My gti beat R32 just from a remap

[Russ.C]

I admit I never experienced any understeer in my MK4 R

[evad]

I admit I never experienced any understeer in my MK4 R

I haven't experienced understeer in my MKV R yet either in 12000kms, I must say I find it very balanced just a little softer than the GTI.

[Teutonic_Tamer]

wouldn't the R32 beat the GTI hands down when i came to in gear acceleration though?

Nope.  Transmission losses occur at any speed! 

[Hurdy]

I admit I never experienced any understeer in my MK4 R

[/quote]

 As for that crap about understeer!!! Add power and there is no such thing as understeer, the power shifts to the back, and anywhere you point the thing it goes.
[/quote]

Some people just don't push their cars hard enough do they

C'mon guys, own up

[Teutonic_Tamer]

TT, with the cooling being the case I think its time VW sit down and rethink what the are achieving with the R32 model for the MKVI. The MK4 R32 was resonable as it was considerably quicker than the 1.8T GTi model of the time.  With the GTi model now a 200bhp 2.0L FSI Turbo enigne (not to mention the ED30), the whole glamour of the R32 name seems to go away imo.

Well, not being party to the VW board, I can't say what their future plans are!   

And regarding the Mk4 comments, well I don't really think I can voice too much of an opinion, as I'm a relative newcommer to the VAG stable.  However, looking briefly at the VR6 engine, it has been around for quite some time.  In the Mk4 R32, the already well established VR6 engine was rated at 240PS.  When the Mk5 came out, VW felt they could only get an extra 10PS from the VR6 engine, taking it to 240PS.

Regarding the "glamour" of the R32, and specifically with the Mk5, I honestly don't think the R32 is sold as "next step up", in performance terms, from the GTI or Edition30.  I personally feel the R32 is sold for a couple of "non-performance" reasons.  The first being that it is the "top of the range" Golf, which to some people, is a must at all costs.  The second is the "promise" of the 4 wheel drive (though I'm sure we all know on this particular forum that it is NOT a permanent 4 wheel drive system).  And the final reason is simply the V6 engine - some peeps just have to have those extra two cylinders, and the associated noises which come from a V6.

Regarding the future Mk6 models, then I think if they do stick with the VR6 lump, then it will still achieve sales, though in much smaller numbers, due to the environmental issues.

[Teutonic_Tamer]

Hmmm - stick some really decent boots on a standard GTI, and I personally doubt there will be any difference on wet roads.

Having had a GTI and now R32 and living in wet, dreary, badly surfaced Ireland, I can tell you there is quite a difference in grip between the two(both on Bridgestones).

But according to others, Bridgestones are shyte in the wet.  Try some Michelin Pilot Sport PS2s and you will see a huge difference in wet grip! 

But yes in real world driving the standard R32 isn't much faster than the GTI, I would say that over 90mph the R32 has a slight edge.

How do you work that out? 

[Teutonic_Tamer]

Whats the point in having an R32 then apart from getting a nice noise in a tunnel?

Very wet roads apparently.

And personally I really like the seats.

However, couldn't justify the extra dosh over my GTi

Luckily for me my R32 cost me less than a Gti would (leased) so Im more than happy to have a car worth £5k more than the standard Gti.

I personally don't know how you worked that out!  Someone at the stealer must have c0cked up the figures somewhere.

For me the R32 sounds better,

I don't think anyone is doubting that a standard R32 sounds better than a standard GTI or Ed30.

handles better, and no doubt in the wet would leave most 2WD's for spray.

Then sadly, you are misguided.  Every single published test on the R32 states that handles worse than the GTI.  As for wet traction, a reasonably competent driver would achieve nigh-on identical wet traction with the GTI and R32.  For general wet handling, particularly cornering, 4 wheel drive makes absolutley NO difference.

Agreed that as Hurdy said the stats are not always correct as he found on his runs.

I think Hurdys experience merely backs up what has already been stated in all the journo reports.

But I really do belive your getting a better, more composed car. No real back up for this statement, thats just how it feels.

Why do you think that.  The interior is identical to the GTI, save for a different aluminuim trim, and different colour needles.  The handling is actually worse than the GTI, and the ride comfort is much worse than the GTI.  Oh, and the boot is considerably smaller than the GTI, which is pretty important if it is your only means of transport.

It is probably just a "placebo" effect - you have bought a more expensive car, so you naturally "think" that it must be better than its' sibling minnows!

Ask anyone who has driven or owned both cars. As for that crap about understeer!!!

Erm, I HAVE driven the two (R32 manual, and GTI manual on 18"s) side by side, on the same day, in identical weather conditions, on the same Michelin Pilot Exalto PE2 tyres.  When pushed to the limits, the GTI remains neutral, but the R32 DOES understeer - quite a lot!

Add power and there is no such thing as understeer, the power shifts to the back, and anywhere you point the thing it goes.

Two things, if you are getting understeer on zero or trailing throttle, then you arn't diving properly.  Secondly, if you claim that by adding power and "remove" the understeer, then you are no-where near the limit.  I suggest you find some private facilities, where you can "explore", in safety, the limits of your car.

Furthermore, your claim that "power shifts to the back" clearly demonstrates the poor dynamics of the R32 Haldex part-time four wheel drive system.

[Teutonic_Tamer]

I admit I never experienced any understeer in my MK4 R

Erm . . . we are only referring to the Mk5 !!!!   

[evad]

Hmmm - stick some really decent boots on a standard GTI, and I personally doubt there will be any difference on wet roads.

Having had a GTI and now R32 and living in wet, dreary, badly surfaced Ireland, I can tell you there is quite a difference in grip between the two(both on Bridgestones).

But according to others, Bridgestones are shyte in the wet.  Try some Michelin Pilot Sport PS2s and you will see a huge difference in wet grip! 

But yes in real world driving the standard R32 isn't much faster than the GTI, I would say that over 90mph the R32 has a slight edge.

How do you work that out? 

Michelins will be on my shopping list when my tyres are due to be changed which shouldn't be long now , my point was on even shyte tyres there is a noticable difference in wet grip between the Gti and R32.

Regarding the speed issue, its purely seat of the pants, the R just feels like it accelerates faster at those kind of speeds.

[Teutonic_Tamer]

Hmmm - stick some really decent boots on a standard GTI, and I personally doubt there will be any difference on wet roads.

Having had a GTI and now R32 and living in wet, dreary, badly surfaced Ireland, I can tell you there is quite a difference in grip between the two(both on Bridgestones).

But according to others, Bridgestones are shyte in the wet.  Try some Michelin Pilot Sport PS2s and you will see a huge difference in wet grip! 

But yes in real world driving the standard R32 isn't much faster than the GTI, I would say that over 90mph the R32 has a slight edge.

How do you work that out? 

Michelins will be on my shopping list when my tyres are due to be changed which shouldn't be long now ,

Good man!   

my point was on even shyte tyres there is a noticable difference in wet grip between the Gti and R32.

Hmmmm . . . that is sort of "reverse" logic.  What you are actually proving is not the traction abilties of the car, but simply the shytness of the tyres. 

Regarding the speed issue, its purely seat of the pants, the R just feels like it accelerates faster at those kind of speeds.

Ah, OK - fair comment.