Golf R in Motor Mag this month in Perfomance Comparo

[busytimmy]

I don't normally post here, as I hang out at OzRS.

But seriously guys... it's got to stop. You guys are sooo butthurt because your precious Golf R didn't achieve perfect 0-100/0-400, and that it wasn't the DSG model.

WHY? No really... why? Do you really care for tenths of a second?

Personally figures mean very little to me. I don't launch-control from the lights every day, and I don't flat shift everywhere. So it's meaningless. In gear times are slightly more meaningful, but hardly tell you how a car drives.

I drive a Clio 182, and it has **** all torque (no really, it has ZERO torque) and it's power is all at the top end. It rattles, it's got a bit of a balky shift, it's suspension is a bit crashy, it costs a fortune for servicing, and well... it's French. But it's generally regarded as one of the most fun vehicles on the road today. My 205 GTI was all of those points above times about 3. Yet it was even more fun, and the driving experience was phenomenal.

My point is, try and judge a car subjectively rather then objectively. Forget peak G's, slalom times, 0-100 and braking performance. They are pub-talk material. Instead judge a car on how it makes you feel, what emotion it inspires when you drive it in anger, when you drive it sedately, and everything inbetween. Personally a Golf R does nothing for me (and I owned and loved a Golf MK5), but if I did like it, disappointing figures would do nothing to sway my opinion.

Anyway, /endrant. Hope to see you guys at the Euro Meet #3 (can't make #2 as overseas)

Couldn't have stated it any better myself. This thread seems to be full of people who are wayyy too concerned with tiny, teeny numbers : )

[triode12]

It isn't just this thread.

Since getting to know other car owners, it seems to be an Aussie phenomenon, that the car they own has to outdo every other on the market. It is like their cars are extensions of their reproductive appendage. Criticising their car is akin to insulting said appendage. In their minds, their car and p*nis are one and the same. Very childish phenomenon IMO.

[Guy_H]

Does anyone actually understand the mechanics of gearing & rev limitations on a Golf R manual & its effects on 0-100 performance?

[gareth_oau]

I have to admit, when I read the article, i was a bit disappointed with the results of the R, but then I thought, does it matter- I wont be flogging around Phillip Island anytime soon.

The car is a road car, not a track car, and that analysis was 100% track oriented, so for me, the result was irrelevant.

The R flogs the others in terms of build quality, and oozes class, and these are the things an owner has to live with day in, day out.

Yes it would be nice if the car I chose was the quickest as well, but there was an $19k gap between the tested R and the STI, and all of the possible shortcomings could be well and truly overcome and exceeded with $18k worth of add-ons

[sabloke]

I don't get it either. AWDs are notoriously hard to get off the line quickly according to some, but in this comparo the other AWD car got the best 0-100 km/h time. A manual AWD, too.

[adzy]

Not sure I agree with the statement that journalists are going to treat the press cars nicely?!! From what I have seen over the years they treat the machinery like absolute rubbish in order to get their kicks, I think the low numbers of the R are simply due to the manual. To get good figures out of the R you either have to skillfully slip the clutch or dump it at redline (which I am sure would overheat the clutch?)

Personally, I love the data and knowing that what you own is quicker than car A and B gives a feeling of satisfaction. And if those tenths matter to you; the DSG is the go. I know the DSG has put me a car length or so in front of some shocked XR8's HSV's etc.

At the end of the day owning an R compared to the Focus or Renault is a no brainier to me as the quality is in another league. And if you were at a track day against the other two.... who comes out in front would be down to the drivers on the day. And at the end of the track day you get to drive home in a car which has un-rivaled interior quality and attention to detail for its class.

Just for comparison of what the R can do...
MOTOR August 2010, Golf R DSG 19"

0-100 5.37 (1.46 sec quicker than man.)
0-400 13.65 @ 165.76 km/h (1.05 sec & 7km/h quicker than man.)
80-120 3.6

[Ideo]

Does anyone actually understand the mechanics of gearing & rev limitations on a Golf R manual & its effects on 0-100 performance?

I believe I said something along those lines about 8 pages back.

Have to change to third to get to 100, basically. Adds time. No drama. I never do timed acceleration runs to 100.

As gareth said, it's not a track car. It's a refined hatch with damn good performance. It's what I'm coming from and it is what I'm happy with.

[runningmanz]

Just read the Motor comparo thoroughly. This is what they said about the R and I reckon it summs up R's problems when compared with performance hatches:
"When the badge stands for 'Racing' but cabin tactility and day-to-day useability are your calling cards, then in this company , you may as well stay in the change rooms." OUCH!!!
The judges said: "...a bit dull", "Too PG in this company", "Its AWD isn't needed on the road and didn't help on the track. Buy a GTI." and "Remains a great day-to-day car but it looked boring here".

A few stats:
0-100km/h (s), 0-400m (s @ km/h), 100-0km/h (m), 80-120 (s)

Ford Focus RS
6.29, 14.29 @ 162.35, 37.79, 3.20

RenaultSport Megane 250 Cup
6.71, 14.67 @ 161.12, 37.32, 3.66

Subaru WRX STI
6.00, 13.97 @ 164.56, 36.10, 3.95

Volkswagen Golf R
6.83, 14.70 @ 158.89, 38.04, 3.94

LOL 6.83 secs 0-100! Did they have a load of concrete in the back of the R?! Seriously tho Autocar got multiple 6.4 or so sec runs for manual starting off about 4k RPM and 5.7s for DSG , on a damp road and what looks like a slight incline as well. Others have reported lower times esp for the DSG.

YouTube - VW Golf R - DSG versus manual by autocar.co.uk

Again the question needs to be asked were Motor mag having a decent crack in the manual or not?? add to that the fact that they were not using the optimum setup which is DSG hence making the R look alot slower than it really is. In other words if you are testing a car against others just do it properly!

[sabloke]

I wouldn't be worried about the 0-100 km/h numbers, not one bit. What would worry me a lot if I was looking at buying an R is all that talk about it being a boring drive and the pesky understeer when pushed. A hot hatch has to be fun, involving and cracker to drive on the road and track. We could all go and buy Camrys if we want a nice interior and civilized suspension. They're comfortable and well built, aren't they?

The DSG is being brought forward again... How exactly would an auto (or whatever) improve the fun factor behind the wheel? For me, it would make it worst despite improving acceleration or times around the track...

I wonder why VW wouldn't follow Audi's example in making the R versions more hardcore so they really deserve that RACING badge. Just look at the TT RS and the new RS3! You want a fast hot hatch that is still well mannered? Get a GTI. If you really mean business and wanna eat RS and RS250 for breakfast, a proper R would be the answer. I'm sure VW knows how to do it!

[bwen]

With regards to the slow 0-100km/h times do you think they might be measuring what the actual speedometer reads? or a G-Tech? Maybe they're recording 6.8 secs as it's using a G-Tech because our speedometers are way off at 100km/h aren't they? Something like 92-93km/h in reality.

Don't know, just putting ideas out there why they might record a slower time than usual