| Archive for The Motor Forum talking cars since 2006 |
| Twelfth Monkey |
Soul removal machine.
http://www.autocar.co.uk/News/NewsArticle/Volkswagen-Golf/242481/ It'll undoubtedly be more economical and greener, and I'm sure it'll be lighter and faster too. But every time I am passengered in my wee bro's R32, the comparison with the lump that carted Debbie around is unavoidable. R20 just sounds (and will sound) both wrong and weenie. This is a mistake. Perhaps inevitable given the dearth of R36 Passats that VW has shifted, but a mistake nonetheless. |
||||||
| scamper |
So all 4 cylinder lighter, faster hot hatches are soulless? | ||||||
| Eff One |
Slightly cut-price S3, then. Might be interesting as long as it's a fair bit lighter than the R32 - which never made sense to me. | ||||||
| Dr. Hfuhruhurr |
Yes. 
|
||||||
| Twelfth Monkey |
In comparison with a six, I suspect most are. For me, at least.
I've driven several cars with the 2.0t unit and owned and been passengered in cars powered by the V6. One has charisma, the other, amsirac. |
||||||
| scamper |
Fucking set myself up for that, didn't I? 
|
||||||
| Dr. Hfuhruhurr |
Yes. |
||||||
| Frank Bullitt |
Perhaps this is just VW doing something different with the 'R' brand, it used to mean slightly left-field brand with an engineering-led approach. I can understand VW wanting to do a lightweight version of the GTI, but why not a sub-brand of GTI as it's clearly based on that car.
I could see myself in an R32 or GTI one day, but a hot-rod GTI-type R-thingy? No thanks. James May wrote a great article in TG about cars designed to brag about 'ring times and track-exploits, how it ruins them for 99% of normal driving. |
||||||
| TimR |
Surely this makes perfect sense in the VW Group heirarchy and previous R expoits have actually been an aberration?
After all, the platform sharing spread to interior sharing and outside design sharing - the previous big Skoda (can't remember its name) looked like a Passat with Skoda badges. So why not simply lift an existing engine from another Group company and dump it in there?* Presumably if they want an even hotter one the 5 pot from the TT RS will find its way in? *That's what they do for the more mundane levels anyway so why not the hottest one? |
||||||
| Blarno |
OI!!!! 
|
||||||
| "him" |
Don't rise to it...
|
||||||
| Blarno |
Simon, I'm shocked and appalled at your use of the word 'soul' to describe a VW. As you well know, only Italian cars are awarded this privelege.
Your sincerely, Offended of Cheshire.
|
||||||
| Twelfth Monkey |
I should perhaps elaborate and make clear that I am merely asserting VW's 2.0t a poor substitute for its previous six, rather than that all four-potters are poo.
Blarno, my sincere apologies! |
||||||
| scamper |
Personally, i thought my 2.0T sounded really throaty especially after some mild chipping.
If I end up buying a V6 Alfa in the next 6 months, and it turns out to be a pile of poo with none of this alleged soul and character of V6's, several forum members will be getting a vist! Actually, come to think of it i don't want character as this is Alfa speak for `non-breakdowns'
|
||||||
| Twelfth Monkey |
If you've an ounce of petrol in the blood...! | ||||||
| "him" |
Don't read Richard Porters column in EVO this month then... The 'Alfisti' will be most upset! | ||||||
| Nice Guy Eddie |
It depends on priorities I guess. If you value engine noise over anything else then the R32 makes sense but thats all it offers. I have no need for part time 4wd.
Why pay considerably more for a car that will do 10mpg less, is slower and doesn't handle as well as the smaller engined Gti. It seems the 2.0t suffers from installation as I have used it in the Audi and thought it an absolute POS. Like scamper I think it sounds pretty decent in my car. |
||||||
| PG |
I wouldn't have one over the normal GTI. The GTI has always been the Halo car of the Golf range and still is. With the Mk5, having made the GTI once again what is was supposed to be, VW shot themselves in the foot as far as any more potent 4 cylinder model goes.
The V6 was always was always a left field choice - V6, 4 wheel drive, different looks and so on. The R20 just looks to me like a chavved up GTI. |
||||||
| Frank Bullitt |
Until they put the 16v engine in the Mk3, I'd say the VR6 was the halo model - in fact, I'd say even with the Mk3 16v the VR6 was still the daddy. |
||||||
| DarthBalls |
Yeah but the GTI has outlasted the V6 versions and remains the top of the pile. I'd be surprised if the R20 falls by the wayside too. | ||||||
| Twelfth Monkey |
For dull reasons, though. Economy, emissions, pricing etc. I really don't mean to be overly critical of the GTi (sorry Ed), it's just that the V6 is much more of an event, and like Garry, having been in both I really don't agree with the magazines about the GTi being as quick. I'm sure the Edition 30 is closer, and the R20 will be quicker, but the loss of a V6 version is something that the petrolhead should rue. |
||||||
| Nice Guy Eddie |
You can be as rude as you like as I'm only in mine due to the compromise of being a company car buyer, although I have become rather attached to the old girl. If it was my money I'd probably be in a 147GTa. I was tempted by the R32 but the extra cost is daft when buying new.
The Gti does seem to be quicker then the headline figures suggest. I had a play with a friend of mine in his Z4 coupe and we were matched even though he has an extra 30bhp and is lighter. I guess the reason the loss of a v6 from a hot hatch isn't the end of the world as they have always been about smaller engines and lively handling rather then the other way round. I do haowever think that the R20 will be a cracker. |
||||||
| Blarno |
I've been in a VR6 and it was just plain rude. That 6 pot sounds ultra naughty.
The only Golf GTi I'd ever consider owning would be a Mk2 16v. |
||||||
| Grampa |
Mk3 VR6 is my all time favourite golf too - came very close to owning one in 93. |
||||||
| Dr. Hfuhruhurr |
So what happened? |
||||||
| scamper |
I agree with Eddie, the Gti is quicker than its power suggests especially when the engine really loosens up past 12k in my experience.
Also i'd wager the Edition 30 is quicker than the R32. I recall two unhappy R32 pilots not being impressed with being shown a clean pair of heels, although mine was chipped to 240hp, which the mark 5 handled easily, even in the wet. On the other hand the mark 1 TT 6 cylinder just felt and sounded a million dollars compared to the equally fast 225 4 pot. The Gti engine was a revelation compared to the old hat 225 though, if missing a bit of top end performance |
||||||
| Grampa |
Back then, it had very cheap trim and I decided to forego performance for looks and a nice interior and got a Xedos 6 instead which was a lovely car when it was standing still or pottering in traffic - the Golf had to be going fast or on a twisty road before it became a better car than the Xedos - not a choice that I regretted but it would have been nice to have both! |
||||||
| DarthBalls |
Wasn't the VR6 Corrado a very highly regarded car as well? I seem to remember Autocar having it in the 'Best Handling Car' feature way back. I also remember stuff about it being a 'Porsche 944 killer' etc. Great looking car the VR6 too. | ||||||
| Blarno |
The Corrado had bigger bollocks than the Golf, 193 Bhp 2.9 vs 174 Bhp 2.8. How the hell did they manage a 19 Bhp increase from 100cc? | ||||||
| Giant |
For alot of the non thinkers who buy the newest model with the biggest numbers, e.g a 328i when that was the biggest engined 3er then 330i, then 335i etc, how will VW convince them R20 is better than R32? | ||||||
| Frank Bullitt |
On the same hand scamp; the R32 sounds lovely and peachy where as the GTI doesn't. I've no doubt the GTI is the better car in pure driving terms, but the R32 sounds like an event all the time - I'd love one. A bloke around here has one (and I often see a Mk4 R32 too) and they both sound so utterly intoxicating. |
||||||
| Twelfth Monkey |
Bro's:
http://s490.photobucket.com/album...rrent=MVI_1425_Trimmed_zorsts.flv[/quote] |
||||||
| scamper |
An R32 went past me this morning at mid acceleration - sounded fruity.
|
||||||
| ALF |
Got it in one. And while you are showing vague signs of keeping up, R36 means three point six
You can't argue with the massive emissions/economy advantages of a smallish turbo 4-pot, and that will suit most owners who only buy them to show off anyway, but yes they are soulless. A Golf R3 - given that the Mk6 GTi looks - would have been a lovely car. |
||||||
| ALF |
This is exactly the point. Cars with smaller, lighter turbo lumps will be better on track than the big V6 brigade. They can be tuned to higher power and the lighter weight and better weight distribution will mean better handling in extremis. But the track means nothing to 99% of us, and 99% of the time even to those of us who do occasionally drive on track. In the real world, the lovely sound from the moment you turn the key, and the effortless power low down, and the lovely smooth sound high up, is what makes owning a car with a big lump so enjoyable. These are the infectious benefits that only really become noticeable after time, when you have changed your driving style. I still regularly curse the Audi when pulling away from junctions or roundabouts, usually where I have slowed to a slow speed but not a halt, and left it in second. From 1000-2500 revs it just feels like nothing, absolutely nothing, happens and if I've pulled out in front of a car that was going quicker than I expected, it can get embarrassing. The Alfa would have just pulled very rapidly away with no fuss, indeed in third or fourth it would pull away more smartly than the Audi in second in these circumstances. The other biggie is throttle response. It is really nice to be able to balance the car on the throttle, even if not driving that fast you can benefit from trimming the attitude of the car with the throttle to help change direction, prep the suspension for a big bump, etc. And when really on it, this is really important - the Audi is just not as playful as it would be with a bigger NA engine. It grips and goes - fast, but not amazing fun, if you exceed the limit it takes longer to get it back, and it is harder to drive up to the limit. So I'd say to Scamper et al, you may not notice the benefits of a 6-pot on a short drive, even a short while after owning one. And Alfa V6's are not that loud as stock - you need the windows down to hear the induction and really get the benefit. But over time, they get under your skin... |
||||||
| Martin |
The throttle response was one of the most noticeable things when I got the 130, having driven turbo diesels for years.
The MINI isn't bad in that respect and I've never had an issue with a lack of power when pulling away from junctions in a higher than ideal gear. It obviously doesn't sound anywhere near as good as the 130, but it does have a fair bit of character, more so from the outside than inside, but putting the windows down helps. I did very seriously look at a GTI, but the driving position, high prices and duller sound made the 130 the more special feeling car. The R32 solved the sound issue, but even if it had been the same price as the 130 (they were about £2k more expensive at the time), I'm sure I would still have gone for the 130. |
||||||
| Nice Guy Eddie |
You'd call an Integra or Pug 205 Gti soulless. Just because something has more then 4 cylinders doesn't mean it has soul. Just admit it Alf, you've turned into a Grandad. |
||||||
| Blarno |
Alright, enough's enough.
Cars don't and can't have soul. Full stop. And the throttle response on a 205 GTi is fantastic..... |
||||||
| "him" |
The early 1.9s were a little "too" good... the later ones with the updated throttle body were much smoother. (but less powerful) 
Yum... |
||||||
| Dr. Hfuhruhurr |
Didn't the catalyst versions lose quite a lot, both in power and response?
But isn't that a fabulous looking car? |
||||||
| Blarno |
I had an early one and it revved like it had no flywheel.
Mind you, it wasn't standard either. I love the way the 205 GTi 1.9 looks, it's the perfect hatch shape. And it makes 15 inch wheels look massive. |
||||||
| Dr. Hfuhruhurr |
It is - totally perfect. And I love those wheels. |
||||||
| "him" |
Yes they did, but the car behaved much better at low throttle open'ing, such as in traffic. Basically the early (and non-CAT) cars had 'too large a throttle body on them, and a small change in butterfly angle (in the body) caused too large a change in the air/fuel mixture for the ECU to cope with and the engine "shunted" a lot. They also stalled easily... But once you were "on it" they were great...
|
||||||
| Blarno |
I think because of the mods mine had, it was nigh-on impossible to stall. I could pull away in 3rd. (And did regularly before I fitted a new gear linkage). | ||||||
| Martin |
Completely out of the blue, although it was after seeing an unmolested one on the M62, Mrs M declared that that I should get rid of the Sprite and get a 1.9 205 GTI...!!
She had a std 205, 106 and 306 and generally loved all things Peugeot, but that whas then they made good looking cars. I had a 405 and 406, but wouldn't consider anything they make today. We both decided that the 205 still looked smart today, a sign of a great design. |
||||||
| scamper |
Who cares (apart from grandads) if a 4 cyl turbo is a bit slow pulling out of junctions - the WRX being a good example. At least a Gti is spooling up the power and throttle response soon after, while something like a 325i has not even woken up.
The 1.9 Gti is on my must own list. The side-on profile with the short rear overhang and those alloys are just spot on. I remember missing owning one as a company car back in must have been 93. The request went in, but they had just stopped making them, so i went for a Clio 16v - 85k of happy motoring. |
||||||
| gonnabuildabuggy |
+1. Todays are Pug ugly! 205GTI is a classic, and on my should own list. Annoyingly when I started company car ownership (well borrowship) all the options were sensible 4 door saloons - a 205GTI would have been a far better replacement for my old GTI than the Cavalier 2.0GLi I was given. |
||||||
| DarthBalls |
My uncle had a dark grey metallic 205 1.9 GTi arounf 1990 and it was easily the coolest car around at thime as far as I was concerned. I even liked the red carpets! My uncle gave my step-dad a test drive and came back as white as a sheet. My step-dad decided to show his police driving skills off on his favourite backroads. | ||||||
| ALF |
Obviously I'm being more than a bit tongue-in-cheek there. But 5+ cylinders would always be my strong preference and they are dying out, so the "I've got a 4-pot and I can't see beyond the end of my nose and am being defensive" crew can at least have the smug satisfaction of winning the war
And, seriously, if you have not owned a 5+ cylinder car (and a good one - there are plenty of dull big engines out there) it's a bit hard to comment, as the benefits are not immediately obvious to people who are not that sensitive to these things. I had a 309XSi and a 309GTi, which share engines with both the 205GTi's. My wife had a Puma 1.7 and a Civic Type R. I had a tuned K-series in a Caterham, and a Hayabusa motor in a Fury. The 2.0T in the Audi is a good engine. I've had plenty of decent 4-pots, and in fact for a lightweight track car I'd probably prefer one (definitely NA though) as it doesn't really matter on track. But even a good 4-pot is nowhere near, nothing like, just miles away from a half decent 6-pot or whatever. The fast idle on cold starts, vibration, gutless low-rev performance, and lack of really cultured high-rev sound always make themselves apparent. A straight-4 is inherently a rough thing due to basic physics, just as turbos all have lag. You can minimise it, but a purist will never be fully satisfied. Which is not to say many 4-pot cars are excellent cars, with soul. But there will always be a difference... |
||||||
| ALF |
On the Pug 1.6 and 1.9 engines of the 205 GTi type, they are nice, but far from perfect. I had two 1.6's and one 1.9. The former were smoother and nicer, with a lovely kick at 5k revs. But they kangaroo hideously at low speeds (early injection was rarely pretty), and were seriously prone to overheating issues, warped heads, and shifting cylinder bores. The latter meant I once needed a reconditioned engine, not one of my better life experiences.
In my example, the 1.9 was much rougher and felt barely quicker (in a 5-door 309GTi with PAS, that was probably a lot heavier than the 309XSi 3-door with no PAS that it replaced). It had had a rebuild under warranty at around 30k miles. I agree 205 and 309GTi's still look very "right" nowadays and are classis, but I'd want to buy from a specialist who knew what to look for and who had fettled the engine (I'm assuming there are modern "know-how" ways around these problems). I would not have said it at the time to my Golf GTi-owning friend, but the Mk2 Golf GTi's were distinctly better engineered cars! |
||||||
| gonnabuildabuggy |
Definitely - the sound of the 5/6 pot is enough to make you want one over a 4. Or go boxer. |
||||||
| scamper |
Just re-read my test drives of the 135i and 330i - makes interesting reading (for me anyway) | ||||||
| ALF |
They were good reviews. So get on and buy one
|
||||||
| Apex clipper |
*Dons Moonboats..flounces in.
"I'm going outside..I may be a while. |
||||||
| cbeaks1 |
http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news...res/volkswagen-golf-r-leaked.aspx
Proper pics. The wheels look a bitch to clean! I think the standard GTI looks better, though I suppose its pretty subtle compared to an RS Focus. |
||||||
| Matt |
Yawn.
The wheels are off the RS6. At least very similar. |