Originally Posted By: surfstar
Again, you are off-base ranting.
You rant like the GTI/R ONLY comes in a DSG version. It has an available 6 speed manual, just like your genesis. Why not rant against Hyundai for their soul-robbing 8spd auto? You know, the one offered in your coupe?
I do not get where your rants even stem from.
Did I sputter? I talked explicitly about the manual and the performance difference with the DSG vs GTI DSG. I justed used a automatic-to-automatic comparison. But no one is buying the automatic for the "speed" in the Gennies. They are for those who do not want to be bothered with shifting. Becomes a budget GT car/Cruiser. Hyundai went out of their way for the R-Spec to appease the enthusiast, (manual only trim, track-day for under $30). I get the existence of automatics, but not as a performance feature in a not-cheap compact.
What is the Golf R? It is not cheap. Not fast for the pricepoint, not a luxury model or badge, not well appointed for the price (cough-Audi), not a ground-up performance-oriented machine, and it is not the old R32.
Originally Posted By: HemiHawk
I think if I understand correctly its more based on a price to performance issue. He's saying why spend 40k on a golf when a 35k camaro will spank it around a track. I kind of get the argument, as I'm mostly about "cheap speed" myself. I bought a dodge caliber SRT-4 recently as a daily driver and bit of a toy, so obviously I'm in tune to performance per dollar. I could even say that my Caliber has the same power as the Golf R, and with a tune pretty close acceleration numbers (roughly same 1/4 times). But I am under no illusion they're even in the same league of car. My Mustang would out do a stock golf R in the 1/4 mile also (Ran a 13.2 with poor tires *racer excuse*), but lets be real, my Mustang is a 2 door plastic box with a truck engine compared to something like the golf R.
Part of what you're paying for with the VW is simply engineering. Reviewers have been saying it forever, the GTI/R are usually best in class. Resale value is typically high on them (not now due to dieselgate, but it will return I'm sure). If SOLELY basing a cars worth on its straight line performance, sure the Golf R is far from the best out the gate. Same could be said for the lower end 3 series BMWs. But a Golf R is a 4 door hatch, with a great AWD system, that also happens to be pretty darn capable. I'm not sure I'd pay 40k for it, but that seems to be right about the price for a car like that.
The auto vs manual debate seems to be mostly personal preference.
Yes, the auto vs manual is personal. I view the "my DSG is faster" as an anti-enthusiast (again, putting the hot hatch at odds with its goals).
However you are talking about a performance "Golf", that is in essence, "cheap speed". 40K negates the "cheap". $40K speed is a whole different ball-game. When you are talking 40K the list of fast cars jumps... and we start talking V8s, year old Vettes, some M badges/marketing, and even the odd addition from Stuttgart. At that point, the only reason to own the Golf R is if you desperately and nonobjectively want/need to own a Golf (and then why not a cheaper one).
Good point about the "best in class'. And maybe this is my issue with VW as a whole (I am trying to figure it out). "Best in class" when you cost +10/20/30% more than the "other guys" just does not sit right for me. I did not find the base-model GTI all that "class leading". Actually the "cheap" VWs seem like punishment items designed to upsell. Maybe when I compare, I compare across price-range rather than "subcompact/compact/midsize/whatever". Classes are arbitrary. In once instance (due to government regs) you could claim the old Cadillac DTS and Honda Accord in the same "class". Not really. So for me, it is about the pricepoint that Thus VW often gets tossed out of its "advantage" for me Wwhen it can't face-off against cheaper cars to say you are getting more, they why?. Sometimes I have the same argument against Honda. You are offering more, but you are charging more as well. I can see Toyota charging more for the perception tha they last longer but that is definitely NOT the case with VW. So the argument against the FWD hot hatch Ford ST vs GTI is that the GTI is offering more "comfort" for the performance... but at the same time, you are charging more and you then open yourself up to those more "luxury" brands. If you are not cheap speed, and are not luxury, how do you justify the price?
Again, you are off-base ranting.
You rant like the GTI/R ONLY comes in a DSG version. It has an available 6 speed manual, just like your genesis. Why not rant against Hyundai for their soul-robbing 8spd auto? You know, the one offered in your coupe?
I do not get where your rants even stem from.
Did I sputter? I talked explicitly about the manual and the performance difference with the DSG vs GTI DSG. I justed used a automatic-to-automatic comparison. But no one is buying the automatic for the "speed" in the Gennies. They are for those who do not want to be bothered with shifting. Becomes a budget GT car/Cruiser. Hyundai went out of their way for the R-Spec to appease the enthusiast, (manual only trim, track-day for under $30). I get the existence of automatics, but not as a performance feature in a not-cheap compact.
What is the Golf R? It is not cheap. Not fast for the pricepoint, not a luxury model or badge, not well appointed for the price (cough-Audi), not a ground-up performance-oriented machine, and it is not the old R32.
Originally Posted By: HemiHawk
I think if I understand correctly its more based on a price to performance issue. He's saying why spend 40k on a golf when a 35k camaro will spank it around a track. I kind of get the argument, as I'm mostly about "cheap speed" myself. I bought a dodge caliber SRT-4 recently as a daily driver and bit of a toy, so obviously I'm in tune to performance per dollar. I could even say that my Caliber has the same power as the Golf R, and with a tune pretty close acceleration numbers (roughly same 1/4 times). But I am under no illusion they're even in the same league of car. My Mustang would out do a stock golf R in the 1/4 mile also (Ran a 13.2 with poor tires *racer excuse*), but lets be real, my Mustang is a 2 door plastic box with a truck engine compared to something like the golf R.
Part of what you're paying for with the VW is simply engineering. Reviewers have been saying it forever, the GTI/R are usually best in class. Resale value is typically high on them (not now due to dieselgate, but it will return I'm sure). If SOLELY basing a cars worth on its straight line performance, sure the Golf R is far from the best out the gate. Same could be said for the lower end 3 series BMWs. But a Golf R is a 4 door hatch, with a great AWD system, that also happens to be pretty darn capable. I'm not sure I'd pay 40k for it, but that seems to be right about the price for a car like that.
The auto vs manual debate seems to be mostly personal preference.
Yes, the auto vs manual is personal. I view the "my DSG is faster" as an anti-enthusiast (again, putting the hot hatch at odds with its goals).
However you are talking about a performance "Golf", that is in essence, "cheap speed". 40K negates the "cheap". $40K speed is a whole different ball-game. When you are talking 40K the list of fast cars jumps... and we start talking V8s, year old Vettes, some M badges/marketing, and even the odd addition from Stuttgart. At that point, the only reason to own the Golf R is if you desperately and nonobjectively want/need to own a Golf (and then why not a cheaper one).
Good point about the "best in class'. And maybe this is my issue with VW as a whole (I am trying to figure it out). "Best in class" when you cost +10/20/30% more than the "other guys" just does not sit right for me. I did not find the base-model GTI all that "class leading". Actually the "cheap" VWs seem like punishment items designed to upsell. Maybe when I compare, I compare across price-range rather than "subcompact/compact/midsize/whatever". Classes are arbitrary. In once instance (due to government regs) you could claim the old Cadillac DTS and Honda Accord in the same "class". Not really. So for me, it is about the pricepoint that Thus VW often gets tossed out of its "advantage" for me Wwhen it can't face-off against cheaper cars to say you are getting more, they why?. Sometimes I have the same argument against Honda. You are offering more, but you are charging more as well. I can see Toyota charging more for the perception tha they last longer but that is definitely NOT the case with VW. So the argument against the FWD hot hatch Ford ST vs GTI is that the GTI is offering more "comfort" for the performance... but at the same time, you are charging more and you then open yourself up to those more "luxury" brands. If you are not cheap speed, and are not luxury, how do you justify the price?
