GolfGTIforum.co.uk
Model specific boards => Golf mk7 => Topic started by: am1w on 04 August 2015, 16:35
-
Great vid and a very balanced (?) review.
Result: Golf R wins. Faster round the track and better to drive.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3jWVTKYcP0
Now if the R had Michelin PSS tyres or Conti 5P tyres instead of Bridgestones, then it would probably be sensational.
-
Already posted in the GTI Reviews and links... But what an outstanding car the R is. To beat an RS3 is quite an achievement. Seems VW have made a peach of a car and overachieved perhaps as it's not supposed to eclipse an RS model.
-
Not wanting to pi44 on your chips or anything but 5th gear had the R last. Said it was just to heavy.
-
Forgive my ignorance but why is a car that "feels like a front wheel drive with infinite traction" a bad thing? The worst thing about my GTD is the fact you can't boot it in 1st and 2nd because of the lack of traction, so I struggle to see why this is a negative.
-
Powerful RWD and FWD cars struggle with traction especially in the wet. And besides, the GTD is not a powerful car and it struggles in this respect.
-
That sums up my issue with the RS3, not fun to drive, also shocked how badly the 8 pot brakes stood up
I am surprised as I actually think the stock R feels slow (all be it my wife was trying to disprove this theory)
R with Cups 2s, 6 pot 360 stoppers and an extra 50bhp is good fun :)
-
With regards the £10K price difference I'm not quite convinced as the RS3 has DSG, leather, 19 inch wheels and 5 door as standard. A lot of people spec these on a Golf R so the actual gap is half the £10K these motoring journalists are going on about.
-
Probably fairer to compare the RS3 to the R420... the 7R is a S3 equivalent and like for like optional spec is about 7k cheaper than the three ringed beast.
Expect the same I guess when the R420 comes out.
Which one is better? Personally, I don't care really - 49k on a mid sized hatchback is insanity. The RS3 is for yuppies to boast about at the golf course. If you want to go fast you can go much faster for less money.
-
Probably fairer to compare the RS3 to the R420... the 7R is a S3 equivalent and like for like optional spec is about 7k cheaper than the three ringed beast.
Expect the same I guess when the R420 comes out.
Which one is better? Personally, I don't care really - 49k on a mid sized hatchback is insanity. The RS3 is for yuppies to boast about at the golf course. If you want to go fast you can go much faster for less money.
Totally agreed and the RS3 advertising backs this up.
It's good that you don't have to drive a full on sports car or a canal barge sized car in order to have an engine like this at your disposal though.
But a classical hot hatch it sure ain't.
Just like the road tests and track based review sessions that put the early MK7 GTI's up against AMG A45s and M135i's this is fairly skewed review so it's good to see a non R400 Golf hold up well against an RS Audi.
Wonder how many members of various forums will now feel obliged to ditch their nearly new S3, R, junior Porsche, BMW etc in order to say they have their name on an RS3?
-
With regards the £10K price difference I'm not quite convinced as the RS3 has DSG, leather, 19 inch wheels and 5 door as standard. A lot of people spec these on a Golf R so the actual gap is half the £10K these motoring journalists are going on about.
Works both ways though - isn't the RS3 lacking basic things like parking sensors, privacy glass, folding mirrors, auto headlights, auto dimming rear view mirror and adaptive cruise control?
-
Powerful RWD and FWD cars struggle with traction especially in the wet. And besides, the GTD is not a powerful car and it struggles in this respect.
Yeah I appreciate all that but why is a car that has infinite grip a bad point?
-
A 7R vs RS3 is not a fair comparison - even though in this particular review the R comes out on top. An R is an S3, so compare those.
As for the £10k difference, I specced an RS3 yesterday with the exact options that are on my R and it was £8k more. Is it worth it for the extra horses? I don't know, I haven't driven one.
Also, these track reviews are utterly pointless. 95% of us will never take our cars onto a track. I'm sorry, but in the real world on the road I can't see how an RS3 wouldn't be quicker than an R. It's got a lot more power. If someone can explain that to me I'd appreciate it!
-
I agree.. not sure of the point of this test really its not comparing like for like and they both aren't really "track" cars they are family hatchbacks..
Having driven them all back to back same roads, its not just what is quicker, its about the noise, torque, power delivery etc.. and the RS3 is very different to the golf R.. and is without question a bit faster.
Does it matter ? not really ... if we all wanted just the fastest car we would all buy the same thing !
-
I agree.. not sure of the point of this test really its not comparing like for like and they both aren't really "track" cars they are family hatchbacks..
Having driven them all back to back same roads, its not just what is quicker, its about the noise, torque, power delivery etc.. and the RS3 is very different to the golf R.. and is without question a bit faster.
Does it matter ? not really ... if we all wanted just the fastest car we would all buy the same thing !
Yeah, its a load of nonsense. Some of the R boys are getting very excited by this review but then a lot of them think that the R will destroy anything on the road including AMG's, 911's, M3's etc. These guys need a reality check.
The fact is if I were to pull up at a set of traffic lights alongside an R and an RS3 I know which one I would want to be in even forgetting which one is quicker (i'll give you a clue, it's not the former).
That's no disrespect to the R cause I would take that over the GTI
-
Yeah, its a load of nonsense. Some of the R boys are getting very excited by this review but then a lot of them think that the R will destroy anything on the road including AMG's, 911's, M3's etc. These guys need a reality check.
The fact is if I were to pull up at a set of traffic lights alongside an R and an RS3 I know which one I would want to be in even forgetting which one is quicker (i'll give you a clue, it's not the former).
That's no disrespect to the R cause I would take that over the GTI
This is exactly right Craig. This is why that video is tosh. If you have a wander over to the R forum, you'll see a thread on this video, along with various other threads whereby the R owners are creaming themselves over how quick the car is.
Is the R a great car - yes! Will it beat anything on the road - no! An RS3 would beat an R off the line every day of the week, all this video does is feeds the R fanboys fantasies. Honestly, as an R owner I'm embarrassed by it all - it's like the old Playstation vs Xbox arguments - the fanboys are so blinkered and biased!
-
You can always find someone who has a faster car...
But it is not just about how fast you can get away from the lights... but also about mid-range performance, grip, handling poise, style etc. etc.
Frankly, > £40K on a hatchback, no matter how much it has been fettled... I think I'd rather have a Boxster, Cayman new than either... and then if I were to look used, at that price it brings a whole load of proper sports cars...
They might not be faster 0-60 (although they could be) but in almost every other driving respect they will likely be much better.
I understand that people want a practical fast car... but once you're getting to the sort of sums you're talking about, I have found the two car method much more fruitful...
-
I love both the S3 and the RS3. The latter is a fantastic car and I don't give a jotting toss what the journos say about it. It is total eye candy for me, sounds epic and I love it to bits.
-
Powerful RWD and FWD cars struggle with traction especially in the wet. And besides, the GTD is not a powerful car and it struggles in this respect.
Yeah I appreciate all that but why is a car that has infinite grip a bad point?
The driver explains they want more play from rear axle, more fun/more adjustment available.
-
Not wanting to pi44 on your chips or anything but 5th gear had the R last. Said it was just to heavy.
5th Gear...the 5th wheel of motoring television.
-
I agree.. not sure of the point of this test really its not comparing like for like and they both aren't really "track" cars they are family hatchbacks..
Having driven them all back to back same roads, its not just what is quicker, its about the noise, torque, power delivery etc.. and the RS3 is very different to the golf R.. and is without question a bit faster.
Does it matter ? not really ... if we all wanted just the fastest car we would all buy the same thing !
Well it adds another dimension to the comparison of the cars, if it was just a drag race test then it would be obvious which car would win.
They did fail to mention the RS3 has a better soundtrack but the purpose of the review was perceived ability round the track rather than other attributes the cars have. I suppose you might save a few quid and buy an 8p RS3 instead if this was a deciding factor?
-
I love both the S3 and the RS3. The latter is a fantastic car and I don't give a jotting toss what the journos say about it. It is total eye candy for me, sounds epic and I love it to bits.
I absolutely agree with you there! The rs3 noise is incredible and I love it to bits. A also agree with an earlier point that on the road the extra power on the road would cause the rs3 to be quicker I think.
In relation to a Cayman/Boxter for 40k. You'd have a pretty hard time getting one of them....I think they start at 50ish and let's face Porsche are the worst for giving aware options...Bluetooth is an option for gods sake. So you'd need at least 10K on top of base to get a nice one
-
Autocar rankings:
1. VW Golf R
2. Audi RS3
3. Honda Type R
4. Merc A45 AMG
5. BMW M135i
BTW, the Type R noise level is 77 dBA at 70 mph, whereas the R is 68 dBA. That Honda is a noisy bugger.
-
He says Audi faster out of corners and on the straight. But.... Brakes fade sooner and can't carry as much speed into corners, hence R .5 s faster on lap.
Real world ... You decide.
It's your money, and it's encouraging that VW can fettle their chassis so well that they can challenge a five cylinder +10k uber machine at all
-
Yeah, its a load of nonsense. Some of the R boys are getting very excited by this review but then a lot of them think that the R will destroy anything on the road including AMG's, 911's, M3's etc. These guys need a reality check.
The fact is if I were to pull up at a set of traffic lights alongside an R and an RS3 I know which one I would want to be in even forgetting which one is quicker (i'll give you a clue, it's not the former).
That's no disrespect to the R cause I would take that over the GTI
This is exactly right Craig. This is why that video is tosh. If you have a wander over to the R forum, you'll see a thread on this video, along with various other threads whereby the R owners are creaming themselves over how quick the car is.
Is the R a great car - yes! Will it beat anything on the road - no! An RS3 would beat an R off the line every day of the week, all this video does is feeds the R fanboys fantasies. Honestly, as an R owner I'm embarrassed by it all - it's like the old Playstation vs Xbox arguments - the fanboys are so blinkered and biased!
What did all those R owners do when the Cupra 280 beat the R around the track on the Auto express video?? :whistle:
-
^ :grin: Must admit I watched the autoexpress video test of the Cupra, megan and type R thought I preferred the cupra even though it was slightly slower than the honda. Watching him bounced about in the type r was funny. The next video from them was the M3 v Type R v RS3 watching that made me think cupra still as it was the same track.
Sorry I just find 4WD boring and DSG and 4WD more so. People who complain about traction imo need to learn to drive and should buy some performance driving lessons.
-
^ :grin: Must admit I watched the autoexpress video test of the Cupra, megan and type R thought I preferred the cupra even though it was slightly slower than the honda. Watching him bounced about in the type r was funny. The next video from them was the M3 v Type R v RS3 watching that made me think cupra still as it was the same track.
Sorry I just find 4WD boring and DSG and 4WD more so. People who complain about traction imo need to learn to drive and should buy some performance driving lessons.
It's not about being able to drive, there is a limit to what the front wheels can do. Given that in the UK it rains 290 out of the 365 days a year, even moderate acceleration on a bad road causes the traction light to come on if the weather is poor. I would prefer to enjoy the performance my car can give more than 2 out of the 12 months. You remap it and it's even worse. 250-300bhp is pushing the limit of FWD and that's a limit some people don't want.
-
^ :grin: Must admit I watched the autoexpress video test of the Cupra, megan and type R thought I preferred the cupra even though it was slightly slower than the honda. Watching him bounced about in the type r was funny. The next video from them was the M3 v Type R v RS3 watching that made me think cupra still as it was the same track.
Sorry I just find 4WD boring and DSG and 4WD more so. People who complain about traction imo need to learn to drive and should buy some performance driving lessons.
It's not about being able to drive, there is a limit to what the front wheels can do. Given that in the UK it rains 290 out of the 365 days a year, even moderate acceleration on a bad road causes the traction light to come on if the weather is poor. I would prefer to enjoy the performance my car can give more than 2 out of the 12 months. You remap it and it's even worse. 250-300bhp is pushing the limit of FWD and that's a limit some people don't want.
^^Well said mate! ^^^Patronising too.
The only thing I don't like about my GTI is its ability to put all its power down in wet or damp conditions. Hell.. sometimes even in the dry! You kinda feel cheated. Does that make me a bad driver. No. It's the limit of traction and torque through its front wheels. That's why some folk plump for 4WD (i.e. an R). Especially with 300bhp stock.
-
Knowing that the car has a lot more to give with better rubber is galling when you get sh!tty bridgestones. When you've got a GTD or GTI shod with Bridgestones, driving "better" means pulling away with a lot less throttle than if you had better tyres - Pirelli P7, Conti 5, Dunlop SP01, Michelin PS3/PSS...take your pic, none of them cause tramping like the Bridgestones.
Fair enough if you're driving an MX5 and you know it's going to be a slippery bugger no matter what rubber it has on it, if not driven properly. When VW choose to impede the MK7's abilities with Bridgestones, it has nothing to do with driving ability, you choose to drive the car to far less than its potential or you choose to suffer tramping and a lack of lateral grip knowing full well the car could do so much more with better shoes.
If I wanted to slip and slide around for kicks then i'd buy a GT86, not take a very capable and stable car and put crap tyres on it.
-
People who complain about traction imo need to learn to drive and should buy some performance driving lessons.
That's a bit harsh but in some respects fair.
There used to be a load of people who'd crash their S2000s, reporting over on S2KI, almost always it was younger guys who'd stepped out of modern traction controlled fwd hot hatches and were used to the electronics "saving them" and before 2006 traction control was not even an option. I drove mine for close to 80k miles and only ever had issues in the snow (never got stuck but had to be careful) or when I wanted to play :evil: But I was brought up mainly on rear wheel drive
All I will say is that I don't feel the need for 4WD in my XKR... and if you're not careful that will spin the rears at 70mph in 3rd gear in the damp... I don't feel short changed either.
One further note. In rallying in this country, a well set up and driven Ford Escort Mk2 is still more than a match for a Group A Lancer EVO or Subaru Impreza... and often they'll beat WRC Focus and the like... hence the "in some respects" comment above relating to driving ability...
If you buy a front wheel drive car - especially with > 200bhp and/or lots or torque then you're going to have issues with traction at times. Fancy diffs, good tyres and clever traction control can mitigate some of that but the underlying issue will still remain. The same, of course is true for rear wheel drive but they intrinsically have better traction than front wheel drive under acceleration...
-
I've just watched this - the point of the review wasn't to say which was better as such, but see if the RS3 is worth the extra money (personally I don't think it is).
People will buy it because it's an Audi...
I've said somewhere else here, it's just too expensive for me, and personally, I don't want to have to pay for every single extra, it's not that special.
What will be interesting is the pricing of the R4200/R400 - where VW will place it - give it a good basic kit - price it below the RS3 and it could be a sensational bargain - there will be the argument about 'it's just a Golf' but if they can translate the breadth of abilities the R has to a more powerful version, surely it will be something amazing.
The RS3 is about bragging rights, it's a great video, not because to some extent the R wins but it shows another way of thinking when it comes to cars, most people it seems just keep tuning and adding power, what makes a great fast hatch is clearly and obviously more complex.
James
-
I can't see for the life of me the R400 being cheaper than the RS3. If it's a limited edition pushing out 400bhp then I would reckon circa £45k. I will be amazed if it's below £40k.
-
I can't see for the life of me the R400 being cheaper than the RS3. If it's a limited edition pushing out 400bhp then I would reckon circa £45k. I will be amazed if it's below £40k.
I'd have to agree - I can't realistically see it being cheaper, like you say it is a limited edition and you can quite easily spec up a R and it's close to that 40k.
So for me I am just intrigued to see what they do with pricing - if it was a similar price to the RS3 - better equipped - that would be interesting.
James
-
Wasn't there somewhere else on here where they said the target price was > £40k? I reckon that there will be little, if any, change from £50k once you factor in extras (and your straight jacket)...
-
^ :grin: Must admit I watched the autoexpress video test of the Cupra, megan and type R thought I preferred the cupra even though it was slightly slower than the honda. Watching him bounced about in the type r was funny. The next video from them was the M3 v Type R v RS3 watching that made me think cupra still as it was the same track.
Sorry I just find 4WD boring and DSG and 4WD more so. People who complain about traction imo need to learn to drive and should buy some performance driving lessons.
It's not about being able to drive, there is a limit to what the front wheels can do. Given that in the UK it rains 290 out of the 365 days a year, even moderate acceleration on a bad road causes the traction light to come on if the weather is poor. I would prefer to enjoy the performance my car can give more than 2 out of the 12 months. You remap it and it's even worse. 250-300bhp is pushing the limit of FWD and that's a limit some people don't want.
This is pretty much my thinking too.
It depends on your definition of fun really.
On a track it's the the drifting etc. Its fun!
On UK roads in very mixed conditions fun transforms to having lots of traction with seamless pull away and on the rails experiences at times that can really push it safely.
My GTD is the least powered of the three MK7 and is much improved now Bridgestone have been banished but you still get the traction light coming on in wet conditions and that is something that having had 2 Quattro previously still really frustrates me (maybe a little more biased due to being previous Quattro owner)
Maybe just being a little too sensible for some but my thinking always goes back to UK roads, its traffic and weather and as much as genuinely understand the 'fun' factor as stated above, I want a car that can push quite hard but safely too, and as much as is demonstrated in that video.
The fastest times around the Top Gear lap were usually the ones where the lines were smooth and straight with no slide or drift and that's pretty much what R would give you in most conditions. with the 300 BHP harnessed with the 4WD.
Think its ok to say that 4WD is boring on a track if used to something much different but when place it on real roads under real conditions it strikes the perfect balance of fun and safety.
-
..... The same, of course is true for rear wheel drive but they intrinsically have better traction than front wheel drive under acceleration...
Not entirely true! In the wet, the weight of the engine over the front wheels, will give the FWD cars an advantage over their RWD counterparts. :wink: You only have to watch a wet BTCC race to see that.