GolfGTIforum.co.uk
Model specific boards => Golf mk3 => Topic started by: coggers79 on 29 June 2009, 19:17
-
what do i do keep my mk3 16v which is canny good or go sell and buy vr6 i am interested in performance my 16v is quick is the vr6 any better which is best just done cam belt tensioner and water pump so shall i keep the valver i dont know
-
keep 16v :)
-
keep 16v :)
+1 :smiley:
-
If your interested in performace. Sell it any buy a VR6, get a later one with the obd2 engine, stick a good air filter and exhaust on it, and it will blow yout 16v away.
i am interested in performance
That says it all.
-
You may well be interested in performance but do you have deep pockets for all that extra fuel?
Be lucky to get 26mpg out of a VR6 and if you cane it then below 20!
So stick with the 16V mate and get a remap! :wink:
-
what power can i expect from remap and how much also anywhere in north east that does it
-
what power can i expect from remap and how much also anywhere in north east that does it
Sodd all if im honest, from an unbais 8v owner position. It will just make it smoother through the rev ranges.
And you can see more than 26mpg from a VR6.
Plus the VR6 is more tunable. Spend the same money on the 16v and Vr6 and you will always have more power in the VR6. Could see 190bhp easily with very few cheap mods on an obd2 engine.
But the choice is yours.
I will let all of the haters have their say now about how the vr6 is to heavy, and drinks loads of fuel..... lol.
-
the vr6 is to heavy, and drinks loads of fuel.....
-
Buy a Vr6 and live the dream.
-
Buy a Vr6 and live the dream.
A-MEN brother.
And then when you get bored of that, chuck an R32 in its place. lol
-
Buy a Vr6 and live the dream.
A-MEN brother.
And then when you get bored of that, chuck an R32 in its place. lol
Or sell it and buy something cheaper on fuel.
-
If you want to get to somewhere else quickly and efficiently without undue drama, get the VR. Just don't expect it to be as engaging as the 16v. I've clocked a fair few miles in a V6 Golf (2.8 4Motion in my case but the point stands) and, while it is very effective mile dispatching tool, it does lack a bit of fizz next to my old Mk.3 Valver.
S.M.
-
VR6!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
btw i got 37mpg on sunday going to inters.
-
The vr6 is the ONLY performance mk3.
-
vr6 but then im biast, and 35mpg is achievable if ya aint to heavy footed :)
-
Recently considered upgrading from a 16v to a VR6 but the mpg is just ridiculous. I think I worked out that for every full tank, it would cost, roughly, an extra £10 - comparatively speaking.
-
Performance aint just BHP. The vr6 must be a lot heavier than 16v lump. So the 16v has got to be better in the bends.
I would much rather have a less powerfull car,but quick in the bends than one with more power and slower in the corners
I could be wrong as I haven't drove a vr6, but I'm sure I'm right.
-
Performance aint just BHP. The vr6 must be a lot heavier than 16v lump. So the 16v has got to be better in the bends.
I would much rather have a less powerfull car,but quick in the bends than one with more power and slower in the corners
I could be wrong as I haven't drove a vr6, but I'm sure I'm right.
Vr6 has a lot more torque so is a lot quicker.
-
Wayne talks sense again.
The vr6 has loads of low end torque compared to a 16v, the 16v does nothing until you rev it over 4000rpm.
Add a VSR, and you'll exaggerate that effect on a vr.
-
And tbh, the difference in weight between 2 members on this forum, is probably equal to the difference in engine weights. Its not going to be that much more.
-
And tbh, the difference in weight between 2 members on this forum, is probably equal to the difference in engine weights. Its not going to be that much more.
you saying im fat mike??? :D
-
dont get a vr6 a few friends have had them. they are not as fast as they should be. to Heavy for the engine and cant get the power around
-
yh the vr6 is a good car but too much frontal weight, but i love the sound, but if u already have a 16v i would recomend that you keep it.
-
A Vr6 is only around 60kg heavier than a 16V.
-
yh but ony over the front wheels which is quite alot for a small hatchback car.
-
The vr6 is actually a very compact engine, its not as heavy as people think. Its alot lighter than a genuine V6.
-
yh but ony over the front wheels which is quite alot for a small hatchback car.
Do you own a 16v by any chance? :grin:
-
I think it's down to personal choice. Maybe OP should test drive a VR then he can decide for himself. Personally I'd have the 16v but who are we to make up his mind lol.
Pete :smiley:
-
The vr6 is actually a very compact engine, its not as heavy as people think. Its alot lighter than a genuine V6.
Spot on, when I worked at TSR, I worked on a VR6 lump and the bare block is not much heavier than a 8V or 16V.
Its good to see that there is someone on here that knows what they are talking about :wink:
-
right this is on the list of things to be solved now.
somewhere i has a mk3 vr6 and box and all the other associated crap, im going to have to stick it all on a pallet andd weigh it and do the same with a ABF.
or go and buy a pair of mk2's with fked enignes and make 1 vr6 and the other abf. build them with the same speck of parts (obv the vr6 would get diffrent frount struts and springs but the same brand ) take both to a track day and then time some laps.
so who knows where a poorly mk2 is ?
-
What amazes me is why there is so much anti vr6 feeling on this forum?
-
What amazes me is why there is no much anti vr6 feeling on this forum?
I don't think there is, some people would just prefer the 16v. You cannot just buy a car just because one goes faster in a straight line. I mean they drive completely different for a start!
Also MPG yeah sure you can get fair MPG out of a VR if you drive like a fanny, but OP says he wants performance so I doubt he is poodleing about too much. That means sub 20MPG for thrashing. Thats the stuff dreams are made of for sure.
Like I said before he should test drive a VR and then choose as he may prefer his valver.
Pete :smiley:
-
I disagree with you there. There is alot of anti vr feeling if you read around the forum.
Its too heavy, its slow, 16v is more tuneable.
All nonsense :grin:
-
Driven a couple of VR6's and yes they are great! But then I look at fuel costs and I'll stick with my valver!
Weight is NOT an issue! I weight 18 stone plus so there is a greater difference with say a 12 stone driver than the engine weight difference!
-
I disagree with you there. There is alot of anti vr feeling if you read around the forum.
Its too heavy, its slow, 16v is more tuneable.
All nonsense :grin:
Well it definately not slow :grin:. Dunno... I think they are about as tuneable as each other except the VR obviously has a bit of a head start. Don't really know bout weight so can't comment lol
Pete :smiley:
-
What amazes me is why there is so much anti vr6 feeling on this forum?
I have been lucky and have driven Golf and Corrado VR6's plus 16V's, I don't think a VR6 is heavy or slow, it has so much more torque than a 16V and it has grunt from very low down.
Yes they drink fuel but any car driven hard will.
-
Fuel consumption isn't that bad in a vr, i doubt you'd get sub 20mpg if you thrashed it.
I get 17mpg out of my Audi if i thrash it :laugh:
-
Fuel consumption isn't that bad in a vr, i doubt you'd get sub 20mpg if you thrashed it.
I get 17mpg out of my Audi if i thrash it :laugh:
In the modified VR I drove the MPG was staggeringly low. I was gonna buy it it was quick as f**k and a blast to drive but I was getting 16mpg on the test drive and the seller who was a mate of me dads said that in all fairness if I drive it as quick as that I can expect plenty more of those figures :shocked:!
Standard might be a bit better but if you are gonna leave it standard due to fuel costs may as well get a valver :undecided:
Pete :smiley:
-
Drive a valver hard and I don't think the mpg will be much better to be honest.
-
since moving up from 8 to 16v i was happy but when i moved up from 16v to vr6, well oh my gosh i fakin love it and would go back. noo wayyyyy
-
When I drive mine hard and that rev limiter hard then I get 28/29 mpg.
-
Speaking as someone who has had both i say get the VR6.
Cost me £10 more a week to run than my old valver, was a hell of alot faster and when you sort out the suspension and run good tyres it will handle just aswell as a sorted 16v.
Plus a VR has alot more tuning potential...all be it expensive but still, £1500 can get the vr lump supercharged which would give you 260bhp or for another grand you can have over 300bhp and a turbo!
-
Speaking as someone who has had both i say get the VR6.
Cost me £10 more a week to run than my old valver, was a hell of alot faster and when you sort out the suspension and run good tyres it will handle just aswell as a sorted 16v.
Plus a VR has alot more tuning potential...all be it expensive but still, £1500 can get the vr lump supercharged which would give you 260bhp or for another grand you can have over 300bhp and a turbo!
I think most people that have actually had both would choose the vr.
-
No substitute for experience A.Q :evil:
-
And tbh, the difference in weight between 2 members on this forum, is probably equal to the difference in engine weights. Its not going to be that much more.
you saying im fat mike??? :D
Lol. no.
-
When I drive mine hard and that rev limiter hard then I get 28/29 mpg.
Strange, i get less than that if i drive my 8v hard. Like 20mpg or less.
So either your car is reading wrong, or your definition of hard isnt that hard. lol.
-
When I drive mine hard and that rev limiter hard then I get 28/29 mpg.
Strange, i get less than that if i drive my 8v hard. Like 20mpg or less.
So either your car is reading wrong, or your definition of hard isnt that hard. lol.
I never got anymore than 27mpg out of my 8v.
-
When I drive mine hard and that rev limiter hard then I get 28/29 mpg.
Strange, i get less than that if i drive my 8v hard. Like 20mpg or less.
So either your car is reading wrong, or your definition of hard isnt that hard. lol.
Are you teasing Len again? :wink:
-
When I drive mine hard and that rev limiter hard then I get 28/29 mpg.
Strange, i get less than that if i drive my 8v hard. Like 20mpg or less.
So either your car is reading wrong, or your definition of hard isnt that hard. lol.
Are you teasing Len again? :wink:
No, just stating a fact/opinion. Which it seems other forum members agree too.
Either way, take away the narrow minded forum members, and the VR6 is a better car than the 16v every day of the week, no matter the weather.
Hence why it is faster... More powerful, has a bigger engine, and a bigger insurance group, and a better reputation. Its the more powerful version.
This member asked for which has better performance. The answer is the VR6.
I cant see how people can say its not the best option? lol
-
Are you going to arrest Len when you become a copper? :evil:
-
Are you going to arrest Len when you become a copper? :evil:
Despite him being a bit petty, im sure hes not that bad, that he deserves to be arrested.
Everyone is equal, and gets the same treatment, i dont hold grudges because he dont appriciate me. lol
Although i suppose those blue rear lights should have him hung at the towers!! haha.
-
What amazes me is why there is so much anti vr6 feeling on this forum?
Can't say as I have any real "anti VR6" feeling, each to their own in my book. That said, I was never totally convinced by those early V6s. They're just a bit too smooth and unstressed, made the whole experience seem a bit detached. Also, from an engineering perspective, they were pretty inefficient. About 62bhp/litre compared to a 16v four's 75bhp/litre. Admittedly VW addressed a lot of these issues with the later multi-valve sixes but they don't come in Mk.3s unless you put 'em there!
S.M.
-
What amazes me is why there is so much anti vr6 feeling on this forum?
Can't say as I have any real "anti VR6" feeling, each to their own in my book. That said, I was never totally convinced by those early V6s. They're just a bit too smooth and unstressed, made the whole experience seem a bit detached. Also, from an engineering perspective, they were pretty inefficient. About 62bhp/litre compared to a 16v four's 75bhp/litre. Admittedly VW addressed a lot of these issues with the later multi-valve sixes but they don't come in Mk.3s unless you put 'em there!
S.M.
12v vr's are easily tuned. But when they are, they drink fuel, maybe that explains why they are detuned from factory.
-
Other side of the coin is, if you have money to trash a VR6. Buy a mk4 R32.
-
Are people anti R32 on here to? :grin:
-
Are people anti R32 on here to? :grin:
I would do a lot for an R32. Watch this space, im gettin in the position to pull of a Mk3 R32, bit of banter ;)
-
I did fancy an R32 last year, but it was cheaper to buy the Audi.
More power and more toys :laugh:
Well it is basically 2 ABF engines stuck together :laugh:
-
I did fancy an R32 last year, but it was cheaper to buy the Audi.
More power and more toys :laugh:
Well it is basically 2 ABF engines stuck together :laugh:
BLOW ME DOWN.... Why didnt i think of this....
2x ABF engines
Duck Tape
Rope lights
Neons
10meters of wire
Cheese
And we have an engine conversion! lol
-
ummm ok a proper question
would you rather have a 32 valve 4.0 v8 in the frount or 1 abf in the frount and another in the boot ?
-
Would the 32valve be running syncro?
-
The vr6 is the ONLY performance mk3.
There is no preformance mk3, an im a 16v owner, no mk3 preforms well in comparison to more modern cars so no old golf is a preformance car in my eyes, mk1, mk2 an mk3's. An lets face it for a 2.8 v6 the vr6 aint all that!
-
the vr6 isnt a v6....
Hence its called a vR6. Not like the later mk4 V6 4motion ;)
But yeah, in comparison to newer cars, a mk5 tdi is just as quick. lol
-
What amazes me is why there is so much anti vr6 feeling on this forum?
maybe its coz the site's called GolfGTI.co.uk!! Is a VR6 a gti....................NO, so why dont they fek off to edition38 an be 'scene' like the rest of the vr's there. :wink:
-
What amazes me is why there is so much anti vr6 feeling on this forum?
maybe its coz the site's called GolfGTI.co.uk!! Is a VR6 a gti....................NO, so why dont they fek off to edition38 an be 'scene' like the rest of the vr's there. :wink:
^^^
Hater right there yo!
-
What amazes me is why there is so much anti vr6 feeling on this forum?
maybe its coz the site's called GolfGTI.co.uk!! Is a VR6 a gti....................NO, so why dont they fek off to edition38 an be 'scene' like the rest of the vr's there. :wink:
I have said this before but will say it again, the VR6 was never marketed as a GTI or hot hatch but was aimed at BMW and Merc owners, hence the better spec and pricing, might be worth bearing in mind that not everyone on here has a GTI.
A Vr6 is not a V6 it is a narrow 15deg engine with one cylinder head and was designed to be as compact as possible.
-
What amazes me is why there is so much anti vr6 feeling on this forum?
maybe its coz the site's called GolfGTI.co.uk!! Is a VR6 a gti....................NO, so why dont they fek off to edition38 an be 'scene' like the rest of the vr's there. :wink:
^^^
Hater right there yo!
I dont hate the car, I hate the snobs that drive them, thinking they're better than any other mk3 owner :wink:
-
What amazes me is why there is so much anti vr6 feeling on this forum?
maybe its coz the site's called GolfGTI.co.uk!! Is a VR6 a gti....................NO, so why dont they fek off to edition38 an be 'scene' like the rest of the vr's there. :wink:
^^^
Hater right there yo!
I dont hate the car, I hate the snobs that drive them, thinking they're better than any other mk3 owner :wink:
I think that is most 16v owners as well.
-
how is it, in all honesty how are any of us better than anyone?? driving round in 15 year old cars :grin:
-
how is it, in all honesty how are any of us better than anyone?? driving round in 15 year old cars :grin:
Not aimed at you but every one of these threads turns into the 16V is the best, always the same, VR6 and 8V is crap. :smiley:
-
Face it, there all crap.............................discussion over :rolleyes:
btw it may sound like i hate my car, but i dont, i think the world of the old girl. :kiss: just sayin there are plenty of better cars out there. :smiley:
-
pritty much
-
Im with wayne on this one.....
Fed up of the hate.
Besides, the 8v is the best.....sooo much torque ;)
-
Why are we here? Because we have a passion for out motors and when people slag them off its uncalled for. Its like little kids sayin my toy is better than yours.......
This shit is starting to piss me off.
-
(http://i661.photobucket.com/albums/uu332/jacklongy/international008.jpg)
-
Boo hoo. Stop crying over the haterz! This is getting like edition on here!
The VR6 is better than the valaver, the valver is better than the 8v. It's why they were priced differently. If you get upset by people bashing your car then get off the thread and get a life. THose that are dissing other cars, I'm sure your thingy will grow eventually, if not you may have a career in niche porn.
Nick
-
The vr6 is actually a very compact engine, its not as heavy as people think. Its alot lighter than a genuine V6.
Spot on, when I worked at TSR, I worked on a VR6 lump and the bare block is not much heavier than a 8V or 16V.
This may be true...
But add the crank, pistons and head and the VR6 is a lot heavier.
Add to the fact that it sits slanted forward, carrying a lot of weight high up and you end up with terminal understeer!
The 16v being lighter, and sitting slanted back carries it's weight behind the drive line...not in front, as the VR6 does.
The laws of physics still apply...even to a VR6.
16vs are also lower geared...so actual back road performance is pretty similar...with 16vs having a slight handling edge (all relative, I know. Relative to a hippo wallowing in the mud!)
-
The vr6 is actually a very compact engine, its not as heavy as people think. Its alot lighter than a genuine V6.
Spot on, when I worked at TSR, I worked on a VR6 lump and the bare block is not much heavier than a 8V or 16V.
This may be true...
But add the crank, pistons and head and the VR6 is a lot heavier.
Add to the fact that it sits slanted forward, carrying a lot of weight high up and you end up with terminal understeer!
The 16v being lighter, and sitting slanted back carries it's weight behind the drive line...not in front, as the VR6 does.
The laws of physics still apply...even to a VR6.
16vs are also lower geared...so actual back road performance is pretty similar...with 16vs having a slight handling edge (all relative, I know. Relative to a hippo wallowing in the mud!)
As I said in an earlier post the total weight difference is only around 60kg's plus 175lbs ft of torque in place of only around 140lbs of a 16V plus you don't need 4k revs on the clock before it starts to come on power.
-
So basically. The best option is an 8v.
:D :D :D
-
To put it simply.
Buy what you can afford mate. Now that can be a Lambo' ... or a poxy 1.2 Corsa
Your never going to get a straight answer on this forum ...
-
To put it simply.
Buy what you can afford mate. Now that can be a Lambo' ... or a poxy 1.2 Corsa
Your never going to get a straight answer on this forum ...
:grin: spot on
-
What amazes me is why there is so much anti vr6 feeling on this forum?
maybe its coz the site's called GolfGTI.co.uk!! Is a VR6 a gti....................NO, so why dont they fek off to edition38 an be 'scene' like the rest of the vr's there. :wink:
^^^
Hater right there yo!
I dont hate the car, I hate the snobs that drive them, thinking they're better than any other mk3 owner :wink:
I think that is most 16v owners as well.
Well im deffinatley not a snob, just always wanted a vr so i sold my valver and bought one, personally i wouldn't own an 8v but if it looks good then i'll show due respect. :cool:
Vr6's are the best mk3's though. :evil:
-
As I said in an earlier post the total weight difference is only around 60kg's plus 175lbs ft of torque in place of only around 140lbs of a 16V plus you don't need 4k revs on the clock before it starts to come on power.
And the point you chose to ignore was that the 60Kgs is carried up high, and forward of the drive line.
Regardless of how anyone dresses it up...you can't defy physics.
That's a 60Kg dissadvantage when it comes to getting the Mk3 to turn in...hence a VR6 will underster more than a similarly set up 16v.
So looking at a tweaked VR6 with 200 BHP / 175 lb-ft (Cams, Corrado manifold, Corrado TB, re-map, etc) with long gearing, against a tweaked 16v with 190BHP / 160 lb-ft (Cams, headwork, ported manifolds and TB, re-map etc) and shorter gearing...it's a pretty good match.
I know my ABF makes similar power at the wheels to most of my mates tweaked VR6s (about 150-155ATW) but with shorter gearing to offset the lesser torque, there's not much in it on the road...unless you drive like you are taking your Gran to Church and never go over 4000RPM.
...and it's fairly obvious which is the easier thrown round a corner in a hurry.
-
Correct me if i'm wrong but I thought the 16v and VR6 used the same gearboxes (02A)???
-
In my view, VR6s are lazy revving things...with a great noise.
Lighten the flywheel, add cams, proper headwork, some lightweight valvegear, Schrick manifold and a big TB and they are seriously sorted though.
220-230 BHP and 210+ lb-ft with throttle response to die for...and a proper noise.
Almost enough to offset the extra nose weight for most people, I'd say.
-
Correct me if i'm wrong but I thought the 16v and VR6 used the same gearboxes (02A)???
Same ratios, but longer FD on a VR6.
3.3 or something similar on a VR6 vs 3.67 on a 16v.
Put a 3,67 in a VR6 and it comes alive...
Put a 3.94 in a 16v and it's status quo.
4.2 anyone?
-
decided to stick with the valver until my good friend gives up his s3 at a very very reasonable price last time i got a mk2 16 valve for the price of a bottle of gin honest!
-
decided to stick with the valver until my good friend gives up his s3 at a very very reasonable price last time i got a mk2 16 valve for the price of a bottle of gin honest!
Sounds good mate!
Pete :smiley:
-
Thought on the weight issue, whats the difference between a full fuel tank and say a quarter full tank?
Does anybody ever notice any difference?
-
Thought on the weight issue, whats the difference between a full fuel tank and say a quarter full tank?
Does anybody ever notice any difference?
I have just posted Autocar test figures.
-
Yea I know and I have just disagreed! :evil: :laugh:
-
What amazes me is why there is so much anti vr6 feeling on this forum?
maybe its coz the site's called GolfGTI.co.uk!! Is a VR6 a gti....................NO, so why dont they fek off to edition38 an be 'scene' like the rest of the vr's there. :wink:
You're right.
But the 16v shouldn't of been badged a gti either :laugh: :tongue:
-
The vr6 is the ONLY performance mk3.
There is no preformance mk3, an im a 16v owner, no mk3 preforms well in comparison to more modern cars so no old golf is a preformance car in my eyes, mk1, mk2 an mk3's. An lets face it for a 2.8 v6 the vr6 aint all that!
You're right again!!
I think i'll stick to my Audi V8 :rolleyes:
-
ummm ok a proper question
would you rather have a 32 valve 4.0 v8 in the frount or 1 abf in the frount and another in the boot ?
I'd rather have the v8 in the front.
It's alot cheaper at 3 grand :laugh:
-
Jeez I thought this thread had died and you bring it back by talkin to yourself :rolleyes: oh and he decided to keep the valver :wink:
Pete :smiley:
-
But the 16v shouldn't of been badged a gti either :laugh: :tongue:
I'd have thought the 16v was the only one that should have been badged GTI.
8v shouldn't have been...
VR6 was too much of a refined cruiser to be badged GTI.