RE: Golf R400 testing again
Discussion
WCZ said:
TurboHatchback said:
The current Golf R is pointlessly fast.
right, the golf r only has 9bhp/ton more than your 4.2fsi which you seem to miss.https://www.pistonheads.com/members/showcar.asp?ca...
so was that pointlessly fast too? or is it the extra 9hp/ton that turns the golf into an unusable rocket ship on the roads vs the Audi?
Unless the username's in question are made for ironic effect on their own? I still find it hilarious either way.
andrewparker said:
Olivera said:
VAG already make a 5 cylinder hatch with Haldex 4WD - the RS3. This would be a yet another VAG platform clone, same car but a slightly different body.
Snoozefest.
That’s not the case with the S3/R...Snoozefest.
culpz said:
Have you heard a 5-cylinder over a 4-pot? Much nicer, IMO.
Yes, I own both. I don't believe the noise alone would be reason for them to release a new model though, it would be the headline power figure, 0-60 and little else.culpz said:
WCZ said:
TurboHatchback said:
The current Golf R is pointlessly fast.
right, the golf r only has 9bhp/ton more than your 4.2fsi which you seem to miss.https://www.pistonheads.com/members/showcar.asp?ca...
so was that pointlessly fast too? or is it the extra 9hp/ton that turns the golf into an unusable rocket ship on the roads vs the Audi?
Unless the username's in question are made for ironic effect on their own? I still find it hilarious either way.
The username was made back when I bought a Mk5 Golf GTI, now I own a Mondeo which is technically a turbo hatchback so it's come back to semi-relevance.
ZX10R NIN said:
Dave Hedgehog said:
ZX10R NIN said:
I doubt they'll make it I don't see VAG overlapping Audi's USP.
audi wont get a say in it 
Different level here obviously but the ultimate, R8/Huracan. No brand protection there.
Im the worlds biggest VW fan and id happily own one of these. However, the price range for a top end golf is getting a bit silly now. And, if we are being honest, has been for a good decade or so now. £40,000+ for a mid sized family hatch! you can still buy a house for that much in some parts of the uk...... Is nice though
TurboHatchback said:
Yes, I own both. I don't believe the noise alone would be reason for them to release a new model though, it would be the headline power figure, 0-60 and little else.
Maybe not alone but it's a USP which appears to appeal to a certain demographic that buys the RS3 over it's competitors. Most of the competition have 4-pots so that 5-cylinder noise clearly has enough to help it along some-what, along with the extra power.TurboHatchback said:
Yes it was pointlessly fast, one of the reasons I sold it was rarely being able to top 3000rpm without fear of losing my licence or going to prison (along with concern it was going to break in a hideously expensive fashion). Great car but even that was well into 'numbers for the sake of' it' territory let alone 400bhp in a Golf.
The current cars you own can quite easily get you in the same amount of trouble though. The Golf simply gets up to that speed quicker but the majority of modern cars, not even solely performance variants, can do this too. I do see what you're getting at but there are far more powerful cars out there that don't seem to get regarded as the same.TurboHatchback said:
The username was made back when I bought a Mk5 Golf GTI, now I own a Mondeo which is technically a turbo hatchback so it's come back to semi-relevance.
Fair play.hondansx said:
Yep, it's interesting that it's basically the same company and yet the R is a better drive than both the S3 and RS3.
Is the R actually any better to drive than the facelifted S3? If anyone can point out any significant technical differences then I'm all ears. I'd wager any differences are purely due to minor setup changes (geometry, tyres etc).I have owned a Mk7 Golf R
I have also owned the latest S3
I preferred the golf in everything except the noise.
The Golf felt like it could do with a bit more 'killer'
I had the RS3 on my radar purely for the more speed and 5 cylinder engine (noise)
that engine in the golf will, imo, be a game changer.
Full of want.
I have also owned the latest S3
I preferred the golf in everything except the noise.
The Golf felt like it could do with a bit more 'killer'
I had the RS3 on my radar purely for the more speed and 5 cylinder engine (noise)
that engine in the golf will, imo, be a game changer.
Full of want.
Olivera said:
hondansx said:
Yep, it's interesting that it's basically the same company and yet the R is a better drive than both the S3 and RS3.
Is the R actually any better to drive than the facelifted S3? If anyone can point out any significant technical differences then I'm all ears. I'd wager any differences are purely due to minor setup changes (geometry, tyres etc).
t.Peanus said:
Consider that most car journalists say the Golf R drives far better than the S3 (and I agree with them), the Golf R400 could be a better (and slightly cheaper) RS3. What's not to love? And perhaps they'll give us a 3-door version as well.
Couldn't agree more, the Volkswagen is a better drive than the S3 and its cheaper, and IMO better looking (Albeit the Audi interior is far superior), so why not make this? Got my R serviced in the local dealership recently and the lad on the front counter said people were already trying to put deposits down on the 400TurboHatchback said:
Yes it was pointlessly fast, one of the reasons I sold it was rarely being able to top 3000rpm without fear of losing my licence or going to prison (along with concern it was going to break in a hideously expensive fashion). Great car but even that was well into 'numbers for the sake of' it' territory let alone 400bhp in a Golf.
The username was made back when I bought a Mk5 Golf GTI, now I own a Mondeo which is technically a turbo hatchback so it's come back to semi-relevance.
fair enough, some people just enjoy the smooth effortless acceleration and overtaking power that a nice engine offers as oppose to using them for racing around. The username was made back when I bought a Mk5 Golf GTI, now I own a Mondeo which is technically a turbo hatchback so it's come back to semi-relevance.
others aren't so worried about losing their license
WCZ said:
TurboHatchback said:
Yes it was pointlessly fast, one of the reasons I sold it was rarely being able to top 3000rpm without fear of losing my licence or going to prison (along with concern it was going to break in a hideously expensive fashion). Great car but even that was well into 'numbers for the sake of' it' territory let alone 400bhp in a Golf.
The username was made back when I bought a Mk5 Golf GTI, now I own a Mondeo which is technically a turbo hatchback so it's come back to semi-relevance.
fair enough, some people just enjoy the smooth effortless acceleration and overtaking power that a nice engine offers as oppose to using them for racing around. The username was made back when I bought a Mk5 Golf GTI, now I own a Mondeo which is technically a turbo hatchback so it's come back to semi-relevance.
others aren't so worried about losing their license
Olivera said:
hondansx said:
Yep, it's interesting that it's basically the same company and yet the R is a better drive than both the S3 and RS3.
Is the R actually any better to drive than the facelifted S3? If anyone can point out any significant technical differences then I'm all ears. I'd wager any differences are purely due to minor setup changes (geometry, tyres etc).S3 for safety, Golf R for fun.
Re: 7.5 R400 - I think this is a unicorn of a concept, great badge, great looking hatch. It is just too good to be true. When the Golf 7 R400 was canned it was due to emissions as getting 400hp from a 4-pot is easily doable but the emissions would be the goat that would be sacrificed on order to get there with an OEM Warranty.
The read across from the POLO GTI switch from 1.8L to 2.0L is that, quite possibly, VW have now green-lit the R400 project with a bigger displacement engine in order to side-step the emissions problem. The 5-pot from the original RS3 was too heavy to go into the Golf R but the new, heavily revised 5-pot from the TT-RS/RS3 is much lighter than before meaning that the Golf driving experience would not be compromised by using a 5-pot.
No doubt VW have been emboldened by the Oettenger R500 5-pot Golf conversion costing £150k.
Edited by Carl_Manchester on Saturday 23 September 11:39
TurboHatchback said:
I can't help wondering what the point is. The current Golf R is pointlessly fast, what will adding another 100bhp achieve other than greater pub dick-measuring prowess? Then again that's what sells cars and they are in the business of making money so I guess I've answered my own question.
In 2005 the Yamaha R6 could break the UK's maximum permitted top speed in first gear. What was the point of that?I think pretty much every car on sale today can go faster than the legal limit. Is everyone banned or dead? No.
Is everyone (Except you obviously) enjoying the odd turn of speed in their hugely over powered cars? you betcha!
Accelerators generally have many points for use between on and off.
PixelpeepS3 said:
In 2005 the Yamaha R6 could break the UK's maximum permitted top speed in first gear. What was the point of that?
I think pretty much every car on sale today can go faster than the legal limit. Is everyone banned or dead? No.
Certainly not. But looking at the alleged 400 PS in this Golf, or even really the 'lowly' 310 PS the Cupra now has in 'R' form (up from initially 265) -- there's a lot of areas where the product could be much improved before I would look at adding more power. It's really just a marketing device to shift a few more units of the same car. Feels a bit like what happened with digital cameras and megapixels before they became obsolete (for normal consumers). It's cheap to do (just tweak the software) and grabs attention.I think pretty much every car on sale today can go faster than the legal limit. Is everyone banned or dead? No.
Recent personal experience: two weeks of 300 PS Cupra. Nice bit of kit, very good vfm. But I'd rather have it with 50 PS less, 18" wheels and better dampers/tyres than what is the current iteration. Similar thing for the transition from M135i to M140i. Wow, 500 Nm! Yeah but so what, the steering is still very average, still no LSD option, and if you look at the torque / gearing, there's no more need to rev the thing beyond 5.1k rpm. It's better in some ways (amazing efficiency), but the areas that touch driving pleasure are not improved one bit. Before I get a lifetime ban: I love both cars, just feeling it's a bit of a shame so much potential is left unused...
To continue on a somewhat pessimistic note: haven't read the whole thread, but could it be the other way around and this alleged R400 Golf is just a mule for e.g. a future MQB 4 pot Audi RS? Devil's advocate: it makes commercial sense to get rid of the 5 cyl. just in the same way it makes sense to make the next 1 series FWD. The wast majority of buyers don't care, as long as the badge/image + performance stats are there.
HedgeyGedgey said:
I dont think theres a market for this car tho? Itll be priced similar to the rs3 and a45, who in their right mind will spend that kinda money on a golf. The others have the premium feel and badge. We all know the rs3 is the daddy in the hot/huper hatch sector anyway 
No one actually buys these though, they get leased.Suspect this will be c. £250 a month and a hoot at that price.
Carl_Manchester said:
£250pm? you will have a job!
my decent-but-not-great polo gti lease deal is £230pm inc. vat.
imo. if this golf appears it will be approx £41k without options. i would expect the lease to be similar at approx £450pm.
I have a 2018 Audi S4 for 2 years, £10k per annum at £287 pm inc VAT and would expect this to be a little cheaper. Golf R was under £200pm when I was looking.my decent-but-not-great polo gti lease deal is £230pm inc. vat.
imo. if this golf appears it will be approx £41k without options. i would expect the lease to be similar at approx £450pm.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff