Jump to content

Car magazine(R32vsGTI)


Vman
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

[ QUOTE ]

The latest edition of Car magazine has a small bit comparing the GTI against the R32. The GTI wins!! cool.gif There is a seperate mag free with it comparing the best 10 cars of 2005 the GTI also gets a full page write up in there, all good as usual.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cheers mate, I shall be enquiring a copy of Car then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And to you, a very happy christmas. I've got my daughter a Nano iPod (engraved free by Apple) and wrapped it in a big box in a bigger box in another even bigger box with a heavy rock in it to fool her! I'm looking forward to tomorrow!

I'm interested in that review too. I have to say that I'm consciously avoiding even seeing an R32 let alone hearing one! I'm really worried that if I drove one I might want it for that extra grip and V6 sound! Front wheel drive is a bit slippy at the moment....ESP tends to look after me, but. I can see myself getting a Mk6 R32 in a few years - in Red of course!!

Cheers 169144-ok.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[ QUOTE ]

And to you, a very happy christmas. I've got my daughter a Nano iPod (engraved free by Apple) and wrapped it in a big box in a bigger box in another even bigger box with a heavy rock in it to fool her! I'm looking forward to tomorrow!

I'm interested in that review too. I have to say that I'm consciously avoiding even seeing an R32 let alone hearing one! I'm really worried that if I drove one I might want it for that extra grip and V6 sound! Front wheel drive is a bit slippy at the moment....ESP tends to look after me, but. I can see myself getting a Mk6 R32 in a few years - in Red of course!!

Cheers 169144-ok.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Red, someone mentioned this to me on another forum I visit, ie: why didn`t I go for the R32 instead.

My reply was along the lines of "decreased mpg".

Having come from a Scoob, that sups the go-juice like nothing else, I found out that initially, you think you can live with the mpg, or at least will stomach it for the sake of all that performance, but, believe-you-me, when it comes down to it, filling up with great frequency starts to wear you down. So much so, in fact, that you stop enjoying the performance because you`re too busy watching the gauge !

So, in conclusion, that`s just something else I love about the GTI; you get performance AND economy.

`nuff said. grin.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[ QUOTE ]

that`s just something else I love about the GTI; you get performance AND economy.

`nuff said. grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I know Clarkson reckons everyone who drives a diesel is in serious danger of being regarded as a tight wad. However, I never thought I'd see the day that someone who drives a GTI could possibly be considered in a similar light.............. laugh.giflaugh.giflaugh.gif

Sad thing is I agree with you....... frown.giffrown.giffrown.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[ QUOTE ]

My reply was along the lines of "decreased mpg".

Having come from a Scoob, that sups the go-juice like nothing else, I found out that initially, you think you can live with the mpg, or at least will stomach it for the sake of all that performance, but, believe-you-me, when it comes down to it, filling up with great frequency starts to wear you down. So much so, in fact, that you stop enjoying the performance because you`re too busy watching the gauge !

So, in conclusion, that`s just something else I love about the GTI; you get performance AND economy.

`nuff said. grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Well put imo.

It's a reason i like my mk5 GTI and why i never got rid of my mk1 GTI over many years of owning it and other cars at the same time as the GTIs both do a great combination of mpg when you want it and performance when you need it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[ QUOTE ]

It's a reason i like my mk5 GTI and why i never got rid of my mk1 GTI over many years of owning it and other cars at the same time as the GTIs both do a great combination of mpg when you want it and performance when you need it.

[/ QUOTE ]

....And with D-mode for economy in DSG, even more so - when you want it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still find it odd that people want to compare the 2 cars..... GTi v's VXR v's ST v's XYZ, etc.

Why compare, in order to get a winner, two cars which are in different categories of car. GTi is a nimble, hot hatch, with subtle looks, good build quality, etc and the R32 is a 4WD, gas guzzling, big engined V6 motorway muncher.

Both MKV Glf, but two different cars aimed at two different sectors of the market!

smile.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To all, can I add something to this...

When people say they didn't choose an R32 over a GTI (or any car over any other similar car) just because of fuel consumption I'm afraid I find it very difficult to believe they did any amount of proper analysis of what this would actually mean to them. In essence, I don't think they should be buying either if fuel is really a factor.

Between these two cars, considering fuel consumption really is a bit of a nonsense. It can be proven very simply too.

If fuel consumption is of ANY concern to a driver then you wouldn't be driving a Golf GTi or an R32 anyway. You'd buy a performance diesel.

Let me demonstrate why:

This is done taking VW's own MPG figures, not made up ones.

For the sake of this calculation I've based annual mileage on 12,000 miles per year. You might do more, you might do less, but the outcome is relative.

Let's also presume you were to only use Shell Optimax and take a price of 94.9 pence per litre.

If you bought the Golf GTI, your annual fuel costs are going to be around £1455. If you bought the Golf R32 your annual fuel costs are going to be around £1764.

So already we can see the annual difference between the two is a mere £309. However, the reality of how little difference there is only really shows when you break it down further.

It equates to £26 per month difference between a GTi and an R32. It doesn't take a genius to work out that's less than £1 a day.

So, I'd ask the question again, seriously, is fuel consumption really a factor when choosing between these two cars? If you still say yes, then I say you didn't do your sums or you're just looking for excuses for not buying a certain car. Fuel shouldn't be one of them in this case.

There are other arguments such as insurance that have a cumulative effect to construct a more logical argument, but fuel on it's own doesn't stack up.

Edited to add: By the way, if that £1 per day IS the reason you bought a GTi instead of an R32....then the reality is, without wishing to offend anyone, you couldn't really afford either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[ QUOTE ]

If fuel consumption is of ANY concern to a driver then you wouldn't be driving a Golf GTi or an R32 anyway. You'd buy a performance diesel.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not so, alot of performance diesels real world figures are far less than quoted and not far from the GTI real world figures and in some cases worse.

[ QUOTE ]

So already we can see the annual difference between the two is a mere £309. However, the reality of how little difference there is only really shows when you break it down further.

[/ QUOTE ]

£309 using your calculations, is still quite a bit of money to some people. Would pay some peoples car insurance as an example.

[ QUOTE ]

For the sake of this calculation I've based annual mileage on 12,000 miles per year. You might do more, you might do less, but the outcome is relative.

[/ QUOTE ]

But its how you do those miles that is a huge factor on fuel consumption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

If fuel consumption is of ANY concern to a driver then you wouldn't be driving a Golf GTi or an R32 anyway. You'd buy a performance diesel.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not so, alot of performance diesels real world figures are far less than quoted and not far from the GTI real world figures and in some cases worse.

[/ QUOTE ]

In which cases are they worse? In which cases are they not far from the GTi real world on a combined cycle?

Being on the ragged edge it is true that, for example, a TDi may return the same MPG as a GTi on the ragged edge. However, the reality is cars aren't always driven on the edge - and I'd like to see what performance diesel car comes off worse in MPG than a GTi or R32 on a combined cycle. Or better still, under the very fair split conditions I have listed later in this post.

[ QUOTE ]

So already we can see the annual difference between the two is a mere £309. However, the reality of how little difference there is only really shows when you break it down further.[ QUOTE ]

£309 using your calculations, is still quite a bit of money to some people. Would pay some peoples car insurance as an example.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

If £309 is a lot of money to someone who has bought a Golf GTi then they must live in a very strange world indeed.

I'll be surprised if it pays for anyones premium too - and if it does pay for anyones premium then I'd suggest they're of an age where £309 isn't a factor to begin with.

Cumulatively, there is an impact from insurance, tyres, servicing etc - but my point was that MPG alone simply cannot be a strong enough argument for someone saying they bought a GTi instead of an R32.

Furthermore, as that £309 isn't incurred in a lump sum, then anyone who has to seriously consider it financially (as a £26 per month difference) surely shouldn't be spending £20k on a car?

[ QUOTE ]

For the sake of this calculation I've based annual mileage on 12,000 miles per year. You might do more, you might do less, but the outcome is relative.[ QUOTE ]

But its how you do those miles that is a huge factor on fuel consumption.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

That's irrelevant though, because you could say that for both cars. Of course it's a factor, but how does it work in favour of one car more than it does the other if the driving style is the same for each? For the purpose of the example, an officially verified combined cycle figure was used.

However, to give the point credence, let's say we base the calculation on urban mileage and motorway mileages being included. Let's split the 12,000 miles.

Let's say it's 4,000 on an urban figure, 4,000 on a combined cycle and 4,000 on an extra urban figure for each car.

That means an R32 would cost £1845 per annum in fuel.

The GTi would cost £1503 per annum in fuel.

So even considering a mix of all 3 cycles you still get a difference of only £342.

The difference really is that small between the two.

It's a £153 per month R32 fuel bill, or a £125 per month GTi fuel bill. My earlier point being that if that £25-£28 per month increase is a major purchasing factor, then something surely has to be questioned about spending £20k on a car in the first place?

Edited to add: Oh, and by the way, if it was me I'd buy the GTi, but the fuel consumption wouldn't be the reason!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MrMe, when you've owned an R32 (or similar a3 3.2) and spend your entire life filling the fecker up, it gets rather deppressing. As Encee so rightly put, you actually end up poodling around watching your mpg more than enjoying yourself. I AM a car nut. I have owned 14 cars in 8 years of driving and can easily afford either a GTI or R32. I sold my A3 for 2 reasons, one because it handled like a boat EEK2.GIF and the other beacause i got sick and tired of being at the pumps every other day.. (£1 extra a day for an R32 is absolute BULL)

My GTI is a million times better (in the real world) Sure I miss AWD (HUGELY) and that V6 growl, but as far as MPG goes, if your prepared to put up with it then fine, but i wasn't. It's one of acceptability, not affordability... i could easily afford it, i just didn't WANT to keep paying for it.

My GTI offers all the thrills of an R32, but with an acceptable level of running costs (for me), and if you think that only us tight asses care about that, your wrong, every magazine review i've read of the R32, quotes bad MPG, nearly every person that joined the A3 thread looking for a new 3.2, was concerned with MPG, so i can't see how it differs on the R32 thread.

Fuel is one of the biggest factors these days when buying a new car, the reason why diesel sales have gone ten fold in recent years. To say that you can't see how fuel consuption is of ANY concern to a driver is nuts.

anyhow, each to their own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[ QUOTE ]

Fuel is one of the biggest factors these days when buying a new car, the reason why diesel sales have gone ten fold in recent years. To say that you can't see how fuel consuption is of ANY concern to a driver is nuts.anyhow, each to their own.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've completely missed my point.

This thread makes reference to an R32 v GTi fuel consumption. Irrespective of what magazines might write for journalistic licence, the facts are quoted above - the difference isn't a big one.

You've exaggerated my fuel consumption quote too. I said when buying these types of cars.

The overall consumption is irrelevant - it's the difference between the two that should be looked at, whether it's 5mpg or 50mpg.

Magazines will quote you fuel guzzling superlatives all day long. When you look at the hard facts it's only then that you can bring comparison to those words and put them into context.

In the context of the R32 versus the GTi I'll stick to my point that anyone who says that much worse fuel consumption is the reason they didn't buy an R32 simply hasn't got the facts to back it up.

If you're comparing a GT Tdi against an R32, then the argument holds water (or petrol or diesel as the case is!), but the fact is we're not...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[ QUOTE ]

(£1 extra a day for an R32 is absolute BULL)

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, but it's not. It's fact and I've demonstrated it twice now in two seperate posts.

If you're doing more than 12,000 miles per annum then the monetary gaps will grow of course, but those figures are not plucked out of thin air.

I'll go back to what I said - few people actually look at what the monetary difference is. When they do, they can see the monies involved aren't as much as they might have thought.

I put fuel in a petrol 4.5 litre V8, a 2.0 litre turbo diesel and a 1.9 turbo diesel every week - so I know what fuel consumption means and how to calculate the true costs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The theory's good but meanwhile in the real world...

Few years ago I had an Audi A3 1.8T-sport. Nice car. Changed it for an Audi A3 1.8T-sport quattro. Same car, but 180hp rather than 150hp, and of course 4wd (Haldex system, same as Golf R32).

The difference in consumption was colossal!!! blush.gif

In fact, the second car actually came with a bigger fuel tank to help offset the significently worse fuel consumption! Unfortunately of course it didn't help offset the cost...

Genuinely, the difference had to be seen (and paid for!) to be appreciated. Trips where the 150hp 2wd would be doing circa 38mpg the 4wd 180hp version would be struggling to do 30mpg.

Believe me, it wasn't a pound a day.

I can only imagine the difference between the GTI and R32 versions to be worse, as you're going to a heavier 6 cylinder engine of much greater capacity. Plus of course the GTI has the very efficient FSI engine.

There were advantages of course, better performance, and the 4wd grip was ace! But if I were buying again it'd be the 2wd 150hp version, the other one was just depressing when you knew how good it could be.

Other than that, I'd imagine the GTI with the lighter engine is probably better balanced and more agile.

And finally, it's a Golf. Great car without doubt, but you've said yourself many times that £20K is "too much for a Golf" ( I disagree and think it's good value, but thats another discussion), so you of all people should be thinking that £24K for a R32 is way too much surely?

I think the key, the real beauty, of the Golf GTI is the depth and breadth of it's abilities for it's price. It's performance, handling, value, economy, practicability, etc. The R32 is a stunning car, but it's giving you more of some for less of other strengths. It's just not as rounded a package.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[ QUOTE ]

Great car without doubt, but you've said yourself many times that £20K is "too much for a Golf" ( I disagree and think it's good value, but thats another discussion), so you of all people should be thinking that £24K for a R32 is way too much surely?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right, you know you are because you and I have discussed this before the first 50, or however many, Golf GTi's even hit the roads! Yes I think it's too much money.

However, you also know I rate the Golf GTi quite highly - I just happen to think it's about £2,500 more expensive than it should be. So I'll apply the same to the R32, except say I think it's about £3k more than it should be.

Your quotes on the A3 1.8T Sport versus 1.8T Sport Quattro are puzzling though.

The official figures on those cars (96 - 03) are as follows:

A3 1.8T Sport

Urban 26.2

Extra 44.8

Combined 35.3

A3 1.8T Sport Quattro

Urban 27.4

Extra 44.6

Combined 36.7

So I'd suggest there was something wrong with the car or the driver. FIREdevil.gif169144-ok.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, so looking at your 1.8T Sport/Quattro as an example.

Let's take your 38mpg and 30mpg as averages. 8mpg difference from your own quotes.

Using present day figures and 12,000 miles per annum as an example, it would have cost you £1335 in the A3 1.8T Standard.

In the A3 1.8T Quattro, it'd have cost you £1692, so an increase of £357 per year, or almost exactly £1 a day.

That's using your figures too Ari. My point being, people rarely do the actual sums and when they do you usually find that the costs of MPG are never as bad as you thought they were.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...