driving enjoyment.
It's so strange that buyers have become more and more obsessed with insane power and performance while the roads have become less and less suitable for fast driving.
Whenever I hear something like '400 lb ft at 2000rpm', all I think is that the car will be impossible to drive remotely hard without losing your licence! It's similar with the insanely long gearing on Porsches- 80 odd mph in second gear!
If journos had to road test cars at sane speeds, they would stop obsessing about headline power and mid-range talk and would focus on handling, engine note and feel from the instruments - all the things that actually matter on the road. The Golf R is pretty bad by those metrics.
We would end up with gorgeous NA, short-geared cars of manufacturers stopped aiming at pub bore numbers and focussed on driving enjoyment.
And that is why the wife has the -R while I've got an import FD2 Civic Type R as my daily driver - even in a peaky n/a application, 220+bhp in 1200kg is, quite honestly, enough for most roads and most occasions and gives you plenty of opportunities to explore the upper reaches of the rev range...
My Impreza weighs about the same but has over 360bhp and its too much to really use, well unless the person has little regard for laws and speed limits. I tend to use half throttle or have very short bursts rather than keeping my foot down because its either going to be dangerous or breaking the law neither of which appeal to me. I tend to run the car in its lower power setting (it has switchable maps) and think the car was far more fun with a lot less power (about 260 previously).
Sheesh I think I'm getting old......
I think "impotent" was the word used on here to describe my old E46 320i (2.2 M54 straight six, 170PS @6,300rpm, 155lb/ft @ 3,500rpm). It never felt like it though in the real world and I say this having driven cars with multiples of it's power and now driving a much faster car on a daily basis. I'm not even sure that I prefer the Mini overall...
ToothbrushMan said:
The Golf 7 GTi which was already rated by many as a brilliant all rounder must be weeping in the corner thinking what did I do to deserve this? Poor thing.......all talk now seems to be (at least here on this forum) on this R and you rarely hear a thing about GTi's anymore.....
There will be a GTI edition 40 along shortly to shift the focus back to the GTI complete with scene tax, if it wasn't for the incredible leasing deals this forum would still be raving about m135i's. 
b0rk said:
There will be a GTI edition 40 along shortly to shift the focus back to the GTI complete with scene tax, if it wasn't for the incredible leasing deals this forum would still be raving about m135i's.
Do you know any details about the GTI edition 40?I heard it's going to be a GTI PP with the Golf R engine internals but detuned to 270 PS. Should easily get over 350 PS with just a remap, but then who wants that kind of power in a FWD car... ?
This thread is full of people who've never driven one saying they're s
t, and people who've not driven much else saying they're the best car in the world. The debate is the most off-putting aspect in a way. There are a lot of them around now, and that always attracts more negative. I was behind an identical example to mine yesterday. All I thought was, looks pretty good!
t, and people who've not driven much else saying they're the best car in the world. The debate is the most off-putting aspect in a way. There are a lot of them around now, and that always attracts more negative. I was behind an identical example to mine yesterday. All I thought was, looks pretty good! ToothbrushMan said:
The Golf 7 GTi which was already rated by many as a brilliant all rounder must be weeping in the corner thinking what did I do to deserve this? Poor thing.......all talk now seems to be (at least here on this forum) on this R and you rarely hear a thing about GTi's anymore.....
I remember a time when the Golf GTi got 197bhp then the headline writers were saying now you can get a "full fat" 227bhp limited edition. well its positively semi skimmed now by the sound of things......
Im waiting to see my first one being ragged senseless on Police Interceptors/Car Wars/Motorway Cops et al with an Evo on blues and twos up its backside.......
It is a shame it doesn't seem to get the credit anymore, but it is a brilliant all-rounder and personally, don't see the need for more than the 217 mine has. Like others have said, where am I going to use it?I remember a time when the Golf GTi got 197bhp then the headline writers were saying now you can get a "full fat" 227bhp limited edition. well its positively semi skimmed now by the sound of things......
Im waiting to see my first one being ragged senseless on Police Interceptors/Car Wars/Motorway Cops et al with an Evo on blues and twos up its backside.......
Clivey said:
48Valves said:
It's funny how some go on about the 4 exhausts on the R, when I don't think I have ever heard a derogatory comment about the E46 m3's 4 exhausts, and the ones on the golf look much better.
Controversial maybe but I think the E46 M3 would look better with a twin, similar to it's predecessors. It's laughable when hatchbacks are coming standard with quads yet many crazy-power Japanese tuner cars have a single exit!Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff