RE: Volkswagen Golf R 400

[Clivey]

ORD said:

I'd agree with that assessment on the basis that the R won't feel hugely different from the basic Golf.

I don't think any of those defending the Golf are saying that it's anything other than a hot hatch, with all that comes with that description - great straight line acceleration; decent and safe handling; impressive practicality. It isn't a Lotus and would not be a very good 'weekends only' car - but it's fairly damn impressive as a one car option.

The issue for me is that above £30k, I expect something a bit more "special" in the hardware department. The standard Golf drives nicely for a FWD hatch but unless this new R is vastly different to what's gone before (I liked the Golf V6 4Motion and Audi S3 until I drove them), it'll just be "the same but faster". I would really like the Golf to have a bit of spark though so hopefully that is the case.

[anonymous-user]

RoverP6B said:

I haven't said it handles badly, I just said it's not a terribly agile or adjustable thing and that Haldex won't help.

Have you driven one?

[scherzkeks]

ORD said:

I'd agree with that assessment on the basis that the R won't feel hugely different from the basic Golf.

I don't think any of those defending the Golf are saying that it's anything other than a hot hatch, with all that comes with that description - great straight line acceleration; decent and safe handling; impressive practicality. It isn't a Lotus and would not be a very good 'weekends only' car - but it's fairly damn impressive as a one car option.

I'd agree in part. The Golf/GTI definitely feel different from the R, and my old S3 SB drove very similarly to my current S4 (though I did admittedly have an early facelift model, which allowed ESP to be fully deactivated -- something that changed in 2010 I believe). At the extremes, the S4 is slightly different as you get a "rear steer" effect from the sports diff, which is a nice sensation, but definitely focused on increasing stability. I've not driven the new R/S3, but expect that with the latest EDS/XDS and the reintroduction of full ESP off mode that they will drive very much like the S4 in this regard.

[aeropilot]

TheFinners said:

RoverP6B said:

"Racing drivers" - on what level, in what series? I'd like to know why GT series, DTM etc all stick to RWD, and they ultimately banned BMW from the BTCC because they were so much quicker than the FWD cars. I wasn't campaigning for the Golf to go RWD, incidentally, just for it to adopt a proper permanent 4WD system, like the S4's Quattro setup.

That's news to me, I can only assume I was imagining the EBAY 1 series I was seeing at Thruxton on Sunday!

The poster was refering to the original fwd only NGTC rules as proposed back in 2009, not as it currently stands in 2014.

See here.....

http://www.touringcartimes.com/2009/06/03/gow-expl...

[J-P]

TheFinners said:

RoverP6B said:

"Racing drivers" - on what level, in what series? I'd like to know why GT series, DTM etc all stick to RWD, and they ultimately banned BMW from the BTCC because they were so much quicker than the FWD cars. I wasn't campaigning for the Golf to go RWD, incidentally, just for it to adopt a proper permanent 4WD system, like the S4's Quattro setup.

That's news to me, I can only assume I was imagining the EBAY 1 series I was seeing at Thruxton on Sunday! Performance wise they are fairly balanced, the RWD's are quicker off the line and a bit easier on tyres but the FWD's fare a lot better in the wet.

The racing driver I had in mind was a former BTCC guy, who was doing driver training on a track day I was on. But he's not the only one who's said this to me. To be honest I'd much rather drive a sorted FWD than a naff RWD car. Same goes for AWD. I've driven the RS5 with this legendary torsen you're so keen on, it wasn't a great car in fact the car it replaced (B7 RS4) was better on several counts.

S3 that I drove the other day was actually a very nice car, no it doesn't handle like a Porsche but it was a lovely car to drive and a great everyday car. Can't think of a good reason not to have one other than the cost. Golf with the same set-up and 400HP sounds like a lot of fun - I'd love one!

[Lost soul]

J-P said:

I've driven the RS5 with this legendary torsen you're so keen on, it wasn't a great car in fact the car it replaced (B7 RS4) was better on several counts.

How does a RS5 replace an RS4

[aka_kerrly]

Lost soul said:

J-P said:

I've driven the RS5 with this legendary torsen you're so keen on, it wasn't a great car in fact the car it replaced (B7 RS4) was better on several counts.

How does a RS5 replace an RS4

I suspect he meant (B6) RS4 hence specifying B7 RS4 as the replacement, the B7 is widely regarded as much improved.

[J-P]

Lost soul said:

How does a RS5 replace an RS4

They don't make a saloon version of the RS4 (it's an estate only). And the B7 was never made as a coupe version, so the RS5 is the closest thing to a saloon RS4 - no?

[Johnnytheboy]

Look, a review of the Golf R.

Come on chaps, let's go and ruin that thread too!

[ORD]

Back on topic - why did VW turbocharge the hell out of a 4cyl rather than opting for a gently blown 6-cyl (see, e.g., the M135i)?

I would have thought that there wouldnt be many downsides to opting for a bigger engine. MPG might be a bit lower (but I am not even sure about that, to be honest); it would sound a whole lot better; it would presumably be a bit more responsive; it would be more reliable (on the assumption that a 2.0 producing that kind of power will be very highly stressed).

If you want 400bhp, surely a 6cyl is the natural route to take.

Is there just a voodoo against 3+ litre engines? Or is it simply cheaper to tune up a very good (and already mass-produced engine). Was there no VW 6cyl sitting around to be dropped in instead?

That said, Nissan seem to think even 4 cyl is wasteful!
http://www.worldcarfans.com/114012769332/nissan-sh...

[Lost soul]

J-P said:

Lost soul said:

How does a RS5 replace an RS4

They don't make a saloon version of the RS4 (it's an estate only). And the B7 was never made as a coupe version, so the RS5 is the closest thing to a saloon RS4 - no?

I guess but an RS5 is a coupe and an RS4 is never a coupe

[aka_kerrly]

ORD said:

Back on topic - why did VW turbocharge the hell out of a 4cyl rather than opting for a gently blown 6-cyl (see, e.g., the M135i)?

I would have thought that there wouldnt be many downsides to opting for a bigger engine. MPG might be a bit lower (but I am not even sure about that, to be honest); it would sound a whole lot better; it would presumably be a bit more responsive; it would be more reliable (on the assumption that a 2.0 producing that kind of power will be very highly stressed).

If you want 400bhp, surely a 6cyl is the natural route to take.

Is there just a voodoo against 3+ litre engines? Or is it simply cheaper to tune up a very good (and already mass-produced engine). Was there no VW 6cyl sitting around to be dropped in instead?

That said, Nissan seem to think even 4 cyl is wasteful!
http://www.worldcarfans.com/114012769332/nissan-sh...

Of course it is down to emissions and MPG, there are no official real world figures for the Golf R400 but the Golf R manages very close to it's claimed 40mpg where as there seam to be a majority of M135I owners reporting much closer to 30mpg or below.

It's most likely the EU test fudging going on!!

[Johnnytheboy]

Hugely easier to fiddle with a 2 litre than fit a 3 litre in you've never used in that platform.

[scherzkeks]

ORD said:

Back on topic - why did VW turbocharge the hell out of a 4cyl rather than opting for a gently blown 6-cyl (see, e.g., the M135i)?

I would have thought that there wouldnt be many downsides to opting for a bigger engine. MPG might be a bit lower (but I am not even sure about that, to be honest); it would sound a whole lot better; it would presumably be a bit more responsive; it would be more reliable (on the assumption that a 2.0 producing that kind of power will be very highly stressed).

If you want 400bhp, surely a 6cyl is the natural route to take.

Is there just a voodoo against 3+ litre engines? Or is it simply cheaper to tune up a very good (and already mass-produced engine). Was there no VW 6cyl sitting around to be dropped in instead?

That said, Nissan seem to think even 4 cyl is wasteful!
http://www.worldcarfans.com/114012769332/nissan-sh...

I suspect downsizing coupled with the fact that with modern materials and technology, it's not really a problem to create light turbo 4s with this kind of power. If I recall correctly, VAG employed Fritz Eichler from AMG to help develop the latest high-power versions of the E888.

[J-P]

Lost soul said:

J-P said:

Lost soul said:

How does a RS5 replace an RS4

They don't make a saloon version of the RS4 (it's an estate only). And the B7 was never made as a coupe version, so the RS5 is the closest thing to a saloon RS4 - no?

I guess but an RS5 is a coupe and an RS4 is never a coupe

I get that but they use the same platform - basically if you had a RS4 saloon and wanted a new B8 saloon version of that car, there isn't one available, so you'd have to buy the RS5 - so I use the term "replacement" loosely as there isn't a saloon alternative.

[Clivey]

aka_kerrly said:

Of course it is down to emissions and MPG, there are no official real world figures for the Golf R400 but the Golf R manages very close to it's claimed 40mpg where as there seam to be a majority of M135I owners reporting much closer to 30mpg or below.

It's most likely the EU test fudging going on!!

If it's low emissions and fuel consumption you want, a 2.0-litre 4-pot is much better suited than a 3.0-litre straight six. Where the larger engines do score though is in terms of refinement, torque, noise etc. and that doesn't come across as easily on paper.

The gains in recent years with regards to economy are undoubtedly impressive - the Evo X FQ300 SST only manages 26.2 MPG combined yet the standard Golf R with DSG manages 40.9 in the same test. For a lot of people, it makes the difference between being able to consider the car and not and this (together with the related CO2 emissions) is one of the main reasons why the Japanese rally reps don't sell well in the UK.

As with the performance figures, the Golf is very...competent. That word keeps coming up. The question is whether the R rises above "competent" and makes you actually want it. For me at least, that depends almost entirely on how it drives.

[RoverP6B]

TheFinners said:

That's news to me, I can only assume I was imagining the EBAY 1 series I was seeing at Thruxton on Sunday! Performance wise they are fairly balanced, the RWD's are quicker off the line and a bit easier on tyres but the FWD's fare a lot better in the wet.

I lost interest in touring cars a while ago when they announced that they were going to an all-FWD spec chassis thing, like a wimp's version of NASCAR only on proper tracks... BMW were going to be pushed out as they insisted on racing RWD production chassis...

[SR06]

My Rallye had boxed arches.



My Golf GTI G60 Syncro had flared arches.

[SR06]

Clivey said:

If it's low emissions and fuel consumption you want, a 2.0-litre 4-pot is much better suited than a 3.0-litre straight six. Where the larger engines do score though is in terms of refinement, torque, noise etc. and that doesn't come across as easily on paper.

The gains in recent years with regards to economy are undoubtedly impressive - the Evo X FQ300 SST only manages 26.2 MPG combined yet the standard Golf R with DSG manages 40.9 in the same test. For a lot of people, it makes the difference between being able to consider the car and not and this (together with the related CO2 emissions) is one of the main reasons why the Japanese rally reps don't sell well in the UK.

As with the performance figures, the Golf is very...competent. That word keeps coming up. The question is whether the R rises above "competent" and makes you actually want it. For me at least, that depends almost entirely on how it drives.

Good points made. My Mk7 R is the first car in a very long time that I may actually keep for more than 1 year. It's no rocket ship out of the box, however the recent fettling has released a further 60~75hp and things are a whole lot more interesting. I bought it because of its refinement, turn in and torque. I've seen 45mpg+ on long runs and I've seen a GPS confirmed 0-60 in 4.7, with me being somewhat crap at 0-60 runs. So its well built, quick, economical, actually sounds good in race mode especially at 5000 rpm where it sounds mildly Audi 5-Cyl like. Turns in great and has plenty of torque from standard.

A very impressive package.

[Driver101]

aka_kerrly said:

Of course it is down to emissions and MPG, there are no official real world figures for the Golf R400 but the Golf R manages very close to it's claimed 40mpg where as there seam to be a majority of M135I owners reporting much closer to 30mpg or below.

It's most likely the EU test fudging going on!!

The Golf R gets close to its claimed combined 40mpg?

I guess if you consider mid 20s as close that is true.

The M135i gets better figures than the Golf.