GolfGTIforum.co.uk
Model specific boards => Golf mk3 => Topic started by: Madmax on 20 August 2009, 21:32
-
As my 8v is a pokey little thing down low in the gears. Infact i reckon it doesn't feel
any slower then my MR2 N/A even tho that's a 7.7s to 60 car. Definitely faster then
my MK4 8v.
I know what car i'm getting next then. :evil:
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DHPM_cBUGc
-
I must have that, if only for the sound. :cool:
The VR6 has bags of more torque then my little 8v so it must be a right little sleeper down low in the gears.
-
It pulls all the way to the redline in all of the gears. And sounds the tits doing it.
-
I had a vr6 before my 8v, it was gash!!!!
-
I had a vr6 before my 8v, it was gash!!!!
Go away. :lipsrsealed:
-
Hmm I love driving the VR6. So much torque that it can wheel spin in 2nd gear at about 30-35mph :drool:
-
ive had 150 0uta my vr on urm autobhans!
had more to go too reckon 160 was possible :D
-
http://www.golfgtiforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=121567.0
-
if i drive mine heavy footed i get 28mpg, on a good motorway run ive had 37-38 :)
-
my 8v + Eaton should be fun for having a pop at most vr's in standard spec..
should be seeing awesome torque figures...
-
if i drive mine heavy footed i get 28mpg, on a good motorway run ive had 37-38 :)
Same with my 8 valver, the lowest I ever got as 26 mpg poodling around town. :sick:
On a motorway journey cruising @ 65-70 mph I got 37 mpg. :wink:
-
Figures are irrelevant when it makes this noise. This is my mates all VR, standard bar the obvious induction kit
http://www.dailymotion.com/user/mk1rallycar/video/xqjra_vr6-onboard_auto
-
:cool:
-
Im drunk!! x
my VR6 was gash though! i would have another!!!
-
VRs are far too long geared. Sound good, mpg stinks.
-
If the gears were shorter, the mpg would stink you out of it completely :evil:
-
Don't forget that the VR6 Golf3 is the only car ever to have been featured on the cover of CAR magazine (or any magazine for that matter) as a lemon, with a VW badge stuck on it.
Good NA motors should do 100bhp per litre. Where's the missing 100bhp on the VR6? That's the question I want answered. It's like the Rover V8 of the VW world. Makes a lovely noise, can't produce power for toffee.
-
Don't forget that the VR6 Golf3 is the only car ever to have been featured on the cover of CAR magazine (or any magazine for that matter) as a lemon, with a VW badge stuck on it.
Good NA motors should do 100bhp per litre. Where's the missing 100bhp on the VR6? That's the question I want answered. It's like the Rover V8 of the VW world. Makes a lovely noise, can't produce power for toffee.
Because it was detuned.
No-one slags off the corrado vr6, which essentially is just a tweaked golf engine.
-
Don't forget that the VR6 Golf3 is the only car ever to have been featured on the cover of CAR magazine (or any magazine for that matter) as a lemon, with a VW badge stuck on it.
Good NA motors should do 100bhp per litre. Where's the missing 100bhp on the VR6? That's the question I want answered. It's like the Rover V8 of the VW world. Makes a lovely noise, can't produce power for toffee.
Because it was detuned.
No-one slags off the corrado vr6, which essentially is just a tweaked golf engine.
Still got shed loads more torque than a 16v. :rolleyes:
-
Don't forget that the VR6 Golf3 is the only car ever to have been featured on the cover of CAR magazine (or any magazine for that matter) as a lemon, with a VW badge stuck on it.
Good NA motors should do 100bhp per litre. Where's the missing 100bhp on the VR6? That's the question I want answered. It's like the Rover V8 of the VW world. Makes a lovely noise, can't produce power for toffee.
Mustn't forget that the VR6 appeared as far back as 1991, so it's a little harsh to judge it by today's benchmark of 100bhp per litre. Consider it against other similar-sized engines in similar-ish cars available in 1991. We Brits had Dagenham's own Ford's Sierra XR4x4 2.9litre with a meagre 150bhp; our majestic Jag XJ6 2.9 pumped out only 165bhp, whilst fatcats drove to their executive meetings in Vauxhall's Senator 3.0litre with 177bhp.
Our European cousins, weren't that much better. The Italian's put a 3.0 litre 188bhp in their Alfa 75, and the French had 160bhp in their Renault 25 2.8litre V6. Even the techno-Japs could only muster 158bhp in their Toyota Camry 2.5 V6. Autobahn-stormers made do with 166bhp in their 2.6litre Mercedes 190, or perhaps the best of the bunch, BMW's 525 2.5litre 6cyl that produced 192bhp. But even that is way off today's benchmark 100bhp per litre. Suddenly, compared to its peers in the Class of 1991, the VR6 engine doesn't look so lame. There isn't a missing 100bhp in that engine because there wasn't ever a need for it in 1991.
It's not that long ago when manufacturers became power hungry inventing these benchmarks of 100bhp/litre and we saw the advent of cars limited to 155mph. I'm sure the VR6 attracted criticism at launch with observers questioning why anyone would need such a big engine in a family car. But that was 1991.
To put things into perspective, in 1991 when the VR6 rolled out of the factory, the exotic Porsche Carrera RS had a 3.6litre 260bhp engine. Isn't that close to what you get in an Astra VXR these days?!
-
When you compare the VR6 with those big exec barges, think of the power to weight ratio :rolleyes: :wink:
VR6 weighs about 1200kg, a Senator however ... getting on 1500kg plus, can anybody correct me on this?
-
Don't forget that the VR6 Golf3 is the only car ever to have been featured on the cover of CAR magazine (or any magazine for that matter) as a lemon, with a VW badge stuck on it.
Good NA motors should do 100bhp per litre. Where's the missing 100bhp on the VR6? That's the question I want answered. It's like the Rover V8 of the VW world. Makes a lovely noise, can't produce power for toffee.
Mustn't forget that the VR6 appeared as far back as 1991, so it's a little harsh to judge it by today's benchmark of 100bhp per litre. Consider it against other similar-sized engines in similar-ish cars available in 1991. We Brits had Dagenham's own Ford's Sierra XR4x4 2.9litre with a meagre 150bhp; our majestic Jag XJ6 2.9 pumped out only 165bhp, whilst fatcats drove to their executive meetings in Vauxhall's Senator 3.0litre with 177bhp.
Our European cousins, weren't that much better. The Italian's put a 3.0 litre 188bhp in their Alfa 75, and the French had 160bhp in their Renault 25 2.8litre V6. Even the techno-Japs could only muster 158bhp in their Toyota Camry 2.5 V6. Autobahn-stormers made do with 166bhp in their 2.6litre Mercedes 190, or perhaps the best of the bunch, BMW's 525 2.5litre 6cyl that produced 192bhp. But even that is way off today's benchmark 100bhp per litre. Suddenly, compared to its peers in the Class of 1991, the VR6 engine doesn't look so lame. There isn't a missing 100bhp in that engine because there wasn't ever a need for it in 1991.
It's not that long ago when manufacturers became power hungry inventing these benchmarks of 100bhp/litre and we saw the advent of cars limited to 155mph. I'm sure the VR6 attracted criticism at launch with observers questioning why anyone would need such a big engine in a family car. But that was 1991.
To put things into perspective, in 1991 when the VR6 rolled out of the factory, the exotic Porsche Carrera RS had a 3.6litre 260bhp engine. Isn't that close to what you get in an Astra VXR these days?!
Well said to be honest. Yes people slate the VR for its larger engine and smaller bhp, but to be honest, if we were THAT phased by the power, would we not be driving something more powerful? Or trying to tune what we have in excess?
I have a Mk2 GTI 8v, Mk3 GTI 8v, and just bought a VR. I love the 'car', and whilst power is important i still love my 8v's regardless of how crappy the mk3 is. I guess on the power front, it is each to their own, but most people drive the car they have from choice. (ok insurance plays a part for some lol) Either way. The VR is a great car!
-
Don't forget that the VR6 Golf3 is the only car ever to have been featured on the cover of CAR magazine (or any magazine for that matter) as a lemon, with a VW badge stuck on it.
Good NA motors should do 100bhp per litre. Where's the missing 100bhp on the VR6? That's the question I want answered. It's like the Rover V8 of the VW world. Makes a lovely noise, can't produce power for toffee.
Mustn't forget that the VR6 appeared as far back as 1991, so it's a little harsh to judge it by today's benchmark of 100bhp per litre. Consider it against other similar-sized engines in similar-ish cars available in 1991. We Brits had Dagenham's own Ford's Sierra XR4x4 2.9litre with a meagre 150bhp; our majestic Jag XJ6 2.9 pumped out only 165bhp, whilst fatcats drove to their executive meetings in Vauxhall's Senator 3.0litre with 177bhp.
Our European cousins, weren't that much better. The Italian's put a 3.0 litre 188bhp in their Alfa 75, and the French had 160bhp in their Renault 25 2.8litre V6. Even the techno-Japs could only muster 158bhp in their Toyota Camry 2.5 V6. Autobahn-stormers made do with 166bhp in their 2.6litre Mercedes 190, or perhaps the best of the bunch, BMW's 525 2.5litre 6cyl that produced 192bhp. But even that is way off today's benchmark 100bhp per litre. Suddenly, compared to its peers in the Class of 1991, the VR6 engine doesn't look so lame. There isn't a missing 100bhp in that engine because there wasn't ever a need for it in 1991.
It's not that long ago when manufacturers became power hungry inventing these benchmarks of 100bhp/litre and we saw the advent of cars limited to 155mph. I'm sure the VR6 attracted criticism at launch with observers questioning why anyone would need such a big engine in a family car. But that was 1991.
To put things into perspective, in 1991 when the VR6 rolled out of the factory, the exotic Porsche Carrera RS had a 3.6litre 260bhp engine. Isn't that close to what you get in an Astra VXR these days?!
+1, also worth bearing in mind that the BMW 325 was only 170bhp (only the later 24v cars were 192) and was aimed at the same market as the VR6.
-
Mustn't forget that the VR6 appeared as far back as 1991, so it's a little harsh to judge it by today's benchmark of 100bhp per litre. Consider it against other similar-sized engines in similar-ish cars available in 1991. We Brits had Dagenham's own Ford's Sierra XR4x4 2.9litre with a meagre 150bhp; our majestic Jag XJ6 2.9 pumped out only 165bhp, whilst fatcats drove to their executive meetings in Vauxhall's Senator 3.0litre with 177bhp.
Our European cousins, weren't that much better. The Italian's put a 3.0 litre 188bhp in their Alfa 75, and the French had 160bhp in their Renault 25 2.8litre V6. Even the techno-Japs could only muster 158bhp in their Toyota Camry 2.5 V6. Autobahn-stormers made do with 166bhp in their 2.6litre Mercedes 190, or perhaps the best of the bunch, BMW's 525 2.5litre 6cyl that produced 192bhp. But even that is way off today's benchmark 100bhp per litre. Suddenly, compared to its peers in the Class of 1991, the VR6 engine doesn't look so lame. There isn't a missing 100bhp in that engine because there wasn't ever a need for it in 1991.
What a disingenuous comparison. You've pulled out a load of legacy engines there. What about the E30 M3? What about the 190 Cosworth (1988, 2.5litres and 202bhp)? Remember that the VR6 was a NEW engine then. The development of it was littered with delays and difficulties, as VW tried to make this stupid staggered V layout work - it REALLY didn't want to. I find it exceedingly unlikely that it was 'detuned' in the Golf3 - that was all they could get out of it with the systems they had then.
It's not that long ago when manufacturers became power hungry inventing these benchmarks of 100bhp/litre and we saw the advent of cars limited to 155mph.
100bhp per litre isn't a big ask and nor is a it 'modern' concept. You only have to look back to lightly breathed on Lotus Twinks from the 1960's (a Ford Anglia block, lest we forget) to see 160bhp from 1.6litres. The E30 M3 was produced from 1986 with a 2.3litre motor and an output of 215bhp - hardly far off. £10 says the M3 used rather less fuel than a VR6 when not being spanked, too.
I'm sure the VR6 attracted criticism at launch with observers questioning why anyone would need such a big engine in a family car. But that was 1991.
Actually CAR had nothing against the size of the motor, it was all about the lack of quality. If anyone wants I can post a link to a PDF of the article. It's a fun read.
To put things into perspective, in 1991 when the VR6 rolled out of the factory, the exotic Porsche Carrera RS had a 3.6litre 260bhp engine. Isn't that close to what you get in an Astra VXR these days?!
The Carrera RS was exotic because the weight had been pared, the motor was only mildly worked over. This was also nearly at the end of the development of the air-cooled flat 6 motor, a rather elderly design, unlike the limp wristed, but lovely sounding VR6.
-
I have that car article at home it is a good read, don't think I have ever seen a new car with so many problems.
-
Diamond Hell just hate mk3's :grin:
Interesting comments from everyone.
However 174bhp for 1991 was considered to be good power.
Even the Audi S2 'only' had 230bhp, which was considered alot at the time.
Compared to new cars now its going to seem sh!t :laugh:
-
Diamond Hell just hate mk3's :grin:
Interesting comments from everyone.
However 174bhp for 1991 was considered to be good power.
Even the Audi S2 'only' had 230bhp, which was considered alot at the time.
Compared to new cars now its going to seem sh!t :laugh:
I am saying nothing, my car has 87bhp :laugh:
-
My car has 300bhp :grin:
Pretty sh!t for 4172cc :evil:
Just to add i wouldn't say the vr configuration is a sh!t design, its been used in golf's and audi's now for 18 years.
The golf version was certainly detuned compared with the corrado. You don't get an extra 16bhp by increasing the cc by 69. I'm not sure how the corrado was tweaked, does anyone know?
I think the problem here is, its not the vr6 engine that is sh!t, its the mk3 itself that has quality issues.
Sorry mk3 owners :embarassed:
-
My car has 300bhp :grin:
Pretty sh!t for 4172cc :evil:
Just to add i wouldn't say the vr configuration is a sh!t design, its been used in golf's and audi's now for 18 years.
The golf version was certainly detuned compared with the corrado. You don't get an extra 16bhp by increasing the cc by 69. I'm not sure how the corrado was tweaked, does anyone know?
I think the problem here is, its not the vr6 engine that is sh!t, its the mk3 itself that has quality issues.
Sorry mk3 owners :embarassed:
Corrado had warmer cams and your right car magazine liked the engine and design and to be honest never had problems with that side of it but it was the rest of the car.
-
forget the tweaks to the engine, the corrado is a better car to start with :tongue:
-
Yeah you're probably right Mark :tongue:
The corrado vr6 is a great car.
Wayne, i think the corrado vr6 had a bigger exhaust than the golf too.
The golf vr6 i sold to my mate a few years back is still going strong, well the engine and gearbox is, everything else is going wrong, failed window motors, sunroof, heater blower, rust.... :sick:
-
i do fancy a vr6 tbh, but the raddo vr6's are still expensive for a good un. might have to get a converted mk2 instead
-
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3039/2775322746_673c3679e0.jpg)
The sight of one of these in MK2 gives me a hard on :embarassed:
-
(http://i548.photobucket.com/albums/ii352/ozzymyster/1241351696481_f.jpg)
-
100bhp per litre isn't a big ask and nor is a it 'modern' concept. You only have to look back to lightly breathed on Lotus Twinks from the 1960's (a Ford Anglia block, lest we forget) to see 160bhp from 1.6litres.
you say that but lotus engine are race tuned, whereas the VR6 is not.
My dad has a race tuned 1600 running down draft twin 45 carbs, a compleate race spec drive train set up, lightened flywheel etc and it sits at about 150bhp.
so if your going to go ahead and compare a lotus with a standard vw what you should infact do its get lotus to tune a vr6 engine and then compare the figures :rolleyes:
-
H'mmmmm, 1950's technology, vs 1980's technology.
Do 30 years count for so little in engine development terms?
Apparently so.....
-
H'mmmmm, 1950's technology, vs 1980's technology.
Do 30 years count for so little in engine development terms?
Apparently so.....
But you are quoting the exception, not the general rule.
In general, cars from the 80's/90's weren't producing 100bhp per litre, certainly not hot hatches.
Get out of the mk3 section, you anti mk3 person :tongue: :tongue: