Golf R -v- Golf GTI

[gh172]

Obviously manual times for the R...
But 0 to 100 in 6.6 for a GTI would appear to indicate DSG. Great work if that was a stock GTI manual!

You are correct , manual R and DSG GTI.

[Corey_R]

Hehehe... well, you know the issues with the manual gearbox! Not only can no one possibly shift as quick as a DSG (even via flat shifting), but the Golf manual's need a shift into 3rd to reach 100km/h.

[sabloke]

So do many other cars. Mine for example needs a shift into 3rd before it hits the rev limiter at 97 km/h. Doh!

[parso_rex]

Hehehe... well, you know the issues with the manual gearbox! Not only can no one possibly shift as quick as a DSG (even via flat shifting), but the Golf manual's need a shift into 3rd to reach 100km/h.

Hmm what speed can the manuals hit in second at the stock redline ?

[hooba]

80-120 was 4.1 Vs 4.3 and 14.4 Vs 14.8 for the 1/4 mile.

The closeness of the 80-120 times (where there is no gear change) were a real surprise, seat of the pants the R felt much stronger.

[Corey_R]

Hmm what speed can the manuals hit in second at the stock redline ?

I believe it's about 97km/h too. (I haven't tried personally as I don't have access to a manual).

The closeness of the 80-120 times (where there is no gear change) were a real surprise, seat of the pants the R felt much stronger.

The R delivers power differently, but the power difference between the two in Australia isn't that great, especially given the weight difference and additional drive train losses.

[MkVIGTI]

But it's AWD...

We'll let the results decide.
If it's on the podium, it's an R with a GTI sign.
If it doesn't make the podium, it's a R wannabe (GTI with AWD conversion)

LOL, isn't that the same thing anyways?

[sabloke]

The R delivers power differently, but the power difference between the two in Australia isn't that great, especially given the weight difference and additional drive train losses.

Taking drive train losses into account, the R has 151 kW atw to GTI's 133 kW atw while being 120 kg heavier. The results are not that surprising then.

[Lima]

Taking drive train losses into account, the R has 151 kW atw to GTI's 133 kW atw while being 120 kg heavier. The results are not that surprising then.

Sounds like the Mk6 has gone backwards then, our stock Mk5 has 140kW atw.

[AdamD]

Not stirring the pot? Really. A guy just gave his findings.. and like every passive aggressive person on here.. he gets questioned. And by who? You?

I didn't for a moment question him. Didn't state his mates were wrong; wouldn't dare insinuate that. Just pointed out that the one other guy (other than himself) who'd bought a Golf bought a GTI, and provided non-monetary reasons for choosing it. I'm not stirring, I'm continuing the conversation.

Anyone in their right mind would take an R over any lesser model if they could afford it.

I could, and I didn't. To be fair the R wasn't released when I ordered, but if I had the decision over, I'd make the same call. May well go with an R for MkVII though. What I dislike about the R - or, rather, why I find it less enjoyable than the GTI - is that it feels quite a bit laggier at low speeds and in traffic, whereas I prefer the GTI's low-rpm urge and enthusiasm, which is a real point of difference for me, for 90% of the driving I do - in metro areas.

And what makes up a big part of enjoyment of a car is different to so many people.

Very true. And yet apparently anyone who chooses a GTI but can afford an R is out of their mind. Sigh.

[REXman]

I could, and I didn't. To be fair the R wasn't released when I ordered.

To be fair then, you didn't have the choice. It wasnt out when you bought your GTI?

So you couldn't and you didn't.

Very true. And yet apparently anyone who chooses a GTI but can afford an R is out of their mind. Sigh.

No no not at all. I definitely don't think that. I know this is the Internet and you don't know me from a bar of soap. But me saying one car higher in the range, is better than a car lower in the range, has nothing to do with my/your/anyones financial status.

I live in an area where people roll around in pieces of ****, and know for a fact that they are worth millions. I have come from a working class background and would never assume a car is someones limit in life.

So I don't doubt you, me or anyone could not have bought a Porsche for all we know.
Only someone very naive would link a car to someones financial status, especially car under $100k.

Some people roll around in there R, or SS or 350Z and have been borrowed up to the hilt to get it.

Some people buy an R because they can't be bothered buying another X5M for $200K.

So no, I don't think any less of you as a person for choosing a GTI. What i think of you as a person is unrelated to me comparing 2 (similar) cars with you. It's a great car. And has it's advantages in some areas like making wheel spin (fun), and the classic Jacky interior, and ofcourse the low down response.

But for the full Monty, and performance - you get the R. AWD, Classy black interior, Bigger turbo, better engine, better suited to track use( doesn't syphon oil like the GTI motor - well documented), DRLs in the bumper, LED tails, all the parking sensors included, much more tuneable and able to produce great acceleration repeatedley, etc etc.

And it's not much more than a GTI. $9.5K!! Great value upgrade which would cost a GTI at retail thousands to upgrade to.

I didn't buy the R, like probably most R owners, so I can potter around town below 60.

I hit my mates track and really flog the thing. The GTI as explained above is not as raw and wouldn't appreciate that as much.

I have read some GTI owners say that they just wanted the car to hoon below 60km/h, have fun at the speed limit.

That's cool. But it doesn't make it have the edge that the R has for true performance (and tuneability/track/hard driving).

[triode12]

To be fair then, you didn't have the choice. It wasnt out when you bought your GTI?

So you couldn't and you didn't.



No no not at all. I definitely don't think that. I know this is the Internet and you don't know me from a bar of soap. But me saying one car higher in the range, is better than a car lower in the range, has nothing to do with my/your/anyones financial status.

I live in an area where people roll around in pieces of ****, and know for a fact that they are worth millions. I have come from a working class background and would never assume a car is someones limit in life.

So I don't doubt you, me or anyone could not have bought a Porsche for all we know.
Only someone very naive would link a car to someones financial status, especially car under $100k.

Some people roll around in there R, or SS or 350Z and have been borrowed up to the hilt to get it.

Some people buy an R because they can't be bothered buying another X5M for $200K.

So no, I don't think any less of you as a person for choosing a GTI. What i think of you as a person is unrelated to me comparing 2 (similar) cars with you. It's a great car. And has it's advantages in some areas like making wheel spin (fun), and the classic Jacky interior, and ofcourse the low down response.

But for the full Monty, and performance - you get the R. AWD, Classy black interior, Bigger turbo, better engine, better suited to track use( doesn't syphon oil like the GTI motor - well documented), DRLs in the bumper, LED tails, all the parking sensors included, much more tuneable and able to produce great acceleration repeatedley, etc etc.

And it's not much more than a GTI. $9.5K!! Great value upgrade which would cost a GTI at retail thousands to upgrade to.

I didn't buy the R, like probably most R owners, so I can potter around town below 60.

I hit my mates track and really flog the thing. The GTI as explained above is not as raw and wouldn't appreciate that as much.

I have read some GTI owners say that they just wanted the car to hoon below 60km/h, have fun at the speed limit.

That's cool. But it doesn't make it have the edge that the R has for true performance (and tuneability/track/hard driving).

Have to agree with most of what you said except the bit about having fun below 60km/h or the speed limit in a mkVI GTI. It is not possible to because as you said, it is not as raw so you don't get that sensation of speed. The driver is too cossetted from the elements that driving even at 80km/hr is rather boring.

[markwid]

The driver is too cossetted from the elements that driving even at 80km/hr is rather boring.

Exhaust mod?

[triode12]

Exhaust mod?

Might help a little esp if it was a TBE not just a catback. The car is just too refined/polite.
Perhaps remove the door cards and insulation too.

[AdamD]

To be fair then, you didn't have the choice. It wasnt out when you bought your GTI?

So you couldn't and you didn't.

True, I wasn't in a position to drive the R at the time. The spec had been hinted at, and plenty of people had advanced orders. I could have waited (as many others - such as Corey_R - did), but chose not to based on the info I had at hand. Anyhow...

So I don't doubt you, me or anyone could not have bought a Porsche for all we know. Only someone very naive would link a car to someones financial status, especially car under $100k.

Sorry, wasn't insinuating that. I was specifically replying to your statement:

Anyone in their right mind would take an R over any lesser model if they could afford it.

...which implies, to me, that you're suggesting that anyone sensible would take the R over the GTI if it were within their means to do so. Hey, if that's your opinion then that's fine, but I do disagree with it. As for tying financial status to car ownership, well, the correlation is pretty tenuous, as you say.

But for the full Monty, and performance - you get the R. AWD, Classy black interior, Bigger turbo, better engine, better suited to track use( doesn't syphon oil like the GTI motor - well documented), DRLs in the bumper, LED tails, all the parking sensors included, much more tuneable and able to produce great acceleration repeatedley, etc etc.

[snip]

I didn't buy the R, like probably most R owners, so I can potter around town below 60.

I hit my mates track and really flog the thing. The GTI as explained above is not as raw and wouldn't appreciate that as much.

I have read some GTI owners say that they just wanted the car to hoon below 60km/h, have fun at the speed limit.

That's cool. But it doesn't make it have the edge that the R has for true performance (and tuneability/track/hard driving).

I absolutely agree with all of that (with the possible exception of raw - the R can be pretty smooth and down-to-business at speed, where the GTI is a bit lairier with wheelspin and less weight to tie it down). As I won't be tracking my car, as I do spend most of my time driving round in metro areas (trying not to get booked, hehe), the R's extra potential is not only wasted, it's unwanted for its (few) detrimental (to me) qualities. Doesn't mean I think the GTI is a better track car, or a faster car, or brakes quicker, etc. The R does provide a real performance edge.

I'm sure triode12 will melt down at this, but if I could have an R with an EA888 and K3, tuned to stage 1 level from the factory, I'd take it. That'd be the best of both worlds for me - great power, great grip, great brakes, great suspension and weight distribution, great style, and great low-down response. As I can't have that, I'll make do with the next best option for me.