Anyone with a VW GTI?

[Mykl]

How much time have you spent behind the wheel of a GTI? Have you had the opportunity to drive one in a spirited manner for any length of time? If so, what environment? Was it just a test drive or were you able to really beat on it?

Because since it's release in 2009, the MkVI GTI has been held in very high regard among both journalists and performance enthusiasts. The car has enough horsepower to spin up the tires in second gear, without any clutch trickery provocation. I'm happy that competitors have more, but how much more do you really want in a FWD car? If you choose to include weight then you basically have to exclude the Focus ST and Mazdaspeed 3 from the hot hatch category, because they're both as heavy or heavier.

Disecting it in the way you have doesn't change what it is. It doesn't matter if the car cost $100k. The hot hatch formula is that a manufacturer takes a mundane hatchback, installs a few performance upgrades (engine, suspension, etc), and sells it as the "hot" version of that car. The GTI fits that exact criteria to a T the same as any other car you've mentioned. Being more expensive or more refined doesn't really change this.

 

[badtlc]

I didn't know you could get a GTI for under 30k. When my brother got his 2 years ago, it was $31k and was not fully loaded.

 

[Mykl]

I got mine for $27k brand new a week after the car was released in the US. The only two options it does not have is leather and navigation. You can still find them for even less than that if you look, but the options list will be short.

 

[FutureDoc]

Which generation GTI? Been a mix, mostly backroads in Virginia (ie English land-use system... not grids) including some AutoX.

I have had a good amount of time behind the MkII, MkIV, and MkV. My MkIV time is the least of the four, mostly because my buddy had only had it for a few days and was still protective. I was able to stretch it out a bit but within the first 5 minutes, it felt more like the MkIV than the Mk5. It felt like the Datsun ZX compared to the Z. It has lost something.

A hot hatch is supposed to be "hot". The GTI is not what it once was and if you want the "Drivers package, it is $30K" for something that is not even that hot compared it its rivals.

Completely different experience in the Fiesta ST. Within the first five minutes, I was grinning. That is the point of hothatch, primarily fun, some practicality, and inexpensive. The GTI is not "inexpensive", especially for what you get. It is fun "enough" but not as fun as its rivals. It is perhaps the most practical of its rivals if it is the 4-door but I think that is because it is the largest... but the Mazda might edge it there too, but then again, a Honda Accord coupe is not far off the GTI's performance and I am always surprised at some of the lap times in AutoX that a new Accord can put down.

The ST Fords are performance versions, the WRX is a hot Impreza, so is the Mazdaspeed (to the 3)... All boast nearly 70-100bhp more power than their base-model counterparts. The GTI offers 30. Is the handling package all that much better? Not really (unless you want to drop $30K). Yes, hot hatches are supposed to be performance economy cars... but the GTI is not offering the performance nor the economy.

It is competitive to the Fiesta and the Civic's performance at a lower pricepoint and not very competitive against other at the same pricepoint. Sure, it can pick on the "smaller kids" but that is not the point of a hot hatch. Hot hatches are all about "picking" on the "bully badges" which it can't do anymore.

VW needs to make the GTI competitive again. Otherwise it is just a marketing badge on very good Golf. Same goes for Hondas Si badge.

 

[Mykl]

The current one, that you're saying isn't a hot hatch. You have an owner of one sitting here telling you that it is an extremely willing car from a performance point of view. It sounds like you disagree based only on numbers and personal bias, rather than what it's like to drive.

 

[FutureDoc]

Originally Posted By: Mykl
The current one, that you're saying isn't a hot hatch. You have an owner of one sitting here telling you that it is an extremely willing car from a performance point of view. It sounds like you disagree based only on numbers and personal bias, rather than what it's like to drive.


I have driven it. It is less immediate, less nimble, less driver feedback. I have driven multiple GTIs. I have driven other competitors. The GTI is not "hot" anymore. It is no longer the giant-slayer. It is a very good car, it does a lot well and has very little weaknesses other than the pricepoint. Face it, the new kids do more for less than what the GTI offers. Heck the MkIV was not really a hot hatch anymore. The MkV kinda got the mix right but even then it was an improvement in the right direction.

Yes, you are an owner but you look at it from a owners rose-color glasses. I often do the same with the MR2. Yeah, it needed more than 138bhp and needs a 6th gear... a trunk would be nice. I am not going to beat boxters and S2000 around the track... but I can surprise the bigger displacement guys and some coupes if I am careful.

Have you driven the Fiesta ST? Go drive that car and then get back into the GTI. Different worlds. The Fiesta is unrefined fun, yours is refined but missing that early GTI edge. If you have driven a MkI/MkII (or any raw Gen1 car vs the refined later gens that got fat) then you would know what I am talking about.

200bhp in a 3200lbs car is not "hot". Especially when it is $25-30K. You can feel that weight sapping the car. It needs more power (like the 250bhp+ in the same pricepoint rivals) or needs less weight (say 2700lbs).

 

[Mykl]

It doesn't matter how the Fiesta ST drives in comparison. In 2009 you couldn't say "the GTI is not a hot hatch because it doesn't drive the same as a car that hasn't been released yet." The Fiesta ST is a fantastic car, but it's not so good that it completely reclassifies every other car that came before it.

Using your logic... the MR2 is not a sports car, because it only has a very unsporty 138 bhp using an engine sourced from the Toyota Corolla. It shares more in common with a Sebring convertible than a Corvette.

You don't have to like it, but the GTI is the hot version of a more mundane people mover that comes in the shape of a hatchback. Maybe it doesn't meet your personal criteria for performance, and that's fine, but your personal biases does not change what it is.

 

[jigen]

I guess it really comes down to what you define as a "hot hatch". The GTI delivers good power and driving dynamics while staying very refined and comfortable as a daily driver.

The Fiesta and Focus ST are also competent as daily drivers, but compared to the GTI they are a bit less refined as a daily commuter. Their power is thrown about and like stated in an earlier post, slaps a grin on the drivers face. A MS3 or FST has too much power than it really should for a FWD vehicle, but that's kind of the point right? At least the ST line up has some good engineering behind it to help with many issues an overpowered FWD car inherits.

I am not knocking the GTI in anyway, it's an amazing package overall. But I do agree that it did chose to step back a bit from the "Hot Hatch" segment. I would even argue that the new Civic Si has more wild characteristics when pushing it to it's limit. I drove both vehicles for hundreds and hundreds of miles. The GTI feels more refined and would be the preferred daily driver but if you're looking to screw around and just thrash the vehicle, I'd take the keys to the Si.

 

[FutureDoc]

This is 2014... there are better "hot hatches" than the GTI. In 2014, I think the Fiesta is the best. In 2010, you could make that argument for the GTI (really R32) although both the Mazdaspeed and WRX would have been better.

Mercy, I am going to have to define a sportscar... no wonder you think a modern GTI is "hot". A sportscar is defined by its handling characteristics, not its powerplant. There is a reason why MG, Triumps, early Porsches had small displacements, that defined the genre. Small, light, designed to corner. A fair amount of sportscars used "common" plowerplants but the chassis was different. Underpowered "is fine" (but more power is good too if you are a Corvette fan). 138bhp is plenty for a car that weights less than 2200lbs. In fact, we are looking at near identical power/weight ratios Mk3 MR2 vs MkVI GTI. The difference is that I have 1000lbs less entering the corner.

If you are comparing an MR2 to a Sebring... then logic is lost. You want to compare a large 4 seater soft convertible to a trunkless mid-engine twoseater. Mercy. I have a personal bias/dislke for Chrysler... and yes, my family had Sebrings and LeBarons growing up (along with "datsuns") For VW, there is neither love nor dislike. You keep changing back and forth between "personal bias" and "what it is". Take the spec sheet if you want to see "what it is" and comparing it to others, it is "warm". If you want to go on personal expereinces, then the Fiesta was much better and the joy of the GTI has been lost from the initial version. The current model is just a good Golf, not something special like the initials and not a barn-burner like its rivals. The GTI is a good car, it just is not that "hot" anymore. It has lost its spark, does not really offer a lot for its price.

Adding 30bhp to a Golf is "warming it up" $30K for the Driver's edition is too much. You get better driving experience for a nearly $4K less Fiesta and you get more performance for the price from the Focus/Mazdaspeed/WRX "hot" economy car.

Hot hatches are cheap, fun, and compete with vehicles in different/higher pricepoints. The GTI (at best) is barely making the minimum (at $30K I wouldsay it is not). You are no longer going to surprise a better badge in a GTI. The WRX/Mazdaspeed/Focus ST will sneak-up on a lot of more performance models... the GTI just is not that hot.

 

[FutureDoc]

Originally Posted By: jigen
I guess it really comes down to what you define as a "hot hatch". The GTI delivers good power and driving dynamics while staying very refined and comfortable as a daily driver.

The Fiesta and Focus ST are also competent as daily drivers, but compared to the GTI they are a bit less refined as a daily commuter. Their power is thrown about and like stated in an earlier post, slaps a grin on the drivers face. A MS3 or FST has too much power than it really should for a FWD vehicle, but that's kind of the point right? At least the ST line up has some good engineering behind it to help with many issues an overpowered FWD car inherits.

I am not knocking the GTI in anyway, it's an amazing package overall. But I do agree that it did chose to step back a bit from the "Hot Hatch" segment. I would even argue that the new Civic Si has more wild characteristics when pushing it to it's limit. I drove both vehicles for hundreds and hundreds of miles. The GTI feels more refined and would be the preferred daily driver but if you're looking to screw around and just thrash the vehicle, I'd take the keys to the Si.


Yes. This is exactly my point. The GTI is a good car, the "refinement" leads the segment but are Hot Hatches defined by "refinement"? I would say "no". The GTI is a quick "refined car" but a "Hot Hatch" is supposed to be more bare-bones utility and performance-oriented perks (while not being a trunkless sportscar). I think the Si has some of the same problems as the GTI but at least Honda is not asking $30K for the model you really want. The Si is still cheaper than almost any performance option (save the Fiesta ST... but you get the Honda reliability... definately worth the 1 grand), and every bit as fun. I would still like for the Si to get back to the lightweight roots but oh well.

And yes, isn't a modern hot hatch supposed to torque-steer you into a tree?

 

[Mykl]

I don't actually believe that the MR2 isn't a sports car. I was just trying to highlight the fact that injecting performance numbers into a basic definition to manipulate the classification of a car isn't the right way to look at things. But still, there are a lot of people who would actually say that, and do on a consistent basis. I have talked to plenty of people who don't think the Miata is a sports car for exactly this reason.

The other problem I have with what you're saying is that nobody buys any of these cars to win races. You don't buy a FWD, top heavy hatchback with economy car based suspension geometry because you're trying to win the stop-light GP, or take home a trophy from a HPDE at your nearest track. You buy a hot hatch because you want something reasonably practical, but still competent when you push it.

 

[FutureDoc]

Originally Posted By: Mykl
I don't actually believe that the MR2 isn't a sports car. I was just trying to highlight the fact that injecting performance numbers into a basic definition to manipulate the classification of a car isn't the right way to look at things. But still, there are a lot of people who would actually say that, and do on a consistent basis. I have talked to plenty of people who don't think the Miata is a sports car for exactly this reason.

The other problem I have with what you're saying is that nobody buys any of these cars to win races. You don't buy a FWD, top heavy hatchback with economy car based suspension geometry because you're trying to win the stop-light GP, or take home a trophy from a HPDE at your nearest track. You buy a hot hatch because you want something reasonably practical, but still competent when you push it.


Agreed on the "sportscar", lets move on to a Hot Hatch.

Part of the hot-hatch definition is to win those "stop-light GP" against over-priced badge cars. It is supposed to be "giant killer" and that is why the MkI GTI was such a standout. It could compete with the entry-level BMW, Porsche, and even most decent sportscars... while being able bring the kids/dogs around. The Mk1 GTI would beat a Porsche 924... it was ligher and was on par/had more bhp than the Porsche. That is part of the GTI's legacy and how the "Hot Hatch" was defined. Sure, you will not win the stopliht races against the big displacement boys but then again, you should beat entry level performance cars.

Now, if VW is not careful, the "hot" Buick Verano will blitz the GTI at a similar pricepoint.

That is the problem with the GTI. It is a great sporty hatch... but not "hot" anymore. If you want a great handling small hatch, the Mazda3 is still a hoot at the basic level.

Then there is the price problem. Hatches should be "cheap". The VW is the most expensive option with FWD. Cars with the same stats are $3K less. Are you getting more performance? No. You are getting refinement which goes against the "hot hatch". Basically, VW has turned the GTI into a Grand Touring-hatch. Good comfortable, better performance, all-rounder but not really a performance hatch. The point of a hot-hatch is to be a bit of a sleeper against those who think their badge bought them something better. GTI is more likely to be surprised at the light/track than it will surprise others. That is a hot-hatch fail.

 

[Mykl]

A hot hatch is the hot version of a mundane hatchback.

"Hot hatch" is easier to say than "hot version of a mundane hatchback."

The GTI is a "hot version of a mundane hatchback."

You may choose to not abbreviate the description, if you like. You may wish to describe it as "a faster version of a slower car", or "a car with a more powerful engine and stiffer suspension than the higher volume car off which it is based."

I choose to call it a hot hatch because it takes fewer words to give the person I am communicating with a basic description of the vehicle.. I apply the same label to other cars with a similar design theme, like the Mazdaspeed 3, Focus/Fiesta ST, 500 Abarth, Cooper S, etc.

 

[FutureDoc]

Originally Posted By: Mykl
A hot hatch is the hot version of a mundane hatchback.

"Hot hatch" is easier to say than "hot version of a mundane hatchback."

The GTI is a "hot version of a mundane hatchback."

You may choose to not abbreviate the description, if you like. You may wish to describe it as "a faster version of a slower car", or "a car with a more powerful engine and stiffer suspension than the higher volume car off which it is based."

I choose to call it a hot hatch because it takes fewer words to give the person I am communicating with a basic description of the vehicle.. I apply the same label to other cars with a similar design theme, like the Mazdaspeed 3, Focus/Fiesta ST, 500 Abarth, Cooper S, etc.


Making a basic hatchback perform better does not make it a "hot hatch". A hot hatch has to have that near lunacy performance upgrades that make it beat purpose-orient performance vehicles. It is not adding a few more bhp, it has to be significant. The improvements must make it rival more expensive performance oriented vehicles. A Cooper S is not the hot hatch, that is the Cooper S JCW edition.

For example, the basic european MkI Golf had 60bhp, the GTI had 110bhp. In the US (emissions differences) the Golf had 60bhp and the GTI had 90bhp. That is a 50-90% increase in power. The modern offer only 17% more power. The Fiesta boots power by 80bhp, the Focus has 90 more ponies. That is the point of a hot hatch. Put a lot more power in it than necessary (yes, 110bhp in a 70s era hatch was bonkers) and improve the chassis. Right now, the Golf needs the 170bhp version just to be competitive in the US because it is a heavy car, the GTI needs more than 200bhp.

This is why I call the current GTI a "warm" hatch. It does not really improve the breed significantly. Does it make it better, yes. Does that make it "hot"... no. It is a "soft" upgrade. If the base Golf had 120bhp, then maybe... and if it was cheaper. You could call it a Golf Sport, but "sport" is more of a sticker package for most cars.

To be a "hot hatch", the car must offer more performance than "basic" performance vehicles that cost more. It has to be the "David" taking down the "Goliath". If David loses to Goliath, then it is not really a hot hatch. Being a slightly better hatch does not make it "hot". The initial GTI set the precedent that the current GTI can't meet. Supposedly the next GTI is supposed to fix that issue but we will have to wait and see.

 

[Smokescreen]

VW.ca calls it a "hot hatch" http://contents.vw.ca/models/golf-gti-2015/en/

Hot hatch (shortened from hot hatchback) is a high-performance derivative of a car body style consisting of a three- or five-door hatchback automobile.
Vehicles of this class are based on family-oriented automobiles, and are equipped with an up-rated more powerful internal combustion engine, improved suspension, and may also include additional 'aerodynamic' body parts and larger wheels and tyres. Front-mounted petrol engines, together with front-wheel drive, is the most common power train layout, although some can be specified as diesel-powered, and rear or four-wheel drive hot hatches are also available.

Wiki says that they have been around since the early 1970's under the nameplate of many different companies.



What determines the "hotness" of the hatch and its value for the dollar....is up to the consumer.

 

[Mykl]

Originally Posted By: FutureDoc
Making a basic hatchback perform better does not make it a "hot hatch". A hot hatch has to have that near lunacy performance upgrades that make it beat purpose-orient performance vehicles. It is not adding a few more bhp, it has to be significant. The improvements must make it rival more expensive performance oriented vehicles. A Cooper S is not the hot hatch, that is the Cooper S JCW edition.

For example, the basic european MkI Golf had 60bhp, the GTI had 110bhp. In the US (emissions differences) the Golf had 60bhp and the GTI had 90bhp. That is a 50-90% increase in power. The modern offer only 17% more power. The Fiesta boots power by 80bhp, the Focus has 90 more ponies. That is the point of a hot hatch. Put a lot more power in it than necessary (yes, 110bhp in a 70s era hatch was bonkers) and improve the chassis. Right now, the Golf needs the 170bhp version just to be competitive in the US because it is a heavy car, the GTI needs more than 200bhp.

This is why I call the current GTI a "warm" hatch. It does not really improve the breed significantly. Does it make it better, yes. Does that make it "hot"... no. It is a "soft" upgrade. If the base Golf had 120bhp, then maybe... and if it was cheaper. You could call it a Golf Sport, but "sport" is more of a sticker package for most cars.

To be a "hot hatch", the car must offer more performance than "basic" performance vehicles that cost more. It has to be the "David" taking down the "Goliath". If David loses to Goliath, then it is not really a hot hatch. Being a slightly better hatch does not make it "hot". The initial GTI set the precedent that the current GTI can't meet. Supposedly the next GTI is supposed to fix that issue but we will have to wait and see.


You can call it what you want, but if we're going to adjust the classification based on relative performance, I insist on this...

To be a hot hatch, you must be as fast as a Porsche and as cheap as a Corolla. (you have insisted that a proper hot hatch can swing above its weight).
To be a sports car, you must be as fast as a Camry and as light as a Smart car.
To be a muscle car, you must be as fast as a Ferrari.
To be a race car, you must be as fast as an F1 car.

....and this is all retroactive. In other words, the 1964 GTO is no longer a muscle car, because it can't keep up with a 458.

You may not believe the GTI to be a good performance value in its class, and that's a fair stance to take. But to call it something other than what it is in a derogatory way "warm hatch" is just as annoying as insisting that your MR2 Spyder is on the same level as a Sebring convertible.

 

[JetStar]

I really think the "Hot Hatch" term is kinda of an over used cliche. I didn't buy the GTI because I thought it was the fastest hatchback out there, because it is not. There are a lot of 2.0L turbos out there with at least 50 more HP that would take me out in a heartbeat, those mentioned above, and a buick regal GS. I liked the overall package and I could get it with 2 doors. If they put the Golf R engine in it, they might have something, but it would cost even more.
Having said that, it is fun to drive.

 

[FutureDoc]

Originally Posted By: Mykl
You can call it what you want, but if we're going to adjust the classification based on relative performance, I insist on this...

To be a hot hatch, you must be as fast as a Porsche and as cheap as a Corolla. (you have insisted that a proper hot hatch can swing above its weight).
To be a sports car, you must be as fast as a Camry and as light as a Smart car.
To be a muscle car, you must be as fast as a Ferrari.
To be a race car, you must be as fast as an F1 car.

....and this is all retroactive. In other words, the 1964 GTO is no longer a muscle car, because it can't keep up with a 458.

You may not believe the GTI to be a good performance value in its class, and that's a fair stance to take. But to call it something other than what it is in a derogatory way "warm hatch" is just as annoying as insisting that your MR2 Spyder is on the same level as a Sebring convertible.


That is just being absurd.

I call it a "warm" hatch because it is not offering than much more than the basic Golf and lags way behind other rivals. It is not competitive as other "hotter" hatches at the same/slightly lower pricemark and much more expensive then "budget hot hatches" like the Fiesta.

The point is that a hot hatch is "David" that smack around other people who thing their badge is better... with the GTI, it has become the overpriced badge it sought to slew.

It is a good car, but as "hot hatches" go, it is overpriced and underpowed... the two biggest sins of being a hot hatch. It is akin to a sportscar being heavy and lacking an independent suspension.

The GTI just is not "hot" anymore despite the marketing claims.

 

[FutureDoc]

Originally Posted By: JetStar
I really think the "Hot Hatch" term is kinda of an over used cliche. I didn't buy the GTI because I thought it was the fastest hatchback out there, because it is not. There are a lot of 2.0L turbos out there with at least 50 more HP that would take me out in a heartbeat, those mentioned above, and a buick regal GS. I liked the overall package and I could get it with 2 doors. If they put the Golf R engine in it, they might have something, but it would cost even more.
Having said that, it is fun to drive.


Yep, exactly. It is a very good car. Sure, the GTI defined what a hot hatch should be... a practical-bonkers car that was a blue-collar purch to the nose to take on the "premier" badges.

However, the GTI has changed. It is more of a comfortable and refined GT car. I do not really thing that a "hard-core" GTI would be as successful. The MR2 was a market flop because it was too uncompromising (seriously, no trunk). The GTI is a brilliant compromise type of vehicle. It is a fun car that is easy to live with... is it as fun as the Fiesta (I don't think so) but that is the preferences I have... and I own an MR2 so I am very impractical. However, the "hot hatch" market is more competitive and the GTI is lagging behind in the performance category. Its not weak, but not tops in the class.... the only thing it is tops in seems to be the price.

 

[Mykl]

Originally Posted By: FutureDoc
That is just being absurd.

I call it a "warm" hatch because it is not offering than much more than the basic Golf and lags way behind other rivals. It is not competitive as other "hotter" hatches at the same/slightly lower pricemark and much more expensive then "budget hot hatches" like the Fiesta.

The point is that a hot hatch is "David" that smack around other people who thing their badge is better... with the GTI, it has become the overpriced badge it sought to slew.

It is a good car, but as "hot hatches" go, it is overpriced and underpowed... the two biggest sins of being a hot hatch. It is akin to a sportscar being heavy and lacking an independent suspension.

The GTI just is not "hot" anymore despite the marketing claims.


The Corvette isn't a sports car, it's too heavy. It's a GT car.

Challenger R/T a muscle car? More like a "wimpy car."

The problem with using such a heavy dose of subjective opinion in car classification is that the classifications suddenly become meaningless.

The thing is, with this "David" criteria you've essentially disqualified every sport compact on the market. The Fiesta ST, the fine car that it is, isn't faster than any performance oriented vehicle that costs more than a couple grand more, not even a V-6 Mustang. The Focus ST isn't much better and neither is the Mazdaspeed 3. None of them can hang with cars at even the next tier up on the price bracket, and it's not even a close competition. Maybe if you go back 7-8 years you can keep up with a base model Cayman or Boxster, if you're lucky.