RE: PH Fleet: Golf GTI Edition 35

[Riggers]

BigTom85 said:

Am I right in thinking there has been more articles about this Golf than any other car on the PH fleet since the beginning of time? It is getting a little bit repetitive now if I'm being honest. (I know you didn't ask )

One a month, plus the odd blog here and there is our plan for all PH Fleet cars (though ones we own, such as Dan's MX-5 or my Puma, get a report roughly every six weeks).

Don't worry though - we have more than a couple of interesting trips up our sleeves for the Golf, so we won't be getting too (much more) repetitive .

[Garlick]

Fuel consumption was always under 30mpg for me, and that was leaving the box in D 'normal' rather than sport auto or manual. While it was more economical than my Lexus and TVR, it was on;y marginally so.

[gforceg]

SleeperCell said:

In motorsport sequential gearboxes it's usually set up to pull back to go up a gear and push forward to go down. I believe the logic being that when you are accelerating, pulling back feels more natural as you are being pushed back in your seat anyway and when you are slowing down and being pulled forward under braking pushing forward to change down also goes with the natural flow of movement in those conditions.

I appreciate the reasoning behind that for sure. But I would imagine a huge majority of people haven't driven such cars so are coming to it "cold". I suppose VW had to do it one way or the other and chose this one. A first time user would be none the wiser and would soon see this layout as normal and logical.

Maybe Riggers could say how he finds it?

[George H]

Garlick said:

Fuel consumption was always under 30mpg for me, and that was leaving the box in D 'normal' rather than sport auto or manual. While it was more economical than my Lexus and TVR, it was on;y marginally so.

How far under? Is that on super unleaded or just regular petrol too? I don't think high 20s too bad really, I only average 32mpg from my Polo GTI.

[Riggers]

gforceg said:

SleeperCell said:

In motorsport sequential gearboxes it's usually set up to pull back to go up a gear and push forward to go down. I believe the logic being that when you are accelerating, pulling back feels more natural as you are being pushed back in your seat anyway and when you are slowing down and being pulled forward under braking pushing forward to change down also goes with the natural flow of movement in those conditions.

I appreciate the reasoning behind that for sure. But I would imagine a huge majority of people haven't driven such cars so are coming to it "cold". I suppose VW had to do it one way or the other and chose this one. A first time user would be none the wiser and would soon see this layout as normal and logical.

Maybe Riggers could say how he finds it?

Depends how you're driving, really. If you're going hard, it definitely feels 'upside down', but if you're going for it then you'll probably naturally use the paddles anyway.

As far as I know, only BMW and Ford do the push-me-pull-me stuff the 'right' way around...

[gforceg]

Riggers said:

Depends how you're driving, really. If you're going hard, it definitely feels 'upside down', but if you're going for it then you'll probably naturally use the paddles anyway.

As far as I know, only BMW and Ford do the push-me-pull-me stuff the 'right' way around...

Thanks.

[Garlick]

George H said:

Garlick said:

Fuel consumption was always under 30mpg for me, and that was leaving the box in D 'normal' rather than sport auto or manual. While it was more economical than my Lexus and TVR, it was on;y marginally so.

How far under? Is that on super unleaded or just regular petrol too? I don't think high 20s too bad really, I only average 32mpg from my Polo GTI.

IIRC 28.7 over 600 miles of mainly motorway. Normal unleaded.

Personally I think a modern engine should do better, especially as I wasn't thrashing it in any way. An average that is in the thirties would be preferable.

[BoostMonkey]

Garlick said:

IIRC 28.7 over 600 miles of mainly motorway. Normal unleaded.

Personally I think a modern engine should do better, especially as I wasn't thrashing it in any way. An average that is in the thirties would be preferable.

If that is true, then that is ridiculous and is another example of why manufactures quote figures come from cloud cuckoo land. Even still as you pointed out compared to other engines on the market its for a better word "crap".

Admittedly the engine might display better mpg in 5,000 miles but it is likely to be less than 2mpg more.

Just for comparison my Focus RS (mk2) with its thirsty Volvo 5 pot, does 32mpg on the motorway at 70mph (steady).
Thats over 100bhp more than the Golf.

I apologise if I offend some of the VW lovers out there, by making that comparison.

[AbarthChris]

a white '61 plate Golf with an Orange five in the boot... you are officially an accountant from Surrey

[infernal]

George H said:

How far under? Is that on super unleaded or just regular petrol too? I don't think high 20s too bad really, I only average 32mpg from my Polo GTI.

That seems a bit low - I test drove one about 8 months ago when considering a new car that was better on the juice, i'd have been dissapointed with that had i bought one.

[Garlick]

BoostMonkey said:

If that is true, then that is ridiculous and is another example of why manufactures quote figures come from cloud cuckoo land. Even still as you pointed out compared to other engines on the market its for a better word "crap".

Quite. I tweeted about the economy and entered into a chat with VW themselves as a result. They told me that the manufacturers claimed combined MPG is 34.9 and with that in mind I guess sub 30 at an 80mph cruise is to be expected. Expected but not ideal.

[BigTom85]

Riggers said:

One a month, plus the odd blog here and there is our plan for all PH Fleet cars (though ones we own, such as Dan's MX-5 or my Puma, get a report roughly every six weeks).

Don't worry though - we have more than a couple of interesting trips up our sleeves for the Golf, so we won't be getting too (much more) repetitive .

Fair enough then, it just feels like every time I click the home page there's something up there to do with the Golf.

I find most PH content worthy of a read, and I do genuinely enjoy the frequent updates of the Puma, MX5, and less frequently Garlick's collection of course. More of these / the same please and less "Golf is still a good all rounder" stuff, ta

[anonymous-user]

iain1970 said:

ktm301p said:

As good as the Golf may be - I think £30,000 is an excessive amount of money for a Golf, or any equivalent hatchback for that matter.

I take it you haven't looked to buy a new car in a good few years then, Golfs or cars that are just like a Golf. Even reasonably specced small run arounds are tipping the scales at five figures. The equivalent model to our Ibiza is the thick end of £20k these days, they have gone up £5k in less than seven years.

It's 2012, not 1987.

Exactly!

[Garlick]

BigTom85 said:

I find most PH content worthy of a read, and I do genuinely enjoy the frequent updates of the Puma, MX5, and less frequently Garlick's collection of course. More of these / the same please and less "Golf is still a good all rounder" stuff, ta

My cars are aired every 6 weeks too, so I should be writing an update in a week or two.

[George H]

infernal said:

That seems a bit low - I test drove one about 8 months ago when considering a new car that was better on the juice, i'd have been dissapointed with that had i bought one.

I could get it higher if I drove slower and left it in D more. 80% of the time I use the paddles which doesn't help the economy. Will get 40-ish mpg at 80 on the motorway.

[Robsti]

The push pull gear change should be forward for down changes and back for up changes but with the paddles the gearstick becomes irrelevant after a while.

[jains15]

Robsti said:

The push pull gear change should be forward for down changes and back for up changes but with the paddles the gearstick becomes irrelevant after a while.

Is there still a mechanical connection with the gearbox or is the dsg lever effectivly just a switch now? If it is just sending signals to an ECU, surely it could just be remapped? Or better still, an option in the car's settings system?

Pull back for up feels more natural to me but as you say, if there are paddles you end up using them anyway

[IanO]

Robsti said:

The push pull gear change should be forward for down changes and back for up changes but with the paddles the gearstick becomes irrelevant after a while.

I used to have tiptronic 911 and an Audi daily driver, one was pull to change down and the other was push - neither had paddles. It made for some interesting 'change down on full bore acceleration' moments when I wasn't concentrating.

[va1o]

ktm301p said:

As good as the Golf may be - I think £30,000 is an excessive amount of money for a Golf, or any equivalent hatchback for that matter.

Yes, but this has been covered many times before. Even at that price it still one of the best hatchbacks on sale.

[Robsti]

jains15 said:

Robsti said:

The push pull gear change should be forward for down changes and back for up changes but with the paddles the gearstick becomes irrelevant after a while.

Is there still a mechanical connection with the gearbox or is the dsg lever effectivly just a switch now? If it is just sending signals to an ECU, surely it could just be remapped? Or better still, an option in the car's settings system?

Pull back for up feels more natural to me but as you say, if there are paddles you end up using them anyway

Just a switch!