Whats the big deal about VR6's?

[WABIT]

doesnt matter mate ive heard far worse **** than ...! hahahahha

wabit

[ausgolfer]

DVR68U a VR is safer than what? I'm assuming you're comparing it to a Seat Cupra, but don't they have dual airbags aswell? Does your VR6 still have the standard airbag steering wheel?
If you were comparing it to a Mk2 16v Gti, I said it was a better "all rounder" and I stick buy that.
Also in this discussion many people are comparing modified cars to standard cars and standard cars to modified cars. As we've all probably seen standard cars that run well and standard cars that run poorly, aswell as modified cars that run both well and poorly, it'll always be difficult to say whats best. I can't wait to encounter a VR6 down at phillip island .
Tassie GTi when you were quoting acceleration in gears where were you getting your info from? and what gear was that in? I'm interested to know
Cheers.

[ausgolfer]

Also Wabit and others(about the language comment) this is still a publicly viewed forum, we don't want to give a poor impression of this community.

[DVR68U]

i was comparing it to a mk2 , and yes i still have steering wheels airbag in.

[The Seater]

Well, if we're comparing modified cars then I better get my two cents in.

I've changed the suspension in my Cupra to Koni Sport Adjustables - it handles very nicely, and I'm sure a damn site better than any VR6 could. Even without modifying sway bars etc. I raised the ride height back to standard to increase suspension travel and the handling is just as good if not better, but ride comfort is far better. This is probably due to the crappy Australian roads. If the car was on a smooth track then lowered would be better. Though it still can't compare to my previous MX5. No front wheel drive can ever compare to the handling of an MX5 with a perfect 50-50 weight balance. This is partly the reason why Im selling my Cupra and going back to the MX. If anyone is interested in an immaculate low kms Cupra.

Low:

Standard:


You have to face the facts: A VR6 is a front wheel drive with a lot of its weight in front of the front wheels, recipe for a crappy handling car.

How much more power are VR6's getting with changed inlet's and chips?

I'm still confused about TassieGTi's sweeping statements.
One: How can your VR6 have more pulling power (driving on the road, not pure engine figures) than a MK1 with a 16v which has just 38bhp and 70Nm less in a car more than 400kg lighter?
Two: "accelerating from 30-50mph in a VR6 takes 4.5 secs as compared to 7.3 secs in a 16V." Where the heck did you get these figures from - I think you drink your bathwater!
Three:You can quote figures on our cars, which are slightly wrong. But have you driven both? I have, I timed them to 100, threw them through corners, did mid range acceleration; if I thought the VR6 was quicker I would have bought one.
As for comparing a Cupra to a VR6. How is that anywhere near the same comparison as a 924 to a 911?

Also, to Golfwise: I am not an irresponsible driver, here on the mainland we do have roads that go to 100km/h starting from a set of traffic lights. How fast you get to that point does not make you irresponsible. In my 8 years of driving I have never once received a speeding fine.

[Tim]

this thread is funny as.
so many haters!
give us some sweet VAG lovin. theyre all awesome cars. even your Chair Ibiza cupra thingy

[DVR68U]

boys this is the mk3 and mk4 forum so if u want to talk about others go into their forums . otherwise i will have to just delete your posts . this is for mk3 and 4 lovin right tim

[GoLfMan]

seater. your seat is on carsales. why are you selling it?

[The Seater]

Selling to buy a house and go back to a proper rear wheel drive

[Golf Loon]

I reckon you should take the stickers off the side of the car.
I laugh at RWD in the wet mate.

[The Seater]

Don't mind the stickers. A lot of people take them off, so I want to leave them on. Plus the bright white would be too much, needs something to offset it.

Probably sidetracking here a bit from the MK3 and MK4 discussions, however:
I acknowledge that the VW group of cars are probably the safest and nicest front wheel drivers; but rear wheel drive is great fun in the wet and sublime in the dry. Nothing is more embarrassing than when you're trying to take off moderately quick or fast and break into silly amounts of wheel spin, while a lower powered (eg. my old 1.8ltr MX5) rear wheel driver will simply take off, have proved this against a Golf GTi 16v. To have the steering wheel trying to be ripped out of your hands when traction control cuts in and the front of the car is dancing all over the road; it looks silly, feels silly and is uncomfortable. SO, I don't do this out of desire but sometimes neccessity to beat traffic etc.
Understeer and torque steer greatly annoy me. Front wheel drive is great for little and low powered cars, but I believe there is no point in having a high powered front wheel drive car. It's simply awful.

[Golfwise]

I got the specs from a road test from 90s VW mag for Tassiegti.
I'd print them up for those who don't believe but a little research would find them anyhow.
A Seat will never be a Golf anyway so who cares really and front drive will never be rear drive so make your own choice there.

[ausgolfer]

I'd like to see those specs, and still no word of what gear the acceleration is measured in? Because it's hard to believe that 30-50mph takes almost as long as 0-100km/hr.
Cheers.

[WABIT]

OMG THEY ARE 2 DIFFRENT CARS!! WITH DIFFRENT SPECS

compare a VW 2lt witha SEAT 2lt OOHHH WAIT THEIR THE SAME ENGINE 8V 16V... SAME SAME!! (wog accent)

wabit

[The Seater]

Yes WABIT, they are two different cars. That's why we're comparing them. It hardly makes sense to compare two identical cars.
As Ausgolfer said, "I'd like to see those specs, and still no word of what gear the acceleration is measured in? Because it's hard to believe that 30-50mph takes almost as long as 0-100km/hr."