GTD-R

[monkeyhanger]

It may be because it's a measure that's universally accepted. For me, in a high performance diesel, it's a measure of grip, which FWD performance diesels regularly lack with all that torque. Faster 0-62 = more grip on a modern diesel with 150+ ps, we've all seen what a difference there is on the times with and without Quattro on the A3.

Grip is one of the things I'm most looking forward to in the R, being able to put that power down (ok, in my case, some of my current GTD issues may be Bridgestone related).

[corgi]

It may be because it's a measure that's universally accepted. For me, in a high performance diesel, it's a measure of grip, which FWD performance diesels regularly lack with all that torque. Faster 0-62 = more grip on a modern diesel with 150+ ps, we've all seen what a difference there is on the times with and without Quattro on the A3.

Grip is one of the things I'm most looking forward to in the R, being able to put that power down (ok, in my case, some of my current GTD issues may be Bridgestone related).

It is universally quoted by car magazines and blokes in the pub. Most car journalists (with the exception of Clarkson) recognise that it is a very poor indication of overall performance because nobody - except maybe professional drag racers - engages in such things as a matter of course. A better measure would be standing quarter mile (although this is still heavily traction related) but the difference is much smaller because the traction component is a much smaller percentage of the total...

Look up a guy called David Vizzard, he used to drag race a Hillman Avenger with about 70bhp and he used to embarrass some quite powerful stuff, for two reasons: (1) he could drive (2) he had made sure his car could use as much of the 70bhp as it could generate...

Imagine (and you can calculate this - have a look at www.torquestats.com) three cars 181 bhp, 1350kgs the cars are the only difference between these imaginary cars is that 1 is FWD, 1 RWD and the other 4WD.

FWD: 0-60 7.6 seconds, standing quarter 16.2 @ 88mph
4WD: 0-60 7.3 seconds, standing quarter 16.0 @ 85mph
RWD: 0.60 7.6 seconds, standing quarter 16.1 @ 86mph

You'll find these calculated figures are remarkably accurate and the differences are really minute, 0.3 seconds in a 0-60 sprint is barely a good car's length and the 0.2 seconds over a standing quarter is even less...

That is because by far the biggest factor in these performance figures is power:weight and you need quite a lot of the first or significant reduction in the second to make a difference.

The calculated figures for my 911 (320bhp ~1350kgs):
4WD: 0-60 4.5 seconds, standing quarter 12.9 @ 107mph

For an increase in power of about 140bhp, I get a three second gain from 0-60 which rises to 3.3 over the rest of the quarter mile.

And now here's the rub: a driver of equal skill in both cars on a mountain pass and the Porsche would disappear up the road into the distance at a rate of knots... Interestingly, their values are very similar.

Equally, is suspect my mythical 4WD GTD would inexorably pull away in the scenario described in spite of the fact the performance figures are very close. I'm not sure it is all about traction but probably more to do with the extra stability and therefore confidence that the 4WD system offers...

[monkeyhanger]

Given my very poor traction from a standstill and generally in 2nd (with 1/2 throttle in the damp) and 3rd (with 2/3 throttle in the damp), i'd welcome seeing a shorter published 0-62 time for the GTD-R, primarily for confidence in the extra grip that 4WD affords, we all know the GTD is poor off the line for reasons of grip (worsened with poor tyres like Bridgestones). These experiences are told on stock power, before I even got my DTUK box.

If it was just a standing start in 1st that was slippery, I could shrug that off (i'm not a traffic light dragster), but putting my foot down in 3rd and worrying about the traction control stepping in (or even worse, if it doesn't when it should) really spoils my enjoyment of the GTD.

Your examples of FWD cars catching up over a 1/4 mile drag against RWD and 4WD competition are all well and good for a car that's only short of grip initially from a standstill and not through the gears (with the lighter FWD paying dividends later on in the drag), but do that theory on a Bridgestone-shod GTD and you'll have to rein in the throttle even when you're moving on the FWD car, making it way slower than it should be. A 4WD GTD with the same output would probably gallop it because the gains made early on with being able to give it everything would be too hard for the FWD one to overcome later on. The FWD may be needing to hold back on giving everything until it hits 4th at a likely 75mph in the wet, and hitting 3rd at a likely 50mph in the dry.

If I get Bridgestones on the R it won't be a disaster, because the 4WD will help a lot, but on the GTD it is. With such a strong pull from the GTD, it was extremely shortsighted of VW to allow Bridgestones on it, possibly saved them a pound a tyre.

I shouldn't have been such a tightarse and got them swapped with Michelin PS3s on day 1! 

[mcmaddy]

I wondered how long it would take corgi to trot out a 911 comparison   

[corgi]

I wondered how long it would take corgi to trot out a 911 comparison   

I used it because it was an example I know from the real world and could make a valid comparison based on experience not guess work

As for MonkeyHanger's statements about tyres. When I had my Michelins fitted in June(?) I found them to be pretty good, with the recent temperature drop I've noticed that traction is once again becoming an issue that it wasn't with the Continentals that were on originally. I agree the Bridgestone tyres are pretty poor for traction when they are cold based on my experience with a BMW 120d, although the equivalent 19" ones on the g/f's 320d M-Sport seem to suffer less in this regard. I always found that once you get the Bridgestones up to temperature (which is difficult when it is cold and wet) they were OK (but this was on a rear wheel drive car)...

I'm sure the Michelins are better as regards traction in most conditions, where they certainly are better is that they offer better secondary ride and more steering feel (softer side walls?) and seem, to me at least, to be quieter.

[andrewparker]

See the new Passat is on the configurator. The R-Line BITDI looks like an easy £40k car with a couple of must have options (can't believe a £35k car doesn't have the LED headlights as standard). As nice as it is I don't think I'd choose one over a 330d M-Sport xDrive.

[Exonian]

I think I'd go BMW too, that Passat looks a bit of an ugly brute!

[mcmaddy]

See the new Passat is on the configurator. The R-Line BITDI looks like an easy £40k car with a couple of must have options (can't believe a £35k car doesn't have the LED headlights as standard). As nice as it is I don't think I'd choose one over a 330d M-Sport xDrive.

LED lights are standard on the R Line

[andrewparker]

So they are. "LED Headlights with LED Daytime Running Lights and Dynamic Cornering Lights" are listed as standard, but "LED Headlights with LED Running Lights" are a £705 option. How does that work?

Either way I think it looks like a mighty expensive car. Like it though.

[mcmaddy]

The options are never right on the VW site. Would need to see one in the flesh to be sure but I like it.