2022 Golf R

[unholy79]

TBH if I my 2016 Golf-R had the DSG, I'd likely still be driving the car. I don't know what they were thinking with that manual. The rest of the car seemed so refined, but the manual felt like it was from a base model Polo (I know its not a Polo trans, I'm being facetious)...

Sponsored

 

[unholy79]

Great read on Farrah's Focus RS ownership experience...

Damn, I forgot, they were $42K and had ADM on top, for a car that EATS headgaskets.

https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/a25304719/ford-focus-rs-long-term-wrap-up/

It was on my short list for a while, but TBH my only real memory of the RS is some kid slamming his into a rock wall on a hairpin outside of New Paltz, NY during a failed attempt at using "drift mode"...

I've driven that road more times than I can count, that wreck still amazes me... although I've never attempted drifting the curve, so...

 

[chattanoogaR]

Damn, I forgot, they were $42K and had ADM on top, for a car that EATS headgaskets.

Plenty of people paid at least that or more for a CTR. (ADM was all over the R especially early on, as is the case with any hot release vehicle)

Interior wise, there is not much separating it from the R. Quality of the materials is comparable, and they both have a couple of features/positives that the other does not.

For people that had their incorrect headgasket replaced, it was rare to see them need that performed again. (as long as the correct gasket was used and the tech performed the install per the manufacturer specifications)

Hardcore track weapons all have problems, I don't care which brand you buy.

 

[TheGreekFreak]

Hardcore track weapons all have problems, I don't care which brand you buy.

Except hondas aren't complete dumpster fires with the issues they do have. Think the gear grind issue is annoying to hear about on a CTR? Try dealing with an RS engine problem out of warranty (don't even mention the GT350 engines!) or a manual golf R that crank walks. The problems with these other less reliable brands are serious powertrain flaws that can leave you with a paperweight out of warranty.

Even the RS head gasket issue they were willing to address......how embarassing of a manufacturing error on a $40K+ performance car?? How long has ford been around, you can't ensure the right head gasket goes in?

I have no faith in these companies anymore, popping out shitbox after shitbox that can't stay out of the shop. All brands have their issues but Toyota and Honda have proven to have the most self respect. Your chances of a shitshow are just much less going with one of these two brands, BMW supras and niche stuff aside.

 

[chattanoogaR]

Except hondas aren't complete dumpster fires with the issues they do have.

Eh, that is completely subjective.

If you are one of those people that buy cars and keep them forever, you can absolutely say the same thing about every brand and performance model ever.

As someone who tries to buy every single performance car that comes out, the Honda's that I've owned have not been significantly less annoying than any other brand for what they are.

Toyota literally just got back in the performance car game again recently (not including Lexus) and they chose to use a complete BMW power plant.

It is always funny to hear someone from every brand preach long term reliability, no issues ever etc. If you buy a lot of vehicles from every single brand, you tend to see the big picture. Performance cars are pay to play, and you have to tolerate a certain amount of annoyance to live with them.

 

[TheGreekFreak]

It is always funny to hear someone from every brand preach long term reliability, no issues ever etc. If you buy a lot of vehicles from every single brand, you tend to see the big picture. Performance cars are pay to play, and you have to tolerate a certain amount of annoyance to live with them.

True but I see the annoyance of a finicky gearbox being much different than the annoyance of a blown engine, electrical issues, or other problems that cause some astronomically expensive failure. Any problem with a car is an annoyance but as someone who wants to drive the car for many years until it falls apart, the degree of the issues matters to me.

Take like a Lexus RCF and compare it to a BMW M car in terms of reliability. I would wager any issue you encounter with the RCF to be foreplay compared to the bimmer down the road.

None of this really matters if you turn over cars frequently, as even the most unreliable ones can last the term of a lease with few if any problems. But what brands would you trust buying that performance car 6 years down the line with 60K miles on it? Brands are definitely not created equal through that lens, even for their performance cars.

 

[chattanoogaR]

True but I see the annoyance of a finicky gearbox being much different than the annoyance of a blown engine, electrical issues, or other problems that cause some astronomically expensive failure. Any problem with a car is an annoyance but as someone who wants to drive the car for many years until it falls apart, the degree of the issues matters to me.

I see where you are coming from, but "driving it until it falls apart" is also completely subjective as well. I promise you if you put enough miles on these R's and drive the shit out of them, you are very likely to be running into some issues as well.

Take like a Lexus RCF and compare it to a BMW M car in terms of reliability. I would wager any issue you encounter with the RCF to be foreplay compared to the bimmer down the road.

By that same token take the RCF out on the track and then take an M2, you can see why one vehicle is worth more than the other to an enthusiast. Again this game is pay to play.

None of this really matters if you turn over cars frequently, as even the most unreliable ones can last the term of a lease with few if any problems. But what brands would you trust buying that performance car 6 years down the line with 60K miles on it? Brands are definitely not created equal through that lens, even for their performance cars.

Again, coming from someone who has no brand loyalty what so ever, there is not one brand that makes performance oriented vehicles that I would trust with higher mileage. I've seen cars that were absolutely babied blow up, and I've seen cars that were beat to shit that held on for longer. (from all brands)

Buying mid level performance cars is an absolute crap shoot, and no brand can claim they have some magical reliability when it comes to their performance oriented vehicles.

 

[TheGreekFreak]

Again, coming from someone who has no brand loyalty what so ever, there is not one brand that makes performance oriented vehicles that I would trust with higher mileage. I've seen cars that were absolutely babied blow up, and I've seen cars that were beat to shit that held on for longer. (from all brands)

Buying mid level performance cars is an absolute crap shoot, and no brand can claim they have some magical reliability when it comes to their performance oriented vehicles.

Really? I would trust a 100K mile lexus gsf, rcf, isf, etc all day lol haven't heard of them blowing engines or having significant powertrain issues. I can't say the same about bimmers, mercs, VWs, etc. Why wouldn't I go that route? While they have a high level of performance, they're boring imo. But that isn't enough justification for me to trust some M car long term.

No brand loyalty here. Have had a BMW, chevy, jeep, VW, and now the honda. Having family and friends that work on cars for a living, I just hear patterns that are undeniable. Some lexus f car may not be the pinnacle of performance compared to an M car, but its 90% of the way there and they are generally bulletproof (just more numb feeling). S2000s, NSXs, and previous Type Rs seem to be closer to the Lexus than the BMW in terms of reliability. A golf R goes the other way.

Again, everyone's threshold is different, but beyond the lease years where most people dump the cars at the end, its undeniable that some brands are most reliable than others long term, even for their performance cars. We'll see if the R lives up to that in 10 years....

 

[chattanoogaR]

Again, everyone's threshold is different, but beyond the lease years where most people dump the cars at the end, its undeniable that some brands are most reliable than others long term, even for their performance cars. We'll see if the R lives up to that in 10 years....

No, it really isn't. There may be particular models of car brands that are less prone to issues, but you cannot unequivocally state as fact that some brands are more reliable as a blanket statement. You personally have good faith in Lexus, but that is more of a feeling than anything based on concrete fact. Their F models do appear to have held up very well, but on the flip side of that they are not hardcore track cars either. The RCF and the GSF are more luxury "sort of" performance vehicles.

You used the Focus RS as an example, and aside from some idiot ordering a bunch of Mustang head gaskets for it, does not have any widespread issues that affect long term reliability as of yet. (Ford owned up to their mistake, fixed it and people moved on) Was I pissed to be without it for a month while my head and headgasket were replaced? Sure, but that does not categorize all Ford performance cars as "unreliable". Look at the Fiesta ST and the Focus ST, no major problems there and those cars are 7 years old now. Go back to the SVT days, no catastrophic issues there either. People classify Subaru as extremely reliable, but everyone who owned an Sti for a number of years remember ringland failures. I still wouldn't classify them as unreliable.

By the same logic we can conclude that many models of Honda that have automatic transmissions are garbage. At one point in time there was a 10 year period where synchro issues were extremely common. (my personal experience working for a team of dealers that included Honda, and seeing literally hundreds of vehicles affected by the issue) If the Civic type R grinding issues are more prevalent and people complain as their mileage goes up, does that mean the Type R is unreliable? Not really, it is just the price of doing business.

The truth is as a whole Honda makes quality stuff, and so do many other brands.

If you are in the 100k mile performance car market, you are rolling the dice no matter the brand.

 

[TheGreekFreak]

No, it really isn't. There may be particular models of car brands that are less prone to issues, but you cannot unequivocally state as fact that some brands are more reliable as a blanket statement. You personally have good faith in Lexus, but that is more of a feeling than anything based on concrete fact. Their F models do appear to have held up very well, but on the flip side of that they are not hardcore track cars either. The RCF and the GSF are more luxury "sort of" performance vehicles.

Respect your opinion but disagree. You can undoubtedly say Toyota/Lexus as a whole is more reliable than, say, VW. I would consider most of the F models true performance cars. They can outperform our Type Rs in many cases lol but they are cushy, more luxurious, and boring outside of their engines. The Lexus F models holding up well, along with most of their models, is why I have faith in them as a brand.

You used the Focus RS as an example, and aside from some idiot ordering a bunch of Mustang head gaskets for it, does not have any widespread issues that affect long term reliability as of yet. (Ford owned up to their mistake, fixed it and people moved on) Was I pissed to be without it for a month while my head and headgasket were replaced? Sure, but that does not categorize all Ford performance cars as "unreliable". Look at the Fiesta ST and the Focus ST, no major problems there and those cars are 7 years old now. Go back to the SVT days, no catastrophic issues there either. People classify Subaru as extremely reliable, but everyone who owned an Sti for a number of years remember ringland failures. I still wouldn't classify them as unreliable.

Every manufacturer will have issues but any newer car that has significant powertrain problems that lead to costly repairs/rebuilds, to me, is a pile of garbage. Yes, this includes the hondas with the oil dilution problems. But you see this as a recurring trend with Ford where the reason its a big deal with honda is because its relatively rare for one of their models. Ford couldn't even get their amazing GT350 engines right. From the NSX to the S2000 to the various Type Rs, you see these performance oriented Hondas going many years/miles with relatively few big widespread issues.....that trend in their performance line indicates reliability beyond a feeling. I can't say the same about Ford or VW (or most German brands) throughout their performance models over the years.

By the same logic we can conclude that many models of Honda that have automatic transmissions are garbage. At one point in time there was a 10 year period where synchro issues were extremely common. (my personal experience working for a team of dealers that included Honda, and seeing literally hundreds of vehicles affected by the issue) If the Civic type R grinding issues are more prevalent and people complain as their mileage goes up, does that mean the Type R is unreliable? Not really, it is just the price of doing business.

Yes, I would consider them garbage lol and the ones with oil dilution problems, unreliable crap. The Type R issues aren't really in the same category imo. It's annoying but many people have found simply changing the transmission fluid to eliminate the issue or at least significantly reduce it. It's still an issue worth bashing them over but not in the same class as blown engines, prevalent turbo failures you see with VWs, common ringland issues with subies, electrical issues with range rovers, etc.....these are recurring problems for these brands that carry over through generations and make it difficult to keep the cars running for 200K+ miles. I don't see that as common with toyota or honda, performance and non-performance cars alike. While I don't buy that all brands make good and bad crap alike, you're right that in a performance car you're bound to get more issues regardless of brand, which would make even the Type R problems less forgiveable in a Corolla than in the R.

Wish there was a concrete unbiased statistical way to show this, not some marketing gimmick list, but until that happens the best data we have is trends from complaints, recalls, ownership experience, and mechanics who work on all brands/models for decades. Most of that data shows clear trends between brands, some more than others.

To tie it back to this thread, anyone that really wants a Golf R, go for it. It's a great car, I'm sure this new one will be more impressive. Just don't be surprised if problems that have plagued these VWs gen after gen (turbos, manual trans failures, etc) creep up again with this gen a few years down the line. Just like hondas finicky gearbox issues haven't vanished, there's a good chance these won't either barring a complete overhaul of their engineering approach.

 

[chattanoogaR]

Respect your opinion but disagree. You can undoubtedly say Toyota/Lexus as a whole is more reliable than, say, VW.

Again, that is your personal opinion, not a fact. I'm not trying to give you a hard time here, but your are inserting your personal bias towards different brands/models, with only specific rare cases to back them up. Because one model had a head gasket issue, does equate to "widespread" brand issues and lack of reliability. You seem pretty keen on "blown engines" as your pet peeve, just how many vehicles have you seen that have had blown engines due to manufacturer defects?

Wish there was a concrete unbiased statistical way to show this, not some marketing gimmick list

There you go, there isn't and that is the whole point.

 

[TheGreekFreak]

There you go, there isn't and that is the whole point.

Well, you gotta finish quoting the rest of that statement ? while experiences from owners and technicians over decades is not something you can show on a chart, pretending it has no value is disingenuous.

Survey most mechanics and I would bet 1 or 2 brands (won't name them to avoid coming off as bias) come up as more reliable than others based on their data, which is hands on day to day experience repairing all these manufacturers' products. That's not my personal bias, it's literally an opinion derived from data compiled from people actually fixing these shitty cars. When the same answers pop up from technician to technician, you have to acknowledge the trend.

You yourself admitted the Lexus "F models do appear to have held up very well".....what is that, a baseless opinion? To your defense, I say it isn't. Would you say the same about the M cars in general? Or AMGs?

Again, everyone can do their own research, but mine showed VW to remain an "unreliable" manufacturer before I even bought the GTI I ended up having problems with. I just chose to accept the risk and it didn't pay off, many others have had theirs with little to no issues. So maybe I'm wrong....but my conclusions aren't drawn from being salty I fell on one specific bad car. But ironically the problems I had with mine were well documented on the VW forums well before I bought mine.

 

[chattanoogaR]

Well, you gotta finish quoting the rest of that statement ? while experiences from owners and technicians over decades is not something you can show on a chart, pretending it has no value is disingenuous.

Survey most mechanics and I would bet 1 or 2 brands (won't name them to avoid coming off as bias) come up as more reliable than others based on their data, which is hands on day to day experience repairing all these manufacturers' products. That's not my personal bias, it's literally an opinion derived from data compiled from people actually fixing these shitty cars. When the same answers pop up from technician to technician, you have to acknowledge the trend.

You yourself admitted the Lexus "F models do appear to have held up very well".....what is that, a baseless opinion? To your defense, I say it isn't. Would you say the same about the M cars in general? Or AMGs?

Again, everyone can do their own research, but mine showed VW to remain an "unreliable" manufacturer before I even bought the GTI I ended up having problems with. I just chose to accept the risk and it didn't pay off, many others have had theirs with little to no issues. So maybe I'm wrong....but my conclusions aren't drawn from being salty I fell on one specific bad car. But ironically the problems I had with mine were well documented on the VW forums well before I bought mine.

Many mechanics feel the way they do about a particular brand due to their loyalty about this brand or that brand for a certain reason. Maybe it is what they like to drive, maybe it is the the brand they feel most comfortable working on/or even work for. Have you ever surveyed a long tenured mechanic of a particular brand that told you that brand made shit cars? It's rare, and brand loyalty in the auto industry is huge.

For example, a mechanic loved a particular performance car, bought it, and no matter what they kept it on the road due to overall love of it. Even if it blew up on them, they would have a harder time saying it was "an unreliable POS" if they had an emotional connection to it. There are die hard Ford guys, there are die hard Honda guys. If you favor one brand even subjectively, you are more willing to overlook any flaws a model may have.

Again, every single thing you have listed is COMPLETELY your opinion and you've backed that up more than once above. In bold, that was my personal opinion due to personal research, I didn't claim it was a fact. Again, I think you should learn the difference.

There are literally dozens of forum posts with owners showcasing their GTI hitting 150k or even 200k, doesn't that disprove your "unreliable" claim? Of course not, it just proves it is your personal opinion, and that opinion is largely based on your one individual experience with your GTI and reading some common problems on the forum. How many performance car forums do you frequent or have you frequented in the past 20 years? I've got news for you, there are widespread issues with the vast majority of them.

To restate again, you are stating opinions, not facts. (there is an extreme key difference)

"Whatever is in my garage currently is the greatest vehicle on the planet..." (every car forum ever) ?

 

[favre95]

Had a 2016 Focus RS and just unloaded it a couple months ago and bought a gray type R to replace it. It was in dang near perfect condition body and interior wise. I do prefer AWD to the Civics FWD...but so goes it. I enjoyed the Focus and had zero issues with it from this standpoint. Problem was, the head gasket was replaced twice, and the transfer case (or PTU) seals were leaking when I got the car back from the 2nd HG job. This would be the 2nd time those would need replaced too. The shifter lever on the trans was leaking too. Mind you this car had less than 15 thousand miles on it. It still smelled new on the inside. I only changed the oil once myself, the other two times were through the dealer and the HG jobs.

I was not going to keep a car that cost 42 grand (with tax) and it give me this much trouble...despite how much I enjoyed it. It was a year out from the PT warranty expiring and it would eventually become a money pit and a major headache. Which that was already starting to happen under warranty anyway. Dealing with the dealer was a headache and they did subpar work at best. Found bolts missing and clips broken that I had to pay to replace after these jobs were done.

My point is, the Focus was a ton of fun, just poorly executed from the manufacturing standpoint. Quality control with these companies is not a strong suit anymore. Fords was just flat out terrible if you ask me.

 

[TANSTAAFL]

TBH if I my 2016 Golf-R had the DSG, I'd likely still be driving the car. I don't know what they were thinking with that manual. The rest of the car seemed so refined, but the manual felt like it was from a base model Polo (I know its not a Polo trans, I'm being facetious)...

QFT. The car is made for the DSG, no doubt about it. I think the GTI is pretty much now in the same boat. VW has zero incentive to put money into R&D for manuals any more. All the Germans are pretty much moving to a purely automatic transmission fleet. Makes sense, as manual take rates are generally low; they deliver worse performance numbers (which marketing cares about, because a lot of buyers seem to care more about numbers that they will rarely equal in normal driving); and fuel economy requirements are hella easier to meet with autos. And of course, the looming mass switch to EVs that companies like VAG are deeply committed to makes manual development doubly unattractive.

Sponsored