Mk7 vs Mk8

[ELHOTA]

What would you rather purchase - 2020 Mk7 or 2021 Mk 8... Mk8 will supposedly be priced a bit higher than the Mk7 and have around 242 hp. I dont think an increase from 228 hp to 242 will make much of a difference in performance. The difference in the exterior design is negligible. But personally, I think the dashboard of the Mk7 is WAY nicer than the Mk8. The digital dash of the Mk8 just does not look right in my opinion. Quite frankly, the digital gauges are unappealing and the strange angles of the minimalist dashboard quite off-putting. Are there any other improvements to the Mk8 that would make it a worthwhile purchase over the Mk7... fuel efficiency or handling perhaps+

 

[jimlloyd40]

I would say that most people are going to say the MK7 because of the everything digital without buttons. Other than a little HP improvement I wouldn't expect it to handle any better.

 

[KevinC]

Mk7/7.5 has been around since what, 2013 in Europe? Lots of time to shake out the bugs. An all-new car like the Mk8 will no doubt have some 1st year teething issues to be ironed out over its production life.

 

[Carlosfandang0]

A lot of the mk8 is actually a mk7 underneath, in exactly the same way the mk5 and Mk6 were!

 

[bentin]

Outside of the 3 series BMW, I can't think of a car that has become worse with the new model. I wouldn't personally buy a first year run of a car, but then with the stupidity of VW USA, we never actually get the first year run of anything, so a 2021 Mk8 seems fine.

Just look at the difference from the Mk6 to Mk7. The Mk7 was lighter, had (nearly) defeatable stability control, had available larger brakes and the electronic diff as an option. Sure, I'm on record for preferring the Mk6 styling to the Mk7, but I can't see a reason that anyone would have bought a leftover Mk6 once the Mk7 was out, aside from the obvious cost savings.

The Mk8 will almost certainly be a better car. The only things that would keep me from buying one right away are a mild interest to see if there really will be a Mk8 Golf R Plus, although the odds of it having an available manual are probably zero. Plus the initial lack of aftermarket products, but the market will undoubtedly catch up quickly.

But do keep in mind that VW USA will almost certainly decontent many things from the Euro car, as is their nature. So if you don't like the TFT gauges, don't worry, they'll likely be an Autobahn only thing. However I initially resisted them, yet love them in our Q5. There will be other things we get screwed on for sure, like no summer tire option on anything but the Autobahn, the cheap looking center console in our cars with the manual hand brake, etc. VW USA won't be able to resist cheapening out our cars so they can try to upsell you on a Tiguan, ID4 or whatever SUV fits their narrative better.

 

[KevinC]

A lot of the mk8 is actually a mk7 underneath, in exactly the same way the mk5 and Mk6 were!

True enough. Still MQB platform so a lot of stuff (presumably) won't have changed. Much.

But - SO much has changed - the entire body, interior, electronics, infotainment, etc - all new. And that's the stuff I'd be more worried about than the structure that underpins the car.

 

[dosjockey]

Outside of the 3 series BMW, I can't think of a car that has become worse with the new model.

1: Anything Mercedes aside from the G in the early 2000s (total crap)

2: Toyota Supra is more of a resurrection (I can think of zero people who would rather have the new one)

3: Land Rover Defender (fancier, but from a utility perspective is objectively worse in every way; any utility it had left was killed by that coin slot they call a cargo door)

4: Land Rover Discovery (capable as hell, but still a low-rent minivan compared to the previous models)

5: Everything Mitsubishi has made since 2016 (why are they even in the US anymore)

6: Everything Nissan has made aside from the GTR since... A long time ago now... (I blame the French engines for the "giving up" point in Nissan design and engineering)

7: Ford Ranger (the new model, which has been around a while in other markets, is nowhere near as good as the old model)

8: Almost every WRX (faster isn't always better)

9: Even the Golf 7 and 7.5 are nothing compared to their ancestors (about as analog as a digital watch, and have to be corrected to be any good at all)

10: Buick. Just Buick. (every model since the GNX has been worse than the last until about ten years ago, and then the cycle started again)

I could go on, but there are plenty of cars that are worse than their predecessors. There are many reasons, but one of the biggest things recently has been taking vehicles that were analog heroes and making them digitally bland. The resurrection if icons into forgettable, common pointlessness is a theme, as well. On can say they're good cars; but they're no better than anything else. The whole point of buying them is gone, and you may as well just get something more common for easier maintenance later on.

Volkswagen would do well to remove the manual transmission option entirely, at this point. It's an inferior vehicle in relation to the DSG, and provides little engagement unless you want to mess with VCDS and replace the flywheel; and I don't care how easy that is. The car sucks out of the box. No sense keeping that option around when the DSG is the correct way to specify the car; and as digital as that new model is going to be... Getting the manual will just plain be a foolish decision that limits the car.

So, with the MK7/7.5, VW neutered the manual transmission variant, and with the MK8, it may as well be obsolete. Anyone who thinks they'll get the computers out of the way and use a lighter flywheel... Well, I have a bridge to sell you.

It's also obvious that the MK8 is a much cheaper vehicle to build. That's good if it's from an efficiency perspective, but the thing even looks cheap in pictures.

 

[bentin]

I'm from the BMW world and if the new Supra had a manual, I'd much rather have it than an A80. I never liked the A80, it looked like three people each designed the front, back and middle and never talked. It's also just a huge, fat thing, like an XK8, why is it that large? I admit that my dad had an FD RX7 until last year, and I greatly preferred that car.

I actually like the new Defender quite a bit. I tried to like the old one, but a Buick V8 and an 88mph redline limted top speed was just stupid. It didn't need more speed, it just needed not to hate gas so much. And they were built with spare parts from a hardware store. Fine when I drove one around the bush in South Africa, not really ideal when I'm trying to get the family somewhere in civilization. But ultimately, I won't have one since the Wrangler is still available with a manual, and the two door is a good bit smaller, more maneuverable than either generation of D90.

I can't explain Mitsubishi, I frankly forget that they're still in the game. I had an Eclipse GS-T that was terrible 22 years ago, they only seem to have gotten worse since then. 9 times out of 10, if I see smoke in traffic, it's a Mitsubishi. Stupid EVO's were like oil slick generators at the track.

I'm sure the DSG is a perfectly nice transmission. I'll never drive one though, just zero interest. The only reason I have a GTI is because it has a manual. It's not that bad, at least compared to a BMW. It's 10k times better than my dad's goofball SLK320 with a manual, that thing is where manuals go to die.

As for the Mk8 being cheaper, remind me, are we just talking about the engine cover and prop rod? I like prop rods. Cheaper, won't die in five years and I went to college and have a kid, so I understand how to put the pointy thing in the hole. See FD RX7, lighter and simpler is usually more fun. Rumors have the Mk8 being lighter than the Mk7, if that comes to fruition for the US car, I'm all in.

 

[KevinC]

Volkswagen would do well to remove the manual transmission option entirely, at this point. It's an inferior vehicle in relation to the DSG, and provides little engagement unless...

I respect your opinion, but couldn't disagree more. "Inferior vehicle"? It's the same car, with a different transmission, that MANY people prefer. And to throw in "provides little engagement" when comparing to anything automatic is just absurd.

 

[dosjockey]

I'm from the BMW world and if the new Supra had a manual, I'd much rather have it than an A80. I never liked the A80, it looked like three people each designed the front, back and middle and never talked. It's also just a huge, fat thing, like an XK8, why is it that large? I admit that my dad had an FD RX7 until last year, and I greatly preferred that car.

I actually like the new Defender quite a bit. I tried to like the old one, but a Buick V8 and an 88mph redline limted top speed was just stupid. It didn't need more speed, it just needed not to hate gas so much. And they were built with spare parts from a hardware store. Fine when I drove one around the bush in South Africa, not really ideal when I'm trying to get the family somewhere in civilization. But ultimately, I won't have one since the Wrangler is still available with a manual, and the two door is a good bit smaller, more maneuverable than either generation of D90.

I can't explain Mitsubishi, I frankly forget that they're still in the game. I had an Eclipse GS-T that was terrible 22 years ago, they only seem to have gotten worse since then. 9 times out of 10, if I see smoke in traffic, it's a Mitsubishi. Stupid EVO's were like oil slick generators at the track.

I'm sure the DSG is a perfectly nice transmission. I'll never drive one though, just zero interest. The only reason I have a GTI is because it has a manual. It's not that bad, at least compared to a BMW. It's 10k times better than my dad's goofball SLK320 with a manual, that thing is where manuals go to die.

As for the Mk8 being cheaper, remind me, are we just talking about the engine cover and prop rod? I like prop rods. Cheaper, won't die in five years and I went to college and have a kid, so I understand how to put the pointy thing in the hole. See FD RX7, lighter and simpler is usually more fun. Rumors have the Mk8 being lighter than the Mk7, if that comes to fruition for the US car, I'm all in.

The Supra was a grand tourer from it's inception as a Celica "trim level". The XK is also a grand touring car.

Such a vehicle needs to be a bit larger and softer; but the Supra in the past was a true chameleon; managing to pull off both sport and touring at once; and so did the XK. The new Supra missed the point entirely, and the F-Type is not a replacement for the XK. The Supra and XK come from the same mold, and always have. They're GT cars first, and sports cars second. Buying one of those expecting a corner carving micro machine is like buying an M4 and expecting an S2000.

The new Defender could have bridged the gap. It's less about being everything it was, and more about updating the past to give them the contracts they need to flourish. They should have partnered with another manufacturer; they've done it before with Honda, and it would have been a solid offer to Ford, Mercedes, or what's left of Nissan. The Defender is on the wrong platform. It's a good platform; a damned good platform, but it's not the right platform.

The old powerplant could easily push past those limitations (even pumping out 188bhp it'll push a Discovery to 120mph), but there's no sense replacing the tooling, which would have been needed; despite the astronomical benefits of that engine. Nothing else has a powerband like the RV8/Buick 215, and there's a reason three quarters of it was used in the Grand National, and why it's still blasting around rally stages all over the world. From a production perspective, though, it would have needed to start from scratch again. Thankfully, Jaguar took the good lessons from it and produced some solid V8s.

As for bush work, I'd rather have a Discovery II unless pickup use is on the table. Much easier to manage cargo in a DII than a Defender, and it's a better platform. The Defender really should have been an updated LR4.

Mitsubishi... It's amazing, isn't it? They went from the Evo X to... What, again? They make nothing of interest, and the only people buying their crap are the people who just walk out to buy a car and don't care what it is.

The MK8's cheapness comes from the interior; which is where an owner spends all of his time using the vehicle. I'm sure the platform is fine, but you can spot the low-rent materials in there a mile off. It's a drastic departure from the MK7, in that respect, which punches as much as $20,000 above it's weight class in the cabin. Not even in those carefully orchestrated photo shoots does it look like it's got even remotely similar material quality. The design itself is cheap; ripped entirely from 2000s pop culture. It's not going to hold up aesthetically.

I like a prop rod better than those stupid pistons that will fail eventually, and I'm not concerned in the slightest about an engine cover. So far as I'm concerned, they can just ditch it entirely.

 

[dosjockey]

I respect your opinion, but couldn't disagree more. "Inferior vehicle"? It's the same car, with a different transmission, that MANY people prefer. And to throw in "provides little engagement" when comparing to anything automatic is just absurd.

It's slow as molasses in January out of the box. The DSG is fast out of the box. The fact that it's the same car is the problem to begin with. If it was set up differently, it would be fine.

The engagement is the worst I've ever experienced, and I'm including beat up cars from the bush, here. It takes three seconds for the revs to drop if you wind it up, the throttle doesn't do what you tell it, it nerfs power in lower gears, the clutch is delayed, sixteen kinds of traction control are always kicking you in the balls... Sure, the DSG has some of those faults as well, but it's not trying to be any manner of pure experience. All of those things ruin the experience of a manual, and make it a frustrating car to drive around town, rather than a pleasant, connected experience. Little is worse than a manual GTI in rush hour traffic.

When minivans blow you away at stop lights in your "hot hatch", there's a problem. It's the slowest car I've driven (where it matters in everyday life) that claims to be fast.

Some might say sort it with a flywheel, a tune, or even just dial it back with VCDS. Nope. That doesn't count. It doesn't count on a WRX, and it doesn't count on a GTI. What you get when you buy one is what is judged.

 

[bentin]

I suppose we're seeing different things on the interior, it looks good to me. In fact, design wise, it looks better, as more lines meet up in non interrupted fashion. I'll have to see it in person, but honestly, I drove a Z3 M Coupe for fourteen years, so crap interiors aren't really a problem for me if the driving dynamics are there. I do feel like the new tartan seat patterns are a bit weak though, but again, will have to see them in person.

Funny, coming from BMW's, Audi's and even the previously mentioned dumb SLK, all with half a mile of throttle travel, my manual GTI does just fine at getting off the line and is perfectly easy to drive. Perhaps you got a lemon? I've had a 17 and 18 and both were fine stock and of course improved with little changes. I assume you haven't driven a Mazda3?

And of course the manual is slower than the flappy paddle. That's been standard fare since about 2006 for most manufacturers, at least on anything with a modicum of torque. Why is this a bad thing? There are all sorts of options wildly faster than a GTI, driven from the right end, with manuals, floppy paddles or one speed gearboxes.

 

[dosjockey]

I suppose we're seeing different things on the interior, it looks good to me. In fact, design wise, it looks better, as more lines meet up in non interrupted fashion. I'll have to see it in person, but honestly, I drove a Z3 M Coupe for fourteen years, so crap interiors aren't really a problem for me if the driving dynamics are there. I do feel like the new tartan seat patterns are a bit weak though, but again, will have to see them in person.

Funny, coming from BMW's, Audi's and even the previously mentioned dumb SLK, all with half a mile of throttle travel, my manual GTI does just fine at getting off the line and is perfectly easy to drive. Perhaps you got a lemon? I've had a 17 and 18 and both were fine stock and of course improved with little changes. I assume you haven't driven a Mazda3?

And of course the manual is slower than the flappy paddle. That's been standard fare since about 2006 for most manufacturers, at least on anything with a modicum of torque. Why is this a bad thing? There are all sorts of options wildly faster than a GTI, driven from the right end, with manuals, floppy paddles or one speed gearboxes.

Eh, I'd say it's a bad thing because it's the slowest car off the line that I've ever owned; and that's not how it's billed at all. It could probably beat a Honda Element through an intersection, but I haven't seen one of those in a while. Once you're where the car lets you loose, it's a rocket ship; absolutely stupid fast for the price, but until then it feels about as quick as the Kubota mower I sold to buy it.

A lot of that comes down to the intervention I mentioned, and the flywheel, but there's that gearing, as well. It's not ideal. This could be the best manual car on the road under $30,000; the hardware is in place, and the car can indeed do it underneath all that, I'm sure of it. It has been cut short before it had a chance to shine, though. Combine that with turbo lag (you really ought to have direct control in a turbocharged vehicle), and it's a bit of a frustrating disappointment. To be fair, that thing spools up quick, but it's let down by everything else.

The performance of my 2019 seems to be par for the course in general. I don't seem to have any manner of lemon, though I certainly thought I did at first. You drive enough stuff, then hop in something that's supposed to be a fun time, and the car just drops anchor. You can tell there's a real car under there, but it's not letting you in to play. That's an issue, from my perspective. I've routinely likened it to coming up a dollar short at a whorehouse.

As I've considered trading it for a Subaru, I've recently wrung out a WRX for the first time in a few years. That has some of the same issues, but it's much more direct. The hangup on the Subaru? VW spoiled me immediately with the MK7.5 interior. How can I go from one to another? I either give up comfort or performance. I can't seem to have both, which I thought was the Golf's party piece to begin with.

In regard to the interior of the MK8, style is certainly subjective, but subjectivity changes with trends. Right now, the '80s and '90s are back in industrial design; but that's right now. That will change, and when it does, more trendy designs will become tired. The MK8 takes it a step farther into the "digital age" of design, but again caters directly to a demographic that grew up with Facebook and treat the early 2000s as "retro". That doesn't mean other people won't like it, it just means they really, really focused a car that has generally offered a much broader interpretation of aesthetic value.

I've ordered a Cybertruck. That vehicle was aimed specifically at me; a member of the generation growing up with Countach and black-light posters on their walls. It's a car designed specifically to peddle the dreams of my own youth in a financially tolerable package. I know this, and I don't care. He nailed it. I get to have a Lamborghini and the APC from Aliens at the same time.

VW has taken the same tack, but pulled from the early 2000s. The problem is it's a mass-market automobile. It's okay for a Cybertruck to look outdated in a few years; but not a Golf. Older cars that are still on the road sell the brand just as much as newer cars; particularly when they're only a generation or two out of relevance.

Observe the simple interior of every previous Golf. It's not particularly stunning or even aesthetically impressive. It's almost lazy. It's workmanlike; efficient, practical, and basic, but made of high quality materials and rather uninspired in design. That's what holds up over time, though. That's what never looks old, and lasts from a quality perspective; and there's my main concern with the interior of the MK8. It's too low-brow; too "styled" to stand the test of time. That design isn't going to have as long a run as the MK7. There's just no way it can.

The new design language kind of makes sense for the R with a DSG, but for a GTI? With a manual? There's a disconnect between the aesthetic and the reality.

From a transmission perspective, I think a CVT would be a darn good experience in a Golf. The way the turbo comes in would really lean into the benefits, and I feel it would really amplify that slingshot effect. Ain't gonna happen, though. If it did, the entire community would revolt. I'll take a manual without the intervention, but with all that stuff in the way, it makes more sense as a DSG or CVT.

Funny thing is, I read reviews of the Golf praising it's throttle response and directness, and I'm left wondering what the hell those people are smoking.

 

[bentin]

Remind me of your past cars?

And of course if you're after 0-40 or so, a Tesla is the answer.

 

[dosjockey]

Remind me of your past cars?

And of course if you're after 0-40 or so, a Tesla is the answer.

'86 Nissan/Datsun 720
'96 Jellybean Ford Taurus wagon (that thing doesn't get enough credit)
Two "retro" Thunderbirds
1960 Thunderbird
1967 Impala
'05 Ford GT (not as fun on the road as you'd think)
'96 Jaguar XJS
2014 Jaguar XK8
1989 Range Rover
1971 Range Rover
1999 Discovery
2001 Discovery
2002 Ford Ranger
1966 Mustang
2005 BMW 6
2015 WRX
2004 WRX
2005 Element
1992 Porsche 928
2000 Infiniti G20T (one of my favorites of all time)

Took me a little bit to remember most of that. My mind is a bit cluttered lately after some illnesses.

There are a few more I've actually owned for a length of time worth mentioning (Cadillac STS, a few ricers nowhere near stock, a little more American crap, some Mercedes vehicles that didn't hold up, and so on), but in the list are the longest runs of vehicles I legally purchased for my own personal use and didn't modify from an engine perspective. I was much more active with cars in the past; but I also compare vehicles to those I've been issued and those I've had to drive in the middle of nowhere and for racing purposes.

Those range everywhere from Subaru GLs, to Audi Quattros, gobs of Pugeot, to about a billion and a half Japanese pickups and sedans, old Rovers, Jeeps, Toyotas... You know the score: Bush vehicles.

I'm not after 0-40 performance so much as I am after the car being reasonable from 0-40. Out of the box, it's not reasonable. It's not that it isn't fast; the problem is that it's slow.

Looking at my purchase history, it's rather obvious that I generally prefer living with more relaxing vehicles that aren't too high strung. I don't drag race (last time I was into that was when I had a riced-out Prelude), and I don't track or rally anymore. I'm not in any particular hurry to get off the line, but I want to actually get there eventually, and not spend half the intersection dicking around instead of driving.

The car cannot function as fast as I can even when I'm being somewhat lazy, and I find that to be a big issue. If a "performance" vehicle is making me wait around, it's not really a performance vehicle.

The driver should be the slowest component in the vehicle, in my opinion.

What I drive out and about and what I've raced is a different ballgame than what I want to own. That's where I like the vehicle violently clawing it's way through turns. Around town, I don't really ask for much. I just want the car to do what it's capable of doing; not pull punches constantly and seemingly at random.

Again, you can tune some of that out, you can swap parts... That's not the point. You can tune anything.