How Does Mark VI GTI Compare with Mark V

[Corey_R]

However I do not believe that I was imagining significantly improved traction under hard acceleration (courtesy XDL I gather) which probably explains most, if not all, of the 0.3 sec improvement in 0-100km/h time which has dropped from from 7.2 to 6.9 sec.

The XDL should have almost no effect on straight line acceleration unless one wheel starts losing grip whilst the other has full traction. The benefit of XDL is in the corners.

I noticed that a digital speed readout has been added to the MFD and that it matched the speed indicated on the analogue speedo - so I wonder if they are accurate or if you can still get a more accurate speed reading from the climate control temperature display as, bizarrely, you could on the Mark V.

Are you sure the digital speedo was matching the analogue? It shouldn't. It should be displaying about 7% lower than the analogue. The analogue complies with the ADR which means at 100 you should be doing about 93 - which should be accurately displayed on the digital speedo, and was in the MK6's that I've test driven, and seems to be that way on other forum members cars here based on past threads on that very subject.

See here for the different data that may be read from the temperature display on Mark V Golfs and instructions on how to display them:
http://www.vwwatercooled.org.au/newf...do+temperature

Coolies, thanks for that link. Wish I knew about that when I still had my MKV

While I've longed for a driver's seat with tilt adjustment since I got my GTI, I don't think what seem to be negligible improvements in driving position outweigh the downsides of having a motorised seat (slower to adjust, costlier, more likely to fail, more costly to repair - and no memory which would have made it all worthwhile!). So I will not be coughing up the $600 for that option. A manual tilt function (a la US GTIs) would have sufficed.

I agree, I'd LOVE to have tilt adjustment on the GTI's seats. They'd be the perfect seats almost then!
Btw, did the electronic adjustment have any memory buttons? To me that's the main reason I'd get an electronically adjustable seat, so I can program my seating position into one of the memory buttons, and my girlfriends into another. Nothing worse than having two very differently sized people driving the one car and constantly having to 'find the sweet spot' each time you swap.

Apart from leather, sunroof and metallic paint, the only options that interest me are reversing camera, MDI + cables, rubber boot liner and floor mats. (Oh, I nearly forgot, a bit of rhinoplasty!) Any other must-haves?

Xenons! Dynaudio if you like your music. Oh, and ACC if you plan on having 18" wheels and you feel the roads are crap

[elisiX]

Are you sure the digital speedo was matching the analogue? It shouldn't. It should be displaying about 7% lower than the analogue. The analogue complies with the ADR which means at 100 you should be doing about 93 - which should be accurately displayed on the digital speedo, and was in the MK6's that I've test driven, and seems to be that way on other forum members cars here based on past threads on that very subject.

EDIT

Nevermind - I misread.

Just to confirm though - A digital speedo will display 93 when traveling 100, but the analogue will be 100% accurate?

[Corey_R]

EDIT

Nevermind - I misread.

Just to confirm though - A digital speedo will display 93 when traveling 100, but the analogue will be 100% accurate?

No... the digital speed is accurate (as long as your wheels and tyres etc are still the factory rolling circumference), the analogue speedo is also displaying about 7-8% faster than what you're really doing, so that people dont accidently get caught speeding etc.

So yeah... you're driving along, thinking you're doing 100kph on the freeway because that's what your analogue speedo says you're doing, but you're really only doing 93kph.
On the MKV's and Polo's you can tell what you're really doing using GPS's or the average speed on the trip computer (if you reset it whilst doing '100' etc). And as Dubya has linked to above, there is a funky trick you can do with the old climate control system.
But with the MK6 you have a brand new digital speedo right there in the MFD!

Edit: Just to make sure that was clear. Digital = Accurate. Analogue = Inaccurate to comply with the ADR.

[elisiX]

So my girls Mazda 3 which has no digital display, is actually going 93 KM/H when the speedo shows 100 KM/H?... lol. Makes sense I guess - no wonder we never get tickets.

And if I upgrade wheels from say 17" stock to the 19" desired (depending on tyre choice), the analogue speed will then be accurate and the digital under reading? (or thereabouts?)

Or is the digital always correct due to it running off the GPS?

[Corey_R]

When you upgrade your wheels, you're meant to keep the same rolling circumference.
So the GTI has two options:
225/45R17 on 17" x 7.5" wheels.
225/40R18 on 18" x 7.5" wheels.

So you can see that when upgrading from 17" to 18" wheels, the profile of the tyre reduces so that you still have basically the same rolling circumference.
This means that when you go to 19" wheels, you need:
225/35R19 on 19" x 7.5" wheels.

With the GTI you can go to 8" wheel width with 235 width tyres and not have rubbing. But Alex from Harding Performance told me that people who run 245 width tyres have had issues with rubbing.

Anyway, there are good calculators on the internet for figuring this all out.
This one for example

Using this you can see that there is only a 0.5% inaccuracy (speedo reading slower than it should) between the difference 17" and 18" wheel. When you change to the 19" wheel it is then 0.9% slower.
If you go for 235/40R18 it'll be 1.7% too slow, and 235/35R19 will be 2% too slow.

What this all means, is that if you had the 235/35R19, if you're speedo was 100% accurate, at 100kph you'd be doing 102kph. But because VW has purposely made your speedo faster than your real speed, if 100kph used to be 93kph, with those 235/35R19's you'd now be doing 94.86kph.
Of course, because the digital speedo is showing the 'accurate' speed, when it says you're doing 100kph you'd actually be doing 102kph !

Edit: And of course, the digital speed's accuracy is important because your odometre, trip computer, and therefore average speeds, fuel consumption calcuations etc, are all dependant on having the rolling circumference matched as closely as possible so that the digital speedo is accurate. So if you really did ignore the tyre size calculator and went for something very different, you'd need to go somewhere to have the car re-calibrated.

[elisiX]

Thanks for going into such a level of detail.

I knew most of the info about tyre sizes, but how it relates to the speedo is new and very helpful.

[pologti18t]

The actual ADR for speedo accuracy is

The speed indicated shall not be less than the true speed of the vehicle. At the test
speeds specified in paragraph 5.2.5. above, there shall be the following relationship
between the speed displayed (V

1 ) and the true speed (V2).
0 ≤ (V1 - V2) ≤ 0.1 V2 + 4 km/h

So, in essence, the speedo of a car can show a speed of 100km/h if the car is doing 100km/h. Not sure where someone got the figure 7km/h difference.

When Wheels does a road test they show the speedo inaccuracy at 100. Mostly it seems to be in the range of 2-4 km/h optimistic

[Corey_R]

I'm not sure where that quote has come from and if it is the lastest/current etc. But from what that's say is that the speedo must either be 100% correct or show faster than what the car is actually doing. And since so many people do change wheels and tyres, and then you have places like melbourne which will book you for doing 3% over the speed limit (103 in a 100 zone), it makes perfect sense that companies like VW do leave a decent inaccuracy.
I don't regularly look at wheels, but I know the speedo test at 100kph is something that they've done for many years on their review vechicles and cars being out has been happening with the euro cars especially for like a decade or more now.

The 7kph difference is what I and others have observed on our VW's (either between Analogue and digitial, or between analogue and 'a reset trip metre's average speed at 100kph).

[Dubya]

. . . and also (apropos my earlier post on differences between Mk V and Mk VI GTIs) I could not see the tyre pressure set button next to the ESP button on the Mark VI GTI I test drove. Does this "feature" still exist on the Mark VI GTI?

[Nath]

. . . and also (apropos my earlier post on differences between Mk V and Mk VI GTIs) I could not see the tyre pressure set button next to the ESP button on the Mark VI GTI I test drove. Does this "feature" still exist on the Mark VI GTI?

Yeah its in the Glove Box

[Dubya]

Yeah [the tyre pressure set button is] in the Glove Box

Cheers, Nath.

[MurphyTheElf]

Funny how this was just brought up. I happened to need this button earlier today. I hit a bump in the road while cornering under load (read: fanging it around a freeway onramp) and later noticed the tyre warning light was on. I tested the pressures, which were fine, so just pressed the glove box button.

Funny how I've been driving on rural corrugated gravel roads for over a week without any problems, but the second day I'm back in the city, the car gets thrown for a loop by our lovely Perth roads.

[G-rig]

Apparently MK5 is better overall.
thoughts..

[Nath]

Cant really comment personnally on the mk5, never driven one, but I love the 6.

From other members, here and mkv/mkvi.com, it appears that the mk6 drives better, particularly in the corners, but the sound isnt as good due to the extra dampening they've put in to make the car more attractive to a wider market.

Personnally I think the 6 looks better all round than the 5 externally and the interior of the 6 is yards ahead in style over the 5.

But hey in the end the mk6 is new and the mkvers out there just outnumber us too much, give it 12 months and there'll be as many mk6 is better than the 5 comments as there are the other now

Both awesome cars I think

[Corey_R]

Apparently MK5 is better overall.
thoughts..

As a MKV GTI owner who has test driven a MK6 I would strongly disagree. The MK6 GTI is better no questions about it.

HOWEVER... Is the MK6 better enough for a MKV owner to upgrade to? That answer is less clear. If your MKV is 4 or 5 years old and you're looking to replace it anyway, then yes definitely. If your MKV is 1 or 2 years old, then probably not unless you MUST have the latest and greatest.