Golf R in Motor Mag this month in Perfomance Comparo

[adzy]

Not sure I agree with the statement that journalists are going to treat the press cars nicely?!! From what I have seen over the years they treat the machinery like absolute rubbish in order to get their kicks, I think the low numbers of the R are simply due to the manual. To get good figures out of the R you either have to skillfully slip the clutch or dump it at redline (which I am sure would overheat the clutch?)

Personally, I love the data and knowing that what you own is quicker than car A and B gives a feeling of satisfaction. And if those tenths matter to you; the DSG is the go. I know the DSG has put me a car length or so in front of some shocked XR8's HSV's etc.

At the end of the day owning an R compared to the Focus or Renault is a no brainier to me as the quality is in another league. And if you were at a track day against the other two.... who comes out in front would be down to the drivers on the day. And at the end of the track day you get to drive home in a car which has un-rivaled interior quality and attention to detail for its class.

Just for comparison of what the R can do...
MOTOR August 2010, Golf R DSG 19"

0-100 5.37 (1.46 sec quicker than man.)
0-400 13.65 @ 165.76 km/h (1.05 sec & 7km/h quicker than man.)
80-120 3.6

[Ideo]

Does anyone actually understand the mechanics of gearing & rev limitations on a Golf R manual & its effects on 0-100 performance?

I believe I said something along those lines about 8 pages back.

Have to change to third to get to 100, basically. Adds time. No drama. I never do timed acceleration runs to 100.

As gareth said, it's not a track car. It's a refined hatch with damn good performance. It's what I'm coming from and it is what I'm happy with.

[runningmanz]

Just read the Motor comparo thoroughly. This is what they said about the R and I reckon it summs up R's problems when compared with performance hatches:
"When the badge stands for 'Racing' but cabin tactility and day-to-day useability are your calling cards, then in this company , you may as well stay in the change rooms." OUCH!!!
The judges said: "...a bit dull", "Too PG in this company", "Its AWD isn't needed on the road and didn't help on the track. Buy a GTI." and "Remains a great day-to-day car but it looked boring here".

A few stats:
0-100km/h (s), 0-400m (s @ km/h), 100-0km/h (m), 80-120 (s)

Ford Focus RS
6.29, 14.29 @ 162.35, 37.79, 3.20

RenaultSport Megane 250 Cup
6.71, 14.67 @ 161.12, 37.32, 3.66

Subaru WRX STI
6.00, 13.97 @ 164.56, 36.10, 3.95

Volkswagen Golf R
6.83, 14.70 @ 158.89, 38.04, 3.94

LOL 6.83 secs 0-100! Did they have a load of concrete in the back of the R?! Seriously tho Autocar got multiple 6.4 or so sec runs for manual starting off about 4k RPM and 5.7s for DSG , on a damp road and what looks like a slight incline as well. Others have reported lower times esp for the DSG.

YouTube - VW Golf R - DSG versus manual by autocar.co.uk

Again the question needs to be asked were Motor mag having a decent crack in the manual or not?? add to that the fact that they were not using the optimum setup which is DSG hence making the R look alot slower than it really is. In other words if you are testing a car against others just do it properly!

[sabloke]

I wouldn't be worried about the 0-100 km/h numbers, not one bit. What would worry me a lot if I was looking at buying an R is all that talk about it being a boring drive and the pesky understeer when pushed. A hot hatch has to be fun, involving and cracker to drive on the road and track. We could all go and buy Camrys if we want a nice interior and civilized suspension. They're comfortable and well built, aren't they?

The DSG is being brought forward again... How exactly would an auto (or whatever) improve the fun factor behind the wheel? For me, it would make it worst despite improving acceleration or times around the track...

I wonder why VW wouldn't follow Audi's example in making the R versions more hardcore so they really deserve that RACING badge. Just look at the TT RS and the new RS3! You want a fast hot hatch that is still well mannered? Get a GTI. If you really mean business and wanna eat RS and RS250 for breakfast, a proper R would be the answer. I'm sure VW knows how to do it!

[bwen]

With regards to the slow 0-100km/h times do you think they might be measuring what the actual speedometer reads? or a G-Tech? Maybe they're recording 6.8 secs as it's using a G-Tech because our speedometers are way off at 100km/h aren't they? Something like 92-93km/h in reality.

Don't know, just putting ideas out there why they might record a slower time than usual

[REXman]

I wouldn't be worried about the 0-100 km/h numbers, not one bit. What would worry me a lot if I was looking at buying an R is all that talk about it being a boring drive and the pesky understeer when pushed. A hot hatch has to be fun, involving and cracker to drive on the road and track. We could all go and buy Camrys if we want a nice interior and civilized suspension. They're comfortable and well built, aren't they?

The DSG is being brought forward again... How exactly would an auto (or whatever) improve the fun factor behind the wheel? For me, it would make it worst despite improving acceleration or times around the track...

I wonder why VW wouldn't follow Audi's example in making the R versions more hardcore so they really deserve that RACING badge. Just look at the TT RS and the new RS3! You want a fast hot hatch that is still well mannered? Get a GTI. If you really mean business and wanna eat RS and RS250 for breakfast, a proper R would be the answer. I'm sure VW knows how to do it!

The R badge on the R is just fine, thanks. It is with the heritage of the car that it has great handling and fast ride, all whilst providing tech and features and comfort ahead of its time.

The Clio's are **** boxes. The might handle well but so did my 99 WRX. And even that would chew the doors off any Clio Sport.

As for RS3's.. dont get ahead of yourself! There is no RS3 to look at. They are not even out in the country yet.

And that car is worth about 3.5 times a clio so its in a different league to the R. Just like the R is in a different league to the Clio.

The R by VW standards has plenty of go. As suggested by some - that you could say are experts, the DSG equipped car is a completely different beast to the manual performance wise.

As for not caring about 10ths of a second.. fair enough. I understand most owners of a VW GTI or R, dont care about all the performance. They like class and interior..

BUT you gotta admit, they must notice the 10ths of a second a little bit.. otherwise they would have settled on a 77TSI!! (no offence 77TSI owners, but its true, why else would you cough up another $40K )

No offense dude, but dont come on here with a **** box talking down the R and its lack of Racing badge and then ripping out RS3 praise.

[REXman]

Does anyone actually understand the mechanics of gearing & rev limitations on a Golf R manual & its effects on 0-100 performance?

Ideas please?

[oshuyi]

LOL 6.83 secs 0-100! Did they have a load of concrete in the back of the R?

the uk Golf R has more power and torque than ours, that's probably the reason y. for me the in gear acceleration is disappointing.

What about the Sti time 6sec, i think subaru has quoted it doing 0-100 4.9s??

[REXman]

the uk Golf R has more power and torque than ours, that's probably the reason y. for me the in gear acceleration is disappointing.

What about the Sti time 6sec, i think subaru has quoted it doing 0-100 4.9s??

The STI in automatic, is a sec slower than the car tested. The GOLF R in DSG, is a sec quicker than the manual tested.. maybe more.

12 engine kilowatts and 20 NM wouldnt make THAT much of a difference. It cause its a manual, and they cant drive.

[Corey_R]

We could all go and buy Camrys if we want a nice interior and civilized suspension. They're comfortable and well built, aren't they?

The R's leather interior is way nicer than a Camry's

I wonder why VW wouldn't follow Audi's example in making the R versions more hardcore so they really deserve that RACING badge. Just look at the TT RS and the new RS3! You want a fast hot hatch that is still well mannered? Get a GTI. If you really mean business and wanna eat RS and RS250 for breakfast, a proper R would be the answer. I'm sure VW knows how to do it!

The GTI = the A3 2L Turbo (but sportier)
The R = the S3
VW don't compete against the RS cars. Never have, never will.

With regards to the slow 0-100km/h times do you think they might be measuring what the actual speedometer reads? or a G-Tech? Maybe they're recording 6.8 secs as it's using a G-Tech because our speedometers are way off at 100km/h aren't they? Something like 92-93km/h in reality.

Yeah, they would be using stuff like the G-Tech. But then, so have forum members and so did Autocar in that Manual vs DSG Youtube video.

Ideas please?

We believe that was answered several pages back... the fact that the manual R needs to be changed to 3rd at about 96km/h.

[Ideo]

Ideas please?

I've already told you.

You have to shift to third to get 100 in the R. In the others you generally don't. It can be reached in second.

[sabloke]

No offense dude, but dont come on here with a **** box talking down the R and its lack of Racing badge and then ripping out RS3 praise.

It wasn't me talking it down, it was Motor!

Can't see where is that R heritage you're talking about since this is the first one ever with a turbo four. Not much more than GTI with rear dif bolted on then. Lets see it earn that heritage first, now that it lost its V6 appeal! So far, it doesn't look that flash I have to say... I might be better than an R32, but the world evolved in the last few years as well. Being beaten by two FWDs around the track and at everything that matters when talking hot hatch, bar the nice interior, that is a worry indeed.

[break]

The Clio's are **** boxes. The might handle well but so did my 99 WRX. And even that would chew the doors off any Clio Sport

Would love to know more about your mythical MY99 WRX, as my MY05 WRX WRP10 (even with it's factory STi suspension package) didn't have the grip or balance that my Clio 172 has.

As a package, the WRX was very good at everything (well, except interior quality... but the Clio isn't that great on this front either), but as honed tool for twisty mountain roads it's hard to compete with the Clio (well, this side of a well packaged Mx5 with the works).

Don't get me wrong, the R is a fantastic hybrid of comfort, quality and performance.... but a pure ball tearing sports car, it certainly isn't.

As for magazine performance figures (0-100km and 1/4 mile), take them with a grain of salt. I've never seen their figures align with the timesheets many other people have achieved. Weather this is the journalists having a lot more mechanical sympathy, or being plain bad drivers is beyond me.

That said, I do tend to find they get the biggest differences between manufacturer claimed and magazine record times with manual AWD cars, which leads me to believe they have no idea how to launch them.

[dave_r]

Track numbers are nice to have but how much time do most of you really spend on a race track?
And I bet if you collated all the reviews, they change their mind/conclusion every time.

the R is a fantastic hybrid of comfort, quality and performance.... but a pure ball tearing sports car, it certainly isn't.

And there is this, quoted for truth. I, along with many others bought the R because it was a good blend of all those characteristics. Not sure why it has now had to become the ultimate performance weapon, it just won't be. I'll take a hit on some minor performance issues compared to other cars which might not be as nice to live with on a daily basis.

Choose your compromise.

[domlebo70]

And there is this, quoted for truth. I, along with many others bought the R because it was a good blend of all those characteristics. Not sure why it has now had to become the ultimate performance weapon, it just won't be. I'll take a hit on some minor performance issues compared to other cars which might not be as nice to live with on a daily basis.

Choose your compromise.

Totally. And besides, I reckon with a rear swaybar or something, you could make it a little more lively, if you realllly wanted to. If I was 40 or so with a kid, I'd take a Golf R. So much performance blended with so much practicality.

Try looking out the rear of a 250 LOL