RE: Volkswagen Golf R: PH Fleet
Discussion
St John Smythe said:
tomjol said:
jamiesim said:
6k miles in now and loving them all... great mix of real world performance in a comfortable and practical everyday package.
Had a look at the new RS3 the other day by chance and thought, ooo maybe one of those next, though £20k more than the R - then I watched this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3jWVTKYcP0
very interesting that though the RS3 is the 'better' VAG product it is beaten by its VW alternative! £20k saved!
Better...in a pointless test which doesn't remotely reflect why people buy these cars.Had a look at the new RS3 the other day by chance and thought, ooo maybe one of those next, though £20k more than the R - then I watched this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3jWVTKYcP0
very interesting that though the RS3 is the 'better' VAG product it is beaten by its VW alternative! £20k saved!
nunpuncher said:
It's Everyman, bland appearance is a bit of a blessing tbh. It's a car I can park anywhere without fear of it attracting attention. The VW badge doesn't draw the same prejudice from certain factions in the way Audi or BMW does so you never really feel hated. You also don't feel a pillock pulling up in one at a funeral, wedding, business meeting etc as I would in an impreza, new type R, focus RS etc.
You make a good point there, it would fit in pretty much anywhere and the "not an Audi/BMW badge" factor can't be understated nowadays. Saw one pull into Sainsburys recently and it was about as inconspicuous as you'd imagine any Golf to be, which I guess is exactly the point.Edited by Durzel on Wednesday 12th August 18:15
Durzel said:
nunpuncher said:
It's Everyman, bland appearance is a bit of a blessing tbh. It's a car I can park anywhere without fear of it attracting attention. The VW badge doesn't draw the same prejudice from certain factions in the way Audi or BMW does so you never really feel hated. You also don't feel a pillock pulling up in one at a funeral, wedding, business meeting etc as I would in an impreza, new type R, focus RS etc.
You make a good point there, it would fit in pretty much anywhere.Sorry for thread drift, I just found this odd
tomjol said:
St John Smythe said:
tomjol said:
jamiesim said:
6k miles in now and loving them all... great mix of real world performance in a comfortable and practical everyday package.
Had a look at the new RS3 the other day by chance and thought, ooo maybe one of those next, though £20k more than the R - then I watched this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3jWVTKYcP0
very interesting that though the RS3 is the 'better' VAG product it is beaten by its VW alternative! £20k saved!
Better...in a pointless test which doesn't remotely reflect why people buy these cars.Had a look at the new RS3 the other day by chance and thought, ooo maybe one of those next, though £20k more than the R - then I watched this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3jWVTKYcP0
very interesting that though the RS3 is the 'better' VAG product it is beaten by its VW alternative! £20k saved!
very good. I rather like both of them, FWIW.Tickle said:
Do people really factor in 'what would I look like turning up at a funeral/wedding in this' when choosing a new car?
Sorry for thread drift, I just found this odd
Haha, my comment did come across like it was a reason. I rather meant it as a twisted benefit of being beige. Sorry for thread drift, I just found this odd
Although, I do suppose the thousands that took them on business leaae perhaps did consider how it may be perceived in that environment.
St John Smythe said:
nickfrog said:
St John Smythe said:
Keep hating the R beast. But you'll be sorry when one leaves you for dead.
How predictable - you do come up with a lot of weird stuff - cars don't drive themselves. Anyway, I take it you have now ordered one ?
I don't understand the Q car concept at all.
Who races on public roads?! And why on Earth do you care whether or not someone misjudges how fast your car might be?
It's a strange form of showing off! It's like putting a Casio skin over your Rolex just so you can show it to someone and then peel off the skin and shout 'Boom! See! Great! Huh?! You're impressed now!'
If you want to drive a fast car, drive a fast car. Nobody else gives a s
t what you drive, how fast it is or how fast it looks. That person you 'blew away' didn't know he was in race and was listening to Radio 4
Who races on public roads?! And why on Earth do you care whether or not someone misjudges how fast your car might be?
It's a strange form of showing off! It's like putting a Casio skin over your Rolex just so you can show it to someone and then peel off the skin and shout 'Boom! See! Great! Huh?! You're impressed now!'
If you want to drive a fast car, drive a fast car. Nobody else gives a s
t what you drive, how fast it is or how fast it looks. That person you 'blew away' didn't know he was in race and was listening to Radio 4 A good article, sums up our tribal partisan nature nicely.....though I notice a hint of dampness on the track with the pictures of the m135i and golf r - so unfair
)
Utterly agree about the Q car looks, just don't think I see your point about manufacturers needing to downsize. BMW have invested time and effort in making that six as economical, if not more so (I get 42-44 doing 70-75 schleps, in france managed an 8 hour stint at 85 and 50 miles with another fellow PH'er in a decent triple digit schlep and got 34.6mpg).
I am sure VAG have the where for all to do it as well but they can't be arsed and that for me undermines the Golf R. Brilliantly proficient engine in pure bhp/litre output but is science over soul. The fact it is shared with the S3/Cupra also gives off that air of a Barratt home, different town, same house.
Put the 5 cylinder in the Golf R 400 and I am all ears.
(wish the motoring press would stop pitting the factory extra pimped hot hatches - the megane and cupra etc are again brilliant in their own rights but why test standard cars like the 135 and R against rivals that have a shed load of manufacturer supplied after market performance options. Take the 135 to Birds and spend the same in extras and do the Evo hot hatch test from a couple of months ago again and would imagine a slightly different story.
SuperchargedVR6 said:
Indeed the VR6 / 24V VR6 engines sound great, but the lack of acceleration to match the growl was frustrating! As were their power deliveries. VR6 = nothing below 4000rpm. 24V VR6 = nothing above 4000rpm.
For me personally I prefer go to show. A bland sounding 4 pot that can shove a Golf to 60 in 4.6 seconds is far more appealing than an angry, shouty 3.2 V6 that can only manage 6 seconds for the same sprint.
Just because a car can be rapid without shouting about it doesn't make it dull in my book. There's the Civic, the Focus and that French flimsy thing if people want cram it in your face flamboyant stuff.
I'm sure the R would have been fitted with the prototype R30 (V6) twin turbo engine if they could get it past Brussels, but like it or lump it, more and more performance cars are having their cylinder counts reduced, and the R doesn't do badly with a measely 4 imo. It's no looker, but doesn't offend my eyes either. Just VW doing what they do best - discrete, well, apart from the controversial tailpipes!
But didn't you know there is a rival that makes a damn nice 6 noise and goes equally as quick.......if not quicker (everyone knows the 135 is quicker For me personally I prefer go to show. A bland sounding 4 pot that can shove a Golf to 60 in 4.6 seconds is far more appealing than an angry, shouty 3.2 V6 that can only manage 6 seconds for the same sprint.
Just because a car can be rapid without shouting about it doesn't make it dull in my book. There's the Civic, the Focus and that French flimsy thing if people want cram it in your face flamboyant stuff.
I'm sure the R would have been fitted with the prototype R30 (V6) twin turbo engine if they could get it past Brussels, but like it or lump it, more and more performance cars are having their cylinder counts reduced, and the R doesn't do badly with a measely 4 imo. It's no looker, but doesn't offend my eyes either. Just VW doing what they do best - discrete, well, apart from the controversial tailpipes!
)Utterly agree about the Q car looks, just don't think I see your point about manufacturers needing to downsize. BMW have invested time and effort in making that six as economical, if not more so (I get 42-44 doing 70-75 schleps, in france managed an 8 hour stint at 85 and 50 miles with another fellow PH'er in a decent triple digit schlep and got 34.6mpg).
I am sure VAG have the where for all to do it as well but they can't be arsed and that for me undermines the Golf R. Brilliantly proficient engine in pure bhp/litre output but is science over soul. The fact it is shared with the S3/Cupra also gives off that air of a Barratt home, different town, same house.
Put the 5 cylinder in the Golf R 400 and I am all ears.
(wish the motoring press would stop pitting the factory extra pimped hot hatches - the megane and cupra etc are again brilliant in their own rights but why test standard cars like the 135 and R against rivals that have a shed load of manufacturer supplied after market performance options. Take the 135 to Birds and spend the same in extras and do the Evo hot hatch test from a couple of months ago again and would imagine a slightly different story.
nickfrog said:
St John Smythe said:
Keep hating the R beast. But you'll be sorry when one leaves you for dead.
How predictable - you do come up with a lot of weird stuff - cars don't drive themselves. Anyway, I take it you have now ordered one ?
Tickle said:
Do people really factor in 'what would I look like turning up at a funeral/wedding in this' when choosing a new car?
Sorry for thread drift, I just found this odd
Maybe not that specifically, but can see how some people would want a quick, well built car that isn't conspicuous. Sorry for thread drift, I just found this odd
Cups Renault said:
Ah the beast awakens.....the one that was surprisingly and i do mean that without any sarcasm was slowest round the track on the Evo test or this R beast again (0 out of 10 for Brand Management from VW on this):
I might be missing a long running joke that only you seem to be in on but you do realise that's a polo. Its like a golf, but not a golf.I have quite possibly just proven the point of how generic VAG products look. Oops.
SuperchargedVR6 said:
Vroom101 said:
SuperchargedVR6 said:
Vroom101 said:
I think there would be more love for the car if it still had a V6, like the original 'R' Golfs.
And that was slagged off as well, for being too slow and understeery.The current R can, point to point, run rings around all previous Rs, and any hot VW before it. And that's out of the box. The Golf has always had a massive aftermarket tuning industry behind it, so all of VW's playing it safe can easily be undone. You know, make it more rad and edgy for all the hipsters, and reduce the apparently super offensive tailpipe count to 2.
I do wonder if there would be so much debate if they weren't so easy to get hold of on the cheap lease deals.
For me personally I prefer go to show. A bland sounding 4 pot that can shove a Golf to 60 in 4.6 seconds is far more appealing than an angry, shouty 3.2 V6 that can only manage 6 seconds for the same sprint.
Just because a car can be rapid without shouting about it doesn't make it dull in my book. There's the Civic, the Focus and that French flimsy thing if people want cram it in your face flamboyant stuff.
I'm sure the R would have been fitted with the prototype R30 (V6) twin turbo engine if they could get it past Brussels, but like it or lump it, more and more performance cars are having their cylinder counts reduced, and the R doesn't do badly with a measely 4 imo. It's no looker, but doesn't offend my eyes either. Just VW doing what they do best - discrete, well, apart from the controversial tailpipes!
tomjol said:
neil1jnr said:
But it is reflective of the type of advertising Audi are pushing with the RS3, harking back at the old Quattro.
I started a thread regarding this review and honestly, regardless of what it is like on the road it sould be faster around the track than the R but it just isn't and it is less involving! Crazy seeing how the R isn't remotely involving in the first place!
Yes but marketing is just marketing, surely "serious" car magazines should know full well that it's about selling cars not making real-world claims?I started a thread regarding this review and honestly, regardless of what it is like on the road it sould be faster around the track than the R but it just isn't and it is less involving! Crazy seeing how the R isn't remotely involving in the first place!
Fast Audis have never been about track times or driver involvement, so why bother judging them on those terms? I just don't get it.
IMO the lap times and driver involvement would be more of a priority for a hot hatch rather than quick and boring with a nicer (still plastic) interior. You have to admit, with all the hype and such high power and torque figures' and price tag, that the RS3 boasts, I would have expected the RS3 to be near the top of the rankings for hot hatch lap times. But instead, the 'inferior' brand in the VAG stable has a hot hatch which costs a huge amount less, and like you said is also not about 'track times or driver involvement', but still pips the RS3 around the track... So I'll stand by what I said, I think it is crazy that the RS3 is slower around a track than the R.
Edited by neil1jnr on Thursday 13th August 11:37
Cups Renault said:
nickfrog said:
St John Smythe said:
Keep hating the R beast. But you'll be sorry when one leaves you for dead.
How predictable - you do come up with a lot of weird stuff - cars don't drive themselves. Anyway, I take it you have now ordered one ?
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff