R32

[Teutonic_Tamer]

No, the S3 engine, whilst it is still a 2 litre FSI turbo engine, actually shares little in common with the standard GTI and Ed30 engine.  The S3 engine actually has completely different, uprated pistons, conrods, crankshaft (I think !!), valves, etc.  Furthermore, the head is made of a completely different higher spec aluminium alloy.

The ONLY thing the Ed30 230PS (and the Seat Cupra 240PS) share with the S3 engine is the bigger turbo with remote diverter valve (and also a different ECU map).  The rest of the Ed30 engine is identical to the standard GTI lump. 

The turbocharger and shortblock assembly have the same part numbers for both the S3 and ED30. The S3 intercooler is almost the same but has alloy end caps rather than plastic. S3 beats both the seat and the vw on the drivetrain front though.

from etka..

turbocharger
195 KW BHZ (S3) 06F 145,702 C KKK
169 KW BYD (ED30) 06F 145,702 C KKK


Short block assembly BYD (ED30) 06F 100,035
Short block assembly BHZ (S3) 06F 100,035

I think you're wrong on that count TT... unless you have further evidence.  Or is it the subtle difference between pistons and the engine block that I don't understand?

A "shortblock" engine normally consists of the following components: cylinder block, assembled crankshaft, con-rods & pistons (and associated bearings), balancer shafts (if used), oil pick up, oil sump and baffles, oil pump.

Therefore, you have no cylinder head, timing belt, inlet or exhaust manifolds, turbos, ECUs, engine mounts, thermostats, etc, etc.

One other crucial point, is that those part numbers have letter suffixes missing from them - which is a major fcuk up from somewhere!

[Teutonic_Tamer]

Mr TT Esquire, I was only taking the Michael as you probably guessed

I wasn't too sure!  I can't really remember "chatting" to you in any previous threads, so wasn't able to form any kind of opinion.

I'm just jealous of your RS4 ( who wouldn't be? and I just got back from Dubai this morning and I saw three RS4's down there on Wednesday - nice!)

Yeah, I understand people liking the RS4.  Indeed, I wanted one ever since the B5 RS4 came out - so I waited quite a long time!  In terms of seeing other RS4s on the road, well they are still pretty rare.  When I was in Germany for a month last May, I only saw one other RS4, and I was in the Stuttgart and Munich areas (which is close to "Audi-land"!!!). 

You obviously think though the R32 though is a piece of sh1te and your entitled to your opinion

Then you have completely mis-understood me.  I have never stated the R32 as being "shyte".  Indeed, I have actually praised it as being a very good and competent car.  What I have stated, however, is that the R32 is NOT a quantum leap ahead of the GTI, which some commentators make it to be.  It has been regularly proven that the performance of the R32 is no better than the Ed30 GTI, and also it has been reported that the R32 handling is worse than the GTI and Ed30, because the heavier VR6 engine induces understeer.

At the end of the day, these "differences" are all "on the limit" traits, and under normal motoring, won't make any difference.  In terms of purely everyday motoring, then the standard GTI, the Ed30 GTI, and the R32 will all be on a par.

I must defend my fellow R32 owners in saying that I have owned both a Mk5 Gti (although not the Ed 30) and now have the old 'R' instead.  I loved my Gti, I still think the grill looks far better than the R32 but apart from that I prefer the look of the R32 (again only my opinion)

Again, I've never made comments on individual looks.  It is all down to personal preferences.  Some people like silver, others like black.

The reason I traded in my Gti for the R32 was that I always wanted a 6 cylinder engine be it a straight 6, V6 or VR6 I don't care, I just love them!

That IS a valid point, which I have taken great pains to express.  To some people, the R32 is simply the best, soley on the grounds that it has 2 more cylinders than any other Golf.  End of . . . .

I have also since found out that the R32 is more user friendly - the wheel scrabbling that I use have  in the Gti has gone, I can floor it anywhere and off it goes without any wheel spin.

To me, that statement doesn't read "more user friendly" - but instead it just reflects the fact that you can't be bothered to exercise proper throttle control.  Another observation, if you regularly drive it like that, then your Haldex coupling is taking a pounding.

Consequently my tyres on the 'R' look alot better than they did on the Gti with the same mileage.

IMHO, that statement isn't an issue.  Weather you have a 2 wheel drive or 4 - in a same style and weight car, with similar performance, the total mileage that is averaged across all four tyres will be nigh-on identical.

However, two do comments arise.  Firstly, with Haldex based 4wd systems, you MUST keep all 4 tyres at the same tread depth.  This has two crucial disadvantages - you are forced to replace all 4 in one go, which also means you will be running on 4 very worn out tyres.  On the GTI (like all front wheel drive cars), yes, it will wear the fronts much, much quicker than the rears, but you only have to replace 2 tyres in one hit, and even if you have very worn fronts, you are still able to run with nigh-on brand new rears, which is clearly better from a safety aspect.

or maybe the 4 motion is far better and not as agricultural as you think?

Erm, I have never described the Haldex 4motion as "agricultural".  However, I stand by my opinion that the Haldex 4wd system is greatly inferior to the permanent, full time 4wd Torsen system.

Fuel economy is not too bad - not good around town but neither was the Gti particularly but on the open road around 30 mpg and as I only do around 6000 miles a year it only costs an extra 50 quid in petrol.

Hmm, you seem to be at complete odds, with both official manufacturers figures, and also of many other R32 users.  When you consider the R32 is on par performance with the GTI and more so the Ed30 - then the R32 uses at least 25% more fuel than the GTI.  Indeed, official figures equate to approximately 30% more fuel.  Fair enough, if you do a relatively low annual mileage, and can accept the increased fuel bill, then fine.  However, your "extra £50 per year" is way off the truth, for 6k miles.