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 7 of 13: 1; ...; 4; 5; 6; 7; 8; 9; 10; ...; 13; Prev; Next; Last

#55 of 121 Proud owner of Both R32's ('04 and '08) by drjlag Aug 13, 2007 (8:30 am)
Hi All, Interesting commentary. As you can tell from the title of this post, I have both. Mine is a blue and my wife's (which we purchased Saturday) is gray. I do like the gray and of course have driven both (duh!), but they each have there differences. First off, my car is almost 3 and half years old with about 46K miles on it. So, it has more squeaks and rattles. I do enjoy the 6-sp and would never by an auto for myself (no matter if it has a direct shift gear box w/paddles), but my wife wanted an auto. The floor mounted pedal is great on the new R which would aid in heal-toe downshifts with a manual, but it's an auto. Eitherway, still a nice feeling with the floor mounted pedal. The new R (just like the MkV GTI) is very solid and eats up bumps like my R just cannot. (please note: this is not an apples to apples comparison due to the fact that my car is much older and I remember it having a more solid feel. still, my car was never this solid and quiet as far as I can recall). The new R is much lower and thus, the handling in the twisties is better, but you can feel the extra weight just a tad. The pick up on the new R is stronger than I expected and all those modes to drive in are great (sport is amazing, but we only had about 20 miles on it so we haven't dogged this one yet, of course the floor model was pushed to the limits more than a couple of times before we purchased ours) The breaks feel a bit softer at first (the pedal needs to be pushed further down), but once they grab, they stop the car well. I believe the rotors on the back are bigger, but they look smaller on the front. Either way, the breaks are one off the strong points on either R. I do like the old steering wheel and the seats but the new leather is nice because its not so smooth. The 6-disk in-dash CD changer is great as is the power lumbar support. The Xenon lights are amazing (our first car with them, I can imagine driving at night in my car now). I like the exhaust pipes further away on the old R (mine looks sweet), but wish the new R were closer together (like on the Cayman S with the chrome tail pipe option). The bumpers on the new R do take a bit of getting used but over all look good. Now to the fun part: the sounds. My R sounds great, but the my wife's sounds a little more raw. I need to rev my engine in 3rd just past 2800 RPM to get that rumble, but the new R seems to be pretty open all the time (no baffle?) The new R definitely sounds louder upon start-up, but they both sound great. Another strong point of any R. Open the windows, moon-roof (all the way), turn off the radio and drive. It's like a Porsche-in-a-Box. Overall, I like both cars and am happy to be able to have access to either anytime I want. I am proud to say that my R has never given me any problems (except for a dead battery recently from this 104 degree heat which was still covered under warranty). Anyway, just thought I try to get a owner's perspective. Of course, we have only had the new R for 3 days and only have about 100 miles on it. I'm sure the breaks will bit harder after more driving and as the miles are put on, we will dip further into the RPMs. Eventually we will have to race to see which is faster. Naawww! I have to say that with even 200 or more lbs curb weight for the new R, it's still faster, especially with the paddle shifting in sport mode. (I think it's 5.8 versus 6.2, but don't quote me) Oh yeah, my R is completely stock (changed the side markers to clear and still need to do that to my wife's R, but it doesn't look like they push in like the MkIV and need to go underneath through the bumper or something--any how-to's would be greatly appreciated). Cheers, Jason Replies to this message: eldaino (Aug 13, 2007 9:03 am)
#56 of 121 Re: Ummmmm... [smyle12] by eldaino Aug 13, 2007 (8:35 am)
Replying to: smyle12 (Aug 12, 2007 4:04 pm) I also think your facts are a little off about where VW assembles there vehicles. Citation please? I work at a dealership, why would I make THAT up? first of all, i didn't say you were making anything up. You have access to the internet, so there are a plethora of sources including edmunds own website that will tell you the mkV golfs and rabbits are built in wolfsburg, as is the r32. Look at the vin numbers, they start with a 'w'. Being a dealer employee, shouldn't YOU be telling me this? Perhaps this is the reason why so many people have bad experiences at VW dealerships? So you're buying a slower version of the same car as btw (and although the specs don't say it) VW used the exact same engine they used in the TT in the MkIV. Wikkipedia So don't even think your car has more horses. It has the same. i'm glad you cited wikipedia, because if you would have read the whole article, the difference in accleration between the mkIV and mkV r32 is like .01, in FAVOR of the MKV. So yeah, it is heavier, but it is just fast, another testament to the mkV. Not to mention that while it is the same engine, its peak torque and horsepower come in on earlier rpms, thus helping it achieve those numbers. I never thought it had MORE horsepower, so i have no idea where you got that from, nor did i say that the newer mkV was loads faster either. cheaper to assemble Nope. You are simply wrong. Read this sentance and accept it. This IS THE reason that the mkVI is coming early, becasue the mkV simply takes to long to build and is not profitable enough! Didn't we already go over this? comes with smaller rims with less spokes, they are 18's just like the mkIV! are you seriously just typing whatever comes to mind? and the new wheels look good, who cares if they are less spokes!? totally lame. gets worse gas mileage, and has really ugly seats that couldn't even be called "racing" seats, or you'd be laughed off the track. hmmm...the seats are supportive and good looking, you shouldn't buy a car like this for gas mileage and when it laps faster than a bmw 1 series with the m competition package, i doubt few would be laughing but me. Anything else? Replies to this message: factoryricho (Oct 04, 2008 11:34 pm) shipo (Oct 05, 2008 6:51 am)
#57 of 121 Re: Proud owner of Both R32's ('04 and '08) [drjlag] by eldaino Aug 13, 2007 (9:03 am)
Replying to: drjlag (Aug 13, 2007 8:30 am) excellent post jason! and yes the markers do push in, its just a little harder to do. i think both vehicles are great, i just don't think that the mkIV is just WORLDS better or anything like that; because, as you pointed out, the mkV is one heck of a nice car!
#58 of 121 We just received our first new R32 yesterday. by smyle12 Aug 19, 2007 (5:15 pm)
It feels more solid. The stereo is not too bad, but I didn't crank it (it did rattle though, lame). The doors are heavier. Overall, it's not too bad. It has a lot of neat features like headlight washers and numerous other things. Owning one wouldn't be so bad, although I still don't like the new body style, it looks almost exactly like a 2004 Honda Civic Si hatchback from the side. It's almost uncanny. It's like I can see that Civic V-tec logo right before the rear wheels when I gaze at it. Overall, I'm more impressed than I thought I would be, but I can't say I've driven the MKV yet. However, if you inspect the numbers closer, the lighter, more fuel economic MkIV IS the faster car, and it just looks more luxurious inside, especially with those awesome indigo and red guages. Sorry MKV owners, but you get white numbers and blue needles. Lame. Replies to this message: eldaino (Aug 20, 2007 9:47 am)
#59 of 121 Re: We just received our first new R32 yesterday. [smyle12] by eldaino Aug 20, 2007 (9:47 am)
Replying to: smyle12 (Aug 19, 2007 5:15 pm) but I can't say I've driven the MKV yet. so after all those posts, this is all you have to say? you made it seem like you had SO much experience with the car, and that the comparisons you were making were valid! if you inspect the numbers closer, the lighter, more fuel economic MkIV IS the faster car, and it just looks more luxurious inside, especially with those awesome indigo and red guages. again, NO one has ever said its faster. but given the fact that is ever so slightly slower than the mkIV, given its weight disadvantage, i'd say thats not too shabby. More economical mkIV? buddy, its a vw first of all, not exactly the poster child for economical cars, and its a speciality limited edition vehicle. being economical has NOTHING to do with it...but if you do want to get nitty gritty, the mkIV r32 is rated at 17/24 mpg whereas the newer, heavier, more powerful (but not faster) r32 is rated at 18/23. it does better in the city and slightly worse on the highway. its a total wash. and it just looks more luxurious inside it looks cool, sporty, and very nice, but it just does not look as luxurious. especially when you are basing yourself on the guages; event the rabbit gets the blue and red ones. i like the fact that they distinguished it on the mkv r32 from the rest of the line up. most of your hate for this car is total opinion and hardly 'lame'. it looks almost exactly like a 2004 Honda Civic Si hatchback from the side. It's almost uncanny. meh, i really don't see the resemblence outside of the fact that they are both hatchbacks. imo, the mkV is has nicer proportions, the civic only really looked great with the hfp lip kit and the 17's alloys. if there is a resemblence, i would hardly call it 'uncanny'.
#60 of 121 I received mine last week. by golfmd Aug 21, 2007 (10:48 am)
Tornado red with all season tires. I don't understand smyle12's hate for this car. It's got a very solid, smooth feel to it for highway driving that won't wear you out on long trips. When I want to rip it, however, it's fully capable and the sport mode is really fun. The paddle shifters are OK, but I do prefer a manual (needed auto for the wife). The options on the car are virtually all encompassing. I love the steering wheel more than on my 911, and that's really saying something. It's a great all around performing car for all season driving.
#61 of 121 Re: Read the reviews [sonic0075] by dmikes Sep 01, 2007 (5:55 pm)
Replying to: sonic0075 (Jul 04, 2007 10:18 pm) It's obvious that YOU will be happier with your stick and eldaino will be happier with his DSG. Either way, the fact is that the DSG is a faster shifting transmission, faster than any human can shift a manual. The DSG even blips the throttle, flawlessly, for downshifts. As for not holding a gear, try using the DSG in "manual" mode. Yes, you CAN shift it out of "auto" mode and it will hold the gear you choose. I've done it. Sorry, DSG is the wave of the future. I've been driving for almost 45 years and I LOVE a stick, but... if you are looking for performance, choose what F-1 drivers use... paddle shifted, auto-clutch transmissions. Plain and simple.
#62 of 121 Passat 4Motion Versus R32 by forestercurt Sep 04, 2007 (6:03 pm)
I have a unique view. I own a 2006 VW Passat 3.6 4 Motion. My car is rated 18/26, its a base model sticker was 32.5, paid 31.5 when it first came out early 2006. I like the idea of the r32 but price is just too high, they also didnt put the 280HP 3.6 in this car because the DSG could not handle the HP, thats the rumor anyways, this KILLS the aftermarket aspect of this car, i.e no turbos on this bad boy, unless the DSG can be beefed up. The original R32 can be found on youtube with turbo power exceeding 580HP at the wheels! My only interest in the r32 is IF I could boost the power to spank the ricers. Otherwise I think my Passat can hang with the r32 0-60 1/4 mile and I get much better fuel economy, I average over 32 on the highway. Of course the R32 is loaded, my car is not, no leather, ect but I really cant get motivated to pay 34k for a Golf. VW is raising the prices of the Passats on the high end quite abit, almost 38k for a 4 motion? I am sorry but in that range I would be looking at a 328IX or a G35X, just too much money, I felt the passat even stripped at 31.5 out the door was too much but the 3.6 is a gem, you think the 3.2 sounds good, the 3.6 sounds better is FSI and makes 30 more HP. VW if your listening, R36, 300HP, 34K, not R32 250HP, 34K. Replies to this message: eldaino (Sep 05, 2007 8:26 am) kurtamaxxxguy (Sep 05, 2007 5:46 pm) scoobasteve (Sep 27, 2007 8:33 am)
#63 of 121 Re: Passat 4Motion Versus R32 [forestercurt] by eldaino Sep 05, 2007 (8:26 am)
Replying to: forestercurt (Sep 04, 2007 6:03 pm) there are plenty of tuning companies that can beef up the dsg along with the turbo kit they'll slap on your car. however.... if THIS: My only interest in the r32 is IF I could boost the power to spank the ricers is your only interest i would look elsewhere. Any car can become 'riced' regardless from where its from. There are many a 'riced' out vw out there, trust me. You should enjoy the car for what it is, not just because you want to race a fart can equipped import.
#64 of 121 Re: Passat 4Motion Versus R32 [forestercurt] by kurtamaxxxguy Sep 05, 2007 (5:46 pm)
Replying to: forestercurt (Sep 04, 2007 6:03 pm) Yes, I remember the current VW DSG could not handle more than about 270 HP (and related torque) without severely degrading its lifespan. Auto engineers tend to be conservative, but there are real physical limits for any part. As for the Youtubed 580 HP R32's - how much of the vehicle is stock? What happens to the drive shafts should you drop a gear and floor the engine? Or if under full power a drive wheel goes into full slip and abruptly reloads again? Just how long can the car operate at maximum horsepower before the engine blows up? Car and Driver once experimented with an EVO taken "to the edge". Their tuned car was only a little faster than stock, but routinely blew up its motor, drive shafts, or transmission depending on what part was stressed. Personally, I'd like my car to keep on performing rather than becoming a basket case.