2019 Golf R

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted by wemay
CTR has tuning options too. Again, I'd take the Golf R every day of the week but there is no way it beats the CTR in any performance comparison.

Yes, it can beat CTR in wet and snow any day.
 
Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by wemay
CTR has tuning options too. Again, I'd take the Golf R every day of the week but there is no way it beats the CTR in any performance comparison.

Yes, it can beat CTR in wet and snow any day.

wink.gif

Yes, I'll give you that.
 
Originally Posted by wemay
CTR has tuning options too. Again, I'd take the Golf R every day of the week but there is no way it beats the CTR in any performance comparison.


Part of the CTRs numbers are the very sticky summer tires it comes with. 240 treadwear, car and driver worn out the fronts in 9k miles. Golf R comes with more reasonable tires and comfortable suspension stock.

Put sticky tires on a Golf and some more track oriented suspension and you will narrow the gap substantially. Do the tires, suspension, and tune and the CTR is destroyed even if you do similar mods to the honda.

Point is, the Golf is built to be a superior road car, and that is what the vast majority does. Few actually go and track their expensive new cars. Sure, id pay a lot to rent a CTR and hoon it on a track, but no way id prefer owning it 365 days a year as my daily driver over a Golf
R. Do you buy a car for a track day or for every single day?
 
You keep trying to throw in caveats to narrow the performance gap..."well if you switch out the suspension...". The fact remains the same in the performance realm, no competition. And the CTR is not a harsh daily driver either. It isn't as refined as the R but in normal mode, it's even a better drive than a common Civic. The question of which I'd prefer, I've answered with each post in this thread...the GolfR. I cannot see myself driving CTR daily because the looks aren't for me. VW is currently working on a much more contemporary GolfR that's supposed to compete with the CTR, VelosterN, Megane RS Trophy and others at the track. They've said this before but let's see if they mean it this time. We know it's in their powers to do so. (400hp, 2.5T, 5 cylinder. Audi RS3)
 
Originally Posted by dareo

Do you buy a car for a track day or for every single day?


Both; my 535is, M6, Club Sport, Mazdaspeed 3, and M235i were all bought to serve as my DD and as my HPDE car. In fact, a supercharged Elise and a 2013 Boss 302 almost edged out the 2er. If a car isn't track capable right off the showroom floor I simply won't consider it.
As for the CTR? While I would gladly drive it every day, my lightly modified MS3 got the desire to own any more 300 hp FWD hatches out of my system.
 
I've seen a few folks say that the Golf R is "better". I don't think either car is "better". They're just different. The Golf is more expensive, more complex, heavier by over 200 lbs, and less powerful. Its design is also more conservative, which appeals to some, and, naturally, being that it's thousands of dollars more expensive, has some interior materials that are higher quality.

A lot of people have strong opinions about the CTR's styling. Personally I don't find it unattractive, especially considering the performance it's capable of.

When you look at the performance numbers the Honda is capable of laying down, it's amazing what they've been able to achieve with a FWD car. I like that the CTR is lightweight, powerful, and relatively simple in comparison to, say, a Golf R or an STi. It's also likely to be more reliable than either.
 
Originally Posted by john_pifer
I've seen a few folks say that the Golf R is "better". I don't think either car is "better". They're just different. The Golf is more expensive, more complex, heavier by over 200 lbs, and less powerful. Its design is also more conservative, which appeals to some, and, naturally, being that it's thousands of dollars more expensive, has some interior materials that are higher quality.

A lot of people have strong opinions about the CTR's styling. Personally I don't find it unattractive, especially considering the performance it's capable of.

When you look at the performance numbers the Honda is capable of laying down, it's amazing what they've been able to achieve with a FWD car. I like that the CTR is lightweight, powerful, and relatively simple in comparison to, say, a Golf R or an STi. It's also likely to be more reliable than either.

Yeah, those Honda DI engines are really doing good. I mean so good that they have same issues VW had 15 years ago.
 
Originally Posted by john_pifer
The Golf is more expensive, more complex, heavier by over 200 lbs, and less powerful.

When you look at the performance numbers the Honda is capable of laying down, it's amazing what they've been able to achieve with a FWD car. I like that the CTR is lightweight, powerful, and relatively simple in comparison to, say, a Golf R or an STi. It's also likely to be more reliable than either.


What would the CTR weight if it had AWD? 200-300lbs more. If it had AWD it would be awesome. Powerful FWDs are just not that fun long term day in day out. I daily a 274hp/300tq 3100lb GSW FWD, traction is always a problem. As per reliability? I'd put them on equal grounds engine wise and yes that is a diss at Honda turbos.

What would get me in the CTR fan club? A lower price. $30k base price, no production limits or dealer markups and the car makes a strong value proposition. When you pay upper 30s and end up with a front wheel drive 4 cylinder it makes me scratch my head. Yes, what the CTR does with only FWD is impressive, but why spend so much on it? Its a price range that affords a Mustang GT, Camaro SS, high spec Miata, Tesla 3, all kinds of car options. Would i enjoy one track day in a CTR? Sure. But i'd rather take a RWD or AWD to the track again and again.

In 1989 Nissan GTR and pulsar GTiR made AWD the standard. Mitsu Evo, WRX STI as well. So here comes this japanese powerhouse CTR and it shows up without it?! Pass.
 
Originally Posted by john_pifer
I've seen a few folks say that the Golf R is "better". I don't think either car is "better". They're just different. The Golf is more expensive, more complex, heavier by over 200 lbs, and less powerful. Its design is also more conservative, which appeals to some, and, naturally, being that it's thousands of dollars more expensive, has some interior materials that are higher quality.

A lot of people have strong opinions about the CTR's styling. Personally I don't find it unattractive, especially considering the performance it's capable of.

When you look at the performance numbers the Honda is capable of laying down, it's amazing what they've been able to achieve with a FWD car. I like that the CTR is lightweight, powerful, and relatively simple in comparison to, say, a Golf R or an STi. It's also likely to be more reliable than either.


Yeah, as an R owner, I totally agree. Truth be told the GTI Clubsport is probably the better comparison to the Type R. While it's not available in the US, one can get there by bolting on a bigger hair dryer, a tune and some suspension mods. If you're looking for peak FWD performance, those 2 cars would be it.

The R doesn't feel nearly as fast--even when you're going really fast! Even compared to my GTI, it has a more subdued feel when being driven hard. And that's not for everyone either.

There is is one big advantage that the R has though if performance is your thing: headroom. With the Type R, you're really going to be limited as to how much more power you car really add to it and still have it be reasonable to drive. The R (if you have the DSG) can pretty easily achieve 400+ HP/ft-lb of torque with a basic tune and light bolt ons, and the stock internals seem good to 500HP. It's a cast iron block with a sealed deck, so it's going to be able to handle more power with fewer modifications. More importantly though, you'll be able to get that extra power to the ground! A 450 hp Golf R with a TCU tune and Wavetrac differential is probably going to destroy a Type-R in pretty much any situation, simply due to traction.
 
Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by john_pifer
I've seen a few folks say that the Golf R is "better". I don't think either car is "better". They're just different. The Golf is more expensive, more complex, heavier by over 200 lbs, and less powerful. Its design is also more conservative, which appeals to some, and, naturally, being that it's thousands of dollars more expensive, has some interior materials that are higher quality.

A lot of people have strong opinions about the CTR's styling. Personally I don't find it unattractive, especially considering the performance it's capable of.

When you look at the performance numbers the Honda is capable of laying down, it's amazing what they've been able to achieve with a FWD car. I like that the CTR is lightweight, powerful, and relatively simple in comparison to, say, a Golf R or an STi. It's also likely to be more reliable than either.

Yeah, those Honda DI engines are really doing good. I mean so good that they have same issues VW had 15 years ago.


Red hearing. The 2.0T in the CTR doesn't have the issues the 1.5T has had.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by wemay
Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by john_pifer
I've seen a few folks say that the Golf R is "better". I don't think either car is "better". They're just different. The Golf is more expensive, more complex, heavier by over 200 lbs, and less powerful. Its design is also more conservative, which appeals to some, and, naturally, being that it's thousands of dollars more expensive, has some interior materials that are higher quality.

A lot of people have strong opinions about the CTR's styling. Personally I don't find it unattractive, especially considering the performance it's capable of.

When you look at the performance numbers the Honda is capable of laying down, it's amazing what they've been able to achieve with a FWD car. I like that the CTR is lightweight, powerful, and relatively simple in comparison to, say, a Golf R or an STi. It's also likely to be more reliable than either.

Yeah, those Honda DI engines are really doing good. I mean so good that they have same issues VW had 15 years ago.


Red hearing. The 2.0T in the CTR doesn't have the issues the 1.5T has had.

Yeah, I will take VW turbo any day over Honda turbo.
 
Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by wemay
Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by john_pifer
I've seen a few folks say that the Golf R is "better". I don't think either car is "better". They're just different. The Golf is more expensive, more complex, heavier by over 200 lbs, and less powerful. Its design is also more conservative, which appeals to some, and, naturally, being that it's thousands of dollars more expensive, has some interior materials that are higher quality.

A lot of people have strong opinions about the CTR's styling. Personally I don't find it unattractive, especially considering the performance it's capable of.

When you look at the performance numbers the Honda is capable of laying down, it's amazing what they've been able to achieve with a FWD car. I like that the CTR is lightweight, powerful, and relatively simple in comparison to, say, a Golf R or an STi. It's also likely to be more reliable than either.

Yeah, those Honda DI engines are really doing good. I mean so good that they have same issues VW had 15 years ago.


Red hearing. The 2.0T in the CTR doesn't have the issues the 1.5T has had.

Yeah, I will take VW turbo any day over Honda turbo.


Ok, that's different.
I would take the GolfR over the CTR and a Jetta 1.4T over a Civic 1.5T too. But it's a personal preference. I wouldn't mind an Si 6spd though, and i would take an Accord 2.0T over a Passat 2.0T.
 
If I had to choose between the 2 it would still be the R. The sleeper looks, the tuning potential and AWD are exactly my style.

I just can't get over the way the CTR comical looks. Its like its trying too hard. Not my style...at all.
 
Originally Posted by john_pifer
I've seen a few folks say that the Golf R is "better". I don't think either car is "better". They're just different. The Golf is more expensive, more complex, heavier by over 200 lbs, and less powerful. Its design is also more conservative, which appeals to some, and, naturally, being that it's thousands of dollars more expensive, has some interior materials that are higher quality.



The interior of a low end Golf is actually superior to a Civic in both interior and platform. It also is lucky to start out on a superior generic platform(MQB) VW uses across many products from lowly Golf to the Audi Q7 SUV. I think both those attributes lead to a more comfortable everyday car. At its base level it starts better.

Civic R is an incredible car but lower budget platform and Honda is not as interior focused as they don't have a luxury arm really. Honda is also a smaller maker then VW so economies of scale don't apply as well.
 
Originally Posted by madRiver
Originally Posted by john_pifer
I've seen a few folks say that the Golf R is "better". I don't think either car is "better". They're just different. The Golf is more expensive, more complex, heavier by over 200 lbs, and less powerful. Its design is also more conservative, which appeals to some, and, naturally, being that it's thousands of dollars more expensive, has some interior materials that are higher quality.



The interior of a low end Golf is actually superior to a Civic in both interior and platform. It also is lucky to start out on a superior generic platform(MQB) VW uses across many products from lowly Golf to the Audi Q7 SUV. I think both those attributes lead to a more comfortable everyday car. At its base level it starts better.

Civic R is an incredible car but lower budget platform and Honda is not as interior focused as they don't have a luxury arm really. Honda is also a smaller maker then VW so economies of scale don't apply as well.

NO! NO!
 
Originally Posted by edyvw

NO! NO!

Really useful.

FWD, transverse cars are MQB
FWD/AWD longitudinal cars are MLB.

Golf through Atlas are MQB. The A3 and TT are also on this platform.

A4 through Q8 are MLB. To my knowledge the only VW on this platform is the 2018+ Touareg.
 
Tiguan and Atlas use the MQB platform along with tons of front wheel drives world wide. MQB is super light and stiff. The Golf sportwagen 5 speed fwd lost over 200lbs compared to the previous Jetta Sportwagen platform. MLB is the longitudinal flavor of this design language.
 
Originally Posted by rooflessVW
Originally Posted by edyvw

NO! NO!

Really useful.

FWD, transverse cars are MQB
FWD/AWD longitudinal cars are MLB.

Golf through Atlas are MQB. The A3 and TT are also on this platform.

A4 through Q8 are MLB. To my knowledge the only VW on this platform is the 2018+ Touareg.

How many times we digested this?
 
Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by rooflessVW
Originally Posted by edyvw

NO! NO!

Really useful.

FWD, transverse cars are MQB
FWD/AWD longitudinal cars are MLB.

Golf through Atlas are MQB. The A3 and TT are also on this platform.

A4 through Q8 are MLB. To my knowledge the only VW on this platform is the 2018+ Touareg.

How many times we digested this?

Does it really matter?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top