First Drive: VW Golf R32

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: mAdD INDIAN

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: Aharami

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: Aharami
$18000 is the base GTI i believe. the R32 has some improvements over that (better dash, better sound system, better seats, better sound proofing, etc) I'd say the interior quality of the R32 is the about the same as a $23000 GTI VR6. so i guess you're paying more for the better engine (which doesnt make sense since the R32 is so damn heavy!!)

but looks wise, i think this car is sweeeet. much better than the 350, or evo, or sti. rx8 i pretty sweet lookin though...and g35C beats them all in the looks dept

In looks?? It looks like a boring shoebox...and a 7-year old one at that.

bah. looks a hella lot better than any TOYOTA!!!

thats right, i said TOYOTA!

anyways, you and i are worlds apart when it comes to styling preferences...u think toyota makes good looking cars...i think all their cars (except the LS430) look fugly as hell...yahk...makes me wanna throw up whenever i see a SC, camry, or ES driving by

I also think that the SC430 and EX330 are ugly as hell. I think that the current Camry is tastefully done. I love the Jetta's design, but I think that the Golf/GTI/R32 look boring as hell b/c they're all so squared off and boxy looking.

how can you like the Jetta but not the Golf? Both are squared off and boxy looking. Only difference is one is a sedan while the other is a hatchback. The design elements are the same.

The design elements are NOT the same. Where'd you get that from? They share no exterior body panels (except for the front doors). The front ends are competely different and of course everything else (since they don't share rear doors like previous generations, the Jetta has a totally different look and roofline and rear end). So what exactly is your point?

'04 Jetta GLI VR6

 

[Vic]

Too heavy, too slow, too expensive, and considering Subaru and Mitsu already have faster and less expensive models on the market, too little, too late for VW.
Nice lookin' ride though.

 

[Lifer]

Originally posted by: andylawcc

I can't think of another force-inducted 6-cylinder can make 500 horses. (of course not including skylines and supras)

your kidding right?

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: andylawcc

Originally posted by: freegeeks
I'll take one with the HPA motorsport stage 2 turbokit

550bhp
0-60 3,2 sec

HPA motorsport

that's impressive.! I can't think of another force-inducted 6-cylinder can make 500 horses. (of course not including skylines and supras)

911 Turbo

 

[Skaven]

First of all - lets get some facts straight. The chassis is SIGNIFICANTLY different than the run of the mill "7-year old" 4th generation Golf. Not only have there been structural rigidity improvements but the rear end is a totally different and sophisticated multi-link independent suspension. Which totally transforms the car (from what I hear).

I too would spend my $30k elsewhere - but I wouldn't knock the car. Check out these statistics:

One owner on the Vortex posted this timeslip: 1/4 mile 13.9 @ 97 mph

As well as Sport Auto's Nürburgring track times (12.8 mile track in Germany):

> > Nuerburgring Nordschleife (length 20,6 km):
> > Porsche 996 GT3 --- 8 min. 03 sec.
> > Ferrari 550 --- 8 min. 07 sec.
> > Lamborghini Diablo SV --- 8 min. 09 sec.
> > Ferrari 360 Modena --- 8 min. 09 sec.
> > Chrysler Viper GTS --- 8 min. 10 sec.
> > Porsche 993 Turbo (430 HP version) --- 8 min. 12 sec.
> > Porsche 996 C2 --- 8 min. 17 sec.
> > BMW M Coupe (321 HP) --- 8 min. 22 sec.
> > Porsche 993 C2 --- 8 min. 28 sec.
> > BMW M5 (400 HP) --- 8 min. 28 sec.
> > Porsche Boxster S --- 8 min. 32 sec.
> > BMW M3 Coupe (321 HP) --- 8 min. 35 sec.
VW Golf R32 (240hp) --- 8 min. 37 sec.
> > Honda NSX --- 8 min. 38 sec.
> > Honda S 2000 --- 8 min. 39 sec.
> > Chevrolet Corvette --- 8 min. 40 sec.
> > Audi S4 (265 HP) --- 8 min. 42 sec.
> > Jaguar XKR Coupe --- 8 min. 49 sec.
> > Mercedes CLK 430 --- 8 min. 52 sec.

That puts the R32 in pretty good company!

As for this "7 year old platform" those guys touting the SVT Cobra are looking at a 25-year old platform! Its really all relative.

Lets look at curb weights:

WRX STI: 3263 lbs
Lancer EVO: 3263 lbs (figures - same as STI!)
Mazda RX8: can't seem to find it!
Nissan 350z: 3188 lbs
Cobra SVT: 3665 lbs.

137lbs heavier than the STI/EVO make it a porker?

Top Gear video:
Top Gear's R32 Review (vid)
(right-click save-as please!)
Check out the other cars it beats on the track at the end of the video...

Again, I'll re-state that I would not spend *MY* $30k on the R32, but lets try to keep somewhat of an open mind here...

 

[Siddhartha]

Looks are subjective, quality, performance, and value are not. What do you guys think about the R32's quality, performance and value?

 

[StageLeft]

137lbs heavier than the STI/EVO make it a porker?

For its weight yes. Those things have MUCH more horsepower than this pig.

 

[Actaeon]

137lbs heavier than the STI/EVO make it a porker?

STi/EVO pushes about 40-60 more HP though .

A car this small should not weigh so much.

BTW, I call that chart BS. Faster than a Corvette? A regular C5 Vette has around 350HP, with a much better suspension, and weighs less. I don't think a stock R32 can outrun a Vette or an NSX(no matter how overpriced it is ). 2 Seconds off a M3? Lies.

 

[Actaeon]

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
Looks are subjective, quality, performance, and value are not. What do you guys think about the R32's quality, performance and value?

I think we already discussed it.

1.) VW Quality. If VW can get there act together and make a reliable car, it would be ok.
2.) Weighs too much. If VW can shave off 400lbs, it'd be a fairly competitive car. But as it is, 3400lbs for a small car is way too heavy.
3.) Too expensive. 29k Pricetag scares everyone away. Might as well get a 350z/g35, or a used Corvette for the price, and get much better performance.

 

[Skaven]

I agree that it is lacking in horsepower in comparison to the STI/EVO...

But you guys keep on saying that it weighs so much for such a small car - and I guess thats what I'm trying to point out - its only 137lbs heavier. I also believe that the STI/EVO have gone through some significant weight removal - compared to the R32 which has not (and boy it could use it!).

As for the chart? I believe that was taken directly from the Sport Auto web-site, so unless you want to BS on the entire magazine... the other thing lacking in the chart is the model YEAR...

Watch the Top Gear video - see how it fared at the end compared to the WRX and Focus RS.

 

[freegeeks]

why is everyone comparing the r32 with the EVO and wrx/sti

the R32 is for people looking for a powerfull car with a luxurious interior
people buying this car will probably not even consider an evo or sti because they are looking for something else and couldn't care less about the weight

 

[gregshin]

350z vs R32 is comparing apples to oranges....

Now R32 vs STI vs EVO is perfect....both are AWD I-4 turboed cars....i dont understand how a 2 door hatchback wieghs 132lbs more then a 4 door EVO? hmm somethings not right here....maybe it;s all the PSEUDO luxury extras. I would go EVO RS that wieghs in @ 3175lbs.

 

[Zenmervolt]

A 7 second 0-60 time with 240 hp in a car that size? You have to be kidding. I thought the Germans knew better than that.

ZV

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: Skaven
I agree that it is lacking in horsepower in comparison to the STI/EVO...

But you guys keep on saying that it weighs so much for such a small car - and I guess thats what I'm trying to point out - its only 137lbs heavier. I also believe that the STI/EVO have gone through some significant weight removal - compared to the R32 which has not (and boy it could use it!).

As for the chart? I believe that was taken directly from the Sport Auto web-site, so unless you want to BS on the entire magazine... the other thing lacking in the chart is the model YEAR...

Watch the Top Gear video - see how it fared at the end compared to the WRX and Focus RS.

They weigh less and have 50-60HP more horsepower. NUFF SAID!!!

I'd EASILY take an EVO (minus the wing) over a R32.

 

[Lucky]

It's a sweet car...but after sitting in it at the chicago auto show I'd never buy one. Driver's side is WAAY too cramped for anyone that's not a midget. I'm 6'0 220 and felt like I was in a miata. Steering wheel too close, pedals too close, seat didn't go back far enough, side bolsters waaaay too aggresive, etc.

 

[bolido2000]

Track times are not so important. Most buyers will never hit the famous twisties everybody talks about. I remember a magazine doing a test where the Mazda Protege was hanging with the Ferraris and BMW at the track because of handling. For casual buyers they want something that will make them merge faster on the freeway and when turning at the junctions

 

[TheChort]

Here's a good article at VWVortex that compares R32 vs. STI vs. EVO
It's a little long, but its a good read, and I felt it was fair to all three cars.

article

This might be a repost, but I figured it's relevent info for the thread

 

[Skaven]

Originally posted by: gregshin
Now R32 vs STI vs EVO is perfect....both are AWD I-4 turboed cars....i dont understand how a 2 door hatchback wieghs 132lbs more then a 4 door EVO? hmm somethings not right here....maybe it;s all the PSEUDO luxury extras. I would go EVO RS that wieghs in @ 3175lbs.

The R32 is NOT a I-4 turbo - it is a 3.2L 15° V6. The weight of the V6 over the I4s as well as all of the sound insulation, heavy wheels etc... all of that can account for the weight difference.

Again - I would take another car over the R32 - but that doesn't mean that the R32 sucks. To each his own.

 

[gregshin]

Originally posted by: Skaven

Originally posted by: gregshin
Now R32 vs STI vs EVO is perfect....both are AWD I-4 turboed cars....i dont understand how a 2 door hatchback wieghs 132lbs more then a 4 door EVO? hmm somethings not right here....maybe it;s all the PSEUDO luxury extras. I would go EVO RS that wieghs in @ 3175lbs.

The R32 is NOT a I-4 turbo - it is a 3.2L 15° V6. The weight of the V6 over the I4s as well as all of the sound insulation, heavy wheels etc... all of that can account for the weight difference.

Again - I would take another car over the R32 - but that doesn't mean that the R32 sucks. To each his own.

oops my bad...is the VR6 cast iron block or alum?

 

[Rent]

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: andylawcc

Originally posted by: freegeeks
I'll take one with the HPA motorsport stage 2 turbokit

550bhp
0-60 3,2 sec

HPA motorsport

that's impressive.! I can't think of another force-inducted 6-cylinder can make 500 horses. (of course not including skylines and supras)

911 Turbo

GM 3800.
VG30DET (300z, not the RB26 in the skyline)

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: bolido2000
Track times are not so important. Most buyers will never hit the famous twisties everybody talks about. I remember a magazine doing a test where the Mazda Protege was hanging with the Ferraris and BMW at the track because of handling. For casual buyers they want something that will make them merge faster on the freeway and when turning at the junctions

That's what I always say too. You can get around a _tight_ track in a miata faster than a Mustang GT, but put it on the highway and punch it at 80 and you'll realize it's a slow car. Twisties are of little importance to me personally.

Again - I would take another car over the R32 - but that doesn't mean that the R32 sucks. To each his own.

Right, but performance wise for the price it DOES suck. It may be a nice drive with nicer interior, but performance wise it just is not fast in the arena 90%+ of people will ever see it in.

oops my bad...is the VR6 cast iron block or alum?

In this case it's evidently cast lead.

 

[TheChort]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Right, but performance wise for the price it DOES suck. It may be a nice drive with nicer interior, but performance wise it just is not fast in the arena 90%+ of people will ever see it in.[/quote]

Since when does performance = speed ?

 

[NFS4]

In this case it's evidently cast lead.

ROTFLMFAO!

 

[Skaven]

Originally posted by: SkoorbThat's what I always say too. You can get around a _tight_ track in a miata faster than a Mustang GT, but put it on the highway and punch it at 80 and you'll realize it's a slow car. Twisties are of little importance to me personally.

You are right - punch the EVO or STI at 80mph in the highest gear on the highway and you will see how slowly the turbo will respond. Max power isn't everything in those situations - response and available power count for more.

I'd be curious to see rolling start 50-75mph or even 5-60mph comparisons with all of these vehicles.

TO EACH HIS OWN - and with that, I'm out of this thread.

BTW: I'd take the EVO anyday..

 

[Bullhonkie]

I don't know about the Evo, but punching the STi in 6th at 80mph will shove you back in your seat pretty well. The combination of short gearing and a small turbo for better response results in almost no discernable turbo lag in any gear. The only exceptions I've found are for slow starts in 2nd gear (< 10mph) and cruising in 6th for gas mileage (< 55mph) - those are the only times I've felt a distinct lack of power for a split second when mashing the throttle. I'd wager the Evo feels very much the same if not just slightly worse, because of one less gear and slightly longer gears as a result.

For comparison's sake: the STi's 6th is geared even shorter than the WRX's 5th, and by about 2300rpm the STi is already making more torque than the WRX does anywhere in its power band. The STi's mid-range torque (2500-5500rpm) is pretty incredible, although the turbo starts to run out of breathing room past 6000rpm because of its small size. Btw the (slower) Japan spec STi ver8 does the full Nurburgring course in 8:06.59.

Enough about the STi though. I find the R32 more of a tourer/cruiser than what it's being compared to. Coddling the driver while still being pretty quick - something nice to take a cross-country road trip in perhaps. Don't get me wrong, that's not a bad thing because that's what some people are looking for. But that means it just won't match the numbers of the pure-performance oriented cars in its class.