GolfGTIforum.co.uk
General => General discussion => Topic started by: Kkrutch on 11 June 2004, 15:01
-
Wassup! I'm just curious to know what the fastest Veedubs over the 400m are over there. Also what speeds they can get over the 1km stretch. Also what the biggest power figures are on the wheels that you know of.
Keen to see the answers and then I'll let u in on what goes down here in sunny SA among the lions & elephants! :)
-
i think u may want to see this then..
(not complete, but a good guide)
http://www.golfgti.co.uk/viewfeature_content.asp?featureID=11
and maybe this
http://www.golfgtiforum.co.uk/index.php?board=2;action=display;threadid=7314
a quick summary is this... ( this is not including rallye and g60s, i think they should be up in between the mk3 16v and the vr6 )
'top dog' is the mk4 r32
followed by the mk4 v6 - 4motion
followed (closely) by the mk3 vr6 and mk4 1.8T
followed by the mk2 16v and mk4 v5 (theres a slower v5 too..)
followed (closely) by the mk3 16v
followed by the other mk4 v5
*insert all other models here*
followed by mk3 8v :D
-
Sorry, meant to add that they must be as highly modded as possible. Big turbo & gas applications. Sorry about that.
Lemme know what y'all hav in that category. Like VR6 turbo's, 16v Turbos and other stuff. In Golf, Scirocco or any body basically, front or rear wheel drive.
-
Hasnt someone/VW tuners built a twin-engined Lupo VR6 (2 VR6 lumps)? Dont know any stats though sorry but I am sure someone knows
-
just got to out my 2 cents in,
the mk216v is actually quicker than the mk41.8t :D
standerd that is ;)
-
^ depends which version mate.. theres a 150 bhp one, and a 180bhp one :)
just like with the v5, theres one slower than my car, and one quicker.
dont get all blacky in this thread! :-*
-
just got to out my 2 cents in,
the mk216v is actually quicker than the mk41.8t :D
standerd that is ;)
Sorry mate, I don't believe so,
1.8 16v - 139BHP
1.8t - 150BHP/180BHP
If anyone else has these figures, post them. The MK4 is heavier but not that much.
-
im not trying to :-*
evo mag 0-60 times for the mk216v is 7.9 sec,
for the 1.8t it quotes 8.5 secs my man :-*
martz, bhp does always correlate in terms of speed ;)
-
which 1.8t is that though? like you've been told twice... there are TWO.
the 180bhp is vw quoted at 7.9
the 1.8t 150 bhp is quoted 8.5 secs... prob the same one you're talkin about
you know vw quotes are often much lower when tested by mags..
-
calm down! :D
so the 180 is as quick as the mk216v,
ok? :-*
-
to tell the truth tho i didnt know they did two diffrent versions, so thanks for the knowledge overseer.
not trying to cause an arguement guys, jus quoting some facts :)
-
no :P i'm gonna throw my toys out the pram, tell you know nothing because you drive a old ass car... OH AND TYPE IN CAPS COZ IT MAKES ME 'ARD.
hahaha... that (http://www.storagebin.us/forum/images/smilies/wank.gif) gonna love this thread
seriously........
guess the diff between the two 1.8ts is like the diff between the mk2 and mk3 16v.. they both have roughly same figs. i'd still put money on the 180/1.8t though. :-*
-
im not trying to :-*
evo mag 0-60 times for the mk216v is 7.9 sec,
for the 1.8t it quotes 8.5 secs my man :-*
martz, bhp does always correlate in terms of speed ;)
7.9 for a 16v - Thats for 0-62? So I guess it would be 8.1secs?
Golf Hatchback (1997 on) L:414cm W:173cm H:144cm (1512kg)
Derivative CC/Cyl BHP MPH 0-60 MPG CO2 IG
1.8 GTi 3d 1781/4 125 125 9.6 34 199 10
1.8 GTi 5d 1781/4 125 125 9.6 34 204 10
1.8 GTi Anvsy 1781/4 180 138 7.6 33 204 16
1.8 T GTi 3d 1781/4 150 134 8.2 35 192 14
1.8 T GTi 5d 1781/4 150 134 8.2 35 192 14
MK2 16v 2 Door 139 129 7.9 (0-62)
Not sure how the extra 2mph effects it? Any maths geniuses here?
-
i think its because its converted from a 0-100 kph time
-
I see, explains it then.
You have to note that in her day the 16v was a desirable Hot Hatch and I don't believe there was any real competition for it. Apart from the RS range from ford (and I did like the idea of putting the RS lump into a little Fiesta at the time), but it was made of plastacine and papier mashey!
Also those figs do look a bit poo for the new generation GTi don't you think? And I know they are tunable, but for a modern hot hatch they should be at least 190BHP, don't you think?
-
::)
ur right ;)
100kmh = 62mph
-
RS turbo was/is a chavtastic piece of crap
IMO :D
-
RS turbo was/is a chavtastic piece of crap
IMO :D
The chav thing in those days was the Pug 205 (a dressed up 1.4) and the XR2 lookalikes. The RS Turbo was quality, but it is chaved now. It was a good car in those days. Don't get me wrong, the Golf is better.
-
so i guess they're right when we're called badge snobs? :D
thing is martz... thats not entirely fair. yes when the mk2 16v came out it was quick.. each generation vw have brought out rough equivs (the mk3 16v is a lil slower even though they upped the displacement, and the newer 180bhp / 1.8t...) but.. they've upped the ante.. so really you have to look at each generations top dogs..
mk2 16v >> mk3 vr6 >> mk4 r32 (or even 4motion)
they *have* got faster through the years, but there are more variants under them than ever before.
-
Series 1 RS turbo escorts are very nice cars in mint condition (unmodified). They lost all their appeal to me when series 2 came along :'(
Chris.
-
I see your point in some way Over. But for modern hot hatches they should beef them up.
-
yeah they should, but the problem is insurance + safety... inbetween the mk2 and the mk3 this is what shifted their focus. insurance for younger drivers shot up.
to me, if i were in charge i think they might be best off introducing a new model in between the golf + polo. but it wont happen... they need to put all their safety sh!t in.. that adds bulk and weight..
-
yeah they should, but the problem is insurance + safety... inbetween the mk2 and the mk3 this is what shifted their focus. insurance for younger drivers shot up.
to me, if i were in charge i think they might be best off introducing a new model in between the golf + polo. but it wont happen... they need to put all their safety sh!t in.. that adds bulk and weight..
The reason they chopped the nuts off the Mk3 was because of insurance rather than anything else.
A 20y/o with a Mk2 16v in 92 would be quoted about ?3.5k for tpft and ?5k+ for Fully Comp. The probability of you hitting something was close to 1, if not 1.
-
back around '96, my best mate at the time was around 19, he had a nice mk2 8v which he smashed 3 times while DUI (stoned + drinkin), then he got caught and banned.. lost pretty much all his mates through that.. silly..
-
Well okay then...no one has an answer for me. U all talking about factory specs. I want modded specs.
We hav a Mk1 Golf with 2 1.8 16v turbo & gas motors that recently ran a time of 10.7 seconds on the quartermile. We have another that has a 2.0 16v motor that has run a 12.6 second quartermile but did the 1km stretch at 268km/h. He makes 290kw at the wheels without nitrous, 340 with. He ran the 1km speed without the gas.
We have a Scirocco with a 2.0 16v motor that ran 11.7 seconds on the quartermile and makes 325kw on the front wheels turbo alone. All of then are street cars too. Oh, and I recently did a photo shoot on a Mk2 with a VR6 turbo motor, he makes 307kw on the wheels and runs the quarter in 12.2 seconds at 208km/h.
What y'all got? Where's the specs on that Dubsport twin engine VR6?
-
0-60 in about 3.4 seconds isnt it? ??? :o ???
-
0-60 in about 3.4 seconds isnt it? ??? :o ???
Thats quick, but not as quick as the AmD R32 - 0-60 in 2.65 secs or something! :o
My 16v does 0-60 in 8.27secs (fully loaded with heavy bits)