RE: Volkswagen Golf R 400
Discussion
Clivey said:
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"?
That's great. Why is the Golf R considered better than the M135i then, generally, in the motoring press?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"?
Porsche put the engine behind the rear axle in the 911. It hasn't really hurt its critical acclaim has it? It's because they get the development right. Having the correct engineering starting point is nowhere near as important as getting the development right. The S3 vs. Golf R being a very good example, from an engineering point of view the same car but getting very different reviews.
Your BMW blinkers are easy to spot. Not everyone wants a BMW Clivey (or Rover P6 man), they aren't really the Ultimate Driving Machine, get over it.
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.
I dont buy the argument that comparing a car like this with others on the track is to miss the point. It has about 200hp above what most drivers will use on the road and purports to be a performance car, so it should expect to be tested on the track and have its performance at the limits criticised.
If Golf put out a press release saying "Remember that this is just a Golf with a tuned up engine, so dont think it is a proper performance car. It's an overpowered road car" then you would be right! But it should be tested against what it is dressed up to be.
I havent driven the thing and doubt that the Haldex etc is as much of a problem as Rover suggests. The reviews of the Golf R dont seem to me to suggest that it is a fundamentally broken model. 400hp is a hell of a lot for a chassis and engine set up, but I would be very surprised if VW have screwed up here. It might well not perform brilliantly on the track, but it will be a pretty effective tool for overtaking on the roads!
There is a place for super-powerful hatches, and I am glad that there will be one that can be run under warranty and with reasonable servicing costs, etc. I doubt the market is huge, but so what? The market for all stupidly powerful cars is pretty small.
Rover has been a bit provocative re RWD vs FWD etc, but I dont think it is fair to say that he is trolling. A lot of people think hugely powerful hatches are a bit silly, and they are as entitled to bang on about it as are people to bang on about badge snobbery, etc. It is a fair question to ask why someone would spend £50k on a suped up hatch when they could, for the same money, buy an actual sports car that does not have any of the FWD, Haldex, ESP etc compromises. The answer might be "It is good for going to the shops/work and ferrying the kids around", which is a perfectly good answer. The answer might be "I actually like the way these nose-heavy lunatic cars handle". It is still legit to ask the question!
Different cars for different folk, different jobs and different tastes. Isnt the Mini Cooper S actually praised for its nutty handling and torque steer and old 911s praised for being arse-heavy and a bit jittery?! The M135i is also a very compromised beast but gets plaudits (deservedly) for having a "proper" engine that sounds "right". Taste taste taste.
(Dont get me started on sound symposers or whatever they are called. That really is hog s
t.)
If Golf put out a press release saying "Remember that this is just a Golf with a tuned up engine, so dont think it is a proper performance car. It's an overpowered road car" then you would be right! But it should be tested against what it is dressed up to be.
I havent driven the thing and doubt that the Haldex etc is as much of a problem as Rover suggests. The reviews of the Golf R dont seem to me to suggest that it is a fundamentally broken model. 400hp is a hell of a lot for a chassis and engine set up, but I would be very surprised if VW have screwed up here. It might well not perform brilliantly on the track, but it will be a pretty effective tool for overtaking on the roads!
There is a place for super-powerful hatches, and I am glad that there will be one that can be run under warranty and with reasonable servicing costs, etc. I doubt the market is huge, but so what? The market for all stupidly powerful cars is pretty small.
Rover has been a bit provocative re RWD vs FWD etc, but I dont think it is fair to say that he is trolling. A lot of people think hugely powerful hatches are a bit silly, and they are as entitled to bang on about it as are people to bang on about badge snobbery, etc. It is a fair question to ask why someone would spend £50k on a suped up hatch when they could, for the same money, buy an actual sports car that does not have any of the FWD, Haldex, ESP etc compromises. The answer might be "It is good for going to the shops/work and ferrying the kids around", which is a perfectly good answer. The answer might be "I actually like the way these nose-heavy lunatic cars handle". It is still legit to ask the question!
Different cars for different folk, different jobs and different tastes. Isnt the Mini Cooper S actually praised for its nutty handling and torque steer and old 911s praised for being arse-heavy and a bit jittery?! The M135i is also a very compromised beast but gets plaudits (deservedly) for having a "proper" engine that sounds "right". Taste taste taste.
(Dont get me started on sound symposers or whatever they are called. That really is hog s
t.)Agree with all that, but still fail to see how anybody can criticise, or praise, the handling of a car they've not driven.
Whether you can use the power is another thing - these are German cars of course, and in Germany you can use it - I've vmaxed a 350Z for several miles on public roads when I lived there
Whether you can use the power is another thing - these are German cars of course, and in Germany you can use it - I've vmaxed a 350Z for several miles on public roads when I lived there
I find all the arguing over the weight and distribution is borderline comical and cringe worthy at the same time.
Just look at a BMW chassis versus a VW MQB chassis and the relative engine positions. It would appear half of the 6 BMW cylinders sit in front of the axle line, then look at the VW which shows that the engine is positioned forward but is slanted toward the bulk head moving a significant amount of weight backwards. This difference is no where near as dramatic as some people are trying to make out.
This also serves as a good indication of why it is so pointless constantly trying to compare this MQB VAG cars like this Golf R with any previous generation.
PS no I've not driven either!
Just look at a BMW chassis versus a VW MQB chassis and the relative engine positions. It would appear half of the 6 BMW cylinders sit in front of the axle line, then look at the VW which shows that the engine is positioned forward but is slanted toward the bulk head moving a significant amount of weight backwards. This difference is no where near as dramatic as some people are trying to make out.
This also serves as a good indication of why it is so pointless constantly trying to compare this MQB VAG cars like this Golf R with any previous generation.
PS no I've not driven either!
There seems to be more complaints that this will be an understeery monster than the Focus RS500.
I've seen a A45 AMG get hammered round the 'track' at Merc World in the damp and it was embarrassing its bigger brothers and it didnt look like it was struggling with understeer in the slightest.
But watched the vid on autoexpress with the M135 comparison and on the long sweepers he struggled to correct his line due to not being able to put enough boot in to get the power towards the rear meaning understeer. Haldex can have its advantages as proven on the video, out of tight bends it stomped out of them a hell of a lot quicker than the BMW but the BMW was better on the long sweepers.
Out in the real world most, lets say non-PHers think a car is more of a performance car for the former attribute rather than the latter. Which translates to faster safer overtaking for one especially in British weather rather than hero driving round a roundabout. This makes it more predictable and arguably faster in 'the real world' but boring and compromised on the track.
But if you want to hang your arse out on the track and have a giggle why would you be buying a car with an on-demand 4wd system anyway.
I've seen a A45 AMG get hammered round the 'track' at Merc World in the damp and it was embarrassing its bigger brothers and it didnt look like it was struggling with understeer in the slightest.
But watched the vid on autoexpress with the M135 comparison and on the long sweepers he struggled to correct his line due to not being able to put enough boot in to get the power towards the rear meaning understeer. Haldex can have its advantages as proven on the video, out of tight bends it stomped out of them a hell of a lot quicker than the BMW but the BMW was better on the long sweepers.
Out in the real world most, lets say non-PHers think a car is more of a performance car for the former attribute rather than the latter. Which translates to faster safer overtaking for one especially in British weather rather than hero driving round a roundabout. This makes it more predictable and arguably faster in 'the real world' but boring and compromised on the track.
But if you want to hang your arse out on the track and have a giggle why would you be buying a car with an on-demand 4wd system anyway.
Colonial said:
And nor should anyone who makes sweeping assumptions without actually having driven a car.
Oh, your "mate" - did he drive the current S3 or the 8P s3 from 06 on? Because the new one is a much better car. See the recent article on here about how impressed people were with it. But of course. You know best.
New one on MQB platform.Oh, your "mate" - did he drive the current S3 or the 8P s3 from 06 on? Because the new one is a much better car. See the recent article on here about how impressed people were with it. But of course. You know best.
ShaunTheSheep said:
Why? The yesteryear supercar turn of speed is the only differentiator of the R. That's what its all about. If you want any other aspect of it, there's a cheaper way in the VAG stable.
I was being sarcastic. If you've read the thread, you'll have seen I've spent the last few pages questioning the worth of this car.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
It's not soft by any means but has enough compliance to cope with real-world roads, unlike most VAG products. There's also only 67kg between a Golf R and my 5-series, so you can't criticise it for its weight. It's got a much superior chassis under it too.dukebox9reg said:
Out in the real world most, lets say non-PHers think a car is more of a performance car for the former attribute rather than the latter. Which translates to faster safer overtaking for one especially in British weather rather than hero driving round a roundabout. This makes it more predictable and arguably faster in 'the real world' but boring and compromised on the track.
Good point. I drive a very PH car (mid-engine, RWD, etc) without an LSD that would probably be less impressive at punching out of corners than a 400hp Golf, tbh. It is also a bit squirmy under hard acceleration in the wet. For a lot of drivers, those attributes make it a less "sporty" car than a Golf R (notwithstanding that I love those things about it).I know which car I would rather sweep around A-road bends at speed, though
Balance and neutrality are important at times, even on the road and at legal speeds, although it is mostly absolute traction and torque for the average "sporty" driver most of the time(which explains why AWD systems are so favoured).Actually, sod all that - on our roads at the moment, you just need a car with a composed primary road and sod all power (to stop potholes smashing your wheels and/or throwing you into a hedge).
dukebox9reg said:
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.
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
Well, the modern turbo cars I've driven still have some lag - for example, the BMW 2-litre diesel does absolutely nothing below 2000rpm - and I've mentioned my friend's experience with the new S3, which he said was an excellent car but let down by a humdrum engine with all the power in the mid-range and an unsatisfactory Haldex AWD system. I found the same with some turbo Saab a few years ago - nice car in many ways but the engine just wasn't much cop. My 520i doesn't have huge mid-range, it's true, but it delivers the power in a lovely linear fashion - and I assure you that 5000rpm to a bit past 6500rpm is not in any way a 'tail off' - it's possibly the most urgent part of the whole rev-range. It goes absolutely nuts at about 4500 and revs hard to the redline. No, it's no S54, but it does the job in a thoroughly enjoyable manner - far more so than any turbo four, petrol or diesel.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
RoverP6B said:
dukebox9reg said:
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.
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
Well, the modern turbo cars I've driven still have some lag - for example, the BMW 2-litre diesel does absolutely nothing below 2000rpm - and I've mentioned my friend's experience with the new S3, which he said was an excellent car but let down by a humdrum engine with all the power in the mid-range and an unsatisfactory Haldex AWD system. I found the same with some turbo Saab a few years ago - nice car in many ways but the engine just wasn't much cop. My 520i doesn't have huge mid-range, it's true, but it delivers the power in a lovely linear fashion - and I assure you that 5000rpm to a bit past 6500rpm is not in any way a 'tail off' - it's possibly the most urgent part of the whole rev-range. It goes absolutely nuts at about 4500 and revs hard to the redline. No, it's no S54, but it does the job in a thoroughly enjoyable manner - far more so than any turbo four, petrol or diesel.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
New turbo engines especially from the Vag range are very impressive for throttle response and for being very linear in their power delivery. Driven a TTS and very impressed when coupled with the DSG box being responsive and sounding quite 'fruity'. Yes the noise is all from the exhaust but still sounds quite good. I'm not a die hard fan of VAG in the slightest btw. I liked my Mk2 Leon but probably the most unreliable car I've had.
I think to completely write off a proper modern 4 cylinder turbo without trying one is a bit narrow minded. Only thing I can't argue with you on is the sound. Won't ever sound as good as a proper V6 or straight 6 etc etc.
RoverP6B said:
Well, the modern turbo cars I've driven still have some lag
Are you sure you're not just confusing lag and boost threshold? I can't say I've ever noticed any actual lag in any of the modern 4-cylinder turbo engines but some do have a distinct boost threshold- the EA113 2.0 TFSI and current 1.6 Ecoboost Fiesta ST for example. Most modern- in fact, most older too- turbocharged engines build boost fairly rapidly when past their threshold- that's what "lag" is, the amount of time taken to build boost at WOT once past the threshold. Proper "lag" is largely the product of old-type thrust bearing turbochargers with heavy internals- the 1980s tech stuff. You don't really get it on modern ball-bearing turbochargers with titanium or other exotic internals.
Edited by ManOpener on Wednesday 23 April 17:18
ManOpener said:
RoverP6B said:
Well, the modern turbo cars I've driven still have some lag
Are you sure you're not just confusing lag and boost threshold? I can't say I've ever noticed any actual lag in any of the modern 4-cylinder turbo engines but some do have a distinct boost threshold- the EA113 2.0 TFSI and current 1.6 Ecoboost Fiesta ST for example.Actus Reus said:
So whilst I accept the engineering merit of your argument, and indeed perhaps the Golf could be better if changes were made, that's akin to saying 'It'd be better with two seats and a mid-mounted 3.4 driving the rear wheels' or in other words 'it would handle better if it was a Porsche'.
Firstly, thank-you for a decent response rather than a half-cocked attempt to shout down someone who doesn't blindly swallow the Kool-Aid. Yes; the car would be a better performance car if it were based on more suitable hardware. Other manufacturers (not just BMW) manage to make a car that has room for 4/5 people, luggage etc. AND give it better balance than VAG have previously managed with their FWD-based cars. Maybe (hopefully), VW have finally managed to make a Haldex car really handle with the Golf R. - That will be in no small part due to the changes they have made, with MQB moving the engine back, reducing the weight over the nose and the front overhang.Actus Reus said:
Well ALL of the reviews prefer it to the BM, though the BM was 0.25 or so quicker round the track (S3 was about 1.25 slower than the Golf).
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
Where to start with the BMW? Do I believe it to have the ideal layout for an all-round RWD / AWD hatch? Yes. Do I believe it's as well set-up as it could be? No. Do I believe that it can't be beaten? No. The RWD car needs a LSD for starters. Also, you get a sense with BMW that they don't want to make it too good out of the box because they need somewhere to go with the full-fat M version (I hope they make a "1" as well as a "2" this time). It's funny you mention Porsche because you could say that this car is BMW's Boxster/Cayman in that regard.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
My problem is that a regular test drive from a dealer just isn't going to tell me what I want to know. A friend used to have the 8P S3, which is how I got to drive it but where does a non-journalist / car industry worker get behind a decent steer unless they buy a car they're not sure they'll like? I don't have a beef with VAG (I have made the same comments re. a transverse layout and Haldex AWD on the A45 AMG threads) and it would be more convenient for me if I did like the character of these cars as VAG do seem intend on forcing them down our throats.
aka_kerrly said:
I find all the arguing over the weight and distribution is borderline comical and cringe worthy at the same time.
The only thing "cringe-worthy" is the comical overuse of that phrase at the moment. aka_kerrly said:
Just look at a BMW chassis versus a VW MQB chassis and the relative engine positions. It would appear half of the 6 BMW cylinders sit in front of the axle line, then look at the VW which shows that the engine is positioned forward but is slanted toward the bulk head moving a significant amount of weight backwards. This difference is no where near as dramatic as some people are trying to make out.
This also serves as a good indication of why it is so pointless constantly trying to compare this MQB VAG cars like this Golf R with any previous generation.
On the latest models, the difference is much smaller, yes. That doesn't mean it's not there. Though it appears to be much improved over the previous models, the Evo review shows that the new S3 still understeers quite a bit on corner exit. The Golf R might be better but the platform still isn't as good a starting point for a performance car than a traditional FR layout.This also serves as a good indication of why it is so pointless constantly trying to compare this MQB VAG cars like this Golf R with any previous generation.
lamboman100 said:
The 0-to-60 time has a wow factor, entering near-supercar territory. It will p*ss off a lot of Aston, Porsche drivers etc. But the R400, for now, looks very bland and will turn few heads. Struggling to get excited by it.
oh st, don't start that again or Vlad will have something to say.... Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff