GTI Mk6 performance

[Ess_Three]

Ok, thanks Snoopy.

One more question then... if I assume that my car is putting out 220 at the crank, how would a map affect this?

Superchips are looking at 255bhp (I'm assuming at the crank). Previously I considered this worthwhile over the 207 bhp output but if I'm getting 220bhp then it won't be as big a performance jump as I thought.

Anyone got any experience in this and could advise?

The quoted power figure is the minimum it should make.
there are also many highly optimistic dynos out there...

I'd think it's safe to assume you will get 40ish BHP of a gain, regardless of what the bit of paper says.

[gossa]

My car was the car that Revo used to develop their map, apparently my car was putting out around 225 stock and around 275 with the 99 ron map.

All I know is it is ludicrously quick, wheelspins in third in the dry and fourth in the wet (if you drive it like a tit).

So there are a couple of cars that have posted 225 stock on different rollers so take that as you will.

[herbie911]

VW figures are no doubt conservative but it is not that far off from magazines figures! Remember the quoted 6.9 seconds is 0-100km/h or 0-62.5mph not 0-60mph. That extra 2.5mph can take up to 0.2-0.5 second to achieve!
Also performance figures are taken with a driver (75kg) and a full tank of fuel on a standard car. If you got a five door, heated seat, big alloys or overweight, your car will be slower!
That's why I like BMW, Porsche and VW. You can always beat the official figures!
Not even Stig can match official figures from Audi, Ferrari and Ford!
Eg. Audi A5 2.0 0-100km/h in  6.6 No way!

[GolfTi]

VW figures are no doubt conservative but it is not that far off from magazines figures! Remember the quoted 6.9 seconds is 0-100km/h or 0-62.5mph not 0-60mph. That extra 2.5mph can take up to 0.2-0.5 second to achieve!
Also performance figures are taken with a driver (75kg) and a full tank of fuel on a standard car. If you got a five door, heated seat, big alloys or overweight, your car will be slower!
That's why I like BMW, Porsche and VW. You can always beat the official figures!
Not even Stig can match official figures from Audi, Ferrari and Ford!
Eg. Audi A5 2.0 0-100km/h in  6.6 No way!

17"s quicker then, there was a test with the mk5....17"s won.
You're right about the heated seats, really comfortable but a drain on fuel/power.

If anyone is interested, my mk 6 feels faster than my mk 5.

[han1102]

VW figures are no doubt conservative but it is not that far off from magazines figures! Remember the quoted 6.9 seconds is 0-100km/h or 0-62.5mph not 0-60mph. That extra 2.5mph can take up to 0.2-0.5 second to achieve!
Also performance figures are taken with a driver (75kg) and a full tank of fuel on a standard car. If you got a five door, heated seat, big alloys or overweight, your car will be slower!
That's why I like BMW, Porsche and VW. You can always beat the official figures!
Not even Stig can match official figures from Audi, Ferrari and Ford!
Eg. Audi A5 2.0 0-100km/h in  6.6 No way!

I agree BMW's performance claims are usually bang on or quite conservative.
On the other hand, read it in Autocar NZ a few months ago that Audi's 0-100km/h figures are probably "theoretical figures" as some of their cars (like the Audi TT V6) dont reach 100km/h in second gear; the driver has to shift to third, which adds about half a second on the time. Therefore the claimed figure for the V6 TT was somewhere around 5.7s but in the test, it was more like 6.4s!