# My car of the day, VW Golf R400



## Soul boy 68 (Sep 8, 2013)

VW will be hiting back at fords focus RS with this Golf R400. it is now in the initial stage of development. The extreme four - wheel drive hatch will be produced in limited numbers and priced above the recently introduced Golf R on which it's heavily based. It will also compete against some highly fancied cars including the upcoming Audi RS3,BMW's M235i and Mecedes A45 AMG. It will feature a highly tuned 2.0 litre pushing 395 BHP and 332lb of torque.

Like it?


----------



## bigmac3161 (Jul 24, 2013)

Pointless the current R does everything just as well only cheaper and more comfy.


----------



## Steve (Mar 18, 2014)

pointless.


----------



## lewis92 (Mar 7, 2014)

impressive figures but hate the look of it, just my opinion though


----------



## bigup (Jun 4, 2009)

i was expecting this to have 8 exhausts :lol:


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

It's pretty bold to stick 400bhp into a hatch. 

I think certain parts look better than the standard R.

It will be interesting to see how it goes and copes with the power.


----------



## DJ X-Ray (Sep 2, 2012)

Like it:thumb:


----------



## 182_Blue (Oct 25, 2005)

Too expensive, if I was spending 45k plus it would be elsewhere, but that's even if it ever gets produced.


----------



## SBM (Jul 4, 2013)

I must admit I like this in terms of looks and power! The wheels are a stroke of genius in the design dept.:thumb::argie:

As for cost - yes too damn expensive but the Merc A45 AMG is this much too so its not alone. Although if i had £45K+ to spend on a new car it would not be any of these I suspect 

Having said all that, my main thought is that power and just how this will handle it? If the engineers have sorted this immense issue then its the hot hatch package to beat... but I suspect it will all come at a price so something in the handling will be poor and it will prob eat tyres like all the steroid induced Mercs do.
Would also like to see this in a head to head with the "normal R32" Just how much difference does that 400BHP make?

Cheers
Ben


----------



## 182_Blue (Oct 25, 2005)

^ Just wondering why you would compare it to a R32? (over 5 years old) , or did you mean the R?, also AMG are supposedly working on a black edition A45 which will undoubtedly cost even more than the normal AMG


----------



## SBM (Jul 4, 2013)

Shaun said:


> ^ Just wondering why you would compare it to a R32? (over 5 years old) , or did you mean the R?, also AMG are supposedly working on a black edition A45 which will undoubtedly cost even more than the normal AMG


Yes sorry a typo there, I meant the R!


----------



## alan hanson (May 21, 2008)

i like it (not keen on the alloys bit think its looks better than the R especially the rear (always like the R32 rear). 

where does it stop in terms of power 400bhp whats next from a hatch?


----------



## wylie coyote (Jul 15, 2007)

I'm liking it - will all depend on cost and whether it will have a modicum of practicality. Autocar last week said they are starting the engineering process after excellent feedback...


----------



## Nico1970 (May 15, 2014)

Love it!

This car will do 0-62mph in 3.9 sec and will knock on the door of 175mph and therefore I don't think it is directly comparable to an R (which is a decent car in its own right) - the R400 is really in a completely different league. 

This is supercar performance for what should be (relatively speaking) not an awful lot of money. 

Could this be the start of a new class (well) above the ubiquitous 'hot hatch' sector?

If VW get the handling right, then this could be nirvana to a petrolhead.


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

We had cars like the Mitsibishi FQ400 almost 10 years ago. It was slightly faster than the Golf is projected to be and it could keep up with lower end supercars back then. 

However very few people bought them as too much power squeezed out of a 2.0 engine made it a really poor driving experience. They just bought the normal Evo. 

Adding all that extra power to a good car doesn't always make it better. 

Remember Top Gear showing it losing a race, to I think a Micra, when the Evo was off boost and suffering with huge amounts of lag? 

Supercars these days are stupidly fast. There is loads doing 0-100mph in 6.5secs, some as low at 5.0secs, and these days I think 200mph top speed is required to even be considered a supercar. 

Hot hatches were cracking the 150mph barrier with 200bhp. Doubling the power has only seen a 24mph rise as it takes silly power and good aerodynamics to gain more top end speed. 

There is still a huge gap between 400bhp hatches and supercars. It's not going to close until they have similar power to weight ratios and aerodynamics to match. Which isn't going to happen in a hatch.


----------



## SBM (Jul 4, 2013)

Nico1970 said:


> Love it!
> 
> This car will do 0-62mph in 3.9 sec and will knock on the door of 175mph and therefore I don't think it is directly comparable to an R (which is a decent car in its own right) - the R400 is really in a completely different league.
> 
> ...


^^^ Exactly ^^^:thumb::argie:


----------



## Nico1970 (May 15, 2014)

Kerr said:


> We had cars like the Mitsibishi FQ400 almost 10 years ago. It was slightly faster than the Golf is projected to be and it could keep up with lower end supercars back then.
> 
> However very few people bought them as too much power squeezed out of a 2.0 engine made it a really poor driving experience. They just bought the normal Evo.
> 
> ...


Don't disagree with you on your general points re power delivery. But I think you are wrong about the FQ400 - from memory the pundits of the day lauded its praises and rated it as the best EVO ever. Turbo lag wasn't the horrendous problem that you made out - you just needed to learn to drive it properly with due cognisance given to the characteristics of the engine. Here is Top Gear's review: http://www.topgear.com/uk/mitsubishi/evo-x/road-test/fq-400

What put the punters off the FQ400 wasn't its power delivery or driving characteristics, it was its £50k price tag coupled with the low rent interior. In fact, most supercars of the day wouldn't have seen which way an FQ400 went if there were any twisty bits on the road at all!

Obviously modern turbocharging has come a long way in the past 5 years let alone 10 years, so I would expect lag to be even less of a problem in the R400. Don't get me wrong, I do prefer NA, but I have driven turbocharged cars previously and have just gotten used to their particular characteristics. Can't say I have ever had occasion to ask myself - I wonder if I can race this Micra in 5th gear? :lol:

It is also a misconception that there is a 'huge' gap between supercars and hatches as you state - certainly not in absolute point-to-point driveability / performance. EVO mag recently did an article comparing an R8 V10 with a Clio Cup (albeit a racer) which shows how close the gap is in actuality.

I agree that just because you add power to a car doesn't mean you make it any better, in fact, I don't recall saying that it did - there are just too many variables / parameters involved - but I am still looking forward to see just how this R400 shapes up!


----------



## Nico1970 (May 15, 2014)

SBM said:


> ^^^ Exactly ^^^:thumb::argie:


Presume you are referring to my post, not Mr Kerr's naysaying :lol:


----------



## wylie coyote (Jul 15, 2007)

Wonder if this is going to turn into another Golf R mega thread.....? Some good points there Nico.:thumb:


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

Nico1970 said:


> Don't disagree with you on your general points re power delivery. But I think you are wrong about the FQ400 - from memory the pundits of the day lauded its praises and rated it as the best EVO ever. Turbo lag wasn't the horrendous problem that you made out - you just needed to learn to drive it properly with due cognisance given to the characteristics of the engine. Here is Top Gear's review: http://www.topgear.com/uk/mitsubishi/evo-x/road-test/fq-400
> 
> What put the punters off the FQ400 wasn't its power delivery or driving characteristics, it was its £50k price tag coupled with the low rent interior. In fact, most supercars of the day wouldn't have seen which way an FQ400 went if there were any twisty bits on the road at all!
> 
> ...


I should have pointed out that 10 years ago was the Evo8 FQ400. Not the X.

There is a huge gap.

If you think about racing, 1 second is seen as a huge gap to achieve.

Recently Top Gear magazine tried various car and there was comments made about how close the standard Golf R was to supercars.

However the lap times showed it was 8 seconds behind an M3. 8 seconds is huge and an M3 isn't a supercar either.

A standard Golf R does 105mph at the end of a standing quarter mile. A Ferrari 458 is 130mph.

Revo's tuned R is 114mph.

16mph down a standing quarter mile is a massive gap.

Take 16mph off the Golf R's terminal speed of 105mph and you are looking at some very ordinary cars.

150bhp hatchbacks can manage 90mph terminal speed.

The faster you go it is exponentially harder to gain more speed. So a car going 15mph faster at 130mph, there is a bigger effective gap than 90-105mph.

I don't agree turbocharging has gone anywhere in the last few years. The sequential turbo setups are the way forward but they are very expensive and obviously have more things to go wrong.


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

Nico1970 said:


> Presume you are referring to my post, not Mr Kerr's naysaying :lol:


Since his post is before your's, he must be able to read your mind. :lol:

Or it wasn't you.


----------



## SBM (Jul 4, 2013)

Nico1970 said:


> Presume you are referring to my post, not Mr Kerr's naysaying :lol:


Yes!


----------



## Nico1970 (May 15, 2014)

Kerr said:


> I should have pointed out that 10 years ago was the Evo8 FQ400. Not the X.
> 
> There is a huge gap.
> 
> ...


Good points, although I would note that standing starts are far removed from reality, which is why I had stated "absolute point-to-point driveability / performance".

The only good thing about magazine figures established on the safety of the straight run track is that it gives a yardstick on acceleration. Much more realistic is a full lap - and I'm not going to get into the argument on whether the 'Ring is the best place to do it, but you can see the great leveller of supercars there if you look at the lap times! [This is beginning to remind me of the Megane thread of a couple of weeks ago]....:lol:

Not that I condone it, but it would be a very brave /mad person driving a supercar on real roads in the UK that could put any serious distance between it and any of the current batch of fast hatches let alone, potentially, this R400! Hence, in actuality, there is not this 'mythical' gap that some people believe.

Furthermore, today's turbos are smaller, lighter and more efficient than ever - of course there has been advancement in turbocharging in the last few years!

Serial turbocharging is the future, I would agree with you on that though. It is regrettable but the days of more 'cubic inches' are gone...


----------



## Nico1970 (May 15, 2014)

Kerr said:


> Since his post is before your's, he must be able to read your mind. :lol:
> 
> Or it wasn't you.




Look again, my friend.

Post #17 refers to post #15.....


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

Nico1970 said:


> Good points, although I would note that standing starts are far removed from reality, which is why I had stated "absolute point-to-point driveability / performance".
> 
> The only good thing about magazine figures established on the safety of the straight run track is that it gives a yardstick on acceleration. Much more realistic is a full lap - and I'm not going to get into the argument on whether the 'Ring is the best place to do it, but you can see the great leveller of supercars there if you look at the lap times! [This is beginning to remind me of the Megane thread of a couple of weeks ago]....:lol:
> 
> ...


It's the standing starts low down acceleration where the Golf excels. 4wd and DSG gives for impressive 0-60mph times.

The Megane did a great lap time. It is still slower than many cars that aren't supercars.

The Megane is setup as a track car too. It is very comprised and not for every day use. It's more of a track car.

It's also over 20 seconds faster than the Golf R. Although the Nurburgring is a long track, that's still a huge gap.

Also bear in mind that manufacturers have been caught cheating with their 'Ring times as they know how much it means to people and sales.

As you say though it would be a brave man to put distance between the cars, but that's down to the driver.

It's like saying I'm faster than Usain Bolt when he is pulling 300kgs of bricks. It's an immaterial fact that hides the fact he's much faster than me. Irrelevant factors close the gap.

Even 200bhp is too much to use to its full potentially on many roads. A 400bhp or a supercar is just madness. That's why most of the racing you'll witness on the roads will be two cars racing in a straight line.

Supercars when it comes to straight line performance easily beat hot hatches.

When it comes to handling, these supercars have far more advanced aerodynamics and systems for extra speed in the corners and grip.


----------



## Nico1970 (May 15, 2014)

I drive a 400bhp car daily. I can tell you it is not madness as its performance is readily accessible in safety. I would gladly settle for more if I had it...

In essence though, you are missing the point - the R400 has similar performance figs to some supercars.


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

Nico1970 said:


> I drive a 400bhp car daily. I can tell you it is not madness as its performance is readily accessible in safety. I would gladly settle for more if I had it...
> 
> In essence though, you are missing the point - the R400 has similar performance figs to some supercars.


What modern supercars are you using at your gauge out of interest?

As I've already used a moderate level supercar that falls short of the upper level, and just cracks the 200mph, how far are you stretching the term "supercar"?


----------



## Nico1970 (May 15, 2014)

I did not say 'modern' supercars, but I did say 'supercars' (NOT 'hypercars' either, which is a different class again). Supercars (and hypercars) transcend time - once a supercar, always a supercar.

To give a flavour, my definition of supercar is:
Ferrari 458, 599, F40
Audi R8
Porsche 911 turbo (any variant)

My definition of hypercar (i.e. the next class up):
Ferrari Enzo
Bugatti Veyron
Pagani Zonda / Huayra
Koenigsegg (any)

Having said that, the above is, of course, subjective. But having collected car magazines for over 30 years, I feel qualified to make a stab at a list. 

I am old enough to remember the original supercar - the Porsche 911 (930) turbo with a circa 5s 0-60 time; although undoubtedly a legend, it clearly couldn't compete (in performance terms) with some of the mainstream hot hatches nowadays, let alone the R400.

As I remember it particularly well, and as it is one of my all time favourites, the F40's 0-60 time is 3.9s hence the direct comparison to the R400's anticipated time. The others in the supercar list are all of a similar-ish time to 60. Hence, the R400 performance is comparable to a 'supercar' - in fact, to quite a lot of supercars, based on readily accessible independent figures.

I think it should be celebrated that VW look like they are going to build a Golf that can post such fantastic performance figures.

I take it, from your persistent negativity in this thread, that you'll not be putting your name down for one....:wave:

But that is OK, thankfully, we are all free to choose according to our needs, means, wants and desires...:thumb:


----------



## millns84 (Jul 5, 2009)

It looks ok, but way over priced. 

If given the option I'd go for a Leon Cupra 280 which can be had for less than £24k. Spend a bit on tuning, handling parts etc and probably come out with a £15k saving for something not lacking much in comparison with the Golf...


----------



## RisingPower (Sep 21, 2007)

Haven't we done this already?


----------



## possul (Nov 14, 2008)

RisingPower said:


> Haven't we done this already?


To many times now imo.
Same **** different day with these threads now


----------



## RisingPower (Sep 21, 2007)

possul said:


> To many times now imo.
> Same **** different day with these threads now


I could have sworn this is an exact replica of another golf r 400 thread, same comments too :lol:

Ah yeah, here we go.

http://www.detailingworld.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=336651&highlight=Golf+r+400

Cmon shaun, really?


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

Nico1970 said:


> I did not say 'modern' supercars, but I did say 'supercars' (NOT 'hypercars' either, which is a different class again). Supercars (and hypercars) transcend time - once a supercar, always a supercar.
> 
> To give a flavour, my definition of supercar is:
> Ferrari 458, 599, F40
> ...


You've moved the goal posts again.

You originally quoted acceleration figures, I then posted how much faster supercars were over a 1/4 mile burst, then you said it was point to point and acceleration wasn't the argument, now we're back at 0-60mph times.

Of course is has to be modern cars. You've now jumped back nearly 30 years to the F40.

Would there be any relevance to someone saying my Fiesta is as fast as a Porsche, failing to mention you've maybe used a Porsche 914 as your reference?

Most people on here could find a previous supercar that their car could beat.

I'm not negative, I'm trying to explain the vast differences in speed you somehow aren't managing to comprehend. I was questioning the supercar reference of performance.

I'd say many people wouldn't consider a 911 Turbo a real Supercar. That said the 991 Turbo 0-60mph is 2.6secs and 100mph in 6.2secs is staggering quick.

http://m.caranddriver.com/reviews/2014-audi-r8-v-10-plus-test-review

Google entry level Supercar and you get an Audi R8. As they quote 0-60 3.2 and standing quarter in [email protected] The time isn't the best, but 126mph takes a lot of power or a very light car to achieve that performance.

If you had initially pointed out you were using 30 year old cars as your reference this debate would have lasted long ago.

Glad we've cleared that up after a long winded route.


----------



## possul (Nov 14, 2008)

RisingPower said:


> I could have sworn this is an exact replica of another golf r 400 thread, same comments too :lol:
> 
> Ah yeah, here we go.
> 
> ...


Wont matter being an R owner 
All i can see is the more golf threads the better.
These are my first comments in a while, just sit back and laugh


----------



## Nico1970 (May 15, 2014)

Kerr said:


> You've moved the goal posts again.
> 
> You originally quoted acceleration figures, I then posted how much faster supercars were over a 1/4 mile burst, then you said it was point to point and acceleration wasn't the argument, now we're back at 0-60mph times.
> 
> ...


I'm afraid you are being very silly with your nonsensical argumentation in an bizarre attempt to satisfy yourself that your position is correct to the exclusion of all others.

Contrary to your statement, I haven't changed the goalposts - everything is relative, of course, and I was merely responding to your question as a courtesy to your asking of the same.

But, IMO, 0-60 in 3.9 coupled with 4WD will give 'supercar' performance - hence my original point, which you have taken issue with for some inexplicable reason, that these types of ultra-fast hatches look as if they are creating a new category of car.

It is, of course, OK to disagree with me - this is a forum, so don't take it personally, or feel that your manhood has been questioned in each post and, thus, you must defend your self at all costs!?

One thing, I must challenge you on, however - as I have driven a couple of 911 turbos, most recently a 996 turbo, and therefore can speak with empirical authority - anyone who doesn't consider a 911 turbo a real supercar doesn't know what they are talking about.

Ultimately, I'll let the number of 'thanks' in this thread do the talking... :wave:


----------



## 182_Blue (Oct 25, 2005)

possul said:


> Wont matter being an R owner
> All i can see is the more golf threads the better.
> These are my first comments in a while, just sit back and laugh


I cant win, I close it people complain (I closed soulboys golf R car of the day thread due to the other one), I leave it open people complain, I didnt start any of the golf threads, I haven't even started a thread on my own golf for exactly this reason.

I have to say i saw this thread earlier when it was first posted and thought here we go again !


----------



## Soul boy 68 (Sep 8, 2013)

Nico1970 said:


> I'm afraid you are being very silly with your nonsensical argumentation in an bizarre attempt to satisfy yourself that your position is correct to the exclusion of all others.
> 
> Contrary to your statement, I haven't changed the goalposts - everything is relative, of course, and I was merely responding to your question as a courtesy to your asking of the same.
> 
> ...


A BIG thank you from me.


----------



## Soul boy 68 (Sep 8, 2013)

possul said:


> To many times now imo.
> Same **** different day with these threads now


 Thats strange I can't remember doing another car of the day thread of the same car. Please correct me if I am wrong.


----------



## Nico1970 (May 15, 2014)

Shaun said:


> I cant win, I close it people complain (I closed soulboys golf R car of the day thread due to the other one), I leave it open people complain, I didnt start any of the golf threads, I haven't even started a thread on my own golf for exactly this reason.
> 
> I have to say i saw this thread earlier when it was first posted and thought here we go again !


As Abe Lincoln said "You can please some of the people some of the time, all of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time, but you can never please all of the people all of the time."

Or, somewhat less eloquently, but nevertheless just as true, Bart Simpson said 'You're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't'.


----------



## Nico1970 (May 15, 2014)

Soul boy 68 said:


> Thats strange I can't remember doing another car of the day thread of the same car. Please correct me if I am wrong.


I've said it before and I'll say it again, there are just so many naysayers about...

Don't they appreciate this is a forum?

Keep up the car of the day threads - I, for one, enjoy them.... :thumb:


----------



## Soul boy 68 (Sep 8, 2013)

Shaun said:


> I cant win, I close it people complain (I closed soulboys golf R car of the day thread due to the other one), I leave it open people complain, I didnt start any of the golf threads, I haven't even started a thread on my own golf for exactly this reason.
> 
> I have to say i saw this thread earlier when it was first posted and thought here we go again !


Sorry Shaun I had no idea the Golf R400 has had a thread done already otherwise I would have picked a different car instead. I always try and pick different makes every day but it's not always easy, too many good ones to pick from.


----------



## Soul boy 68 (Sep 8, 2013)

Nico1970 said:


> I've said it before and I'll say it again, there are just so many naysayers about...
> 
> Don't they appreciate this is a forum?
> 
> Keep up the car of the day threads - I, for one, enjoy them.... :thumb:


Thank you Nico, I enjoy posting them, I love cars and have always been in to them since I was a little boy ( snotty nose and Marmite ) I like to keep people in the know with the latest model or models in development. I will let you all know that I had received a PM from a fellow member expressing an interest on one of the cars he saw on one of my car of the day threads and you know what?, he has gone and ordered one after a test drive. I felt well chuffed.


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

Nico1970 said:


> I'm afraid you are being very silly with your nonsensical argumentation in an bizarre attempt to satisfy yourself that your position is correct to the exclusion of all others.
> 
> Contrary to your statement, I haven't changed the goalposts - everything is relative, of course, and I was merely responding to your question as a courtesy to your asking of the same.
> 
> ...


LOL.

I honestly don't care about the thanks rating. I give my opinion to what I think is fair.

If people agree with me fair enough, if they don't, they don't.

The easy ways to get thanks on here is to kiss bums, or be PRO VAG. Neither of which I do.

If I wanted cheap votes, I would.

I wouldn't gauge people's thanks count on the quality of their posting. More of who they are mates with.

Trying to justify your point about the number of thanks received is laughable. It's like people claiming highest post count....

If you want a thanks vote from certain members on here, all you have to do is contest what is say. You don't even have to be right.

You're opinion is 0-60mph in 3.9secs means supercar performance. I totally disagree and know supercar performance is on a complete different level these day.

My opinion is under 7 secs for 100mph and 200mph+ for supercar performance. The 200mph has been a strict barrier for most people a long time.

The 911 is debatable but lots of proper Petrolheads don't consider it a full supercar.


----------



## 182_Blue (Oct 25, 2005)

Soul boy 68 said:


> Sorry Shaun I had no idea the Golf R400 has had a thread done already otherwise I would have picked a different car instead. I always try and pick different makes every day but it's not always easy, too many good ones to pick from.


Dont worry, you shouldn't need to be careful about what you post , i think your pretty even and fair when it comes to the type of cars you do :thumb:.


----------



## Soul boy 68 (Sep 8, 2013)

Kerr said:


> LOL.
> 
> I honestly don't care about the thanks rating. I give my opinion to what I think is fair.
> 
> ...


I always value your opinions Kerr, and appreciate the time and effort you put in to your responses, you are one of the regulars to these threads and it's great that you show an interest. Please keep your opinions coming fella, always good to read them.:thumb:


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

Pick a Volvo or something tomorrow Soulboy


----------



## SBM (Jul 4, 2013)

Good debate here SoulBoy68 and I wholeheartedly agree with Nico1970... Keep the daily thread coming I enjoy it too!:thumb:


----------



## Soul boy 68 (Sep 8, 2013)

Kerr said:


> Pick a Volvo or something tomorrow Soulboy


I might pick an old banger or a right s**t heap tomorrow


----------



## possul (Nov 14, 2008)

Soul boy 68 said:


> Thats strange I can't remember doing another car of the day thread of the same car. Please correct me if I am wrong.


The same **** different day refers to the the usual vag is best, as good as supercar mumbo jumbo that goes on which in turn always brings the same arguments everytime. Its so boring. Yes its a discussion but its a discussion that seems to happen all the time.
I never mentioned a thread.
These threads always go the same way, vag cars are like comparing two different brands of chedder cheese. Nice but nothing special


----------



## Soul boy 68 (Sep 8, 2013)

possul said:


> The same **** different day refers to the the usual vag is best, as good as supercar mumbo jumbo that goes on which in turn always brings the same arguments everytime. Its so boring. Yes its a discussion but its a discussion that seems to happen all the time.
> I never mentioned a thread.
> These threads always go the same way, vag cars are like comparing two different brands of chedder cheese. Nice but nothing special


That's fair comment Possul, well I really can not influence what people post about certain threads, like I said earlier, I like to post about different cars most of the time. I promise you that tomorrow it will not be a VAG car, I did post a ford RS yesterday and one day last week it was the Nissan Juke, I try to keep it varied so people know the kind of latest cars in development .

Sorry , I correct my self, it was a Nissan quasqui.


----------



## Nico1970 (May 15, 2014)

Kerr said:


> If people agree with me fair enough, if they don't, they don't.


We have a result - we can agree on that... :thumb:


----------



## alexharvey (May 16, 2013)

love the golf r hope it gets built !


i would also love a super car 911 turbo ! not had the turbo as yet always time i guess!!!


----------



## Soul boy 68 (Sep 8, 2013)

alexharvey said:


> love the golf r hope it gets built !
> 
> i would also love a super car 911 turbo ! not had the turbo as yet always time i guess!!!


If you mean the R then it's already released, the Golf R400 will be a limited run. :thumb:


----------



## wylie coyote (Jul 15, 2007)

possul said:


> The same **** different day refers to the the usual vag is best, as good as supercar mumbo jumbo that goes on which in turn always brings the same arguments everytime. Its so boring. Yes its a discussion but its a discussion that seems to happen all the time.
> I never mentioned a thread.
> These threads always go the same way, vag cars are like comparing two different brands of chedder cheese. Nice but nothing special


I'm sorry possul but it's posts like this that stop most people from contributing the even handed comments you seem to crave. I don't see people saying the Golf is the best performance car in the world, just people trying to put the performance of this as yet unbuilt car in context. Next time you see a thread entitled VW or Golf, please ignore it....:wall:


----------



## Nico1970 (May 15, 2014)

wylie coyote said:


> i'm sorry possum but it's posts like this that stop most people from contributing the even handed comments you seem to crave. I don't see people saying the golf is the best performance car in the world, just people trying to put the performance of this as yet unbuilt car in context. Next time you see a thread entitled vw or golf, please ignore it....:wall:


+1.....


----------



## RisingPower (Sep 21, 2007)

Shaun said:


> I cant win, I close it people complain (I closed soulboys golf R car of the day thread due to the other one), I leave it open people complain, I didnt start any of the golf threads, I haven't even started a thread on my own golf for exactly this reason.
> 
> I have to say i saw this thread earlier when it was first posted and thought here we go again !


It was just the comments that did it for me and that you posted these pictures already  I remember comparing it to the fq400 and here, again, someone else has.

It's like bloody groundhog day  You can't deny that at least.


----------



## possul (Nov 14, 2008)

wylie coyote said:


> I'm sorry possul but it's posts like this that stop most people from contributing the even handed comments you seem to crave. I don't see people saying the Golf is the best performance car in the world, just people trying to put the performance of this as yet unbuilt car in context. Next time you see a thread entitled VW or Golf, please ignore it....:wall:


When was the last time I commented on a vag thread? I havent posted on one for how long I cannot remember due to what happens.
Earlier posts are comparing it to supercars were they not? In terms of performance figures. Hence the reference to super car comparisons
All ive done is state that the thread was turning into the usual vag vas the world thread which all vag topics seem to get to.


----------



## alexharvey (May 16, 2013)

Soul boy 68 said:


> If you mean the R then it's already released, the Golf R400 will be a limited run. :thumb:


yeah sorry of coarse i meant golf r400!!!

r been around ages as well lol
:lol:


----------



## Nico1970 (May 15, 2014)

possul said:


> Earlier posts are comparing it to supercars were they not?


Not exactly, Post #14 notes its quoted performance figures are "comparable to supercar performance". That is an indisputable fact evidenced by published figures.

The 3.9s to 60 is comparable to any number of Ferraris, Porsche 911 turbos etc. including more 'modern' supercars such as Jaguar XK R-S GT 5.0 V8 - [2013] 0 to 60 mph time - 3.9 seconds, or an Aston-Martin Vanquish 5.9 V12 - [2012] 0 to 60 mph time - 4.0 seconds.

Unfortunately, (some) people never see past Golf and supercar mentioned in the same thread and immediately jump to the (incorrect) conclusion that it is directly comparable in all respects to 'supercars' - of course it is not, there are many different aspects to consider; but on certain measures of performance (let's call it, say, 'point-to-point driveability / performance'), it is comparable to supercar performance!


----------



## PugIain (Jun 28, 2006)

Shaun said:


> Too expensive... 45k plus


You're ****ing kidding. For a Golf? 
You will be forever bound by your secret shame at paying such an outrageous sum of money, to explain to everyone silly enough to ask "what car do you drive?" that it isn't just a Golf but a really really fast 4 wheel drive one.
That you can only do 70 mph in, although the 4 wheel drive would be handy for when it drizzles.
Hmm for £45 grand, a Golf or a restored Jag E type. Hm mm mm..


----------



## RisingPower (Sep 21, 2007)

PugIain said:


> You're ****ing kidding. For a Golf?
> You will be forever bound by your secret shame at paying such an outrageous sum of money, to explain to everyone silly enough to ask "what car do you drive?" that it isn't just a Golf but a really really fast 4 wheel drive one.
> That you can only do 70 mph in, although the 4 wheel drive would be handy for when it drizzles.
> Hmm for £45 grand, a Golf or a restored Jag E type. Hm mm mm..


Isn't the e type a little modern for your taste mr stanna


----------



## PugIain (Jun 28, 2006)

RisingPower said:


> Isn't the e type a little modern for your taste mr stanna


It goes with my tweed and flat cap, Mr Secret American :wave:


----------



## RisingPower (Sep 21, 2007)

PugIain said:


> It goes with my tweed and flat cap, Mr Secret American :wave:


I guess normally you could say closet, but now that we're both together....


----------



## James Bagguley (Jul 13, 2013)

RisingPower said:


> Isn't the e type a little modern for your taste mr stanna





PugIain said:


> It goes with my tweed and flat cap, Mr Secret American :wave:


:lol: You guys should have your own sub section!

Great thread, samey? maybe but still quite lively and entertaining reading, with some good arguments.

As for the argument of 400hp being too much for a hatch, there are many aftermarket tuned cars with more power than even that.

The key word there is tuned, the way the engines power band is mapped is the important thing.
I guess the R400 power plant will be capable of producing insanity from the get go, but intelligent mapping of fueling and ignition characteristics will surely keep it driveable.

Looks tidy IMHO


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

Nico1970 said:


> Not exactly, Post #14 notes its quoted performance figures are "comparable to supercar performance". That is an indisputable fact evidenced by published figures.
> 
> The 3.9s to 60 is comparable to any number of Ferraris, Porsche 911 turbos etc. including more 'modern' supercars such as Jaguar XK R-S GT 5.0 V8 - [2013] 0 to 60 mph time - 3.9 seconds, or an Aston-Martin Vanquish 5.9 V12 - [2012] 0 to 60 mph time - 4.0 seconds.
> 
> Unfortunately, (some) people never see past Golf and supercar mentioned in the same thread and immediately jump to the (incorrect) conclusion that it is directly comparable in all respects to 'supercars' - of course it is not, there are many different aspects to consider; but on certain measures of performance (let's call it, say, 'point-to-point driveability / performance'), it is comparable to supercar performance!


Why are you still trying to poke the fire?

0-60mph times do not make a supercar performance. It's a short burst of power that tells you little about overall performance.

As I've already mentioned after just over 400 meters supercars are gone, long, long gone.

The Golf has the advantage of 4wd, DSG and being lighter. Can you grasp that?

That works in its favour of setting an unnaturally fast 0-60mph time for its power.

The new M3 is doing 0-60mph in 3.9secs and 100mph in 8.5secs. Never has one guy mentioned supercar performance yet on the BMW forum, simply because it isn't. Very very fast though.

Start pulling in 4wd figures 0-60s from 911 Turbos and even the Nissan GTR both 2.6secs and you should hopefully see how 4wd gives a great 0-60mph advantage. It doesn't make them faster overall though.

You're concentrating on one little fact and unable to open your eyes to the bigger picture.

The Jaguar and Aston are also GT cars and not Supercars.

The normal Golf R whips most of the hot hatches when it comes to 0-60mph. When it had come to the move or around a track, it had lost to less powerful FWD cars.

Look at a cars power and weight and you won't find many that perform outside a close windows when comparable.

The current Golf R offers similar performance to many 300bhp cars out there just now, yet people also keep stating how fast that is.

Even the BMW 335d x drive is faster than a Golf R. That's just a big heavy diesel family saloon.

Even from VAGs own side, the 333bhp S4 is faster even though bigger and heavier.

I have honestly no idea where all these mythical stories and beliefs about where performance comes from when cold hard facts are there to see.

There is no magic powder that will make a 400bhp go magically faster than all other cars with the same power to weight ratio.

It will be fast no doubt.

Comparing it to supercars is just laughable.


----------



## possul (Nov 14, 2008)

Nico1970 said:


> Not exactly, Post #14 notes its quoted performance figures are "comparable to supercar performance". That is an indisputable fact evidenced by published figures.
> 
> The 3.9s to 60 is comparable to any number of Ferraris, Porsche 911 turbos etc. including more 'modern' supercars such as Jaguar XK R-S GT 5.0 V8 - [2013] 0 to 60 mph time - 3.9 seconds, or an Aston-Martin Vanquish 5.9 V12 - [2012] 0 to 60 mph time - 4.0 seconds.
> 
> Unfortunately, (some) people never see past Golf and supercar mentioned in the same thread and immediately jump to the (incorrect) conclusion that it is directly comparable in all respects to 'supercars' - of course it is not, there are many different aspects to consider; but on certain measures of performance (let's call it, say, 'point-to-point driveability / performance'), it is comparable to supercar performance!


All you have done is prove my point. By saying not exactly and then realing of a list of cars with comparable times. Thus directly comparing performace times of the vars above vs the Golf 
You make it sound like im saying because it has 400bhp it will be as good as a 458 or a lambo which is obviously not what I mean.
Anywho thats my last input for a while
Peace out

Previous post editied


----------



## johanr77 (Aug 4, 2011)

millns84 said:


> It looks ok, but way over priced.
> 
> If given the option I'd go for a Leon Cupra 280 which can be had for less than £24k. Spend a bit on tuning, handling parts etc and probably come out with a £15k saving for something not lacking much in comparison with the Golf...


Want to spend £15k less would you not be as well get the standard R. It also has 4wd 300hp and you won't need to spend a wedge of cash making all your power gains tolerable.


----------



## Soul boy 68 (Sep 8, 2013)

Kerr said:


> Why are you still trying to poke the fire?
> 
> 0-60mph times do not make a supercar performance. It's a short burst of power that tells you little about overall performance.
> 
> ...


----------



## Nico1970 (May 15, 2014)

I think you are missing the point too Soul boy 68.

I have merely been trying to put the 'performance' of the R400 in context for those folk who simply dismiss it as an overpriced Golf. 

Of course, it is NOT a direct competitor to any of the 'supercars' I have mentioned - I never said it was. HOWEVER, in order to put its performance in context, it is easily demonstrated by independent figures that, by certain measures, for example its 3.9s 0-60 time, the R400 has performance comparable to 'supercar performance'.

Does that make it a supercar? NO
Does that mean it is comparable by all measures of objectivity to a supercar? NO

Some people (Mr Kerr) appear to read beyond the actual words in my posts and make all sorts of assumptions based on their own terms of reference. But he is entitled to his opinion; I have simply corrected his thinking when it has not been in alignment with the messages in my posts.

Let us rejoice in the fact that here is a mainstream manufacturer who is prepared to throw caution to the wind and build a car for petrolheads, which isn't constrained by the normal parameters stipulated by the bean counters.

Getting back to the original point of the OP - do people like the car or not. There is no wrong answer - some people will, some people won't. That is the wonderful aspect of 'choice'. Unfortunately, there are some people who wont accept other people's views and feel compelled to advance their own 'subjective' position at all costs.


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

Nico1970 said:


> I think you are missing the point too Soul boy 68.
> 
> I have merely been trying to put the 'performance' of the R400 in context for those folk who simply dismiss it as an overpriced Golf.
> 
> ...


I'm just dumbfounded.

I really can't take you seriously Nico.

You keep hitting me with quotes about not being able to accept your opinion as if you're right and I'm wrong, you keep moving the goal posts, you then apparently agree to disagree, you then introduce irrelevant/incorrect facts to still try to justify yourself, you can't help but put a little reference to me in every post still trying to make me look wrong.

When do you give up?

You seriously come across as clueless and desperate. Hardly corrected my point of view.

We've established that you think 0-60mph in 3.9secs means supercar performance. That's all we've established.

Nobody has once misunderstood that you were comparing performance to a supercar and not saying the Golf IS a supercar. It's you with the lack of understanding.

You said supercar fast and used near 30 year old supercars and big heavy GT cars as your yardstick to measure them off.

Unless very light, a 400bhp car won't get near a supercar. Maybe for a brief second of initial acceleration from a standing start.

You understand what a power to weight ratio is?

Time to look at the big picture and not be so deluded.

You really are one of a kind.


----------



## James Bagguley (Jul 13, 2013)

Nico1970 said:


> Let us rejoice in the fact that here is a mainstream manufacturer who is prepared to throw caution to the wind and build a car for petrolheads, which isn't constrained by the normal parameters stipulated by the bean counters.


Boom! Well said there :thumb:

The VAG commands a large sector of the market with lots of fingers in various pies, nice to see them using that to create things just to push boundaries, Phaeton, Veyron etc.

The R400 is a "bridge" car IMO, like the bridge camera, it spans the gap between two markets and should do a serviceable job of retaining the important characteristics of each.

Maybe not to everyones tastes, but lets face it, the cult status of the Golf is undeniable and therein lies the motivation for creating such a car, given its following, i am pretty sure it will fire some imaginations and desires (as well as some healthy debate!)


----------



## 182_Blue (Oct 25, 2005)

Next car of the day please Soulboy.


----------

