Golf R -v- Golf GTI

[AdamD]

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.

100% agree - everyone's different, and a buyer will always be in a better position if they drive and evaluate every car themselves, rather than relying on the opinons of others!

[G-rig]

I believe the OP (original poster - Whitejames) has driven both cars fairly extensively (moreso than most people would on a test drive) and decided he's not trading in his GTI.

The R and GTI are both fun in different ways, but whether it's a MPS or GTI you can't really launch it with a real heavy foot and expect it not to wheelspin. I imagine (and heard) that the MPS torque steers a lot more though.

Agree with Adam just drive both, also comes down to how much you want to spend.

[Corey_R]

Yeah, the 1st-gen MPS torque steers so badly that I've seen/heard some motoring journalists call it "irresponsible". From memory, it was not taken seriously on either Fifth Gear or Top Gears hot hatch roundups (on TV) for this reason and it's general lack of handling. There have been videos of it on youtube over the years showing MPS' literally changing lanes under acceleration without the driver turning the steering wheel!

The 2nd-gen MPS appears to have addressed this issue. Buuuuut, it's not by improving the suspension or drive-train, it's simply by limiting the torque accessible in lower gears.

I haven't driven the 2nd-gen, but I have driven the 1st. I would agree that rolling acceleration was fun. But the rest of the car is simply no match to a Golf GTI. Although I never had the opportunity to test them side-by-side, I felt that the rolling acceleration of my MKV Stage II GTI was more fun than that of a MPS. And as has been noted above, the MPS has always felt quicker than it really is due to its peakier torque curve and lack of refinement. So for a GTI to "feel" quicker, I'd say it's probably substantially quicker in measured numbers (just my opinion having driven both... I've no numbers to prove it, and don't really even care enough about the MPS to spend time looking...)

[REXman]

The 2nd-gen MPS appears to have addressed this issue. Buuuuut, it's not by improving the suspension or drive-train, it's simply by limiting the torque accessible in lower gears.

The 2nd Gen MPS 3 actually got a LSD, so its a major upgrade in the drivetrain dept. It does however tame the torque driven to the wheels in the first 3 gears as it can be a bit too much for the wheels.

The MPS 3 was benched against the GTI (and WRX for that matter) and had a G force rating of 0.92 compared to the GTI's 0.93. So the MPS fared a pretty good handler. REXY was the weakest at holding surprisingly!!

And as for the MPS "feeling" fast.. Its got 195KW and 380nm torque (more than a pre-2009 STI or EVO IX {or Current R by 50nm!!}), stock!!. The thrust from a MPS 3 in higher gears is amazing for what it is. I would not be surprised If it is underrated.
As for lack of refinement, thats a bit harsh.. xenons, Bose audio, keyless, bluetooth, part leather, a fantastic gearbox and everything is soft to the touch like the GTI inside.. and there is no rattle either..

I am now a VW'er now so I like golf's better anyway but, credit where its due..

[G-rig]

Agree REXman it's a good package for the price, as is the XR5 Turbo as well.

[Corey_R]

"goodies" like Xenons, crappy stereos (yes, Bose), bluetooth and even leather etc are not what makes a car refined....

[ddre78]

"goodies" like Xenons, crappy stereos (yes, Bose), bluetooth and even leather etc are not what makes a car refined....

No rattles are, and the like. My GTI has more rattles than my MPS did by a factor of 10:1. Having had both in my garage at the same time, I think I can make a good comparison... No doubt the stock MPS vs GTI S1 is much quicker. Do I have times to back it up, no. But its obvious, and anyone who has been in both my cars commented as such. GTI has much more wheelspin and axle tramp, KW for KW. Also the setup of the TC in the GTI is horrible, the power cut is excessive.

GTI is an awesome cruiser, it will cover long distances quickly with minimum fuss. But its not really good bang for buck in my opinion.

Everyone has different opinions and different requirements. Thank God we don't all drive the same thing, life would be boring.

[Dan_3MPS]

No rattles are, and the like. My GTI has more rattles than my MPS did by a factor of 10:1. Having had both in my garage at the same time, I think I can make a good comparison... No doubt the stock MPS vs GTI S1 is much quicker. Do I have times to back it up, no. But its obvious, and anyone who has been in both my cars commented as such. GTI has much more wheelspin and axle tramp, KW for KW. Also the setup of the TC in the GTI is horrible, the power cut is excessive.

GTI is an awesome cruiser, it will cover long distances quickly with minimum fuss. But its not really good bang for buck in my opinion.

Everyone has different opinions and different requirements. Thank God we don't all drive the same thing, life would be boring.

Interesting post - thanks for putting it up. I'm also at the point where I can sort the things most annoying me about my MPS (suspension!) and be $$$ up...hrrmmm...decisions decisions. $20,000 (diff between trade in for MPS and a new GTI) buys plenty of goodies...

Oh, there was a post above about the Gen 2 MPS getting a LSD, Gen 1 has it too. All they did for the Gen 2 was change the ECU programming a bit to make the power delivery less violent in 1-2-3. Unfortunately Mazda gave us Gen 1 owners this 'update' at our 40,000km services...it really took the "oh *****" factor out of the car

[Corey_R]

Oh, there was a post above about the Gen 2 MPS getting a LSD, Gen 1 has it too. All they did for the Gen 2 was change the ECU programming a bit to make the power delivery less violent in 1-2-3. Unfortunately Mazda gave us Gen 1 owners this 'update' at our 40,000km services...it really took the "oh *****" factor out of the car

Thanks for this information. I was sure when I posted before that there was no drive train changes between the generations!

[WhiteJames]

Fuel Consumption and Six-hole Injectors:

Fuel Consumption:

Two trips from Sydney South Coast to Queensland’s Gold Coast via the Pacific Hwy have had fuel consumption at 6.85 litres/100km average for the new Mark 6 GTI. The old MKV GTI would have returned 7.0l/100km or slightly more depending on conditions.

The Mark 6 EA888 motor has a different four lobe operated Bosch fuel pump and six-hole injectors that meter the fuel with greater precision than the single-hole injector on the EA113 motor of the MKV GTI. Like direct injection – 6 hole injectors are stated to improve fuel consumption.

I was interested to see how the new Mark 6 GTI fared in a range of driving conditions in the one day in respect to fuel usage. Route involved 315km of Freeway, City and Fringe of City driving:

First trip from Surfers Paradise to Brisbane CBD one-way on 23 degree day yielded 6.9 litres/100km – pretty good fuel consumption for predominantly highway going. The days route continued along Mt Crosby Road to just before Ipswich with return to Brisbane via the Ipswich Motorway for lunch at Breakfast Creek Hotel just East of Brisbane CBD. After lunch, onto Redcliffe with a seaside slow boulevard cruise along beaches of Sandgate and Redcliffe for part of the way. Trip home from Redcliffe over Gateway Bridge Tollway and Gold Coast Hwy involved being stuck in early peak hour Brisbane traffic from south of new Gateway Bridge. Once returned to Surfers Paradise – the fuel usage for the day was 7.2 litres / 100km.

Very good fuel economy considering I was stuck in slow moving and stop/start traffic around Mt Gravatt and Springwood for @ 30min.

Cheers
WJ

[REXman]

The 2nd-gen MPS appears to have addressed this issue. Buuuuut, it's not by improving the suspension or drive-train, it's simply by limiting the torque accessible in lower gears.

Actually it's got a super LSD in it now. It also has revised gearbox, that include wider gear ratios, triple syncs on 1st, 2nd and 3rd, an improved and stiffened chassis over the older gen, it also has a brand new suspension set up in it with Mac struts and thicker sway bars. Wider tires..

http://www.gkndriveline.com/drivelinecms/export/sites/driveline/en/news/news/downloads/0031_-_Mazda3_MPS_-_EN.pdf

[AdamD]

Actually it's got a super LSD in it now. It also has revised gearbox, that include wider gear ratios, triple syncs on 1st, 2nd and 3rd, an improved and stiffened chassis over the older gen, it also has a brand new suspension set up in it with Mac struts and thicker sway bars. Wider tires.

The 3 MPS certainly represents awesome bang for your buck. Pity it looks the way it does (inside and out) - I could never part with $40k for something that looks so ugly! The 1st gen was such a nice looking sleeper too...

I tend to think of the 3 MPS as a car that would appeal to the stereotypical WRX buyer - big performance at the expense of some refinement and quality. In that respect I don't see the GTI or R as playing in the same market.

[REXman]

The 3 MPS certainly represents awesome bang for your buck.

Thats very true, it is a solid performing car. Like I said, even as a fan of VW, credit where its due. Its an excellent performing, and well made package. It simply blows away a GTI in the straight line performance category, so it has to be pretty good!

I tend to think of the 3 MPS as a car that would appeal to the stereotypical WRX buyer - big performance at the expense of some refinement and quality.

Well again the GTI has refinement and is nice inside, but it does have a rattle, that is clearly not an engineering marvel at the best of times and on some peoples cars is terribly annoying. The cars also have had there fair share of problems like most mass produced cars I guess.

And on a separate note, (a lot of people might not agree with this),a stereotypical WRX buyer is actually not a young 21 y.o with chains and hiphop blaring. There is actually a lot of people who buy a car like that, (that can actually afford a $45K brand new car) and are not necessarily like that. A lot of old guys, and women bought these cars. Its the aftermarket once they are 10 years old that attracts the "other" bad bad people.

In that respect I don't see the GTI or R as playing in the same market.

The GTI and the R are not in the same market either If you think like that.

And I dont think you forgo much, actual quality or refinement. Its definitely no chalk and cheese situation like the performance? It more an issue of brand image.

The more your in the know of car values, the better. People who dont know might be very impressed by the 2003 BMW 330CI Convertible that rocks past leaving some thinking, how well off the owner might be.. But they think nothing of the sort when they see the 2005 STI rock past - even though they are worth the same money!

I value opinions that are good calls, like when you said the car was ugly - that is subjective and I have no right or view on your opinion there, more than fair enough. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. As for the brands, I would also say VW is more prestigious.

But refinement, power, features etc.. It pretty tight with a GTI.

The GTI, I tend to see compared with the WRX, Ralliart, Renault Clio Sport, Mazda MPS.. And the GTI normally wins as the all rounder! (But dont forget the testers dont live with the Rattles)

The R is different beast altogether hence it being compared to different cars, and not being as heavily discounted as the GTI.

[AdamD]

[A] stereotypical WRX buyer is actually not a young 21 y.o with chains and hiphop blaring. There is actually a lot of people who buy a car like that, (that can actually afford a $45K brand new car) and are not necessarily like that. A lot of old guys, and women bought these cars. Its the aftermarket once they are 10 years old that attracts the "other" bad bad people.

I think you're right there - certainly for the new car purchases. But that's what differentiates the stereotypical WRX buyer (the image, if you will) from the actual WRX buyer.

And I dont think you forgo much, actual quality or refinement. Its definitely no chalk and cheese situation like the performance? It more an issue of brand image.

This, too, then is somewhat subjective. The ways I assess quality may well differ fundamentally from how you or others may. Let's take rattles as an example - I hate rattles, but have heard them in cheap and very expensive cars alike (while I've also lived with at least one Commodore that was rattle-free), and therefore don't equate the presence of rattles as a key indicator of poor quality. I look at things like panel gaps, interior plastics finishes, paint finish, NVH, structural flex, the "thunk" of a door closing solidly, etc etc, when making up my mind. In areas like these, the Golfs have comprehensively outperformed the competition in my assessment.

And as an aside - every WRX I've driven or been driven in has rattled, and has felt flimsy and comparatively "cheap", even though I know the engineering is sound and they've gone like cut cats.

The R is different beast altogether hence it being compared to different cars, and not being as heavily discounted as the GTI.

I actually don't see the R as all that different, to be honest. I think the GTI and R are for different buyers and do suit different requirements, but because they share that same solid base (according to my assessment of quality, style, refinement), but just differ in terms of the degree and flavour of performance, both appeal to me, whereas a WRX, 3 MPS or RenaultSport Clio (to name but three) don't even get a look in.

I'm not for a moment suggesting my opinion is right for anyone other than me, however, so please don't interpret this post as a "you're wrong, I'm right" rant.

[SilvrFoxX]

I actually don't see the R as all that different, to be honest. I think the GTI and R are for different buyers and do suit different requirements, but because they share that same solid base (according to my assessment of quality, style, refinement), but just differ in terms of the degree and flavour of performance, both appeal to me, whereas a WRX, 3 MPS or RenaultSport Clio (to name but three) don't even get a look in.

Yup.. different buyers alright .. GTI screams " I am under 40..." R Screams " I am over 40".. which I have no issue with as I am over 40 and getting an R...