God damn



2007 Volkswagen GTI W12 650 Concept

W12 TT
6.0 litres

(same engine as in Continental GT, A8 W12, Phaeton W12, Touareg W12, but 100-200 more hp than those cars)

650 hp
554 lb-ft

202 mph
0-62 in 3.7 sec

For big pics: http://seriouswheels.com/cars/top-2007-Volkswagen-GTI-W12-Concept.htm
http://www.rsportscars.com/eng/cars/gti_w12.asp

5/18/2007 2:16:50 PM

Car is hot shit!

5/18/2007 2:50:13 PM

correct me is I am wrong as I am not up on VW, but is that RWD? Are the norm GTI's RWD or front?

5/18/2007 2:53:49 PM

This one RWD, but the regular ones are FWDs.

Haha, imagine if this was FWD

5/18/2007 2:58:55 PM

http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=478213

as hard as it is to beleive, OEPII1, someone beat you to it

5/18/2007 3:02:32 PM

F*** F*** F***

5/18/2007 3:05:23 PM

5/18/2007 3:16:22 PM

Quote :

"as hard as it is to beleive, OEPII1, someone beat you to it "

And they did it without gargantuan side scrolling pictures too.

5/18/2007 4:25:47 PM

^ if 1024 pixels wide pics force you to sidescroll,

it is about time you upgraded your monitor from a decade ago.

5/18/2007 4:31:03 PM

I don't use the entire width of my screen for a browser window.

5/18/2007 4:36:22 PM

that's up to you, and if Skack is doing the same thing, he can't expect people not to post standard sized pics like that.

because someone can come here and say that he minimizes his browser window to 500 pixels wide, so all pics posted here should be 500 pixels wide or less.

and that would be utterly stupid.

1024 is standard enough, and not too big at all. if i had done 1600 pixels, or even 1280 pixels, then the objectors would have a case. but not with 1024.

5/18/2007 4:45:09 PM

It is a side scroller for everyone who is at 1024x768 resolution because the picture itself is then put into the website's borders. I don't have that problem, but I'd guess there are quite a few people out there, especially on laptops, who do.

5/18/2007 4:56:32 PM

800x600 is more of the norm for posting online pictures, but 1024x768 isn't that large either. I run 1680x1050 widescreen on my desktop and 1920x1200 on my laptop. And that is a hot car.

5/18/2007 6:03:26 PM

WS LCD ftw

5/18/2007 8:52:49 PM

i'm at 1152x864, and it's a little bit of a side scroller for me.

i can't bump the resolution any more, because for some weird reason, it throws the proportion of everything off.

5/18/2007 9:13:43 PM

^ What kind of monitor you running duke?

5/18/2007 9:36:34 PM

well the prices for LCD's now are insanely cheap. You can get a 22" LCD for 200 bucks now days. I'm looking to get the dell 30" monitor for the huge ass 2560x1600 resolution for content creation.

5/19/2007 5:28:25 AM

for those using IE 7, you can click on the bottom right of the browser border and zoom out to 90% or 80%, etc.

maybe in other browsers also.

5/19/2007 6:54:42 AM

block user plugin ftw

im debating emailing the saudi government about his ability to access tdub

5/21/2007 8:51:56 PM

^ you fucking do what ever the fuck you want to do, you scum.

i will access any site that is accessible, which of course you can't seem to understand (that it isn't blocked).

5/22/2007 3:56:24 AM

am I the only one that thinks its ugly?

5/22/2007 9:15:24 AM

Quote :

"^ What kind of monitor you running duke?"

17" flat CRT

i also run Opera instead of IE, though. i don't know if that would do it.

5/22/2007 9:37:02 AM

Quote :

"am I the only one that thinks its ugly?"

yeah, if this was a stock gti with the only modifications being the appearance, then we would be getting comments like...............gas, match

5/22/2007 10:28:13 AM

yeah... the front bumper is too ricey
otherwise i don't think it looks to bad.

5/22/2007 10:30:12 AM

Quote :

"^ you fucking do what ever the fuck you want to do, you scum. i will access any site that is accessible, which of course you can't seem to understand (that it isn't blocked). "

i dont think that your government would approve of tdub

you know the rampant nudity, political, and religious discussions

i dont think they would like that

5/22/2007 10:49:09 AM

Eh, it still looks like a Golf

5/22/2007 1:09:35 PM

that bitch is slammed

5/22/2007 2:13:07 PM

12 cylinders in THAT car? thats just insane enough to be awesome.

5/22/2007 2:15:35 PM

i don't see where 12 cylinders fit in that car

5/22/2007 2:44:32 PM

[Edited on May 22, 2007 at 3:39 PM. Reason : man I make some nasty grammar errors when I try to trim down a thought... rewriting...]

5/22/2007 3:19:06 PM

both of those have happened to me so are you telling me to get my hopes up over this ?

5/22/2007 3:32:12 PM

(edited post I yanked from earlier. Sumfoo might have been the only one to see it. So this is what he's getting at. gg btw, foo1)
---------------------------------------
I appreciate the hoon value of such a concept, but it's so clearly OTT (over the top, not sure if that one's common yet) that it just makes me sad. 2 scenarios to illustrate what I'm getting at:

1.
stimulus: a "merely" hot girl cames up to you and expresses her deep need for you to talk about cars to her for an hour.
analysis of the odds: Scarcely believable, but it's still in the realm of possibility.

2.
stimulus: Jenny mccarthy tells you she's just completed a massage course and likes to fool around after some hot laps in her new 599 gtb. To prove it to you, she offers to fly you to germany to show you over the course of a weekend at nurburgring.
analysis of the odds: Not even close to believeable. And so far outside of the realm of possibility that you should be insulted. Your mind hates you and can't wait for you to wake up so you can see the bad situation you got into last night after all those beers at Sammy's that is snoring on your arm right now. Just swear off drinking right now.

the point:
I'd argue that the idea of a 650hp w12 golf is analagous to #2, but a mid-engine golf is probably still somewhere closer to category #1!

5/22/2007 6:36:11 PM

holy shit...

5/22/2007 8:41:47 PM

omfg a mid engined golf!

5/22/2007 8:49:07 PM

Quote :

"Its 6.0-liter bi-turbo engine is longitudinally mounted directly behind the driver and front passenger."

5/22/2007 9:17:24 PM

^ the longitudinal config is the problem, though the w12 is impressively short! 513mm=20 inches.... if a w8 is 8/12ths=2/3 the length, that means a w8 is only 13.5 inches long! (and maybe vw could build a longitudinal mid-engine golf... but with the w8 dead and vw having so many excellent transverse fwd options, it'd be pretty silly to not just move it to the back!
^^well, you just know better. nobody is going to make an all-carbon, no frills ktm x-bow their daily driver unless their previous daily was a motorcycle and they lost their left leg. (I know they offer a manual, but I'm betting most ktms will be dsg)

--------
suspend disbelief for a minute. IS a mid-engine VW gti do-able for production? I think so! just not a longitudinal twin-turbo w12. That's just OTT (stop trying to make "fetch" happen!)
--------

the politics of making such a car happen. why(or -not) build this (as opposed to something else)? Is this crazy?

-part of vw wants to build a golf-derived mid engine coupe. Just look at the persistence of "r4" rumors, the eco racer, the gx3....the r8 was just dipping its toe in the water. I think they're waiting to figure the best compromise between the cost to develop it from the golf platform and how to sell it without pissing off porsche. literally building a mid-engined golf may be the answer

--Longitudinal engines like the w12 in this concept complicate feasibility of a mid-engine GTI because they would push packaging and cost limits despite the compactness of the engine. VW has tons of lightweight transverse engines that would more ideally fit in the back of a golf.

--IMO, the max that anyone is gonna pay for anything that looks like a golf is $50k. For that much cash they might expect a w12, but I think the cost of VW offering a production GTI with the GTI engine in the back would probably double the cost of the original car, to at least 40k.

--The other reasons for sticking with 2.0T and 3.2L vr6 is that they have strong followings among golf fans that would appeal to young, tuning-inclined audiences, and even more important, both use the DSG transmission. The paddle-operated DSG largely eliminates the complications of routing the shift linkage clutch actuation components. It also provides a halo car effect for the rest of the golfs by having the same transmission of a 40-50k car in the sub 30k cars. The TT doesn't currently do a good job of this since a lot of TT buyers might be irked at the reminder that they're driving a curvy lightweight golf.

-Any new mid-engine car based on the golf platform will require the development of superficial parts to disguise the relationship back to the golf. A mid-engined golf has a special advantage in development over other platform spinoffs because it could get away with the same interior trimmings and visually identifiable parts since it would be seen as a crazy version of a golf. It would not be scolded for use of the lowly golf trim as an "r4" would. Also, with the threat of competing with porsche and the possible takeover of porsche looming, a mid-engined golf would intrude on cayman territory much less than anything swoopy and "upscale" looking.

-------------------

obvious build issues
-Any new mid-engine car based on the golf would either complicate the crap out of the golf's production process or inefficiently add an entirely separate line and defeat much of the advantage of a flexible components set. I think a car that shares most of its external sheetmetal and many of its hardpoints can more subtly slip into existing Golf assembly lines.

-From what I can gather from photos of the Golf assembly process, it's pretty typical, with a stiff one piece floor (http://tinyurl.com/yujxxg), and the rest of the body is welded to it before the installation of drivetrain. To allow it to dropping down over a mid-mounted rear subframe carrying the engine and rear suspension would mean some sort of dramatic change to the floor, either by cutting the existing floor during the production process to varying quality of result or designing a new floor just for this model and attempting to shove it through the production process all the way up to the drivetrain installation. I'd bet the VW we know would do the latter.

-However they do it, once the floor can accomodate a "drop the body on it" installation, a huge wall-to-wall subframe carrying the familiar engine/drivetrain but with new suspension and possibly the fuel system, assembled elsewhere in its own line/facility could be fitted in a similar way to how the existing running gear all goes in,(http://tinyurl.com/2yvh96), but with some pieces in a different spot and not upsetting the production line too much.

-I'm sure I'm oversimplifying, but I imagine that vw might be able to just build a line of subframes based on the known architecture of the front clip of a golf, with a few extra braces to slide in! I'm sure that radiators and various heat exchangers would still need to be in the nose and mounting points and suspension arms would need to be different, so it wouldn't be quite so elegant as just sliding it in the same way that they install a typical 2.0T, but I think you can almost see it.

--this being a german car not in the original contemplation of the existing model, for it to ever be sold in the US, it's gotta succeed in germany for a few years, not just confuse the brass long enough to crank out a few hundred units... so.... marketing matters.... (for next post)

5/23/2007 1:31:03 AM

the marketing difficulties are actually surmountable for VW to build such a car

-1st problem: positioning relative to other VW's
the golf already uses or will eventually use (3.6L vr6 R36) every transverse motor that would be suitable for a mid-engined golf at $40k-$50k. The conversion will inevitably add weight, so without a special engine or some sort of lightweight material use, the mid-engine models will all be slower in a straight line than a front-engine version of the same car, for less money, offering more space!

-2nd problem : instilling value against other $50k cars.
Regardless of the quality, it's going to be seen as a slap-job, a tough sell at this price. But my estimate is based on the idea of a golf, which comes relatively nicely equipped and its relatively affordable options list PLUS the conversion cost rather than the complete car starting at 50k.
-------------------------

-1st solution: use an engine not available in US golfs, but there must be room to move up.
--To keep the weight and cost down so as not to make it an even worse value over the standard car, it would make the most sense to initially offer it with only a version of the audi s3's 2.0T. The 263 hp s3's 2.0T isn't available in any other model here and has more (standard, peak) power and torque than the US-market 3.2L, yet is still perceived as easily tuneable as other 2.0Ts .
-Tuneability shouldn't be ignored in the engine selection for this car, since the target owner is a guy that would pass up a cayman or a TT for a factory-mid-engined conversion of an admittedly lesser car. He's bought into factory mods over starting with a more holistic product just by buying! Not unlike a guy who buys an Evo instead of a 350z. (you know who you are ). He'd rather have an obscure machine that possesses a value that isn't immediatley obvious from its profile than being seen in an easily recognizable potency-validating "cou-pay."

--The reviews will attempt to answer "Is it really worth a golf, twice over?" The car needs to survive such a comparison by coming out as special, because being "special" is really the only factor that allows for justification of any excess spending on an outrageous model of any given car. A 911 GT3 isn't really any usefully quicker in the real world than a Carrera since the roadways are littered with suv's, not Carreras or empty straights or curves that would generate 1g+ of grip at close to legal speeds. The gt3 gets on the magazine covers and justifies its existence on the basis of feel and the nth degree of the useful envelope. So it will be with a golf without a back seat.

--Using versions of the 2.0T instead of both the 2.0T and 3.2L, staggered in release date, allows for some manuevering in the event of bad press, as well as minimizing cost of development and excess weight. Using versions of engines that weigh the same and have the same dimensions minimizes the variety of loadings and dimensions of individual parts of the conversion components.

----An example of a component that can accomodate both engines instead of just the smaller one is that if the enclosure of the engine compartment is sized to the 2.0T, it may allow a meaningfully larger luggage area than would an enclosure that could fit the 3.2L but only houses a 2.0T in some models. An enclosure that fully eliminates even a marginal luggage compartment could be the straw that breaks the camels' back of foreign reviewers, causing weak domestic (german) sales and stifling any shot of a recurring model or US sales.

-The damning-with-faint-praise comments of getting it wrong would sound like:
---"excellent handling and feel, transforms the GTI, but we wish it had more power. Too bad they're only offering the standard 2.0T"
---"the torque of the uprated s3 2.0T absolutely overwhelms the balance of the car despite its weight. Less would be more, and kinder to the wallet!"

Since the 3.2 and 3.6 are going to be available in standard configuration cars, offering the big engine first takes a big risk. If the car were launched with the v6 and the comments follow the lines of:

---"an r32 weighs less, inspires more confidence grip via its 4wd and less reliance on an exciting weight distribution, costs a little more than half, and has a back seat to boot!"

...then the whole thing is sunk. If a 2.0T car is comparable in performance but not worth the cost over the less exciting r32/6, then vw can always net the hardcore fans and then just beef up the components as necessary (in response to complaints of weaker performance), and add the 3.2/3.6. If the 3.2/3.6 goes first and isn't worth it over a standard r32, the 2.0T will be seen as the lesser of the two golfs ... and now with less power... while still being more expensive than an R32.

-------------------------
-2nd problem: relative to other cars at the likely price.

positioning a hatch at ~50-60k is not favorable on paper, because such a low-volume, specially re-engineered golf would likely double the cost of a loaded GTI (~27k) and compete with more complete cars as the base cayman and VW's TT for hp/$. As stated above, the TT is less an issue bc such a buyer wants a complete item/ elegant conveyance, not something that is so obviously overhauled for something as vulgar as optimizing polar moment of inertia in exchange for half of the interior! To even some boxster buyers, this also applies, and a mid-engined golf won't appeal to the mid-life crisis porshce buyers.

--The Boxster poses a sales issue in that it is a purpose-built sports car and would in all likelihood humiliate a golf. The saving grace here is that the golf would likely be relatively loaded even without most options, and would be attractive to customers in std spec for a golf! Porsche on the other hand has made everything optional equipment. Buying a 50k porsche means going with the 250 hp engine, a 5-speed, 16 inch wheels, manually adjustable cloth seats, horrible std a/c, an embarassing stereo, non-metallic paint, missing out on the optional carbon brakes, PSM, chrono pkg, and all the other things than can add $35k+ to the price of the typical porsche. A little overlap will look bad on paper, but in the showroom can rely on sticker shock to return a fair amount of customers








In all, I would love to see them build one, but not this silly w12 thingy. I even think they can turn a profit. But yeah, I'd feel like a silly bastard to not buy something sexier for that money, just like how I don't have the stones to spend 30 large on an EVO RS instead of a 350Z.

5/23/2007 2:09:26 AM

dude, did you just write an essay on this car?

****************************************************

I WANNA HAVE SEX WITH THIS CAR!!!!

5/23/2007 8:32:23 AM

^yeh, the shit's hot yo.

5/23/2007 9:36:26 AM

i'd hit it.

5/23/2007 11:19:19 AM

btt -

since I didn't blow a day of my vacation imagining what vw would have to do to build a mid-engined golf

...only to have no one on TWW read it and at least flame me for such a long post if not offer their parallel/contrary thoughts on the matter...

5/24/2007 4:06:35 PM

VIDEO!!!

http://blog.worldcarfans.com/index.cfm/8070620.002/vw-golf-gti-w12-650-concept-video

6/20/2007 10:46:17 AM

what kinda faggot would start a stupid fuckin thread like this?

7/5/2007 8:37:33 PM