Printable View
I disagree with that.
To me, the Golf R or indeed the GTI, is the car you can take to work monday-friday, go to client meetings without raising an eyebrow, drive across dodgy tarmac but then go out on Saturday and have fun on the twisties.
The Renault would be a bit better on that Saturday, but nowhere near as good during the week.
Um, let me guess, you're a pharma rep, selling sleeping pills? Just kidding, of course.
To say though that going to client meetings in an RS 250 would rise eyebrows is bs, sorry.
I agree with James, not because he likes the RS but because he has driven them all first and started drawing conclusions after.
Well, yeah or something. Damn that bottle of cheeky pinot. I ain't making much sense. I meant the more mundane day to day stuff over broken tarmac etc rather than the client part of things. Don't even know why I mentioned it as I don't even do that any more.Quote:
Originally Posted by sabloke
Ah well, back to get another glass :D
You must have come in a bit late as he doesn't always do that hehe. At one point he'd crowned the new Polo GTI as the ultimate (which came from nowhere) before demo's were even available at the dealers based on some reviews or such.Quote:
Originally Posted by sabloke
Quote:
Originally Posted by sabloke
Yeah, umm did you not notice my 4 page detailed explanation as to why I went the R? The Renault was the better car at the limit, but the R was the better all rounder for my needs.
But the Renault wasn't as good as a 130i.
Come 2012 the new generation rear wheel drive 1 series may look promising esp. with a 4 cylinder turbo motor. Throw in some sports suspension and rear LSD into the BMW for added driver appeal.
BMW to turbocharge all 4-cyl units - Autocar.co.uk
The Golf GTI/R the better car to own. The Megane RS a better car to drive.
The Megane RS250 is not cheap at 55K drive-away for fully loaded Tophee model and about 51K drive-away for the basic Trophee un-optioned version. Dealers are playing hard-ball now the Megane RS250 has scooped a few accolades. The French Police have 70 Megane Cup RS250 on order as chasers.
French Police gets Renaultsport Megane 250 Cups picture gallery | evo
When Ray bought his Golf R, his business partner Victor purchased a Polo GTI. A three way Polo GTI – Golf GTI – Golf R review could be on the cards. The Polo GTI clocked a lower track time than the Clio RS Cup in the latest Wheels Mag review - surprising given that the Clio is the more focussed of the two. I’m a bit annoyed that I bought the GTI for 50K when a Polo GTI could be had for 35K.
Cheers
WJ
After reading the article on the French Police RS250 chasers, I had a peruse of the linked review re: GTI, Seat, Focus RS and Megane RS250.
Wheels Magazine state there is a touch of torque steer in the Megane RS250 - under what circumstances they do not say. I didn't detect any torque steer on my drive on the coarse bitumen roadways that do not offer great grip levels along the border of Canberra.
The track Wheels use seems to be closer to what you'd expect to find when traversing the tight twisties on a public road mountain climb, rather than a proper wide-berth racetrack with 4-5 car lengths in your favour on approach to a corner.
Here's what Evo are saying about LSD and FWD in wet conditions:
Focus RS v Megane 250 v Leon Cupra R v Golf GTI | Hot hatch group test
Quote:
Parallels can be drawn here. Both Ford and Renault feature a pukka limited-slip differential and independent steering axis front suspension (called RevoKnuckle on the Focus, PerfoHub on the Mégane). The benefits of this are clear. In both cars you can get the power down early, feeling the front end earn its keep as it digs in and attempts to hold its line. The end result is the same – masses of speed and poise out the far side of any given corner.
But from the driving seat of each car the experience is very different. I’m leading in the Mégane, the Focus’s gaping grille hoovering up the road behind me, often lost in sheets of spray. The Renault suffers no torque steer, it just hooks up harmoniously and pulls; the balancing act between strut, steering and differential has been masterfully judged. The Focus is messier. It scrabbles a bit, the wheel tugs in your hands, but it’s eye-poppingly entertaining to hurl around.
I’m enjoying the Mégane’s steering more here than I did on the launch. It’s weightier than the RS’s and more positive on turn-in. And the Mégane’s engine is so responsive – it’s far less laggy than the Ford’s, but it’s also far less exciting to listen to than the trumpeting five- cylinder, which sounds better on the overrun than the Renault does at full chat.
Both cars have great brakes, bringing tangible benefits for those prepared to dabble with left-foot braking, and both make a mockery of conditions that are causing localised flooding nearby – there really isn’t much else this side of a GT-R that I’d be more confident of driving faster right now.Chris and I stop to debate. Moral victory goes to the Mégane. It doesn’t set out to be as uncompromising as the Focus and yet it ends up being almost as entertaining. Almost. ‘It’s the first car to highlight weaknesses in the RS that previously we’ve waved aside,’ Chris says. ‘The skyscraper driving position, the light steering, the difficulty of heel-and-toeing, the slightly laggy and inconsistent power delivery.’ I find it more approachable at the limit, and love the way you can build up such a sinuous flow on good roads. It’s addictive.
The Ford bludgeons rather than caresses, but what makes it so absorbing and memorable is that it has such unbelievable attitude. It doesn’t try to be refined and so comes across as a purer, more concentrated machine. A hot hatch in bodystyle only, it successfully distances itself from a class that can be – as both SEAT and to a lesser extent VW prove – rather underwhelming.
Cheers
WJ
Is this getting off topic?
Start a Renault thread in the general discussions perhaps?
And $51k driveway turns into mid late $40s when it's all said and done.
And the mag said there is torque steer, but god forbid, you don't agree with them now?
Yep.
finally got to test drive the GTI in manual - im speechless! car is absolutelly fantastic, exceeded all of my expectations. cant wait to have it in my driveway!
i had 4 people in the car, aircon on, and it was just gunning! impressive - biggest smile on my face! :) haha.
Wow, like turning up to the party and seeing everyone is already on the pills....
I wasn't sure if it was even possible to contribute to the debate, I means it's brown sugar versus white isn't it? Having just read about 100 pages of this epic thread thanks to insomnia, I dug up an old (unpublished) article I wrote and edited it a bit. Hope you enjoy as I thnk it's relevant.
What makes a 'better' car? Pick up a copy of Road & Track and you'll see enormous column inches devoted to clinical recording of every aspect of a car; weight, power, boot size, tyre width, ad nauseum. The american mags typically go to great lengths to measure every single attribute and use this data to justify winners. However, this method doesn't produce a winner in the same way measuring my cock doesn't guarantee great sex (thank God). You simply cannot seek to find a winner based on numbers unless the ultimate goal is a number in itself.
Think about that for a second - what use is a six point three zero to hundred if only to prove that, well, you can get to one hundred in six point three seconds? Sure, it does imply something, but little more than say straight line speed. A car's weight is not more than a number also, and whilst it may imply certain attributes (typically lighter being say more agile), again the number itself only serves to satisfy the need to measure. So your car is two hundred kilos heavier - so what?
I once did a Myers Briggs personality test (I came out as a meglomaniac) and whilst interesting, all it did was to try to quantify and measure 'stuff' all over again. Sure it told me my work colleague was introverted but it didn't tell me he liked watching the Home Shopping Network because it sought only to categorize people on set criteria. It didn't actually tell me about what really made people who they were and what they were like to be around.
I think you have to ignore the numbers, whether a car has DRL's and a USB interface or not, and take stock of what you actually like about a car. It's not about how fast, how light, which wheels are driven but surely how it makes you feel when you drive it. Some people like the typically superior pull out of a corner of AWD whilst others like the sensation of torque steer, of battling the traction gods to get the power down. Whilst one system may benefit a measured lap time, who are you racing? Unless it's a championship with money and girls the reward, you're only ever racing yourself. Take whichever delivers the sensations you're chasing but don't attempt to prove one is better.
More and more, driving seems to be distilled into a number, that damn measure again. Look at the importance heaped on Nurburgring laptimes these days as brands aim to outdo each other to prove by force of digits, who has triumphed. I think it's simply a sign of journalistic weakness when they can't articulate what actually makes 'the drive' what it is, so there's a reversion to proving by way of stats and numbers, just which car is better, which car wins.
It's no surprise people are influenced by numbers too. Psych tests have demonstrated that when people were told that the wine they were drinking was more expensive they gave it a better score. Perception is reality and all that. In fact, the New York Philharmonic introduced blind auditions (the first in the world to do so) because judges perceived that women could only play feminine instruments and not supposedly masculine ones such as the Bassoon. They even told candidates to remove their shoes, lest they could tell who was wearing high heels and thus was likely to be a woman. And the outcome was that the music got better as candidates were now selected for the way they played not the way they were expected to play.
Why's this relevant? Ever read a bad review of 'The Ultimate Driving Machine'? You reckon even the mighty journos might not be influenced by the history and perception that BMW automatically makes great handling cars? Who will be the first to say, "nah, it was ordinary, I prefer the way the Mazda drives".
So the pendulum swings back to trying to quantify, to take the judgement and description out of the test and rely on the numbers instead. This is where the American car mags are currently at.
So if I may offer a solution. Go out and drive them yourself whatever they may be. If you like it then great, if you don't then great. Ignore what you're meant to like, ignore how faster Walter Rohl took it around Spa and decide if this is the car for you or not. Each will have their own differences, each is interesting to compare but it's an impossible task to prove which is better. Physically measured attributes will only get you so far.
Just ask my wife.