Golf 40th vs Golf R

[ringo]

A friend of mine is the sales person and we took 40th up the hoist at the same time someone just traded their performance pack which was getting inspected.

I can confirm, they are the same. Catback has the same part number, but can't say the same about the downpipe, as it was unaccessible.

I just got a reply which is exactly the opposite in fact. Guy says he doesn't know about the down-pipe but that the cat-back is definitely different, hence why some GTI owners have bothered retrofitting it. Not something I have checked myself but he usually is pretty accurate with his info. Anyway...

[wasabiz]

I just got a reply which is exactly the opposite in fact. Guy says he doesn't know about the down-pipe but that the cat-back is definitely different, hence why some GTI owners have bothered retrofitting it. Not something I have checked myself but he usually is pretty accurate with his info. Anyway...

That was a mistake on my part,
VW had another look at the exhaust and the only part that's the same is the resonator in the middle with part number 5Q0253211AS
The everything after that is bigger in size

[Bassik]

This vid at 3.57 will show you how it sounds

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmLpH1N3IZ8

[SevenR]

Ayrton, are you there??

lol, you're on crack

[Billecartz]

I had a GTI and it was hopeless in the wet, I may have well been driving my wife's old Mazda 2 (especially from stationary on an uphill) . Aren't you going from one extreme to the other? Oh it's wet so you drive like you have a $15k hatch? If the car you want is a daily driver, deciding which car to get based on a track time that you will never drive is pointless. For me the majority of driving is in town where acceleration and traction is more important.

On the odd trip out of town, speed limits mean the differences between the two are irrelevant IMO.

When it was time to upgrade I was certain it wouldn't be FWD again and that was based on how and where I would drive the car.

If track days are your number one priority then sure, perhaps FWD is the way to go...provided it's not raining...
Rob

Don't confuse the car with the tyres in the wet, tyres make a huge difference. I have a MK7 GTI and it has been raining today and it is fantastic in the wet. I am running Goodyear Eagle F1's.

[WhiteJames]

Final comment of this article states that the Golf R still makes more sense: VW Golf GTI Clubsport vs SEAT Leon Cupra 290 vs Honda Civic Type R | Auto Express

WJ

[Brian]

Final comment of this article states that the Golf R still makes more sense: VW Golf GTI Clubsport vs SEAT Leon Cupra 290 vs Honda Civic Type R | Auto Express

WJ

I think their opinion is based on the £750 (~ AU$1320) price differential, although the figures they quote for the R and CS make no sense WRT their statement. The price differential here in OZ, as I posted in this table, is $6250:



The article makes no mention of the over-boost feature of the CS, although I see its borne out in the in gear acceleration figures, where it comprehensively beats the SEAT and the HONDA and I suspect would beat the Golf R as well. edit: the first search I found a figure of 4.3 secs 30-70 mph vs 4.0 secs for the CS



Apples for Oranges:

Not include in the CS base price for UK, which are standard inclusions here: rear cam, adaptive chassis control. Also it seems like the driver assist package which is standard in the CS is extra in the SEAT.
3 door CS vs 5 doors in the other 2.
No mention of included features for ALL cars.

As to the rest of their summary:

Despite its track focus, the Golf can’t hold a candle to the Honda on a circuit,

Very debatable in light of other reviews

plus it’s slower,

Not bourne out by the speed figures quoted

not as involving

compared to what? Maybe the manual gearbox in the Honda

and less usable day to day than the cheaper SEAT.

Can't work this one out. Maybe comparing a 3 door CS to the 5 door SEAT?

Compared to the Golf R:

For £750 more than the Clubsport, you can grab the keys to the brilliant Golf R.

See above

Packing 296bhp and four-wheel drive, it’s much faster in real-world conditions

So 1/4 mile drags are "real world conditions"?

plus low-key looks

read as boring and featureless

and greater comfort

that's the 6 grand missing from your wallet that you're sitting on, or rather NOT sitting on

make it easier to live with day to day

once again, nothing to base this on

A Golf R makes far more sense.

For £750 in UK - maybe. But not for $6250 in Australia Mate!
And if the SEAT floats your boat for a couple of grand less, (and I believe it to be a worthy rival), the residual value in 3 years (5% less than the CS) will wipe the smile from your dial!
All in all, a rather amateurish and fact less review. More a bunch of opinions based on...what?
Happy trails,
Brian

[WhiteJames]

Interesting Points:

Forums indicate that fully loaded DSG Golf GTI ED40 Clubsport are selling for 55K drive away. Friends of mine paid 58K for fully loaded Golf 7 R drive away about 12 months after initial release date. That's 3K difference + free leather on the Golf R, which makes them basically the same price as ED40 has no fancy seats (worth about 3K as an option if available).

Ironically ... fast forward 3 years and the Golf R may fetch 35K private sale, the ED40 GTI no more than 30K private sale. Golf R wins.

Additionally ... There are heaps of Golf R's in dealerships. Start offering stupid money (less than 58K) for R with a plain colour (I.e. White ... my fav colour), and the Golf R is looking like better value imo.

WJ

[Bassik]

Interesting Points:

Forums indicate that fully loaded DSG Golf GTI ED40 Clubsport are selling for 55K drive away. Friends of mine paid 58K for fully loaded Golf 7 R drive away about 12 months after initial release date. That's 3K difference + free leather on the Golf R, which makes them basically the same price as ED40 has no fancy seats (worth about 3K as an option if available).

Ironically ... fast forward 3 years and the Golf R may fetch 35K private sale, the ED40 GTI no more than 30K private sale. Golf R wins.

Additionally ... There are heaps of Golf R's in dealerships. Start offering stupid money (less than 58K) for R with a plain colour (I.e. White ... my fav colour), and the Golf R is looking like better value imo.

WJ

Drive both and then see. An R is probably a better option yes but the CS will set you apart from all the other Golfs on the road. That review wasn't really good IMO.

[Brian]

Interesting Points:

Forums indicate that fully loaded DSG Golf GTI ED40 Clubsport are selling for 55K drive away. Friends of mine paid 58K for fully loaded Golf 7 R drive away about 12 months after initial release date. That's 3K difference + free leather on the Golf R, which makes them basically the same price as ED40 has no fancy seats (worth about 3K as an option if available).

Ironically ... fast forward 3 years and the Golf R may fetch 35K private sale, the ED40 GTI no more than 30K private sale. Golf R wins.

Additionally ... There are heaps of Golf R's in dealerships. Start offering stupid money (less than 58K) for R with a plain colour (I.e. White ... my fav colour), and the Golf R is looking like better value imo.

WJ

My prices in the table are ACTUAL MRSP as quoted by VW Australia. Anecdotal figures quoted on forums or by my cousins aunts partner who knows a VW salesperson, has no basis for a FACTUAL comparison.

FWIW, I paid $52K drive away for my CS with other incentives thrown in. I'm 6K wealthier than your "friends" who paid 58K. Whichever figures you use, the "R" is going to cost 6K more, based on what the dealer has to pay, which is based on the MRSP.

If the dealer decides to take a haircut on his profit by reducing the add on dealer costs, and how desperate they are for sales because the accountant has told them to reduce inventory, then that's your lucky day.

You won't convince me that the CS is not better "bang for your buck" than the R.

As for your conjecture re sale prices in 3 years, it is just star gazing. May I borrow your crystal ball so that I can see what shares to buy tomorrow?