GolfGTIforum.co.uk
Model specific boards => Golf mk7 => Topic started by: AAddict on 07 June 2013, 17:43
-
As title really, what do VW gain from underestimating the performance of the GTI? It's pretty obvious from roadtests and youtube videos that the 0-62 is around 5.9s yet the official figures state 6.5s. Also it's looking increasingly likely that the power figures will be underestimated by as much 20-30 hp. Is it just a case of under promising and over delivering or is there some other reason?
-
Has it been proven without a doubt that performance is greater than stated? I would like to see one on a rolling road before to convince me. If it is indeed the case it would seem strange not to disclose. If VW had publicised it at 250bhp surely it would have lured more car enthusiasts to come accross from other hot hatch marques?
Perhaps it's to not detract potential customers away from paying a premium for the R?
In saying that if it is the case then I for one will be very happy :smiley: . To me the perf pack edition should have been offered at 250bhp anyway.
-
I think it's just common practice with vw now to underestimate bhp figures. seems like they've been doing it for years in both petrol and the diesels.
-
It also depends on the engine. No one engine will produce the same bhp, they'll all be slightly different. But they certainly understate the performance. I went from a mk 5 GTI (0-60 7.2 secs) straight into a mk 6 GTI (0-60 6.9 secs) and I can tell you there was a massive difference in performance, certainly much more than 0.3 secs.
As for the reason, it's been touched upon above - keeping it fast but not that fast avoids clashing with the R. It also keeps the GTI away from the raw performance of, say, the Megane Sport so that they can't be directly compared as they offer different things. The GTI has always been marketed as the all round hot hatch, doing everything well, giving it a headline 0-60 figure detracts from this.
I'm certainly hoping it goes sub 6 secs, every little helps! I knew it would, I've now got my figures crossed when mine turns up it'll be tuned to the max :laugh:
-
My GTD (170bhp) produced 180bhp on a rolling road. I don't think it's uncommon for it to be a bit higher than claimed figures, for whatever reason.
-
Does everyone slightly underestimate? In which case the real question would be does VW underestimate more than most (and if so what do they have to gain)?
-
Does everyone slightly underestimate? In which case the real question would be does VW underestimate more than most (and if so what do they have to gain)?
think its to stop them saying its got the same power than the its audi cousin that costs more :laugh:
-
VW have always been this way.
They don't need to brag about every last bhp unlike some other manufacturers.
Applies to all German Marques I think.
-
It could be for a number of reasons... it's surely better to under sell a product slightly than over state it and then every forum writing about it not making claimed performance.
Also Dyno readings are variable from one day to the next so they should be taken with a pinch of salt.
The same goes for 0-60 times. It's easy to beat the book figure with a dsg, probably a manual as well with some slick shifting.
-
Has it been proven without a doubt that performance is greater than stated?
Yes, Car and Driver (a reliable American magazine) have tested a non PP version against a Ford Focus ST. Under 6 seconds (5.6). See here and zoom in if you have a mac...
http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?6055198-Anyone-see-the-GTI-vs-Focus-ST-shootout-in-Car-amp-Driver&p=82071829&viewfull=1#post82071829
-
The July edition of Car and Driver stateside tested the GTI (Manual NON-PP) and got 5.6s to 60MPH and a 14.2 Quarter Mile :laugh:
-
The July edition of Car and Driver stateside tested the GTI (Manual NON-PP) and got 5.6s to 60MPH and a 14.2 Quarter Mile :laugh:
Yep and if you'd read the post before yours, you'd have seen I'd just posted a link to a scan of that article :wink:
-
Not everywere has the same altitude or petrol quality :wink:
-
VAG rate their engines to the DIN standard which churns out a number in PS. This is then converted to HP. If an engine is tested to the ISO standard the number churned out is in HP. The standards are slightly different and DIN tests for the same engine will always come out slightly lower than ISO test. The tests have a standardised air pressure (altitude) and temperature ( somewhere around 20 deg Celsius I think ). So when you stick your car on the rolling road in -10 it will churn out significantly more HP as the charge of air to the cylinder is a lot more dense. The RR should compensate for temp and pressure in its programme. but a straight drag against the clock does not. Engines are all about chemistry!
-
:nerd: :nerd: :nerd:
Thanks guys, that explains a lot.
-
Has it been proven without a doubt that performance is greater than stated?
Yes, Car and Driver (a reliable American magazine) have tested a non PP version against a Ford Focus ST. Under 6 seconds (5.6). See here and zoom in if you have a mac...
http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?6055198-Anyone-see-the-GTI-vs-Focus-ST-shootout-in-Car-amp-Driver&p=82071829&viewfull=1#post82071829
Non-PP GTI beats the ST in 19/22 categories.
-
Non-PP GTI beats the ST in 19/22 categories.
Actually 226 out of 240 points is amazing... sure beats the Focus into a cocked hat (202). I certainly respect what C&D say; they're the 'Merkin 9 (sic) equivalent of Car magazine. Fun to drive 23/25 (the Focus gets 24). I know which one I would rather have and I take back my post from another thread. I want my car NOW! (And to think what originally started all of this off was a test drive in a Suzuki Swift Sport (that was fun too!)
-
I'm wildly guessing here but could the conservative power figure be linked to insurance ie vehicles over say a certain power bracket are subject to higher insurance costs and thus keeping the power in a lower power band means that owners would pay MUCH less and would be more attractive to buyers???
Just a wild theory....
-
I'm wildly guessing here but could the conservative power figure be linked to insurance ie vehicles over say a certain power bracket are subject to higher insurance costs and thus keeping the power in a lower power band means that owners would pay MUCH less and would be more attractive to buyers???
Just a wild theory....
You may be right, but I've not heard this mentioned before. Obviously they use the rates accidents occur in each vehicle, but they also use the cost it will be to repair so recently a lot of manufacturers have got cars into a lower group by moving the headlights back so they are less likely to go in a shunt, etc... hence the ADC is the big thing in getting into a lower group this time.
-
Maybe VW quote their worst case figures. I have seen very noticeable variety in my TDIs between a good run in and a bad one. Perhaps they quote power gained on a "straight out of the box" model, prior to any running in gains. Outright BHP/PS is not the reason for most to buy a GTI/GTD, so perhaps VW want you to be pleasantly surprised rather than moaning about underachievement.
-
I dunno if VW have thought about it that much tbh... :evil:
-
The July edition of Car and Driver stateside tested the GTI (Manual NON-PP) and got 5.6s to 60MPH and a 14.2 Quarter Mile :laugh:
Remember though it's an american magazine and they quote 0-60mph NOT 0-62mph
-
The July edition of Car and Driver stateside tested the GTI (Manual NON-PP) and got 5.6s to 60MPH and a 14.2 Quarter Mile :laugh:
Remember though it's an american magazine and they quote 0-60mph NOT 0-62mph
Ah ok. Well, it beats the Focus by 0.1s, so if the British official Focus 0-62 is faster than 6.6s then we know the GTI should be faster than its official 6.5! :smiley:
-
Slightly off topic but interesting nonetheless.... back in the early 90's there was a gentleman's agreement in Japan that all high performance cars such as the Impreza & Evo were limited to 280ps (276bhp), when in reality these cars were producing well over 300bhp. Reasons were unknown as to why this power limit was introduced, but many thought it was a response to the increasing number of traffic accidents associated with high performance cars. Also, the gentleman's agreement was there to avoid unlimited power race between Japanese car manufactures.
So maybe the real reason why the power figure is greater than stated, is to prevent an all out power struggle within the VAG group???
-
The DIN standard test that VAG quote their PS from is for an 'as installed engine' including all losses for alternators, water pumps, catalysers, etc, at the output shaft ( before gear box losses ). The ISO standard that the japs and yanks use does not include these losses I don't think ( I'm not up on the ISO I don't use it ). The ISO is a bench test of the engine.