VW Golf 7 R -- Chipped -- 0 to 60 in 4 Seconds...
Discussion
J4CKO said:
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.
Have unplugged the soundaktor on my wife's Golf R today and has made a huge difference. No more tiresome computer generated noises and nothing rattling against the windscreen means will probably keep the car now and will make longer journeys bearable .Why do VW put these in their cars?
GT3hopeful said:
Have unplugged the soundaktor on my wife's Golf R today and has made a huge difference. No more tiresome computer generated noises and nothing rattling against the windscreen means will probably keep the car now and will make longer journeys bearable .Why do VW put these in their cars?
You won't like the reason. Most owners like the fake sound because they don't know any better and it makes them feel cool or wealthy or something else aspirational.Blown2CV said:
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?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.
Felt more solid, more stable on the road, more responsive, better handling and sounded better, aural stimulation is a good thing for me.
Yes, the subaru is modified, I've spent less than £15k and it's pretty much a brand new car under the body and it's almost paid off, hence I can't really see why I'd want to chop it in for the Merc....but I do like a change of car.
Edited by IvanSTi on Sunday 8th February 20:21
Blown2CV said:
J4CKO said:
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 Directo
Golf R is still great but so many options popping up, the 435 bhp, V8 Mustang at £32,995 is hard to ignore.
I think under the skin most modern cars are much of a muchness, people say the "Build quality" is better on german stuff when it is really just down to the bits they actually touch.
csd19 said:
Blown2CV said:
Slight issue with the RS is it's going to be built like a modern Ford.
Could be worse, could be built like a modern VAG...
Modern VAG stuff may have a good feel but they are no so good as they used to be at sticking it together. Hired a few recently and they all had rattles or squeaks.
Not so sure ; had various VAG things since early 80s;back then they were bullet proof but build quality plummeted in late 90s when in my experinence it was shamefully poor. But current daily driver(Skoda )has been faultless over 65k miles so far - much better than OH's Fords and Peugeots (latter great in in early 90 s and utterly appalling ten years later)
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 sometimes wonder if there is a belief amonst some who post on PH that if you down play the performance of cars it makes your willy bigger... 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 wormus on Tuesday 3rd February 12:41
Anyone who seriously describes a car with 296 bhp as moderately brisk is talking out of their back passage.
Devil2575 said:
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 sometimes wonder if there is a belief amonst some who post on PH that if you down play the performance of cars it makes your willy bigger... 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 wormus on Tuesday 3rd February 12:41
Anyone who seriously describes a car with 296 bhp as moderately brisk is talking out of their back passage.
its all relative
How can a 13.7 1/4 be classed as "sluggish" ffs that's the same as something like a 4.3 V8 Vantage it would demolish 90% of cars on the road.
Oh and a stage 1 tune (remap) takes that down to 12 flat @115mph which is the same time as a F430 Spider
Don't even like the Golf R at all but one thing I won't say is that its sluggish as it clearly is a bloody quick car just doesn't do anything for me and would take the BMW or even the Meganne 265 over one any day!
Edit - See that wormus has removed his post and I forgot to quote him...
Oh and a stage 1 tune (remap) takes that down to 12 flat @115mph which is the same time as a F430 Spider
Don't even like the Golf R at all but one thing I won't say is that its sluggish as it clearly is a bloody quick car just doesn't do anything for me and would take the BMW or even the Meganne 265 over one any day!
Edit - See that wormus has removed his post and I forgot to quote him...
Edited by greggy50 on Monday 9th February 16:24
Selmer Mk6 said:
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!
A remap is more than just turning the boost up. You can shape the torque curve to your liking (linear or spiked), you can bring the boost in earlier, you can switch to a linear throttle, you can turn off post-lambda checking if you want to de-cat it (no CEL on the dash). If you really want to, you can even make some low load areas of the fuel map leaner than factory for improved economy. All manner of parameters you can change to suit one's preferences. Factory mapping is always an emissions / performance compromise.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!
You can also remap the DSG whilst you're there so that it doesn't upshift when you use the paddles.
SuperchargedVR6 said:
A remap is more than just turning the boost up. You can shape the torque curve to your liking (linear or spiked), you can bring the boost in earlier, you can switch to a linear throttle, you can turn off post-lambda checking if you want to de-cat it (no CEL on the dash). If you really want to, you can even make some low load areas of the fuel map leaner than factory for improved economy. All manner of parameters you can change to suit one's preferences. Factory mapping is always an emissions / performance compromise.
You can also remap the DSG whilst you're there so that it doesn't upshift when you use the paddles.
That's why I remap every car I own.You can also remap the DSG whilst you're there so that it doesn't upshift when you use the paddles.
My current car responds well to the increased boost and I've tweaked the fuelling to run lean at low loads.
Also kept the load targets stock until after 3k rpm to prevent excessive strain on the drivetrain.
Tuning emissions related crap out of a car improves performance and economy. Can't have those pesky tuned Golf R drivers getting away!
CarAbuser said:
SuperchargedVR6 said:
A remap is more than just turning the boost up. You can shape the torque curve to your liking (linear or spiked), you can bring the boost in earlier, you can switch to a linear throttle, you can turn off post-lambda checking if you want to de-cat it (no CEL on the dash). If you really want to, you can even make some low load areas of the fuel map leaner than factory for improved economy. All manner of parameters you can change to suit one's preferences. Factory mapping is always an emissions / performance compromise.
You can also remap the DSG whilst you're there so that it doesn't upshift when you use the paddles.
That's why I remap every car I own.You can also remap the DSG whilst you're there so that it doesn't upshift when you use the paddles.
My current car responds well to the increased boost and I've tweaked the fuelling to run lean at low loads.
Also kept the load targets stock until after 3k rpm to prevent excessive strain on the drivetrain.
Tuning emissions related crap out of a car improves performance and economy. Can't have those pesky tuned Golf R drivers getting away!
J4CKO said:
Have you mapped it yourself then ? what is it and how did you do it ?
There's a free (but slightly unreliable) program called BBFlash from the bimmerboost forums. It's designed for the N54 engine and will read ROM data from the ECU using a laptop and a Bavarian Technic cable. You can then use a program called TunerPro to adjust those values then write it back into the ECU.There's several different methods for reading and writing to your ECU on the BMW N54 platform. The OpenFlash Tablet costs about £300 and the more popular and user-friendly COBB that costs around £700.
You can change a shed load of tables but the learning curve for self tuning is very steep.
EDIT: This is only relevant for BMWs with the N54 engine. I think the only other cars with such an open tuning platform are Scoobies and American muscle cars.
wormus said:
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 have only had my Golf R for a week and my wife has already taken it to waitrose. lol
I find it just as brisk as my 996 3.6. But strangely less fuel efficient than the Porsche. (May improve as only cover 200 miles)
I would like to remap and decat. The friendly guys at VW suggested that the warranty would not be effected if done by superchips as if they deem a parts failure is due to the remap then superchips will cover the warrenty in that instance.
Something to do with superchips and VW racing having a history of working together.
The salesman could have just been appealing to my inner chav though.
Edited by AnthonyCherry on Friday 3rd April 10:00
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff