Unless you get a late 8v that has the VR (288mm) brakes on them. My 8v can't be slow, I can overtake everything that's doing 30mph.
i was under the impression that all early 8v/16v/vr6's had 280mm, and then they all changed to 288mm in late '95
I've recently bought a mk3 GTI. Having test driven 4 16v's and 3 8v's I really couln't see what was so special about the 16v. Ok, so when you rev it's nuts off it seems quicker, but looking on the mfa at the fuel consumption all 4 were showing an average of below 30, one below 25. Granted when actaully trying to drive fast the 8v is slower, but driving as you would every day the difference isn't really noticed and fuel consumption is better. In the end I got a well maintained 1997 5 door 8v, (which has the bigger front and rear discs) under 100k, with aircon and a sunroof for 1100. For that kind of money on a 16v it would have been at least 2 year older and probably not so well specced. My conclusion, if you want a fast mk3, buy a VR6.
disagree with you there..... i test drove 2 8v mk3's when I was buying, and got good duel carriageway runs in both of them..... they just seemed so flat, nothing exciting about it... boring in fact. It feels like driving a 1.8 vectra club to me.... when I drove the 16v it was in total contrast, actually has some acceleration to it, not the quickest thing in the world but mine shows 99 mph in 3rd gear and 125 in 4th gear ( all be it speedo figures) which actually feels fun as apposed to boring..... VR6 is quicker yes, but until you hit motorway speeds it doesn't seem it, and the insurance, running costs, repair costs, don't make it worth while to me.... although the sound does on its own probably
seriously. why debate it? just line em up. tests have shown that my 16v is quicker than a fair few vr6s and its only mildly breathed on.
i think the the point most are trying to make is that for everyday use the 8v is by far the easiest to drive....i'd have to agree with that. in fact, if i went back in time i think i'd have got an 8v over the vr6 i got.....mainly cause my vr6 was a PITA reliability wise, but also they're harder work to drive day to day.
Time for my fantastic input... It's a fat car. Comparing both... 8v = slow. 16v = quick. all you ever needed to know. Get a 16v (or just buy a better car they're genrally rather RUSTY [:^(]) Edit: They are however pretty reliable. All the time i've owned mine i've had no engine troubles whatsoever... only thing was when I very first got it, the tw*t who owned it before me failed to spot a MASSIVE hole in the breather pipe and blamed the large amount of oil spat over the engine on the dipstick being loose some people are braindead.
more than youd dare to shake a stick at. so much torque you never have to go lower than 4th gear, its so much easier to drive that way
yeah but i bet its extremly hard to drive around town...unlike the super 8v that drive themselves whenever in town there should be a special driving test for 16v owners to make sure theyre up to the skills req tbh
well 8 valvers are easier to drive, you barely have to touch the steering wheel. flex your right toe one or two microns and the torque steer generated by 76 gigawatts of torque will happily see you round the bend.
well i do own a mk2 8v. the reason i bought that was because the essex cgti meets (at the dick turpin, 2nd monday of the month) are just too far away to be practical. we actually shortened the a127 by about 4 miles with a couple full bore launches in 4th using the 8v it can straighten and shorten roads and its easier to drive
When you floor the 8v, because of the immense torque it will wheelspin holes in the road. When it does gain traction is actually temporarily stops the Earth spinning. True fact
I'm often woken up by matt leaving his house in his 8v where the earth is slightly off kilter because he's had an agressive launch and I fall out of bed.
the best 8v thread EVER was the one where we established that the 8v was what god used to tilt the earth to 13.5* to create the seasons that is the truth
