RE: Volkswagen Golf R: Review

RE: Volkswagen Golf R: Review

Author
Discussion

Clivey

5,108 posts

203 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
ORD said:
I've no interest at all in the R, I am afraid. It's only a person thing, but I don't see the point in fast cars with turbo 4 pots. I think of them as the automotive equivalent of a cyborg lover - perhaps as or more capable but ultimately a bit synthetic.
yes I can accept an inline-4 in something light (e.g. MX-5) but I know exactly what you mean. - 3-cylinder engines have more character though, so maybe there will be a silver lining to the current trend for downsizing. I've not driven the new Mini Cooper yet but wonder what that's like (1.5-litre 3-cylinder).

Dr Interceptor

7,745 posts

195 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
ORD said:
I can see all of that, although I would question the fuel economy figures for anything but town driving (where I don't doubt that a turbo 4 will outperform a 6).

I also cant (from my own needs and wants) see much point in extremely fast "everyday" cars. I think a GTI is the fastest normal car I would ever want/need, if you see what I mean. I can well imagine wanting a 400bhp weekend car, but I don't see myself taking the kids to their gran's or a friend's party in a 300bhp hatch.

The R is probably an incredibly good choice for a 1-car household, though.
Fuel economy averages around 27mpg, 32-33 on a longer run, and up to around 38mpg when trying to get the numbers up in Eco mode.

I like having a quick everyday car, but then my weekend cars are wonderfully slow biggrin

Clivey - new Cooper is very good. I ran test drives at Vines Guildford on their launch event, even four up on a test drive, the Cooper never felt wanting for more oomph, and it does sound a lot better than the previous gen 1.6 petrol.

Clivey

5,108 posts

203 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
Dr Interceptor said:
Clivey - new Cooper is very good. I ran test drives at Vines Guildford on their launch event, even four up on a test drive, the Cooper never felt wanting for more oomph, and it does sound a lot better than the previous gen 1.6 petrol.
Sounds promising! thumbup


bodhi

10,334 posts

228 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
Dr Interceptor said:
Fuel economy averages around 27mpg, 32-33 on a longer run, and up to around 38mpg when trying to get the numbers up in Eco mode.

I like having a quick everyday car, but then my weekend cars are wonderfully slow biggrin

Clivey - new Cooper is very good. I ran test drives at Vines Guildford on their launch event, even four up on a test drive, the Cooper never felt wanting for more oomph, and it does sound a lot better than the previous gen 1.6 petrol.
Thing is, those figures do make me wonder why we are dropping the V6 etc for a 4 cylinder turbo, when the economy figures on the 4's are no better. I was getting slightly better figures out of a 1996 328i, which might not have the grunt, but is also 20 years behind the Golf in terms of engine development.

Clivey

5,108 posts

203 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
scherzkeks said:
Indeed. My facelift S3 Sportback (Haldex 4) was a pretty neutral car, and was fairly easy to coax into a 4-wheel drift with ESC off -- I even managed it with ESC on a few times too. That car was a lot more chuckable than the S4 or C350 I now have.
When you say "coax into" do you mean with a big lift or simply through a heavy right foot on corner exit? I found that my friend's was only receptive to the former (and then not very).

bodhi said:
Thing is, those figures do make me wonder why we are dropping the V6 etc for a 4 cylinder turbo, when the economy figures on the 4's are no better. I was getting slightly better figures out of a 1996 328i, which might not have the grunt, but is also 20 years behind the Golf in terms of engine development.
yes I know the R32 wasn't the most fuel efficient (mk4 or 5) but if the 4-pots aren't massively better, I think I'd rather cough-up the difference and pay to run a six...especially when it sounds like that.

Ved

3,825 posts

174 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
I averaged 29.6 over 38,000 miles in my MK5 so don't believe they just suck petrol.

ORD

18,086 posts

126 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
I am pretty amazed at the figures we see for turbo 4 pots on here. Are people just spanking them day-in-day-out?

I have only rarely got less than 28mpg from a tank in my mix of town and country (with a little motorway) driving (NA 3.4 l), and it will get a genuine 37mpg if driven like a granny on a motorway.

Dr Interceptor

7,745 posts

195 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
ORD said:
Are people just spanking them day-in-day-out?
Pretty much biggrin



DUMBO100

1,878 posts

183 months

Friday 17th April 2015
quotequote all


Oops

J4CKO

41,287 posts

199 months

Friday 17th April 2015
quotequote all
Clivey said:
scherzkeks said:
Indeed. My facelift S3 Sportback (Haldex 4) was a pretty neutral car, and was fairly easy to coax into a 4-wheel drift with ESC off -- I even managed it with ESC on a few times too. That car was a lot more chuckable than the S4 or C350 I now have.
When you say "coax into" do you mean with a big lift or simply through a heavy right foot on corner exit? I found that my friend's was only receptive to the former (and then not very).

bodhi said:
Thing is, those figures do make me wonder why we are dropping the V6 etc for a 4 cylinder turbo, when the economy figures on the 4's are no better. I was getting slightly better figures out of a 1996 328i, which might not have the grunt, but is also 20 years behind the Golf in terms of engine development.
yes I know the R32 wasn't the most fuel efficient (mk4 or 5) but if the 4-pots aren't massively better, I think I'd rather cough-up the difference and pay to run a six...especially when it sounds like that.
like for like, I think they can achieve better figures than the V6 but they have the capability to make 296 bhp which makes the car accelerate in a most satisfying manner so they get driven accordingly and it hurts the economy.

The V6 is heavier, is of higher capacity and has more moving parts so is at a disadvantage but that pales into insignificance relative to the drivers right foot.

Clivey

5,108 posts

203 months

Friday 17th April 2015
quotequote all
J4CKO said:
like for like, I think they can achieve better figures than the V6 but they have the capability to make 296 bhp which makes the car accelerate in a most satisfying manner so they get driven accordingly and it hurts the economy.

The V6 is heavier, is of higher capacity and has more moving parts so is at a disadvantage but that pales into insignificance relative to the drivers right foot.
Since my last post in this thread, we've swapped my wife's 320i (E46, 6-pot) for a Mini JCW (R56; 4-pot turbo). We were getting ~26mpg out of the 3-Series but despite the downsized engine and much lower weight, we're only getting ~31mpg out of the Mini in the same conditions. Yes; the Mini's lump produces 40-odd more horses but when you're not using them all, it's not as frugal as you'd perhaps expect.

In fact, we only went for the Mini after I'd had a look for a suitable 330Ci or Z4 3.0 Si. - I couldn't find the right example of either, sadly. At least the Mini's 4-pot turbo has character, as they've not tried unsuccessfully to disguise the forced induction but instead made it a feature, unlike many modern downsized lumps. smile