VW Golf 7 R -- Chipped -- 0 to 60 in 4 Seconds...

[ORD]

chrispmartha said:

RE92 said:

The M135i just seems a better buy if you want an fast practical car.

In stock form the M135i is faster. Tune I think the M135i would be faster still. I don't see why there's so much fuss about the Golf R. It's a bit late to the party.

But neither are going to be bothering exotica any time soon. Pretty insane to compare hatch backs to Ferraris purely on 0-60 times.

I wouldn't call them bargains either. 35k+ for faster versions of normal cars. I know the new vs used comparison is just as dumb as the stock vs tuned arguments but if I had 35k and wanted a fast car I would be after the real thing!

I'd wager not many M135i or Golf Rs are 'bought' so the 35k ticket price is irrelevant. I'm getting a M135i on business lease as it was a good deal theres no way on this earth I'd be spending the 36K ticket price on it.

You are paying that price. It is just be paid in a different way. The depreciation fairies don't take away the ticket price when you lease - they just smear it across the payments (albeit with a bit of a discount to drive volume, etc).

Nobody paying cash would pay anything like the ticket price, anyway. I expect VW would bite your hand off at something like £32k.

[chrispmartha]

ORD said:

You are paying that price. It is just be paid in a different way. The depreciation fairies don't take away the ticket price when you lease - they just smear it across the payments (albeit with a bit of a discount to drive volume, etc).

Nobody paying cash would pay anything like the ticket price, anyway. I expect VW would bite your hand off at something like £32k.

Im not paying the price though am I, I'm paying around £8,000 to lease it for 2 years, I'll then hand it back.

What I am saying is if I had £35k to buy a car I wouldn't be in the BMW garage handing it over for new M135i, discount or otherwise.

[Actus Reus]

To those expressing a preference for BMW or Golf, have you driven both cars?

[Blown2CV]

RE92 said:

The M135i just seems a better buy if you want an fast practical car.

In stock form the M135i is faster. Tune I think the M135i would be faster still. I don't see why there's so much fuss about the Golf R. It's a bit late to the party.

But neither are going to be bothering exotica any time soon. Pretty insane to compare hatch backs to Ferraris purely on 0-60 times.

I wouldn't call them bargains either. 35k+ for faster versions of normal cars. I know the new vs used comparison is just as dumb as the stock vs tuned arguments but if I had 35k and wanted a fast car I would be after the real thing!

depends whether you take fuel economy into account when talking practical. If it isn't relevant then why mention the word in the first place? No-one is paying full price for a Golf R, they're all snapping them up on the crazily cheap lease deals knocking about at the moment, which puts it around half the price of the M135i.

[Blown2CV]

Actus Reus said:

To those expressing a preference for BMW or Golf, have you driven both cars?

i bought the golf after having driven neither, purely on price. I've had a few tasty cars but the particular one i chopped in for it was a 5 year old diesel mondeo, and ultimately the maths aren't far different. So personally I am not comparing it to a ferrari or a 1 series, i am comparing it to a dirty old taxi, and it wipes the floor with that thanks.

[ORD]

chrispmartha said:

ORD said:

You are paying that price. It is just be paid in a different way. The depreciation fairies don't take away the ticket price when you lease - they just smear it across the payments (albeit with a bit of a discount to drive volume, etc).

Nobody paying cash would pay anything like the ticket price, anyway. I expect VW would bite your hand off at something like £32k.

Im not paying the price though am I, I'm paying around £8,000 to lease it for 2 years, I'll then hand it back.

What I am saying is if I had £35k to buy a car I wouldn't be in the BMW garage handing it over for new M135i, discount or otherwise.

Why not?

[chrispmartha]

ORD said:

Why not?

I'd probably get myself a second hand Porsche 911 if I were in the market for spending circa 35k cash on a car.

[Wills2]

I'm sure the Golf R is a very good car but the posts from a certain PHer regarding its performance are child like, but it is the school holidays after all.

[Blown2CV]

it is good, but it seems to attract hate from at least 1/4 of PH because it's not a V8/posh make/very thirsty. Somehow because it's pretty good and pretty cheap that means it's not a REAL PH car. TBH I couldn't give a fk. I like it.

[ORD]

Blown2CV said:

it is good, but it seems to attract hate from at least 1/4 of PH because it's not a V8/posh make/very thirsty. Somehow because it's pretty good and pretty cheap that means it's not a REAL PH car. TBH I couldn't give a fk. I like it.

I wont pretend to speak for the "haters", as I am both impressed by and uninterested in the R. I think that makes me a resounding fence-sitter

However, it seems to me that the haters have some pretty legitimate reasons to criticise the R as a performance/sporty car and are not, as you suggest, being unrealistic. As far as I can see, the main criticisms are as follows:-

(1) It is overpriced for a blown 2l hatch.
(2) The front-engine + Haldex combination makes it compromised as a "sporty" drive.
(3) The engine is effective but uninspiring.

I don't think it is unrealistic to say "It would be nice to have a NA hatchback with a genuine engine note and a bit of character". Badge has literally nothing to do with it (and never has in relation to hot hatches - I like a Renault, for example!).

[J4CKO]

What I want to know is, how many of the leased ones (Golf R/135i) will end up remapped ?

For me, it seems like there is a lot of talk of insane performance once remapped, but nobody seems to
actually buy either outright ?

I have no issue with leasing, just seems to be a bit of a oxymoron going on.

Am sure some people buy these cars outright or on a deal where they end up actually owning it but do people modify cars that don't actually belong to them ?

Can see it is pretty compelling, 3 grand or so down, £300 a month for a couple of years and what, £500 to get it remapped to 370 bhp, so if you have four grand, you can drive a brand new, 370 bhp car ? does that sound right ?

[ORD]

J4CKO said:

What I want to know is, how many of the leased ones (Golf R/135i) will end up remapped ?

For me, it seems like there is a lot of talk of insane performance once remapped, but nobody seems to
actually buy either outright ?

I have no issue with leasing, just seems to be a bit of a oxymoron going on.

Am sure some people buy these cars outright or on a deal where they end up actually owning it but do people modify cars that don't actually belong to them ?

Can see it is pretty compelling, 3 grand or so down, £300 a month for a couple of years and what, £500 to get it remapped to 370 bhp, so if you have four grand, you can drive a brand new, 370 bhp car ? does that sound right ?

Good point.

Another problem with all the remapping stuff is that it removes a lot of the benefits of driving a Golf - low running costs, reliability, etc.

If you want a fast car that might go pop any minute, I am sure a TVR can be obtained for a lower yearly cost.

[crazy about cars]

Curious, isn't there a strict no modification rule on leased cars?

J4CKO said:

What I want to know is, how many of the leased ones (Golf R/135i) will end up remapped ?

For me, it seems like there is a lot of talk of insane performance once remapped, but nobody seems to
actually buy either outright ?

I have no issue with leasing, just seems to be a bit of a oxymoron going on.

Am sure some people buy these cars outright or on a deal where they end up actually owning it but do people modify cars that don't actually belong to them ?

Can see it is pretty compelling, 3 grand or so down, £300 a month for a couple of years and what, £500 to get it remapped to 370 bhp, so if you have four grand, you can drive a brand new, 370 bhp car ? does that sound right ?

[IvanSTi]

J4CKO said:

What I want to know is, how many of the leased ones (Golf R/135i) will end up remapped ?

For me, it seems like there is a lot of talk of insane performance once remapped, but nobody seems to
actually buy either outright ?

I have no issue with leasing, just seems to be a bit of a oxymoron going on.

Am sure some people buy these cars outright or on a deal where they end up actually owning it but do people modify cars that don't actually belong to them ?

Can see it is pretty compelling, 3 grand or so down, £300 a month for a couple of years and what, £500 to get it remapped to 370 bhp, so if you have four grand, you can drive a brand new, 370 bhp car ? does that sound right ?

Who cares who the car belongs to, how many people who modify cars, actually keep their cars for a long time?

I for one, have spent and am going to spend, a fortune on my car. I'm under no illusions that I am going to keep the car a long time, unless I do decide to take it off the road and race it.

So that money, I/we who modify cars, have spent, is going to be lost* anyway.

*Yes you do get some of it back, but certainly no where near what has been spent.

[EricE]

crazy about cars said:

Curious, isn't there a strict no modification rule on leased cars?

Yes there is. There exist plug-and-play chip tuning boxes that plug in two or three sensors and change the values and trick the ECU into proving more boost. People with lease cars install those boxes and remove them before bringing the car in for service. That way the remap doesn't leave a trace.

Obviously it is still not allowed because they are modifying a car they don't own. Not only that but if they have a serious accident and the insurance hears of that box which gives the car more power than it is insured for, they potentially don't have to pay. That kind of stuff can ruin your life if the other party sustains a serious lifelong injury or worse. Not really worth it for a few extra hp.

The one car I had remapped was out of warranty, paid for and owned by myself and I told my insurance about the modification and power increase. Maybe I am a wuss but that's the only way to go about it IMO.

ORD said:

Another problem with all the remapping stuff is that it removes a lot of the benefits of driving a Golf - low running costs, reliability, etc.

If you want a fast car that might go pop any minute, I am sure a TVR can be obtained for a lower yearly cost.

I’m not sure that argument is completely valid. A lot of cars have tons of safety margin built in for extreme cases i.e. hours of full throttle in the death valley at 50°C with terrible fuel and no oil change for 80k miles. From what I understand a good remap just lowers that safety margin. Sometimes manufacturers even detune the engines for marketing reasons and a remap just restores that power back to full. (see the 333hp S4 engine that was designed to have 400hp... and the result compared to the RS4)

Of course that means more stress for the engine but it should still be well within the limits rather than "running at 130% of design capacity". I don't see why running costs would be substantially higher or reliability much worse unless you plan to do 200k miles.

Edited by EricE on Tuesday 5th August 19:22

[crazy about cars]

IvanSTi said:

Who cares who the car belongs to, how many people who modify cars, actually keep their cars for a long time?

I for one, have spent and am going to spend, a fortune on my car. I'm under no illusions that I am going to keep the car a long time, unless I do decide to take it off the road and race it.

So that money, I/we who modify cars, have spent, is going to be lost* anyway.

*Yes you do get some of it back, but certainly no where near what has been spent.

So you openly admit to modifying a leased car ?

Edited by crazy about cars on Tuesday 5th August 19:28

[Mouse1903]

I'm really tempted to test drive one of these but scared I would look at every option to see how I could afford it. Beautiful car in the flesh.

[Blown2CV]

ORD said:

Blown2CV said:

it is good, but it seems to attract hate from at least 1/4 of PH because it's not a V8/posh make/very thirsty. Somehow because it's pretty good and pretty cheap that means it's not a REAL PH car. TBH I couldn't give a fk. I like it.

I wont pretend to speak for the "haters", as I am both impressed by and uninterested in the R. I think that makes me a resounding fence-sitter

However, it seems to me that the haters have some pretty legitimate reasons to criticise the R as a performance/sporty car and are not, as you suggest, being unrealistic. As far as I can see, the main criticisms are as follows:-

(1) It is overpriced for a blown 2l hatch.
(2) The front-engine + Haldex combination makes it compromised as a "sporty" drive.
(3) The engine is effective but uninspiring.

I don't think it is unrealistic to say "It would be nice to have a NA hatchback with a genuine engine note and a bit of character". Badge has literally nothing to do with it (and never has in relation to hot hatches - I like a Renault, for example!).

i don't know how many other cars have 300bhp for £31k but as i've said, it's very cheap on a lease at the moment so cost argument isn't really valid. So I just want to understand what you mean by compromised drive and uninspiring. They sound like motoring journalist words. Have you actually driven one and are you comparing it with something else, fairly?

[ORD]

Blown2CV said:

ORD said:

Blown2CV said:

it is good, but it seems to attract hate from at least 1/4 of PH because it's not a V8/posh make/very thirsty. Somehow because it's pretty good and pretty cheap that means it's not a REAL PH car. TBH I couldn't give a fk. I like it.

I wont pretend to speak for the "haters", as I am both impressed by and uninterested in the R. I think that makes me a resounding fence-sitter

However, it seems to me that the haters have some pretty legitimate reasons to criticise the R as a performance/sporty car and are not, as you suggest, being unrealistic. As far as I can see, the main criticisms are as follows:-

(1) It is overpriced for a blown 2l hatch.
(2) The front-engine + Haldex combination makes it compromised as a "sporty" drive.
(3) The engine is effective but uninspiring.

I don't think it is unrealistic to say "It would be nice to have a NA hatchback with a genuine engine note and a bit of character". Badge has literally nothing to do with it (and never has in relation to hot hatches - I like a Renault, for example!).

i don't know how many other cars have 300bhp for £31k but as i've said, it's very cheap on a lease at the moment so cost argument isn't really valid. So I just want to understand what you mean by compromised drive and uninspiring. They sound like motoring journalist words. Have you actually driven one and are you comparing it with something else, fairly?

AWD is probably the least enjoyable set up for road driving - it is designed for safety and ease rather than enjoyment. The car does most of the cornering for you by shuffling torque around, braking wheels, etc. I have never driven an AWD car that I found fun (contrast a lot of FWD hatches that I think are a hoot).

£31k is a huge amount of money for a Golf. It really is. No matter how you cut it by finance or leasing, it is a lot of money for a 4 cyl hatch.

It is uninspiring in that it has an engine that is designed purely for performance and efficiency rather than enjoyment (see e.g. it's torque curve which is more like an Ecoboost than a 6 cyl sports car engine). It sounds like turd, too, which is hard to avoid but still a fact.

Why would a test drive an R given that I know there is no way I would want one? It's like asking me whether or not I have kissed a man if I say I prefer women I have driven the GTI, which I quite like, and can't say more power would have sold me on it, especially if that came with more weight.

[J4CKO]

IvanSTi said:

J4CKO said:

What I want to know is, how many of the leased ones (Golf R/135i) will end up remapped ?

For me, it seems like there is a lot of talk of insane performance once remapped, but nobody seems to
actually buy either outright ?

I have no issue with leasing, just seems to be a bit of a oxymoron going on.

Am sure some people buy these cars outright or on a deal where they end up actually owning it but do people modify cars that don't actually belong to them ?

Can see it is pretty compelling, 3 grand or so down, £300 a month for a couple of years and what, £500 to get it remapped to 370 bhp, so if you have four grand, you can drive a brand new, 370 bhp car ? does that sound right ?

Who cares who the car belongs to, how many people who modify cars, actually keep their cars for a long time?

I for one, have spent and am going to spend, a fortune on my car. I'm under no illusions that I am going to keep the car a long time, unless I do decide to take it off the road and race it.

So that money, I/we who modify cars, have spent, is going to be lost* anyway.

*Yes you do get some of it back, but certainly no where near what has been spent.

I think you have misunderstood me, I have nothing against modification, quite a fan really. but was interested if people will
modify a car they don't actually own because it seems pretty prevalent on these latest fast hatches, effectively it isn't theirs to modify is the point I am making.