RE: Volkswagen Golf R 400

[ryanponti]

RoverP6B said:

MiseryStreak said:

What a strange thing to say. So everyone considering buying a 400bhp 4WD Hatchback should buy a second hand boggo BMW estate and do an engine transplant instead?

Also, is a forced induction straight six that different in throttle repsonse/lag etc. to a modern turbo 4 pot? How does the rev limit compare?

I didn't say they SHOULD, I said I COULD and the result would be superior to the Golf R400 because of the inherently superior chassis and engine. And yes, the inherently balanced straight six, with no balancer shafts trying vainly to cancel out the vibration of a 4-cylinder engine, is a far sweeter thing than the straight four. The BMW twin-turbo setup also means less lag than the single-turbo setup on the Golf.

ManOpener said:

Right, and that's exactly why the Golf R is winning so many of the group tests and being showered with praise, isn't it?

Has it ever occurred to you that there's a difference between you not personally liking something for whatever reason, and it being objectively decent?

And why is it winning? Because the journos are given VW's hospitality etc and are wowed by the straight-line go the thing has. It doesn't matter how many group tests it wins, a FWD-based Haldex system will NEVER be an acceptable solution for a proper high-performance car.

N55 isnt a twin turbo just saying...

Single turbo twin scroll

N54 is twin turbo..

[aeropilot]

RoverP6B said:

And yet what did the Veyron really achieve? That, by throwing away billions of Euros and developing your existing VR engine architecture into an eight-litre, sixteen-cylinder, quad-turbo monster with no fewer than ten radiators and a total disregard for MPG and emissions, you can go 250mph? What Christian von Koenigsegg has done from a technological POV (particularly with regard to the BHP-to-CO2 ratio) is far more interesting and exciting. Ditto McLaren and their hydraulic suspension, hybrid system and their development of brake steer to effectively give you the desirable characteristics of an LSD without the undesirable ones...

[MiseryStreak]

RoverP6B said:

Wrong. Inline 4-cylinder engines are inherently unbalanced and so require balancer shafts. From my old E46 318i to Alfa 2.0 Twin Sparks to Porsche 968s, most four-cylinder engines possess two balancer shafts, one near the crankshaft, one further up the engine. This consumes power, adds friction and contributes to powertrain inertia. A straight six, on the other hand, IS inherently balanced and requires no vibration-cancelling, so you're not losing power driving balancer shafts.

Those are to cancel out secondary imbalances, an inline four has perfect primary balance, anyway, are they more power sapping than the extra weight and internal fictional losses of a six cylinder engine though? You only need look at the R32 to Golf R performance vs. fuel economy comparison to see that. I agree that the R32 sounds a lot nicer though, and the 'sound symposer' thing is a crime.

[RoverP6B]

Nors said:

Your anti anthything that's not RWD is, well, obvious! What constitutes a performance car in your eyes are your choice, but to bladder everything else is short sighted indeed.

Sorry, you must be an expert driver of course that can fully exploit all these RWD chassis to the full and anything else doesn't do it for you!!

Having driven FWD cars, I can tell you it doesn't take an expert with an FIA superlicence to be able to feel the inherent superiority of a 50:50 F:R weight-distributed RWD chassis over a 60:40 FWD chassis. Now, I am NOT against proper 4WD, FAR from it, and in terms of delivering massive traction in all conditions, it's probably the best way - but Haldex IS NOT 4WD! It's FRONT-wheel-drive 99% of the time and only shoves power backwards when you're already understeering. It's a fundamentally flawed, cheap system which should not get the respect of any thinking petrolhead.

[RoverP6B]

MiseryStreak said:

Those are to cancel out secondary imbalances, an inline four has perfect primary balance, anyway, are they more power sapping than the extra weight and internal fictional losses of a six cylinder engine though? You only need look at the R32 to Golf R performance vs. fuel economy comparison to see that. I agree that the R32 sounds a lot nicer though, and the 'sound symposer' thing is a crime.

VR6s are not straight sixes and do employ balancer shafts. If VW had replaced the VR6 with a narrow straight six like that used by Volvo in the S60, V70, S80 and XC90 (and American-market Land Rover Freelanders), there would have been a noticeable improvement in economy, though quite possibly not as much as that delivered by the 4-cylinder turbo.

ryanponti said:

N55 isnt a twin turbo just saying... Single turbo twin scroll. N54 is twin turbo.

Quite right too, I of all PHers should know that. Wrist-slap.

[MiseryStreak]

RoverP6B said:

Having driven FWD cars, I can tell you it doesn't take an expert with an FIA superlicence to be able to feel the inherent superiority of a 50:50 F:R weight-distributed RWD chassis over a 60:40 FWD chassis. Now, I am NOT against proper 4WD, FAR from it, and in terms of delivering massive traction in all conditions, it's probably the best way - but Haldex IS NOT 4WD! It's FRONT-wheel-drive 99% of the time and only shoves power backwards when you're already understeering. It's a fundamentally flawed, cheap system which should not get the respect of any thinking petrolhead.

Oh dear, well I think you've set your stall out! 'Wrong wheel drive' hating cylinder count snob.
Personally I think a good driver's car is where you find it. There are plenty of examples of crap/boring/dull 'perfect 50:50' RWD cars out there, most of the BMW range to name but a few.

[scherzkeks]

RoverP6B said:

Having driven FWD cars, I can tell you it doesn't take an expert with an FIA superlicence to be able to feel the inherent superiority of a 50:50 F:R weight-distributed RWD chassis over a 60:40 FWD chassis. Now, I am NOT against proper 4WD, FAR from it, and in terms of delivering massive traction in all conditions, it's probably the best way - but Haldex IS NOT 4WD! It's FRONT-wheel-drive 99% of the time and only shoves power backwards when you're already understeering. It's a fundamentally flawed, cheap system which should not get the respect of any thinking petrolhead.

BMW's M135 AWD has a 56/44 weight balance, pretty close to the Golf R at 58/46.

And Haldex Gens 4 and 5 can lock up at any time, and do not require slip to do so. In fact with the clutch locked or nearly so, VAGs latest implementation with the e-torque vectoring on each axle is very similar to the system in the Polo WRC, which locks the F/R axles and uses LSDs F/R. Given that Haldex is faster than a purely mech system to shuffle torque, this is quite a good setup for a sporty road car.

[Johnnytheboy]

Well despite being told I'm wrong, I'd love one of these.

I want a fast small car with a hatch. My current car has 345bhp so it would have to be at least around this mark to make me want to change.

Apparently having more money to play with means either I want a proper sports car or a much bigger car, or two cars - one as a daily driver. I don't: I want a really, really fast hatch.

[Nors]

RoverP6B said:

Nors said:

Your anti anthything that's not RWD is, well, obvious! What constitutes a performance car in your eyes are your choice, but to bladder everything else is short sighted indeed.

Sorry, you must be an expert driver of course that can fully exploit all these RWD chassis to the full and anything else doesn't do it for you!!

Having driven FWD cars, I can tell you it doesn't take an expert with an FIA superlicence to be able to feel the inherent superiority of a 50:50 F:R weight-distributed RWD chassis over a 60:40 FWD chassis. Now, I am NOT against proper 4WD, FAR from it, and in terms of delivering massive traction in all conditions, it's probably the best way - but Haldex IS NOT 4WD! It's FRONT-wheel-drive 99% of the time and only shoves power backwards when you're already understeering. It's a fundamentally flawed, cheap system which should not get the respect of any thinking petrolhead.

I'm not going to argue about the merits of this and that etc etc,it's been debated to death on PH with no winners depending on a given viewpoint. But 2 things that is often overlooked:-

1. Understeer (or given amounts of it) is largely designed into these cars (and many others - including some RWD's) as a 'safety' feature for 95+% of driving joe public. A back end that snaps out is not what's considered the favoured safer option!!

2. The levels of grip in most cars these days (especially car like this Golf) mean that to induce some of the characteristics you hate will mean some pretty hairy driving on a public road.

[RoverP6B]

MiseryStreak said:

Oh dear, well I think you've set your stall out! 'Wrong wheel drive' hating cylinder count snob.
Personally I think a good driver's car is where you find it. There are plenty of examples of crap/boring/dull 'perfect 50:50' RWD cars out there, most of the BMW range to name but a few.

Agreed, put the wrong engine (e.g. 4-cylinder turbo, especially if diesel) in a great chassis and you're going to have a fundamentally dull car, but the E90 320d I had for a week was still a bit of a hoot to thrash down Surrey B-roads, although the engine and autobox were a constant frustration.

However, NONE of that changes the fact that starting with a FWD platform and adding Haldex part-time AWD is a poor way to go about making a performance car.

scherzkeks said:

BMW's M135 AWD has a 56/44 weight balance, pretty close to the Golf R at 58/46.

And Haldex Gens 4 and 5 can lock up at any time, and do not require slip to do so. In fact with the clutch locked or nearly so, VAGs latest implementation with the e-torque vectoring on each axle is very similar to the system in the Polo WRC, which locks the F/R axles and uses LSDs F/R. Given that Haldex is faster than a purely mech system to shuffle torque, this is quite a good setup for a sporty road car.

I wasn't aware BMW made an AWD M135i. I know nothing of what sort of AWD system it employs so I shall withhold judgement. Your assertions as to the capability of the latest Haldex systems may be correct in theory, but, while I've not driven anything Haldex in years, a friend of mine has done, fairly recently, and reported it to be unsatisfactory. The car was, I think, an Audi S3.

[Johnnytheboy]

RoverP6B said:

I wasn't aware BMW made an AWD M135i. I know nothing of what sort of AWD system it employs so I shall withhold judgement.

They do but they don't sell it here (problem mating RHD and the AWD system IIRC).

[Dr Interceptor]

RoverP6B said:

but, while I've not driven anything Haldex in years, a friend of mine has done, fairly recently, and reported it to be unsatisfactory. The car was, I think, an Audi S3.

The Ferrari 458 is st to drive. Oh, I've not driven it personally, but my mate Gary has, and he reckons its crap.

Don't ever pass judgement on a car until you've driven it personally. The Golf R is a very different drive to the S3, despite sharing much the same architecture.

[RoverP6B]

Johnnytheboy said:

They do but they don't sell it here (problem mating RHD and the AWD system IIRC).

I knew they did some kind of AWD/4WD with LHD (as do M-B) in some models, just didn't know the M135i was one of them. As I understand it, the problem with a conventional FR layout adapted to 4WD is that, somewhere along the line you have to package front, rear and centre diffs, you've got to package a driveshaft from the centre to front diffs (getting around the transmission), all of which means you have more weight at the front and the engine has to be mounted higher, which is bad for CofG, more body roll etc... the alternative is what Subaru and Audi do with their permanent 4WD systems, which is essentially a longitudinal-engined FWD platform, engine ahead of the front axle. Subaru help lower the CofG and cut the length of engine projecting out ahead of the front axle by using horizontally opposed engines. I'm still not sure how well this really works compared to RWD. A neighbour of mine had a WRX STi and reckoned his old E46 325i handled a bit better in the dry, but that the Subaru had better traction and less body roll.

[RoverP6B]

Dr Interceptor said:

The Ferrari 458 is st to drive. Oh, I've not driven it personally, but my mate Gary has, and he reckons its crap.

Don't ever pass judgement on a car until you've driven it personally. The Golf R is a very different drive to the S3, despite sharing much the same architecture.

I'm prepared to trust my friend's testimony. He was actually very keen on the S3 in many ways but reckoned his old Mazda RX-8 (which he sold due to its prodigious thirst) handled a lot better. Apparently the S3 was quite slow to react to understeer then shoved a lot of power to the rear, turning understeer to oversteer in less than predictable fashion. Maybe the Golf R will be different, but, considering it's the same AWD system, same platform, same wheelbase, same suspension, same powertrain... I doubt it.

458 - I'm sure it's not st at all, but it's certainly not what I would want in a Ferrari, and I really couldn't live with the looks either... but that's another debate for another thread.

[Lost soul]

RoverP6B said:

And yet what did the Veyron really achieve? That, by throwing away billions of Euros and developing your existing VR engine architecture into an eight-litre, sixteen-cylinder, quad-turbo monster with no fewer than ten radiators and a total disregard for MPG and emissions, you can go 250mph? What Christian von Koenigsegg has done from a technological POV (particularly with regard to the BHP-to-CO2 ratio) is far more interesting and exciting. Ditto McLaren and their hydraulic suspension, hybrid system and their development of brake steer to effectively give you the desirable characteristics of an LSD without the undesirable ones...

It sounds as if you do not like cars that are different

[RoverP6B]

Lost soul said:

It sounds as if you do not like cars that are different

Rubbish, d'you honestly think I'd always be rhapsodising about how wonderful my st-brown 70s Rover was if I didn't like stuff that's different? The Veyron was amazing when new, although I always thought it was ugly and overweight, but it's been left so far behind, so fast... it's a total dinosaur.

[MiseryStreak]

RoverP6B said:

Maybe the Golf R will be different, but, considering it's the same AWD system, same platform, same wheelbase, same suspension, same powertrain... I doubt it.

I'm, just going to leave these here:
http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/evocarreviews/2916...
http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/evocarreviews/2889...

But I think you've made your mind up, and nobody that ever intends to buy a Golf R 400 will give two hoots what you or any other armchair expert thinks of their decision, so please carry on arguing that because your neighbour thought the S3 was crap then this Golf R will be too.

[anonymous-user]

RoverP6B said:

Dr Interceptor said:

The Ferrari 458 is st to drive. Oh, I've not driven it personally, but my mate Gary has, and he reckons its crap.

Don't ever pass judgement on a car until you've driven it personally. The Golf R is a very different drive to the S3, despite sharing much the same architecture.

I'm prepared to trust my friend's testimony. He was actually very keen on the S3 in many ways but reckoned his old Mazda RX-8 (which he sold due to its prodigious thirst) handled a lot better. Apparently the S3 was quite slow to react to understeer then shoved a lot of power to the rear, turning understeer to oversteer in less than predictable fashion. Maybe the Golf R will be different, but, considering it's the same AWD system, same platform, same wheelbase, same suspension, same powertrain... I doubt it.

458 - I'm sure it's not st at all, but it's certainly not what I would want in a Ferrari, and I really couldn't live with the looks either... but that's another debate for another thread.

You are 300bhp/ton and I claim my 50p prize

[RoverP6B]

MiseryStreak said:

I'm, just going to leave these here:
http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/evocarreviews/2916...
http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/evocarreviews/2889...

But I think you've made your mind up, and nobody that ever intends to buy a Golf R 400 will give two hoots what you or any other armchair expert thinks of their decision, so please carry on arguing that because your neighbour thought the S3 was crap then this Golf R will be too.

"VW has been using Haldex four-wheel drive systems for the best part of 20 years, and the R's system is thoroughly familiar. Under normal use torque is channeled through the front wheels, with drive transferred rearwards when slip is detected."

So, it's still only going to send any power rearwards when you've got understeer. Curiously, the S3 review says absolutely nothing about the behaviour of the Haldex. The Golf review also seems to gloss over the transfer from FWD to AWD.

Incidentally, as I said, my friend didn't dislike the S3, he liked it a lot, just felt that the Haldex let it down. I understand he's looking at used S4s instead now.

[RoverP6B]

St John Smythe said:

You are 300bhp/ton and I claim my 50p prize

Sorry? I've never had anything half that quick - 145bhp/ton is the highest p/w ratio of any car I've owned (this being my old Rover P6 3500S).