RE: Volkswagen Golf R 400
Discussion
RoverP6B said:
Well said Clivey. I don't know if I'd fit in a GT86 and I'm looking more at the barges-and-4x4s end of the market, but if I was 30 all over again, there's no way I'd spend well over £30k on a Golf. It might seem a lot of horsepower for the money, but I just couldn't bring myself to spend that much on a fundamentally FWD hatch that only VW cognoscenti will realise isn't a boggo 1.4 TSI except on the rare occasions when you have enough space to floor it...
What 30 yr old has £30k to blow these days?It's beggars belief on here that the average wage in the UK is £26k. Who are these people earning such high wages? Certainly not me in the crappy public sector!
RoverP6B said:
Four cylinder turbo engines are really dull - nothing happens at low revs, then the turbo kicks in and you have a fairly mighty mid-range, but they really tail off towards the top, and the whole time they just make a completely ordinary uncultured drone. An updated VR6 would be far more interesting, but unlikely to happen for emissions reasons I guess. Haldex AWD is front-wheel-drive 95% of the time and only begins to shove power rearwards as understeer sets in - it's a thoroughly half-arsed way of doing things. I wouldn't buy a diesel either, but, for this sort of money, it's reasonable to demand a 6-cylinder engine and RWD or proper Torsen 4WD. I don't see this taking many sales off the M135i - and I reckon BMW will come back by dropping the twin-turbo version of that engine into the 1er. In the meantime, I dare say the tuners will happily remap the 1er to develop more boost. Oh, and you can bet your bottom $1 that it'll be DSG only when it hits showrooms - and, as we know, DSGs break ALL THE TIME.
As for taking the piss out of my 520i - yeah, it could use more power (I'll be after a 530i next time, though probably not a 540i, as nice as another V8 would be), but it's got a really good engine - only 170bhp, but it sounds so so good, it's so smooth (thanks to the inherent balance of the inline six-cylinder layout) and pulls so strongly to the redline that revving it hard is by no means unenjoyable. It's rear-wheel-drive, handles absolutely beautifully for such a big heavy barge, has lovely feelsome steering and it's just a joy to spank down twisty B-roads (which is where I do most of my mileage). It's also a great motorway cruiser - could do with more torque and a sixth gear for economy, but the engine is inaudible at a steady 70-80mph. There is a reason why the E39 is generally regarded as one of the greatest everyman cars of all time.
I could drop in an N55 and 6-speed from a 335i and remap it and I'd have something that would give this Golf a fright in a straight line and handle far better - because a proper RWD chassis with the engine mostly behind the front axle is an inherently better place to start building a high-performance car than a nose-heavy transverse-engined FWD chassis to which is added a part-time AWD system.
If VW really want to impress, they are going to have to come up with something that isn't transverse-engined and which is either RWD or uses proper 4WD as per the Audi S4 etc. Simply doubling the power output of a basic FWD Golf GTI and putting Haldex on it simply isn't good enough. It's not good full stop. It's a completely and utterly half-arsed way of doing it.
Your point of nothing happens at low revs is slightly outdated nowdays and think you're slightly confused by 90's turbo tech. Most modern turbo petrols produce maximum tq from just over tick over and hold that for the majority of the rev range.As for taking the piss out of my 520i - yeah, it could use more power (I'll be after a 530i next time, though probably not a 540i, as nice as another V8 would be), but it's got a really good engine - only 170bhp, but it sounds so so good, it's so smooth (thanks to the inherent balance of the inline six-cylinder layout) and pulls so strongly to the redline that revving it hard is by no means unenjoyable. It's rear-wheel-drive, handles absolutely beautifully for such a big heavy barge, has lovely feelsome steering and it's just a joy to spank down twisty B-roads (which is where I do most of my mileage). It's also a great motorway cruiser - could do with more torque and a sixth gear for economy, but the engine is inaudible at a steady 70-80mph. There is a reason why the E39 is generally regarded as one of the greatest everyman cars of all time.
I could drop in an N55 and 6-speed from a 335i and remap it and I'd have something that would give this Golf a fright in a straight line and handle far better - because a proper RWD chassis with the engine mostly behind the front axle is an inherently better place to start building a high-performance car than a nose-heavy transverse-engined FWD chassis to which is added a part-time AWD system.
If VW really want to impress, they are going to have to come up with something that isn't transverse-engined and which is either RWD or uses proper 4WD as per the Audi S4 etc. Simply doubling the power output of a basic FWD Golf GTI and putting Haldex on it simply isn't good enough. It's not good full stop. It's a completely and utterly half-arsed way of doing it.
Edited by RoverP6B on Tuesday 22 April 12:21
A golf GTI for example gives maximum tq from 1700revs to 5200revs and the power doesn't tail off at all pulling strongly till 500rpm before the redline. A quick remap would fix the tq plateau as well to give a lot more progressive tq.
Yes 4 pots don't sound as nice as 6 cylinders but after watching a few vids now of the M135 and new Golf R, the Golf at least inside the car doesn't sound that much worse for it.
For a little note to yourself your 520 doesn't produce its max tq till 3500rpm and though power is produced to the redline it starts to tail off after 5000rpm
Msportman said:
RoverP6B said:
Well said Clivey. I don't know if I'd fit in a GT86 and I'm looking more at the barges-and-4x4s end of the market, but if I was 30 all over again, there's no way I'd spend well over £30k on a Golf. It might seem a lot of horsepower for the money, but I just couldn't bring myself to spend that much on a fundamentally FWD hatch that only VW cognoscenti will realise isn't a boggo 1.4 TSI except on the rare occasions when you have enough space to floor it...
What 30 yr old has £30k to blow these days?It's beggars belief on here that the average wage in the UK is £26k. Who are these people earning such high wages? Certainly not me in the crappy public sector!
My next car i'm fancying is a specced up 125d and that's a lot more than 30k.
It what cars cost nowadays. Jees wish people would get over it. A Golf costs 30k, a 1 series costs 30k, a3 etc etc. To get a 3 series or C-Class you actually want to drive and be seen in its an easy 40k.
A R isnt exactly a 1.4 neither is it, bigger brakes, better suspension, 4wd, better seats ,better spec etc etc.
oh, 'If you was 30 again' and had 30k for a 4x4 or a barge, congrats you can afford a Hyundai Santa Fe or a mid spec Skoda Superb.
Edited by dukebox9reg on Wednesday 23 April 11:06
I!ve owned a Mk6 R running 360bhp. It was very mediocre on track that's for sure as the with the early cars you cannot disable ESP.
The inherent nature of Haldex means that on track it cannot transfer power quickly enough and it needs a Haldex controller to apportion more RWD bias. In the wet and for normal joe public it is a pretty good system but for anyone wanting a pure driving experience it falls short. In direct comparison to an Edition 30 I owned running a diff big brakes and 370 that was a far superior track weapon especially with sticky rubber. The let down is wet conditions but it was still fun and you could still exploit the diff in wet conditions on road and track. On a dry day on track it was considerably quicker than my R. It is now some sought after as with the Edition you can disable ESP like the new R.
I like the thought of either a B8 S4 running stage 2 and a big brake kit or a E90 M3 or my retirement car may just be an R8 v10 as they have now come into budget.
The inherent nature of Haldex means that on track it cannot transfer power quickly enough and it needs a Haldex controller to apportion more RWD bias. In the wet and for normal joe public it is a pretty good system but for anyone wanting a pure driving experience it falls short. In direct comparison to an Edition 30 I owned running a diff big brakes and 370 that was a far superior track weapon especially with sticky rubber. The let down is wet conditions but it was still fun and you could still exploit the diff in wet conditions on road and track. On a dry day on track it was considerably quicker than my R. It is now some sought after as with the Edition you can disable ESP like the new R.
I like the thought of either a B8 S4 running stage 2 and a big brake kit or a E90 M3 or my retirement car may just be an R8 v10 as they have now come into budget.
Msportman said:
I!ve owned a Mk6 R running 360bhp. It was very mediocre on track that's for sure as the with the early cars you cannot disable ESP.
The inherent nature of Haldex means that on track it cannot transfer power quickly enough and it needs a Haldex controller to apportion more RWD bias. In the wet and for normal joe public it is a pretty good system but for anyone wanting a pure driving experience it falls short. In direct comparison to an Edition 30 I owned running a diff big brakes and 370 that was a far superior track weapon especially with sticky rubber. The let down is wet conditions but it was still fun and you could still exploit the diff in wet conditions on road and track. On a dry day on track it was considerably quicker than my R. It is now some sought after as with the Edition you can disable ESP like the new R.
I like the thought of either a B8 S4 running stage 2 and a big brake kit or a E90 M3 or my retirement car may just be an R8 v10 as they have now come into budget.
The inherent nature of Haldex means that on track it cannot transfer power quickly enough and it needs a Haldex controller to apportion more RWD bias. In the wet and for normal joe public it is a pretty good system but for anyone wanting a pure driving experience it falls short. In direct comparison to an Edition 30 I owned running a diff big brakes and 370 that was a far superior track weapon especially with sticky rubber. The let down is wet conditions but it was still fun and you could still exploit the diff in wet conditions on road and track. On a dry day on track it was considerably quicker than my R. It is now some sought after as with the Edition you can disable ESP like the new R.
I like the thought of either a B8 S4 running stage 2 and a big brake kit or a E90 M3 or my retirement car may just be an R8 v10 as they have now come into budget.
ITS NOT BUILT FOR THE TRACK Why do you keep whittering on about track performance , how many miles do you do on track V's on road a year , if you want a track tool buy one but don't compare apples with oranges
Also had a 360bhp Golf R and agree it wasn't a good track car. However, that was as much down to the safe setup and weight of the thing rather than the Haldex.
As a road car though, immensely enjoyable and very difficult to beat as an all-round daily. With more power and less weight, the Mk 7 looks like a bargain to me.
As a road car though, immensely enjoyable and very difficult to beat as an all-round daily. With more power and less weight, the Mk 7 looks like a bargain to me.
dukebox9reg said:
I've just turned 30 and earn a lot more than 30k but i've worked for it. The Golf isn't on my radar in the slightest as I have different priorities at the mo with wife and kids but I have two cars that are around the 30k mark.
My next car i'm fancying is a specced up 125d and that's a lot more than 30k.
It what cars cost nowadays. Jees which people would get over it. A Golf costs 30k, a 1 series costs 30k, a3 etc etc. To get a 3 series or C-Class you actually want to drive and be seen in its an easy 40k.
A R isnt exactly a 1.4 neither is it, bigger brakes, better suspension, 4wd, better seats ,better spec etc etc.
oh, 'If you was 30 again' and had 30k for a 4x4 or a barge, congrats you can afford a Hyundai Santa Fe or a mid spec Skoda Superb.
Well you are in the minority I'm afraid. Maybe in London it's happy days for the average income for most families with children doesn't get anywhere close to spending £30k. That's why you see mostly Kia Sportages and Nissan Jukes on British roads especially outside of the south east. Most people I am told rent cars on PCP's just to get their dream cars. That's certainly the case in my local Audi dealership.My next car i'm fancying is a specced up 125d and that's a lot more than 30k.
It what cars cost nowadays. Jees which people would get over it. A Golf costs 30k, a 1 series costs 30k, a3 etc etc. To get a 3 series or C-Class you actually want to drive and be seen in its an easy 40k.
A R isnt exactly a 1.4 neither is it, bigger brakes, better suspension, 4wd, better seats ,better spec etc etc.
oh, 'If you was 30 again' and had 30k for a 4x4 or a barge, congrats you can afford a Hyundai Santa Fe or a mid spec Skoda Superb.
Lost soul said:
ITS NOT BUILT FOR THE TRACK Why do you keep whittering on about track performance , how many miles do you do on track V's on road a year , if you want a track tool buy one but don't compare apples with oranges
Msportman said:
Because some petrol heads that buy cars like this will go on track. I agree it's not built for track as a pure driving tool but why is that every known motoring mag, journalist will always complete a track comparison.....Harris, Bovingdon Meaden etc and co? Because they will measure who good it goes and feels in that environment.. That's why many manufacturers test their performance products around the Ring to get bench mark figures and hone the product for some track work.
Msportman said:
dukebox9reg said:
I've just turned 30 and earn a lot more than 30k but i've worked for it. The Golf isn't on my radar in the slightest as I have different priorities at the mo with wife and kids but I have two cars that are around the 30k mark.
My next car i'm fancying is a specced up 125d and that's a lot more than 30k.
It what cars cost nowadays. Jees which people would get over it. A Golf costs 30k, a 1 series costs 30k, a3 etc etc. To get a 3 series or C-Class you actually want to drive and be seen in its an easy 40k.
A R isnt exactly a 1.4 neither is it, bigger brakes, better suspension, 4wd, better seats ,better spec etc etc.
oh, 'If you was 30 again' and had 30k for a 4x4 or a barge, congrats you can afford a Hyundai Santa Fe or a mid spec Skoda Superb.
Well you are in the minority I'm afraid. Maybe in London it's happy days for the average income for most families with children doesn't get anywhere close to spending £30k. That's why you see mostly Kia Sportages and Nissan Jukes on British roads especially outside of the south east. Most people I am told rent cars on PCP's just to get their dream cars. That's certainly the case in my local Audi dealership.My next car i'm fancying is a specced up 125d and that's a lot more than 30k.
It what cars cost nowadays. Jees which people would get over it. A Golf costs 30k, a 1 series costs 30k, a3 etc etc. To get a 3 series or C-Class you actually want to drive and be seen in its an easy 40k.
A R isnt exactly a 1.4 neither is it, bigger brakes, better suspension, 4wd, better seats ,better spec etc etc.
oh, 'If you was 30 again' and had 30k for a 4x4 or a barge, congrats you can afford a Hyundai Santa Fe or a mid spec Skoda Superb.
As such, the Golf R - in my eyes - represents good value considering the amount of boxes it is able to tick.
Have any of those slating the Golf R actually driven it? Because, assuming they haven't, all you've got to go on are the reviews - all of which, without any exception, have been positive - including German reviews rating it against the (apparently technically superior) BMW M135i X-drive. You don't like the look of it on paper, fine, but arguing that it's not as good to drive, when you have no idea whatsoever, is just utterly ridiculous. For the record Auto Motor und Sport preferred it on the track as well as on the road to the BM. As a do-it-all compromise car I reckon it's great (and yes, I've driven it).
scherzkeks said:
It is, IMO, the perfect compromise for someone that needs a car that does it all. I have owned (still have the second) two Torsen cars and I'm not sure I'd have another. They are generally less entertaining on tarmac than the modern Haldex Gen 4 and 5 cars, slower to shuffle power, and have always offered poorer traction in the wet, snow, mud. There are Sport Auto tests from years ago that demonstrate this quite well.
You don't need to shuffle so much power if the distribution is better to start with. 
I don't know what your definition of "entertaining" is but with Haldex, the car leans heavily on the nose in the corners whilst the electronics make the whole car fidget at the limit in an attempt to compensate for the flawed balance. You can see this in action in both the Auto Bild test and the Evo test...where the M135is still beat both pretenders. Actually, from what I gather, some improvements could be made to the BMWs suspension setup but that would only push it further ahead of the Audi and VW. At least with Torsen, X-Drive and other similar systems, the power distribution is more balanced before any slip occurs and redistribution doesn't have to be done in such large amounts.
The Golf R would be faster and handle with more finesse if the power and weight distrubtion were better balanced and the suspension tuned to match. If a transverse Haldex setup was so brilliant, why don't Audi use it in their larger platforms/cars?
scherzkeks said:
I am at a loss as to why you'd consider a heavy, soft 5 series estate a better alternative for anything other than hauling shopping and dogs, but Clivey also drives the automotive equivalent of a washing machine
If a N/A straight six, RWD petrol BMW is a "washing machine", then what's a Golf? A blender? You're just clutching at straws now. That, by the way, is my idea of "entertaining". The 5'er is a large Estate, so of course it's heavy.
It's also a dream to drive compared with the equivalent A6 because despite the weight and lack of power, it's balanced. If you want to make it stiffer, that's easy. What you can't do though is counteract a nose heavy-layout and front-biased AWD just with suspension settings, as you seem to think.scherzkeks said:
...and writes novellas on his hatred for these cars, so perhaps the comment on the green-eyed monster hits the mark. 
Except that your argument just doesn't make sense. - If I were the jealous type, then surely there are many, many cars that I'd get envious over...but certainly not anything based on the Golf platform. If you have me the RRP of a VAG Haldex box but stipulated I had to spend it on a brand new car, Golf-platform cars wouldn't get a look in. That's not to say the Golf R is horrible; just that you can definitely do better.dukebox9reg said:
Edited by dukebox9reg on Wednesday 23 April 11:06
sorry i digress.....as you were.....
ToothbrushMan said:
dukebox9reg said:
Edited by dukebox9reg on Wednesday 23 April 11:06
sorry i digress.....as you were.....
I've worked from the bottom of every job I've had (was in the Army from 12 years so very much used to getting used and abused at the bottom lol, not in the bottom) I am now the only one doing my job and if it doesn't get done I'm the only one to blame so surely you are even more so in the wrong assuming that because i'm in a well paid job I pull sickies and are lazy.
I have never pulled a sickie or will ever do so. Personally I have worked hard to be were I am, did I mention yourself in that comment, chip on your shoulder?...as you were.
Edited by dukebox9reg on Wednesday 23 April 12:13
Edited by dukebox9reg on Wednesday 23 April 12:15
Actus Reus said:
Have any of those slating the Golf R actually driven it? Because, assuming they haven't, all you've got to go on are the reviews - all of which, without any exception, have been positive - including German reviews rating it against the (apparently technically superior) BMW M135i X-drive. You don't like the look of it on paper, fine, but arguing that it's not as good to drive, when you have no idea whatsoever, is just utterly ridiculous. For the record Auto Motor und Sport preferred it on the track as well as on the road to the BM. As a do-it-all compromise car I reckon it's great (and yes, I've driven it).
Lost soul said:
Actus Reus said:
Have any of those slating the Golf R actually driven it? Because, assuming they haven't, all you've got to go on are the reviews - all of which, without any exception, have been positive - including German reviews rating it against the (apparently technically superior) BMW M135i X-drive. You don't like the look of it on paper, fine, but arguing that it's not as good to drive, when you have no idea whatsoever, is just utterly ridiculous. For the record Auto Motor und Sport preferred it on the track as well as on the road to the BM. As a do-it-all compromise car I reckon it's great (and yes, I've driven it).
Maldini35 said:
Lost soul said:
It's not for the track is it
spot on
Actus Reus said:
Have any of those slating the Golf R actually driven it? Because, assuming they haven't, all you've got to go on are the reviews - all of which, without any exception, have been positive - including German reviews rating it against the (apparently technically superior) BMW M135i X-drive. You don't like the look of it on paper, fine, but arguing that it's not as good to drive, when you have no idea whatsoever, is just utterly ridiculous. For the record Auto Motor und Sport preferred it on the track as well as on the road to the BM. As a do-it-all compromise car I reckon it's great (and yes, I've driven it).
It might be "good for a front-biased car" or "as a compromise car", as you put it (and there's nothing wrong with that) but unless someone's re-written the laws of physics whilst I haven't been looking and unless it's somehow a million miles better than the new S3, it's still not going to be as good as something that's been designed with balance as a priority from the start. - With the 1-Series, BMW even places the layout ahead of interior space, practicality etc.My argument is that no matter how good the new cars are, they would be better with a longitudinally-mounted engine that doesn't project ahead of the front axle and an AWD system that has a more rearward bias by default. Both versions of the M135i offer improved balance over the VAG cars and as long as you don't need every extra centimetre of space the Golf/S3 offer over them, are surely the best choice for anyone wanting an "all-rounder"?
hondansx said:
"electronics make the whole car fidget at the limit" - not something i noticed on my Mk 6, have you actually driven one?
By the sounds of it, the Mk 7 is a noticeable step forward, so i'm trying establish what your comments are actually based on?
Re. Haldex Gen 4 / 4.5. I've driven a friend's old 8P S3 (2008 facelift) on several occasions including at Donington in the wet and an Insignia VXR. The Insignia was better but still wanted to push on excessively in the corners. Both a shame as they are good-looking cars. As you say, the MQB cars have undoubtedly progressed, however you don't need to drive one for yourself to see that the traits are ultimately still there. By the sounds of it, the Mk 7 is a noticeable step forward, so i'm trying establish what your comments are actually based on?
dukebox9reg said:
...used to getting used and abused at the bottom lol, not in the bottom
Clivey said:
Actus Reus said:
Have any of those slating the Golf R actually driven it? Because, assuming they haven't, all you've got to go on are the reviews - all of which, without any exception, have been positive - including German reviews rating it against the (apparently technically superior) BMW M135i X-drive. You don't like the look of it on paper, fine, but arguing that it's not as good to drive, when you have no idea whatsoever, is just utterly ridiculous. For the record Auto Motor und Sport preferred it on the track as well as on the road to the BM. As a do-it-all compromise car I reckon it's great (and yes, I've driven it).
It might be "good for a front-biased car" or "as a compromise car", as you put it (and there's nothing wrong with that) but unless someone's re-written the laws of physics whilst I haven't been looking and unless it's somehow a million miles better than the new S3, it's still not going to be as good as something that's been designed with balance as a priority from the start. - With the 1-Series, BMW even places the layout ahead of interior space, practicality etc.My argument is that no matter how good the new cars are, they would be better with a longitudinally-mounted engine that doesn't project ahead of the front axle and an AWD system that has a more rearward bias by default. Both versions of the M135i offer improved balance over the VAG cars and as long as you don't need every extra centimetre of space the Golf/S3 offer over them, are surely the best choice for anyone wanting an "all-rounder"?
As it is every review prefers the 'R'. Perhaps you might not, but it's hard to argue that case if you've not driven it IMHO.
EFA
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff