Golf R -v- Golf GTI

[brad]

Robbie
I was merely commenting on the so-called quote "no point doing even a stage1 as i can't maintain traction in stock form" - or whatever the words were. Can't maintain traction with ~150kw at the fly? That's sad.

As for the Tuner Challenge - the results on the day were reality & everyone was under the same rules. IF they'd changed set-ups, IF they'd had wets, IF, IF, IF. IF my Aunty had balls she'd be my Uncle.

[dave_r]

Not sure why these modified cars are even coming up in the topic. A Golf TDI could probably win le-mans with the right about of mods and money but who gives a ****. Corey shouldn't have brought the shootout thing up IMO.

A GTI with lots of suspension work, tricky diff and good tyres would easily rival an R, and if they both had the same amount of work then the gap between both might be a lot smaller than stock for stock but its all a big fat what if.

What if VW made the R 200kg lighter and fitted the TT-TS driveline? There would probably still be people that say a GTI is better because it uses less fuel or costs $x less. blah blah blah.

Topic is GTI vs R, stock for stock. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Corey_R]

Mainly because of the comments that the R is better because the GTI can't even handle it's stock power...


But if we're doing stock for stock, I think that the GTI is better as the R is too much of a porker and the AWD is next to useless with only 188 killer wasps and all that weight....

[Guy_H]

What if VW made the R 200kg lighter and fitted the TT-TS driveline?

Now you are talking, but you are right - stock vs stock is a good comparison. There is a motor lap time comparo here (stock cars):

https://spreadsheets.google.com/a/hp.net.au/ccc?key=tADXtWYMAmoUeQu0VP6yGKQ#gid=0

unfortunately its not up to date for 2011.

[adzy]

The thing is if you are on a forum to do with cars there is a big chance that your are going to modify your car in some way, so the modification arguments just add more detail to the thread topic which I, among probably other members, do appreciate and it assists us further into which car we would prefer to purchase.

[adzy]

Now you are talking, but you are right - stock vs stock is a good comparison. There is a motor lap time comparo here (stock cars):

https://spreadsheets.google.com/a/hp.net.au/ccc?key=tADXtWYMAmoUeQu0VP6yGKQ#gid=0

unfortunately its not up to date for 2011.

Cheers Guy! This is car nerd porn at its best.

[Corey_R]

The thing is if you are on a forum to do with cars there is a big chance that your are going to modify your car in some way, so the modification arguments just add more detail to the thread topic which I, among probably other members, do appreciate and it assists us further into which car we would prefer to purchase.

I somewhat agree with this. I mean lets face it, both the Golf GTI and Golf R are beyond "what is needed to get from A to B". They're both "performance cars", albeit not as "performance oriented" as some.

If we're sticking with stock vs stock, I honestly believe the GTI is the way to go. In standard form it is more responsive and more agile than the Golf R, which just feels too heavy and lethargic. I would never have bought the R if I wasn't intending put it to Stage 2+. It almost feels as quick as my 9N3 Polo GTI was now

I do believe that much of this discussion is seeded in "where you have come from" - not as in which country where you born, but which cars you previously had. Some are coming from Commodores and Falcons and so the R's weight is a non-issue for them. Some are coming from Subaru's and Lancer's so the AWD is a huge priority for them. Other's are coming from smaller lighter cars and have a different perspective.

So I can appreciate why some people consider the Golf R to be more of a "GT" car and more suited to the 100 to 200km/h range.

For those who haven't yet seen the June Motor Magazine issue, they had a "Tuners vs Focus RS" article. Evolve Technik had a Focus XR5, MRT had a Mazda 3 MPS and APR had their new "Stage 2" 6R Polo GTI and Stage 3 Golf GTI (same one from last years Hot Tuner Challenge). And they of course had a Ford Focus RS there.

I must say that the results of the Polo GTI, despite APR's limited development time on it, were simply amazing. It beat the RS around the track, and in 0 to 100, and was even only 0.03 seconds slower on the quarter mile! Around Wakefield Park the Polo GTI had the fastest corner speeds 4 of the turns, only being beaten by the Golf GTI in the other 2 (highest speed) corners which were measured. The only two tests that the Polo GTI didn't excel at once Lap V-Max and 400m V-Max. But even with the performance AND handling parts, cost about the same as a stock Golf GTI.

I think for the road, a tuned Polo GTI will be better than either the Golf GTI or R!
If only it came with all the appointments that the Golf's have!

[robby_jai]

guy like i said... in my earlier post.. your cars were well set up hence it was reflected in your lap times.

my comments were more aimed at Corey with his rather specific comments which were:

"So yeah - I echo the comments of Maverick and brad in that if people are whinging about not being able to put down power in the GTI, that it's more a case of lack of talent from the driver, than lack of potential in the car "

Which is as far as I am concerned a complete load of rubbish. A lot of people arent able to put the power down on a powered up GTi.. purely because of its front drive characteristics and the fact a lot of people leave suspension and other drive train components as stock.

Correy's argument to that is look at the APR Golf R and GTI as an example and that if you cant handle it... you're a sook.

Corey seems to forget that your car handles so much better because its been set up to handle around a race track. thats what your cars are built for.

Guy you know yourself a lot of customer cars have power ups galore but leave a lot of other drive train components alone.. and in a FWD car.. that doesnt make for happy times around a race track.

i've driven a heavily powered up FWD car around a race track with stock tires and no suspension mods.. and it was a complete prick of a car to get around the race track quickly.. and i would like to think i'm not exactly a complete dumbo around a race track and I can get a car around a race track pretty dam quickly..so if i find a heavily powered up FWD difficult to get around a race track quickly .. does it mean im a whinger?

even with a modified driving style.... a heavily powered up FWD is a handful around a race track with out the correct supporting mods.... so I dont subscribe to Corey's whinging driver theory

Frankly im surprised people find modified GTI's a handful if everything else is left alone...

Cant bank on the weather

Robby, you need to go to a Porsche club trackday, try to stay with a well driven GT3 (or GT2) in the wet - you will be shocked how good they are in the wet.

I suppose we will never know, I know what our cars were capable of in the dry, and they have run Porsche club events (mainly because I'm a member & get good value track time) and I know how they perform against GT3's & the like - believe me, they never get embarrassed anywhere they go.

We can always have an excuse I suppose - fact is it rained. rains at Bathurst too, rains at Le Mans, Monaco etc - lucky Motorsport happens in all weather. Imagaine if we had driven 1000kms down from Brisbane with a wet setup & it turned out dry, how silly we would have looked

P.S. - This year there will be dry circuit (weather permitting) & "mandatory" wet skidpan, so that evens everything out for everybody. You have to make a choice on what will run best on the circuit & the best on the wet skidpan.

Our setup (Chassis & tyres) will be identical to what we ran last year - in fact, most of the parts off our old Golf R are on the new one!

[Corey_R]

Corey seems to forget that your car handles so much better because its been set up to handle around a race track. thats what your cars are built for.

To clarify, I don't forget that at all. I'm more than well aware of this.

This train of comments stemmed from someone quoting someone unnamed that they can't even put the power down in a stock GTI due to it being FWD, so why would you upgrade it. Whilst I think the quote is BS, my comments were that if you do upgrade the Golf GTI it is just as capable as a Golf R, despite one being FWD and one being AWD. Nowhere did I restrict my comments to "power upgrades only". The simple fact that I've chosen this example, and further clarified that both cars have extensive handling revisions, should have been obvious that I was not talking about power only upgrades...

[worx]

The Scirocco is a better sports car than Golf R exactly because is FWD, lighter, with a nicer stance and better looking IMO. This endless discussion about part time AWD's superiority over a good FWD setup makes me yawn.
I would have bought an R for driving in the 100-200 km/h on autobahn since it is such a great all-rounder grand tourer. Problem is, there's none in Oz, so...

So you think a FWD is a real sports car? you have not driven many cars then.

[dave_r]

Now you are talking

I've heard of a TT-RS being wrecked....

The thing is if you are on a forum to do with cars there is a big chance that your are going to modify your car in some way, so the modification arguments just add more detail to the thread topic which I, among probably other members, do appreciate and it assists us further into which car we would prefer to purchase.

Yeh as do I, just that this GTI vs R thing keeps morphing into whatever suits peoples arguments at the time. With money spent in the right areas, you can make almost anything better.

I do believe that much of this discussion is seeded in "where you have come from" - not as in which country where you born, but which cars you previously had. Some are coming from Commodores and Falcons and so the R's weight is a non-issue for them. Some are coming from Subaru's and Lancer's so the AWD is a huge priority for them. Other's are coming from smaller lighter cars and have a different perspective.

That is nothing more than your personal opinion/experience though maybe exacerbated by having driven a sub 1000kg modified polo GTI for so long. I've had lightweight 4cyl turbos, highly overweight 6cyl turbos and gutless things in between. The R didn't feel heavy or lethargic to me in stock form, so having the stage 1 tune doesn't change anything.

Corey, simple question if they cost the same (since you aren't questioning value) but you were not allowed to alter the car in any form from the factory delivery which would you choose? Based on comments above, the GTI right? Doubt you would.

[Corey_R]

If they cost the same, and I wasn't allowed to mod them in any way, and the GTI came in blue, then I would have bought the GTI.

I previously bought a MKV GTI instead of a Audi S3 before (both '08 models)...
However, in that situation it was a case of a GTI which I could mod, or a S3 which I couldn't afford to mod. I bought the GTI...

[dave_r]

Hehe so we're back at my previous comment, the R is better because it comes in blue

[Corey_R]

Yep!

After my MKV GTI was written off, I bought my Polo GTI to wait for the MK6 to come out. I couldn't re-order a MKV at that point even if I wanted to. The first photos of the MK6 GTI were out within 2 weeks of my car being written off, and I was literally over the moon...

Not only did I much prefer the look of the MK6 over the MKV (which I had actually put the full Oettinger kit on to make it look nicer, imo), but it was also the first time we saw what was to come to be known as Rising Blue....








However, as we all know, the GTI came out, and Rising Blue wasn't an option. And by the time the MK6 GTI came out in Australia in Sep 2009, we'd already seen the first photos of the Golf R, so I waited for that instead. Simply because it came in Rising Blue

[dave_r]

How crap does it look in a 5dr....GTI lol