Mk6 Golf Acceleration & Performance Data

[robby_jai]

4.7 is an obvious tell em there dreaming.

I just like how everyone was sort of trying to say that they would be happy with the times published once they were done with a VBOX.

Well here they are children, and uncle REXman's predictions were pretty much spot on.

With Coreys run of 13.6 down the quarter, and times ranging from 5.2-5.7 with a VBOX.. There is no denying it. A STG 1 (and almost definitley STG 1 from all tuners) will NOT turn the GOLF R into a 4.7 sec car.

bloody hell what i have been saying for the past friggen 6 months and i got censored over it..... told ya 4.7 with a stage 1 was a no chance.

[robby_jai]

you do realise a 0-100 and a 0-60mph is completely different. 0-60 is 0-96kmh and looking at your GTECH results... you were using 0-60mph as your benchmarks... the way australian and UK magazine do acceleration testing is completely different to the yanks... they dont have this roll out crap and all this rubbish.. which is why most of their figures are SO optimistic its not even funny.

So to add some fuel to the fire...

I finally got my Gtech RR today (one of the GPS ones) and had a quick chance this arvo to do some runs.
The road was in pretty good nick, dead flat and dead straight. Ambient temp was 24deg. 1 pax, 1/2 tank of fuel.
Roof racks and 2 x bike carriers fitted to the roof. Car has 1700km on it. Stage 1 Tune only. 5dr DSG.

Run 1
0-100 4.87s

Run 2
0-100 5.02s

Run 3
0-100 5.07s

What was also interesting was the 200m (1/8 mile) time of 8.58s (run 2 i think...) which is almost exactly the same as wooduck's drag strip time of 8.592!

I'll download the data and have a closer look...

On the accuracy of such things... My old RaceTech AP22 (accelerometer only) proved to be within 0.2s to my 400m time and under 0.1s once calibrated for vehicle pitch. I can only hope that technology (and the inclusion of GPS) has improved this accuracy from 10 years ago!

Also, while I was reading about, AdamD stated that there was a "significant issue with the accuracy" with the GTech due to its 10Hz GPS engine, the RaceLogic PerformanceBox also has a 10Hz engine... a VBOX (depending on version) can be even slower!

GTech Fanatic 10Hz
PerformanceBox 10Hz
VBOX Mini 10Hz
VBOX Micro 10Hz
VBOX II Series 5/10/20Hz
VBOX 3i 100Hz 100Hz
RaceTech AX22 5Hz

What version of the VBOX has been used in the above testing?

Anyway, it seems RaceLogic are the only people who have properly compared a VBOX 3 with the Gtech (non-GPS) and determined it was accurate. There are some others who have compared a VBOX Mini and come to the same conclusion. (see next post...) As well as Car & Driver who have compared it to the strip! The info is out there guys!

[Corey_R]

Settle down robby_jai. You weren't "censored" for sharing your experiences, you were censored for pages of theoretical mathematics about cars that neither you own, or were related to the topic. It was also only a month ago in another thread which clearly states that many posts were deleted due to off topic and/or being insulting / inflammatory.

Back to reality, the most recent post by Beena explained the difference you mention above and also presented newer runs - the 1st run being 4.798s in the method Australia and UK test their cars (no 1ft rollout, 0 to 100km/h - on a device verified as accurate by the competing company who's multi-thousand $ products you say everyone should be using).

[robby_jai]

if i read correctly...... been did testing using 0-60 as the baseline for testing.

according to his screen shots. thats not the same as 0-100km/h

for a car to reach 0-96 vs 0-100 is actually a difference.

the best way to verify its accuracy is simple. a 12 second car in most cases = a 4.x car to the 100km/h

take this stage 1 car to a drag strip and rip off a 12. even a dead 13 i would be happy with and agree that it is possible.

are there any verified time slips of any one with a stage 1 thats done a 12 or even a dead 13??? heck even a 13.1 ?????

Settle down robby_jai. You weren't "censored" for sharing your experiences, you were censored for pages of theoretical mathematics about cars that neither you own, or were related to the topic. It was also only a month ago in another thread which clearly states that many posts were deleted due to off topic and/or being insulting / inflammatory.

Back to reality, the most recent post by Beena explained the difference you mention above and also presented newer runs - the 1st run being 4.798s in the method Australia and UK test their cars (no 1ft rollout, 0 to 100km/h - on a device verified as accurate by the competing company who's multi-thousand $ products you say everyone should be using).

[REXman]

Back to reality, .

But Robby and I(and many members, maybe 9, have PM'd me about it all) have so much more experience than you, and possibly others with modding, Dragging and acceleration times. it's reached the point Corey where you are now just being ignorant to it all.

Robby, I, and many others are actually planted very well in reality.

We both have had some serious horsepower and modifications done. Robby has had the lot done to his car. I have had the lot and then some to my already cracking car. (425hp and 1350kgs). I've also worked mildly (I think in APR Marketing speak that's STG 2+) on a HEAP of cars.

You bring to the table what exactly? A Polo GTI with a tune and air filter? Cmon man.

YOU come back to reality.

Further, I have Golf R, Robby has a very similar S3.. We both obviously love performance. Do you not think if they were faster I wouldn't be on the mountain tops about it?

if i read correctly...... been did testing using 0-60 as the baseline for testing.

according to his screen shots. thats not the same as 0-100km/h

for a car to reach 0-96 vs 0-100 is actually a difference.

the best way to verify its accuracy is simple. a 12 second car in most cases = a 4.x car to the 100km/h

take this stage 1 car to a drag strip and rip off a 12. even a dead 13 i would be happy with and agree that it is possible.

are there any verified time slips of any one with a stage 1 thats done a 12 or even a dead 13??? heck even a 13.1 ?????

This is what I have been saying for who knows how long. And Robby mate I have been on the same side of the fence about it all along. From what you have been preaching, I know you know your cars. Sick ****.

Need we be reminded of the lighter FWD pirelli with methanol injection and a stripped out interior, PLUS all the mods done FMIC turbo boost this that.. Ran a 12.888.

People use their little handheld devices they got in the mail, and think they have nailed it.. Cause it says so on the sellers website.

Look, all issues aside, what me and Robby are saying, is spot on regarding quarter mile times. The R with a tune, is not going to nail 12 second quarters. Maybe a 13.4.

But that's a massive difference to grabbing 12s.. Which actually would prove the 4.XX times.

But hey if the forum members are happy, thats cool. But I'm giving plenty of experience. And the fact that Corey keeps saying it's not about mathematics.. You couldn't be more wrong.

[Corey_R]

Again twisting stuff around...

I've not said it's not about mathematics - I'm saying that the mathematics that you two are using is simplistic to the point of being with such a large margin of error that you're not proving anything.

Again - stop coming in here telling people that they cannot be achieving what they are achieving. You both come across with sour grapes.

[Fab_R]

You both come across with sour grapes.

Pretty much sums these two up IMO.

[bwen]

I think it's just safe to say that the margin of error and variance on a hand held timer can differ from up to a second from brand to brand and model to model. At the end of the day a worked Golf R/S3 would pull some crazy 0-100km/h times as other AWD cars would also (see: MY11 WRX).

0-100km/h means nothing in the real world from my experience, rolling starts and 1/4 mile times yield much bigger e-peen.

[Beena]

if i read correctly...... been did testing using 0-60 as the baseline for testing.

according to his screen shots. thats not the same as 0-100km/h

for a car to reach 0-96 vs 0-100 is actually a difference.

the best way to verify its accuracy is simple. a 12 second car in most cases = a 4.x car to the 100km/h

take this stage 1 car to a drag strip and rip off a 12. even a dead 13 i would be happy with and agree that it is possible.

are there any verified time slips of any one with a stage 1 thats done a 12 or even a dead 13??? heck even a 13.1 ?????

Mate, don't know what you're reading - but it's not my post...

I've always done 0-100, my results show 0-100 and my pics show 0-100. I am aware there is a difference between 96 and 100... 5 years of a mech eng/science degree taught me that...

My numbers show the difference Fab was getting with his Gtech vs the VBOX, about 0.2s. On a moderately cool night I got 4.8 with a Stage 1 Golf. 5.36s has been proven with a stock car. I'll hit the strip when I can, but research shows these things are accurate.

[pumped]

Using a Gtech Pro Fanatic (GPS) without Launch Control so far i can get consistant 0-100 in around 5.7
I imagine 5.5ish or lower isnt out of the question with a good launch
the lag from take off is the only thing killing a really quick time.
Its Suprisingly hard to find decent road to test it out on

These times are just me in the car, 1/2 tank of fuel- At night (20 degrees)

[REXman]

Wow. 0-100 in 5.7 on the gtech without even LC!? Thats reasonably impressive.

Hey I got 5.57 with 2 people on board, on a warm night. On a GTECH of course.

I reckon by myself, on a cool night with perect road conditions.. Maybe 5.0.

I'm stock.

[MIRSAD]

People are talking about chipped and stock car.

They are talking about temperature, number of passengers, petrol level and so on and arguing about 0.02 sec.
My knowledge and experience in this area is less than zero so this is my (stupid) question:

WHAT IS STOCK?
Is it only basic model or options such as Sun roof, ACC, R/seats… and all other options are still considered STOCK (as well as aftermarket accessories even minor as window tinting, Venture Shield, new floor mats, etc) – I suppose everything is adding up.

If “factory options” & aftermarket accessories are not considered Stock – can they affect (considerably) acceleration data?

Thank You

[Corey_R]

In performance threads, when they talk about "Stock" they mean, without modification. I.e. no performance upgrades (software or hardware).

As for your question about can options and accessories affect acceleration data. Yes. The more options and accessories you have, the more weight is in your car, and that will have an effect. In addition, some accessories which are external to the car can affect aerodynamics (there isn't any on the R I can think of that fall into that category). Finally, the Golf R has an option for 18" or 19" wheels. They would also have an effect, but which one is better or worse is anyones guess (19" is lower profiel which can be detrimental to absorbing bumps, but it's also got 1cm wider rubber which gives more grip.... so ?!)

[MIRSAD]

In performance threads, when they talk about "Stock" they mean, without modification. I.e. no performance upgrades (software or hardware).

As for your question about can options and accessories affect acceleration data. Yes. The more options and accessories you have, the more weight is in your car, and that will have an effect. In addition, some accessories which are external to the car can affect aerodynamics (there isn't any on the R I can think of that fall into that category). Finally, the Golf R has an option for 18" or 19" wheels. They would also have an effect, but which one is better or worse is anyones guess (19" is lower profiel which can be detrimental to absorbing bumps, but it's also got 1cm wider rubber which gives more grip.... so ?!)

Thank You Corey

Yes, I understand that “Stock” mean without modification.

I also understand that “options and accessories affect acceleration data” but are they considered Stock (if Yes than Golf R’s with different options (accessories) have different Stock acceleration data (and subsequently different APR Stage 1 data)…
In that sense is it possible to quantify effects of 10 (or more) extra kilos (options and accessories) on acceleration data – is it significant?

[dave_r]

In that sense is it possible to quantify effects of 10 (or more) extra kilos (options and accessories) on acceleration data – is it significant?

IMO bugger all. My personal experience is the times between having one or 2 passengers (85kg or less) or even weather (all my testing has been sub 25deg) made for bugger all differences.