simkna Posted November 19, 2005 Report Share Posted November 19, 2005 Well, after lurking and posting on this forum for quite some time, and having had a quick blast in RedRobin's pert bottomed "Trinny wagon" I finally got around to taking a proper test drive in a GTi today. It was a manual black 5 door with leather. First thing I noticed was that as the salesman was driving it off the forecourt, this car suffered the low speed left-lock steering graunching. Oh dear - I think I would have fixed this on my demo car. Whilst explaining to the wife in the back what DSG was, the salesman commented that the GTi and R32 are the only models on which the flappy paddles are an option, I pointed out to him that they weren't an option, but were standard with the DSG - he maintained you could only get them with MFSW, but I showed him later I was right. So what did I think?... Well, it's very nice, and the wet and slippy conditions were ideal for a test drive. I know I'm used to quattro, but was quite disappointed with the grip levels TBH. Power was adequate, but it's no rocket ship - would have liked a bit more torque, but not sure the FWD platform could really handle it. All the controls felt very nice though, and the chassis was quite adjustable on the throttle. Understeer was progressive, and brakes felt positive. I think the 17" wheels may just offer a little more subtlety to the ride, but on the whole, it was a very enjoyabl drive. I was very tempted to go for a drive in the new R32 they also had in, as I know I would have preferred the grip levels on offer, but just know that the fuel consumption would be too high for me - still not completely comfortable with the looks either, but it does look better in the flesh than in pictures. So do I still want one?.. Yes, I think so, it's swings and roundabouts, but I feel like a change from my current steed. Just have to figure how to go about it now - dealer said they are currently quoting April/May for delivery. Si. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRobin Posted November 19, 2005 Report Share Posted November 19, 2005 Glad you managed to arrange a test drive at last....I know you had bad experiences previously just trying to get one! Sounds to me that you would be happier with the new R32 but the only exception is the fuel consumption. Is your annual mileage such that it really would make a difference? I guess that insurance wouldn't be cheap either, but....4WD and V6....Hmmmm, I wouldn't want to be facing the same decision myself right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotw Posted November 19, 2005 Report Share Posted November 19, 2005 Great though the R32 no doubt is, the fuel consumption and the fact that its been slapped with an ugly stick would put it out of my choices. The A3 3.2 would be the one I'd go for, well if they fixed the ride I would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AGK512 Posted November 19, 2005 Report Share Posted November 19, 2005 Just got the R32 Brochure at the fuel consumption is quoted as 18.8/33.6/26.2 for manual and 21.4/36.2/28.8 for DSG I still have the old R32 brochure but it just quotes TBA for all figures !!! Think the FSI may have made a bit of difference. I recokon hope you can get 30mpg on a steady cruise which is all my 8 year old 306 gti-6 will give me except the R32 has more welly if needed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bodger00 Posted November 19, 2005 Report Share Posted November 19, 2005 I'm not convinced with the look mind. It looks like one of those now fashionable silver heated towel rails! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simonl Posted November 19, 2005 Report Share Posted November 19, 2005 simkna, i completely agree about the grip levels. My A3 never slipped out on B roads or at junctions. Traction was quite simply awesome. The GTI can have loads of understeer, but it is well poised and controllable. The A3 had much more body roll than the GTI and did suffer from slight understeer (mainly die to the fact that it was so front heavy). There are some things i will miss massively about Quattro, mainly the drop at lights in any weather (exc. snow). But the GTI rides SOOOO much better than any A3, it's a small payoff. Yeh a V6 sounds nice, but then so does a turbo... i simply lurrvvve that whistle, coupled to as nice surge of power. So that's horses for courses IMO. And the cherry on the cake, MPG. Someone summed this up before i think, but if you want the GTI to behave, it will (being a 2.0T FSI) want the 3.2 to behave- and it will still be bad!!! I don't care what the facts and figures say, real world consumption in that 3.2 (as fantastic as it is) is bad. So don't worry too much about the R32, it aint all that i promise! If you bought one, you'd struggle to shake off that GTI, and being burning twice the amount of fuel in the process! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simonl Posted November 19, 2005 Report Share Posted November 19, 2005 [ QUOTE ] Think the FSI may have made a bit of difference [/ QUOTE ] It's not FSI mate, i've yet to see it stated anywhere official. The mags have it wrong. The FSI 3.2 in the passat/toureg is Longtitudual and would never fit in an A3/golf. The 3.2 in the golf is an evolution of the old 2.8 VR6 oh, and take it from me, there is no way in a MILLLION years that that 3.2 will do 36+ MPG, NO WAY! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simonl Posted November 19, 2005 Report Share Posted November 19, 2005 BTW, i just specced up an R32 to the same spec as my GTI (£28,995) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hixster Posted November 19, 2005 Report Share Posted November 19, 2005 It says in the back of the Mark V R32 brochure that it is an FSI engine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwoSheds Posted November 19, 2005 Report Share Posted November 19, 2005 [ QUOTE ] Just got the R32 Brochure at the fuel consumption is quoted as 18.8/33.6/26.2 for manual and 21.4/36.2/28.8 for DSG I still have the old R32 brochure but it just quotes TBA for all figures !!! Think the FSI may have made a bit of difference. I recokon hope you can get 30mpg on a steady cruise which is all my 8 year old 306 gti-6 will give me except the R32 has more welly if needed [/ QUOTE ] Read a recent mag.review, new R32 v BMW 130 (tested & compared). Just remembered on 'test' conditions the R32 did 17.2 mpg. but as you say 30 mpg is probably achievable on a steady cruise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simonl Posted November 19, 2005 Report Share Posted November 19, 2005 [ QUOTE ] It says in the back of the Mark V R32 brochure that it is an FSI engine. [/ QUOTE ] i'll believe that when i see it. It's nowhere on the website anywhere, don't you think it would be if it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markallain Posted November 19, 2005 Report Share Posted November 19, 2005 The UK Mk5 R32 brochure also states: "Thanks to innovative FSI technology only the exact amount of fuel required is burnt......" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRobin Posted November 19, 2005 Report Share Posted November 19, 2005 I would be very wary of any quoted fuel consumption figures. Not only does it depend on your individual style of driving but also other factors such as which DSG mode and whether 98 RON or lower. Both the GTI and R32 are designed for higher performance (aka 'fun') and are very eager. I heard someone with a standard Mk5 Golf today say that they never drove faster than 70 anytime anywhere! They must be the ones who get those higher mpg numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hixster Posted November 19, 2005 Report Share Posted November 19, 2005 It's in Black and White on page 20 /21 of the brochure. Quote: "5) Thanks to the knock control, unleaded four star ( at least 95 RON) can be used instead of super unleaded plus. In order to achieve maximum fuel consumption benefits on the FSI engine, Ultra low Sulphur Petrol (ULSP) must be used . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simonl Posted November 19, 2005 Report Share Posted November 19, 2005 [ QUOTE ] but as you say 30 mpg is probably achievable on a steady cruise. [/ QUOTE ] The best i ever had from my 3.2 was 31.6 MPG That was 56mph over 50 miles ( i was testing it to see what was achievable ) but over all late teens/early twenties is average. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simonl Posted November 19, 2005 Report Share Posted November 19, 2005 [ QUOTE ] It's in Black and White on page 20 /21 of the brochure. Quote: "5) Thanks to the knock control, unleaded four star ( at least 95 RON) can be used instead of super unleaded plus. In order to achieve maximum fuel consumption benefits on the FSI engine, Ultra low Sulphur Petrol (ULSP) must be used . [/ QUOTE ] then i stand corrected Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRobin Posted November 19, 2005 Report Share Posted November 19, 2005 [ QUOTE ] The UK Mk5 R32 brochure also states: "Thanks to innovative FSI technology only the exact amount of fuel required is burnt......" [/ QUOTE ] ....Very efficient certainly but that can also mean using a high level of fuel consumption very efficiently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markallain Posted November 19, 2005 Report Share Posted November 19, 2005 Don't doubt it for a second Red. But hopefully it will help compared to the MK4 R which did not have it. Thought the general consenus here before was that MKV R did not have FSI but it looks like it does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neimad Posted November 19, 2005 Report Share Posted November 19, 2005 Assuming that they've actually left the stratified charge mode enabled for the Mk5 R32 then it should be a helluva lot more economical than the Mk4 R32 as long as it's driven gently, i.e. under 3000-3500 RPM, which is about where the ECU would switch the injectors to homogeneous mode. The GTI's engine, being turbocharged has to do without the benefits of stratified charge injection, so it's technically an FSI engine in name only -- the only benefit of FSI technology it has is direct cylinder injection as opposed to the port injection used by most other petrol cars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRobin Posted November 19, 2005 Report Share Posted November 19, 2005 [ QUOTE ] The GTI's engine, being turbocharged has to do without the benefits of stratified charge injection, so it's technically an FSI engine in name only -- the only benefit of FSI technology it has is direct cylinder injection as opposed to the port injection used by most other petrol cars. [/ QUOTE ] ....Does that mean that the GTI doesn't exploit its FSI title anything like as efficiently as the new R32? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markallain Posted November 19, 2005 Report Share Posted November 19, 2005 Sounds like it. But I'm not technically minded enough to understand it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRobin Posted November 19, 2005 Report Share Posted November 19, 2005 Me neither! I enjoy understanding the basic principles though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simonl Posted November 20, 2005 Report Share Posted November 20, 2005 the only shot of the R32 that makes it look nice IMO maybe certain colours (ie: silver) set it off. Suppose it would hide that god awfull grill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AGK512 Posted November 20, 2005 Report Share Posted November 20, 2005 Thanks for posting a pic of 'my' car If they ever let me bloody order it !! ... still more time to save=less to finance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoofboy Posted November 20, 2005 Report Share Posted November 20, 2005 To be honest, it is exactly as Red puts it in an earlier post; if you are not going to do shed loads of miles per year then the 3.2 will not hurt your wallet that much compared to the 2.0T. If you are doing high milage then it will. I went from a 0.7T smart roadster (60mpg) to a 3.2, but only do 150miles a week, so my wallet has noticed a difference but its not a killer. I used to spend £20 every 2 weeks on petrol, now its £20 a week; mut much much more fun. BTW the 3.2 engine is not FSI, believe me, they would be making a really big deal about it if they got one of those in a golf. The press did get this mixed up a few months ago. Just out of interest, a few days after filling up, my dis is usually showing 30+ mpg, I always have some fun at the weekend so it will drop to 27-28 and it has never been lower than that, i've only done 1500 in it so i reckon that is good! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now