Golf R aka GTI-R

Discussion in 'Other Vehicles' started by xalfa, Nov 30, 2009.

Tags:
  1. xalfa

    xalfa New Member

    Nov 24, 2009
    85
    0
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
  2. xalfa

    xalfa New Member

    Nov 24, 2009
    85
    0
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
  3. Nathan

    Nathan Founder

    Mar 30, 2009
    25,144
    10,052
    113
    Writer
    Short North
    Ratings:
    +10,069 / 0 / -0
    Interesting review. Seems like the car is capable but lacks soul.
     
  4. xalfa

    xalfa New Member

    Nov 24, 2009
    85
    0
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    Yeah. Soul is important.
     
  5. Minidave

    Minidave Well-Known Member
    Lifetime Supporter

    Dec 22, 2009
    5,559
    4,419
    113
    Male
    Overland Park, Ks
    Ratings:
    +5,003 / 1 / -0
    I've always wondered what the reviewers mean when they say this....

    How would they define "soul" in a car?

    Back in the 80's all the car mags used to say this about Japanese cars, and I understood about bland performance and characterless styling, but in the context of this car - or any new modern car, I don't understand the comment.

    Has anyone driven a modern car lately that didn't handle, go or brake pretty well? So what does it take now for a modern car (not a supercar) to have "soul"?
     
  6. goaljnky

    goaljnky New Member

    Apr 7, 2009
    3,105
    394
    0
    LaLaLand, Left Coast, Overpopulated and Underfunde
    Ratings:
    +394 / 0 / -0
    #6 goaljnky, Jan 5, 2010
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2010
    I have had the opportunity to drive a Pontiac G6 and a yaris lately. I can say that it did not handle, go or brake well. I can also describe soul as something you feel when you get in the car. It is something you know as soon as your butt hits the seat.

    It is similar to walking into an unfamiliar house that is warm and inviting vs. one that is cold and makes you uneasy.
     
  7. Deviant

    Deviant Banned

    Apr 23, 2009
    578
    2
    0
    Student
    Southern IL
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0
    To me, soulless is personified by the Ford Tempo, it was a car and nothing more, although all modern cars have more luxury and performance, it's still not hard to put all of that together in a package that comes off as operating an appliance. Of course even appliances have souls. Operating a normal blender versus a Kitchen Aide with a million and one attachments shows that.
    Maybe even the most bland cars do have souls, but they remind me of Marvin from Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, it's not a very pleasant one to be around.
     
  8. BThayer23

    BThayer23 Well-Known Member

    Jun 12, 2009
    1,315
    154
    63
    Civil Engineer
    Durham, NC
    Ratings:
    +155 / 0 / -0
    I'm gonna have to go back and re-watch "Love the Beast" to pull the exact quote. Jeremy Clarkson had an excellent explanation of why we connect with certain cars. Essentially, it's more of a human quality to have faults, so the cars we connect with the most are the ones we love despite their obvious shortcomings, usually because of some uniqueness that makes them special, like humans.

    Let's say I designed a car unlike anything that had been produced in the last 30 years, gave it a wild color scheme with a nearly infinite number of unique option, and blessed it with a fun-sounding but underpowered little engine, but handicapped it with one of the tiniest motors in a modern car and a subpar fit and finish.

    It could be so much better if you gave it more torque, made it quieter, and made it safer, right? But as soon as you fix all the problems, people say it doesn't have soul. And that's exactly what the first reviews of the R56 said. Same thing happened to several generations of the GTI and the Evo X.

    So if you want a car to have soul, give it a certain uniqueness and an adorable shortcoming. Faultless cars are "inhuman" and soul-less, apparently.
     
  9. Wikedmini

    Wikedmini MINI of the Month - December 2009

    Aug 17, 2009
    304
    13
    0
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0
    golf R or clubman or C30.. .my next car is going to be a tough pick
     
  10. xalfa

    xalfa New Member

    Nov 24, 2009
    85
    0
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    Looks like Evo reviewed the Golf R in their latest issue and like it. A few quotes:


    "the Golf R feels sharper, angrier and a whole lot faster than the current GTI"

    "Whereas the chunky R32 always fell victim to the law of diminishing returns, the Golf R proves that when executed well, more power can equal decisively more performance"

    "The same goes for the chassis. Experience suggests that switching a Golf from front wheel drive to all wheel drive delivers security at the expense of sparkle, yet the Golf R's 4Motion system seems to achieve the opposite. The steering response is cleaner and the general enthusiasm for corners more energetic than than the beautifully polished but overwhelmingly straight laced GTI"

    "All in all then the Golf R is a yet another hugely impressive addition to the hot hatch Premier League........The Golf R has also got terrific pace and tractability, coupled to a memorable effervescent engine and a sport biased chassis that exudes confidence, composure and perhaps most importantly genuine enthusiasm. Golf R - same game, bigger balls."
     
  11. Tüls

    Tüls New Member

    Apr 3, 2009
    438
    12
    0
    The sky
    Ratings:
    +12 / 0 / -0
    I like it!
     
  12. xalfa

    xalfa New Member

    Nov 24, 2009
    85
    0
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    I still hold out hope that it could be a great car. Maybe with a few strategic suspension mods. I'm assuming tuning to 300hp would be quite feasible. Wonder if it will make a North American debut in Detroit...
     
  13. Redbeard

    Redbeard JCW: because fast is fun!
    Supporting Member

    Dec 17, 2009
    1,636
    398
    83
    Glorified spreadsheet jockey.
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +413 / 0 / -0
    Sounds like a helluva ride. I loved my MkV GTI. It had lots of "Soul".

    I have found that until I drive a car for a while I really don't "connect" with it. It's the connection that gives me the feeling of soul. I felt it with my 2001 Mustang GT and with my 2006 GTI. I didn't feel it with either my 2006 350Z or my 2005 Mustang GT. I have high hopes for the Mini though...
     
  14. Ryephile

    Ryephile New Member

    Apr 9, 2009
    299
    122
    0
    Yes!
    Metro Detroit
    Ratings:
    +122 / 0 / -0
    The Golf R should indeed be a long awaited return to hot-hatch-dom for VW. The GTI hasn't been a true hot hatch since the Mk2, and like EVO magazine said, the R32 was always too porky to qualify.

    To quickly address the definition of a cars' "soul", it has absolutely nothing to do with performance metrics, lap times, or dyno plots. Soul is how the car communicates to the driver its intentions, capability, and poise. Soul is how the vehicle engages the driver to enjoy the experience [or not].

    Cars with excellent positive soul include the NA Miata, R50 MINI, E30 BMW, Porsche Cayman, Lotus Elise, and Evo IX. Cars with strong and polarizing soul are very involving but not always well tempered include the 1st gen Viper, C5 Corvette, and most Porsche 911's. Cars with a negative soul are hateful beasts to pilot and push you to get out of the drivers seat include the 1st gen Prius, most Caravan's, most Grand Cherokee's, and the 2nd gen Neon. In all cases, the cars' soul influences the driver to behave or react certain ways. Good soul will work with the driver almost telepathically and harmoniously whereas negative soul will fight the driver and and feel like an opposing magnet to your inputs. Cars that have disconnected or numb inputs generally have little to no soul and are almost always a bore to drive for drivings sake. Shoot for cars with positive soul and your drive will always be a pleasure!

    Cheers,
    Ryan
     
  15. Redbeard

    Redbeard JCW: because fast is fun!
    Supporting Member

    Dec 17, 2009
    1,636
    398
    83
    Glorified spreadsheet jockey.
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +413 / 0 / -0
    See my responses in blue.

    I don't think you can define what a "good" or "bad" soul is. When I see a guy hauling arse in an S197 Mustang on a road course it's a good soul though I'm sure you'd say they have bad soul. It's a matter of how a person connects with thier vehicle. Some work better in general but there is no solid definition. It truly is a subjective measurement.
     
  16. Ryephile

    Ryephile New Member

    Apr 9, 2009
    299
    122
    0
    Yes!
    Metro Detroit
    Ratings:
    +122 / 0 / -0
    #16 Ryephile, Jan 8, 2010
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2010
    How could you be so certain of my opinion of a Saleen Mustang? I did define "good" versus "bad" soul. Good soul cooperates with the driver whereas bad soul fights the driver. I owned a '93 Mustang Cobra a long time ago, while it couldn't hold a candle to any competent sports car on a racetrack, it was very fun to drive. I would definitely say it had good soul, although it's not as strong an influence as other American muscle like the Corvette or Viper from the drivers seat.

    Cars that drive like crap and insist on shoving their bad, corrupt, and/or irrelevant feedback down your limbs are cars with bad soul. Please don't confuse this with cars you don't like due to ignorance or loyalty. In a word, a cars' soul is Feedback. Whether that feedback helps or hurts the driving experience determines its goodness. Derek Bell once called the Porsche 956 (IIRC) the worst car on the planet to drive. It was a struggle behind the wheel, yet it is one of the winningest race cars ever. A fast car isn't always a good drive.
     
  17. Deviant

    Deviant Banned

    Apr 23, 2009
    578
    2
    0
    Student
    Southern IL
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0
    I'm not so sure it's so much about feedback or not. You mention the Grand Cherokee as having bad soul, and as far as vehicles you'd drive to the mall, absolutely, most 4X4s will exhibit this. If you use a truck like a truck though (similar to putting a sports car on a track), you get a better idea. Like the Top Gear Episode where they drove the 4X4s across South America, all those vehicles had soul, not because of what they could or couldn't do, but despite their imperfections.
     
  18. Ryephile

    Ryephile New Member

    Apr 9, 2009
    299
    122
    0
    Yes!
    Metro Detroit
    Ratings:
    +122 / 0 / -0
    Not all 4x4's drive like poo, and not all offer bad feedback. The Grand Cherokee is particularly poor at tracking straight down the road and it's recirculating ball steering offers atrocious feedback and refuses to go where you ask it. The last generation Dodge Dakota 4x4 on the other hand is a fine driving truck, with competent steering feel and confident chassis composure, even through some light twisties.

    A vehicles' soul has little to do with where you drive it, but how it communicates it wants to be driven and how well it executes your inputs. That said, some cars have varying personalities. The R56 MINI handles beautifully on the roadcourse track but on the street it reveals its corrupt steering. It relys on loaded bushings to communicate cleanly through the steering wheel. The R53 provides much clearer steering feedback in all situations due to its slightly different geometry.

    In the end a car only has three major inputs from the driver; steering, brakes, and accelerator. How the car feels with these major inputs critically defines the experience. Mess up one and the driver will walk away frustrated.
     
  19. Redbeard

    Redbeard JCW: because fast is fun!
    Supporting Member

    Dec 17, 2009
    1,636
    398
    83
    Glorified spreadsheet jockey.
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +413 / 0 / -0
    Sorry not a Saleen. An S197 is any 2005+ Mustang. Although some are calling the 2010+ SN10s although that isn't the Ford project designation. My bad there. I am still transitioning to the world of MINI/BMW designations. This is like when we call a 2007+ MINI Cooper S an R56.

    On the note of having a '93 Cobra man am I jealous. Those were the ultimate in the Fox body Mustangs (1979 - 1993 Mustangs). :arf:

    You and I define "soul" differently. The feedback is a part of the car's soul but I don't think there can be an absolute definition. Much like love it's going to mean different things to different people. I think we have to agree to disagree. :cool:

    Why do I think you have a poor opinion of Mustangs? Because you like well refined cars. Relative to the other vehicles you were speaking of they arent. :(

    For the record: Vipers and Corvette aren't american muscle. Dodge Chargers and Challengers are "new" muscle while Gran Torinos, Chevelles ect are good examples of classic muscle. Heavier, larger, american cars with big power are what makes a muscle car. The Mustang and Camaro are pony-cars a "smaller" (all things are relative there :D) muscle car with less weight (again relative to muscle cars).

    BTW, this is the internet and no one should get upset over other's opinions. :Thumbsup:
     
  20. MaxN

    MaxN New Member

    May 14, 2009
    50
    0
    0
    SoCal
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    Interesting !

    I had a Mk1 GTi in the UK and adored it, so much so that I traded it for a Mk2 of the 1.8ltr 16v variety and then later the MkIII VR6.

    With each iteration the steering got number and the weight went up and the under steer got worse. So much so that the VR6 I had would under steer on a dry road at walking pace.

    To me 'soul' is all about the combination of the way that the car/bike/whatever talks to you plus the way that it behaves as you push towards the limit.

    The mk1 GTi was great in both regards, the steering was full of feel, raw undiluted and as you got close to the limit the inside rear wheel would raise, the neural steering would weight up and you would head into controllable understeer, which you dealt with by backing off slightly and the back would come rotate. Dirt easy, really good fun and above all you could feel it all happening.

    The next gen was similar, once you figured out that it had more grip but less 'notice of intent' and the steering was slightly dull.

    The mkIII was rubbish. Well actually it was brilliant at covering ground, fast (VR6), quiet, comfortable and easy to drive. It was just heavy and especially nose heavy. I never got to really understand what it was doing near the limit because it was always a tad random and horribly understeery.

    The MINI is similar in nature to the original Golf, it goes (more or less) where you point it and it tells you all about the road and the grip you have, on the limit it will behave very nicely too. Maybe not as well mannered as the original Golf, but from memory better than the mkII.

    Also mentioned ^^^^^ was the Elise. That thing has soul in bucket fulls, but I think that it may be a 'dark side' car - they are utterly evil when you run out of skill, they seriously do not suffer fools. At. All.

    :)
     

Share This Page