2010 Volkswagen GTI: Handle This

Honestly I don't care. The car looks sleek, has a tight chassis, a functional hatch, and I just love those tartan seats and sexy wheels.

to sum it up, 'poor' is a relative term based on the class of the vehicle, not all vehicles.

Thanks for the explanation, Josh.

Good post, thank you Josh.

Using the word "poor" in this case is still off-putting. As you may have noted from the responses to your GTI track test post, a lot of people base their opinions of cars on the numbers you (and other media) produce. They don't care -- or in this case, even KNEW -- whether you're basing your rating on "track" conditions. Those are conditions many of them will never see anyway.

You need to be more detailed when you make these ratings in the first place and realize that leaving us hanging like that opens the door to a lot of the young guys with no real perspective making judgments based on numbers they really don't understand. Doing it the way you did is bush-league and makes you look like less of an "authority" than you are.

I'm not a GTI fan, but 'poor' is a poor choice of word. It should be reserved for markedly unstable cars, with surprising/terrible dynamics and low limits.

Edmunds and/or Josh are simply digging in their heels and standing by the small mistake that they made. Admitting it would have been much simpler than ad hoc qualifications like 'we meant in its class' etc. etc.

There's nothing bushleague about it unless you consider the feelings of VW fanboys to be the #1 priority. Glad this post was made so we can dispense with the outrage already.

I was at least puzzled, and almost shocked, by the use of the word "poor", and yes, my initial thoughts were "Wow, it's not very fast AND it has poor handling?"

This "explanation" almost sounds as if VW had a llittle chat with the Inside line boys. Or, the head of Edmunds.

After all, without a qualifier on the word "poor", how do you rate cars like Camrys, big SUVs, etc.?

The reviews here have been getting sloppy of late-- I hope this will help in the future.

Words are very important.

I can understand this perspective and think it was an admirable attempt to explain the rating. But I still disagree. The performance numbers may not have been what you expected, but it still doesn't change the fact that even if you judge it relative to the rest of the competition, the car simply isn't a poor handler. It just doesn't fit and I think that's why you saw many, including myself, all up in arms when the numbers were first presented.

BTW, when you guys first tested the car in December, a four-door version received a rating of Average based upon exactly same the comments. So why change now? It's also interesting to note that the test car car then wore 17-inch wheels, got .84g in skidpad but went 2 mph faster in the slalom than this long-term car did. Again, all adding up to the fact that these numbers and these ratings just aren't meshing with me...

was the december version pre-09? because ESP was defeatable then, which would allow faster test numbers.

these are instrumented test numbers, NOT track numbers. drive the car around a track and even with the crap all season tires, i can't see how you wouldn't be impressed... and you would see that the ESP is NOT a hinderance in any way. (unless you are trying to be Tiff Niddell from 5th Gear and "drift")

I didn't post in the previous thread because I suspected that there was some relativity to the rating system. Thanks for the more detailed explanation, Josh.

thanks for the explanation.

however; if this is the logic you guys use for these tests, I think you need to be a lot clearer that they don't have any real connection to real-world characteristics. It's disingenuous to suggest that a GTI handles poorly or is too slow in actual driving situations.

The numbers are what they are, and I certainly don't agree with the lunatics who thing Josh somehow sabotaged the numbers because he somehow "hates" the car; but many editors here could do a much better job of explaining things clearly and precisely. It would certainly help to cut down on the number of nutjob comments that pop up here.

From now on IL should make it clear that their subjective ratings on handling et al are being compared to other cars in it's class, not to all cars in general. It is not at all obvious that this is so (in fact, one might ponder if a little CYA is going on here).

When most people see a car is rated to have poor handling, they are thinking of Suzuki Samurai-type handling.

I still would like to see this car pitted against a 2010 v6 mustang on a track. Similar costs, similar numbers, and seemingly similar purpose (sporty-ish for those who mostly want to look like they drive a sports car), except one is derided more than it should have been and the other is sensitively defended more than should be necessary ;)

To the poster above questioning the numbers obtained with a car running 17" wheels....folks need to realize, that the larger/heavier wheels/tires in many cases SLOW down a car. It's not rocket science..but you folks keep buying your DUBS.

@ uncanny_man - totally different purposes. The Stang is short a couple of doors over many GTIs.

"This "explanation" almost sounds as if VW had a llittle chat with the Inside line boys. Or, the head of Edmunds."

If you go back to the test numbers post, a lot of commenters (including myself) specifically asked for a better explanation of that rating in more ways than one.

So thanks Josh for providing us with more detail behind it, makes sense. Perhaps I can suggest that a rating of "below average" be used between "average" and "poor". IMO "poor" should really be reserved for a car with a serious or dangerous deficiency, because this rating should still have some application to real-world driving. For example, the real-life emergency-avoidance maneuver is essentially a limited slalom maneuver.

I have some really bad feelings about my GTI's handling (brand new 4 door), but I also think poor, within it's class, is a bit of an overstatement. Below Average sounds about right though...

I will hopefully be finding out myself how the handling changes when one ditches the very heavy and squishy wheel and tire combination for something a little more lithe and rigid...I mean, 52 pounds per wheel/tire and all seasons with gummi bear sidewall HAVE to have something to do with the numbness and slow responses (let alone final grip).

Look bro, don't insult our intelligence. You used a subjective word in a derogatory way, and (get this) you put it in ALL CAPS. You weren't being objective. If you had put, "relatively poor" or "average" you wouldn't be in this mess.

Let me put it for you simply. If your mom goes out and sleeps with ten men tonight, I can state "I saw your mom out last night, and it looked like she had a good time," or I can say "YOUR MOM SLEPT WITH TEN GUYS LAST NIGHT." Both are stating a fact, but the second has a completely different inflection and meaning and each will elicit a markedly different result/response.

You intended to highlight your personal bias and disappointment with the handling characteristics of the GTI. Own up to it, and apologize for losing your objectivity.

There is no measure by which it can be flatly stated that the GTI handles "poorly". It might not be "best in class" but since when is "average" interchangeable with "poor". Not to mention all of the other modifiers you should have added to acknowledge the fact that the GTI was on all-season tires. It's hardly a fair test with all-season tires vs. summer tires. And an honest person would acknowledge how truly ridiculous it is to clad most pocket-rockets in summer tires anyway. MOST people run all-seasons year round... it's only enthusiasts that run summer tires and winter tires separately. But I digress.

Backtracking irritates me.

so when are you guys going to dyno the gti?

Not since the Aura have I seen such vigorous defending of personal vehicle choices....try to stay objective, people!

I think that assigning vehicles to "classes" is frequently arbitrary, dogmatic and misleading. And who decides what fits where? Edmunds? Consummer Union? Car and Driver? Obviously what the GTI lacks in one area it makes up for in another (such as comfort, finish, etc.). If there were no other cars in the GTI's supposed class, would you still feel it was lacking? And if not, why not?

When you put the words "GTI" and "poor handling" into the same sentence, you should realize that the measuring system has gone wrong somewhere, somehow. When did common sense go out the window here? Perhaps you forgot VW's target demographics? Most GTI buyers don't want STI or MS3 or EVO levels of handling.

"You used a subjective word in a derogatory way, and (get this) you put it in ALL CAPS"

Can you read? He said it was a typo and corrected it. Jeeeze it is just a car...he did not shoot your dog or nail your sister, get a life.

I simply had no idea one word could bring such panty twisting! How did article in any way affect your lives or your cars? If your life and identity is so woven in with what you drive then you need medical help.

I'm with the small pack of drivers who don't care about the numbers, but there is a little spark of curiosity in me that made me addicted to this blog. Most of us who wear a watch can use it while diving 100m deep. I don't think most of us will ever dive this deep but knowing that I can get to the pint B in one car 1 second faster then in the other car is probably as important as diving 100m deep wearing your watch. However, I didn't buy my watch because of its underwater abilities but because of the design and comfort.
Good job IL, keep posting. Buy the way, have you guys thought about using one driver to track-test all your vehicles on one same lap, just like the Top Gear does? To most drivers it is more important to know how fest a car goes around the track rather then 0-60 or slalom speed, which I think are are useless in the real world driving.

+1 to f1ndler

Man you vw cultists are freaky. You do realize that every full review has instrumented tests with test driver comments, right? And you do realize that they have a standard "excellent", "above average", "average", "below average", and "poor" handling summary ratings right? The gti may have been quite the performance hatch back in the day, but you've got to stop kidding yourselves into thinking it is still a hardcore cutting edge performance vehicle. Kind of like the new taurus sho, it is more a range topping trim (and not necessarily a bad one at that) than a hardcore sport version. I still wan't to see it pitted against a 2010 mustang v6 though...

@uncanny - I certainly understand where you are coming from with the mustang but the people buying one are almost certainly not cross shopping the other. Price range is the same, but many of us looking in the hot hatch segment are looking there because you can stick a baby and a dog in the back - something you can't do (easily) in the mustang.

I am VERY curious about the new mustang v6 (and hope to see one in these pages very soon), but I do not think there is really any reason to directly compare them.

I think the flavor Josh was originally going for was "disappointing" or "below expectations", and I agree that "poor" can be easily misunderstood without the explicit context that Josh provided above. But our track rating sheet didn't have a choice between "acceptable" and "poor" to choose from, because we'd always treated "acceptable" with a slight tinge of disappointment, such as "OK *shrug*, but nothing to write home about". For most family cars and SUVs, this provided enough resolution, because at-the-limit track-test expectations aren't high in these segments.

But expectations are higher in the hot-hatch segment, and because the leap to "poor" is still a big one, the track test team decided that we needed to add a "below average" choice for future tests.

As for the subject of defeatable ESC, many cars have an ESC switch that, when pressed, illuminates the skidding car icon, sometimes with the word "off" right next to it, but more often than not the ESC isn't really off. We'll still feel throttle chops and brake grabs (and sometimes see flashing lights and hear beeps) during slalom runs and skidpad circuits with the switch in this position, albiet at a higher ESC trigger threshold. The GTI falls into this category (but thankfully without the beeps).

It seems that the legal departments at a growing number of car companies are afraid of letting "off" really mean "off" when it comes to ESC. Some don't seem to feel bad about lying about it, while others use weasel words like "disable" in the manual, which you and I might take to mean "off" while they're thinking of something closer to "impaired".

Bringing this back to the GTI, it's a German car, and Germans don't use all-season tires. I bet that when we test another example with the summer tire option, the standard tire in Germany, I think the ESC calibration will be much more in synch with the rubber and performance will improve. We'll see.

Dan

^^True, the Golf GTI has wonderfully practical packaging, which would make the 4-door quite tempting for kid duty. However, both cars are known to be "fun" cars, so comparisons are natural and good. Every nuance of how they deliver the fun and driving experience is a great discussion, and I know I would cross-shop them. Even if, at the last, my wife pulls rank and makes me get the Golf instead!

Poor, oh wait, below average, so some of the guys around here can handle it.

"Rather, it means that it's below our expectations and below the average performance of the segment."

That still stands anyway. And thats the bottom line.

Yes, I can read, but I'm not gullible. It wasn't a typo. A typo is when you make an incorrect spelling or commit unintentional grammatical errors. Josh was hasty with his INTENTIONAL emphasis (see i can do it, too) and tried to revise history by calling it a typo. I called him out on it, and I don't make any apologies for it. By lying about it, he was being disingenuous on behalf of IL, and it deserves to be pointed-out and criticized.

Let me explain why inserting personal bias into an objective test is dangerous. Objectivity is based on pure reporting of data, which IL did well by reporting their recorded performance times and measures for the GTI. However, by labeling the GTI's handling as "poor" they introduce unfair subjectivity into the test. Don't misunderstand me, there is a place for Josh's subjective opinion of the handling characteristics of the car, but placing it matter-of-factly within the test results was a little misleading to say the least, especially when you place your personal opinion in ALL CAPS.

Am I personally angered or upset? No. But I am irritated, because it's interesting how I haven't read a single other review of this vehicle -- even in head-to-head tests, that refer to its handling as "poor" with any objectivity. IL carries a lot of power with these write-ups, because people read these and base their purchasing decisions off of the opinions of these writers. I just think that it was done a little haphazardly to say the least.

Sorry for the novela, but you aren't going to shut me down with some trite 6th-grade rebuttal.

bodyblue says:

04:09 PM, 05/11/10

"You used a subjective word in a derogatory way, and (get this) you put it in ALL CAPS"

Can you read? He said it was a typo and corrected it. Jeeeze it is just a car...he did not shoot your dog or nail your sister, get a life.

I simply had no idea one word could bring such panty twisting! How did article in any way affect your lives or your cars? If your life and identity is so woven in with what you drive then you need medical help.

Yes, I can read, but I'm not gullible. It wasn't a typo. A typo is when you make an incorrect spelling or commit unintentional grammatical errors. Josh was hasty with his INTENTIONAL emphasis (see i can do it, too) and tried to revise history by calling it a typo. I called him out on it, and I don't make any apologies for it. By lying about it, he was being disingenuous on behalf of IL, and it deserves to be pointed-out and criticized.

Let me explain why inserting personal bias into an objective test is dangerous. Objectivity is based on pure reporting of data, which IL did well by reporting their recorded performance times and measures for the GTI. However, by labeling the GTI's handling as "poor" they introduce unfair subjectivity into the test. Don't misunderstand me, there is a place for Josh's subjective opinion of the handling characteristics of the car, but placing it matter-of-factly within the test results was a little misleading to say the least, especially when you place your personal opinion in ALL CAPS.

Am I personally angered or upset? No. But I am irritated, because it's interesting how I haven't read a single other review of this vehicle -- even in head-to-head tests, that refer to its handling as "poor" with any objectivity. IL carries a lot of power with these write-ups, because people read these and base their purchasing decisions off of the opinions of these writers. I just think that it was done a little haphazardly to say the least.

Sorry for the novela, but you aren't going to shut me down with some trite 6th-grade rebuttal.

bodyblue says:

04:09 PM, 05/11/10

"You used a subjective word in a derogatory way, and (get this) you put it in ALL CAPS"

Can you read? He said it was a typo and corrected it. Jeeeze it is just a car...he did not shoot your dog or nail your sister, get a life.

I simply had no idea one word could bring such panty twisting! How did article in any way affect your lives or your cars? If your life and identity is so woven in with what you drive then you need medical help.

I'm an A3 owner and a gti defender, i have no problem admitting to that right off the bat. I also don't doubt that the numbers posted of the Track Tested GTI were honest and the driver gave it 10/10ths.

The only thing that baffles me is this, the numbers from an 09 A3 that was track tested by IL about a year ago HUGELY different from what the gti scored. Obviously I'm stoked to read how much the Sport Suspension helps out the longer, heavier A3...but this is a HUGE gap.

Test Results:
0 - 30 (sec): 2.7
0 - 45 (sec): 4.7
0 - 60 (sec): 7.2
0 - 75 (sec): 10.1
1/4 Mile (sec @ mph): 15.2 @ 92.6
0-60 with 1-ft Rollout (sec): 6.9
30 - 0 (ft): 27
60 - 0 (ft): 107
Braking Rating: Excellent
Slalom (mph): 68.3
Skid Pad Lateral acceleration (g): 0.90
Handling Rating: Excellent

I'm an A3 owner and a gti defender, i have no problem admitting to that right off the bat. I also don't doubt that the numbers posted of the Track Tested GTI were honest and the driver gave it 10/10ths.

The only thing that baffles me is this, the numbers from an 09 A3 that was track tested by IL about a year ago HUGELY different from what the gti scored. Obviously I'm stoked to read how much the Sport Suspension helps out the longer, heavier A3...but this is a HUGE gap.

Test Results:
0 - 30 (sec): 2.7
0 - 45 (sec): 4.7
0 - 60 (sec): 7.2
0 - 75 (sec): 10.1
1/4 Mile (sec @ mph): 15.2 @ 92.6
0-60 with 1-ft Rollout (sec): 6.9
30 - 0 (ft): 27
60 - 0 (ft): 107
Braking Rating: Excellent
Slalom (mph): 68.3
Skid Pad Lateral acceleration (g): 0.90
Handling Rating: Excellent

How many times has Insideline illustrated that the same car driven on different days/surfaces can show a 2mph difference in Slalom and a .02-.04 difference in skidpad g's?

How many times has I.L. illustrated that the switch from decent all-seasons to decent summer tires can also do ANOTHER 2mph difference and .02-.04 difference in skidpad?

These tests are, by and large, fairly meaningless when the margin is a 5-10% difference and the cars were tested on different days, surfaces, or tires. That's been very clear for a long time, and people who get outraged over it need to GET over it.

...

I've driven 3 GTIs (not this most recent generation)....2 doors and 4 doors, w/ and w/o summer tires. I drove them up to 7/10ths on public roads. I own a 2006 Honda Civic SI, for comparison.

I found the GTI to be a superb car and unbelievably solid on backroads bombing along at 2x the speed limit. I mean "connected" feeling. But when I hit the twisties, my confidence dissapeared. It has poor weight control and easily overwhelms it's tires due to the amount of inertia swinging around. The car responds with a distinct delay in fast transitions.

If I were to drive a 2006+ Honda Civic SI (on all-seasons, and with no stability control system at all) back to back with a 2006+ GTI in a handling test, I could see giving the GTI a "poor" rating due to it's subjective feeling in the turns and intrusive and undefeatable stability control. As well as lack of ability to give brake and throttle at the same time. (again, this is on the last generation)

And if it posted poor numbers for it's segment, I'd feel reinforced by that decision.

That's how I feel at least.

". IL carries a lot of power with these write-ups, because people read these and base their purchasing decisions off of the opinions of these writers. I just think that it was done a little haphazardly to say the least."

Why do you care? Do you sell VWs? Have you appointed yourself the 1487 of VW? And as for the sixth grade (proper grammar requires one to spell out any number below 11) remark, only someone of a young age would go on a tirade against an auto editor and accuse him of lying. You have no proof of his intention, nor do you know this man personally. Grow up and get a life and quit ranting like a maniac, it make you look very bad.

I'm very happy to see this explanation. I don't know if I would agree with it (or disagree; I haven't driven these cars myself) but it is nice to have the thought process behind the "poor" rating explained. Please include these in the future.

@ bodyblue, I call it like I see it. The man emphasized a bias and then tried to backtrack and label it a "typo." I am really irritated by people who lie, and I don't think I'm alone in that sentiment.

I care because I enjoy VWs. I do own a VW and plan on owning them in the future, but I have also owned a Ford and a Toyota... hardly a die-hard fanboy. I don't sell cars, in fact I don't sell anything (I'm a medical student). But what I do very well is recognize BS. What I did wasn't a tirade. No where did I use an ad-hominem attack or flat-out call him any names whatsoever. I did, however, point out that he was being less than truthful. You can try to revise history, but the fact is that I didn't make any below-the-belt or childish insults, nor have I directed any insults directly at you. I haven't really acted childish at all, to be completely honest.

You, on the other hand, have insulted me directly on several occasions during this little spat by attacking (1) my reading comprehension level, (2) my motives, and (3) you tried to discredit me by making unfounded assumptions about my age.

Oh and thanks for the grammatical correction pertaining to typing out numbers -- riveting stuff. All major arguments are won on the basis of semantics (insert eyeroll here).

Finally, I'd love for you to point out where I have gone on a tirade, or maybe you might cite an instance of where I've ranted. I have been direct and unapologetic, but I have not resorted to anything unfair. You, on the other hand, have tried to discredit me three times via ad hom attacks and have demonstrated, quite honestly, that you are either threatened by me or have some sort of investment in this particular IL writer. Either way, I hope you can read back through my posts and reassess your attitude toward me.

Either way, I think this has gone far enough. I do appreciate IL and the reviews they do of cars, but if I disagree with the way something's done I'm going to give my honest opinion. Thanks for all the hard work you guys do.

IL is just plain ridiculous at this point. sideswiper makes that clear with the A3 "test" results. The A3 is based on the same chassis/platform as the Golf.

Josh gives a POOR handling rating because he doesn't like non-deflatable ESP. That's the real reason.

Making the rules up as you go along about results being compared to other cars in the "segment" is pure poppycock. What "segment" is that? It's never mentioned and any "segment" category is purely subjective as to what cars would be included. Spell it out if Track Tests are comparison tests.

Real car test reviewers actually name the cars in their comparison tests - and the IL Track Test surely does not look like a comparison test. So why then are the results based on some kind of unseen "segment" test?

Poor means poor. If a GTI is rated Poor in the Handling Rating I guess a Lexus GX460 would also be Poor - just before it rolls over. Ridiculous.

Just a comment - not piling on, but something to think about:

Slalom (mph): 65.7 (63.9 ESC on)
Skid Pad Lateral acceleration (g): 0.87 (0.84 ESC on)
Handling Rating: Very Good

Slalom (mph): 65.5 (traction 'off') 64.1 (trac on)
Skid Pad Lateral Acceleration (g): 0.87
Handling Rating: Poor

One of those is the 2010 MX-5... one of those is the 2010 GTI....

Does not compute....