I could have gone for the Golf, Leon or VRS and chose the latter on value for money. I ignored the guff about % depreciation over 3 years being lower on a Golf because the higher initial price tag means that in terms of cold hard cash, the VRS is no worse than a Golf and that's what its all about. Not worth the extra dosh in my view and I'm very happy with my choice.

I really wanted to like the Leon (as I have a Mk1 FR TDI that I am a big fan of) but I still struggle with its looks. Same with the new S3 too. I want to like that after my love affair with my Mk1 S3 but I just can't - its not agressive enough and for £26k+ its not special enough.

Don't talk to me about Golf reliability at the moment. Had just taken the hit of a new cambelt (planned) on the wifes Golf (02) GTI. Then it needed a new dash control panel (£400), then they broke 2 x window supports (£200). Expensive month. Solid car yes, reliable - no! We've had the engine management light on a good few times as well.

My previous Passat (1998) was the most unreliable car I have ever had, and the dealers were rubbish.

VW's are NOT reliable cars, its been the same with others VW's at work. It's all marketing hype.

Only issue I had with the magazine article (good mag in general though) was the twice snippy mentions of the fact that the VRS tested was yellow. Not remotely relevant!

The lack of miles done in the VRS was also mentioned once, but was not really a fair comparison given the precise technical read outs they were giving the cars. Golf's engine was clearly fully run in, VRS had a long way to go.

The vRS was still very close to the Golf though!