Tell Me I'm Wrong: VW Golf R32 (Mk4)
V6 Golfs: great on paper but do they really work on the road? Harris thinks not...
A 240hp V6 Golf - what could be wrong?
Covert fanaticism
Car was the benchmark back then, it nurtured me through hours of classroom tedium, my only real complaint being its size - one of those handbag A5 editions would have been perfect for covert reading. Even now I am probably unaware to the extent that I am indoctrinated by the message of Car - and there were many repeated themes. Setright and his obsession for Honda and Avon tyres, Audis having 'inadequate ventilation' and dozens of others. I didn't question any of them because these people were my vicarious life - I channelled Green, Cropley, Bremner, Fraser et al to bring me a life of cars.
To be fair, it doesn't just look good on paper
This was an almost new car, with a few optional extras and after a half-hour drive I needed time alone. My world was shattered. You see I'd also been lucky enough to have a go in a 325i a few weeks earlier, not easy when you were a nipper in the early 90s, and even with the rudimentary skills of a young Mini owner it was quite clear that the BMW had the Golf licked in pretty much every area bar the lifting tailgate test and snowy conditions.
Hero worship
Did this lead to an implosion of trust? Partly. We all have our heroes denuded at some point, but it was the first step towards a truism we all celebrate on PH - by all means listen to what people say, but making your own mind up is far more important. I did go and drive a Prelude soon afterwards and didn't quite understand what all the fuss was about.
Good for noise if not handling balance
That's a situation I think is still true 20 years later. Fitting a big, heavy motor in a Golf takes more away from the package than it adds in torque and sexy noise - VW seemed to finally realise this in 2010 and fitted a turbocharged four-banger for the Golf R. But even then, taking cost into consideration, the Mk6 GTI was a better all-round package than the much more expensive R.
All good on paper...
Prime suspect on the list of rank disappointments for me was always the Mk4 R32. In 2002 the prospect of an all-wheel drive Golf with a 240hp V6 and, hopefully, some sensible spring rates was very appealing. The reality wasn't quite as bad as the previous effort, the Golf 4Motion, which one colleague of mine called 'dangerous' but it was still a rank disappointment. Rarely has the on-paper specification of a car so over-sold a driving experience.
But would you have been better off with a GTI?
In mitigation, the standard Mk4 GTI was a proper dumpling, so it's not as if the R32 had some super-talented youngster nipping away at its heels, but there was in-house pressure from the Audi S3, which was originally only rated at 210hp, but I always found it far, far more appealing than the Golf.
Reality bites
Generation five gave us another R32, this time with 250hp, but still saddled with wheezing lungs and a chassis that screamed 'I was never intended to have a sodding great big V6 out front'. More pertinently, the equivalent GTI was an absolute corker this time and even though VW claimed the R32 was quicker, on a mixture of decent roads, I still think there's virtually nothing in it - and the punter in the GTI will be having a much better time.
And those are my observations of the Volkswagen Golf when fitted with a six cylinder engine.
I do not profess to be right; suppose it's time for you to tell me why I'm wrong...
VW GOLF R32 (Mk4)
Engine: 3,189cc V6
Transmission: 6-speed manual, 4-wheel drive
Power (hp): 241@6,250rpm
Torque (lb ft): 236@2,800rpm
0-62mph: 6.6 sec
Top speed: 153mph
Weight: 1,477kg
MPG: 24.4mpg (NEDC combined)
CO2: 278g/km
Price: £22,608/£23,228 (3-door/5-door, price when new)
 |
 |
 |
 |
The R32 has tremendous in gear flexibility and a cabin interior that was pure premium cosseting, I opted for the Konig half leather as the full leather tends to sag and those i believe are still the most comfortable long distance driving seats i have ever sat in. The R32 isn't a hot hatch as its too heavy, i believe you have missed the idea behind the VAG groups marketing, the Seat Leon Cupra R was the hooligan that would take your pants down and show most things a clean pair of heals the R32 was and allways will be a lazy mans car with hugely deceptive point to point pace which got you to your destination cool and relaxed.
The noise and look of the Mk4 R32 are fantastic, and across an entire year with changing conditions i truly believe was a better car than my friends BMW 330ci of the equilavent year, to which he also agreed after snow and ice and caused his traction control all sorts of issues and i had to drive him to the train station with no issues and beautifully toasted buttocks :-D
Objectively you're right, and subjectively I suppose I can see the argument for the S3 over the V6 Golf. I accept it was a lardy thing but sounded nice and I think most of the problems were the setup rather than the basic idea. The 4WD, with what we know now from today's monster hatches, seems a bit of an error. The Corrado VR6 was a lovely thing with just FWD, after all, and could probably have handled the more powerful engine of the R32.
In '98 (when i was 18, had no mortgage and insurance wasn't quite as silly as it is now) I replaced my mechanically good, but cosmetically ratty C reg 325i sport 3dr with a 96 mk3 VR6...I say replaced, what actually happened was a wrapped the BM round a lamp post, but that is besides the point....
I only drove the Golf in standard form for about 2 weeks, It was a one owner 3dr in a dark blue with leather and a few other toys. I found it to be roughly as quick as the BM, but I agree the damping was poor and it wasn't nearly as good around the back roads of south Northants where i grew up.
Very shortly after aquistition i took it to GTI engineering and had adjustable coil overs all round, a re-map to 200bhp (i think?) and a slightly fruitier exhaust along with some 18" BBS split rim's. At this point, it wiped the floor with the BM for speed and the springs and wider boots made it far grippier, the re-map yielded much more mid range punch and also made it a fair bit more revable, and the noise was arguably as good as the BM if not quite as creamy.
I loved that car and would rate it as one of the best that i have owned over the past 15 years of driving and 20+ cars.
If i had the space i would certainly have one in the garage, especially as they are so cheap these days!
I love the engine, it has soul and growls wonderfully unlike the 4 pots which at best are a bit souless, sure its not the fastest thing ever but if thats a problem you can always charge it to 400+bhp
The weights not an issue for none racing drivers or any one not doing hot laps of the ring, its like the scooby STi's you adjust how you drive the car to suite.
Not sure where you get wheezy engine from, maybe compared to a 100 grand V12 fezza it maybe, but then what wouldn't be
On paper it made little sense, even with 174bhp it was only a tiny bit faster than the GTi 16v, and that was probably optimistic thanks to really long gears. It was also stupidly thirsty for what it was.
But it was never meant to be a Hot Hatch really, you could make it one by changing the springs and dampers and if you were mad enough to spend the money changing the gearing, but if your goal was to buy a MK3 and make it a sharp, fast hot hatch you were better off starting with a 16v.
Oh and the biggest sin? The pre-facelift ones rusted, and rusted, and rusted.
I thought the Golf VR6 was the infamous "Lemon" car that was featured on the front cover of Car Magazine?
This one:
It’s a flawed car, no doubt about it. But I’d rather make love to a cheese grater than drive some of the competition, and the turbo 4 pots just seem to be a little boring. Personally, it doesn’t need to make sense, I love the R32, flaws and all.
Edit: Although, I dont like the mk4 at all, I'm speaking mk5.
A very underwhelming car, like all MK4 Golfs TBH, the only thing it did well was the noise.
Chris is right.
Makes me think of the Clio 172 that I own vs the Clio V6, 99% of people would be able to hustle the 172 round most roads/tracks quicker, it's easier to live with, in fact is almost better than a v6 in everyway...I still want a V6 though, I want one so badly, it's that sense of ocassion again.
When I give my 172 a thrash it's brilliant but most of the time I drive from A to B it's like my girlfriends 1.2 only more uncomfortable, with the V6 it's an adventure just making it to the top of the road?
Tell me I'M wrong
The R32 sounds amazing, it is extremely planted and feels very solid. I would say without a doubt it is a better car than an Audi S3 of the same age.
I agree, they arent the fastest things in a straight line but they have enough power to match most on public roads.
And the looks
one of the best looking hatches ever made IMO. Bearing in mind this car is almost 10years old, it has aged very well.
Surprising as a 93 325i would have Vanos to improve low down torque. I'm always surprised how much better the M50 (in the E36) is compared to the older M20 which imo only really comes alive once you take it above 3.5-4k revs.
FWIW, I actually prefer the character/delivery/sound of the M50 2.5 compared to the later M52 2.8 which I find quite a 'lazy' engine.
) they were light years ahead on material quality and build.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff