Golf R -v- Golf GTI

[runningmanz]

Hang on, the 3.5 the R got was based on lost points due to lack of airbags in the Recaro seats. Fitted with normal seats the scores average to exactly 4.0.
Also the R gets 2.5 for safety with the Recaro seats (and their lack of side airbags), and 3.5 with regular seats. The GTi gets 4.5, how is a GTi safer than an R? Dont they have exactly the same airbag setup and NCAP rating?

Yeah I don't get why it only gets 3.5. Nitpicking their test car configuration?? The R has better handling, is quicker and is safer(5 star ncap, awd vs fwd) for starters over the GTI yet is lower in score? The only drawbacks I can see for the R are the price and less low down torque which don't really worry me. Not bagging the GTI at all its awesome as well but the pluses far outweigh the few minuses for me on the R.

[simonm]

Also the R gets 2.5 for safety with the Recaro seats (and their lack of side airbags), and 3.5 with regular seats. The GTi gets 4.5, how is a GTi safer than an R? Dont they have exactly the same airbag setup and NCAP rating?.

I was wondering exactly this - especially since the R has AWD which is usually considered an improvement to safety.

[Corey_R]

The article in general is good, but there is some obvious issues with the ratings, specifically in relation to safety.

They rate the R's safety at 3.5 and the GTI's at 4.5
How does that work? They've both got the same chassis, body, active and passive safety systems. In addition, the R has AWD and Xenons which further increase its safety. The article doesn't discuss why either. So I'd put this down to a mistake.

Further more, they've rated the R as only 2.5 with the motorsports seats. It this because they have specifically found info that the exclusion of the side airbag in the motorsports seats reduces safety? The NCAP & ANCAP sites don't mention it (that I can find).

In motorsports they have no airbags at all as the body is safely contained within the seat & cannot be thrown into the side of the car. In the R, and other cars with the same seat style and no side airbags, the seat prevents the driver's chest from making contact with the side of the car, and the curtain airbag is still in place to protect the head.

So whilst EuroNCAP and ANCAP don't appear to have actually tested this situation, hundreds of crashes in motorsports would indicate there is not any compromise in safety.

But either way, the rating of 3.5 (with standard seats) is obviously a mistake, and if that was 4.5, it'd make both cars a 4.0/5.0


Edit: Hehe, some others have said similar whilst I've been typing!

[runningmanz]

The article in general is good, but there is some obvious issues with the ratings, specifically in relation to safety.

They rate the R's safety at 3.5 and the GTI's at 4.5
How does that work? They've both got the same chassis, body, active and passive safety systems. In addition, the R has AWD and Xenons which further increase its safety. The article doesn't discuss why either. So I'd put this down to a mistake.

Further more, they've rated the R as only 2.5 with the motorsports seats. It this because they have specifically found info that the exclusion of the side airbag in the motorsports seats reduces safety? The NCAP & ANCAP sites don't mention it (that I can find).

In motorsports they have no airbags at all as the body is safely contained within the seat & cannot be thrown into the side of the car. In the R, and other cars with the same seat style and no side airbags, the seat prevents the driver's chest from making contact with the side of the car, and the curtain airbag is still in place to protect the head.

So whilst EuroNCAP and ANCAP don't appear to have actually tested this situation, hundreds of crashes in motorsports would indicate there is not any compromise in safety.

But either way, the rating of 3.5 (with standard seats) is obviously a mistake, and if that was 4.5, it'd make both cars a 4.0/5.0


Edit: Hehe, some others have said similar whilst I've been typing!

Yeah I hate lazy, ignorant journalism, just bloody do it properly or not at all! Going to fire off an email to them and have a grizzle! lol

[Mr_Bob]

.Further more, they've rated the R as only 2.5 with the motorsports seats. It this because they have specifically found info that the exclusion of the side airbag in the motorsports seats reduces safety? The NCAP & ANCAP sites don't mention it (that I can find).

In motorsports they have no airbags at all as the body is safely contained within the seat & cannot be thrown into the side of the car. In the R, and other cars with the same seat style and no side airbags, the seat prevents the driver's chest from making contact with the side of the car, and the curtain airbag is still in place to protect the head.

So whilst EuroNCAP and ANCAP don't appear to have actually tested this situation, hundreds of crashes in motorsports would indicate there is not any compromise in safety.

safety in a passenger car, is quite different to a race car.
In a race car, they try to prevent the passenger from moving, by strapping them in with multipoint harness
unfortunately, alot of energy is transferred to the head/neck area, which is ok when a helmet (and hans device) is used.
the roll cage changes how the impact energy is managed in the chassis.

in a car, it's about absorbing the impact, and reducing shock on the passenger.
race seats in a street car, may be less safe than a standard seat with airbags,

however as you point out, there's no mention of evidence from ANCAP testing.
There seems to be a "points per airbag" rating system,
so you could be buying an unsafe chassis, but it has a high rating as they threw a few airbags in...

[Corey_R]

however as you point out, there's no mention of evidence from ANCAP testing.
There seems to be a "points per airbag" rating system,
so you could be buying an unsafe chassis, but it has a high rating as they threw a few airbags in...

Yep, I understand the differences in safety theories between motorsports and the road. Personally I'd rather be in a crash in a NASCAR at 300kph than in a road car at 100kph. Or that V8 Supercar crash on the 1st lap at the end of Conrod Straight on the weekend for example. (Though the NASCARs are a few steps up in safety to the V8 Supercars atm).

But yeah, the main thing I have an issue with is the presumption that not having the airbag reduces safety. As you've noted, in a crap chassis they add some airbags to score more points. The Golf is not necessarily a crap chassis.

I guess the final point is, it is likely if they did test this scenario, that putting an airbag on the motorsports seats might make no difference, due to the difference between motorsport vs road safety (retention vs absorbsion) that you noted. If your chest cannot reach the airbag because the seat is in the way, then it won't make a difference! Therefore, if they did start testing this situation, I've got a feeling that they'd just ban motorsport seats for road use :/

[triode12]

This is all getting very silly. The R is the better car period!
Better brakes, better engine, AWD. It is essentially a MkVI GTI with AWD and bigger brakes (and stronger engine).
The fact that it is only $4-5K more makes it even more of a bargain (value wise) over the GTI.

The R is what the people on the VW forums were clamouring for when the choice was only between the MkV GTI and R32 or stump up $$ for the expensive S3. Most saying how they wished that the then MkV GTI had AWD (and how ponderous and expensive the R32 was) and how they would gladly pay extra for it.

Now that VW have delivered on those wishes we have a group of (some the same) people saying how the R is not worth the extra coin over the MkVI GTI. Go figure!



The only people I can see who are unhappy about the R are current MkVI GTI owners and those who can't stump up the difference between them.

[Danny]

I would absolutely agree with WJ on this. The Clio is a much more involving drive with better feedback.

And I 100% agree as well, and was well aware of this. My point was that Its just so hard to hear it and admit it to myself when I have sold the car!! Unfortunately I was in the market for a new vehicle, and nothing, not even the Clio sport 200 trophee could rival the 182 cup. Renault want near 50k if you order a trophee with xenons, roof, and wheels and to me the Golf R was the much better value equation. Unfortunately there is little this side of $100k in brand new cars that can rival the steer of the 182 cup. So it is inevitable that any vehicle in my budget would not be as focussed. The golf r is fast, handles great as it is and comes packed with so much comfort and features at a price that is very fair. As the 182 was getting old, highly strung, and had little in the way of features and I wanted to upgrade, It was hard not to go past the r.

I know I'll miss the 182. If I have the cash to spare I may even think of getting another as a weekender!!

-Dan

[pologti18t]

In motorsports they have no airbags at all as the body is safely contained within the seat & cannot be thrown into the side of the car. In the R, and other cars with the same seat style and no side airbags, the seat prevents the driver's chest from making contact with the side of the car, and the curtain airbag is still in place to protect the head.

Other manufacturers seem to be able to include side airbags in similar seat upgrades (eg Clio 200 Cup).

One of the reasons that VW Aus have given why they wont import the new Polo Bluemotion is because it isn't fitted with curtain airbags. Not sure how they can then rationalise the case for the sports seats available for the Golf R.

If side airbags weren't over any use (even on the motorsport seats) then I dare say manufacturers wouldn't bother fitting them at all.

[dave_r]

Anyone read the latest November Motor with the Evo v STi v Golf R comparo?

I'm sure a recent Wheels had the same thing and the R didn't win because it wasn't focused enough. I think they change their minds every time they review all these cars!

But I, like most R buyers, are happy to sacrifice some day to day comfort and driveability for the speed and handling of the R.

What comfort or driveability exactly is being sacrificed going from a GTI to R?

This is all getting very silly. The R is the better car period!
Better brakes, better engine, AWD. It is essentially a MkVI GTI with AWD and bigger brakes (and stronger engine).
<snip>
The only people I can see who are unhappy about the R are current MkVI GTI owners and those who can't stump up the difference between them.

What he said!

[Corey_R]

Other manufacturers seem to be able to include side airbags in similar seat upgrades (eg Clio 200 Cup).

That has been mentioned many times before. Again, whilst the Clio has a "Recaro" label on the seats, they are clearly far inferior to the series of Recaro seats being used in the Golf, and Audis and other cars which have them and don't feature the side airbag.

The Clio seats are far flatter and have substantially less side bolster - even less so than the "standard" GTI and R seats. It would be entirely possible for the torso of a Clio driver to dislodge from those seats and therefore they require the airbag.

The Recaro Motorsports seats used by VW and Audi are a different design, and the addition of a side airbag would very likely be useless, which I would presume is why such "safety conscious" companies don't fit it.

So again, back to my point. Unless people have crash tests which prove otherwise, Car Sales and many others are just making presumptions that it reduces safety by not having it.

[AdamD]

This is all getting very silly. The R is the better car period!

With all due respect, you think it's better. That's fine, you're entitled to. I disagree. We're entitled to our opinions. Please don't belittle mine with such a sweeping statement.

Just try to bear in mind when you make such comments that there are always two sides to a coin. There are those of us who do actually prefer the lower weight of the GTI, the earlier torque peak, and the somewhat more sprightly feel that comes as a consequence. Damn, even the fuel economy. These points may not be of value to you, but please don't assume that they're not to others - including the journalists who, presumably, are writing to express an opinion and make a recommendation not exclusively tied to their own wants and needs, but to an analysis of what they believe their reader demographic prefers on average.

The only people I can see who are unhappy about the R are current MkVI GTI owners and those who can't stump up the difference between them.

How does this make their view invalid? I, and other GTI owners, don't feel like sore losers - sorry to disappoint you! Maybe we bought the GTI with eyes wide open, because we prefer it? I could happily afford an R if I decided it was what I wanted. This time round (for the MkVI), I didn't.

[HPSOV]

What comfort or driveability exactly is being sacrificed going from a GTI to R?

The suspension on the R is firmer than the GTI. For my daily commute in traffic I'd rather be in a car with the smoothest ride. I just did a 600km round trip in the last couple of days on some sometimes poor roads, for 95% of it I was stuck behind a Camry or similar, for that 95% of the time I'd have rather been in the Camry (actually lets not get silly here, a car with softer suspension lets say).

In my test driving I found the GTI to be much nicer to drive in traffic with its power coming on at 1700rpm. There is definite turbo lag in the R, its dead below about 2200rpm (compounded by the DSG's singular focus of being in the highest gear possible at all times). I just found for 'traffic' driving the GTI was much less effort to drive than than the R.

At the end of the day I got the R because I do track days, and thats where the R will have it all over a GTI.

[Tony_Mitchell_1983]

This is all getting very silly. The R is the better car period!

Hmmm... Don't quite get that...

I'm pretty sure the APR GTI is quicker around a track then the APR R. Which doesn't make sense to me but I think I heard that from Mr APR Oceania himself.

There are a million ways to say one is better then the other, but by track potential, it seems the GTI may be better.

[Corey_R]

With all due respect, you think it's better. That's fine, you're entitled to. I disagree. We're entitled to our opinions. Please don't belittle mine with such a sweeping statement.

<snip>

including the journalists who, presumably, are writing to express an opinion and make a recommendation not exclusively tied to their own wants and needs, but to an analysis of what they believe their reader demographic prefers on average.

Well these journalists said that the R is better, but whether it's worth the additional money is questionable. And that is the theme we've seen. The R is always better, just whether it's worth the extra money given the limitations of our roads

Even WJ says that the R is better, but he has a GTI already and it's not better enough to swap (although, he has mentioned a few times that he's still mulling over it! lol)

And btw... if we really based this on an "analysis of what the reading demographic prefers on average", then the Toyota Corolla will always win