# S3 or R32



## R6B TT (Feb 25, 2003)

If you had the option of an S3 or R32 which would you go for and why ?

Consider the ages (1 - 2 years old), mileage and cost to be similar.

Discuss.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

Good question...

Both are "old" versions (old A3 shape, Mk IV Golf)...

I think I actually prefer the look of the Mk IV Golf to both the S3 AND the Mk V Golf, TBH...

Golf available as 5dr, which may swing it for some people... but it could go down to the tunability stakes (S3 is MUCH better, obviously) - which largely depends on who is buying it, and why...

As a LTD edition, maybe the Golf will retain better money vs S3 over time...

Personally, for the price of a 1-2 yr old R32 or S3, I think there are better cars - I'd probably pick neither... but that doesn't help much!


----------



## R6B TT (Feb 25, 2003)

What would you pick over those two then Tim ? I am coming to the conclusion that the TT's days as an everyday car are probably numbered as the kids and dog are growing, but I still want something that is fun.

S3 has the benefit that I could transfer most of the mods from my TT onto it, there aren't that many of them and I like them - nearly bought a Noggy S3 when I looked at the TT. Then the R32 came to mind .....

I don't need another 'big' family car - we have the CRV for that purpose.

Or do I go all sensible and get a smoker for the commute and buy a Caterham or TTR for weekend fun


----------



## DXN (May 18, 2002)

I would have the 5 door version of the R32 :?

Kids and all that


----------



## CapTT (Mar 2, 2003)

Depends on your needs I suppose :

S3 wins on fuel economy 30ish to 22ish.
S3 wins on tunability and availability of cheap parts e.g Chips/Remaps.
R32 wins on looks and styling if you want to stand out.
S3 wins on understated "Q car" looks if you don`t.
Servicing and running costs pretty similar other than fuel.
Standard trim performance similar on both.Handling too.
Both old models now with S3 being the cheaper purchase at the moment but when the new Golf Gti`s and R??`s come out they will drop in price too.But R32 will win on residuals in the long run because there is less of them on the road.

Both fine cars so its simply personal preference I guess.
Or you could be different and save a wad of cash and buy a Skoda Octavia RS and then tune it up like many police forces are doing at the moment.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

R6B TT said:


> What would you pick over those two then Tim ? I am coming to the conclusion that the TT's days as an everyday car are probably numbered as the kids and dog are growing, but I still want something that is fun.
> 
> S3 has the benefit that I could transfer most of the mods from my TT onto it, there aren't that many of them and I like them - nearly bought a Noggy S3 when I looked at the TT. Then the R32 came to mind .....
> 
> ...


Honestly, if you can get past the badge, a Seat Leon is everything the S3 has, except cheaper (or brand new for 2nd hand money) or a chipped Seat diesel (a la paulb) is a performance hatch with the fuel economy of a smoker (50+ mpg) - and you get to pocket a fair amount of change from R32 money...

Lets face it, Golf is hardly shouting "prestige" - and I know Seat isn't either - so that pretty much evens out the playing field...

I'd also look at the new A3 (its pretty much R32 money, but a new car and the interior which is a cross between old S3 and TT)

Mazda RX8 would suit some people if you need a 4 seater.

350z, of course, if you don't...  (24k buys a brand new non-GT spec) and thats pretty much R32 money...

You can also pick up a RenaultSport Megane (225bhp blown 2ltr engine) for a smidge over Â£15k. Performance bargain to rate with the Seat, if that floats your boat...

The 250bhp Alfa hatch would also interest me. It comes well specced but is likely to cost more than Golf or Audi in the depreciation stakes. Still, a "fun" prospect with apparently a GREAT engine and FWD fun 

That's just the top of my head emptied... but I guess there are plenty more available in your budget which must be hitting the Â£20-Â£23k bracket, if a 1yr old R32 is in there... (correct?)


----------



## R6B TT (Feb 25, 2003)

Yep, thinking up to 25K. I had pondered the new A3, but when I specced up a Sportback it started getting silly.

Also, if I go the sensible route maybe a second hand Alfa 147 smoker which has taken a big depreciation hit might be fun and leave more money for a toy.

I don't really need 5 doors - DXN, we found 3 doors better with young kids as 1) when they were tiny the doors were wider than on a 5 door so it was easier to lean in and plonk them on the car seat and 2) when they were mobile the little buggers couldn't try to escape by opening the door or winding the window down.

Maybe I'll take a new A3 out for a drive .... I had a 2.0 Multitronic as a courtesy car which was ok .... I guess whatever I buy it's not going to be like a TT ....


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

R6B TT said:


> Yep, thinking up to 25K. I had pondered the new A3, but when I specced up a Sportback it started getting silly.
> 
> Also, if I go the sensible route maybe a second hand Alfa 147 smoker which has taken a big depreciation hit might be fun and leave more money for a toy.
> 
> ...


RenaultSport Megane for under Â£16k, then buy a new Plasma, a Pinball table and an expensive holiday with the change from Â£25k...


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

If my options were S3 or R32 I'd have the Golf.

Can't really explain why exactly other than I guess they are rarer and I've always preferred the looks to the A3.

Have you tried Autotrader?

Put in maximum value 25k and then type in the details you want underneath. ie hatchback and it might come up with things you've never thought of.

Seems to be broken at the minute, but it might be worth a try.

Edit - OK tried that and apart from the Alfa that Tim mentioned, you get new shape Golf GT TDis, New shape A3 3.2 (not sportback) a Toyota Avensis, a Merc ML (??) and Mini Cooper Ss. :?

And of course lots of R32s and S3s.


----------



## b3ves (May 6, 2002)

I used to own an S3 which I loved and now have an R32 which IMO is better in every way apart from the seats (S3 had electric heated nappa Recaros, R32 vinyl-like heated buckets) and fuel economy.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

R32 values almost certainly will fall as soon as mkV r32 comes.

Leon cupra R 225. Or Civic Type R.

Or, for short term residuals supplies are short, a new mk v Golf GTi, which will be in strong demand.


----------



## Carlos (May 6, 2002)

I prefer the Golf - very distinctive, no doubt when you see an R32.


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

garyc said:


> R32 values almost certainly will fall as soon as mkV r32 comes.
> 
> Leon cupra R 225. Or Civic Type R.
> 
> Or, for short term residuals supplies are short, a new mk v Golf GTi, which will be in strong demand.


Are there plans to introduce this model earlier in the MKV life cycle. I did hear rumours about them doing this, but don't know if they've been confirmed. Aslo heard it would be called the R36 on account of increase in engine size.


----------



## b3ves (May 6, 2002)

Kell said:


> garyc said:
> 
> 
> > R32 values almost certainly will fall as soon as mkV r32 comes.
> ...


I read recently that an R36 with 275bhp and 280lb/ft will be released in UK Spring 2005. I'll pay my (un)friendly local VW dealer a visit this weekend and will let you know if they know anything.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

b3ves said:


> Kell said:
> 
> 
> > garyc said:
> ...


A(nother) VW that will sh*t on the V6 TT no doubt...

That'll be a seriously quick hot hatch. Audi will have to respond with a decent TT, because anything under 280bhp is going to look seriously underpowered against the current crop of hatches and coupes either just hitting the market or in the pipeline...


----------



## R6B TT (Feb 25, 2003)

Hmmm ... an option from the dark side ... BMW 320d Compact Sport, 24K new in June 04, 19K at the stealers now. I may give it a test drive.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

Not a fan of the Compacts


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

Not even this one?










It also came up in the search I did above, but I dismissed it, drediting Rob with better taste.


----------



## CapTT (Mar 2, 2003)

This is actually a very difficult question.
If you want a car with decent performance , room to seat four , but don`t want a Scooby or EVO what would you buy ?.
Its obviously got to have four wheel drive to be up to the rigours of the Great British weather and roads.
So what to buy ?. After reading this thread then sitting back and thinking about it , it is a good question indeed . What will be a good TT alternative fitting the required criteria ?.

TT 3.2 is out , no spare wheel which is a definite requirement where I live.
Rear wheel drive is OK for summer but no good for the other 10 months.
225 BHP + ..

The list is very small S4 , RS6 ......... I`ll keep thinking .


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

CapTT said:


> This is actually a very difficult question.
> If you want a car with decent performance , room to seat four , but don`t want a Scooby or EVO what would you buy ?.
> Its obviously got to have four wheel drive to be up to the rigours of the Great British weather and roads.
> So what to buy ?. After reading this thread then sitting back and thinking about it , it is a good question indeed . What will be a good TT alternative fitting the required criteria ?.
> ...


I'm REALLY not convinced about the "must have 4WD" argument. That's not only a VERY limiting factor, but something which many manufacturers don't even offer as an option...

As many people will agree, both FWD and RWD cars are perfectly capable in harsh weather, and have levels of grip equal to that of a 4WD car in snow / ice conditions - where the size and manufacture of the tyre is a MUCH more important factor than the number of driven wheels...

You must live in a VERY bleak spot if you have 10 months of "winter" a year...


----------



## jonno (May 7, 2002)

I think the 4WD thing is a complete red herring too.
There are several I would shortlist.
In no special order:
BMW 330/330d
Saab 93 Aero
RX8
350z (ok, so not a 4 seater, but worth a test  )
S4/A4.....


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

jonno said:


> I think the 4WD thing is a complete red herring too.
> There are several I would shortlist.
> In no special order:
> BMW 330/330d
> ...


awww you put the 350z in just for me... how sweet


----------



## jonno (May 7, 2002)

jampott said:


> awww you put the 350z in just for me... how sweet


Might have......

Actually, just thinking how rash I'd been not testing one, even though it was technically a non-starter as I need 4 seats.


----------



## CapTT (Mar 2, 2003)

Jampott wrote:


> I'm REALLY not convinced about the "must have 4WD" argument. That's not only a VERY limiting factor, but something which many manufacturers don't even offer as an option...


I AM convinced . Where I live it is necessary , or sometimes I wouldn`t even reach the main road. No dual carriageways round here , fell roads are the order of the day , M6 is the nearest multi-lane road to me and thats 30 miles away.

I have nothing against RWD , don`t get me wrong , I own three classic RWD cars.
In the late 1980`s and early 1990`s I won rallies (and rally championships) in Mk2 Escorts of various descriptions. I had a M3 for 4 months (couldn`t stand it any longer ). RWD is fun .BUT four wheel drive is so much BETTER !!. RWD is a form of nostalgia for me.
Why not use the modern technology available ?.

And if you think RWD is as good as four wheel drive in bad weather you simply aren`t trying hard enough, or are driving around town at town speeds. On proper roads in bad weather there is no contest , four wheel drive wins , no question. Driving skill is a factor , been there done the courses , including the John Haughland ice driving school in Norway , got the trophies in the cabinet. Four wheel drive still wins .

I agree wheels and tyres are vital , of course.

But come up to the Lake District in January and see how much success you have in doing my daily commute , setting off at 5am as I do usually , in a RWD car. Best to work from home if you had a Z up here I think.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

I don't doubt you are a great driver, but you contradict yourself. On one hand 4WD is "necessary", but on the other hand you commute in the snow and ice in a RWD car... so what gives? Is it "necessary" or just "better"?

I learnt to drive my Z in the ice and snow last year. It managed quite well for itself...


----------



## b3ves (May 6, 2002)

jampott said:


> I don't doubt you are a great driver, but you contradict yourself. On one hand 4WD is "necessary", but on the other hand you commute in the snow and ice in a RWD car... so what gives? Is it "necessary" or just "better"?
> 
> I learnt to drive my Z in the ice and snow last year. It managed quite well for itself...


Tim, I think you misunderstood his sentence because it was directed at the fact that _you_ have a RWD car, i.e.

'But come up to the Lake District in January and see how much success _you_ have in doing my daily commute , setting off at 5am as I do usually , in a RWD car.'

He's right, btw - RWD cannot ever compare to 4WD when it comes to traction. Just check out the rally cars...


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

b3ves said:


> jampott said:
> 
> 
> > I don't doubt you are a great driver, but you contradict yourself. On one hand 4WD is "necessary", but on the other hand you commute in the snow and ice in a RWD car... so what gives? Is it "necessary" or just "better"?
> ...


Yeah maybe - talking about owning 3 RWD cars and the slightly ambiguous wording threw me 

I know RWD can't beat 4WD in the traction stakes - but I found the RWD perfectly usable in bad conditions. I find the Z more stable than the TT in standing water and wet / spray roads, and I'm still not convinced that the Haldex 4WD on a TT offers THAT much more in the way of traction - like is usually said at this point - 4WD and FWD/RWD cars STILL obey the same laws of physics...


----------



## scoTTy (May 6, 2002)

...and the laws of physics say that the tyres only has a certain amount of traction. If you introduce steering and lateral forces then each tyres has a component of the available traction used for each force acting on it.

By sharing the accelerative force out amonst 4 wheels you are effectively halving the amount each tyre has to deal with giving more scope and ability to handle the other forces.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

CapTT said:


> This is actually a very difficult question.
> If you want a car with decent performance , room to seat four , but don`t want a Scooby or EVO what would you buy ?.
> Its obviously got to have four wheel drive to be up to the rigours of the Great British weather and roads.
> So what to buy ?. After reading this thread then sitting back and thinking about it , it is a good question indeed . What will be a good TT alternative fitting the required criteria ?.
> ...


Winter tyres on an FWD or RWD will be far more useful than part time 4wd on summer tyres in that case.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

Kell said:


> garyc said:
> 
> 
> > R32 values almost certainly will fall as soon as mkV r32 comes.
> ...


Don't know about the reskinned V6 haldex variant, but the fwd Gti is imminent, and I think is going to do very well in the GTI homeland. Should be easily tuneable to 275+hp to with the new fsi 2 litre lump that is by all accounts more free-revving and smoother than the old 1.8T lump.

I can't see it being much if any slower than the r32 (which is also fwd most of the time) - but with a superior chassis (multi link rear suspension) and less weight in the nose than the Mkiv V6. Plus it's new and will be different for a time. (that has to be part of the appeal of buying a new car) Demand should be strong. and I really like the steering wheel. 

Good solid family vehicle with strong sporting promise. I'm sold. :wink:


----------



## b3ves (May 6, 2002)

garyc said:


> I can't see it being much if any slower than the r32 (which is also fwd most of the time) - but with a superior chassis (multi link rear suspension) and less weight in the nose than the Mkiv V6.


Unless I am mistaken, the R32 and other 4WD MKIV Golf platform-based cars have multi link rear suspension :?

That's not to say that the MK V won't handle better though..


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

b3ves said:


> garyc said:
> 
> 
> > I can't see it being much if any slower than the r32 (which is also fwd most of the time) - but with a superior chassis (multi link rear suspension) and less weight in the nose than the Mkiv V6.
> ...


I think you are right for the 4wd - the fwd mk ivs still had the torsion beam rear I thought. Whatever, apparently the mk v is a tidy handler and a big move on from the Mkiv, of which i believe the r32 was best of bunch (shame it came last).

Worth considering a mk V gti anyway.


----------



## R6B TT (Feb 25, 2003)

Hmm .... I test drove an S3 today. A little more room in the back than the TT but not a lot of legroom. Hatch space should be fine for the hound.

However it did have some redeeming features - not least the 330BHP MTM Big Turbo Conversion, Paddle Clutch, Movit Brakes, Konis, Milltek ... :twisted:

It didn't do much out of the ordinary until 3500 revs, although was fine to drive but then took off very nicely. It seems to be a very well engineered conversion, the power delivery is very smooth - and under the bonnet looks standard. I experimented (at Clive D's suggestion) dropping down to 2500 revs in 6th and then putting the power on - it pulled through gently until it hit 3400 revs then took off very rapidly. Since it was a test drive I backed off at the ton. Unlike the standard MTM chip which gives you a shove in the back but then tails off, I felt you could tell this was all designed to work together.

Driving my TT home though it was very noticeable that the low end power / torque felt better in the TT (albeit AmD tuned). However, I guess thats a trade with the top end! The Paddle Clutch was lighter than I had expected, but just as fierce. I could quickly get used to it. Porsche brakes were noticeably better than standard TT but not over fierce - much better feel than the standard IMHO.

I also got a surprise when I flashed the DIS that the average MPG was 34.5 - I guess it must have been on a decent run.

Will I buy it - I'll sleep on it, it had many attractive features but I'm not 100% sure.


----------

