Golf 118 -v- Golf GT SPORT TSI

[MariusGT]

Now I don't mean this to be a 118 bash in any way- just thought I would post my own (slightly biased!!) observations:

I recently drove a 118 while my 125 GT was getting a service- and was amazed at how different the 2 are.

The 118 is MUCH quieter in the cabin especially engine noise. My GT SPORT has a noticeable growl as you rise through the revs and the s/c can be heard quite clearly.

I'm not sure if it's the 7sp dry clutch DSG v 6sp wet.. But I can't believe a modest 7kw difference would FEEL so different. The 118 still has nuts but it just felt like I was driving a regular auto 2.0. And the manual shift has a slight "notch" that my dsg doesn't have (just not used to it- not such a bad thing). Also I found myself reaching for the paddles with my fingers alot..

Seems to me that they have made the 118 a much more grown up and sedate version of the MK5 GT. For mass market it makes sense, I'm just shocked at how different they are.

[Corey_R]

Apart from the 7sp DSG vs 6sp DSG observation, your comments are basically what most of the MKV vs MK6 threads are like

[MariusGT]

Yeah but is it really possible for the cars to be SO different considering the underpinnings are identical- slightly re-tuned (de-tuned, adapted for 7sp/economy) engine and an extra cog??

[Lams]

the 7spd DSG does a few things differently
it 'slips' the clutch into 2nd 4th and 6th gears sometimes. It also engages the clutch completely when you have your foot on the brake, and starts disengaging when you ease the brake pedal. I remember the 6spds never fully engage.
and yes mine also throws a tantrum in manual mode sometimes from 2nd to 1st...

[triode12]

I am not surprised by your findings. Your observations mirror mine wrt to the MKV vs MKVI GTIs. Sedate being the operative word. It is like the cars or the people who drive them have been given a course of sedatives .

Most people who don't notice the difference are people who haven't driven the MkV (people new to the marque), haven't driven a MkV in a long time or haven't driven the cars back to back.

Refinement isn't always a good thing. If one wants a refined car, one could always purchase a Lexus 250 or Camry, but what would be the fun in driving one of those?

Sadly this also applies to the new Polo GTI.

[MariusGT]

hmmm... i'm a little surprised the Polo GTI falls into the "refined and sedate" category - i look forward to driving one and seeing for myself.

my next comparison will be to drive a new GTD at the local dealer.

i did drive a GT Sport TDI before going with the TSI (even though the oiler is a cracker!) so i'll be VERY curious to see how they have gone taking an absolute corker of a car --> transplanting into the new MK6 GTD.

[triode12]

hmmm... i'm a little surprised the Polo GTI falls into the "refined and sedate" category - i look forward to driving one and seeing for myself.

I reckon the main culprit is the 7spd dsg box (coupled with the improved refinement in the chassis) . The box makes the acceleration too linear, there no longer the "shove you in the seat" feeling you get in the previous POG.

I also suspect the perchant for the box to choose the highest gear even in sport mode causes one to feel like the engine is straining to provide the torque even on relatively mild inclines. The engine doesn't feel as tractable as the one in our GTs. It feels like a totally different engine IMO.

I suggest you test drive the POG at VW Waitara and take it up the first incline on the F3 and compare it to your GT. You'll realise what I am trying to say.

[darkfriend]

The 118 still has nuts but it just felt like I was driving a regular auto 2.0.

I've never driven the GT... but before buying the 118TSI I drove half a dozen 2.0L cars (inc impreza/ mazda 3/ ford focus/ i30). Yes, just standard two litres... and I can tell you that the 118TSI does NOT drive like any of them... it's why I bought it: It drives much better!

[triode12]

I've never driven the GT... but before buying the 118TSI I drove half a dozen 2.0L cars (inc impreza/ mazda 3/ ford focus/ i30). Yes, just standard two litres... and I can tell you that the 118TSI does NOT drive like any of them... it's why I bought it: It drives much better!

I'm sure it drives better than those cars you tested because it is a good car - no question about it. It is even technically better than the GT from a refinement standpoint. But that is what is "wrong" with it IMO. It is not as good as the GT in the fun stakes.

So if I were you, I would not test drive the GT because, if you are happy with the car now, there is no point doing so. Ignorance in this case is bliss - be happy with what you have. And I am not being sarcastic when I write this.

I have been testing a lot of cars as a possible replacement for the two cars we own because we believe in not keeping our cars more than 3 years due to the massive depreciation after that. But we haven't been able to find a suitable replacement/s as our main requirement now is that the cars have to be fun to drive and the only suitable replacements are either too expensive without providing much of a difference (Golf R) or too small (Polo 77TSI) and expensive wrt to value - circa $25K. Plus we are enjoying our current cars too much (heart vs head turmoil)

[DoggieHowser]

I've never driven the GT... but before buying the 118TSI I drove half a dozen 2.0L cars (inc impreza/ mazda 3/ ford focus/ i30). Yes, just standard two litres... and I can tell you that the 118TSI does NOT drive like any of them... it's why I bought it: It drives much better!

Totally agree. I just drove a 2.0l N/A Volvo C30 the other day back to back with a, get this, 77TSI Golf with a 1.2T engine and the Golf was just way more torquey and more fun to drive.

I've also found the Polo GTI to sound and go like the part. The 1.4twincharged is really really very eager to go.

[DoggieHowser]

I'm sure it drives better than those cars you tested because it is a good car - no question about it. It is even technically better than the GT from a refinement standpoint. But that is what is "wrong" with it IMO. It is not as good as the GT in the fun stakes.

So if I were you, I would not test drive the GT because, if you are happy with the car now, there is no point doing so. Ignorance in this case is bliss - be happy with what you have. And I am not being sarcastic when I write this.

I have been testing a lot of cars as a possible replacement for the two cars we own because we believe in not keeping our cars more than 3 years due to the massive depreciation after that. But we haven't been able to find a suitable replacement/s as our main requirement now is that the cars have to be fun to drive and the only suitable replacements are either too expensive without providing much of a difference (Golf R) or too small (Polo 77TSI) and expensive wrt to value - circa $25K.

I drove a Mk V GTI against a Polo GTI 2010 model and there's no way the Polo sounds refined. The stock exhaust note is way more rewarding than the ABT quad pipes on my Mk V. The car feels more chuckable through corners and roll was noticeably less of a problem on the Polo.

Even the MKVI 77TSi felt like a lot of fun.

[triode12]

I wasn't talking about sounding refined, I was talking about the driving dynamics -e.g. linear vs exponential power and torque delivery, trackability. On the first incline on the F3 (with 3 ppl in the car) - the engine was straining it's guts out maintaining 110km/hr even after dropping a couple of gears. In my GT, it is a different situation altogether - it has done the same incline fully loaded on several occasions w/o a problem nor sounding like it was running out of puff (in drive). Getting to 110km/hr on the straight was also a non-event. It was poised and refined - not GTI like IMO.

I really wanted to like the Polo GTI. It's an attractive car and priced right - a perfect upgrade for the GT - or so I thought. The test drive was a disappointment in more ways than one.

[MariusGT]

My main point was not that the 118TSI is a rubbish car- more that I was REALLY surprised at how different the 118 is compared to the GT SPORT TSI. essentially the same engine (with tune to suit 7sp) and what I think is a VERY different DSG box in the 7dry v 6wet.

Compared to the GT the 118 is a very refined car and IMO more like a N/A 2.0 than a s/c t/c 1.4

Like I said- when it comes to mass production and general appeal I don't blame VW for what appears to be "taming the beast" but wow.... They are just completely different cars and I would NEVER have thought it until I drove the 118 recently.

ps: the steering wheel on the 118 is sweeeeet! Made me very keen to swap out my GT wheel for a MKV GTI wheel.

[DoggieHowser]

FWIW regarding trackability of the car, I found it was more fun at the corners with a less turbo lag than with. With peaky torque curves it's harder to get on the throttle mid corners as it's easier to upset the balance on the car. Sure the peaky torque gave me faster acceleration, more brutal. But for tracking, I prefer the more linear gains. At least that's the way I found driving my Evo 8MR with stock turbo vs HKS GT2835.

I also found similar experiences between an Amuse ECU reflash (lower torque numbers but flatter) vs Cobbs with the same turbo on a GTR R35.

[Corey_R]

They are just completely different cars and I would NEVER have thought it until I drove the 118 recently.

Sorry... but I have to say a big "well duh" to this comment. I mean, one of them is a "GT Sport" and one is a "Comfortline". They're aimed at different purposes and buyers, even from their name! It seems that the biggest issue here is your expectations based on the fact that they what? Have roughly the same engine?

They're different cars.