Monday 19th April 2010

2009-2013 Volkswagen Golf R (Mk6) | Review

Is the fastest-accelerating Golf ever a worthy fast VW?

---

Let's not beat about the bush here. From a PistonHeads perspective, there is one major problem with the new Volkswagen Golf R, and it's called the Scirocco R.

Volkswagen's hot hatch/hot coupe cousins may share rather a high percentage of their genes with one another, but it's where they differ that matters. While the Scirocco gets less power (261bhp versus 266bhp) the Golf has to lug a not insignificant 102kg extra around.

This is partly due do the Golf's bigger body, but mostly down to the fact that the Golf R gets four-wheel drive, while the Scirocco can only put its power down via the front wheels.

But while the all-wheel drive hardware can propel the Golf R to 62mph 0.3secs faster than a Scirocco R (a DSG-equipped Golf R takes 5.5secs, while a twin-clutch Scirocco R will scrabble to the same point in 5.8secs), if anything that extra mass makes the Golf feel the more sluggish of the two in everyday driving.

The four-wheel-drive hardware and higher centre of gravity makes the Golf R a smidge less keen to turn-in or change direction than the Scirocco. Don't get us wrong - the Golf R is a seriously planted, surefooted beast, it's just that it's a little more comfort-oriented, more of a cruiser than a B-road hooligan.

Having said that, chuck the Golf R into a roundabout, lift off, then accelerate hard and you can really feel the power helping the rear wheels push the car around - a trick that is by definition impossible in the front-drive Scirocco.

The other major difference between the two cars is price - the Golf R is almost £1800 dearer than the Scirocco. Which we reckon is quite a lot of money to pay for 102kg, 5bhp and two extra driven wheels.

If the Scirocco R didn't exist, the Golf R would be a masterstroke of hot hatchery. But in the shadow of its lighter, cheaper, more agile sibling, the Golf R somehow seems like too little for too much.

If you value the all-wheel-drive traction, marginal extra practicality and more comfort-oriented nature then pick the Golf, but in most dynamic respects the Scirocco is a more satisfying machine.

---

SPECIFICATION | 2009-2013 VOLKSWAGEN GOLF R (MK6)
Engine: 1,984cc, inline four, 16v
Transmission: 6-speed manual or 6-speed DSG automatic, all-wheel drive
Power (hp): 267@6,000rpm
Torque (lb ft): 258@2,500-5,000rpm
0-62mph: 5.7 secs (manual), 5.5 secs (DSG)
Top speed: 155mph
Weight: 1,450kg (1,465kg DSG)
MPG (official combined): 33.2 manual, 33.6 DSG
CO2: 199g/km (195 DSG)
Wheels: 7.5x18
Tyres: 235/40
On sale: 2009 - 2013
Price new: £30,712/£31,297 (3/5dr manual, leather); £32,067/£32,652 (3/5dr DSG, leather)

[Mike Rob]

My wife is looking to up-grade her 3 year old R32 - this seems to be the only alternative. Would be nice to know how the Golf R stacks up against that rather than the Scirocco.

[pilchardthecat]

It's heavy, like a Golf

[Republik]

I saw one at VW in Bolton and stopped to have a look. £34,495....for a Golf.

[Matt0812]

So, if you want a quick and exciting VW, you buy a Scirocco R. If you want a quick Golf, you buy a GTI surely? Can't see as much appeal in this as old R32 now that glorious V6 is gone.

[TheRoadWarrior]

Matt0812 said:

So, if you want a quick and exciting VW, you buy a Scirocco R. If you want a quick Golf, you buy a GTI surely? Can't see as much appeal in this as old R32 now that glorious V6 is gone.

Corrected that for you.

pistonheads said:

While the Scirocco gets less power (261bhp versus 266bhp)

Why would you go to the trouble of developing a different tune to give only slightly different power? Is it just to differentiate the models more, perhaps the scirocco is more attractive so they thought the golf needed more power to compete? 5bhp has got to almost be in the noise.. i'm betting they might even put out the same power and its just marketing creating the 5bhp.

[Riggers]

Mike Rob said:

My wife is looking to up-grade her 3 year old R32 - this seems to be the only alternative. Would be nice to know how the Golf R stacks up against that rather than the Scirocco.

Pretty well, I should say - apart from the fact that the new engine sounds nowhere near as nice as the old V6. The turbo motor is much lighter, though, so it's more agile as well as being punchier in a straight line.

If your wife likes the way the R32 drives, she won't be disappointed by the R.

[TobesH]

Interesting comparison also shared by the Auto-EVO reviews:

The Scirocco feels sharper, more nimble, as well as cheaper, due to in part not having a 4WD system.

Oh dear, I'll start the debate again but this does make an interesting case when comparing, on paper at least, two cars from the same manufacturer with the same basic engine, floor pan, and overall bulk but differing only by the number of wheels driven.

[300bhp/ton]

Rather a dull looking excuse for a performance car and a massively over inflated price range. You've seriously got to be nuts, not only to want one, but to actually pay full whack for a bit of tat like this....

[The Donster]

Doesn't the Audi S3 cost less than the Golf R, too??

[bales]

300bhp/ton said:

Rather a dull looking excuse for a performance car and a massively over inflated price range. You've seriously got to be nuts, not only to want one, but to actually pay full whack for a bit of tat like this....

Ha ha your going to be so annoyed if someone doesn't pick you up on that aren't you!

[300bhp/ton]

doogz said:

TheRoadWarrior said:

Why would you go to the trouble of developing a different tune to give only slightly different power? Is it just to differentiate the models more, perhaps the scirocco is more attractive so they thought the golf needed more power to compete? 5bhp has got to almost be in the noise.. i'm betting they might even put out the same power and its just marketing creating the 5bhp.

Does anyone know where the extra 5bhp comes from?

It may just be that the 'rocco engine bay doesn't lend itself as well to the filter assembly, or exhaust system, used on the golf, and as a result, a slightly different arrangement yields slightly less power?

Although marketing it would be a cheaper option, lets say both engines make 266hp, but they wanted the Scirocco to make less, so they advertsie it at 261hp.

[Mattt]

This article says it's a 'Driven:' story - but I don't read much about the driving.

Perhaps it should be called 'Comparison:'

[streeting2006]

A good looking Golf and great to see four-wheel drive too. However why spend £30,300 (starting price) on a VW when for £28,460 you can get an Audi S3. No brainer I think.
If the VW was priced £2,000 below the Audi fair enough but not at £2000 more!??!

[RobCrezz]

doogz said:

TheRoadWarrior said:

Why would you go to the trouble of developing a different tune to give only slightly different power? Is it just to differentiate the models more, perhaps the scirocco is more attractive so they thought the golf needed more power to compete? 5bhp has got to almost be in the noise.. i'm betting they might even put out the same power and its just marketing creating the 5bhp.

Does anyone know where the extra 5bhp comes from?

It may just be that the 'rocco engine bay doesn't lend itself as well to the filter assembly, or exhaust system, used on the golf, and as a result, a slightly different arrangement yields slightly less power?

ECU mapping could easyly be adjusted to make 5bhp less or more. 0.5psi of extra boost?

[sjmoore]

This is the wrong comparison. I would expect that 90% of customers for the Golf R will be buying it because they need more practicality and so will order with 5 doors, not 3. Also, Golf R more likely to appeal to markets where 4-wheel drive is a real bonus, such as here in Switzerland.

[300bhp/ton]

bales said:

300bhp/ton said:

Rather a dull looking excuse for a performance car and a massively over inflated price range. You've seriously got to be nuts, not only to want one, but to actually pay full whack for a bit of tat like this....

Ha ha your going to be so annoyed if someone doesn't pick you up on that aren't you!

[atomic69]

I believe the Scirocco R uses the new engine but the Golf R uses the old Edition 30 engine so that goes some way to explain the difference in figures

[Dracoro]

300bhp/ton said:

bales said:

300bhp/ton said:

Rather a dull looking excuse for a performance car and a massively over inflated price range. You've seriously got to be nuts, not only to want one, but to actually pay full whack for a bit of tat like this....

Ha ha your going to be so annoyed if someone doesn't pick you up on that aren't you!

I wonder if there is some yank car to compare it to

[Dagnut]

why can't VW just cut lose once and give us a proper performance machine...they always seem just a little bit to safe..they could of easily given this 300bhp..but then they are stepping on S3 toes..

[Escort Si-130]

After waiting months to see a driven review here on PH for this car, it seems to have gone to nothing much in it. I guess it seems the Scirocco R really has overshadowed the Golf R. I guess at the end of the day the 4wd doesnt stack up unlss you have that V6 to back it up.
I have still yet to see one on the road yet. Are they still sold out for 2010 or was it marketing hype.