A3 vs. 2008 VW R32. Here is a comparison of the A3 (mostly 2.0T specs) vs. the R32.
09-03-2007, 02:53 PM
#1
AudiWorld Super User
Thread Starter
A3 vs. 2008 VW R32. Here is a comparison of the A3 (mostly 2.0T specs) vs. the R32.
<b>2008 VW R32</b>
The much anticipated Mk5 R32 will cost you $32,990. There are only 5,000 coming to the USA. So expect to pay sticker.
Your main course is already determined. You get the 3.2, 4-motion, and DSG. However you may opt for an appetizer, navigation. This eliminates the standard 6-cd changer. For dessert you have a few choices. Pick one of four exterior colors.
<img src="http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a279/iMryanmac/tech/R32colors.jpg">
That's right. At this prefix bistro, you choose a color and Nav vs. CD changer. Now it's time for the bad news. You may need to loosen the belt after this meal. Afterall, the R32 weighs in at >3,500# Ouch. And you'll need a big band-aid especially considering your rear passengers are using manual window cranks.
<b>The reason for this research is simple. I love my car, it's a BLAST to drive and it's easy on the eye. But I'm ready for a new one. Every 2 years I get a bad itch. And every 2-3 years I scratch it. I bought my A3 in June 2005.</b>
I am not in love with anything from the Audi line up. The TT appeals to me, but it's not practical. I don't want a traditional 4-dr yawner, so the A4 is out. The S4 looks a bit meaner, but it has a V8 instead of two turbos. I want to "keep it in the family". But yet I like to be different (once modified, the A3 delivers here and then some).
So I elected to compare the R32 and A3's interior space and cargo specs (which is very important to me). I was willing to look past the body style and lack of turbo - but only because of the amazing residuals and resale value. The R32 is a collectable. They hold their value better than any car in this price range IMO. Also, I am ready to go back to AWD.
The motor. It's great. It's fun. It sounds so sweet. Right, but it's dated, and it doesn't have FSI! The later may have helped with the MPGs, or lack thereof, which scares me away. FSI also may have helped make some power. The new generation :R deserves an additional 20-50 horsepower in my opinion. Why not! Forget about the "big-winged boy racer" WRX/STi and EVO offerings. Forget about the 280 horsepower Eclipse. VW and Audi fans have more taste than that. And so VAG should take a look at the power BMW, Acura, and Infinity is making. That is what you're competing with. A 250 horsepower motor for a 3500+lb car??!!! The R32 needs some steroids. It's not 2004 anymore.
VW should have used FSI, cranked up the HP. And/Or given the USA the awesome motor from the Passat. The 3.6L 280HP! Find a way to make it fit! 280HP isn't asking too much. It's a respectable bump over the Mk4. And it would have positioned the R32 at the same power rating of a 2.0T with software and a down-pipe (which would only cost in the neighborhood of $1200).
Granted it's a "R32" as in 3.2... but maybe give us a few motor/drive-train options, for us true enthusiasts? At least "sold-order" options for a 2.0TQ A3. Or the 3.6L motor for the A3 and/or R32. That would be amazing. I am not sure I'm willing to "settle", which is what many 3.2 A3 owners have done. And what the majority of the new R32 owners will do (no 6MT option).
All of that said, it's not power that is holding me back. I'm not making the jump to an R32 because of MPGs. I am trying very hard to be disciplined and smart. The 2.0TFSI may have ruined me forever. A motor that is FUN to drive and has globs of torque. But when you want to get 350-400 miles out of a tank? NO PROBLEM!!! I want to get a car with reasonable gas mileage. And the R32 doesn't come close. One review of an :R reported that after a 45 minute test drive, the tank was half drained. Obviously the guy was driving the car hard. But one can drive 200 miles on half a tank with a 2.0T. If driving aggressively, you can still manage 150 miles per half.
<b>The rant is over. I am still very happy VW brought another R32 to the states. I may even keep the :R on my wish list. It's a great value. You get a nice motor, HIDs, sunroof, DSG, 4-motion, 18"s, sport seats, dual climate control, and great brakes (thanks boki w/ 3.2 quattro). And all of this is packaged up in a very limited production German car. Not too shabby considering the price tag. But I'd have to get another car for daily driving. Something with better fuel efficiency because this R32 has a dual exhaust that sounds like a dream. Oh, and I wish the body style looked a little less like a "Fast". </b>
To all the blind loyalists who feel that too many people complain about the lack of power. I'm not "hating", honest! The car has AWD and it's refined, therefore it weighs a lot. It needs more power. Admit it. Please.
<b>Some Specs. </b>
I must apologize in advance. I have chosen to compare apples to oranges here. I felt that more 2.0T A3 (vs. 3.2) owners would consider switching to a new R32. So the curb weight and power comparisons were done for the benefit of a fwd A3 owner.
Highlighted in blue are items that are standard on the :R. Items that cost extra or are n/a for the A3. Highlighted in yellow are some notables. Some which were very surprising. Like shoulder room for example; the nod goes to the :R.
<img src="http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a279/iMryanmac/tech/R32vsA3secondaryspecs.jpg"><br><br>
<img src="http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a279/iMryanmac/tech/R32vsA3mainspecs.jpg"><br><br>
<img src="http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a279/iMryanmac/tech/R32vsA31.jpg"><br><br>
The much anticipated Mk5 R32 will cost you $32,990. There are only 5,000 coming to the USA. So expect to pay sticker.
Your main course is already determined. You get the 3.2, 4-motion, and DSG. However you may opt for an appetizer, navigation. This eliminates the standard 6-cd changer. For dessert you have a few choices. Pick one of four exterior colors.
<img src="http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a279/iMryanmac/tech/R32colors.jpg">
That's right. At this prefix bistro, you choose a color and Nav vs. CD changer. Now it's time for the bad news. You may need to loosen the belt after this meal. Afterall, the R32 weighs in at >3,500# Ouch. And you'll need a big band-aid especially considering your rear passengers are using manual window cranks.
<b>The reason for this research is simple. I love my car, it's a BLAST to drive and it's easy on the eye. But I'm ready for a new one. Every 2 years I get a bad itch. And every 2-3 years I scratch it. I bought my A3 in June 2005.</b>
I am not in love with anything from the Audi line up. The TT appeals to me, but it's not practical. I don't want a traditional 4-dr yawner, so the A4 is out. The S4 looks a bit meaner, but it has a V8 instead of two turbos. I want to "keep it in the family". But yet I like to be different (once modified, the A3 delivers here and then some).
So I elected to compare the R32 and A3's interior space and cargo specs (which is very important to me). I was willing to look past the body style and lack of turbo - but only because of the amazing residuals and resale value. The R32 is a collectable. They hold their value better than any car in this price range IMO. Also, I am ready to go back to AWD.
The motor. It's great. It's fun. It sounds so sweet. Right, but it's dated, and it doesn't have FSI! The later may have helped with the MPGs, or lack thereof, which scares me away. FSI also may have helped make some power. The new generation :R deserves an additional 20-50 horsepower in my opinion. Why not! Forget about the "big-winged boy racer" WRX/STi and EVO offerings. Forget about the 280 horsepower Eclipse. VW and Audi fans have more taste than that. And so VAG should take a look at the power BMW, Acura, and Infinity is making. That is what you're competing with. A 250 horsepower motor for a 3500+lb car??!!! The R32 needs some steroids. It's not 2004 anymore.
VW should have used FSI, cranked up the HP. And/Or given the USA the awesome motor from the Passat. The 3.6L 280HP! Find a way to make it fit! 280HP isn't asking too much. It's a respectable bump over the Mk4. And it would have positioned the R32 at the same power rating of a 2.0T with software and a down-pipe (which would only cost in the neighborhood of $1200).
Granted it's a "R32" as in 3.2... but maybe give us a few motor/drive-train options, for us true enthusiasts? At least "sold-order" options for a 2.0TQ A3. Or the 3.6L motor for the A3 and/or R32. That would be amazing. I am not sure I'm willing to "settle", which is what many 3.2 A3 owners have done. And what the majority of the new R32 owners will do (no 6MT option).
All of that said, it's not power that is holding me back. I'm not making the jump to an R32 because of MPGs. I am trying very hard to be disciplined and smart. The 2.0TFSI may have ruined me forever. A motor that is FUN to drive and has globs of torque. But when you want to get 350-400 miles out of a tank? NO PROBLEM!!! I want to get a car with reasonable gas mileage. And the R32 doesn't come close. One review of an :R reported that after a 45 minute test drive, the tank was half drained. Obviously the guy was driving the car hard. But one can drive 200 miles on half a tank with a 2.0T. If driving aggressively, you can still manage 150 miles per half.
<b>The rant is over. I am still very happy VW brought another R32 to the states. I may even keep the :R on my wish list. It's a great value. You get a nice motor, HIDs, sunroof, DSG, 4-motion, 18"s, sport seats, dual climate control, and great brakes (thanks boki w/ 3.2 quattro). And all of this is packaged up in a very limited production German car. Not too shabby considering the price tag. But I'd have to get another car for daily driving. Something with better fuel efficiency because this R32 has a dual exhaust that sounds like a dream. Oh, and I wish the body style looked a little less like a "Fast". </b>
To all the blind loyalists who feel that too many people complain about the lack of power. I'm not "hating", honest! The car has AWD and it's refined, therefore it weighs a lot. It needs more power. Admit it. Please.
<b>Some Specs. </b>
I must apologize in advance. I have chosen to compare apples to oranges here. I felt that more 2.0T A3 (vs. 3.2) owners would consider switching to a new R32. So the curb weight and power comparisons were done for the benefit of a fwd A3 owner.
Highlighted in blue are items that are standard on the :R. Items that cost extra or are n/a for the A3. Highlighted in yellow are some notables. Some which were very surprising. Like shoulder room for example; the nod goes to the :R.
<img src="http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a279/iMryanmac/tech/R32vsA3secondaryspecs.jpg"><br><br>
<img src="http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a279/iMryanmac/tech/R32vsA3mainspecs.jpg"><br><br>
<img src="http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a279/iMryanmac/tech/R32vsA31.jpg"><br><br>
09-03-2007, 04:02 PM
#2
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 4,293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Saw one at Lime Rock on Saturday in Red
Its pretty understated in its looks for sure. The only real noticable difference besides the badge is the dual center exhaust, although, not having seen a lot of Rabbits/GTI's around, this could be standard.
It looked nice enough I guess but I have to say with all the other car eye candy (i.e. Ferrari's, Buggati's, Astons, Alfa's, Loti, many many BMWs...) at the vintage fest, it didnt stand out.
I did see a few A3's besides mine, one in red, one in black.
It looked nice enough I guess but I have to say with all the other car eye candy (i.e. Ferrari's, Buggati's, Astons, Alfa's, Loti, many many BMWs...) at the vintage fest, it didnt stand out.
I did see a few A3's besides mine, one in red, one in black.
09-03-2007, 04:33 PM
#5
AudiWorld Super User
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,846
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
exactly, a3 2.0t is too different a critter, for most of those comparison criteria, ....
weight, well of course it's way more than the 2.0, <u>it's AWD</u>. it's got the same drivetrain as the 3.2 quattro.
<b>it is far from being a pig, though. believe me, i know.</b>
everyone knocks the powerplant, 'shoulda been this/that', 'compared to this/that', 'blah,blah'
<b>believe me, the normally aspirated 3.2vr6 is a delight.</b>
btw, i consistently got 27mpg, mostly highway, before i installed the turbo-(w/high flow injectors, ...and i should get back close to that when we get fuel map corrections sorted out)
not bad, considering the engine displacement is half again as big as the 2.0t
another thing. the bigger brakes on the r32 make a huge difference, and are notably missing in your comparison.
in the end,
<b>the R32 is rare, and a car one can truly fall in love with.</b>
major drawbacks to the new R32, (surely subjective):
1) DSG - it's just not right for a car like this with it's current behaviours, the shifting limitations
2) body style - well, body style
<i>(gratefully, neither of those two drawbacks are at issue with the mk4 r32
...)</i>
<b>it is far from being a pig, though. believe me, i know.</b>
everyone knocks the powerplant, 'shoulda been this/that', 'compared to this/that', 'blah,blah'
<b>believe me, the normally aspirated 3.2vr6 is a delight.</b>
btw, i consistently got 27mpg, mostly highway, before i installed the turbo-(w/high flow injectors, ...and i should get back close to that when we get fuel map corrections sorted out)
not bad, considering the engine displacement is half again as big as the 2.0t
another thing. the bigger brakes on the r32 make a huge difference, and are notably missing in your comparison.
in the end,
<b>the R32 is rare, and a car one can truly fall in love with.</b>
major drawbacks to the new R32, (surely subjective):
1) DSG - it's just not right for a car like this with it's current behaviours, the shifting limitations
2) body style - well, body style
<i>(gratefully, neither of those two drawbacks are at issue with the mk4 r32
...)</i>
09-03-2007, 05:05 PM
#6
AudiWorld Super User
Thread Starter
repeat
I have chosen to compare apples to oranges here. I felt that more 2.0T A3 (vs. 3.2) owners would consider switching to a new R32. So the curb weight and power comparisons were done for the benefit of a fwd A3 owner.
No need to compare a 3.2 A3 to an R32. I really doubt anyone here will make that swap.
No need to compare a 3.2 A3 to an R32. I really doubt anyone here will make that swap.
