Agreed.

But for me--and, I suspect, many other enthusiasts--this comparo begins and ends with what's on the console. Real manual = win for the MS3.

I know the DSG shifts more quickly, but unless you're on a track, that's like boasting about the lowest elapsed time for sex. It's about driving pleasure, not lap times--IMHO. I know this is a sensitive subject, pun intended.

↓↑report

I see your point, but these stats are misleading.

VW is famous for peddling "low expectations" performance numbers, but Audi is not. If the A3 can do 0-60 in 5.9, so can the R32 -- they have nearly identical chassis (A3 is a bit bigger), the same VR6 engine and the same DSG / S-Tronic transmission. Basically, it's not feasible for the A3 to be faster if it weighs more in the same chassis with the exact same drivetrain.

With regards to price, the A3 is only $2,000 more on paper, but it's my experience that it's not easy to find "stripped" Audis, especially once you opt for the bigger engine in an A4 or A3. In reality, A3 3.2s at dealers often sticker in the high $30Ks, while the R32 only has one $1,500 option (Nav).

Either option would be nice, but both seem awfully expensive compared to Japanese competitors. The exchange rate is really hurting VW/Audi. A loaded R32 for $26-28K seems about right, and a loaded A3 for $30-32K would also rock.

-SimianSpeedster

↓↑report

The mazdaspeed3.

I like it when my cars work for extended periods of time without frequent large cash injections for needlessly expensive German parts.

↓↑report

OK
the MS3 over both the R32 and A3

for $32k I rather get a G35 - way better than anything Audi/VW can offer under $50k, or even the CTS would be a much better option

those hard core VW fans are the only fools that think these cars are worth the money - and at least the MS3 will not burn down while sitting parked overnight

↓↑report

I've owned both the R32 & the A3 (at the same time) & prefer by far the VW. The A3 was smallish inside & def not the quickest. The R32 always brought out the inner hoon.

↓↑report

Big Jim: Sounds like you haven't actually been inside an R32, so you comment leaves a little to be desired.

I bought the R32 and I considered the MS3, the A3, the 135 and both of the WRC posers. Once you drive AWD, you give up econobox front wheel drive, and weak interiors. It is a world of difference.

I thought the MS3 had a ton of torque steer and a a teenager's dream interior, the A3 was too anonymous - yet decent, the STi and Evo were way to boy racer and flashy for me -plus each was low on power in the lower revs (Evo was better than STi), and the 135 when spec'd out similar to the R32 was $12K more, and very small on the inside.

The R32 is a great car, and when I compared it to a GTI, I found the R32 to simply be a better car. No one will try to say the R32 is a better value, but then R32 buyers aren't looking for value, they are looking for a car that fits them and their tastes.

E.

↓↑report

Its an odd dynamic, ethan. I agree with Big Jim, but I think Audi and VW have cave-like boring interiors (dash mainly). But its really a matter of taste, as you and others really like it.

The R32 has an incredible exhaust note, but it truly is priced a bit high.

↓↑report

No offense, but you would spend almost 10k more because the exhaust sounds different? You can put a different exhaust on the MS3 for pretty cheap, plus you get the lovely whistle of the turbo when you put a CAI on the MS3. But I have never factored in sound when buying a car, its too easily changed.

↓↑report

No change in exhaust is going to make the MS3 sound like a VR6. The VR6 has a unique sound that's one of the best this side of F1 and the M3 I-6's.

and no, I wouldn't pay almost $10K more for just the sound. I also prefer AWD(especially with that much power). Besides, the R32 is really just an 3-door A3 3.2L. So really, you are getting an A3 for a few grand less.

Regarding the interior, I actually prefer the more subdued, "boring" interior. It goes along well with the German's typically understated performance. I like the sleeper look. A debadged R32 would look very similar to a standard Rabbit or GTI. Can't say the same for an Evo, STi or even an MS3. I don't feel the need to advertise what I've got, but different strokes for different folks.

I also don't think comparing the R32 to the MS3 is fair(to either side really). When the Mk4 R32's were out, they were always compared to the Evo and STi. They do get beat handedly performace-wise, but with all 3 being AWD, it seems a much more fair comparison(in some cases the R32 even came out ahead when all was said and done). Plus, they are priced more closely. Actually, the R32 ends up being more of a bargain there, with Evo and STi prices nudging closer to $40K.

As was mentioned by another poster as well, tons more HP is not very far away in the R32 either. A single turbo can get you up to around 450HP, with twin-turbo kits going to 550 or so HP. Read up on HPA(http://hpamotorsports.com/turbos.htm) Granted they aren't cheap, but 600HP Evo's and STi's don't come cheap either.

↓↑report

+1

↓↑report

I was actually under the impression that the original MS3 was AWD, or at least 4wd. I might be wrong, but I thought they had just taken out the AWD in the MS3 because of weight.

↓↑report

What original MS3? This is the first one. The Mazda 3 is only in it's first model cycle.

Do you mean the Mazdaspeed6? That was based on the Mazda 6 and did have AWD as well as a 280HP version of I believe the same engine in the MS3.

I thought I recalled auto magazines and such thinking that the testing mules they saw were AWD since the 6 was, but I don't recall anything official from Mazda saying it would be.

↓↑report

Hi James,

mazda did a 323 nearly 20 years ago with 4wd turbo power as well if I remember correctly

↓↑report