scillyisles Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 [ QUOTE ] 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! [/ QUOTE ] No you're absolutely correct - this is the same engine - very reliable and the basic design is over 25 years old. The VR6 is by far the youngest engine design. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R32North Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 I recall when I had my 2.0L Cupra and follwing that an A3 1.8T and both times we compared the newer engines with Bruvs A reg 1.8 8v GTi and apart from tidy up of pipes, cables, etc and the different heads, you could easily see the continuation of the engine from its early days! Just wasn't sure that the new GTi had a completely new engine or not..... 'not' as it now transpires! Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarMad Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 The 2.0 T FSI comes from the 2.0 FSI which as far as I'm aware doesn't come from the 1.8 range before it in anyway. The 2.0 T FSI has several new features that were firsts at its launched mainly it was the first production turbo charged FSI direct injection petrol engine to make production. Its one of the reasons the car is very powerful but also very frugal for its power. Few cars have as good a power to C02 in a petrol at the 200 BHP range. It is a major major update to the previous 1.8 T in just about every way, using some very new technology. In todays high fuel costs I'd really like a nice 6 cylinder again, but the extra fuel costs are just too much. The 3.2 is thristy to say the least compared to the 2.0 T. I never thought I'd say this but I think I'd go for the 2.0 T or similar again, but deffo not a 2.0 4 cylinder diesel. Lets not go too far with economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRobin Posted January 9, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 It's also my understanding too that the GTI's 2.0T FSI engine has some very new features. I have heard that the Mk5 R32's V6 3.2 is also FSI and wonder if anyone can confirm this please. I think that what each of us finds practical in terms of mpg is directly dependent on typical annual mileage and depth of pocket. For me, being unlikely to top 20K miles p.a., it isn't an issue and this enables me to make a realistic choice between the GTI and R32. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonoNZ Posted January 9, 2006 Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 I do not believe the new R32 is FSI, I had read somewhere (which I cannot put my finger on currently) that a future R32 (facelift?) will introduce FSI to the 3.2L V6. It is also conspicuous that VW never mention FSI in any specification details for the R32. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzGTI Posted January 9, 2006 Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 No the R32 engine is not FSI - which is a bit strnge given the other new V^'s in the Audi and I think the new Passat are? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRobin Posted January 9, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 [ QUOTE ] I do not believe the new R32 is FSI, I had read somewhere (which I cannot put my finger on currently) that a future R32 (facelift?) will introduce FSI to the 3.2L V6. It is also conspicuous that VW never mention FSI in any specification details for the R32. [/ QUOTE ] ....Page 9 of the Mk5 R32 UK brochure reads: "Thanks to innovative FSI technology, only the exact amount of fuel is....etc". However, we all know that brochures can be both wrong and specs are subject to change by VW anyway. For example, the same brochure shows 'orrible putty coloured rooflining in the car pics and in production it's anthracite (thank goodness!). I wish you could remember your source for the "FSI 3.2L V6" - What do you mean by "L"? Litre? It seems potentially damaging to early sales for VW, or any company, to release such info. If you knew FSI was coming, wouldn't you hold back your order and wait? Off to get my GTI suspension changed now and will report on that later today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scillyisles Posted January 9, 2006 Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 The owners manual for the R32 specifically states that the R32 is FSI and consequently you should use ultra low sulphur fuel as per other FSI engines. The reference which I think everyone was talking about was in Car magazine recently when testing the R32 against the BMW 130i and Subarau Impreza. In this article, it mentioned that the R32 would shortly get FSI technology and then at some time in the future get the Passat VR6 engine (280bhp) to become the R36. Unfortunately car magazines are often inaccurate. The 2.0T FSI, 2.0FSI engine as used in Audi, VW, Skoda and Seat is the same basic engine as used in ALL VAG cars since the 70s/80s. Yes the fuel delivery has changed from Bosch K Jetronic in the first versions to VW's own fuel injection system and then latterly to VW FSI technology. The fact that the GTI is Turbo as well does'nt really alter the fact that the basic engine is the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonoNZ Posted January 9, 2006 Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 Hi Red Yeah I've tried to recall the source, it may have even been a forum or my dealer. I'm fairly sure someone mentioned the VW UK brochure before and declared it to be inaccurate, but obviously I don't know for sure. I don't expect the prospect of revised models in the future would hurt sales really. It's unlikely we'd see a revised Mk5 R32 until sometime in 2007, well at the earliest after another model year of the GTI... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snoopy Posted January 9, 2006 Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 Find an R32 owner get them to pull the covers off and have a look im sure they want to know too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simonl Posted January 9, 2006 Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 [ QUOTE ] In todays high fuel costs I'd really like a nice 6 cylinder again, but the extra fuel costs are just too much. The 3.2 is thristy to say the least compared to the 2.0 T. I never thought I'd say this but I think I'd go for the 2.0 T or similar again, but deffo not a 2.0 4 cylinder diesel. Lets not go too far with economy. [/ QUOTE ] totally agree Mad regardless of what people say, that 3.2 is a thirsty little fecker. Didn't you used to have a 3.2 A3 in Akoya, or am i dreaming! I've got to say, i'm also suspisious on the R32 FSI front. When testing the A6 3.2 FSI in Car magazine, they described the engines charactoristics as being totally different to the same capacity engine in the TT/A3. "Equipped with Volkswagen Group’s FSI direct-injection system, it promises more power and economy than a conventional fuel-injected engine and delivers a rousing 253bhp at 6500rpm and a stout 243lb ft of torque at half that crank speed. Not to be confused with the narrow-angle V6 in the A3, this engine can be teamed with either front- or four-wheel-drive transmissions," Bearing in mind that on the R32's own website it doesn't mention FSI anywhere, not even on the engine specs - makes me very sceptical. One would have thought VW would have made a real song and dance about it, not buried it in the brochure somewhere. Also don't you think that the A3's would have it first, or at least have it! ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashleywater Posted January 9, 2006 Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 Well I agree, I dont think it is a genuine FSI engine, have to say though, that the MKV I have, seems to do a lot better than the MK4 fuel wise, this could be due to the DSG box or modified engine, or combination of both. I have to be honest though, this fuel consumption debate, seems slightly odd to me, as if you want fuel economy buy an oil burner, if your are buying what you consider to be a performance car, then higher fuel consumption goes with the territory. I simply would'nt buy a petrol engine car, if fuel consumption was a major factor, when making a decision to buy a car. I mean do you stand there and look at your dream car of whatever make, and say to yourself: Cant buy it, because it only does X to the gallon!!!!! Like f*ck you do!! Well you probably would if you were that beardy n*b on fifth gear, and on that basis I rest my case............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMB Posted January 9, 2006 Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 fagash32, I don't think it's as black and white as that, if you drive alot of miles , then the extra average 8-10 mpg you get from the 2.0T is a cost saving. having had a few cars with large engines in small bodies, the biggest annoyance is the having to refill regularly, that more so than the price. The R32 is a lovely car, but it's range is hampered by the size of the tank. The 2.0T is a good compromise between reasonable fuel and fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simonl Posted January 9, 2006 Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 For me it's damage limitation. I don't like paying for fuel (who does) but i like performance (who doesn't). I prefer the looks of the GTI, performance wise they are very similar, but mpg wise the GTI is a lot better. So for me i picked the GTI. It's not a question of affordability, it's one of excess. Put it this way, i think drinking 3 pints of beer a day is excessive, my mate thinks that's normal! For me the 3.2 was excessive but my 2.0T isn't. It's not huge differences, but for me, one is tolerable and one isn't. Someone coming from a Range Rover Sport will find the R32 great on mpg, so it's horses for courses. It's what you're willing to accept. So i don't buy this, it comes with the territory stuff. If i want to get 35mpg out of my GTI. Everyone has to draw the line somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
encee Posted January 9, 2006 Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 [ QUOTE ] For me it's damage limitation. I don't like paying for fuel (who does) but i like performance (who doesn't). I prefer the looks of the GTI, performance wise they are very similar, but mpg wise the GTI is a lot better. So for me i picked the GTI. It's not a question of affordability, it's one of excess. Put it this way, i think drinking 3 pints of beer a day is excessive, my mate thinks that's normal! For me the 3.2 was excessive but my 2.0T isn't. It's not huge differences, but for me, one is tolerable and one isn't. Someone coming from a Range Rover Sport will find the R32 great on mpg, so it's horses for courses. It's what you're willing to accept. So i don't buy this, it comes with the territory stuff. If i want to get 35mpg out of my GTI. Everyone has to draw the line somewhere. [/ QUOTE ] A good post there LeMan, and one which I would echo wholeheatedly ! As you say, it`s a question of where you draw the line. My last car was a Subaru STI, which was returning only 17 mpg, and was ONE of the reasons that I sold it. Yes, I could afford to fuel it when needed ( a lot ), but I was continually asking myself if the performance was actually worth all the fuel I was using, and the answer, TBH, was "no". I am mindful of MrMe`s recent enlightenment re. fuel-usage, and he perhaps has a point that, over the course of a year, the extra in say an R32 over a GTI is not as much as most of us would think, but it really doesn`t FEEL that way, when all you seem to do is spend excess time at the pumps Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRobin Posted January 9, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 My annual mileage is highly unlikely to exceed 20,000 and might even be as low as 17,000. I can't be bothered to do the exact maths right now but it's not a huge difference in terms of my GTI vs R32 fuel costs. You just have to factor in any feeling of extra joy you might experience in the thirstier car. At the risk of making 'girl references' yet again!! - Would you not ask out the girl you fancy more just because you knew she would be more expensive to buy a drink for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonoNZ Posted January 10, 2006 Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 Red, they had a new red R32 at my dealers last week when I stoppped by. it'd suit you down to the ground! Two others (Silver and a Blue) also there unsold ready for a buyer -- trouble is it's quite a trip to Auckland for you! They're trying to tempt a few GTI owners still waiting to take an R32 instead my dealer told me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRobin Posted January 10, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 Thanks to everyone's input to this topic I have learnt more about the engines and other GTI/R32 differences. The bottom line is how the R32 feels when I test drive....Who knows, the R32's power delivery might feel too smooth and not exciting enough compared with what the turbo delivers BUT there's the traction and exhaust note to consider too. I know one thing for certain, I'm not at all interested in a car other than the Mk5 Golf - Some TSNers might find that sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peugeot6 Posted January 10, 2006 Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 Hi Jono, I saw that Giltrap have a silver one, and I spotted the red one at Contenital, have not seen the blue one yet. Are you tempted to take one for a drive? I will be staying with the GTI as I consider the GTI looks more sporty, and can't justify the extra 20k. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonoNZ Posted January 10, 2006 Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 Hi lpd I only picked up my GTI the week before xmas (registered in Jan 06), but I did seriously consider the R32, but never drove one. As you say the extra dollars and the fact that it didn't offer enough over the GTI put me off. I also just can't get over the look of the front of the R32; overall the GTI has better wheels and front, and based on some reviews potentially a more raw driving experience.... but as I said I never drove the R32 myself. I know the R32 is a lot easier to get in NZ than the GTI. And Continental's are offering R32's to those that have GTI orders that are a while off arriving (at extra cost of course). I was very lucky with my GTI as I only had to wait 3 weeks from ordering, and I got the exact spec I wanted. It came in on the boat mid December, and I had it later that week. Just waiting for the personalised euro plate now, that will hopefully arrive late this week! Jono Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonoNZ Posted January 10, 2006 Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 I intend to do the rear valence (bumper) painting (leave the centre piece in grey, paint the rest in Black Magic) and also considering the dealer/vw warranty supported ECU remap. I'll give it another month or so before booking in the ECU remap just to be sure I really want it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRobin Posted January 10, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 Hi Jono, Please let us all know about the "dealer/VW warranty supported ECU remap" which you mention - Although I have no plans to re-map, others will be very interested because it's a very 'grey' area here with tuning DSG cars in the UK. Everyone has been saying that the new R32 looks far better in the metal than in photos - I'll see and drive my first one tomorrow. Either way, the GTI has an awesome looking front and BBS Monza alloys. I was talking to someone I met yesterday about the GTI who is a F1 aerodynamics designer and will report separately. I think you are absolutely right to get to know well the standard GTI before doing any performance mods, including suspension etc and then you understand and know much more about what you are doing and spending money on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonoNZ Posted January 10, 2006 Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 Hi Red My opinion (and feelings from spending some time examing both before purchase) is the GTI looks better from the front and has better wheels. The R32 looks better from the back. I plan to rectify the issue with back by getting the rear bumper painted. In New Zealand, VW have a dealer fit ECU remap from MTM available. Only the stage 1 (180kw, 355Nm) is covered by VW warranty. In NZ the standard warranty is also extended to 3 years (primarily to compete with other marques). See http://www.mtm-online.de/en/index.php?nav=3&FZID=GOLF5147&Kitnum=MGO5200245FX for details on the specific MTM upgrade covered here. Jono Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simonl Posted January 10, 2006 Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 [ QUOTE ] You just have to factor in any feeling of extra joy you might experience in the thirstier car [/ QUOTE ] You see that's the bit that bothered me when i thought about the R32. Sure the test drive seduces you, but no matter what car i've ever ever had, i've never had one that makes me feel like i've found utopia. What's the best car you've ever had red, i might be wrong, but i bet it was that piece of sh!t you had in the 70's (whatever it was) 1.2 or 1.4, it's the ones you can chuck about that you have the most fun in, not the ones that milk you dry, regardless of how fast they are. BTW, Bang on Jono , on both points. If you look at the A3 range, the 3.2 doesn't hold up as well as the 2.0T. I too think the R32 looks AWESOME from the back, but from the front, i really don't understand how they can get one half so right and one so wrong. I've got an inkling that they've understyled the R32 (in sportiness terms) to make room for the true R32 sucessor that will be out in 12-18 months! just got a feeling, we'll be seeing an R36 or R2.0ST (supercharged Turbo) sometime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashleywater Posted January 10, 2006 Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 Well guy's judging by the majority of view's expressed here, When VW come out with a 170hp + Gti engined oil burner, you will all be rushing for your cheque books! If it has 4 wheel drive...... I wont be far behind you.............. 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