In gear times for Golf GTi and R32 needed.

PeterT

PeterT

PeterT

Associate
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
835
Location
Solihull
Hello, after much deliberation I am returning to VW to buy my new car after exploring an Audi A3 2.0T and Focus ST.
The 2 main contenders are the Golf GTi and R32 in manual form.
The R32 is faster to 60mph and has a higher top speed and sounds great. The GTi costs less, uses less fuel but weighs less too. I appreciate the R32 will be quicker off the line due to 4 wheel drive but what about "in gear" acceleration times for both cars? Has anyone got some info on this as I am not into screeching away from the lights as it just rips the rubber off the tyres.
Also does anybody know what the satin silver material used for the R32 grill is made from?
PeterT.
 
Why worry looking at in gear times? They're a pointless really. If you want to make real progress then just drop a gear and plant it?! :confused:

You'd be best looking at they're track times, 0-100mph, 1/4 mile with terminal etc.

But they're going to drive very differently so the best way would be to actually drive both for a while and see which one you prefer.

P.S - I'd guess at the r32 being better in gear (not that it matters though).
 
I would consider 'in-gear' times to be a more accurate reflection of real word, everyday driving performance. How often to do you 0-60, 0-100 and a flat out quarter mile during everyday driving? 30-70 and 50-80 etc. are also a good indicator.
 
If we're talking in-gear as doing 30-70 in 4th then NEVER (which is what these tests are normally all about).

But if were talking picking the best gear to start in etc then probably, but I didn't know they did these tests much?
 
The ingear tests are always completely flawed and are just used to try and make a lot of the diesels appear faster than they actually are.

I mean who honestly cares how fast a car is in 5th from 40mph :/ The test which always gives me a real idea of how fast a car is going to be is its 0-100 time. 0-60 is too slow and a lot of cars manage this with ease then bottle out soon after.
 
I have a golf GTI MK5. Absolutely stunning car to drive. EVO mag etc all say the R32 is not worth having over the GTI, both in terms of performance and price.

Go test drive both, feel the turbo in the GTI, you will not be disappointed :D
 
I thought the DSG models were faster than the manual versions?

I read that both the GTI and R32 DSG's are quicker to 0-60 than man?

Certainly what I would go for anyway! A 2.0T GTI DSG or R32 DSG :cool:
 
arcamalpha said:
http://www.letstorquebhp.com have some stats that might help answer your original question.

I'd stick with the GTi personally, as the fuel economy of the R32 is pretty poor for a touch of extra performance. But of course, throttle response is much better in the R32.
Click to expand...

Not that great a reference though, as the performance stats are all based on theory...
 
Jez said:
The ingear tests are always completely flawed and are just used to try and make a lot of the diesels appear faster than they actually are.

I mean who honestly cares how fast a car is in 5th from 40mph :/
Click to expand...

If you've driven many diesels, you'll know that quite often you can't get 5th at 40mph :p

I see what you're saying, I wouldn't call them pointless though. They supplement sprint times. We know that 0-60 isn't always a good indicator of acceleration though because some cars require a shift to 3rd to complete the test, and others don't. Without knowing which ones do and which don't, these figures can be misleading, especially when people scrutinise the data to the nearest tenth of a second.
 
DSG models are faster than Manuals. However they are all faster than the VW quoted times. For example EVO quotes the manual GTI doing 0-60 in 6.7 sec compare to the VW 7.2 sec. The 6.7 sec is the quoted DSG time by VW. One can only assume in reality it is faster - especially with launch control :D
 
Fusion said:
I see what you're saying, I wouldn't call them pointless though. They supplement sprint times. We know that 0-60 isn't always a good indicator of acceleration though because some cars require a shift to 3rd to complete the test, and others don't. Without knowing which ones do and which don't, these figures can be misleading, especially when people scrutinise the data to the nearest tenth of a second.
Click to expand...

Exactly why i feel that 0-100's are faar better. I drive a 1.9TDI Seat Leon, and its frankly dog slow. The 0-60 and ingear times are ok on paper, but the 0-100 is something stupidly high, and this shows more accurately how the car is going to feel.
 
letstorquebhp do use theoretical figures, but when the source numbers are correct, the performance stats ought to be pretty good too.

The inaccuracies come in from grip etc, so 60-100 times and BHP/tonne figures should give a pretty good indication.

Forgot to say earlier: you can chip the 2.0t with mucher greater effect than the 3.2 - so better power to weight ratios are possible...
 
I drove a DSG A3 2.0T today and I still prefer the manual versions. Yes you can zip up and down the box quickly using the paddles but it did feel a bit like I was using my son's microsoft steering wheel with the buttons behind the wheel to change gear.
I think that the in gear times are relevant as they will give a comparison between the 2 cars in the nearest to real world driving. Yes I may drop down to 3rd in my existing Mk 4 GTI and give it some welly to overtake someone but it is useful to compare these times between vehicles.
How many times do you sit at the traffic lights with a stop watch in one hand smoking the tyes just to see if your car measures up to the reported 0-60mph? I also bet not many of us have tested our motors to the max speed as a speeding ban would be definitely bad news.
PS. The low speed ride in the A3 was much rougher than either of the VW cars.
Cheers, PeterT.
 
So 40-70 in 4th - when would I EVER do that in "real world" driving? Never! Well I may, but if it was against the clock then I wouldn't as it would be pointless.

If you REALLY REALLY want to compare these, and by the sounds of it you do for some reason, then I put my money on the r32 being quicker. But I doubt you'd find the info you want as it's so pointless :p

By comparing 0-60 AND 0-100 AND 1/4mile also looking at the terminal speed you can get a lot more useful information on the performance.
 
Last edited:
Is "pointless" your word of the week? :rolleyes:

In gear acceleration (i.e. torque) matters for those of us who don't want to spend their lives swapping cogs and pushing it to the red line every time they go anywhere. This may be the very thing you live for but assuming that everyone else is the same and claiming that cars which better suit their style of driving are pointless is arrogance in the extreme.
 
OOOooo suprise suprise a diesel driver took offence of my in-gear acceleration bashing ;) :p

And for the record in my first post I said that he'd be best off driving both and seeing which he'd prefer as they'd be very different power deliveries - how is that assuming that everyone likes screaming to the redline?! :confused:

But as a true measure of performance then yes, they are POINTLESS - in caps just for you ;)

EDIT - Oops I forgot that the dreaded rolleyes is, for some reason or another, the worst possible insult known to man on these forums! I'm suppost to get all upset now and say something like "Don't rolleyes me, have one back!" But nevermind... :p
 
Last edited:
theres a big problem with in gear times, and thats gear ratios.

say a 3rd gear time from 50 to 80

on my car thats a good zone and car is on song, to another car with wide spread gears starting from 50 in 3rd is going to be well out of its power band.


pointless comparing some cars imho.
 
TripleT said:
But as a true measure of performance then yes, they are POINTLESS - in caps just for you ;)
Click to expand...
You just don't get it, do you?

Performance isn't just about how fast you can get to 60mph or 100mph or a standing quarter mile, it's a very subjective term.

Regardless of what you might think, how fast a car accelerates in a given gear is a measure of performance, even if it's one that's of no interest to you personally. Cars with high levels of torque, such as diesels and those with very large NA engines, convey a sense of "effortlessness" about them which allows the driver to make rapid progress without the need to stir the box or rev the engine excessively.

If this isn't your bag then that's fine, each to their own. What grates is the arrogance you display when you claim that anything which doesn't conform to your definition of performance is "pointless".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom