0-100 KMH Figures

[ausgolfer]

I have the Polo Gti brochure and it claims 8.2 seconds 0-100km/h.

I have a Motor magazine that says a stock Polo did 7.8 seconds.

I'd say these figures are around spot on for a std polo gti.

[RhysQ]

So I doubt(not saying it's not possible though) people will move into the 6 second bracket with only a chip.

that's a big call. 1190kg's and 150kW(200bhp)/328Nm at the fly will easily put us in the 6's, which majority of us have found out. who's was the chipped GTI on the cruise??

VW quoted 8.2sec stock but most mags i've read have been around the mid to high 7's. same thing with the golf gti, quoted at 7.2 but most mags have been around 6.9-7.

how much does a mk2 GTI weigh and how much power/torque has yours got, just so we can do a quick power to weight ratio (your car/stock polo gti/chipped polo gti).

stock gti - 1bhp has to move 7.93kg @ 220Nm
chipped gti - 1bhp has to move 5.95kg @ 328Nm - APR V1 (mine is APR V2 which was recently tested by GT3 at 360+Nm)

i've just had a bit of a search an apparently the GTI 16v was 150bhp from factory. i could not find the weight of a 16v but i imagine it is more than the 8v's 1002kg. also, the tired mk2 GTI engine will have lost a fair bit of power so i doubt that 150bhp still stands.....but to be "fair", here are the figures as though it has a brand new 16v engine and the weight of an 8v.

mk2 gti 16v - 1bhp has to move 6.68kg @ ??Nm

[RhysQ]

as far as i know all chips for the Polo GTI add about 30-40kw at the fly

just got info off this site for the mk2 GTI 16v (p.s. you're very lucky to own one ) - http://www.worldofmotorsports.com/ca...ake=Volkswagen

in the performance section it says the mk22 GTI does a 0-100 in 9.3sec ??

148bhp/165Nm @ 1100kg so power to weight figures are:

1bhp to move 7.43kg @ 165Nm.

i'd really doubt that girl was chipped or maybe just was not really giving it stick.

[Preen59]

You guys wouldn't happen to hang around with this fella would you?



I mean, i'm only guessing.. But thought you might be into the same stuff. Considering you've posted vehicle DRY weights and QUOTED horsepower increases..

[RhysQ]

You guys wouldn't happen to hang around with this fella would you?



I mean, i'm only guessing.. But thought you might be into the same stuff. Considering you've posted vehicle DRY weights and QUOTED horsepower increases..

lol, my uncle does that for a crust, well, not that......

dyno results (fudged of course ) from the last two dyno days i've been to have shown the stock and chipped result to be VERY close to quoted, so i've just run with quoted for the sake of this thread. if i was to run with actual dyno results and ausgolfer with quoted numbers, there's no good comparison.

yes we've used dry weights because there's no need to go around asking how much people weigh and getting that technical. i'd ausgolfer would weigh more than gtigrl and that can be taken into consideration, but the difference may be only 20kgs....not worth considering.

[RhysQ]

Ha ha don't believe everything you read on the net.

Does 9.3 really sound correct according to your calculations?

car weights 980ish.. book says 960(fact) for a 2 door which it is but I have a few heavy a/c bits in it. This is from the owners hand book. And it's a 16v...... not an 8v.

It has 102kw.....this is a fact.

yeah thats why i put ?? after it, i didn't think it sounded right.

that page is for a 16v.....i knew yours is a 16v.... last post remember i said you're lucky to own one!

[Preen59]

yes we've used dry weights because there's no need to go around asking how much people weigh and getting that technical. i'd ausgolfer would weigh more than gtigrl and that can be taken into consideration, but the difference may be only 20kgs....not worth considering.

DRY weight as in NO FLUIDS. No fuel, coolant, brake fluid etc etc etc. That does add up, over 100kgs EASY. Which is about 10% for round figures and that DOES make a difference.

[RhysQ]

DRY weight as in NO FLUIDS. No fuel, coolant, brake fluid etc etc etc. That does add up, over 100kgs EASY. Which is about 10% for round figures and that DOES make a difference.

oh ok.....i see. i've never thought of that lol. i just thought you meant an empty car...haha

thats where my torque level comes in handy, so those added weights don't seem as significant.

[WABIT]

i lol'd in my pants.............

[MissVuks]

i lol'd in my pants.............

really???

[WABIT]

yep...sure did haha

dom

[Preen59]

it's a good point but at the end of the day my old car is still quicker than a std polo gti and quicker than SOME chipped(chip only) gti's.

Just trying to point out that the factory figures and the figure claimed by the respected motoring journos would be fairly accurate for std polo's

You forgot to mention that they have 4 extra valves, variable valve timing AND forced induction too!

really???

Dom wouldn't lie to you...

[MissVuks]

that i am aware of preeny.. lol

[ausgolfer]

Sorry to get off topic, just saying factory figures and those from respected journos can't be disscounted as rubbish because some guy on the net made a typo and wrote 7.2 instead of 8.2 and then everyone agreed that it was super fast.

[RhysQ]

it's a good point but at the end of the day my old car is still quicker than a std polo gti and quicker than SOME chipped(chip only) gti's

i strongly disagree but hey, if you say you've done it, then fair enough. i've never a mk2 GTI so i don't know how they perform. the closest thing i've driven power/weight wise would be my last car, the 102kW/194Nm/1050kg Peugeot 206 GTi 2.0 16v.... and that was definitely not quicker than my GTI as stock. they're quoted at 8.3sec 0-100 but it was definitely faster than that (timed several times).