Here are some pics of my new car (bends over awaiting roasting for buying new Golf)

Dorje · 22 Jul 2009 at 10:05

Just to let you know, DSG boxes aren't more fuel efficient than manual boxes (I know official figures say different).

It's to do with the stupid way they're tested, the speeds for which manual cars can change up the gears is pre-set and is the same for all petrol cars, no matter what the displacement. Whereas automatic/DSG boxes and such like are allowed to change up whenever it likes or the test driver chooses. In the real world, it has been shown that manual boxes are still the more fuel efficient.

I know this wasn't the reason you chose the DSG, just thought it may be of some use.

Participant · 22 Jul 2009 at 10:21

Dorje said:
Just to let you know, DSG boxes aren't more fuel efficient than manual boxes (I know official figures say different).

It's to do with the stupid way they're tested, the speeds for which manual cars can change up the gears is pre-set and is the same for all petrol cars, no matter what the displacement. Whereas automatic/DSG boxes and such like are allowed to change up whenever it likes or the test driver chooses. In the real world, it has been shown that manual boxes are still the more fuel efficient.

I know this wasn't the reason you chose the DSG, just thought it may be of some use.

Thanks for that. Are you referring to the new 7-speed dry clutch system, which is what this car has, or the old 6-speed wet clutch system? Or both?

Only reason I ask is that the fuel efficiency for the wet clutch boxes is quoted as worse than the manual whereas for the dry clutch system it's the other way round. As you say though it's not a significant factor in any case.

I'm really enjoying driving the DSG. It's fun to be able to just plant your foot and forget about having to change gear, but the control is still there if it's needed via the pedals / semi-auto gearstick.

GreenMint · 22 Jul 2009 at 11:01

Main thing is you're enjoying it matey

LIke the look of it, always thought golfs look much better in 3 door guise, but as you've said, the 5 doors is more practical when you have an ankle biter on the way.

Enjoy

wez130 · 22 Jul 2009 at 11:28

Dorje said:
Just to let you know, DSG boxes aren't more fuel efficient than manual boxes (I know official figures say different).

It's to do with the stupid way they're tested, the speeds for which manual cars can change up the gears is pre-set and is the same for all petrol cars, no matter what the displacement. Whereas automatic/DSG boxes and such like are allowed to change up whenever it likes or the test driver chooses. In the real world, it has been shown that manual boxes are still the more fuel efficient.

I know this wasn't the reason you chose the DSG, just thought it may be of some use.

The DSG changes gear according to how the driver is driving it, in mine on a light drive it'll never go over 2.5k RPM, whereas if driving normal, it'll go to 4krpm and if i'm driving hard it'll go all the way up to 6.5k rpm before changing up. That sounds interesting what you say though, do you have a source for it as i'd be interested to read it as i was under the impression i was getting a couple of MPG more from my DSG than from the quattro version of my A3.

jamief · 22 Jul 2009 at 12:00

wez130 said:
The DSG changes gear according to how the driver is driving it, in mine on a light drive it'll never go over 2.5k RPM, whereas if driving normal, it'll go to 4krpm and if i'm driving hard it'll go all the way up to 6.5k rpm before changing up. That sounds interesting what you say though, do you have a source for it as i'd be interested to read it as i was under the impression i was getting a couple of MPG more from my DSG than from the quattro version of my A3.

Quattro will sap at least a few mpg from your A3.

Dorje · 22 Jul 2009 at 12:23

wez130 said:
The DSG changes gear according to how the driver is driving it, in mine on a light drive it'll never go over 2.5k RPM, whereas if driving normal, it'll go to 4krpm and if i'm driving hard it'll go all the way up to 6.5k rpm before changing up. That sounds interesting what you say though, do you have a source for it as i'd be interested to read it as i was under the impression i was getting a couple of MPG more from my DSG than from the quattro version of my A3.

Sure, read it in a recent evo article:

Scanned and uploaded, won't clog up this thread with pictures, so here are direct links:

http://i25.tinypic.com/f2mvtj.jpg

http://i32.tinypic.com/51360p.jpg

wez130 · 22 Jul 2009 at 12:33

jamief said:
Quattro will sap at least a few mpg from your A3.

i don't have quattro.

My car came in a choice of quattro OR DSG, now you can have both though.

Therefore, i'd be right in saying that my DSG is more economical than the Quattro - which is what i believed anyway.

wez130 · 22 Jul 2009 at 12:34

Dorje said:
Sure, read it in a recent evo article:

Scanned and uploaded, won't clog up this thread with pictures, so here are direct links:

http://i25.tinypic.com/f2mvtj.jpg

http://i32.tinypic.com/51360p.jpg

Ta, i'll have a read of that later on

OllyM · 22 Jul 2009 at 13:10

Looks incredibly bland and to be honest I'd rather set fire to £17k than spend it on that but each to their own!

wohoo said:
I looked at the new Golf as a replacement for my ST3, and its much much better inside tbh, and it drove well. I was just disapointed with the trim levels on offer, the GT models looks very bland, and its not really a GT, more a highline. If they had a proper GT (not GTI) with the 170bhp derv, I'd have had one. it really does feel like a nice car inside, and im not one for interiors.

They do a GTD with the 170PS engine now don't they?

spoonz · 22 Jul 2009 at 13:13

looks nice. If they were making an R32 id be ordering it now.

uber soldat · 22 Jul 2009 at 13:16

Just my opinion but i dont like the side on view it looks too "long" IMHO

Dup · 22 Jul 2009 at 13:23

I think VW just stole the breadvan status from the EP3, great stuff

I'm not keen on the looks, but a 160PS 1.4 is interesting and if you're happy with it then that's the main thing. I couldn't brng myself to pay that much for a golf personally.

Django x2 · 22 Jul 2009 at 14:45

Dup said:
I think VW just stole the breadvan status from the EP3, great stuff

Lets not get ahead of ourselves.

[TW]Fox · 22 Jul 2009 at 15:36

Nice car and a good choice. It's important to save £30 a year in tax and a tenner a week at the petrol pumps when you are throwing £17k in cash at a 5 door hatchback.

snowdog · 22 Jul 2009 at 15:51

[TW]Fox;14528269 said:
Nice car and a good choice. It's important to save £30 a year in tax and a tenner a week at the petrol pumps when you are throwing £17k in cash at a 5 door hatchback.

I'd have to agree, what is wrong with spending 10k on a far more comfy or far faster car instead, and keeping a whole 7k for the difference in running it (which should be enough for a good few years for the difference in the worst case scenario where the car is falling apart mechanically) ? More car/comfort/speed for your cash that way...
The last car on my mind would be a brand new golf when I had 17K...

Though can't fault it on the looks department, one of the few acceptable looking hatchbacks, looks better then the previous gen one. And 5d is definitely nicer than the 3d imo.

Von Luck · 22 Jul 2009 at 16:01

mjt · 22 Jul 2009 at 16:23

if he can afford it outright, what's the big deal?
it's not like the OP bought a kia or something. the new golf is much nicer and a better car than the mk5, and you can't get 2nd hand mk6s yet

Dup · 22 Jul 2009 at 16:23

Lucero said:
Lets not get ahead of ourselves.

Well at least I don't need to prove my car with Hovis

classicVin · 22 Jul 2009 at 17:48

the tsi's are great engines, goodluck with it.

unclelonghair · 22 Jul 2009 at 18:09

Nice car - I've got a Mk V TSi 170 and the engines are great fun. Mk VI interior is a huge improvement though. Had a drive in a new GTi a couple of weeks ago and it's a much nicer place to be. Haven't driven a DSG yet but they are supposed to be very nice. Having a go in a DSG Scirocco on Friday which should be interesting.