RE: Volkswagen Golf R 400

RE: Volkswagen Golf R 400

Author
Discussion

aka_kerrly

12,415 posts

209 months

Wednesday 23rd April 2014
quotequote all


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.
The difference is you really really want to make a big deal of it. Do you weigh your shopping and make sure it's evenly distributed around the car so as not to impact the handlinglaugh

I presume you read this review of the S3 - http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/evocarreviews/2889...

The one that says
"The S3 definitely errs towards quick and secure rather than fun and involving. It slices through longer turns extremely accurately but utterly planted, almost egging you on to try and carry more and more speed. Predictably it’s the nose that will start to nibble wide first, but if you lift off, the back will come into play quite smartly."

Followed by a reference to on track performance "a nice balance, running wide at the limit, but then tightening its line nicely on an eased throttle."

I find that these sort of articles somewhat misleading and not always that helpful. They take road cars on a track try and take a corner as fast as possible in order to observe that if you try hard enough you can create understeer or oversteer.

Clearly I am not a motoring journalist but I've been lucky enough to drive a fair selection of cars over the years and do feel that journos are the worst for exaggerating what in my opinion is at times the bleeding obvious. That is, if you take if 300hp car and try hard enough you can make it understeer/oversteer/spit you off the road/wreck the tyres or whatever your goal is and then announce it will always perform exactly that way in anyone's hands.

Manufactures simply cannot win if they create a car that performs outstanding on the track , puts in a good TG or N'Ring lap time but it gets ridiculed for being too harsh/too compromised on the road, eg the FANTASTIC Renault R26R.

If VW make this Golf 400R so that it is 90% track car but with a bit more sound deadening, good seats and all the mod cons that people expect in a +£40k car then they have done well but much like the majority of M135I I doubt many will actually be taken anywhere near a track...


martin elaman

94 posts

126 months

Wednesday 23rd April 2014
quotequote all

The only way to know how the new Golf R will perform, is having one for a decent amount of time. Maybe a few weeks of driving it and in all kinds of conditions; especially in comparison with cars like the S4 with Torsen, the new Subaru sti, the BMW 135x, and maybe something exotic like a new Porsche 911 C4. This would really shed some light on the state of four wheel drive performance cars. Obviously this won't happen until the likes of some web site like "Driver's Republic" resurfaces one day. But then again I am not sure how into cars more folks are these days. So maybe antidotal evidence/experiences from pistonheads drivers will one day help figure questions like this out- people just need the vocabulary to discuss how their cars perform- along with driving skill. martin

Clivey

5,108 posts

203 months

Wednesday 23rd April 2014
quotequote all
ORD said:
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.
Good point, well made. What we must remember though is that good track performance does not equal good road performance (and vice versa). - If as one of the development engineers you could choose to make it "ideal" for the road but doing so would compromise the track performance slightly, then bearing in mind where it's going to be used most of the time, you'd still do it (those taking theirs on track days are more likely to tweak the suspension etc. anyway).

ORD said:
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!
It'll be an "effective" road car, no doubt...it's just that if some of us were to spend £30k> on something with AWD, we'd want it to be adjustable, balanced and composed. - Mitsubishi's Evo manages this despite also having a transverse engine with the weight ahead of the front axle, so it can be done. If VW have pulled this one off finally, kudos to them. thumbup

ORD said:
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 st.)
Enough said. smile

aka_kerrly said:
The difference is you really really want to make a big deal of it. Do you weigh your shopping and make sure it's evenly distributed around the car so as not to impact the handlinglaugh
The difference is that we're car enthusiasts. - Or are we supposed to be "yes men" for the manufacturers, simply responding to each new car release by saying:

"That's nice."

"That's nice."

"That's nice."

etc.?

If I were to spend £30k+ on a performance car, I wouldn't want it to simply feel like a standard model "turned up to 11". That's why the M135i appeals and in the Evo supertest this month, they even comment on the "spine-tingling turbocharged 3-litre straight six" and that "When you first get to wind it through the revs it is totally seductive".

If the Golf R is finally the car to break the generic VAG mould, fantastic, though my point that it could be even better still stands. wink

aka_kerrly said:
I presume you read this review of the S3 - http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/evocarreviews/2889...

The one that says
"The S3 definitely errs towards quick and secure rather than fun and involving. It slices through longer turns extremely accurately but utterly planted, almost egging you on to try and carry more and more speed. Predictably it’s the nose that will start to nibble wide first, but if you lift off, the back will come into play quite smartly."

Followed by a reference to on track performance "a nice balance, running wide at the limit, but then tightening its line nicely on an eased throttle."

I find that these sort of articles somewhat misleading and not always that helpful. They take road cars on a track try and take a corner as fast as possible in order to observe that if you try hard enough you can create understeer or oversteer.
Isn't that what you'll be experiencing if you're driving the car as fast as possible in any context? Of course if you never drive them quickly, any modern car is fine but if an enthusiast buys something that has sporting pretensions, they want the car to be able to deliver on it's promises.

aka_kerrly said:
Clearly I am not a motoring journalist but I've been lucky enough to drive a fair selection of cars over the years and do feel that journos are the worst for exaggerating what in my opinion is at times the bleeding obvious. That is, if you take if 300hp car and try hard enough you can make it understeer/oversteer/spit you off the road/wreck the tyres or whatever your goal is and then announce it will always perform exactly that way in anyone's hands.
I don't understand you here. - Their job is to highlight the differences between cars. - Not all drive the same and if one tends towards oversteer whilst another understeers at the limit, isn't that what we want to know? Or are cars "just to get from A to B"?

RoverP6B

4,338 posts

127 months

Thursday 24th April 2014
quotequote all
dukebox9reg said:
So from your personal experience you are comparing a turbo diesel and an old vauxhall unit in an older Saab. The engine is shown up even worse if you had an auto.

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.
Auto in both BMW 20ds, manual in the Saab (and a pretty horrid rubbery thing it was too). Talking to my friend about his experience in the new S3 he reported much the same - waiting through a momentary hesitation for the power to arrive, a mighty mid-range and nothing at all at the top.

ManOpener said:
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.
I'm not up on the proper technical terminology - all I know is that the power wasn't there the instant I wanted it. I thought that was called lag.

aka_kerrly said:
You do get the impression from RoverP6 that he expects turbo diesel delivery under 1500rpm turbo petrol 2000>4500 and Vtec 4500-9000rpm all from one engine.
I'd happily lose the mid-range in favour of the top end in a performance car. I like mid-range torque, don't get me wrong (my old Rover V8 was the very definition of lazy) but I want linearity above all else. The BMW six gives me that linearity, the strong top end and a glorious howl to boot - yet settles down to near silence on the motorway.

hondansx said:
Oh, don't you worry. His BMW 520 does that. Handles like a Caterham too.
It's a good car. I'd never pretend it could handle like a Caterham, any more than you could get the chests of drawers and domestic appliances I've shifted with the BMW recently in the back of a Caterham. However, as an all-rounder, a car that'll shift four adults and a reasonable payload (I've had myself, the wife, our two big sons and a tumble dryer all in it at the same time - try that with a Golf!), yet still be properly entertaining on a B-road (and yes it'll go sideways to its heart's content with a little provocation and ideally a damp road surface), it's hard to beat. The chassis really could take more power, I will admit - which is why I'm plotting to buy either a whole 530i or an S54 engine and 6-speed gearbox...

...not that I'm pretending for one moment that this is a sensible alternative to pitch to a would-be new Golf buyer.

ecs0set

2,470 posts

283 months

Thursday 24th April 2014
quotequote all
RoverP6B said:
I've had myself, the wife, our two big sons and a tumble dryer all in it at the same time ... and yes it'll go sideways to its heart's content with a little provocation and ideally a damp road surface
I've heard of extreme ironing but extreme tumble drying is a new one for me! smile

ManOpener

12,467 posts

168 months

Thursday 24th April 2014
quotequote all
RoverP6B said:
ManOpener said:
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.
I'm not up on the proper technical terminology - all I know is that the power wasn't there the instant I wanted it. I thought that was called lag.
Which is fair enough, but all having a boost threshold means is that you have to keep the engine above a certain RPM if you want the power on-demand. If you stamp on the accelerator at 1200rpm in 5th and expect it to go like a rocket, you're being unrealistic. Sure, turbos aren't for everyone and are a matter of personal taste, but the claim "they're all laggy" is a bit silly.

Especially when the "lag" is usual non-existent, and boost threshold at most engine speeds no worse than the much-maligned throttle lag on the recent generations of BMW straight six.

scherzkeks

4,460 posts

133 months

Thursday 24th April 2014
quotequote all
aka_kerrly said:
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.








I totally agree except for the last sentence. The latest chassis architecture has the engine sitting a mere 4 cm farther back. This is not going to make a radical difference in handling. The new chassis' lift-and-tuck cornering attitude described in some reviews was characteristic of the old models and their control-blade rear suspension design, too. It has always been there, I suspect that VAG have just tuned the car to be less conservative, and in the latest R, I think the revised e-diff technology enhances this -- as it effetively does the same thing as the sport diff in my S4.

It is worth remembering that the MK1 TT was a lot looser and playful than any Haldex chassis that followed from VAG, but we saw what happened when that hit the market -- we eventually got revised front geometry and very safe handling.

ORD

18,086 posts

126 months

Thursday 24th April 2014
quotequote all
I thought turbo lag was the time taken for the turbo to respond to the throttle input and spool up. It cannot be right to say that a turbo car has "lag" simply because it has little torque below the rev range at which the turbo is engaged.

On that basis, the 3.4 NA petrol engine in my car has a lot of "lag" in that it has sod all torque below about 2000rpm. I avoid the lag by doing this clever thing where I change into an appropriate gear before using the throttle aggressively...sorts the lag out.

One thing I dont quite get about the M135i is how it does not generate more power from a turbo-charged 3l 6-cyl engine. Is it at very low boost? It barely has more power than the 3.4l NA in the current Cayman/Boxster (which has about 10bhp more than mine frown and still about 25 less than it should have).

scherzkeks

4,460 posts

133 months

Thursday 24th April 2014
quotequote all
MiseryStreak said:
That's great. Why is the Golf R considered better than the M135i then, generally, in the motoring press?

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.
Spot on. Don't show this to Clivey either -- Just look at all that overhang; it can't handle well, it just can't. hehe


dukebox9reg

1,570 posts

147 months

Thursday 24th April 2014
quotequote all
ORD said:
I thought turbo lag was the time taken for the turbo to respond to the throttle input and spool up. It cannot be right to say that a turbo car has "lag" simply because it has little torque below the rev range at which the turbo is engaged.

On that basis, the 3.4 NA petrol engine in my car has a lot of "lag" in that it has sod all torque below about 2000rpm. I avoid the lag by doing this clever thing where I change into an appropriate gear before using the throttle aggressively...sorts the lag out.

One thing I dont quite get about the M135i is how it does not generate more power from a turbo-charged 3l 6-cyl engine. Is it at very low boost? It barely has more power than the 3.4l NA in the current Cayman/Boxster (which has about 10bhp more than mine frown and still about 25 less than it should have).
Well I know in respect to the new Cooper S engine being 2ltrs and only 190ish bhp they have kept the engine as being quite high compression with the turbo being a quite light pressure one to give it more of a N/A feeling. Supposedly.

ORD

18,086 posts

126 months

Thursday 24th April 2014
quotequote all
dukebox9reg said:
ORD said:
I thought turbo lag was the time taken for the turbo to respond to the throttle input and spool up. It cannot be right to say that a turbo car has "lag" simply because it has little torque below the rev range at which the turbo is engaged.

On that basis, the 3.4 NA petrol engine in my car has a lot of "lag" in that it has sod all torque below about 2000rpm. I avoid the lag by doing this clever thing where I change into an appropriate gear before using the throttle aggressively...sorts the lag out.

One thing I dont quite get about the M135i is how it does not generate more power from a turbo-charged 3l 6-cyl engine. Is it at very low boost? It barely has more power than the 3.4l NA in the current Cayman/Boxster (which has about 10bhp more than mine frown and still about 25 less than it should have).
Well I know in respect to the new Cooper S engine being 2ltrs and only 190ish bhp they have kept the engine as being quite high compression with the turbo being a quite light pressure one to give it more of a N/A feeling. Supposedly.
Thanks. I thought that was the case. Not sure that the modest power (and more impressive torque) increase is worth the cost and added complexity of adding a turbo, but I expect that BMW has thought it through. I suppose the mpg benefit and "drivability" make it worthwhile - you would probably have to thrash a NA M135i to get the same performance as with the gentle boost (and some people, strangely, dont like doing that!).

The Cooper S is also limited by concerns about handling, I expect. It is apparently a little bit of a handful even with less than 200bhp and would have to rely on all sorts of clever tech to run much more without becoming unruly.

GTRene

16,367 posts

223 months

Thursday 24th April 2014
quotequote all
its coming...

said:
VW wird den Golf R400, den das Unternehmen auf der Auto China als Studie präsentiert hat, in Serie bringen. Dies bestätigte VW-Technik-Vorstand Heinz-Jakob Neußer im Gespräch mit dem amerikanischen Automagazin "Car and Driver".
http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/news/vw-golf-r400-hardcore-golf-wird-in-serie-gebaut-8314456.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=manually

Clivey

5,108 posts

203 months

Thursday 24th April 2014
quotequote all
MiseryStreak said:
That's great. Why is the Golf R considered better than the M135i then, generally, in the motoring press?
Because BMW dropped the ball with regards to steering feel, suspension setup (damping) and elected not to fit an LSD in a 320BHP RWD car. - If it was as well set-up as it should have been, none of the Golf-platform cars would get a look in. Hopefully, the upcoming LCI inherits the M235i's setup, which is said to be much improved. Thankfully, all current M135i owners can look to the aftermarket for suspension options

The only reason the M135i is almost always cited is because it's the only direct Golf competitor with the FR / FR-based AWD layout. The Golf R would undoubtedly also beat a Ssangyong Rodius or RWD Ford Transit but that still doesn't mean it's the ideal base for a performance car.

MiseryStreak said:
Porsche put the engine behind the rear axle in the 911. It hasn't really hurt its critical acclaim has it?
scratchchin Have you noticed that they've moved it forwards in the 991? Why do you think they've done that?

No, it didn't hurt it's critical acclaim but that's an engine at the rear of the car, which has different "consequences" for handling. Some do criticise the 911's traditionally light front end and tail-happy handling, others (like me) appreciate the fact that it's different to other cars and adds to the automotive landscape. I just don't think it works in reverse with nose-heavy cars and although I admit that trait does add character, it's not something I personally like in a car.

MiseryStreak said:
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.
Setup is the icing on the cake (it's interesting to note the differences between the M135i and the M235i) but at the end of the day you're not going to the Moon in a submarine and you're not making a sports car out of a transverse FWD hatch. - It will be interesting to see later reviews of the Golf R once the hype has died down.

MiseryStreak said:
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.
rolleyes If you think I have blinkers on, you're the one not seeing the full picture. - I'm also openly critical of BMW for the direction they're going down at the moment and unless my choices were constrained, wouldn't buy the new version of my car (but then I wouldn't buy the rival German products either). In fact, I want more companies to challenge BMW so that A: We have more choice, B: It forces BMW to up their game and C: We don't lose any more manufacturers like Saab.

scherzkeks said:
Don't show this to Clivey either -- Just look at all that overhang; it can't handle well, it just can't. hehe

rolleyes Do you deny that it couldn't be made to handle better with that weight contained within the wheelbase?

RoverP6B

4,338 posts

127 months

Thursday 24th April 2014
quotequote all
ManOpener said:
Which is fair enough, but all having a boost threshold means is that you have to keep the engine above a certain RPM if you want the power on-demand. If you stamp on the accelerator at 1200rpm in 5th and expect it to go like a rocket, you're being unrealistic. Sure, turbos aren't for everyone and are a matter of personal taste, but the claim "they're all laggy" is a bit silly.

Especially when the "lag" is usual non-existent, and boost threshold at most engine speeds no worse than the much-maligned throttle lag on the recent generations of BMW straight six.
Easier said than done when you're trying to deal with highly variable road speeds, especially in urban areas. Staying on-boost is more or less impossible. Throttle lag - I must admit I've not heard of this but will look into it. There's none on my E39. Not having driven anything with a straight six before I tested it, I was quite alarmed by the extremely rapid throttle response - in a totally different league to the four-cylinder engines in all but one of my previous cars (the one being the very lazy Rover V8).

ecs0set said:
I've heard of extreme ironing but extreme tumble drying is a new one for me! smile
No, just bought it off eBay when the old one blew up, went to collect it from a place in rural Hampshire and used the trip as an opportunity to visit Hinton Ampner (National Trust) and the Mid-Hants Railway at Alresford.

clivey said:
...stuff...
Well said, Clivey - I won't quote all you've said because I agree with every word.

martin elaman

94 posts

126 months

Thursday 24th April 2014
quotequote all
Clivey said:
I don't understand you here. - Their job is to highlight the differences between cars. - Not all drive the same and if one tends towards oversteer whilst another understeers at the limit, isn't that what we want to know? Or are cars "just to get from A to B"?
-I agree with you that this is "their job", but I disagree that they perform this job very well anymore. Not for years. Gone are the days where a group of writers could live with a small group of cars, and drive them over a weeks time and write specifically how they differ on what types of roads/surfaces/conditions. A recent example if this was evo magazine doing a comparison of 4wd cars, on track they said the Mitsubishi evo9 was more a more fun and adjustable car than the new 911 turbo on track. And I must agree with them, after driving one for a few months years back I remember just how fun that car was, and indeed its wasn't just fun to drive and adjustable on track, it was just as much fun on real roads. I mean to drive the new 911Turbo you don't feel the car is alive and so malleable like the smaller and more maneuverable Mitsubishi; its just too competent, like it steamrolls over roads, pummels them into submission. After driving a new turbo (20 inch wheels and tires the size of a dump truck) recently on road and track I felt I was driving a military grade ground covering ground based missile. Way way too much power and grip and speed for the road. And yet evo placed the 911 turbo first. They never talked about how its lost the fun and feel. never. martin

Clivey

5,108 posts

203 months

Thursday 24th April 2014
quotequote all
martin elaman said:
-I agree with you that this is "their job", but I disagree that they perform this job very well anymore. Not for years. Gone are the days where a group of writers could live with a small group of cars, and drive them over a weeks time and write specifically how they differ on what types of roads/surfaces/conditions. A recent example if this was evo magazine doing a comparison of 4wd cars, on track they said the Mitsubishi evo9 was more a more fun and adjustable car than the new 911 turbo on track. And I must agree with them, after driving one for a few months years back I remember just how fun that car was, and indeed its wasn't just fun to drive and adjustable on track, it was just as much fun on real roads. I mean to drive the new 911Turbo you don't feel the car is alive and so malleable like the smaller and more maneuverable Mitsubishi; its just too competent, like it steamrolls over roads, pummels them into submission. After driving a new turbo (20 inch wheels and tires the size of a dump truck) recently on road and track I felt I was driving a military grade ground covering ground based missile. Way way too much power and grip and speed for the road. And yet evo placed the 911 turbo first. They never talked about how its lost the fun and feel. never. martin
yes I remember the article actually. - It was the one where they also criticised the RS Q3's handling despite praising it almost unreservedly in their first review. I do think that when a new car arrives, some journalists are far too excitable and quick to fall for the corporate spiel from the manufacturer. - Maybe it's because they want to be invited to the next press launch...or maybe they think they'll sell more product by using the classic "build them up to knock them down" routine. It will be interesting to see whether the Golf R continues to receive praise for it's handling once the journos have had time to get used to it.

For the record; I hope it does because that will mean that VAG has finally figured-out what it takes to make these things drive well and if I like the way it drives, I then have a greater choice when I'm looking for a car in the future. There is no engineering reason why a predictive AWD system (if it works as claimed) can't do the business. - It's just that all previous Haldex AWD setups, including gen 4/5 systems, have been second-rate for performance cars compared with the systems companies such as Mitsubishi and Subraru use.

It's funny you should mention the Evo IX too; I previously used it as an example of how a car can be made to handle despite having it's engine ahead of the front axle, however some on here are intent on misquoting. All I am saying is that the previous cars (e.g. 8P RS3) suffered because of the engine location and that any front-engined car can be made to handle better if the mass of the engine (and/or other significant components) is contained within the wheelbase.

Johnnytheboy

24,498 posts

185 months

Thursday 24th April 2014
quotequote all
Clivey said:
yes I remember the article actually. - It was the one where they also criticised the RS Q3's handling despite praising it almost unreservedly in their first review. I do think that when a new car arrives, some journalists are far too excitable and quick to fall for the corporate spiel from the manufacturer. - Maybe it's because they want to be invited to the next press launch...or maybe they think they'll sell more product by using the classic "build them up to knock them down" routine. It will be interesting to see whether the Golf R continues to receive praise for it's handling once the journos have had time to get used to it.
I've noticed this too. Autocar have a regular habit of rating cars half or one star lower when they do a full road test compared to the first drive.

Recently they did a group test including the MINI Cooper S and the Fiesta ST, which the MINI won.

A week or two later the full road test of the MINI rated it lower than the Fiesta. rolleyes


Clivey

5,108 posts

203 months

Thursday 24th April 2014
quotequote all
Johnnytheboy said:
I've noticed this too. Autocar have a regular habit of rating cars half or one star lower when they do a full road test compared to the first drive.

Recently they did a group test including the MINI Cooper S and the Fiesta ST, which the MINI won.

A week or two later the full road test of the MINI rated it lower than the Fiesta. rolleyes
Exactly. Was it the same journalist as well?

martin elaman

94 posts

126 months

Thursday 24th April 2014
quotequote all
[quote=Clivey]

" It will be interesting to see whether the Golf R continues to receive praise for it's handling once the journos have had time to get used to it."

I'm less believing in their integrity than you even! I don't believe they will ever slight the new R until the next one arrives! No doubt its a very good car, but is it really as fun as a Evo 9, does it have any faluts; I seriously doubt it. This seems to be their method of the last few years. What you might see if your lucky is some writer having one on as a long-termer and loving it, but just once making an off-hand remark to the effect that its a bit clinical and never hear a word again.

I often wonder if a automotive magazine could be made where the journalists were expressly told not to take: "meet the manufacturer" trips, car shows and buffets, gifts, track days, races and sponsorships etc. But instead to merely have cars lent to them by regular people and report what they find! Crazy idea! I think it could work and honest people would be attracted to that a lot more.

I think the future is in custom designed cars, when many of the variables we speak of: engine placement, type, weight distribution, tire/wheel size, passenger compartment size, overall weight, even feel, each can be designed around federal emissions and crash approved carbon chassis. Its like the movie says, "the future is in plastics". martin

Edited by martin elaman on Thursday 24th April 21:56

Crafty_

13,248 posts

199 months

Thursday 24th April 2014
quotequote all
Its just a flavour of the moment thing - a few months ago the BMW was their darling, now its the R, by summer it'll be something else..