RE: Driven: Volkswagen Scirocco R

RE: Driven: Volkswagen Scirocco R

Author
Discussion

broker1

11,683 posts

175 months

Friday 13th November 2009
quotequote all
All personal taste etc... but I dont like the styling. Compared to the aggressive front end on my S3 I think this is a bit soft and fussy with a few to many crimps and curves, feminine even. Sorry to reference my own vehicle but its an obvious comparison. The whole weight thing always come into play in these four pot vs six pot, FWD/4WD discussions but its worth remembering that a Haldex equiped fully loaded S3 still comes in with a significantly lower curb weight than the current focus RS... where is the weight saving that Ford bleeted on about in order to justify the FWD chassis?....

Edited by broker1 on Friday 13th November 12:53

vz-r_dave

3,469 posts

217 months

Friday 13th November 2009
quotequote all
broker1 said:
All personal taste etc... but I dont like the styling. Compared to the aggressive front end on my S3 I think this is a bit soft and fussy with a few to many crimps and curves, feminine even. Sorry to reference my own vehicle but its an obvious comparison. The whole weight thing always come into play in these four pot vs six pot, FWD/4WD discussions but its worth remembering that a Haldex equiped fully loaded S3 still comes in with a significantly lower curb weight than the current focus RS... where is the weight saving that Ford bleeted on about in order to justify the FWD chassis?....

Edited by broker1 on Friday 13th November 12:53
If you where to compare the likes of your S3 to the car in question thats fine but dont try and start a debate on the RS again. It will over shadow the main topic here.


broker1

11,683 posts

175 months

Friday 13th November 2009
quotequote all
vz-r_dave said:
broker1 said:
All personal taste etc... but I dont like the styling. Compared to the aggressive front end on my S3 I think this is a bit soft and fussy with a few to many crimps and curves, feminine even. Sorry to reference my own vehicle but its an obvious comparison. The whole weight thing always come into play in these four pot vs six pot, FWD/4WD discussions but its worth remembering that a Haldex equiped fully loaded S3 still comes in with a significantly lower curb weight than the current focus RS... where is the weight saving that Ford bleeted on about in order to justify the FWD chassis?....

Edited by broker1 on Friday 13th November 12:53
If you where to compare the likes of your S3 to the car in question thats fine but dont try and start a debate on the RS again. It will over shadow the main topic here.
Well I think my point is relevent to the discussion people have already been having about the relative dynamic advantages of a light weight 4 cylinder over the more bulky 6 in the R32 or indeed a 4WD set up. My point being that it is easy for people to assume a massive advantage (weight saving) of one over the other but it is important to actually look at the figures.... The RS has been referenced a number of times in this thread.

vz-r_dave

3,469 posts

217 months

Friday 13th November 2009
quotequote all
broker1 said:
vz-r_dave said:
broker1 said:
All personal taste etc... but I dont like the styling. Compared to the aggressive front end on my S3 I think this is a bit soft and fussy with a few to many crimps and curves, feminine even. Sorry to reference my own vehicle but its an obvious comparison. The whole weight thing always come into play in these four pot vs six pot, FWD/4WD discussions but its worth remembering that a Haldex equiped fully loaded S3 still comes in with a significantly lower curb weight than the current focus RS... where is the weight saving that Ford bleeted on about in order to justify the FWD chassis?....

Edited by broker1 on Friday 13th November 12:53
If you where to compare the likes of your S3 to the car in question thats fine but dont try and start a debate on the RS again. It will over shadow the main topic here.
Well I think my point is relevent to the discussion people have already been having about the relative dynamic advantages of a light weight 4 cylinder over the more bulky 6 in the R32 or indeed a 4WD set up. My point being that it is easy for people to assume a massive advantage (weight saving) of one over the other but it is important to actually look at the figures.... The RS has been referenced a number of times in this thread.
The RS has been mentioned as a comparison with the Sirocco which are both FWD. You are now comparing your 4WD S3 with the RS and asking the question of why the RS is so heavy. The only relation would be that people assume that the Sirocco would be heavy with 4WD but then surely the RS has nothing to do with it? Surely its the S3 and the Sirocco that require comparing?

broker1

11,683 posts

175 months

Friday 13th November 2009
quotequote all
vz-r_dave said:
broker1 said:
vz-r_dave said:
broker1 said:
All personal taste etc... but I dont like the styling. Compared to the aggressive front end on my S3 I think this is a bit soft and fussy with a few to many crimps and curves, feminine even. Sorry to reference my own vehicle but its an obvious comparison. The whole weight thing always come into play in these four pot vs six pot, FWD/4WD discussions but its worth remembering that a Haldex equiped fully loaded S3 still comes in with a significantly lower curb weight than the current focus RS... where is the weight saving that Ford bleeted on about in order to justify the FWD chassis?....

Edited by broker1 on Friday 13th November 12:53
If you where to compare the likes of your S3 to the car in question thats fine but dont try and start a debate on the RS again. It will over shadow the main topic here.
Well I think my point is relevent to the discussion people have already been having about the relative dynamic advantages of a light weight 4 cylinder over the more bulky 6 in the R32 or indeed a 4WD set up. My point being that it is easy for people to assume a massive advantage (weight saving) of one over the other but it is important to actually look at the figures.... The RS has been referenced a number of times in this thread.
The RS has been mentioned as a comparison with the Sirocco which are both FWD. You are now comparing your 4WD S3 with the RS and asking the question of why the RS is so heavy. The only relation would be that people assume that the Sirocco would be heavy with 4WD but then surely the RS has nothing to do with it? Surely its the S3 and the Sirocco that require comparing?
Well thanks for you viewpoint. Which I will politely ignore. I will continue to compare whatever I see fit without the 'mind police' telling me what is a valid view and what is not.

vz-r_dave

3,469 posts

217 months

Friday 13th November 2009
quotequote all
broker1 said:
vz-r_dave said:
broker1 said:
vz-r_dave said:
broker1 said:
All personal taste etc... but I dont like the styling. Compared to the aggressive front end on my S3 I think this is a bit soft and fussy with a few to many crimps and curves, feminine even. Sorry to reference my own vehicle but its an obvious comparison. The whole weight thing always come into play in these four pot vs six pot, FWD/4WD discussions but its worth remembering that a Haldex equiped fully loaded S3 still comes in with a significantly lower curb weight than the current focus RS... where is the weight saving that Ford bleeted on about in order to justify the FWD chassis?....

Edited by broker1 on Friday 13th November 12:53
If you where to compare the likes of your S3 to the car in question thats fine but dont try and start a debate on the RS again. It will over shadow the main topic here.
Well I think my point is relevent to the discussion people have already been having about the relative dynamic advantages of a light weight 4 cylinder over the more bulky 6 in the R32 or indeed a 4WD set up. My point being that it is easy for people to assume a massive advantage (weight saving) of one over the other but it is important to actually look at the figures.... The RS has been referenced a number of times in this thread.
The RS has been mentioned as a comparison with the Sirocco which are both FWD. You are now comparing your 4WD S3 with the RS and asking the question of why the RS is so heavy. The only relation would be that people assume that the Sirocco would be heavy with 4WD but then surely the RS has nothing to do with it? Surely its the S3 and the Sirocco that require comparing?
Well thanks for you viewpoint. Which I will politely ignore. I will continue to compare whatever I see fit without the 'mind police' telling me what is a valid view and what is not.
Oh dont get me wrong, it is a valid view it just has F all to do with the Sirroco. That sort of question could be asked in the countless RS threads that already exist.

Back on topic, what is the weight difference between the S3, Sirocco and the Golf R and secondly do the Golf and Audi use the same underpinnings?


Edited by vz-r_dave on Friday 13th November 13:38


Edited by vz-r_dave on Friday 13th November 13:38

broker1

11,683 posts

175 months

Friday 13th November 2009
quotequote all
Scirocco - 1300kg
Golf - ?kg
S3 - 1455kg
RS - 1467kg

Sorry that Golf weight was incorrect. They do indeed share the same underpinnings....



Edited by broker1 on Friday 13th November 13:59

briSk

14,291 posts

225 months

Friday 13th November 2009
quotequote all
for goodness sake it's Scirocco

that's why they named the concept the SCIROCCO so we all remebered how to spell it!

hehe

Chimune

3,144 posts

222 months

Friday 13th November 2009
quotequote all
OT: if your FWD car looses traction too easily in the wet, defo give the Vredestein Ultrac Sessantas a try. They transformed both my Corrado VR6 and my 156 GTA. A fab tire.

BlackPorker

378 posts

174 months

Friday 13th November 2009
quotequote all
broker1 said:
Scirocco - 1300kg
Golf - ?kg
S3 - 1455kg
RS - 1467kg

Sorry that Golf weight was incorrect. They do indeed share the same underpinnings....



Edited by broker1 on Friday 13th November 13:59
According to here:
http://www.volkswagen.de/vwcms/master_public/virtu...
and here:
http://www.volkswagen.de/vwcms/master_public/virtu...

Scirocco - 1419kg (man), 1439kg (DSG)
Golf - 1525kg, 1541kg (DSG)

Golf carries a significant amount of extra lard.



Edited by BlackPorker on Friday 13th November 16:07

adycav

7,615 posts

216 months

Friday 13th November 2009
quotequote all
Chimune said:
OT: if your FWD car looses traction too easily in the wet, defo give the Vredestein Ultrac Sessantas a try. They transformed both my Corrado VR6 and my 156 GTA. A fab tire.
They're not bad on rwd cars either - I've got them on my Z4MC.

broker1

11,683 posts

175 months

Friday 13th November 2009
quotequote all
BlackPorker said:
broker1 said:
Scirocco - 1300kg
Golf - ?kg
S3 - 1455kg
RS - 1467kg

Sorry that Golf weight was incorrect. They do indeed share the same underpinnings....



Edited by broker1 on Friday 13th November 13:59
According to here:
http://www.volkswagen.de/vwcms/master_public/virtu...
and here:
http://www.volkswagen.de/vwcms/master_public/virtu...

Scirocco - 1419kg (man), 1439kg (DSG)
Golf - 1525kg, 1541kg (DSG)

Golf carries a significant amount of extra lard.



Edited by BlackPorker on Friday 13th November 16:07
Cheers, thought that Scirocco weight look a little light...

If your weights are correct (i suspect they are) this kinda backs up what I was saying in that the apparent weight saving by dropping the 4WD on the Scirocco is in fact negligable compared to some of the competition.

waremark

3,241 posts

212 months

Friday 13th November 2009
quotequote all
Andrew Frankel in the Sunday Times really disliked the Scirocco R - thought the suspension was much too uncompliant for UK roads, and said he preferred the regular Scirocco. Hard to reconcile to Autocar loving it.

Personally, I think it looks squashed. I would go for a 135i.

daz4m

2,900 posts

194 months

Friday 13th November 2009
quotequote all
broker1 said:
BlackPorker said:
broker1 said:
Scirocco - 1300kg
Golf - ?kg
S3 - 1455kg
RS - 1467kg

Sorry that Golf weight was incorrect. They do indeed share the same underpinnings....



Edited by broker1 on Friday 13th November 13:59
According to here:
http://www.volkswagen.de/vwcms/master_public/virtu...
and here:
http://www.volkswagen.de/vwcms/master_public/virtu...

Scirocco - 1419kg (man), 1439kg (DSG)
Golf - 1525kg, 1541kg (DSG)

Golf carries a significant amount of extra lard.



Edited by BlackPorker on Friday 13th November 16:07
Cheers, thought that Scirocco weight look a little light...

If your weights are correct (i suspect they are) this kinda backs up what I was saying in that the apparent weight saving by dropping the 4WD on the Scirocco is in fact negligable compared to some of the competition.
The original weight discussion was centred around the V6 vs I4 turbo not the 4wd system.

andrewparker

7,847 posts

186 months

Friday 13th November 2009
quotequote all
waremark said:
Andrew Frankel in the Sunday Times really disliked the Scirocco R - thought the suspension was much too uncompliant for UK roads, and said he preferred the regular Scirocco. Hard to reconcile to Autocar loving it.
He also described the exhaust note as "an unwelcome noise", and the suspension too hard. I'm guessing he couldn't find the Comfort setting on the ACC. He hardly sounds like an enthusiast when talking about such things on a performance orientated model. Perhaps he was confusing it with the regular Scirocco.

Edited by andrewparker on Friday 13th November 17:21

Escort Si-130

3,260 posts

179 months

Friday 13th November 2009
quotequote all
Id take the sexy Scirocco over the 135i any day. LMAO @ uncompliant for UK roads, they make out as if our road surface is the worst in the world.

waremark said:
Andrew Frankel in the Sunday Times really disliked the Scirocco R - thought the suspension was much too uncompliant for UK roads, and said he preferred the regular Scirocco. Hard to reconcile to Autocar loving it.

Personally, I think it looks squashed. I would go for a 135i.

Chimune

3,144 posts

222 months

Friday 13th November 2009
quotequote all
Escort Si-130 said:
.....LMAO @ uncompliant for UK roads, they make out as if our road surface is the worst in the world.
My 156GTA is made for smooth Italian roads and is completely let down on non motorway UK routes. £600 totaly sorts that out, but dont underestimate the crap quality of UK road surfaces !

6th Gear

3,560 posts

193 months

Monday 16th November 2009
quotequote all
Speaking of the R32, I am close to buying one here in Dubai. 2009 model, 35,000km on the clock, DSG, silver, black leather, 4 door. Its up for 16K GBP with FSH and 1.5 years remaining on the warranty.

I would be interested in hearing your views on this car. I hear great things generally.

Many thanks!

andrewparker

7,847 posts

186 months

Tuesday 17th November 2009
quotequote all
6th Gear said:
Speaking of the R32, I am close to buying one here in Dubai. 2009 model, 35,000km on the clock, DSG, silver, black leather, 4 door. Its up for 16K GBP with FSH and 1.5 years remaining on the warranty.

I would be interested in hearing your views on this car. I hear great things generally.

Many thanks!
All I'd advise is that you make sure you drive an Edition 30 GTi as a comparison. The R32 has won a lot of admirers in the UK due to the 4WD system, and the fact is makes a better sound than mostly everything else on the road. On the downside once it gets moving it feels sluggish compared to the Edition 30, partly due to transmission losses as a result of the 4WD, and partly because it is a heavy car, again down to both the 4WD system and the large engine. It's in the corners though where you'll notice the biggest difference. Putting a large V6 lump in front of the front axle really makes it understeer, and the steering feels lazy and inert. The GTi feels razor sharp in comparison, and with a inexpensive remap is will put out as much power as the R32.

danmangt40

296 posts

283 months

Tuesday 17th November 2009
quotequote all
I was about to say that vw needs to import this car to the u.s., primarily based upon my very positive opinion of the golf, and my pleasure in reading the reviews of the scirocco confirming it as a lower, wider, sexier golf, but then I realized just how clever vw is. I'd be buying a scirocco instead of a gti. I'm the weird us buyer not put off by my sporty car being a hatch. There aren't enough of us to eke out extra profits by offering a sexier version at about the same price. Also, making the scirocco more expensive would only serve to steal from Audi Tt sales. I'd much rather have a scirocco than a tt, though, mostly because I hate Roofline- seat combinations that can't actually accomodate adults. Either a car ought to seat two people, and be as small as possible while accomodating those people comfortably, or it ought to properly seat four people. The only 2+2's that I didn't begrudge after a test drive were the Pontiac gto (monaro), Mazda rx8, the BMW 1 series and 3 series (driven an e46 and e36 m3, but haven't driven any two door version of the present 3series), the Honda civic si coupe, the Acura rsx, and the Mercedes clk500....ok, and the challenger srt8. (camaro and mustang have good enough rear seats, but my head was practically knocking the rear window, and I'm fairly short. ).Everything else I've driven with 2 rear seats and two doors and was acceptable space usage was a hatch: minis, Volvo c30, gti. The 2+2 format in almost every other config has me wishing the mgr would just admit that the car might as well just be a twoseater. The 911 is a good example, the 6 series is another, the tt and xk8 are actually the worst perpetrators I can think of right offhand. I haven't driven any astons, but I imagine that while I'm equally amorous of all of them, even if price were equal across them all, I'd probably end up with a vantage simply because it accomodates each seat fully, whereas the db9 and DBS just seem idiotic to be so much larger while not really offering more accomodation. I'll be interested to see if I fit comfortably in the back of the lotus evora. Its long roofline arc with the rear window peaking over the engine might allow full height adults to fit back there, but I'm not holding my breath.