Make a donation

Author Topic: R32 vs Mapped Gti  (Read 9345 times)

Offline strapper

  • Always Involved
  • ****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 0
  • -Receive: 3
  • Posts: 268
    • Email
Re: R32 vs Mapped Gti
« Reply #30 on: November 28, 2011, 11:38:21 pm »
I had a stage 1 Gti and then went to a mk5 r32. My Gti was producing 261bhp and getting 33mpg daily driven. My r32 is getting 28mpg daily driven. The Gti had the legs on the 32 easily up to 100mph. The r32 is very high geared and feels quite lazy low down. Once you get it wound up it pulls like a train and acceleration over 100 is serious compared to a Gti. Both great cars with different experiences. I would have a Gti again but just got the r32 as it was an itch I had to scratch plus it was top spec and I got offered good money for my Gti.


---
I am here:
Tornado red mk5 Gti no more
Tornado red 3dr mk5 R32, leather recaros, satnav, arm rest, electricaly folding wing mirrors, sunroof, parking sensors, wOOwzers I've just made a mess of my trousers!l
Mk7 Gti 5dr solid white

Offline simonp

  • Just look at my post count
  • ******
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 10
  • -Receive: 38
  • Posts: 1095
  • No longer a Golfer
Re: R32 vs Mapped Gti
« Reply #31 on: November 29, 2011, 08:36:23 am »
Road tax is outrageous as well (due this month @ £425)

I think you'll find it went up 20 quid in the budget!  :laugh:

As for not being able to afford an S3 Sportback, don't forget that the A3 is available in standard 2.0T guise with quattro. It would probably still be quicker than the R32 after a remap and less thirsty. e.g.

http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/201145427996476

I drive a mk5 R32 and find the economy pretty variable, quite bad in town (21-24mpg), but much better on a run, as long as you stick to sensible speeds on the motorway. I've driven to me mum's house before, which is about 90 miles and only knocked 10 miles off the miles to empty (range) on the OBC.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2011, 08:40:58 am by simonp »

Offline Hurdy

  • Just look at my post count
  • ******
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 52
  • -Receive: 137
  • Posts: 7683
Re: R32 vs Mapped Gti
« Reply #32 on: November 29, 2011, 09:15:02 am »
Forced induction everytime for me. I just find N/A cars to be a little gutless. Fuel consumption is never going to be good on a 3.2V6 with AWD that weighs around one and a half tons. Handling is also going to be similarly blunted. Grip however should be better in the wet. On my old ED30 I had a lifetime MPG of under 19mpg, so also not an economical car.
Golf R gone.

Offline Hedge

  • Just look at my post count
  • ******
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 484
  • -Receive: 304
  • Posts: 6621
Re: R32 vs Mapped Gti
« Reply #33 on: November 29, 2011, 10:11:12 am »
On my old ED30 I had a lifetime MPG of under 19mpg, so also not an economical car.

I wouldn't class you as a good example for these measurements John.  :wink:

Offline Hurdy

  • Just look at my post count
  • ******
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 52
  • -Receive: 137
  • Posts: 7683
Re: R32 vs Mapped Gti
« Reply #34 on: November 29, 2011, 04:28:51 pm »
On my old ED30 I had a lifetime MPG of under 19mpg, so also not an economical car.

I wouldn't class you as a good example for these measurements John.  :wink:

I thought that peeps would want to know the lowest average mpg  :signLOL:
Golf R gone.

Offline Mk5 GTian

  • Just look at my post count
  • ******
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 62
  • -Receive: 37
  • Posts: 1374
  • Wolfsburg - Probably the Best Cars in the World
Re: R32 vs Mapped Gti
« Reply #35 on: November 29, 2011, 05:01:36 pm »
I saw an immaculate Mk 4 R32 3 door in black today, and they still look awesome. If money and practicality were no object, I'd be going down that road with a twin turbo 400 plus bhp easy without too many mods.

Fun Golf: 2016 mk7 R DSG 3 door. Work Golf: 2015 mk7 1.4 TSI GT ACT 5 door.
Gone but not forgotten : mk2 Golf GTI 16v, mk4 Golf V6 4Motion, mk5 GTI Storm Developments Stage 1, mk5 GTI Revo Stage 1, BMW 330ci, Skoda Octavia VRS Revo Stage 2, BMW Z4 Sdrive35i.

Offline Shorty

  • Won't Shut up.
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 5
  • -Receive: 24
  • Posts: 872
    • Email
Re: R32 vs Mapped Gti
« Reply #36 on: December 16, 2011, 10:43:18 am »
I had a play with my mate last night, he's just got a Mk5 R32...

Roll ons from 60-140 i pulled 2/3 car lengths in my standard Edition 30 all the time. He would of probably pulled it back after 140 though i'd imagine!

The noise is something else on them though!

All tests were carried out on a closed circuit btw.  :happy2:
| Mk7 R |

Vehicle Diagnostics inc VCDS, Vehicle Remapping and any other diagnostics in the North West area, PM me.

Offline vRS_Pagey

  • Just look at my post count
  • ******
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 66
  • -Receive: 59
  • Posts: 1577
Re: R32 vs Mapped Gti
« Reply #37 on: December 16, 2011, 11:30:57 am »
I had a play with my mate last night, he's just got a Mk5 R32...

Roll ons from 60-140 i pulled 2/3 car lengths in my standard Edition 30 all the time. He would of probably pulled it back after 140 though i'd imagine!

The noise is something else on them though!

All tests were carried out on a closed circuit btw.  :happy2:

So at stage 1 it would be curtains?  If you want to achieve a similar noise to the R32, get yourself a set of VF engine mounts, vRS Carl has a set fitted on his stage 2+ vRS and when he buried the loud pedal it sounded like a friggin 6 pot turbo - awesome!!  :drool:

His: MK2 Black Magic Skoda Octavia vRS Estate
Hers: MK5 Graphite Blue Pearl VW Golf GT140 -

http://www.mk5golfgti.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,32783.0.html

Offline DMcG

  • Always Involved
  • ****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 1
  • -Receive: 3
  • Posts: 145
Re: R32 vs Mapped Gti
« Reply #38 on: December 16, 2011, 12:06:12 pm »
I doubt you'll replicate the noise on a 4 cylinder! It would take some doing especially with a milly.

Offline stu_no_1

  • Always Involved
  • ****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 0
  • -Receive: 8
  • Posts: 444
    • Email
Re: R32 vs Mapped Gti
« Reply #39 on: December 16, 2011, 12:49:55 pm »
I went from a stage 1 gti to an r32 and I've never looked back the feeling of more power of the line is night and day no wheel spin or turbo lag I felt you always had to be on boost to feel the car had something which isn't a problem when your driving it fast but about town I dont want to have to rag my car to be able to get somewhere although at the end my car did have a boost leak so this might have had something to do with it. They are both lovely cars though and I got about 25-27 mpg in the gti and 20-22 in the r32 with the same sort of driving style the most I've ever had in the r32 is 31 on a long run and about 40 in the gti. In from scotland and getting stuck in the snow also helped my decision to go 4wd. I probably would consider getting an ed30 or Pirelli edition but I wouldn't go back to a gti