GolfGTIforum.co.uk
Model specific boards => Golf mk5 => Topic started by: telboy on 13 March 2008, 18:39
-
Hiya all,
Read an article about a S3 vs Leon FR vs ED30.
The ed30 was manual and had no track set up, totally standard, the S3 well enough said and the FR had Brembo brakes and tweaks to the suspension.
To 60, the S3 completed this in 6.06, FR, 6.38 and the ED30 6.46 ish.
Around the track the S3 and FR done the circuit in 1.27, compared to the ED30 on 1.30.
Now, gave this some thought and looking at the ED30, surely if it too had Brembos and track springs with a DSG box, would it not be as quick as the S3 and FR???? :undecided:
I thought the article was a tad unfair as by my reckoning, brembos would seriously help your lap time by allowing better control and obviously having the right dampner settings would assist with track times too????
Not sure what the VW mag was trying to prove although it felt a tad unbalanced.
Also when you take into account Hurdy's 0-60 time on a standard ed30 with DSG @ 5.66 secs, wack on some Brembos and change the suspension settings, I'd reckon he'd show them VW mag boys how to really drive a car around the track and upset a few S3 & FR's in the process :evil:
Why don't car mags compare like for like anymore????
-
They compare whatever they're given by the manufacturers marketing dept.
I suggest a strongly worded letter to VW's marketing dept for allowing the car so many have spent their hard earned money on to be portrayed in a negative light.
-
They compare whatever they're given by the manufacturers marketing dept.
I suggest a strongly worded letter to VW's marketing dept for allowing the car so many have spent their hard earned money on to be portrayed in a negative light.
Just seems that they didn't think for a moment that should they try a ed30 with Brembos and track set suspension, like the FR and S3 that it may have done better!!!!
Bottom line though is in real world there isn't a lot between these cars other than price! :laugh:
-
how can the fr be quicker 0-60 than e30
-
how can the fr be quicker 0-60 than e30
Quoted figures 0-60 for the FR 6.4, for the ed30 Manual 6.8 and 6.6 dsg.
Real world I would say there is nothing in it although I would hedge my bets that a ed30 dsg would have the slight advantage out of the group suggest here, as of course confirmed by Hurdy and his time of 5.66, I'm even sure he beat an S3 on the day too :shocked:
-
2.0 16V T FSI Petrol 0-60 Top Speed BHP
2.0 16V T FSI FR 5d 7.1 s 142 mph 197 bhp (more info)
2.0 16V T FSI FR 5d DSG 7.0 s 142 mph 197 bhp
from parkers.co.uk
also in a google search they all say 7+
-
2.0 16V T FSI Petrol 0-60 Top Speed BHP
2.0 16V T FSI FR 5d 7.1 s 142 mph 197 bhp (more info)
2.0 16V T FSI FR 5d DSG 7.0 s 142 mph 197 bhp
from parkers.co.uk
also in a google search they all say 7+
This is the FR cupra which isn't available with dsg and has 240 bhp. 0-60 claimed in 6.4,...
-
2.0 16V T FSI Petrol 0-60 Top Speed BHP
2.0 16V T FSI FR 5d 7.1 s 142 mph 197 bhp (more info)
2.0 16V T FSI FR 5d DSG 7.0 s 142 mph 197 bhp
from parkers.co.uk
also in a google search they all say 7+
This is the FR cupra which isn't available with dsg and has 240 bhp. 0-60 claimed in 6.4,...
Its not an FR, Its a Cupra both are different.
Cupras are running higher than the acclaimed 240bhp just like the ed30s are slightly higher.
-
I presume that this is the feature in this months Performance VW magazine?
In which case it is a Cupra.
I doubt some of the figures anyway as they quote the S3 weight at 2015kg :shocked: :grin:
They quote the ED30 as just having an ECU tweak to get its 230bhp :grin:
S3 is 265bhp when it is actually PS which is in fact 261bhp (same error with the other 2)
The in-gear times are the most accurate representation and there is very little in them
S3 SC ED30
30-50 2.20 2.33 2.34
50-70 3.15 3.19 3.26
Because these figures are measured after the scrabble for grip is done with they are a more accurate base on which to assess relative accelleration performance.
The testers said that the ED30 didn't give them the confidence in the corners and so this too may be a reason for them not "going for it" like they did with the Seat Cupra.
-
I presume that this is the feature in this months Performance VW magazine?
In which case it is a Cupra.
I doubt some of the figures anyway as they quote the S3 weight at 2015kg :shocked: :grin:
They quote the ED30 as just having an ECU tweak to get its 230bhp :grin:
S3 is 265bhp when it is actually PS which is in fact 261bhp (same error with the other 2)
The in-gear times are the most accurate representation and there is very little in them
S3 SC ED30
30-50 2.20 2.33 2.34
50-70 3.15 3.19 3.26
Because these figures are measured after the scrabble for grip is done with they are a more accurate base on which to assess relative accelleration performance.
The testers said that the ED30 didn't give them the confidence in the corners and so this too may be a reason for them not "going for it" like they did with the Seat Cupra.
Surely dsg in gear times would be slightly better? Also if they backed off in the corners then this would result in a slower lap time. I think overall the golf would still be the better day to day car out of the trio and should you furnish the golf with Brembos, dsg and stiffen the suspension to bring it on par with the other two, the end result might actually be in the ed30's favour?? So little between them all in actual performance :sad:
-
I think the reason the ED30 didn't do as well as the other two on the track is down to the brakes (as they say they were getting a lot of fade).
Can't say I was very impressed with there test either (S3 weighs 600kilos heavier according to them :grin: :grin: :grin:), especially when they slated the looks of the Ed30 against the other two. Even though they had a bog standard 5 dr red ED30 and had probably the best looking Cupra (Added spoiler, wheels, side skirts and splitter) and S3 (RS4 wheels) i've ever seen. Both in white... :wink:
Just reading the test I got the sense that they weren't quite as professional as say the boys from Evo.. Especially when they said and I quote "Dave and I jumped straight from the Audi in to the Golf, which had been nicely warmed up (HAMMERED) by Elliot"... :huh: Bit of heat soak maybe?
-
i raced one of those fr's, my friend has one but im sure its a diseal??!! i p!ssed all ove him, all day long!! look smat as hell thow, when i was looking at the front of his car through my mirror it looked ver very sweet from the front, i dont mind the 5door either because they have some funny handles and the doors took up.....somehow :tongue: looks :cool: anyways :smiley:
-
i raced one of those fr's, my friend has one but im sure its a diseal??!! i p!ssed all ove him, all day long!! look smat as hell thow, when i was looking at the front of his car through my mirror it looked ver very sweet from the front, i dont mind the 5door either because they have some funny handles and the doors took up.....somehow :tongue: looks :cool: anyways :smiley:
Yes they do a TDI FR (170 DFP version) and 2.0TFSI (200 version). Very nice cars - just the interior lets them down a little IMO
-
ahah thought so :smiley:
-
Standard Golf damping is ok but the springs are shocking (IMO)
The Golf is setup to be an all round hatchback, easily driveable but quick when you want to press on, all the things to all men. The Cupra and S3 are setup more aggressively (sporty I guess you could say) which translates to better handling which gives you more confidence.
With standard suspension I would agree, my mates Leon is more sure footed and felt like it had more grip in the corners. With my current setup though I wipe the floor with him, even with his better brakes. Its not for everone as it is quite firm and the low profile tyres and wide wheels certainly wouldn't forgive a driver who lacked confidence.
-
So Cupra is cheaper and faster, and sportier...
Would I buy it?
HEEEEEEL NO!
And no need for "what if E30 had better breaks and DSG and springs, surely it would beat Cupra and maybe even S3", because I don't give a scheisse
Barry said it best:
Don't go changing, trying to please me
You never let me down before
I don't imagine you're too familiar
And I don't see you anymore
I would not leave you in times of trouble
We never could have come this far
I took the good times, I'll take the bad times
I'll take you just the way you are
-
So Cupra is cheaper and faster, and sportier...
Would I buy it?
HEEEEEEL NO!
And no need for "what if E30 had better breaks and DSG and springs, surely it would beat Cupra and maybe even S3", because I don't give a scheisse
Barry said it best:
Don't go changing, trying to please me
You never let me down before
I don't imagine you're too familiar
And I don't see you anymore
I would not leave you in times of trouble
We never could have come this far
I took the good times, I'll take the bad times
I'll take you just the way you are
Peskarik... you need to get out more :smiley:
Hotrod
-
<<graps a bucket :sick: :sick: :sick:, dont give your day job !!
-
Standard Golf damping is ok but the springs are shocking (IMO)
The Golf is setup to be an all round hatchback, easily driveable but quick when you want to press on, all the things to all men. The Cupra and S3 are setup more aggressively (sporty I guess you could say) which translates to better handling which gives you more confidence.
With standard suspension I would agree, my mates Leon is more sure footed and felt like it had more grip in the corners. With my current setup though I wipe the floor with him, even with his better brakes. Its not for everone as it is quite firm and the low profile tyres and wide wheels certainly wouldn't forgive a driver who lacked confidence.
Same lights as Hurdy?? ( ther picture in your Sig Komenda)
-
I think the reason the ED30 didn't do as well as the other two on the track is down to the brakes (as they say they were getting a lot of fade).
....Exactly what I was going to post. Also that bigger brakes (did I mention I've got AP Racing Big Brake Kit, or have I posted any pics? :evil: ) would allow the Ed30 to brake much later and save significant lap time on most circuits.