RE: 2020 Volkswagen Golf GTI spied at 'Ring
Discussion
Ali_T said:
Never understood the love for the Mk5 as a hot hatch. It was completely outgunned for reliability and fun by Honda and they only managed to match Honda and Renault’s naturally aspirated by adding a turbo to their 2.0. It was a pleasant enough car but nothing to write home about. A hot hatch for people that didn’t like hot hatches, and to not offend Terry and June next door. It didn’t move the game forward, it merely made a half decent stab at catching up after the completely out of touch Mk43 and 4.
It played the same game as the Mk2. And your comment about the Mk2 needs revision as well. No other decent hot hatches? In the era of the 205 GTI and Renault 5 GT Turbo? Not to mention that, by the end of its production run, it was utterly outclassed in its own segment, again, by Honda and Renault (Civic VTi and 19 16V), and also by Fiat and the Tipo Sedicivalvole.
As for journalists and their love of GTIs, could VAGs marketing spend play a role...?
Nah, I think that's mostly all wrong (Except the Mk4 was a bit rubbish). The Mk5 was exactly for people who like this class of hot hatches - that is, the blend of total usability, pleasantness in all situations and a capable and fun chassis/engine for when the opportunity presents. Smaller hot hatches can have a different focus on being more raw and fun - e.g. Clio - but that has never really been the point of the size class up.It played the same game as the Mk2. And your comment about the Mk2 needs revision as well. No other decent hot hatches? In the era of the 205 GTI and Renault 5 GT Turbo? Not to mention that, by the end of its production run, it was utterly outclassed in its own segment, again, by Honda and Renault (Civic VTi and 19 16V), and also by Fiat and the Tipo Sedicivalvole.
As for journalists and their love of GTIs, could VAGs marketing spend play a role...?
The Mk5 concurrent CTR may have had equal power on paper, but the average usable power in a driving situation was no where near what was accessible from the Mk5. It also didn't have IRS, which seems a pretty big error, in both ride and handling stakes.
RedSwede said:
Nah, I think that's mostly all wrong (Except the Mk4 was a bit rubbish). The Mk5 was exactly for people who like this class of hot hatches - that is, the blend of total usability, pleasantness in all situations and a capable and fun chassis/engine for when the opportunity presents. Smaller hot hatches can have a different focus on being more raw and fun - e.g. Clio - but that has never really been the point of the size class up.
The Mk5 concurrent CTR may have had equal power on paper, but the average usable power in a driving situation was no where near what was accessible from the Mk5. It also didn't have IRS, which seems a pretty big error, in both ride and handling stakes.
Wrong Civic. You’re thinking of the FN2, not the EP3. The EP3 was also 200kg lighter than the Golf and faster in almost every group test run between them. It wasn’t nearly as civilised and that’s where the demographics were mapped out. You bought the Golf if you wanted a day to day prestige hatch that had a bit of poke, but you bought the Civic or Megane if you wanted a driver’s car. But that’s the same recipe the Mk2 onwards have always brought to the table. A liveable with hot hatch that won’t be frowned upon in leafy suburbs. But they’ve never been the cutting edge of driver enjoyment. You can enjoy them, but you’re kidding yourself if you think you have the class leader for dynamics. The Mk5 concurrent CTR may have had equal power on paper, but the average usable power in a driving situation was no where near what was accessible from the Mk5. It also didn't have IRS, which seems a pretty big error, in both ride and handling stakes.
J4CKO said:
Totally agree that the Mk2 was fantastic, but the driver was quite similar styling wise, the idea was that it has a bit of the GTI look but was cheaper and more easily insured, the GTI itself wasnt exactly that different from any other Golf, it was fairly subtle, but effective what they did but beyond the arch lips, driving lights and some red stripes, they didnt do all that much, you got steel wheels as standard, which looked better than most alloys to be fair.
Mk8 wise, "only 260 bhp", I find that the MK7 always punches above its weight, cant imagine a 10/15 bhp deficit will hamper it that much against the competition, expect it to be very competitive in its segment, they had a few turkeys but the MK7 went back to what the MK2 did, i.e. wasnt the fastest, lairiest or cheapest but it struck a fantastic balance.
This sums things up pretty well. I think rose-tinted specs often make people forget that older performance derivatives of normal cars were usually pretty basic in terms of changes (the likes of Cosworths/Evos/Imprezas aside).Mk8 wise, "only 260 bhp", I find that the MK7 always punches above its weight, cant imagine a 10/15 bhp deficit will hamper it that much against the competition, expect it to be very competitive in its segment, they had a few turkeys but the MK7 went back to what the MK2 did, i.e. wasnt the fastest, lairiest or cheapest but it struck a fantastic balance.
RedSwede said:
Nah, I think that's mostly all wrong (Except the Mk4 was a bit rubbish). The Mk5 was exactly for people who like this class of hot hatches - that is, the blend of total usability, pleasantness in all situations and a capable and fun chassis/engine for when the opportunity presents. Smaller hot hatches can have a different focus on being more raw and fun - e.g. Clio - but that has never really been the point of the size class up.
The Mk5 concurrent CTR may have had equal power on paper, but the average usable power in a driving situation was no where near what was accessible from the Mk5. It also didn't have IRS, which seems a pretty big error, in both ride and handling stakes.
You're totally right on accessible performance. Honda fanboys often fail to see the difference between outright performance and the massive advantage offered when you have a nice lump of torque in the mid-range from a decent forced-induction engine. EP3/FN2 Type-Rs, and even R.S. Clios are actually quite hard work at times compared to something turbocharged.The Mk5 concurrent CTR may have had equal power on paper, but the average usable power in a driving situation was no where near what was accessible from the Mk5. It also didn't have IRS, which seems a pretty big error, in both ride and handling stakes.
I think we need to be a bit careful with this whole independent rear suspension business though. Motoring journos often like to point it out as reason to deride a particular car. The FN2 Civic being described as inferior because it had a twist beam is one of the prime examples. The Megane MK3 R.S. Clio 172/182/197/200, Fiesta MK7/8 ST all have twist beams on the back and are regarded as some of the very best hot hatches around. It's a convenient way to fill a story, but little more.
Ali_T said:
Wrong Civic. You’re thinking of the FN2, not the EP3. The EP3 was also 200kg lighter than the Golf and faster in almost every group test run between them. It wasn’t nearly as civilised and that’s where the demographics were mapped out. You bought the Golf if you wanted a day to day prestige hatch that had a bit of poke, but you bought the Civic or Megane if you wanted a driver’s car. But that’s the same recipe the Mk2 onwards have always brought to the table. A liveable with hot hatch that won’t be frowned upon in leafy suburbs. But they’ve never been the cutting edge of driver enjoyment. You can enjoy them, but you’re kidding yourself if you think you have the class leader for dynamics.
Isn't that the point though? The Golf has never been the class leader for dynamics. In the '80s, that was the 205 GTI. In more recent times, it's usually been the Megane and, more recently, the Civic. What the Golf does is give you 90% of the fun of those cars, but in a package that's much easier to live with every day. It's the classless, supreme all-rounder. Do you think VW mind though? How many Golf GTIs and Rs do you see compared to Meganes and Civics? It's the perfect formula for most buyers and, in the real world, better than its more hardcore rivals in almost every way. Compared to the EP3, the MK5 GTI had a nicer interior, better refinement, more mid-range grunt so it was actually faster at 4/5 tenths, but was still just as fun to drive to the average punter.The Golf may not have ever been the last word in ultimate performance or dynamic ability, but it's probably the car that is the most true to the hot hatch formula - fast, good handling, but practical and extremely easy to live with.
Edited by Jon_S_Rally on Friday 12th July 11:39
Edited by Jon_S_Rally on Friday 12th July 11:40
Ali_T said:
Wrong Civic. You’re thinking of the FN2, not the EP3. The EP3 was also 200kg lighter than the Golf and faster in almost every group test run between them. It wasn’t nearly as civilised and that’s where the demographics were mapped out. You bought the Golf if you wanted a day to day prestige hatch that had a bit of poke, but you bought the Civic or Megane if you wanted a driver’s car. But that’s the same recipe the Mk2 onwards have always brought to the table. A liveable with hot hatch that won’t be frowned upon in leafy suburbs. But they’ve never been the cutting edge of driver enjoyment. You can enjoy them, but you’re kidding yourself if you think you have the class leader for dynamics.
Yeah, I'd agree with that. But that has always been my association for this size of hot hatch, really (more comfort, more practicality, bit less rawness) - the VW just hits the spot in this class for me.(But wasn't the FN2 the Mk5 contemporary?)
Edited by RedSwede on Friday 12th July 11:49
2Btoo said:
Serious Q: what's the point of the camouflage? I presume it's to allow a production-ready car to be driven without the styling being immediately apparent to all, but it's not hard to see the shape and design of the car if you look closely. And sticking camouflage on a car like that immediately invites closer attention.
Why do car makers do it? (When did they start doing it - I don't recall this sort of thing 15 years ago). Is there anything more to it than my surmise above?
Its often not the actual shape, they might have different panels, different lights, different lines on these cars which are used to hide and confuse any onlookers to what the actual car will look like once released - as all they are doing here is testing mechanically.Why do car makers do it? (When did they start doing it - I don't recall this sort of thing 15 years ago). Is there anything more to it than my surmise above?
Ali_T said:
Chestrockwell said:
The only big step up in the Golf GTI’s history would be the MK5, the introduction of that 2.0 turbo with 200 bhp and a whole new platform but since then, there isn’t much left to do to make a big change and step up.
I do agree re all journos loving VW. There’s never a bad word to say!
Never understood the love for the Mk5 as a hot hatch. It was completely outgunned for reliability and fun by Honda and they only managed to match Honda and Renault’s naturally aspirated by adding a turbo to their 2.0. It was a pleasant enough car but nothing to write home about. A hot hatch for people that didn’t like hot hatches, and to not offend Terry and June next door. It didn’t move the game forward, it merely made a half decent stab at catching up after the completely out of touch Mk43 and 4.I do agree re all journos loving VW. There’s never a bad word to say!
It played the same game as the Mk2. And your comment about the Mk2 needs revision as well. No other decent hot hatches? In the era of the 205 GTI and Renault 5 GT Turbo? Not to mention that, by the end of its production run, it was utterly outclassed in its own segment, again, by Honda and Renault (Civic VTi and 19 16V), and also by Fiat and the Tipo Sedicivalvole.
As for journalists and their love of GTIs, could VAGs marketing spend play a role...?
Edited by Ali_T on Friday 12th July 08:38
I’ve basically just echoed what you said! Just saying I don’t rate the MK5 GTI as highly as you think
Why do you keep posting random pictures of bits of your car? Can I join in?
Capture by Jon Scoltock, on Flickr
Go me
Capture by Jon Scoltock, on FlickrGo me
Edited by Jon_S_Rally on Friday 12th July 16:22
Jon_S_Rally said:
Why do you keep posting random pictures of bits of your car?
Because he can't bring himself to look at all of it at the same time?Because he has the mentality of a prepubescent teenager?
Because he thinks that a lap time around a track by a professional driver in a car that wasn't standard somehow translates to him being a better person?
gigglebug said:
Jon_S_Rally said:
Why do you keep posting random pictures of bits of your car?
Because he can't bring himself to look at all of it at the same time?Because he has the mentality of a prepubescent teenager?
Because he thinks that a lap time around a track by a professional driver in a car that wasn't standard somehow translates to him being a better person?
Bringing mentality and self worth into it, maybe you should change your name to ‘angrybug’ or ‘triggeredbug’
Chestrockwell said:
Why are you so offended!!! It’s only the internet, a standard debate, I posted that pic up to wind up Mr Frog, only a laugh
Bringing mentality and self worth into it, maybe you should change your name to ‘angrybug’ or ‘triggeredbug’
Ah. So when you do something with the sole intention of winding someone up it's only a laugh but when someone responds in a similar vein you interpret it as them being offended and instantly take offence to it? Got ya.Bringing mentality and self worth into it, maybe you should change your name to ‘angrybug’ or ‘triggeredbug’
gigglebug said:
Chestrockwell said:
Ah. So when you do something with the sole intention of winding someone up it's only a laugh but when someone responds in a similar vein you interpret it as them being offended and instantly take offence to it? Got ya.It’s a Friday, works nearly over, my car is the fastest around the Nurburgring, let’s all chill out and discuss the MK8 Golf GTI
Chestrockwell said:
Posting a picture of the fastest hyper hatch in the world is different to making assumptions on others
Said the person who assumed that another person was offended when they weren't?Chestrockwell said:
It’s a Friday, works nearly over, my car is the fastest around the Nurburgring, let’s all chill out and discuss the MK8 Golf GTI
Said the person who feels the need to talk about a Honda, the second fastest hyper hatch in the world?J4CKO said:
Mk8 wise, "only 260 bhp", I find that the MK7 always punches above its weight, cant imagine a 10/15 bhp deficit will hamper it that much against the competition, expect it to be very competitive in its segment, they had a few turkeys but the MK7 went back to what the MK2 did, i.e. wasnt the fastest, lairiest or cheapest but it struck a fantastic balance.
Think part of the reason the Mk7 goes well is the low weigh (under 1.4t DIN). They've made a decent effort and while I never had my 7.5 on the scales, it feels faster than 245 PS.Only fault for me is the old trope of being "too perfect". Somehow it's like very, very good vanilla ice cream. The premium stuff, artisan made from the finest ingredients. Always yummy, never offensive. But still only vanilla ;-).
Edit: I really hope they don't go wild on the styling. I think the Mk7 looks ace. And I hope even more they continue working on the weight. Agree that the Mk7 will be a tough act to follow.
Chestrockwell said:
Posting a picture of the fastest hyper hatch in the world is different to making assumptions on others
It’s a Friday, works nearly over, my car is the fastest around the Nurburgring, let’s all chill out and discuss the MK8 Golf GTI
I think you might find that Renault have something to say about your claim regarding the Nurburgring.It’s a Friday, works nearly over, my car is the fastest around the Nurburgring, let’s all chill out and discuss the MK8 Golf GTI
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff