Golf R32 Vs S3 225

[bjacks]

[quote="DuncS3One thing for sure is that the 3.2 V6 must be heavily restricted somewhere to only push out 240-250 bhp say in comparison to the E36 M3 EVO engine (3.2 ltr = 321 bhp)

Dunc[/quote]

Dunc, I don't think the engine is restricted as such, it's just not as tuned as an "M" engine from BMW. Think of the K series engines that Lotus and others have used. Same principle engine, with massive variations in power dependent on how it's tuned. Think std Elise, 111S, Exige etc.

The engine in the M3 needs things like valve adjustments at major services - whereas I seriously doubt VAG will open up the 3.2 engine, period.

@S3rdias

Out of interest, who gets a regular 265-270BHP on S3's just from Stage 1?

Cheers lads,

Ben

PS My 2p on the R32/S3 debate:

The R32 has peachy suspension, makes a great noise and looks pretty cool. But without the 300BHP conversion felt pretty gutless to me.
S3 is a car which is more individual, specialist if you like. Flared arches, Recaros with Piano trim etc etc, with a grunty 1.8T (when chipped), and can be had for a lot less than the R32.

[S3rdias]

Well....those are Amd numbers..Personally, I think it´s difficult to achieve this bhp with just a remap, not to say impossible, the same way these R32 numbers seems too optmistic..

[Riz_RS4]

All very good information and views.

Having owned both i must admit they both have different plus points....

It comes down to what the individual wants...... i personally think that N/A engines are good..... made me realise how much turbo-lag the 1.8T block actually suffers from... also the turbo-charged engines run out of puff approx 5800rpms...

The R32 goes all the way to the limiter!

Riz

[S3rdias]

Hmm...that´s a real negative point of the K04 . But there´s a friend of mine that says that the turbo lag is for those who don´ t drive fast enough .. crazy guy