Pics of R20.....

[Poverty]

The S3 is soulless, its engine is boring and its too 'audi'. Its not its haldex that ruins it.

The S3 fixes all the flaws that the R32 has and is superior in everyway apart from noise. Audi tested both the 2.0T and a 290hp vr6  for the s3 in development and the 2.0t was just superior.

The R20 WILL be fwd only.

Reasons being is that it will give greater profits/cheaper price, lower weight, better mpg which helps lower the companies overall economy figures which it needs to reduce in line with eu tree hugging directives.

However there are rumours of VAG testing the 2.5 turbo engine in the mk6 golf and the current A3, aswell as a new 2.0 Twin Turbo and that there might very well be a 4wd golf in the future, but still years from now, sometime 2011.

[Jules86]

Other than being more powerful its not superior in anyway to the R32? Its much less sporty feeling, the engine is incredibly boring, the noise is mediocre and the interior is very 'audi'. Its a boring car. Standard vs standard there is nothing in it with the S3 and R32.

Im not aware of a single flaw in the R32? Other than a slightly high mpg figure?

Of course they are testing the 2.5 in the audi, its going to be the RS3.

[Poverty]

Other than being more powerful its not superior in anyway to the R32? Its much less sporty feeling, the engine is incredibly boring, the noise is mediocre and the interior is very 'audi'. Its a boring car. Standard vs standard there is nothing in it with the S3 and R32.

Im not aware of a single flaw in the R32? Other than a slightly high mpg figure?

Of course they are testing the 2.5 in the audi, its going to be the RS3.

Interior very audi? Thats a bad thing? R32 interior is very VW, and between the two I think most would opt for the audi. I think the R32 engine is boring, it was always designed to be a relaxed engine, not a racer, but yes it does sound nice.

S3 is much quicker than the R32, around a track it annilates the r32, shows how much difference a engine can make. R32 flaw is mpg, not being that fast, and its nose heavy feel.

But there is no real indication of whether the RS3 will arrive in the current shape A3 or the new one.

[Jules86]

Cant be bothered to get into this with someone who doesnt own either

[Poverty]

Cant be bothered to get into this with someone who doesnt own either

You cant deny the facts, trouble is mate, I own a cupra, my mate had a r32 DSG until recently, and have another mate who has a s3 with DSG so I have plenty of experience with all 3 cars. The r32 is the slowest of the 3 once rolling. Cupra slowest standing start, around slow corners and damp or wet conditions. S3 with DSG is easily the quickest standard vs a std cupra, but with both the s3 mapped and the Cupra mapped the gap closes tremendously. DSG still gives the S3 a slight advantage, cupra is slightly quicker in a straight line, but the DSG of the S3 takes that back.

You dont own a S3 so should people just disregard your opinion because of it? I base my opinions on my own real life experiences along with what the major publications write.

[RedRobin]

^^^^

I don't care two figs which is faster etc - I'd rather hear a V6 every day (on Milltek of course).

I wish I'd started a book betting on whether the R20 wil be FWD or 4WD!

[R32UK]

Ok just my 2p worth...

I have always thought that the R20 would be FWD. but having watched that vid im convinced its 4WD! Im sure i can spot that haldex twitch anywhere! 

[Phil Mcavity]

Would love to see the R20 with some sort of 4wd, but in what seems to be abit of a price cut, i would think it will have the XDS like the mk6 GTi.

Ok heres a senario, if the current R32 was with 2.0, 270bhp with haldex, which one would sell more(In mk5 guise) ?? GTi or R32(with 2.0 ltre unit.)

No question R would be EVERYONES choice.

The Current R's problem is its too heavy, can be thirsty, Tax'd off the road.Performace suffers whilst on the go.

A formula of the R20, with a lsd can will be extremily popular going by its 25k starting price.  

I for one cant wait.

[winrya]

I'd take an S3 over an R32 every day of the week.  I love the R32 for VW being brave enough to put a big v6 in a small hatch.  The mk4 was a revelation.  Over all the other rather awful mk4 variants, the R32 came and blew everyone idea of the mk4 golf out the water.

Then came along the mk5 gti and it did the same.  The mk5 R32 didn't go down brilliantly in the motoring press.  Heavy and no faster than a standard 200ps gti.  Reviews always followed the lines of, a good car with a nice soundtrack, but we'd take a GTI, more nimble, more special.

Bring remaps into it and loads more torque and a lot less weight and the R32 can't compete unless its wet.  I for one take it easy in the wet so being 4wd wouldn't make a difference to me.

If someone came along and offered me a no cost swap then I'd think long and hard.  But, slower (v's remapped GTI's), thirstier, higher tax, higher insurance and a jaws front end makes it a no brainer for me.

S3 is slightly bland looking pre face lift but with the new wheels and light clusters it's a mean looking car that is really quick, economical, bearable tax and has a far nicer interior than the golf.  I'd love one if I could justify the cost of change. 

I know people are sad to see the v6 and perhaps 4wd golf's go but it is the demands of the buyer.  Truth is, not enough people want a v6 n/a golf, 4 pot turbo's are the way forward for now and vw have to make what will sell.  I know it's a bit biased but I doubt there are many people on here that would swap their remapped (or even standard) gti's for r32's.

[Sunglasses Ron]

I don't really mind to much whether it's FWD or 4WD. They both have there advantages and disadvantages IMO.
FWD won't be as nimble off the line as 4WD obviously, but with the technology these days 270-300bhp can still be deployed through front wheels without spitting you into a tree, just look at the new RS. Plus if FWD it will be at least 100kgs lighter and quicker once on the move.
But 4WD won't be a bad thing either so long as they don't make it a 1500kg fat kid. Either way I can seriously see me ordering one as my next motor come end of 2010 when i'm due for change.. 

[Kinbin]

^^^^

I don't care two figs which is faster etc - I'd rather hear a V6 every day (on Milltek of course).

I wish I'd started a book betting on whether the R20 wil be FWD or 4WD!

IMHO, R20 in a FWD... lighter, cheaper...

As said by vtec_abuser as well, 300bhp output is doable. That can come out of 4 pots as well. 

[Jules86]

Cant be bothered to get into this with someone who doesnt own either

You cant deny the facts, trouble is mate, I own a cupra, my mate had a r32 DSG until recently, and have another mate who has a s3 with DSG so I have plenty of experience with all 3 cars. The r32 is the slowest of the 3 once rolling. Cupra slowest standing start, around slow corners and damp or wet conditions. S3 with DSG is easily the quickest standard vs a std cupra, but with both the s3 mapped and the Cupra mapped the gap closes tremendously. DSG still gives the S3 a slight advantage, cupra is slightly quicker in a straight line, but the DSG of the S3 takes that back.

You dont own a S3 so should people just disregard your opinion because of it? I base my opinions on my own real life experiences along with what the major publications write.

Fine ill bite, everyone is expecting it any way 


So one R32 is identical to every other then   

Ive had a few S3's play and i have been marginally quicker than some , slower than others and identical to one. Standard GTI's get left behind and remapped ones (depending on manual or DSG) either keep up or fall behind after about 50mph. ED30's just keep up and fly off if mapped (in the dry)

The mk5 R32 didn't go down brilliantly in the motoring press.  Heavy and no faster than a standard 200ps gti.  Reviews always followed the lines of, a good car with a nice soundtrack, but we'd take a GTI, more nimble, more special.

Bring remaps into it and loads more torque and a lot less weight and the R32 can't compete unless its wet.  I for one take it easy in the wet so being 4wd wouldn't make a difference to me.

If someone came along and offered me a no cost swap then I'd think long and hard.  But, slower (v's remapped GTI's), thirstier, higher tax, higher insurance and a jaws front end makes it a no brainer for me.

After reading most 'major publications' 0-60 or the R32 (quoting VW) i dont take them seriously, its been tested by proper magazines and various owners at well under 6 secs. Also i would put money on a mapped gti (non ed30) being slower in both a straight line and on track.

Which motoring press are these then?

Would it be jeremy clarkson?
 

Verdict A hole in one

I’ll cut straight to the chase: the R32 is a fabulous car, but it doesn’t shout about it. Apart from a bit of jewellery at the front and some blue brake calipers, it looks like a normal Golf. You really have to stare at it for quite some time to notice it’s riding a little lower than usual and that the tyres are suspiciously wide.The ride is comfortable, there’s no unnecessary noise and everyone has lots of space. Then you put your foot down and suddenly the world starts to go backwards. Not harshly or sportily. It’s not like the GTI, this. It’s a big, refined power, more like gravity than internal combustion, so you feel like you’re in a Mercedes. Only I’d like to bet the VW is better made.

And cheaper. Prices for a three-door start at less than £24,000, which is exceptional value for money, and even if you go for a five-door with a double-clutch DSG flappy paddle gearbox (which is what I’d do) you’re still asked to pay less than £26,000. And that’s a lot of car for the money. It’s more than that in fact. It’s every car you could ever reasonably need. Fast, well made, practical, surprisingly economical and above all discreet.

This Golf R32 is as good as it gets. Which is why I’m giving it the rare accolade of a Sunday Times five-star rating.

[Jules86]

I don't really mind to much whether it's FWD or 4WD. They both have there advantages and disadvantages IMO.
FWD won't be as nimble off the line as 4WD obviously, but with the technology these days 270-300bhp can still be deployed through front wheels without spitting you into a tree, just look at the new RS. Plus if FWD it will be at least 100kgs lighter and quicker once on the move.
But 4WD won't be a bad thing either so long as they don't make it a 1500kg fat kid. Either way I can seriously see me ordering one as my next motor come end of 2010 when i'm due for change.. 

The 32's weight it more the engine mate, haldex is not that heavy! Fingers crossed anyway. If not i think its either a 335i or new range rover sport next 

[R32UK]

I agree with Jules 

 

[winrya]

I'm refering to actual motoring press, not a supplement in a newspaper.  Top gear yes, but also Evo, autoexpress, autocar, what car, parkers.  You clearly love your car but once moving it cannot match a remapped standard gti, standard or remapped ed30.  Take into account transmission losses through the 4wd and then the added weight, the power to weight ratio tells the true story.