Mk6 Golf Acceleration & Performance Data

[adzy]

Good to catch up with you Fab and mate I rekon you have a 12.9 in that thing for sure if you run with less fuel next time and remove the spare tyre and jack... but mainly the fuel mate. And I agree.... would not be dissapointed with those times at all bro

[REXman]

hey just wanted to add this very interesting article regarding a cars performance and measuring different criteria and how accurate that criteria is.

Well Corey_R last time said to me that performance was NOT all about power to weight.. and its not an accurate indicator of performance.

Read this article my friend!

Browser Warning

Cheers

Other than MPH at the quarter mile mark, it is the BEST indicator of a cars performance.

[adzy]

Good article that, like the breakdown of data, I always wondered of the value of torque in all this as u see many cars with huge torque but crap power produce rubbish numbers at the strip . Trap speeds have always been the better bragging topic of quarter miles in my opinion... Some awd's do get the great ET's however yield a pathetic trap speed.
Still though fab.... Less fuel and 12.9 mate, plus u were getting quicker as the air got colder last night.

[Fab_R]

Can't ask for much better temp wise. DSG doesn't seem to launch that hard because your 60ft times aren't that quick for a 4wd car. Surprised at the low terminal speed given the level of mods you've got.

Yeah temp was pretty good, and times were dropping as with my last run.
The launches to be honest were not nice and considered soft IMO, it just wasnt feeling right.

In the past the best launches ive had was were it launched at 3,500-4,000rpm, and sometimes it does it.

Reasonable results, about what I expected.

I think the times ran (on a grippy track) indicate the low 4s measured previously by the G Tech was way off.

Yeah i agree totally. Gtech i think is NQR.
Example, first run Gtech 0-100 5.5sec & 1/4 12.50. Pfft

Again, when i tested side by side with Vbox it was out, but the best achieved with Vbox which has cred was 0-100 of 4.49sec

Fabs, do you have the latest revision of the APR stage 2+ tune which was revised around the start of April? I done my previous 1/4 mile runs with the old revision so I plan on doing some more with the new revision to compare times.

Hey ferret, yeah mate i do, got it done within the week it was released. To drive it felt better.
Will be interesting to see what difference it will make with your R.

a) Dont be disappointed FAB_R!! they are good solid times mate. To put into perspective your as fast as an MY05 M3! And very close to spanking new M3.

b) Keep in my mind mate although they are a touch heavier (80-odd KGs) than the M3, buy they dont launch at 3000rpms like our cars.. they launch at like 6000rpm's!! And thats where your 2 tenths are!

Great effort for our little Golf's mate. Great result.

Thanks REXman. Not too dissapointed, maybe a little. I guess keeping it in perspective re the M3 data old & new is encouraging.
Next time i will be trying a few different things like perhaps 18" rims, no spare, less fuel etc.
And with the ALCONS going in shortly, that will be a 16kg weight saving.

Good to catch up with you Fab and mate I rekon you have a 12.9 in that thing for sure if you run with less fuel next time and remove the spare tyre and jack... but mainly the fuel mate. And I agree.... would not be dissapointed with those times at all bro

Hey Adam, great to catch up and meet you finally, it was good to have a chat.
I will try that next time for sure mate. Every little bit makes a difference. I'll run it next time on close to empty!
And as we get further into the year it will get colder

[Johnbu]

Rexman,

I think if you read my post again, you'll realise that I was skeptical of the low 4s measured on the G-Tech/V-Box would mean it's a 12 sec car on the strip.

I even sent you a PM to support your opinion, lol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Johnbu]

Doesn't mean the results are not very good, just the strip will separate the hype & truth.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Corey_R]

but the best achieved with Vbox which has cred was 0-100 of 4.49sec

Just highlighting that one. Unless REXman is now going to start trying to tell us that VBox are also not accurate and reputable because it doesn't support his arguments


Hey Fab, as far as your results, they seem good in some parts, disappointing in others. The 60' times are no better than my Stage 1 times and worse than the 1.98 that Ferett achieved on the way to his 12.9 1/4.

Having said that, I wouldn't be too disappointed as it's your first time there in the R. Getting used to the LC and not getting caught up with all the other stuff happening and launching them properly is difficult.

[BezzyR]

Getting used to the LC and not getting caught up with all the other stuff happening and launching them properly is difficult.

Launching the R is not difficult.. The LC program was consistent with Fab's 60'ft times pretty bang on each run.. pretty hard to improve
that 60 ft unless u have either more power or less weight, smaller wheel diameter etc.... these things would be definately better if you could get a 4500rpm launch IMO..

Well done Fab as others have mentioned a 13.1 is pretty good for these things.. getting into the 12's is no easy feat!

Just a note as well.. the timeslip Fab posted was running against a 2009 WRX STI... your 12.9 is on the cards Fab!

Also good to meet you last night Adam.

p.s Calder Park should be called Colder Park.. it was freezing lol

Cheers
Curtis

[adzy]

Good to meet you to, was good to have a chat and that was warm weather for Calder Park trust me!
12's are right there waiting Fab! No doubt.

Ps: Next time............. there will be a certain 5 door Golf R running as well!! HINT HINT

[Corey_R]

Launching the R is not difficult.. The LC program was consistent with Fab's 60'ft times pretty bang on each run.. pretty hard to improve that 60 ft unless u have either more power or less weight, smaller wheel diameter etc.... these things would be definately better if you could get a 4500rpm launch IMO..

Well, what I meant was, when you get to the drag line and you then have to go through the LC process in a rush to not be left there on the line, it's difficult. I know they say that the RT means nothing, but when you see the other car already taking off, you get angsty (at least I did).

The issue I had was that you set the LC in "staging", and then you have to roll forward a touch so that the lights start counting down. That "roll forward a touch" then prevented the car from being able to rev. What I've since found is that flicking the shifter back to D and then back to S "reenables" the LC immediately.

You then, as Fab_R mentioned, can launch them at more than the 3000rpm the LC attempts to limit you to, IF you get the timing exact. Again, this takes some practice. So whilst it's quite different to a manual car obviously, it's still not a case of just showing up and driving.

In any case, the 60' times of less than 2s have already been achieved and 1/4 times in the 12's have already been achieved too with an R.

[adzy]

Well, what I meant was, when you get to the drag line and you then have to go through the LC process in a rush to not be left there on the line, it's difficult. I know they say that the RT means nothing, but when you see the other car already taking off, you get angsty (at least I did).

The issue I had was that you set the LC in "staging", and then you have to roll forward a touch so that the lights start counting down. That "roll forward a touch" then prevented the car from being able to rev. What I've since found is that flicking the shifter back to D and then back to S "reenables" the LC immediately.

You then, as Fab_R mentioned, can launch them at more than the 3000rpm the LC attempts to limit you to, IF you get the timing exact. Again, this takes some practice. So whilst it's quite different to a manual car obviously, it's still not a case of just showing up and driving.

In any case, the 60' times of less than 2s have already been achieved and 1/4 times in the 12's have already been achieved too with an R.

When I ran I just stage correctly first (both staging lights activated) before you set the LC. Easyer.

[Corey_R]

At WSID they make you do the same as the pro's.... get on the strip, do your burn out if you want, (reverse), drive forward. they'll then ready the lights, then roll forward the <1 foot, lights will count down.

It's annoying. I don't know why it's done this way, but yeah, tricked the DSG a few times...

[Fab_R]

Yeah my LC was being a biatch.
As Corey said, 3 of the 4 runs i did, LC did not want to engage, leaving me there on the line like a DH.
I then had to go back to drive then back to sports.
It really unsettled me on the line. Very annoying.

PS. Thanks Bezzy BN........
Played a great support role as my crew chief last night

[Jarred]

...In any case, the 60' times of less than 2s have already been achieved and 1/4 times in the 12's have already been achieved too with an R.

geez, aren't you just a sour grape? How about a 'congrats', or 'good on ya' and 'you'll get a 12 next time'??

Good on ya Fab, hope you had a blast out there!

[Corey_R]

It's great work from Fab. Don't get me wrong, he and I get along great and I know he knows that I have no sour feelings towards him. Please don't misunderstand, my replies have not been meant to be negatives towards Fab, they have been to point out to the people who are still claiming that "power to weight" is the only factor involved in performance, and that only an increase in power to weight will improve those times, and ignoring the fact that <2 second 60' times and 12.x sec 1/4's have already been performed on the "tune level" that Fab is running.