MK6 Golf - The R32 is dead .... but a GTI-R LIVES !!!!

[VW GTI]

The reason AWD's get slowed isn't too much traction. It is first the increased driveline losses meaning less power gets to the ground & second the increased weight, meaning a slower car.

I don't know of an FWD vs AWD with the exact same specs to compare off the top of my head, the closest is Golf GTI vs R32 which share chassis and suspension geometry, but the significantly more powerful R32 always wins because of the extra power. I'd bet money that if you got another 147kW GTI and added to it the R32's AWD setup (adding easily 100kg to the weight of the car), it would be slower then the FWD model.

Audi have lots don't they?

A3, A4, TT?

[POLARBEAR666]

If you look at the R32 it is hardly .1 faster to 100 than a stock GTI and that is despite 40kw more. That is because 1594kg R32 vs 1500kg GTI gives the GTI a 94kg advantage. 100kg is worth .2-.5 seconds on the Qtr mile and cancels out the extra 40kw that the R32 has vs a stock GTI.

So I don't think that a 200kw 4motion new golf will be faster than a 147kw mk5 golf by more than .1 or .2 to 100. If you fit sticky tyres to the GTI it would be dead even or faster.

The other reason I wouldn't want a 4wd DSG car is that 4wd puts all of the strain on the gearbox. Without some wheelspin your clutches just take all the force. WRX';s EVo's and GTR's eat clutches.

[RhysQ]

Pumpe-Duse, i apologise, i did forget to mention the Golf R32 vs Megane R26...but there again, the R26 poos all over the golf with suspension and chassis set up. its not dubbed the F1 edition for nothing!

as for the WRX comment....read through my previous posts again slowly and you'll see i clearly said that the WRX is a car that has always had rubbish suspension.

no, evo's are far from crap but once again, the megane has a far superior suspension and chassis set up. it has to be one of or if not the best for a car its size.

like sam said, there is no point comparing unless it is the same car with the FWD and AWD options, such as those of the Audi's.

Rhys

[VW Convert]

The other reason I wouldn't want a 4wd DSG car is that 4wd puts all of the strain on the gearbox. Without some wheelspin your clutches just take all the force. WRX';s EVo's and GTR's eat clutches.

This would be true if we spent all of our time drag racing, reality is that in normal driving you don't spin your wheels.

Cheers

George

[VW GTI]

And you don't get DSG if you want to drive. You get it if you want to steer.

[VW Convert]

And you don't get DSG if you want to drive. You get it if you want to steer.

Now, now be nice to us DSG drivers!

Cheers

George

[VW GTI]

Now, now be nice to us DSG steerers!

Cheers

George

Fixed it for you

[VW Convert]

Fixed it for you

ROFLMAO!

Cheers

George

[Pumpe-Düse]

If you look at the R32 it is hardly .1 faster to 100 than a stock GTI and that is despite 40kw more. That is because 1594kg R32 vs 1500kg GTI gives the GTI a 94kg advantage. 100kg is worth .2-.5 seconds on the Qtr mile and cancels out the extra 40kw that the R32 has vs a stock GTI.

So I don't think that a 200kw 4motion new golf will be faster than a 147kw mk5 golf by more than .1 or .2 to 100. If you fit sticky tyres to the GTI it would be dead even or faster.

The other reason I wouldn't want a 4wd DSG car is that 4wd puts all of the strain on the gearbox. Without some wheelspin your clutches just take all the force. WRX';s EVo's and GTR's eat clutches.

Those are... interesting weight figures? I've got 3dr GTI DSG vs 3dr R32 DSG for example here, at 1360kg GTI and 1530kg R32. I'd be really surprised if the GTI weighed that much more then everything else in its class (Megane 225 is 1361kg, MPS3 is 1403kg, Focus XR5 is at the 1380 mark).

147kW/280Nm @ 1360kg = 108.08kW/tonne & 205.88Nm/tonne
184kW/320Nm @ 1530kg = 120.26kW/tonne & 209.15Nm/tonne

Advantage R32, despite the weight. Its quite more then .1 faster 0-100 then a stock GTI is. That Fastestlaps.com site for example, lists it as 8 tenths (6.8 vs 6.0).

Re 4WD's eating clutches - if you build your clutch properly, to take the force it is going to be channeling, it will be fine. The blame is with those manufacturers rather then the fact that the vehicles are AWD.

]Pumpe-Duse, i apologise, i did forget to mention the Golf R32 vs Megane R26...but there again, the R26 poos all over the golf with suspension and chassis set up. its not dubbed the F1 edition for nothing!

as for the WRX comment....read through my previous posts again slowly and you'll see i clearly said that the WRX is a car that has always had rubbish suspension.

no, evo's are far from crap but once again, the megane has a far superior suspension and chassis set up. it has to be one of or if not the best for a car its size.

like sam said, there is no point comparing unless it is the same car with the FWD and AWD options, such as those of the Audi's.

Rhys

Unfortunately, I can't find figures for Audi Quattro vs Non Quattro models, except one Audi (A4 2.0T FSI), on that site at least, and there's a power disparity, because its some 169kW DTM Edition A4 vs the normal 147kW FWD car.