RE: Volkswagen Golf R 400

[snowen250]

I would like to put a post here that hopefully will not cause an argument but will have people go "yeah I see his point" Here goes:

It's a brilliantly bonkers car, and I'm glad they have done it. It's exciting and shows car manufacturers are still producing machines purely for the petrolhead.

Would I buy one? No. I'm not a golf fan (just not) and for 50K I'd rather I got something a bit more....well special to me then a golf. Even one with 400BHP.

Does this make it a bad car/terrible Haldex ruined mess? No. Of course not. It's just my opinion that I would rather have an old Lotus Elan. Because that's my thing. The Golf will be a superb car and I'd love to have a try in one.....but it's just not my thing.

Some people on here kinda need to see the difference between something not appealing to them, and it being a bad car.

[scherzkeks]

Clivey said:

I'm not suggesting getting the grinder out on the E39, just that the longitudinal FR (or FR-based AWD) layout is inherently much more suited to a performance car than a transverse FF (or FF-based AWD) layout. Not that you can't make a performance car using an FF layout as a base.

Oh, it wasn't long ago that you claimed otherwise, stating with much hyperbole how Mitsu and Subaru went to great pains developing WRX and EVO as performance cars first. I even recall you implying that the WRX STi was developed first as a rally car and then homologated.

Clivey said:

Furthermore, a front-based AWD system that won't in reality, rather than in the manufacturer's literature, allow the car to be adjustable is an economy, rather than performance, choice. That's why there are no high-end GT cars, supercars, sports saloons etc. that are laid-out like a Golf.

The AWD system is not an issue. The most amusing part in the context of your anti-Haldex rant(s) is that on Audi's German site, they are now advertising the new TTS as having a rear-biased AWD system -- and we need to remember that this is functionally (sans the improved EDS) the same basic system the company has used since 2008.

Clivey said:

Now bearing that in mind, if it's a performance car you're after, the Golf R (at 300BHP and c£30k) is a more compromised choice than rivals at it's price point. Practicality and economy are pretty much it's only plus points.

Not really. It is slightly less balanced, but again, this has little effect on it's real world performance numbers (which match or better its rivals, as usual), and in the context of the compromise required of all cars in this segment, it amounts to hairsplitting.

Edited by scherzkeks on Wednesday 30th April 14:42

[Colonial]

snowen250 said:

I would like to put a post here that hopefully will not cause an argument but will have people go "yeah I see his point" Here goes:

It's a brilliantly bonkers car, and I'm glad they have done it. It's exciting and shows car manufacturers are still producing machines purely for the petrolhead.

Would I buy one? No. I'm not a golf fan (just not) and for 50K I'd rather I got something a bit more....well special to me then a golf. Even one with 400BHP.

Does this make it a bad car/terrible Haldex ruined mess? No. Of course not. It's just my opinion that I would rather have an old Lotus Elan. Because that's my thing. The Golf will be a superb car and I'd love to have a try in one.....but it's just not my thing.

Some people on here kinda need to see the difference between something not appealing to them, and it being a bad car.

Excellent post.

It is such a personal thing. Just because I like something doesn't mean you will and vice versa.

[Kawasicki]

Colonial said:

The current golf is the Mk7. It is lighter than the Mk6 that came before it.

I don't believe that. I pulled the measured weights (not the official ones) from a few road tests in German magazine(autobild.de, sportauto.de, automotorundsport.de). I found that the Golf GTI seems to have gained weight with each generation, though the trend is at least slowing.

Sportauto.de said

"Generations-Sprung nur mit Gewichtszunahme"
Generation jump only with weight gains.

GTI kerb weights
MK1 851
MK2 1034
MK3 1240
MK4 1270
MK5 1350(1421 with DSG)
MK6 1390
MK7 1406

I'm pretty sure the MK8 will weigh less, hope they can do it while keeping the same level of performance.

[s m]

Kawasicki said:

Colonial said:

The current golf is the Mk7. It is lighter than the Mk6 that came before it.

I don't believe that. I pulled the measured weights (not the official ones) from a few road tests in German magazine(autobild.de, sportauto.de, automotorundsport.de). I found that the Golf GTI seems to have gained weight with each generation, though the trend is at least slowing.

Sportauto.de said

"Generations-Sprung nur mit Gewichtszunahme"
Generation jump only with weight gains.

GTI kerb weights
MK1 851
MK2 1034
MK3 1240
MK4 1270
MK5 1350(1421 with DSG)
MK6 1390
MK7 1406 ( 1450kg for a 5-door DSG )

I'm pretty sure the MK8 will weigh less, hope they can do it while keeping the same level of performance.

[MiseryStreak]

Colonial said:

snowen250 said:

I would like to put a post here that hopefully will not cause an argument but will have people go "yeah I see his point" Here goes:

It's a brilliantly bonkers car, and I'm glad they have done it. It's exciting and shows car manufacturers are still producing machines purely for the petrolhead.

Would I buy one? No. I'm not a golf fan (just not) and for 50K I'd rather I got something a bit more....well special to me then a golf. Even one with 400BHP.

Does this make it a bad car/terrible Haldex ruined mess? No. Of course not. It's just my opinion that I would rather have an old Lotus Elan. Because that's my thing. The Golf will be a superb car and I'd love to have a try in one.....but it's just not my thing.

Some people on here kinda need to see the difference between something not appealing to them, and it being a bad car.

Excellent post.

It is such a personal thing. Just because I like something doesn't mean you will and vice versa.

Exactly. I have an old Lotus Elan yet I don't let it blinker my view of any performance car with a different layout, it is completely unnecessary drivetrain fascism. It doesn't make you appear a 'driving God' to other forum users constantly bleating on about rear wheel drive, it just makes you look like a stuffy old pillock.

You tend to find that people who harp on about 'wrong wheel drive' own a yawn inducing 'M Sport' BMW and have never done a track day in their lives, they just swallow the marketing bullst without even having the knowledge or the skill set to exploit it.

[Fetchez la vache]

snowen250 said:

Some people on here kinda need to see the difference between something not appealing to them, and it being a bad car.

It'd be bloody quiet round here if that actually happened lol!

[ORD]

Horses for courses in any event. A FF car can be loads of fun (and, dare I say it, even more fun than an FR or MR) on the right roads and in the right conditions.

Years ago I drove a Fiesta Zetec that could (it seemed to me at the time) nail the local B roads to the wall (although it almost hit those walls itself a few times) in a way that no bigger car could have done...certainly not a 5 series.

[sleep envy]

Fetchez la vache said:

snowen250 said:

Some people on here kinda need to see the difference between something not appealing to them, and it being a bad car.

It'd be bloody quiet round here if that actually happened lol!

The signal to noise ratio would improve though

[snowen250]

MiseryStreak said:

Colonial said:

snowen250 said:

I would like to put a post here that hopefully will not cause an argument but will have people go "yeah I see his point" Here goes:

It's a brilliantly bonkers car, and I'm glad they have done it. It's exciting and shows car manufacturers are still producing machines purely for the petrolhead.

Would I buy one? No. I'm not a golf fan (just not) and for 50K I'd rather I got something a bit more....well special to me then a golf. Even one with 400BHP.

Does this make it a bad car/terrible Haldex ruined mess? No. Of course not. It's just my opinion that I would rather have an old Lotus Elan. Because that's my thing. The Golf will be a superb car and I'd love to have a try in one.....but it's just not my thing.

Some people on here kinda need to see the difference between something not appealing to them, and it being a bad car.

Excellent post.

It is such a personal thing. Just because I like something doesn't mean you will and vice versa.

Exactly. I have an old Lotus Elan yet I don't let it blinker my view of any performance car with a different layout, it is completely unnecessary drivetrain fascism. It doesn't make you appear a 'driving God' to other forum users constantly bleating on about rear wheel drive, it just makes you look like a stuffy old pillock.

You tend to find that people who harp on about 'wrong wheel drive' own a yawn inducing 'M Sport' BMW and have never done a track day in their lives, they just swallow the marketing bullst without even having the knowledge or the skill set to exploit it.

For some balance here.....i do actually have an M-Sport BMW....a 120d in fact! I do like it, but that doesn't mean fwd is rubbish.....my Clio Cup certainly wasn't.

[RoverP6B]

MiseryStreak said:

I know, it's priceless, 'If I cut the ends off my 5 series estate it would be smaller and lighter than the Golf, and it would be better in every respect'. You couldn't make it up.

I want to ignore this thread, but it's just too entertaining. Some people are trolls and genuinely don't even know it, it's hilarious.

Clivey and RoverP6B, please keep it up!

I wasn't advocating breaking out the angle-grinder and welder, I was talking theory, stuff you could do at the CAD stage. As it happens, the result would be extremely close in every meaningful way to the platform under the current 1-series.

And yes, it does appear VAG is prone to telling whoppers about its cars' weight...

To those accusing me of being a rear-drive snob, I assure you I'm not - my wife's old 75bhp Peugeot 205 1.4 Roland Garros was an absolute hoot to drive, got absolutely thrashed absolutely everywhere and didn't have enough power to expose the shortcomings of the chassis, nor enough weight to make the power inadequate. However, I DO know the difference between FWD, AWD, 4WD and RWD. I certainly can and do exploit my BMW's rear-driven adjustable nature pretty much every time I drive it.

Whatever the marketing tts at VAG say about this Haldex system being rear-biased: that is a LIE. It is entirely front-biased and only chucks any meaningful power rearward when you've got understeer. You can forget about being able to trim your line into a corner with a dab of throttle.

[ORD]

RoverP6B said:

You can forget about being able to trim your line into a corner with a dab of throttle.

Oh no! What about the dab of oppo?! I need to trim my line more.

[Kawasicki]

scherzkeks said:

The AWD system is not an issue. The most amusing part in the context of your anti-Haldex rant(s) is that on Audi's German site, they are now advertising the new TTS as having a rear-biased AWD system -- and we need to remember that this is functionally (sans the improved EDS) the same basic system the company has used since 2008.

That's wrong, obviously. Amusing though, I agree.

[scherzkeks]

Kawasicki said:

scherzkeks said:

The AWD system is not an issue. The most amusing part in the context of your anti-Haldex rant(s) is that on Audi's German site, they are now advertising the new TTS as having a rear-biased AWD system -- and we need to remember that this is functionally (sans the improved EDS) the same basic system the company has used since 2008.

That's wrong, obviously. Amusing though, I agree.

It has actually picqued my interest quite a bit, as there are a number of marketing materials claiming this now. On the Gen IV cars, rear bias occured quite often, but only once slip was recognized in the diff -- so not rear overdrive, and very similar in feel to an old pre 40/60 Torsen.

I don't yet have a full understanding of exactly how the revised EDS system (XDS) interplays with Haldex 5, but perhaps they have accomplished a rear bias via electronics and/or building in slip in the front or rear diffs.

[MiseryStreak]

RoverP6B said:

I wasn't advocating breaking out the angle-grinder and welder, I was talking theory, stuff you could do at the CAD stage. As it happens, the result would be extremely close in every meaningful way to the platform under the current 1-series.

And yes, it does appear VAG is prone to telling whoppers about its cars' weight...

To those accusing me of being a rear-drive snob, I assure you I'm not - my wife's old 75bhp Peugeot 205 1.4 Roland Garros was an absolute hoot to drive, got absolutely thrashed absolutely everywhere and didn't have enough power to expose the shortcomings of the chassis, nor enough weight to make the power inadequate. However, I DO know the difference between FWD, AWD, 4WD and RWD. I certainly can and do exploit my BMW's rear-driven adjustable nature pretty much every time I drive it.

Whatever the marketing tts at VAG say about this Haldex system being rear-biased: that is a LIE. It is entirely front-biased and only chucks any meaningful power rearward when you've got understeer. You can forget about being able to trim your line into a corner with a dab of throttle.

Just out of interest, and purely for my amusement, what would you consider too much power for a FWD chassis?
Would 187bhp in a 1.8l NA car weighing 1060kg with an LSD be going too far?

And the limit for a Haldex based 4WD one?

[epom]

snowen250 said:

I would like to put a post here that hopefully will not cause an argument but will have people go "yeah I see his point" Here goes:

It's a brilliantly bonkers car, and I'm glad they have done it. It's exciting and shows car manufacturers are still producing machines purely for the petrolhead.

Would I buy one? No. I'm not a golf fan (just not) and for 50K I'd rather I got something a bit more....well special to me then a golf. Even one with 400BHP.

Does this make it a bad car/terrible Haldex ruined mess? No. Of course not. It's just my opinion that I would rather have an old Lotus Elan. Because that's my thing. The Golf will be a superb car and I'd love to have a try in one.....but it's just not my thing.

Some people on here kinda need to see the difference between something not appealing to them, and it being a bad car.

You're gonna be banned for making so much sense

[Oli.]

This is an epic thread, keep it coming..........

[aka_kerrly]

MiseryStreak said:

Just out of interest, and purely for my amusement, what would you consider too much power for a FWD chassis?
Would 187bhp in a 1.8l NA car weighing 1060kg with an LSD be going too far?

And the limit for a Haldex based 4WD one?

OOOo the trap has been laid, I'm certain I know exactly what car you are referring to ;-)

[ORD]

The problem with this thread is that no other thread will scratch my PH itch.

I browse through others now thinking "But nobody has suggested cutting the back off a 5 series would make it better than a Golf R! Boring!" or "What about the dab of throttle mid-corner to trim the line in a 1700kg barge?" or "Come on! No mention of 400bhp as being perfectly sensible in a hatch?"

[martin elaman]

Clivey said:

I'm not suggesting getting the grinder out on the E39, just that the longitudinal FR (or FR-based AWD) layout is inherently much more suited to a performance car than a transverse FF (or FF-based AWD) layout. Not that you can't make a performance car using an FF layout as a base. Furthermore, a front-based AWD system that won't in reality, rather than in the manufacturer's literature, allow the car to be adjustable is an economy, rather than performance, choice. That's why there are no high-end GT cars, supercars, sports saloons etc. that are laid-out like a Golf.

Now bearing that in mind, if it's a performance car you're after, the Golf R (at 300BHP and c£30k) is a more compromised choice than rivals at it's price point. Practicality and economy are pretty much it's only plus points.

Clive, your idea that the placement of a lightweight engine in a front engine configurations, being rather better for handling is not borne out in the most extreme example of good road handling: rallying. What really matters here is the four wheel drive system! Have a look see at the new VW WRC car:

http://www.volkswagen-motorsport.com/index.php?id=...
"Straight-four engine with turbocharger and intercooling, transversally mounted in front of the front axle"

Edited by martin elaman on Thursday 1st May 20:01