Cupra /S3 /Golf R turbo problems

[Stever750]

Well, I'll find out on Monday.

 

[Snah]

You receive your Cupra then?

 

[simonali]

Exactly and it is to be seen if there are in the end differences at all because the majority of Cupra's been tested on a rolling road had all between 295 to 305 Hp and some a little more.
It wouldn't surprise me.

The Golf must have more than 296 in that case, as it's usefully quicker than the Cupra and not just off the line, its in gear times are better, too.

 

[Snah]

Not according to quite some very recent comparison tests in Germany and Holland.
There the G7R can't reach the Curpa above 50 Mph in now way in acceleration.
On track the difference is even more noticable mostly due to the higher weight and drivetrain losses of the G7R but since we drive our cars not around a track every day that is not that important.

 

[simonali]

I've only really seen the Autocar road tests for both cars where the Golf was quicker. Who has done these tests you mention?

 

[Stever750]

I've only really seen the Autocar road tests for both cars where the Golf was quicker. Who has done these tests you mention?

The autocar test with Sutters driving? They found the Cupra was quicker:

http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-video/video-volkswagen-golf-r-vs-seat-leon-cupra-280

http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/volksw...-golf-r-vs-seat-leon-cupra-video-track-battle

You receive your Cupra then?

No, had it since beginning December. It will be dyno'd before and "after"

 

[AndrewJB]

4.5k here now... most of that at Stage1 and 2

 

[Stever750]

Hmm, now I'm not so sure...

http://www.seatcupra.net/forums/showthread.php?t=193416&page=3

Although nothing in my contract that forbids mods. I did the Octavia "at risk" but then I wasn't an early adopter, so knew it was pretty safe. This is an altogether different proposition.

 

[robdf2]

The Golf must have more than 296 in that case, as it's usefully quicker than the Cupra and not just off the line, its in gear times are better, too.

The G7R is not that quick.
Off the line its very good , it seems to have a long first gear , but after that its not that quick.
It makes me laugh when people who get one say "its so quick" well it maybe quick compared to their 1.2 corsa they had before.

But real world every day its not that quick unless you hammer it off the line every time.
The mapping is very sedate.
Although mine has only done 2k miles so far , so might loosen up a bit soon.
Its a lot smoother which takes away the rawness of my Mk2 Cupra so maybe the speed is deceiving but to me its not that quick.

 

[GrahamFR]

speed is definitely deceiving, built too well you may say this mqb stuff, makes me pine for a wilder car sometimes, then it rains and i remember i am only a humble fwd and the longing for more wildness soon dissipates lol

 

[robdf2]

speed is definitely deceiving, built too well you may say this mqb stuff, makes me pine for a wilder car sometimes, then it rains and i remember i am only a humble fwd and the longing for more wildness soon dissipates lol

I must admit that is one reason I got the golf , I went out in my Cupra this morning and found its limits very quickly on cold wet roads , something I have almost forgot about in the golf.

 

[simonali]

The autocar test with Sutters driving? They found the Cupra was quicker:

http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-video/video-volkswagen-golf-r-vs-seat-leon-cupra-280

http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/volksw...-golf-r-vs-seat-leon-cupra-video-track-battle

No, I'm talking about their full road tests and the Golf beat the Cupra on almost every timed distance they cover in these tests. Examples:

0-60 4.8 vs 5.9
0-100 12.0 vs 13.6
80-100 in 4th gear 4.3 vs 4.6
40-60 in 4th 3.5 vs 3.9 etc etc

All the Golf's times were set in the wet, too!

The only place the Cupra wins is the dry handling circuit, but it was still raining when the Golf went round. The Cupra beat the M135i on the dry circuit by half a second, too.

 

[kazand]

No, I'm talking about their full road tests and the Golf beat the Cupra on almost every timed distance they cover in these tests. Examples:

0-60 4.8 vs 5.9
0-100 12.0 vs 13.6
80-100 in 4th gear 4.3 vs 4.6
40-60 in 4th 3.5 vs 3.9 etc etc

All the Golf's times were set in the wet, too!

The only place the Cupra wins is the dry handling circuit, but it was still raining when the Golf went round. The Cupra beat the M135i on the dry circuit by half a second, too.

Perhaps it was dark.......

 

[GrahamFR]

Or it was snowing...

 

[kazand]

Or it was snowing...

or dark and snowing....

 

[Stever750]

or dark and snowing....

Maybe it was dark, snowing, and the Cupra was in Reverse?

 

[AndrewJB]

Maybe it was dark, snowing, and the Cupra was in Reverse?

or just Simonali was driving

 

[Seastormer]

No, I'm talking about their full road tests and the Golf beat the Cupra on almost every timed distance they cover in these tests. Examples:

0-60 4.8 vs 5.9
0-100 12.0 vs 13.6
80-100 in 4th gear 4.3 vs 4.6
40-60 in 4th 3.5 vs 3.9 etc etc

All the Golf's times were set in the wet, too!

The only place the Cupra wins is the dry handling circuit, but it was still raining when the Golf went round. The Cupra beat the M135i on the dry circuit by half a second, too.

But it still only manages 8:14 around the ring, 16 secs slower than the Cupra 280, how come on such a long lap (which is similar to the borders roads I drive on) does it perform so poorly given all the figs above.

 

[Stever750]

No, I'm talking about their full road tests and the Golf beat the Cupra on almost every timed distance they cover in these tests. Examples:

0-60 4.8 vs 5.9
0-100 12.0 vs 13.6
80-100 in 4th gear 4.3 vs 4.6
40-60 in 4th 3.5 vs 3.9 etc etc

All the Golf's times were set in the wet, too!

The only place the Cupra wins is the dry handling circuit, but it was still raining when the Golf went round. The Cupra beat the M135i on the dry circuit by half a second, too.

Acceleration stats are the least useful data for an indication of how the car drives on the road in normal dailyn life. How many owners are going to use launch control more than once just to test it out, let alone every time you pull away from a standstill. In gear accel times of sub 0.5s you wouldn't notice anyway.

 

[Seastormer]

Acceleration stats are the least useful data for an indication of how the car drives on the road in normal dailyn life. How many owners are going to use launch control more than once just to test it out, let alone every time you pull away from a standstill. In gear accel times of sub 0.5s you wouldn't notice anyway.

True, I have not even tried it on the Cupra yet.