2025 VW Golf R vs GR Corolla | Not Even Close
3 reading
gazooing
41 - 60 of 101 Posts
I've heard that the older ones may have been roomier, so it's nice to hear there were other options at least at one point. But yeah, it wasn't very pleasant, but thankfully my ex-gf was the one driving it 95% of the time.
Manufacturers actually rate engine power and those ratings are not governed by external entities, at least in the US. Now, if they lie about it having more than it actually does then they can get sued for false advertising etc, but yeah underrating is pretty common with German brands as said. That said, the Golf R must be making 370-400chp stock, which is definitely super underrated, and that's why it's making 330whp or w/e.
Joined
·
1,655 Posts
I'm never going to knock anyone for liking what they like. I learned that lesson a long time ago, that I have more in common with other car enthusiasts than any other group, why would I want to alienate my peers, for some insecure need to feel superior? If they're into cars, cool, lets chat. I do however, find it very interesting what influences -why- people like what they like. Comparing numbers on paper is pretty meaningless in the long run, but its fun topic to chat about. Overly opinionated/preloaded/biased reviews and comparisons are entertaining, but that's it. Many are negative... on purpose. The only part I find frustrating is how it all influences people's opinions and egos, pushing a negative image like some sort of competition and ultimately limiting interest. Not all press is good press in this respect even if a channel gets extra clicks for it, it's ultimately at the expense of the hobby we all love. This is the reason why cars like this exist in such few numbers; too much criticism.
Personally I'm with the lot of you regarding reasons why I chose the GRC. It's certainly not the best driving, best handling car I've personally ever owned, and it makes plenty of sacrifices that other cars excel at. But, it does all the things I want, the way I like, and it does them well enough with no major red flags that I'm very happy with it.
Personally I'm with the lot of you regarding reasons why I chose the GRC. It's certainly not the best driving, best handling car I've personally ever owned, and it makes plenty of sacrifices that other cars excel at. But, it does all the things I want, the way I like, and it does them well enough with no major red flags that I'm very happy with it.
@wheelhaus - There’s a core lesson / worldly adage embedded in your comment that I appreciate greatly and strive to follow every day (though don’t always succeed). I think it can be parsed into two statements:
1. Curiosity over judgement — Be curious about the world around you, why you are the way you are and why those around you are the way they are. Don’t simply judge others for being different, but attempt to find the reasons for and benefits of those differences by remaining curious and abstaining from judgement.
2. Don’t yuck other people’s yum — Our tastes, preferences, sensibilities, and perspectives all differ from one another. Just because you only like cars in shades of grays and blacks doesn’t mean your neighbor cannot similarly only like cars in shades of white. We like what we like and we should embrace that in ourselves and in others. If we all “yum” slightly different things, then there’ll be little to no wasted “yuck” and there’ll be enough “yum” to go around. Isn’t uniformity boring anyway?
Appreciate you, as always.
I suspect we see so few wrecked Golfs (base, GTI, R) — and they fail to crack the top 50 of most accident-prone cars — because of two reasons mentioned in this thread:
1. The combined infotainment/environmental control system is so heinous people just ignore all of it altogether, leaving them to focus on driving the darn thing.
2. By the time the Golfs would likely end up in an accident (I.e., the novelty has worn off as the miles pile up and owners driving a little less conservatively), reliability issues kill the car before the driver has a chance to kill it in an accident.
This infographic is 18 months or so out of date, but it’s a fun one:
Joined
·
773 Posts
I grew up in the muscle car era where, often, the marketing and advertising folks had more to do with advertised power ratings than the engineers did. Lots of stuff went on then. "Under-rating" usually meant simply listing a correct HP number, but at an rpm lower than where the engine made its peak power. So, technically they weren't lying when they said "290HP @ 5000 rpm". They just forgot to mention that at 6500 rpm, it was making 340HP. Often done to help with insurance costs and to try and fool racing sanctioning bodies. My favorite story about this was the original 396 big block Chevy offered in the '65 Corvette. It was rated at 425HP. The next year, the same 396 was rated at 375HP in various Chevy offerings. But the NHRA saw right past that -- and for purposes of calculating weight breaks, etc. they 're-rated' the L78 396/375 at 425HP. You can guess where they got that number from.
Basically since 1972 most manufacturers have been rating HP at the crank according to the current SAE spec (most US manufacturers) or DIN spec (most European and some Japanese manufacturers), both of which are "net" ratings instead of the old gross ratings. The specs change from time to time -- they basically lay out testing protocols that the manufacturers follow. The DIN spec often lists what's called 'metric HP' in units of PS -- which is different from a HP rating by about 1.4%....pretty close. Some countries list in KW - which can easily be converted to HP. The new R is rated at 333PS which converts to 328HP.
I simply don't believe that some manufacturers are listing "wheel" HP numbers rather than the standard that's been used for decades - SAE or DIN spec which measures net crank HP. And I don't think they are arbitrarily 'underrating' their numbers either. That's just what my thinking/research tells me - I understand opinions vary. In any event, I think that the performance differences that show up between these cars - 1.5 seconds of lap time, about 1/2 a second in the 1/4 mile - simply don't jive with a 100wHP difference on a 3400 lb (test weight) car.
So, I'm back where I was. If you believe the dyno, I think the VW's being 'more' than it can be. Or, Toyota's automatic is putting out a TREMENDOUS amount of heat just consuming a bunch of HP. I can't believe the latter.
But - just checked my phone. Yup. Not one person has called to ask what I think. As per usual. Good day all gents!!!
Joined
·
773 Posts
Lots of wisdom here - widehipped and wheelhaus. This cracked me up - "reliability issues kill the car before the driver has a chance to kill it in an accident." My first "Rabbit" - reliability issues first and THEN I killed it in an accident. "...the reason why cars like this exist in such few numbers; too much criticism." I think the market has a way of wading through opinions and criticism (deserved or underserved). I think the reason for low production numbers on cars like these is simple - there just aren't that many enthusiasts out there. The vast majority of folks view their automobiles just as they do their refrigerators. An appliance.
Joined
·
35 Posts
Joined
·
38 Posts
I'm not really adding anything new to what's already been said above, but here's my take:
I think the review misses the mark in several ways. I have a GRC and I'm an admitted fan boy, so bias level is high here! But I absolutely love mine, I think it's one of, if not the most fun and rewarding daily driver car I've had (and I've had many). I just can't agree with SG's opinion that "it's not even close." Here's why:
1. Overall I think this comparison pits strength against weakness: The DSG is a strength for the R, against the weaker transmission choice for the GRC. I also don't think it makes sense to choose the highest spec Premium Plus GRC. The GRC's strength is NOT in the interior do dads and "luxuries" that are offered in the premium plus. It's strength is the chassis and drive train shared with all trim levels. So put a core with performance pack (maybe that's gone now in 2025 and they all have F+R diffs?) and a manual against a Golf R and much of the support for their conclusions crumbles. In that comparison the Golf is $10k more (25% more expensive than the GRC!), the GRC closes the power gap a bit, and the fun factor of the GRC (it's strength) is WAY up. That's the right comparo.
2. It's interesting to me that that the SG boys are very much an outlier in their consistent dislike of the GRC. Many of the dislikes they point out are the same as those highlighted by other journalists and youtubers (in other words, they are legit gripes/issues), but with the same inputs, they consistently arrive at the conclusion that it's a product they don't like, whereas the other reviews I have read/watched consistently conclude that it's the most fun you can have on the market for a tick over $40k. Which riffs off my prior point that the real comparison here is a $40k car against a $49k car.
3. These reviews must drive car manufacturers nuts. The journalists harp on about: driver engagement over horsepower; save the manual trans; real buttons not screens; the crime against humanity that is piano black; and generally focusing on enjoyment over numbers. So Toyota delivers a spicy little three banger filled with engagement and character that's a bit down on power and ditches the fancy interior for some really useful buttons, and these guys crap all over it! What happened to: it's all about driver engagement?
4. They barely touch on the character of the engines, and the character of the cars generally. The Golf R is an incredibly efficient way to deliver performance numbers. It's really handsome but undeniably bland. Come on, you aren't once going to mention how much more fun it is to ring out the little three banger with 21 lbs of boost than yet one more 2 liter turbo four? No criticism of the lack of the manual? I've heard these guys consistently say they don't need faster cars, they want more engaging cars. That 2 liter turbo fours are just boring, not matter how much power they pump. And piano black, don't even get them started on piano black. So what gives here? Suddenly the additional speed in the straights is a difference maker and the physical button in the GR are just, meh?
I don't know why SG thinks so lowly of the GRC, but I can't agree.
I think the review misses the mark in several ways. I have a GRC and I'm an admitted fan boy, so bias level is high here! But I absolutely love mine, I think it's one of, if not the most fun and rewarding daily driver car I've had (and I've had many). I just can't agree with SG's opinion that "it's not even close." Here's why:
1. Overall I think this comparison pits strength against weakness: The DSG is a strength for the R, against the weaker transmission choice for the GRC. I also don't think it makes sense to choose the highest spec Premium Plus GRC. The GRC's strength is NOT in the interior do dads and "luxuries" that are offered in the premium plus. It's strength is the chassis and drive train shared with all trim levels. So put a core with performance pack (maybe that's gone now in 2025 and they all have F+R diffs?) and a manual against a Golf R and much of the support for their conclusions crumbles. In that comparison the Golf is $10k more (25% more expensive than the GRC!), the GRC closes the power gap a bit, and the fun factor of the GRC (it's strength) is WAY up. That's the right comparo.
2. It's interesting to me that that the SG boys are very much an outlier in their consistent dislike of the GRC. Many of the dislikes they point out are the same as those highlighted by other journalists and youtubers (in other words, they are legit gripes/issues), but with the same inputs, they consistently arrive at the conclusion that it's a product they don't like, whereas the other reviews I have read/watched consistently conclude that it's the most fun you can have on the market for a tick over $40k. Which riffs off my prior point that the real comparison here is a $40k car against a $49k car.
3. These reviews must drive car manufacturers nuts. The journalists harp on about: driver engagement over horsepower; save the manual trans; real buttons not screens; the crime against humanity that is piano black; and generally focusing on enjoyment over numbers. So Toyota delivers a spicy little three banger filled with engagement and character that's a bit down on power and ditches the fancy interior for some really useful buttons, and these guys crap all over it! What happened to: it's all about driver engagement?
4. They barely touch on the character of the engines, and the character of the cars generally. The Golf R is an incredibly efficient way to deliver performance numbers. It's really handsome but undeniably bland. Come on, you aren't once going to mention how much more fun it is to ring out the little three banger with 21 lbs of boost than yet one more 2 liter turbo four? No criticism of the lack of the manual? I've heard these guys consistently say they don't need faster cars, they want more engaging cars. That 2 liter turbo fours are just boring, not matter how much power they pump. And piano black, don't even get them started on piano black. So what gives here? Suddenly the additional speed in the straights is a difference maker and the physical button in the GR are just, meh?
I don't know why SG thinks so lowly of the GRC, but I can't agree.
Joined
·
35 Posts
Well said on 3. and 4.
I like watching reviewers... and I enjoy SG and the Canadian crybabies (Throttle house) in limited doses but Everyday Driver and that chick Sarah-n-Tuned are more enjoyable for my tastes.
Did I mention that chick Sarah-n-Tuned? Shes great and can get all techno without sounding like a jock strap.
I generally like SG, but they've had a thing against the car from the get-go. Mark thinks it's a dumb car given you could just buy a CTR (completely ignoring not only the trim price delta, but lack of AWD, and the minimum 5k ADM those have in many areas). Then you have Jack, who bought one to "test" and "build" and despite pouring a fuck load of parts into it (albeit sponsored) was never happy with the car and the fact that it still had the track overheating issues. Jack also prefers V8 or I6 RWD cars, like Vettes and BMWs, so it just wasn't ideal from the get-go IMO.
They basically just made the car seem like it's this quirky, pricey, heavily flawed vehicle that will only appeal to small audience, and I disagree with that narrative. It is flawed, like anything, and it is quirky, to a degree, but it absolutely competes on features/price and is much more visceral than anything it's going up against atm.
They basically just made the car seem like it's this quirky, pricey, heavily flawed vehicle that will only appeal to small audience, and I disagree with that narrative. It is flawed, like anything, and it is quirky, to a degree, but it absolutely competes on features/price and is much more visceral than anything it's going up against atm.
Joined
·
157 Posts
The thing that got me excited to own a GRC was all the reviewers that were grinning or laughing out loud while driving the GRC. Even reviews that ultimately bashed the GRC often spoke of how much fun it was to drive.
Having owned mine for 5 months and 4,600 miles, with about half of those miles on canyon-roads, rain and shine, it's the most consistently fun car I've ever driven. It's the closest thing to perfection, for me, that I've driven. I could not even imagine such a car existing, much less a Corolla, when I first started driving, in a 1973 Toyota Corolla 1200.
Having owned mine for 5 months and 4,600 miles, with about half of those miles on canyon-roads, rain and shine, it's the most consistently fun car I've ever driven. It's the closest thing to perfection, for me, that I've driven. I could not even imagine such a car existing, much less a Corolla, when I first started driving, in a 1973 Toyota Corolla 1200.
Joined
·
35 Posts
I really liked their Z06/GT3 comparo.
Joined
·
35 Posts
Well said!
Reviewers that couldn't keep from smiling made me search for a test drive and when I couldn't stop smiling on my test drive, I looked over at the wife and told her to take her GTI home because I was buying this car.
Reviewers that couldn't keep from smiling made me search for a test drive and when I couldn't stop smiling on my test drive, I looked over at the wife and told her to take her GTI home because I was buying this car.
Joined
·
773 Posts
Sarah talks?
Joined
·
1,655 Posts
This gets at what I was talking about, a great little car that is what everyone claims to want, but many reviewers still compulsively nitpick and complain. It's almost as if something does "check all the boxes" you should be satisfied, but then you've boxed yourself in with a car that you now have to compare everything to, and that means you're no longer the authority. So, you have to prove nothing is good enough even if you reach into hyperbole or unfair comparisons or blow little details out of proportion.
edit- "you" meaning anyone reviewing cars.
If you look at the reviewers that gravitate towards the GRC more, they tend to live in areas with more frequent elevation changes. They live in IL. SG seemly doesn't take that into account, so they just drive it around flat ass Autobahn raceway, whatever the hell that's suppose to be as a marker for the car. No wonder they harp on it, they live in an area that more FWD bias area would be acceptable. Their biggest knock against the VW was that the steering was vague, but it does have more power to the wheels and is more refined. What happens when you actually have to use all wheels on a surface that is not just flat? Never understood why Jack bought one for a year, just to track it there. It never made any sense, there were better cars for the price that fit better for their area.
Joined
·
30 Posts
i have had the chance to hoon around in both the Golf R (DSG) and GRC. yes, Golf R is quicker and more stable in everywhere, straight line or corners. it's also more comfortable but it just lacks the fun and drama, and less engagement.
Joined
·
157 Posts
Lol, she actually gave one of the most technically informative GRC reviews I've ever seen.
Joined
·
773 Posts
I'm actually a fan - but mostly of her work on the V8 Celica. I'm just not much interested in the car reviews.
41 - 60 of 101 Posts
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
