Why? Well, both cars are AWD with a similar price point of around $27K-30K, I suppose. But in almost every other way, the RS and R32 are built for different purposes. The RS is a stripped, track-hungry version of the standard Evo with deleted radio, A/C and sound insulation, whereas the R32 is basically a fast Golf loaded to the gills with the amenities that make daily driving tolerable. AutoWeek spends most of the article describing how soundly the RS whoops up on the R32 performance-wise. Gee, really? I never would have suspected that. Then they announce the shootout winner as the R32, since it won't destroy your kidneys when you hit a frost heave. I'm not sure if there's any reason for this comparison other than AW's understanding that enthusiasts love to read about these cars— see for example the rabid and oftentimes nonsensical Evo vs. STi vs. R32 debates that erupted when the cars were first introduced. Maybe next week they'll put a Cadillac CTS-V and Lotus Elise in a cage because both cars are rear wheel drive.