Author Topic: VR6 is slower than I thought???  (Read 18706 times)

Offline Overseer

  • I live here
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,690
Re:VR6 is slower than I thought???
« Reply #20 on: 11 March 2004, 15:30 »
yeah it was at the back, the tube brought cold air from down the front up to the filter :)
Used to have a '97 MK3 16v GTI 3dr in 'Black Magic'... now have a '55 Civic Type-S...

Offline GTIMKiiJODE

  • Not said much yet
  • **
  • Posts: 76
  • ***
Re:VR6 is slower than I thought???
« Reply #21 on: 11 March 2004, 19:56 »
Definately makes my mkii sound better, but only a small increase in perfomance. Seems to really work well on cold, crisp mornings at high speeds, really rams the air in. Wouldn't like to go back to not having one, tried it for a week and felt desperately wrong.

Think VTR quicker than my mkii 8v.  :(


Offline GTIMKiiJODE

  • Not said much yet
  • **
  • Posts: 76
  • ***
Re:VR6 is slower than I thought???
« Reply #22 on: 11 March 2004, 19:58 »
What are mkii 8v gti's booked at anyway, anyone know.

Offline Overseer

  • I live here
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,690
Re:VR6 is slower than I thought???
« Reply #23 on: 11 March 2004, 22:09 »
u mean 0-60 time?

depending on which manual u look at either 10.4 (post 96 i think) or 10.9 (pre 96..)

Used to have a '97 MK3 16v GTI 3dr in 'Black Magic'... now have a '55 Civic Type-S...

Offline Cupra Turbo

  • I live here
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,299
Re:VR6 is slower than I thought???
« Reply #24 on: 11 March 2004, 22:39 »
10.2secs post 96 ... but its sub 10secs... ya always remove 0.5secs from VW figures

U REALLY think a 16v does it in 8.7??

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 #25 on: 11 March 2004, 23:15 »
so by your reckoning it does it in 8.2 ?

mmkay... funny actually... the parkers link i posted in a reply to ya in the 16v insurance thread has the following...


8v = 9.8
16v = 8.0
vr6 = 7.4


so theres..  0.8 between the 8v and and 16v

and a little under the same again, only 0.6 of a second between the 16v and the '6


here's the link again..

http://www.parkers.co.uk/choosing/tech_data/index.aspx?range_id=311




 
 
Used to have a '97 MK3 16v GTI 3dr in 'Black Magic'... now have a '55 Civic Type-S...

Offline Cupra Turbo

  • I live here
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,299
Re:VR6 is slower than I thought???
« Reply #26 on: 11 March 2004, 23:28 »
me and '6 were dicussing this the other day and we reckon

GTI 8v = 9.5secs
GTI 16v = 8.0secs
VR6 = 7.0secs

(I think those were the figure we came up with)

btw: a mk4 (new) astra 1.8 has 123bhp and does 0-62mph in 8.5secs according to vauxhall ...IIRC

the astra mk4 is approx same weight as mk3 golf .. so 9.5secs for the 8v is probably right (esp for a run in engine)

« Last Edit: 11 March 2004, 23:29 by Black_GTI »

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 #27 on: 11 March 2004, 23:50 »
I would expect a run in engine to easily beat the times parkers claim.
I would think the mk3 16v will do it in under 8 secs, i drove Omar's i while back and felt the same as the mk2 16v, FAST!  :D

Offline Cupra Turbo

  • I live here
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,299
Re:VR6 is slower than I thought???
« Reply #28 on: 11 March 2004, 23:53 »
VW claims are rediculously slow... and parkers arent much better

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 #29 on: 11 March 2004, 23:56 »
I can't say for a mk3 8v cos i've never driven one.
I have driven a few 8v mk2s and i don't the mk3 is any different.
As an estimate i would say the mk2 8v's i have driven hit 60 in about 9 secs, probably quicker.
« Last Edit: 11 March 2004, 23:57 by golfvr6 »