mk2 16V vrs mk3 VR6

[philadams16V]

Just want to know which would be faster in a flat out 0-60, and a 0-100mph.  I know the VR6 is more BHP, but those heavy mk3s ain't built for speed are they?  

[Martz]

Oh dear

I will leave this for VR6 to answer.

[marcus123]

oh dear indeed martz!

im not eben gonna argue on this one,

mk216v 0-60 about 7.9secs
mk3vr6 0-60 conservative about 7.4

but dont go racing one phil, it'll tear you a new asshole!!!!!!

[Gambit]

straight line, a vr6 will chew up and spit out a 16v

going round corners would be a different story

[jv]

and what are the chances of that being the end of this topic?    

[marcus123]

straight line, a vr6 will chew up and spit out a 16v

going round corners would be a different story

yeh both standerd id say that were true

[tinman]

Just want to know which would be faster in a flat out 0-60, and a 0-100mph.  I know the VR6 is more BHP, but those heavy mk3s ain't built for speed are they?  

0-60 you'd find yourself entering the realms of despair (if you're the 16v driver that is), as the VR6 would have a few feet on you.

somewhere between 60-80 despair becomes frustration, and between 80-100 tears well up as you realise there is nothing you can whatsoever and you just got trampled big time.

so there you have it. dont race a VR6. if you do, pray they miss a gear change. or two.

UPDATE: in fact - pray they have a totally buggered gearbox.

UPDATE2: and engine.

as for going round corners - there wont be much in it. they both feel like crates, and you'd be had by anything that is mid engined.

[tinman]

in fact, if you're planning on racing a VR6 your only hope is that you stage it over about 300 miles, as the 16v is more efficient. you hope.

[Veedubgt18v]

personally i think the mk2 8v will p**s all over both of them    

[marcus123]

driving a vr6 is totally diffrent tho, theres torque fookin everywhere on the rev range!

and when you stick a k&n on there, they sound meen