RE: Volkswagen Golf R 400
Discussion
SprintSpeciale said:
I don't get it. Is there really a market for a 400ps (£40k+) Golf? I love the (basic) GTI, and wish Mrs SS would replace her Giulietta with one, but above the 250PS/£30k mark, I wouldn't be looking at a Golf.
A madly fast 4WD Golf is my idea of the perfect all-round car. All the power you could ever want, DSG gearbox for crawling round town or spanking it round the track, all-weather capability, all the toys and practicality from the normal Golf, and reasonable running costs. 0-60 in 3.9 seconds is a hell of a party trick.I guess some people get it and some people don't. I love my R32 but the general consensus on here is that it is a slow, understeery trainwreck of a car. Fortunately we all like different things - but I don't actively berate anyone who buys a diesel with a sports bodykit/suspension/wheels when it's never going to be a sporty car.
Edited by zeduffman on Tuesday 22 April 19:15
[quote=RoverP6B]
I'm prepared to trust my friend's testimony. He was actually very keen on the S3 in many ways but reckoned his old Mazda RX-8 (which he sold due to its prodigious thirst) handled a lot better. Apparently the S3 was quite slow to react to understeer then shoved a lot of power to the rear, turning understeer to oversteer in less than predictable fashion. Maybe the Golf R will be different, but, considering it's the same AWD system, same platform, same wheelbase, same suspension, same powertrain... I doubt it.
I absolutely agree here. It in the driving not the theory! Had a Audi S3 and a S4 in actual use there is simply no comparison. While the Haldex system tries its best to "predict" which wheel is going where and when, the reality is that when the conditions difficult and the driver is pushing the car, that haldex brain is scrambling to throw power back and forth changing all the time trying to read what is happening, while the very slightly slower acting torsen in the S4 already has power going to all wheels all the time- so it does not need to predict so much, and when power is needed it is not due to it predicting what is happening it is due to it having more power going to all four wheels already with slight adjustments upon slip. These are very different systems, and maybe one day the computer on board will be able to "read" the road better than a human can and then I suppose all sorts of electric brains will be able to predict and provide synthetic feel better than any analog system, but not yet, not even the vaunted Porsche GT-3.
One problem in all this is we have an automotive press that do not understand ideas like this all that well and moreover a press that never compare products from manufacturers that have conflicts of interest. Note: you will never see any automotive press actually do an in depth comparison of a BMW 135x with Mercedes 4matic with a Audi torsen car with a Haldex car, its not in the presses interest to criticize more than they already do. martin
I'm prepared to trust my friend's testimony. He was actually very keen on the S3 in many ways but reckoned his old Mazda RX-8 (which he sold due to its prodigious thirst) handled a lot better. Apparently the S3 was quite slow to react to understeer then shoved a lot of power to the rear, turning understeer to oversteer in less than predictable fashion. Maybe the Golf R will be different, but, considering it's the same AWD system, same platform, same wheelbase, same suspension, same powertrain... I doubt it.
I absolutely agree here. It in the driving not the theory! Had a Audi S3 and a S4 in actual use there is simply no comparison. While the Haldex system tries its best to "predict" which wheel is going where and when, the reality is that when the conditions difficult and the driver is pushing the car, that haldex brain is scrambling to throw power back and forth changing all the time trying to read what is happening, while the very slightly slower acting torsen in the S4 already has power going to all wheels all the time- so it does not need to predict so much, and when power is needed it is not due to it predicting what is happening it is due to it having more power going to all four wheels already with slight adjustments upon slip. These are very different systems, and maybe one day the computer on board will be able to "read" the road better than a human can and then I suppose all sorts of electric brains will be able to predict and provide synthetic feel better than any analog system, but not yet, not even the vaunted Porsche GT-3.
One problem in all this is we have an automotive press that do not understand ideas like this all that well and moreover a press that never compare products from manufacturers that have conflicts of interest. Note: you will never see any automotive press actually do an in depth comparison of a BMW 135x with Mercedes 4matic with a Audi torsen car with a Haldex car, its not in the presses interest to criticize more than they already do. martin
scherzkeks said:
Oh, but you are. And at the same time you realize that a 150 hp 5 series estate is nothing to brag about. Quite the pickle to be in.
I'll take my Golf R EVO in envy green please.
170hp actually! No, I don't brag about it, because it's not especially fast, it's not glamorous, it's not the greatest anything at all and sometimes it can be a royal pain in the arse, but, when people who should know better mock it, I defend it for what's good about it - i.e. the engine and the handling.I'll take my Golf R EVO in envy green please.
I do find it hard to believe that what's essentially a boggo FWD Golf with the boost turned up and a dodgy part-time AWD system fitted generates so much interest. A proper Torsen system with decent weight distribution would impress far more. I wonder, in terms of weight distribution, how the Golf R Estate will compare to the hatch?
RoverP6B said:
I do find it hard to believe that what's essentially a boggo FWD Golf with the boost turned up and a dodgy part-time AWD system fitted generates so much interest.
because the current Golf R is awesome and this one should be even better. also 3.9 0-60 from a Golf? also people have love for VW !
scherzkeks said:
Actually the AWD version has 4% of additional weight in the nose, exactly where it is is hard to say, unless you have an engineering release with an explanation.
Just to clarify, I take the phrase "in the nose" to mean "ahead of the front axle". Did you mean to say something to the effect of "in the front half of the car"?Bearing in mind that the M135iX is based on a RWD chassis with a longitudinally-mounted engine, the extra weight isn't going to be ahead of the front axle. - Look at the diagram & illustration below (showing 3 & 5 Series X-Drives) and you'll see what I mean:
I too would like to see more in-depth details and a cutaway illustration for the M135i X-drive but I would be shocked if it wasn't more-or-less the same layout as the above.
scherzkeks said:
And since the engine is longitudinal and centered on the axle, the difference is negligible to the transverse mounted engine in the Golf, where the engine is mounted lower, canted, and is physically shorter than the weightier 6 in the BMW.
It all makes a difference. - BMW could offer more interior space if they moved the engine forwards like in a Torsen Audi but it's a compromise that, thankfully, they didn't make.scherzkeks said:
Managing front end grip at the limit is a characteristic of all AWD cars with even power distributions, and this goes for the Gen 4 and 5 Haldex cars too, despite the fact that their earlier front-drive characteristics have largely been transitioned to RWD. But to someone who has little experience with AWD, I can understand why they might not get how the tendency to push is exacerbated with AWD when the car is not being driven with sympathy for the setup.
I know how to compensate for nose heavy, understeery handling but I just don't like it. In any case, cars are faster when they're more neutral rather than when they excessively over or understeer and surely the point of an AWD missile packed with tech is that it just goes where you point it?. I've never had a problem with the non-transverse + Haldex AWD cars I've driven; even the '03 Forester.scherzkeks said:
The 8P was a honey, miss that car!
You are of course welcome to your own opinion/preferences. - I accept that the nose-heavy handling can be construed as character...though quite why you'd like numb steering, a dull engine, hard ride and snatchy brakes is beyond me.
WCZ said:
because the current Golf R is awesome and this one should be even better. also 3.9 0-60 from a Golf?
also people have love for VW !
The Golf R is awesome and this one is awesomer because sub 4 seconds to 60?also people have love for VW !
OK, two questions for you. How long until you're old enough to drive, and do Mummy and Daddy know you're on an adults' forum?
Anyone who thinks that a low 0-60 time makes a great car should not be on PHs.
RoverP6B said:
The Golf R is awesome and this one is awesomer because sub 4 seconds to 60?
OK, two questions for you
1. How long until you're old enough to drive,
2. and do Mummy and Daddy know you're on an adults' forum?
1. I've had a full UK driving licence for 14 years, owned various performance cars.OK, two questions for you
1. How long until you're old enough to drive,
2. and do Mummy and Daddy know you're on an adults' forum?
2. Presumably so.
your condescending tone is a tad pathetic. - especially to someone who has been a PH member for over 6 years.
and yes I stand by that the existing Golf R is a great car and it's pretty straight forward to understand that the 400R version is just going to be a more exhilarating version of it.
the 0-60 time is the only performance figure that has been released by Volkswagen (other than vmax) it's the same as a 997 Turbo for a nice reference point, that's why this car has generated a fair amount of interest (which you seem unable to comprehend)
and "people have love for volkswagen" is pretty self explanatory, if Kia brought out a similar car then it simply wouldn't be viewed in the same way.
Edited by WCZ on Wednesday 23 April 00:44
400 hp ? Pah, lame , I wait for the day the make a german sparkie head of the tech dept ,
then we might see something interesting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dElFiQcLsp8&lis...
then we might see something interesting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dElFiQcLsp8&lis...
RoverP6B said:
The Golf R is awesome and this one is awesomer because sub 4 seconds to 60?
OK, two questions for you. How long until you're old enough to drive, and do Mummy and Daddy know you're on an adults' forum?
Anyone who thinks that a low 0-60 time makes a great car should not be on PHs.
And nor should anyone who makes sweeping assumptions without actually having driven a car. OK, two questions for you. How long until you're old enough to drive, and do Mummy and Daddy know you're on an adults' forum?
Anyone who thinks that a low 0-60 time makes a great car should not be on PHs.
Oh, your "mate" - did he drive the current S3 or the 8P s3 from 06 on? Because the new one is a much better car. See the recent article on here about how impressed people were with it. But of course. You know best.
Lost soul said:
Msportman said:
400 bhp is nice.
Trouble is, Haldex is absolutely crap on track.
It can't shuffle power quickly enough and feels artificial.
A Golf GTI with a proper diff and good rubber is a much better proposition or go RWD!
Just look at the Cupra R v Golf R.....says it all really.
Quattro's tend to understeer and if you want a proper 4WD system look to a GTR or Evo.
It maybe ok in wet conditions for the average driver but for purists or track petrolheads the Haldex system will feel slow witted, dull and will add weight!
footnote]Edited by Msportman on Tuesday 22 April 11:37[/footnote]
It's not for the track is it Trouble is, Haldex is absolutely crap on track.
It can't shuffle power quickly enough and feels artificial.
A Golf GTI with a proper diff and good rubber is a much better proposition or go RWD!
Just look at the Cupra R v Golf R.....says it all really.
Quattro's tend to understeer and if you want a proper 4WD system look to a GTR or Evo.
It maybe ok in wet conditions for the average driver but for purists or track petrolheads the Haldex system will feel slow witted, dull and will add weight!
footnote]Edited by Msportman on Tuesday 22 April 11:37[/footnote]
spot on
RoverP6B said:
The Golf R is awesome and this one is awesomer because sub 4 seconds to 60?
OK, two questions for you. How long until you're old enough to drive, and do Mummy and Daddy know you're on an adults' forum?
Anyone who thinks that a low 0-60 time makes a great car should not be on PHs.
When you're around this forum is anything but adult, you seem to ruin every thread you touch, learn to put your point across without insulting others, trying to belittle people or arguing the toss.OK, two questions for you. How long until you're old enough to drive, and do Mummy and Daddy know you're on an adults' forum?
Anyone who thinks that a low 0-60 time makes a great car should not be on PHs.
I see nothing wrong with the R400, should be a fabulous car, you don't like it? Fine, you've made your point but now just seem to be hanging around to troll.
RoverP6B said:
170hp actually! No, I don't brag about it, because it's not especially fast, it's not glamorous, it's not the greatest anything at all and sometimes it can be a royal pain in the arse, but, when people who should know better mock it, I defend it for what's good about it - i.e. the engine and the handling.
I do find it hard to believe that what's essentially a boggo FWD Golf with the boost turned up and a dodgy part-time AWD system fitted generates so much interest. A proper Torsen system with decent weight distribution would impress far more. I wonder, in terms of weight distribution, how the Golf R Estate will compare to the hatch?
It is, IMO, the perfect compromise for someone that needs a car that does it all. I have owned (still have the second) two Torsen cars and I'm not sure I'd have another. They are generally less entertaining on tarmac than the modern Haldex Gen 4 and 5 cars, slower to shuffle power, and have always offered poorer traction in the wet, snow, mud. There are Sport Auto tests from years ago that demonstrate this quite well. I do find it hard to believe that what's essentially a boggo FWD Golf with the boost turned up and a dodgy part-time AWD system fitted generates so much interest. A proper Torsen system with decent weight distribution would impress far more. I wonder, in terms of weight distribution, how the Golf R Estate will compare to the hatch?
I am at a loss as to why you'd consider a heavy, soft 5 series estate a better alternative for anything other than hauling shopping and dogs, but Clivey also drives the automotive equivalent of a washing machine and writes novellas on his hatred for these cars, so perhaps the comment on the green-eyed monster hits the mark.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff