because if you've got xenon's you don't need fog lamps as there so much better at lighting up the road ahead no matter what the weather conditions
Why does it have to be faster? Its just a new model. Aside from that its using FSI technology, which will mean its far more efficient. Fuel economy would have increased.
In theory, yes - I know that some vehicles with FSI are much worse than their 'normal' petrol engined brothers, no matter what the manufacturers claims are. But yeh, reducing the fuel bills on an R32 is always a good idea
Its four wheel drive; if they'd slung the transmission on the GTI it'd be slower. You need to go and drive a quick 4wd car in typical english weather.
Autoexpress have tested the "4-motion" versions of the MK5 against their FWD cousins and found very little improvement. Saying that the MK5 chassis and suspension is so good that even in FWD it handles fantastically. However, the 4 motion set up does get the power down better.
omg is this a women driver? if so its already off to a bad start!!! i dont like it much i prefer the mk4 version it just looks better in my eyes for some reason but to each there own and such
the GTI does indeed look better and is a better performer for the money and engine VW resting on its laurels again Edited by: Jon P
the GTI looks waaay better. the new one just looks nasty and tacky to me. the old r32 has a quality german and sturdy look about it. Edited by: stu h
i think they both look shite to be honest agreed the mk1? r32 or mk4 r32? looks way better imo,no wonder the jap guy driving it is having a chuckle to himself.vis fing look cwap.
I think it's main problem is that it looks nowhere near aggressive enough. It sits far too high and looks far too sedate. IMO they need to make it look more purposeful and imposing - like the car it's designed to be. ATM the front end just reminds me of a Passat or a Toureg rather than the top of the range hot hatch... I think I still need a bit more convinving TBH
