2016 Golf R Vs 2016 Focus RS

[XGC75]

I also really wish I wasn't the only person bummed by the stamped steel subframe lol

What's the alternative? I mean, it's a subframe, low in the car. It's not like a stamped steel roof or something :lol: But maybe I'm missing something.

 

[Halvie]

What's the alternative? I mean, it's a subframe, low in the car. It's not like a stamped steel roof or something :lol: But maybe I'm missing something.

To have kept the lighter aluminum one that we have now?

It's just another example of them cheapening the car. Ridiculous nav, those yummy taillights, worse plastics in the rear of the car, no dual port injection, no 3-door, and no sliding mirrors.

Probably held over disappointment from when all the "light weight" talk was going on.

We focused on weight by being cheap and using heavier materials. Really?

Not like it is going to matter in the long run (well it will surely rust easier than the aluminum one here ). Just seems like an awful lot of compromises for an expensive golf.

 

[vwgti2.0t]

Wow, seeing striaght comparison interior pictures makes me heavily rethink the RS. Not to be a dash stroker, but you spend 100% of your time driving a car on the INSIDE. That RS interior (and dare I say exterior as well) looks like complete shit.

Drivetrain is on point though. But besides the torque vectoring AWD, I find it no better than the R.

 

[toxicfusion]

I dont think interior is THAT bad. Compared to the WRX or the evo... But, the VW may have better look or maybe better materials -- all to be known after being in the car

Only if Ford brought the new mustang interior into this car.. sweet!

 

[vwgti2.0t]

I dont think interior is THAT bad. Compared to the WRX or the evo... But, the VW may have better look or maybe better materials -- all to be known after being in the car

Only if Ford brought the new mustang interior into this car.. sweet!

The new WRX is a major step up inside compared to the last one, for sure. It's actually quite liveable. The evo sucks. The RS looks like they took everything from a regular focus and added recaros.

I've been in the MK7 R at the Detoit auto show and it was VERY nice. The nav was small, and the wheel isn't as good as the MK6, but the rest is very very nice.

I mean, hell...even look at the shift boot in the RS. They really couldn't have made one that fit correctly and didn't have extra wrinkles and material everywhere?

I was really on board with the RS, but the more I look at it the more I hate it. I actually went to the Auto Show to check out new cars for whatever I get next. I was dead set on a new mustang...yea, fuck that. HUGE. Interior isn't any better than the last model. The hood has to be 7 feet long. The only other thing that interested me there was the R, and I was dead set on never owning a new VW ever again..

 

[XGC75]

To have kept the lighter aluminum one that we have now?

It's just another example of them cheapening the car. Ridiculous nav, those yummy taillights, worse plastics in the rear of the car, no dual port injection, no 3-door, and no sliding mirrors.

Probably held over disappointment from when all the "light weight" talk was going on.

We focused on weight by being cheap and using heavier materials. Really?

Not like it is going to matter in the long run (well it will surely rust easier than the aluminum one here ). Just seems like an awful lot of compromises for an expensive golf.

Yeah, it seems foolish in heindsight. I agree with you there. I work in a business that has similar tradeoffs, so maybe I can shed some light on why a steel subframe can be a good thing.

When you plan a project a few years prior to a product's introduction, you've got a laser focus on risk and cost. Ultimately, I need to make a business case for producing a car with X technology and Y specification at that product's introduction. If that Y spec includes weight goals, but I don't understand the impact of a certain part (be it schedule, cost, producability, etc.), I need to take risk out elsewhere to continue to invest in the risky part, because that risky part has the potential to not only advance the company technologically but advances the product above its competition.

So let's say I've got this completely new platform. It's a lighter, stronger frame that uses several new manufacturing technologies that haven't yet seen full-scale production. I have an incentive to use this new platform because it saves me money over the long term and because it reduces overhead in future development activities all the while reducing the weight of the vehicle. But I'm unsure about the feasibility of redesigning the aluminum subframe to fit the new platform and I don't have the manpower to get those knowledge gaps closed in time to meet the launch date on cost. These people are already working on the new platform. I make the decision up front (3 years from launch, before anyone has started work) to use the easier, less risky steel subframe in order to enable the production of the brilliant new platform. I lose 5 lbs in the subframe to gain 100lbs of weight savings in the frame.

There are times when both risks can be taken on, but project managers can't afford to bite off more than they can chew or they lose their company too much money. Which gets them the ax.

 

[Fleron2301]

While I will agree that the dash looks 5-10 years behind that of the Golf R's, it's hard to resist that torque-vectoring AWD. I used to drive an RDX with SH-AWD and just miss having that traction in all situations, and I'm sure this system is even better.

The only thing is how incredibly quick Golf R's are when tuned... 3.5s 0-60?

 

[reedsposer22]

Brembos

Brembos on the stock car? LEGIT. Also, what is 70% rear mean, the way torque to wheels, front vs back is distributed?

 

[reedsposer22]

Wow, seeing striaght comparison interior pictures makes me heavily rethink the RS. Not to be a dash stroker, but you spend 100% of your time driving a car on the INSIDE. That RS interior (and dare I say exterior as well) looks like complete shit.

LOLOLOL :laugh:

 

[nick n]

The R400 is going into production end of this year available only for special order there was an article on it

So is this not a pipedream anymore? More info?

 

[fastgoober]

On paper the Focus may be more intriguing but have you sat in a Focus lately? Not the same as a GTI. GTI has much more solid build, solid doors, steering wheel, all the buttons/knobs/etc. just feel more....well made. Just my opinion. But it's definitely going to be a tradeoff between list of goodies and quality.

 

[Trytun]

On paper the Focus may be more intriguing but have you sat in a Focus lately? Not the same as a GTI. GTI has much more solid build, solid doors, steering wheel, all the buttons/knobs/etc. just feel more....well made. Just my opinion. But it's definitely going to be a tradeoff between list of goodies and quality.

I sat in a ST and a GTI just last month when I was shopping, being on here it's pretty clear what I went with. The GTI seems so much more solid. The ST seems like a hunk of plastic, a pretty fast hunk of plastic. The seats are atrocious (I'm 6' 240lbs) - I can't imagine driving the car for more than 1 hour without wanting to die from discomfort, the seat was stabbing me in the shoulder blades - it was incredibly uncomfortable. The GTI is so much more of a drivers vehicle that it's not even funny. The ST is built for a small frame person that only cares about the performance of the vehicle, someone who doesn't value a well-made interior. I'll give the ST credit, it was a lot of fun to drive and it really surprised me, but . . . I'll take my GTI over it any day.

 

[Baldilocks73]

I'm bias toward the Golf R -- of course. This car is a monster with a tune. Even a Stage 1 tune puts you at 60mph in under 4 seconds and 1/4 mile times around 11.9 seconds. That, combined with the much less fussy, much more refined interior of the Golf (any model), is just a no brainer.

 

[DASVDUB]

I'm bias toward the Golf R -- of course. This car is a monster with a tune. Even a Stage 1 tune puts you at 60mph in under 4 seconds and 1/4 mile times around 11.9 seconds. That, combined with the much less fussy, much more refined interior of the Golf (any model), is just a no brainer.

Imagine the Focus RS with a tune tho...


Sent from my iPhone

 

[FriggenT]

its not just the RS, Mazda is also coming out with the next ms3 which is also worded to be around 300 hp with awd too.