Golf R power delivery

[onpole01]

Hey there guys,

as some of you would know I got revo flashed last week. Jury's out on whether it's there or not and the fuel ratio tune but that's another story

I'm going out to get it 'fixed' on Saturday but I've been trying to monitor more closely the power delivery so that I've got some info to give to George which may help with determining if there is any extra power from the flash.

Basically from what I can gather power begins to kick in at about 2500-2800rpm, then explodes between 3200-5000, can't really tell you what happens after that because I don't want to do 150 in 80 zones :)

so here are a few questions i'd really like answered if anyone can help:

1) should a 'flashed' golf R start to get it's power earlier than what I have stated above?

2) would the above power delivery figures explain why we're all getting beaten by mazdas and others? I had a Toyota starlet have a good go today. Mind you I didn't really try that hard or ad Rob Jai pointed out I didn't use launch control

3) has anyone got a stage 1 flash that can honestly state the power comes on/explodes earlier than my figures above?

4) do the figures above look more like stock power delivery numbers?

There's soooo much power above 3k but I was hoping my flash would give me more earlier and ad stated I'm not 100% sure the flash I had done 'took'

Thanks guys

[random]

I have found all Golfs seem to have that problem (apart from R32), low revs power is average. Most cars seem to start much faster from the red lights (not racing of course). When i got the flash i thought it would improve the low end power, but i don't think that can be fixed...

All my mates have said that from 30-100, the golf would out beat most cars, i reckon the golf r's 5.5 seconds 0-100, there is close to 2 seconds just to get to 30km/h, and 3 secs to get from 30-100.

[_Just]

Well mine is stock. And the 2500rpm - 2800rpm seems about where mine comes on boost too. If I were to ever get anything done, it would purely to have more power on tap as early as possible, as what den525 has just mentioned is pretty accurate. It pulls really well once on song, but you're already at least a bonnet length behind at that stage.

[CJ9999]

I have found all Golfs seem to have that problem (apart from R32), low revs power is average. Most cars seem to start much faster from the red lights (not racing of course). When i got the flash i thought it would improve the low end power, but i don't think that can be fixed...

All my mates have said that from 30-100, the golf would out beat most cars, i reckon the golf r's 5.5 seconds 0-100, there is close to 2 seconds just to get to 30km/h, and 3 secs to get from 30-100.

My own experience supports your comments. My R is the first turbo I've had and the first DSG car. My last car was a naturally aspirated V8 auto (BMW). The Golf (stock) is WAY slower immediately off the mark (not using launch control) - I don't know if its the DSG or the turbo or most likely a combination of both. But it is definitely faster once up and running.

I wouldn't be confident of beating any reasonable performance car for the first few metres off the line (without using LC).

[elisiX]

Read the multiple threads on vwwatercooled on the Golf R vs GTI.

Basically its the older motor in the R (same as S3) which spools later (within the range you specify).

Not uncommon from what i've read multiple times over the years and more specifically with the R.

The newer motor of the GTI doesnt have the same lag as the new R down low.

Again, its from what i've read. Never been in the new R. FWIW, I dont notice any lag in my GTI.

[Bakks]

Sounds like turbo lag. No tune is going to change physics, i.e. the size and weight of the turbo that needs to spool up.

[ozmale]

I also have a toyota Starlet GT turbo (for sale ATM). No car ever made has beaten me to 60kilos. Stock starlets are known for developing full boost before 2000 RPM. That it why they had a low and high boost switch. In the wet a GT starlet in high boost will not even move off the line it just sits wheel spinning. Being beaten by one of them to 60 is no shame.

[RD415]

Having just got out of a MPS6 into a Golf R, I have to say that even my Golf which appears to have a problem with power or lack of, is still much smoother and comes on boost much earlier than the MPS.

My son owns a MPS3 and he drove my Golf R and his first comments were how smooth and how much the Golf better the low down power is over the Mazda. The 80-120 kph acceleration in the Mazda is faster than a Porsche 911 Carrea. Quite an amazing understated car, mind you if you aren't above 3,000 rpm and below 5,000rpm there is no power at all. After 5 years of driving the MPS I don't think I ever hit full throttle or peak revs as there is no point.

It's the 80-120 kph acceleration that just isn't there in the Golf R and I mean it IS NOT THERE, so there is something wrong, but low down torque is far superior to the Mazda MPS. I can't wait to get it checked out as if the low down power can be transmitted to higher rev ranges, I'll have a great car.

[Footguy]

MY understanding is that the Golf R has a K04 turbo (as opposed to the Gti's K03) This is a bigger turbo and thus takes longer to spool up, hence the apparent lag compared to say the GTI.

I'm not 100% sure, but I'd suspect the stg 1 tune will not remove this lag, just increase the boost (power) as it comes on later...

[ozmale]

I obviously bought a car that has golf "R" badges but isnt a golf "R". I would have to disagree with you guys.
the 80-120 is almost instantaneous no lag, and believe me i know what lag is. I have always owned turbo cars. After bluefin installation the power and torque are also perfectly aligned from 2 - 5.5K. it is one of the few turbo cars I have driven that feels like it just has a big motor rather than a turbo.

Chris

[ozmale]

I obviously bought a car that has golf "R" badges but isnt a golf "R". I would have to disagree with you guys.
the 80-120 is almost instantaneous no lag, and believe me i know what lag is. I have always owned turbo cars. After bluefin installation the power and torque are also perfectly aligned from 2 - 5.5K. it is one of the few turbo cars I have driven that feels like it just has a big motor rather than a turbo.

Chris

[onpole01]

HI guys,
*
Thanks for the great responses and info!
*
So it is clear that with the bigger turbo there is more initial lag say against a GTI or a naturally aspirated car-understood and I expected as much. Though coming from a Stage 2 MKV GTI I did not think the difference would 'feel' so big I guess. From memory the power kicked in with the MKV at 1800rpm which probably explains why I notice the lag so much.
*
Someone mentioned that a stage 1 tune will be unlikely to address this issue-would that be address it in any significant way or not address it at all? Meaning all the 'new' power from the flash will be in that 2800rpm range and above?
*
If the answer is that*the flash*'should' be able to increase the power before 2800rpm then based on my figures would it seem that the flash I have had done hasn't taken?
*
Ozmale I'd love to hear from you regarding your flash and where you notice the power coming on and anyone else with a stage 1-Any APR or GIAC stage 1 Rs out there???
*
Final question-would going stage 2 or stage 2 plus (fuel pump, TBE or DP, CAI) give me the power I'm looking for down low or would it just be more power at 2800rpm and above? Even if it is I will still do it as I know the fuel pump makes a huge difference. I'm really only looking at another 20% or so down low and I think the car would be complete-could be dreaming though.
*
Some of you may be asking why? Well for me that's where I really like the power coming on around the 2K mark-don't get me wrong I would not want a GTI after having the R, it is an awesome car, the best I've ever had but as with all modding I'm trying to get that little bit more out of it.
*
Thanks again guys!
*
*
*

[RD415]

I'm not talking about lag - I know what lag is also - not lag just no go as compared to MPS6

Hopefully the 1500 k check will find a tune problem.

I did get under the car to see if it had a rear diff, just to make sure I hadn't bought a std Golf or a GTi with R badges LOL

[onpole01]

Chris I also agree 80-100 is awesome, maybe not so awesome in 6th gear but if ur going through the gears as den525 stated it's the 0-40/60 where I feel a little bit underwhelmed-by the time ur in 3rd or 4th gear the power is insane, out if your seat type stuff. I guess it makes sense if all the power is coming on at 2800 then 80-100 is right in the power range and shod ne pretty ballsy





I obviously bought a car that has golf "R" badges but isnt a golf "R". I would have to disagree with you guys.
the 80-120 is almost instantaneous no lag, and believe me i know what lag is. I have always owned turbo cars. After bluefin installation the power and torque are also perfectly aligned from 2 - 5.5K. it is one of the few turbo cars I have driven that feels like it just has a big motor rather than a turbo.

Chris

[elisiX]

I obviously bought a car that has golf "R" badges but isnt a golf "R". I would have to disagree with you guys.
the 80-120 is almost instantaneous no lag, and believe me i know what lag is. I have always owned turbo cars. After bluefin installation the power and torque are also perfectly aligned from 2 - 5.5K. it is one of the few turbo cars I have driven that feels like it just has a big motor rather than a turbo.

Chris

Mate im not saying there is lag 80-120 - there isnt. It's off the mark and down low that there is lag.

Widely reported and documented.

[onpole01]

Hi RD415,

I'm just curious as to what tuning problem you think they might find?

Thanks mate



I'm not talking about lag - I know what lag is also - not lag just no go as compared to MPS6

Hopefully the 1500 k check will find a tune problem.

I did get under the car to see if it had a rear diff, just to make sure I hadn't bought a std Golf or a GTi with R badges LOL

[ozmale]

Mate im not saying there is lag 80-120 - there isnt. It's off the mark and down low that there is lag.

Widely reported and documented.


Yes I would agree with that.

[Jig]

If your tuner would be so kind enough to remove the revo tune for a while(back to stock) then take your car to get dynoed. Then go back to your tuner and get the car ecu flashed. Then get it dynoed again using the same dyno company. Compare the 2 graphs and see if your car is picking up the tune(power gain) and at which rpm prior to the flash. This is the best way I think to measure before and after.

[Silvrfoxx]

Do tell .. are you happy with the Bluefin and what did you notice the difference between that and stock

[_Just]

If your tuner would be so kind enough to remove the revo tune for a while(back to stock) then take your car to get dynoed. Then go back to your tuner and get the car ecu flashed. Then get it dynoed again using the same dyno company. Compare the 2 graphs and see if your car is picking up the tune(power gain) and at which rpm prior to the flash. This is the best way I think to measure before and after.

^ Most ideal situation. If you're going to be spending that kind of money on a tune, you'd want to know what sort of gains (if any) you've made, rather than simply trusting what the company or website has claimed.

[DeanCorp]

If your tuner would be so kind enough to remove the revo tune for a while(back to stock) then take your car to get dynoed. Then go back to your tuner and get the car ecu flashed. Then get it dynoed again using the same dyno company. Compare the 2 graphs and see if your car is picking up the tune(power gain) and at which rpm prior to the flash. This is the best way I think to measure before and after.


That's all well and good, but most tuning companies CANNOT revert you back to "stock" they can give you a similar tune to a stock map, but often can't completely remove it...

[RD415]

Hi RD415,

I'm just curious as to what tuning problem you think they might find?

Thanks mate

I am hoping it is just a simple timing setting as it doesn't appear to be lacking torque at low RPM, it appears to loose something mid speed/rpm. It feels as if the advance curve is wrong.

[CJ9999]

Mate im not saying there is lag 80-120 - there isnt. It's off the mark and down low that there is lag.

Widely reported and documented.

100% agree with this. My car is relatively slow down low and particularly off the line, but very rapid for say 80-120.

Besides the turbo lag, I also suspect the DSG contributes to the hesitation off the mark.



it doesn't appear to be lacking torque at low RPM, it appears to loose something mid speed/rpm.

That's the opposite of mine.

[RD415]

My real problem is that I am comparing my new Golf R to a Mazda MPS6. If my acceleration in the Golf R from 80-120 is considered normal and you think the Golf R goes well, you had better drive a Mazda MPS - because there is no way my car will keep up with the MPS.

[random]

My real problem is that I am comparing my new Golf R to a Mazda MPS6. If my acceleration in the Golf R from 80-120 is considered normal and you think the Golf R goes well, you had better drive a Mazda MPS - because there is no way my car will keep up with the MPS.

A mate of mine owns a MPS6... and i've driven it quite a few times, and i don't think I can agree with you on that... I don't have the Golf R, but even my pirelli (which uses the same engine and turbo, just no awd) has better acceleration from 60 onwards.

According to fastestlaps.com

Golf R do the 0-40 in 1.4 seconds 0-100 in 5.2 seconds 0-160 12.5 seconds 0-200 22.7 seconds
MPS6 do the 0-100 in 6.1 seconds 0-160 14.6 seconds 0-200 in 25.5

So it takes Golf R 7.2 seconds to get from 100-160 and MPS6 8.5 seconds to get from 100-160.

I think as most have said, the turbo is the major difference, as this is clearly shown comparing the Mkv gti vs mkv gti pirelli. The standard gti has a much better standard start because it takes less time for the turbo to kick in.

[DeanCorp]

Maybe I should send my Pirelli up to Sydney for you guys to drive so you can feel what a real k04 tuned car should drive like!

[Parso]

With the hot climate tune they've retarded timing and dropped boost and reduced timing hurts spool i.e lag or rather more laggier than a normal euro spec version. Like the S3 they are in need of help in stock form. They look the part and have the right hardware mostly but you may need to ditch the FMIC for a proper one and an exhaust is mandatory if only for the dump-pipe. There are many other quicker cars around, ugly ones though.

Re the MPS once you start modifying things the MPS will lose out and with that motor you have to be very careful with the engine internals as they are fairly wound up in stock form. I wont touch them myself they scare me. The R donk on the other hand will cop a hiding and a real mans turbo with ease
M

[technopato]

Not sure if anyone has mentioned this... but generally speaking isnt turbo lag normally alleviated more by allowing it to "breathe" a little better??
I.E. Restrictions of the stock CAT? Maybe fitting a high flow CAT will fix that problem of power down low. Or even a Downpipe which will come with a high flow CAT anyway... or if youre keen and dont mind the noise or legalities too much.. CAT-less DP...

With my own experience of a Mk5 GTi with a stock K03 Turbo running APR Stage 1, was power would kick in around 2500 RPM all the way till 5000RPM, then just sag after that. Sweet spot was around 3500RPM for me.

Soon as i got a DP with high flow CAT (200 Cell), my power/torque curve was way flatter.
I now have power from around 1500RPM all the way to 6000RPM. I love having that nice torque/power curve there, power is practically on tap whenever you need it..

I obviously got the APR Stage 2 Tune but my personal opinion and some of the reading i have done brings me to the conclusion that the Stage 2 Tune only fixes any CEL issues had from the O2 Sensor on the DP.

Personally I still think doing a Stage 1 tune/flash on any Turbo Charged VW is not enough. It needs to be coupled with a high flow CAT at least or a full TBE....

As I said this is all personaly opinion and experience, i am no pro! >D

[ozmale]

Here is another little snippet of information lost in history. Turbo charged aircraft ran boot all the time from just above idle. The engine was basically never in vacuum. The first Saab turbos back in the 80's were the same. Went to about 5lbs boost at 900RPM and increased from there. No turbo lag. I don't know if they still do the same or if they abandoned that design or why.

Chris

[Tim]

If you guys start driving in the right gear perhaps your cars will be more responsive? D for dummy will never get the best out of the car.

[CJ9999]

If you guys start driving in the right gear perhaps your cars will be more responsive? D for dummy will never get the best out of the car.

Foot flat off the line mine feels exactly the same in D, S or manual.

On part throttle there is a big difference (D changes up quickly) but not when flat out.

[Footguy]

There is a similar discussion going on on vwwatercooled...

They are following the line that perhaps this is more about seat of the pants feel rather than true acceleration times.

Since this particular problem is based around feel rather than any hard power or acceleration data, I wonder if its realted to a different seat of the pants feeling (power delivery to the previous Stg 2 MkV

George from VW village reckons a stg2 mk6 (he has one) is quicker than a stg1 R...I can't imagine your previous stg2 Mkv is much slower (if at all) to a current stg2 Mk6. That's a consideration as well.

[DeanCorp]

All guys with a Golf R finding it laggy or unresponsive in sports or drive, come down to Melbourne, PM me for my mobile. I'll take you for a drive and show you how the K04 SHOULD have been made from the factory.

[RD415]

A mate of mine owns a MPS6... and i've driven it quite a few times, and i don't think I can agree with you on that... I don't have the Golf R, but even my pirelli (which uses the same engine and turbo, just no awd) has better acceleration from 60 onwards.

I think the specs of a MPS Mazda should be checked before making any comments - particularly acceleration times 80-120.

Driving a MPS6 takes some getting used to, it's application of power is rather srange. 1st is too low, so it's a waste of effort letting the engine rev out. Even 6th could be higher in the MPS to lower RPM at 100 kph. The 2.3 MPS motor with the same KO4 Turbo as the Golf R does not have any power at high RPM. If you drive the car and rev it out through the gears acceleration times are greatly reduced, if you short shift and change gears at what could be considered as low RPM - betweem 4 & 5,000rpm the thing is a rocket and I would doubt whether any std car can keep up with the MPS. YOU JUST HAVE TO LEARN THE CAR.

That's where my problem lies, on paper the Golf R should go like the MPS, but it doesn't. Yet maybe it does but in a totally different way to the MPS. Less torque, capacity and higher gearing make the Golf different. It is so smooth though that it could just be a false impression, and the higher gearing means changing down to obtain maximum torque.

But there is one thing for sure and that is I cannot overtake in a split second without changing down in the Golf. The MPS - blinker on - foot three parts to floor in 6th gear - blinker on to pull in - back off (look for Police) and in about the time it took to type this.

Golf R has 188kw & 330nm
Golf Pirelli 169kw & 300nm
Mazda MPS 194kw & 380 nm

Figures don't lie no way can either Golf keep up with a MPS

[Tim]

the MPS has a 2.3L engine so its no surprise that its able to spool up quicker and has more torque off boost. As you said drop down a peg and floor it and im sure the Golf R will go pretty hard.

At the end of the day its still only a 2L engine. You cant drive it like a lazy V8 and expect effortless acceleration.

[DeanCorp]

I think the specs of a MPS Mazda should be checked before making any comments - particularly acceleration times 80-120.

Driving a MPS6 takes some getting used to, it's application of power is rather srange. 1st is too low, so it's a waste of effort letting the engine rev out. Even 6th could be higher in the MPS to lower RPM at 100 kph. The 2.3 MPS motor with the same KO4 Turbo as the Golf R does not have any power at high RPM. If you drive the car and rev it out through the gears acceleration times are greatly reduced, if you short shift and change gears at what could be considered as low RPM - betweem 4 & 5,000rpm the thing is a rocket and I would doubt whether any std car can keep up with the MPS. YOU JUST HAVE TO LEARN THE CAR.

That's where my problem lies, on paper the Golf R should go like the MPS, but it doesn't. Yet maybe it does but in a totally different way to the MPS. Less torque, capacity and higher gearing make the Golf different. It is so smooth though that it could just be a false impression, and the higher gearing means changing down to obtain maximum torque.

But there is one thing for sure and that is I cannot overtake in a split second without changing down in the Golf. The MPS - blinker on - foot three parts to floor in 6th gear - blinker on to pull in - back off (look for Police) and in about the time it took to type this.

Golf R has 188kw & 330nm
Golf Pirelli 169kw & 300nm
Mazda MPS 194kw & 380 nm

Figures don't lie no way can either Golf keep up with a MPS

Put me against an MPS any day and I'll prove to you that it can't keep up with me...

[Tim]

Put me against an MPS any day and I'll prove to you that it can't keep up with me...

No matter how quick a car is. There is always someone out there who can put you in your place :D

[DeanCorp]

No matter how quick a car is. There is always someone out there who can put you in your place :D

Like a 2002 A4 with roof racks?

[RD415]

Put me against an MPS any day and I'll prove to you that it can't keep up with me...


Come down to earth please LOL

How on earth can you suggest that a car with the extra Kw and 300 cc and an extra 50nm torque and similar weights with the same KO4 Turbo can't keep up. Golf's are good, mine is good, but not as quick as an MPS.

Golf outhandles an MPS but, Golf's much smoother and from my experience OWNING BOTH the golf has more torque of boost, contrary to popular opinion in this post.

[Big Yellow]

LOL you obviously have no idea. have you seen dean's car go?

[bwen]

MPS3 are pretty fast in stock form, Dean's car would blow the majority of the MPS3's on Australian roads but I think there is one guy in Brisbane that runs a 12.3 which is pretty damn quick, and he's looking to break the 12 sec barrier

[DeanCorp]

MPS3 are pretty fast in stock form, Dean's car would blow the majority of the MPS3's on Australian roads but I think there is one guy in Brisbane that runs a 12.3 which is pretty damn quick, and he's looking to break the 12 sec barrier

Woah whose that?

[Paolo]

RD415 you should probably get your mps back if you cant accept what others are saying

[bwen]

Woah whose that?

I don't know his name but it's a 2XSRacing car, I've just seen it at Willowbank haven't talked to the owner. He used a 28/71r to get 12.3 and he's got a 30/71 bolting on to get into the 11's. Awesome upgrade from the k04 that he (and we) have :D

http://www.atpturbo.com/mm5/graphics/00000001/Catalog%20Images/Vehicle%20Specific/ATP-MS3-005_450-2.jpg

edit: Nizpro (nizpro.com.au) who also work in stage 1,2,3 packages like APR also have a XR5 that gets into the low 12 range, I think 12.4 but 122mph whereas the 2XS MP3 only trapped 112mph.

Come on Dean!! you're representing the quick Australian golfs community for us :D

[technopato]

Never been in Dean's car and don't personally know him other than reading the build thread....
Build thread speaks for itself... Can't imagine a stock mps3 taking it at all..

RD... Read Dean's build thread...

Oh and my own further bit of experience.. Good mate of mine has an mps3 with DP and high flow cat.. Off the mark easily eats my K03 Mk5 Stg2...

But 80-120, no chance at all, but then again I dint have the big brother K04 so spool up is a lot quicker... :-)

Dean, I'm in melbourne 21st feb to 4th march, night take you up on that offer of a drive :-)

[DeanCorp]

Never been in Dean's car and don't personally know him other than reading the build thread....
Build thread speaks for itself... Can't imagine a stock mps3 taking it at all..

RD... Read Dean's build thread...

Oh and my own further bit of experience.. Good mate of mine has an mps3 with DP and high flow cat.. Off the mark easily eats my K03 Mk5 Stg2...

But 80-120, no chance at all, but then again I dint have the big brother K04 so spool up is a lot quicker... :-)

Dean, I'm in melbourne 21st feb to 4th march, night take you up on that offer of a drive :-)

PM sent with my Mobile #

See you soon!

[Parso]

Put me against an MPS any day and I'll prove to you that it can't keep up with me...
I'll bring out my STI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkYEp7WhXc8) and put everyone back in their rightful place :)

They're all different cars and the R is the nicest place to be. I'd really like to see how they go with a GT28 kit proper tune and supporting mods

[Justin Fox]

I've just read the whole thread and I'm reading a whole lot of apples vs oranges with ego crap thrown in. Front wheel drive vs rear wheel drive and Mazda vs vw, what's even worse is reading tuned vs stock!

I've kept my mouth pretty shut in regards to flash tunes. All I know is that with my power fc on my gt-r a tuner can tune it to be a response monster for the circuit OR a peaky drag monster. I've had the car tuned both ways and believe me it was a world of difference.

In regards to driving a DSG in D. It's completely retarded. My lap times were over 3 seconds faster per lap at ec when I shifted up gears earlier in manual mode. Ie: gti has lots of useful lower to mid range power and nothing much at all up the top, much like a Mitsubishi Evo. Personally this is the kind of tune/set-up I most prefer!

[RD415]

I'm talking stock - using figures as quoted - not modified cars - MPS with same mods will have same gains and therefore blow away the Golf - so all your arguments are irrelivant

Paolo - I would have bought a new MPS6 if there was one - probably should not have sold MPS - not a matter of accepting what your saying, but you Golf owners - get real - I have owned a MPS6 for 5 years, bought the Golf R on it's promises, which it hasn't delivered.

Golf owners need to accept the facts - the figures won't allow a Golf to blow away a MPS

Don't get me wrong, I love the Golf R, but it certainly doesn't have that impressive overtaking acceleration.

[RD415]

I've just read the whole thread and I'm reading a whole lot of apples vs oranges with ego crap thrown in. Front wheel drive vs rear wheel drive and Mazda vs vw, what's even worse is reading tuned vs stock!

I've kept my mouth pretty shut in regards to flash tunes. All I know is that with my power fc on my gt-r a tuner can tune it to be a response monster for the circuit OR a peaky drag monster. I've had the car tuned both ways and believe me it was a world of difference.

In regards to driving a DSG in D. It's completely retarded. My lap times were over 3 seconds faster per lap at ec when I shifted up gears earlier in manual mode. Ie: gti has lots of useful lower to mid range power and nothing much at all up the top, much like a Mitsubishi Evo. Personally this is the kind of tune/set-up I most prefer!


Well said - my point exactly

[dev17a]

why there's hardly any discussion about handling and cornering abilities between the cars mentioned?

a fun car should be a car that can corner fast and do sudden corners change fast too, not just fast on the straight :)

I drive my DSG in manual mode 98% of the time since new in Dec10, changing the gears using both paddles and the shift knob (and of course one at a time), and i like it!

In D mode.. i only do it in carparks :p

[RD415]

My Golf R is manual - just don't like the idea of DSG - plus from a mechanics point of view - what a nightmare to repair - not that anything goes wrong, I'm just old fashioned and prefer a conventional manual.

On the point of Handling - I have said quite a few times in these posts that the Golf R is unbelievably better on the twisty bits than the MPS6 - it is just the lack of torque at 100 kph - it's the torque at 100 kph I miss. I have already stated also that the Golf R has better off boost torque. Which Golf owners seem to disagree with, I think my R is better in the low rpm than the MPS.

I just need to learn to drive the Golf and not have the torque of the MPS.

Just a footnote the car prior to the MPS was a VX SS series 2 with engine mods - the stock MPS6 would pull harder at 100kph. Just as an example, in 6th the MPS never slowed with the cruise set at 100kph - the big lazy V8 on certain hills I would have to change back to 5th - the Golf R to 4th to maintain 100kph.

NO MORE TALK OF MPS - TOO MANY GOOD TIMES - GOOD TIMES IN FUTURE IN A GOLF R

[_Just]

Golf R has 188kw & 330nm
Golf Pirelli 169kw & 300nm
Mazda MPS 194kw & 380 nm

Figures don't lie no way can either Golf keep up with a MPS
Golf R's kerb weight is 1476 kgs.
Mazda 6 MPS's kerb weight is 1612 kgs.

[HCGTI]

I'll bring out my STI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkYEp7WhXc8) and put everyone back in their rightful place :)

They're all different cars and the R is the nicest place to be. I'd really like to see how they go with a GT28 kit proper tune and supporting mods

i'll let you know how mine goes when its finally finished :)

[RD415]

Golf R's kerb weight is 1476 kgs.
Mazda 6 MPS's kerb weight is 1612 kgs.

Just another reason why I am disappointed in the Golf R performance

[random]

Golf R has 188kw & 330nm
Golf Pirelli 169kw & 300nm
Mazda MPS 194kw & 380 nm

Figures don't lie no way can either Golf keep up with a MPS

Mazda MPS 6 191kw*

It is 150kg heavier.

The 3 extra kw over the R won't make up for the 150kg extra weight. Hence why the power to weight ratio the R is better.

The R has a faster 0-100 speed.

Figures don't lie. i think you meant MPS won't be able to keep up with the Golf.

As for acceleration it is totally different for different cars, Golf R's torque peaks at 5000rpm, where MPS peaks at 3000rpm.

[DeanCorp]

Please can someone explain how VW came up with the 0-100 figures in a Golf R of 5.5 for DSG. I've spoken to several people and no one has come close to that time using a vbox at stock tune.

[random]

Please can someone explain how VW came up with the 0-100 figures in a Golf R of 5.5 for DSG. I've spoken to several people and no one has come close to that time using a vbox at stock tune.

They probably used the figures from the europe specs? the one with 11 more kw?

A mate of mine managed to do 5.7 for DSG with a driftbox.

[YouSnooze]

Power to weight ratio on a stock R is better than the MPS6 plus another vital factor you should take into account is the gearbox. A DSG R is significantly faster in acceleration tests than a manual. I love manuals but you cannot argue that the super fast robotised DSG is quicker. There is probably less driveline power loss in a R compared to the MPS because ze Germans are clever buggers >D

[random]

Put me against an MPS any day and I'll prove to you that it can't keep up with me...

urban meaning... my cock is bigger than your cock. let's whip it out and compare.

[DeanCorp]

urban meaning... my cock is bigger than your cock. let's wipe it out and compare.

I don't want to wipe mine out :) You can though! I will "whip" it out for you if that's your thing..

[bwen]

There is probably less driveline power loss in a R compared to the MPS because ze Germans are clever buggers >D

With DSG you hold boost much better when changing gears, this applies to other cars with twin clutch gear boxes as you would notice a lot of them are turbocharged also ie. GTR, EVO X etc

[RD415]

Mazda MPS 6 191kw*

It is 150kg heavier.

The 3 extra kw over the R won't make up for the 150kg extra weight. Hence why the power to weight ratio the R is better.

The R has a faster 0-100 speed.

Figures don't lie. i think you meant MPS won't be able to keep up with the Golf.

As for acceleration it is totally different for different cars, Golf R's torque peaks at 5000rpm, where MPS peaks at 3000rpm.

What I want to know is that if the Golf R is so good what's wrong with mine - because there is no way known on earth that it will come within a Bulls ROAR of keeping up with my old MPS6 let alone my sons MPS3.

You got one thing right and that's the peak torque bit, I have been trying and have said that the MPS mid range acceleration is mindblowing.

As a bit of interest the MPS6 officially according to Mazda does 0-100 in 6.6 but a few checks on the internet and stock MPS6's are doing more like 4.8 secs 0-100

All this aside my Golf R won't keep up with stock MPS's 3 or 6 in mid range acceleration 60 - 180 kph but it certainly outhandles the Mazda's. Maybe there is something wrong, and I actually hope there is, because if this is as good as they are everybody's exagerating their performance.

I bought the Golf because it should be comparable if not better than the MPS, but I can prove and quite comfortably say mine is not.

I am talking from my experience driving/owning both - not hearsay or what I have read - this is me driving both cars, giving my feel of the two vehicles, no bullshit or bragging. Very experienced driver of all types of vehicles including racing sports sedans/speedway and Rally.

[YouSnooze]

I'd get some logs done with VCDS (requested vs actual boost to name a couple) or a proper few dyno runs (should cost less than $100) to legitimately rule out some major problems with your car. Could be something simple (I hope) because something does sound 'fishy' with your car. As much as some seem to think that GIAC is the answer to all your worries, it's pointless until you know your true baseline. Keep us in the loop with your investigations.

[RD415]

Thanks heaps - it has got me worried.

Having taught Dyno's for many years to stage 3 apprentices, my car won't ever go near a Dyno unless I am the operator.

[sammy82]

i dont know why you are making the MPS6 seem like the best car, but my stock R32 beats my friends stock MPS6 every time from the lights (and yes he knows how to drive...) and my car keeps pulling away from him even after 120kmh...

[RD415]

i dont know why you are making the MPS6 seem like the best car, but my stock R32 beats my friends stock MPS6 every time from the lights (and yes he knows how to drive...) and my car keeps pulling away from him even after 120kmh...

Not talking about lights
Not making out MPS6 best car
Not bragging about about dragging off some bloke who wasn't trying
Not on an ego trip
We already know the Golf R will beat an MPS off the lights MINE DOES !!!! In fact MY GOLF R out accelerates my son hypertech tuned MPS3 from low speed.
What I am saying is that MY GOLF R note the words MY!!!!!!!!! does not go as well at overtaking as MY !!!! Mazda MPS6 or the other MPS's I followed last weekend from Bathurst to Oberon and back.

This is about MY GOLF R I am not talking about any other Golf R as I have only ever driven MY!!!!! Golf R

[onpole01]

Well I was gonna put this in my car diary but this is where the action is.

So I was right the tune had not taken-it was the Forge DV-error codes came up for George-no boost. Stock Dv put back in. I'm not sure why this didn't turn up in the first attempt but anyways. This is why the tune was done for 99RON at the time as the parameters allowed it as there was no/reduced boost. Ok so i can 'feel' more power now from early 2K but it is not mind blowing. The power really comes on as stated before from 2800 all the way to redline. When you hit the 2800rpm mark you can 'feel' more power. The more you press your foot down the more power there is to be found. I only got to drive about 20kms in traffic so I haven't really been able to pin down all power delivery points. I'd have to say that the difference was still far more noticeable in my GTI for stage 1 but the GTI when compared to the R is very different

I had a long chat with George today about the R vs GTI and the different characteristics of the cars-I mention GTi as that what I had come from. As Rob jai,den525 and many others have said in my car diary and on this thread, the KO4 is a bigger turbo, takes longer to spool up, has more lag and power delivery come on later-I have always known these facts but somehow thought I wold be able to get around it. The reality is I can't. George said what i was after in terms of a tune was like a GTI with AWD lol. The GTI has a smaller turbo, power delivery comes way earlier, weighs less, less lag etc but does not keep developing power like the R does-I know many of you will dispute this last fact but I am led to believe that this is the trade-off for the bigger turbo-more power higher up.

The flash is really good, the R is a fantastic car and I have stage 2 plus plans for the car over the next few years. I do though however have to adjust my frame of reference (GTI) and my my driving style to get the most out of the car.

[onpole01]

and deancorp,

are there any Rs in Sydney with the GIAC-love to do a comparo-we should get all of the tuned Rs together for a comparo-who's up for it?

[onpole01]

hey sorry about the three posts in a row...

can anyone recommend a dyno place that does the rolling dyno-all four wheels and AWD?-I believe this is the most accurate method? Happy to pay proper dollars so that my very first dyno experience doesn't end up on youtube with the engine exploding or the car coming off the dyno smashing into the wall. Preferably north side Sydney but can travel. Time to get some hard data me thinks for future modding reference
thanks guys

[Parso]

Speak to James at North Shore Dyno at Hornsby, they have a Mainline dyno ...(just like us) and of course Mainline themselves at Revesby where all the bigger dyno days have been held

[stephen8512]

summary of thread:

k04 is a bigger turbo than k03, thus more lag

no lag up top. Off the mark and down low there is lag

Acceleration from 80-120 on Golf R wont keep up with an MPS6 according to RD415

In D mode, gears changes quickly, S mode, it holds gears for longer

Golf R's kerb weight is 1476 kgs.
Mazda 6 MPS's kerb weight is 1612 kgs.

RD415 is disappointed with the performance of the Golf R given the above fact

MPS is 150kg heavier

RD415 wants to know whats wrong with his Golf R as he says it wont come within a bulls ROAR of keeping up with his old MPS6 let along his sons MPS3

RD415's Golf R won't keep up with stock MPS's 3 or 6 in mid range acceleration 60 - 180 kph but it certainly outhandles the Mazda's.

Power comes on later from 2800rpm...



LOL....Like, seriously..........isnt this what we all knew about the Golf R to begin with?

RD415, Im just wondering, did you do a test drive of the Golf R before purchasing? Because to me it seems more like an impulse purchase rather than a thought out planned one? Of course I'm wrong because no one would just buy a car without doing their research first but from your responses, it just SEEMS that way seeing as how ur son already has an MPS3 and you had an MPS6, thus u should know the characteristics of these 2 cars quite well.....so why when you already should know this (if you have already done a test with the Golf R) are you bringing this up now? It's just confusing is all. Yes, the topic is about power delivery and Im assuming not many of the VWGolfers here would have driven an MPS6 or owned one, so we cant really do a proper comparison by driving one etc. You said you bought the Golf R on its promises but certainly you must have felt the difference when u did a test drive? Especially seeing as how you've had your MPS6 for 5 years as you say?

As Justin mentioned, its apples and oranges. And realistically, figures like 80-120 etc don't mean anything to me personally. I couldn't personally careless if my car couldn't blow away an MPS. Yes, stock v stock I don't know, maybe it is slower as you claim. But that goes back to my original question…shouldn't you have already felt/known this after a test drive? Personally Im fine with the way I currently overtake others if they are slow as its pretty quick compared to "normal" cars. I don't need the 80-120 to be a certain speed or be done in 1 second or anything. Plus it's not like im racing against anyone on the streets and I really dont care how quick I overtake that old lady driving a Hyundai Getz.

I'm sure you'll be happy with your purchase and coming from a background where you clearly loved your old MPS6, the adjustment in power and power delivery may be different and certainly feel different. However, i'm sure you'll agree that if you give the Golf R a chance, overtime, it will put a grin on your face.

[Paolo]

summary of thread:

k04 is a bigger turbo than k03, thus more lag

no lag up top. Off the mark and down low there is lag

Acceleration from 80-120 on Golf R wont keep up with an MPS6 according to RD415

In D mode, gears changes quickly, S mode, it holds gears for longer

Golf R's kerb weight is 1476 kgs.
Mazda 6 MPS's kerb weight is 1612 kgs.

RD415 is disappointed with the performance of the Golf R given the above fact

MPS is 150kg heavier

RD415 wants to know whats wrong with his Golf R as he says it wont come within a bulls ROAR of keeping up with his old MPS6 let along his sons MPS3

RD415's Golf R won't keep up with stock MPS's 3 or 6 in mid range acceleration 60 - 180 kph but it certainly outhandles the Mazda's.

Power comes on later from 2800rpm...



LOL....Like, seriously..........isnt this what we all knew about the Golf R to begin with?

RD415, Im just wondering, did you do a test drive of the Golf R before purchasing? Because to me it seems more like an impulse purchase rather than a thought out planned one? Of course I'm wrong because no one would just buy a car without doing their research first but from your responses, it just SEEMS that way seeing as how ur son already has an MPS3 and you had an MPS6, thus u should know the characteristics of these 2 cars quite well.....so why when you already should know this (if you have already done a test with the Golf R) are you bringing this up now? It's just confusing is all. Yes, the topic is about power delivery and Im assuming not many of the VWGolfers here would have driven an MPS6 or owned one, so we cant really do a proper comparison by driving one etc. You said you bought the Golf R on its promises but certainly you must have felt the difference when u did a test drive? Especially seeing as how you've had your MPS6 for 5 years as you say?

As Justin mentioned, its apples and oranges. And realistically, figures like 80-120 etc don't mean anything to me personally. I couldn't personally careless if my car couldn't blow away an MPS. Yes, stock v stock I don't know, maybe it is slower as you claim. But that goes back to my original question…shouldn't you have already felt/known this after a test drive? Personally Im fine with the way I currently overtake others if they are slow as its pretty quick compared to "normal" cars. I don't need the 80-120 to be a certain speed or be done in 1 second or anything. Plus it's not like im racing against anyone on the streets and I really dont care how quick I overtake that old lady driving a Hyundai Getz.

I'm sure you'll be happy with your purchase and coming from a background where you clearly loved your old MPS6, the adjustment in power and power delivery may be different and certainly feel different. However, i'm sure you'll agree that if you give the Golf R a chance, overtime, it will put a grin on your face.

word

[_Just]

Please can someone explain how VW came up with the 0-100 figures in a Golf R of 5.5 for DSG. I've spoken to several people and no one has come close to that time using a vbox at stock tune.
Am pretty sure it was Motor or Wheels that managed a 5.27?

[zz2]

My real problem is that I am comparing my new Golf R to a Mazda MPS6. If my acceleration in the Golf R from 80-120 is considered normal and you think the Golf R goes well, you had better drive a Mazda MPS - because there is no way my car will keep up with the MPS.

mate, if i had a dollar for everytime you have said MPS i would be a very rich man

in all honesty why didnt you just keep the MPS?

[RD415]

mate, if i had a dollar for everytime you have said MPS i would be a very rich man

in all honesty why didnt you just keep the MPS?


To answer some of the questions.

a. No I didn't drive the Golf R before purchase - long story - one dealer stuffed me about (West Orange Motors) - bought from another 400 kilometres away ( Moss Vale Auto Group).
b. I bought the Golf R after much research and reading - on paper the R researched better than the MPS
c. It was time for a new car, so after much research it was a toss up between two cars - the Golf R and a BMW135i - the price of the R was the deciding factor.
d. The Golf R already brings a smile to my face - love the sound, handling, feel ,economy.
e. living in the bush the overtaking speeds or time out on the wrong side of the road overtaking are an important issue. I too couldn't care if it doesn't blow away any other cars, I own and drive a 1924 Dodge, love it, counting the blades of grass as you meander through the countryside.


Paola is pretty correct with his summary, he hits the nail on the head. The topic is GOLF R power delivery. Which is my complaint with the Golf R.

[Justin Fox]

i dont know why you are making the MPS6 seem like the best car, but my stock R32 beats my friends stock MPS6 every time from the lights (and yes he knows how to drive...) and my car keeps pulling away from him even after 120kmh...

Racing off the lights? Going over 120km/hr?! Guys I've read heaps of this on the forums lately and it's really getting on my nerves. Street racing is 100% illegal and talking about it on our forum (which is a public forum) does nothing but give us a bad name. Please respect the forum rules. It's all we ask.

[onpole01]

Thanks Parso, nice and close!

Cheers



Speak to James at North Shore Dyno at Hornsby, they have a Mainline dyno ...(just like us) and of course Mainline themselves at Revesby where all the bigger dyno days have been held

[onpole01]

Ok so this thread was created by me in response to a tuning issue, i.e. my tune not taking-I posed the question about power delivery to gauge what other R owners were getting with stock power delivery which would help me understand better if my tune had taken and to also enquire with other flashed R owners if they were able to confirm where the power was coming on.

There's a lot I did know about this car before buying and lot I have learnt since buying-as reading figures and stats on paper is very different from 'feeling' it, driving it in a range of conditions, how it responds in traffic etc etc etc. Additionally, when you enter the world of engine modding particularly with the R, this is a big 'unknown' as it's a very new car and there are only a handful on this forum who have flashed their Rs. There was no thread entitled "characteristics of a tuned Golf R and a detailed summary of power delivery once flashed" anywhere on this forum prior to the car's release. I have driven the car for 16K and I know there is lag and I know it's a bigger turbo etc however the 'unknown' for me is how much if any a stage 1 tune will address that as a common response on this forum to lag issues has been "a stage 1 tune will fix that".

So, I would agree I did know 'some' things about our Rs before purchase but it's not until you own it, drive it and mod it that you really begin to find the true characteristics of the car.

I certainly haven't been talking about street racing either!

[nath_mk6]

Just to throw a small spanner put there. Shouldn't the tubing requirements and characteristics of the R have been known before hand given it's essentially an Audi S3 (AWD and KO4) setup?

[RD415]

RD415's Golf R won't keep up with stock MPS's 3 or 6 in mid range acceleration 60 - 180 kph but it certainly outhandles the Mazda's.

Power comes on later from 2800rpm...

LOL....Like, seriously..........isnt this what we all knew about the Golf R to begin with?

This bit is a bit misleading - the "power comes on later from 2800 rpm ...... " I was talking about the other car (won't mention brand). The way this is quoted it appears to be referring to a Golf R. The Golf R starts to come on sooner with much more torque at lower rpm than the other car. Those who think their Golf R lacks torque at low RPM and have turbo lag should spend some time behind the wheel of that other brand car. The gear ratio's are next to useless on the "other car", 1st is for pulling out stumps LOL. The clutch is so bad many owners of the "other car" are embarrassed to talk about the number of times they stall their cars.

I have spoken to another Golf R driver and I trust his word, and it appears that there is very little, if anything wrong with my Golf R. It just has a different delivery of power that I am not used to, but I will get to enjoy as I learn more about the delivery of power. After 5 years of driving the "other car" I tried to compare and because they are so different in their delivery of power, I should not have been comparing them at all.

Thanks to all who gave constructive comments.

[onpole01]

Different car Nath_mk6

s3 is 199 kw stock for starters and there is no way I would base tuning outcomes from that of a different car just because it had the same engine-there are a lot more factors to consider than just that. An indication yes, fact no. There are threads in this forum that go into extensive detail about the differences between the two cars, they are not the same.

[VAG_newbie]

RD415, I have been reading this thread with interest and I can understand your view, I think it is also exacerbated by the fact that you drive a manual. Many of the responders would not have the same experience as the DSG box would kick down a couple of gears in a similar overtaking situation and so they would not notice any lack of urge. I too have recently bought a manual R, and it has taken some getting used to as for that last few years I have been driving a Liberty GT-B auto, which kicks down a few gears when you floor it, and an N/A Toyota that has very linear power delivery. When I first drove the Golf R to work over a very twisty hilly section of road that I drive regularly, my gear selection was all wrong and I kept being caught out in terms of power. I have started to adjust my driving style to the power deliver of the golf, I have taken to dropping down two cogs whenever I need that injection of pace, and the acceleration is what I expect from a performance car in this class . One of your comments made me realise that part of the challenge of adjusting was that for a turbo car, the Golf R does have good pickup before the turbo has even come on boost, therefore it is very easy to be cruising along at less than 3K RPM (especially in 6th at 100KPH) and be caught out if you need to suddenly have an injection of speed, as the power you expect is just not there at those RPM’s.

I used to own a stock MY05 WRX in the UK and remember the first time I approached a roundabout, I slowed down and then floored it on entry to the roundabout as I thought with the go the car had there was plenty of time for me to pull out, but nothing happened and as I watched a car head towards my driver door at an alarming pace I crapped myself and thought 'My car is going to be wrecked on the first day of ownership' then all of a sudden all hell broke loose as the turbo came on boost and my WRX shot off like rocket. I very quickly adjusted my driving style and rarely got caught out again after that, but it was a mental adjustment that had to be made.

[Ideo]

Different car Nath_mk6

s3 is 199 kw stock for starters and there is no way I would base tuning outcomes from that of a different car just because it had the same engine-there are a lot more factors to consider than just that. An indication yes, fact no. There are threads in this forum that go into extensive detail about the differences between the two cars, they are not the same.

No. Wrong. The S3 in Australia is 188kw as well.

You can base tuning outcomes for a manual as opposed to a manual very accurately as they are very similar engines, with the same power. Just as the 1.4 engine in the A3 is the same as the 1.4 in the Golf. Just as the 2.0t in the Skoda Octavia VRS is the same as a MkV Golf GTI is the same as an Audi A3 2.0t

Platform sharing is great isn't it?

Other markets get the S3 with more power, just as they get the R with more power. Both were detuned for Australia.

[onpole01]

Mmm ok my understanding was the later models came in at 199kw? Any S3 owners out there?

I hear what ur saying though but I still think by the time the power hits the wheels there will be noticeable differences between the cars due to numerous differences in the car. But engine power sure. Can you tell me then wod an after market s3 downpipe fit onto a golf r?

Cheers

[sho]

they are still 188kw according to audi's website
:)

[stephen8512]

Audi S3 = Golf R = 188kw

It wouldnt make sense for them to release a 199kw version here since they released the detuned 188kw version because the issue was weather climate, something audi/vw cant exactly control

[onpole01]

Ok cool I stand corrected:)

[RD415]

RD415, When I first drove the Golf R to work over a very twisty hilly section of road that I drive regularly, my gear selection was all wrong and I kept being caught out in terms of power. I have started to adjust my driving style to the power deliver of the golf, I have taken to dropping down two cogs whenever I need that injection of pace, and the acceleration is what I expect from a performance car in this class . One of your comments made me realise that part of the challenge of adjusting was that for a turbo car, the Golf R does have good pickup before the turbo has even come on boost, therefore it is very easy to be cruising along at less than 3K RPM (especially in 6th at 100KPH) and be caught out if you need to suddenly have an injection of speed, as the power you expect is just not there at those RPM’s.

I very quickly adjusted my driving style and rarely got caught out again after that, but it was a mental adjustment that had to be made.

You are probably spot on with your comments - from the wrap the media has given the Golf R, I expected much more. It is just a matter of learning to drive differently to what I am used to doing.

It's just hard - - seeing that the cars should feel similar according to paper specs, they are worlds apart in reality. I love the Golf in many more ways than the MPS6 - but just have trouble with the lack of 6th gear acceleration for overtaking. The MPS6 is a lazy drivers car - you just don't have to change back. The fact also that at 100kph in the Mazda is just under 3,000 rpm so the turbo is working, 6th in the Golf R at 100kph is much slower rpm and probably virtually no boost.

I was very dissappointed when a certain hill I could easily get up at 100 kph with the cruise on, I just can't do in the Golf R, I have to change back, the speed drops off oh so quickly

[shakespeare]

You are probably spot on with your comments - from the wrap the media has given the Golf R, I expected much more. It is just a matter of learning to drive differently to what I am used to doing.

It's just hard - - seeing that the cars should feel similar according to paper specs, they are worlds apart in reality. I love the Golf in many more ways than the MPS6 - but just have trouble with the lack of 6th gear acceleration for overtaking. The MPS6 is a lazy drivers car - you just don't have to change back. The fact also that at 100kph in the Mazda is just under 3,000 rpm so the turbo is working, 6th in the Golf R at 100kph is much slower rpm and probably virtually no boost.

I was very dissappointed when a certain hill I could easily get up at 100 kph with the cruise on, I just can't do in the Golf R, I have to change back, the speed drops off oh so quickly

Only just picked up this thread as unfortunately work has got in the way of spending time on the net!

Anyway, I too had an MPS6 and migrated to a Golf R however I went DSG unlike RD415. In comparison I did test drive a manual R for a reasonable distance and felt that it required a lot more gear changing than the MPS, there was something about 3rd in the MPS that I have not experienced in too many other manuals - I liken it to Han Solo shouting, "Punch it Chewie!" So for me the manual Golf R felt like too much hard work to get moving, unlike the MPS, however the DSG Golf R is awesome and whilst I had a short period of getting used to it, I'm now fully transitioned and no longer miss the MPS

In saying the DSG has it's down sides, particularly in D but once in manual it is a different beast. My summary is the Golf R's power delivery is different, it takes getting used to but once you do, it brings a smile to your face every time you punch it!

[gh172]

[QUOTE=I liken it to Han Solo shouting, "Punch it Chewie!![/QUOTE]
Love that analogy.

[gh172]

- I liken it to Han Solo shouting, "Punch it Chewie!"
Love that analogy!

[RD415]

Only just picked up this thread as unfortunately work has got in the way of spending time on the net!

Anyway, I too had an MPS6 and migrated to a Golf R however I went DSG unlike RD415. In comparison I did test drive a manual R for a reasonable distance and felt that it required a lot more gear changing than the MPS, there was something about 3rd in the MPS that I have not experienced in too many other manuals - I liken it to Han Solo shouting, "Punch it Chewie!" So for me the manual Golf R felt like too much hard work to get moving, unlike the MPS, however the DSG Golf R is awesome and whilst I had a short period of getting used to it, I'm now fully transitioned and no longer miss the MPS

In saying the DSG has it's down sides, particularly in D but once in manual it is a different beast. My summary is the Golf R's power delivery is different, it takes getting used to but once you do, it brings a smile to your face every time you punch it!

THANKS !!!!
You explained my thoughts on the difference better than I did.

I will be much happier with the car after it is checked out on Wednesday, I do believe, irrespective of the outcome

Love the Han Solo quote

[Ideo]

I'm coming from a K04 engine with cams that give more up high than down low

The R feels like it pulls from about 1000 compared with that.