RE: New Golf GTI: too little, too late?

[toppstuff]

Maybe the GTi needs rebooting?

In other words, rather than the gentle evolution that VW continue to trot out, why not some innovation?

For example, a real drive to make the cars much lighter.

A proper effort to bring out lighter engines with more power. I like what Ford is doing here.

Successive Golfs seem to get larger.

The VW Up threatens to steal back the spirit of the GTI. That's not a bad thing for us maybe, but I'm sure VW would rather sell a more premium GTI at a higher price.

[astra la vista]

Welshman Adam said:

I have to admit, I really like my GTI (Mk5 Edition 30) but the fuel consumption is average. Best I've seen on a gentle m'way run is 36.5 mpg. 47 mpg seems very optimistic.

A Mk5 GT Sport TDI will most likely be on the cards next.

my brother has that mk5 tdi. i sourced it for him and had it for 2 weeks before he could pick it up. it's relatively quick, economical (i drove it like i'd stolen it and was getting high 40's, he gets mid 50's...) and you can get a bike in the back (with the seat down). what's not to like. i don't care what ph'ers say about golf diesels, i'd have his car as a daily in a heartbeat.

Edited by astra la vista on Thursday 28th February 11:03

Edited by astra la vista on Thursday 28th February 11:04

[astra la vista]

Leins said:

marlons69 said:

"Same went for the Mk2. The big year was 1989, ahead of the pre-big bumper, when 30 per cent of all new Golfs wore the GTI badge."

Can someone please explain what mkII golf came ahaead of of the "pre-big bumper"...?

That'll be the quarterlight front door cars

quarterlights were up to 86 and maybe early 87. my 88 has full front windows.

[Matt_N]

Escort Si-130 said:

Mk4sales were probably high as they had 2 versions. Wonder what the sales of the proper version mk4 with the red badge was.

There were two versions of the Mk2 and 3 though, 8v and 16v.

Red badge is no clue either, I had a 1.8T GTi with all silver badging, same situation with the TDi too because most badges were fitted at the dealership so came down to what they fitted.

[anonymous-user]

TNH said:

£26k for base GTi is too expensive, thats why they arent selling that many any more.

Hopefully the pricing of the Focus ST will make them realise.

VW have just posted record profits so I think they know what they're doing

[Matt_N]

astra la vista said:

Leins said:

marlons69 said:

"Same went for the Mk2. The big year was 1989, ahead of the pre-big bumper, when 30 per cent of all new Golfs wore the GTI badge."

Can someone please explain what mkII golf came ahaead of of the "pre-big bumper"...?

That'll be the quarterlight front door cars

quarterlights were up to 86 and maybe early 87. my 88 has full front windows.

Yep that's true, my 89 16v had small bumpers but full windows.

I think the wording in the article is wrong, it should be ahead of the big bumper version or pre face lift, not ahead of the pre big bumper, which would indicate the early Type 19 Mk2.

[Twincam16]

Ecosseven said:

White Lightning said:

From my point of view its a price thing. Hot hatches used to quite easily attainable for young (ish) guys, you know early 20's with a decent job etc. For example the wedge shaped Civic Type R started at roughly 17k, my old Focus ST-3 was only 21k and that was top of the range. Now the same money won't even get you a bottom of the range new Focus ST. So i think to an extent they've priced themselves out of the very market they want to appeal to.

Don't get me wrong, i'm sure there are 100's of people on this forum who can still afford a hot hatch. For the record i don't count things like the Renault Sport Twingo 133 as a hot hatch......great car but not fast enough to be a hot hatch these days. (IMHO)

Someone mentioned insurance too.....and that's definitely not helping, particularly if you are young.

Anyway there's my 2 pence worth

Not sure I agree with your statement about the Twingo 133. For me a hot hatch should be about practicality and fun. Cars like the Twingo, Suzuki swift sport, and the new VW UP GT look great and with prces around £13k coupled with affordable running costs, they make sense IMO.

I agree - in fact if you look at the cars the original Golf GTI usurped, it was much less powerful and certainly no faster.

Compare the Mk1 Golf GTI with the concurrent Ford Capri Mk3. To go as fast as the 110bhp Golf, you needed a 130bhp 2.8 V6 Capri. The Capri was heavier, more unwieldy, had less room in the back and the boot, was more expensive, used more fuel and cost more to insure.

Now compare that Twingo 133 to the current Golf GTI. In the real world in a point-to-point sense you can row the Twingo along as quickly as you can the Golf. The Golf is heavier, more unwieldy, is more expensive, uses more fuel and costs more to insure. Granted, there's more room in it, but not much more, and the boot is bigger, but as an everyday prospect it could be said the Twingo is more practical.

Given how the whole point of the first hot hatches was that they offered the same levels of fun as sports cars using the efficiency of fuel injection and weight reduction, and didn't cost anywhere near as much, it seems the Twingo 133 is closer to hot-hatchery than the bigger cars.

To me, a Megane RS is the touring-car-bred equivalent of something like a Delta Integrale or an Escort Cosworth, same goes for the Focus ST, the Astra GTC VXR is a FWD latter-day Manta GTE, and the Golf GTI looks lost alongside the Scirocco, which continues the legacy of the Corrado.

The Up and Polo GTI are closer to the original Golf, but the new Golf is so huge it's almost in Passat territory, and the GTI version has none of the appealing mentalism of its rivals. It's soft and plush inside, accomplished and efficient on the road. It's more like a GT, albeing one trapped inside a Golf bodyshell. And people looking for that kind of balance of abilities and appeal buy Sciroccos instead.

[Leins]

Matt_N said:

astra la vista said:

Leins said:

marlons69 said:

"Same went for the Mk2. The big year was 1989, ahead of the pre-big bumper, when 30 per cent of all new Golfs wore the GTI badge."

Can someone please explain what mkII golf came ahaead of of the "pre-big bumper"...?

That'll be the quarterlight front door cars

quarterlights were up to 86 and maybe early 87. my 88 has full front windows.

Yep that's true, my 89 16v had small bumpers but full windows.

I think the wording in the article is wrong, it should be ahead of the big bumper version or pre face lift, not ahead of the pre big bumper, which would indicate the early Type 19 Mk2.

Yep, which is my point. Quarterlights -> Full windows -> Big-bumpers

[wooooody]

kambites said:

Article said:

Amazingly, the Golf GTI was actually the biggest seller among the mass-market players,

I'm quite surprised it out-sold the Octavia VRS - they seem to be everywhere around here.

Not even seen one here.

[White Lightning]

Ecosseven said:

White Lightning said:

From my point of view its a price thing. Hot hatches used to quite easily attainable for young (ish) guys, you know early 20's with a decent job etc. For example the wedge shaped Civic Type R started at roughly 17k, my old Focus ST-3 was only 21k and that was top of the range. Now the same money won't even get you a bottom of the range new Focus ST. So i think to an extent they've priced themselves out of the very market they want to appeal to.

Don't get me wrong, i'm sure there are 100's of people on this forum who can still afford a hot hatch. For the record i don't count things like the Renault Sport Twingo 133 as a hot hatch......great car but not fast enough to be a hot hatch these days. (IMHO)

Someone mentioned insurance too.....and that's definitely not helping, particularly if you are young.

Anyway there's my 2 pence worth

Not sure I agree with your statement about the Twingo 133. For me a hot hatch should be about practicality and fun. Cars like the Twingo, Suzuki swift sport, and the new VW UP GT look great and with prces around £13k coupled with affordable running costs, they make sense IMO.

I don't disagree entirely. I think both the Suzuki and Twingo 133 are great little cars. But for me personally true hot hatches should nail the standard 0-62 in about 6.5 seconds give or take. I'm basing this purely on my old ST-3. It was affordable and bloody quick. (OK it wasn't 13k affordable, lol)

[White Lightning]

currybum said:

White Lightning said:

From my point of view its a price thing. Hot hatches used to quite easily attainable for young (ish) guys, you know early 20's with a decent job etc. For example the wedge shaped Civic Type R started at roughly 17k, my old Focus ST-3 was only 21k and that was top of the range. Now the same money won't even get you a bottom of the range new Focus ST. So i think to an extent they've priced themselves out of the very market they want to appeal to.

From a purchase price point of view cars are better value than ever....your £21,550 in 2008 is like spending £23,200 today taking in to account the VAT change close on £24,000....and I bet you can get in to an similarly speced Mk3 for that price, and you also get an extra chunk of power and fuel economy to boot.

A £17k EP3 in 2001 would be about £23k today.

It’s a common theme on here, but every time a new car comes out all the comments are “all new cars are too expensive” etc , etc…when you take in to account inflation they are better value than ever.

I understand what you mean, inflation etc etc. However I don't think people wages have risen in line with cost of cars. If you could still only afford 20k for a car in 2013 and were paying the same 20k in say 2003 you'd now be getting alot less for your money. (obviously talking brand new here and not second hand)

[Soupie69uk]

At least they are still offering a 3 door model

[r11co]

Escort Si-130 said:

Mk4sales were probably high as they had 2 versions. Wonder what the sales of the proper version mk4 with the red badge was.

Yeah. The majority of Mk4 'GTI's weren't GTIs at all but 2.0S models that VAG UK pulled the badges off and replaced with GTI (with a chrome I) on the justification that they contained the 2.0 8v engine of the previous generation GTI.

[adyb1rd]

I all ways wondered what the fuss was about for the Gti's .... I was a Ford man and escorts where the king for me mostly xr3i's and lastly an RS2000 16v. The latter was a complete pain in the arse it was a Fix Or Repair Daily nightmare. Any way The bloody RS had literaly broken down for about the twenty eleventh time so I needed a runna bout whist the RS was being fixed. My mrs had been on for ages about how she all ways wanted a Golf Gti so I turned my attentions to finding one I managed to get an F plate gti 8v for £ 230 YES £ 230 . I bought it from a bloke in Reading and it looked a bit ropey tbh but my god that thing was the best £ 200 I ever spent . The drive back to Oxford was one of the best I have ever had. I ended up keeping that car for about 6 months it was as quick as anything else I have owned. I then sold it when the RS was fixed BIG MISTAKE . So I bought a mk4 GTi 20v turbo, had it re mapped and lowered and various other things I still miss W346 RUX now. I have Driven a mk5 Gti and yes it felt better but more grown up !! I have a soft spot for GTi's now but £ 30.000 (once extras are added)is putting it in the regions of bmws / audis I think it does look nice though maybe they should of put a de-tuned 2.5 in it from thr rs3 ?

[Bitzer]

Killboy said:

I know many will not agree with me, but bring back a proper 6 cylinder Golf R. A nice factory turbocharged or supercharged R32. Or take audi's RS 2.5T. I dont care if it costs the earth, I'd love it. I just dont want to go back to 4 cylinders - all the farting and burping and all has nothing on the lovely V6 sound.

I may be forced into a BMW soon

And BMW are increasingly using 4 cylinder models to replace the 6ers.

e.g., The 328i used to be a S6, now a 4 cylinder turbo. The 525D used to be a S6 diesel Turbo, now a 4 cylinder turbo.

[bobmcgod]

How do these sales compare to the rest of the group? Seat and skoda for example. A good amount of leons and octavia's I see are fr/cupra/vrs.

[trando]

too little, too latte, if you ask me...

[Ecosseven]

Twincam16 said:

Ecosseven said:

White Lightning said:

From my point of view its a price thing. Hot hatches used to quite easily attainable for young (ish) guys, you know early 20's with a decent job etc. For example the wedge shaped Civic Type R started at roughly 17k, my old Focus ST-3 was only 21k and that was top of the range. Now the same money won't even get you a bottom of the range new Focus ST. So i think to an extent they've priced themselves out of the very market they want to appeal to.

Don't get me wrong, i'm sure there are 100's of people on this forum who can still afford a hot hatch. For the record i don't count things like the Renault Sport Twingo 133 as a hot hatch......great car but not fast enough to be a hot hatch these days. (IMHO)

Someone mentioned insurance too.....and that's definitely not helping, particularly if you are young.

Anyway there's my 2 pence worth

Not sure I agree with your statement about the Twingo 133. For me a hot hatch should be about practicality and fun. Cars like the Twingo, Suzuki swift sport, and the new VW UP GT look great and with prces around £13k coupled with affordable running costs, they make sense IMO.

I agree - in fact if you look at the cars the original Golf GTI usurped, it was much less powerful and certainly no faster.

Compare the Mk1 Golf GTI with the concurrent Ford Capri Mk3. To go as fast as the 110bhp Golf, you needed a 130bhp 2.8 V6 Capri. The Capri was heavier, more unwieldy, had less room in the back and the boot, was more expensive, used more fuel and cost more to insure.

Now compare that Twingo 133 to the current Golf GTI. In the real world in a point-to-point sense you can row the Twingo along as quickly as you can the Golf. The Golf is heavier, more unwieldy, is more expensive, uses more fuel and costs more to insure. Granted, there's more room in it, but not much more, and the boot is bigger, but as an everyday prospect it could be said the Twingo is more practical.

Given how the whole point of the first hot hatches was that they offered the same levels of fun as sports cars using the efficiency of fuel injection and weight reduction, and didn't cost anywhere near as much, it seems the Twingo 133 is closer to hot-hatchery than the bigger cars.

To me, a Megane RS is the touring-car-bred equivalent of something like a Delta Integrale or an Escort Cosworth, same goes for the Focus ST, the Astra GTC VXR is a FWD latter-day Manta GTE, and the Golf GTI looks lost alongside the Scirocco, which continues the legacy of the Corrado.

The Up and Polo GTI are closer to the original Golf, but the new Golf is so huge it's almost in Passat territory, and the GTI version has none of the appealing mentalism of its rivals. It's soft and plush inside, accomplished and efficient on the road. It's more like a GT, albeing one trapped inside a Golf bodyshell. And people looking for that kind of balance of abilities and appeal buy Sciroccos instead.

+1

A simple way to look at this.

A new Suzuki Swift sport can be bought for £13k on the road. A new Golf GTI 3dr will be around £26k on the road. Is the little Suzuki half the fun or half as practical? Factor in the lower running costs of the swift and I firmly believe the spirit of the GTI lives on.

[anything fast]

In 2006/7/8 the Focus ST outsold the Golf GTi 3-1.

I think the main reason is Golfs were expensive and lacked the visual impact of some hot hatches.

In 2007 I had the luxury of being really spoilt for choice in buying a brand new Hot hatch. I considered a Golf Gti, Focus ST, Astra VXR and Civic type R. In the end I went for the Focus in black rather than the dayglow orange. The golf was the best everyday car, the Astra was fastest and most raw, the Civic was a total let down with a puny engine and harsh ride. The focus came with full heated 4 seat recaro leather, proper heated front screen, dual climate control, headlamp washers, xenon's, high end sony hi-fi, bluetooth and voice activated commands for various functions. In short amazing value compared to the Golf, faster and with the peachy 2.5 5 pot lump I didnt have to think too long.

I think most Golf owners now are prefectly happy with a specced up TDI, the GTi boys have moved on to the Meganes, Cupra's, ST's and such cars.. they are all cheaper and most are faster than the lardy Golf Gti. The Golf has grown up too much and is no longer the ideal choice if you want a whizz bang GTi that offers real value, which is what made the original Mk1 such a hoot. I actually owned a very nippy tuned Mk1 and I miss that car more than any other car I have sold on.. LUL932X, sadly the scrote that bought it off me killed it

[Hub]

r11co said:

Escort Si-130 said:

Mk4sales were probably high as they had 2 versions. Wonder what the sales of the proper version mk4 with the red badge was.

Yeah. The majority of Mk4 'GTI's weren't GTIs at all but 2.0S models that VAG UK pulled the badges off and replaced with GTI (with a chrome I) on the justification that they contained the 2.0 8v engine of the previous generation GTI.

They did badge a lot of stuff GTI on the Mk4 - 1.8T, 1.8, 2.0, and even some of the TDI150s? It would definitely account for a higher proportion of sales. The MK5 was more specifically a GTI but my perception is that it was a success. Maybe I just spot more because I drive one myself, but I see significantly more Mk5 than Mk6 GTIs.