0-60 times

[nige_s]

It all depends what the engine is attached to, weight, gearing, traction, etc, we all know this right?  Ultimately this is just playground talk/boasting, I don't think its even entered the pub talk arena yet.

I've always been surprised how well mkII 1.8 8v hustles along.

[Wayne]

surely driven correctly the 16v will always out-perform and equivalent 8v engine.

James

Not as easy as you think, 8v has nearly the same torque.

[mac7]

Mk2 1.8 8v.................112........9.0.........115
Mk2 1.8 16v...............139........8.0..........124

Mk3 2.0 8v.................115........10.1.......124
Mk3 2.0 16v...............150.........8.5........134
Mk3 2.8 VR6...............174.........7.1........138

Those are the figures on the front page of this site as well but I don't think they're right. THe link I posted above would seem to be closer to the truth.

Nick

I recall the original K-jet Mk2's were quicker than the later Digifant cars (and a bit lighter thanks to less equipment like power steering, electric windows etc). 0-60 in 8.3 sounds about right for a k-jet and the big bumper digi's take more like 9 seconds. 16V's took 7.9 seconds. Remember too some magazines tested with with half a tank of petrol and a passenger, some with only the driver, etc.

I also remember seeing an episode of Top Gear back in the early 90's where they ran a silver E plate 16V with something like 80K on it against a low miles big bumper and the older car left the new one behind - those valvers loosen up nicely in middle age. Now though, with high mileage, there must be so much variation from car to car it wouldn't surprise me if a well cared for 8V Mk2 could keep up with a neglected 16V Mk3.

However, it would surprise me to see a good standard Mk3 16V beat 8 seconds by much.

[Len]

can a mk3 get to 60?

Oh Yes!  And beat a Mk2.............





in a straight line! 

Really? None of the standard MKIII GTI's are faster as even the 8v MKII in standard trim, only the VR6 is quicker.

nick

Really!


Was top speed I was thinking of.

[Wayne]

Couple of Autocar figures.

1) Jetta 16V, 0-60 7.1 and 128mph, 2) Corrado 16V, 0-60 8.7 and 131mph

[Wayne]

More figures for you, 1.6 mk1, 0-60 in 9.0, 1.8 mk2 (1985 model), 0-60 in 8.6, they are quoting 906kg for the mk1 and 936kg for the mk2car, the mk3 GTI 1165kg 

[VW BUSH]

More figures for you, 1.6 mk1, 0-60 in 9.0, 1.8 mk2 (1985 model), 0-60 in 8.6, they are quoting 906kg for the mk1 and 936kg for the mk2car, the mk3 GTI 1165kg 

Fat Birds are low maint though 

[Len]

Must be the Kinetic energy then if the heaviest car goes fastest! 

[kells]

it wouldn't surprise me if a well cared for 8V Mk2 could keep up with a neglected 16V Mk3.

[/quote]

i would agree with this

I easily kept up with a mk 3 16v  last year, put a post on here about it, got aload of sh!t but seriously was nothing in it, (drag at the lights) my 8v m 3 is very well kept.

[Paul86S2]

it wouldn't surprise me if a well cared for 8V Mk2 could keep up with a neglected 16V Mk3.

i would agree with this

I easily kept up with a mk 3 16v  last year, put a post on here about it, got aload of sh!t but seriously was nothing in it, (drag at the lights) my 8v m 3 is very well kept.


[/quote]

Bit of a pointless comparison. I'm sure my pushbike could keep up with a broken down Veyron

Same as drag racing at the lights, unless you know you are both giving it everything its a pointless exercise.

Paul