RE: Volkswagen Golf R: PH Fleet
Discussion
nickfrog said:
What's a shopping car ? Wby be so derogatory ? It wouldn't be my choice but why the need to be so negative about what is clearly a great car ?
It's because certain members on here that drive performance cars are annoyed than an affordable 'shopping car' would give them a run for their money and in some cases probably out perform. Shame 
Undoubtedly a very capable car but for me, it looks boring like my M135i did. I know that this may be a selling point for some, but for £36k I'd want something a little more in your face I think. I actually like the quad exhausts as they hint at the performance of what is a rather ordinary looking car. Still, I'll definitely have a look at the estate version in a couple of years.
GravelBen said:
nickfrog said:
What's a shopping car?
A car with mundane tasks like shopping as a primary requirement in its design and mecahanical layout. You know, like a Golf.What's wrong with versatility? Why the initial negativity ?
Baiting implies a trap or surprise for the Porsche owner - I expect most are well aware of the Golf and equivalent modern hatches and their off-the-line characteristics. I have the slower manual and I'd expect to have my arse handed back by just about any modern Porsche. It's a great car for sure but I think the performance is somewhat overstated - that or I'm driving mine wrong. You get the same optimistic bias from any enthusiastic bunch of car owners/fans though right?
The "shopping car" thing is just the usual pervasive PH sneering - best ignored.
The "shopping car" thing is just the usual pervasive PH sneering - best ignored.
nickfrog said:
GravelBen said:
nickfrog said:
What's a shopping car?
A car with mundane tasks like shopping as a primary requirement in its design and mecahanical layout. You know, like a Golf.What's wrong with versatility? Why the initial negativity ?
Its not to say that a Golf (or Subaru) can't perform well despite those compromises or that a Cayman can't be useful despite its compromises, though both obviously do have physical limits - a Cayman will never have the interior space of a Golf, and the Golf will never have the balance of a Cayman.
I didn't say it as a negative, just answered your question.
theboss said:
Baiting implies a trap or surprise for the Porsche owner - I expect most are well aware of the Golf and equivalent modern hatches and their off-the-line characteristics. I have the slower manual and I'd expect to have my arse handed back by just about any modern Porsche. It's a great car for sure but I think the performance is somewhat overstated - that or I'm driving mine wrong. You get the same optimistic bias from any enthusiastic bunch of car owners/fans though right?
The "shopping car" thing is just the usual pervasive PH sneering - best ignored.
Surely the advantage of the modern porsche is only at track speeds? For the "traffic light gp" 4.6 to 60 is enough to make a lot of sports car owners feel a little embarrassed?The "shopping car" thing is just the usual pervasive PH sneering - best ignored.
GravelBen said:
Every car is a compromise - its just an observation that the Golf makes some dynamic compromises in the interests of practicality, while other cars (like the Cayman you mention) compromise practicality in the interests of dynamics.
Its not to say that a Golf (or Subaru) can't perform well despite those compromises or that a Cayman can't be useful despite its compromises, though both obviously do have physical limits - a Cayman will never have the interior space of a Golf, and the Golf will never have the balance of a Cayman.
I didn't say it as a negative, just answered your question.
I don't even think the Golf does compromise dynamics in the interest of practicality as the new Audi TT S is essentially the same car but with the coupe/convertible body, yet the reviews seem to consense that the Golf is still dynamically better than the TTS (and S3). The Golf is ultimately a fantastic all round package both dynamically and practically and as the article states, does so without causing a fuss. As was intended. Its not to say that a Golf (or Subaru) can't perform well despite those compromises or that a Cayman can't be useful despite its compromises, though both obviously do have physical limits - a Cayman will never have the interior space of a Golf, and the Golf will never have the balance of a Cayman.
I didn't say it as a negative, just answered your question.
Carlique said:
I don't even think the Golf does compromise dynamics in the interest of practicality as the new Audi TT S is essentially the same car but with the coupe/convertible body
Of course it compromises dynamics, if you were designing a car from scratch for optimum dynamics would you make it a fairly tall, nose-heavy, Fwd-biased 5 seater? The TTS just inherits the same dynamic compromises by adopting the platform to save money, while compromising its practicality for styling.
True Ben. And that's where a manufacturer having to offer 5-seat might prefer to still have good weight distribution, rwd, slightly lower cog but more crucially put most of the engine behind the front axle and get decent dynamics out of the lower pmoi. Imagine if that car was the same price as the Golf yet had 50% more cylinders and capacity ? Unlikely to ever happen sadly.
I bought my Megane R26 from a friend who got one of those mega lease deals on the R. R is miles faster but it was pretty clear he enjoyed driving the Megane more. I don't really know what to feel about the current crop of hyper hatches, my Megane is right on the edge of that driving enjoyment/performance trade off and it seems everything made sense has sacrificed the former for the latter.
I have to say those 0-62 numbers sound very optimistic. The car is 296hp/280lbft. An audi TT-RS is very similar weight, has 332hp/332lbft and also haldex 4wd/DSG and it is around 0-62 in 4.5 seconds. How you managed that in a golf R with 50lbft less torque, 2 up with full tank in the damp is hard to believe. The only way I can see that is if the car VW have given you has been 'prepared for the press'. In fact the TT-RS 2.5 five pot is regularly dyno'd at 340-350hp so is under rated. In addition most owners say the golf R is quick but doesnt feel 300hp quick.
davey68 said:
I have to say those 0-62 numbers sound very optimistic. The car is 296hp/280lbft. An audi TT-RS is very similar weight, has 332hp/332lbft and also haldex 4wd/DSG and it is around 0-62 in 4.5 seconds. How you managed that in a golf R with 50lbft less torque, 2 up with full tank in the damp is hard to believe. The only way I can see that is if the car VW have given you has been 'prepared for the press'. In fact the TT-RS 2.5 five pot is regularly dyno'd at 340-350hp so is under rated. In addition most owners say the golf R is quick but doesnt feel 300hp quick.
What can I say, must be down to my driving talent... (I'm joking, literally all you have to do is let go of the brake and the car does the rest!)Anyway, in all seriousness the times were recorded using a V-box, not some dodgy iphone app and the car repeated it consistently, so this is accurate and wasn't some sort of fluke. Other car magazines & websites that have tested the car and discovered the same results too.
I don't have an answer to your question about the Audi - although are you going off the claimed time or the actual time? (Remember that VW claim 4.9 for the Golf R with DSG, so perhaps the TT is also faster than claimed?)
As for "not feeling like it has 300bhp" I think that is more to do with how well the car transfers the power to the road than how fast it is.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff