IL Track Tested: 2010 Volkswagen Golf TDI vs. 2010 Volkswagen GTI

Josh, any comment on why is the slalom speed so much better on the TDI compared to the gas burner? Is it just tire difference -- stiffer sidewalls on the Continentals vs. the Dunlops allowing faster transitions? Your comment about "hard-tired, softly sprung VWs" in the TDI handling comments is puzzling, given its relatively high slalom speed. If the numbers are accurate, the TDI was actually 2 mph faster than the Mustang 5.0 here http://www.insideline.com/ford/mustang/2011/2011-ford-mustang-gt-50-full-test-and-video.html

TDI slalom is 69.2?! Huh?! I thought that TDI version doesn't even have a sport suspension. So, a TDI is quicker than BMW Z4 2009 in this case, which had 68.9 according to this http://www.insideline.com/bmw/z4/2009/2009-bmw-z4-sdrive35i-full-test-and-video.html, nice:)) Good job VW!

Can we get a little inside on what you think is the main cause of such drastic performance difference?

That kind of data may cause some people to jump up and start swapping tires, brakes and what not from TDIs into GTIs.

Volkswagen did something I had dreamed a manufacturer would do for their Diesel cars.

They put a sports suspension akin to the GTI, and put 17" alloy wheels. This essentially dispells the connotation that diesels are frumpy torque monsters. Some may complain the Golf TDI is expensive, but considering the fact that you get the upgraded suspension, its a plus in my books.

As for stopping distances, The Honda Civic Si stops from 60 in 125ft. A MiniCooper S at 131ft. Its not unheard of to have these distances.

I thought the diesel fanbois always spouted off about how great torque is and whatnot. Yet, as always, the torqueadvantage here led to a deficit of over 1 and a half seconds to sixty for the TDI. Its like I've always said, torque just makes you feel fast. HP makes you actually fast.....

It has the same amount of horsepower as a Honda Civic (140hp), weighs about 400lbs more, and goes 0-60 about a second faster. That just proves the Diesel works relatively well.

Furthermore, the point IS how a car feels, and torque does this extremely well. Torque also helps out a bunch when going from 50-80mph on a freeway, as I've discovered in my Xterra. The ignorance of caring more about numbers on a piece of paper is exactly why cars are becoming more overpowered, rather than fun to drive.

Sorry icecubefosho, but a 5MT Civic (LX/EX) will get to 60 in less than 8 seconds with a hard launch. The automatic will take over 9 seconds, but apples to apples and all that. The Civic being somewhat quicker is about what you'd expect given similar hp and less weight.

Diesels do feel quick, and can be very enjoyable, but that doesn't mean they are quick.

Personally, I prefer diesels in my trucks only. :)

tires make all the difference

that has to be a typo....almost 70 mph in the slalom..its faster than an S4!

Golf TDI without all the options is maybe the best car on the road right now - in terms of total cost of ownership to driver satisfaction rating. $24k, 45 hwy mpg, excellent interior, proving to be pretty reliable over the first year or so (other than the faulty O2 sensor). Great car - the US just doesn't quite love hatchbacks yet - when ironically they love small SUVs (hatchbacks on mini stilts). Rock on Golf TDI.

That 69.2 mph must be a typo. No way it's ~4 mph faster than the GTI.

TIRES

Can we all agree that Edmunds has just about hit rock-bottom in terms of testing expertise and accuracy? Obviously there was some sort of discrepancy but in a rush they didn't retest and published anyway.

The 0-60 time on the diesel seems slower than elsewhere.

The slightly heavier, probably harder tired, smaller-braked Golf brakes that much better? I'd like to see the testing setup on that one. Are you just eye-balling the line to hit the brakes at?

I'm not a VW owner or fan, but rating the GTI's handling as "poor" just makes one sound like a horse's rear. That's a rating you might want to reserve a Camry. What's your daily driver Josh, a Ford GT?

The car wins or places high in most sporty car comparisons accross the spectrum. I doubt seriously a "poor" handling car would do that. And the conclusion that VW engineers managed to make their "sporty" version perform worse than the diesel sounds like you have a lemon or perhaps some sort of pro-diesel agenda.

Folks, read the other car mags, edmunds, and inside line, then go test one yourself, and then come to a conclusion. This low budget short-shrift attitude towards testing can't be trusted, obviously.

I drive a car with the drive wheels as god intended, in the rear. It's an Infiniti G35, a low mileage loaded example of which can spank these cars in handling, braking, room, reliability, and most of all, sheer power, for about $20,000 if you shop around. The coupes even look pretty good.

And for you young guys...don't go get a $500/mo car payment thinking it will change your world. You'll be bored again in 2 years and will get raped trading it in on another new car. Find a good used BMW 3 series with a sport package for half the price of a loaded GTI and you will not be disappointed. Heck, even the non-sport E90 I had handled quite well compared to any fwd I've driven. And odds are in 3 years that BMW will be less trouble to own even though it's older.

We need answers from the test pilot!

A few comments since I own a 2010 Golf TDI.

First, the fuel economy rating on this car from the EPA is way off. Do not blame the suspension or areodynamics or tires, blame the EPA. They messed up the numbers really badly. I am getting an average of 46.4 mpg in mixed driving since I owned the car. I get 50-53 mpg on the highway. The EPA numbers just do not conform to what ordinary people are getting from this car. Just go check fueleconomy.gov and you will see what I mean.

Second, the 0-60 time is right in line with whay VW says the car should get, ie, 8.5 seconds. The lowest I have seen for the car is from C&D at 8.0 flat. All the other mags that have published 0-60 numbers have been in line with what insideline has achieved for this car.

Third, the handling for this car is very well balanced. I have not pushed my car to its limits, but I can tell that the car is willing to rotate when driven aggressively. I can feel the rear end wanting to rotate when taking constant radius turns.

Overall, I am very pleased with my TDI. It has an upsacle interior inline with more expensive cars, it is fun to drive, it gets great fuel mileage, and it is a hatch.

I admit, there are tires out there that can change the handling performance of a car that dramatically. But going form a 225/45R17 91H Continental ContiproContact to a 225/40R18 92H Dunlop SP Sport 01 shouldn't slow slalom time down unless the 18" wheels are significantly heavier than the 17s. My guess is they're not.

Golf TDI = lots of great car for the money.

@church123:

The Golf TDI with its automatic (DSG Tiptronic) gets the same 0-60 time as its manual counterpart. Furthermore, when people buy Honda Civics, do they go for the manual transmission? No. Lastly, even though the manual Civic can run neck to neck with the automatic and manual Golf TDI, the TDI is still 400lbs heavier than a base civic dx, and both claim the same horsepower with the Tdi having a .01 disadvantage in drag coefficiency yet it gets double the fuel mileage, which proves the point that Torque does make a difference, not only in the feeling of a car (what matters), but in the numbers as well.

I too can't see how the GTI got rated "Poor" in handling. Reading the old civic article, "responsive and sublime" really means overboosted. Trust me, I've driven three different civics, an EX Coupe, an LX Coupe, and an LX Sedan, they all have the overboosted feeling, which deceives the average Joe into thinking its a good thing. It slalom proves that boosting steering feel doesn't mean it truly is responsive.

LOL!

Yeah, u gotta laugh at the poor numbers of the GTI. Wow.

The turtle wins the race!

The GTI has only 12% less (peak) torque than the TDI, but it has 43% more (peak) HP. Both are turbo, and that's why the GTI pounds the TDI in a straight line. The GTI is also making gobs of torque down low with that turbo, just a little less.

Personally, I think the 0-60 of the TDI is fine with great mpg.

(This is why I don't bother with IL's slalom numbers ... it's such a useless test.)

There is no discrepancy (at least not in the test methodology or accuracy). The slalom number is not a typo. The TDI does slalom faster than the GTI.

The TDI shares the GTI's stability control logic, which means it also can't be disabled. This simple fact, while easily overlooked, can't be underestimated. Electronic aids and inhibitors like electronic stability control can throw a hitch in handling results, which is a frustrating obstacle for test drivers. This is why we make a point of calling out cars which have non-defeat stability systems. No longer is one testing the car's true limits. Instead, we're left to second guess the ESC's calibration. It's like a wrestling match with the engineer who calibrated the system. There are multiple plausible explanations:

Small differences in driving technique and road surface are often amplified by these systems. A minuscule line change that would otherwise go unnoticed or be compensated for later in the run by the driver can be exacerbated by the system, causing it to trigger. Exceeding the system's yaw or slip thresholds (however slightly), for example, might be punished by heavy brake application or throttle trimming or both. Add in the fact that our slalom isn't perfectly smooth and it leaves room for different systems to react in different ways -- just like they would in the real world. Some systems handle these changes better than others. The GTI's reacts to aggressive driving with aggressive intervention.

Another likely possibility is that the same (or very similar) stability control calibrations are used across various wheel and tire options and suspension calibrations on the Golf and GTI. Recalibrating these systems for every possible combination is time consuming, difficult to do well and expensive. Our findings show that doing so isn't critically important to Volkswagen in the U.S. where most cars roll off dealer lots with one of several low-grip all-season tire options.

Clearly, these two cars have different tires. And, yes, the GTI has 18s. But we've already seen in that the same 17-inch tires the TDI uses equaled or beat the numbers produced by our long-term GTI (with 18s) when fitted to the GTI we tested last December -- http://www.insideline.com/volkswagen/gti/2010/2010-volkswagen-gti-full-test-and-video.html. Weight distribution, power delivery and gearing all affect slalom numbers as well -- more so when working against a possibly identical ESC calibration.

Josh Jacquot, Senior road test editor

Modern day stopping distances are mainly a matter of tire footprint and tire composition vs. vehicle weight and pitch. Todays braking systems are usually sized right for the requirements of the vehicle.

What is different between many small sporty cars and SUV's that stop in similar distances is fade and wear. One time braking performance can be matched, but on heavier vehicles, brake system and tire wear will increase and fade will be more prevalent after repeated braking efforts.

Good follow-up Josh Jacquot. Many people don't like to believe numbers when they don;t agree with their beliefs.

Stability control that can't be completely turned off really does spoil the high-performance driving experience. At the track, ESC causes a lot of herky-jerky response from the car and slows me down because the car doesn't transition with a smooth motion. I'm much smoother and faster with it off because I can trust that the car will respond with a natural, linear feel.

I have an 07 GTI (completely defeatable ESC) with a simple rear sway bar mod, and the difference between ESC on and off is dramatic. Lift throttle rotation is fun and easy with ESC off; if the ESC is on, it's just a bummer to feel the front wheel brake, trying to straighten out the car.

I'd hate to buy a new GTI expecting to mod it's suspension, and end up just banging into the electronic limits of the car after all my efforts.

All of this points to are two things:
The TDi is a great car,
and as demonstrated the first time you published "poor" for the GTI's handling rating (which I believe is ridiculous), you need to be far more in-depth in the narrative of your blogs. Enthusiasts who view these blogs should not be left hanging like that. As I said in the other blog, that is absolutely bush-league. I believe -- check that, I KNOW -- you're better than that, from reading what some of the IL staff have written in other publications.

I love the new GTI -it's a fantastic daily driver. But it just kills me that VW doesn't offer a truly hardcore version of this car (No, the Golf R doesn't count. It's really more of a "super-GTI" than a WRX STI competitor). I don't even think it needs much more power. --just a proper LSD, light wheels, good tires, bigger brakes and a quicker steering rack. The chassis is immensely talented...it just needs to be set free from its bad all-season tires, open diff and soft suspension. If it were tuned to the same degree that the Mazdaspeed3 is, I think it'd eat the Mazda for breakfast.

I think it's great that the GTI was rated "poor", because that makes people ask why. And the "why" is pretty disappointing. The GTI is considered to be an enthusiast vehicle, and it clearly wasn't designed to handle any track or autocross duty. That's a huge consideration. And I like jrhspeed's commentary on his '07. The chassis does not seem to need that kind of intervention, anyway. A lot of people would be very frustrated throwing down good money for this GTI if they expected a tidy 9/10th's driver.

Put some good summer tires on that GTI Eds. C'mon!

Logic is not your friend. You said the TDI was quicker than a Civic. I pointed out that apples to apples, the TDI is, in fact, slower. End of story. The rest of your post is irrelavent to my response and fraught with more errors of logic, fact and selection bias. Toodles.

"The Golf TDI with its automatic (DSG Tiptronic) gets the same 0-60 time as its manual counterpart. Furthermore, when people buy Honda Civics, do they go for the manual transmission? No. Lastly, even though the manual Civic can run neck to neck with the automatic and manual Golf TDI, the TDI is still 400lbs heavier than a base civic dx, and both claim the same horsepower with the Tdi having a .01 disadvantage in drag coefficiency yet it gets double the fuel mileage, which proves the point that Torque does make a difference, not only in the feeling of a car (what matters), but in the numbers as well."

That sound is IL's reputation on track test numbers blowing up in their faces. Good follow up by Josh here but it still doesn't change the fact that these numbers need to be taken a very large grain of salt. Perhaps it's always been my fault in putting too much stake (no matter how little it was) in the numbers before this.

Everybody puts too much stake in the numbers. That's why we put words between them.

Josh

"I think it's great that the GTI was rated "poor", because that makes people ask why."

That's the thing -- we shouldn't have to ask why. It should be clearly explained in the narrative. Josh coming back and explaining himself after-the-fact -- twice -- is not good journalism. Really, when observed against what other media have reported about the GTI, Josh's rating IS an anomaly. I'm not saying the car is razor sharp, because clearly it isn't, based on all reports I've read, but "poor?" I don't think anyone would go that far.

BTW, I don't really care that he rated the GTI "poor" because I will make up my own mind about the car's handling and whether it is right for me. I'm not going to track it.

The 18s are about 27 pounds a corner and require suspension travel limiters to make them work. The 17s are lighter (I'm not 100% sure how much the TDI's wheels weigh, but the 17" 5-spokers from the GTI are about 21 pounds a corner) and don't require the suspension travel limiters. It doesn't explain all of the difference but it could be a decent chunk of it.

I shake my head everytime I see a MkV or MkVI GTI on the factory 18s...

@Church123

Apples to Apples, I said the TDI is faster than a Civic. Assuming that these are both AUTOMATIC, which is the main transmissions that mostly everyone looking in this segment purchase. An automatic TDI is faster than an automatic Civic, while weighing 400lbs more, thus diesel torque proves its prowess. Then the manual civic (I've seen someone on the 8th gen forums getting sub 9 0-60 times in his EX Sedan 5MT) can run neck to neck with the tdi automatic and manual. However. I do not know anyone without an automatic in their Civics, and that includes five people with the 8th gen and three with the 6th gens.

I can go on about how the 8th generation Civic fails at many things these days compared to its older models all the way back to the 1984 Civic Hatchback, to the greatest Civic, 1999, which some thugs thought the same way and stole it from my driveway, to its worst iteration, the current 8th generation. Get off of your Civic high horse, I've lived through 5 of them. I'm not bashing them for no reason. They've slowly become more ridiculous as time went on from the 6th gens.

I lost all interest in civics when Honda moved away from the double wishbone suspension at all four corners. I do not know what generation that was.

I saw a comment or two above pondering how much more the 18s with the Dunlops could weigh vs. the 17s with the Continentals...
While I can't speak for the TDI wheels/tires, I did weigh my 18 inch Detroit wheels with Dunlop SP Sport 01 A/S tires when I had them off for my proper winter wheels/tires and...WOW are they heavy.

52 POUNDS of wheel/tire/pressure-sensor-valve-stem/air per corner for the GTI.

I'm currently looking for lightweight wheels (probably 17s honestly) and stiffer sidewalled summer tires for my 2010 GTI. Any suggestions?

Man that TDI rips through the slalom on that video. Anyone have the video link to a Prius running the slalom?

@compressor - I believe the slalom numbers, it's just that they don't translate to anything tangible in the real world for the average Joe. 0-60 mostly, and braking do, though. Every car does fine in the slalom these days ... 60-this vs 60-that is just plain noise.

"I'm currently looking for lightweight wheels (probably 17s honestly) and stiffer sidewalled summer tires for my 2010 GTI. Any suggestions?"

Dunlop Dirreza Star Spec's. Won a C&D "budget performance" tire comparo, decent tread life, good at the track for everyone but the truly hardcore. A bit noisy is the downside.

Check out golfmkv.com or golfmkvi.com for some enthusiasts websites.

@36_guy - If you think a GTI with MS3 power would "eat the MS3 for breakfast" then you obviously know very little about the MS3 or its chassis, etc. And it's not like you can't put lighter wheels, better tires, etc on a MS3 to make it handle even better just like you can with any car. The MS3 runs Nordschleife just as quick as an S2000 stock (8:39). Virginia International Raceway? Mazdaspeed3: 3:16.00 / GTI: 3:25.00

I wanted the TDI Golf for a long time until I saw one in person. They're very tiny, and honestly look a little too girly for me (and I'm a chick...). So now I'm thinking about these 2, had considered a WRX but read enough bad reviews to decide against. Leaning towards the TDI Jetta because diesel engines don't die and the fuel economy is through the roof, but was looking into something a little more sporty looking like the GTI. I think after reading all this, the Jetta will be sporty and fun enough for me!