2016 Golf R (6MT) vs 2015 WRX (6MT)
*Warning: this comparison is pretty in depth and [painfully] long-winded. Read at your own risk [of boredom]*
So, not too long ago I traded in my 2015 WRX (base 6MT) for a 2016 VW Golf R (also “base” 6MT). I figured I would write a comparison on my thoughts between the 2 thus far.
Disclaimers:
-Yes, I'm well aware that the STI is more of a direct competitor for the Golf R and the WRX's more natural enemy (at least price point wise) is the GTI. However, this comparison is between the 2 cars that I actually bought/own(ed) and my thoughts between them. I've never owned the new 2015+ STI, so I can't comment.
-Both cars have been daily driven by me since brand new.
-I'm in the Denver, CO area. Our elevation here is around 5200 ft. I mention this because altitude/elevation causes power losses and most modern ECU's have some sort of compensation tables to try to help make up for those losses. I have no idea if one of these cars is better at “adapting” to my elevation, but I have my suspicions.
-Both cars were mechanically stock, with the exception of the WRX eventually getting a set of Hawk HPS 5.0 brake pads and ATE brake fluid.
I'll break this down by category, based on my own subjective opinions of the 2 vehicles:
-Engine/power/acceleration:
These 2 motors share the same displacement (2.0L), but they feel very different when driving them. The WRX's FA20DIT engine has a squared bore and stroke (86mm x 86mm), whereas the Golf R has an undersquare bore and stroke (82.5 x 92.8). For those that aren't familiar, “oversquare” motors are generally more rev happy while sacrificing torque down low, whereas “undersquare” motors generally make a bit more torque down low at the expense of high revs. Squared setups (equal bore and stroke) are generally somewhere in between.
Between the two the WRX's throttle was tuned very aggressively, as dipping into the pedal just a bit resulted in lots of boost and snappy torque. The combination of an aggressively tuned gas pedal and a clutch that was more abrupt (vs the Golf R), resulted in a car that required just a bit more concentration in order to drive it smoothly.
The Golf R's pedal is much more linear by comparison, even in “race” mode. Both cars have very little in the way of turbo lag, with the Golf R having a bit of an edge down low; but giving the Golf R ~50% throttle feels more like receiving ~50% power, whereas the WRX felt like it was always ready to give more power than you were looking for.
The WRX has a solid mid-range punch, which really helps when pulling out of a corner, or accelerating from a low speed, but it falls off pretty hard above ~5500rpm. By comparison, the Golf R's torque curve feels wider, stronger, a bit more linear and continues to pull all the way to redline without any noticeable drop-off in power. While these cars have similar acceleration at lower speeds, there's no question that the R feels considerably faster as speeds increase.
For acceleration comparison(s), I'll use some Car and Driver tests:
C&D has tested the 2015+ WRX several times since it has been released. The fastest time they ever pulled was with a pre-production WRX that ran a very quick 13.6@102mph in the ¼ mile (prior to Subaru issuing the WQW-58 ECM reflash/recall that many claim lowers power output). Since then, they haven't been able to replicate that speed in subsequent tests. To avoid lots of numbers from the multiple times it was tested, I'll just post the range of times they ran in the WRX:
0-60mph= 4.8 to 5.1
0-100= 13.1 to 14.1
0-110= 16.2 to 17.3
0-130= 25.3 to 29.7
0-140= 33.8 to 38.9
¼ mile= 13.6@102mph to 13.8@99mph
5-60= 6.3 to 6.6
Top Gear 30-50= 11.1 to 12.1
Top Gear 50-70= 7.8 to 8.0
Braking 70-0= 157 to 161
Skidpad= 0.95 to 0.90
Curb weight= 3314 to 3339 lbs
For comparison, Car and Driver recently drove a manual Golf R in a comparison vs the STI and Focus RS. They also previously tested a manual Golf R (with Nav/DCC, ect), but it should be noted that their initial test car was technically still in the new car break-in period with only ~800 miles on the clock. These are the numbers they got during those tests:
0-60mph= 5.1 to 5.2
0-100mph= 11.8 to 13.0
0-110= 15.3 to 15.6
0-130= 24.3 (break-in period car, no numbers from more recent comparison test)
0-140mph= 30.0 (break-in period car, no numbers from more recent comparison test)
¼ mile= 13.6@105mph to 13.7@103mph
5-60= 6.1 to 6.3
Top Gear 30-50= 7.3 to 10.5
Top Gear 50-70= 5.9 to 7.5
Braking 70-0= 153 to 157
Skidpad= 0.95g (both times)
Curb Weight= 3292 lbs to 3329 lbs
For another comparison, here are Motor Trend's numbers for both cars:
WRX Manual=
0-60mph= 5.5
¼ mile= 14.0@98.1mph
Braking, 60-0mph= 106 ft
Skidpad= 0.96g
MT Figure Eight= 25.3@0.76g
Curb weight= 3330 lbs
Golf R Manual=
0-60mph= 4.9
¼ mile= 13.5@101.3mph
Braking, 60-0mph= 104 ft
Skidpad= 0.97g
MT Figure Eight= 25.0@0.77g
Curb weight= 3287 lbs
Lastly, I'll also throw in Road and Track's acceleration numbers for both (couldn't find a handling test for both from R&T):
WRX Manual=
0-60mph= 5.2
0-100mph= 13.7
¼ mile= 13.7@99.5mph
Golf R Manual=
0-60mph= 5.2
0-100mph= 12.2
¼ mile= 13.6@105.7mph
^^^Note, these numbers are only for the manual versions of each car. No DSG times posted.
First things first. The Golf R has similar curb weight, more power and AWD; why doesn't it pull a faster 0-60mph time than the WRX? According to MT, the Golf R manual was significantly faster than the WRX. However, it was theorized that MT didn't go crazy with a high RPM drag launch and likely short shifted into 3rd prior to hitting 60mph, as power drops off up top in the WRX. For the others, there are 2 reasons:
-The Golf R has slightly shorter gearing, and 2nd gear tops out at 56mph at redline (rev limiter around ~58mph). Whereas the WRX can hit 62mph in 2nd gear. So, in short, the Golf R has to shift twice to get to 60mph vs the WRX only shifting once. This will add a few tenths onto the Golf R's 0-60mph time.
-The Golf R has a clutch delay/bleeder pill that might inhibit hard drag launches and slow shifts just a tick. My former BMW 335xi manual had a similar clutch delay valve and I know from direct experience that it inhibited drag launches pretty significantly. Discussed further below.
Since the cars have very similar curb weights, the real telling numbers are the 0-100mph (110, 130, 140mph, ect) and ¼ mile trap speeds. They indicate that the R should pull harder up top and I can confirm that it does indeed feel considerably faster as speeds increase. The WRX keeps up at low speeds by virtue of it's solid mid-range torque. The 5-60mph test and top gear acceleration tests also show the Golf R's additional flexibility and wider powerband.
When comparing the low-end and high-end numbers on both cars, it makes you wonder why the Golf R isn't significantly quicker in the ¼ mile test, especially since it has more power and torque (292hp & 280 ft-lbs vs 268hp & 258 ft-lbs). I believe I might have found an answer to that as I mentioned above...
The Golf R comes with a bleeder/delay pill in the clutch that delays clutch actuation. I believe this is done to reduce stress on the drivetrain/transmission, as well as to make the car feel “smoother” when driving around town. Unfortunately, I believe it hinders the Golf R's ability to get out of the hole quickly (aka launch) and also delays shift actuation just a bit when shifting quickly. It can be removed pretty easily, but this is a stock vs stock comparison.
I never did a drag strip launch on either car, so I can't comment on 6000rpm clutch drops. What I can say is that in a rolling acceleration pull from pretty much any speed the R feels considerably faster.
Which brings me to engine noise... the WRX doesn't have much in the way of intake or exhaust noise. Due to the FA20's equal length header design, the WRX no longer has that old Subaru burble, which I found myself missing after driving the little lady's 2013 WRX from time to time. There was enough noise to let you know that the engine was doing something, but it's never very inspiring.
By comparison, the Golf R has a significant amount of low, deep/throaty intake noise. From inside the cabin, it sounds like an angry little motor! I'm assuming this has more to do with VW's “soundaktor” providing fake/amplified sound inside the car. Honestly, I know there are a lot of purists that would rather disconnect system's like this, but I actually enjoy the noise it puts it as it brings a smile to my face when revving it out, or just letting it growl in the mid-range.
Overall, the WRX' engine is a fun mill, with lots of mid-range and a punchy throttle, but I prefer the Golf R's engine- it's smoother, it pulls harder, has a wider powerband, more linear acceleration and makes better noises.
-Drivetrain/transmission/clutch. These cars don't feel much alike, but I like both of their shifters for different reasons. Both are cable-shifted boxes, so neither offers the feel you're going to get from a solid mechanical unit, but I actually think both are pretty decent.
The WRX's shifter is notchy, but in a good way. I always enjoyed rowing the gears and almost never missed a gear when playing around in the canyons. The spacing was a bit odd and the throws were a bit long, but I always felt pretty at home shifting it.
The Golf R's gearbox is smoother and more precise, but still fun to row. It's now quite as “raw” as the WRX's shifter, but it slides into gear very easily and intuitively. I also never miss gears when playing with the R.
Both of them have different takes on the clutch, but I prefer the VW's smoother unit, although I could do without the clutch delay valve/pill when playing sporty car driver. Both are relatively soft for performance cars, with the Golf R being just a tad bit softer. Neither are going to wear your left leg out in traffic, but they engage at different points and in different ways. The WRX's engagement point is closer to the ground and more abrupt. By contrast, the R's clutch engages a tad bit higher and much smoother. When I first bought my WRX it took some time to acclimate to driving the WRX smoothly, whereas I hopped in the Golf R and immediately felt like I had been driving it for years.
-Suspension/handling/ride. Both are very capable and offer tons of grip for having open differentials. I bought the “base” Golf R, so no DCC (adjustable shocks/suspension). On paper, they have similar grip levels, but behave differently. These cars have very similar levels of body roll (or lack thereof); but the difference is in the way they handle.
The WRX stays flat, but under hard cornering you pretty much set your line and push it thru the corner, while staying heavy on the gas coming out of the apex. You can feel the car gripping the pavement and pulling itself through.
The Golf R on the other hand will go thru the same corner with just as much, if not a bit more speed, but there will be less drama involved. Both cars push at the limit, but the R rotates it's rear end just a tad bit easier and cornering at speed is smoother and more fluid. It is incredibly confidence inspiring.
-Steering. Both cars have electric power steering racks and they don't feel all that much different. The WRX might have just a tad bit more weight at low speeds (and even that's a “maybe”?), and the R might have just a tad bit more actual road feel. Both are fairly quick, with the edge going to the R, as it has a variable steering rack ratio.
I think it's probably slightly easier to steer the WRX smoothly at low speeds due to the fixed rack ratio, but when you're pushing it into hard corners at speed the R's variable rack turns in more quickly and with added precision.
As far as ride quality goes, it's pretty close. Both absorb small bumps and road undulations with ease, considering their fairly stiff natures. Although the R is probably just a tad bit more upset by larger bumps in the road. I feel like the WRX would likely have an advantage on rough, uneven dirt roads (rally heritage= big shocker!), but the R rides pretty well on the paved stuff and probably a bit better at highway speeds.
-Brakes. The R wins this category with ease. Don't get me wrong, the WRX's brakes aren't bad for daily driving at all. They're easy to modulate at low speeds, unlike many of today's “ultra-grabby” brakes. However, they don't have a ton of feel/feedback and lack sports car immediacy when it comes to hard braking. According to the numbers, the WRX's brakes look good on paper, but in the real world they leave something to be desired.
The R's brakes by comparison are brilliant. They have a ton of feel/feedback and are very easy to modulate. They have more pedal travel with a progressive feel to them as you push harder.
But the real area the R absolutely mauls the WRX's braking in is fade resistance. I was able to induce brake fade on the WRX's OEM brakes during a spirited downhill canyon drive. Granted they never failed me, but the pedal went soft prematurely to say the least. I've been on countless canyon runs in dozens of cars and I can't recall the last time any of them induced the WRX's level of fade... I know when Car and Driver tested the WRX at their annual Lightning Lap they experienced complete brake failure... and I can attest to these brakes not being up to the task of being driven hard in stock form.
Based on my experience with the brakes, I upgraded the WRX's pads to Hawk HPS 5.0 pads and bled the lines with ATE brake fluid. This combo was very easy to live with while increasing overall braking performance and I would recommend it to anyone as a simple and cheap braking upgrade for a street car. For track work, you'll obviously need something a bit more aggressive.
By contrast, the Golf R's brakes showed no signs of fade in the canyons in stock form. They are very strong, while being easy to modulate and use daily. Just great OEM brakes.
-Pedal spacing. Straight up, I preferred the WRX's pedal spacing for heel to toe downshifts- they were just spaced perfectly. The Golf R's pedals aren't the worst in the world, but they could stand to be a good bit closer. This is one of the few mods I might actually do to the R- a wider gas pedal that sticks up (vertically) just a tad bit more as well.
-Seats/seating position. Between myself and the little lady, we've owned every WRX chassis to date ('04 WRX, '06 STI, '13 WRX & '15 WRX). Seats have always been a low point for USDM Subaru's. I personally think the 2015+ WRX's have the best OEM seats that Subaru has ever offered in the U.S. They have a bit of bolstering/support, but are still comfortable enough to take on a road trip without wearing you out.
With that said, the R's seats are much better. They somehow offer more bolstering and support, while being softer and more comfortable at the same time.
The seating position is tricky.... and mostly because the R's power seats have considerably more adjustment than the base WRX's seats. With both dropped all the way down the R's seats put you much lower in the car and give more of a cockpit type of feel. By comparison, the WRX's are mounted pretty high and give good overall visibility. Again, this isn't really fair as the VW has a more adjustable seat. A WRX Limited with a power seat would make for a more fair comparison. But, overall, I prefer the seating placement and position in the VW.
-Interior. This category isn't even close. Not even with a fully optioned WRX Limited. The R is a nicer car, with a nicer interior, higher quality materials all around and less “rattly” overall. Everything feels more solid in the VW. The R feels more “bargain luxury car” than it does “decked out economy car”.
And yes, I get it, no one buys a WRX for the interior. Truth is, I never had a problem with the WRX's interior. It was simple, straight forward and served it's purpose without an issue... I also think it was one of the nicest interiors Subaru has put into a WRX... but make no mistake, the R is in another league when it comes to interior refinement.
Even the “base” stereo in the Golf R blows the doors off of anything I've ever heard come out of a Subaru. Both cars have things like Bluetooth, but the difference in quality is readily apparent. Using Bluetooth on the freeway in the WRX led to people asking if there was running water in the background and asked “what?” a lot. The VW? No such issue.
There's quite a bit of Audi influence with the Golf R's interior. I've driven and owned several luxury branded cars that the “base” R would put to shame.
I'm not going to go into features, as the R just has a lot more of them standard, so it's not really a fair comparison.
-I can't really comment on fuel economy. The Golf R is rated to get better fuel economy (23/31mpg vs 22/28mpg), but I haven't owned it long enough to give a fair comparison. For the record, I frequently got 27-28mpg in mixed 50/50% driving in my WRX and over 32+mpg on longer freeway trips, so it definitely beat out it's fuel economy ratings. Based my past VW experiences, I'm expecting something similar from the R, but only time will tell.
-Interior room/cargo space. When it comes to passenger room, they're pretty close. Front seat room is pretty similar, with the edge going to the WRX. Rear space is a mixed bag- the WRX likely has just a bit more legroom, but the R likely has a bit more headroom for taller passengers.
I don't think I need to touch too much on cargo space. The WRX has a pretty large and deep trunk for it's size. Suit cases, duffel bags, groceries- these things fit in the WRX's trunk with ease. However, when it comes to larger items the R's hatchback design really can't be beat. Especially with the seats folded down. I fit a boxed up lawnmower in the back seat of a previous VW hatch of mine and I'm sure the MK7 R would do the same without issue. If only Subaru still offered the WRX in a hatchback...
If my WRX would have been a hatchback, it might have made it a bit tougher to get rid of as I prefer hatches over sedans. When I bought my 2015 WRX, it was shortly after they were initially released in the U.S. and prior to me getting a dog (border collie) last year. Now, my dog is full grown (~50 lbs) and the 2 kids are growing up quickly... taking the family (including my dog) anywhere in a sedan had become a pain in the neck, as there was hardly any room for my dog between the kids and they all seemed cramped whenever I took our dog with us; which is surprisingly often.
A hatchback solves that issue with ease. He fits in the “trunk”/cargo area without a problem.
-Looks/aesthetics. This category is obviously very subjective. Overall I prefer the smoother, more cohesive design of the Golf R. The 2015+ WRX looks more sedate than previous versions and gives off a bit of a “Corolla with a hood scoop” vibe. The WRX is also a bit busier and confused about what it wants to look like. By contrast, the details on the Golf R are more subtle, with an aggressive but understated look and stance.
I must admit that I do have a bit of bias: I'm an American that actually prefers the look of a clean hatch over a sedan.
-Side notes:
-The Golf R is over 12 inches shorter than the WRX, without giving up any noticeable interior space or cargo room! Despite the discrepancy in length, the WRX's wheelbase is less than an inch longer than the R's (104.3” vs 103.5”). This makes the Golf R much easier to park and maneuver in tight spaces.
-Both cars have backup cameras, but the VW's is a better design. The camera on my WRX got pretty dirty any time we had inclement weather. The VW's camera is hidden underneath the trunk badge that opens only when you put it in reverse, so the camera seems to stay cleaner.
-The R's power is more consistent. I never monitored my WRX's air temps, or timing logs (it stayed stock), but it was far more inconsistent than the R. The WRX felt more “hit or miss” under WOT. I'm not sure if it had to do with the TMIC heat-soaking, or if some other factor was involved. Overall, the R just feels more consistent, offering similar power every time I push the pedal down.
I should also note that my WRX felt like it was losing power over the course of ownership. When I bought it, shortly after the break-in period, it felt like it had similar acceleration to the little lady's 2013 WRX. As time went on, I would swear that her 2013 WRX felt faster. I noted that Car and Driver's long term WRX lost a decent amount of speed at 40k miles vs new; whereas most cars maintain around the same amount of speed in C&D's tests at 40k miles.
Most of C&D's long terms cars have pretty much identical acceleration numbers at 40k miles vs when new, give or take maybe a tenth of a second here or there. Some might actually gain a bit of speed from time to time (it's pretty rare). The WRX?
2015 WRX New=
0-100mph= 13.4
0-130mph= 26.5
0-140mph= 33.8
¼ mile= 13.7@101mph
2015 WRX 40k miles=
0-100mph= 14.1
0-130mph= 29.7
0-140mph= 38.9
¼ mile= 13.8@99mph
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2015-subaru-wrx-manual-long-term-test-wrap-up
Just to make sure I wasn't crazy, I went back and checked several other Long Term Wrap Up tests that C&D has done, and yes, the WRX really is an anomaly:
http://www.caranddriver.com/list-reviews-long-term-tests
^^^Losing 2mph in trap speed and a full 3.2 seconds to 130mph or 5.1 seconds to 140mph is indicative that they lost some power. No idea if it was a carbon build-up issue, or timing being pulled, or the WQW-58 recall/reflash, or what. All I know is that their WRX was slower as time went on, and I felt like the same thing happened to my WRX. I noted that a long list of other direct injection turbo cars tested by C&D didn't display this problem.
It should also be noted that early build date WRX's suffered from the WQW-58 recall that stemmed from problems with pre-ignition. Some owners reported a loss of power from this updated ECU reflash/recall. This is why I noted above that Car and Driver's initial WRX test was done on a pre-production car, prior to this factory recall/reflash. Incidentally, their pre-production WRX was also the fastest version they, or anyone else ever tested, which might not be coincidental.
-It should once again be noted that I'm at 5200 ft elevation and all ECU's/engines are not created equal. My R feels noticeably faster than my WRX ever did, despite acceleration numbers that weren't far off. It should also be noted that the R has a seemingly much larger OEM turbo (IS38).
People running OTS maps on the new WRX seem to have the ability pickup ~30+hp in an otherwise stock (Stage 1) car on pump gas. By contrast, people tuning the new MK7 Golf R are seeing as high as ~80+hp gains from an otherwise stock car on pump gas. VW seems to have left considerably more power on the table.
I mention this for a reason, as I have a theory: I think the VW's additional overhead is possibly more adept at compensating for power losses at my elevation to a greater degree. Which might be why my R feels considerably faster than my WRX ever did up here. Again, it's just a theory. To you guys at sea level, YMMV.
-Value. I honestly think that the Golf R is a good value for what you get. Performance is right inline with it's competitors like the STI, Focus RS and soon to be departed EVO. However, it's a genuinely nice car that's easy to live with everyday. I had no problem seeing the value in my R, but I'm sure there are some that might disagree.
With that said, I think the WRX is the value king in it's segment! I bought mine brand new for ~$25k and there's honestly nothing else out there that offers what the WRX offers for that kind of money. There are hot hatches like the GTI and the Ford siblings- Focus ST and Fiesta ST. However, they're all FWD. If you're like me and you live in an area where it snows for ~5 months out of the year, it's tough to beat the WRX for a year round daily driven, sporty, do-everything car.
-Fun factor. That's right, the all important, all subjective final tally. It should be noted that I live just a few minutes away from some of the best mountain roads in the country and I have pushed both of these cars through their paces in the canyons. Honestly, they're both a hell of a lot of fun to drive for AWD economy-car-based performance cars! Not quite up to the level of a 987 Porsche Boxster/Cayman S, but damn good for their segment.
If I had to choose a more fun car to drive in the canyons, it would be the Golf R. The WRX is fairly raw by comparison and still a blast to pitch around; but the R's wider, stronger powerband, better/more confidence inspiring brakes, quicker turn-in and more willingness to rotate give it the edge in this department.
-Overall, these are both great cars and I wouldn't dissuade anyone from either of them. I might nitpick small things about either of them, but the truth is, they're both great cars in their respective segments and I don't hardly have a bad thing to say about either of them. I think we're actually pretty fortunate to be living in a time where practical performance cars like this are so attainable and so good to drive.
Hope you enjoyed the short novel, or at least you didn't fall asleep during my long-winded analysis!
Cheers!
-Brandon
