MOTOR Hot Tuner Challenge

[giddleberry]

Guy, how much was your brake upgrade worth?

[MurphyTheElf]

This isn't a concern really. This is purely a by product of the cars being manuals.
I'm not sure what the issue is here. I'm not sure whether even race car drivers have forgotten how to use a stick and clutch, or whether VW (Golf MK6) manuals are just really that bad, but we knew even before the GTI and R arrived in Australia, that the manual would cost you at least 1 second and would also cost you "consistencey".
The Audi S3 "DSG" does a 0 to 100 in 4.58 seconds in these tests despite only have 187kw at the wheels on this particular dyno (day). The R measured only 230w on this particular dyno (pretty low compared to the ~250kw which APR Stage III kits have shown on other dyno days), yet only manages a 5.74 second. That is actually a great improvement over what people are getting in stock manual Rs (~6.4) - but considering a stock R DSG gets consistent 5.7s and a simple APR Stage I ECU flash gets you 4.68 seconds and less (in line with the Audi S3 DSG here), the switch to DSG cars can't happen quick enough!

If that were the case, then why were the Japanese cars capable of such amazing figures? They were all manuals and all but one capable of sub 5.2s times. The MRT STI was capable of 3.95s! That was a hugely expensive exercise but the much cheaper EVOs had no trouble launching in around 5 seconds without any clutch mods at all.

[Corey_R]

Looking at the results, it's interesting to see how much of a disadvantage the manual really has. If you assume that the Stage 3 R DSG would simply be the same speed as the Stage 2 Audi S3 in the 0 to 100, 400m and 400m V-max tests, then the Stage 3 R would have come up with a 8th place result overall.
But of course, we all know that it would be faster in these tests. How much would an extra 43kW at the wheels be worth with the same "perfect shifting DSG"? Enough for 0.3 seconds in 0 to 100? 0.5 second in the 400m? 6kph better 400m V-max? That would have given it a 5th place result overall, and that's without calculating the changes in points (including reductions in points awarded to other cars) in other categories based on possibly better times at Eastern Creek and in the Motorkhana etc.

But then again... there are just so many variables! The weather could have been different and all the results would have totally changed! So I agree with Tim, no point analysing things too much.... but man would I like to have seen the Golf's equipped with DSGs!

[Corey_R]

If that were the case, then why were the Japanese cars capable of such amazing figures? They were all manuals and all but one capable of sub 5.2s times. The MRT STI was capable of 3.95s! That was a hugely expensive exercise but the much cheaper EVOs had no trouble launching in around 5 seconds without any clutch mods at all.

Well, the Japanese cars have different 4WD systems compared to the Audi S3 and Golf R....
But there is little point you and I having a discussion about the mechanical differences which allow things to be so when neither of us are mechanics or engineers. What we do know is (from countless sources) the Golfs and A3/S3s with manuals suck for straight line acceleration - and what I'm surprised about is that you're surprised about this.
We knew before this article. We can see that even with 43kw less at the wheels, the DSG equipped S3 does 0 to 100 in 4.58 seconds, compared to 5.74 for the manual R.


Edit:
Going back to your post above mate....

Since so much of the challenge's focus was on launching, straight-line sprints and low-speed courses, maybe a different setup may have yielded better overall results? Is this indicative of what to expect from stage 3? Heaps of power but tough to launch and "average" performance at lower (street) speeds. I'm only asking because the following aspects are important to me:

1. Off the line launch (0-40/60kmh) with minimal delay to be able to leapfrog other drivers from standstill, and to dart across oncoming traffic when turning right.
2. In-gear acceleration (80 - 120/140) for overtaking.
3. Low speed agility for (legal) suburban driving, twisties, etc

As per my reply above your quote, and my previous post, the change from manual to DSG would put the Golf R 100% definitely the 2nd fastest car 0 to 100km overall, quite possibly the top 3 even maybe the fastest in 0 to 400m. I'm sure that would make you much happier.

As for your list, unfortunately the review doesn't focus on any of that, except for Motorkhana (for low speed agility), where even with a manual, the R placed 6th out of 18 cars.

[Corey_R]

Guy, how much was your brake upgrade worth?

As I stated in my post at 6:28 PM - the Alcon brake upgrade on both APR's was $4500

[MurphyTheElf]

Well, the Japanese cars have different 4WD systems compared to the Audi S3 and Golf R....

It doesn't matter whether the Golf is an AWD or FWD, the manual is still slow. Although the official GTI acceleration figures mark the DSG and manual version identically. I know it's different in the real world though.

But there is little point you and I having a discussion about the mechanical differences which allow things to be so when neither of us are mechanics or engineers. What we do know is (from countless sources) the Golfs and A3/S3s with manuals suck for straight line acceleration - and what I'm surprised about is that you're surprised about this.

Why is it pointless? Because we have little mechanical knowledge doesn't mean we can't throw the question out there and perhaps gain knowledge in return. I'd like to think I'm still capable of learning new things.

I'm surprised that a $3500 clutch upgrade and a $1950/$3500 diff upgrade doesn't seem to have any effect on this phenomenon. I don't like that our car of choice (in manual guise) has an Achilles heel that seemingly can't be overcome. I'd love to know the reason. I'm surprised that you're surprised I'm surprised.

As per my reply above your quote, and my previous post, the change from manual to DSG would put the Golf R 100% definitely the 2nd fastest car 0 to 100km overall, quite possibly the top 3 even maybe the fastest in 0 to 400m. I'm sure that would make you much happier.

A faster R doesn't make me happy at all. I have a GTI.

[Corey_R]

Your DSG GTI is faster than a manual R in a straight line if you put the Stage 1 on it

[MurphyTheElf]

Your DSG GTI is faster than a manual R in a straight line if you put the Stage 1 on it

NOW you've made me happy! Haha.

[dave_r]

I'm surprised that you're surprised I'm surprised.

LOL, I'm surprised that someone hasn't put up a scan of the article. I don't have a newsagent within walking distance.....

[Maz]

I'm surprised that someone hasn't put up a scan of the article.

+ one!

10char

[Highlander]

LOL, I'm surprised that someone hasn't put up a scan of the article. I don't have a newsagent within walking distance.....

Might have something to do with copyright. Not all that legal to copy and post (I don't think).

You might just have to wait till you can save up $8.95.

Hope your VW dealer is in walking distance or you may have trouble picking up your Polo next Monday.

[Highlander]

Somewhat confused

Sorry Murphy,

I completely disagree

Our cars stopped 100-0 (in class) second & third.

The cars that finished behind us (three VAG cars) had brakes costing:

$11,500
$4820
$4600 (so all three cost more than our setup).

Then the car that flogged us all was a BMW 135i with $800 worth of brake mods.

So vehicle dynamics have a lot to do with it - remember last months bang for your buck where the GTI & R finished 2nd & 3rd last in the braking - compared to EVERYTHING!

It's simply the cars dynamics & I am very happy to take on any VAG derivitive of this chassis in a brake competition & win!

I don't really think there are genuine classes in this comparison. Are Japanese, European and Australian really classes or rather just journalistic groupings? What about the cultural heritage of the drivers? Will that affect performance of the vehicles too.

The braking figures for your cars look pretty good to me. The GTI was beaten by 6 of the 18 cars on test . Better than all the Japanese cars and only beaten by the 135 (brilliant for an $800 upgrade)and 5 of the locals with brake upgrades costing from $6500-$7000 and no cost provided for the Walkinshaw SS Wagon. The R (probably due to heavier weight over the GTI) fell behind 3 of the Japanese, the GTI, the 135 and 5 of the locals. Interestingly, there is no negative comment about the GTI or the R brakes made by the test pilots.

As a point of interest did you ever check the 100-0 of the standard R before your modifications?

Would you care to elaborate on "It's simply the car's dynamics" for the unwashed amongst us? Is it suspension geometry, weight distribution, overall design or what?

With no knowledge at all, I would expect a 1360/1475kg car with pretty similar size brakes to outbrake vehicles of over 1800kg but that wasn't the case in these tests.

Maybe all the V8 Supercar racing has helped the development of braking systems for the local heavyweights.

I may also suggest that 100-0 test may not be the best test of overall braking efficiency but it is the measure used in this comparison test.

The efficacy of the brakes and the way they operate, not just raw stopping power, must have had some small part to play in the R's great EC lap times and I am sue that there was not even one 100-0 stop during that test. As I said earlier, there is no negative comment about the GTI or the R brakes made by the test pilots.

[MACCAA]

The braking test is performed on dead cold brakes.
Given the fact that the bulk of the field are running high performance/race pads,which perform at their optimum with heat in them,the varying results are to be expected.
Quite often modified brakes don't stop all that much better,but will do it lap after lap.
The reason some of the bigger cars stopped so well is generally they have much bigger tyres than you can put under a golf.
There certainly ain't much wrong with the stoppers on the two APR Golfs when I drove 'em.

[Highlander]

The braking test is performed on dead cold brakes.
Given the fact that the bulk of the field are running high performance/race pads,which perform at their optimum with heat in them,the varying results are to be expected.
Quite often modified brakes don't stop all that much better,but will do it lap after lap.
The reason some of the bigger cars stopped so well is generally they have much bigger tyres than you can put under a golf.
There certainly ain't much wrong with the stoppers on the two APR Golfs when I drove 'em.

Thanks Len. Pretty simple explanation and definitely takes some of the legitimacy away from the real value of a 100-0 test/comparison done under these conditions and certainly no reason for us to beat ourselves up about VW braking performance. Again the lap times only support what you say about the APR Golf brakes.

An average of ten stops may be a more valid or relevant test. Those of us with little or snowy white hair can recall when the motoring journos used to use Macquarie Pass as the barometer of brake testing and performance.

Do you know if the Bang for Buck tests were done under similar conditions?

[Guy_H]

Actually I reckon a better test for brakes would be 10 stops from 200kmph. That would soon sort "the men from the boys", and in hindsight, unless the brakes were woeful to start with, you may not improve much on standard brakes in the magazine's test.

The three different compounds of "street" pads we use honestly have no real bearing on the single stop issue, the difference is we can (at QR) get 4 laps, 8 laps or 10+ laps out of each respectfully with 215kmph stops.