Sachs vr6 clutch

[VW BUSH]

Thanks Adam!

So I have two extra very expensive rivets!

Rivets aside the Sachs quality is what you want.
You would expect some changes in a friction set up with 25 more horse power and 40lbs torque over the ABF, with a turbo adding considerably more of both why take a chance.....

[Len]

Oh I dont care really, I only bought a Sachs clutch because thats what Wayne told me I should have!

[tshirt2k]

If there is two extra rivets, why do you pay more for an ABF one? 

[thai-wronghorse]

Its lighter.... 

[F17BAD]

Not sure if the springs are different in the VR version, interesting about the rivets, nice one Adam.

Either way, i have the VR one in mine and its been spot on with the big power so on this basis its the only set up id recommend personally.

And yea i use my car daily so im in a good position to honor this recommendation 

[Bellend]

I'd just fit a VR personally if it's even slightly stronger. For the minimal price difference why not go better even if not required?

I too agree with Tweed on being able to drive properly.  Had a go with an 07 Type R in a sh!tty 1.4 16v sporty Clio. Absolutely wayne kerred him off the line for quite a distance before tje computer let him put the power down when I was blown away. A goodness know what RPM launch cause him to squeal a tyre then saw the engine bog down.


Had a go just after with a 2.0 Clio and after watching the front end of his car go all over the place I held it and took him on the roundabout afterwhich he again left me.

Little Clio handles amazing!

[F17BAD]

its nowt to do with computers mate, Hondas are piss poor, forget the BHP for a moment and look at the Torque they put out even when heavily modified

Its about the same as what you would get via your legs when riding a bike

in other words.. sh!te

[tshirt2k]

It's true that the vtec engines have a lower torque than say, an ABF. But they have shorter final drives to multiply torque further because they have a longer rev range. The reason they have a higher power figure is down to revs as its a calculation.

You can see by the graph ~120lbft at 6600rpm. A standard ABF has more than this at 2000rpm and peaks around 145ftlbs at 4200rpm. At the rev limiter it's level with the type R at ~120ftlbs but the type r has another 2.5k of revs to go.

It's hard to work out which is best due to weight, gearing etc but I'd prefer the ABF . In a mk2 chassis it should pretty much eat a type R I'd guess.

[F17BAD]

AGREE 100%

a friend has a type R spent a absolute Fortune on headwork ECU and other bits, has a rolling road print out for 256BHP on a Dyno Dynamics

Torque is a pathetic 178lbft

car feels very slow

Id avoid a Honda at all costs if it was performance your looking for unless you can afford as Turbo conversion

just my opinion anyhow

[Bellend]

Weird cause some of the little 1.6s go alright for what they are!

He stormed past me but you just hear rev rev rev then squeal and then no revs and bogged start. Then zoom straight past the 100BHP the Clio gave.

What's the 1.8t like for low down torque? For example this Clio you have to launch from 4000rpm or it just bogs down. After 4k to 6.8k it's a mental little thing. I found the 16v MK3 the same. Want something that's got power everywhere.