Golf R -v- Golf GTI

[Corey_R]

REXman, the Porsche 911 Turbo is $380,000. It does 0 to 100 in 3.7 seconds, produces 368kW and 650Nm from it's 3.8L Turbo, has AWD and weighs 1645kg.
The Porsche 911 GT3 is $280,000. It does 0 to 100 in 4.1 seconds, produces 320kW and 430Nm from it's 3.8L NA, has RWD and weighs 1395kg.

Yes, the Turbo is $100,000 more, but that doesn't automatically mean it's better. Many people who can afford to and could buy the 911 Turbo buy the 911 GT3 as they prefer the naturally aspirated engine over the turbo. They prefer the RWD instead of the AWD. They prefer the fact that it's 250kg lighter.

So it's not simply a Holden Commodore SS vs a HSV GTS argument here where they've got the same basic drivetrain, engine and weight but one is just a more worked version of the other and is clearly better. In the Porsche example you have two distinctive cars with distinctive characteristics.

The Golf GTI vs the Golf R is somewhat the same.

The GTI has a K03 turbo which gives it plenty of low down torque and driveabiltiy from 1500rpm to 3500rpm. The Golf R has a K04 which has NOTHING from 1500rpm to 2500rpm, slowly starts getting there to 3500rpm and then flies to the redline when you're already past the speed limit.

The GTI has FWD so it can lose some traction and be a bit lairy.
The R has AWD and has no chance of losing traction in a straight line, mostly not even in the wet. No lairiness there.

The GTI weighs 125kg less than the R and between the reduced weight and the K03 being more "ready to please" feels more agile and frisky, compared to the R which in stock form is rather docile and laidback until the K04 cuts in.

So yes, the Golf R costs more than the GTI. Yes, the Golf R is the "halo model". But it's not a straight cut one is better than the other full stop situation.

Both sides, please stop insulting each other for their choices. If you're happy with your purchase, then YOU are right. Move on.


(Edit, written before I saw AdamD's post. Use of "lairy" is pure coincidence! lol).

[triode12]

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...



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



...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.



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.

LOL - my dislike of the MKVI GTI doesn't stem from the fact that it isn't a good car (technically) but that it is too good (for my taste). Putting the EA888 in it's current state would probably make the R like the GTI and subsequently kill what I like about the R besides the looks.

I found the R more edgy than I did the GTI on the 3 occasions I drove the them both back to back.
[shrugs]

If the car that is marketed as a hot hatch doesn't make you feel like you are driving one (not only perform like one), (IMO) kinda defeats the purpose of owning it.

Given a choice, I would take a lesser car (performance wise - e.g. MkIV Polo GTI) that gives me the kicks of driving a hot hatch than one that does perform but isn't fun to drive.

As always - YMMV.

[AdamD]

If the car that is marketed as a hot hatch doesn't make you feel like you are driving one (not only perform like one), (IMO) kinda defeats the purpose of owning it.

Given a choice, I would take a lesser car (performance wise - e.g. MkIV Polo GTI) that gives me the kicks of driving a sports car than one that does perform but isn't fun to drive.

Definitely. I'd love having a proper raw performance car, if only it wasn't my daily. Used to fang about in a modified series 1 MX-5 (somewhat stripped out, low and firm, chassis bracing, tough racing diff etc), and it was incredibly good fun - if a bit scary in tight corners in the wet - whilst not actually being very fast in a straight line. But there's no way I could live with it every day.

I've not had any extended experience with the EA113 so I'm not in a position to comment on its rawness. While the MkVI GTI is a bit clinical at times, it's that same quality that makes it the perfect compromise for me. But if I had two cars, I'd probably be more inclined to go with something like an R36 and an S15, or maybe even an RS250.

[Whistler]

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.

No, I was the one who provided non-monetary reasons for him choosing it. He borrowed to the hilt the get the GTI and even if he wanted to couldnt stretch to the R. So, no, he didnt have the choice....but that's fine; There are lots of keen car fanatics who stretch themselves to get a car they want.

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.

Fair point.

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

No one said anyone who chooses the GTI over an R is out of their mind....but they are indeed rare.
I guess my original point was that out of 12 guys, 11 (non Golf owners) said they would take an R over a GTI and that it was a "no brainer". One guy who did own a GTI said that was the car for him. To be a fairer contest anyone with bias should be taken out of the vote. I own an R and did not vote. So, the actual result is that 11 out of 11 car educated guys on the day would prefer the R.
Now, I dont know how many of them have driven either car, but what this would appear to tell us is that those 11 believe the R is a more "desirable" car from the outset - and the "Golf R -v- GTI" title of this forum leaves a pretty broad defenition of what is being compared - and desirability is a pretty important factor in purchsing a car. Obviously its the things that make it desirable that make it the car you want.

Individual driver's/owners opinions - once behind the wheel - will differ and people do buy cars for different reasons and purposes and may be limited by the traffic thay have to dive in and how they are able to use their drive.

The current Wheels mag (for what it's worth) quotes:
"The burning question in the minds of many would-be GTI buyers, is this 'Should I spend the extra and get the R?'. In the sense that it offers more of a good thing, the simple answer is 'yes' "

So, I think they sum it up pretty well with "more of a good thing" There's no doubt that was the aim for VW when they developed the R.

And, to be fair, wheels then suggests if you spend your days just doing the commute in traffic then it is arguably less worthwhile outlaying the extra. (but hey, if that was me I would change jobs, not the car! Hate commuting! lol)

So, I guess it's GTI for those who commute and R for those who get to drive. Makes sense I suppose.

[AdamD]

Now, I dont know how many of them have driven either car, but what this would appear to tell us is that those 11 believe the R is a more "desirable" car from the outset - and the "Golf R -v- GTI" title of this forum leaves a pretty broad defenition of what is being compared - and desirability is a pretty important factor in purchsing a car. Obviously its the things that make it desirable that make it the car you want.

For sure. Don't think anyone would argue that the R is absolutely the more desirable drive. Faster, better specced... if I had to choose without extensive drives and/or background knowledge (and applying same to my own requirements), I'd choose the R too.

So, I guess it's GTI for those who commute and R for those who get to drive. Makes sense I suppose.

Quite a few journos have summed it up that way. I'd probably not go as far as to conclude that, though, because there are a ton of guys (and girls?) on this forum whose primary use of their R is for the daily grind, and still prefer it over the GTI. To me it's all down to personal preference.

[markwid]

No one said anyone who chooses the GTI over an R is out of their mind....but they are indeed rare.
I guess my original point was that out of 12 guys, 11 (non Golf owners) said they would take an R over a GTI and that it was a "no brainer".

Humbug! The sales stats does not back this up. IIRC, out of 3000+ performance variants sold per year, only 10% is the R.

Intent and action are two different things.

[Big Yellow]

i went from an r32 to a mk6 gti

[REXman]

REXman, the Porsche 911 Turbo is $380,000. It does 0 to 100 in 3.7 seconds, produces 368kW and 650Nm from it's 3.8L Turbo, has AWD and weighs 1645kg.
The Porsche 911 GT3 is $280,000. It does 0 to 100 in 4.1 seconds, produces 320kW and 430Nm from it's 3.8L NA, has RWD and weighs 1395kg.

Yes, the Turbo is $100,000 more, but that doesn't automatically mean it's better. Many people who can afford to and could buy the 911 Turbo buy the 911 GT3 as they prefer the naturally aspirated engine over the turbo. They prefer the RWD instead of the AWD. They prefer the fact that it's 250kg lighter.

So it's not simply a Holden Commodore SS vs a HSV GTS argument here where they've got the same basic drivetrain, engine and weight but one is just a more worked version of the other and is clearly better. In the Porsche example you have two distinctive cars with distinctive characteristics.

The Golf GTI vs the Golf R is somewhat the same.

The GTI has a K03 turbo which gives it plenty of low down torque and driveabiltiy from 1500rpm to 3500rpm. The Golf R has a K04 which has NOTHING from 1500rpm to 2500rpm, slowly starts getting there to 3500rpm and then flies to the redline when you're already past the speed limit.

The GTI has FWD so it can lose some traction and be a bit lairy.
The R has AWD and has no chance of losing traction in a straight line, mostly not even in the wet. No lairiness there.

The GTI weighs 125kg less than the R and between the reduced weight and the K03 being more "ready to please" feels more agile and frisky, compared to the R which in stock form is rather docile and laidback until the K04 cuts in.

So yes, the Golf R costs more than the GTI. Yes, the Golf R is the "halo model". But it's not a straight cut one is better than the other full stop situation.

Both sides, please stop insulting each other for their choices. If you're happy with your purchase, then YOU are right. Move on.


(Edit, written before I saw AdamD's post. Use of "lairy" is pure coincidence! lol).

Bro, don't contribute, say your 1/2 page piece which is bordering irrelevant (this turbo Porsche/gt3 talk) and THEN finish with a let's stop talking about it.

It passive aggressive behavior and highly annoying as you always do this. I'm no school kid, neither are any of the people involved in the discussion.

Everyone kept it very mature, got it out of their system, and more importantly made good comments in the GTI VS R thread.

I respect Adam, triode12 and everyone else who contributed and made valid points, that much more.

[dave_r]

The GTI has a K03 turbo which gives it plenty of low down torque and driveabiltiy from 1500rpm to 3500rpm. The Golf R has a K04 which has NOTHING from 1500rpm to 2500rpm, slowly starts getting there to 3500rpm and then flies to the redline when you're already past the speed limit.

The GTI weighs 125kg less than the R and between the reduced weight and the K03 being more "ready to please" feels more agile and frisky, compared to the R which in stock form is rather docile and laidback until the K04 cuts in.

So by that, the GTI would make for a better daily*

*If you abide by the road rules...

[brad]

Humbug! The sales stats does not back this up. IIRC, out of 3000+ performance variants sold per year, only 10% is the R.

Intent and action are two different things.

It depends on the original intention of the buyer. One of my mates went to by an MkV GT and walked out with a MKV GTI. I went to buy a Golf Pacific 2.0TDI, came within a beesdik of buying a GTI & ended up with a Skoda Octavia 1.8TSI. Not all people are cross-shopping GTI to the R. I would think that for the bulk of lookers, the R isn't on their radar and they feel pretty chuffed when they get the GTI instead of a 118TSI.

[Corey_R]

Bro, don't contribute, say your 1/2 page piece which is bordering irrelevant (this turbo Porsche/gt3 talk) and THEN finish with a let's stop talking about it.

It's not that irrelevant as you make the comparison all the time to Holden SS vs HSV GTS and WRX vs STI. Yet the GTI vs R isn't as simple as that due to the distinct differences, hence the comparison to the Porsche Turbo vs GT3 which is more relevant than SS/GTS or WRX/STI.

In any case, I didn't say stop talking. I said stop insulting each other. And I mean it...

[Mi16 Man]

they feel pretty chuffed when they get the GTI instead of a 118TSI.

Amen. I was chuffed to get a new Golf GTI for only a little bit more than my specc'd up Pogo GTI was going to be (with immediate delivery too!)

[triode12]

Amen. I was chuffed to get a new Golf GTI for only a little bit more than my specc'd up Pogo GTI was going to be (with immediate delivery too!)

Good call. The Polo GTI would have greater depreciation too.

[Greg Roles]

I think everyone is missing a tragic major flaw they all suffer from - the spark plug!

Lighten up guys!

[WhiteJames]

Basic - Sport - Luxury - Sports/Luxury

The first time I drove an R32 I wanted one. It was fantastic. After a few review drives in the R32, I preferred the GTI. Same deal with the Golf GTI –v- R. The more I drive the Golf R the less I want it.

Had the pleasure of reading the hot-hatch review in Wheels March 2011 Edition over my Latte this afternoon. Selectively ... I think the journo hit the nail on the head in terms of swapping a GTI for a Golf R when he said that the lack of involvement in the Golf GTI is not to be found in the Golf R. You either have to go aftermarket suspension or Renault Megane RS250/Focus RS for that added driver involvement.

When the buyer of my old MKV GTI asked me whether or not the MKV GTI had L.C., I couldn’t answer as I didn’t know. I never used it in the old MKV GTI or new MK6 GTI for that matter. I have no need or desire to use L.C.

Having said that, the best 1/4 mile time Wheels Magazine clocked for the Golf R involved commencing on gravel/grass. They should have stuck with the 1/4 mile launch times on the same surface as the GTI and RS250 for the sake of consistency (I’m putting the Golf R 2 or 3 tenths down on Wheels best time - 14.7 sec).

After nearly a 1 week sabbatical from the drive in the Renault, in hindsight, the Golf GTI would be better for that lazy dual carriageway/freeway commute and with DSG, in town drivig after a long day in the office. Definitely want that Golf refinement and ease of use, not to mention convenience of 5 doors.

The drive of the Renault RS250 is addictive. It’s something that entices you to head for the hills (the track) and want to drive it more and more. So much fun you tend to over-look the other deficiencies when compared to the refinement of the Volkswagen Golf. Maybe after this season in Formula 1 with Red Bull Racing & Renault in cohorts with Vettel/Weber, plus another constructor’s victory, Renault may bring out a limited ed. special RS250 hopefully with more attractive lightweight wheels.

Wheels Magazine does highlight, as in the case of the Peter Fitzgerald Evolve BMW 135i KW/H&R Coupe in Motor Magazine, that a vehicle such as the Megane RS250 with a substantial deficit in terms of power to the Ford Focus RS, posts a lower lap time on the track with a well honed suspension package and top-shelf driveline tech. The wider track probably also helped the Megane RS250. The irony of the matter is that the Renault still rides very well.

I can’t understand with the delays at Wolfsburg, why Volkswagen doesn’t offer the GTI in packages such as: Basic, Sport, Luxury and Sports/Luxury as Lexus and some other makers do.

The Sport version of the GTI could have Bi-Xenon’s, 18” wheels, lightweight motorsport wheels, DCC, and LSD. This may cut down in waiting times for orders. Luxury could have the Sat-Nav, Leather, 18” wheels, Sunroof, Dynaudio, etc ... with Sports/Luxury combining all these options. Only thing remaining would the choice of colour.

Cheers
WJ