RE: Volkswagen Golf R: Review
Discussion
bodhi said:
It has a 4 cylinder engine. No harm in that (for most people), but why the f
k has it got 4 tailpipes? Does it really need 1 tailpipe per cylinder? If it had an engine with the correct compliment of cylinders I could see the point, but for a 4 banger? No VAG, let's not be silly now.
Exhaust pipe number seems to be turning into a pissing contest, along with wheel size.k has it got 4 tailpipes? Does it really need 1 tailpipe per cylinder? If it had an engine with the correct compliment of cylinders I could see the point, but for a 4 banger? No VAG, let's not be silly now. (B The bottom line is this is a fantastic representation of a modern performance Hatch, with excellent build quality, interior, and performance, and a very fast car is most conditions that still returns over 35MPG in general driving. What that means though, is that it is also built to be safe and predictable, which is either something you appreciate in your day to day driving, or resent.)B
I don't get this.....£30k is alot of money for the majority in this country......my wages have risen nowhere near the rise in car prices. The 'average' slary or income for households is £26k.....so who can affor d a £30k car when for many have mortgagaes.
Maybe some who get a nice pension bonus may have some spare cash but even those prepared to rent a car on a lease deal I note even the Golf R PPL's are £3k down and £450 per month.......not in average joe's spectrum.
Perhaps these types are cars are preserved for the rich of London and the South East yet again cetainly not on the public sector.
I don't get this.....£30k is alot of money for the majority in this country......my wages have risen nowhere near the rise in car prices. The 'average' slary or income for households is £26k.....so who can affor d a £30k car when for many have mortgagaes.
Maybe some who get a nice pension bonus may have some spare cash but even those prepared to rent a car on a lease deal I note even the Golf R PPL's are £3k down and £450 per month.......not in average joe's spectrum.
Perhaps these types are cars are preserved for the rich of London and the South East yet again cetainly not on the public sector.
Edited by Msportman on Thursday 8th May 14:56
Edited by Msportman on Thursday 8th May 14:58
GravelBen said:
You're focussing on the statistics rather than the driving experience? Its quite possible for a car to be fast and capable without being particularly involving.
This involving statement, what do people mean by involving ? A car constantly trying to kill you by tugging the steering left/right or having a feeling of uncertainty i.e. not feeling very planted can be described as involving but I wouldn't call those selling points.
Or is involvement akin to the holy grail of steering feedback that tells you exactly what the wheels are doing, how much grip is available, what time of surface you are on but all without you having a single vibration through the steering wheel or any kind of discomfort?
I'm intrigued as involvement is being banded around like a current buzz word.
They're not "preserved" for anyone. They cost what they cost - some people will be able and willing to pay that amount; others will not. No need to link it to public sector pay!
As for the owner being told that his car did not actually understeer, you couldnt make it up! Of bloody course it understeered - (1) he was the guy driving it so probably knows and (2) Audis generally understeer a fair bit - it is part on their emphasis on safety and predictability over driving thrills. The A3, for example, is a notoriously boring car to drive, including because it grips and then gently understeers.
As for the owner being told that his car did not actually understeer, you couldnt make it up! Of bloody course it understeered - (1) he was the guy driving it so probably knows and (2) Audis generally understeer a fair bit - it is part on their emphasis on safety and predictability over driving thrills. The A3, for example, is a notoriously boring car to drive, including because it grips and then gently understeers.
^ Is it that easy to forget that the masses want cars that are SAFE and not going to spin them backwards or sideways at any opportunity.
Perhaps we are underestimating driving standards but to be honest the thought of most dimwits in cars that require 100% concentration to drive is fking scary.
Perhaps we are underestimating driving standards but to be honest the thought of most dimwits in cars that require 100% concentration to drive is f
king scary.I agree completely. A very balanced car without much understeer dialed in will tend (although not always) to have a pretty sudden and frightening way of losing its composure; contrast a car that just allows itself to float away from the apex a bit. Much much safer.
I am glad that most people drive cars that are engineered to have this attribute. I quite often go around a corner behind drivers who seem to have no bloody idea that their car is understeering wildly (suggesting that 5mph more and they wouldnt have made the corner). I would rather that than be behind a car that suddenly snaps into oversteer and/or spins into my path! Whenever I overtake someone who has been (in my view) driving badly but quickly, they always look completely uninterested in what they are doing - just turning the wheel enough to stay (just about) in their lane and getting from A to B. I expect that they leave the road once or twice every few years and then blame the car.
I am glad that most people drive cars that are engineered to have this attribute. I quite often go around a corner behind drivers who seem to have no bloody idea that their car is understeering wildly (suggesting that 5mph more and they wouldnt have made the corner). I would rather that than be behind a car that suddenly snaps into oversteer and/or spins into my path! Whenever I overtake someone who has been (in my view) driving badly but quickly, they always look completely uninterested in what they are doing - just turning the wheel enough to stay (just about) in their lane and getting from A to B. I expect that they leave the road once or twice every few years and then blame the car.
Johnnytheboy said:
You can hardly blame Audi in particular for building cars that tend to understeer.
The last mass-market car they built that went the other way was the first TT and that didn't go well for them.
exactly, or consider the early Honda S2000s, rwd, no traction control; such a proper drivers car but then loads of them got stuffed into hedges, insurance went skyward and Honda resorted to changing the geometry, fitting traction control all in an attempt to ensure that numpties wouldn't crash and blame the "dangerous handling" of the car.The last mass-market car they built that went the other way was the first TT and that didn't go well for them.
aka_kerrly said:
exactly, or consider the early Honda S2000s, rwd, no traction control; such a proper drivers car but then loads of them got stuffed into hedges, insurance went skyward and Honda resorted to changing the geometry, fitting traction control all in an attempt to ensure that numpties wouldn't crash and blame the "dangerous handling" of the car.
Gen. 1 TTs were the same way. There is an old anecdote from Walter Röhrl, who tested the TT extensively for Audi. His comments were that the car was too eager to step out in the back and thus dangerous for average drivers. Audi took the risk, however, and the rest is history.scherzkeks said:
Gen. 1 TTs were the same way. There is an old anecdote from Walter Röhrl, who tested the TT extensively for Audi. His comments were that the car was too eager to step out in the back and thus dangerous for average drivers. Audi took the risk, however, and the rest is history.
Or the Honda S2000 for that matter! 
ORD said:
I agree completely. A very balanced car without much understeer dialed in will tend (although not always) to have a pretty sudden and frightening way of losing its composure; contrast a car that just allows itself to float away from the apex a bit. Much much safer.
I am glad that most people drive cars that are engineered to have this attribute. I quite often go around a corner behind drivers who seem to have no bloody idea that their car is understeering wildly (suggesting that 5mph more and they wouldnt have made the corner). I would rather that than be behind a car that suddenly snaps into oversteer and/or spins into my path! Whenever I overtake someone who has been (in my view) driving badly but quickly, they always look completely uninterested in what they are doing - just turning the wheel enough to stay (just about) in their lane and getting from A to B. I expect that they leave the road once or twice every few years and then blame the car.
That's why even RWD cars like the 3-Series has some "safety understeer" engineered into the setup...though I have to say that in mine (old E46) at least, it's barely noticeable if you drive it properly.I am glad that most people drive cars that are engineered to have this attribute. I quite often go around a corner behind drivers who seem to have no bloody idea that their car is understeering wildly (suggesting that 5mph more and they wouldnt have made the corner). I would rather that than be behind a car that suddenly snaps into oversteer and/or spins into my path! Whenever I overtake someone who has been (in my view) driving badly but quickly, they always look completely uninterested in what they are doing - just turning the wheel enough to stay (just about) in their lane and getting from A to B. I expect that they leave the road once or twice every few years and then blame the car.
^ High speed stability was one of the issues, Ze Germans changing lanes on the Autobahn at 140mph is not representative of all European driving but Audi were right to do something about it - fit a rear spoiler and change the geometry settings.
Within the world of Audi tuners though it is easy to acquire the replacement lower arms and bushes to restore the original settings
Within the world of Audi tuners though it is easy to acquire the replacement lower arms and bushes to restore the original settings
bodhi said:
Sadly I just can't see past the styling on the Mk7 Golf, after loving the shape of the Mk5 and Mk6, the Mk7 just looks horrible and bloated to me from the front, and at the back it's just a generic VAG shape, looking awfully similar to the A3 and Leon. I'm sure it's a lovely thing to own (Golfs generally are), but to look at? It's a blob, with the interior plastic quality varied to befit a Volkswagen.
Other random observations:
It has a 4 cylinder engine. No harm in that (for most people), but why the fk has it got 4 tailpipes? Does it really need 1 tailpipe per cylinder? If it had an engine with the correct compliment of cylinders I could see the point, but for a 4 banger? No VAG, let's not be silly now.
Again on the cylinder count, the R models used to be a bit special because of that lovely VR6 engine up front. Putting just another generic 4 cylinder in loses a lot of the appeal for me. Plus it appears this new one gets through just as much fuel as the old R32, so what's the point?
Again on the engine, the power output from a 2 litre concerns me, not because it isn't possible for a highly blown 2 litre to be reliable (ask Mitsubishi), I'm not sure if it's possible for VAG to achieve that however, with their dubious history of over stressed petrol engines (TSI I'm looking in your direction here).
It also would have been nice for them to differentiate it from the S3 a little bit more (a proper engine would be perfrect for that), but as it is, these two seem awfully similar to me. That's VAG for you I guess....
In short it looks a very impressive car, but would I have one? Not a chance. Too dull, not enough cylinders and too many driven wheels. I suspect I'd be off to see BMW about an M235i if I'm honest, I don't need a hatchback, and for me RWD with a diff sounds far more appealing. In fact I'm still not sure of the appeal of 4wd, slower in a straight line, and you only get the benefit of increased traction when putting the power down, however I'm sure the Haldex defence league will be along shortly to show me the error of my ways.
No pleasing some people, if it didnt have the four tailpipes people would say looks to similar to the GTI, each to their own an all that but for an everyday car (practical,quick, discreet,safe) ticks a lot of boxes to me, as for the old v6 engines yes they sounded better but werent much quicker, if at all and were crap on fuel (r32)Other random observations:
It has a 4 cylinder engine. No harm in that (for most people), but why the f
k has it got 4 tailpipes? Does it really need 1 tailpipe per cylinder? If it had an engine with the correct compliment of cylinders I could see the point, but for a 4 banger? No VAG, let's not be silly now. Again on the cylinder count, the R models used to be a bit special because of that lovely VR6 engine up front. Putting just another generic 4 cylinder in loses a lot of the appeal for me. Plus it appears this new one gets through just as much fuel as the old R32, so what's the point?
Again on the engine, the power output from a 2 litre concerns me, not because it isn't possible for a highly blown 2 litre to be reliable (ask Mitsubishi), I'm not sure if it's possible for VAG to achieve that however, with their dubious history of over stressed petrol engines (TSI I'm looking in your direction here).
It also would have been nice for them to differentiate it from the S3 a little bit more (a proper engine would be perfrect for that), but as it is, these two seem awfully similar to me. That's VAG for you I guess....
In short it looks a very impressive car, but would I have one? Not a chance. Too dull, not enough cylinders and too many driven wheels. I suspect I'd be off to see BMW about an M235i if I'm honest, I don't need a hatchback, and for me RWD with a diff sounds far more appealing. In fact I'm still not sure of the appeal of 4wd, slower in a straight line, and you only get the benefit of increased traction when putting the power down, however I'm sure the Haldex defence league will be along shortly to show me the error of my ways.
Yes i have ordered one
leem said:
No pleasing some people, if it didnt have the four tailpipes people would say looks to similar to the GTI
IMO it would look spot-on with just a reasonably-sized single tailpipe. Quad exhausts are excessive even on six-pots (e.g. E46 M3 / B8 S4) so just look silly on a four banger.Clivey said:
IMO it would look spot-on with just a reasonably-sized single tailpipe. Quad exhausts are excessive even on six-pots (e.g. E46 M3 / B8 S4) so just look silly on a four banger.
How do you feel about dual tips on impotent 170 ps 6ers?Just curious.
Edited by scherzkeks on Thursday 8th May 17:47
scherzkeks said:
How do you feel about dual tips on impotent 170 ps hers?
Just curious.
Not a problem.Just curious.
The Rules.
scherzkeks said:
How do you feel about dual tips on impotent 170 ps hers?
Just curious.
Classy. Out of interest are we discussing 10 year old 3 series? Just wondering why you felt the need to get personal and attack the man's own wheels? Just curious.
Actually don't bother answering that, judging by some of your previous posts on here it's par for the course.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff