RE: Tell Me I'm Wrong: VW Golf R32 (Mk4)
Discussion
jamesghwilson said:
Sir_Dave said:
TORQ said:
That my friend is very interesting. Good stats.
Just looked at the full list here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006mj59/features/...Some interesting ones:
Golf R32 1:30.4
Vauxhall VXR8 1:31.3
BMW M3 1:31.8
BMW 535d 1:31.8
Nissan 350Z 1:31.8
BMW 130 1:31.9
FRS Mk1 1:32.2
Honda Civic Type-R 1:33.5
Ford Focus ST 1:34.9
Not so bad for an overweight dullsmobile
2. Drivers?
3. Tyres?
The Top Gear test track times are not a realistic benchmark. Plus, since when did efficiency and fun mean the same thing? Not that I'm saying an R35 is boring, but an M3 would be more fun around a track, equally as desirable and approximately the same value. At the end of the day, an R32 is still a Golf (Not to disrespect the original MK1 & MK2 GTI's), but the M3 is more than a 3 series.
Geeba said:
Looks and sounds great... about it for me..
18T remapped GTI will be all over it like a rash, and still return 40+MPG
I've had a couple of mk4 Golfs with the 1.8T engine and an S3 with it, and you'll only ever get 40+ if you're driving at 60 on a very long steady run - with a tail wind and no hills.18T remapped GTI will be all over it like a rash, and still return 40+MPG
Low to mid 30s for the S3, mid 30s for a Golf.
You're dreaming if you think 40+
DanDC5 said:
Geeba said:
DanDC5 said:
Nothing to do with cars depresses me more than this sentence. It seems to be the default comparison compared to every other hot hatch and is hailed as the greatest thing since sliced bread when really it's a dull characterless engine that's no more tunable than any other turbo lump and the 'bargain big power' certainly isn't as easy to get as people think.
Really? Dull? you cant of driven one.. the 18T was used widely across the VAG range cant be all that bad or they wouldnt of sold millions of them... 150BP to 200+Bhp (Golf dependant on charger AUM/AUQ) 225bhp to 265Bhp on TT/S3 for £300-ish seem pretty good value... BAM & AGU variants with forged internals, larger gudgeon Pins would go 300+ on standard internals... power was/is pretty easy to gain....And that's before I get onto the stupid dull noise it makes even with an aftermarket exhaust.
jamesghwilson said:
Not that I'm saying an R32 is boring, but an M3 would be more fun around a track, equally as desirable and approximately the same value.
Ive owned both, & agree that the M3 is more fun when speed limits dont come into play, but for 99% of the year, they do, at which point the M3 isnt as good as the R32 as a daily imho. Mine was like driving a rocket powered truck on my commute lol. The dsg R32 is a dream by comparison.I'll have another M3 at some point, perhaps when i dont have to drive it everyday, but at the moment, the R32 is a better tool for the job.
If you look at my profile, you'll probably notice that i am a complete and utter BMW fanatic, but ive been very impressed by the R32. Gti less so.
Ved said:
jamesghwilson said:
After recently joining twitter, the first person I followed was you Chris. The main reason being I agree with you. Not that I have driven a lot of the cars in question, unless I've had the opportunity, but mainly I rely on reviews.
LotusOmega375D said:
" it begins in November 1991, lurking at the back of a GCSE German lesson, with a copy of Car magazine nicely sheltered behind my grammar text book. 'BMW beaten' screamed the front cover"
I thought the Golf VR6 was the infamous "Lemon" car that was featured on the front cover of Car Magazine?
This one:
That cover was from 1994, you can even see it on the low-res image you posted.I thought the Golf VR6 was the infamous "Lemon" car that was featured on the front cover of Car Magazine?
This one:
Edited by LotusOmega375D on Tuesday 30th October 10:45
Bitzer said:
I've had a couple of mk4 Golfs with the 1.8T engine and an S3 with it, and you'll only ever get 40+ if you're driving at 60 on a very long steady run - with a tail wind and no hills.
Low to mid 30s for the S3, mid 30s for a Golf.
You're dreaming if you think 40+
My run to work was "A road" dual carriage way... high 30's easy... 40mpg was metaphorical but obtainable with a steady foot... especially at the national speed limit Low to mid 30s for the S3, mid 30s for a Golf.
You're dreaming if you think 40+
the re-map actually made it better, unless you hoofed it...Geeba said:
SuperchargedVR6 said:
Agreed. Remapping a 1.8T doesn't change the fact the tiny little turbo runs out of puff at 5000rpm. The 20V head was also waste of development costs as Yamaha were able to get more flow from the 16V head it designed for the 2.0 TSI engine, which is the engine to have if remapping floats one's boat. That genuinely is a great engine.
Really? you know jack then.... frist thing you do on a re-map is remove the low rev limiter... they came with VVT... head flow will make virtually naff all difference on a forced induction motor... maybe help temps. the TSFI replaced the 18T for emission reasons.R32 wasted 90+hp through the drive-train, loads of torque on paper and felt like a wet handshake to drive...
The 1.8T does not have continuously variable valve timing. It has a crude on/off exhaust cam advance for EGR purposes during warm up.
I said TSI, not TFSI. They are very different.
Sir_Dave said:
I've owned both, & agree that the M3 is more fun when speed limits dont come into play, but for 99% of the year, they do, at which point the M3 isnt as good as the R32 as a daily imho.
I'll have another M3 at some point, perhaps when i dont have to drive it everyday, but at the moment, the R32 is a better tool for the job.
Agree 100%..I'll have another M3 at some point, perhaps when i dont have to drive it everyday, but at the moment, the R32 is a better tool for the job.
I owned a Mk4 R32 before my current M3 SMG..
If they were both sat on my driveway, the Golf would get the nod as the daily hack probably 8 times out of 10.
And whilst the similar aged Golf GTi is no doubt a very capable car, it just didn't feel as 'special' as the R32 - that's not a slight on GTis (or any car for that matter), just a reflection of the fact that we all have different tastes..
Killboy said:
jamesghwilson said:
Plus, since when did efficiency and fun mean the same thing?
It doesnt, but its been said its slow. Fun is debatable, fugures are not. Find a better comparison if you can.Dont tell most of PH that, FWD is meant to be a sin as many keep pratting on about the Focus RS should be 4WD and now that one of Focus Cosworth.
Despite all the comments of people saying the R32 isnt cracked up to what it should be I still like it. Its like everyone expects each car to be some kind of Ferrari.
Despite all the comments of people saying the R32 isnt cracked up to what it should be I still like it. Its like everyone expects each car to be some kind of Ferrari.
SuperchargedVR6 said:
Having done such a conversion myself, I can tell you it can 
Geeba said:
Bitzer said:
I've had a couple of mk4 Golfs with the 1.8T engine and an S3 with it, and you'll only ever get 40+ if you're driving at 60 on a very long steady run - with a tail wind and no hills.
Low to mid 30s for the S3, mid 30s for a Golf.
You're dreaming if you think 40+
My run to work was "A road" dual carriage way... high 30's easy... 40mpg was metaphorical but obtainable with a steady foot... especially at the national speed limit Low to mid 30s for the S3, mid 30s for a Golf.
You're dreaming if you think 40+
the re-map actually made it better, unless you hoofed it...
What do you think an R32 would get driving very steady in the same conditions?If the 1.8T quattro (to make it fair) did 40mpg, the R32 would be doing 35 in the same conditions.
Also, a 1.8T 150 remapped will not scare an R32 at all.
StottyZr said:
Geeba said:
Bitzer said:
I've had a couple of mk4 Golfs with the 1.8T engine and an S3 with it, and you'll only ever get 40+ if you're driving at 60 on a very long steady run - with a tail wind and no hills.
Low to mid 30s for the S3, mid 30s for a Golf.
You're dreaming if you think 40+
My run to work was "A road" dual carriage way... high 30's easy... 40mpg was metaphorical but obtainable with a steady foot... especially at the national speed limit Low to mid 30s for the S3, mid 30s for a Golf.
You're dreaming if you think 40+
the re-map actually made it better, unless you hoofed it... What do you think an R32 would get driving very steady in the same conditions?If the 1.8T quattro (to make it fair) did 40mpg, the R32 would be doing 35 in the same conditions.
Also, a 1.8T 150 remapped will not scare an R32 at all.
ks. Runs out of puff way too quickly, and the standard sidemount intercooler suffers from tremendous heatsoak. They may remap to 207bhp out of the box, but they won't be producing that power after one or two runs up the gears.Having driven many 1.8Ts, I also agree that they're dull as ditchwater.
I think the idea of any hatch with a whopping 6cyl under the bonnet is a great one. Illogical, yes, and maybe not as sharp/quick as they should be... but you never wish the designers hadn't bothered, and they do feel so special. More than the sum of their parts.
Darren61 said:
aka_kerrly said:
Note in terms of speed the mk4 R32 managed a 1:33.3 around the Top Gear track, faster than FN2 Civic Type R, A Megane 225, Alfa 147 GTV
A variety of wether conditions makes this pointless adding to the fact -R32 - 4WD/250BHP
FN2 Civic - FWD/197BHP
Megane 225 - FWD/222BHP (No LSD/Cup Chassis)
147 GTA - FWD/250BHP
Poor comparison mate.
I do accept that track conditions are significant but TG usually highlight wet and damp runs so I only selected dry runs for comparison purposes.
StottyZr said:
Also, a 1.8T 150 remapped will not scare an R32 at all.
A Cupra R 225 upgraded to 270bhp would though 
I like the MKIV R32, not such a fan of the MK5 as I find the looks too dull, the MKIV looks nicely aggressive, and the bodykit makes it look a bit more than any old blue Golf with some nice wheels on it. Unfortunately for the R32, I think it's biggest enemy the fact it's a hatchback. If the same drivetrain was put into a saloon no one would bat an eyelid, "creamy 6 cylinder cruiser", they'd all say, and be more than happy with it. As a hatch, people expect it to me a ballistic, raw hooligan of a car - a hot hatch, something that perhaps even the GTI is too sensible to be considered these days. It's part of a pretty niche market; a GT car in hatchback form, and at that, it's pretty good.
theboyfold said:
Interesting topic.
18 months ago I sold my Boxster S (986) and bought and Edition 30 Golf (Mk5). I was originally planning to buy an R32. I loved the 3.2 6 pot in the Boxster. It had lovely noise, character and just the perfect amount of power for the chassis. So to me the R32 seemed the perfect replacement. However when I drove it I found it to be too heavy, lifeless and that famed noise didn't come through the cabin as it does in the Porsche.
So I drove an Edition 30 an hour or so later and it seemed so much better in terms of a chassis and engine combo, it suited the car and made it just what I wanted.
So in terms of a short test drive I think the GTI wins IMHO, however as a long term ownership proposition I think the R32 might win. I find the Ed30 over sprung, crashy and far too thirsty. It also doesn't have enough power in 3rd and doesn't have enough grip in anything other than perfect conditions in 1st and 2nd. Maybe, just maybe the R32 wouldn't suffer from this.
It's an interesting debate, but I'm lusting after an M135i as a replacement and if I wasn't tied to a promise of a new kitchen I would have ordered one...
My ed 30 is mapped to 300 horsey things. Its a real Q car now, as they say, "its a wolf in sheeps clothing". 18 months ago I sold my Boxster S (986) and bought and Edition 30 Golf (Mk5). I was originally planning to buy an R32. I loved the 3.2 6 pot in the Boxster. It had lovely noise, character and just the perfect amount of power for the chassis. So to me the R32 seemed the perfect replacement. However when I drove it I found it to be too heavy, lifeless and that famed noise didn't come through the cabin as it does in the Porsche.
So I drove an Edition 30 an hour or so later and it seemed so much better in terms of a chassis and engine combo, it suited the car and made it just what I wanted.
So in terms of a short test drive I think the GTI wins IMHO, however as a long term ownership proposition I think the R32 might win. I find the Ed30 over sprung, crashy and far too thirsty. It also doesn't have enough power in 3rd and doesn't have enough grip in anything other than perfect conditions in 1st and 2nd. Maybe, just maybe the R32 wouldn't suffer from this.
It's an interesting debate, but I'm lusting after an M135i as a replacement and if I wasn't tied to a promise of a new kitchen I would have ordered one...
Best 10k I've spent on a car, nearly as much fun as when I paid £25k for a new STi8, but not as nickable. (Mine was nicked whilst we were asleep..)
You do have to be alert when driving it though, its effortless performance can be deceptive.
andygo said:
My ed 30 is mapped to 300 horsey things. Its a real Q car now, as they say, "its a wolf in sheeps clothing".
Best 10k I've spent on a car, nearly as much fun as when I paid £25k for a new STi8, but not as nickable. (Mine was nicked whilst we were asleep..)
You do have to be alert when driving it though, its effortless performance can be deceptive.
How do you find that it deals with the power? I'd like to pop along to my local friendly Revo dealer and get my one remapped as 3rd gear needs all the help it can get IMOBest 10k I've spent on a car, nearly as much fun as when I paid £25k for a new STi8, but not as nickable. (Mine was nicked whilst we were asleep..)
You do have to be alert when driving it though, its effortless performance can be deceptive.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff