RE: Tell Me I'm Wrong: VW Golf R32 (Mk4)

[RobCrezz]

sootyrumble said:

RobCrezz said:

I would as well.

I agree with Chris. The R32s are boring to drive and not very fast (and feel even less fast than they are!). Ill admit they make a nice sound though.

I think you would be surprised by taking a Mk4 R32 down a 5 mile B road and then a BMW 325i down the same stretch and see which was quickest the R32 can cover ground very quickly, but it does mute the experience some what, the brakes are huge it has terrific traction and so will motor along at a great speed without ever really feeling like your going as quick as you are, this appeals to some people. The vag group has a car for every market sector and the MK4 R32 is the grown up hatchback for a premium customer thats all, i agree its no 205 GTI but within the VW stable they have that hole covered too :-D.

Doesnt matter.. A 325i is a better drive. Evos are a better drive than a R32 and much faster if pace is what you want.

[tommy vercetti]

Still a good looking car, has aged well and still looks fresh today

[FamilyDub]

It's a good-looking car the Mk4 R32, isn't it!?

Anyway, as a Mk5 GTI owner of four years, the only thing that's put me off the R32 is the lack of extra pace/higher costs over the GTI. So, if extra pace over the GTI isn't the point of the car, then what is?

I find the increase in running costs just aren't worth it - save a bit harder and get an E46 M3, or somthing more rewarding.

[sootyrumble]

RobCrezz said:

Doesnt matter.. A 325i is a better drive. Evos are a better drive than a R32 and much faster if pace is what you want.

LMAO that is a silly statement if your interested in a great drive buy a mono its exceptional. the 325i is not a better cruiser, more comfortable or as premium quality all things that are nice in a daily cruiser and come the snow is the 325i a better drive i seriously doubt it, the point i have been making is that the R32 is not a chavvy thrasher (Which the 325i is for people who cant afford a 330ci and like to sell drugs on the weekend) when do you see an R32 driven by a complete ar*e you don't because thats not their market they want the the 30+ young family exec market and in that area its very very good. People are being negative about a car they do not understand for instance an Aston Martin DBS is not faster or more agile than a Ferrari 458, but is beautiful has more torque and is better to live with on a daily basis and yes i have driven both (Unfortunately not mine though lol). My personal preference is the Aston but i wouldn't deride the 458 eithor, just i would like a car thats easier to live with in the real world on a daily basis.

[SS2.]

So the Mk 4 R32 isn't the quickest hatch out there, nor the lightest, nor the most economical, nor the fastest point-to-point and no doubt there are similar sized cars which offer the purist a more 'fulfilling' experience.

None of which were of any concern when I owned mine. I loved it for what it was - it was quick enough, it had presence, it was a great cruiser, it was [reasonably] rare, it looked and sounded stunning..

In fact, reading that article and looking at current prices, I could almost be tempted to add one to the current fleet..

[RobCrezz]

sootyrumble said:

RobCrezz said:

Doesnt matter.. A 325i is a better drive. Evos are a better drive than a R32 and much faster if pace is what you want.

LMAO that is a silly statement if your interested in a great drive buy a mono its exceptional. the 325i is not a better cruiser, more comfortable or as premium quality all things that are nice in a daily cruiser and come the snow is the 325i a better drive i seriously doubt it, the point i have been making is that the R32 is not a chavvy thrasher (Which the 325i is for people who cant afford a 330ci and like to sell drugs on the weekend) when do you see an R32 driven by a complete ar*e you don't because thats not their market they want the the 30+ young family exec market and in that area its very very good. People are being negative about a car they do not understand for instance an Aston Martin DBS is not faster or more agile than a Ferrari 458, but is beautiful has more torque and is better to live with on a daily basis and yes i have driven both (Unfortunately not mine though lol). My personal preference is the Aston but i wouldn't deride the 458 eithor, just i would like a car thats easier to live with in the real world on a daily basis.

I understand the car just fine. But its boring to drive and not very quick. Im not denying that its a nice place to sit.

I dont know why you think a VW Golf is more "premium quality" thank a BMW...

[Robmarriott]

The thing I don't understand is why they command such a huge premium over the 4motion?

I wouldn't call the slowmotion dangerous!, not fast by any means but definitely not a dangerous car.

You can buy a 4motion for upwards of £1500, a cheap R32 will cost you 3 times that.

I just don't get why?

[NickGibbs]

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:

They initially liked it. Here's the test Chris is talking about (warning: this links to *another forum*)
http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?3869039

[rob.e]

Given how crap a regular mk4 Golf Gti was, the R32 was a significant improvement BUT I do agree in isolation it's not a great car.

Lovely interior and a great noise, but a very hard ride and not a great steer.

The mk5 R32 was much better, but as CH says it's got a much tougher job to do given the mk5 gti is such a cracker.

I would also caution against too much trust in magazine reviews - I got myself a Mk1 Focus RS based on how much Chris raved about his long termer when he was at Autocar. I was expecting great things but I hated it.

[Jobbo]

NickGibbs said:

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:

They initially liked it. Here's the test Chris is talking about (warning: this links to *another forum*)
http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?3869039

Autocar also really liked it at first - in similar LHD form. I wonder if the early LHD cars were set up differently to the UK cars?

[sootyrumble]

RobCrezz said:

I understand the car just fine. But its boring to drive and not very quick. Im not denying that its a nice place to sit.

I dont know why you think a VW Golf is more "premium quality" thank a BMW...

The R32 interior is very very well built with some nice touches, the climate control is one of the best of the time, full bose sound system, Konig seats I am not making an argument on its dynamic ability just on the fact that as a package it has its place and was never sold as a drivers car per se, which is how chris harris and you are judging it, for 365 days a year i would prefer to be in a R32, for a one of blast down a b road, then maybe the BMW but noone can argue that the build quality on offer with the R32's. Here is an independent study of BMW quality "Too Good to be True?
BMW’s powerful growth history and satisfaction reports would seem a testament that BMW is
performing well in all areas of operation. Unfortunately, however, BMW’s growth, earnings,
and profit margin do not seem to have a complementary relationship when considering quality.
A variety of reports from the past eight years gives the BMW brand average-to-low quality
ratings." http://evaneaston.com/documents/BMWQuality.pdf

[Guffy]

I bought one in 2004, pretty much on looks and sound alone (silly boy). I then spent the next 6 months regretting it as it was too lardy and slow for me.

Having said that, i regularly see my old R32 about town and it's still a fine looking motor!

[Killboy]

RobCrezz said:

I dont know why you think a VW Golf is more "premium quality" thank a BMW...

Interesting that its compared to BMW "exec" sedans rather than its more realistic rivals. What is funny is I chose the R32 over even an M3 - M3s actually cheaper, and insurance the same. Yes, to use someone else's comment, I'd rather be fisted by every member of One Direction than drive a 3 series, but thats just me any my eternal dislike for the BMW uber alles brigade.

[sootyrumble]

Killboy said:

Yes, to use someone else's comment, I'd rather be fisted by every member of One Direction than drive a 3 series,

Not heard that before but damn funny

[theboyfold]

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...

[otolith]

I haven't driven a V6 Golf, but putting a charismatic engine in it is the only thing VW have ever done to make me fancy owning a Golf/A3/Leon. Certainly not interested in owning one with one of their blown four pots in it.

[J4CKO]

Went car shopping with a mate and he looked at an R32 first, he liked it, then we went to drive an S3 which he bought on the spot.

I always thought the R32 was nice but it was a hot hatch for someone who had money and felt they should buy a VAG product but didnt really have much of a clue about cars, the kind that liked the image but did a lot of polishing but not an awful lot of hooning, interior immaculate as well, strategically place air freshener and a driver that favours Rugby Shirts.

Needs a supercharger to live up to its promise, wouldnt see which way an S3 went based on the butt dyno, there is a video of one being hounded by a 210 BHP Saab Aero on Youtube.

I test drove a VR6 back in the day thinking it would be GTI +++++ but it was a totally different evolutionary path, nice but not what a GTI is about, Hot hatches really need a four cylinder engine with loads of revs, possibly a turbo but they should always have a manic character, VR6 felt like my mother in laws BMW 320 at the time, far too grown up.

[anonymous-user]

doogz said:

sootyrumble said:

LMAO that is a silly statement if your interested in a great drive buy a mono its exceptional. the 325i is not a better cruiser, more comfortable or as premium quality all things that are nice in a daily cruiser and come the snow is the 325i a better drive i seriously doubt it, the point i have been making is that the R32 is not a chavvy thrasher (Which the 325i is for people who cant afford a 330ci and like to sell drugs on the weekend) when do you see an R32 driven by a complete ar*e you don't because thats not their market they want the the 30+ young family exec market and in that area its very very good. People are being negative about a car they do not understand for instance an Aston Martin DBS is not faster or more agile than a Ferrari 458, but is beautiful has more torque and is better to live with on a daily basis and yes i have driven both (Unfortunately not mine though lol). My personal preference is the Aston but i wouldn't deride the 458 eithor, just i would like a car thats easier to live with in the real world on a daily basis.

A Mono is hardly a daily driver though, is it? All road cars are compromised in one way or another, the 325 and R32 are reasonably comparable. And some people would rather have the Golf, some would rather have the 3 series.

The rest of your post is stupid. The 325 is for poor people that like to sell drugs on the weekend? How many poor drug dealers do you know?

And the 458/Aston comparison has utterly nothing to do with this discussion, not even sure why you're mentioning it?

It's half term week. Just come back after 6pm when sootyrumble has been sent to bed

[stevesingo]

Your not wrong. Great showroom appeal and pub bragging rights. Good on a salesman supervised test drive where the throttle response over the first half of the travel suggested something more than it delivered on the second half of the travel.

But, push the throttle all the way and it is no faster. Tackle an undulatuing road and it will be banging of the bumpstops like chav slammed Corsa.

Typical of the VAG fodda of the time. Nice to look at and sit it, but short changed in the engineering department.

[aston addict]

Strange that some folks here rate a front-wheel designed hatchback with a big heavy lump over the front wheels, huge front seats (making the back inhabitable) and a clumsy bodykit higher than a straight-six engined, rear-wheel driven drivers machine?

I had a regular golf iv - and whilst having a nice interior - its handling was awful, forever hitting its bump stops on an undulating road. Even the Mondeo before that would ride the same stretch of road better. Never drove the R32 but drove the S3 of the same age which was a nice motor but not in the same class as the e46 325 / 330.