Advice buy car Toyota FT86 VS Golf R?

[CromaTurboIE]

hello guys i have all the savings money, because I would make myself a sports car, I have always had a 4x4 or FR I want to change experience with RWD!

which you prefer? in Italy there are 12,000 € of difference between Toyota and VW.

Price won the toyota!

Toyota FT86: 30.000€
Golf R: 42.000€

 

[Beeblebrox237]

Well, If you bought the Toyota you could upgrade it with the remaining 12,000. On the other hand, the golf is probably more useful, with usable back seats and a big boot. It also depends on which you like to look at better, both inside and out. I would test drive both, and then make a decision.

 

[YSSMAN]

Having seen both yesterday, it is a call that has to be made mostly on pricing and the kind of weather with which you'll be dealing with. The Golf-R definitely has a better sense of quality about it, acting more as a luxury vehicle than the Toyota. A better comparison would be with the Subaru BRZ, if you ask me.

Both of the Japanese coupes will be more fun to drive than the Golf, I can guarantee that. However, on a day-to-day basis, neither would be as comfortable. That's not their point, of course, but if that is the kind of consideration that you want to be making, you're generally considering the wrong types of vehicles.

You would be better off comparing the Toyota and Subaru to the likes of the Mazda MX-5, BMW 128i, and the Ford Mustang V6. Not much goes with it toe-to-toe in terms of layout and price, but those come close.

If you're looking to compare the Golf-R with others, well, price ends up becoming a major factor. A MINI John Cooper Works S would be up there, along with the Ford Focus ST and Renaultsport Megane RS Trophy. They all dance around with similar power figures and price tags, and should offer up a reasonably similar amount of civility and practicality that the Golf employs.

Long-way around, I'd probably end up with the Subaru BRZ when comparing directly with the Golf-R here in the US. The price difference is too substantial to overcome, and despite the significant (expected) performance difference, ultimately I'm at a point in my mind where I'd rather be incredibly satisfied with driving at 3/10ths, versus having to wring it up to 7/10ths to get an idea of what its capable of.

 

[Mac K]

Maybe you should test drive both, spec them out to your tastes, work something out with a salesmen(scary) then take a week, weigh the pros and cons of each, make your decision and walk away with a brand new car.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

If you want RWD, which seems to be the case from your post, there is literally only one option out of the two.

GT-86 is rwd
Golf R is awd

So. GT-86.

 

[dsgerbc]

Not sure why would you cross-shop those two. Obviously, I haven't driven the 86 yet. I did test drive the Golf though, since around here it's pretty much the only alternative to the STI in a decentHP+6spd+turbo+awd+liftgate category.


It's missing 20 horses in the U.S., but overall I liked it.
Suspension is firm my not punishingly so, steering feel was decent enough for a FWD/AWD car. Turbo spools really quickly and at low rpms. Like <2.5k rpm.
Seats are pretty comfy and side-bolsters are pretty supportive. I'm not sure the interior is worth 10 grand over a WRX though. Gearbox shifter swings are a bit exaggerated and it appears there is no factory short-throw option, which is a shame. Other than that it's a fairly refined DD with a punch, quite a bit of utility and few specs of luxury here and there. I'd get one for DD/winter if it was sub 30k here, but not above that.

In Italy, with plenty of twisty roads around, I'd get an 86 w/o a question.

 

[dsgerbc]

The price difference is too substantial to overcome, and despite the significant (expected) performance difference, ultimately I'm at a point in my mind where I'd rather be incredibly satisfied with driving at 3/10ths, versus having to wring it up to 7/10ths to get an idea of what its capable of.

Why would Golf-R perform significantly better in the US? It barely has more power to weight, even before drivetrain loss is factored in. In Europe - maybe.

 

[Azuremen]

Why would Golf-R perform significantly better in the US? It barely has more power to weight, even before drivetrain loss is factored in. In Europe - maybe.

Because AWD. It massively impacts sales in regions that get any snow at all.

 

[dsgerbc]

FWD based haldex-type AWD is more like a utility to me. Not really performance.

 

[Schwartz]

If I had that much money, I'd get a Subaru WRX STI used. Its faster than both of those two.

 

[sumbrownkid]

^he probably wants a car that comes with a factory warranty.

 

[Ibonibo]

FWD based haldex-type AWD is more like a utility to me. Not really performance.

Torsen > Haldex, but Haldex has an upgrade for their diff. so it becomes performance.
Gen1 is up to 50/50 all the time (non adjustable)(till 2003)
gen2 is up to 60/40 all the time (adjustable)
Or race oriented look HPA, orange haldex upgrade

Also saying AWD is only for snow is soo wrong, even on dry it has advantages that a FWD or RWD has not.

Your question is pretty much answered above.

VW: less nervous, AWD, better resale value (we need to see how the 86 will do), better plastic interior, more E-certificate upgrades (homologation in Italy?), more practical, more comfort.

86: RWD, less initial investement, more sporty feel due to RWD, drift-enabled, less blend looking than VW, 5-year warranty (VW 3y. but upgradable), newer

Also the Golf will be replaced soon, very soon, but the R will take some time again to come out, mid- end lifecycle

 

[sumbrownkid]

What about fuel economy? The Toyota must do better than the VW in that category.

 

[Mark II Blit]

I know that in Japan, the 86 is rated at 12,4 km/l, the Golf R does 11,9 with DSG, and taking the impreciseness of the test cycles into account, I think it's about the same. It all comes down to how you drive it.

 

[C-ZETA]

If you actually care about everyday life, Golf GTi. If winter climates are ever actually a problem at least once a year then get an R. If you're mainly looking for a track day goodie then you'd be better with the 86.

 

[sumbrownkid]

Aren't DSG type gearboxes annoying in traffic situations? A lot of reviews commonly single out that aspect of paddleshifters of being clunky when driving around town.

 

[dsgerbc]

I know that in Japan, the 86 is rated at 12,4 km/l, the Golf R does 11,9 with DSG, and taking the impreciseness of the test cycles into account, I think it's about the same. It all comes down to how you drive it.

Except in Japan 12.4 is in a harsh, mixed-city cycle with lots of stop-n-go. Also 11.9, that is claimed by VW , is L/100km, not km/l, so it's only about 8.4 km/l. City gas consumption for U.S. estimated by EPA is 19mpg, or ~8km/l.

So R is nowhere near close to 86.

 

[eight6er]

The GT86 without a doubt, I wouldn't even consider buying the VW at that price, the money you save could be spent on tyres and track days for a few years. Also it'll be the Toyota and not the Scion, so I don't think the Subaru will be much different interior wise.

 

[Mark II Blit]

Except in Japan 12.4 is in a harsh, mixed-city cycle with lots of stop-n-go. Also 11.9, that is claimed by VW , is L/100km, not km/l, so it's only about 8.4 km/l. City gas consumption for U.S. estimated by EPA is 19mpg, or ~8km/l.

So R is nowhere near close to 86.

No, that is not correct. In the EU, the Golf R is rated at 11.9 km/l. Look at this brochure: Golf 2.0 TSI - 270 HK = 11.9 km/l (11.8 without DSG).

Plus, in the Japanese test cycle, the Golf R is rated as exactly the same as the 86: 12,4 km/l.

Cars that go through the Japan cycle usually come out with slightly better numbers than in Europe, but I don't expect the 86 to do any less than 11 km/l by EU norm.

 

[dsgerbc]

No, that is not correct. In the EU, the Golf R is rated at 11.9 km/l. Look at this brochure: Golf 2.0 TSI - 270 HK = 11.9 km/l (11.8 without DSG). Plus, in Japan, the Golf R is rated as exactly the same as the 86: 12,4 km/l.

Cars that go through the Japan cycle usually come out with slightly better numbers than in Europe, but I don't expect the 86 to do any less than 11 km/l by EU norm.

All I can say to that is that WV DK can't translate worth a damn. It should be in l/100km.

 

[Mark II Blit]

All I can say to that is that WV DK can't translate worth a damn. It should be in l/100km.

VW Deutschland says 8,4 L/100 kombiniert with DSG.

100km divided by 8,4l = 11.9 km/l

So, VW DK's numbers are in fact accurate.

 

[dsgerbc]

Who cares about combined? We're talking city cycle. Cause that's what Japanese numbers for BRZ/86 are for.
Japanese vw shows 12.4. But it's in older testing format, not the new JC08 one. We're gonna have to wait for EPA data for 86/BRZ, but at the moment there's no way in hell to claim that Golf R and 86 have about equal fuel economy. R will be less efficient.

 

[YSSMAN]

Why would Golf-R perform significantly better in the US? It barely has more power to weight, even before drivetrain loss is factored in. In Europe - maybe.

That is not the point I was trying to make. The Toyota and Subaru is going to be far more fun to drive at 3/10ths, or just normal day-to-day activity compared to the Volkswagen... Where by comparison, the Golf would likely need to be taken up to 8/10ths, beyond what is road legal, for you really to get a sense of what it is capable of.

Does that make the Golf a lesser option? No. As a Volkswagen guy, no way. But, in my opinion, comparing the two to start is like apples and oranges. They're both answering the question an entirely different way.

Don't get me wrong, as a livable option to actually accomplish things, the Volkswagen is the clear winner. Four doors, a boot that can carry things, enough room for your friends to fit in the back. Makes sense. But if you're willing to make some sacrifices and save some money to get the best-driving, "affordable" car since the NA Mazda MX-5, then, the Toyota and Subaru are the obvious options.

 

[Mark II Blit]

The transition from 10&#12539;15 (also a city circle) to JC08 has only marginally changed the fuel consumption figures, while still being biased towards hybrids and cars with start&stop systems. The Golf was tested at a point where part of the JC08 cycle was implemented, even though, yes, it makes a comparison difficult. The Golf is the dirtiest of the two. The question is: by how much? TSI can be reasonably economic if you don't floor it, in the same way the 86 will eagerly drink if you rev its nuts off to accelerate. I'll keep my eyes on e-nenpi. In my first post, I merely stated (or wanted to state) that the numbers are close, and the real difference would probably come down to your own driving style.

 

[eiriksmil]

I have sort of being toying with the idea of the GT86 if I was getting a daily without compromises, but my other thought is a new BMW F30, for the comfort and convenience added if a little softer and different driving experience.. I'd never get a Golf R, I don't know why, but they don't do it for me. Too expensive for a Golf, I guess.

 

[Azuremen]

If you actually care about everyday life, Golf GTi. If winter climates are ever actually a problem at least once a year then get an R. If you're mainly looking for a track day goodie then you'd be better with the 86.

Says the London guy.

AWD is not needed for winter climates. RWD and snow tires will work in all but the most awful of situations - half foot or more with moisture so its very dense and rutted. And even then, regions where winter is a problem just once or twice a year, such as Seattle, the whole city typically shuts down anyhow.

But thank you for validating my point on AWD = sales in areas with winter.

I have sort of being toying with the idea of the GT86 if I was getting a daily without compromises, but my other thought is a new BMW F30, for the comfort and convenience added if a little softer and different driving experience.. I'd never get a Golf R, I don't know why, but they don't do it for me. Too expensive for a Golf, I guess.

The BMW guys are wizards, so F30 should be good for driving. The non-M models always feel a bit soft to me coming from the various cars I've owned, but they are still fun to drive hard. Plus the torque and refinement over anything with a Toyota or Subaru badge makes the majority of driving far more pleasant.

 

[eiriksmil]

That's the deal, if I was to shell out hard earned cash and then some to own a brand new daily and keep it for years, it would really have to suit as a daily.. Regular, non-M cars are as you say a little softer, but I drove a brand new F10 520d a couple of weeks ago and I enjoyed it regardless - effortless and refined. I'm sure a little smaller F30 would suit my daily needs just fine

 

[Joel]

Azuremen is right. So many people up here think AWD is absolutely necessary in the winter. Snow tires are far more important than drivetrain. I drive a FWD car, and it's fine. RWD can be a little more challenging but it's fine with snow tires. IMO AWD isn't worth the extra money unless you live way up north in Canada and get a ton of snow, or you want to go offroading regularly.

 

[CromaTurboIE]

sorry for the delay, I was off work due!

I decided to buy the Toyota GT86, so with the remaining &#8364; 12,000 we do mapping and exhaust and springs and shock absorbers best performing!

I love how your mind?

 

[obsessive rules]

sorry for the delay, I was off work due!

I decided to buy the Toyota GT86, so with the remaining &euro; 12,000 we do mapping and exhaust and springs and shock absorbers best performing!

I love how your mind?

Here's a paper model