I am not up on cars, but the other day I picked up a car mag at the
> store and read something about a VW R32 coming out in '04. I liked what
> I read, but would like to know a bit more. What have you heard about
> this car? It sounds nice (V6, 200+ hp, 6 speed). Is it essentially a 4
> door GTI? Is it dangerous to think about b/c it's the first year of
> production? Thanks.
I saw one at a dealership in Germany this July. It looked pretty ugly in person. A little too souped-up looking for my tastes, but some might like the styling. Reminded me a bit too much of a Subaru WRX, and the huge 3 piece wheels were a little over the top. Those who worked at the dealership thought that it was overpriced at $37K euro, and not that much faster than the GTI.
I agree. Lose the skirt ("ground effects"), make 4 doors and 17" wheels with the best tires available an option, raise it by 1", give it the DSG, and I would be interested ....
All of the 6 cylinder Golf-based cars in the US and Canada have been GTIs.
Not true everywhere.
I don't agree that a GTI is required to have a four cylinder engine. Just because VW didn't do it originally back in 1975 doesn't mean that a 4-banger is the only permitted spec.
The are Golf VR6's and Golf V6's that have been rebadged GTI by the local importer, since VWOA is allergic to the Golf name. If, for example, the Russian Chevy importer decided to put Corvette badges on a Lumina, in order to give it a more sporty image, would it make it a real Corvette ? I'd say a car is what a manufacturer says it is, not what some importer in some far away country decides to rename it. Just like the last Jetta was made in 1992.
See above.
There is no law saying so, but it has been the rule every manufacturer with a GTi model (that means most manufacturers) have followed since
1975, with the only exeption being the funny folks at VWOA and their creative work with plastic badges to avoid the name Golf. It's fun how they now have to invent new names every time the Golf comes in a new, powerful version. VW R32, now that sounds clever. How many different VW models do they need ? What are they gonna do when (if) the Golf comes with a W8 ? VW R42 ? Or what about when the Bora comes with a
3.2L ? VW R32 Type II ? VWOA probably wanted to call the Golf R32, GTI R32, but VAG have been very specific about the fact that the R32 is not a GTI model.
BTW, what do the geniuses call the new TT with the 3.2L V6 engine ? Audi TT VR6 ?
Most likely because the GTI "class" of car was a two-box design and usually based on existing small cars that could not accomodate a V6 or an inline 6 because of their size and transverse-engine layout. I'm not convinced that a GTI *must* be limited to 4 cylinders. VW just figured out how to design a compact V6 to fit into one whereas only one other manufacturer did (but didn't opt to call it a GTI). Designing such an engine doesn't take away from "GTI" status.
GTIs are higher-performance versions of two-box-design compact and subcompact economy cars. How you get that higher performance needn't have limitations.
This is a ridculous analogy. The only difference between an "American" GTi VR6 and a "European" Golf VR6 is the badge. The Lumina and Corvette are different cars altogethor.
It'll probably get badged as Jetta R32 or Jetta 3.2, again, not to hard to keep track of.
Practical isn't a descriptive word that comes to mind with the Cayenne Turbo...besides, it was designed first to be an SUV, unlike the R32 which was designed first to be a sports car.
LOL!!! In Subaru's dreams!! The R32 clocks in at *under* six seconds, if the XT could break 8 seconds, it'd be a miracle!
formatting link
Umm, sorry, the WRX is also an under-sixer.
This is funny!! The Cayenne Turbo does 0-60 in 5.2 seconds, as fast as a WRX STi and Audi S4 V8. The XT can't even match the Cayenne Ss' 7.1 second time.
Not, it's adequately powered. Unlike the standard version, which is underpowered.
That's true. But I've spent all day going back and forth in cars like an 82' Carrera Targa, 2 different versions of Jaguar's XJR, a Karman Ghia, and several very low, very stiff "modded" imports that didn't get "old" after 3 hours.
The Subie gains comfort by giving up track-worthiness. VW was forced to do the same with the GTi (like mine). BMW's non-M and Audi's non-S variants should be quite comfy for daily driving by any means. Not everyone will find S and M variants meet this criteria, but riding in them has never bothered me.
Not gonna happen. VW's superior build quality demands a premium over the crap Subaru puts out. An AWD Golf sporting a sports suspension, a DSG, and the 225Hp variant of the 1.8T would push $33k, where the faster R32 is.
It's simple, the Golf is their economy car. A Golf based model with 4 doors, AWD, and a powerful engine wouldn't make snse to most American buyers and they'd avoid it. The 1.8T powered Golf 4-door suffered slow sales, forcing VWoA to re-consider it and drop it. The same reason why they're pulling the W8 Passat early next year.
Mediocre? Can we back this up?
I'm a college student. Retirement plans and a house are things to worry about after I have a degree and a full-time job. Meanwhile, I have stock and bond investments that're pooling for me. If I traded in my GTi, I could afford an R32, but that's not what that money is there for. $33k isn't as big a stretch as it used to be, more and more families nation-wide have an income sufficent to support buying a car at that price. How practical it is for you is a different debate, but the point is that the car wasn't meant to be practical. If VW thought a 4-door variant was marketable enough to warrant the development, advertising, and production costs, they'd do it. The fact that they aren't doing it should be an indicator, as should be the former 1.8T Golf's poor sales.
The motortrend number is an estimate, not a test, and an error, since the copied-and-pasted from the NA version without change.
but slower than the XT, as reproduced in several tests. As it should be, since both have similar weight, the XT has a ton more torque, and has aggressive gearing.
again, 0-40 the XT is at least as fast (if not faster) than the Cayenne Turbo, and 0-60 it is at most a few tenths slower. So it keeps up quite nicely.
...
Here you are starting to sound delusional. In all publications that test reliability Subaru consistently scores at the top, just below Honda and Toyota. VW scores at the bottom (note that I own two VWs and I am happy with them, but they do need above average repairs).
AWD costs $1500 extra. The DSG could be sold for $1500 extra if mass produced. A 225hp version may not be the most practical for the Golf (since it makes less torque at low rpm), but is hardly worth more than $1000 for the stronger turbo and a few other parts. I wouldn't want a lowered suspension, just a stiffer one - make that another $500. So, $4500 over a $20,000 GTi makes $24,500. Add some money for 4 doors if you wish. Still a long way from $33K.
The Impreza and WRX wagons (hatchbacks, really) come to mind. They sell quite well. So does the AWD Golf in Europe.
...
[referring to the A4] See above, same is true for VW/Audi in general.
In a world were marketing was perfect and strategist could read the future, you would be right. Unfortunately, the history of producing and selling cars is full of examples of abysmal failures and missed opportunities. I have often disagreed with VW's marketing and will continue to do so in the future.
Clearly, the R32 is packaged as a one-time chess move to make a claim and put VW pocket rockets back into the playing field, on par with WRXs, STis, EVOs, and perhaps others (Dodge, Focus). I don't think they are too much concerned about sales in numbers for this one. But I maintain that there is a market for a more mainstream, powerful AWD Golf and AWD Jetta Wagon in the US and in Canada.
Every test I've seen of the Forester XT indicates a 0-60 time in the mid to high 7s. Going from 165 Hp to 210 Hp isn't a big enough leap to result in going from a 0-60 time of nearly 9.0 seconds, all the way down to one of 5.3 seconds. This would make the Forester XT only .01 second shy of the lighter weight and
*more powerful* WRX STi. I'm not sure where C&D's test number came from, but it's a fantasy. C&D's idiocy even spreads into this article, where the writer comments "The WRX wagon will do everything the Forester XT can do, including cargo carrying, with more pace..." The WRX clocks an average 0-60 time of 5.8 to 6.0 seconds, indicated by C&D's own test numbers. Since when is 6.0 "better pace" than 5.3?
The Subie better be reliable. With their cheap interiors, horrid stereo systems, and ugly styling, they need something going for them. My GTi is so much nicer inside than any variant of the Impreza, it's ridculous. And my car hasn't needed above average repairs.
Because they are all Golfs. Just like the Jetta 2.0, Jetta 1.8T and Jetta VR6 are all Jettas and the Passat 1.6, Passat 1.8, Passat 1.8T, Passat V6, Passat TDI and the Passat V8 are all Passats, regardless of engine and trim level. Why don't they give the higher powered versions of the Passat and Jettas new names too. Different cars, all based on the same platform.... If doing that on the Golf is logical, not doing so on the Jetta and Passat seems curious.
By dropping the Golf portion of the name, they create an entirely new model of VW. Why do they need so many models ? In the US, you folks have: VW Golf, VW GTI, VW R32, VW Bora (Jetta), VW Passat, and that list is just gonna be longer and longer every time the Golf comes in a new trim level. In the rest of the world, they have VW Golf, VW Bora and VW Passat. Regardless if the trim level is C,CL,GL,GTI,GT,R32,etc, it is a Golf, and is thus called a Golf. By dropping the Golf name, VWOA creates a new model of VW: VW GTI, VW R32. Nobody else do this. Have you ever seen a Honda Type R, Ford Cobra, Chevrolet Z06, etc ? No, they are all trim levels of the Civic, Mustang and Corvette, respectively, not separate models of Honda, Ford or Chevy. Creating new models from trim levels of the same car just creates confusion and looks like you are trying to make the impression that your brand has more different models than it really has.
If that is logical, why not drop the Jetta name too and we'd get: VW Jetta, VW GLI, VW R32, VW R42 (when that time comes). All of a sudden, dropping the model name doesn't seem so logical and straightforward anymore.
Why would they call it Jetta R32 when they couldn't call the Golf R32 by it's full name ? You stated above that the R32 was not a Golf, then how can a Jetta still be a Jetta when the same 3.2L V6 magically prevents a Golf from being a Golf when that engine is installed in a Golf ? By their logic, the Jetta R32 should be called VW R32 as well. Logical and straightforward ? Or would that be confusing ?
Why would't they call it TT VR6 ? They wrongly use the VR6 name on the same engine (2.8L version) in the Jetta and Golf, (even though VAG hasn't used the VR6 name since 1997). Why would they not be consistent when it comes to naming the same engine ?
I agree with regard to the R32 name, but IMO there is at least some logic to the Golf/GTI designations. In the US, Golf means "4 doors" and GTI means "2 doors". So they are at least *somewhat* different models. Unfortunately, VWoA seems to think (perhaps rightly so) that people who want 4 doors don't want performance. I'd love to see a 4-door Golf w/VR6 or high-output (e.g. 180+ hp) 1.8T w/4Motion in the US, but I'm not holding my breath.
Show me a single test above 6 seconds. Even Subaru's own conservative number is 6.1s.
Here are two more:
formatting link
formatting link
The XT has a lot more torque, forget about the detuned high-end hp, it's not as relevant for 0-60 times where you must go through the entire torque band. It has variable valve timing - the NA version does not. The XT also has much more agressive gearing (actually, to the dismay of some owners, who believe it would be easier to drive and get better mileage with more relaxed gearing).
The XT has more torque down low than the STi. Both have the identical engine (except for the turbo and for the tuning) and are similar in weight.
I agree. The Forester has a bit nicer interior, though, and the XT comes with an upgraded speaker system, standard. But again, I totally agree. Even in the XT you get a white, cheap plastic dash that is painted black. Every small scratch shows as a white line! My 10-year old Golf still has an immaculate dash (looks like new!) after all this time out in the SoCal sun. (I won't mention the peeling handles on my Passat - they are clearly an exception).
Edmunds' TMV for the manual Forester XT is $24,600. Note that it comes with a ton of stuff standard. VWs will always be a bit more expensive, but I could see a Jetta AWD Wagon with the 1.8t or better a 2.0t for almost the same price. And it would have much better mileage, not just a better interior.
In Europe, you see a lot of the 1.4l and 1.6l Golfs with 2 doors, since they are the cheapest (starting at only $ 30,000 here) However, when it comes to the GTI models, lots of people buy the 4 door versions, since the car is already fairly expensive ($ 53,000 here), so the added cost of 2 extra doors is small, 4 doors are more convenient, and higher status than a stripped out 2 door model.
Exactly. VWOA has avoided the Golf name since the 70's, and that has hurt its reputation and sales. Poor marketing and trying to pass off the Golf as a base model car only (by making the GTI version a separate model of VW), VWOA has never managed to sell the car that is the #1 seller in many countries. By having sporty/expensive top of the line versions of the Golf, such as Golf V6 4Motion, Golf GTI, Golf R32, etc, you bring sportiness/luxury to the range, making a lowly Golf C seem more interesting than if it were the only available Golf. Same reason they made the Phaeton. A top of the line car to make the whole range (in this case all VWs) seem more attractive.
The Dodge Viper is sold as the Chrysler Viper in Europe. Now, Daimler-Chrysler might own Dodge, but if I bought a Viper (not likely at $400,000), I'd still tell people that it is a Dodge, regardless of the Chrysler badge on the boot.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.