r36 0-100

[Benem]

220kw, DSG, 4Motion, Superb Sports Seats, Great Handling, room for the whole family, all that for $70k. All that flattery just isn't fair to other cars

[Lance B]

Not disagreeing with the R36 being a very good performance sedan/wagon. But it is flattered by the AWD and DSG combination I'm afraid.

If the R36 had a 6spd Tiptronic and FWD (or RWD) and same power and weight it would perform much worse .....

But then it wouldn't be an R36 would it. This is what I mean, you cannot take parts away from a car as that means it wouldn't be that car. Why don't you take the fuel injection away as well?

Much more powerful cars with similar weight (XR6T/FPV F6 for instance) battle with their RWD only setups in getting traction to the ground. Powerful cars with standard auto boxes also have issues.

Then we would all buy a Ford, but Ford doesn't have these things so you cannot compare them. You are trying to make it all a level playing field, when it is VW technology that allows it to have the edge.

AWD and DSG is a definate advantage, hence VWs decision to include it. It is not a given, it was a decision made by VW to combat weight in delivering performance. Its called engineering........

If you lack power and have a weight issue you have to look elsewhere for an advantage and in this case AWD and DSG is it.

I fail to see your logic, here. What you are trying to do is deny the importance of a particular aspect of a car in order to make out that it is not as good as it is, but you must include all aspects of a car as a whole, not parts of it and say that this is the only reason why it is better. Why not say that a Ford XR6 only goes that fast due to the turbo, but if you included a turbo on the R36, then it would be R36 1st and daylight to the XR6. What you are saying is a bit of a silly argument or point to make.

[gead]

Much more powerful cars with similar weight (XR6T/FPV F6 for instance) battle with their RWD only setups in getting traction to the ground. Powerful cars with standard auto boxes also have issues.

AWD and DSG is a definate advantage, hence VWs decision to include it. It is not a given, it was a decision made by VW to combat weight in delivering performance. Its called engineering........

so what you are saying is that the r36 is well engineered and the falcons are not....flattery will get you everywhere...

[ron]

mmmm, thanx for the tip. with all respect that 270KW/550nm car you referred to is the FG XR6T right? well let me tell you something, our last car was the F6 version of it. These pull high 12s with good launch and TRACTION.
Best I got was 13.3 street trim. 60 ft time was 2.4. If the 60 ft time was to drop to 1.9 or 2, I would have seen high 12s. Again TRACTION was the prob.


NOW, lets focus on the R36 in the real world, with a good launch and it will, you will see a 60 ft time of 1.9 or better, and since you raced you should know that in drag racing a good lauch to build momentum is the most important thing, not just big power or torque to putt along in the last 200m or so...


And yes, in my past life I raced also.


P.S. my wife still not letting me take the new car to Wakefield or WSID, damn!

[ron]

[QUOTE=Sharkie;367344]Not disagreeing with the R36 being a very good performance sedan/wagon. But it is flattered by the AWD and DSG combination I'm afraid.

If the R36 had a 6spd Tiptronic and FWD (or RWD) and same power and weight it would perform much worse .....



DSG is one of the best box you can possibly engineer and put into a car.
It outperforms any manual box or auto in the market. I even prefer it over a 6spd Hollinger we had in our GTR and thats a racing dog box!
So what you are saying is like a WRX with 160oddKW AWD is a bogg machine? Its like engineering going backwards......??

[Sharkie]

I fail to see your logic, here. What you are trying to do is deny the importance of a particular aspect of a car in order to make out that it is not as good as it is, but you must include all aspects of a car as a whole, not parts of it and say that this is the only reason why it is better. Why not say that a Ford XR6 only goes that fast due to the turbo, but if you included a turbo on the R36, then it would be R36 1st and daylight to the XR6. What you are saying is a bit of a silly argument or point to make.

???? I fail to see your logic in it at all. I said the R36 is so good because it has ALL of these things

AND if it had decent power it would be even better ...... with its weight I believe you'd need an extra 30kw/100NM to crack into the mid 13s bracket. Have a look and do a search and try to find anybody anywhere (in the world) who's done that in a stock R36.

[ron]

again, power isnt everything.....that is why there are LCS, AWD, DSG etc etc.
sure, on paper the R36 may need an extra ......???KW/NM to go faster, all cars do. But in real life this is not always the case, im sure you know.


My estimation would be close i still say. If anything they will do mid 13s back to back without much hassle.

[Rocket36]

i dont really care because i dont drive anywhere 400 metres at a time.

[Lance B]

???? I fail to see your logic in it at all. I said the R36 is so good because it has ALL of these things

Your statement that the R36 is flattered by having AWD and DSG that is what I am objecting to. It is the same as saying a Ford XR6 Turbo is flattered by the turbo. It just doesn't make sense because that is what makes the Ford what it is.

AND if it had decent power it would be even better ...... with its weight I believe you'd need an extra 30kw/100NM to crack into the mid 13s bracket. Have a look and do a search and try to find anybody anywhere (in the world) who's done that in a stock R36.

The R36 still has decent power and the torque is well spread, ie 220kW @ 6600rpm and 350Nm from 2400-3500rpm, torque being developed comparitively low at 2400 and spread flat up to 3500rpm, is well designed for it's purpose. Not too many motors have this sort of power and torque spread for the given size. I mean if you compare that to any other 3.6lt 6 you will see that this is an impressive achievement for a production line car at this price point. I mean, if we are to compare it to a Ford 4.0lt we only get 195kW and 391Nm and the torque is developed higher in the rev range at 3250.

If you really need to crack mid 13s for the 400mt sprint, then you would need more power, obviously but then we are talking about requiring a blower or a bigger motor which leads to more fuel useage and other associated issues, like noise and requiring beefier chasis etc. The very reasonthat VW designed the DSG for was to obtain an advantage over it's rivals without the need for a bigger motor and higher fuel useage. So, Ford, and other's, went the easy and less technologically advanced route by simply bolting on a blower and letting her rip. Trouble is, it is at a heavy cost to fuel useage and probably longevity to the motor. VW decided to be smarter and use better technology, to keep fuel useage comparitively low, by employing the brilliant DSG gearbox and therefore not require a more powerful motor in order to get comparitively great acceleration times without a fuel useage penalty.

Now, I don't want to get into a philisophical argument about the pro's and con's of bolting on a turbo and what is the best way to do it and it can be done without many associated issues. The DSG and AWD gives the R36 an advantage in performance but this advantage was done purposely so as not to need a turbo or the like and was done using smarter technology.

My orignal point about your statement was that you really cannot select parts of a car to say that "it is flattered because of x", because that is the very thing that makes the car what it is and why it is such a good car. In fact, the cost of the DSG and AWD set up is costlier and uses better technology than what say Ford did with the XR6 Turbo (to gain some sort of performance advantage), therefore, if Ford went that route, the un-turboed XR6 would probably be just as expensive as the R36 but weigh even more and therefore be slower.

[Pana]

Since a few people have mentioned the "low" torque figures for the 3.6 - do you think it was intentionally done by VW because of the 350Nm "limit" for the DSG box?

I only ask because considering the HO version of the Commodore Alloytech V6 makes 340Nm and the VR6 has the benefits of direct injection - would have thought it would make a little bit more....

[Lance B]

QUOTE=Pana;368021]Since a few people have mentioned the "low" torque figures for the 3.6 - do you think it was intentionally done by VW because of the 350Nm "limit" for the DSG box?

I only ask because considering the HO version of the Commodore Alloytech V6 makes 340Nm and the VR6 has the benefits of direct injection - would have thought it would make a little bit more....[/QUOTE]

The amount of torque of the R36 is not particularly low @ 350Nm for a 3.6lt motor, but I did say it was developed low, meaning low down in the rpm band. The most telling fact is that it is developed at a low rpm between 2,400rpm and 3,500rpm making it very easy to drive and responsive, the DSG just makes it that much better.

Most normally aspirated cars' torque is about it's motor size in litres x 100, so for a 3.5lt motor, the torque should be about 350Nm. It is where in the rpm range that torque (and power) is and for how far it is spread that determines how a motor will perform.

[Pana]

Thankyou, but I did understand your posts and what you meant.

My post was just suggesting that VW deliberately left the peak torque at 350Nm because of the documented torque limit of the 6 speed DSG. I was just wondering whether they could have got the 3.6 to have a higher torque output.

Some people's suggestions however, that 350Nm is not that much to move 1.7 tonne do have some merit. The combination of the AWD, DSG and VR6 does make for quick 0-100km/h times, but in the 6 weeks or so that I've had my R36 - when you're already moving and you put your foot down - rolling starts are not that impressive.

My $0.02

[ozr36]

I wouldn't suggest the documented limit of 350Nm is all that accurate
My Golf V GTI had 440Nm though its DSG without issue inc a wider spread than the R36 does
There are computer program changes for DSG gearboxes that increase their operating torque limit substantially and its been tested.
Try a R36 with a flash tune and a rolling start and see if your still not as satisfied as you want to be!
Although at 350Nm it will be the lowest Nm car I have owned for quite a while myself as I am getting out of an Evo X with 270kw / 450Nm so am expecting somewhat of a difference there!!

[Pana]

Yeah, I get the impression VW has done a bit of a Nissan in the 90's and the GT-R only makes 206kW

Throwing money at anything is going to make it quicker/better etc - unfortunately with a new baby and one wage, can't justify the $2K odd for mods. And really, for what it is, the car is pretty quick - I'm happy to trade off the pull your face off in 2nd I used to get in my old WRX for all the other advantages you get in the R36

[Lance B]

Thankyou, but I did understand your posts and what you meant.

My post was just suggesting that VW deliberately left the peak torque at 350Nm because of the documented torque limit of the 6 speed DSG. I was just wondering whether they could have got the 3.6 to have a higher torque output.

Probably partly true. The peak torque was kept to 350Nm, due partly to the DSG limit, but then they used that 'limit' so as to make that torque 'curve' flat from 2,400 to 3,500rpm to make it more driveable.

Some people's suggestions however, that 350Nm is not that much to move 1.7 tonne do have some merit. The combination of the AWD, DSG and VR6 does make for quick 0-100km/h times, but in the 6 weeks or so that I've had my R36 - when you're already moving and you put your foot down - rolling starts are not that impressive.

That is why you have the DSG and quickly kick it down a couple of gears to get into the power band.