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

[Atmospheric]

5678 said:

Not read the thread, so not sure if its mentioned...

Word of warning regarding mapping VAG cars, they are able to detect these in the dealers VERY easily now. Any time the car is plugged in it runs a comparison against the cars software and the software it "should" have on from the factory. If any discrepancy is noticed then it will set a flag on your car meaning any future warranty work may be refused. Google TD1, you will find lots of stories and I've experienced it for myself. It was VERY difficult to get the flag removed.

Begs the question, why would you remap a borrowed car?

[Dave Hedgehog]

Spooge said:

Blown2CV said:

I didn't get an R to drive it on a track. I couldn't give a fk what cars would wipe the floor with it in that environment.

Nail on head for me too. Although I bought an S3 its essentially the same car (with worse handling ). I do find it a bit pointless that alot of reviews are based on track tests when 90% of them will likely never see a track.

I just wanted something that would get the power down without worrying too much on our typical wet roads, or pootle about the place when I felt like it. The fact that I can chip it is simply a bonus.

what a fool you are

if harris cant slide a car around a track sideways at 150mph for 2 hours straight it is an utter POS and therefore worthless

your real world expectations are quite frankly laughable

imagine buying a car for real world use lol ...

[giger]

Rawwr said:

With a mere 90bhp available, progress is too leisurely to be called fast but on the motorway in fifth gear the Golf R’s slow pace really becomes a pain. Uphill runs become power-sappingly mundane, while overtaking National Express coaches can become a long, drawn-out affair.

[ikarl]

Spooge said:

Blown2CV said:

I didn't get an R to drive it on a track. I couldn't give a fk what cars would wipe the floor with it in that environment.

Nail on head for me too. Although I bought an S3 its essentially the same car (with worse handling ). I do find it a bit pointless that alot of reviews are based on track tests when 90% of them will likely never see a track.

I just wanted something that would get the power down without worrying too much on our typical wet roads, or pootle about the place when I felt like it. The fact that I can chip it is simply a bonus.

90% is being very generous..... I think it would be less than 0.1%

Maybe in a few years there will be a few more seeing track work, but probably not for 5+ years

[xRIEx]

IvanSTi said:

Before anyone says "well it would be, it's more expensive", it's £5k (list price) more than the golf and I'd definitely say that the extra £5k can be noticed.

£8k, from a quick glance at both websites

[Blown2CV]

IvanSTi said:

Not read every post, but test drove the A45 AMG and the Golf R back to back last week, Golf is a very nice car, well built and drove well, the A45 is in a different league.

Before anyone says "well it would be, it's more expensive", it's £5k (list price) more than the golf and I'd definitely say that the extra £5k can be noticed. My money will definitely be going to the Merc if I decide to change.

I'm still struggling to identify why I would rather have either over my current car though, my car handles better and is quicker than both by far, but have an inkling for a change of car.

Might just go for an Exige and be done with sensible cars.

firstly can you explain how the mercedes is better? You've not really said why. Secondly, is your Subaru modified?

[anonymous-user]

hondansx said:

Actually, if you're accusing people of being naive, then i'd have a look in the mirror.

In the REAL WORLD, you can lean on car's like these with no ability required. They are quick in any gear, and in any condition. They will only get showed up by a 'proper' car above 100mph. Which, in case you were wondering, is never.

So if you only compare the two in a situation where the supercar has no advantage, the Golf becomes a supercar slayer? Interesting logic.

[Blown2CV]

wormus said:

hondansx said:

Actually, if you're accusing people of being naive, then i'd have a look in the mirror.

In the REAL WORLD, you can lean on car's like these with no ability required. They are quick in any gear, and in any condition. They will only get showed up by a 'proper' car above 100mph. Which, in case you were wondering, is never.

So if you only compare the two in a situation where the supercar has no advantage, the Golf becomes a supercar slayer? Interesting logic.

all he said was that many supercars wouldn't have much of an advantage in the real world. I don't think it's weird logic, and it also didn't say anything about the Golf being a slayer of anything.

[J4CKO]

Will be interesting to see how the R fares against the Mustang GT, with which it will be competing on price.

[hondansx]

Blown2CV said:

wormus said:

hondansx said:

Actually, if you're accusing people of being naive, then i'd have a look in the mirror.

In the REAL WORLD, you can lean on car's like these with no ability required. They are quick in any gear, and in any condition. They will only get showed up by a 'proper' car above 100mph. Which, in case you were wondering, is never.

So if you only compare the two in a situation where the supercar has no advantage, the Golf becomes a supercar slayer? Interesting logic.

all he said was that many supercars wouldn't have much of an advantage in the real world. I don't think it's weird logic, and it also didn't say anything about the Golf being a slayer of anything.

I even wrote real world in big ol' capital letters.

I ran a 997 Turbo S and a remapped Golf R at the same time. Would like to think i have a pretty good impression over general commentators.

[BlackLabel]

5678 said:

Not read the thread, so not sure if its mentioned...

Word of warning regarding mapping VAG cars, they are able to detect these in the dealers VERY easily now. Any time the car is plugged in it runs a comparison against the cars software and the software it "should" have on from the factory. If any discrepancy is noticed then it will set a flag on your car meaning any future warranty work may be refused. Google TD1, you will find lots of stories and I've experienced it for myself. It was VERY difficult to get the flag removed.

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=1&a...

[Selmer Mk6]

I really don't see the point of chipping the R to go faster. If most drivers are not going to track the car then where are they going to use the extra performance?

How relevant is 0 -60 anyway. I thought something like 30 - 70 mph would more relevant. Unless of course they race from the lights and then it is all over within a few hundred yards!

[neil1jnr]

ORD said:

hondansx said:

wormus said:

Whilst the Golf R is a moderately fast hatch and can be had cheap on a few hundred quid a month lease, it will never be a supercar slayer and anyone who thinks otherwise is a tit.

Actually, if you're accusing people of being naive, then i'd have a look in the mirror.

In the REAL WORLD, you can lean on car's like these with no ability required. They are quick in any gear, and in any condition. They will only get showed up by a 'proper' car above 100mph. Which, in case you were wondering, is never.

Agreed. The R is, for all intents and purposes, Bat st Fast. You would need something fairly exotic to be materially faster in most circumstances.

I honestly still don't get this craze over the Golf R, I test drove one last summer and it didn't feel any quicker than any other 300bhp car I've driven. In regard to mapping, any turbo charged car is in the same boat so if you talk about a mapped golf you have to compare it to mapped versions of competitors

For example, IMO an Audi S4 will be quicker in all circumstances than the Golf R, more power and torque and only slightly heavier.

I think it is naive thinking the Golf is something far superioir than it really is. In REAL WORLD circumstances as you put it, do you really think a Golf R is anywhere near as quick in any gear at any speed as say a McLaren 650S...? Come on be realistic!

[Blown2CV]

Why would it be quicker than another 300bhp car, unless it was lighter? I don't think anyone is saying it's a light car, or that it's faster than other cars with similar outputs. It does handle pretty well and it's a good all rounder. What I don't understand is people making things up in order to be contrary!

[RowntreesCabana]

neil1jnr said:

I honestly still don't get this craze over the Golf R, I test drove one last summer and it didn't feel any quicker than any other 300bhp car I've driven. In regard to mapping, any turbo charged car is in the same boat so if you talk about a mapped golf you have to compare it to mapped versions of competitors

For example, IMO an Audi S4 will be quicker in all circumstances than the Golf R, more power and torque and only slightly heavier.

I think it is naive thinking the Golf is something far superioir than it really is. In REAL WORLD circumstances as you put it, do you really think a Golf R is anywhere near as quick in any gear at any speed as say a McLaren 650S...? Come on be realistic!

It all depends on whether you value keeping your license or not. The difference from one bend to the next and 60/65mph is marginal on most uk roads, but I suppose in the latest hypercars its the instant torque with the electric motors.

It won't be long before we see this technology in the hot hatches though.

[anonymous-user]

Blown2CV said:

Why would it be quicker than another 300bhp car, unless it was lighter? I don't think anyone is saying it's a light car, or that it's faster than other cars with similar outputs. It does handle pretty well and it's a good all rounder. What I don't understand is people making things up in order to be contrary!

Just the normal PH Golf hate from the usual suspects, that's all. The rest of us know it's a very capable car and a great all rounder.

[anonymous-user]

hondansx said:

I even wrote real world in big ol' capital letters.

I ran a 997 Turbo S and a remapped Golf R at the same time. Would like to think i have a pretty good impression over general commentators.

Not saying the Golf isn't quick when compared to 90% of the cars on the road, but that says more about the typical mix of cars on our roads than the blistering performance of the R. Also, most people over the age of 30 don't drive around trying to prove a point so quite often any race "win" is a hollow victory. The Golf has almost the exact same performance times as a 1995 Audi RS2 Avant, hardly ground breaking.

To illustrate the point further, the standing 1/4 is 13.4 sec for the Golf and 10.7 sec for the 997 you compare it to, that's a massive difference.

I don't hate the Golf at all, in fact I quite like it. What bothers me is people making it out to be something it's not, which is a likeable, moderately brisk way for one's wife to get the weekly shop back from Waitrose.

Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 3rd February 12:41

[Broccers]

wormus said:

hondansx said:

I even wrote real world in big ol' capital letters.

I ran a 997 Turbo S and a remapped Golf R at the same time. Would like to think i have a pretty good impression over general commentators.

Not saying the Golf isn't quick when compared to 90% of the cars on the road, but that says more about the typical mix of cars on our roads than the blistering performance of the R. Also, most people over the age of 30 don't drive around trying to prove a point so quite often any race "win" is a hollow victory. The Golf has almost the exact same performance times as a 1995 Audi RS2 Avant, hardly ground breaking.

To illustrate the point further, the standing 1/4 is 13.4 sec for the Golf and 10.7 sec for the 997 you compare it to, that's a massive difference.

My M coupe did a 1/4 in the same and at times that didnt feel fast either. Dont really see the point in these discussions as most of the time it will be doddering around in traffic anyway. Id rather do that with something practical, okish economy and reasonably comfortable.

[J4CKO]

Blown2CV said:

Why would it be quicker than another 300bhp car, unless it was lighter? I don't think anyone is saying it's a light car, or that it's faster than other cars with similar outputs. It does handle pretty well and it's a good all rounder. What I don't understand is people making things up in order to be contrary!

I think it makes good use of what isn't actually that high an output, a combination of AWD and the speed that a DSG will shift, plus it isnt that heavy at 1446 kilos.

My 350Z has the same exact power output but is heavier, 0-100 mph is 13.5 for the 350Z and 12.5 for the Golf R, I think on the road that the Golf would be quicker than that small margin suggests, its called progress I guess.

Also, I think a lot of owners are coming from the normal diesel suspects and lesser petrols and as such get giddy with the comparatively massive performance, then you have people tuning them and posting endless VBox results proving that their car is in spitting distance to a standard Nissan GTR, however, hollow victory as its still a Golf and you spent 30 odd grand on it, then spent more tuning it so it stands you at near 40 grand, how much is a second hand GTR these days ?

I think some of the Golf R's attention will wane (or is that Wayne in this case....) as the newly announced Focus RS has more power (22 bhp) and looks to be on par price wise, or a bit cheaper, oh and its got an extra 300cc, plus it doesn't look like the most expensive training shoe in Sports Direct.

Golf R is still great but so many options popping up, the 435 bhp, V8 Mustang at £32,995 is hard to ignore.

[SturdyHSV]

wormus said:

Not saying the Golf isn't quick when compared to 90% of the cars on the road, but that says more about the typical mix of cars on our roads than the blistering performance of the R. Also, most people over the age of 30 don't drive around trying to prove a point so quite often any race "win" is a hollow victory. The Golf has almost the exact same performance times as a 1995 Audi RS2 Avant, hardly ground breaking.

To illustrate the point further, the standing 1/4 is 13.4 sec for the Golf and 10.7 sec for the 997 you compare it to, that's a massive difference.

I don't hate the Golf at all, in fact I quite like it. What bothers me is people making it out to be something it's not, which is a likeable, moderately brisk way for one's wife to get the weekly shop back from Waitrose.

I read that whole post thinking wormus has mellowed, he's presenting a relaxed argument with plenty of stats in there to back it up and then BANG, hilarious