VW Golf 7 R -- Chipped -- 0 to 60 in 4 Seconds...

[lamboman100]

Word is, for about an extra 500 sheets, with a chip and sporty filter, it is now possible to ring instantly 350 horsepowers and 450 torques from the new Mk7 VW Golf R, for a 0 to 60 mph time of somewhere in the region of 4.1 to 4.6 seconds. Discuss...

http://www.superchips.co.uk/search?make=38&fue...


PS. I have zero connections to Superchips or VW.

PPS. Mods -- please don't move to another section of the website, as a lot of people have recently bought 7Rs on lease deals in the General Gassing threads and this should be of related interest to them

[lamboman100]

StuntmanMike said:

OP, what are torques?

Some magical thingys that make you go faster

[lamboman100]

Sustanon400 said:

the-photographer said:

VW driver got 4.7 and a low as 4.5 using launch control.

That's great

At 3000 revs , stock launch control is pathetically low , once the DSG maps come out and raise it to something more realistic like 4200 you'll be seeing 0-60 in the high 3's in stage 1 mapped cars, that's impressive

The oft-quoted "4.9secs DSG" number seems to refer to the 62mph / 100kph speed for Europe. For UK 60mph, the stock DSG seems to be anywhere between 4.5 and 4.9secs, depending on who you talk to.

Some of the German tuners already seem to be getting around 4.1 to 4.6secs for 62mph for a 325 - 375bhp remap... So, somewhere under 4.5secs to 60mph for a basic remap and filter seems easily achievable.

The Golf 7R is quickly shaping up to be a modern classic. Wolf in sheep's clothing 'n' all that.

[lamboman100]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

The Auto Express test looks a little odd.

Auto Build Germany recently found the Golf 7R coming within a whisker of the M135i, and ahead of the S3, on the track:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAtsh40JqGI&fe...

[lamboman100]

Driver101 said:

All I ever here is my car can do 0-60mph in xxx secs.

Go to a drag strip and watch how many fall miles short of their predictions.

"My car is as fast as xxx around a track".

When they go to the track they are handed their arses by cars with a fraction of their power.

One thing more important than power and claimed figures, is ability.

Something most owners end up lacking in.

Plenty of independent magazine and online tests saying the new Golf 7R will do 4.x seconds to 60mph.

And a few Nurburgringers have already gotten a stock model to a reasonable ~8min lap.

It looks like the real deal.

[lamboman100]

226bhp said:

lamboman100 said:

350 horsepower and 450 torque

If that's BHP and Lbs/ft it's a bullst figure anyhow, how has it gone from 296bhp and 280lb ft to producing far more torque than power?


Edit: Just checked the link - it's + 54 so 334ft/lbs

Don't mix your imperial and your metric!

Edited by 226bhp on Friday 13th June 23:14

You'll have to take up your pedantry with Superchips and VW.

They are claiming 296bhp (+59bhp), and 380nm (+73nm).

A calculator is telling me that is close enough to 350 and 450.

[lamboman100]

wormus said:

rb5er said:

So a tuned Golf R is almost as wuick as a standard Evo 9 fq360 from 7 years ago?

Finally VW are starting to catch up.

+1 slower than a 7 year old Monaro too . Quick cars to 60 though.

The Golf R400, when it launches in 2015, is finally going to get a stock 0-to-60 time around 3.9secs, and catch up with Mitzies and Monaros.

And by 2016, there will almost certainly be some affordable aftermarket mods that will take it down to the low- or mid-3s. It will be the world's leading superhatch.

If VW do lease deals on the R400 for under 500 quid a month, it will be a very tempting offer for many.

[lamboman100]

elementad said:

Driver101 said:

Dave Hedgehog said:

wormus said:

I've always thought the bog standard GTI was the best model. Not too expensive or pretentious, and fast enough for day to day driving. The R just isn't special enough to warrant the price and demonstrates the power of marketing over engineering. I wish Alfa would offer something in this space, at least it would be interesting.

i would always take the R over the GTi, apart from being too slow it suffers all the problems of other FWD cars, that as soon as you use moderate throttle the wheels are over powered and you enter a world of torque steer, wheel spinning or even worse the TC light will be flashing constantly on the dash and rob you of power (which the GTi loves to do)

this just does not happen in the R, wet roads? what wet roads power is applied without drama or nanny electronic interference, they even handle 6" of snow in their stride on stock tyres

and if you after driving purity do not buy either get a M135i

Isn't the new GTI known for not having much issues putting down its power? Thought is was very restrictive to stop any spinning up?

Forever people keep saying the way a 4wd puts the power down in the wet and snow.......

Surely if you're struggling to put the power down, you're also going to have issues steering and stopping, something 4wd isn't going to help you on?

I read numerous car forums and wonder what world most people drive in. I think we live our life 10" deep in snow where the only cars that move are 4wd, the rest of the time we are in puddles of water where 4wd cars win the traffic light sprint and the GPs happening on every B road.

What I read on forums doesn't match what I see in the real world.

It's like a game of top trumps. Pick a usually irrelevant point and use that to knock everyone else down.

I've had a shot in the Golf R and thought it was good, but not great.

It seems from the very off magazines wanted to tell us how good this car was. Invited out to Sweden to drive the car on snow and ice with studied tyres, many magazines managed to give this car 5 star reviews!

How can you possibly judge a car based on those conditions? A few of the reviews even managed to forget to mention the driving conditions.

It means everything these days to have positive reviews in car magazines and I've no doubt many of the journalists aren't the most impartial people in the world.

When you're getting paid work when invited out to test cars, are you going to bite off the hand that feeds you?

I don't remember the last car that kicked up the storm of the Golf R.

To me, it seems that the internet had lost all reality of what this car actually is. It is getting banded about in terms of BMW M3/M4s and 911s forgetting it is a 300bhp hot hatch.

It goes well, but we've all seen various tests where it has lost out on track battles to the M135i, Seat Cupra R, RCZ-R to name a few. People seem to skip over that and look at cars far higher up the tree to compare the Golf against.

We've already had about two million Golf R threads here already.

What is so special about this car to many that makes it the most talked about car on the internet?

I thought i was going to see loads of these on the roads since I've heard so much about it, but I've still only seen two.

Nobody seems to be stumping up the cash to buy one, most people seem to be getting them on £250 per month lease deals.

My local dealer had two in stock in February. One demo and one for sale. 4 months later the one for sale had been pre-registered and still wasn't sold.

All these cheap lease deals seem to devalue the real value of the car and the fact not many people are willing to stump up £30K of real hard cash makes me think many people's motives of buying one is simply because they can afford to lease it.

If the car wasn't getting pushed through as cheap we wouldn't be getting the hysteria we are.

Good post. It's the fact it's quick with a German badge I think. People don't like to admit non German marques are quicker.
It should be said though, I do like the golf for what it is. I've got an old GT TDI130 as a second car winter runabout and love it.
A few lap times below that should open peoples eyes.
http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/best-cars/87055/faste...

What has captured some people's imagination is, a leased Golf 7R gives 70 - 90% of the performance of a Porsche 911 GT3 for 15 - 20% of the cost.

A VW badge is not the best, of course, but it is better than Seat / Renault / Mitsubishi / Subaru, and less w*nky than BMW / Audi.

While not perfect, pound for pound, there is no denying -- the current 7R lease deals are very impressive.

[lamboman100]

Ali_T said:

lamboman100 said:

What has captured some people's imagination is, a leased Golf 7R gives 70 - 90% of the performance of a Porsche 911 GT3 for 15 - 20% of the cost.

A VW badge is not the best, of course, but it is better than Seat / Renault / Mitsubishi / Subaru, and less w*nky than BMW / Audi.

While not perfect, pound for pound, there is no denying -- the current 7R lease deals are very impressive.

It might give 70-90% of the performance, but it gives 0% of the feeling of driving something special. It's what I took away from my test drive, at least. A usefully quick and generally "nice" car, but nothing remotely special. My Evo has worse quality plastics, is probably less reliable and probably no faster, but it feels special every day and not all like a common or garden Lancer. The Golf feels like a Golf, not like an R. Nor does it feel anything like as special as the far less talented R32s. £30k is a lot to spend on a car that for 90% of the time feels like a common or garden Golf. Of course, you can go through the options list to make it feel more special inside (because those standard seat fabrics really are nasty. The centre sections must be made of 1970's school trousers) but then it stops being £30k. I specced up an R to the same level as an A45 AMG on the configurator and, guess what, it then costs the same as an A45! And for all the A45's bluntness, it feels far, far more desirable to drive even at 3/10ths.

As to badge, why is it, beyond clever marketing, that people feel VW warrants being classified above Ford, Vauxhaul, Renault, Subaru etc? All those manufacturers have made far more petrol head orientated cars than VW has in the past 10-20 years or more. VW occasionally throw a GTI to the press and suddenly they're the petrol heads friend. I've yet to drive a GTI since the Mk2 16V that is remotely soulful or exciting. Again, they're "nice".

It is mostly subjective, of course, but the VW badge is still widely perceived, rightly or wrongly, as one of the best mass-market badges in the UK.

The offer of a 4-second family car with 5 seats and a boot for 250 quid a month is pretty much unmatched anywhere in the car market today. A subtle car with unsubtle speed. On balance, it is a hugely attractive deal.

And, like it or not, most independent / semi-independent magazine reviews are waxing lyrical about the Golf 7 R. Evo 5 stars. Top Gear top hatch. Telegraph 5 stars. Autocar 4.5 stars. Chris Evans saying it sets a new benchmark for hatches. Etc. etc.

[lamboman100]

Driver101 said:

lamboman100 said:

It is mostly subjective, of course, but the VW badge is still widely perceived, rightly or wrongly, as one of the best mass-market badges in the UK.

The offer of a 4-second family car with 5 seats and a boot for 250 quid a month is pretty much unmatched anywhere in the car market today. A subtle car with unsubtle speed. On balance, it is a hugely attractive deal.

And, like it or not, most independent / semi-independent magazine reviews are waxing lyrical about the Golf 7 R. Evo 5 stars. Top Gear top hatch. Telegraph 5 stars. Autocar 4.5 stars. Chris Evans saying it sets a new benchmark for hatches. Etc. etc.

Autocar and Top Gear magazines gave it 5 stars based on testing it on the snow. They were always going to give it 5 stars no matter what.

Paid work to fly out to Sweden for the company isn't impartial.

Again your are concentrating only on a 0-60mph figure and still removing the significant margin after the 4 sec.

Most of the reviews are based on performance for money. It does offer than.

The one that falls really short is the fuel consumption. Claimed combined figures of 40mpg have all been used to justify the car.

Reading real world figures and there is lots of guys only averaging 25 - 27 mpg.

I've never seen a car fall so far short of the supposed figures for economy.

People were slating Evo and Subarus earlier in this thread for fuel consumption, yet 10 years later VW are little better with their new car.

The Top Gear test was done in a group test in Spain. New article. Different conditions and context. Same result. Top hatch.

Almost all car magazine tests since time began have had elements of bias, for whatever reason. C'est la vie.

Chris Evans is a multi-millionaire. He is not going to be biased majorly by getting a loaned Golf for a few days. He said in April the Golf R sets a new benchmark for hot hatches.

There is no getting away from it. A stock 0-60 time of ~4.9secs for an every-day family car is mighty impressive. The "wolf in sheep's clothing" factor is high. Plenty of reports on other VW forums of M3 drivers getting a shock in the roundabout grand prix.

The real-world fuel-consumption figures are not ideal. But when the car lease is already nearly half the price of what it should be, a bit of extra petrol payment is no biggie.

[lamboman100]

Top Gear magazine this month times the new Golf 7R DSG at 4.5 seconds to 60mph. Unmodified.

[lamboman100]

matsoc said:

J4CKO said:

matsoc said:

This new bunch of turbocharged hot hatches is exposing the NA sports cars performance to some questioning. It already happened in the 80s somehow but this time could really mean the end of NA sports cars at all. Straight acceleration is not all the story but the in gear performance of the A45 AMG (I still have to drive new Golf R and S3) really shades 997.1 3.6 or 3.8 and E92 M3.

A45 AMG and E90 M3 both do 100 in circa 10 seconds.

These uber hot hatches seem to be the new diesels, as if they punch above their weight but the A45 is nearly 40 grand.

"Fast" has suddenly become quite attainable with the Germans doing these mega hatches, 4wd, DSG gearboxes and more power a remap away, but A45 AMG or M3/911, still no contest for me, even if it loses in the Top Trumps.

Yes, no contest for me too. I actually think that 997 NA 911s (not GT3s) or V8 M3s are fast enough to have all the fun I would ever need but it is not true for all customers and with hatches doing 0-60 in 4s on the market car makers will want to make future versions of these great sportscars always faster, and that will mean turbocharged. And I don't like this direction

I test drove the A45 together with a friend with a manual M3 E90 and the performance gap on the road is greater than the similar 0-100 may suggest. On a twisty road there was no way the keep the pace of the A45 with the M3.

The car world is changing as we speak.

The gap between superhatches, sportscars and supercars is *closing fast*.

In Top Gear mag this month, the *VW Golf 7R* is independently timed almost as quick as the flagship *Porsche Cayman GTS*... and the 7R is TG's "*third best fast car of 2014*"... beaten only by the Porsche 918S and McLaren P1...

Like it or not, the VW Golf 7R (and A45 AMG) have set a new benchmark for daily superhatches.

And with a bit of basic remapping (not hardcore modding, or rally copycats), the era of reliable Ferrari performance at everyman pricing is almost upon us.

The next 5 years are going to see some impressive superhatches from Germany and Japan (e.g. VW Golf R400).

We are entering a new era. PH should do an article on it.

[lamboman100]

StottyEvo said:

lamboman100 said:

matsoc said:

J4CKO said:

matsoc said:

This new bunch of turbocharged hot hatches is exposing the NA sports cars performance to some questioning. It already happened in the 80s somehow but this time could really mean the end of NA sports cars at all. Straight acceleration is not all the story but the in gear performance of the A45 AMG (I still have to drive new Golf R and S3) really shades 997.1 3.6 or 3.8 and E92 M3.

A45 AMG and E90 M3 both do 100 in circa 10 seconds.

These uber hot hatches seem to be the new diesels, as if they punch above their weight but the A45 is nearly 40 grand.

"Fast" has suddenly become quite attainable with the Germans doing these mega hatches, 4wd, DSG gearboxes and more power a remap away, but A45 AMG or M3/911, still no contest for me, even if it loses in the Top Trumps.

Yes, no contest for me too. I actually think that 997 NA 911s (not GT3s) or V8 M3s are fast enough to have all the fun I would ever need but it is not true for all customers and with hatches doing 0-60 in 4s on the market car makers will want to make future versions of these great sportscars always faster, and that will mean turbocharged. And I don't like this direction

I test drove the A45 together with a friend with a manual M3 E90 and the performance gap on the road is greater than the similar 0-100 may suggest. On a twisty road there was no way the keep the pace of the A45 with the M3.

The car world is changing as we speak.

The gap between superhatches, sportscars and supercars is *closing fast*.

In Top Gear mag this month, the *VW Golf 7R* is independently timed almost as quick as the flagship *Porsche Cayman GTS*... and the 7R is TG's "*third best fast car of 2014*"... beaten only by the Porsche 918S and McLaren P1...

Like it or not, the VW Golf 7R (and A45 AMG) have set a new benchmark for daily superhatches.

And with a bit of basic remapping (not hardcore modding, or rally copycats), the era of reliable Ferrari performance at everyman pricing is almost upon us.

The next 5 years are going to see some impressive superhatches from Germany and Japan (e.g. VW Golf R400).

We are entering a new era. PH should do an article on it.

I've got to disagree with pretty much all of this. As mentioned many many times in this thread Evo's have been at supercar performance back in 1999. With Evo V's hitting 60 in 4.4secs whilst the Ferrari 360 was just being launched and managing 4.2secs. With light modding the Evo would match the Ferrari's performance.

As it stands the Golf R hits 60 in 4.5secs and 100 in 12.5.
The current Ferrari 458 Italia is 3.4secs to 60 and 6.7 to 100.

That's 12.5 seconds compared to 6.7seconds to 100. Not even remotely close in any way shape or form tbh.

Evo's aren't competing against supercars neither as they've stood still. The only blue collar car that is competing with supercars is the Nissan GTR.

It might be worth rereading the finer points of the post.

The Evo was a rally copycat that looked awful and needed plenty of care and not really a mass-market daily hatch.

With a bit of basic remapping (not hardcore modding), the Golf 7R will be able to get to 60mph in around 3.7 - 3.9secs. The Ferrari FF gets to 60mph in about 3.5secs... An everyday Golf hatch (lightly mapped) within a whisker of a Ferrari supercar at the traffic-light grand prix.

And don't just take my word for it. TG mag says the stock Golf 7R is "as fast as a Porsche Cayman GTS"... "immense"... and "... hanging onto the tail of a Porsche 911 Turbo on a greasy country lane...".

Like it or not, deny it or not, everyday superhatches are closing in on sportscars and supercars. The industry is changing fast.

[lamboman100]

EricE said:

StottyEvo said:

The performance gap is scarcely closing, look at the 60-100 times! Golf R is 7.6 Ferrari 458 is 3.3seconds....

Correct me if I am wrong but 60-100 doesn’t seem very relevant outside of Germany or the racetrack.

'76 Golf GTI Mk 1 0-62: 9,2 sec
'75 Porsche 911 Turbo: 5,2 sec

'14 Golf R Mk 7: 4,5 sec
'14 Porsche 911 Turbo: 3,2 sec

I’d say the gap in everyday useable performance is closing quite rapidly. The Golf R400 will likely do 0-62 in around 3,5 seconds versus the 2,8 of the 911 Turbo.
I’m not sure the average non-PH driver would even notice a difference between those two from 0 to 62.

And hybrid systems with full torque from zero rpm will only amplify the trend...

Good stats.

The 0-60mph / 0-62mph time for the flagship Golf was roughly ~175% of the flagship 911 in the 1970s.

The Golf-to-911 ratio has dropped to roughly ~145% in the 2010s. And it will reduce further to roughly ~125% when the Golf R400 arrives in 2015.

There is still a lot of denial on PH, but there is no doubt about it -- the speed-gap between daily superhatches, sportscars and supercars is now closing fast. Speed is commoditising.

[lamboman100]

Frio3535 said:

Nurburg times seem to be one of the default measures of a performance cars ability these days, as much as 0-62/125/150/186 etc.

Golf MK4 GTI 8:54
Ferrari 360 8:09

Difference = 45seconds

Golf Mk7 R 8:14
Ferrari 458 7:28

Difference = 46 seconds

For those who live in a bubble of 'greasy B roads' then sure the 'real world' gap is closing, but for those who like to explore there cars performance it's as you were

(source: fastestlaps.com)

Edited by Frio3535 on Wednesday 25th June 18:41

• Ferrari 360 = 0-62mph = 4.3secs;
• Golf Mk4 GTI = 0-62mph = 7.9secs;
• Speed gap = 184%...

• Ferrari 458 = 0-62mph = 3.1secs;
• Golf Mk7 R = 0-62mph = 4.9secs;
• Speed gap = 158%...

• Ferrari 458 = 0-62mph = 3.1secs;
• Golf Mk7 R400 = 0-62mph = 3.9secs (predicted);
• Speed gap = 126%...

The gap is narrowing

[lamboman100]

Interesting to see August's Car magazine rates the VW Golf 7R as the UK's best hot hatch. Beats all the Mercs, Bimmers, Renaults, etc. Fast becoming a cult classic:

http://www.carmagazine.co.uk

[lamboman100]

Driver101 said:

The Golf R traps at 105mph on a standing quarter.

A 911 Turbo traps at 127mph.

A Citroen DS3 150bhp manages to clock 85mph.

The DS3 drivers should start a thread that their cars are nearly as quick as a Golf R as there is less of a gap between that and the R, than there is between the R and a 911.

They'd get called daft if they did.

"... Golf 7R already beating supercars to 60...":

http://blog.revotechnik.com/revo-mk7-golf-r-stage-...

[lamboman100]

TheAngryDog said:

fking hell! I cannot believe that people are thinking some hatchback is as quick as a supercar. It's been a while since I've read something as delusional!

0-60mph means nothing these days. Over. longer distances / speeds and mid range are better indicators.

A fast car does 0-100 in 10 seconds or less. That's has always been a marker I have been around. Well under 10 seconds is mental fast. Anything between 10 and 13 is quick, but I wouldn't get excited about it! My own car does it in around 13 seconds, so I'm not even being biased.

The stage-1-chipped (i.e. very easy to do) G7Rs and S3s are now starting to hit 100mph in ~9secs.

[lamboman100]

Driver101 said:

lamboman100 said:

Driver101 said:

The Golf R traps at 105mph on a standing quarter.

A 911 Turbo traps at 127mph.

A Citroen DS3 150bhp manages to clock 85mph.

The DS3 drivers should start a thread that their cars are nearly as quick as a Golf R as there is less of a gap between that and the R, than there is between the R and a 911.

They'd get called daft if they did.

"... Golf 7R already beating supercars to 60...":

http://blog.revotechnik.com/revo-mk7-golf-r-stage-...

Is the 0-60mph really all that matters? Really?

I guess it brings another meaning to a 3.9 second man when that's all the time it will last. After that the Golf is finished and not remotely close to a supercar.

Also supercars are doing 0-60 <3.0secs these days.

It's still a mile off a 911 Turbo even when moving. 127mph v 114mph is a huge gap over 400 meters. 9mph over the standard car seem a huge leap for a remap.

105mph standard terminal speed is similar to many 300bhp cars. Slower than others of slightly more power.

Apart from a good launch, assisted by 4wd and DSG, you're left with a car that performs as you'd expect for a 300bhp car of its weight.

I honestly can't believe the things we have to read about this car. A lot of it is beyond delusional.

Roughly 98% of all UK driving takes place under 100mph. And roughly 80% under 80mph. Very rarely do quick cars get a chance to go over 100mph on UK's crowded, narrow, short public roads.

[lamboman100]

Good video footage of a VW G7R hunting down a yellow Ferrari 458 at the Ring:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdKku0SY0ek&fe...