Golf R Observations and Questions

[thezoneR32]

Well for starters, I see the liberty was dyno'ed in 3rd gear. This gives an inflated number. On a five speed box, a legit dyno run is done in 4th gear.

On a six speed either 4th or fifth.

Lower gears (1,2,3) give false/optimistic power figures. So a legit 150kw's will feel faster cause it is.

Not sure why this is but sounds like you know what your talking about.

I suggest 150kws at the wheels on an R, is not just excellent drivetrain loss ( lack of) but also Its maybe underrated slightly.

Another example of how cars can differ, everyone expresses drivetrain loss as a finite variable eg, 2wd = 25% , 4wd = 35% etc. This is rubbish and we just proved it. The liberty had only 18,000km on the clock so we can assume it produced factory flywheel power of 180kw and the stock run was 127kw. Thats about a 30% drivetrain loss. Given that ratio my 149kw atw = 194kw atfw. This is 10kw more than the R yet its a slower car. Anyway here is a good write up entitled "The absurdity of fixed percentage drivetrain loss"

Hey some of you guys are positing at 2am and 4am dont you sleep?

[dave_r]

Subtract 14.7 psi (atmospheric pressure) and you get 17.2 psi which is close to what Shakespeare says stock max boost is.

Ah yes that makes sense hehe. Post stage 1, its now ~21psi but a bit more through the rev range. Haven't been able to give it much of a run yet but the car seens to make much more sense in D where as I was always using S before.

Well for starters, I see the liberty was dyno'ed in 3rd gear. This gives an inflated number. On a five speed box, a legit dyno run is done in 4th gear.

Mine was run in 4th but doesn't matter. As long as they use the same one next time the difference will be consistent.

PS: FWIW, I drove Dean's GTI with tune/exhaust and intake I think he said. **** ME the response on that thing is insane! Dare I say that it was nearly the perfect daily driver (fair bit of front end movement with that instant power and FWD though). Would embarrass many an R with ease.

[weewilly]

They were speed cameras mate...

oohhhh, I'll have some photos of the Black to post!!! glad I had just washed it

[REXman]

Mine was run in 4th but doesn't matter. As long as they use the same one next time the difference will be consistent.

Bingo. Im just talking about peak figures.

If you just want to compare whats going on on your own set up, your right, just use the same gear and for comparisons you'll be fine.

But they wont be accurate overall figures for other people to quote, and wont help indicate anything about track performance.

Some shifty performance shops use the lower gear/higher power "technique" to down talk other tuners or make themselves look like "hot" stuff. They have been doing it for years.

[Corey_R]

But they wont be accurate overall figures for other people to quote, and wont help indicate anything about track performance.

Different dyno, different day, different atmospheric conditions, then they're not "comparable" anyway. So what's the diff

[changas]

wow those afr's are all over the place

[Guy_H]

you should always try to dyno a car in the gear that is closest to 1:1 ratio which is 4th gear on an R in both the DSG & Manual.

[REXman]

Different dyno, different day, different atmospheric conditions, then they're not "comparable" anyway. So what's the diff

Exactly what GUY just wrote, the diff should be 1:1

[SilvrFoxX]

Question to R Owners, the fuel effeciency of the R has been touted as one of the big plusses but I am yet to hear any here who have hit those 8.7 /100 figures unless on the highway ( happy if anyone chips in with an update ) so my questions is 2 fold.

1. Now you have had your R for a while are the fuel figures more consistent
2. Those who have chipped thier R have they found improvement ( or not)

[dave_r]

you should always try to dyno a car in the gear that is closest to 1:1 ratio which is 4th gear on an R in both the DSG & Manual.

That's what mine was done in, verified it yesterday with the operator. Going back next week for a follow up run. Need to remember to ask them to print up graphs with different stuff as I'm sure the original runs are stored with all the other data.

I am yet to hear any here who have hit those 8.7 /100 figures unless on the highway

I've averaged 13.9L/100km since getting the car but I was using sport ALOT because D was just that little bit too lazy for my liking so that probably didn't do much for economy. I can do sub 11's around town but that requires me to wear a knitted jumper and hush puppies which defeats the point of the car.

[team_v]

Question to R Owners, the fuel effeciency of the R has been touted as one of the big plusses but I am yet to hear any here who have hit those 8.7 /100 figures unless on the highway ( happy if anyone chips in with an update ) so my questions is 2 fold.

1. Now you have had your R for a while are the fuel figures more consistent
2. Those who have chipped thier R have they found improvement ( or not)

Constantly hitting 8.7 or better here
A lot of it comes down to the fact most of the R drivers only recently got their car adn they are fanging it around after having waited 6 months.
If you keep the revs down, change at 2000-2500RPM and follow the pump+coast you could probably get to the 8.7's

But realistically, no one bought the golf for it's fuel economy figures or you would have got a *insert brand* diesel

[Corey_R]

Question to R Owners, the fuel effeciency of the R has been touted as one of the big plusses but I am yet to hear any here who have hit those 8.7 /100 figures unless on the highway ( happy if anyone chips in with an update ) so my questions is 2 fold.

1. Now you have had your R for a while are the fuel figures more consistent
2. Those who have chipped thier R have they found improvement ( or not)

So the Golf R DSG's official figures in Australia are:
Fuel Urban (l/100km) 11.9
Fuel Extra Urban (l/100km) 6.8
Fuel Combined (l/100km) 8.7

I wonder whether Australia is still using that old method which doesn't take into account wind resistance, and things like running the aircon etc?! Anyway.

The bulk of my trips are between the office and home in The Hills Shire. My trip takes about 20 minutes. If I drive the car in D and accelerate at a pace that most other cars are (and do all the other things, like coast, and accelerate whilst still on the flat/downhill portion before an up hill and all that stuff), then I can easily beat that 11.9 L/100km. In fact, I regular get below 10.

If I go on a longer trip, so from The Hills Shire out to Mona Vale to Sydney Automotive Workshop. Performance & Tuning for Audi, Volkswagen, Porsche, Skoda, BMW and Mercedes | European Autotech Sydney to get my car flashed, then I've actually been able to get the 8.7L/100km, exactly!. This was via Pennant Hills Rd, The Comenarra Parkway (which turns into Yanko Rd) to Ryde Rd (which turns into Mona Vale Rd). So a good mix of traffic lights, hills, flat areas, 50 through to 90 zones.

I haven't yet had the opportunity to drive on a decent "extra urban" trip, but I have my doubts about the 6.8 figure!


The problem is though - that my car is too new. I'm still having too much fun, and I just can't help but put my foot down and open her up! It puts such a grin on my face, and my passengers enjoy it too! So my tanks have averaged between 10 and 12L/100 overall.


As for after the Stage I. From watching the instantaneous consumption, I've noted that I can now touch the accelerator ever so slightly to maintain speed on flat areas and actually get instantaneous figures of under 2 to 5L/100km. Before the Stage I it seemed that whenever you touched the accelerator, even to maintain speed, you'd get 8L/100km straight away! I can only imagine that the "SprintBooster" will completely eradicate any chance you have of meeting these figures.

Having said that, if you are driving aggressively, since you have so much more power and torque, you're going to use more fuel.

S Mode uses more fuel - duh!

M Mode also uses more fuel - even if you change gears at the same revs that it does!!!! I thought I'd highlight that. When in D, idle is ~750rpm. When in S or M, idle is ~1200rpm. This helps greatly with instant take offs with no lag - because unless you're using left foot braking, the car is already creeping by the time you get your foot to the accelerator.


In any case, I'm not too upset about the figures that I'm getting. I was averaging 8L/100km in my Stage I Polo GTI. So considering that is a quicker car than a stock Golf R (in straight lines, R in D and not using LC), seeing tanks of 12L/100km can seem a bit of a shock. But then the Golf R is 300kg heavier, is larger, has more bells & whistles, and has AWD.

If you're concerned about fuel consumption, you should really be buying the Golf GTI instead of the R. The newer engine and the lack of AWD, plus a reduction of 125kg means a healthy reduction in consumption there.

[REXman]

I just drove to Wollongong yesterday so my all time avg is 11.1 now. Not bad cause there has been a bit of thrashing as well.

and the LC I have found hesitates a lot less, and feels heaps better.

[SilvrFoxX]

Thanks for the responses.. no fuel consumption is not a concern, merely curious about the reality of published figures.. all good.. will be interested once I get mine to see if yours have all settled both in your driving styles and engine wear

[Corey_R]

Thanks for the responses.. no fuel consumption is not a concern, merely curious about the reality of published figures.. all good.. will be interested once I get mine to see if yours have all settled both in your driving styles and engine wear

I have no doubt that the Urban and Combined figures are accurate.
I'll reserve my judgement for the Extra-Urban figure until I have more time with the car.