Golf R -v- Golf GTI

[G-rig]

Depends if you want a refined brand/car or not - otherwise keep the MPS.

[SilvrFoxX]

Why?
He said he wants the R but it doesn't fit with his price range or purpose.
These 2 vehicles offer the same/similar experience for a better price point and fill a greater purpose.

I apologise for my poor sentence construct if you believed I meant I got the GTI.. I bought the R

[Dan_3MPS]

Why the change from a MPS3 to a GTI/R? Personally I think the MPS is a much better 'hot hatch' than the MKVI GTI as it does what it's suppose to; quick and ballistic FWD with power on tap. The MKVI GTI is much more refined, more tame and less of a 'hot hatch' and more of a 'luxury hatch'. TBE bolt ons on the MPS3 and you have an extremely fun car to drive.

Golf R is a perfect little car in my opinion if you're upgrading from the MP3, just are you willing to spend the extra money for that AWD system? The R runs nearly the exact same k04 turbo as the MPS3 so in power delivery you should pretty much see the same curve besides for the fact that the MPS has an extra 300cc in capacity over the R

The refinement is exactly what I'm after. Don't get me wrong, the MPS is simply ballistic (especially on a roll) and has been great fun to own, but mine as modded as it is now and driving it as a daily isn't doing it for me, and is becoming tiresome.

It's also beginning to show it's age a bit with various rattles and clunks, the turbo was replaced at 30,000km etc. In short it has been a very fun car to own, but I'm over it, over Mazda and over the lack of aftermarket support for the platform. I'm also concerned about owning it outside of warranty so want to changeover.

I test drove the GTI on Saturday, and did notice the obvious lack of shove compared to the MPS, but the GTI just did everything else so much better. To put it in perspective and benchmark the GTI I drove the new MPS later that afternoon, and it was very similar to mine and not close to the GTI in all aspects except outright grunt where it obviously excels.

I'm also a reasonably tall guy and the Golf is great in terms of seating position, having more room for the driver than the Mazda.

Given that I like everything about the GTI other than the lack of power, but a quick drive to Guy_H and $1700 later you can sort that out to get stock MPS power levels anyway it seems like an easy choice to me. It looks like I can't justify the added expense of the R, which is a shame.

Plenty of ex-MPS people are coming over to VW for the Golf GTI and R as a 3 MPS replacement and the R36 as a 6 MPS replacement, but some are downsizing/upsizing. Mazda lost any follow on market for the 6 MPS when they killed it off and for the 3 MPS when they let Hello Kitty get busy with Astroboy behind the bike sheds to give birth to the abortion that is the GenII 3 MPS...

[danielb]

Why?
He said he wants the R but it doesn't fit with his price range or purpose.
These 2 vehicles offer the same/similar experience for a better price point and fill a greater purpose.

But it isn't a Golf is it?

[bwen]

Plenty of ex-MPS people are coming over to VW for the Golf GTI and R as a 3 MPS replacement and the R36 as a 6 MPS replacement, but some are downsizing/upsizing. Mazda lost any follow on market for the 6 MPS when they killed it off and for the 3 MPS when they let Hello Kitty get busy with Astroboy behind the bike sheds to give birth to the abortion that is the GenII 3 MPS...

Whole heartedly agree right there, the 2nd generation MPS3 are an abomination... the earlier models looked much tougher and easier on the eyes.

There is plenty of talk on the golfmkv.com forums about GTI vs MPS3 in races from dig and from roll. The general consensus is that:-

-> stock GTI vs stock MPS: MPS will win
-> stage 1 GTI vs stock MPS: pretty even, MPS will probably just take it
-> stage 2 GTI vs stock MPS: GTI will pull a car length or two
-> stage 2 GTI vs bolt-on MPS: MPS will inch out, but probably even if it was a stage 2+ GTI.

So hopefully if you do jump to the VW camp and spend a bit of money on a ECU remap you probably shouldn't miss the great power delivery that the MPS offers. If you weren't looking at brand new you could always look at a GTI Pirelli which has the same engine configuration as the Golf R except FWD which might keep you a bit closer to the MPS

[AdamD]

The general consensus is that:-

-> stock GTI vs stock MPS: MPS will win
-> stage 1 GTI vs stock MPS: pretty even, MPS will probably just take it
-> stage 2 GTI vs stock MPS: GTI will pull a car length or two
-> stage 2 GTI vs bolt-on MPS: MPS will inch out, but probably even if it was a stage 2+ GTI.

Motor magazine tested the GTI (DSG) against the current-generation MPS (manual) in their December 09 issue. The GTI managed 6.52 and 14.58 for the quarter. The Mazda's times were recorded for a previous (September) comparo but at a near identical temperature and at the same venue, and the MPS was timed at 6.61 and 14.72.

Maybe it's down to an easier launch with the GTI - the journos do say the MPS is a b***h to launch hard - but whichever way you look at it, the GTI pulled the better times, despite being 35kw and 100Nm down. Add a stage 1 to the mix and it's only going to look better for the Golf.

[REXman]

Motor magazine tested the GTI (DSG) against the current-generation MPS (manual) in their December 09 issue. The GTI managed 6.52 and 14.58 for the quarter. The Mazda's times were recorded for a previous (September) comparo but at a near identical temperature and at the same venue, and the MPS was timed at 6.61 and 14.72.

Maybe it's down to an easier launch with the GTI - the journos do say the MPS is a b***h to launch hard - but whichever way you look at it, the GTI pulled the better times, despite being 35kw and 100Nm down. Add a stage 1 to the mix and it's only going to look better for the Golf.

Yeah but they gave the R (in the R vs EVO edition) a 13.65 quater.. and then in the Performance showdown thing with the STI v EVO v R they gave it a 14.65!! It cant be that much different just cause of the transmission (A full second is heaps, especially if driven proper). Its good to gauge, but different months and different magazines it really hard to make a fair comparison!

[Dan_3MPS]

Motor magazine tested the GTI (DSG) against the current-generation MPS (manual) in their December 09 issue. The GTI managed 6.52 and 14.58 for the quarter. The Mazda's times were recorded for a previous (September) comparo but at a near identical temperature and at the same venue, and the MPS was timed at 6.61 and 14.72.

Maybe it's down to an easier launch with the GTI - the journos do say the MPS is a b***h to launch hard - but whichever way you look at it, the GTI pulled the better times, despite being 35kw and 100Nm down. Add a stage 1 to the mix and it's only going to look better for the Golf.

The MPS is a much quicker car than the GTI, they're just extremely difficult to get off the line. Rolling acceleration in them is just ridiculous.

I'm surprised the journos don't get better times from the R, mid 13's should be spot on.

But, it's not all about 1/4 mile times, if it was we'd all be driving something else

I better let this thread get back to GTI vs R comparison, will get my stuff sorted and order a car in the next couple of weeks.

[whichonetoget]

It seems rather easy to extract power out of a GTI. However, at what point in time would I start to need to do some handling mods to keep it from torque steering all over the place?

I am currently leaning towards a new GTI over an a R32 due to it having more potential to modify.

[triode12]

The MPS is a much quicker car than the GTI, they're just extremely difficult to get off the line. Rolling acceleration in them is just ridiculous.

I'm surprised the journos don't get better times from the R, mid 13's should be spot on.

But, it's not all about 1/4 mile times, if it was we'd all be driving something else

I better let this thread get back to GTI vs R comparison, will get my stuff sorted and order a car in the next couple of weeks.

Get the R even if you have to pare back on the options to get it. It is a much better car and a Stg 1 tune is all you need if you are not addicted to mods. It is IMO a better value over the GTI in terms of driving experience (read fun). And if you plan to track the car, you'll won't have to refill the engine oil that often. The new 888 engine in the MkVI GTI drinks oil when tracked.

[Corey_R]

Yeah but they gave the R (in the R vs EVO edition) a 13.65 quater.. and then in the Performance showdown thing with the STI v EVO v R they gave it a 14.65!! It cant be that much different just cause of the transmission (A full second is heaps, especially if driven proper). Its good to gauge, but different months and different magazines it really hard to make a fair comparison!

This is simply how good the DSG is mate. It doesn't matter whether you're an average driver or a race car driver, the DSG is well and truly over a second quicker on the quarter mile, and depending on the driver, around a second quicker 0 to 100. Best of all, the DSG will do the same time consistently each time, whereas you do 3 different runs in a manual and you'll get 3 different results.

As we're already seen, a stock DSG R is quicker in a 0 to 100 run for a Stage 3 manual R. You're talking a $2500 option vs a $13,000 mod (not including the better drivetrain/brakes/suspension mods also needed). Don't underestimate how much of an advantage the DSG is when doing straight line times...

[ddre78]

Motor magazine tested the GTI (DSG) against the current-generation MPS (manual) in their December 09 issue. The GTI managed 6.52 and 14.58 for the quarter. The Mazda's times were recorded for a previous (September) comparo but at a near identical temperature and at the same venue, and the MPS was timed at 6.61 and 14.72.

Hmm thats surprising. Ive just come from an MPS into an APR GTI and the MPS is still quicker. Even more surprising, considering in my opinion, the GTI is horrible at putting its power down in a straight line.

[AdamD]

Yeah but they gave the R (in the R vs EVO edition) a 13.65 quater.. and then in the Performance showdown thing with the STI v EVO v R they gave it a 14.65!! It cant be that much different just cause of the transmission (A full second is heaps, especially if driven proper). Its good to gauge, but different months and different magazines it really hard to make a fair comparison!

As coreying has said, the DSG is a phenomenon when it comes to acceleration. Just watch this video that compares a manual R and a DSG R:

YouTube - VW Golf R - DSG versus manual by autocar.co.uk

Same conditions, same road, same driver. The smallest gap was 0.6 seconds; the largest 0.9 - and this is an apparently good driver, not hanging around. Make no mistake, the DSG makes for fast, easily repeatable getaways. IMO, it was a great shame that Guy_H brough manual Golfs to the Hot Tuner shootout... the same cars equipped with DSG gearboxes would have put up some (even more) serious numbers (and sadly those shootouts seem to me to be too focussed on the numbers).

The MPS is a much quicker car than the GTI, they're just extremely difficult to get off the line. Rolling acceleration in them is just ridiculous. I'm surprised the journos don't get better times from the R, mid 13's should be spot on.

I agree, with all that power and torque, the MPS should simply demolish the GTI in a straight line (although a mid-13s might be a stretch). But as I said above, if the Golf is a DSG, it's not so clear cut - certainly from a standing start. Stage I the GTI and you'd manage equivalent in-gear acceleration, and as long as you can avoid too much wheelspin it should at least match the MPS at launch too - and that's before you consider the GTI's vastly-quicker shift times. Sounds like the best of both worlds to me.

Get the R even if you have to pare back on the options to get it. It is a much better car and a Stg 1 tune is all you need if you are not addicted to mods. It is IMO a better value over the GTI in terms of driving experience (read fun).

I respectfully disagree with you on that one. My personal feeling is that, day to day, the GTI is every bit as much fun as the R - if not moreso - although of course it is slower. I wrote this post comparing the two after driving the R.

[AdamD]

Hmm thats surprising. Ive just come from an MPS into an APR GTI and the MPS is still quicker. Even more surprising, considering in my opinion, the GTI is horrible at putting its power down in a straight line.

How are you measuring it to know it's quicker? As the MPS is more boosty, it may feel quicker, but the GTI has a more linear torque curve and hence feels less dramatic. The DSG's rapid shifts further reduce the drop-off/surge by keeping the engine nearer peak revs.

It's also worth pointing out that, as you're used to it, you may well be quite a bit better at launching an MPS than these journos.

My GTI feels a lot better in terms of power-down than the last two Hondas I had, which suffered from savage axle-tramp.

[triode12]

As coreying has said, the DSG is a phenomenon when it comes to acceleration. Just watch this video that compares a manual R and a DSG R:

YouTube - VW Golf R - DSG versus manual by autocar.co.uk

Same conditions, same road, same driver. The smallest gap was 0.6 seconds; the largest 0.9 - and this is an apparently good driver, not hanging around. Make no mistake, the DSG makes for fast, easily repeatable getaways. IMO, it was a great shame that Guy_H brough manual Golfs to the Hot Tuner shootout... the same cars equipped with DSG gearboxes would have put up some (even more) serious numbers (and sadly those shootouts seem to me to be too focussed on the numbers).



I agree, with all that power and torque, the MPS should simply demolish the GTI in a straight line (although a mid-13s might be a stretch). But as I said above, if the Golf is a DSG, it's not so clear cut - certainly from a standing start. Stage I the GTI and you'd manage equivalent in-gear acceleration, and as long as you can avoid too much wheelspin it should at least match the MPS at launch too - and that's before you consider the GTI's vastly-quicker shift times. Sounds like the best of both worlds to me.



I respectfully disagree with you on that one. My personal feeling is that, day to day, the GTI is every bit as much fun as the R - if not moreso - although of course it is slower. I wrote this post comparing the two after driving the R.

That's fine! We all view/feel things differently and I respect your POV/Opinion.

My comparisons (several occasions) have always turned me towards the R as being more fun to drive and it wasn't all about about speed. At the end of the day the OP has to drive both cars and make his decision - however he should at least give the R a go before excluding it.