Golf VI

[Hugo Boss]

I love it. It has the presence that I know of VW. The front a bit less than the V, but the rear has more, despite the bland rear of the normal VI.

 

[killer450235]

plaid seats?A must have.

 

[TheCracker]

So it looks like they are going with the Monza II rims again?

 

[homeforsummer]

I like it. I think it's just preferable to the MkV, but I still prefer the styling of the MkI and MkII Glad they've lined the grille with a red stripe - I know they did on the MkV but the MkVI has a more similar front end to every other previous generation of Golf - it's still a car in which you can trace elements of the design back to the very first Golf, which is a good thing.

I don't exactly see the point of the Scirocco, it's just basically a slightly more good looking (That is an opinion, so I wouldn't expect everyone to agree here obviously) 3 door Golf.

According to the reviews I've seen most testers say it makes the GTI obsolete unless you genuinely need the extra space of the Golf or prefer the styling. I'm glad they offer both though, I'm sure there are people who do need the extra space, or like the fact that the Golf GTI is an icon. Personally I'd have a Scirocco for the improved handling and better (in my opinion) styling.

I'd be surprised if the new Mk6 GTi had the same rims as the out-going Mk5 GTi. They've always had a new wheel design for each new version of the Golf so far.

The Mk6 isn't really "new" though compared to other generations of the Golf so it doesn't surprise me that they haven't changed the wheels. They suit the car anyway, although not as much as a set of BBS rims do.

 

[FoolKiller]

plaid seats?A must have.

"They've gone plaid!!!"

So, is this a hint from VW that the engine will be able to reach ludicrous speed?

 

[Joey D]

More Golf VI news and rumours.

Rumormill: Volkswagen working on GTI 'Plus', GTD, and R42
VW is going to make the most of its new GTI, with three models joining what has already been a well received hot hatch. A 'GTD' variant using a 2.0-liter common rail diesel will go into production in April 2009, with 170 horses and nearly 260 lb.-ft. moving through either a six-speed manual or VW's DSG gearbox. The GTD will be sold at an €800 premium over its gasoline brother, and will get to 62 mph about a second slower in return for longer hauls between refills.

After that, toward the end of 2009, comes the GTI 'Plus' that will push the car dangerously close to the Audi S3 and may spell the end of the current R32. A 60 hp bump over the standard GTI takes the Plus up to 270. The fun-to-drive factor should be raised with a seven-speed DSG transmission, and handling mastery will come courtesy of a Haldex all-wheel-drive system.

The capstone: to help everyone get over the current and rather underwhelming R32, the hottest hotness is supposed to come in 2010 in the form of an R42. Swapping the current V6 for a 2.5-liter, turbocharged 5-cylinder that it will share with Audi's TT-RS and RS3, the raunchy R is rumored to get a chest-hair-growing 350 hp. If Auto Motor und Sport are to be believed, it will start rolling out of factories in November of 2009 at an undisclosed price.

 

[Philly]

GTI 'Plus': Sounds like what the Edition 30 was in Europe. Sounds like it'll be incredibly fast though. It would be a great drive.

GTD: Seriously? They make a GTI, throw a diesel into in and it accelerates like any other compact on the road? And they call it a "GTI?" I disapprove. That's not a sports car recipe.

R42: Too big of an engine. Sure it would be very fast in a straight line, but how do we know it won't handle like a bowl of porridge?

 

[Joey D]

I'm really curious how the diesel is going to turn out to be honest.

 

[Leonidae]

Please, VW.. make the R42 ASAP. and make it lighter than 1500kg..

 

[homeforsummer]

R42: Too big of an engine. Sure it would be very fast in a straight line, but how do we know it won't handle like a bowl of porridge?

If the R42 is a 2.5 5-cyl (and not a 4.2, as I think you may be assuming from the name) then it's actually smaller than the R32's lump.

 

[Kent]

Some of you guys kill me with this stuff.
The GTI with a diesel. Any one really think that's bad?
If they can sell it... Great. 👍

The heart of a GTI isn't in the engine.

Also, 350hp on 1500kg isn't all that bad last time I checked. Even at 2.5L 1500kg or 3300lbs. was still light enough to make a good sports car. It might not be a lightweight but it could still be well balanced and well built. 3000 to 4000 pounds is still a range many cars can use with great results. I wouldn't be surprised to find out the Imprezas and Lancers are running weights between 3000 and 3500. There is definitely room for a 2.5L engine in a 3300lbs. car creating a relatively well balanced car.

Basically... With 7 speeds on a DSG, AWD, only 3300lbs., and 2.5L up front pushing 350hp, I'd imagine the perfect fit looking like this...

Enough said.
ps. I'd love to see that interior built for Sir Jacky with a little more red and blue.

 

[Philly]

If the R42 is a 2.5 5-cyl (and not a 4.2, as I think you may be assuming from the name) then it's actually smaller than the R32's lump.

That's confusing... That explains why I was so lost.

The GTI with a diesel. Any one really think that's bad?

Nope. A GTI with a diesel would be great, IMO.

The heart of a GTI isn't in the engine.

But performance is. And if they're going to have a GTI-line car that has acceleration numbers on par with regular econoboxes, then there is a problem.

 

[YSSMAN]

But performance is. And if they're going to have a GTI-line car that has acceleration numbers on par with regular econoboxes, then there is a problem.

Eh?

The long and storied history of the GTI has always had it as the underpowered alternative to everything else. Say they shoehorn a 140 BHP TDI engine in there, its still going to hit 60 MPH in less than eight seconds, so you'll be fine. Like Kent pointed out, the GTI has never been about all-out speed, but instead, a tight chassis that is balanced enough to kick back a lot of fun to the driver.

If VW can sell me what will otherwise be a Rabbit TDI with the GTI's suspension bits, I'm all for it. Economical and fun to drive? Hell yes!

 

[Kent]

But performance is. And if they're going to have a GTI-line car that has acceleration numbers on par with regular econoboxes, then there is a problem.

So, let me get this straight...
You have a problem with a GTI built with an engine stressing Economy over performance? That's just silly to me and far from what I think of when I think about my own enthusiasm.
In fact, right now I'd rather have a GTI with an efficient engine than a powerful engine. 👍

The way I see it, I spend more time driving enthusiastically through handling and maneuvers than I do by pushing high revs and peak power.

It boils down to this...
When the car's are equally built in feel (suspension, seats, steering, etc)...
MPG > HP.

Of course, that's just how I see it and I can understand if you're more interested in having GTI's built with only high performance engines. 👍

 

[forza2.0]

GTI 'Plus': Sounds like what the Edition 30 was in Europe. Sounds like it'll be incredibly fast though. It would be a great drive.

Agree

GTD: Seriously? They make a GTI, throw a diesel into in and it accelerates like any other compact on the road? And they call it a "GTI?" I disapprove. That's not a sports car recipe.

This car already exists in europe and it doesnt wear a GTI badge, Its called the GT and will most likely carry on with that name. The 170 GT gives the 2.0T GTI a run for its money in performance.

R42: Too big of an engine. Sure it would be very fast in a straight line, but how do we know it won't handle like a bowl of porridge?

I doubt audi will let VW do this, but we will see. Right now there isnt even a certainty that there will be a RS3, just whispered rumours.

 

[Joey D]

Fear not, the new Golf VI shouldn't be getting fat.

2012 Volkswagen Golf expected to shed pounds

These days, when discussions turn towards the cars we'll be driving a few years from now, efficiency and emissions are two unavoidable topics. Such is the case with the next-next generation of the VW Golf, following the sixth iteration that will hit European dealerships later this year. So, what will the seventh version have in store for us? Smaller engines and a smaller structure. For the last few decades, every succeeding redesign was just a bit bigger and more powerful that its predecessor. Expect that trend to end with the Mk VII Golf. You can bet that diesels will account for a larger percentage of sales too, possibly even in the States.

Just when are we likely to see Golf v7.0? Rumors point to 2012, but VeeDub is keeping quiet. What they do admit to, however, is working on it as you read this.

 

[Philly]

Re: GTD stuff:

I have no problems knowing that my GTI will get smacked around all day but bread and butter sedans at the drag strip. Part of this is because the trip to the quarter mile mark will probably be more enjoyable for me, and that I will be king when the twisties do come. Plus, I'm actually enjoying my car when I'm just driving around. That, and 0-60 in 6.3 seconds isn't anything anybody can complain about.

But when it comes to acceleration, I find that 8.2 seconds to 60 is pretty far outside the realm of sporting. That's the land of your regular base economy hatchback. I have no problem with a GTI-line car having just decent acceleration, but when it can't outrun cars (on a straight) that have no intentions of being fast in any way, then it is questionable if the car can be considered a hot hatch, amazing and fun handling or not. And that's the same engine as the regular Jetta diesel (I would guess?). Maybe it should just be a Golf TDI?

I guess I just feel like a sports car should be able to hold it's own in a straight line. I must say that this is mostly in comparison to gasoline cars. If diesels in general are quite a bit slower than gas cars, and 0-60 in 8.2 is quick, then I definitely don't have any issues with it.

Fear not, the new Golf VI shouldn't be getting fat.

So I've been having this question floating around in my head:

Where does a GTI with more power and less or comparable weight lose a second to 60?

 

[homeforsummer]

But when it comes to acceleration, I find that 8.2 seconds to 60 is pretty far outside the realm of sporting. That's the land of your regular base economy hatchback.

Which "base economy hatchback" are you referring to with a near 8-second 0-60 time? I know it's not exactly supercar territory but 8-seconds is still BMW 320d/Saab 9-3 LPT/any number of regular 2.0l non-turbo ish hatches territory. Not "regular economy" at any rate, and certainly not that I'd call slow. Maybe you're lucky enough to have your view on speed skewed by the cars available to you, but in the UK, a "regular base economy hatchback" does 60 in about 12 seconds...

Not to mention that midrange (which is the actual important measurement of acceleration) on diesels like the powerful VWs will destroy any number of hot hatches.

Where does a GTI with more power and less or comparable weight lose a second to 60?

Gearing, very probably. People forget sometimes that a 0-60 is unrepresentative of actual acceleration when some cars require a change into 3rd at late-50s mph which can add half a second at the least.

 

[MustangSVT]

8.2 seconds to 60 is very respectable. If I was in the market for something like a Golf GTD, mileage would also be more important to me than acceleration. And as they said it's a "GTD", they don't claim it's a "GTI", it's a "GTD".

 

[Philly]

8.2 is what cars like the Astra XR, Toyota Yaris S, Impreza 2.5, Lancer GTS and base Rabbit run. None of these really strike me as a sporting model like the GTD seems like it wants to be. And yes, homeforsummer, I am just comparing this to US cars. I'm sure this car would seem better compared to its peers on the other side of the Atlantic.

My GTI has to hit 3rd gear to get all the way up to 60. And with the DSG gearbox, an extra shift shouldn't really have an effect on acceleration. Nothing more than a tenth or two.

 

[YSSMAN]

Phil, you're missing the point:

The GTI has never been about outright acceleration, but a well-tuned chassis that is good for sporty driving, while still being civil elsewhere. If they want to stick a pretty strong diesel into a Golf with the GTI suspension, it'll sell like hotcakes. I've always preferred models that had the "so-so" engine, but the sporty suspension versus the otherwise "expensive" dedicated sport model. Its just easier to have fun that way.

 

[Keef]

I love this new GTI. It may look just like the Scirocco, but I don't care. The design is so much better. It doesn't look like it weighs 5000 pounds or as tall as a minivan anymore. The more horizontal headlights and grille, the black stuff on the bottom edge of the side sills, and the black rear panel really make the car look way thinner and lighter than it did before. I'm glad to see Volkswagen used that technique again. For years now German cars have been all body color, and they all look huge and heavy. The black stuff is so important.

 

[Heyhuub]

8.2 is what cars like the Astra XR, Toyota Yaris S, Impreza 2.5, Lancer GTS and base Rabbit run. None of these really strike me as a sporting model like the GTD seems like it wants to be. And yes, homeforsummer, I am just comparing this to US cars. I'm sure this car would seem better compared to its peers on the other side of the Atlantic.

My GTI has to hit 3rd gear to get all the way up to 60. And with the DSG gearbox, an extra shift shouldn't really have an effect on acceleration. Nothing more than a tenth or two.

We're talking about 0-100kp/h here, not 60mp/h. Theres a difference, 8.2 0-100 would probably make for around 7.8 0-60 . The MK5 GTI is stated at 7.2 from 0-100kp/h. THe current 170hp GT TDI does 8.2 seconds, that is pretty respectable as this puts it in the same park as allot of high powered hatches, like the Megane 2.0 Turbo, 120i, Astra GTC 1.6 Turbo, C30 2.4i, Grande Punto Abarth and even the Lexus IS250 etc. Not to mention that euro-magazines have reached 0-100 in the mid 7 second range for the current GT TDI

And in terms of everyday like driving/acceleration it probably would give even the GTI a hard time.

 

[Philly]

Re: YSSMAN. Sure, it is plenty of fun to have a car that handles well over having loads of power, but when you have a car that handles well, it just makes it all the more fun to have a little extra power.

Re: Heyhuub. I guess I'm just getting all confused about what the MKV posted 0-60. Road and Track (the figure I'm using) says 6.3 seconds to 60, while the Volkswagen claim is 7.2. And EVO magazine says 6.9. Interesting that there is quite a difference in there, especially with the VW claim being slowest.

 

[forza2.0]

euro figures put the new GTO 0-62 at mid 6 secs.

 

[YSSMAN]

Ding-Dong The Rabbit's Dead

That'd be the 2010 Golf GTI, coming soon to Europe, September for the Americans. Not a whole lot is known other than it appears as though we're getting a name change, again, in the US. Oh, and 207 BHP. Other than that, not much.

 

[Jim Prower]

VW doesn't seem to be very concerned about keeping up with the Jonses (Mazda in particular,) do they? I mean, 200hp was a lot for a hatchback...in the late '90s.

Still, nice looking car, although I'm not too sold on the new corporate "Sirocco" face. In fact, on the Golf, it kinda makes the whole thing look...Impreza-ish.

 

[FoolKiller]

VW doesn't seem to be very concerned about keeping up with the Jonses (Mazda in particular,) do they? I mean, 200hp was a lot for a hatchback...in the late '90s.

You need to give examples, because checking Mazdas from 1995-1999 on Edmunds the only things that could possibly be considered hatchbacks were 95 MX-3 (88hp), 95-97 MX-6 (164hp), and (I don't even think this counts) 95 RX-7 (255hp). And all of those are really coupes, not traditional hatchbacks.

 

[YSSMAN]

I think hes talking about the cheaper and faster MS3 versus that of the GTI. Of course, that ignores what VW has done with the GTI all along; Sell the car for the chassis and overall refinement, not the power.

 

[livemusic]

I like it. Let's hope VW releases this one over here, we never got Mark V. This is what we're stuck with:

I guess you can call it Mark IV/2.