A3T vs MK3 Golf VR6

A VR6 with only 142 bhp??? Thats a bit low. Should be pushing out closer to 190 IIRC.

I had a race with a VR6 in my S3 and was shocked at how close it was, but I don't know if it was modded or not, to about 40/50, there was nothing in it /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ooo.gif

Drag racing is sooo dependant on a good start, if you are just racing for times, thats a different matter. I would have thought that he would cane you with NOS.

Wifeys VR6 pushes out 187bhp at the wheels an the r/road,
with a chip it should be damn close to 200, with the exhaust it should touch 205, with a K&N filter and induction kit 209, with Piper cams 219-220.
Should be close! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
He has NOS you say, ummm wave by by as he passes you.
Unless he pops the block! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

Either way, have a laugh, and enjoy yourself! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/beerchug.gif

I think without NOS you'll have the edge in the weight area, the golf chassis is heavier added to that the heavy VR6 lump, and I think you may have it.

Personally I don't think the the big V engined golfs are that great, that size of engine and they're still pretty slugish...

Let us know the outcome, I hope you have fun and maybe thrash him like I did to a Golf GTI and a DOHC Honda Civic last night, and even had time to yawn on the way past.

[ QUOTE ]
RichA3Turbo said:

You sure that its not 200 at the flywheel? My A3 is 143bhp at the wheels...

There is a huge loss through transmission.

Rich

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe there is a huge transmission loss...but I guess it depends how you define 'huge'

My Mk3 16v Golf regularly makes around 121 BHP at the wheels...anywhere from 120 to 123.
On the rolling road I use most often, the flywheel figure is 165-167 BHP...giving a transmission loss of 40+ BHP.

This talies in with other cars I've done a lot of dyno runs with...all FWD, all 5 speed...cars like XR2s, Tuned Novas, Integra Type-Rs, Seat Ibizas etc.

Don't forget that the wheel measured figure is the only actually measured figure...the rest are guestimates - or 'calculations'.
The 'at the wheels' figure is in all honesty the only one worth looking at.

So, for your average FWD car, a loss of about 25% through the transmission is about the rule of thumb...so a car making 160ish BHP is putting about 120 to the ground...so I am asking myself what 'flywheel' figure you have for your chipped 1.8T?

With 143 at the wheels, I'd say somewhere around 191 would be about spot on for a FWD car...much more than that - for axapmle 210BHP and I'd be sceptical.

Of course, this only works for FWD cars...AWD cars do indeed have huge losses...permanantly hooked up 4WD often have losses of 70-80BHP!
The Haldex type cars, sometimes less.


This is not an attack on anyone here...just an observation of the importance of 'wheels' figures...and not believing oberblown 'flywheel' figures that mean precisely nothing!

It's the powwer at the wheels that turns them...the flywheel figure is irrelevant in terms of performance....it's only good for the pub!


Another example of this relationship is a Corrado VR6 making 190BHP...they normally dyno at around 145-150 at the wheels depending on the condition of the engine.


Anyway....
Reducing the 'drag' through the transmission will affect your power at the wheels...thinner oil, lightened flywheel, underdrive pullies etc will not add to the engines power output...but they will increase the power going to the wheels by reducing the losses through the transmission.

On the flip side...adding clutch and plate type LSDs can add to the transmission losses!

Also, the gear used has an effect...the chosen gear should be the gear closest to 1:1.
Ever notice why you can obtian higher 'flywheel' outputs using 3rd instead of 4th for dyno runs?
Of course...you are only kidding yourself...the power at the wheels doesn't change.

It's all swings and roundabouts....but basically the main number to concern yourself with is the 'wheel' power figure...then comes the effect of gear ratios, engine torque delivery, vehicle weight, tyre sizes etc.....

Hmm...I'm firmly off on a tangent now...so I'll get me coat!

After all of that and you still didn't put down a bet A3T or Golf VR6.

I'm still with the A3, purely on a power to weight aspect (Golf is too lardy especially with super heavy VR6 fitted).

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Gambba said:
After all of that and you still didn't put down a bet A3T or Golf VR6.

I'm still with the A3, purely on a power to weight aspect (Golf is too lardy especially with super heavy VR6 fitted).

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I reckon A3 (if VR6 aint using NOS

Rich

If anyone has a standard A3t to bring to santa pod (Aug 3rd), ill bring wifeys Vr6, (Also means my car wont be killed in the car park!) to have a play with.
My guess is that it will be a close thing, as it is totaly standard, and with a standard A3t the differences even out, if anyone with an S3 wants to play, no worries, just offer to tow me home when the old thing goes POP! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Still the old thing only cost £1800 /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Gambba said:
After all of that and you still didn't put down a bet A3T or Golf VR6.

I'm still with the A3, purely on a power to weight aspect (Golf is too lardy especially with super heavy VR6 fitted).

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you ever compared the weights of a VR6 Golf and an A3 1.8TS?
Not much in it...

Have you ever compared the weight of a complete VR6 engine set (engine, radiator, ancilliaries etc) with the same for a 1.8T (including turbo, IC etc)?
Not that much in it either...

Stock for stock...both with competant drivers...I'd go with the VR6.
Both modified to about 200BHP with standard gearboxes...I'd still drop my money on the VR6, I'm afraid....it just revs so much more easily.

And when it comes to trackdays where mid corner throttle response is desired...the VR6 would murder the 1.8TS!...in my view anyway...at least with me driving each it would.


So, in Costa's case...if that 'heavily modded' VR6 is only making 142BHP...he'll easily take it...and the VR6 engine is shagged!

In gtdog's case...if anyone with a standard 1.8T takes him up on his offer...In think gtdog will walk away the happier man.

Guy at work has a VR6 Corrado. Another has a 225 TT. The Corrado owner reckons there isn't much in it with the 225TT, but on the recent "Fun Drive" with work folk the Corrado certainly wasn't quicker than me. Despite this I'd say that it was more down to his car having 170K miles, not really thrashing it and being somewhat underbraked.

Having had a std. (and chipped) A4 1.8T though, I wouldn't have thought an A3 1.8T would be as fast.

Have to disagree with Ess_Three on the modded cars though. I'd put my money on the A3 because it produces more torque more of the time, regardless of the same BHP.

Just my 2p.

Interesting post chaps /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

I dislike V6 engines, actually I hate any 6 cylinder engine coming to think of it.. as already stated despite being 2800cc a VR6 isn't hugely tuneable. BMWs ( sorry gtdog /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif ) don't appeal either, even an M3 struggles to make a nice output..
4 cylinder turbo engine is the way to go if you want power, torque and economy.
A V8 is for power, torque and NO economy but *great* sound.

The new R32 V6 engine will become unpopular when peoiple realise they can't go buy a TT, and instantly chip it for another 20% in power & torque like you can a 1.8T. It'd cost thousands to get that sort of increase from a R32, ironically the best way would of a forced induction conversion.. and that will not be cheap.
Other manufacturers have gone the V6 route and all but abandoned it (Vauxhall, Ford) and have now returned to 4 cylinder turbo engines - lets hope Audi/VAG do the same quickly!

Having said all that if the VR6 mentioned above is on gas he'll beat you.. just wait until the 6th run when the bottle is empty... or the thing blows up.
Nitrous Oxide is good and does work but its best left to V8s that can handle the extra engine stresses.

[ QUOTE ]
Mark R said:
Guy at work has a VR6 Corrado. Another has a 225 TT. The Corrado owner reckons there isn't much in it with the 225TT, but on the recent "Fun Drive" with work folk the Corrado certainly wasn't quicker than me. Despite this I'd say that it was more down to his car having 170K miles, not really thrashing it and being somewhat underbraked.

[/ QUOTE ]

The paper figures for Corrado VR6 and S3/TT are similar...but on the road, in anything other than a fully dry, hot day with a fully committed VR6 driver, the TT/S3 will be streets ahead.
From experience...


[ QUOTE ]

Have to disagree with Ess_Three on the modded cars though. I'd put my money on the A3 because it produces more torque more of the time, regardless of the same BHP.


[/ QUOTE ]

Torque is fine...but torque = wheel spin...and on a standing quarter the start is the most important part.
Bad start = loose.

Higher revving and less gear changes = quicker 1/4 mile times when comparing these two.
Don't forget that you loose between 0.5 and 1.0 seconds with each gearchange..so if a car can reach the end of the quarter in 3rd gear at 6800...and the other revs to only 5900 (for example) and needs halfway up 4th to get to the end...all other things being equal, the car that gets there in 3rd will be quicker.

The VR6 has a very friendly torque delivery, and a decent rev range...so they are often found to be quicker that people think!

I had a go with a standard Golf VR6 at GTI Int'l last year...and got a shock. I got a good start (car was standard)...so did he...and it took me the full length of the 1/4 to take him...despite getting perfect traction with the S3...an A3 T would struggle to get the start I did due to traction issues.
I also had a go against a chipped 225TT...and beat him...so it just goes to show how important the start is.

It's be close...but I still think the modded VR6 may shade it.

[ QUOTE ]
Crafty said:
Interesting post chaps /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

I dislike V6 engines, actually I hate any 6 cylinder engine coming to think of it.. as already stated despite being 2800cc a VR6 isn't hugely tuneable.


[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't call 235-240 BHP whilst retaining the standard injection systen (albeit chipped) not hugely tunable...but I guess it comes down to your definition of 'huge'.
That's a 60 BHP gain...if that were a turbo car we'd all be shouting about how hugely tunable it was!

Tuning the VR6 is however, VERY expensive.


[ QUOTE ]

BMWs ( sorry gtdog /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif ) don't appeal either, even an M3 struggles to make a nice output..


[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure I'd call an engine that makes over 100BHP over litre something that doesn't make a 'nice' output.
Since there are only a handful of NA cars on the market that make that kind of specific power output, I for one, applaud the engineers that make it possible.


[ QUOTE ]

4 cylinder turbo engine is the way to go if you want power, torque and economy.


[/ QUOTE ]

For brutal soul-less grunt, I'd have to agree.
Same for economy.
But for throttle response and mid corner balance the small 4 cylinder FI engines are appalling...a well sorted NA engine of a similar size to one that falls under the motorsport conversion factor of 1.4 : 1 (That is a 1.8 Turbo will be in the same class as a NA car 1.4 times the size = 2.5 litres) the larger engine - assuming it too was well sorted - would, in my opinion and driving style - be the faster track car due to it's more easily accesible and linear power / torque delivery.

Only my views though...based on my driving style...


[ QUOTE ]

The new R32 V6 engine will become unpopular when peoiple realise they can't go buy a TT, and instantly chip it for another 20% in power & torque like you can a 1.8T. It'd cost thousands to get that sort of increase from a R32, ironically the best way would of a forced induction conversion.. and that will not be cheap.


[/ QUOTE ]

So, a 240 BHP NA 3.2 V6 makes what? 240BHP / 230 lb-ft?
Did you know AmD are now chipping R32s to make nearly 275 BHP / 275 lb-ft torque?
If these figures were produced from a TT / S3 we'd all be changing out chips to the new 'mystery' AmD chip...believe me...if you happen to get mugged by a AmD'd R32 enjoy the view of it's tail lights...as it's the only view we're gonna get!
I have 275BHP / 330 lb-ft from my S3, and an R32 with it's linear power delivery, throttle reponse and higher rev range makes me very nervous indeed!

Oh, and that sort of gain from the R32 doesn't cost thousands...


I'm not looking to cause a stir here Crafty...but the 1.8T is not all things to all men.
I'd swap my engine for a 3.2 V6 with 275/275 anyday of the week...and be faster everywhere for it. I guess NA just suits me.

I guess the final thing is the noise...the god-awful muted groaning that the 1.8T makes has no soul...it is without doubt the worst sounding engine I hav ever owned!
Sure it makes the power / torque...but inspiring? NO!

Ever heard a tuned VR6? Or a R32? Now that sort of spine tingling engine noise I'd give my eye teeth for...just not in a Mk4 Golf!!


It just goes to show though, how there are such diverse opinions on here. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/beerchug.gif

[ QUOTE ]
RichA3Turbo said:
Get the best of both worlds... S4 2.7V6 Bi Turbo...

Not much lag... huge power and sweet sounding. All the + withou the -

Rich

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry Rich...not buying it.
I don't think, that in my opinion, the 2.7T revs that quickly...a lovely engine with very little lag - indeed.
A lovely power delivery - agreed.

But great throttle response and quick revving...nah.
I'm with gtdog again on this...a 130K VR6 will rev so quickly it'll bend the rev counter needle on the stop if the ECU didn't catch it...fantastic!!

[ QUOTE ]
AL B said:
Some great posts there guys. Good to see two knowledgable lads like Crafty and Ess_Three battle it out! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/lol.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

We aim to please AL!


[ QUOTE ]

Generally though, I had a similar view to that of Mark and Crafty, more torque for more of the rev range e.g. S3 or A31.8T would be better. NA cars need revs to make the power and torque.


[/ QUOTE ]

For an everyday road car...I'm inclined to agree...there's nothing like the easy torque delivery of a modern turbo'd motor for getting around when feeling lazy.

But wake up at 04:00 on a mid summer Sunday morning, and decide to waste a tankful of Optimax on attacking some of the best roads in Britain...when you feel on edge..alive...ready to take on the world...and the 1.8T specifically, dissapoints.

you need something that has a direct connection to your right foot and your brain...turbos don't.
You need something to boss...something to take your frustration out on...something to show who's boss (not the wife / girlfriend!)...and low revving turbocharged cars just don't cut it for me.

Something high revving...low geared, and that handles brilliantly...so that's the R32 out then!
so where am I going with this...oh yeah...step forward the Honda Integre Type-R...or a big bike...or maybe a Mk2 Golf GTI 16v...or anything along those lines.

In that situation I'd rather take my 16v Golf than the S3 as it's ultimately more rewarding. Not as fast...agreed.
Not as comfortable...not as safe.
But it makes you work, and rewards in other ways...by reminding you that you are alive - and mortal!!


[ QUOTE ]

Personally, I love the surge of a turbo engine and the different sounds the car makes. I guess people either fall into one camp or the other. I think Glen (Ess_three) is in the lucky position to actually own both, turbo'd S3 and a VR6 Golf, IIRC.
AL

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess which camp you fall into depends on your mood.

I guess I'm lucky in that I have a modified S3, a Modified and well sorted Mk3 Golf GTI 16v and am building a serious VR6 engined Golf for trackdays / competition purposes.

But for those occasional 4.00 Sunday mornings I'd swap the lot for my old ITR back again...
Like a fireblade, but safer!!

I'd just have to watch that back end a bit more...once it goes, it goes..and at the sort of cornering speed the ITR generates, the results aren't pretty! Doh!

come to think of it...I kept binning the fireblade too...maybe it's me that's odd.

Jeez...did I really write all that?
I guess I need to get out more.

Glen,

One question thats not been asked: why do you have an S3 then? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

You prefer the revier engine and power delivery of a VR6. Its a well known fact you've not been happy with the handling of the S3 from day 1, which you are sorting out. You've said the R32 handles better. So why the S3? [I'm not being aggressive here by the way, just asking /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif ]

Sounds to me like the R32 is your perfect car!? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Can the R32 dampers and springs not be fitted to the S3? We've already covered that the anti-roll bars can. But I guess it isn't as simple as that due to the front/rear weight distribution of the two cars.

AL

[ QUOTE ]
AL B said:

One question thats not been asked: why do you have an S3 then? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
You prefer the revier engine and power delivery of a VR6. Its a well known fact you've not been happy with the handling of the S3 from day 1, which you are sorting out. You've said the R32 handles better. So why the S3? [I'm not being aggressive here by the way, just asking /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif ]


[/ QUOTE ]

I like my S3...it's a nice colour! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
It suits my circumstances, in that I am fortunate enough to have several other vehicles at my disposal at any time.

The S3 is not perfect...but what car is?
for example..an S3 can be made to handle like a Subaru...but a Subaru can't be made to be as well screwed together / well finished as an S3!

What else was on offer at the time I needed a car? Not much that tempted me...a TTC perhaps...appaling to drive.
Some form of Alfa? ...seen the depreciation?
The ITR had been discontinued.
The CTR is a bit common...and cheap!
Lupo GTI...too small.
Focus RS not available at the time...same with the R32.

I couldn't afford a 996 GT3. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif

Given the choice again...I'd still take an S3...it's just not perfect...which is fine for me as I get bored if I'm not getting my hands dirty uprating and trying out new parts.


[ QUOTE ]

Sounds to me like the R32 is your perfect car!? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't actually like the shape of the Mk4 Golf...in saying that, I didn't like the front end of my ITR either...but the Golf doesn't look as good as my Mk3 GTI...the R32s seats are not nice...nowhere near as good as the S3 Recaros...and the bodykit is a bit...how shall I say...'Max Power' for my taste.

If I were to have a Mk4...I'd prefer the Mk4 Anniversary GTI...at least that way I could have a matching set!


[ QUOTE ]

Can the R32 dampers and springs not be fitted to the S3? We've already covered that the anti-roll bars can. But I guess it isn't as simple as that due to the front/rear weight distribution of the two cars.

AL

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess so...but why bother when the aftermarket options are vastly superior?

Don't get me wrong...standard v standard the R32 may be more capable than the S3...but when I'm finished it'll be more than just R32s I'll be playing with...Subaru Imprezas will be fair game...along with the occasional Evo.

Just wait and see....

[ QUOTE ]
David R said:
Don't take cover for your opinions Mark!


[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely Mark...
Being able to offer your opinion in an informed manner, and listen to the opinions of others without someone resorting to calling you a '******' is what makes this place a decent place to be!

This would be a sad place if everyone thought the same, everyone knew everything and nobody tried anything new..fortunately it's not like that.

If only the same attitude was upheld on other internet boards.

It would helpthe engine reach high revs faster, yes - a lighter flywheel has less inertia and hence needs less force to move it. But there's a downside (there always is, isn't there?)... Since the flywheel's lighter, not only is its inertia lower, but it carries less momentum, too. So the engine will spin down faster when you come off the gas, and also be more prone to bogging down/stalling when changing gear or starting off. I believe lightweight flywheels are common on track cars, but compromise real-world driveability so much that most manufacturers don't fit them. Think Lotus did a light flywheel as an option on the Exige/340R, though.

I seem to remember seeing std flywheels that had been "Ported" (for lack of a better term) in order to reduce weight. Wouldn't something like this be an OK compromise?

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/beerchug.gif

Hmm... The thing is that both the positive and negative aspects of flywheel lightening depend on its mass, and hence its inertia and momentum. If you lighten the flywheel (by drilling holes in a standard one, or just fitting a lightweight one - effectively the same thing), you have to strike a balance between rev-responsiveness and driveability. If it's still smooth and lovely to drive, are you really seeing any benefits in responsiveness? Conversely, if it's much more free-revving, are you going to spend large chunks of your life re-starting at traffic lights?... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

RichA3Turbo is very good at getting away in his car ( A3 1.8T 2wd ), theres a video of him somewhere beating Moffs' S3 off the line, from memory I think Rich is still in the lead at 60ft too - ( the A3 chipped, the S3 stock ), indeed Moff needed the whole quarter mile to get a cars length lead on him.
Start practising on some little (very) quiet country lane or something, you'll quickly learn how to load up the car and get off the line quick. Once you have the hang of it its faairly easy to get off the line nicely, rather than disappearing into a cloud of tyre smoke...

Wow! I didn't think a FWD A3 would ever get off the line quicker than the S3. I'd like to see that vid.

Obviously Moff needs more practice /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/beerchug.gif

See the Vid HERE

I got a better start, but still got beaten! Moff did do a PB tho...

Rich

Its very much due to driving. I've been for a drive with a friend Nick in his S3, the way he drives that car is unreal. Heel toe, perfect starts the lot...

Leaves my driving for dead...

Driving the S3 is harder than FWD car, once you get a decent start in the S3 like Nick does 99.9% of the time, you'll see that Quattro will indeed prevail over the A3 Chipped, every time and ESPECIALLY in the wet.

Going for a drive with him was inspiring , he really showed the power of the S3, especially in its handling ability.

I'm not practicing my driving /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Post deleted by s8n

What codec do you need to play the Video Rich?

Not sure... if you have the latest windows media player (XP version) it will download the codec it needs.

Rich

Need to get to my own defence here!

I got a 14.4 on that 1/4 mile run, which is not too bad really. There is no chance of a A3 200bhp+ getting that much under 15 IMO. Last year JPR raced me and I think he just managed a 15.0sec in his A3, but as Rich says, it is the traction.

I did react slower to the start than Rich, I momentarily looked away from the lights and the next time I looked it was green. I didn't fluff it though, as the time shows and it would be extremely hard to knock off any more time. Not a lot more I could do! I even left the accelerator down to keep the turbo on boost when I changed gear.

The timing gear does not start until you break the beam.

That video does not really do me any favours, this pic shows the sort of distance gained in the first 60 feet S3 Vs A3... sorry John /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Mark R said:

Wow! I didn't think a FWD A3 would ever get off the line quicker than the S3. I'd like to see that vid.

Obviously Moff needs more practice /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/beerchug.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/fuck_you.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

quattro is superb! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/groovy.gif

AL

[ QUOTE ]
Gambba said:
Glen,
Not trying to pick a fight, but you firstly mention that the weight of the A3 1.8T vs a Golf VR6 is pretty close, I don't call over 100Kg pretty close!


[/ QUOTE ]

No, no...don't worry about me thinking you're looking for confrontation...discussions like these are a good way of everyone hearing a different perspective.

I have my own perspective...which I'm often quite vocal about...based upon my experience...I am also very interested to hear other people's points of view as this is the only way you learn!
Hell...I change my perspective regularly based upon what I've found / discovered...that's life.

...and without people nailing their colours to the mast and sticking up for what they believe...this would be a worse place.


However...back to the topic...
I have the figures at :
Golf VR6 = 1200KGs
A3 1.8T = 1150Kgs.

so the difference is only 50Kgs...these figures I have may be wrong though...and since I don'r own either I can't say with any authority.


[ QUOTE ]

Then later on you state that the R32 has an alloy block so is closer in kerb weight to the S3 than we might think, this may well be but that still means the old cast block is still F'ing heavy..........meaning that in the initial discussion weight to power ratio does matter.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes...the old 2.9 / 2.8 VR6 is heavy...but again don't go concentrating on the weight of the engine alone.
The whole engine assembly taking into account all ancilliaries, radiators, IC & Turbo if applicable should all be taken into consideration...if I remember correctly the difference between the 1.8T complete set up and a VR6 complete set up is only around 30KG.

So yeah...the old VR6 is heavy...but in a straight line this weight is not a problem...it's on the twisties it manifests itself as a problem...and again not so much the mass in question...more the location of it! The VR6 carries it's mass high up and forward of the driveline - not good!
The 1.8T carries far more weight low down..better for cornering.


[ QUOTE ]

Also, just a note this started off as an old VR6 (Not new R32 version) vs a 1.8T A3, but somehow it's managed to turn this into comparing the latest VAG engine and chassis tuning dynamics to what is essentially a 7 year old car, kind of unfair me thinks.


[/ QUOTE ]

Fair point, well made.
I guess that's just what happens when threads get interesting.

But on your point...let's not forget that the R32 / S3 platform are the same...all the VAG 'A4' platform....and such the basic design of the two cars are not as far removed in time as we may think...at the end of the day, you can't polish a ****! So...both VW and Audi are tied to what the platform allows.


[ QUOTE ]

I don't disagree with anything Glen has said, as who is to argue with somebody that has the best of both, I mean many!, worlds in terms of cars, and has a lot of experience when it comes to tuning......BUT, I do feel that you don't give full credit to the 1.8T engine, and often shoot it down for no reason.


[/ QUOTE ]

Cheers!...obviously these are all my opinions...and are, as such, subjective.

Actually, I like the 1.8T engine...I think it's a fabulous piece of engineering that goes underrated...it it wore a cosworth badge it would surely be higher thought of.

But, coming from bikes / cars with engines that have a 'soul' if you like...it's a bit muted.

I'm sorry if I come accross as negative...I'm not...those that know me pretty well (David R for one) will know that I will often say things to get people thinking about things...having a genuine opinion is a good thing...and sometimes saying something controversial is the only way to get people to stop, step back and decide which side of the fence thay are going to come down on. Not always a good thing...but certainly not a bad thing.

In my opinion the 1.8T is a good engine...it's just not a great engine...in my view.
All I'm attempting to do is enlighten the few who cannot se past it...there are other power plants out there that posess traits above and beyond those of the 1.8T...surely the more educated people become, the more their personal opinion matters?

[ QUOTE ]

Personally I hate the V6/VR6 lumps in standard form, all that engine and not a fantastic amount of go, but that's just my thrupny bits worth.


[/ QUOTE ]

To be brutally honest...I'm not their biggest fan either...despite all I've written.
I am a VR6 fan...that is a fan of the engine...but I'm not a huge fan of the mk3 Golf VR6.
Don't forget that when I was looking for my choice in Golf...I went for a 2.0 16v (ABF) as in my view it's a better package than a VR6.
...but I could fill a thread on my thinking behind this easily...but it's not for this thread! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif


[ QUOTE ]

P.S. Always love to see you posting Glen, as it tends to make you think a bit about the topic…………….

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/beerchug.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Cheers agian Gambba...
Like I said...I'll play devils advocate just to try to get people to passionately air their views.
But, I guess not everyone sees where I'm coming from...and to those that don't and to those I offend...I'm sorry. I'm only attempting to get a vibrant debate going for the good of everyone!

[ QUOTE ]
PreacherCain said:
I would be interested in testing an R32 (does that use FSI, by the way?)

[/ QUOTE ]

No...not FSI.
Although allegedly the 3.2 V6 destined for the S3 will have...and be up around 280BHP.
Although whether that engine makes it into the next S3 depends upon whos rumour you happen to beilive this week!

[ QUOTE ]
Crafty said:
David R : uh oh, running S3 without the fuse appears to cause problems, seen a few people done this for dyno runs and they have ended up with new haldex units /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

It wasn't mine /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Selfish attitute perhaps, but the owner knew of my reservations and could see no harm so he cracked on anyway (no one here in case you are wondering)...

[ QUOTE ]
David R said:
[ QUOTE ]
Crafty said:
David R : uh oh, running S3 without the fuse appears to cause problems, seen a few people done this for dyno runs and they have ended up with new haldex units /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

It wasn't mine /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Selfish attitute perhaps, but the owner knew of my reservations and could see no harm so he cracked on anyway (no one here in case you are wondering)...

[/ QUOTE ]

I have had the haldex fuse out on a few occasions with out any problems as have a few others on Tyresmoke.net. There have been no problems so far but I will not take it out again as I have heard a few different stories from different people which don't sound pleasant!

Al, I was interested to hear what happened to the R-32 we spoke about. So he didn't pull the fuse in the end? What results did he get?

[ QUOTE ]
RichA3Turbo said:
Moff did do a PB tho...

[/ QUOTE ]

As i said!

[ QUOTE ]
S3 Moff said:
There is no chance of a A3 200bhp+ getting that much under 15 IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Damn near impossible! Unless their lucky enough to have launch control. (but who's going to spend £1600 on that!!)
Quattro cant be beaten really for starts... But i guess a professional driver in a chipped A3, would be able to get pretty close to a regular driver in an S3.

Rich

To clear up that an S3 is definately quicker...
Moffs on the right, mine on the left

RIch