Most liked posts in thread: Golf R aka GTI-R

Interesting review. Seems like the car is capable but lacks soul.

 

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"?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

golf R or clubman or C30.. .my next car is going to be a tough pick

 

I like it!

 

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...

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

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 ) 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.

 

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.

 

--->Redbeard: It's cool, we all have our own reasons, I was just trying to shed some light on what I thought made good sense. :blush2: I always forget that the 'Vette and Viper are actually "sports cars". To me they're still Muscle since they're such brutes compared to a european or japanese sports car. Forgive me for that!

Very nice addition to the thread MaxN! That's excellent to hear your feedback on having the first three generations of the GTi/GTI [not sure when they went to a capital "I"]. Your experience sounds very familiar. Auto makers seem to totally forget what makes the original so good as they get misguided into adding things that dillute the experience but improve their JD Powers survey results. The current MkVI Golf's are still excellent cars but in a very different way from the earlier generations. They seem to be closer to Grand Touring cars [quiet, comfy, cover ground well, sporty enough without being too obtrusive or rough], and for that they excel immensely. I do wish VW offered something closer to the original Mk I GTi, however I can say the same thing for BMW's E30, and Mazda's NA Miata. This is why the MINI became so groundbreaking when it came out in '02, it came real close to being what the Mk I GTi used to be in a modern [albiet retro styled] wrapper.

You mention to Elise; it really does ooze character and soul, not only from the outside but from behind the wheel too. Perhaps surprising to some is that it's driving dynamics don't have a nasty dark side [the Viper gets very high praise for that IMO]. The Elise communicates its limit nicely, as long as you're a good driver it's second nature to work with the car to get it to adjust how you want. That said, you did hit the nail on the head; the car doesn't suffer fools. Do something real stupid at the limit and it'll make you look exactly that way.