Topic: Comparison Test: 2016 Subaru WRX STI vs 2016 Volkswagen Golf R

[Hannibalsmith]

...and my wife much prefers the exterior look of the STi.

This admission deserves a  face from you after your defense of preferring to drive a sleeper.  Your wife wants a boy racer!  Look the part for her!

A lot of R owners picked the R because they wanted the DSG (some because it's easier to live with in a busy city, and others for the performance increase).

Can that really be true? I can't imagine there actually being a Golf R owner out there who is proficient at and enjoys driving a manual transmission, yet elects to order the DSG primarily for performance reasons.

The only reason people are ordering a DSG is because a) they find it easier to live with, or b) they don't drive stick.  The fact that it's a great transmission is just a bonus.

If we're talking about some super sportscar that is going to be tracked often and shaving those milliseconds is important....different story.

F my wife.  This is my car.  She made me drive 2 soulless SUV/CUV's for 9 years (Saturn Vue & Hyundai Santa Fe).  I didn't marry my wife for her tastes in cars.  She's got hers now it's my turn.

There are LOADS of R owners who chose the DSG because not only is it faster (proven) but it's believed to be more robust for mods.  Heck a lot of tuners are now offering DSG tunes for the R and other DSG equipped VW/Audi vehicles.  So yes there are those that purchased the DSG simply for the performance benefits.

This thread should end here...

[Fobroader]

...and my wife much prefers the exterior look of the STi.

This admission deserves a  face from you after your defense of preferring to drive a sleeper.  Your wife wants a boy racer!  Look the part for her!

A lot of R owners picked the R because they wanted the DSG (some because it's easier to live with in a busy city, and others for the performance increase).

Can that really be true? I can't imagine there actually being a Golf R owner out there who is proficient at and enjoys driving a manual transmission, yet elects to order the DSG primarily for performance reasons.

The only reason people are ordering a DSG is because a) they find it easier to live with, or b) they don't drive stick.  The fact that it's a great transmission is just a bonus.

If we're talking about some super sportscar that is going to be tracked often and shaving those milliseconds is important....different story.

F my wife.  This is my car.  She made me drive 2 soulless SUV/CUV's for 9 years (Saturn Vue & Hyundai Santa Fe).  I didn't marry my wife for her tastes in cars.  She's got hers now it's my turn.

There are LOADS of R owners who chose the DSG because not only is it faster (proven) but it's believed to be more robust for mods.  Heck a lot of tuners are now offering DSG tunes for the R and other DSG equipped VW/Audi vehicles.  So yes there are those that purchased the DSG simply for the performance benefits.

But I would really like to replace blown clutch over a blown DSG box....WHHHAAAY cheaper.
 
As for that statement.....uhhh...

[micha]

A stock manual R cannot be launched properly, because the electronic closes the throttle to protect the clutch/transmission. Makes me question how strong the clutch is. A stock DSG R is easy to launch properly. Granted, mods can change all of that, but stock the DSG is definitely a valid choice for performance.

[JohnnyMac]

Fair enough.

Then I would submit, respectfully, that within that subset, folks prioritize a) outright performance; or b) refinement and poise.

Unfortunately for Subaru, most folks with $45,000 to spend on a vehicle have some indicium of what ownership will be like beyond the testdrive.

Before the Golf R was released, the GTI vs WRX/STi question was swayed by a consumer's preference for/against AWD.

Now that the playing field is levelled, so to speak, Subaru had better hurry up and make a proper interior.

I don't disagree. In a perfect world the STi would be the faster (think like 350HP), rawer car with better handling while the Golf R would be the all around champion. Subie has dropped the ball, however, as there's no objective reason to select it over the Golf R (for a DD and IMO)

Oh and VW Canada is trying to sell as many as they can at the moment.  I think I've heard the first 700 were presold and they were bringing in over 1,000 for this year.  Meanwhile, I drive by a Subaru dealership daily and they have 3 2015 STi's sitting on their lot for over 6 months. 

Where did you hear that? From what I'm hearing, MY 2016 production for the R for NA stops at the end of November. Makes no sense as people are still ordering cars which will definitely not be built in the next two weeks.

I heard it from the VWVortex forum and from the owner of the dealer here in Fredericton.  I think you may be correct with 2016's stop being produced in November but I wouldn't be too surprised if they continue pumping them out because of the high demand.  I've also heard that VW is increasing all gas model VW's because they can't keep up with demand.

The point I was making is that VW is bringing in a lot more R's than they did in the past (750 total last time it was produced in 2012-13).  I would think there'll be over 1,000 of them for Canada when it's all said and done.  Hell if little old Fredericton VW can get 7 R's for 2016 model year, I'd have to expect some dealers getting many multiples more.

[JohnnyMac]

A stock manual R cannot be launched properly, because the electronic closes the throttle to protect the clutch/transmission. Makes me question how strong the clutch is. A stock DSG R is easy to launch properly. Granted, mods can change all of that, but stock the DSG is definitely a valid choice for performance.

I think I've read that DSG's in the R can withstand upwards of 450 torque, where as the manual is closer to the 400ish. 

Of course you can swap out clutches in the manual and it'll be capable of handling more power, but out of the box the DSG wins for durability and launching capability.

I wanted a manual, I'm not modding my car, and am cheap so didn't want to pay extra for an automatic.  Plus the DSG costs waaay more in maintenance.

[evil_twin]

F my wife.  This is my car.  She made me drive 2 soulless SUV/CUV's for 9 years (Saturn Vue & Hyundai Santa Fe).  I didn't marry my wife for her tastes in cars.  She's got hers now it's my turn.

There are LOADS of R owners who chose the DSG because not only is it faster (proven) but it's believed to be more robust for mods.  Heck a lot of tuners are now offering DSG tunes for the R and other DSG equipped VW/Audi vehicles.  So yes there are those that purchased the DSG simply for the performance benefits.

I was only kidding on the wife part of course.  You should of course drive what you like.   Even if it doesn't stir the loins of your mate.

Regarding the DSG:  I have no doubt the DSG is absolutely a better performance choice AND offers more aftermarket customization.   But I still question whether any of those DSG purchasers are still choosing it first and foremost for those performance reasons and not because they just don't want a stick (lack experience, don't like living with one daily, etc).

I just can't imagine a car enthusiast who likes driving manual cars and is fine with living with one daily deciding: "Gosh I love manuals and VW offers a great 6 speed here, but I just have to buy that DSG so I can tune it and/or shave milliseconds off my shifts".

But maybe I'm out to lunch.   

[Hannibalsmith]

All the comments make it sound like the R is a soft comfort cruiser. Put it in Race and it gets very stiff to the point where I would hate to have to drive it in Race all the time. If the STI is even harder, I wouldn't want to drive one except on track.

Believe it or not, it is even stiffer.  The beauty of the R, as you mention, is that it can be several cars in one.

They really should have offered the R in a brown colour as well  ... then it would be the greatest ever lol

(disclaimer: I like the R)

[micha]

F my wife.  This is my car.  She made me drive 2 soulless SUV/CUV's for 9 years (Saturn Vue & Hyundai Santa Fe).  I didn't marry my wife for her tastes in cars.  She's got hers now it's my turn.

There are LOADS of R owners who chose the DSG because not only is it faster (proven) but it's believed to be more robust for mods.  Heck a lot of tuners are now offering DSG tunes for the R and other DSG equipped VW/Audi vehicles.  So yes there are those that purchased the DSG simply for the performance benefits.

I was only kidding on the wife part of course.  You should of course drive what you like.   Even if it doesn't stir the loins of your mate.

Regarding the DSG:  I have no doubt the DSG is absolutely a better performance choice AND offers more aftermarket customization.   But I still question whether any of those DSG purchasers are still choosing it first and foremost for those performance reasons and not because they just don't want a stick (lack experience, don't like living with one daily, etc).

I just can't imagine a car enthusiast who likes driving manual cars and is fine with living with one daily deciding: "Gosh I love manuals and VW offers a great 6 speed here, but I just have to buy that DSG so I can tune it and/or shave milliseconds off my shifts".

But maybe I'm out to lunch.

From what I've read on VW Vortex there are both.. people who bought the DSG for convenience and people who bought it because they drag/track the car.

A stock manual R cannot be launched properly, because the electronic closes the throttle to protect the clutch/transmission. Makes me question how strong the clutch is. A stock DSG R is easy to launch properly. Granted, mods can change all of that, but stock the DSG is definitely a valid choice for performance.

I think I've read that DSG's in the R can withstand upwards of 450 torque, where as the manual is closer to the 400ish. 

Of course you can swap out clutches in the manual and it'll be capable of handling more power, but out of the box the DSG wins for durability and launching capability.

I wanted a manual, I'm not modding my car, and am cheap so didn't want to pay extra for an automatic.  Plus the DSG costs waaay more in maintenance.

I bought manual as well.. 400ish torque sounds like I can go Stage 1 in spring without worrying about the clutch.. Stage 1 will allow proper launches, remove torque limit in first and second gear and increase power overall.. sounds good to me.

[DriverJeff]

Picture two people. One's a womanizing alcoholic with a gambling problem, the other is an accountant. That's what we have here.

What?!  How DARE you?!   I assure you, I am NO accountant!   




Evil_Twin, wasn't the Golf R Snowman had on order a DSG simply because of its slight edge in performance? 

[evil_twin]

Picture two people. One's a womanizing alcoholic with a gambling problem, the other is an accountant. That's what we have here.

What?!  How DARE you?!   I assure you, I am NO accountant!   




Evil_Twin, wasn't the Golf R Snowman had on order a DSG simply because of its slight edge in performance?

http://www.autos.ca/forum/index.php?topic=92922.msg1105082#msg1105082

IMO you would have to be crazy and stupid to get a Golf R with a DSG.

[chignectohead]

I must be missing something. The Golf is a tiny little thing with no room in the back seat. The Subaru has much more room inside for normal humans, and no B-pillar obstructing the view to the left/behind. I can also get in and out of it much more easily.

And no, I don't need someone quoting manufacturers' dimensions to me - been in both and know which one is bigger, thanks all the same, because it's not close.

But I can see which way the wind is blowing on this forum. Golf R and stellar VW service for the win. Ahem.

As for sales: http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2015/11/canada-sports-car-sales-stats-october-2015-ytd.html#more

Subaru ahead. But STI and Golf R sales nor broken out separately. The gentleman who thinks the WRX has an AWD system even approimating that of the STI has no clue.

[evil_twin]

I must be missing something. The Golf is a tiny little thing with no room in the back seat. The Subaru has much more room inside for normal humans, and no B-pillar obstructing the view to the left/behind. I can also get in and out of it much more easily.

And no. i don't need someone quoting manufacturers' dimensions to me - been in both and know which one is bigger, thanks all the same, because it's not close.

But I can see which way the wind is blowing on this forum. Golf R and stellar VW service for the win. Ahem.

As for sales: http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2015/11/canada-sports-car-sales-stats-october-2015-ytd.html#more

Subaru ahead.

Hahaha.  What? 

FWIW, many have been in both, and you are incorrect:  The passenger volume is definitely close.

[chignectohead]

I must be missing something. The Golf is a tiny little thing with no room in the back seat. The Subaru has much more room inside for normal humans, and no B-pillar obstructing the view to the left/behind. I can also get in and out of it much more easily.

And no. i don't need someone quoting manufacturers' dimensions to me - been in both and know which one is bigger, thanks all the same, because it's not close.

But I can see which way the wind is blowing on this forum. Golf R and stellar VW service for the win. Ahem.

As for sales: http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2015/11/canada-sports-car-sales-stats-october-2015-ytd.html#more

Subaru ahead.

Hahaha.  What? 

FWIW, many have been in both, and you are incorrect:  The passenger volume is definitely close.

And I've been in many as well. And so I feel you're not correct. Go sit in one, then the other one. I can hardly haul myself out of the Golf seat what with the B pillar obstructing my left shoulder. Try putting the three humans that Black had in his STI test in the back seat of a GTI. Good luck.

I refuse to give any credence to people who cannot see with their own eyes a car that's a foot shorter is as big inside. Rubbish.

[rrocket]

.... because there are no online sports gambling sites in Canada.

What a silly thing to say. Of course there are.

[evil_twin]

I must be missing something. The Golf is a tiny little thing with no room in the back seat. The Subaru has much more room inside for normal humans, and no B-pillar obstructing the view to the left/behind. I can also get in and out of it much more easily.

And no. i don't need someone quoting manufacturers' dimensions to me - been in both and know which one is bigger, thanks all the same, because it's not close.

But I can see which way the wind is blowing on this forum. Golf R and stellar VW service for the win. Ahem.

As for sales: http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2015/11/canada-sports-car-sales-stats-october-2015-ytd.html#more

Subaru ahead.

Hahaha.  What? 

FWIW, many have been in both, and you are incorrect:  The passenger volume is definitely close.

And I've been in many as well. And so I feel you're not correct. Go sit in one, then the other one. I can hardly haul myself out of the Golf seat what with the B pillar obstructing my left shoulder. Try putting the three humans that Black had in his STI test in the back seat of a GTI. Good luck.

I refuse to give any credence to people who cannot see with their own eyes a car that's a foot shorter is as big inside. Rubbish.

 

Are you comparing the Golf to your Legacy?  Or the STi?

I know you don't want specs as facts have a way of complicating an erroneous viewpoint, but regardless (courtesy MT's comparo):

                                                                     STI                  Golf R
LENGTH x WIDTH x HEIGHT   180.9 x 70.7 x 58.1 in   168.4 x 70.8 x 56.5 in
HEADROOM, F/R                                  37.2/37.1 in   38.4/38.1 in
LEGROOM, F/R                                        43.3/35.4 in   41.2/35.6 in
SHOULDER ROOM, F/R                          55.6/54.2 in   55.9/53.9 in

So the Golf is 1.6" shorter on the outside, and equivalent or larger in most interior dimensions save for front seat legroom.

Pretty close.

[JacobBlack]

.... because there are no online sports gambling sites in Canada.

What a silly thing to say. Of course there are.

Links in a pm please? Been looking for four years now.

[rrocket]

.... because there are no online sports gambling sites in Canada.

What a silly thing to say. Of course there are.

Links in a pm please? Been looking for four years now.

FFS. Are you kidding me?

This place is such a gambling site they even take prop bets for social events (i.e. Who's the next president going to be or what sex will MovieStar X's baby going to be?)

Sheesh.....PM sent!

[EV-Light]

I find the Golf too generic, borderline boring!...and the WRX too boy-racer like....so I'd buy this:

[Fobroader]

I find the Golf too generic, borderline boring!...and the WRX too boy-racer like....so I'd buy this:

This is going to become the new answer to "what car should I buy??"....I cannot wait to take one of these for a boot, love the looks of the RS.

[Cord]

I must be missing something. The Golf is a tiny little thing with no room in the back seat. The Subaru has much more room inside for normal humans, and no B-pillar obstructing the view to the left/behind. I can also get in and out of it much more easily.

And no. i don't need someone quoting manufacturers' dimensions to me - been in both and know which one is bigger, thanks all the same, because it's not close.

But I can see which way the wind is blowing on this forum. Golf R and stellar VW service for the win. Ahem.

As for sales: http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2015/11/canada-sports-car-sales-stats-october-2015-ytd.html#more

Subaru ahead.

Hahaha.  What? 

FWIW, many have been in both, and you are incorrect:  The passenger volume is definitely close.

And I've been in many as well. And so I feel you're not correct. Go sit in one, then the other one. I can hardly haul myself out of the Golf seat what with the B pillar obstructing my left shoulder. Try putting the three humans that Black had in his STI test in the back seat of a GTI. Good luck.

I refuse to give any credence to people who cannot see with their own eyes a car that's a foot shorter is as big inside. Rubbish.

 

Are you comparing the Golf to your Legacy?  Or the STi?

I know you don't want specs as facts have a way of complicating an erroneous viewpoint, but regardless (courtesy MT's comparo):

                                                                     STI                  Golf R
LENGTH x WIDTH x HEIGHT   180.9 x 70.7 x 58.1 in   168.4 x 70.8 x 56.5 in
HEADROOM, F/R                                  37.2/37.1 in   38.4/38.1 in
LEGROOM, F/R                                        43.3/35.4 in   41.2/35.6 in
SHOULDER ROOM, F/R                          55.6/54.2 in   55.9/53.9 in

So the Golf is 1.6" shorter on the outside, and equivalent or larger in most interior dimensions save for front seat legroom.

Pretty close.

Hmmm, last time I checked, 180.9 - 168.4 = 12.5, not 1.6