RE: VW Golf R: PH Fleet

[GTID]

Tony33 said:

he "hype" though has come from the press who drive far more exotic machinery. I think there may have been some genuine surprise that after a run of quick, competent but not very engaging Rs in the past the Mk7 exceeds expectations in the dynamic states. The Top Gear Speed Week edition had the Golf R alongside some genuine supercars and raved over it.

I think the issue is that people expect a fire breathing monster after reading these reviews and the R is perhaps too good at being a "normal" Golf on demand for some, which of course for many running one car is a huge plus.

It was never bought out to win top trumps, giving away a significant chunk of power to the A45 and even some to the older M135i

You hit the nail right on the head for me. It's the reviews from the likes of top gear, autocar and Evo which have propelled it to the lofty hieghts rightly or wrongly. When, in reality, its just a quick and very competent hatchback which does the boring stuff very well.

I've been impressed with mine but not blown away, probably because I test drove one and knew what to expect. People coming from more expensive and/or more focused machinery will feel underwhelmed. For me it does everything I need it to well, rather than excel at anything.
An extra 20/30 lb/ft of torque would help as it's lacking in a bit of mid range punch for me. Other than that I can't complain at all.

[SuperchargedVR6]

Ali_T said:

RoverP6B said:

goes like buggery,

That part disappointed me. Might be that the demo I tried was too tight, but it didn't feel that quick. My Evo X 330 felt faster and that weighs as much as Ireland, and my STI 330S would disappear into the distance in a drag race...at least until it blew up.....again. The Golf is quick, but hardly ballistic, and didn't, subjectively, feel much faster than a GTI Edition 30, for example.

I have a 340hp / 360lbft Edition 30 and the R is every bit as quick. And it can get away from a standstill a *LOT* quicker.

20 years ago, an 'affordable' 300hp, 4WD, twin-clutch auto, every day usable hatchback would have been the stuff of dreams. In the nonchalant 21st century it's 'meh', to most PHers!

Edited by SuperchargedVR6 on Wednesday 15th April 14:07

[Ali_T]

J4CKO said:

I dont know why people take the car so personally, same with the Nissan Juke,

Ah, you see the Puke is different because you're inflicting it's horrendous styling on the unsuspecting general public. They need to bring back the man with the flag to walk in front and warn everyone to avert their eyes.

[GravelBen]

SuperchargedVR6 said:

20 years ago, an 'affordable' 300hp, 4WD, twin-clutch auto, every day usable hatchback would have been the stuff of dreams. In the nonchalant 21st century it's 'meh', to most PHers!

The twin clutch auto might have been the stuff of dreams for some, the rest of your list was just the stuff of Subaru. I guess they've built a 20 year Subaru with a nicer interior.

[Ali_T]

Except the Scoob had character by the bucket load. The Golf is just...well....quite nice.

[Hackney]

Driver101 said:

Owners seem to think the car has rewritten the rule book of motoring. If you sit back and look for 5 minutes it hasn't brought anything new to the table.

(1)It's not the best looking hatch(nothing wrong with it though) (2) it isn't the fastest hatch( lost track battles to lesser powered FWD cars, (3)isn't on the same page as the RS3 or A45 AMG)

However I keep reading how this car can do so much more than anything else and gives you high respect taking it to a business meeting. It doesn't. Most people will overlook it as much as they do a Focus or Astra, you just blend in as ordinary to most.

It's a fast Golf. It's not a Porsche slayer,

1 purely subjective
2 Are you talking Megane RS? Stripped out, ultra lightweight racer: no comparison
3 Minimum £7k more and £10k more, so no.

I'm speaking as an M135i owner here, but the only direct comparison is with the BMW.
Price, performance very, very similar. Then it comes down to 2 or 4 wheel drive; styling and deals.

And, as with the M135i it's precisely because it gets overlooked that I would be interested in it. I don't want a bright yellow Megane with massive RS stickers down the side; perspex windows and a roll cage where the back seat should be. I have one car and I want it to be suitable for meetings, reliable, and have some oomph when I need it.

In terms of re-writing the rule book both the R and the 135 have. £30k for a sub 5 second 0-60; 30+ MPG; in a practical, usable car that isn't a stripped out racer that'll rattle itself to bits but will get a good 'ring time.

[Driver101]

Hackney said:

1 purely subjective
2 Are you talking Megane RS? Stripped out, ultra lightweight racer: no comparison
3 Minimum £7k more and £10k more, so no.

I'm speaking as an M135i owner here, but the only direct comparison is with the BMW.
Price, performance very, very similar. Then it comes down to 2 or 4 wheel drive; styling and deals.

And, as with the M135i it's precisely because it gets overlooked that I would be interested in it. I don't want a bright yellow Megane with massive RS stickers down the side; perspex windows and a roll cage where the back seat should be. I have one car and I want it to be suitable for meetings, reliable, and have some oomph when I need it.

In terms of re-writing the rule book both the R and the 135 have. £30k for a sub 5 second 0-60; 30+ MPG; in a practical, usable car that isn't a stripped out racer that'll rattle itself to bits but will get a good 'ring time.

It is a good looking car. It needs to have the upgraded wheels.

I don't think it gets overlooked at all. You can see by the various threads that owners like to drum up lots of attention, and they more often that not get a negative reaction.

It has lost track battles to its little brother, the Seat Leon R(in normal spec) and even cars such as the Peugeot RCR-R although that is a coupe when Auto Express took them to the track. It has lost quite a few others too.

The price gap comes down a lot when you start adding options to the Golf to match the A45 or RS3. You need to pay for 5 doors, DSG, sat nav, get rid of the cheap seats, I'd also need to upgrade to 19s all of which is standard on the Audi, 18s on the A45.

Suddenly with a few options added the Golf isn't actually far behind at all. If you buy poverty spec there is a gap, but how many people buy cars without the toys these days?

The 4 wheel drive and DSG makes the 0-60mph much faster than the car is on the move. It takes over 12 seconds to get to 100mph which isn't anything amazing. Fast yes, but those figures have been available for a long time.

Also 30mpg+ average isn't what owners are getting. Genuine figures are mid 20s.

Reliability also doesn't appear to be top quality. There is a lot of people out there having problems with them and also build quality such as rattles.

It is a very good usable hot hatch. People just need to stop exaggerating too far to suggest it's the be all and end all.

Edited by Driver101 on Friday 17th April 11:46

[The Mp]

St John Smythe said:

I seriously hope that PH offer you a regular column reviewing cars that you have never driven. 'This week, RoverP6B tests the La Ferrari and Lambo Huracan back to back from his keyboard and arm chair'.

[Pixelpeep7r]

Driver101 said:

It is a good looking car. It needs to have the upgraded wheels.

purely subjective. I like the 18's and prefer the ride.

Driver101 said:

It has lost track battles to its little brother, the Seat Leon R(in normal spec) and even cars such as the Peugeot RCR-R although that is a coupe when Auto Express took them to the track. It has lost quite a few others too.

i doubt even 10% of all sold Golf R's will ever see a track.
What makes cars quick on a track makes them a bh in every day life.

Driver101 said:

The price gap comes down a lot when you start adding options to the Golf to match the A45 or RS3. You need to pay for 5 doors, DSG, sat nav, get rid of the cheap seats, I'd also need to upgrade to 19s all of which is standard on the Audi, 18s on the A45.

Have you ever even sat in a Golf R ? - standard seats are comfy and as someone who fractured their spine 20 years ago and is prone to backache i can tell you that doesn't happen often in these types of cars. why would you want to 'match' the other cars? it's not top trumps, you go for whatever you want and suits the particular car.

Driver101 said:

Suddenly with a few options added the Golf isn't actually far behind at all. If you buy poverty spec there is a gap, but how many people buy cars without the toys these days?

If you are someone that adds toys to cars then you will also do that on the competition.

Driver101 said:

The 4 wheel drive and DSG makes the 0-60mph much faster than the car is on the move. It takes over 12 seconds to get to 100mph which isn't anything amazing. Fast yes, but those figures have been available for a long time.

of course they have. you could do 175mph in the 1960's if you could afford an AC Cobra.

12 secs to 100? lets see what company the Golf R has in that bracket. I'm guessing it will be all manner of common mundane machinery..

Bentley Continental GTC Speed 12.0s
Aston Martin V8 Vantage 12.0s
BMW Alpina Z4 Roadster S 12.0s
Bentley Arnage T 12.1s
Audi S8 12.1s
Mercedes-Benz CL 600 Coupe 12.1s
Jaguar XKR 12.1s
Lotus Elise S2 Sport 190 12.1s
BMW M3 Evolution E36 12.2s
Maserati Quattroporte Sport GTS 12.2s
Audi S6 12.2s
Vauxhall VXR8 12.2s
TVR Chimaera 4.0 12.2s
Porsche Cayman S 12.2s
BMW 550i M Sport 12.2s
Toyota Supra 12.3s
Maybach 62 12.3s
Lotus Europa SE 12.5s
Audi S4 12.5s
Lotus 340R 12.5s
Vauxhall Monaro VXR 6.0 12.6s
Audi TTS 12.6s
Ford Focus RS 12.6s
Jaguar S Type R 12.6s
Audi RS4 Cabriolet 12.7s
Infiniti G37S 12.7s
Lexus IS 350 12.7s
Subaru Impreza STI 330S 12.7s
Pontiac G8 GT 12.7s
Mercedes-Benz SLK350 12.7s
Mercedes-Benz E500 12.7s
Dodge Challenger R/T 12.8s
BMW 335i M Sport 12.8s
Porsche 911 Carrera 4S 996 12.8s
Lotus Esprit GT3 12.9s
BMW 135i E82 12.9s
Subaru Impreza WRX STi PPP 12.9s
Mitsubishi Lancer Evo X RS

so a comfortable, 5 door family hatch is as quick/quicker to 100 than that lot? - thats mighty impressive imo.

Driver101 said:

Also 30mpg+ average isn't what owners are getting. Genuine figures are mid 20s.

its capable of 30+mpg, in fact I've had 39mpg on a run. If you ragged a prius everywhere you wouldn't get even 25mpg out of it.

Overall figures are biased because no one is driving one sensibly, overall. But i can tell you, when you do, it will return nearly 40mpg.

Driver101 said:

Reliability also doesn't appear to be top quality. There is a lot of people out there having problems with them and also build quality such as rattles.

no one starts a thread entitled 'everything is fine with my car' so you never see. How about i change the trend? - 6000 miles in and mine is fine, no paint issues, no rattles, no gearbox explosions no turbo failure. its fine.

Driver101 said:

It is a very good usable hot hatch. People just need to stop exaggerating too far to suggest it's the be all and end all.

It is, you're quite right and if someone says 'it ticks all the boxes' then, for them, IT TICKS ALL THE BOXES.

'people' need to stop giving it a hard time, stop comparing it to every other car under the sun and actually live with one before saying how crap they've 'heard' they are.

[Actus Reus]

Yes yes, but you've actually driven the car, so your opinion can't be valid.

[ORD]

Pixelp definitely just won at this argument stuff

I really don't understand any attack on the R's performance. It is plainly far beyond what anyone needs in a family hatchback and is very impressive.

The mpg is what you get in a 300bhp car that weights, what, about 1500kg? Physics is physics and there are no miracles. The 300bhp/1500kg R gets pretty much exactly the same "real world" mpg as my 300bhp (or so)/1400kg (or so) Cayman S. Power is made by burning fuel, and you need power to move heavy things. (As an aside, it does make you curse our stupid CO2 taxes and official cycle testing, as I am still to be persuaded that 4 cyl turbo engines are substantially more fuel efficient than 6 cyl NA engines.)

[Rowbos]

ORD said:

Pixelp definitely just won at this argument stuff

I really don't understand any attack on the R's performance. It is plainly far beyond what anyone needs in a family hatchback and is very impressive.

The mpg is what you get in a 300bhp car that weights, what, about 1500kg? Physics is physics and there are no miracles. The 300bhp/1500kg R gets pretty much exactly the same "real world" mpg as my 300bhp (or so)/1400kg (or so) Cayman S. Power is made by burning fuel, and you need power to move heavy things. (As an aside, it does make you curse our stupid CO2 taxes and official cycle testing, as I am still to be persuaded that 4 cyl turbo engines are substantially more fuel efficient than 6 cyl NA engines.)

Yip, Pixelp you just nailed it. Haha.

[gordlaing]

It's a boring way of going quickly whilst also keeping the wife and kids happy with some practicality. It's the cheapest, and most subtle (just) way of doing this when compared to the RS3 and A45.

It gets this bizarre over hype because it's a "golf" which used to be a b word for cheap, reliable, fun, quick motoring. However at 30k+ its not really the cheap bit anymore. Yes it's all relative, but the cost over the last R is more than inflation.

I'll keep throwing stones from my rwd 6 cylinder hatch....

[Patrick Bateman]

I'd argue 4th in Evo Car of the Year isn't to be sniffed at for this sort of car.

[Actus Reus]

Patrick Bateman said:

I'd argue 4th in Evo Car of the Year isn't to be sniffed at for this sort of car.

I would argue the same. Furthermore I'd point to very favourable reviews in Top Gear, Autocar and Car. But then again all of that counts for nothing, as those reviews were written by people who have actually driven the car.

[anonymous-user]

Actus Reus said:

Patrick Bateman said:

I'd argue 4th in Evo Car of the Year isn't to be sniffed at for this sort of car.

I would argue the same. Furthermore I'd point to very favourable reviews in Top Gear, Autocar and Car. But then again all of that counts for nothing, as those reviews were written by people who have actually driven the car.

+1
Some of the negative comments on forums about it being a boring and bland car, I can only assume are based on the fact that when you push it, it doesn't give you any indication that it wants to blow up, burst into flames, or stick you upside down in a ditch. 6k miles in and I wouldn't change a thing. I've spent enough time in it to know that it's more than quick enough for the real world. Playing top trumps is all well and good, and no doubt the R isn't as 'good' when it's assessed like that, but that's just how the internet works

[ORD]

Actus Reus said:

I would argue the same. Furthermore I'd point to very favourable reviews in Top Gear, Autocar and Car. But then again all of that counts for nothing, as those reviews were written by people who have actually driven the car.

It benefits from the fact that most car reviewers fall smack bang in its target market: youngish men with young kids who can justify the car's cost on a ppm basis, cannot afford much petrol (and are fooled by official cycle figures) and want a new car to make them look successful.

The journos that I respect have given very positive reviews too, though, albeit with a little more measure.

Top Gear isn't a car magazine, is it?

[daveky]

Pixelpeep7r said:

It is, you're quite right and if someone says 'it ticks all the boxes' then, for them, IT TICKS ALL THE BOXES.

'people' need to stop giving it a hard time, stop comparing it to every other car under the sun and actually live with one before saying how crap they've 'heard' they are.

Jokers like Driver101 tend to drive things like a 10 year old 406 diesel but enjoy pontificating on cars they will never be able to own as a bit of escapism.

[Driver101]

daveky said:

Pixelpeep7r said:

It is, you're quite right and if someone says 'it ticks all the boxes' then, for them, IT TICKS ALL THE BOXES.

'people' need to stop giving it a hard time, stop comparing it to every other car under the sun and actually live with one before saying how crap they've 'heard' they are.

Jokers like Driver101 tend to drive things like a 10 year old 406 diesel but enjoy pontificating on cars they will never be able to own as a bit of escapism.

Keep guessing my friend. My cars cost a lot more than a Golf R.

Half of this thread is pointing out just how affordable the R is. Most people could afford them when they were so cheap.

So keep kidding yourself on joker.

Pixel, I have driven the R a couple of times but didn't want it.

I did join the R forum and many member agrees about the cheap seats and horrible standard wheels.

For the cars going 0-100mph, some of them are over 20 years old, or very heavy.

How many have 4wd, DSG boxes and launch control to achieve impressive initial acceleration?

Edited by Driver101 on Friday 17th April 18:44

[Actus Reus]

Are you, by any chance, powerfully built?