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

#9 of 121 Re: "What about VW's falling apart?" [mugwomp] by 600kgolfgt Jul 01, 2007 (4:02 pm)
Replying to: mugwomp (Jun 30, 2007 11:43 pm) "What about VW's falling apart?" Google' "VW" "lemon" - should keep you busy until Christmas. Lets see, so based on that statement, every VW I've owned has been a lemon: Past VWs: 1975 VW Scirocco - 200,000 miles 1987 VW Golf GT - 624,000 miles Current VWs: 1997 VW Jetta Trek - 219,000 miles 2003 Wolfsburg Jetta 1.8T - 98,000 miles 2003 Passat GLS 1.8T - 68,000 miles So in your estimation, I've owned 25 years worth of lemons. In my estimation, you've spent too much time looking at Google (and probably too much time text messaging while driving) and not enough time learning how to properly maintain an automobile. Let me guess - you own a Japanese vehicle, right? Probably one of those Camry or Corolla owners that drive as though in a trance... People are so predictable these days...
#10 of 121 Re: If the R32 is not much of an upgrade... [kurtamaxxxguy] by eljefe68 Jul 02, 2007 (6:54 am)
Replying to: kurtamaxxxguy (Jun 29, 2007 8:59 pm) I do not view the R32 with caution simply because it looks to be slower than a FWD GTI. The cost of the car, to me, is the issue. No doubt AWD has great appeal to folks in snowy regions, but is that appeal worth a $8 to $10K increase in price? I am not sure, especially in the face of new EVOs and WRX/STIs lurking on the horizon. Where in my post do I "heap praise on the GTI"? I am just stating the facts. As for that C/D review you and I reference (20 year subscriber), it is worth noting that, in addition to AWD, only the Subie had all-season tires, and the SE-R managed to get around due to its LSD. Maybe the GTI, as well as the others, would not have been so helpless if they were not on 'summer' peformance tires. Replies to this message: 40valves (Jul 06, 2007 6:39 am) 40valves (Jul 06, 2007 7:59 am) eldaino (Jul 09, 2007 10:12 am) tcrawley1 (Jul 12, 2007 9:40 am) and 1 more...
#11 of 121 None of this makes any sense!!! by ccd1 Jul 02, 2007 (8:35 am)
Let me spell this out. Inside Line reviewed the A3 3.2 and found the car to be marginally faster than the 2.0T and not even close to worth the the $5-10K premium being asked for the car. Now they review the R32 and make virtually no mention of the GTI. These are the same cars! If the added weight of the 6 cylinder engine plus AWD wipes out the performance advantage of 50 extra HP in the A3 3.2, it does the same thing in the R32! And if the extra cost of the A3 3.2 is not worth it, neither is the extra cost of the R32 because the price difference between the GTI and R32 is roughly the same as for the A3 2.0T and 3.2. Now for the final piece of the insanity. In Inside Line's review of the 2008 Audi TT, they preferred the 3.2! Why??? We are talking the same engines and drive trains! The 3.2 liter V-6 in the TT suffers from the same weight disadvantage as in the A3 and the R32 and should largely wipe out any performance advantage of the larger engine. And just like the A3 3.2/R32, the TT 3.2 should not be worth the extra money over the TT 2.0T. Replies to this message: bananadan (Jul 13, 2007 9:44 pm) eldaino (Jul 16, 2007 9:34 am)
#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)