If you read the brochures of both cars you'll see that the Golf R 5 door DSG weighs 1525 kgs, but includes a driver (68 kgs) and luggage (7 kgs)

 

The vRS TSi DSG 5 door hatch is quoted as weighing 1370 kgs, but doesn't include driver or luggage.

 

So comparable weights are: Golf R 1525 kgs and vRS 1445 kgs and power to weights of 236 bhp/t (Golf) and 228 bhp/t (vRS).

8bhp won't amount to much and basically both the R and VRS engine map to the same level of torque at around 368flbt so the advantage will swing back to the VRS,..

Not to stir the pudding bowl but I am also in the camp that thinks 330-340hp for a mapped TSI is quite generous...not saying its impossible but I think v early 300's are what most will see with a very healthy side of torque.

The torque is what will give the feeling of pace (as it does with the standard car) and in truth it probably at times will feel like a 330-340hp car.....but likely isnt.

A 370ish hp stage 1 R with 4wd will be comfortably quicker than a mapped vRS TSi regardless of the weight penalty as it can just put that power down anywhere. What is interesting....Evo reviewed the Revo'd R and even they said whilst in terms of standing starts its bloody fast, it disnt have the mid or high end go that they expected of a 370hp car. Its just one journo's view of course but makes you wonder.

Stir away, and as I have said, please read my posts, my point is around in gear performance which seems to be backed up by Evo.

 

I'm not disputing how quick a Golf R is from standing start, my point is and always has been around motorway/dual carriageway in gear,....a mapped VRS vs mapped Golf R would be closer than you think - stage 1 of course.

Edited 2 February, 201511 yr by Telboy5

8bhp won't amount to much and basically both the R and VRS engine map to the same level of torque at around 368flbt so the advantage will swing back to the VRS,..

How comes? The VRS will struggle to put the power down, not just in the first couple of gears, compared to the Golf. Hard into the corners and it will want to under steer its new found power away... The R doesn't. I found this with the Cupra compared to the R on a damp day and the VRS doesn't even get the Cupras e-diff. (E-Diff is very good at standard power levels though imo) It's also worth noting that the additional 65kg is in the best place on the R - low down and to the rear giving a better weight distribution. Give me a haldex mk5 equipped awd hot hatch over a fwd running proper power and torque any day. The difference is large IMO. The R will just feel more capable whereas the VRS will have its shortcomings magnified. On a perfect day in perfect conditions maybe it would be closer... But on 90% of the days we get here in the uk, it wouldn't be.

Edited 2 February, 201511 yr by Yeti_Man

Stir away, and as I have said, please read my posts, my point is around in gear performance which seems to be backed up by Evo.

 

.

when did evo test a modified VRS?

Maybe on absolutes I'd lean towards the R BUT, and its a big but, Bang for Buck the stage 1 vRS has gotta win hands down.

Edited 2 February, 201511 yr by themanwithnoaim

Maybe on absolutes I'd lean towards the R BUT,

question is, if they are doing an R estate and a GTD estate... Are they planning a GTi estate?!

when did evo test a modified VRS?

My point was around the evo test of the modded Golf R where they didn't believe it felt quick IN GEAR for a 371bhp, apologies, my point didn't come out quite right!!

 

Evo quote the following;

 

Those acceleration figures, though, are a little misleading. With four-wheel drive and those sticky tyres warmed through, the thing just bounces off the line, but that initial rate of launch acceleration – derived from traction as much as sheer power – doesn’t necessarily translate into supercar-baiting in‑gear performance.

 

By the way, the times achieved by the Revo MK7 R also included the following spec upgrades on top of the remap;

 

Since recording those ludicrous figures this demo car has been fitted with a high-flow intake kit (£359), Bilstein B16 adjustable coilovers (£1556) and meatier brakes (£2154), including four-pot Alcon calipers and Revo’s own ventilated discs. The tyres are Dunlop SP Sport Maxx Race (£267 each at blackcircles.com), which are about as uncompromising as road rubber gets.

 

But hey, perhaps Evo don't have a clue either!!

Edited 2 February, 201511 yr by Telboy5

question is, if they are doing an R estate and a GTD estate... Are they planning a GTi estate?!

 

NO never....................GTI is hatch only........................only reason for GTD is for a diesel engine version of the R estate................why the hell they didn't do a GTD 4WD I don't know..............idiots...........

 

R estate will be good thought...4WD is the best to getting the power down through the corners & the estate handles better than the hatch even in 2wd IMO............

Edited 2 February, 201511 yr by fabdavrav

My point was around the evo test of the modded Golf R where they didn't believe it felt quick IN GEAR for a 371bhp,.

Understood. Well a stage 1 mapped R will do 60mph in 3.7 seconds. The VRS takes 5.8. (An Audi R8 V10 takes 3.9 seconds for comparison). The vrs will do 60-100mph in 11.6 seconds... The R... is much quicker. So if they say the awd R doesn't feel fast in the mid range then I assume they'd be even less kind to a fwd competitor that can't make use of its power and torque as well as the R does. It's also worth noting that despite what you say, the engines are not the same unit. The R has uprated rods and pistons as well as larger gudgeon pins. It's also even suggested it has a better flowing head but I can't find proof of this currently.

Understood. Well a stage 1 mapped R will do 60mph in 3.7 seconds. The VRS takes 5.8. (An Audi R8 V10 takes 3.9 seconds for comparison). The vrs will do 60-100mph in 11.6 seconds... The R... is much quicker. So if they say the awd R doesn't feel fast in the mid range then I assume they'd be even less kind to a fwd competitor that can't make use of its power and torque as well as the R does. It's also worth noting that despite what you say, the engines are not the same unit. The R has uprated rods and pistons as well as larger gudgeon pins. It's also even suggested it has a better flowing head but I can't find proof of this currently.

Yetiman does the R have a different turbo and injectors like S3/R spec motor of old?

I said it before, there is a need for a vrs section only on this site. This would then control all the fanatical chat regarding the hallowed vrs to a suitable section :-)

Then all the bhp, lbft, 0-60 chat can be enjoyed elsewhere.

Understood. Well a stage 1 mapped R will do 60mph in 3.7 seconds. The VRS takes 5.8. (An Audi R8 V10 takes 3.9 seconds for comparison). The vrs will do 60-100mph in 11.6 seconds... The R... is much quicker. So if they say the awd R doesn't feel fast in the mid range then I assume they'd be even less kind to a fwd competitor that can't make use of its power and torque as well as the R does. It's also worth noting that despite what you say, the engines are not the same unit. The R has uprated rods and pistons as well as larger gudgeon pins. It's also even suggested it has a better flowing head but I can't find proof of this currently.

An Audi R8 V10 does 0-60 a tad faster than 3.9   and it can also do 0-100mph quicker than a mapper Golf R mk7 stage 1.

 

60-100mph in a stage 1 mapped VRS is faster than 11.6 seconds. 

 

How can a car with 230-240bhp/tonne and slightly more torque than a mapped R be slower IN GEAR,........than a mapped R, stage 1.

 

I know the engines are not the same and please be assured I think the Golf R is a fab car, it just wouldn't obliterate a decently mapped stage 1 VRS even if it too was stage 1 mapped IN GEAR,.........

Edited 2 February, 201511 yr by Telboy5

I'm shutting up now as not wanting to upset anyone, my apologies if I've caused anyone offence in the slightest.

Back to topic. I particularly like the golf GTD estate.

An Audi R8 V10 does 0-60 a tad faster than 3.9 and it can also do 0-100mph quicker than a mapper Golf R mk7 stage 1. WELL I COULDN'T GET IT TO 60 ANY QUICKER THAN 3.86 SECONDS WHERE AS 4.8 WAS REPEATABLE IN THE STANDARD R PRETTY MUCH NO MATTER WHO JUMPED BEHIND THE WHEEL. YOU CAN QUOTE MANUFACTURERS FIGURES ALL DAY LONG - THE ONLY THING I GO BY IS REAL WORLD EXPERIENCE.

60-100mph in a stage 1 mapped VRS is faster than 11.6 seconds. NOT ACCORDING TO TWO OF THE BIG TUNERS. 10.094 HAS BEEN THE QUICKEST ACHIEVEABLE FIGURE I'VE SEEN NOTED AND I BELIEVE THAT WAS AN APR FIGURE.

How can a car with 230-240bhp/tonne and slightly more torque than a mapped R be slower IN GEAR,........than a mapped R, stage 1. IT'S CALLED TRACTION.

I know the engines are not the same and please be assured I think the Golf R is a fab car, it just wouldn't obliterate a decently mapped stage 1 VRS even if it too was stage 1 mapped IN GEAR,.........I'M PRETTY SURE IT WOULD.

Now yes, happy to drop this topic as it appears to be none to relevant in a thread regarding a diesel estate.

Edited 2 February, 201511 yr by Yeti_Man

Back to topic. I particularly like the golf GTD estate.

Considering how this thread went, I think you are way off topic ;-)

I want to see in in the flesh before I like it. Because tbh I don't think the GTD is that much nicer than a standard Golf, yet the 2 pictures VW have released of the GTD estate look great. I'd be relieved if it's just a case of good photoshopping. How will I explain to SWMBO that even before getting the VRS we are upgrading? :think:

I'll accept arguments that the Golf Estate has a better interior finish than the Octavia and while looks are subjective I think the Golf just, but only just, pips the Octavia.

The Golf also has the better claimed drag coefficient (0.27 v. 0.31)

However the Octavia has a longer wheelbase by 66mm so better driver/passenger legroom and the better total back seat-down storage by 112 litres.

The other aspect in the Octavia's favour that struck me (quite literally) is the forward mounted hinging of the rear hatch allows a larger (vertical) opening for loading in the boot. When I viewed a Golf Estate at the dealers I banged my head (twice, as I am a slow learner) while examining its boot.

Makes a big difference when loading a couple of bikes in the back.

Otherwise it is all down to personal preference and price really.

Its a difficult call I think...having given this more thought the GTD as a warm hatch just to me does make a bit more sense as a hatch.....making it into an estate is a good move for VAG and I suspect they'll sell well but it does somewhat dilute what the GTD is.....its bigger and quite a bit heavier than the hatch.....not that most would be able to tell but Id expect the hatch will drive a bit better still too in terms of out and out point and shoot performance. You'll end up paying a good £1.5ish K premium for somethinf not quite so talented for anything other than load lugging ability.

I made another post on here about the R Line spec being launched...effectively GT spec but with the visual and tactile add ons that make the GTD more attractive.....I actually think a 150 TDi estate in R line spec probably will make more sense (if they release an estate version) than the GTD but thats just a matter of opinion.

Its a different story with the vRS as the hatch and estate share the same platform...the estate just having a larger squarer rear greenhouse so there is less to choose between the two.