Golf R alternative.... with 306bhp...

[scanesare]

The Autogefuhl vid posted above is the first source I have ever seen stating specifically MQB A1 for the T-Roc and if there's more I'd love to see them too but here's just a few links where MQB A0 is stated instead, which is what I have only ever come across since its launch:

https://www.carscoops.com/2018/07/volkswagen-t-cross-simply-small-usa-canada/

https://www.motor1.com/news/269630/skoda-small-suv-report/

https://www.autoevolution.com/news/2018-volkswagen-t-roc-is-big-bold-and-comes-with-190-hp-engines-119925.html

So, clearly someone is wrong here and I have no problem admitting it could be myself (based on all the MQB A0 articles out there) but honestly, no car magazine/reviewer I am aware of is particularly trustworthy, even the bigger names like AutoExpress and EVO have repeatedly screwed up specs and technical info so make whatever you want from this "information" they bring to us.


Regarding the real cabin space and the leg-room: As a Golf owner who uses the rear seats on an almost daily basis for 2.5 years now, it was immediately obvious to me the T-Roc leg-room is less than in the Golf. Setting the driver's seat where I usually do the rear passenger's knees behind me are actually touching the back of the seat (not the case in the Golf) and fitting the child seat on the exact same position as in the Golf resulted in the front passenger seat being at an almost uncomfortable position.

You're welcome to disregard my findings of-course but they add up perfectly when you check the rear cabin distances as annotated by VW themselves in the brochure, where you can see that the "front seat to back seat" distance is 17mm less in the T-Roc (not huge, but it can make the difference between knees touching the seat's back or not). Wheelbase is also significantly smaller: Golf 2637mm, T-Roc 2590mm, an almost 5cm difference.

So is it A0 or A1 doesn't even matter in the end as the numbers alone show that the T-Roc is a little bit smaller car than the Golf rear cabin wise, which is one important factor when choosing a family car.

[kmpowell]

You're welcome to disregard my findings

You're not wrong. The sizing of these SUV's is all out of kilter. Due to the branding/naming conventions people assume they are the equivalent. The T-Roc is smaller than the Golf on many practical levels to get Golf levels of practical space you have to get the Tiguan.

All these SUV's simply sit higher, have less boot depth(the length of the opening lip to the back of the back seats) but have a higher roof line so a taller boot...

T-Cross - somewhere between an Up and Polo.
T-Roc - somewhere between a Polo and Golf.
Tiguan - somewhere around the Golf.
Toerag - somewhere around the Passat.

Q2 - somewhere between an A1 and A3.
Q3 - somewhere near the A3.
Q5 - somewhere between A3 and A4.
Q7- around the A6/A7.

... anybody who has (or had) young kids will know that buying a car on boot size and rear leg room is the first thing you consider, and this is my findings.

That's before you throw in other brands and models. The Macan for example is smaller in usable practical space than Q5 but bigger than a Q3.

[scanesare]

You're welcome to disregard my findings

You're not wrong. The sizing of these SUV's is all out of kilter. Due to the branding/naming conventions people assume they are the equivalent. The T-Roc is smaller than the Golf on many practical levels to get Golf levels of practical space you have to get the Tiguan.

All these SUV's simply sit higher, have less boot depth but have a higher roof line so a taller boot...

T-Cross - somewhere between an Up and Polo.
T-Roc - somewhere between a Polo and Golf.
Tiguan - somewhere around the Golf.
Toerag - somewhere around the Passat.

Q2 - somewhere between an A1 and A3.
Q3 - somewhere near the A3.
Q5 - somewhere between A3 and A4.
Q7- around the A6/A7.

... anybody who has (or had) young kids will know that buying a car on boot size and rear leg room is the first thing you consider, and this is my findings.

That's before you throw in other brands and models. The Macan for example is smaller in usable practical space than Q5 but bigger than a Q3.

That was exactly my point. MQB is a highly customizable system rather than a platform and as such, bringing it to the discussion as a space argument is invalid as it offers nearly zero information on what the practicalities look like and on how each particular implementation was made. Even if everybody else was wrong and Autogefuhl was right on the A1 vs A0 argument, see how clear it is that the T-Roc's rear cabin is smaller than the Golf, and that's what matters.

Looking at the official dimensions as stated in the manuals and brochures and also checking the cars out yourself gives you all the actual information you need to make a decision. I remember when we were in search of the next car after the Clubsport I was so convinced by the Tiguan's exterior dimensions that it would be a significant step up in space from the Golf but getting in one and checking the space we were both underwhelmed by our findings. Apart from the higher roof and bigger boot space it isn't such a bigger car to be honest.

I totally agree with you on the boot height point. Golf: 380lt, T-Roc: 445lt  yet when I tried to fit 4x 19" wheels side by side in the T-Roc, I still had to drop the rear seats slightly forward, same as I had to do in the Golf as they would simply not fit otherwise. The extra height from which the extra boot lt was calculated was of no particular use in that case, width and length were identical.

[Jim_mk7.5]

So a T-Roc R will be £35k ish for sure without all the options....

Or this......... £24.5k brand new!



https://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/201812012904947?aggregatedTrim=Cupra&sort=sponsored&postcode=s37bh&year-from=2017&make=SEAT&advertising-location=at_cars&radius=1500&model=LEON&transmission=Automatic&onesearchad=Used&onesearchad=Nearly%20New&onesearchad=New&page=2&modal=photos

[dubber36]

Tiguan - somewhere around the Golf.
Toerag - somewhere around the Passat.

The Tiguan is quite a bit bigger than the Golf. Rear legroom is better than my old B7 Passat, plus I can fit a road bike complete with both wheels still fitted in the boot with the seats folded, just as I could in the Passat, but got nowhere close in the Golf. The Touareg is much bigger again than the Passat.

[Guzzle]

Tiguan - somewhere around the Golf.
Toerag - somewhere around the Passat.

The Tiguan is quite a bit bigger than the Golf. Rear legroom is better than my old B7 Passat, plus I can fit a road bike complete with both wheels still fitted in the boot with the seats folded, just as I could in the Passat, but got nowhere close in the Golf. The Touareg is much bigger again than the Passat.

Agree with this. The Tiguan I sat in at my local dealers felt quite a bit bigger inside than my Golf, and rear legroom was comparable to my Octavia.

[Guzzle]

The Autogefuhl vid posted above is the first source I have ever seen stating specifically MQB A1 for the T-Roc and if there's more I'd love to see them too but here's just a few links where MQB A0 is stated instead, which is what I have only ever come across since its launch:

https://www.carscoops.com/2018/07/volkswagen-t-cross-simply-small-usa-canada/

https://www.motor1.com/news/269630/skoda-small-suv-report/

https://www.autoevolution.com/news/2018-volkswagen-t-roc-is-big-bold-and-comes-with-190-hp-engines-119925.html

So, clearly someone is wrong here and I have no problem admitting it could be myself (based on all the MQB A0 articles out there) but honestly, no car magazine/reviewer I am aware of is particularly trustworthy, even the bigger names like AutoExpress and EVO have repeatedly screwed up specs and technical info so make whatever you want from this "information" they bring to us.


Regarding the real cabin space and the leg-room: As a Golf owner who uses the rear seats on an almost daily basis for 2.5 years now, it was immediately obvious to me the T-Roc leg-room is less than in the Golf. Setting the driver's seat where I usually do the rear passenger's knees behind me are actually touching the back of the seat (not the case in the Golf) and fitting the child seat on the exact same position as in the Golf resulted in the front passenger seat being at an almost uncomfortable position.

You're welcome to disregard my findings of-course but they add up perfectly when you check the rear cabin distances as annotated by VW themselves in the brochure, where you can see that the "front seat to back seat" distance is 17mm less in the T-Roc (not huge, but it can make the difference between knees touching the seat's back or not). Wheelbase is also significantly smaller: Golf 2637mm, T-Roc 2590mm, an almost 5cm difference.

So is it A0 or A1 doesn't even matter in the end as the numbers alone show that the T-Roc is a little bit smaller car than the Golf rear cabin wise, which is one important factor when choosing a family car.

The first of those articles is about the T-Cross, not the T-Roc. The T-Cross is indeed Polo based.

The second of those articles is about the forthcoming Skoda Kamiq, and does acknowledge that it's bigger than the T-Roc that 'competes in a segment above'. That isn't as odd as it first sounds though, given that the Skoda Scala is also A0 based, yet is longer than the A1 based Golf.

The third article, dunno!?!

But here is another video that states that the T-Roc is Golf based

https://youtu.be/v90tTV74QZE

[Guzzle]

Either way, it's still an elevated small car with little space in it to qualify the 'Utility' part of SUV. If they were to make an R version of any SUV, it should have been the Tiguan, or better still the Touareg, with a V8 in it.

Yup, whatever platform it’s built on, the t-roc offers absolutely nothing more than a Golf and it’s significantly more expensive. You have to take your hat off to these car companies who are selling the same (or worse) product for so much more, I mean, have people seen the cost of the new X3M, it’s £78k before options a full £25k more than the outgoing M3!!!!

As long as mugs keep buying these cars then the manufacturers will keep building them. 

The T-Roc isn't that much more than a Golf. In some cases, the difference is less than a grand, and even that difference is swallowed up by the additional standard equipment on the T-Roc. The T-Roc is built to a price though, which partly explains the budget interior. It's the 4-motion variants where you seem to pay the biggest premium, but those versions are at least pretty well specced.

[Jim_mk7.5]

Here is it.... Finished:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYcKYDOSEQ0

Observations - No hydraulic hinges for the bonnet, no heated seats but nice new design, AID nicer with full map, no climate control.

Wonder how much UK price will be as supposed to slightly less than the Golf R, not sure there's a real benefit?

[fredgroves]

Looks like a new bigger screen version of the basic nav (8" widescreen) but no option for NavPro (which would drive the AID and the MIB maps at the same time)

Why on earth make climate control an option on a top end R model? That's just stupid penny pinching!