RE: VW Golf R32 (Mk5) | Spotted
RE: VW Golf R32 (Mk5) | Spotted
Yesterday

VW Golf R32 (Mk5) | Spotted

Getting better with age? Almost certainly, yes - but not cheaper, sadly


Earlier this month, Matt B discussed why the Mk6 GTI, despite its obvious qualities, had become the forgotten fast Golf of the last 20 years. You can return there to read about it - but the long and short is that it was preceded by a more famous version in the reanimated Mk5, and drastically outsold by the successive (and better) Mk7. In fact, the Mk6’s claim to fame has less to do with the GTI, and more to do with the introduction of the Golf R, a hot hatch nameplate that would later become all-conquering in its attempt to capture enthusiast hearts and minds. 

But it did not start out that way. The Mk6 R was absolutely fine in isolation, and it laid down the much imitated mechanical blueprint for its successor to build on. But when it launched, everyone thought they knew what an R-branded Golf sounded like, and in that regard, four turbocharged cylinders could not hope to live up to the raspy, toe-curling noise of six naturally aspirated ones arranged in a vee. Quicker, cleverer and easier to tune the Mk6 may well have been, yet it remained in the shadow of the outgoing R32 for what seemed like an age. 

Of course, the Mk5 R32 was itself an evolution of the Mk4, which saved that generation of Golf’s blushes by being brilliant in much the same way (arguably better, given it was lighter). And the history of the narrow-angle VR6 is obviously older still. Nevertheless, it struck a chord in the Mk5 body, retaining the improved silhouette, but adding deeper bumpers, 18-inch alloys and twin centre exhausts. Perhaps it relied a little more on foreknowledge for you to notice it - although that just made it a very British sort of hot hatch: understated until you started it.

The soundtrack, and the inimitable burly presence of the six-pot were very much at the heart of what made an R32 appealing, not least because there were much livelier hot hatches available from a handling perspective. The appeal of a flagship Golf was different: it was about traction, refinement, long-leggedness and, when pushed, muscle car-style attitude. The trade-off was weightiness, a nose-led balance and occasionally alarming fuel bills if you kept the VR6 warbling too long. 

The combination was popular with buyers at the time, but because VW never replaced it in a like-for-like sense (and the VR6 configuration went on to feature in a host of less interesting cars) it has since achieved a more hallowed status, especially low-mile examples like this one. It is a 2006 five-door manual in Tornado Red, with the seller quoting 31,443 miles and six owners in total, the last since 2023. Its service history is said to be convincing, and the MOT record hints at nothing untoward. Certainly, the interior and the condition of the seats speak to very modest use. 

Given most R32s have accumulated double or triple its odometer score, it is unsurprising to learn that its £22,999 asking price makes it the second most expensive for sale on PH. You’ll hardly need to be reminded that you can buy a Mk7 Golf R for less than that, which will be quicker and cheaper to run, and arguably a superior version of what VW ultimately intended its badge to convey. But it won’t sound or feel like an R32, or do such a fine job of time-warping you back to the good old days. If you’ve ever had the itch, we suggest you scratch it now. 


SPECIFICATION | VW GOLF R32 (Mk5)

Engine: 3,189cc V6
Transmission: 6-speed manual, 4-wheel drive
Power (hp): 250@6,300rpm
Torque (lb ft): 236@2,800rpm
MPG: 26mpg (NEDC combined)
CO2: 257g/km
Year registered: 2006
Recorded mileage: 31,443
Price new: c. £25,575
Yours for: £22,999

See the original advert

Author
Discussion

Clappers66

Original Poster:

12 posts

45 months

Yesterday (12:59)
quotequote all
I had one almost identical to this, except it was a 3 door. I loved it, but tax costs and lack of use meant it had to go last year. It remains one of my favourite cars, not least because of that engine but it handled really well too.

biggbn

32,139 posts

248 months

Yesterday (13:02)
quotequote all
I prefer the mk4 but do really like this. Mk4 has an almost e39 'this is where the wave breaks and rolls back into the sea' feel about it!!

Thank HST for that analogy...

Kawasaki2000

210 posts

19 months

Yesterday (13:45)
quotequote all
A guy I know owns a 2006 car. Bought at 3 year's old it's still in good order but driven, even of not daily.

I'd happily run any performance golf of this generation - it think the 5 and the 7 were peak golf for me. The 2 and 3 mean that its not quite the Star Trek Movies of cars...

napoleondynamite

188 posts

158 months

Yesterday (14:11)
quotequote all
I had an ‘07 plate in the default blue. Absolutely loved it. That noise!

Have had a couple of mk7 R’s since. ‘Better’ in almost every measurable way but if I could choose one now it would be the R32 in a heartbeat.

DaveyBoyWonder

3,805 posts

202 months

Yesterday (15:30)
quotequote all
Say it on every mk5 Golf thread but I'd have another in a heartbeat (probably an ED30 though). As said above, that tipping point where the car was extremely but useably quick but still felt connected to the experience rather than just shifting a gear selector into D and shoving your foot down whilst the car farts its way via its synthesised noise to light speed in a way thats not too dissimilar to the "theatre" of an EV.


Dannbodge

2,358 posts

149 months

Yesterday (16:09)
quotequote all
Almost bought one of these instead of the ED30 I did buy.

Still want one, but would probably go for a Passat R36 instead.

The mk5 was one of the better looking Golfs.

carinaman

25,025 posts

200 months

Yesterday (16:23)
quotequote all
I may as well as here, did Japanese market ones have the central exhausts or twin exhausts on the NS?

I am asking as a silver MkV with the different part of the middle grille passed me on a bypass a few weeks ago. It had a square recess for the reg. plate in the rear bumper so I concluded Japanese import. Was it likely be an R32 or a lower performance variant? The central grille part made me think R32 when I saw it in my mirrors.

nismo48

6,813 posts

235 months

Yesterday (16:42)
quotequote all
That's a fair price for a decent car. Twenty years on and only two and a half grand off original price shows how much their worth.

fantheman80

2,543 posts

77 months

Yesterday (16:42)
quotequote all
I prefer the MK4 on looks - I am not sure if it was BS but there was a rumour the VW bigwig at the time stated he thought the MK4 looked 'too aftermarket' so the Mk5 had to be toned down and I think its slightly worse for it, but suits the cruiser/GT brief very well


WayOutWest

1,147 posts

86 months

Yesterday (18:53)
quotequote all
Wrong colour, these have to be in that blue with only the GTI in red.
I drove them back to back when new and preferred the R32.
I know the initial promise of superb performance never quite materialises. That crisp throttle response, instant torque and one of the best exhaust notes ever heard in a hatch has you nearly expecting M3 (of the period) like acceleration that never comes as the revs climb.

A bit optimistic perhaps but just another 25-30 odd bhp would have made it that much better.
However still a great car. I did drive another one several years later and it was just as good as i'd remembered the new one.
I know a Mk5 GTI with a remap would destroy it in performance and handling but it wouldn't feel and sound as special.

phpe

929 posts

168 months

Yesterday (19:10)
quotequote all
I had the choice in November 2006 whether to order the R32 or the just announced Edition 30

There was about £1500 difference between my spec Edition 30 GTI and the higher priced R32 at the time. Main choice was between the lighter, nimbler GTI or the traction & sound of the R32.

Chose the Edition 30 (Candy White, 3 door, manual with xenon’ upgrade) for delivery on 1st March 2007 and still don’t regret that choice nearly 20 years on.

Muska

1,173 posts

210 months

Yesterday (19:33)
quotequote all
I had one of these too about 6 years ago.




Loved it. Would return 30+mpg if driven sensibly, sounded incredible even with stock intake/exhaust and despite it being under powered for the weight/chassis at circa 250bhp (my opinion) it did mean you could rev it out a bit without instantly breaking the speed limit.

Someone said GT/tourer and I think it fit this use case well. Shame the crazy VED prices have meant they re an expensive ownership proposition these days. I moved up to a C63 but I m glad I had one of these when I had the chance.

kingswood

158 posts

104 months

Yesterday (22:18)
quotequote all



Ive had mine since 2015, paid £9k for it from Belfast. Ive kept every fuel receipt since I bought it, Ron 99 naturally!

as people have said the road tax is killing them. £500 a year when I bought it, now £800. only tax it 5 months of the year now. add in 25 mpg, dig/haldex servicing and age related stuff, leaking radiator, sticking door locks, sills need replacing, its becoming an expensive drive paper weight!

but still I can't sell it. as when you fire it up nothing comes close for the money. its worth £7k with a tank full of fuel and a new air freshener - what can you get for that these days?

they won't be putting a V6 in a hatch ever again and as the dogs get scrapped the (half) decent ones should go up! thats what I tell myself with man maths!

Mr Tidy

30,947 posts

155 months

Yesterday (22:45)
quotequote all
I really like them with their distinctive looks and sound.

But as an RWD fan I'd still much rather have a slightly more powerful BMW 130i, and as they are in Band K Road Tax is "only" £445 a year!

kambites

71,271 posts

249 months

Yesterday (22:52)
quotequote all
One of those cars which is objectively a bit rubbish, but subjectively enormously beguiling. Would I buy one? Absolutely not, but I'm glad they exist and I hope someone does, because seeing (and hearing) one of the road always makes me smile.