Golf GTI or GTD? Which one would you have?
Discussion
I know the Golf R is a bit of a PH favourite but of the lesser performance models (GTI and GTD), which one would you have?
The GTD seems to have been elevated to the same status as the GTI now in the range. Obviously, the GTI has more power but the GTD counters with more torque. You can get an LSD on the GTI if you buy the Performance Pack but the GTD claims to be 40% more economical (I don't believe the claimed 47mpg for the GTI for one minute though).
Price-wise, there's very little in it new. The GTI has always enjoyed above average residuals for a hot hatch but new and used prices of Golf diesels have always been massively elevated over those of its non-premium rivals such as the Ford Focus. Is this for good reason? I don't know.
Four-pot diesels are rarely pleasant but get the job done and the GTI's engine is hardly the most charismatic engine either. I haven't driven a diesel Golf since the mk4/mk5 when they were still PD engines. My favourite diesel version was actually the GT TDI 140 and the GT TDI 130 on the mk4. The 170 and 150 engines respectively certainly ripped through the gears a bit quicker but I found them difficult to drive smoothly. Does this mean that the 150bhp TDI is the sweet spot in the Golf diesel range?
I guess this argument could also be applied to the Focus ST, Octavia vRS, 1-Series, Audi A3, A-Class and Seat Leon too. So, performance diesel or performance petrol?
The GTD seems to have been elevated to the same status as the GTI now in the range. Obviously, the GTI has more power but the GTD counters with more torque. You can get an LSD on the GTI if you buy the Performance Pack but the GTD claims to be 40% more economical (I don't believe the claimed 47mpg for the GTI for one minute though).
Price-wise, there's very little in it new. The GTI has always enjoyed above average residuals for a hot hatch but new and used prices of Golf diesels have always been massively elevated over those of its non-premium rivals such as the Ford Focus. Is this for good reason? I don't know.
Four-pot diesels are rarely pleasant but get the job done and the GTI's engine is hardly the most charismatic engine either. I haven't driven a diesel Golf since the mk4/mk5 when they were still PD engines. My favourite diesel version was actually the GT TDI 140 and the GT TDI 130 on the mk4. The 170 and 150 engines respectively certainly ripped through the gears a bit quicker but I found them difficult to drive smoothly. Does this mean that the 150bhp TDI is the sweet spot in the Golf diesel range?
I guess this argument could also be applied to the Focus ST, Octavia vRS, 1-Series, Audi A3, A-Class and Seat Leon too. So, performance diesel or performance petrol?
harrykul said:
Sort of relevant but....
If you only want a manual then GTI. I don't understand why people want manual diesels with their powerbands: you're throwing gears at them constantly.
Interesting. Yes, I would want a manual and that's kind of what I was getting at with the mk4 150 and mk5 170 TDIs, I had to change gear a lot! I don't like DSG much either with either of these high boost engines though (GTI or diesel).If you only want a manual then GTI. I don't understand why people want manual diesels with their powerbands: you're throwing gears at them constantly.
MattHall91 said:
Firstly, what makes you think the GTD will reach any way near its claimed mpg figure? The GTI won't do 47, but the GTD will be equally off the mark against its claimed number.
Sounds like you prefer diesel regardless of what comments should follow below. I personally would go GTI every single day of the week. However, I wouldn't consider either of those two if I was in the market for that sort of car. Meg 265 please or Focus ST please.
Actually no, I'm not a diesel fanboy. Only 2 of the 14 cars that I have owned have been diesel. Back in the day, I had both petrol and diesel mk4 and mk5 Golfs as company cars and the diesels were unquestionably the ones to have, as the petrol engines were weak both in terms of performance and fuel economy. I have driven a mk5 GTI though and although I liked my mk5 GT TDI 140 a lot and the fantastic fuel economy suited my circumstances better at the time, the GTI was subjectively a lot better.Sounds like you prefer diesel regardless of what comments should follow below. I personally would go GTI every single day of the week. However, I wouldn't consider either of those two if I was in the market for that sort of car. Meg 265 please or Focus ST please.
Yes, the GTD is unlikely to get the quoted 67mpg either but it should still be a similar proportion better than the GTI i.e. based on the 38mpg that someone said they got in the GTI, 40% more would be 53mpg, which sounds about right. I was just wondering whether the GTD offered as good a drive as the GTI but with diesel fuel economy.
With regards to the other two hot hatches you mentioned. Yes, the Megane is apparently very good and I like them but I want a 5 door. I'm not convinced that the Focus ST is better really, despite having more power.
Axionknight said:
I really like the MK7 GTI and think it is a shame it seems to have fallen by the wayside for the Golf R - I drove a manual one with the performance pack and it was a really, really good car, it seriously tempted me to look in to getting one but I have serious commitment issues when it comes to buying cars, f'in hopeless I am.
GTI all day long.
I think I'm with you on that. The GTI looks better than the R IMHO and it's a Golf GTI, which still has a certain amount of cachet. Yes, it's not the fastest/most powerful FWD hot hatch but it is probably the best all-rounder and probably has the optimum amount of power for a FWD car. I don't think that it's all the car that I would ever want but possibly all the car that I would ever need. I'm sure the R is excellent (not driven one yet) but for me it lacks the excitement or sense of occasion of an older fast Impreza or Evo or even the old R32 for that matter.GTI all day long.
I'll probably test drive both and then buy a GTI but my commute may get longer in the next few months and go up to about 50 miles per day, so the GTD may start to present a more compelling case for itself.
OK, an update. People have been recommending SEAT Cupras to me for years (although two of my best friends have owned SEATs and never again), so I popped on to the configurator on their website as I actually don't mind the look of the new Leon (the old one was nice at the back but I hated the MPV-ish front) and having expected a cut-price GTI, I was disappointed to discover that it was actually more expensive than a GTI!
Wtf? Where's the value there? I guess the argument is that you're getting an extra 50bhp for virtually the same price but then if you have to have the power, it's only a small step-up price-wise to the more powerful and AWD Golf R. I hear some of the options available on the Golf are not available on the Leon and also what a boring monochrome colour range. Being a SEAT, I was expecting the option of yellow, orange or lime green but the only bright colours were the red and the metallic blue. My favourite colours on the GTI are probably the retro colours like the red and white (always preferred these to the Lhasa/Oak Green so popular on the mk1s and 2s). Even looking at used Cupras up to 5 years old, I don't see a significant saving over the GTI like-for-like in terms of age and mileage.
The only hot hatches that seem to offer any value nowadays are the Ford STs and the Skoda Octavia vRS. The Skoda is a great car I'm sure but a bit bigger than I really want and I remain unconvinced by the Focus ST, although I applaud Ford for their 3-tier performance range (ST1, ST2, ST3 etc). The Fiesta ST seems priced about right, although isn't this how much the mk2 Focus ST cost when it was launched 10 years ago?
What I would like to see in the hot hatch market is a bit less willy waving i.e. our car has the most power and is the fastest around the Nurburgring and lower prices achieved through less power (200bhp is ample in a FWDer) and less kit. The launch price of the mk5 GTI was 20k but you had to add things like cruise, 18" alloys, heated seats etc but that was fine. When I configured my ideal spec for a mk7 GTI (Red 5 door manual with PP), I didn't need to add anything else because everything now seems to be standard. I know people will say inflation blah, blah, blah but back in 2005, I could have easily afforded a new GTI, whereas a new GTI in 2015 is right at the top end of what I can afford and I am earning significantly more than I was 10 years ago.
Wtf? Where's the value there? I guess the argument is that you're getting an extra 50bhp for virtually the same price but then if you have to have the power, it's only a small step-up price-wise to the more powerful and AWD Golf R. I hear some of the options available on the Golf are not available on the Leon and also what a boring monochrome colour range. Being a SEAT, I was expecting the option of yellow, orange or lime green but the only bright colours were the red and the metallic blue. My favourite colours on the GTI are probably the retro colours like the red and white (always preferred these to the Lhasa/Oak Green so popular on the mk1s and 2s). Even looking at used Cupras up to 5 years old, I don't see a significant saving over the GTI like-for-like in terms of age and mileage.
The only hot hatches that seem to offer any value nowadays are the Ford STs and the Skoda Octavia vRS. The Skoda is a great car I'm sure but a bit bigger than I really want and I remain unconvinced by the Focus ST, although I applaud Ford for their 3-tier performance range (ST1, ST2, ST3 etc). The Fiesta ST seems priced about right, although isn't this how much the mk2 Focus ST cost when it was launched 10 years ago?
What I would like to see in the hot hatch market is a bit less willy waving i.e. our car has the most power and is the fastest around the Nurburgring and lower prices achieved through less power (200bhp is ample in a FWDer) and less kit. The launch price of the mk5 GTI was 20k but you had to add things like cruise, 18" alloys, heated seats etc but that was fine. When I configured my ideal spec for a mk7 GTI (Red 5 door manual with PP), I didn't need to add anything else because everything now seems to be standard. I know people will say inflation blah, blah, blah but back in 2005, I could have easily afforded a new GTI, whereas a new GTI in 2015 is right at the top end of what I can afford and I am earning significantly more than I was 10 years ago.
I'm actually quite taken with these at the moment.
http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/2015...
Same power as the GTI PP plus quattro AWD, well-equipped as standard for an Audi and actually a bit cheaper than the Golf (and the Leon for that matter). It's probably the first new Audi that has appealed to me for a while and I reckon thanks to more exclusivity than the Golf, the residuals will be excellent. Yes, it is a bit smaller though.
An ex-demonstrator looks the way to go, as you can get one with some of the costly quattropack fitted for about 25k (or about 1k less than a bog standard new one). Vegas yellow, Misano red or Sepang blue though and does the contrasing black roof that a lot of them seem to come with look good or not?
http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/2015...
Same power as the GTI PP plus quattro AWD, well-equipped as standard for an Audi and actually a bit cheaper than the Golf (and the Leon for that matter). It's probably the first new Audi that has appealed to me for a while and I reckon thanks to more exclusivity than the Golf, the residuals will be excellent. Yes, it is a bit smaller though.
An ex-demonstrator looks the way to go, as you can get one with some of the costly quattropack fitted for about 25k (or about 1k less than a bog standard new one). Vegas yellow, Misano red or Sepang blue though and does the contrasing black roof that a lot of them seem to come with look good or not?
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff