RE: Driven: Volkswagen Scirocco R
Discussion
Brighton Speed said:
Mk4 GTI Anniversary (180bhp)?
how different is this car to the normal 150bhp one?if they have pinched the cupra suspension settings then i can see that it would reasonable enough. if all they did was make the normal car faster then i'd remain to be convinced (nice wheels aside!
).eksnake said:
Just joined this site having read about and viewed Scirocco R which has finally been launched. Not 4 wheel drive...what a waste of time. Owned both mark Golf R32's and foolishly fell for the good looks of the Scirocco and bought TSI...BIG MISTAKE! Test drove it in the dry and now that I live with it I realise how poor it is compared with R32. It can't handle the power it already has never mind any extra. To anyone considering...get the TSI and have it chipped for same output at only £500. You'll still skid all over the road and curse everytime you drive it in the wet but at least it will save you money. Better still, buy an old Golf R32...wish I still had mine! Poor poor poor car!!!
I think R32 drivers have the luxury of being able to apply 100% of their power in any given situation. Some people, myself included, might be of the opinion that this makes for a slightly detached drive.I suffered the same problem as you after purchasing my Golf GTi. Traction was absolutely fine in the dry however when things got damp it struggled when applying more than say 80% of the available power. After reading comments on various forums I eventually narrowed it down to the stock Dunlop Sport Maxx tyres. I changed all corners for Vredestein Ultrac Sessantas and the change was unreal. The car feels unbelievably pointy and grips in all but the most greasy conditions. So if you're on the tyres the car was supplied with I'd suggest changing them.
Unusual the amount of negative comments towards a car that is getting rave reviews throughout the motoring press, especially as no-one here has even driven one!
vz-r_dave said:
daz4m said:
Weight is the key problem leading to lesser handling so you can't just dismiss that. The car is already carrying extra with the drivetrain.
Powerwise, the VW V6 is pretty crap anyway compared to the straight sixes BMW produce. Much better having the lighter, faster and more frugal 4 cylinder Turbo unit in a car badged R.
The V6 is better suited to GT. Case closed.
As much as its obvious that having a larger engine such as the V6 is going to unweight the car. VW managed it with the R32, hence the reason I even mentioned it. So for me if it has been possible before with good affect there is no reason why it couldnt be done again. The only reason I can see is emissions and fuel cost.Powerwise, the VW V6 is pretty crap anyway compared to the straight sixes BMW produce. Much better having the lighter, faster and more frugal 4 cylinder Turbo unit in a car badged R.
The V6 is better suited to GT. Case closed.
Edit just read a few posts.
Was the Golf R32 really a failure?
Edited by vz-r_dave on Thursday 12th November 16:29
Edited by vz-r_dave on Thursday 12th November 16:31
vz-r_dave said:
kambites said:
It's not unusual at all. It's fairly typical Pistonheads these days.
I just want to say that I have never said that it wasnt a good car, nor did I say it didnt perform. I stated my opinion on the engine and drive train choice. 
daz4m said:
vz-r_dave said:
daz4m said:
Weight is the key problem leading to lesser handling so you can't just dismiss that. The car is already carrying extra with the drivetrain.
Powerwise, the VW V6 is pretty crap anyway compared to the straight sixes BMW produce. Much better having the lighter, faster and more frugal 4 cylinder Turbo unit in a car badged R.
The V6 is better suited to GT. Case closed.
As much as its obvious that having a larger engine such as the V6 is going to unweight the car. VW managed it with the R32, hence the reason I even mentioned it. So for me if it has been possible before with good affect there is no reason why it couldnt be done again. The only reason I can see is emissions and fuel cost.Powerwise, the VW V6 is pretty crap anyway compared to the straight sixes BMW produce. Much better having the lighter, faster and more frugal 4 cylinder Turbo unit in a car badged R.
The V6 is better suited to GT. Case closed.
Edit just read a few posts.
Was the Golf R32 really a failure?
Edited by vz-r_dave on Thursday 12th November 16:29
Edited by vz-r_dave on Thursday 12th November 16:31
Not just the sound is the compromise though, also a difference in the power delivery. I suppose that is down to personal opinion though. I prefer a more linear power then the boost of a Turbo. Just something about NA does it for me thats all.
vz-r_dave said:
Not just the sound is the compromise though, also a difference in the power delivery. I suppose that is down to personal opinion though. I prefer a more linear power then the boost of a Turbo. Just something about NA does it for me thats all.
Try a VAG TSI. It's nothing like your stereotypical turbocharged engine. Power delivery is superbly linear, and is available across a very wide rev range.I think what I'm saying is go and test drive a Golf GTi, or an Audi S3, or even a Seat Leon Cupra. I think your opinion might just change!
OK here are my two pennies.
I know it addressed this point in the article or touched on it. I think I personally would find the Scirocco R a little bland or not raw enough.
I did find the 2.0 TSI Scirocco a little, too clinical, too efficient. Not a bad thing for most people though, as it does what it does, exceptionally well.
The Focus addresses this a little, with more aggressive looks, pops, bangs and whistles etc.
It really depends on what sort of car you want.
On a specced up version there is around a £2k price difference between the Focus and Scirocco, of course the Ford is cheaper.
Neither of the cars are a remap of the standard one. Sorry they just aren't.
Also FWD I don't see as being a disadvantage. The car is lighter and cheaper, VW have the ability to make it handle, as they have shown.
I know it addressed this point in the article or touched on it. I think I personally would find the Scirocco R a little bland or not raw enough.
I did find the 2.0 TSI Scirocco a little, too clinical, too efficient. Not a bad thing for most people though, as it does what it does, exceptionally well.
The Focus addresses this a little, with more aggressive looks, pops, bangs and whistles etc.
It really depends on what sort of car you want.
On a specced up version there is around a £2k price difference between the Focus and Scirocco, of course the Ford is cheaper.
Neither of the cars are a remap of the standard one. Sorry they just aren't.
Also FWD I don't see as being a disadvantage. The car is lighter and cheaper, VW have the ability to make it handle, as they have shown.
daz4m said:
Dave I can assure you I am an NA man too look at my car history.
Nice to see you've had a bit of vtec and a wankel in your life too Andrew, I may get the chance at some point to experience the TSI. I might even look into going for a test drive in the new R. The company I work for here in Germany gets dicounts on VW's so I am sure they will be happy to give me a test drive. Certainly cant afford it though.
I think an awd (torsen rear biased), and a fruity 6 potter would be good fun!
Not sure how fun fwd and a heavily boosted 4 pot turbo really will be when it comes down to it.
As for weight, engine vr6 and awd, well VAG hardly did either justice in the first place. The awd was setup almost like fwd anyway, and the vr6 was a huge heavy lump.
Imagine a decent 6 potter with say 3.0 and 275bhp, lightweight (think BMW N54 3.0i valvetronic), and super frugal/efficient for what it is.
Then add an awd system worth having.
I think half the problem is, not many VAG products would use either of the above if they made them, and so it's not cost effective.
This car *could* be made, and likely fantastic, with awd and a 6 pot NA motor. But it'd never happen because it's too expensive to do that for VAG, because they tend to sell most stuff as diesels and FI petrols in small sizes to people who just don't give a crap about fun and interesting aspects to their cars...
People want looks and power figures, and VAG can offer that easily and cheaply.
It could be and would be better imho with NA 6 pot and AWD, the R32 was the only VAG I'd even consider owning (apart from the RS Audis and so on), and now they have abandoned those they hold no appeal at all. But since they won't make it, this will have to do.
Dave
Not sure how fun fwd and a heavily boosted 4 pot turbo really will be when it comes down to it.
As for weight, engine vr6 and awd, well VAG hardly did either justice in the first place. The awd was setup almost like fwd anyway, and the vr6 was a huge heavy lump.
Imagine a decent 6 potter with say 3.0 and 275bhp, lightweight (think BMW N54 3.0i valvetronic), and super frugal/efficient for what it is.
Then add an awd system worth having.
I think half the problem is, not many VAG products would use either of the above if they made them, and so it's not cost effective.
This car *could* be made, and likely fantastic, with awd and a 6 pot NA motor. But it'd never happen because it's too expensive to do that for VAG, because they tend to sell most stuff as diesels and FI petrols in small sizes to people who just don't give a crap about fun and interesting aspects to their cars...
People want looks and power figures, and VAG can offer that easily and cheaply.
It could be and would be better imho with NA 6 pot and AWD, the R32 was the only VAG I'd even consider owning (apart from the RS Audis and so on), and now they have abandoned those they hold no appeal at all. But since they won't make it, this will have to do.
Dave
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff