GolfGTIforum.co.uk
Model specific boards => Golf mk2 => Topic started by: GolfGTiMk216LoveIT on 15 December 2005, 22:43
-
i thought maybe a 1.8t 200bhp would beat a vr6 200bhp but reading this i dont think there would b much in it with turbo lag n all wot do u think?
"The 1.8T and VR6 swaps are the two most popular swaps into the MKII chassis. While you can argue that the 1.8T swap would be better because it would place less weight over the front end of the MKII chassis, the weight savings are pretty nominal as the compact VR6 engine isnit that much heavier than the 1.8T when you take into account the intercooler, piping and other items that come along with a turbocharged car. Total weight difference is about 80lbs" 80lbs so thats about 36 kg thats nothing!!!!
-
turbo all the way.
-
why do u say that have u ever seen it done like raced i mean? wot makes u have the assumption
-
If a naturally aspirated 200 bhp car can beat a 200bhp VR a turbo is going to have no problem, all you need to do is wait till it hits about 2k then bang forced induction will fire you up the strip.
-
so a mk4 i.8t chiped to 200bhp could beat a mk2 vr 200bhp?
-
hummm not too sure, the mk4 has a lot of weight behind it, and the mk2 is barely half the weight, so would prob balance out. Would be interesting.
-
well in golf + mag they have a mk4 1.8t chiped nd jabbaa sported up 2 210 bhp and it does 0-60 in 6.91 an 1/4 mile in 15.5 and in a lter edition they have a mk2 vr6 engine fiar to say he is probs got it pulling 200bhp and he does it in 5.99 and 1/4 in 14.70
-
they definatly should test a 200bhp turbo gainst a vr and see how much diff there is! sorry i just am loving vrs atm coz my m8s dads got one in his mk2 and took me out in it today and when i came back i needed a new pair of pants :laugh:
-
wouldnt torque play a part in this? Also capacity+no of cylinders would mean more torque lower down and there'll be no lag either.
I'd think VR6, unfortunately.
-
y unfortunately?? shows u may be able to get a fast motor for less!!! + i dont like the idea of a small 1.8 engine handleing 250+ bhp and torque i think u may find in a few yrs peoples conersions blowing up on em if they have booted em up 2 much
-
which is why you set a safe limit and don't go above it.
As for no of cylinders pah, mines a 4cylinder, a vr is a 6, mine doesn't have as much torque as a vr but it is more free revving. I have already proved that mine will do a VR down the strip and mine has no forced induction whatsoever.
Still reckon the turbo tbh.
-
so you have raced a mk2 vr? down the stip? remember im not talking about mk3 coz i can run faster than them :laugh: (in my dreams)
-
yeah, i mean don't get me wrong they are quick motors but just take a while to get there, whereas mine bangs through the gears. A turbo would only really be slow from the start but once it is up in the 2.5k region plus i would of thought that it would annihilate a VR.
-
someone with a vr with the same bhp needs to race dizzy on the strip :evil: i think it would b a good race
-
only way that would happen though is if the VR was turbo'd aswell. then you would have the same problem again. Turbo lag. Don't know of many turbo'd VR's either.. :undecided:
-
how much bhp has dizzie got then?
-
wouldnt torque play a part in this? Also capacity+no of cylinders would mean more torque lower down and there'll be no lag either.
I'd think VR6, unfortunately.
erm.. vr max torque is what 175 lbft ? possibly 190 if its tuned to 200bhp ?
remapped 1.8T has 250+ lbft of torque at about 4000rpm.
-
this is dd vr6 is of the MK2 VR6, and was actually filmed at GTI international 2004, and recorded 206Bhp and 204lbft of torque
is that a 1.8t with 200 bhp and 250 torque :huh:
-
how much bhp has dizzie got then?
I think dizzie is pushing over the 300+ mark.
-
nah he's still using the k03s turbo, unmapped. judging by the boost he's running i'd guess 210-220 .. 230-240 when his new management is sorted.
-
wasn't there talk of him moving onto a K04 though?? or did he decide to get the mapping sorted properly first? :huh:
Edit: alternatively i could go off and read his project section...
/me ambles over to projects...
(http://www.orlyowl.com/quiterly.jpg)
-
Yeah i was thinking right, K04 will be bolted on soon, so a nice little 270bhp is to be arranged once mapping and management are sorted. :cool:
-
Just out of interest, does any company do a 20v T conversion kit?
-
not that i know of probs cheaper to find a scraped one with all the bits! of pay someone to doit :grin:
-
We have a 1.8t and that thing takes off even though its in a heavy mk4!
i used to have a mk3 vr6 about 3 years ago and that pulled like a train and scared the sh!t out of me
I would say the turbo but you have a point. if you havnt driven or been in a converted mk2 then you cant say anything.
you might have alot of bhp/torque but if you havnt got the traction then your gonna loose the race :drool: what ya recon? :smug:
-
what if the vr was supercharged?
as thats what im intending on doin when its up n running
would it be a lot of difference
-
Just out of interest, does any company do a 20v T conversion kit?
Don't know whether Qpeng do one?
-
supercharger would make a difference but you would need a limited slip differencial i think :laugh: been looking for them they are pricey but apparently give u alot more traktion
-
I don't know why so many people try to knock vr's.
A filter, exhaust and a chip will easily see 200bhp, and that doesn't cost big money.
They are still very very quick considering they were first made in 1992...
-
As for the 1.8T engine, i drove a 180bhp Audi A3, and yes it was fast, but no faster than the vr.
To be honest i also drove a pd 150 Bora and it was much quicker, sorry to you 1.8T owners, as i'm sure you won't like that! :laugh:
-
everyone knows i am talkin about a mk2 1.8t and a mk2 vr not the standards right?
-
what if the vr was supercharged?
as thats what im intending on doin when its up n running
would it be a lot of difference
Yeah but will you ever get it up and running? Hows it coming on? Not seen any updates in agaes!
-
As i read about on another VW forum this was discussed about VRs having more displacement because of the extra two cylinders. Was quite interesting, although some valid points made, the outcome was the same.
There is no replacement for displacement............
Yes there is it is called boost.
Turbo wins.
-
I'm confused by this general conception that 20vT's have lag! With the k03(s)'d engines there was no such thing. The power delivery was so smooth you wouldn't even know it was a turbo.
We'll never know what mine was running previously. Guesses are around the 200bhp mark. It's going away in Jan for DTA standalone management and a k04 turbo setup aswell as rebuilding the bottom end with lower compression pistons to get the most from the k04. We should be seeing a reliable 280bhp so I've been told. It was sensible to swap out my k03s for the k04 at this point in time as it is going to save me another £500 in the future in the form of a further remap. Voodoo motorsport are doing work and if you've seen their work so far it's very impressive. They are doing me a good deal and their rep is holding up so far.
As for the mk2 20vT vs the mk2 VR6 I would put my money on the 20vT everytime. The VR6 is a heavy engine often increasing understear. The 20vT is a much lighter engine and with it's modern mangement and breathing produces a smooth power band throughout the revs.
Plus with the 20vT you have a ticket to 300bhp (if you buy a 225 engine in the first place). With the VR6 your options are very limited without big pockets.
When I was toying with the idea of selling mine a couple of months ago a lad made me an offer of his mk2 VR6 and cash against my mk2 20vT. Everyone said I would of lost the plot had I gone for it...
-
I think the real comparison should be the new vr6 v 1.8T as you are comparing new technology with old.
New vr6 3.2 24v produces around 240bhp out the factory :huh:
At the end of the day its a matter of taste, both engines are very strong.