VW announces Golf MKVII's five engines and new equipment

[Hooklyn]

1. APR already has info for the new 1.8T stage 1 tune?

2. i never said they were irrelevant. you really do like to put words into other peoples' mouths eh?

3. do you now?

4. power to weight is performance related, not performance based.

5. no.

6. bringing my mother into this, classy.

7. where did we get numbers of 160/184 for the 1.8T?

1 - We have no reason to believe it will be any different. The car has already debuted in Europe and is currently on VW.UK an VW Deutchland and that motor is already in use in other markets.

2 - You said 'less relevant'. My mistake... However assuming in that statement that because no one asked for the info I provided that it is not (less) relevant to the discussion. I didn't ask for your opinion so that must mean it is irrelevant. I do agree with that much though your logic otherwise IS flawed.

3 - I do know a lot about this car. I currently own a MKVI GTI, had a MKV GTI, and my wife is on her second CC. I know plenty about VAG. As I have clearly illustrated numerous times on this board.

4 - Thanks, I know what power-to-weight ratio is. I could have just as easily compared the performance figures of the MKVI to the predicted figures of the MKVII Golf 1.8TSI based on said power-to-weight ratio. My point was to illustrate just how close they were. Regardless of what the actual numbers are. But if you need them...

5 - They were your words... If you would like to take everything you said back, that would be great. Might help you save face, if at all possible at this point.

6 - Just trying to understand what your deal is. Maybe I can better 'tailor' my responses (read dumb down) to help you better understand them.

7 - That is the motor that has been confirmed to replace the 2.5 in the Passat and Jetta next year with the Beetle to follow. 160hp/184lb-ft. 1.8TSI. It has been in use in Europe for a few years now. Thanks for proving #3...
http://blog.caranddriver.com/vw-jetta-gets-turbo-four-in-2013-passat-a-few-months-later/

If you were a bit less aggressive and confrontational you might learn something here.

 

[DAS_STIG]

1 - We have no reason to believe it will be any different. The car has already debuted in Europe and is currently on VW.UK an VW Deutchland and that motor is already in use in other markets.

2 - You said 'less relevant'. My mistake... However assuming in that statement that because no one asked for the info I provided that it is not (less) relevant to the discussion. I didn't ask for your opinion so that must mean it is irrelevant. I do agree with that much though your logic otherwise IS flawed.

3 - I do know a lot about this car. I currently own a MKVI GTI, had a MKV GTI, and my wife is on her second CC. I know plenty about VAG. As I have clearly illustrated numerous times on this board.

4 - Thanks, I know what power-to-weight ratio is. I could have just as easily compared the performance figures of the MKVI to the predicted figures of the MKVII Golf 1.8TSI based on said power-to-weight ratio. My point was to illustrate just how close they were. Regardless of what the actual numbers are. But if you need them...

5 - They were your words... If you would like to take everything you said back, that would be great. Might help you save face, if at all possible at this point.

6 - Just trying to understand what your deal is. Maybe I can better 'tailor' my responses (read dumb down) to help you better understand them.

7 - That is the motor that has been confirmed to replace the 2.5 in the Passat and Jetta next year with the Beetle to follow. 160hp/184lb-ft. 1.8TSI. It has been in use in Europe for a few years now. Thanks for proving #3...
http://blog.caranddriver.com/vw-jetta-gets-turbo-four-in-2013-passat-a-few-months-later/

If you were a bit less aggressive and confrontational you might learn something here.

1. interesting... where did APR post information about their stage 1 for the new 2013 1.8T?

2. your opinion of my logic is flawed.

3. your logic is flawed here. simply because you own previous generations of a certain make does not therefor guarantee you know something about a brand new car that is not even out in this market yet.

4. ah, but now that kind of comparison would have been a true performance comparison. as it stands, it's not.

5. i'm good.

6. good luck.

7. 158/185 according to the article you linked. those are euro numbers too, not seeing true NA numbers yet. you're welcome for allowing you to disprove your own assumption under point #3.

 

[Hooklyn]

1. interesting... your numbers in the calculation are off though, but then it's tough to say what the numbers here will be due to varying emission standards.

2. your opinion of my logic is flawed.

3. your logic is flawed here. simply because you own previous generations of a certain make does not therefor guarantee you know something about a brand new car that is not even out in this market yet.

4. ah, but now that kind of comparison would have been a true performance comparison. as it stands, it's not.

5. i'm good.

6. good luck.

7. 158/185 according to the article you linked. those are euro numbers too, not seeing true NA numbers yet. you're welcome for allowing you to disprove your own assumption under point #3.

Wow...

1 - C&D is the one reporting the numbers. I just put the confirmed power figures with the confirmed weight figures to net the calculated power-to-weight ratio... EASY, even for an engineer like yourself.

2 - Your logic says that because no one asked, my info is less relevant. That is EXACTLY what you said. If not, then why do you consider it less relevant? And less relevant than what? That makes no sense.

3 - This provides additional credibility. I have proven, with sources, the content of my info, so I figured being a super fan might take things to the next level if you are still having trouble understanding the merit of my content (which is just simply plucked from professional sources).

4 - It is a relative performance comparison, not a true performance comparison. Do you understand the concepts of relativity Mr. Engineer man?

Every time I quote actual performance figures from documented sources (even including my own personal C&D test) people find fault with them for various reasons from testing conditions and vehicle condition, etc simply because they can't match them on their own.

5 - Thought as much.

6 - So you elude that your deal is not possible to understand. I agree. You don't even know why you are arguing anymore. I am not sure why I even started with your nonsense in the first place. Nothing I said was refutable. You just failed at an attempt of a personal quip that made no sense given the context of the discussion.

7 - Those figures are the approximations based on metric horsepower and torque figures listed for the motor. In any event, 158hp (160PS) and 185 lb-ft (250 NM) are the specs for the motor. Again FROM CAR AND DRIVER. Don't shoot the messenger.
Of which you obviously didn't know in the first place or you wouldn't have asked me where they came from...

What is your point of doing all of this?
What has it changed?
What has it proven?

 

[DAS_STIG]

Wow...

1 - C&D is the one reporting the numbers. I just put the confirmed power figures with the confirmed weight figures to net the calculated power-to-weight ratio... EASY, even for an engineer like yourself.

2 - Your logic says that because no one asked, my info is less relevant. That is EXACTLY what you said. If not, then why do you consider it less relevant? And less relevant than what? That makes no sense.

3 - This provides additional credibility. I have proven, with sources, the content of my info, so I figured being a super fan might take things to the next level if you are still having trouble understanding the merit of my content (which is just simply plucked from professional sources).

4 - It is a relative performance comparison, not a true performance comparison. Do you understand the concepts of relativity Mr. Engineer man?

Every time I quote actual performance figures from documented sources (even including my own personal C&D test) people find fault with them for various reasons from testing conditions and vehicle condition, etc simply because they can't match them on their own.

5 - Thought as much.

6 - So you elude that your deal is not possible to understand. I agree. You don't even know why you are arguing anymore. I am not sure why I even started with your nonsense in the first place. Nothing I said was refutable. You just failed at an attempt of a personal quip that made no sense given the context of the discussion.

7 - Those figures are the approximations based on metric horsepower and torque figures listed for the motor. In any event, 158hp (160PS) and 185 lb-ft (250 NM) are the specs for the motor. Again FROM CAR AND DRIVER. Don't shoot the messenger.
Of which you obviously didn't know in the first place or you wouldn't have asked me where they came from...

What is your point of doing all of this?
What has it changed?
What has it proven?

1. sorry, i moved some of that to point #7. has APR released their numbers for stage 1? you said we had actual data for 1.8T stage 1, but nothing for k04?

2. yes. you finally got it! since no one asked, it is less relevant to the topic at hand, but not irrelevant.

3. not really. plenty of people have owned many more VWs than you, yet have never bothered to research any of them. so in this case, A does not necessarily lead to B.

4. sounds good. at least you finally admit you're wrong and it's not a true performance comparison. i don't try to find fault with the numbers... don't believe i ever questioned the numbers you've provided from factual sources.

5. yup.

6. pretty much. personal quip though? don't remember quipping at any point. my apologies if anything i said was taken as a quip as i don't particularly like to quip.

7. i know why i'm arguing, that's all that i care about. i'm not shooting the messenger. C&D said 158/185, you used 160/184. for someone that loves to be factual, this is tough to overlook. it would also have been more accurate if you compared these numbers to euro MK6 numbers for your relative performance comparison.

 

[Hooklyn]

1. sorry, i moved some of that to point #7. has APR released their numbers for stage 1? you said we had actual data for 1.8T stage 1, but nothing for k04?

2. yes. you finally got it! since no one asked, it is less relevant to the topic at hand, but not irrelevant.

3. not really. plenty of people have owned many more VWs than you, yet have never bothered to research any of them. so in this case, A does not necessarily lead to B.

4. sounds good. at least you finally admit you're wrong and it's not a true performance comparison. i don't try to find fault with the numbers... don't believe i ever questioned the numbers you've provided from factual sources.

5. yup.

6. pretty much. personal quip though? don't remember quipping at any point. my apologies if anything i said was taken as a quip as i don't particularly like to quip.

7. i know why i'm arguing, that's all that i care about. i'm not shooting the messenger. C&D said 158/185, you used 160/184. for someone that loves to be factual, this is tough to overlook. it would also have been more accurate if you compared these numbers to euro MK6 numbers for your relative performance comparison.

1 - The K04 upgrade to the 1.8TSI motor nets 330hp and 335 lb-ft.

2 - Providing context doesn't change the relevancy. If anything it would change the depth of the topic.

3 - Never said it automatically makes me a VW expert. Just shows that I have some skin in the game knowing I have owned the last 2 generations of the very car in question. Its all documented fact with sources. Nothing more SHOULD be required.

4 - It is a relative performance comparison. You took it to be an actual performance comparison even though I didn't even quote a single performance metric, though easily could have. What did you question at all?

5/6 - Personal attack, but certainly not a joke.

7 - Why are you arguing? Just to argue. I know what all the numbers are but comparing them to the Euro MKVI numbers because it is a different car. The 1.8T isn't offered in the Euro market Golf. And of course the Euro market GTI with the 2.0T differs from our NA market GTI with the 2.0T.

The 160 figure I used was the metric hp number and I did misspeak in the 184lb-ft figure. I was going on memory.

In any event, the 2 hp (just the PS to HP conversion) and 1 lb-ft would NOT change the power-to-weight ratio of the car.

It was a plain and simple power-to-weight distribution comparison to illustrate just how good the 1.8T should/could be in the MKVII iteration. We already know where the MKVI GTI is so that was the best comparison to use.

Just give it up. Nothing I said was wrong. Nothing I said has changed. Its all still 100% true. And you just look like an idiot trying to refute information you admitted you didn't know...

 

[DAS_STIG]

1 - The K04 upgrade to the 1.8TSI motor nets 330hp and 335 lb-ft.

2 - Providing context doesn't change the relevancy. If anything it would change the depth of the topic.

3 - Never said it automatically makes me a VW expert. Just shows that I have some skin in the game knowing I have owned the last 2 generations of the very car in question. Its all documented fact with sources. Nothing more SHOULD be required.

4 - It is a relative performance comparison. You took it to be an actual performance comparison even though I didn't even quote a single performance metric, though easily could have. What did you question at all?

5/6 - Personal attack, but certainly not a joke.

7 - Why are you arguing? Just to argue. I know what all the numbers are but comparing them to the Euro MKVI numbers because it is a different car. The 1.8T isn't offered in the Euro market Golf. And of course the Euro market GTI with the 2.0T differs from our NA market GTI with the 2.0T.

The 160 figure I used was the metric hp number and I did misspeak in the 184lb-ft figure. I was going on memory.

In any event, the 2 hp (just the PS to HP conversion) and 1 lb-ft would NOT change the power-to-weight ratio of the car.

It was a plain and simple power-to-weight distribution comparison to illustrate just how good the 1.8T should/could be in the MKVII iteration. We already know where the MKVI GTI is so that was the best comparison to use.

Just give it up. Nothing I said was wrong. Nothing I said has changed. Its all still 100% true. And you just look like an idiot trying to refute information you admitted you didn't know...

1. man you really don't read eh? where is this from? i'm not asking for numbers, i'm asking for source.

2. yes it does. if i blurt out "I LOVE LAMP" in the middle of a conversation about whether jessica alba is hotter than vida guerra... context of the conversation makes a big difference.

3. k.

4. "Comparing said power-to-weight ratio to the MKVI GTI provides a basis of known performance metrics in which to compare the new MKVII 1.8T to." so are you or are you not using performance metrics?

5/6. you are the one who commented on how my mother brought me up. i never attacked you.

7. from the C&D article you linked "Already on the market in Europe, the 1.8T makes 158 hp and 185 lb-ft of torque." might not be offered in the golf, but those are euro numbers based on their ratings standards. compare them to similar numbers from the MK6 GTI would be more ideal than comparing euro 1.8T to NA 2.0T.

8. i'll start a new point here. what am i trying to refute? i never said anything you wrote was wrong except the numbers from C&D that are slightly different. i do argue that some of your reasoning doesn't make sense like comparing euro to US numbers, but never did i say they were wrong. also, you didn't really KNOW the information either. you remembered it wrong, therefore you didn't know it. there you go again with putting words in peoples' mouths.

 

[Hooklyn]

1. man you really don't read eh? where is this from? i'm not asking for numbers, i'm asking for source.

2. yes it does. if i blurt out "I LOVE LAMP" in the middle of a conversation about whether jessica alba is hotter than vida guerra... context of the conversation makes a big difference.

3. k.

4. "Comparing said power-to-weight ratio to the MKVI GTI provides a basis of known performance metrics in which to compare the new MKVII 1.8T to." so are you or are you not using performance metrics?

5/6. you are the one who commented on how my mother brought me up. i never attacked you.

7. from the C&D article you linked "Already on the market in Europe, the 1.8T makes 158 hp and 185 lb-ft of torque." might not be offered in the golf, but those are euro numbers based on their ratings standards. compare them to similar numbers from the MK6 GTI would be more ideal than comparing euro 1.8T to NA 2.0T.

8. i'll start a new point here. what am i trying to refute? i never said anything you wrote was wrong except the numbers from C&D that are slightly different. i do argue that some of your reasoning doesn't make sense like comparing euro to US numbers, but never did i say they were wrong. also, you didn't really KNOW the information either. you remembered it wrong, therefore you didn't know it. there you go again with putting words in peoples' mouths.

1 - From APR's website.
2 - I mentioned engine specs in an engine discussion thread...
3 - k...
4 - I am using RELATIVE performance metrics, not ABSOLUTE performance metrics.
5/6 - You were condescending from the onset. Not what you said but how you said it...
7 - C&D says the 1.8T in the Jetta and Passat will make 158hp/185lb-ft. In any event, the actual figures won't be far off. You can compare any of the other Euro offerings to see that they are largely the same in either market. Certainly the case for VAG products. Please visit their (VW UK) websites to see this.
8 - I am comparing known numbers with known numbers. The actual 'Euro' figure would be the metric equivalent which is 160 PS and 250 NM. I compared horsepower to horsepower and lb-ft to lb-ft with pounds as the weight metric for each.

It was just done to provide a loose indication of what the 1.8T has the potential for in the MKVII Golf application. And of course when the K04 reference was brought in I took this 'potential' performance and made it into 'actual and perceived' results. Just going one step further.

Which GolfMK6 member are you?

 

[DAS_STIG]

1 - From APR's website.
2 - I mentioned engine specs in an engine discussion thread...
3 - k...
4 - I am using RELATIVE performance metrics, not ABSOLUTE performance metrics.
5/6 - You were condescending from the onset. Not what you said but how you said it...
7 - C&D says the 1.8T in the Jetta and Passat will make 158hp/185lb-ft. In any event, the actual figures won't be far off. You can compare any of the other Euro offerings to see that they are largely the same in either market. Certainly the case for VAG products. Please visit their (VW UK) websites to see this.
8 - I am comparing known numbers with known numbers. The actual 'Euro' figure would be the metric equivalent which is 160 PS and 250 NM. I compared horsepower to horsepower and lb-ft to lb-ft with pounds as the weight metric for each.

It was just done to provide a loose indication of what the 1.8T has the potential for in the MKVII Golf application. And of course when the K04 reference was brought in I took this 'potential' performance and made it into 'actual and perceived' results. Just going one step further.

Which GolfMK6 member are you?

not seeing new 1.8T numbers on the APR site. is it on their non-US site or something?

same name. just bored at work today.

 

[GTA5]

sweet !

 

[Hooklyn]

not seeing new 1.8T numbers on the APR site. is it on their non-US site or something?

same name. just bored at work today.

http://www.goapr.com/products/turbo_trans_18_tsi_k04.html

 

[DAS_STIG]

http://www.goapr.com/products/turbo_trans_18_tsi_k04.html

what about stage 1?

 

[Hooklyn]

what about stage 1?

http://www.goapr.com/products/ecu_upgrade_18tsi_trans.html

Stock REPORTED 1.8TFSI figures - 158 hp / 180 lb-ft
APR Stock DYNOED 1.8TFSI figures - 183 hp / 206 lb-ft
APR Stage 1 DYNOED 1.8TFSI figures - 208 hp / 232 lb-ft (+25 hp / +26 lb-ft)
APR Stock DYNOED 2.0TSI figures - 216 hp / 227 lb-ft
APR K04 DYNOED 1.8TFSI figures - 330 hp / 335 lb-ft (+147 hp / +129 lb-ft)

That means JUST Stage 1 on the 1.8TFSI puts it at about as-tested (dynoed) figures of the stock 2.0TSI motor on the MKVI GTI. In a car that weighs 200+lbs less, is quite promising.

 

[vwman]

The german configurator is already UP! For the 7.

It looks like the TDIs will come with a 6 spd DSG once again and the DSG equipped cars are rated worse than the manuals once again . So I am going to guess that my next VW/TDI if I decide to go that route will be manual.

Rated worse by who ??
Can you post links to the review 'rated worse than manuals once again' .
I have read numerous reviews but have not got that impression rather the opposite...