Golf R -v- Golf GTI

[Corey_R]

*shakes head*

They weren't using an engine dyno buddy. They were using a chassis dyno. The AWD cars read lower than the FWD cars because of additional drivetrain losses, and possibly other factors. DeanCorp's EA113 TFSI "Stage II+" Pirelli GTI did 219kW, AND it was in the proper gear, 4th, and not in 3rd gear... so now where's the difference?

As for the 13.3 sec Golf R time. That was a Stage I time.
So lets not start mis-interpretting/misrepresenting figures to support your case

[brad]

EA888 TSI - Stage II Golf GTI - 222kW.
EA113 TFSI - Stage II+ Golf R - 198kW.

Would it be safe to say that the newer EA888 motor in the Mark 6 Golf GTI is better than the older EA113 Golf R to the tune of about 25kW?

No, not really. The R has greater driveline losses. From my experience the FWD only loses about 15%, whereas AWD loses closer to 30%. Work on that & you'll find the guestimated flywheel figure to be pretty close.
Totally non-bias as I've been running an EA888 block for almost 3 years now.

I really don't believe the design of the EA888 was for power - more for reduced manufacting costs, greater fuel economy, easier servicing & to stop people bitching about 4 yearly timing belt replacements.

[WhiteJames]

Fair enough. Went back & had a look at the actual video to see AWD cars tested on AWD dyno. Assumed Mainline disabled the Haldex and ran the front only for dyno testing. Couldn't find any Pirelli GTI with 218kW on that list. Highest GTI Pirelli was 181kW with the other at 168kW ... well shy of the 222kW KO4 Mark 6 GTI.

Here's what mainline have to say about 3rd and 4th gear testing:

Just to clarify some of the comments in here regarding what gear you should use etc. The "number" you see on your dyno printout on a Mainline Dyno includes measured power at the rollers (plus Atmos correction), inertial losses of the dyno and windage (pumping) losses of the dyno, this ensures you will get very close power readings regardless of the gear tested in. What we don't do, is factor in "assumed" vehicle losses that some other dyno manufacturers do.
If a car happens to make slightly more in 3rd that 4th on a Mainline Dyno, it is solely due to the cars wheels consuming the power as road speed increases.
I tested a few cars in 3rd and 4th on the day just for my own curiosity, and there was about 3-5kw worst case between a 3rd or 4th gear run on a Golf R at about the 180AWKW level. As your power goes up it is entirely likely you will make more power in 4th than 3rd as tyre losses increase.
There is no "must use" gear to dyno a car in, the gear chosen is simply one of three overall ratios bewteen the engine and the dyno roller, there is the gear used, the final drive ratio and then the tyre to roller ratio. The stigma of using 4th gear relates back to an old conventional RWD platform car where when 4th gear was used the power was transmitted straight through the gear box via the main shaft, whereas if 3rd was used there would be extra losses due to the helical shape of the gears causing end thrust on the cluster gear assembly.
I have used 3rd gear for AWD VW/Audis at these dyno days for 4 years now, and only keep doing so, so people can make valid comparisons, as there is always a lot of guys who always return.
In future, if 4th gear is what the "gurus" want to see, so be it.
One of the cars I tested had a graph sitting on the passenger floor from the shop who does the Melbourne Dyno Day, and I tested this car in 4th gear, and it was 3kw less than his graph stated when tested in 4th, for a comparative result.
Bottom line, using 3rd is not cheating, it is merely a testing method. Hope this helps.

Has anyone with a Stage II/II+ Golf R cracked the 13.0 sec barrier for the 1/4 mile?

Cheers
WJ

[AdamD]

Has anyone with a Stage II/II+ Golf R cracked the 13.0 sec barrier for the 1/4 mile?

Ferret has.

[adzy]

The Golf has a very good chassis design. After driving the Renault Megane RS250, I wouldn’t say that the Golf MKV/MKVI is beginning to feel its age, but it could be improved on in some respects.
WJ

I have never mentioned this before but since day one of owning my MKV GTI I was amazed and appalled at how soft the chassis is; as in torsional rigidity. I have never owned a car before that was so sloppy in chassis stiffness to the point that you can HEAR the ruber window seals creaking every time you enter a drive way??? It still eats away at me and is now even more pronounced since I have a firmer suspension set up. It becomes even more evident how torsionally sloppy it is when you hear the sub-frame bolts ticking/clicking in similar circumstances.
Love my VW's but I would never say the MKV, MKVI chassis' come any where near the poise and rigidity of the RS250.

[WhiteJames]

Tosional Rigidity

I agree with the statement above that the Renault Megane RS250 offers a greater sense of torsional rigidity. The RS250 has a certain solidity about it and offers lightweight alloy (unsprung) suspension components that really improves the drive experience. Bear in mind that the Renault Megane is almost one full generation up on the MKV-MKVI platform in terms age of design.

The MKV did twist a little in the rear end with leather rear seats squeaking when entering and leaving driveway lips & steep driveways. The MKVI is noticeably improved in this area, but does exhibit a slight tendency to twist a little in the rear like the MKV.

The aspects that I find difficult to overlook in the Renault RS250 are: Poor resale, 3 door only, limited dealer locations & possibly spare parts/service, torsion beam rear end and manual only. Renault refers to the rear torsion end offering programmed deflection ... I'd prefer to call it old fashioned bump steer. Otherwise the Renault is the pick for the true drivers sports hatchback.

Cheers
WJ

[adzy]

Agree 100%, if it wasn't for those cons in realation to the RS250 I would have one in my driveway right now! Re-sale is a real shocker!

[sabloke]

Is it really? How many 3 year old RS250s have been sold in Melbourne?

I was wondering if there's any difference between GTI and R chassis in regards to torsional rigidity.

[adzy]

Is it really? How many 3 year old RS250s have been sold in Melbourne?

As in re-sale of the last couple of generations of Renault's in the Australian market champ, vs the strong re-sale of VW's.

[triode12]

I have never mentioned this before but since day one of owning my MKV GTI I was amazed and appalled at how soft the chassis is; as in torsional rigidity. I have never owned a car before that was so sloppy in chassis stiffness to the point that you can HEAR the ruber window seals creaking every time you enter a drive way??? It still eats away at me and is now even more pronounced since I have a firmer suspension set up. It becomes even more evident how torsionally sloppy it is when you hear the sub-frame bolts ticking/clicking in similar circumstances.
Love my VW's but I would never say the MKV, MKVI chassis' come any where near the poise and rigidity of the RS250.

Adzy,

You should consider adding the Unibrace X and Under bracing to the car. I can't vouch for the x brace, but the underbrace alone did stiffen up my car quite a bit. I would imagine the xbrace would do more.

[triode12]

As in re-sale of the last couple of generations of Renault's in the Australian market champ, vs the strong re-sale of VW's.

The Clio RS200 I test drove had a standing pool of water in the back passenger foot well from being parked out in the back of the dealership. The leak was coming from a hole somewhere in the roof. Also the rubber seals had water stains/marks on them. It looks as though they were not made for our weather.

The french do make nice cars from a performance stand point but damn, their quality is crap.

[AdamD]

The MKV did twist a little in the rear end with leather rear seats squeaking when entering and leaving driveway lips & steep driveways. The MKVI is noticeably improved in this area, but does exhibit a slight tendency to twist a little in the rear like the MKV.

My driveway is a great test of this - a short steep rise to a crest whilst turning sharply left. My MkVI is marginally better than my parents' MkV in this respect, but I'd put the majority of the difference down to the variance in age between the two cars (2005 vs 2010). My last car (Honda Accord Euro) didn't flex a bit; most others I've driven home do to a greater or lesser extent, but the Golfs are certainly amongst the worst offenders.

[adzy]

Adzy,

You should consider adding the Unibrace X and Under bracing to the car. I can't vouch for the x brace, but the underbrace alone did stiffen up my car quite a bit. I would imagine the xbrace would do more.

Sounds good! I will have to look into that as I want to track my car a lot more this year and semi slicks will just show the chassis weekness even more.

The Clio RS200 I test drove had a standing pool of water in the back passenger foot well from being parked out in the back of the dealership. The leak was coming from a hole somewhere in the roof. Also the rubber seals had water stains/marks on them. It looks as though they were made for our weather.

The french do make nice cars from a performance stand point but damn, their quality is crap.

Sounds a bit extreme to be a fault that would be on every example of the RS200? But yes, the quality is not up to VW standards although they have improved a lot with the RS250.

[triode12]

My driveway is a great test of this - a short steep rise to a crest whilst turning sharply left. My MkVI is marginally better than my parents' MkV in this respect, but I'd put the majority of the difference down to the variance in age between the two cars (2005 vs 2010). My last car (Honda Accord Euro) didn't flex a bit; most others I've driven home do to a greater or lesser extent, but the Golfs are certainly amongst the worst offenders.

Apples and Oranges comparison IMO. One is a hatch while the other is a Sedan.

Being a sedan, there Accord has a fixed strengthening bar which sits low across the chassis where the hinge of the boot goes . The boot of the Accord is also shallower in height (in comparison to the Golf) and is rectangular in shape which offers greater torsional strength over the Golf.

Being a hatch, the Golf doesn't have the "luxury" of the added strengthening accorded (pardon the pun) by that extra bit of metal, the last bit of chassis sits high in a large square-ish frame (less torsional strength) which also has to support a large rear hatch.

[triode12]

Sounds a bit extreme to be a fault that would be on every example of the RS200? But yes, the quality is not up to VW standards although they have improved a lot with the RS250.

I checked out the quality of others over several dealerships, and the water marks/spotting was evident on all of them.