« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic: G-Lader  (Read 2586 times)

Offline DubFan

  • I live here
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,437
Re: G-Lader
« Reply #10 on: 04 April 2008, 09:47 »
Don't forget that VW did put the G60 charger on to a 1.8 16v to give us the G60 Limited, which had 210bhp I think which would be about 70bhp more than the standard 16v engine.
Logged

Offline kerrly

  • Not said much yet
  • **
  • Posts: 25
Re: G-Lader
« Reply #11 on: 04 April 2008, 15:27 »
Plus also consider that a 1.8 20v (KO3) Turbo makes 150 and a 1.8 20v NA makes 125 so a turbo ONLY adds 25hp in which case 40 - 60 from a G-Lader is quite good going and consider they are 80s technology.
Logged

Offline Horney

  • 10k hero
  • *
  • Posts: 10,782
  • Racing, Trackdays, Starwars.
Re: G-Lader
« Reply #12 on: 04 April 2008, 15:37 »
I thought it was a ladies hot spot. Oh hang on wrong forum!

Nick
Logged

Offline kerrly

  • Not said much yet
  • **
  • Posts: 25
Re: G-Lader
« Reply #13 on: 04 April 2008, 15:55 »
Quote from: Horneyâ„¢ on 04 April 2008, 15:37
I thought it was a ladies hot spot. Oh hang on wrong forum!

Nick



explains your forum name.... :wink:
Logged

Offline clipperjay

  • I live here
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,150
Re: G-Lader
« Reply #14 on: 04 April 2008, 16:05 »
Whats the weight to power ratios of the newer cars I'm sure they are heavier guess thats all matters, but noted the Rallye is 19years old+.

Logged

Offline kerrly

  • Not said much yet
  • **
  • Posts: 25
Re: G-Lader
« Reply #15 on: 04 April 2008, 17:06 »
well its fair to assume most average new cars eg a mk4 golf is a good 200KG+ heavier than a rado.
power to weight is the important issue, taking that on board a mk4 would need nearly 200HP to be on par with a mk2 16v
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]
« previous next »