RE: Volkswagen Golf R: PH Fleet
Discussion
bigearmuffs said:
nutcase said:
I think it is a Cosworth as the speedo reads to 170 whereas standard sierras were only 150 IIRC
You are most likely right as I think the bit that is missing is an "RS" on what would be the glove box, which is what through me, hopefully the OP will confirm.Edited by bigearmuffs on Thursday 14th May 22:56
Sold my R after 1 year and while I could not fault its performance its just a little bit too clinical.
The reviews are right but they seem to ignore its distinct lack of character.
Having owned R32s but skipped the Mk6 R because it was boring and dynamically flawed I would have to say the Mk7 R is closer to that than its six cylinder ancestors.
After all character can be enjoyed on every drive at any speed, dynamic perfection can't.
New RS3 may do it all if you want to blow £40k or and look like a TDI S liine.
If you don't need 4 doors, the TT RS is an affordable and characterful way into the sonrous world of the award winning 5 cylinder engine and one now resides in my garage.
The reviews are right but they seem to ignore its distinct lack of character.
Having owned R32s but skipped the Mk6 R because it was boring and dynamically flawed I would have to say the Mk7 R is closer to that than its six cylinder ancestors.
After all character can be enjoyed on every drive at any speed, dynamic perfection can't.
New RS3 may do it all if you want to blow £40k or and look like a TDI S liine.
If you don't need 4 doors, the TT RS is an affordable and characterful way into the sonrous world of the award winning 5 cylinder engine and one now resides in my garage.
Very bland looking car. I've not driven one so cannot really comment on the car as a package but my word; it's a staid motherf
ker of a car.
Laughably though, the rear end is totally at odds with the whole dull look with those exhaust pipes. It really cannot need that many pipes as there can't be that much waste exhaust gas to deal with. On a C63 yeah I can possibly accept that, but on a 2.0l car...?
ker of a car.Laughably though, the rear end is totally at odds with the whole dull look with those exhaust pipes. It really cannot need that many pipes as there can't be that much waste exhaust gas to deal with. On a C63 yeah I can possibly accept that, but on a 2.0l car...?
lord trumpton said:
Very bland looking car. I've not driven one so cannot really comment on the car as a package but my word; it's a staid motherfker of a car.
Laughably though, the rear end is totally at odds with the whole dull look with those exhaust pipes. It really cannot need that many pipes as there can't be that much waste exhaust gas to deal with. On a C63 yeah I can possibly accept that, but on a 2.0l car...?
Drives like it looks imho.ker of a car.Laughably though, the rear end is totally at odds with the whole dull look with those exhaust pipes. It really cannot need that many pipes as there can't be that much waste exhaust gas to deal with. On a C63 yeah I can possibly accept that, but on a 2.0l car...?
I think the styling is a bit like an 80s mullet? all a bit normal and boring in the front, party out the back...
DUMBO100 said:
I'm still enjoying mine. At 2200 miles I've finally got used to the car and the DSG which is a lot more fun now I'm timing the changes better.Race mode is too long geared to drive in traffic but superb on quieter country roads,I even quite like the soundikator thingy.
Long geared? Do you mean the pedal gives too much throttle for each increment of travel? The gears are the same in every mode.ORD said:
DUMBO100 said:
I'm still enjoying mine. At 2200 miles I've finally got used to the car and the DSG which is a lot more fun now I'm timing the changes better.Race mode is too long geared to drive in traffic but superb on quieter country roads,I even quite like the soundikator thingy.
Long geared? Do you mean the pedal gives too much throttle for each increment of travel? The gears are the same in every mode.Obviously race mode is for hard acceleration so by design its not suited slow driving
neckarsulm said:
Sold my R after 1 year and while I could not fault its performance its just a little bit too clinical.
The reviews are right but they seem to ignore its distinct lack of character.
Having owned R32s but skipped the Mk6 R because it was boring and dynamically flawed I would have to say the Mk7 R is closer to that than its six cylinder ancestors.
After all character can be enjoyed on every drive at any speed, dynamic perfection can't.
New RS3 may do it all if you want to blow £40k or and look like a TDI S liine.
If you don't need 4 doors, the TT RS is an affordable and characterful way into the sonrous world of the award winning 5 cylinder engine and one now resides in my garage.
Not sure i agree with the TT quote but absolutely agree on everything else. Character is very important and can be enjoyed on every drive regardless of speed...The reviews are right but they seem to ignore its distinct lack of character.
Having owned R32s but skipped the Mk6 R because it was boring and dynamically flawed I would have to say the Mk7 R is closer to that than its six cylinder ancestors.
After all character can be enjoyed on every drive at any speed, dynamic perfection can't.
New RS3 may do it all if you want to blow £40k or and look like a TDI S liine.
If you don't need 4 doors, the TT RS is an affordable and characterful way into the sonrous world of the award winning 5 cylinder engine and one now resides in my garage.
SuperchargedVR6 said:
Isn't that exactly what the 135i did to Clarkson at 120mph in the wet when he put it up against the Golf GTI? And that was in a straight line!
I'm willing to bet the Golf would've aquaplaned too if it were driving the same line at the same speed. None of the FWD cars I've owned are magically immune.
I would imagine it has more to do with the Michelin supersports the m135i had fitted than rwd v fwd. They're good in the wet but don't like standing water too much imho. It is a fair test though because the m135i gets the advantage of better traction/grip via them so their disadvantages should be highlighted too.
scoobyc said:
I would imagine it has more to do with the Michelin supersports the m135i had fitted than rwd v fwd. They're good in the wet but don't like standing water too much imho. It is a fair test though because the m135i gets the advantage of better traction/grip via them so their disadvantages should be highlighted too.
I agree, my point though was that as the Golf wasn't taking the same line, at the same time and at the same speed, we can't say that it wouldn't have done something similar. - I've aquaplaned in FWD cars, on branded performance tyres, doing less than half of that speed. Before the spin, Clarkson was happily passing the Golf in their "race" and made comments to the effect that he could pass at any time he liked. - An unstable, unpredictable car wouldn't give the driver the same feeling. As for comments about the wheelbase; it's a mere 1cm shorter than an E36...
bigearmuffs said:
You are most likely right as I think the bit that is missing is an "RS" on what would be the glove box, which is what through me, hopefully the OP will confirm.
Only the 3-door versions had the RS logo on the ECU cover, Sapphire 2wd had a plain ECU coverEdited by bigearmuffs on Thursday 14th May 22:56
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff