RE: Volkswagen Golf GTI TCR: Driven
Discussion
coupe20VT said:
Try specking a golf GTI with a nice paint colour, 19's, adaptive dampers, adaptive cruise control, electric mirrors etc etc which the majority are standard on a Leon Cupra and you'll soon see how much better value the SEAT is.
The problem with your point is you are using your subjective view on "value" as an argument. As per my post above, I am one of those people you talk about who specced a Golf GTI with nice paint, adaptive dampers, hi-fi, leather, pan roof, 19's etc etc (BTW, Adaptive cruise and electric mirrors are standard on the GTI), and I'd do that all day long over the SEAT. Why, because when I sat inside a SEAT, my subjective view was the quality of teh materials, fixtures & finish, equipment levels etc was inferior in so many places that matter to me. It didn't, for me, feel as nice a place to be as the Golf, it didn't feel special enough. The GTI brand is also strong, it's a brand I like and can relate too. That then is further reflected in the residual values of both cars.Sure the SEAT is cheaper, but it's cheaper for a reason, because it's built to cheaper margins. That's not to say VW don't build the Golf to margins, but those margins are different to SEAT margins.
I'm also not saying I'm right, that's just my view. SEAT exists for a specific target audience, I am not in that target, but that's not to say I'm wrong for choosing the Golf over the SEAT. I just don't personally see the SEAT as good "value", I see it as a cheaper alternative. Ironically, from personal experience having sat in a new Superb recently, I rank the Skoda product higher than SEAT.
kmpowell said:
coupe20VT said:
Try specking a golf GTI with a nice paint colour, 19's, adaptive dampers, adaptive cruise control, electric mirrors etc etc which the majority are standard on a Leon Cupra and you'll soon see how much better value the SEAT is.
The problem with your point is you are using your subjective view on "value" as an argument. As per my post above, I am one of those people you talk about who specced a Golf GTI with nice paint, adaptive dampers, hi-fi, leather, pan roof, 19's etc etc (BTW, Adaptive cruise and electric mirrors are standard on the GTI), and I'd do that all day long over the SEAT. Why, because when I sat inside a SEAT, my subjective view was the quality of teh materials, fixtures & finish, equipment levels etc was inferior in so many places that matter to me. It didn't, for me, feel as nice a place to be as the Golf, it didn't feel special enough. The GTI brand is also strong, it's a brand I like and can relate too. That then is further reflected in the residual values of both cars.Sure the SEAT is cheaper, but it's cheaper for a reason, because it's built to cheaper margins. That's not to say VW don't build the Golf to margins, but those margins are different to SEAT margins.
I'm also not saying I'm right, that's just my view. SEAT exists for a specific target audience, I am not in that target, but that's not to say I'm wrong for choosing the Golf over the SEAT. I just don't personally see the SEAT as good "value", I see it as a cheaper alternative. Ironically, from personal experience having sat in a new Superb recently, I rank the Skoda product higher than SEAT.
I clearly can square the SEAT compromises, that you can't - the Leon is a more interesting design than the Golf and the E30 angled dash with the high set sat nav is better than in design (but may be not materials) than the Golf.
kmpowell said:
The problem with your point is you are using your subjective view on "value" as an argument. As per my post above, I am one of those people you talk about who specced a Golf GTI with nice paint, adaptive dampers, hi-fi, leather, pan roof, 19's etc etc (BTW, Adaptive cruise and electric mirrors are standard on the GTI), and I'd do that all day long over the SEAT. Why, because when I sat inside a SEAT, my subjective view was the quality of teh materials, fixtures & finish, equipment levels etc was inferior in so many places that matter to me. It didn't, for me, feel as nice a place to be as the Golf, it didn't feel special enough. The GTI brand is also strong, it's a brand I like and can relate too. That then is further reflected in the residual values of both cars.
Sure the SEAT is cheaper, but it's cheaper for a reason, because it's built to cheaper margins. That's not to say VW don't build the Golf to margins, but those margins are different to SEAT margins.
I'm also not saying I'm right, that's just my view. SEAT exists for a specific target audience, I am not in that target, but that's not to say I'm wrong for choosing the Golf over the SEAT. I just don't personally see the SEAT as good "value", I see it as a cheaper alternative. Ironically, from personal experience having sat in a new Superb recently, I rank the Skoda product higher than SEAT.
I agree with your point, the Golf will no doubt be worth more after several years depreciation but I don't think the perceived difference in quality between the two is all that great. When I test drove the SEAT, I did the test drive back to back with a Golf R and the SEAT was more fun to drive and has a nicer (less bland lol) interior. From what I can see the GTI is better appointed inside with a nicer steering wheel and seats that give it a lift.Sure the SEAT is cheaper, but it's cheaper for a reason, because it's built to cheaper margins. That's not to say VW don't build the Golf to margins, but those margins are different to SEAT margins.
I'm also not saying I'm right, that's just my view. SEAT exists for a specific target audience, I am not in that target, but that's not to say I'm wrong for choosing the Golf over the SEAT. I just don't personally see the SEAT as good "value", I see it as a cheaper alternative. Ironically, from personal experience having sat in a new Superb recently, I rank the Skoda product higher than SEAT.
It also depends how you finance your car as whether you see it as value for money.
wab172uk said:
Baldchap said:
wab172uk said:
jonosterman said:
JMF894 said:
Take the mick if it makes you feel better but he has a very valid point. One that you clearly have missed. 0-60 is nothing more than w44k material for spotty yoofs. 30-50/50-70/70-90 is a proper indication of a cars' performance potential.
As for 'ring times, so what if a professional driver manages to shave a second or two off a lap over 21km? It makes no difference to driving plebs like us and anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves.
I don't think he does have a particularly valid point though.As for 'ring times, so what if a professional driver manages to shave a second or two off a lap over 21km? It makes no difference to driving plebs like us and anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves.
Whilst they may not matter much on the road, I think (and I accept this is just my opinion) that these numbers do matter in the showroom and the pub. People will narrow their selections down based on performance figures that does include 0-60.
And besides, while 50-70 is a good indication of a car's performance potential the 0-60 for a hot hatch gives you a good idea about its low speed traction.
My point being, is DSG is there to extract the best 0-60 time possible. DSG is there to enable the car to get round the ring faster than the manual.
These figures might impress in the showroom, and in the pub when you can brag to people who don't care, that your DSG Golf can get to 60 0.3 seconds quicker than if it was a manual car. I'm sure any women listening to your bragging will leave a slight damp patch on the seat, but in the main, people don't really give a s**t.
Most hot hatches will hit 0-60 in around 4-5 seconds. In what situation will 0.2 seconds matter in the real world? It doesn't.
A manual gearbox gives the driver some interaction with the car. Surely this is what the whole point in a hot hatch is all about ..... Fun !
95% of the buyers of these cars will stick it in `D` and never use the paddles, or gearshift (which is the wrong way round anyway) so it just becomes another dull to drive quick car.
Want to chase 0-60 bragging rights, and make the Ladies swoon with ring times, fine, have a DSG. But for people who want to drive their cars, the manual is the better option. The fact is hit 0-60 0.2 seconds slower means absolutely f**k all to me.
It's just a crying shame the manufacturers don't offer the choice. As in every situation, I would always buy a manual over an Auto is something that was meant to be fast and fun.
Sure, a decent FWD hot hatch is going to have a 50-70 time that's competitive with an AWD hatch but the 0-60 time is useful to know how much better the AWD is going to be when going for it off the line, out of slow corners or in any particularly traction limited setting. Probably not that relevant on track, but relevant for a lot of people's real world driving.
Edited by jonosterman on Friday 25th January 10:20
Example:. The Golf in the article has adaptive cruise control, which in the Auto version will go from zero to whatever, back to zero and set off in traffic etc. It's an excellent feature that makes long runs and congestion very low effort. In the manual, it does none of that. Now consider driving modes:. In the auto it makes a difference, in the manual it basically changes what the air conditioning does. The list goes on.
The manual, be it right or wrong in the grand scheme of things, is half the car the auto is because half of it doesn't work properly unless you buy the auto.
As a sidenote, I have a DSG R and use the paddles fairly often.
This is why driving standards are going to s**t these days. People want the car to drive for them, rather than having basic skills in driving the car.
On a car enthusiast site, people want the car to drive them about. Wow. Just wow !
Yeah the new Ferrari 488 Pista is a dull drive wish it was manual lol. Don’t get all this manual crap, I was driving manual cars while most of you lot were crapping in your nappies!!!!!! I love driving and I love these twin clutch gearbox’s. Still have a manual hot hatch but 2 cars with paddles and I know which I have more fun in. People get over it!!!!!!!!!!!
wab172uk said:
Baldchap said:
wab172uk said:
jonosterman said:
JMF894 said:
Take the mick if it makes you feel better but he has a very valid point. One that you clearly have missed. 0-60 is nothing more than w44k material for spotty yoofs. 30-50/50-70/70-90 is a proper indication of a cars' performance potential.
As for 'ring times, so what if a professional driver manages to shave a second or two off a lap over 21km? It makes no difference to driving plebs like us and anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves.
I don't think he does have a particularly valid point though.As for 'ring times, so what if a professional driver manages to shave a second or two off a lap over 21km? It makes no difference to driving plebs like us and anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves.
Whilst they may not matter much on the road, I think (and I accept this is just my opinion) that these numbers do matter in the showroom and the pub. People will narrow their selections down based on performance figures that does include 0-60.
And besides, while 50-70 is a good indication of a car's performance potential the 0-60 for a hot hatch gives you a good idea about its low speed traction.
My point being, is DSG is there to extract the best 0-60 time possible. DSG is there to enable the car to get round the ring faster than the manual.
These figures might impress in the showroom, and in the pub when you can brag to people who don't care, that your DSG Golf can get to 60 0.3 seconds quicker than if it was a manual car. I'm sure any women listening to your bragging will leave a slight damp patch on the seat, but in the main, people don't really give a s**t.
Most hot hatches will hit 0-60 in around 4-5 seconds. In what situation will 0.2 seconds matter in the real world? It doesn't.
A manual gearbox gives the driver some interaction with the car. Surely this is what the whole point in a hot hatch is all about ..... Fun !
95% of the buyers of these cars will stick it in `D` and never use the paddles, or gearshift (which is the wrong way round anyway) so it just becomes another dull to drive quick car.
Want to chase 0-60 bragging rights, and make the Ladies swoon with ring times, fine, have a DSG. But for people who want to drive their cars, the manual is the better option. The fact is hit 0-60 0.2 seconds slower means absolutely f**k all to me.
It's just a crying shame the manufacturers don't offer the choice. As in every situation, I would always buy a manual over an Auto is something that was meant to be fast and fun.
Sure, a decent FWD hot hatch is going to have a 50-70 time that's competitive with an AWD hatch but the 0-60 time is useful to know how much better the AWD is going to be when going for it off the line, out of slow corners or in any particularly traction limited setting. Probably not that relevant on track, but relevant for a lot of people's real world driving.
Edited by jonosterman on Friday 25th January 10:20
Example:. The Golf in the article has adaptive cruise control, which in the Auto version will go from zero to whatever, back to zero and set off in traffic etc. It's an excellent feature that makes long runs and congestion very low effort. In the manual, it does none of that. Now consider driving modes:. In the auto it makes a difference, in the manual it basically changes what the air conditioning does. The list goes on.
The manual, be it right or wrong in the grand scheme of things, is half the car the auto is because half of it doesn't work properly unless you buy the auto.
As a sidenote, I have a DSG R and use the paddles fairly often.
This is why driving standards are going to s**t these days. People want the car to drive for them, rather than having basic skills in driving the car.
On a car enthusiast site, people want the car to drive them about. Wow. Just wow !
t drivers who'd rather be out driving at over 10 mph or on a track day on our motorbikes aren't enthusiasts, after all.MawsleyCarValeting said:
wab172uk said:
Baldchap said:
wab172uk said:
jonosterman said:
JMF894 said:
Take the mick if it makes you feel better but he has a very valid point. One that you clearly have missed. 0-60 is nothing more than w44k material for spotty yoofs. 30-50/50-70/70-90 is a proper indication of a cars' performance potential.
As for 'ring times, so what if a professional driver manages to shave a second or two off a lap over 21km? It makes no difference to driving plebs like us and anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves.
I don't think he does have a particularly valid point though.As for 'ring times, so what if a professional driver manages to shave a second or two off a lap over 21km? It makes no difference to driving plebs like us and anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves.
Whilst they may not matter much on the road, I think (and I accept this is just my opinion) that these numbers do matter in the showroom and the pub. People will narrow their selections down based on performance figures that does include 0-60.
And besides, while 50-70 is a good indication of a car's performance potential the 0-60 for a hot hatch gives you a good idea about its low speed traction.
My point being, is DSG is there to extract the best 0-60 time possible. DSG is there to enable the car to get round the ring faster than the manual.
These figures might impress in the showroom, and in the pub when you can brag to people who don't care, that your DSG Golf can get to 60 0.3 seconds quicker than if it was a manual car. I'm sure any women listening to your bragging will leave a slight damp patch on the seat, but in the main, people don't really give a s**t.
Most hot hatches will hit 0-60 in around 4-5 seconds. In what situation will 0.2 seconds matter in the real world? It doesn't.
A manual gearbox gives the driver some interaction with the car. Surely this is what the whole point in a hot hatch is all about ..... Fun !
95% of the buyers of these cars will stick it in `D` and never use the paddles, or gearshift (which is the wrong way round anyway) so it just becomes another dull to drive quick car.
Want to chase 0-60 bragging rights, and make the Ladies swoon with ring times, fine, have a DSG. But for people who want to drive their cars, the manual is the better option. The fact is hit 0-60 0.2 seconds slower means absolutely f**k all to me.
It's just a crying shame the manufacturers don't offer the choice. As in every situation, I would always buy a manual over an Auto is something that was meant to be fast and fun.
Sure, a decent FWD hot hatch is going to have a 50-70 time that's competitive with an AWD hatch but the 0-60 time is useful to know how much better the AWD is going to be when going for it off the line, out of slow corners or in any particularly traction limited setting. Probably not that relevant on track, but relevant for a lot of people's real world driving.
Edited by jonosterman on Friday 25th January 10:20
Example:. The Golf in the article has adaptive cruise control, which in the Auto version will go from zero to whatever, back to zero and set off in traffic etc. It's an excellent feature that makes long runs and congestion very low effort. In the manual, it does none of that. Now consider driving modes:. In the auto it makes a difference, in the manual it basically changes what the air conditioning does. The list goes on.
The manual, be it right or wrong in the grand scheme of things, is half the car the auto is because half of it doesn't work properly unless you buy the auto.
As a sidenote, I have a DSG R and use the paddles fairly often.
This is why driving standards are going to s**t these days. People want the car to drive for them, rather than having basic skills in driving the car.
On a car enthusiast site, people want the car to drive them about. Wow. Just wow !
Yeah the new Ferrari 488 Pista is a dull drive wish it was manual lol. Don’t get all this manual crap, I was driving manual cars while most of you lot were crapping in your nappies!!!!!! I love driving and I love these twin clutch gearbox’s. Still have a manual hot hatch but 2 cars with paddles and I know which I have more fun in. People get over it!!!!!!!!!!!
t driver. blimey, some salt being thrown around in here today.
don’t worry peeps normal service will be resumed by this time next year. VW gonna have a rocky start to 2019, emissions, factory move and end of model timescales have taken their toll but things should start to get better towards the end of the year.
SEAT might be a more popular option on the grounds that you might be able to actually get one as well, they are carving out a nice little niche for themselves and well done to them.
I actually thought the interior quality on the latest VWs had visibly dropped over the previous gen.
don’t worry peeps normal service will be resumed by this time next year. VW gonna have a rocky start to 2019, emissions, factory move and end of model timescales have taken their toll but things should start to get better towards the end of the year.
SEAT might be a more popular option on the grounds that you might be able to actually get one as well, they are carving out a nice little niche for themselves and well done to them.
I actually thought the interior quality on the latest VWs had visibly dropped over the previous gen.
MawsleyCarValeting said:
Yeah the new Ferrari 488 Pista is a dull drive wish it was manual lol. Don’t get all this manual crap, I was driving manual cars while most of you lot were crapping in your nappies!!!!!! I love driving and I love these twin clutch gearbox’s. Still have a manual hot hatch but 2 cars with paddles and I know which I have more fun in. People get over it!!!!!!!!!!!
kmpowell said:
coupe20VT said:
Try specking a golf GTI with a nice paint colour, 19's, adaptive dampers, adaptive cruise control, electric mirrors etc etc which the majority are standard on a Leon Cupra and you'll soon see how much better value the SEAT is.
The problem with your point is you are using your subjective view on "value" as an argument. As per my post above, I am one of those people you talk about who specced a Golf GTI with nice paint, adaptive dampers, hi-fi, leather, pan roof, 19's etc etc (BTW, Adaptive cruise and electric mirrors are standard on the GTI), and I'd do that all day long over the SEAT. Why, because when I sat inside a SEAT, my subjective view was the quality of teh materials, fixtures & finish, equipment levels etc was inferior in so many places that matter to me. It didn't, for me, feel as nice a place to be as the Golf, it didn't feel special enough. The GTI brand is also strong, it's a brand I like and can relate too. That then is further reflected in the residual values of both cars.Sure the SEAT is cheaper, but it's cheaper for a reason, because it's built to cheaper margins. That's not to say VW don't build the Golf to margins, but those margins are different to SEAT margins.
I'm also not saying I'm right, that's just my view. SEAT exists for a specific target audience, I am not in that target, but that's not to say I'm wrong for choosing the Golf over the SEAT. I just don't personally see the SEAT as good "value", I see it as a cheaper alternative. Ironically, from personal experience having sat in a new Superb recently, I rank the Skoda product higher than SEAT.
I’ve got a Cupra 300, the GTI maybe a bit nicer inside and have better plastics or whatever it is, but it will always be 55bhp down.. the Cupra (and TCR) are in a different league performance wise.
wab172uk said:
So basically, you want an autonomous car then? Set off, set the adaptive cruise control, and never hit the brake or accelerator peddle again until you reach your destination. Now if it would only steer for you too.
This is why driving standards are going to s**t these days. People want the car to drive for them, rather than having basic skills in driving the car.
On a car enthusiast site, people want the car to drive them about. Wow. Just wow !
That's not the reason why driving standards are totally sThis is why driving standards are going to s**t these days. People want the car to drive for them, rather than having basic skills in driving the car.
On a car enthusiast site, people want the car to drive them about. Wow. Just wow !
te. There are many others, most of which are being allowed to fester and grow. For example, there are apparently penalties against MLMism & using a mobile, but in reality, nothing has changed. Only speed seems to matter.Reality is that those of us who care are very much the minority, whatever we park our arses in.
In the real world, many of us spend a lot of our driving time enduring a slow and usually miserable slog, or often at best, a brain out just about acceptable pace to work or home. ACC/radar cruise offers something when traffic is moving, but can be a bit dumb witted. With DSG it may be a bit better again, but only between 0-20mph (only difference to manual). However, you have to weigh that against how terrible you might find the implementation of it to be.
I dislike every interaction I've had with it, but others won't.
As for the car, seems a bit neither here nor there. If I was buying that, I'd probably search out a non-S Clubsport, which is close enough to being the same thing, if you're not precious about a slightly grainy digital dash & the like. Or a GTI PP with money for upgrades and an uprated clutch & anything else.
Hi, could you tell me what colour that is please? I was just about to order a GTI in black with the same wheels, but think that looks much nicer.
Thanks!
Thanks!
kmpowell said:
A manual with those power outputs doesn't pass WLTP. Hence why the Manual R was dropped post WLTP. A manual GTI 245 Performance is 155 g/km, a DSG is 140 g/km. Ironically the DSG R has only just been signed off for WLTP certification, and that had major delays, so an engine with the same power output and a manual box in a GTI will have no chance of passing.
As for the TCR, I'm sure it's a great car on track (as good as a CSS though, I doubt it), but IMO it's not special/different enough for day-to-day use (which lets be honest is what a Golf is all about ) to warrant the very hefty price tag. I therefore decided to order & buy a very well specced 245 performance (which had a healthy level of discount), for much less than the estimated base price of a TCR.
Off track it's 99.9% of a TCR. I picked it up 3 weeks ago, very happy with it so far...
As for the TCR, I'm sure it's a great car on track (as good as a CSS though, I doubt it), but IMO it's not special/different enough for day-to-day use (which lets be honest is what a Golf is all about ) to warrant the very hefty price tag. I therefore decided to order & buy a very well specced 245 performance (which had a healthy level of discount), for much less than the estimated base price of a TCR.
Off track it's 99.9% of a TCR. I picked it up 3 weeks ago, very happy with it so far...
Edited by kmpowell on Friday 25th January 11:34
MawsleyCarValeting said:
Yeah the new Ferrari 488 Pista is a dull drive wish it was manual lol. Don’t get all this manual crap, I was driving manual cars while most of you lot were crapping in your nappies!!!!!! I love driving and I love these twin clutch gearbox’s. Still have a manual hot hatch but 2 cars with paddles and I know which I have more fun in. People get over it!!!!!!!!!!!
philmots said:
kmpowell said:
coupe20VT said:
Try specking a golf GTI with a nice paint colour, 19's, adaptive dampers, adaptive cruise control, electric mirrors etc etc which the majority are standard on a Leon Cupra and you'll soon see how much better value the SEAT is.
The problem with your point is you are using your subjective view on "value" as an argument. As per my post above, I am one of those people you talk about who specced a Golf GTI with nice paint, adaptive dampers, hi-fi, leather, pan roof, 19's etc etc (BTW, Adaptive cruise and electric mirrors are standard on the GTI), and I'd do that all day long over the SEAT. Why, because when I sat inside a SEAT, my subjective view was the quality of teh materials, fixtures & finish, equipment levels etc was inferior in so many places that matter to me. It didn't, for me, feel as nice a place to be as the Golf, it didn't feel special enough. The GTI brand is also strong, it's a brand I like and can relate too. That then is further reflected in the residual values of both cars.Sure the SEAT is cheaper, but it's cheaper for a reason, because it's built to cheaper margins. That's not to say VW don't build the Golf to margins, but those margins are different to SEAT margins.
I'm also not saying I'm right, that's just my view. SEAT exists for a specific target audience, I am not in that target, but that's not to say I'm wrong for choosing the Golf over the SEAT. I just don't personally see the SEAT as good "value", I see it as a cheaper alternative. Ironically, from personal experience having sat in a new Superb recently, I rank the Skoda product higher than SEAT.
I’ve got a Cupra 300, the GTI maybe a bit nicer inside and have better plastics or whatever it is, but it will always be 55bhp down.. the Cupra (and TCR) are in a different league performance wise.
duckers26 said:
Hi, could you tell me what colour that is please? I was just about to order a GTI in black with the same wheels, but think that looks much nicer.
As andrewparker says, it's Isaac Blue. It used to be called Isaac Blue Steel, but weirdly VW dropped the word steel for 2019. More pics here: taken just after I'd had it ceramic coated: https://postimg.cc/gallery/29jj3ej2k/ or fresh off the transporter the day it got delivered to the dealer: https://postimg.cc/gallery/esip0zfw/I like it because it's a bit different and I think it contrasts the red GTI detail/lines nicely.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff