10 GTI vs 09 WRX

[philthy]

Yes, I've heard the excuses about why the golf was so slow down the 1/4 already.

I'll agree to disagree with you on this one.

[Corey_R]

Hehehe. Just go and have a drive of a Stage I or II Golf GTI. You'll then understand and probably agree with me. Right now you're basing your thoughts on your Polo GTI, so I can understand why you believe what you do

[AdamD]

There are a few great articles on APR's Stage III 300KW/500NM GTI's. One of them was memorable (Motor magazine?) because the article started with the author "falling off his chair backwards from laughter", and ended with the same author declaring that this car was either "the best track car for every day driving" or "the best every day driver that you could take to the track" that he'd had the opportunity to drive.

Here is the article - courtesy of the APR Australia website. That car sounds like an absolute cracker, and was well praised by the journo.

[jessv3]

Here is the article - courtesy of the APR Australia website. That car sounds like an absolute cracker, and was well praised by the journo.

0-100 in 5.2 secs this i would like to see in a fwd.

[Corey_R]

Here is the article - courtesy of the APR Australia website. That car sounds like an absolute cracker, and was well praised by the journo.

Yeah - that's it. Thanks. It's a good read, and the car does sound awesome!

0-100 in 5.2 secs this i would like to see in a fwd.

There are videos around youtube which show FWD cars capable of this. There have also been APR Stage III GTI's entered into drag racing competitions which have confirmed the 1/4 mile time quoted in that article. So I see no reason why the 0 to 100 time is inaccurate. But as with any 0 to 100 time (whether a stock factory claim or otherwise), optimal conditions (weather, car, driver) are all required.

[hooba]

The author of this article has made a mistake when comparing the boot size between the Golf and the WRX. I'm a serial pram carrier (+ the boxes of huggies when they are on special), so I consider myself to be a good judge of boot space.

When I looked at the WRX hatch boot I ruled it out immediately, the AWD system results in a shallow boot, and sloped hatch makes it short. Reading the article he implies that the WRX boot is bigger, however the Subaru website lists it as:

Cargo volume - rear seat up/down (litres) 301/774 Source: Subaru Impreza WRX Hatch - Specifications - Subaru Australia

Compare that to the Golf's 350/1305.