Article Comments - 2008 VW R32 First Drive and Follow-Up Test

121 messages, Last post on Aug 19, 2009 at 3:27 AM

You are in the Volkswagen GTI Forum. Your Host is pf_flyer

What is this discussion about? Volkswagen R32, Hatchback

First Drive: 2008 Volkswagen R32 - You need to really like German hatchbacks to appreciate the R32's combination of performance and upscale comfort. If you don't, you won't. (more)

Follow-Up Test: 2008 Volkswagen R32 - If pinpoint refinement is your overriding priority in hot-hatch selection, the 2008 VW R32 is the obvious choice. But some will find it too thoroughly baked. (more)

Outline

Messages Page 3 of 13: 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; ...; 13; Prev; Next; Last

#12 of 121 Re: It's a VW so it will fall apart after 12,000 miles [ttbuyer] by eldaino Jul 02, 2007 (9:03 am)
Replying to: ttbuyer (Jun 29, 2007 8:23 pm) you need to call the press then, because my vw (a 2007 rabbit) has almost 23k and i'm still driving. certainly this is impossible? if you have no interest in the r32, then go away.
#13 of 121 ok here goes by eldaino Jul 02, 2007 (9:08 am)
motor trend clocked their 2008 r23 0-60 at 5.8 seconds. and that was the euro version, and the us version is supposed to be geared more aggresively. we'll see if edmunds is taking it easy on the throttle, heaven forbit another hatch in the us dethrones the mazdaspeed 3 in ;0-60 times. while the a3 3.2 is only marginally faster than the 2.0t, it is not a type of limited edition like the r32 is; vw is catering to a very specific market segment, and if you don't see the sense in it, thats fine, becasue this car is not for you and NO ONE is MAKING YOU buy it. geez. with regards to the evo/sti; while they do offer better performance than the r23, did no one realize they cost about the same? and offer NO WHERE near the luxury or solidity on the road as the r32 does. again, its targeted to a very specific person, we will just have to see what kind of numbers it puts up when insideline does a full test on it; from what i know, while the last gen r32 couldn't match the 0-60 times of the evo or sti, it put up almost the same handling numbers;....WITHOUT being anywhere NEAR as harsh. R23 ftw.
#14 of 121 You Skipped Around My Point by ccd1 Jul 02, 2007 (9:43 am)
The R32 has the same engine (with the same HP), AWD system and transmission as the A3 3.2. I'll bet the R32 is only marginally faster than the GTI because it has the same weight differential that negates the advantage of the bigger motor. The limited edition nature of the R32 changes nothing about this. When you get down to it, the R32 is a more sporty, less expensive, 2 door version of the A3 3.2. Replies to this message: eldaino (Jul 02, 2007 10:26 am)
#15 of 121 Re: You Skipped Around My Point [ccd1] by eldaino Jul 02, 2007 (10:26 am)
Replying to: ccd1 (Jul 02, 2007 9:43 am) I'll bet the R32 is only marginally faster than the GTI because it has the same weight differential that negates the advantage of the bigger motor. and you skipped around mine. 5.8 0-60 ring any bells? thats consitituing a bit more than just 'marginally faster.' besides, the r32 is not just about 0-60 times, it will outhandle the gti without a doubt. its a more grown up version, and has luxuries that even the gti does not. My comments on its limited availabilty were not said to defend its numbers, but to simply state why someone would opt for a 30k rabbit in general. i believe that even the a3 3.2 is more expensive than the r32, even the 2.0t can be if optioned properly. the awd is a big factor, a lot of enthusiasts realize the limits of fwd, and both generations of r32 have tremendous tuning potential; its a true enthusiast car. (not to say the gti isn't though.)
#16 of 121 Nothing by ccd1 Jul 02, 2007 (12:44 pm)

#17 of 121 Nothing Against the R32 by ccd1 Jul 02, 2007 (1:07 pm)
I have no problems with a $30k rabbit in R32 form and it is around $3k less than the A3 3.2 without taking into account options. As for tuning, hanging around Audi forums I find most people into tuning their cars would opt for the 2.0T as there are chips for that motor which eliminate any hp advantage of the V6. I guess I'm part of the group that questions whether VW/Audi did enough to differentiate the 2.0T from the V6, given the price difference. Fifty HP just doesn't seem like much given the weight difference. Also, I could chip the 2.0T to 230hp (or more) for a fraction of the cost of upgrading from the 2.0T to the V6. All I would be missing at that point is AWD (and my warranty), but I'd also have around $4K in my pocket. Now the REALLY interesting question is why would anyone buy an Audi TT instead of R32. I think the argument can be made that all you are getting in the TT for the extra money is a prettier face. Replies to this message: eldaino (Jul 03, 2007 6:23 am)
#18 of 121 I wonder (cause I don't read rambles)... by xgc75 Jul 02, 2007 (2:12 pm)
Has anyone mentioned that the VR6 is an entirely different engine from the V6 in the A3 3.2?? Replies to this message: djsherif (Jul 02, 2007 8:54 pm) bananadan (Jul 13, 2007 9:39 pm)
#19 of 121 Really?? by ccd1 Jul 02, 2007 (6:07 pm)
Entirely different engine with the exact output of the 3.2 engine (250 hp)??? Why bother?
#20 of 121 Re: It's a VW so it will fall apart after 12,000 miles [ttbuyer] by sonic0075 Jul 02, 2007 (6:29 pm)
Replying to: ttbuyer (Jun 29, 2007 8:23 pm) Hmm, It's amazing your statement is based on facts. As I look in my driveway and see 2 2004 VW's, one a Jetta GLI 1.8T and the other a coveted R32, and yet none of them have had any problems! Go figure my Jetta has 47000 miles and my .:R has 30000, you would think with your logic, I'd be crying over my repair bills!
#21 of 121 Re: I wonder (cause I don't read rambles)... [xgc75] by djsherif Jul 02, 2007 (8:54 pm)
Replying to: xgc75 (Jul 02, 2007 2:12 pm) You are incorrect. It is the EXACT same engine that is in the R32 no difference at all. The only difference is in the software for the DSG and the suspension. So please get your facts straight before you make comments like that. Replies to this message: bananadan (Jul 13, 2007 9:39 pm)