GolfGTIforum.co.uk
Model specific boards => Golf mk3 => Topic started by: Cupra Turbo on 09 March 2004, 18:20
-
VW Golf VR6
Engine: 2792cc, 12-valve
0-60mph: 7.8 seconds
Top Speed: 140mph
Insurance Group: 18
That right?
-
Yep thats correct, thats what vw quote in the owners manual.
Bear in mind that my owners manuals also quotes the 8v to do 0-62 in 10.9 secs.
VW figures are always understated.
-
Strange... my owners manual states summet like:
8v GTI = 10.2
16v GTI = 8.7
VR6 = 7.4
So, im guessing that later model mk3's are quicker... musta changed summet.
I know mine is different to ealier models cos it uses a Hitachi MAS... so it probably has other alterations too.
So... least now im only 2.4secs slower.
and parkers quotes my car @ 9.6secs ... and with my K&N i'll be 9.3secs ... so im 1.5secs slower
... im also being VERY optimistic LOL!!
-
The newer models aren't any quicker, i don't know why vw changed the figured. Original figures must have been too conservative ;)
-
conservative? never!
lol
Citroen Saxo VTS is quicker than ur VR6 ... LOL as if
i think VW should take a leaf outta Citroen's book.
-
hmmm?....not sure what your point is 'Black_gti'.
Anyways, whats your car been like with the K&N??
......Mr VR6 is gonna be fitting mine at the weekend ;D
-
conservative? never!
lol
Citroen Saxo VTS is quicker than ur VR6 ... LOL as if
i think VW should take a leaf outta Citroen's book.
a VTR is faster than a 8v ;)
-
The old VTR IS NOT faster than the 8v ... the NEW VTR is about the same.
I aint fitted my K&N yet ... im working and stuff... ill try to do it on friday when I get a day off!
:-[
-
The old VTR IS NOT faster than the 8v ... the NEW VTR is about the same.
I aint fitted my K&N yet ... im working and stuff... ill try to do it on friday when I get a day off!
:-[
yes it is.. ohh sorry.. YES IT IS.. (if i followed your example shouting makes me right.. yeah?)
doesnt meant its a better car, its just quicker.
they're matched pretty well.
btw due to the initial lag an induction kit will hamper your all important 0-60 time, you'll sound fast.. you'll get a bit more go, and guzzle petrol like georgie best knocks back pints (+ his soon to be ex-wife..).
-
The old VTR IS NOT faster than the 8v ... the NEW VTR is about the same.
I aint fitted my K&N yet ... im working and stuff... ill try to do it on friday when I get a day off!
:-[
btw due to the initial lag an induction kit will hamper your all important 0-60 time, you'll sound fast.. you'll get a bit more go, and guzzle petrol like georgie best knocks back pints (+ his soon to be ex-wife..).
BOLLOX
-
which part? :)
when i had one on my old car, if i put my foot down the car would do nothing for an instant, then make a loud noise and roar off... plus it dranks a lot of petrol, so i removed it.
-
The induction kit sits right in the wing, so there is no lag, it certainly does affect 0-60 times, makes them faster.
I am doing Omar's mk3 valver on Sun, putting a K&N induction kit on it, i will let you know how good it is.
-
Oh yes ;D
..........will keep ya posted!
-
An induction lags??? WTF?
and, a VTR 8v 1.6 is not FASTER than a GTI 8v mk3. ... the new VTR is approx the same speed and the old one is slower.
The Saxo weighs in around 1000kg.
it had a 90Bhp engine.
so it has around 90Bhp per tonne... where as the Golf GTI has 104Bhp per tonne. and the new VTR which is heavier again but has more bhp to compensate... is around 105bhp per tonne also.
Now unless VW make bollox engines then there the same!
-
Until you drive a vr looking at all the figures in the world won't help! 8)
You can get good power gains with 16valvers but 8valves are heavy beasties and that's why their Saxo fodder!! Saxo's as we all know are made of balsa wood and the obligitory baseball cap give an extra 10brake horse!!! ;D
-
The 16v is heavier than the 8v mate :D
-
The 16v is a lot more powerful than the 8v :D
-
yeah well ... never know... mite havea 150bhp next year... ;)
probably wont be a mk3 tho ;)
-
The induction kit sits right in the wing, so there is no lag, it certainly does affect 0-60 times, makes them faster.
I am doing Omar's mk3 valver on Sun, putting a K&N induction kit on it, i will let you know how good it is.
ohh.. for the k&n put on my polo the filter simply sat where the original filter was and was a simple circlip. then i had to run a black bendy pipe from low down on the front of the car (behind a vent in the front spoiler).
so are certain set ups more vunerable to lag?
-
I assume the polo airbox is on the back of the engine, so yes you could have problems with drawing in hot air.
Golf gtis mk2/mk3 have the airbox at the front, so shouldn't be a problem.
-
yeah it was at the back, the tube brought cold air from down the front up to the filter :)
-
Definately makes my mkii sound better, but only a small increase in perfomance. Seems to really work well on cold, crisp mornings at high speeds, really rams the air in. Wouldn't like to go back to not having one, tried it for a week and felt desperately wrong.
Think VTR quicker than my mkii 8v. :(
-
What are mkii 8v gti's booked at anyway, anyone know.
-
u mean 0-60 time?
depending on which manual u look at either 10.4 (post 96 i think) or 10.9 (pre 96..)
-
10.2secs post 96 ... but its sub 10secs... ya always remove 0.5secs from VW figures
U REALLY think a 16v does it in 8.7??
-
so by your reckoning it does it in 8.2 ?
mmkay... funny actually... the parkers link i posted in a reply to ya in the 16v insurance thread has the following...
8v = 9.8
16v = 8.0
vr6 = 7.4
so theres.. 0.8 between the 8v and and 16v
and a little under the same again, only 0.6 of a second between the 16v and the '6
here's the link again..
http://www.parkers.co.uk/choosing/tech_data/index.aspx?range_id=311
-
me and '6 were dicussing this the other day and we reckon
GTI 8v = 9.5secs
GTI 16v = 8.0secs
VR6 = 7.0secs
(I think those were the figure we came up with)
btw: a mk4 (new) astra 1.8 has 123bhp and does 0-62mph in 8.5secs according to vauxhall ...IIRC
the astra mk4 is approx same weight as mk3 golf .. so 9.5secs for the 8v is probably right (esp for a run in engine)
-
I would expect a run in engine to easily beat the times parkers claim.
I would think the mk3 16v will do it in under 8 secs, i drove Omar's i while back and felt the same as the mk2 16v, FAST! :D
-
VW claims are rediculously slow... and parkers arent much better
-
I can't say for a mk3 8v cos i've never driven one.
I have driven a few 8v mk2s and i don't the mk3 is any different.
As an estimate i would say the mk2 8v's i have driven hit 60 in about 9 secs, probably quicker.
-
people always make out the mk2 is FAAAR lighter ... but its not "that" much lighter really... yes it IS heavier .. but its not like 500kg heavier!
thats why i say 0.5secs slower than the 8v mk2 so ... 9.5secs ;D
-
are we still going on about this!? ;D
-
nope.
8v = 9.5secs
16v = 8.0secs
vr6 = 7.0secs
-
Mk2 8v 0-60 well i don't know cos i fell asleep waiting :-*
-
we're in the mk3 forum... we can diss the mk2 ;D :-*
-
the vr6 isnt that fast 0 - 60 i'd say between 7 to 8 seconds sometimes if feels like this other times it feels like 6 seconds.....its when you hit 100 in 3rd and get in 4th then it takes off!
i think the vr6 is way under limited! doesnt sound like 6000 rpm! i bet it could take 8000 - 9000 easy big 2.8 dohc!
the vr6 suffers with what i'd call a type of lag........
only once you get moving it starts to really move.
the factory figs for the vr6 is
7.8 seconds 0-60
140mph top speed...
174bhp i think!
-
Depends on the manual ... my 1997 manual states 7.4secs (i think.. or 7.3secs)
-
mk 2 8v i dont really know what the actual fig is for this as theres alot of figures about.......
but what i do know is that mines just turned over 200000 miles and its kept up with an audi tt to 60 once apon a time on a 70mph road which is now 40mph on same place same road i took on a A3 1.8T and kept up!
i also beat a calibra v6 in my older 8v b reg gti which i no longer have.....
i once got my escort eclipse to do 0 to 60 in ten seconds thats me pressing my stop watch! and flooring it at the lights.......i didnt drop the clutch!!!
so it may have been faster and that was a standard 1.3 escort mk 4!
i use to race 2.0 16v mondeos....and keep up! i beat a big old 525 bmw with all his kids in back! that was funny
i kept up with an astra gte mate didnt believe me!
it was even more funny when my knackered mg metro blue smoke out back as engine was trashed i'd just passed my test an i had ex school yobs chasing me and they were in 1.2 nova i was in knacked metro and i left them and thats going downhil! :D ;D
now tho thing are even more diferent in the vr6 i dont get no chases!
the only time i was struggling in the vr6 was when i was chasing after a v6 4 motion! but i did have my bro yipping in my ear....... ;D knocks concentration off.
-
You can't possibly "estimate" 0-60 times by guessing the weight of the car and it's bhp comparing that to another car of similar weight and power and coming up with a 0-60 for it. Similarly you can't possibly get an accurate 0-60 using a stop watch yourself or even letting a passenger do it, by the time you take reaction times into account you'll be a couple of seconds out either way. So most of the figures quoted in this thread are probably rubbish
The only way to determine the true 0-60 is with proper accurate timing gear and a decent driver, there is no other method I'm afraid.
I believe Evo magazine quote the 0-60 of the mk3 16v as 7.6 seconds as tested, which seems reasonable to me (quote vr6 as 7.1 untested.) They don't list the mk3 8v (guess they didn't have a calender to hand to measure it!!! lol - joke) However having had an 8v and now owning a 16v there is no comparison, the 16v gets to 60 a good few seconds before the 8v then it hits its stride and will wave cheerio to the 8v from 60 - 100. Would love to know what the vr6 is like (hint, hint if anyone is ever passing Cambridge and wants to take me for a ride in a vr6 that would be great!!!)
Don't get me wrong the 8v is still a great car but it's no hot hatch and the 16v is only luke-warm by todays standards. Having owned an 8v I would be very surprised if it can do 60 in under 10 secs and having driven a VTR I would suggest that there is no chance an 8v could beat one. Sorry.
PS Mr vr6 - how much am I looking at for a decent induction kit for the 16v, what make would you recommend and how easy are they to fit? Thanks
-
I want a VR6. I really want a VR6. I can't stop thinking about the VR6. I am torn between the Golf mkiii VR6 and the corrado VR6. I qualify at university in july as a diagnostic radiographer - so will be getting job with nhs. The course is really hard at times and the only thing that keeps me going is the thought of getting a VR6. My very own VR6. Bet they are spanking to drive. Can't wait.
Two dilemma's. Which VR6 (golf or corrado) and what do I do with my beloved mkii. Can't be worth alot with 200000 miles on clock. Any ideas.
How much should I pay for a good VR6 ?
-
'iball' - I just purchased a K&N induction kit (as recommended by MrVR6) from the 'Euro Car Parts' contact at the front page of this forum.
It was ?52 thats the including delivery!........it was the cheapest i could source. Will be fitting it on Sunday.
I'm with Admiral and the K&N added ?30 to my insurance, bumps up the total cost a bit but at least I'm totaly covered!
Hope that helps mate :)
-
heres' that weight chart thing again...
(http://www.campaignregister.co.uk/images/graph1.jpg)
thought i'd work out the real diff in weights
mk1 to mk2 929 - 810 = 119kg
mk2 to mk3 1110 - 929 = 181kg
mk3 to mk4 1200 - 1110 = 90kg
( u can convert in google easily but putting "119 kg in stone" )
119 kilograms = 18.7392923 stone
181 kilograms = 28.502621 stone
90 kilograms = 14.172574 stone
so the mk2 to mk3 jump was the equivalent extra weight of two fat people..
damn.. lol..
-
blimey!......look at that graph.
Hey i dont mind giving giving that fat bird that won pop idol a lift home and her mate, as long as its not in an 8V!!
LOL :D
-
its sub10 secs mate.... i drive it everyday
-
didnt sum1 say u cant compare using weights and graphs.
;)
But if u wanna.. then try this
Mk3 16v 150Bhp = 8.7secs
Mk4 1.8t 150Bhp = 8.5secs
The mk4 is heavier...............and faster!
-
Black GTi you seem to have some idea that your gti 8 v is really something special.
I have had the exact same car as you with 60 k on a r plate in 8v 2.0 and it was slow compared to its rivals. I ran it standard against a standard old vtr. the 90 bp one. We took it out to 125 and he had me all the way, by far the golf just could not pull on it.
Your claims seem to me - from another mk3 gti 8v owner to be of pure bllcks.
Still I bought another 2.0 8v, this time a cab. Still just as slow, but this time with no roof!
-
u couldnt out run a VTR?
I drive my car with a full tank of petrol ... its hardly ever below 3/4 full... and its still relatively quick...
if I drove it with bugger all fuel in it'd be quicker.
Ive got new injectors that've done all of 700miles
Ive just put new Magnecor silicon HT leads on
K&N 57i induction
New throttlebody
and will soon have a full SS exhaust.
... now... Ive drove 2 different V6 4Motion mk4 Golf's ok ... one was slow... yes SLOW... cos the first owner drove it like a cabbage and prolly didnt exeed 30mph for the first 10000 miles of its life.
The second V6 4Motion I drove was HELLA fast...
The same might apply to our cars.
Btw, I KNOW this 8v aint no ferrari... but... its good for an 18yr old (when i bought it)
-
Well using your "theory" my old GTI should be able to whoop the crap out of yours because the owner before me ragged the life out of it.? Correct ?
Yep I got destroyed by a VTR, down the motorway, from slip road onwards and bounching the rev limiter on to my max speed. He kicked my ass.
Yes i agree they are not slow as such, but compared to the rival market they are intended at they are the slackers.
-
Hell name any other 2.0 family type car that is Slower then a gti 8v golf.
-
and the VTR was standard? cos u have x-ray vision and can see under the bonnet.
hmmmm ok. ::)
Another 2.0 family car slower than a GTI 8v? ok my pleasure.
Mondeo 2.0 - 9.8secs
But most bigger cars use turbos to boost performance... so its unfair really... take the turbo off and ya equal
-
didnt sum1 say u cant compare using weights and graphs.
;)
But if u wanna.. then try this
Mk3 16v 150Bhp = 8.7secs
Mk4 1.8t 150Bhp = 8.5secs
The mk4 is heavier...............and faster!
Did you not read anything I wrote? Mk3 16v AS TESTED BY EVO 0-60 7.6 secs. I also used to own a Mk3 8v and like I said it was never capable of getting to 60 in less than 10 seconds and was not as quick as a VTR. You quote the Mondeo 2.0 as being 0-60 in 9.8 but that's still quicker than the 8v which is 10.? if not more.
-
black_gti... do you know a VTR from a 'Furio' ? :D
-
You quote the Mondeo 2.0 as being 0-60 in 9.8 but that's still quicker than the 8v which is 10.? if not more.
U wanna use quotes from magazines??
Ok
Whatcar - mk4 8v = 9.0secs (mk3 must be quicker then)
Parkers - mk3 8v = 9.8secs
I gave VW quotes earlier ...
Mk4 150Bhp = 8.5
Mk3 16v = 8.7
Heres a nice QUOTE for u
Mk3 Golf 8V '91-98
History/Spec
The all new Golf arrived in 1992, and was promptly christened 'Car of the Year' -- but not 'Hot Hatch of the Year'. That's because it was bigger, safer and heavier. Despite that blobby body being very slippery, with a drag factor between 0.30 and 0.33, it was seriously heavy. The original GTI weighed 844 kg, and the MK3 was up to 1032 kg. The power-to weight ratio had slipped from 133 bhp per ton to 113. That translated into a top speed of 124 mph and a sluggish 0-60 mph time of 8.7 seconds -surprising, as the new GTI had a larger 2.0-Jitre engine with Digifant multipoint electronic fuel injection system and regulated catalytic converter. With an enlarged bore and stroke at 82.5 mm and 92.8 mm respectively, the output rose to 115 bhp at 5400 rpm. At least it looked the part, with its color-coded two-bar grille, black wheel arches and bumper extension, rear spoiler, tinted rear light clusters, 6.5Jxl 5 in Long Beach alloys and twin exhaust pipes. Inside came sports seats, electric windows, on board computer and height-adjustable sports steering wheel. Handling-wise it was a lot softer and more refined. Basically, it was a modified Mk2 set-up with standard power steering. From September 1992 came split rear seats and, a year later, passenger seat height adjustment formed part of the package. October 1994 was safety month, as ABS brakes, driver's airbag and immobilizer were included -- but a sunroof became a cost option. July 1995 saw the arrival of rounded side indicators and a bee-sting aerial. May 1996 marked the 20th anniversary of the GTI, hence the 600 unit limited-edition Anniversary, with red alloys and traditional golf ball gear knob. King of the limited editions though was the Color Concept, in April 1995, available in yellow, red, blue or green, with matching leather Recaros, silver-faced instruments and 6.5 in Solitude alloys. Eight-valve deleted in November 1997.
-
nice quote? they slagged teh 8v off in teh paragraph after... i posted it in another thread.
btw.. do you know what a furio is yet?
-
yes, its a saxo and it has body coloured bump strips ... i think
1.4 i think...
-
sort of.
its a 1.4 but its got full VTR trim.. so it might look fast, but it aint.
-
I want a VR6. I really want a VR6. I can't stop thinking about the VR6. I am torn between the Golf mkiii VR6 and the corrado VR6. I qualify at university in july as a diagnostic radiographer - so will be getting job with nhs. The course is really hard at times and the only thing that keeps me going is the thought of getting a VR6. My very own VR6. Bet they are spanking to drive. Can't wait.
Two dilemma's. Which VR6 (golf or corrado) and what do I do with my beloved mkii. Can't be worth alot with 200000 miles on clock. Any ideas.
How much should I pay for a good VR6 ?
In my opinion there is absolutely no choice, the Corrado is much better! I'm actually looking for a G60 Corrado myself ;D
-
I was thinkin about a corrado, but a woman over the road (old nuff to be mah mum) has a vr6 one.. would be all too weird. lol
-
U wanna use quotes from magazines??
Ok
Whatcar - mk4 8v = 9.0secs (mk3 must be quicker then)
Parkers - mk3 8v = 9.8secs
I gave VW quotes earlier ...
Mk4 150Bhp = 8.5
Mk3 16v = 8.7
Heres a nice QUOTE for u
Look dip sh1t I'm not interested in getting into an argument with you about how slow your car is. That quote you make, as someone pointed out, slags the 8v off.
And yes I do like using quotes from magazines, but I prefer to ensure that the quotes I use are based on something other than a guestimate. You'll note again that IF you'd read what I wrote, the figures I noted from Evo were AS TESTED, once again for you if you're struggling to read that I said AS TESTED. This means they actually got in the car, strapped on some timing gear and found out for themselves what the 0-60 was. I normally quote Evo figures as generally they have actually TESTED the cars. You however appear to thumb through as many magazines as you can until you find the quickest time? I've seen the 8v quoted as 10 secs+ for it's 0-60 and having owned one I don't reckon that's to far off!
The point people are trying to make is that a Furio looks like a VTR. You probably raced a furio and kept up with it but thought it was a VTR!! Though I find that hard to believe as a Furio is probably quicker as well!!!!!
-
The point people are trying to make is that a Furio looks like a VTR. You probably raced a furio and kept up with it but thought it was a VTR!! Though I find that hard to believe as a Furio is probably quicker as well!!!!!
VTR wrote on its bump strip doesnt give it away huh?
Dont call me dipsh!t u tw@t ... whatcar TESTED.. TESTED.. TESTED... TESTED ... TESTED... TESTED ... f**k want me to repeat it again? TESTED.. TESTED... TESTED the mk4 GTI 8v and quoted... QUOTED.. QUOTED 9.0secs ...
hang on... ill write the quote out for u ... as u find it difficult to read.
VW GOLF MK4 2.0 GTI 3dr - PERFORMANCE (WC? test figures quoted in bold)
0-60mph sec - 9.0
QUOTED IN BOLD... for the mk4.
Go buy the mag... read it ... realise. I dont care what u THINK is the 0-60 times ... thats the OFFICIAL QUOTE of WC?
and the mk4 8v is slower than the mk3 8v ...
-
conservative? never!
lol
Citroen Saxo VTS is quicker than ur VR6 ... LOL as if
i think VW should take a leaf outta Citroen's book.
a VTR is faster than a 8v ;)
T'isn't at all.
-
U wanna use quotes from magazines??
Ok
Whatcar - mk4 8v = 9.0secs (mk3 must be quicker then)
Parkers - mk3 8v = 9.8secs
I gave VW quotes earlier ...
Mk4 150Bhp = 8.5
Mk3 16v = 8.7
Heres a nice QUOTE for u
Look dip sh1t I'm not interested in getting into an argument with you about how slow your car is. That quote you make, as someone pointed out, slags the 8v off.
And yes I do like using quotes from magazines, but I prefer to ensure that the quotes I use are based on something other than a guestimate. You'll note again that IF you'd read what I wrote, the figures I noted from Evo were AS TESTED, once again for you if you're struggling to read that I said AS TESTED. This means they actually got in the car, strapped on some timing gear and found out for themselves what the 0-60 was. I normally quote Evo figures as generally they have actually TESTED the cars. You however appear to thumb through as many magazines as you can until you find the quickest time? I've seen the 8v quoted as 10 secs+ for it's 0-60 and having owned one I don't reckon that's to far off!
The point people are trying to make is that a Furio looks like a VTR. You probably raced a furio and kept up with it but thought it was a VTR!! Though I find that hard to believe as a Furio is probably quicker as well!!!!!
golfvr6, please slate this man for daring to use evo as a defence. This is clearly wrong.
Oh, and any estimate quoting the 0-60 time as 10seconds for a Mk3 is wrong. I tried a 0-60 run the other night (I know these are hardly accurate, but are great for getting a general idea), and after having the wheels spin for the first 3 seconds (it was greasy as hell), my 8v still made the 60 mark before the timer on my CD player had reached 10. I reckon properly timed 8-8.5 seconds is possible. Which, like I pointed out in my last post, is faster than a Saxo VTR.
-
Why would i want to that then Bodhi?
I don't need to state what everyone already knows
THE MK3 8V GTI IS SLOW
:D
-
8-8.5 is a bit optimistic for an 8v.
9.0secs.
if its a good engine, run-in with good oil etc ... 50-80,000 miles.
-
This will sort all the arguments out.
www.race-technology.com
Anyone with no home for ?120 to go to should have one ! On board data logging. I've used a friends AP22 at a track day. Takes a while to set up but will give very accurate real life BHP, 0-60, 60-0, cornering and loads of other geeky numbers - with a slap top you get graphics on the day or take it home and download in private ! have a look, the grins last longer than a weekend in Amsterdam
:D
-
i think id rather get 2 new tyres lol
-
U need 4 after trying to have the G meter off the scale all day ;D
-
The point people are trying to make is that a Furio looks like a VTR. You probably raced a furio and kept up with it but thought it was a VTR!! Though I find that hard to believe as a Furio is probably quicker as well!!!!!
VTR wrote on its bump strip doesnt give it away huh?
Dont call me dipsh!t u tw@t ... whatcar TESTED.. TESTED.. TESTED... TESTED ... TESTED... TESTED ... f**k want me to repeat it again? TESTED.. TESTED... TESTED the mk4 GTI 8v and quoted... QUOTED.. QUOTED 9.0secs ...
hang on... ill write the quote out for u ... as u find it difficult to read.
VW GOLF MK4 2.0 GTI 3dr - PERFORMANCE (WC? test figures quoted in bold)
0-60mph sec - 9.0
QUOTED IN BOLD... for the mk4.
Go buy the mag... read it ... realise. I dont care what u THINK is the 0-60 times ... thats the OFFICIAL QUOTE of WC?
and the mk4 8v is slower than the mk3 8v ...
Firstly I know of a number of Furios that the owners have changed the badging on the side to say VTR/VTS lol, it only costs about ?5 to do!
Secondly when the f**k did this argument become about the Mk4? I thought we were talking about the Mk3?!?!?!?!?!? Fine the Mk4 may get to 60 in 9.0 seconds but you still have no conclusive proof that the Mk3 is quicker? Please tell me if I'm wrong, no doubt you will.
Like I've saod before I've had both the 16v and the 8v, I cannot believe that the 8v is only a second slower to 60 than the 16v. Sorry.
Now go pick your toys up and put them back in your pram.
-
golfvr6, please slate this man for daring to use evo as a defence. This is clearly wrong.
Oh, and any estimate quoting the 0-60 time as 10seconds for a Mk3 is wrong. I tried a 0-60 run the other night (I know these are hardly accurate, but are great for getting a general idea), and after having the wheels spin for the first 3 seconds (it was greasy as hell), my 8v still made the 60 mark before the timer on my CD player had reached 10. I reckon properly timed 8-8.5 seconds is possible. Which, like I pointed out in my last post, is faster than a Saxo VTR.
Please enlighten me as to what is wrong with Evo figures?
As I've said before you cannot possibly get an accurate 0-60 time by trying to judge it yourself with a stopwatch let alone a CD player lol. Plus the fact the 16v is only capable of getting to 60 in just under 8 seconds so there is no way on earth the 8v can get there in 8 (in standard form of course!)
-
in conclusion 8v mk3 slow, there is no argument so figures arent needed.
-
but you still have no conclusive proof that the Mk3 is quicker?
VW state this.
35bhp isnt alot u know... and it sure as hell dont make ur car 2.5secs faster to 60 ...
if a 16v hits 60 in 7.6secs (or whatever u said) then the VR6 can beat an R32!
... bollox!