Adrian_Thompson wrote:mazdeuce wrote: So is the internet right when it says the Golf R only comes in leather and the super dope plaid seats are only available in the GTI? That makes me sad.http://www.car-part.com/
There is that, but if I'm just putting plaid where there never was plaid I can just go put plaid in my truck.
Knurled wrote: I'd rather have an S3. Golf R still has lots of wings and spats and fugly wheels.
It does?
Knurled wrote: Golf R still has lots of wings and spats and fugly wheels.
I think the "wing" on my Golf R is the same size as the "wing" on my wife's Mazda5 people mover.
Of course I'm coming from an '04 STi where I spent a lot of time/effort removing the big-ass wing/stickers/scoop to go into "stealth" mode.
Tom_Spangler wrote:Knurled wrote: I'd rather have an S3. Golf R still has lots of wings and spats and fugly wheels.It does?
Based on threads like the new car stuff and others, it's starting to feel like some of the Facebook car groups, where people just say things to be contrarian or honestly aren't paying attention.
Tom_Spangler wrote:Knurled wrote: I'd rather have an S3. Golf R still has lots of wings and spats and fugly wheels.It does?
Okay, that is not what I remember Golf Rs looking like. The last time I saw one, it looked like something out of Import Tuner.
Or maybe I'm desensitized by the outlandish looking cars coming out nowadays Toyota.
Those wheels aren't as fugly as VWAG has been fond of doing, but they do need to be a lot smaller. I'd probably break one or two just driving to work.
Most people have no idea they're even seeing a Golf R. Super understated. I'd almost guess they're trying to capture the grown up slice of the hot hatch segment.
Someone nearby has a Golf R. I'd seen it a couple of times before I knew anything about them. I figured that it would be worth checking out if you could get one for around $27k. I guess I really have lost touch with new vehicle pricing.
Woody wrote: Someone nearby has a Golf R. I'd seen it a couple of times before I knew anything about them. I figured that it would be worth checking out if you could get one for around $27k. I guess I really have lost touch with new vehicle pricing.
Dude a base WRX in 2002 was $27K. The first US STi in 04 was $32K. I'd say yes, you are way out of touch with pricing. $37K 13 years down the line seems right in line to me.
I feel like we should have a Focus ST vs WRX vs Golf GTI discussion lol
also I wonder how a Focus ST with full mounttune kit and quaife lsd would be.
In reply to Woody:
Yes. A top trim Civic sedan, the Touring, with NO other options (and there are still a lot of available options) is $27k. A Golf R is $37k. Maybe apples to oranges, but I think $10k more sounds reasonable for what you get.
In reply to mazdeuce:
I thought the fancy performance Civic from a few years back was in the $40k range. (And it got laughed out of the market because it was way underpowered for a $40k performance car)
slowride wrote: So what is the appeal of the Focus RS over the Mustang GT? AWD?
I have a 14 Mustang GT and i'll comment.
It's not huge, it's awd, some people like turbos, car is more hardcore where the Mustang GT even is track package form is kitted out as Grandpa's car. It's like a rally car or a race car on the street. The Mustang GT is a Mustang.
Knurled wrote: In reply to mazdeuce: I thought the fancy performance Civic from a few years back was in the $40k range. (And it got laughed out of the market because it was way underpowered for a $40k performance car)
I would have dug up numbers on a Civic Si but those aren't being sold yet on the new platform. Another fun build. Chevrolet Sonic RS. I added all of the factory performance stuff, performance tune, lowering springs, side skirts and exhaust, but left off common upgrades like floor mats and the big stereo, and it was $25.5k. The Fiat Abarth which is a much smaller car and might just be a screaming bargain is $22.5k with not a single box checked.
AWD turbo cars are expensive, not just because that have a lot of stuff on them, but because all of these small cars are expensive once you move away from the base base base versions of them.
In reply to mazdeuce:
The Abartg is two sizes smaller. It's a 'Sub B' which is the class below the Fiesta, it's more like the European 'Ka' it should be discussed with the Fiesta ST in this country
In reply to Adrian_Thompson:
In comprison to the Sonic RS.
mazdeuce, you have a CTS-V, right? You know, if you also bought a Sonic RS, you could buy HPTuners and use it on both cars, amortize the expense. Then you can tune to your heart's content on both cars, and you'd also have four credits left over so you can do two other GM cars.
Part of the reason why I'd want a Sonic is so I can pay $100 for two credits and tweak the tune at work. And it'd have to be an RS because it comes with good gearing and not some economy car junk.
Adrian_Thompson wrote: In reply to mazdeuce: The Abartg is two sizes smaller. It's a 'Sub B' which is the class below the Fiesta, it's more like the European 'Ka' it should be discussed with the Fiesta ST in this country
Right, but my point was that $37k for a Golf R makes sense. It's a bigger car and has AWD and a crap ton of power and it's genuinely nice.
As much as I dislike VW, I really think the R is a fantastic car that is under appreciated right now.
Trust me, back when I got the C30 it was that or the MS3, if I didn't work for Ford and want something in the (then) Ford family I would have bought a me IV R32. I still love those cars, hence my great interest in this debate for a potential RS purchase as an only car or keep the C30 and add an older used sports car.
In reply to Adrian_Thompson:
If it were my decision, and I already had a C30, I'd keep the C30 and see how well the RS ages (rusts) before buying a clean used one in 3-4 years.
That whole C30 vs MS3 thing again. C30s have awesome corrosion protection, MS3s are rust nightmares.
kanaric wrote:slowride wrote: So what is the appeal of the Focus RS over the Mustang GT? AWD?I have a 14 Mustang GT and i'll comment. It's not huge, it's awd, some people like turbos, car is more hardcore where the Mustang GT even is track package form is kitted out as Grandpa's car. It's like a rally car or a race car on the street. The Mustang GT is a Mustang.
I think a better comparison would be the Focus ST to Mustang GT and then the Focus RS to the Shelby GT 350/350R. At least as far as production numbers and radical nature compared to the lower models.
In reply to mapper:
The RS gives you low production numbers and radical nature at a price point similar to the GT.
Tom_Spangler wrote:Knurled wrote: I'd rather have an S3. Golf R still has lots of wings and spats and fugly wheels.It does?
Ya isn't that really one of the few complaints about the R..................that it just doesn't look that much different than a regular Golf?
Adjusted for inflation, my Galant VR4 stickered for around $39,000 in 2016 dollars back in 1992. Many of them sat on lots for over a year. Mitsubishi dressed them up with leather interiors for the U.S. market to try to make them more sellable.
I'm curious about the times CD published for all of the cars. The 1/4 mile times look high for AWD cars with those trap speeds. They should be high to mid 12's with a good launch. I'm guessing they are still soft launching AWD's.
Boost_Crazy wrote: Adjusted for inflation, my Galant VR4 stickered for around $39,000 in 2016 dollars back in 1992. Many of them sat on lots for over a year. Mitsubishi dressed them up with leather interiors for the U.S. market to try to make them more sellable. I'm curious about the times CD published for all of the cars. The 1/4 mile times look high for AWD cars with those trap speeds. They should be high to mid 12's with a good launch. I'm guessing they are still soft launching AWD's.
It was a DSG (not a manual), but the guys at APR were apparently able to get a stock Golf R to run 12.8@105.7mph.
https://www.goapr.com/products/ecu_upgrade_20tsi_gen3_mqb_r.html
With just a tune on pump gas it looks like they went 12.0@111mph. Apparently the MK7 R has some pretty solid power potential left in it.
I agree with you, with a solid launch & a 104-105mph trap speed low 13's or high 12's should be in the cards. Your clutch might not be too happy about it though!
Boost_Crazy wrote: I'm curious about the times CD published for all of the cars. The 1/4 mile times look high for AWD cars with those trap speeds. They should be high to mid 12's with a good launch. I'm guessing they are still soft launching AWD's.
IIRC it is their standard test procedure to walk a car out of the hole.
I remember the initial MS3 test where the Mazda engineers told them to just do a clutch dump at X engine speed. They reported the time they got but this was not their official time because it wasn't their standard test.
Knurled wrote: In reply to Adrian_Thompson: If it were my decision, and I already had a C30, I'd keep the C30 and see how well the RS ages (rusts) before buying a clean used one in 3-4 years. That whole C30 vs MS3 thing again. C30s have awesome corrosion protection, MS3s are rust nightmares.
Is that true? I never thought about it before but it makes sense. I've always preferred the C30, and added rust protection would justify the price premium.
You'll need to log in to post.
