MK5 Golf GTI

All Things Mk5 => Mk5 General Area => Topic started by: patrickcullen87 on November 26, 2011, 11:11:53 am

Title: R32 vs Mapped Gti
Post by: patrickcullen87 on November 26, 2011, 11:11:53 am
just wondering if there is much difference in terms of fuel economy between the 2??

Looking at buying an R32 as i fancy going 4wheel drive instead of 2, and the noise off it is just mmm  :ashamed:

Anyone any experience of owning the 2 cars and could lend their opinion.

Thanks
Title: Re: R32 vs Mapped Gti
Post by: ILoveTuna on November 26, 2011, 11:15:32 am
I wouldnt be looking at either if you are thinking about fuel economy!!  :signLOL: :signLOL: :signLOL:

just wondering if there is much difference in terms of fuel economy between the 2??

Looking at buying an R32 as i fancy going 4wheel drive instead of 2, and the noise off it is just mmm  :ashamed:

Anyone any experience of owning the 2 cars and could lend their opinion.

Thanks
Title: Re: R32 vs Mapped Gti
Post by: E30Dom on November 26, 2011, 11:21:13 am
Averaged about 29mpg, but that was as a daily driver... so careful driving. The noise is awesome and miss that lots, also miss the traction, you could literally dump the clutch at hi revs and it would just dump the power to all four wheels and go, and this was fun out of junctions... I wish i never put mine back to standard and sold it... :signLOL:

On the other hand my stage 2 edition 30 is currently averaging 34mpg, was averaging 32mpg driven harder but clutch is slipping so driving careful... on a daily run to work i can get 40+mpg... But this is on V-power solely.

They are cool cars and I spent alot on suspension KW v3's, H&R ARB's, Poly bushes, UNiBrace, lightweight wheels and it handle like on rails(literally) but before they do push the nose wide due to the weight up front... The Evoms kit sounds awesome as does a non res milltek ;)

I'd have another!  :signLOL: BUt a stage 2 Ed30 pisses all over one(once it gains traction!)

Title: Re: R32 vs Mapped Gti
Post by: Hedge on November 26, 2011, 11:22:34 am
The GTI is bearable but despite it's voluptuous charms the R32 does like a drink especially if you like the sounds.  :laugh:
Title: Re: R32 vs Mapped Gti
Post by: jedi-knight83 on November 26, 2011, 11:25:45 am
Averaged about 29mpg, but that was as a daily driver... so careful driving. The noise is awesome and miss that lots, also miss the traction, you could literally dump the clutch at hi revs and it would just dump the power to all four wheels and go, and this was fun out of junctions... I wish i never put mine back to standard and sold it... :signLOL:

On the other hand my stage 2 edition 30 is currently averaging 34mpg, was averaging 32mpg driven harder but clutch is slipping so driving careful... on a daily run to work i can get 40+mpg... But this is on V-power solely.

They are cool cars and I spent alot on suspension KW v3's, H&R ARB's, Poly bushes, UNiBrace, lightweight wheels and it handle like on rails(literally) but before they do push the nose wide due to the weight up front... The Evoms kit sounds awesome as does a non res milltek ;)

I'd have another!  :signLOL: BUt a stage 2 Ed30 pisses all over one(once it gains traction!)



How the hell do you get over 30mpg from a stage 2?

Ive got a stage 1 GTI and i never get 30mpg on a run... usually 25-28
Title: Re: R32 vs Mapped Gti
Post by: patrickcullen87 on November 26, 2011, 11:32:41 am
im not overly bothered about fuel consumption, was just wondering if its drastically more thirsty than the gti  :signLOL:

i am getting about 28mpg on average with my gti just now.

i was in my mates S3 Sportback last nyt and the way it handles in the wet is incredible, compared to my gti which just slides all over the place :( he was telling me he his old R32 handled just aswel as the S3 so after last night i am sold on 4wheel drive.

And it just so happens its coming into winter again, last year my Gti was stuck in my drive for 3 weeks and wouldnt move so i dont want a repeat again this year.
Title: Re: R32 vs Mapped Gti
Post by: JackG on November 26, 2011, 11:37:02 am
im not overly bothered about fuel consumption, was just wondering if its drastically more thirsty than the gti  :signLOL:

i am getting about 28mpg on average with my gti just now.

i was in my mates S3 Sportback last nyt and the way it handles in the wet is incredible, compared to my gti which just slides all over the place :( he was telling me he his old R32 handled just aswel as the S3 so after last night i am sold on 4wheel drive.

And it just so happens its coming into winter again, last year my Gti was stuck in my drive for 3 weeks and wouldnt move so i dont want a repeat again this year.

I've never driven a car that under steers so much....and that was my friends S3, my ed30 is by no means free of under steer but for 4wd I thought it was shocking
Title: Re: R32 vs Mapped Gti
Post by: patrickcullen87 on November 26, 2011, 11:44:05 am
im not overly bothered about fuel consumption, was just wondering if its drastically more thirsty than the gti  :signLOL:

i am getting about 28mpg on average with my gti just now.

i was in my mates S3 Sportback last nyt and the way it handles in the wet is incredible, compared to my gti which just slides all over the place :( he was telling me he his old R32 handled just aswel as the S3 so after last night i am sold on 4wheel drive.

And it just so happens its coming into winter again, last year my Gti was stuck in my drive for 3 weeks and wouldnt move so i dont want a repeat again this year.

I've never driven a car that under steers so much....and that was my friends S3, my ed30 is by no means free of under steer but for 4wd I thought it was shocking

really?? was it the 3door or the 5door? his Sportback was unbelievable, stuck to the road like glue, handling was so responsive and you could feel what the car was tryng to do with no unexpected surprises.
Title: Re: R32 vs Mapped Gti
Post by: danishmkvgti on November 26, 2011, 12:18:12 pm
im not overly bothered about fuel consumption, was just wondering if its drastically more thirsty than the gti  :signLOL:

i am getting about 28mpg on average with my gti just now.

i was in my mates S3 Sportback last nyt and the way it handles in the wet is incredible, compared to my gti which just slides all over the place :( he was telling me he his old R32 handled just aswel as the S3 so after last night i am sold on 4wheel drive.

And it just so happens its coming into winter again, last year my Gti was stuck in my drive for 3 weeks and wouldnt move so i dont want a repeat again this year.

a factor could be down to what tyres both cars was running  :smiley:

I've never driven a car that under steers so much....and that was my friends S3, my ed30 is by no means free of under steer but for 4wd I thought it was shocking

really?? was it the 3door or the 5door? his Sportback was unbelievable, stuck to the road like glue, handling was so responsive and you could feel what the car was tryng to do with no unexpected surprises.
Title: Re: R32 vs Mapped Gti
Post by: sub39h on November 26, 2011, 01:18:07 pm
as a suggestion, you could go for the A3 3.2 quattro? it's cheaper because it wasn't a "flagship" model as such - then the economy won't matter  :laugh:

just bear in mind that the sat nav in the 8P is considerably worse than RNS-510 but other than that i'd say they're pretty equally matched so for me it'd be a no brainer considering the difference in price
Title: Re: R32 vs Mapped Gti
Post by: patrickcullen87 on November 26, 2011, 01:26:54 pm
as a suggestion, you could go for the A3 3.2 quattro? it's cheaper because it wasn't a "flagship" model as such - then the economy won't matter  :laugh:

just bear in mind that the sat nav in the 8P is considerably worse than RNS-510 but other than that i'd say they're pretty equally matched so for me it'd be a no brainer considering the difference in price

i thought about that but i prefer the R32, i had the A3 before the Gti and i didnt find it to be as 'fun' it was to sensible in my opinion. if i was buying another audi it would be the S3 but its a little out my price range just now.
Title: Re: R32 vs Mapped Gti
Post by: Kregiel on November 26, 2011, 01:29:26 pm
r32 due to extra weight and 4wd loses a bit of steering precision and what's going on under the wheels, on up side it grips great,,, always about trade offs....

Title: Re: R32 vs Mapped Gti
Post by: Oli on November 26, 2011, 03:59:50 pm
I found the R32 slow and thirsty, sounded great though, especially with the Milltek. I'd have an S3 over the R32 any day. Quick remap and it's 310 plus, and better on fuel if driven sensibly. But to be fair none are brilliant on fuel.......
Title: Re: R32 vs Mapped Gti
Post by: JackG on November 26, 2011, 04:06:31 pm
I found the R32 slow and thirsty, sounded great though, especially with the Milltek. I'd have an S3 over the R32 any day. Quick remap and it's 310 plus, and better on fuel if driven sensibly. But to be fair none are brilliant on fuel.......
+1 on this

For a car to be fast it has to use fuel...so a fast car thats good on fuel is pretty darn rare...gotta pay the monies if you want to be quick I suppose  :drinking:

Title: Re: R32 vs Mapped Gti
Post by: patrickcullen87 on November 26, 2011, 04:18:17 pm
I found the R32 slow and thirsty, sounded great though, especially with the Milltek. I'd have an S3 over the R32 any day. Quick remap and it's 310 plus, and better on fuel if driven sensibly. But to be fair none are brilliant on fuel.......
+1 on this

For a car to be fast it has to use fuel...so a fast car thats good on fuel is pretty darn rare...gotta pay the monies if you want to be quick I suppose  :drinking:




Ive said above that i am not to concerned about fuel just wanted a comparasin to the Gti on how greedy it was  :smiley:

An S3 is out of the Question....if i was getting an S3 it would be a sportback but they are going for silly money just now.

I am looking to spend about 13k so not quite into S3 money yet.

Would an R32 be faster than a mapped stage 1 Gti?
Title: Re: R32 vs Mapped Gti
Post by: rich83 on November 26, 2011, 04:20:41 pm
I think an R32 might beat a mapped GTI off the line but it would quickly catch up and get past.
Title: Re: R32 vs Mapped Gti
Post by: jedi-knight83 on November 26, 2011, 04:27:56 pm
Id love to get an r32 car with a blown engine and transplant an ed30 lump into it....  :innocent:
Title: Re: R32 vs Mapped Gti
Post by: LouCyffer on November 26, 2011, 04:48:56 pm
Id love to get an r32 car with a blown engine and transplant an ed30 lump into it....  :innocent:

Or you could just get a Mk6 R...
Title: Re: R32 vs Mapped Gti
Post by: keano on November 26, 2011, 04:57:05 pm
or a Porsche for that money...  :popcornsoda:
Title: Re: R32 vs Mapped Gti
Post by: JackG on November 26, 2011, 05:05:08 pm
or a Porsche for that money...  :popcornsoda:

Or a Aston Martin and then you could tell the front end from the rear  :signLOL:
Title: Re: R32 vs Mapped Gti
Post by: DMcG on November 26, 2011, 05:31:02 pm
Had a GTI and traded to R32. The R32 is permanently at least 5+ mpg behind the GTi. Since owning it (1yr) I have averaged 21mpg. Driven hard average will drop to 13-14.

There are quicker cars as said, however you can use all the power it does have all of the time and in all conditions which you can't in a tuned fwd. They are not really tuneable though unles you have popstar money to throw at one!

Road tax is outrageous as well (due this month @ £425)

Drive one and see what you prefer. If you will want to tune later get an S3. If you will be happy with the power it has and love the noise which most do then get the R and a milly.
Title: Re: R32 vs Mapped Gti
Post by: keano on November 26, 2011, 07:41:55 pm
I'm really tempted by a mk4 R32. Anyone had any experience?  :chicken:
Title: Re: R32 vs Mapped Gti
Post by: Oli on November 26, 2011, 08:11:29 pm
I'm really tempted by a mk4 R32. Anyone had any experience?  :chicken:

Ive had one of these as well, a lot more special than the MKV.  Again fast, but not compared to a ED30.  I just find the R32 engine quite breathless in the higher rev range.
Title: Re: R32 vs Mapped Gti
Post by: m4t_lee on November 26, 2011, 09:02:36 pm
I've had 3 mk4 r32's, love them and the noise is addictive. Felt like something newer looking but slightly better on fuel so now have a mk5 gti. The r on a careful drive you can get maybe 33-35 mpg, I get 40-42 similar driving from the gti's I've had. The r has awesome grip so you can pull out of junctions etc no bother, wheelspin on the Gti gets annoying. Also i miss being able to bumble along in 6th at 20mph and still have power to accelerate whereas the gti hasnt until you get the turbo. I'd love an r again but for the moment the Gti goes well enough and is ok enough on fuel to keep me happy :o)
Title: Re: R32 vs Mapped Gti
Post by: patrickcullen87 on November 27, 2011, 10:31:13 am
I've had 3 mk4 r32's, love them and the noise is addictive. Felt like something newer looking but slightly better on fuel so now have a mk5 gti. The r on a careful drive you can get maybe 33-35 mpg, I get 40-42 similar driving from the gti's I've had. The r has awesome grip so you can pull out of junctions etc no bother, wheelspin on the Gti gets annoying. Also i miss being able to bumble along in 6th at 20mph and still have power to accelerate whereas the gti hasnt until you get the turbo. I'd love an r again but for the moment the Gti goes well enough and is ok enough on fuel to keep me happy :o)

so would u recommed one over the Gti?

the wheelspin on the Gti is one of the most annoying things about the car, especially in the wet (which in Scotland i get alot of wet weather)
Title: Re: R32 vs Mapped Gti
Post by: m4t_lee on November 27, 2011, 11:35:08 am
I've had 3 mk4 r32's, love them and the noise is addictive. Felt like something newer looking but slightly better on fuel so now have a mk5 gti. The r on a careful drive you can get maybe 33-35 mpg, I get 40-42 similar driving from the gti's I've had. The r has awesome grip so you can pull out of junctions etc no bother, wheelspin on the Gti gets annoying. Also i miss being able to bumble along in 6th at 20mph and still have power to accelerate whereas the gti hasnt until you get the turbo. I'd love an r again but for the moment the Gti goes well enough and is ok enough on fuel to keep me happy :o)

so would u recommed one over the Gti?

the wheelspin on the Gti is one of the most annoying things about the car, especially in the wet (which in Scotland i get alot of wet weather)

If you are happy with the looks, the slightly higher fuel consumption, the lack of tunability then go for it. Amazing cars and I can see me getting another, I regret selling mine but the Gti is a bit better on fuel and as mentioned I fancied a bit of a change :)
You can take traction control off and floor it out of a junction in the pouring rain and you may get a half of a turn of spin on the wheels :)
Title: Re: R32 vs Mapped Gti
Post by: itismebigd on November 27, 2011, 05:55:36 pm
The r32 mk5 is no where near as fast as a gti stage 1 imo,i had a tussell with one the other month,came up behind him we were both at about 40mph he floored it and took off but when i floored mine i took off like a scalded cat,caught him so quick i nearly ran up his a*se nipped out past him. i never seen him again until the round about.so imho the r32 is all noise no joys until it rains that is lol.the gti is a far more enjoyable hot hatch to own and run,lighter more nimmble,better on fuel as well.hope this helps your decision Patrick Ps i also stay in Scotland. :happy2:
Title: Re: R32 vs Mapped Gti
Post by: gazbutS3 on November 27, 2011, 06:53:51 pm
Id love to get an r32 car with a blown engine and transplant an ed30 lump into it....  :innocent:

or an S3, would be the same thing :smiley:
Title: Re: R32 vs Mapped Gti
Post by: Hedge on November 27, 2011, 08:09:26 pm
For a completely balanced view you should probably ask the same question  on R32OC.  :popcornsoda:
Title: Re: R32 vs Mapped Gti
Post by: rich83 on November 28, 2011, 10:48:53 pm
I'm really tempted by a mk4 R32. Anyone had any experience?  :chicken:

You'd be bored in seconds mate....   :grin:
Title: Re: R32 vs Mapped Gti
Post by: strapper on November 28, 2011, 11:38:21 pm
I had a stage 1 Gti and then went to a mk5 r32. My Gti was producing 261bhp and getting 33mpg daily driven. My r32 is getting 28mpg daily driven. The Gti had the legs on the 32 easily up to 100mph. The r32 is very high geared and feels quite lazy low down. Once you get it wound up it pulls like a train and acceleration over 100 is serious compared to a Gti. Both great cars with different experiences. I would have a Gti again but just got the r32 as it was an itch I had to scratch plus it was top spec and I got offered good money for my Gti.


---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=55.436816,-4.459591
Title: Re: R32 vs Mapped Gti
Post by: simonp on November 29, 2011, 08:36:23 am
Road tax is outrageous as well (due this month @ £425)

I think you'll find it went up 20 quid in the budget!  :laugh:

As for not being able to afford an S3 Sportback, don't forget that the A3 is available in standard 2.0T guise with quattro. It would probably still be quicker than the R32 after a remap and less thirsty. e.g.

http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/201145427996476

I drive a mk5 R32 and find the economy pretty variable, quite bad in town (21-24mpg), but much better on a run, as long as you stick to sensible speeds on the motorway. I've driven to me mum's house before, which is about 90 miles and only knocked 10 miles off the miles to empty (range) on the OBC.
Title: Re: R32 vs Mapped Gti
Post by: Hurdy on November 29, 2011, 09:15:02 am
Forced induction everytime for me. I just find N/A cars to be a little gutless. Fuel consumption is never going to be good on a 3.2V6 with AWD that weighs around one and a half tons. Handling is also going to be similarly blunted. Grip however should be better in the wet. On my old ED30 I had a lifetime MPG of under 19mpg, so also not an economical car.
Title: Re: R32 vs Mapped Gti
Post by: Hedge on November 29, 2011, 10:11:12 am
On my old ED30 I had a lifetime MPG of under 19mpg, so also not an economical car.

I wouldn't class you as a good example for these measurements John.  :wink:
Title: Re: R32 vs Mapped Gti
Post by: Hurdy on November 29, 2011, 04:28:51 pm
On my old ED30 I had a lifetime MPG of under 19mpg, so also not an economical car.

I wouldn't class you as a good example for these measurements John.  :wink:

I thought that peeps would want to know the lowest average mpg  :signLOL:
Title: Re: R32 vs Mapped Gti
Post by: Mk5 GTian on November 29, 2011, 05:01:36 pm
I saw an immaculate Mk 4 R32 3 door in black today, and they still look awesome. If money and practicality were no object, I'd be going down that road with a twin turbo 400 plus bhp easy without too many mods.
Title: Re: R32 vs Mapped Gti
Post by: Shorty on December 16, 2011, 10:43:18 am
I had a play with my mate last night, he's just got a Mk5 R32...

Roll ons from 60-140 i pulled 2/3 car lengths in my standard Edition 30 all the time. He would of probably pulled it back after 140 though i'd imagine!

The noise is something else on them though!

All tests were carried out on a closed circuit btw.  :happy2:
Title: Re: R32 vs Mapped Gti
Post by: vRS_Pagey on December 16, 2011, 11:30:57 am
I had a play with my mate last night, he's just got a Mk5 R32...

Roll ons from 60-140 i pulled 2/3 car lengths in my standard Edition 30 all the time. He would of probably pulled it back after 140 though i'd imagine!

The noise is something else on them though!

All tests were carried out on a closed circuit btw.  :happy2:

So at stage 1 it would be curtains?  If you want to achieve a similar noise to the R32, get yourself a set of VF engine mounts, vRS Carl has a set fitted on his stage 2+ vRS and when he buried the loud pedal it sounded like a friggin 6 pot turbo - awesome!!  :drool:
Title: Re: R32 vs Mapped Gti
Post by: DMcG on December 16, 2011, 12:06:12 pm
I doubt you'll replicate the noise on a 4 cylinder! It would take some doing especially with a milly.
Title: Re: R32 vs Mapped Gti
Post by: stu_no_1 on December 16, 2011, 12:49:55 pm
I went from a stage 1 gti to an r32 and I've never looked back the feeling of more power of the line is night and day no wheel spin or turbo lag I felt you always had to be on boost to feel the car had something which isn't a problem when your driving it fast but about town I dont want to have to rag my car to be able to get somewhere although at the end my car did have a boost leak so this might have had something to do with it. They are both lovely cars though and I got about 25-27 mpg in the gti and 20-22 in the r32 with the same sort of driving style the most I've ever had in the r32 is 31 on a long run and about 40 in the gti. In from scotland and getting stuck in the snow also helped my decision to go 4wd. I probably would consider getting an ed30 or Pirelli edition but I wouldn't go back to a gti