Golf R in Motor Mag this month in Perfomance Comparo

[REXman]

The R didn't finish very highly, but considering the model they used I am impressed on some results.

It beat the 224KW Focus RS, and also the megane RS250 on the long straight by quite a bit! 219.6something km/h for the R, the Focus managing 214km/h.

And that was in a manual GOLF R without DSG or ACC! (just quietly I can't believe that VW sent that model down for the "performance day". Possibly VW had no optioned cars to give them. It's not like I saw Subaru send down the STI in automatic.

They also said the that R was lifeless in feel or some ****.. I come from a host of WRXs, a 425 HP skyline, BMW.. And to me the R is the best all round ride I have ever owned, and puts a phat smile on my face every time I warm it up.

[pologti18t]

t beat the 224KW Focus RS, and also the megane RS250 on the long straight by quite a bit! 219.6something km/h for the R, the Focus managing 214km/h.

It came onto the str8 about 5 km/h+ faster than the RS/Megane and was only 3km/h faster at the end of the str8. Sounds like the RS/Megane have the legs on the Golf R. The 80-120km/h times back this up.
You also didn't mention that the Focus and Megane beat it round Philip Island and both were as fast or faster than the Golf R in the 0-100km/h and 0-400m run. Both car finished higher in the overall drivers' ratings.

Whether it had DSG or ACC is a moot point as customer's car may or may not have these "options".

[REXman]

You didn't mention that the Focus and Megane beat it round Philip Island and both were as fast or faster than the Golf R in the 0-100km/h and 0-400m run. Both car finished higher in the overall drivers' ratings.

Whether it had DSG or ACC is a moot point as customer's car may or may not have these "options".

Actually I did say it didn't perform very well. You might have missed that.

Also, having DSG, ACC and 19s is the optimal set up for the track. No doubts the DSG alone would make up the 0.9 sec slower it was.

They even clearly said that in the review. I believe it went something like "I dont know why VW didnt send us a car with 19s and ACC, as we know these would rid it of most/the understeer we experienced."

I also believe that DSG would have been faster, because.. it is faster.

Not sure what this moot business is, Like I said, you can get an STI in automatic which does the 100km/h sprint in 7 secs.. but you dont see that being represented.. no no its the proper-for-track specced model representing in this case, Subaru.

The R was the slowest car on the day, but it got a real good speed on the straight, and also beat the Megane and Focus on turn one.. by a bit too.

In the tighter turns, where it lost out, you gotta ask if thats where the DSG, ACC and 19s would have helped make up a sec on a track that takes just under 2 mins to complete..

Who knows. And we wont know till its done.

[DDTW]

Just bought the Mag during lunchtime after reading your post Rexman!

Yeah I have no idea why most of the Rs tested by magazines are the manual ones! 6.8s to 100km/h is really a let down. That's a GTi's performance which is very respectable for 200bhp.

Why can't they test the cars based on dollar to dollar value say a $60k STi VS a $60k optioned up R. That was the same issue with the recent Australia's best cars where the 135i won! Argh!

[REXman]

Hey DDTW, not a bad issue hey, and I love reading about my car.

Even the english guy on youtube, got low 6's in the manual and he had the air con on.. And his shifts werent exactly slamming.

Yeah so the STI was a fully specced up R version, with the mad seats.. and manual. Which is the best performance variant of that car.

I mean I didn't even mention that if the R had the Recaros it would have got that much more brownie points also, considering they have previously referred to those seats as some of the finest in motoring.

It was a track day.. so gimme the track weapon R.. not the slowest variant possible!

I think considering the genuine supply issues of an R, i don't think they (VW) are worried..

[brisgtimkv]

Just bought the Mag during lunchtime after reading your post Rexman!

Yeah I have no idea why most of the Rs tested by magazines are the manual ones! 6.8s to 100km/h is really a let down. That's a GTi's performance which is very respectable for 200bhp.

correction, that's a manual gti time.

[Danny]

So disappointing. My old Renault crew are going off, so embarrassing. I got 6.6 seconds out of My 182 cup (granted it was a Monday car, and was modded but still was good for 6.9s stock)!!

What the goddamn christing f*** is this 6.8 0-100 business?!!?? This is the sort of thing that could make or break my order. It's been postponed 3 months now, I'd love to know why MOTOR got 6.8 out of this car. DSG owners are getting 5.3 STOCK!! an extra 1.5 seconds for the manual. to quote Sheila Broslovski; "What what WHAT!!??"

Manual or DSG the Golf R is not a slow car. What in Jesus Tapdancing H Newton Christ happened here?

What have other manuals been getting? i know topgear had one for a while didn't they get 5.8 out of it?

[Angryman]

Clearly the numb-nut driving wasn't a competent driver - Its like movie reviewers in the paper, seriously if you believed the bull**** they publish no one would goto the movie's, Police Academy 9 clearly should've gotten 5 stars

[pologti18t]

All that matters on the day are the times extracted by the test drivers.
In all likelihood the acceleration times were all done on the same day by the same driver.

Not sure why "DSG" is being mentioned as all cars were manual. Even less why the Recaros in the STI are mentioned. It was mentioned that they weren't nearly as good as those in the Megane (std) or Focus (std).

Clearly the numb-nut driving wasn't a competent driver -

Warren Luff

[runningmanz]

Send them an email and tell the idiots to compare apples to apples and not apples to oranges!! If the DSG is faster and it is why not test the Golf R WITH IT. They are testing the other cars in the optimum configuration so why not the R?!! *face palms*

[shakespeare]

So disappointing. My old Renault crew are going off, so embarrassing. I got 6.6 seconds out of My 182 cup (granted it was a Monday car, and was modded but still was good for 6.9s stock)!!

What the goddamn christing f*** is this 6.8 0-100 business?!!?? This is the sort of thing that could make or break my order. It's been postponed 3 months now, I'd love to know why MOTOR got 6.8 out of this car. DSG owners are getting 5.3 STOCK!! an extra 1.5 seconds for the manual. to quote Sheila Broslovski; "What what WHAT!!??"

Manual or DSG the Golf R is not a slow car. What in Jesus Tapdancing H Newton Christ happened here?

What have other manuals been getting? i know topgear had one for a while didn't they get 5.8 out of it?

Maybe also their Golf was new (tight motor?) what was the temperature? I haven't got my motor mag yet (*shakes fist* at newspaper delivery guy who delivers mine!) So I'd take the 6.8 secs as a bad time and forget it as we know it's quicker than that

As an aside wasn't there a video of the some UK mag doing a DSG vs Manual 0-100 run, DSG was high 5's manual was low 6's from memory

[REXman]

All that matters on the day are the times extracted by the test drivers.
In all likelihood the acceleration times were all done on the same day by the same driver.

Not sure why "DSG" is being mentioned as all cars were manual. Even less why the Recaros in the STI are mentioned. It was mentioned that they weren't nearly as good as those in the Megane (std) or Focus (std).

Im not sure if there is one driver doing the whole day's driving, maybe thats right i dont know.

But as for you not being sure why DSG is being mentioned? Its the optimally performing transmission for this car. Other vehicles had there fastest at the track, so why wasnt VW's?

And the STI seats (recaros) are brilliant seats. This reviewer might not think they are as good as the Meganes (they are better) or the Focus's (they are as good).

What IM saying is, why not send the Recaros in the GOLF R down for the performance day? I mean the seats are the best of any of the cars other than the Lambo and Porsche.. and the ACC and 19's are all ideal for the track, and this particular event.

And yes the Focus has their seats standard, but the STI doesnt, but we tested the R model for that. Thats my point. Other marquees sent their best.

Send them an email and tell the idiots to compare apples to apples and not apples to oranges!! If the DSG is faster and it is why not test the Golf R WITH IT. They are testing the other cars in the optimum configuration so why not the R?!! *face palms*

Exactly. Im pretty sure the DSG is outselling the manual by quite a bit. So its not only better performing but its the "signature" transmission for this particular car.

[Tim]

hehe Golf R owners with their noses out of joint.. Its even more interesting to read than the actual article

[Ideo]

I bought the Golf R because it isn’t as hardcore as the competitors. I’ve driven an STI long distance over bumpy roads and a less hardcore car is a much better compromise for me. Also the way the power is delivered is much more manageable on the day to day basis than an STi, another plus in my book.

And I don’t care if DSG is faster. I am still not a fan of it. I just prefer manuals to be honest. Driven the R, the R32 and the GTI as manuals and DSGs and I am not convinced. I don’t like the way they make it feel like a computer game to be honest, but each to their own.

Oh, and Motor (and Wheels, in fairness) are laughable excuses for car magazines which are to quality automotive journalism what New Idea is to investigative journalism.

[sabloke]

Can't see how a DSG box would improve car's balance and handling to be honest... It would improve the 0-100 km/h time, no doubt, but that's about it. To say that the DSG is the best setup for the R is simply bizarre in my opinion. Unless you buy it for drag strip racing, that is.
Oh, and one more thing: real hot hatches are still manual and really passionate drivers still chose to drive manual.