VW R36 Passat vs V6 Passat CC

[sloutch]

I test drove the Evo X before and i have to agree the R36 has much more space than the evo. For me, the only negative thing about the R36 is the downshift from 3rd to 2nd is pretty irritating when you slow down at the lights. That jerk kind of irritates me and it takes away the 'smoothness' in the ride.

[apom]

I test drove the Evo X before and i have to agree the R36 has much more space than the evo. For me, the only negative thing about the R36 is the downshift from 3rd to 2nd is pretty irritating when you slow down at the lights. That jerk kind of irritates me and it takes away the 'smoothness' in the ride.

hmmm... i dont get a jerk from 3rd to 2nd, anyone else?

[theplanner]

I test drove the Evo X before and i have to agree the R36 has much more space than the evo. For me, the only negative thing about the R36 is the downshift from 3rd to 2nd is pretty irritating when you slow down at the lights. That jerk kind of irritates me and it takes away the 'smoothness' in the ride.

I don't get this jerkiness too in "D" and only experience it when in "S" or manual mode. But if I was in either of the latter then I am after a bit of fun so the jerkiness would not bother me.

[theplanner]

I test drove the Evo X before and i have to agree the R36 has much more space than the evo.

But it's not just about space or the boy racer appearance. These 2 cars are miles apart in terms of refinement.

I would have bought an Evo if I was after a daily driver and weekend track car. But I bought the R36 because I was after a daily driver and once in a while track car and a bit of luxury at an affordable price.

[sloutch]

hmmm... i dont get a jerk from 3rd to 2nd, anyone else?

It's more like engine braking from 3rd to 2nd. The engine braking causes the 'jerk' feeling instead of smoothly slowing down. I dont know but i used to have an auto E46 325ci and it was really smooth when you slow down.

[Highlander]

In terms of everyday street/road performance there is really not much, in my opinion, between the R36 and the CC. My daughter thinks the CC definitely is, and that all wagons are old men's cars.

Both are luxurious vehicles that are very satisfying to drive and unless you are going to do track days and the like, it really is just a matter of personal choice and intended purpose with each car being a little different, but neither one really being better than the other.

This link is pretty interesting. Same track. 1.47.8 for the R36, 1.48.7 for the CC. Really makes the CC look an impressive luxo cruiser at 0.083% slower lap time than the R36. Saw a "fastest laps" quote with lap times for an R32 and a CC 3.6 at the same circuit. 1.48.7 for the CC and 1.47.8 for the Golf. Pretty impressive stuff from a 1600kg plus luxury cruiser.

Link is http://www.fastestlaps.com/car48410ac18ac2b.html

My opinion. Whichever you buy you will love it. I have driven R32 and 3.6 CC and they were both fantastic. And I am sure the R36 is right up there with them.

So let's all have a group hug and enjoy the cars while at the same time feeling sorry for me who cancelled my 3.6 CC and went the TDI CC route because of some misguided economic rationality.

[V6Passat]

In terms of everyday street/road performance there is really not much, in my opinion, between the R36 and the CC. My daughter thinks the CC definitely is, and that all wagons are old men's cars.

Both are luxurious vehicles that are very satisfying to drive and unless you are going to do track days and the like, it really is just a matter of personal choice and intended purpose with each car being a little different, but neither one really being better than the other.

This link is pretty interesting. Same track. 1.47.8 for the R36, 1.48.7 for the CC. Really makes the CC look an impressive luxo cruiser at 0.083% slower lap time than the R36. Saw a "fastest laps" quote with lap times for an R32 and a CC 3.6 at the same circuit. 1.48.7 for the CC and 1.47.8 for the Golf. Pretty impressive stuff from a 1600kg plus luxury cruiser.

Link is http://www.fastestlaps.com/car48410ac18ac2b.html

My opinion. Whichever you buy you will love it. I have driven R32 and 3.6 CC and they were both fantastic. And I am sure the R36 is right up there with them.

So let's all have a group hug and enjoy the cars while at the same time feeling sorry for me who cancelled my 3.6 CC and went the TDI CC route because of some misguided economic rationality.

Chin up, still one drop dead sexy car...enjoy!

[Psyk]

In terms of everyday street/road performance there is really not much, in my opinion, between the R36 and the CC. My daughter thinks the CC definitely is, and that all wagons are old men's cars.

Both are luxurious vehicles that are very satisfying to drive and unless you are going to do track days and the like, it really is just a matter of personal choice and intended purpose with each car being a little different, but neither one really being better than the other.

This link is pretty interesting. Same track. 1.47.8 for the R36, 1.48.7 for the CC. Really makes the CC look an impressive luxo cruiser at 0.083% slower lap time than the R36. Saw a "fastest laps" quote with lap times for an R32 and a CC 3.6 at the same circuit. 1.48.7 for the CC and 1.47.8 for the Golf. Pretty impressive stuff from a 1600kg plus luxury cruiser.

Link is http://www.fastestlaps.com/car48410ac18ac2b.html

My opinion. Whichever you buy you will love it. I have driven R32 and 3.6 CC and they were both fantastic. And I am sure the R36 is right up there with them.

So let's all have a group hug and enjoy the cars while at the same time feeling sorry for me who cancelled my 3.6 CC and went the TDI CC route because of some misguided economic rationality.

Congrats Highlander! You will love it. Thanks for the link. Motor magazine ran one in one of their bang-for-buck. It placed 6th out of 13 cars around Wakefield. In order of first to sixth were TTS, 370Z, S3, WRX, SS, Passat with a time of 1:12.9 sec around Wakefield. It was top 5 in the 0-100km/h sprint and top 5 in the 0-400m as well.

It didn't place well in the overall bang-for-buck category as they then factor in cost vs. performance vs. other cars in the group - but the comments were very favourable from all drivers who saw it's preformance as surprising but shouldn't be really in this comparison test as it's not a 'bang-for-buck' car...

[boxer]

Well, I'm an old man......but still with the zest to drive something of quality and some individuality. VW build some great cars for the money these days, and I considered an R36, but the CC is much more me. Mine's on order, a TDI in mocca anthracite with two-tone interior, so don't feel bad Highlander, you have 350nm of torque and your fuel bill will be half(or less) the V6. R36 or CC, even the diesel, are all top cars so enjoy them boys.