Volkswagen has gone mad.... 400hp Golf
 

An M3 eating Golf, the insanity this thing will be... To bad it's going to be like ~50k

http://www.autoweek.com/article/2014...HINA/140419839

http://www.autoweek.com/galleryimage...how-reveal.jpg

400 with FWD will suck....

Good thing its AWD...that thing is going to be stupidly fast.

I haven't driven a VW AWD before...

But I drove an Audi TT AWD a while back...and if VW uses similar technology, the power delivery will be smooth (though harnessing 220ish HP is easier than 400).

Its does 0-60 in sub 4 and is imited to 178mph but could hit 190 if it was de-limited, this thing is going to be savagely fast

TT shares a lot with the Golf underneath the skin.

Just hope VW at least lets you turn off the Stability control, unlike the rest of the MKVII line of cars :/

Meh still rather drive an M3. Plus the new m3 will be pushing sub 4 seconds 0-60 as well and is coming back with a bigggg upgrade in the tq numbers. se regardless, I don't think the VW would compare in overall.

I am a sucker for hot hatches...I like it.

It looks more R32 than GTI to me.

Hell no, this thing will give you 98% of the performance of an M3, for 20k less. In terms of the quality/price-to-performance ratio this this is INSANE. You'd strictly be paying for pedigree of saying I have an M3

Yes they aren't going compete directly, but you can't argue a 190mph capable 4wd MANUAL hatchback that's gonna be ~50k isn't ridicoulsly enticing for any performance buff

about time they made a hotter Golf R. Would like to see more than 2 liters to get that power though

The new DSG R will be bananas. It probably won't cost too much to get close to 400hp in the base R. This 400 concept thing would probably be north of $40k.

I saw a Audi TT at autocross today, had some of the top times. Those things are nuts, wasn't an S or RS even...

This is interesting, though i think it'll be what the RS3 is going to be...

Respect the car, but I could never pay (estimated) that kind of money for a tarted up Golf (and yes I know it's more than that...I used to own a MKVI GTI and know how different it was from a standard Golf). Still, it's underpinning are an econohatch...I could never get over that hump mentally.

400 crank Allready was basically doable on the current golf r with boltons and a tune.


Not exactly amazing from a factory one off.

You still own an econocar

But it comes in a manual, where as the R.... doesn't

One of my co workers has already decided he's getting one, even if the dealers mark them up 5-10k which they probably will. I wonder if there is any room on the table.. 200 hp per liter is insane!

How do you figure? Is it based off another platform? No. Just because it gets good MPG, doesn't make it an "econocar".

ugh....no. A 911 GT2 RS gets almost ~30mpg, would you consider that an econocar?

The twins (or triplets) are a ground built chassis designed for a sports car. It's about un-econocar as one can get (in regards to platform sharing)

340 whp, heavier than us and almost double the price? hmm... at least its AWD. Seems out of place as a VW to me but I guess a hot hatch with an audi emblem on it doesn't fit either. I think the GTI was a good pricepoint, this seems like a little much.

Mkv r was dsg only, mkvi r (the current one with 2.0t and k04) was available as 6 speed. So was the mkiv r as well

The mpg doesn't but the cheap surfaces do.

Jesus car or not it was developed to slot into the low end of the pricing structure of its market.

This has NOTHING to do with the point I was making. Cheap surfaces aside, it's a purpose built chassis not based on a entry level economy car (I.e. Mazdaspeed 3, Civic Si, Focus RS, VW GTI).

Point I was making is you're too high on the hog on this car.

It's a great car, but it is still a budget (econobox) car.

It isn't Jesus, despite the opinions and attitudes of most of this site.

Our shit does stink.

What the f*ck are you talking about? I never even mentioned the BRZ/FRS in my original post. You quoted me and said I drive an econocar, which had nothing to do with anything. Are you delusional?

I'll never be one to say this car is "Jesus". It has it's flaws. It's sitting at a great price point. Yes there are many other cars that beat it in various categories. So what? That's not what the discussion, or my post was even about.

Finally AWD... They've been doing well in the WRC and their new diffs are pretty advanced. So good on 'em. However, I still think Golfs are ugly so I wouldn't buy one.

Didn't they use or at least start off with a base Impreza chassis?

Wish they'd put that engine in a Scirocco chasis, I love that look.

Running econobox based suspension... WRX/STI is based on the Impreza, and our suspension is heavily based on the WRX/STI

For the mule car I think they did, but we don't share anything with any other Subaru platform. This is both awesome (as noted before that our car is purpose built to be a light weight sports car) and not awesome as in we don't get to just lego swap parts like a Forester/WRX etc.

While our car can get good gas mileage, it is by no means in an economy category like the base models of most cars it's compared to.

I agree with that. The rest of the car is a bit of a hodge podge of OTS parts, but at least it's skeleton was a one off, and no shared sheet metal. That is something I like.

It'll be interesting to see if it ever makes production.

Still waiting on this:
http://www.carsuk.net/wp-content/gal...luesport-1.jpg

And this:
http://www.automotiveaddicts.com/wp-...-concept-1.jpg

Among other things..

You're driving a car built off a shortened econohatch chassis.

True to an extent. Same platform, not the same architecture. Lots of cars are built off an existing platform, but the chasis is considered new because of how much work is engineered to make it work.

I have a mk6 GTI which I like, so I should like this car too -- but I'd much rather drive an M3 versus this.

Weight distribution will be much better, likely steering feel too. CG will be lower. Handling balance, even if both cars understeer, at least with the M3 being RWD, you can balance the car on the power. As discussed, there are a lot of drawbacks to using a tall 60/40 econobox golf platform versus starting with a lower 50/50 3-series chassis.

And engine-wise, I'd rather have an NA V8 vs. big-turbo 4-cyl.

It's a cool concept, but I don't think anyone would seriously take one over an M3 unless you needed the utility of the hatch (or couldn't afford the M3).

http://jalopnik.com/crazy-ass-volksw...1565489854/all

Looks like the crazy germans are actually going to build it. Probably won't come to North America tho.

Everyone was excited about the TT-RS too...and then it cost as much as a Cayman. These types of German cars can't compete with their higher-class brethren; tell me would you want a TT-RS or a Cayman S? Same thing will happen to this Golf.

Pretty cool, but for that kind of money I'm buying a C7 'Vette.

Cool in theory and perfect for fanbois, but even they won't pony up the kind of cash this thing will cost.

Sane people will buy and M3/Cayman or just boost a Golf R up another 100hp.

My thoughts exactly. New vette > stupid fast hatchback. I'd buy it for the wife though if I had the money lol. If the next golf R comes with dsg in the states I may seriously consider replacing the fr-s with it though

Isn't the golf r supposed to base at mid 30k? Start adding options and you're already at 40k. This 400hp version would probably be closer to 45-50k I think.

A base R with no NO DSG, already runs ~34k, add the DSG, 19" wheels and all the extra gismo's and yeah your easily pushing 40k. Your dead on in terms of price for this thing, with all the bells and whistles you'd be look at around ~50k

This thing isn't marketed to sane people lol. Any person who buys this simply wants a 400hp Golf, for the sake of wanting a 400hp Golf.

Like you said any reasonable person would know you could get a used M3 or Cayman for the kinda of money you'd be forking over, and if you really want to get best bang for the buck, I've seen used C6 Z06's running for the LOW LOW 50's to upper 40's