Motor Magazine - BFYB 2010

[pologti18t]

they seemed to have misinterpreted it - i wasnt lamenting the lack of STi's here, that particular car is of no interest for me.

I am annoyed however, that the local car industry is most likely using ADR requirements as a form of import tariff to reduce overseas competition, and we miss out on a whole swag of cars, or pay over the top for others as a consequence

HOw does that work when most of the local companies import a large percentage of their range.

Australian ADR have/are becoming more harmonized with EU requires over time. It's one reason Euro cars arrive in our market fairly soon after being released.

The price of a Golf GTI here was cheaper than it was sold in the UK until recently. And our car was higher specced. This only changed when the UKP value plummetted.

[gareth_oau]

I'm not sure on this, but do local importers still have to crash test cars, which adds to the cost. and for anywhere that EU doesnt match aussie requirements, then the manufacturer would need to make a small batch of aussie only components

the Audi S4 retails for circa £40,000 in the UK (A$70,000) and yet a similar specced S4 is around $120k here.

i suspect a chunk of this difference is underlying compliancing costs

[Corey_R]

No - there is no requirement for crashing testing in Australia. Also, ANCAP don't have the ability to ban a car for a bad crash test result - they can just publicise that it's crap.

All cars must go through the ADR requirements though. Even "options" on cars such as Park Assist, Adaptive Cruise Control, even BMW's new "Speed Sign Assist" feature can take additional time to meet the ADR requirements (or months in the case of the BMW Speed Sign Assist since not all of Australia's speed signs are compliant with international standards!)

[dave_r]

i suspect a chunk of this difference is underlying compliancing costs

Don't forget all the taxes thanks to the arseholes most people voted in last time around. 33% LCT...**** off

No - there is no requirement for crashing testing in Australia. Also, ANCAP don't have the ability to ban a car for a bad crash test result - they can just publicise that it's crap.

LOL Great Wall Motors anyone?

[G-rig]

There is no doubt the GTI would be best BFYB and less lag.. exactly the same driving around town (except the R has more lag and worse fuel economy), but i would prefer the R if I was tracking my car.

[pologti18t]

I'm not sure on this, but do local importers still have to crash test cars, which adds to the cost. and for anywhere that EU doesnt match aussie requirements, then the manufacturer would need to make a small batch of aussie only components

the Audi S4 retails for circa £40,000 in the UK (A$70,000) and yet a similar specced S4 is around $120k here.

i suspect a chunk of this difference is underlying compliancing costs

I think the costs to market/comply a car for the US/Canadian market are far higher than here. There are alot of market specific design rules for the USA. From bumper strength, headlight specs, side marker lights, passive restraint calibration, emission warranties etc etc.

[gareth_oau]

that maybe true polo, but the US market is a lot larger.

Australia sells almost 1 million cars per year, whereas the USA sells around 17 million.

so the unit development cost per car is probably quite a lot lower in the US

[pologti18t]

that maybe true polo, but the US market is a lot larger.

Australia sells almost 1 million cars per year, whereas the USA sells around 17 million.

so the unit development cost per car is probably quite a lot lower in the US

10 Million actually

The USA is benefited by the manufacture of a lot of the cars in its market IN or NEAR the USA. Merc, BMW, Nissan, Honda, Toyota, VW all supply cars to the USA from cheap labour sources in or near (Mexico) the USA.

[Corey_R]

Take the USA discussion to general guys...

[Leagle]

Got my copy of Motor and I have to say I am still surprised that the Gti was considered better bang for your buck than the R. The R was better in all the performance measures and though the Gti is a great car, surely they should have taken the relatively little difference in price, better spec for the R and the superior bang into account. Thats the problem with all these motoring journos, they rarely look at the nice touchy feely toys and spec increases in more expensive variants that all us folk actually like and are happy to pay a premium for.

I too was a little disappointed they did not performance test the DSG equipped R. To be honest I thought their performance 0-100 figs for the DSG R in previous issue (5.2ish) sounded a little too optimistic. How the R can have such a large variation in 0-100 times (albeit with different transmissions) is a real concern. I mean there is almost a 1.5 second difference! Some premium german cars would charge you $100K or more to improve 0-100 times by that much!

[Guy_H]

I too was a little disappointed they did not performance test the DSG equipped R. To be honest I thought their performance 0-100 figs for the DSG R in previous issue (5.2ish) sounded a little too optimistic. How the R can have such a large variation in 0-100 times (albeit with different transmissions) is a real concern. I mean there is almost a 1.5 second difference! Some premium german cars would charge you $100K or more to improve 0-100 times by that much!

Thats a good point, and having just spent 2 days with the motor journalists - I'm contemplating switching both our manual cars for DSG versions so I can have "repeatable" 0-100 times.

1.5 seconds difference on different launches for the manual - thats going to be the normal room for error.

Did anyone watch last nights top gear with the R8 V10 vs Porsche Turbo convertibles? - That launching differences with both AWD manual cars was GRAPHICALLY displayed in that segment. at the end of a mile, it was like 100 meters different!

Only music on this clip, but you see, that Clarkson lost driving both cars - it was all in the lucky launch!

[YOUTUBE]ArRx_UK8SsU[/YOUTUBE]

[pologti18t]

Got my copy of Motor and I have to say I am still surprised that the Gti was considered better bang for your buck than the R. The R was better in all the performance measures and though the Gti is a great car, surely they should have taken the relatively little difference in price, better spec for the R and the superior bang into account. Thats the problem with all these motoring journos, they rarely look at the nice touchy feely toys and spec increases in more expensive variants that all us folk actually like and are happy to pay a premium for.

The article was BFYB... not "how much can i spend on options"

Percentage wise the R is significantly more expensive than a GTI.

[Maverick]

Got my copy of Motor and I have to say I am still surprised that the Gti was considered better bang for your buck than the R. The R was better in all the performance measures and though the Gti is a great car, surely they should have taken the relatively little difference in price, better spec for the R and the superior bang into account. Thats the problem with all these motoring journos, they rarely look at the nice touchy feely toys and spec increases in more expensive variants that all us folk actually like and are happy to pay a premium for.

Did you bother to read the criteria for judging? It's bang for your buck, not gadgets and bling for your buck nor is it fastest car under $100,000.

How does the addition of AWD give you more bang for your buck? The same with adding lag and increasing power with a bigger turbo? And bi-xenon headlights help with which of the criteria? Certainly not the 0-100 time, nor the braking time, nor the lap time.

You can't dispute that the GTI offers better bang for your buck, it's there in black and white and the facts speak for themselves. The R picked up 141.7 vs 125 for the bang part of the equation and the buck side saw the GTI get 140.4 versus the R's 112.9. Final score was 198.2 for the GTI and 192.5 for the R.

The relative little difference in price as you put it is in fact substantial. $48,490 vs $38,990 is $9500 or 20% more.

And look at the comments about the GTI, "brilliant all-rounder", "feels just as burly as the pricier Golf R" and "Didn't need a victory to prove it's worth".

[hooba]

$48,490 vs $38,990 is $9500 or 20% more.

The "20% more" price difference is significant, and key to understanding why the GTI got up in BFYB.

[G-rig]

.

The relative little difference in price as you put it is in fact substantial. $48,490 vs $38,990 is $9500 or 20% more.

That's right, you have to compare base model to base model etc, as options can drive either cars price up..