« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8

Author Topic: VR6 is slower than I thought???  (Read 18705 times)

Offline Overseer

  • I live here
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,690
Re:VR6 is slower than I thought???
« Reply #10 on: 10 March 2004, 14:40 »
which part? :)

when i had one on my old car, if i put my foot down the car would do nothing for an instant, then make a loud noise and roar off... plus it dranks a lot of petrol, so i removed it.
Logged
Used to have a '97 MK3 16v GTI 3dr in 'Black Magic'... now have a '55 Civic Type-S...

golfvr6

  • Guest
Re:VR6 is slower than I thought???
« Reply #11 on: 10 March 2004, 15:46 »
The induction kit sits right in the wing, so there is no lag, it certainly does affect 0-60 times, makes them faster.
I am doing Omar's mk3 valver on Sun, putting a K&N induction kit on it, i will let you know how good it is.
Logged

Omar

  • Guest
Re:VR6 is slower than I thought???
« Reply #12 on: 10 March 2004, 16:23 »
Oh yes  ;D


..........will keep ya posted!
Logged

Offline Cupra Turbo

  • I live here
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,299
Re:VR6 is slower than I thought???
« Reply #13 on: 10 March 2004, 17:00 »
An induction lags??? WTF?

and, a VTR 8v 1.6 is not FASTER than a GTI 8v mk3. ... the new VTR is approx the same speed and the old one is slower.

The Saxo weighs in around 1000kg.

it had a 90Bhp engine.

so it has around 90Bhp per tonne... where as the Golf GTI has 104Bhp per tonne. and the new VTR which is heavier again but has more bhp to compensate... is around 105bhp per tonne also.

Now unless VW make bollox engines then there the same!
Logged

http://www.golfgtiforum.co.uk/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=38

Modified Golf GTI, 130Bhp(est), All Smoked Plus Quad Headl

Offline N-Wales_vr6

  • Not said much yet
  • **
  • Posts: 90
Re:VR6 is slower than I thought???
« Reply #14 on: 10 March 2004, 21:06 »
Until you drive a vr looking at all the figures in the world won't help! 8)
You can get good power gains with 16valvers but 8valves are heavy beasties and that's why their Saxo fodder!! Saxo's as we all know are made of balsa wood and the obligitory baseball cap give an extra 10brake horse!!! ;D
Logged

Offline Cupra Turbo

  • I live here
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,299
Re:VR6 is slower than I thought???
« Reply #15 on: 10 March 2004, 22:38 »
The 16v is heavier than the 8v mate  :D
Logged

http://www.golfgtiforum.co.uk/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=38

Modified Golf GTI, 130Bhp(est), All Smoked Plus Quad Headl

golfvr6

  • Guest
Re:VR6 is slower than I thought???
« Reply #16 on: 10 March 2004, 22:57 »
The 16v is a lot more powerful than the 8v  :D
Logged

Offline Cupra Turbo

  • I live here
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,299
Re:VR6 is slower than I thought???
« Reply #17 on: 10 March 2004, 23:52 »
yeah well ... never know... mite havea  150bhp next year... ;)

probably wont be a mk3 tho  ;)
Logged

http://www.golfgtiforum.co.uk/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=38

Modified Golf GTI, 130Bhp(est), All Smoked Plus Quad Headl

Offline Overseer

  • I live here
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,690
Re:VR6 is slower than I thought???
« Reply #18 on: 11 March 2004, 10:46 »
Quote from: golfvr6 on 10 March 2004, 15:46
The induction kit sits right in the wing, so there is no lag, it certainly does affect 0-60 times, makes them faster.
I am doing Omar's mk3 valver on Sun, putting a K&N induction kit on it, i will let you know how good it is.

ohh.. for the k&n put on my polo the filter simply sat where the original filter was and was a simple circlip. then i had to run a black bendy pipe from low down on the front of the car (behind a vent in the front spoiler).

so are certain set ups more vunerable to lag?
Logged
Used to have a '97 MK3 16v GTI 3dr in 'Black Magic'... now have a '55 Civic Type-S...

golfvr6

  • Guest
Re:VR6 is slower than I thought???
« Reply #19 on: 11 March 2004, 14:52 »
I assume the polo airbox is on the back of the engine, so yes you could have problems with drawing in hot air.
Golf gtis mk2/mk3 have the airbox at the front, so shouldn't be a problem.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8
« previous next »