GolfGTIforum.co.uk
Model specific boards => Golf mk7 => Topic started by: Sootchucker on 18 May 2013, 13:59
-
Whilst I didn't buy the GTD specifically for its performance (otherwise I'd have purchased a GTI), as to be honest the performance of my 140ps diesel Scirocco does me 95% of the time, it does seem quite brisk on paper. However the quoted performance stats 7.5 (for 0-100km) and 143mph top speed got me thinking.
In the may issue of VW driver magazine, they tested a 140ps Golf TSI ACT and recorded a 0-60 in 7.8 seconds, verses the book at 8.4 seconds. Similarly MK6 Golf GTD owners regularly reported times of sub 7.5 seconds (despite a published figure of 8.1). Now the Mk7 GTD's official sprint time is also 7.5 seconds, but has a dollop more HP and torque than the MK6, so I was wondering if we would actually see low 7 seconds or even (shock horror) sub 7 seconds in real world times ? I know there's a difference between 0-100km/h (0-62 mph) than our 0-60 tests, but surely that can't account for a whole 1/2 second can it ?
And before this descends into a GTI vs GTD performance contest, yes we all know you GTi boys are quite a bit faster than us, i'm not denying that :laugh: :laugh:, who knows, perhaps even your 6.5 seconds is conservative ?
What do you think.
-
Here's the thing. Why when quoting "official" mpg figures are they always over that of "real world" driving? Sometimes nearly 10 mpg over!!
Yet you're hinting the "official" 0-60 mph times are slower than that of "real world" acceleration? Surely VW would want to quote the quickest time possible to attract buyers (same goes for the GTI boys).
Is this something VW regularly do to avoid higher insurance groups for their performance models (only reason I can think of)? What other reason would they quote slower 0-60 times?
I'm not complaining mind - just playing devils advocate :evil:
I have to say my 160ps TSI Scirocco feels way quicker to 60 mph than the quoted "official" figure of 8 secs. Feels more like 7.2 secs but I've never actually timed it. Not that sad :wink:
-
Whatever car I've had I've found you can shave off at least half a second. The GTD will do it in 7 seconds I've no doubt, with the GTI in 6, possibly sub 6. VW in particular are always ultra conservative with their published 0-60 times, at least that's my experience.
-
I suppose it's better to under quote figures than over quote.
There are numerous factors that influence 0-60 times.
-
I've had the 140 Mk5 Golf and a 170 Scirocco... and I have to say I am still umming and ahhhing right now as to whether I should change my GTI order to a GTD. Just felt that after 6 years of driving diesels I'm ready for more of a thrill. I love my diesel Roco and the 170 engine is the best I have driven and I love the power/torque it has. I am also sure the new GTD engine with a few more horses and being a lot more economical is going to be an even better drive than my Roco. But I cant help but have a little mid life crisis and think what the hell and go for the GTI, I still do around 40 miles a day commuting, and have nice areas to be able to put the foot down so am quite excited about it, but the economy part does scare me! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
-
In comparison from VW Driver magazine;
Golf TSI ACT 7.8
MK6 GT 160ps 7.4 (DSG this was 8.0 in the brochure)
MK5 GT 140ps 7.9 (Man) (even with twincharger)
MK6 GTD 7.5 (Man)
MK6 GTI 6.3 (Man)
MK5 GTI 6.0 (Man) !!!
-
My drive is a 170BHP S Line Quattro at moment and one of main reasons came over to GTD was to spec an Audi to any decent level meant a real compromise on engine (150BHP) and losing Quattro and when push came to shove the thought of losing that extra power and torque 'surge' was just too much! Simply love it, best thing car gives me
Only driven Quattro in last 5 years so really not sure how much going to lose in that way, but given the new lighter frame of GTD and increased BHP know that I have made one very good decision in brand switching with the standard kit, the options including DCC and more so the speed, she is going to be pretty damn quick for a family car ;)
-
There has already been a post on this forum somewhere that a reviewer got 6 secs or a bit less in a manual mk7 GTI.
One thing you have to remember is typically a real test will be in one direction where wind and slope can be working for or against you. The kind of fuel you use is also going to affect it. Conditions of the road and your tyres... I'm sure there are other factors too though none come to mind immediately.
-
What I can't wait to find out is what the mid-range punch is like on the new Mk7 GTD. I miss that from my Mk5 140ps TDI GT.
This is why we desperately need some reviews!
Diesels have really potent in gear acceleration, especially between 50-70 mph. They take some beating. So, it will be intriguing to see what the lighter Mk7 can do when it arrives :whistle:
-
I suppose unlike the mpg figures which are all done under controlled conditions from one manufacturer to the next, and therefore shields the manufacturer somewhat from complaints, no such tests (AFAIK) exist for the 0-100 times.
I guess the manufactures then have to play a little safe with their figures as if they claim a car will do 0-100 in 7 seconds, but in reality only do it in 8 seconds, they will be flooded with complaints. Also, they have to legislate for differing fuel qualities and octane ratings from all over the world in the markets they serve, as well as local conditions. Therefore I'm hoping the figures and just very conservative.
-
I suppose unlike the mpg figures which are all done under controlled conditions from one manufacturer to the next, and therefore shields the manufacturer somewhat from complaints, no such tests (AFAIK) exist for the 0-100 times.
I guess the manufactures then have to play a little safe with their figures as if they claim a car will do 0-100 in 7 seconds, but in reality only do it in 8 seconds, they will be flooded with complaints. Also, they have to legislate for differing fuel qualities and octane ratings from all over the world in the markets they serve, as well as local conditions. Therefore I'm hoping the figures and just very conservative.
Yeah thats what I was getting at. Also the test should be in two directions, whereas typically when someone does it in the real world for comparison to the official figures they have just timed themselves in one direction. Well I assume that is what they have done?