2008 Volkswagen R36 - a true daily driver
1 Dec, 2008
38 Comments 
2008 Volkswagen Passat R36
How does Volkswagen’s quickest car stack up to family life?
Model Tested:
- 2008 Volkswagen R36 Passat - $67,590
Options:
- None fitted
Power, braking, space, drivetrain, RNS510, handling
Ride and damping
CarAdvice Rating: 
- by Karl Peskett
When we’re handed a press car, it’s presented to us washed and vacuumed, with tyres blacked, and wheels gleaming. As much as we can, we try and keep it like that for the duration of the week it’s in our care.
However, chuck a two-year-old, a five-year-old, a wife and a mate in the car, and things can change quite quickly. Not only is there lolly wrappers, packets of chips and other sundry items strewn about the place, but there’s also the extra fuel usage from extra weight (no, not the wife - in case she asks) and the strain on the air-conditioning with five bodies in the car.
Oh, yes, we mustn’t forget the pram, the hats, sunscreen, bottles of water and the other bits and pieces. We’re off to the local four-wheel-drive show, and on a 30-degree day, with no wind, the blazing sun makes its presence felt.
Appropriately, Volkswagen handed us a four-wheel-drive for the trip. Well, actually, it’s an all-wheel-drive, but we have to fit in with the Jones’s somehow. What we wanted to know was how the Passat R36 fares with several passengers on board over a reasonable distance. Matt reviewed the car a while ago, and he loved it. Let me tell you, I’m now a raving fan as well.
Location: Home / Volkswagen, Behind the Wheel / ...
Rate Post: 
(5 votes, average: 3.8 out of 5)
Loading ...
-
Print it:
December 1st, 2008 at 8:51 am
Good real world review. I would gladly accept any of the VW R models.
(Report)
December 1st, 2008 at 9:03 am
oh i wish i could afford one of these……
(Report)
December 1st, 2008 at 9:12 am
brilliant car - good alternative (and far cheaper) than the V70R (discontinued) which was arount $110K. You’d pay another $10K for them if they looked the goods as well, coz they are a little understated. If only I could convince the missus to drive a wagon, that’d be on the list for sure!
(Report)
December 1st, 2008 at 9:14 am
Maybe its the photo angle, but the rear seats and ‘boot’ looked decidedly cramped (and narrow for the latter). If its purpose is to load it up with a family, can’t see fitting much more than a pram (safely) in the back. Perhaps I’ve missed the point of a wagon?
****
(Report)
December 1st, 2008 at 9:17 am
Wait… didn’t CarAdvice review a R36 wagon a few months ago? Why are you reviewing it again? Has there been a model update already?
(Report)
December 1st, 2008 at 9:32 am
This is how all reviews should be done. Fill the car with people and stuff, drive it all over the place, have the A/C on all the time. This is real world car testing, not one guy sitting behind the wheel all the time. Also 4.5 stars for a car that has poor suspension setup is too high. Who wants too bounce around on the hopeless Sydney roads? Also, does it work on 95RON, rathe rthan 98?
(Report)
December 1st, 2008 at 9:41 am
Awesome car…I have a poster of it in my wall lol
(Report)
December 1st, 2008 at 9:57 am
There’s something about the VW cars which generates something missing from most cars - PASSION.
When you drive one regularly, you always enjoy getting behind the wheel, and always volunteer to nick down to the shops to get the milk…..
Are the VWs perfect - NO, but are they a close to perfect vehicular solution - YES.
And as for the question, do they run on 95, the answer is yes. But the person asking this question should buy a Camry. Why would you spend $70,000 on a car and then try and save 5c per litre on using a low grade fuel?? Shakes head in disbelief…..
(Report)
December 1st, 2008 at 10:19 am
What a great family car!For those who can afford it that is.
Can anyone tell me why VW can get a 5.6sec time to 100km/h out of a naturally aspirated 3.6l and Holden and Ford need V8s and V6Turbos to do the same?
And don’t say size and weight because there is bugger all difference in reality between a Passat and Falcodores.
There is also the price difference I know but VW is Germany’s Holden is it not?
(Report)
December 1st, 2008 at 10:24 am
Revolver, if this is how you think all reviews should be done than you obviously don’t care about the part of a car that makes is what it is: the engine and how it drives. I’m not saying it’s a bad review, what I’m saying is that CA were right to have two - one for the driver and one for the family man.
Biggles, this review (as clearly explaned at the beginning if you had bothered to read it) is to see how the R36 functions as an everyday car. The other was to see what it was like as a car and this ones to see how it fares in everyday life. It’s still the same car.
(Report)
December 1st, 2008 at 10:48 am
Is just me or does C/A have a awful lot of VW Group test/reviews?
As for this i rather a Mazda CX7 Luxury and chipped[Which C/A will test soon] with over $25k in my pocket…
Cheers
F-0
(Report)
December 1st, 2008 at 10:49 am
But Alex, why didn’t they just put both aspects in the same review? Pretty much every other magazine and online review that I’ve read of the R36 has done exactly that!
And yes, I did bother to read the article, but it just seemed to describe the same things the old review did except with the addition of some extra stuff like how nicely the pram fitted and how good the airconditioner was.
(Report)
December 1st, 2008 at 11:02 am
CA says:
“- Ride and damping”
Ummm… damping as in moisture level?!? Don’t you mean dampening?
(Report)
December 1st, 2008 at 11:21 am
I’m sorry but $68K for a VW with no options fitted is steep.
and the last time I sampled one I found the front seats a bit over bolstered.
Is it me or is it sportswagons are a bit sad. > RS6, M3 Touring etc.
Also, Karl I think you need to have a word with all the kids (grown up and otherwise) about the strewn chip wrappers etc. Sticky fingers and crayons etc with expensive german trim don’t mix in my book.
(Report)
December 1st, 2008 at 11:40 am
WVB, I hear you with the normally very long list of options on most VW models. But I was pleasantly surprised to see that the main things this model missed out on as std were the sunroof and SATNAV. Mostly everthing else was incl as far as I could see (well, at least xenons, leather, car alarm, top of the range audio system etc). When you compare this to the very old top of the range Subaru Liberty models (main competitor I think?), then this beautifully engineered german car is pretty good value for money.
(Report)
December 1st, 2008 at 1:17 pm
I currently drive a .:R32 and would love the .:R36 as my next car.
Volkswagens are awesome!!!
(Report)
December 1st, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Jimbo, first of all i think you’ll find Holden or Ford currently make a V6 turbo!
How can you place the Passats 3.5l V6 up against the Holden and Ford base engine products? They are designed for completely different purposes and people. The “R” versions of VW cars are the equivalent “SS” and “Turbo” version of Holden and Ford respectively. Although irrelevant, both are quicker to 100km/h than the R36 sedan or wagon.
If either Holden or Ford were competing directly with this R36 from VW, then obviously you would expect them to design a car capable of producing similar performance. But again, comparing a 70k VW performance car with a 40k base model Holden or Ford is just ridiculous.
(Report)
December 1st, 2008 at 1:52 pm
big end - read jimbos post again carefully - he is comparing the R36 against the SS and the XR6 - as he said, why do falcodores need a V8 or a turbo to do what the R36 does with a NA V6? and doesnt the SS do 0-100 in 6 flat…..
i saw a google link to a 447KW bi turbo enchanced R36!!! vrooooom
(Report)
December 1st, 2008 at 2:47 pm
I think people here have a fundamental comprehension problem. People not reading the review properly before commenting, people mis-reading other people’s comments and so on.
As for the review, I thought it was good to update us on how this car stacks up in a real-world usage scenario. I was glad to read it.
The car itself is one on my “maybe one day” list. When it comes time to upgrade the car as the family expands, this is one car I’d love to check out. May as well keep the family car fun to drive. The size, though, does concern. It does look a little smallish in the photos. I wonder if it could handle a camping trip for two adults and two kids.
My guess is not really, unless you put in a safety cage and stack the wagon up to the roof. I’m sure that would have to be one of the options on this vehicle.
(Report)
December 1st, 2008 at 3:29 pm
I must admit my comment didnt make too much sense as I was still dumbstruck at Jimbos V6 turbo comment.
What I was trying to imply was that, because Holden and Ford provide two options that are so far apart in performance it is not fare to critise them for going down the V8 and turbo route. Obviously if they could, they would “fill the gap” and develop an N/A engine which compared more favrouably to the Passats R36.
Give a Holden V6 or Ford I6 direct injection, 98 RON and a DSG gearbox and you would get pretty close to the Passats performance.
(Report)
December 1st, 2008 at 3:34 pm
^Big_End_Bearing^
“They are designed for completely different purposes and people”….HOW???????
I will quote my self so we are clear!
“There is also the price difference I know but VW is Germany’s Holden is it not?”
In Germany a VW is a domestic car like Holden and Ford are here.
Now I would hardly refer to a XR6T as basic would you! I’m not talking trim here I am talking about what under the hood. And I am only enquiring as to why VW can tune a naturally aspirated V6 to crank out a 5.6s and Ford requires a 4l turbo S6 to get the same performance out of similar sized cars.
An XR6T is a brilliant car but the engineers at Ford seem to be a few years behind the Germans in performance and I was wondering if it is a lack of funding or a lack of something else?
(Report)
December 1st, 2008 at 3:40 pm
^Big_End_Bearing^
Fair enough, I was only wondering, as I thought that the point of the Super cars and the like is to improve their cars. I was just shocked that the Gerries could out perform us with not much more that retuned engines.
(Report)
December 1st, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Jimbo,
Maybe the AWD system has something to do with it.
Probably gets off the line better.
Check the in gear times, I\’m pretty sure the XR6T has the R36 covered.
As for the actual peformance figures, I havn\’t read a review where those times have been achieved yet. VW also quoted similar figures for the R32 Golf, yet most mags rate it a little slower at 0-100km/h in 6 seconds.
(Report)
December 1st, 2008 at 4:23 pm
F1 - you’ll need the cash in your pocket to pay for the extra fuel used. Forget the Mazda claim of 11.5l/100k, most ppl I know who own one say they get closer to 16L/100k and around 11L/100k touring. At 37000K my Passat V6 has averaged 9.6L/100k and runs a low 7.8L/100k when touring.
Original Tom - my wife and I plus the 2 teenage kids travelled to Qld on holiday for 2 weeks. Plenty of room considering I’m 6′5″ and kids aren’t far behind. Maybe for camping you need to tow a trailer. My mate with the CX7 (see above) uses a trailer - depends how much crap you cart. I’m waiting for an “R” version of the Transporter, now there’s a vehicle with room.
C/A - thanks for the “real world” review.
(Report)
December 1st, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Alec, I don’t think it’s the AWD system that helps because the Ford and Holden are both rear wheel drive so there shouldn’t really be any problem when accelerating fast. Infact, if anything, I’d of thought the AWD system would weigh the Passat down even more. It really does astound me that Volkswagen can get such good performance out of that engine!
WVB, if anything, perfromance wagons are cooler than the sedan (excluding Holdens and Fords where neither are cool) because it’s kind of a left field choice. It’s like telling the world that you’ve had a family and if they throw up when you take a corner too fast, that’s their problem. However, performance wagons are even cooler again if you don’t have a family. And there is no M3 Touring, I think you’re thinking of the M5.
(Report)
December 1st, 2008 at 4:59 pm
5.6 sec to 100km is VW claim. They claim 6.2sec DSG for the R32 but you can’t even achieve it with launch control..
(Report)
December 1st, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Alex,
Of course AWD has something to do with it. Maximum Grip from all 4 wheels off the line.
What do you think makes the WRX so special.
(Report)
December 1st, 2008 at 5:12 pm
NICE CAR! but quite expensive for a VW, even if it goes hard and looks great, still if I could afford one I could consider it for sure..
(Report)
December 1st, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Mate of mine has this beastie; great choice of car but for me there’s something to be said for a bit more height especially when loading the young fella and his gear into the backseat and the boot. Well at any rate good choice of car and he’s stoked w it.
I can’t resist:
“I thought that the point of the Super cars and the like is to improve their cars”
Are you kidding? Australia’s answer to NASCAR?! Got to be the funniest thing I’ve read for many a moon! Oh sweet Jesus…
(Report)
December 1st, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Jimbo, VW may be Germany’s “holden” or “Ford” but R models do not equate to base model falcodores. They are performance VWs. Folden could play that game but would canabalise V8 & turbo sales from HSV & FPV. Toyota is getting pretty damn good figures from their 3.5L V6 although I don’t think it has direct injection. It’s also mated to an ordinary auto, nothing like a DSG with AWD.
Booter I can’t imagine that the DSG would live long if punished with a turbo engine. Note the Torque output is 350NM. This is the same as the 125KW TDI engine. There isn’t too much more headroom in this department with the
current DSG. Most aftermarket options for the TDI limit the torque to below 400NM as otherwise it will shred it.
Having said all that, I WANT ONE!!!
I have the TDI and absolutely love it. It goes like an average V6 and has the economy of a small 4. Punt it into a steep hill and it goes like a big 6!
Another advantage is load it up and it still goes. The masses of torque just haul.
Combine this with 220KW of the R and smiles all round.
People are right to question the size. This is a large VW car but by aussie standards, its not even as big as a camry. If space is your primary concern then this car won’t cut it. That said, most people will find there is ample and will seldon need any more.
Sweet car and thanks for the “real world”. I just hope its a part of my real world, sooner rather than later!
G6E Turbo,
can’t comment on the real 0-100. Like most cars there will be a lot of factors to take into consideration. VW tend to be understated in performance figures but just under 6 should be achieved under normal conditions fairly easily and repeatedly.
(Report)
December 1st, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Simon, the DSG is limited to 350NM by VW in most of its cars, and some of the chip tuners will take it to 410NM (REVO) but this will not “shred” the transmission.
VW has tested it with well over 500 in a couple of mules which have been flogged mercilessly.
The 3 Sciroccos which ran the 24 hour at the Nurburgring were also tuned to 350nm, and as you can imagine they were using all of it for the whole 24 hours. You cannot run a transmission for 24 hours in race conditions, if it is at the absolute limit of it’s torque handling capacity - it would have to be well within its limit to survive.
(Report)
December 1st, 2008 at 9:46 pm
Pure p-o-r-n! This car is at the top of my “Realistic” wish list….. I should have opted for the car allowance and not the free Commy! Bugger.
(Report)
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:34 am
I just handed this same car back today and I can confirm all of Karl’s comments.
The harder I pushed it, the harder it hung on. Just ask the Porsche GT3 driver next to me at the lights. I managed 11.4l/100 in the R50 doing a delivery to schoolies in Dunsborough and then 9.6 in the R36. Like Karl, I loved the hugging seats and when you just breath on the R style pedals it is in 6th by 60kph. The paddle change is so smooth and seemless, that you have to watch the taco to know it’s changed. It was such an enjoyable car to drive that instead of going to bed at 11pm last night, I went for a drive for an hour, just to enjoy it 1 more time before taking it back. But I wished he’d left the roll of toilet paper when I met a kangaroo in suburban Canningvale. Yes … it pulls up very quickly thank you. If this car had air suspension it would just about be the perfect car at half the price of the R50.
(Report)
December 2nd, 2008 at 8:00 am
Simon, don’t know which car you have been looking at, but as I pointed out above the Passat is a fairly large car - both inside and out. Internal width & headroom is on a par with Commodore & a bit below Falcon. Boot is my wagon is 600L seat up.
(Report)
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:22 pm
Reckless1, are you arguing against me, or in agreement?
You say they flog them in test mules (no surprise there hence the “test”), but then they limit them in enduro so they last. That’s my point exactly!
Peter, my last car was a BF falcon, a BA before that, my wife has a 2000 Camry. By these standards, the only size advantage is the height the wagon offers in the boot.
Width wise, it is noticeably narrower. I had 2 kids seats in the back of the camry, then put them in the passat and there was not enough room for a third child seat where the camry could. The same was true for the falcons. My point is, I have done physical comparisons and it is definately smaller. That said, I also did state that unless space was a primary factor, the (TDI wagon) is a marvellous car. I can only imagine how much better the R36 could be. Should make a time for a test drive!
As for towing, you’ll need $1800 to buy a towbar, only genuine are currently available.
(Report)
December 6th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
G6ETURBO,
who says the R32 can’t even do 6.2 sec with launch control? How would you know? I own one and I know a few VW forum members have taken it to the drag strip and they have timesheets to prove that it can do 6.2 sec easily.
I ran against Nissan 350Z and I could keep up with it so you can forget about your rubbish comment that has no backup whatsoever
(Report)
December 8th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Simon, I did say the Passat is smaller than the Falcon - however, I’d rather drive my Passat than the current model Camry at work. As for width, I measure the Passat as wider but the problem you may have pointed out is that the Camry rear seat is featureless/uncomfortable/flat - but you can fit 3 child seats.
As for the genuine towbar - mine cost $1200 fitted. An aquaintance with a Toureg decided to fit an aftermarket jobbie - proudly proclaiming “a savings of around $1000″. Problem was the fitters blew out the on-boards - cost to repair >$4500. He had to go back to VW and have the genuine fitted anyways. Total cost $1000 + >$4500 + $2000 = >$7500.
(Report)
December 15th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Rather drive the Passat than a Camry? Smiles all round there!
$1200 fitted sounds good. Which dealer?
(Report)