VW R32 vs. LX 5.0 ?

#21
JMD Engineering said:
with all due respect, youre wrong. anyone that knows/respects the AWD cars KNOWS that out of the box, domestic RWD get the sheeeeit owned out of em. and R32's are NOT 14-15 second cars.. try mid-high 13's, on street rubber. iknow my chances arent really that great, but im sure ill give em a run for his money. R32's.. fat and heavy, yes - fast? heckkkyes.

oh- and no hard feelings on this post, im just getting facts straight so it doesnt cause an uproar in the the stangnet community- leading to the collapse of this exquisite website.. and no one wants that, now do we? :flag:
Click to expand...

Just to clarify, are we talking Mk4 r32 or the new Mk5 R32 with the DSG gearbox?

The mk4's are basically a tuned Golf 4motion which is the same as an Audi TT, the 225bhp TT is no where near a 13 second car and the 3.2 TT has a little more power but also weighs more, Autocar magazine using a Vbox GPS timing system recorded almost identical stats for both the V6 and the turbo Audi, I also have read a few reports on the R32 vs Type R Honda Civic, Renalt Clio Cup 182, Focus RS and Alfa 147 GTA. The Alfa with 250bhp fwd was the quickest, the Focus would out run the Golf once moving.

I'm sure it is quick a quick car but a low 14 second 1/4 I would have thought is not the norm for these cars, there 4wd setup isn't that advanced like an Evo, it doesn't have active diffs and yaw control.

tjm73 said:
They're not that heavy at 3330 lbs.
Do 0-60 in 5.8 seconds
Run the 1/4 in 14.1 @ 99 mph

This is all from Road & Track's Volkswagen R32 Test

After readignthe article, if you can drive even half way decent you can take this car stock without too much trouble. It's not the powerhouse I was lead to think it was.
Click to expand...
I see you did a search on Google and took the top result for your numbers, but if you look around the 0-60mph time varies from your 5.8 to 6.6 seconds, there definatly seem to be more times at around 6 1/2 seconds so this would probably make it a low 15's car, a little quicker than a new V6 Mustang. Of course low 14's are possible but not from every car every time.

And it wouldn't be the first time VW had sent a ringer to magazines for testing, when they launched the Skoda RS (basically a Golf platform with the same 1.8 turbo as used by the Golf, Audi and Seat), it was only meant to have 180bhp, but it was out accelarating Subaru Impreza WRX's, it was generally accepted that they actually fitted the 225bhp engine to the test car and claimed only 180bhp, when Autocar asked if they could test it again as they had been unable to get close to the performance figures with showroom cars, The VW group refused!


As for heavy, well each gen of Golf has got fatter and fatter, the MK4 R32 weighs in at about 3400lbs that is Fat with a capital F, remeber its only meant to be a small 'hothatch' and a Mk1 Golf GTi only weighed about 2400lbs.
 
#22
300bhp/ton said:
Just to clarify, are we talking Mk4 r32 or the new Mk5 R32 with the DSG gearbox?

The mk4's are basically a tuned Golf 4motion which is the same as an Audi TT, the 225bhp TT is no where near a 13 second car and the 3.2 TT has a little more power but also weighs more, Autocar magazine using a Vbox GPS timing system recorded almost identical stats for both the V6 and the turbo Audi, I also have read a few reports on the R32 vs Type R Honda Civic, Renalt Clio Cup 182, Focus RS and Alfa 147 GTA. The Alfa with 250bhp fwd was the quickest, the Focus would out run the Golf once moving.

I'm sure it is quick a quick car but a low 14 second 1/4 I would have thought is not the norm for these cars, there 4wd setup isn't that advanced like an Evo, it doesn't have active diffs and yaw control.

I see you did a search on Google and took the top result for your numbers, but if you look around the 0-60mph time varies from your 5.8 to 6.6 seconds, there definatly seem to be more times at around 6 1/2 seconds so this would probably make it a low 15's car, a little quicker than a new V6 Mustang. Of course low 14's are possible but not from every car every time.


As for heavy, well each gen of Golf has got fatter and fatter, the MK4 R32 weighs in at about 3400lbs that is Fat with a capital F, remeber its only meant to be a small 'hothatch' and a Mk1 Golf GTi only weighed about 2400lbs.
Click to expand...


From what your saying, people considering this R32 a fast car would be a joke. And I agree, I mean jesus christ, this is all they have to praise? Us domestics have cobras and LS1's etc. And they have 15 sec awd cars, lmfao. What a joke.
 
#23
Aliate X said:
From what your saying, people considering this R32 a fast car would be a joke. And I agree, I mean jesus christ, this is all they have to praise? Us domestics have cobras and LS1's etc. And they have 15 sec awd cars, lmfao. What a joke.
Click to expand...

They are fast, but in the Uk and Europe its a different ball game, a hothatch would normally have a 0-60mph in the region of 8 seconds and top speed of 115mph. So in hothatch terms this R32 is on fire. Also in the UK Mustangs and LS1 Trans Ams are not available as new cars showroom cars, the only equiverlent to them costs a lot more thasn the Golf.

If you went out on a typical British B road (even more so if wet) then this 240bhp Golf would easily match a 400bhp Mustang Foxbody point to point. At the drag strip though it is mearly a brisk car not a tyre melting road burning monster.
 
#24
300bhp/ton said:
They are fast, but in the Uk and Europe its a different ball game, a hothatch would normally have a 0-60mph in the region of 8 seconds and top speed of 115mph. So in hothatch terms this R32 is on fire. Also in the UK Mustangs and LS1 Trans Ams are not available as new cars showroom cars, the only equiverlent to them costs a lot more thasn the Golf.

If you went out on a typical British B road (even more so if wet) then this 240bhp Golf would easily match a 400bhp Mustang Foxbody point to point. At the drag strip though it is mearly a brisk car not a tyre melting road burning monster.
Click to expand...

Yeah I see what you mean. I guess that idea, which is true over there, carries over to here where it is not true. And then people learn the hard way about the almighty V8 RWD domestics.
 
#25
Aliate X said:
Yeah I see what you mean. I guess that idea, which is true over there, carries over to here where it is not true. And then people learn the hard way about the almighty V8 RWD domestics.
Click to expand...
Precisly, if I was a betting man I would put my mony on any well running stock 5.0LX with 220+bhp on a short stop light race. Yes the Golf may jump ahead by 5 foot or sodue to 4wd (basiaclly it should be able to reach 20mph quicker), but the old Fox should pull away. Don't run high end the Golfs are geared good and make good high rpm power, capable of 150mph which is just beyond the means of a stock 5.0
 
#27
BaXTeR3221 said:
R32 isn't a turbo car so there is no need for a wastegate :D
Click to expand...

Yeah I thoguht it was a turbo V6 at first. Then I read the article and found out it wasn't.

I did see an article once where soemoen did turbo this car and WOW it had liek 600 hp, ran low 12's and topped out at like 175mph. That's impressive no matter what kind of car it is.
 
#29
JMD Engineering said:
with all due respect, youre wrong. anyone that knows/respects the AWD cars KNOWS that out of the box, domestic RWD get the sheeeeit owned out of em. and R32's are NOT 14-15 second cars.. try mid-high 13's, on street rubber. iknow my chances arent really that great, but im sure ill give em a run for his money. R32's.. fat and heavy, yes - fast? heckkkyes.

oh- and no hard feelings on this post, im just getting facts straight so it doesnt cause an uproar in the the stangnet community- leading to the collapse of this exquisite website.. and no one wants that, now do we? :flag:
Click to expand...

Mid to high 13's? laughable. 14.3 in the quarter, and 6 flat 0-60
hand him his *ss.
http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomf...rl=http://www.ssmoparmuscle.com/speedcomp.htm
 
#30
If i can add my two cents i used to own an AWD eclipse turbo back in the day (about 12 years ago) and i had raced several mustang 5.0's. Always took them off the line by two car lengths, Always and i mean everytime got over taken by the time i was going to third. My buddy who has a Subaru WRX said it best when he said "All wheel drive only gives the illusion of speed."
 
#31
Run a boot if you want to hang on the street. Sit and spin never won anyone anything. The R32 is a nicely tuned machine that is very capable of low 14's. Choose wisely, there are a few that are in the 12's with turbo mods.
 
#32
JMD Engineering said:
with all due respect, youre wrong. anyone that knows/respects the AWD cars KNOWS that out of the box, domestic RWD get the sheeeeit owned out of em. yes - fast? heckkkyes.

oh- and no hard feelings on this post, im just getting facts straight so it doesnt cause an uproar in the the stangnet community- leading to the collapse of this exquisite website.. and no one wants that, now do we? :flag:
Click to expand...

Domestic RWD get the **** owned out of them? Yea, maybe on gravel roads and on the street. That isn't where it matters. Anytime you have a RWD that can actually hook, such as a stock mustang with slicks the awd cars don't have as much of a chance. Look at it this way. Even though a WRX can hook, doesn't mean a stock car can hand it its ass on the plate as RWD. Look at alot of the factory stock class and people who have gotten there stock cars to hook.

No, I am not anti import. I actually wouldn't mind owning a WRX or something like that for the street. But stock for stock, give both cars slicks, and the WRX for example is pretty much screwed. And to answer the question, No. With the average driver they are a mid to low 14 second car.
 
#36
Whoa, hold on there. An R32 Golf isn't AWD all the time - it's only AWD when the front wheels are slipping. A clutch drop is a very stupid thing to do with an R32, because since it is a front-biased system, the fronts will spin before the rears do, and the whole shock can really damage the drivetrain. That being said, you'd be racing a 240HP (200 at the wheels) FWD car from a roll, and an AWD car from a stop. These cars aren't as crappy as everyone thinks - in fact, they look pretty damn good. A 14.1 quarter bone stock is nothing to laugh at either.
 
#38
BaXTeR3221 said:
If the RWD hooks, that doesn't mean its going to win, it just means that traction is no longer a factor. You can get a stock 5.0 to hook fine and it'll still get beat by an Evo.
Click to expand...

Why play a stock 5.0 vs a evo. Put something in its class like an LS1. I didn't say just because the 5.0 hooks it means it is going to win. I meant the reason why we see so many more RWD race cars is that they are much more efficient and when you have cars that hook really good with RWD, they have no problem eating the AWD cars up.
 
#39
mackey said:
Why play a stock 5.0 vs a evo. Put something in its class like an LS1. I didn't say just because the 5.0 hooks it means it is going to win. I meant the reason why we see so many more RWD race cars is that they are much more efficient and when you have cars that hook really good with RWD, they have no problem eating the AWD cars up.
Click to expand...

I understand what your saying, almost all professional racers run RWD. My point is that since we are talking about street cars, if two cars have similar power and the RWD can hook like the AWD, traction becomes a non-issue.
 
#40
It is still a VW, nice for picking up coffee, even if it is fast... :rolleyes:

The real R32 looks like this...

R32nismo2.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

E
  • Locked
1990 Mustang Light Crystal Blue Lx 5.0 Coupe Mint 50k Original Miles
Replies
4
Views
14K
Fox Body Mustangs For Sale (1979-93)
BigHairyMonkey
BigHairyMonkey
Top Bottom
Back
Forums
Menu