sport auto Supertest: VW Golf V R32

Discussion in 'European Cars' started by ajzahn, Aug 11, 2006.

  1. Slower than the IV on the Nring ?
  2. 12 secs. slower at the Nurburgring due to the heavy weight
  3. a short verdict:

    being 12 secs. slower than its predecessor is disappointing due to the heavy weight. Also the acceleration figures show absoluteyl no porgress coomapred to the GolF IV R42, no improvement at the Hockenheim short track as well.

    The Golf V R32 more is a grand tourer than a sports car. It offers perfect handling, always enough power as well as a lot of fun to the every day driver eespecially due to the permanenrt 4WD which on the other hand also contributes o the high weight.

    0-200-0 km/h in 35.5 secs. again this is abput 2.3 slover than its predecessor.

    1.1g max. lateral accleration, this is not better than the 200 bhp Golf GTI.

    Due to the 4WD, the Golf V R32 offers pretty good handling in the 36m slalon, the 11m evasion test and in the wet. Only the brakes are a bit weak and tend to fade.
  4. i am dissapionted by this car now
  5. Somehow the world has a French magazin,the R32 was faster than the M�gane RS.In sport auto the M�gane RS was by far the fastest.
  6. Is Von Saurma smoking weed again?
  7. No, it's just the R32 ate too much cakes.
  8. Still is not as fat as the Alfas..

  9. weak comeback. Go back to Memphis. Or maybe to Navarra better?
  10. ¬¬ Modern Alfas are fat pigs, what's your problem with that?
  11. Me? The problem is yours; that's why you mentioned that after all.
  12. Then I don't understand why you had such a childish reaction
  13. Childish reaction? Me? Where?
  14. Still the fact is that say the Brera 3.2 weighs about 150kg more. Thats Audi S4 territory....
  15. thats because the Brera is based in 159 - a A4 competitor. YOU DOLT
  16. ugh, VAGs are for FaGs
  18. Does anyone have the scan for the Golf IV R32?
  19. Lame.
  20. And don't forget: it's the four-door...

Share This Page