Thoughts on the GTI

[monkeyhanger]

Due to the addition of Nav, keyless and winter pack on the GTI and GTD, and the RRP going up accordingly, the gap between the cost of the GTI and the R is very small, way smaller than the difference in performance would imply it should be, especially as the bits of equipment the GTD/GTI gets are by no means essential

1. Nav vs using your smart phone.
2. Keyless and security concerns.
3. Winter pack - do you need heated seats if you don't have leather that's stone-cold to the touch in Winter.

Although the MK7 chassis handles very well, the GTI is looking very low on output next to its peers and the GTI's output is closer to that of the GTD, but the mpg is closer to that of the R.

Although the GTI hasn't been the top tier of Golf performance for a very long time, those sitting at the top like the G60, VR6, R32 were pretty rare models in their time. The MK6 and MK7 made the R much more mainstream. The R is the new GTI. The forthcoming clubsport is exactly what the MK7 GTI should have been. I'd be surprised if the MK8 "standard" GTI isn't at least 260ps with the MK8 R at 350ps.

DPF operation is handled very well by the VW range, passive regens occur readily even with an annual mileage of only 8k miles pa.

Who buys a GTI over an R for the 5mpg (real) difference? If you care about mpg you buy a GTD. When the GTI was the only performance model with the £1250 deposit contribution and didn't get the additional equipment which upped the RRP, the GTI was noticeably cheaper than the R. Now there's £3320 between them (5 door comparison), and the GFV on the R is around £1800 more, making the GTI just £1500 cheaper over 3 years in real terms if you're PCPing.

The GTI is a decent car but it should be closer to the R than the GTD in performance as a hot hatch.

[Jackie Treehorn]

The reason this thread has so few comments may be due:

A: we are a small niche of buyers.
B: GTi owners constantly getting told on here they have the wrong car or the wrong tyres, and are probably a little fed up with it so prefer not to shout about it.   

I made a GTi PP review about my purchase over a year ago but decided not to put it on this forum for obvious reasons.  Anyone that starts a new thread suggesting they might buy a GTi gets told within 10 posts, that they should buy the other 2 cars, it happens all the time for some reason.
Some want to view a car purchase based on the price bracket PCP/GFV, bhp figures or 0-60, some want to view a car purchase based on MPG and trade off the petrol for a narrow power band like the GTD.  Others may make the decision on whether they want a less agile handling diesel (its nose heavy) with a narrow power delivery, or a car that is defined by its added weight (125kg heavier than a GTi) and the haldex system that uses XDS+ to turn.  No option is right or wrong, some want different things from a car, but I hate the constant comments that mean option "B" is the most likely reason...

[Bungleaio]

^ well said. I could have bought an R but actively chose not to. I'm very happy with my decision, I bloody love my gti.

[Marcus P]

Couldnt agree more Jackie

[kalimon]

I'm glad I ordered a GTI.
I do about 3000 miles a year and lots of short journeys of less than 5 miles so the DPF could cause me problems.
R owners, get over yourselves!
If they ever produce the R400, will that make your car sh!te cos it's slower?
It's not all about speed and to say that the clubsport is the car the GTI should have been is nuts! It's a niche car for people who like that kind of thing.
Ps
Well put Jackie, far more eloquently than I could have managed.

[Booth11]

R owners, get over yourselves!
If they ever produce the R400, will that make your car sh!te cos it's slower?
It's not all about speed and to say that the clubsport is the car the GTI should have been is nuts! It's a niche car for people who like that kind of thing.

Hey, do not tar all R owners with the same brush! 

I decided to pass on the 7GTI, because after 10 years of GTI's (5s & 6's) I wanted a different experience and 4WD, but still needed Golf practicality on a daily basis......step forward the R.  Otherwise it would, without doubt, have been the GTI, which is an immense car, as is the GTD for the mile munchers.  The Clubsport should be GTI+ because that's what anniversary editions are.

I hope they do produce the R400.  I don't want one myself as it doesn't meet my needs but would love to see it come to fruition, and would love to see some members flinging it around the track.

All this tit for tat attitude GTI v R is pathetic. Whatever flavour performance Golf you have chosen, you should enjoy it for what it is.  All of them are eminently capable Golfs.  R owners, will rave (or moan) about their R's; GTI drivers will rave (or moan) about their GTI's; GTD owners will rave (or moan) about their GTD's; and when the Clubsport makes it's apperance, and if the R400 ever gets built.......

And that's the way it should be. 

[kalimon]

Of course all R owners are not the same.
It's just that a few of them seem determined to dismiss the GTI as a car that you buy because you can't afford an R.
I would never put you in that category Booth11, far from it, but they know who they are .

[monkeyhanger]

The GTI has become the niche car because leasegate initially made the R very accessible, the better car became the cheap option.

With access to cheap leases gone and the GTI getting a £1250 deposit contribution that no other performance Golf got, the gap was big enough to make the GTI cheap enough to justify the HP difference and no Haldex.

Then VW has recently closed that gap again by making previous options a compulsory purchase and upping the RRP to close the gap between the GTI and the R, and then making the £1250 deposit contribution available to it.

I'm not criticising the GTI as a car, i'm criticising the cost of it vs the R. The RRP price gap/3 year ownership cost gap is so low between them that most would pick the R over the GTI. When you can get an extra 36% HP and 4WD to put it all down, for 8% more monthly cost, it doesn't add up to most people.

All the above is VW's fault. Extra equipment for nothing is welcome, but when they cause a hike in the RRP on what is an already expensive car (relative to its peers), I think they've shot themselves in the foot if they want the GTI to remain "the" VW hot hatch. That Haldex is worth £1500 (around what it costs to option Quattro on certain A3s), and the drivetrain differences add up too.

If I had decided that 220ps was fine for me, i'd expect the GTI to be a solid £4k cheaper and £100pm cheaper if PCPing.

You can get standard GTI PP performance and GTD mpg by adding a DTUK box or remap to a GTD and making sure you don't have BS on the front wheels, and not have any real reliability anxieties. You can do the same to your GTI to get it up to R output, but it won't have 4WD and i'd be a bit worried about my clutch and turbo.

Next to the R, the GTI looks too expensive and the mpg savings against the R are piffling next to a boxed/mapped GTD.

There's no snobbery here on my part, I bought the R because I was sick of frequent tramping on my GTD, and the GTI wouldn't have cured that. I was quite happy with the output of my DTUK'd GTD and the mpg. As luck would have it, due to the collapse in the price of oil, my fuelling pence per mile costs are the same in the R that it was in the GTD when diesel was at the lofty heights of £1.38/L.

[monkeyhanger]

It's just that a few of them seem determined to dismiss the GTI as a car that you buy because you can't afford an R.

Exactly the opposite stance from me, the R is very affordable next to the GTI, which for me makes more sense to buy the R.

If leasegate never happens again, I can see some people who chopped in their 12 year old Corsas for lease deposit on one not getting a car of it's like again unless they're willing to find an extra £200 a month over what they're currently paying.

The GTI is no bad car, but it is bad value next to an R currently.

[Jackie Treehorn]

How to prove my point all in one page...