Golf 40th vs Golf R

[ringo]

I had a GTI and it was hopeless in the wet, I may have well been driving my wife's old Mazda 2 (especially from stationary on an uphill) . Aren't you going from one extreme to the other? Oh it's wet so you drive like you have a $15k hatch? If the car you want is a daily driver, deciding which car to get based on a track time that you will never drive is pointless. For me the majority of driving is in town where acceleration and traction is more important.

On the odd trip out of town, speed limits mean the differences between the two are irrelevant IMO.

When it was time to upgrade I was certain it wouldn't be FWD again and that was based on how and where I would drive the car.

If track days are your number one priority then sure, perhaps FWD is the way to go...provided it's not raining...
Rob

Unless you mean a GTI PP, the Clubsport does not resemble your old GTI. There was even a nice vid of properly fast driving a Cupra on the wet a few pages back and although slower than an R under those conditions the difference was much smaller than it would be in the past between a FWD and an AWD. Times have changed. And if you are primarily interested in driving around town, an R or any such powerful car surely does not make much sense, does it?

I certainly don't base my decision on a lap time. It's nothing to do with absolute times but about the driving feel and feed-back that you can get even a low speeds around tight corners. Usually though one helps the other. Of-course not everyone has to understand or appreciate what driving feel or involvement means and I am all fine with that.

And a story for the end: I once went to my local track on a cloudy day hoping it would not rain later but it did. You know many Golf R or S3, BMW XDrive, or EVOs, or whatever 4WD you may like showed up that day on the track? 0... If I didn't know better I would wonder why, since all these cars were better than my FWD on the wet, yet nobody showed up that day (normal days saw at least 10 cars driving around the track). I can only guess that even for these cars, a wet road is not the best scenario for fast driving...

Bottom-line, and despite overall forum claims like "oh give me an AWD and I would smoke that FWD/RWD in the rain" (truth: no, they'd drive even more carefully than in the dry), no performance car drivers like rain, or snow or ice. Evaluating the car on such very low potential conditions is indifferent to me (to say the least) as I will not be seeking to go anywhere near the car's limits no matter the car I drive. So if under these conditions an AWD insists setting off the traffic lights as fast as possible or putting its 300bhp down through uncharted paddles I'll probably just turn on my phone's camera and keep a distance. Youtube pays good money if you can hit a decent number of views I'm told.

[Bigboboz]

And if you are primarily interested in driving around town, an R or any such powerful car surely does not make much sense, does it?

Why not? Does to me. Besides I was primarily after AWD so not exactly spoiled for choice in the Golf range. Acceleration is more useful than speed with speed limits.

[ringo]

Why not? Does to me. Besides I was primarily after AWD so not exactly spoiled for choice in the Golf range. Acceleration is more useful than speed with speed limits.

Well because in my mind proper driving fun and a town do not cross for several reasons but most notably: safety (there's only as much as you can predict while trying to launch from traffic lights as fast as the manufacturer announces or generally accelerating hard in an urban area) and politeness towards other drivers and the inhabitants that are certainly not interested in checking out how my engine and exhaust sound under full load...

As such, If I was condemned in just city driving I would never even consider such a car. Not that I somehow get to drive my car on twisty back roads every day. Most of its mileage will still be boring "daily" kilometers. But I rate quite highly a good driver's car even if I only get the chance to exploit it a few days per month, where conditions allow me. A bit like a quality hi-fi (I hardly ever find time to listen to my music during working days).

[SevenR]

no performance car drivers like rain

[ringo]

Ayrton, are you there??

[ringo]

A friend of mine is the sales person and we took 40th up the hoist at the same time someone just traded their performance pack which was getting inspected.

I can confirm, they are the same. Catback has the same part number, but can't say the same about the downpipe, as it was unaccessible.

I just got a reply which is exactly the opposite in fact. Guy says he doesn't know about the down-pipe but that the cat-back is definitely different, hence why some GTI owners have bothered retrofitting it. Not something I have checked myself but he usually is pretty accurate with his info. Anyway...

[wasabiz]

I just got a reply which is exactly the opposite in fact. Guy says he doesn't know about the down-pipe but that the cat-back is definitely different, hence why some GTI owners have bothered retrofitting it. Not something I have checked myself but he usually is pretty accurate with his info. Anyway...

That was a mistake on my part,
VW had another look at the exhaust and the only part that's the same is the resonator in the middle with part number 5Q0253211AS
The everything after that is bigger in size

[Bassik]

This vid at 3.57 will show you how it sounds

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmLpH1N3IZ8

[SevenR]

Ayrton, are you there??

lol, you're on crack

[Billecartz]

I had a GTI and it was hopeless in the wet, I may have well been driving my wife's old Mazda 2 (especially from stationary on an uphill) . Aren't you going from one extreme to the other? Oh it's wet so you drive like you have a $15k hatch? If the car you want is a daily driver, deciding which car to get based on a track time that you will never drive is pointless. For me the majority of driving is in town where acceleration and traction is more important.

On the odd trip out of town, speed limits mean the differences between the two are irrelevant IMO.

When it was time to upgrade I was certain it wouldn't be FWD again and that was based on how and where I would drive the car.

If track days are your number one priority then sure, perhaps FWD is the way to go...provided it's not raining...
Rob

Don't confuse the car with the tyres in the wet, tyres make a huge difference. I have a MK7 GTI and it has been raining today and it is fantastic in the wet. I am running Goodyear Eagle F1's.

[WhiteJames]

Final comment of this article states that the Golf R still makes more sense: VW Golf GTI Clubsport vs SEAT Leon Cupra 290 vs Honda Civic Type R | Auto Express

WJ

[Brian]

A Review of the Auto Express Review

Final comment of this article states that the Golf R still makes more sense: VW Golf GTI Clubsport vs SEAT Leon Cupra 290 vs Honda Civic Type R | Auto Express

WJ

I think their opinion is based on the £750 (~ AU$1320) price differential, although the figures they quote for the R and CS make no sense WRT their statement. The price differential here in OZ, as I posted in this table, is $6250:



The article makes no mention of the over-boost feature of the CS, although I see its borne out in the in gear acceleration figures, where it comprehensively beats the SEAT and the HONDA and I suspect would beat the Golf R as well. edit: the first search I found a figure of 4.3 secs 30-70 mph vs 4.0 secs for the CS



Apples for Oranges:

Not include in the CS base price for UK, which are standard inclusions here: rear cam, adaptive chassis control. Also it seems like the driver assist package which is standard in the CS is extra in the SEAT.
3 door CS vs 5 doors in the other 2.
No mention of included features for ALL cars.

As to the rest of their summary:

Despite its track focus, the Golf can’t hold a candle to the Honda on a circuit,

Very debatable in light of other reviews

plus it’s slower,

Not bourne out by the speed figures quoted

not as involving

compared to what? Maybe the manual gearbox in the Honda

and less usable day to day than the cheaper SEAT.

Can't work this one out. Maybe comparing a 3 door CS to the 5 door SEAT?

Compared to the Golf R:

For £750 more than the Clubsport, you can grab the keys to the brilliant Golf R.

See above

Packing 296bhp and four-wheel drive, it’s much faster in real-world conditions

So 1/4 mile drags are "real world conditions"?

plus low-key looks

read as boring and featureless

and greater comfort

that's the 6 grand missing from your wallet that you're sitting on, or rather NOT sitting on

make it easier to live with day to day

once again, nothing to base this on

A Golf R makes far more sense.

For £750 in UK - maybe. But not for $6250 in Australia Mate!
And if the SEAT floats your boat for a couple of grand less, (and I believe it to be a worthy rival), the residual value in 3 years (5% less than the CS) will wipe the smile from your dial!
All in all, a rather amateurish and fact less review. More a bunch of opinions based on...what?
Happy trails,
Brian

[WhiteJames]

Interesting Points:

Forums indicate that fully loaded DSG Golf GTI ED40 Clubsport are selling for 55K drive away. Friends of mine paid 58K for fully loaded Golf 7 R drive away about 12 months after initial release date. That's 3K difference + free leather on the Golf R, which makes them basically the same price as ED40 has no fancy seats (worth about 3K as an option if available).

Ironically ... fast forward 3 years and the Golf R may fetch 35K private sale, the ED40 GTI no more than 30K private sale. Golf R wins.

Additionally ... There are heaps of Golf R's in dealerships. Start offering stupid money (less than 58K) for R with a plain colour (I.e. White ... my fav colour), and the Golf R is looking like better value imo.

WJ

[Bassik]

Interesting Points:

Forums indicate that fully loaded DSG Golf GTI ED40 Clubsport are selling for 55K drive away. Friends of mine paid 58K for fully loaded Golf 7 R drive away about 12 months after initial release date. That's 3K difference + free leather on the Golf R, which makes them basically the same price as ED40 has no fancy seats (worth about 3K as an option if available).

Ironically ... fast forward 3 years and the Golf R may fetch 35K private sale, the ED40 GTI no more than 30K private sale. Golf R wins.

Additionally ... There are heaps of Golf R's in dealerships. Start offering stupid money (less than 58K) for R with a plain colour (I.e. White ... my fav colour), and the Golf R is looking like better value imo.

WJ

Drive both and then see. An R is probably a better option yes but the CS will set you apart from all the other Golfs on the road. That review wasn't really good IMO.

[Brian]

Interesting Points:

Forums indicate that fully loaded DSG Golf GTI ED40 Clubsport are selling for 55K drive away. Friends of mine paid 58K for fully loaded Golf 7 R drive away about 12 months after initial release date. That's 3K difference + free leather on the Golf R, which makes them basically the same price as ED40 has no fancy seats (worth about 3K as an option if available).

Ironically ... fast forward 3 years and the Golf R may fetch 35K private sale, the ED40 GTI no more than 30K private sale. Golf R wins.

Additionally ... There are heaps of Golf R's in dealerships. Start offering stupid money (less than 58K) for R with a plain colour (I.e. White ... my fav colour), and the Golf R is looking like better value imo.

WJ

My prices in the table are ACTUAL MRSP as quoted by VW Australia. Anecdotal figures quoted on forums or by my cousins aunts partner who knows a VW salesperson, has no basis for a FACTUAL comparison.

FWIW, I paid $52K drive away for my CS with other incentives thrown in. I'm 6K wealthier than your "friends" who paid 58K. Whichever figures you use, the "R" is going to cost 6K more, based on what the dealer has to pay, which is based on the MRSP.

If the dealer decides to take a haircut on his profit by reducing the add on dealer costs, and how desperate they are for sales because the accountant has told them to reduce inventory, then that's your lucky day.

You won't convince me that the CS is not better "bang for your buck" than the R.

As for your conjecture re sale prices in 3 years, it is just star gazing. May I borrow your crystal ball so that I can see what shares to buy tomorrow?