Polo GTi 316bhp

[Cadwest]

Have linked an article from top gear, it’s a bit out of my budget.

https://www.topgear.com/car-news/modifi ... lo-gti?amp

[monkeyhanger]

Have linked an article from top gear, it’s a bit out of my budget.

https://www.topgear.com/car-news/modifi ... lo-gti?amp

Stage1 (remap, no hardware mods ) for £500 is fine, bit once you start spending silly money, you'd be better off buying a Golf R or Audi S3. That stage 3 is a lot of money for the extra bhp over stage 1.

If I don't get tempted to swap out and keep the Polo long term then I might get it mapped or add a tuning box when the warranty is done in. Had my first GTI+ 1 year today! 8300 miles on it and it's getting better by the day.

[OomStu_ZA]

I'm in agreement with monkeyhanger on this. Besides, the car is already quick enough as standard, there is no need for me to boost performace coming from a 85kw 200nm 1.0l

[S_94]

Yep agreed.

I've had about 5-6 different people now telling me to map the car! If I owned it outright I probably would. Not taking the risk though, like OomStu_ZA said, it's quick enough as standard.

[monkeyhanger]

I'm in agreement with monkeyhanger on this. Besides, the car is already quick enough as standard, there is no need for me to boost performace coming from a 85kw 200nm 1.0l

It all depends what you're used to...I came from a Golf R, plenty more torque and power in a heavy and pretty sterile package - the Polo's more fun to drive and the difference in acceleration once rolling isn't huge.

I'd love a 250ps Polo GTI, but not enough to.bin my warranty 1 year into ownership - VWs aren't all that reliable these days. Not sure how stable a rear torsion beam suspension set up on the corners would be with 300ps or more and a heavy right foot. That kind of power would be begging for an LSD too.

[mike sel]

Yea nice idea and for a technical test its impressive. but for everyday ownership I think IF I wanted 350BHP I would turn to the golf R and have done with it. At least you know the whole car is designed to cope with the power. stage 1 mods On the Polo (once warrantee is passed) seems ok, but TBH I am surprised by VWs lack of reliability, I am worried enough that my polo will not last the term I hope to own it for let alone even upgrading to a 1st stage mod. Also I would not want to put too much power through the DSG on the Polo .

[monkeyhanger]

Yea nice idea and for a technical test its impressive. but for everyday ownership I think IF I wanted 350BHP I would turn to the golf R and have done with it. At least you know the whole car is designed to cope with the power. stage 1 mods On the Polo (once warrantee is passed) seems ok, but TBH I am surprised by VWs lack of reliability, I am worried enough that my polo will not last the term I hope to own it for let alone even upgrading to a 1st stage mod. Also I would not want to put too much power through the DSG on the Polo .

Are you talking about your own car or a GTI?

The wet clutch DQ250 6 speed DSG box in the Polo GTI was used in the Golf GTI and R right up until the MK7 Golf got a facelift, without hardware differences, just a software update to increase clutch plate clamping pressure for the R and CS/CSS as they have torque greater than 350nm. The introduction of the 7 speed wet clutch DSG on the facelift Golf GTI and R is all about economy with a tall 7th gear and improving 0-62 times with lower 1st and 2nd gear ratios. If the mechatronics unit doesn't go within warranty, it should last every long time.

The dry clutch 7 speed DSG was made to cope (just) with the last gen Polo GTI, so should be fine for the 115ps 1.0.

I'd be more worried about the 1.0 engine. 115ps is quite a bit to be pushing on a 1.0 3-pot, although other marques are pushing up to 140ps on 1.0s (and seeing the engines go pop very prematurely- Ford).

I do think that the Polo GTI can comfortably handle 250ps on the drivetrain, but a differential has to be maintained between the Polo and Golf GTI, especially as the Polo is a huge amount cheaper and almost as big for practicality considerations. Maybe when we see the performance Golfs disappear for a year as the MK8 Golf comes in we'll see a 230os Polo GTI Performance with 7 speed wet clutch DSG?

[l3rady]

So does this mean the Bosch ECU MG1 has been cracked now? or are they doing the ECU tune with addon ECU hardware?

EDIT:
Found an APR video here saying that it's cracked: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88wp_ex3eE8

Look forward to stage1 the car once the warranty is up.

[Slider09]

I'm in agreement with monkeyhanger on this. Besides, the car is already quick enough as standard, there is no need for me to boost performace coming from a 85kw 200nm 1.0l

....the Polo's more fun to drive and the difference in acceleration once rolling isn't huge.

I’d imagine it’s big enough [emoji3]
Golf R has 50% more power, shed load more torque and only weighs around 150kg more.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[monkeyhanger]

I'm in agreement with monkeyhanger on this. Besides, the car is already quick enough as standard, there is no need for me to boost performace coming from a 85kw 200nm 1.0l

....the Polo's more fun to drive and the difference in acceleration once rolling isn't huge.

I’d imagine it’s big enough [emoji3]
Golf R has 50% more power, shed load more torque and only weighs around 100kg more.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It didn't feel like 50% more power. About half of the Golf's 1.6 second 0-62mph advantage (I had the pre-facelift manual R 0-62 in 5.1s) is in the 4WD initial traction.

It's more like 130kg difference, 10% of the Polo's weight. Over a quarter of a rolling mile, there'll only be a few car lengths between them. I can live with that. The dynamics of the 2 cars are totally different - the Polo GTI feels nimble, the R feels like a tank.

[Slider09]

....the Polo's more fun to drive and the difference in acceleration once rolling isn't huge.

I’d imagine it’s big enough [emoji3]
Golf R has 50% more power, shed load more torque and only weighs around 100kg more.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It didn't feel like 50% more power. About half of the Golf's 1.6 second 0-62mph advantage (I had the pre-facelift manual R 0-62 in 5.1s) is in the 4WD initial traction.

It's more like 130kg difference, 10% of the Polo's weight. Over a quarter of a rolling mile, there'll only be a few car lengths between them. I can live with that. The dynamics of the 2 cars are totally different - the Polo GTI feels nimble, the R feels like a tank.

DSG R is around 4.6 secs to 60 in the real world. DSG Polo vs manual R would be a lot closer than Polo vs DSG R.

Agree the R is a heavy car. Even my wife who has a 7.5 Golf GTI said the R is heavy.

Never been in a Polo GTI so cant comment on its driving characteristics. Polos aren’t exactly small cars anymore either.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[monkeyhanger]

I’d imagine it’s big enough [emoji3]
Golf R has 50% more power, shed load more torque and only weighs around 100kg more.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It didn't feel like 50% more power. About half of the Golf's 1.6 second 0-62mph advantage (I had the pre-facelift manual R 0-62 in 5.1s) is in the 4WD initial traction.

It's more like 130kg difference, 10% of the Polo's weight. Over a quarter of a rolling mile, there'll only be a few car lengths between them. I can live with that. The dynamics of the 2 cars are totally different - the Polo GTI feels nimble, the R feels like a tank.

DSG R is around 4.6 secs to 60 in the real world. DSG Polo vs manual R would be a lot closer than Polo vs DSG R.

Agree the R is a heavy car. Even my wife who has a 7.5 Golf GTI said the R is heavy.

Never been in a Polo GTI so cant comment on its driving characteristics. Polos aren’t exactly small cars anymore either.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As someone who had an R just shy of 4 years, I can confirm how heavy it feels. I'd attribute that to having more even weight distribution, with the Haldex box under the boot, adding considerable weight to stabilise the back end vs Golf GTI (and Polo GTI).

That 0-62 time you quote is for the facelift 310ps 7 speed DSG R. Prior to that, with the 6 speed DSG and 300ps, the DSG R was 5.9 seconds - if you were prepared to look a tool at the lights by engaging launch control.

Either way, comparing 2WD cars to 4WD cars on a standing start basis is comparing apples and oranges. On an overtake manoeuvre, say 40 to 70, the difference between the Polo and the R is not big.

Ignoring the top trumps 0-62 stats linked to launch control, the Polo is the better drive IMO, they both have different characteristics, and the R gets a "second wind" at 4500rpm that the Polo and Golf GTI do not. Unless you wring it to the red line, to use that second wind, the R doesn't feel much quicker than the Golf GTI.

I owned my R outright and was under no pressure to get rid. As soon as we got the Polo GTI+ (to replace the wife's A1), I had a go in the Polo and decided to keep the Polo and give her the R to drive - I liked it that much. Then we got rid of the R for another Polo GTI+

[Slider09]

It didn't feel like 50% more power. About half of the Golf's 1.6 second 0-62mph advantage (I had the pre-facelift manual R 0-62 in 5.1s) is in the 4WD initial traction.

It's more like 130kg difference, 10% of the Polo's weight. Over a quarter of a rolling mile, there'll only be a few car lengths between them. I can live with that. The dynamics of the 2 cars are totally different - the Polo GTI feels nimble, the R feels like a tank.

DSG R is around 4.6 secs to 60 in the real world. DSG Polo vs manual R would be a lot closer than Polo vs DSG R.

Agree the R is a heavy car. Even my wife who has a 7.5 Golf GTI said the R is heavy.

Never been in a Polo GTI so cant comment on its driving characteristics. Polos aren’t exactly small cars anymore either.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As someone who had an R just shy of 4 years, I can confirm how heavy it feels. I'd attribute that to having more even weight distribution, with the Haldex box under the boot, adding considerable weight to stabilise the back end vs Golf GTI (and Polo GTI).

That 0-62 time you quote is for the facelift 310ps 7 speed DSG R. Prior to that, with the 6 speed DSG and 300ps, the DSG R was 5.9 seconds - if you were prepared to look a tool at the lights by engaging launch control.

Either way, comparing 2WD cars to 4WD cars on a standing start basis is comparing apples and oranges. On an overtake manoeuvre, say 40 to 70, the difference between the Polo and the R is not big.

Ignoring the top trumps 0-62 stats linked to launch control, the Polo is the better drive IMO, they both have different characteristics, and the R gets a "second wind" at 4500rpm that the Polo and Golf GTI do not. Unless you wring it to the red line, to use that second wind, the R doesn't feel much quicker than the Golf GTI.

I owned my R outright and was under no pressure to get rid. As soon as we got the Polo GTI+ (to replace the wife's A1), I had a go in the Polo and decided to keep the Polo and give her the R to drive - I liked it that much. Then we got rid of the R for another Polo GTI+

Official VW times are

Mk7
5.1 manual
4.9 DSG (although real world this is 4.6)

Mk7.5
4.6 official / think as low as 4.2 ish in real world

We have both mk7.5 GTI and mk7 R. Noticeable difference in these cars in terms of performance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[monkeyhanger]

That 5.9 quote was a typo/fat fingers. Of course it was 4.9, the 0.2s advantage over manual being launch control.

I'm always a bit sceptical about these real world 0-60 times. Are they 0-62mph like the official figures, or are people measuring 0-60 (therefore coming in shorter than the official time), or are VWs official figures coming straight from a factory fresh example rather than a run in example? Standard tyres on the VW figures and better tyres on the enthusiast figures? Or do VW put decent tyres on for performance figures then put the poor Bridgestone Potenza/Turanza tyres on for the UK market (I've had 3 Golfs and 2 Polos on Bridgestones)

So many variables. We've had 10 VWs and an Audi from new and every one has opened up considerably during the first 20k miles.

Even now, with 8400 Miles on the clock, my GTI+ is considerably better than when it was new both in power and fuel economy. I'm sure between running in and putting decent tyres on (PS4, much better than the Turanzas it came on), I'd beat the official 0-62 time running to 60 or 62mph by perhaps as much as 0.4s.

I don't have the equipmenr to do an accurate time, nor the will to use launch control to get there.

Either way, I'd be more interested in 30-70mph times as a more useful performance measure away from the traffic light Grand Prix. Quick but ultimately sterile is how I'd describe my old R. I chose a manual R for a bit more engagement, despite the 0-62 time officially being lower for DSG. I'd have had a manual GTI+ if VW gave us the option.

[mike sel]

Yea nice idea and for a technical test its impressive. but for everyday ownership I think IF I wanted 350BHP I would turn to the golf R and have done with it. At least you know the whole car is designed to cope with the power. stage 1 mods On the Polo (once warrantee is passed) seems ok, but TBH I am surprised by VWs lack of reliability, I am worried enough that my polo will not last the term I hope to own it for let alone even upgrading to a 1st stage mod. Also I would not want to put too much power through the DSG on the Polo .

Are you talking about your own car or a GTI?

The wet clutch DQ250 6 speed DSG box in the Polo GTI was used in the Golf GTI and R right up until the MK7 Golf got a facelift, without hardware differences, just a software update to increase clutch plate clamping pressure for the R and CS/CSS as they have torque greater than 350nm. The introduction of the 7 speed wet clutch DSG on the facelift Golf GTI and R is all about economy with a tall 7th gear and improving 0-62 times with lower 1st and 2nd gear ratios. If the mechatronics unit doesn't go within warranty, it should last every long time.

The dry clutch 7 speed DSG was made to cope (just) with the last gen Polo GTI, so should be fine for the 115ps 1.0.

I'd be more worried about the 1.0 engine. 115ps is quite a bit to be pushing on a 1.0 3-pot, although other marques are pushing up to 140ps on 1.0s (and seeing the engines go pop very prematurely- Ford).

I do think that the Polo GTI can comfortably handle 250ps on the drivetrain, but a differential has to be maintained between the Polo and Golf GTI, especially as the Polo is a huge amount cheaper and almost as big for practicality considerations. Maybe when we see the performance Golfs disappear for a year as the MK8 Golf comes in we'll see a 230os Polo GTI Performance with 7 speed wet clutch DSG?

I see your point. I wouldn't push the 1.0l beyond the 115PSI, add the average 10% to that and we are getting to 126psi I assume the VW TSI 3 pot is better built than the ford but I still would not risk raising the 115psi