UK Veedub times & speeds????

[marcus123]

to tell the truth tho i didnt know they did two diffrent versions, so thanks for the knowledge overseer.

not trying to cause an arguement guys, jus quoting some facts

[Overseer]

no  i'm gonna throw my toys out the pram, tell you know nothing because you drive a old ass car... OH AND TYPE IN CAPS COZ IT MAKES ME 'ARD.

hahaha...  that gonna love this thread


seriously........

guess the diff between the two 1.8ts is like the diff between the mk2 and mk3 16v.. they both have roughly same figs.  i'd still put money on the 180/1.8t though.  

[Martz]

im not trying to

evo mag 0-60 times for the mk216v is 7.9 sec,

for the 1.8t it quotes 8.5 secs my man

martz, bhp does always correlate in terms of speed

7.9 for a 16v - Thats for 0-62? So I guess it would be 8.1secs?

Golf Hatchback (1997 on) L:414cm  W:173cm  H:144cm   (1512kg)
 
Derivative                 CC/Cyl        BHP   MPH 0-60 MPG CO2 IG
1.8 GTi 3d                 1781/4       125   125   9.6   34   199  10
1.8 GTi 5d                 1781/4       125   125   9.6   34    204 10
1.8 GTi Anvsy            1781/4       180   138   7.6   33    204 16
1.8 T GTi 3d              1781/4        150   134   8.2   35   192 14
1.8 T GTi 5d              1781/4        150   134   8.2   35   192 14

MK2 16v 2 Door                           139   129   7.9 (0-62)

Not sure how the extra 2mph effects it?   Any maths geniuses here?

[Overseer]

i think its because its converted from a  0-100 kph time

[Martz]

I see, explains it then.  

You have to note that in her day the 16v was a desirable Hot Hatch and I don't believe there was any real competition for it.  Apart from the RS range from ford (and I did like the idea of putting the RS lump into a little Fiesta at the time), but it was made of plastacine and papier mashey!


Also those figs do look a bit poo for the new generation GTi don't you think? And I know they are tunable, but for a modern hot hatch they should be at least 190BHP, don't you think?

[marcus123]

 

ur right  

100kmh = 62mph

[marcus123]

RS turbo was/is a chavtastic piece of crap

IMO

[Martz]

RS turbo was/is a chavtastic piece of crap

IMO

The chav thing in those days was the Pug 205 (a dressed up 1.4) and the XR2 lookalikes. The RS Turbo was quality, but it is chaved now. It was a good car in those days. Don't get me wrong, the Golf is better.

[Overseer]

so i guess they're right when we're called badge snobs?  


thing is martz... thats not entirely fair.  yes when the mk2 16v came out it was quick.. each generation vw have brought out rough equivs (the mk3 16v is a lil slower even though they upped the displacement, and the newer 180bhp / 1.8t...)  but.. they've upped the ante.. so really you have to look at each generations top dogs..

mk2 16v >> mk3 vr6 >> mk4 r32 (or even 4motion)

they *have* got faster through the years, but there are more variants under them than ever before.

[topher]

Series 1 RS turbo escorts are very nice cars in mint condition (unmodified). They lost all their appeal to me when series 2 came along  :'(

Chris.