RE: VW Golf GTI Clubsport S vs British roads
Discussion
SuperchargedVR6 said:
Could be horse manure, but I've read the same is true of the Z3M Coupe. The engineers didn't like the soft top because of it's soggy handling, but it's what the accountants wanted. So the M division chaps set about grafting a roof onto it in their own time.
Although back in 1976, I don't think the World knew it wanted a 'GTI' at the time, but it certainly does now! Whereas the Z3M Coupe is a bit of a skunkworks special that appeals to enthusiasts only.
I heard that story only it was about the Z4 coupe rather than the Z3M Coupe. It sounds more feasible when attached to the Z3 as the Z4 roadster wasn't soggy and the roof made it far too stiff for British roads. The z4C remains the only car i've ever screamed and tried to stand up in while driving upon hitting a slightly raised drain cover.Although back in 1976, I don't think the World knew it wanted a 'GTI' at the time, but it certainly does now! Whereas the Z3M Coupe is a bit of a skunkworks special that appeals to enthusiasts only.
Dan Trent said:
The steering gear is still electric/variable ratio rack but the changes to the suspension hardpoints/hardware, geometry, bushings, anti-roll bars and damper tuning have a much, much bigger influence on the feedback and feel at the wheel than any fiddling with the EPAS calibration. Karsten Schebsdat talked a lot about this in his presentation for the Clubsport Edition 40, which has much of the same hardware and calibration. He was diplomatic but clearly of the opinion the standard set-up is very conservative and geared towards safety understeer while he - through everything from suspension to aero and VAQ calibration - wanted it neutral as a base point, with adjustability beyond that if you go hunting for it. Or in the wet, as you identified from the onboard.
It still doesn't have the front end 'bite' of the Megane, or the instantaneous off-centre response, but it's leagues ahead of anything else based on the MQB platform. Even a 1.4 TSI!
Cheers,
Dan
Nice one Dan It still doesn't have the front end 'bite' of the Megane, or the instantaneous off-centre response, but it's leagues ahead of anything else based on the MQB platform. Even a 1.4 TSI!
Cheers,
Dan
Dan Trent said:
The steering gear is still electric/variable ratio rack but the changes to the suspension hardpoints/hardware, geometry, bushings, anti-roll bars and damper tuning have a much, much bigger influence on the feedback and feel at the wheel than any fiddling with the EPAS calibration. Karsten Schebsdat talked a lot about this in his presentation for the Clubsport Edition 40, which has much of the same hardware and calibration. He was diplomatic but clearly of the opinion the standard set-up is very conservative and geared towards safety understeer while he - through everything from suspension to aero and VAQ calibration - wanted it neutral as a base point, with adjustability beyond that if you go hunting for it. Or in the wet, as you identified from the onboard.
It still doesn't have the front end 'bite' of the Megane, or the instantaneous off-centre response, but it's leagues ahead of anything else based on the MQB platform. Even a 1.4 TSI!
Cheers,
Dan
Nice one Dan It still doesn't have the front end 'bite' of the Megane, or the instantaneous off-centre response, but it's leagues ahead of anything else based on the MQB platform. Even a 1.4 TSI!
Cheers,
Dan
dufunk said:
These are still to civilised and if they have anything like the electric steering I have in the 1.4 tsi gt model from this year there will be little feel from the road. On the last video posted the guy looked to be fighting with to much oversteer and torquesteer.
So based on not having driven one your opinion is that it's too civilised yet in the next sentence you refer to having watched a video where the driver is experiencing oversteer and torquesteer - yep sounds far to civilised.Dan Trent said:
The steering gear is still electric/variable ratio rack but the changes to the suspension hardpoints/hardware, geometry, bushings, anti-roll bars and damper tuning have a much, much bigger influence on the feedback and feel at the wheel than any fiddling with the EPAS calibration.
Cheers,
Dan
Cheers,
Dan
People really need to get this in their head, bugs the hell out of me that whenever there is any discussion about VAG cars there are always people who think that because they once spent ten minutes in a Golf TDI they know all about how a GTI/Clubsport/R etc will drive.
Rarely do you hear people who have tried a Megane TDI saying it's the same as a Megane R26..
giveablondeabone said:
Once you turn a hot hatch into a two seater and tout it as a track focused enthusiasts' car it then has to be compared with other two seater, track focused enthusiast' cars. Cars that are rear/4wd wheel drive, mid and rear engined. Once you throw the Golf Clubsport S into this bigger pond for me it is less stand out.
I see where you're coming from but I can't say I fully agree with that because you're taking the biggest item out of the equation: price. Price is the reason why it's still a hatch, and price is the reason why this can still (arguably) sit in the pool with comparable driver's cars.Track focused enthusiast cars that sit in this category of performance (e.g. ring time under 8 minutes) are generally much more expensive - this car is arguably the fastest and most 'focused' car you can buy for the money. RWD performance at this level is probably in the M3 category, and two seater/engagement in the equally expensive Cayman category, both of which cost three times the price of the Clubsport S (in Australia, anyway).
I guess you could argue that it lines up with a Caterham - but I don't think that makes much sense given how much broader its operating range is.
Also - on the no rear seat thing - I hardly ever used my back seats when I owned a Mk5 GTI, but I did manage to fit a dishwasher / three bikes / miscellaneous furniture / flat pack etc. in the back with ease - something I find much more difficult in my current M3! The space in the back isn't just for people!
I'd love a car that could fit all of that and be fast and engaging - and if it misses out on that final level of engagement that a RWD/mid-engined etc. car is capable of, but costs 1/3 the price and can still carry the dishwasher home, not bad?
oliver1oo6 said:
I'd love a car that could fit all of that and be fast and engaging - and if it misses out on that final level of engagement that a RWD/mid-engined etc. car is capable of, but costs 1/3 the price and can still carry the dishwasher home, not bad?
The problem is that this "final level" you mention is on a completely different planet. - FWD "performance" cars are like bolting missiles to a police Eurocopter and expecting it to dogfight with an F22. That's why to keep BTCC racing close, the rules are designed to hobble the RWD cars (but they still often win).I'd really love to see BMW make an equilvalent M140i to this Golf (and put the same amount of effort in to the improvements). I doubt they have the balls, though!
oliver1oo6 said:
giveablondeabone said:
Once you turn a hot hatch into a two seater and tout it as a track focused enthusiasts' car it then has to be compared with other two seater, track focused enthusiast' cars. Cars that are rear/4wd wheel drive, mid and rear engined. Once you throw the Golf Clubsport S into this bigger pond for me it is less stand out.
I see where you're coming from but I can't say I fully agree with that because you're taking the biggest item out of the equation: price. Price is the reason why it's still a hatch, and price is the reason why this can still (arguably) sit in the pool with comparable driver's cars.Track focused enthusiast cars that sit in this category of performance (e.g. ring time under 8 minutes) are generally much more expensive - this car is arguably the fastest and most 'focused' car you can buy for the money. RWD performance at this level is probably in the M3 category, and two seater/engagement in the equally expensive Cayman category, both of which cost three times the price of the Clubsport S (in Australia, anyway).
I guess you could argue that it lines up with a Caterham - but I don't think that makes much sense given how much broader its operating range is.
Also - on the no rear seat thing - I hardly ever used my back seats when I owned a Mk5 GTI, but I did manage to fit a dishwasher / three bikes / miscellaneous furniture / flat pack etc. in the back with ease - something I find much more difficult in my current M3! The space in the back isn't just for people!
I'd love a car that could fit all of that and be fast and engaging - and if it misses out on that final level of engagement that a RWD/mid-engined etc. car is capable of, but costs 1/3 the price and can still carry the dishwasher home, not bad?
Also agree on the back seats. People who do need to use the rear seats tend to buy 5 door versions.
And yep, comparing a Golf to a Caterham is like comparing the Eurofighter to a Boeing 747. Caterhams and the like are barely road cars at all. That's why people tend to have them as a second car.
There's just something very appealing about cars like this, which can smash the ring record and also carry a some Dalmatians, or a fridge when the need arises. I don't know why there needs to be an all or nothing attitude. Oh well, it's not RWD or lightweight, so I can't take it seriously as a focused track car. Cobblers.
SuperchargedVR6 said:
Agreed. Golfs have always been about being multi-talented. Nowt wrong with that.
Also agree on the back seats. People who do need to use the rear seats tend to buy 5 door versions.
And yep, comparing a Golf to a Caterham is like comparing the Eurofighter to a Boeing 747. Caterhams and the like are barely road cars at all. That's why people tend to have them as a second car.
There's just something very appealing about cars like this, which can smash the ring record and also carry a some Dalmatians, or a fridge when the need arises. I don't know why there needs to be an all or nothing attitude. Oh well, it's not RWD or lightweight, so I can't take it seriously as a focused track car. Cobblers.
actually, for those with bikes or dogs these do make sense, more so than a 4 seat. a whole category "2 seater estate" (or 'touring'). all the functionality of a small estate but better looks and just 2 seats. Also agree on the back seats. People who do need to use the rear seats tend to buy 5 door versions.
And yep, comparing a Golf to a Caterham is like comparing the Eurofighter to a Boeing 747. Caterhams and the like are barely road cars at all. That's why people tend to have them as a second car.
There's just something very appealing about cars like this, which can smash the ring record and also carry a some Dalmatians, or a fridge when the need arises. I don't know why there needs to be an all or nothing attitude. Oh well, it's not RWD or lightweight, so I can't take it seriously as a focused track car. Cobblers.
CABC said:
actually, for those with bikes or dogs these do make sense, more so than a 4 seat. a whole category "2 seater estate" (or 'touring'). all the functionality of a small estate but better looks and just 2 seats.
I thought that til I realised it has a bar between the rear turrets which make it far less practical than a normal Golf with back seats folded. Autocar test suggests this is not for structural rigidity either (in which case I'd welcome it) but more for the luggage net support. volkswizardph said:
CABC said:
actually, for those with bikes or dogs these do make sense, more so than a 4 seat. a whole category "2 seater estate" (or 'touring'). all the functionality of a small estate but better looks and just 2 seats.
I thought that til I realised it has a bar between the rear turrets which make it far less practical than a normal Golf with back seats folded. Autocar test suggests this is not for structural rigidity either (in which case I'd welcome it) but more for the luggage net support. Dan
Dan Trent said:
volkswizardph said:
CABC said:
actually, for those with bikes or dogs these do make sense, more so than a 4 seat. a whole category "2 seater estate" (or 'touring'). all the functionality of a small estate but better looks and just 2 seats.
I thought that til I realised it has a bar between the rear turrets which make it far less practical than a normal Golf with back seats folded. Autocar test suggests this is not for structural rigidity either (in which case I'd welcome it) but more for the luggage net support. Dan
I just hope the bar doesn't creak and chatter like the one in the Mk1 TT quattro Sport.
Is the Clubsport S bar fixed any less securely than the this one?
Edited by volkswizardph on Saturday 27th August 07:38
nunpuncher said:
They have.... sort of. It's called the M2.
No, that's exactly my point. - There are eleventy billion versions of the Golf and all it's platform-sharing sister cars but BMW refuse to make, for example, a hatchback "M1" or a lightweight version of anything on that platform.I'll use the Porsche model range to explain it but this is how it looks to me:
125i / GTI / Cupra etc. = "Carrera S"
M140i / Golf R / S3 = "911 Turbo"
M2 / TT RS - "911 Turbo S"
Golf Clubsport / Clubsport S = "911 GT3 / GT3 RS" - This is where we're missing a lightweight / more focussed M140i
It begs the question; if VAG can make the numbers work and sell every unit, why can't BMW? - Especially as if they put the same amount of effort in, the result would be something petrolheads would crave.
Dan Trent said:
Couple of bolts and it'd be out so easy enough to remove if you felt strongly.
Dan
Auto Express says the brace bar IS chassis strengthening...Dan
http://aex.ae/1WC3Sq8
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff