RE: Volkswagen Golf R 400
Discussion
Clivey said:
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.
Neither is the M135i. That is the (obvious to anyone with even a modicum of critical thinking capacity) point. When all is said and done, it is just as compromised as the R in its own way. Both cars have plusses and minuses. Your criticism in this class is hairsplitting, and the end result boils down to preference. The actual performance numbers bear this out, as has been demonstrated to you time and time again.Clivey said:
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.
In this class, setup is key as the fundamentals are never going to be better than decent. The Golf R is not a sports car, it was never meant to be a sports car, and never will be. Neither is the M135i -- and your 320 is nearly the furthest thing from a sports car I can think of.Clivey said:
C: We don't lose any more manufacturers like Saab.
This is too rich. Saab, really? A company that built almost nothing other than FF saloons and estates? Clivey said:
Do you deny that it couldn't be made to handle better with that weight contained within the wheelbase?Edited by scherzkeks on Thursday 24th April 22:28
scherzkeks said:
In this class, setup is key as the fundamentals are never going to be better than decent. The Golf R is not a sports car, it was never meant to be a sports car, and never will be. Neither is the M135i
Wow. You don't say?The M135i is the nearest thing you're going to get to a sports car in the class. That's why it moves the game along. To move the engine any further rearward, similar to the Ferrari FF, would lengthen the car considerably, taking it up a size category (it's already longer than the Golf with less interior space). The Golf has already had it's engine moved back because VW realised that was for the best.
Oh, and these are not my words...
scherzkeks said:
and your 320 is nearly the furthest thing from a sports car I can think of.
You just had to get that in there, didn't you? Do you feel better now?Obviously you can't think very far.
scherzkeks said:
The actual performance numbers bear this out, as has been demonstrated to you time and time again.
The very best Haldex setup in a hatch so far (the Golf R, based on the tests we've seen) is still slower than the flawed M135i.The reason there aren't any...let me say that again: ANY transverse front-engined supercars with front-biased AWD is that they wouldn't be competitive. As I said in the TT thread: If the AWD system and setup of that car was worth it's salt, the likes of Cayman R and Z4M wouldn't see which way it went. - Think about how the Nissan Skylines & GT-R regularly embarass Porsche etc. As it stands, the R33 from 1995 is still faster than the TT-RS and the M3 CSL, a decade-old 3-Series derivative (that's most definitely not a sports car, remember) will still show it the way on the 'ring by some 19 seconds with similar power.
scherzkeks said:
Neither is the M135i. That is the (obvious to anyone with even a modicum of critical thinking capacity) point. When all is said and done, it is just as compromised as the R in its own way. Both cars have plusses and minuses. Your criticism in this class is hairsplitting, and the end result boils down to preference.
Surely you cannot fail to see that the Golf-platform cars are a lot more compromised than the 1-Series, which has the same basic layout as a Z4 but with an extra row of seats? Is your blind unwillingness to accept any criticism of the Haldex cars that strong?scherzkeks said:
This is too rich. Saab, really? A company that built almost nothing other than FF saloons and estates?
Yes, really...and for several reasons. Firstly, not every car has to be "sporty" and cars like the 9000 and 9-5 were excellent at being comfortable mile-munchers. It might also interest you to know that I like Citroens (I had a C4 Coupe as a runabout). They're quirky and interesting compared with most rivals.A fast Saab might not be my idea of the ideal driver's car, but I still appreciate it for colouring the world a little bit. It would be a massive shame if all the cars with a bit of character disappeared and all we're left with is 2.0 TDI snoozeboxes. Besides, after you've accepted the fact that it's not going to handle like a contemporary 5-Series, the rampant torque steer and wheelspin of a 9-5 Aero is actually laugh-out-loud entertaining.
Cars like the Golf however have so far (I'm not including the R in this as I haven't seen enough of it) been the very definition of generic.
scherzkeks said:
Who cares? It would also handle better if it were a Cayman. The handling is sublime as it is. The point, which has eluded you again, is that the car is very, very good despite its less-than-perfect setup, and makes a mockery of your insistence that a front-engined car must contain the majority of its engine within the wheelbase( a trait most BMWs don't share either) to be worth anyone's time.
Except that's not what I said though is it (go and re-read my comments re. the Evo and Impreza)?Tell me; who is it you work for again?
Nobody has driven the 400, so dont be a pedant. In any event, I made pretty clear that not all Golfs are identical. It wont handle enormously differently, though, from a more standard Golf given that it will (i) weigh about the same, (ii) have the engine in the same place, (iii) have a fundamentally identical chassis. Apart from using better suspension (including tuning of the existing mechanical and electrical components), you cannot do a huge amount to alter a car's basic character unless you put in a completely different engine (not done here) or change the layout (not done here).
I am a bit puzzled at the defensiveness. Nobody owns one of these so has something invested, and it is self-evident that it is a compromised performance car. I have not said anything critical of the car other than that it is a bit much to call its handling "sublime" - that kind of language should be reserved for cars that are and feel designed (from the ground up) to handle brilliantly, e.g. Lotuses, Maccas, etc.
I am a bit puzzled at the defensiveness. Nobody owns one of these so has something invested, and it is self-evident that it is a compromised performance car. I have not said anything critical of the car other than that it is a bit much to call its handling "sublime" - that kind of language should be reserved for cars that are and feel designed (from the ground up) to handle brilliantly, e.g. Lotuses, Maccas, etc.
ORD said:
Nobody has driven the 400, so dont be a pedant. In any event, I made pretty clear that not all Golfs are identical. It wont handle enormously differently, though, from a more standard Golf given that it will (i) weigh about the same, (ii) have the engine in the same place, (iii) have a fundamentally identical chassis. Apart from using better suspension (including tuning of the existing mechanical and electrical components), you cannot do a huge amount to alter a car's basic character unless you put in a completely different engine (not done here) or change the layout (not done here).
I am a bit puzzled at the defensiveness. Nobody owns one of these so has something invested, and it is self-evident that it is a compromised performance car. I have not said anything critical of the car other than that it is a bit much to call its handling "sublime" - that kind of language should be reserved for cars that are and feel designed (from the ground up) to handle brilliantly, e.g. Lotuses, Maccas, etc.
Quite. However I'm just off to make myself a coffee in anticipation of the replies from those now frothing over their keyboards... I am a bit puzzled at the defensiveness. Nobody owns one of these so has something invested, and it is self-evident that it is a compromised performance car. I have not said anything critical of the car other than that it is a bit much to call its handling "sublime" - that kind of language should be reserved for cars that are and feel designed (from the ground up) to handle brilliantly, e.g. Lotuses, Maccas, etc.
ORD said:
Nobody has driven the 400, so dont be a pedant. In any event, I made pretty clear that not all Golfs are identical. It wont handle enormously differently, though, from a more standard Golf given that it will (i) weigh about the same, (ii) have the engine in the same place, (iii) have a fundamentally identical chassis. Apart from using better suspension (including tuning of the existing mechanical and electrical components), you cannot do a huge amount to alter a car's basic character unless you put in a completely different engine (not done here) or change the layout (not done here).
I am a bit puzzled at the defensiveness. Nobody owns one of these so has something invested, and it is self-evident that it is a compromised performance car. I have not said anything critical of the car other than that it is a bit much to call its handling "sublime" - that kind of language should be reserved for cars that are and feel designed (from the ground up) to handle brilliantly, e.g. Lotuses, Maccas, etc.
Some bloke drove it onto the stage - you can see it in the video... I am a bit puzzled at the defensiveness. Nobody owns one of these so has something invested, and it is self-evident that it is a compromised performance car. I have not said anything critical of the car other than that it is a bit much to call its handling "sublime" - that kind of language should be reserved for cars that are and feel designed (from the ground up) to handle brilliantly, e.g. Lotuses, Maccas, etc.
Seriously my only point is that we don't know yet, but the press seem to like the current 'R' rather a lot - so compromised it may be, and similar to the 1.6 Bluemotion too, but it is meant to be good. Anyway, yeah, we're all entitled to our opinions so we'll just have to wait and see. I certainly wouldn't mind a go in one. The more cogent argument against it is that it's surely gonna be £40k at least, and for that money you can start looking at some very accomplished cars.
scherzkeks said:
but Clivey also drives the automotive equivalent of a washing machine and writes novellas on his hatred for these cars, so perhaps the comment on the green-eyed monster hits the mark. 
And you're a fine one to talk taking into account your extensive automotive history. How's about you broaden your horizons a bit? This blind love of all things Audi and Haldex is a bit embarrassing really...
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
Personally I think Evo made a fair job of it on their recent 4WD fest/test. Also they gave the Evo 5 stars and the Turbo only 4.5 if I recall although the Turbo got a faster lap...
Out of interest anyone know the detailed differences between the Golf R and S3: is it just tyres (which don't always get mentioned...) and geo or are there detailed changes?
Actus Reus said:
ORD said:
Nobody has driven the 400, so dont be a pedant. In any event, I made pretty clear that not all Golfs are identical. It wont handle enormously differently, though, from a more standard Golf given that it will (i) weigh about the same, (ii) have the engine in the same place, (iii) have a fundamentally identical chassis. Apart from using better suspension (including tuning of the existing mechanical and electrical components), you cannot do a huge amount to alter a car's basic character unless you put in a completely different engine (not done here) or change the layout (not done here).
I am a bit puzzled at the defensiveness. Nobody owns one of these so has something invested, and it is self-evident that it is a compromised performance car. I have not said anything critical of the car other than that it is a bit much to call its handling "sublime" - that kind of language should be reserved for cars that are and feel designed (from the ground up) to handle brilliantly, e.g. Lotuses, Maccas, etc.
Some bloke drove it onto the stage - you can see it in the video... I am a bit puzzled at the defensiveness. Nobody owns one of these so has something invested, and it is self-evident that it is a compromised performance car. I have not said anything critical of the car other than that it is a bit much to call its handling "sublime" - that kind of language should be reserved for cars that are and feel designed (from the ground up) to handle brilliantly, e.g. Lotuses, Maccas, etc.
Seriously my only point is that we don't know yet, but the press seem to like the current 'R' rather a lot - so compromised it may be, and similar to the 1.6 Bluemotion too, but it is meant to be good. Anyway, yeah, we're all entitled to our opinions so we'll just have to wait and see. I certainly wouldn't mind a go in one. The more cogent argument against it is that it's surely gonna be £40k at least, and for that money you can start looking at some very accomplished cars.
£40k for a Golf with a baths
t crazy engine is better value than £30k for some 2.0 TDI Audi, for example. I agree that it does start to look a lot when compared to an actual sports car (Lotus, low-end Porsche, etc), but those cars are not in the same market. I doubt many people will be choosing between a Golf R and a Boxster. I may be wrong, but I think they meet different needs(although as a 2-car line up, it would be pretty good).
You just try to stop me test driving a 400bhp Golf! I'll be along in a proper sports car to the showroom, of course 
If Mazda could get more torque out of that 2.0 NA engine, there would be no point test-driving anything else for me (better-looking to my eyes and not a Focus or Golf and so not 20 per street); but while there is no fast Mazda and there are GTIs, Rs and 400 Rs out there, you would be mad not to try out a Golf if you want a hatch with some pace.
I think I will probably like it more for being a bit compromised. A little torque steer, for example, might be fun. I dont mind anything strange as long is it mechanical. You can keep all the bloody fake sound, etc, though.
If Mazda could get more torque out of that 2.0 NA engine, there would be no point test-driving anything else for me (better-looking to my eyes and not a Focus or Golf and so not 20 per street); but while there is no fast Mazda and there are GTIs, Rs and 400 Rs out there, you would be mad not to try out a Golf if you want a hatch with some pace.
I think I will probably like it more for being a bit compromised. A little torque steer, for example, might be fun. I dont mind anything strange as long is it mechanical. You can keep all the bloody fake sound, etc, though.
ORD said:
It is certainly a lot of money. But it does buy a lot of power in a fairly useable package. It is probably not much more than the "market price" given that you can easily spend £25k on a far more average hatch. I quite like the new 2.0 NA Mazda 3, for example, but I think those are about £22k - a lot for a fairly standard hatch with just a little more ooomph than a shopping car.
£40k for a Golf with a bathst crazy engine is better value than £30k for some 2.0 TDI Audi, for example.
I agree that it does start to look a lot when compared to an actual sports car (Lotus, low-end Porsche, etc), but those cars are not in the same market. I doubt many people will be choosing between a Golf R and a Boxster. I may be wrong, but I think they meet different needs(although as a 2-car line up, it would be pretty good).
Well that's sort of what I'm aiming at - Golf R due in July or so, and then maybe an S2 Elise or similar for weekend fun to go with it, though I found myself looking at 987.2 Boxsters last night on the classifieds. We'll see. Only reason I got the Golf was the lease deal to be honest - if I'd seen the M135i deals, I may already have had one of those by now!£40k for a Golf with a baths
t crazy engine is better value than £30k for some 2.0 TDI Audi, for example. I agree that it does start to look a lot when compared to an actual sports car (Lotus, low-end Porsche, etc), but those cars are not in the same market. I doubt many people will be choosing between a Golf R and a Boxster. I may be wrong, but I think they meet different needs(although as a 2-car line up, it would be pretty good).
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff