RedRobin Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 I'm not sure whether this is best posted here or in the R32 forum but it's only about the Mk5s so.... This is particularly addressed to Geoff, but most guys here know only too well about me seriously considering a new R32. Whether I decide to or not to, I will keep either the GTI or R32 for the foreseeable future - I don't usually swop cars very often. My Beemer was an 1989 car (when it cost only about £17K!!) sold 2003! My question is which engine between the R32 V6 and the GTI 2.0T FSI do you think would be generally less trouble in the long term? I shall def have DSG in either. Many Thanks in advance, RedRobin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewNiceMrMe Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 R32 V6. Numerous reasons, the average owner of one being a key one (no offence intended but as they slip further down in price they'll start to get more and more thrashed and the R32 will always hold a slightly higher echelon in this respect - not to mention it'll take the thrashing easier in my opinion). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotw Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 TBH Red I doubt either will give any issues in the long term. Modern engines are very reliable and so should be fine. I would guess the 2.0T might be less trouble or at least will be a far more common and high volume engine and so garage's should be more familiar with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRobin Posted January 8, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 ....Very interesting, Chris. This possibly also explains why it would be significantly cheaper for me to insure a Mk5 R32 than my current GTI! If you understand my thinking. However, my question assumes the same one-owner (me!). Your reply raises a good point for buyers in the future though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mainy Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 [ QUOTE ] TBH Red I doubt either will give any issues in the long term. Modern engines are very reliable and so should be fine. I would guess the 2.0T might be less trouble or at least will be a far more common and high volume engine and so garage's should be more familiar with them. [/ QUOTE ] Hmm I'm not so sure, my MK5 has 6500 on the clock, has been at the dealers for 3.5 weeks, they have replaced the injector seals twice and are now awaiting the delivery of new injectors. So far they have clocked up 22 hours working on the car. Not exactly what I'd call reliable. After my recent experience with the 2.0T i'd have my doubts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simonl Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 The 3.2 is based on the 2.8 VR6 so it's a much older unit. The 2.0FSI T is much newer so may be experiencing some teething trouble. IMO the T will be more sought after for it's economy, but the 3.2 is still great none the less. I wouldn't base any decision on longevity, if you look after any unit, it will last. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewNiceMrMe Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 The form of aspiration itself leads to higher stresses on the GTi in the long run. However, VW's dont exactly have a record for unreliability in the long term so I wouldn't have any major concerns about either in the hands of a responsible owner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mainy Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 [ QUOTE ] The form of aspiration itself leads to higher stresses on the GTi in the long run. [/ QUOTE ] Care to expand on the MrMe ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewNiceMrMe Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] The form of aspiration itself leads to higher stresses on the GTi in the long run. [/ QUOTE ] Care to expand on the MrMe ? [/ QUOTE ] Is the R32 Turbocharged? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mainy Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 Ahhhh dohhh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotw Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 Good point about the 3.2 being the "older" type and thus more likely to be more reliable. The only engine I've ever had trouble with was my BMW 2.0. It was the new valvetronic type, recently out when I bought it and it developed two faults in the 3 1/2 years I had it. Each time, the engineer just connected it to a laptop and fixed it pretty quick. As has been said, I think both will be just fine and how they have been treaded in their life will probably have more bearing on their full lifecycle. Nice careful no trashing when cold-type owner will probably get more years than they need from either one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simkna Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 I would have thought the R32 would be more reliable. No turbo to go wrong. Lower compression ratio - less stress. No high pressure (FSI) fuel system. You could have lots, or no problems with either though. At the end of the day, I don't think it should enter into the buying decision. Get whichever one your heart desires. Si. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UBM Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 I'd opt for the V6 personally. There's a little bit less to go wrong and no turbo's to blow! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRobin Posted January 8, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 Being 'older' the 3.2 is more proven but I can see that how the owner looks after an engine will be a major factor. In my case, because my post relates to my GTI/R32 decisions, I am confident that I am a 'responsible' owner who believes in regular servicing and never thrashes a car from cold and also only drives at appropriate speed to the conditions. Like a fast horse, I'll let her 'go' and have lots of fun but I'll always respect her. VeeDub do have a good reputation. Mainy, you've been very unlucky with your GTI and I don't think that your problems are at all typical. From a garage workshop point-of-view I assume that either engine is as complex as the other to maintain/service/repair. Though perhaps a turbo has a stress factor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRobin Posted January 8, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 [ QUOTE ] I would have thought the R32 would be more reliable. No turbo to go wrong. Lower compression ratio - less stress. No high pressure (FSI) fuel system. You could have lots, or no problems with either though. At the end of the day, I don't think it should enter into the buying decision. Get whichever one your heart desires. Si. [/ QUOTE ] ....Spot on! I've been taught to always follow my heart but just to be aware of what runs through my head. One of the many benefits of TSN is that guys like all you lot can help by pooling our various experiences and opinions. Ultimately I'll decide for myself but I would be utterly stupid to ignore advice and info, and not ask the question. If it wasn't for TSN I would still be using my fogs!!! If I go for the R32 I'll be expecting a phone call or PM from you, Si....No doubt suggesting a one to one meet so you can sit in my new car - again!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snoopy Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 I just hope they have improved the VR6 engine since it was a 2.8/2.9 in the golf VR6/Corrado VR6 there can sometimes not the most reliable and when they go wrong boy do they give trouble time and time again a right pain in the bum especially when it comes to heads. I still have not examined the 2.0 that much but im guessing its based on the old 1.5/1.6 deisel from the mk1 which the 1.6/1.8 GTIs were based on that was later grew into the two 2.0 small and tall block engines that later grew into the 1.8T that progressed to 2.0 i guess. Remembering the 1.8T is in the TT at present and was more powerful than the 2.0T GTI makes me think maybe the 2.0 maybe less stressed as does the thought of the new 260PS version but then again making the cc bigger can reduce strength of the block etc etc. But to counteract that the 4WD system can put extra strain on a engine and it depends how its treated. If i had to pick between the two cars after working on the older VW/Audi turbo cars or the VR6 engined cars i myself would go for the turbo but thats a personal thing nothing more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mainy Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 So now that the engine debate is cleared up Red when do you pick up the R32 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cawky Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 Mainy Can you tell us a bit more about your fault and what you noticed when the problem first cropped up,I think my mpg is starting to drop!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mainy Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 Hi Cawky I just noticed a smell of petrol, at first it was just a passing wiff as I got out of the car in my garage but over the space of a week it got worse, I was even able to smell it whilst driving along. There has never been an obvious fuel leak to trace or any puddles of petrol undeneath the car and I think that this initially gave VW a problem when trying to diagnose where it was coming from. After replacing the injector seals twice with no success they are now about to try replacing the injectors so hopefully this will resolve it. MPG wise I have never managed to get 300 miles from a tankful which is a bit on the low side compared to my old TT but initially I put this down to "enjoying" my new car but only time will tell if the fuel consumption is related to the cars fault. I'll hopefully get the car back next week sometime so I'll keep everyone posted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cawky Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 Mainy I used to get according to the computer about 350 miles, having completed say 300 miles on the mileometer since I last filled to the brim and the computer saying there was 50 miles left in the tank. Today I filled up and the mileometer said I had done 260 miles and I had 30 miles left in the tank. I will see what I can get out of this tank driving lighter on the accelerator pedal . Hope your car gets sorted out soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mainy Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 No probs Cawky Mind you I have only managed to get 350 miles out of the dealers loaner Golf+ TDi so perhaps its my driving routine (70% town 30% A/B roads) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotw Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 Mainy, My dirving profile is similar and my car says 330-350 from a full tank. Never recorded it though. I get 27mpg so far (according to the car) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neimad Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 [ QUOTE ] Lower compression ratio - less stress. No high pressure (FSI) fuel system. [/ QUOTE ] I could have sworn that we had a conversation about this a while back and found that the new R32's V6 had been updated with FSI technology, hence it's better performance and economy over the original R's V6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scillyisles Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 Yes the new R32 does use FSI technology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R32North Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 I may be 100% off on this but is the 2.0L engine not a form of the very old VAG 1.8, although its gone thru numerous changes, the ctual block design is essentially the same, but bore out to 2.0l and new head, parts, etc. Nowt wrong with the 1.8 VAG engines found in millions of cars, but a for the 3.2V6 being based on an 'old' 2.8 V6, the same could be said for the 2.0l. IMO... and so fell free to correct me! 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