POPULAR ENTERTAINMENT

       These two d diesel-powered hatchbacks promise a b bit of fun while meeting your everyd day driving needs. But whichis the e real-world here?
ANDREW FRANKE L
       "The Golf is no beauty queen, but at least t it doesn't put you off every time you look at it;nor will your children n hate you for buying one"
       We may not always want to admit this, but the real world can be a tedious, frustrating and repetitive place.You read about fabulous cars driven under cloudless skies on deserted roads in exotic locations, then pick up your car keys and head out into a world of heavy traffic, heavier rain, rising fuel taxation and fractious children.
       This is the reality gap - the distance between the lives we'd like to live and those we actually do. And what you're reading here is a short but concentrated attempt to evaluate two cars seemingly ideally suited to this unfriendly, unsatisfactory and awkward real world.
       Because this is Autocar , the winner of this comparison must be both fun and sporting.
       And because it must also work in the longer term in the real world, so too must it be comfortable, spacious, frugal,practical and well built.
       It's a brief that Volkswagen's new Golf GTD appears born to fulfil. This is a GTI that's been back for seconds of common sense. For the price of little more than a second added to your 0-100kph time, you get a car that will do rather more nearly 20kpl instead of rather less than 15kpl.
       But on paper at least, the GTD seems trumped by the ageing BMW 120d SE. At B1.25m in the UK, it costs B20,000 more than the Golf. But for that, you're buying more power, better performance and even lower fuel consumption and CO
       2emissions.And lest we forget, this is a rear-drive BMW we're talking about. So it's fair to say that most of the money would be on it being more fun to drive than the Golf. So which is the new best hot hatchback for the everyday grind?
       The problems you inherit when you buy a 1-series are the same now as when the car was first launched five years ago: it's cramped and ugly.
       The Golf is no beauty queen, but at least it doesn't put you off every time you look at it; nor will your children hate you for buying one.
       The VW's rear seat package offers enough space in all three dimensions for even small to average-sized adults to sit in comfort.
       In the BMW, inferior head room is an irrelevance,because there's so little leg room that anyone short enough to occupy its rear is scarcely going to be troubled by its low roofline.
       The VW also offers the clearer, neater driving environment, as well as a more modern-looking cabin.
       The 120d's interior is perhaps more characterful and certainly more distinctive and sporting than the Golf's,but ultimately it works less well.
       On the open road, the competition is much tighter.You can tell the BMW's 2.0-litre motor hails from an earlier generation than that of the VW from its louder and more gruff voice. But while its torque is identical to that of the VW-361Nm at 1,750rpm- its 177hp is usefully chunkier than the Golf's 168hp.
       No surprise, then, that the BMW is a significant half a second quicker to 100kph; what's unexpected is that it doesn't feel it. Indeed, if you conduct a side-by-side drag race between the two, you'd swear it was the Golf that was a fraction quicker.
       The anomaly is explained by the BMW's weight and the location of the Golf's driveshafts. Fact is, the 120d is over 100kg heavier than the Golf, and that's more than enough to cancel out the BMW's power advantage.
       The only reason the VW lags behind statistically is that it lacks the off-the-line traction of its rear-drive rival.
       All this means is that you should neither dismiss the Golf for its apparently poorer performance nor allow the BMW to hoodwink you into thinking it's the quicker car;there is little or nothing in it.
       It is simpler to draw distinctions between the ways the two cars cope with a decent road, though ultimately it's no easier to choose between them.
       In shorthand, the Golf is the more capable, the BMW the more fun, and which therefore would suit you better depends on your priorities.
       The Golf feels good whatever you do with it; it's an easy car to place on the road, even at high effort levels.It doesn't resort to scrubby understeer except under unusual provocation and its body control is beyond reproach for what is, after all, a five-door diesel hatchback.
       The BMW seems substantially less engaging at first.Although it is a fractionally smaller car than the Golf, it feels bigger, less wieldy and therefore less enticing on those rare occasions when youre on a decent road and the rest of the world is not.
       But here perseverance pays, for while the Golf's demeanour remains constant pretty much whatever you do to it, so the BMW responds with rather greater enthusiasm.
       When you press on in the 120d, you'll find a car with a more neutral balance, one that's most receptive to mid-corner changes of line and, of course, with a much greater capacity for putting its power on the road.
       The differences aren't huge and you need a rarely chanced-upon environment to experience them, but they are there.
       To some, the simple knowledge that a humble diesel 1-series still displays the traits of more exalted rear-drive BMW's will be enough.
       Back in the more mundane world, it is the BMW that proves least keen on spending your money for you. Thanks only in part to its stop-start system, the 120d is substantially more frugal than the Golf, posting an almost freakishly good 20.8kpl on the combined cycle.
       There is nothing shameful in the Golf's 18.8kpl. But it's worth bearing in mind that for every 38 litres of diesel you put in the BMW, you'll need to drop about 42 into the Golf.
       If this test was simply designed to measure which one of the two was the better driver's car, we'd give a narrow victory to the BMW and have done with it.
       Then again, if those were the terms of reference, we'd never have got these two together in the first place. The truth is that neither is a great car to drive; the 120d feels dated and the Golf GTD is some distance from the dynamic standards set by its GTI stablemate.
       But throw in the requirement that these cars need to be lived with as well as driven and strong cases can be built for both.
       The BMW because it is both the more fun and frugal,the VW because it gives very little to the BMW on the open road while offering a substantially more spacious cabin, lower noise levels and a more modern, cohesive driving environment.
       So what to go for: the more flawed but rewarding BMW, or the still game and more rounded Golf? The heart says the BMW, while the head goes with the VW.But as a test specifically designed to test these cars in the real world, the final nod must fall in favour of the Golf.