VW's Latest R Ad - You can't fake fast....

[XZT123]

I am pretty sure they were aiming the R at the over 35 year olds who enjoy driving stick shift cars (prefer it over DSG or other autotragic cars). And I'd say they nailed it perfectly!

I, like many others, refused to even consider the 2008 R32 since it was not available in a Manual transmission and I believe sales were not as good compared to the 2004 R32 because of it IIRC. (someone might have the actual statistics but I remember seeing them sit around dealerships a lot longer than the 2004 r32 much sooner!)

Bottom line is I could care less that the DSG wasn't an option for this R because I wouldnt' have considered it anyway!

Age really has nothing to do with DSG / Manual. I'm 27, when my dad heard I was getting a manual he asked me why I was getting old technology. Now my new GTI is DSG. The threads concerning DSG / Manual voting for age showed a pretty good mix.

Bottom line.. is the 4 door golf R is close to $37,000 and that's getting really high. A DSG version could easily cost nearly 40k. You give someone the option of DSG, and naturally they want it. Then they start looking at other cars in the same price range which might be better. VW has been cutting costs in manufacturing of the new Golfs roofs, switching turbos, and I'm sure others could name many things. The manual only option in the U.S. is probably just to keep the max price down.

Give me a 4-dr DSG, Golf R for under 35k, and I probably would have been sold.

 

[chris101]

The ad, in my opinion, also appeals to the older enthusiasts that would be embarassed to drive in "the other" car portrayed.

^ yes, along with the subtleties of the golf R compared to a regular Golf (the fact that most of the over 35 crowd do not have that 'hey look at me' desire that the typical 20something does!

 

[chris101]

Age really has nothing to do with DSG / Manual.

To some extent perhaps but in the grand scheme of things, I'd say very much so.

My viewpoint is from the 35 and older aspect obviously (lol)... But my observations are as follows:

a) Many more kids today often don't even want to learn to drive and those who do, don't want to deal with a 'stick shift' and find it antiquated and dated.

b) then there is pure laziness of not wanting to be that engaged with the car or having the desire to even learn a manual transmission. (I have literally been told by several 16 to 19 year olds that learning manual transmission is 'too much work' and not worth the effort when they can go just as fast or faster letting the car shift for them.)

c) There are still enough of the 'old skool' folks out there who consider automatic for the grandparents car or what you are forced to drive when you have health issues like a bad back.


My dad has a bad back and is 72 years old. While he still sometimes drives one of my stick shift cars, I can see the pain in his face as he shifts but he has accepted automatic as part of his age and deals with it which I will do some day as well I suspect.




My bigger concern is manual transmission dying off and not even being produced any more. That would be tragic IMHO!





..and then there is this:

Can you 'push start' a DSG?


..and then the reality:


How many problems are there with Tiptronic Audi transmisisons vs. issues with traditional manual transmissions?


I'd say the verdict is still out on DSG and its longevity and upkeep cost to be perfectly honest!


I like being more engaged with the car thanks! I guess perhaps that makes me part of a small crowd now?

 

[Halvie]

pretty lame ad considering how slow the R is stock

 

[XZT123]

I agree with you on a lot of points. I feel that most people should learn how to drive a manual transmission. It is really a great skill to have. I do enjoy driving a manual a lot too. I was 23 when I got my Civic Si with a manual, and I wanted a manual for a while. I thought any real "sports" car needs to have a manual and that I need to know how to drive one. Versus a traditional auto, I'd still agree, but the DSG really changed my mind technology wise on having to have a manual. For me, my wife wanted to be able to drive it and didn't want to drive a stick.

I think the arguments over DSG / Manual are sorta pointless. No crowd is better than the other, they both are fun in different ways. Being able to point and shoot gears in a manual and heel toe a corner is fun, etc. Paddle shifting with perfect shifts, perfect rev matching, launch control, etc. can also be a lot of fun.

As far as longevity, the DSG is definitely a bit more complicated with the possibility of something breaking perhaps. But at least I can go K04 and not need a new clutch ;-). I'm at least 1 ahead out of the gate if you upgrade your power any.

But, the real question was, why it wasn't available for the Golf R? I just wasn't buying target age of the customer as the reason. I wouldn't imagine that would change between Europe and the U.S. much either. To me it is more of the cost in U.S. dollars of the Golf R and VW's image here. People already think you are crazy spending 25-31k on a "hatchback" 35-37k is insane to most people who don't know better. Close to 40k would really be pushing it!

 

[chris101]

pretty lame ad considering how slow the R is stock

okay?

slow compared to what exactly? A Boss 302 mustang? Of course it is slower but that is a completely different market IMHO.


The R is faster than the GTI or GLI stock for stock so I wonder what you are basing this comparison for?


Anyone else find it funny that all of a sudden a 250hp car is 'slow'? I guess that makes my 110hp Miata even more pathetic if looking at pure hp numbers?


For me the R has plenty of 'umph' to get out of its own way and around slower traffic. I don't need a 400hp Mustang to enjoy my daily commute thanks

 

[Halvie]

okay?

slow compared to what exactly? A Boss 302 mustang? Of course it is slower but that is a completely different market IMHO.


The R is faster than the GTI or GLI stock for stock so I wonder what you are basing this comparison for?


Anyone else find it funny that all of a sudden a 250hp car is 'slow'? I guess that makes my 110hp Miata even more pathetic if looking at pure hp numbers?


For me the R has plenty of 'umph' to get out of its own way and around slower traffic. I don't need a 400hp Mustang to enjoy my daily commute thanks

the other cars in its price range. Under 100 trap for close to 40k is not faking the fast...sure thing

well when you can get a 2013 gt500 for what it costs...yeah 250hp isn't shit anymore. Is this news to anyone?

 

[chris101]

But, the real question was, why it wasn't available for the Golf R? I just wasn't buying target age of the customer as the reason. I wouldn't imagine that would change between Europe and the U.S. much either. To me it is more of the cost in U.S. dollars of the Golf R and VW's image here. People already think you are crazy spending 25-31k on a "hatchback" 35-37k is insane to most people who don't know better. Close to 40k would really be pushing it!

If the Golf R was priced closer to 40k as a manual, I probably wouldn't be in one now to be perfectly honest and would look more towards something like a TTRS instead if I was going to spend more money anyway.

Realistically, I'd probably still be driving my 2010 TDI Golf 6spd manual if the R was $40k but I can also tell you that I was unhappy with the shift issues in the DSG TDI (not sure if the same issues are present in the GTI since I had no interest in the GTI to be perfectly honest).

 

[StayStetti]

Recent ad campaign:

 

[chris101]

the other cars in its price range. Under 100 trap for close to 40k is not faking the fast...sure thing

well when you can get a 2013 gt500 for what it costs...yeah 250hp isn't shit anymore. Is this news to anyone?

You own a GTI, right? Why did you get that instead of a Mustang GT that clearly has much more hp? (see where I am going here?)


I actually drove the Boss 302 and contemplated buying it instead of the R to be perfectly honest but in the end, the R was simply more practical for my needs especially since I already have other 'toys' for track and weekend fun time. It made no sense to me ultimately to buy yet another 'not ideal winter' vehicle to add to the existing summer only collection.


Bottom line is I didn't look at the R and say, oh, it is shit on hp compared to the Mustang because to me they are totally different niche cars. I enjoy the 'package' deal in the R vs. the more limited use of the Mustang was the final deciding factor for me.

 

[Halvie]

You own a GTI, right? Why did you get that instead of a Mustang GT that clearly has much more hp? (see where I am going here?)


I actually drove the Boss 302 and contemplated buying it instead of the R to be perfectly honest but in the end, the R was simply more practical for my needs especially since I already have other 'toys' for track and weekend fun time. It made no sense to me ultimately to buy yet another 'not ideal winter' vehicle to add to the existing summer only collection.


Bottom line is I didn't look at the R and say, oh, it is shit on hp compared to the Mustang because to me they are totally different niche cars. I enjoy the 'package' deal in the R vs. the more limited use of the Mustang was the final deciding factor for me.

Sadly I do own a gti. I didn't get a mustang gt because the new ones weren't out when I bought my car.

I get the package deal argument, however that has nothing to do with VW trying to brag about the cars power. It isn't anything special stock. Original gti was faster than that gen's mustang gt camero ss, right? Kinda silly to say power isn't relevant now when it loses that argument, but brought up back then to say how great the car was.

 

[chris101]

hmmm..




1983 VW GTI = Horsepower, SAE net, 90 @ 5500 rpm. Maximum torque, SAE net, 100 ft.lbs @ 3000rpm.

1983 Ford GT = V8 GT 175 HP @ 4200 RPM 245 ft/lb @ 2400 RPM.


so even back then the Mustang had way more HP and the 'R didn't exist back then.. lol

 

[Halvie]

hmmm..




1983 VW GTI = Horsepower, SAE net, 90 @ 5500 rpm. Maximum torque, SAE net, 100 ft.lbs @ 3000rpm.

1983 Ford GT = V8 GT 175 HP @ 4200 RPM 245 ft/lb @ 2400 RPM.


so even back then the Mustang had way more HP and the 'R didn't exist back then.. lol

...mind pointing out to where I said hp...whatever think your car is fast stock.

*seems it was faster than the regular mustangs not the gt.

 

[chris101]

lol.. I don't need drag race fast thanks....

I also never once said my R is a fast car Fast is relative.. it is fast enough for me and that is what matters most in the end.

I am very happy with my R purchase just like I was happy with my measly 140hp TDI 2010 Golf before it and my 2004 R32 before that...

I also don't go around talking about my R being a fast car.. just not the reason I bought it and not a car I brag about regardless (remember, I enjoy the subtle factor it has)

The R, being AWD and 258 hp is still faster than a lot of stuff out there though comparing stock for stock and I'm pretty sure that is more about the target of the ad.

How many 'winged' honda ricer cars are out there with zero power but they have that 'look' of being fast with the front and rear spoilers/wings? <-- That is where the 'fast' in the ad is coming from IMHO.

 

[chris101]

..

*seems it was faster than the regular mustangs not the gt.

Everyone knows the 4cyl (non turbo) Mustangs and 6cyl mustangs were a joke on power.. but the stock rabbit was probably still slower in comparison (dunno and honestly don't really care)

What is funny is I've wanted to love the mustang for years... I keep going back to test driving one to see if it is finally the time for me to buy one... Heck, before I bought my R32 in 2004 I test drove both the Mustang GT and the Mini Cooper S Works to see if either of them was more appealing but they were not.