Mk7 Golf GTI Discussion Thread

[team_v]

Octavia RS gets the same engine combo too - EA888 with wet DSG6 - which can come close to the cost of a R-line Golf or about 5K cheaper than a GTI.

Shame you can't get the R-line with Xenons any more too :\

VW Tiguan gets the same engine combo with the even higher rated DQ500 7 speed wet DSG box for less money than the GTI and you get the benefit of the 4Motion system.

[readerr0r]

VW Tiguan gets the same engine combo with the even higher rated DQ500 7 speed wet DSG box for less money than the GTI and you get the benefit of the 4Motion system.

But the DSG 162 RS is $4700 cheaper than the Tiguan 155 DSG

Problem is the Tig is mk6 based, complete with last generation version of that engine which is why it has the 155kw/280nm tune vs 162/350nm in the MQB Golf and Octavia. While you could say the jump in kW isn't that much its pretty hard to ignore the jump in torque.

Plus with Satnav (Std 5" in the GTI & 8" in the RS) & Xenons (Std on the RS) being optional extras its just not a apples to apples comparison, its in need of a facelift/spec update to bring it in line with its stablemates.

[Dutch77]

But the DSG 162 RS is $4700 cheaper than the Tiguan 155 DSG

I'm guessing here but the reference might be to the 132TSI which is the same engine just in a lower state of tune - $36,390 RRP (+ ORC) v Octavia RS hatch $38,790 or wagon $40,140 v GTI $44,490.. although the Tiguan 155TSI is technically cheaper as well at $43,490.

Definitely not an apples comparison - the MQB vehicles are both more modern and come with more standard kit, although the Tiguans are now in heavy discount mode so very sharp deals can be had.

There is no doubt the Octavia RS is a great buy, particularly in wagon format if you need the room. I will definitely be considering it next time around as a replacement for the mrs' car, but I'm still happy with my GTI.

[Dutch77]

Thought I'd better buy another GTI with sunroof and xenons while they are still available
[ATTACH=CONFIG]9653[/ATTACH]

You managed to special order in a three door!?

[paulie83]

After much deliberation about reliability. We decided on the Golf. We went from a September delivery to May as a deal fell through with another buyer and it was exactly what we wanted (down to the colour). We picked up our new Manual GTI on Friday. Love it. I am very happy we got the Xenons.

[Dutch77]

After much deliberation about reliability. We decided on the Golf. We went from a September delivery to May as a deal fell through with another buyer and it was exactly what we wanted (down to the colour). We picked up our new Manual GTI on Friday. Love it. I am very happy we got the Xenons.

You won't regret it. Probably lucky you were able to get your order bumped up - a September delivery would have been an MY15 and per the update no option of xenons on the standard GTI.

[Mikey1]

Thought I'd better buy another GTI with sunroof and xenons while they are still available


[ATTACH=CONFIG]9652[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]9653[/ATTACH]

From what I can see, the detail in this is incredible. Where can these be purchased from and how much are they? Is there a Golf R version available?

[Dutch77]

From what I can see, the detail in this is incredible. Where can these be purchased from and how much are they? Is there a Golf R version available?

1:18 scale GTI here: NOREV 870270 Scale 1/18 | VOLKSWAGEN GOLF VII GTI 2-DOOR 2012 RED

No Rs I can see as yet but they'd be coming.

[Mikey1]

I have found one Golf R, being a Mk7, but it is mislabeled as a 2012 model: SPARK-MODEL 5GV099300R5Z Scale 1/43 | VOLKSWAGEN GOLF VII R 2-DOOR 2012 BLUE MET

The blue sparkle paint finish is not particularly endearing. I would prefer white, but I am biased.

[Mikey1]

This thread seems to have gone cold, so I thought I would bring up an old but still relevant topic. I'm interested to know if anyone has followed up with Volkswagen Australia why there is still a discrepancy in the minimum recommended fuel specification listed in the owner's manual/fuel type label behind the fuel filler flap, where a minimum of 95 RON is recommended, while the previous and current product brochures still specifies a minimum of 98 RON?

[Dutch77]

Must admit never bothered to ask, just always used 98 as a rule regardless.

I assume the ECU can pick up when 95 is fed into it and it adjusts accordingly.

[Mikey1]

Must admit never bothered to ask, just always used 98 as a rule regardless.

I assume the ECU can pick up when 95 is fed into it and it adjusts accordingly.

I think you might be wrong. The knock sensor all modern turbocharged engines have allows the user to refill with fuel one grade below the recommended minimum RON, with a resultant loss of maximum power and a slight increase in fuel consumption, all due to slightly retarded ignition timing. If you use a grade of fuel above the recommended minimum RON and then decide to refill using the recommended minimum RON, the knock sensor makes no adjustment to the ignition timing, as there should be no knock detected and therefore, in theory, there should be no change to power and fuel economy. I know fuel producers, particularly Shell, will claim their signature premium 98 RON fuels as containing friction modifiers, improved detergents and are able to take advantage of engines fitted with knock sensors, but I don't think any motoring authority has confirmed there is sufficient truth in these claims to justify the greater cost, albeit small, compared to premium 95 RON fuel.

[Dutch77]

I think you might be wrong. The knock sensor all modern turbocharged engines have allows the user to refill with fuel one grade below the recommended minimum RON, with a resultant loss of maximum power and a slight increase in fuel consumption, all due to slightly retarded ignition timing. If you use a grade of fuel above the recommended minimum RON and then decide to refill using the recommended minimum RON, the knock sensor makes no adjustment to the ignition timing, as there should be no knock detected and therefore, in theory, there should be no change to power and fuel economy. I know fuel producers, particularly Shell, will claim their signature premium 98 RON fuels as containing friction modifiers, improved detergents and are able to take advantage of engines fitted with knock sensors, but I don't think any motoring authority has confirmed there is sufficient truth in these claims to justify the greater cost, albeit small, compared to premium 95 RON fuel.

You may very well be right, I'll profess to only know the basics in this regard. I was aware that they claimed to put additives into 98 (I generally fill at BP) and that I'd read some time ago that there can be a small performance/economy edge that negates the extra cost of 98. I certainly wouldn't swear by it though.

My APR tuned Mk6 was set up with 98 and 95 programs so I'd like to think the engine would have adjusted for this but never experimented with it, and I suspect in any case you'd need some pretty impressive equipment to measure any material difference.

[Diesel_vert]

This thread seems to have gone cold, so I thought I would bring up an old but still relevant topic. I'm interested to know if anyone has followed up with Volkswagen Australia why there is still a discrepancy in the minimum recommended fuel specification listed in the owner's manual/fuel type label behind the fuel filler flap, where a minimum of 95 RON is recommended, while the previous and current product brochures still specifies a minimum of 98 RON?

Another member had a question in the same vein - to which I answered in post #1503.

Essentially, the wording in the Australian brochure is not strictly incorrect, but it is imprecise and ambiguous.

[Mikey1]

Another member had a question in the same vein - to which I answered in post #1503.

Essentially, the wording in the Australian brochure is not strictly incorrect, but it is imprecise and ambiguous.

I have done some more research on this subject and am confident I now have the correct information. Firstly, I would like to say I agree with the contents of your post #1503, except for one minor but important statement. You wrote:

"However, some manufacturers recommend using 98 RON to achieve full power, hence the following label for Volkswagen Group vehicles: 98/(95) RON/ROZ"

On my Mk5 GTI and the Mk7 R, the fuel type label does indeed read: 98/(95) RON/ROZ Super Plus Super Premium, but for the GTI-PP (and probably GTI standard, but I can't confirm this as I haven't sighted a sample label), the label only reads: min. 95 RON/ROZ Super Premium. So for the benefit of all readers to this post, what does all this mean? Let me refer to our other car, a MB C200K. Its fuel label reads: 95 RON/(min. 91 RON) and the owners manual makes it very clear what fuel to use and why. It reads something like this: The recommended fuel to be used is 95 RON premium unleaded, but in an emergency, if this fuel is not available, you can safely use 91 RON regular unleaded, but with reduced power output and increased fuel consumption. If we transition this to the GTI-PP (and probably GTI standard), it too should have a similar label to that on the Golf R, but Volkswagen would make it less ambiguous for its customers to interpret if they used a similar label to our MB by including the word min. with 95. It would also help if the owner's manual was not generic, but specific in its references to models. Finally, the product brochure should be changed to read under Fuel type (Recommended): Premium unleaded 98 RON and delete the word minimum after RON.