certain people in this thread havne't a ****in clue i've owned both 16v and vr6, no chance a standard 16v keeps up with a standard vr6 i've raced a mk2 with an ABF lump in it and it keeps up until about 80mph but after that the vr6 pulls away so WTF is going to happen with the same engine in a mk3?? dreamers tbh if the performance was 'on a par' then what would be the point in vw making the two models?
yeah.... talk talk torque. the bs drops when the green flag drops as for 8v torque, ive just had a text from our good friend Dan from Hornchurch. he cannot post on the board but attends our meets religiously in his own words (as an 8v driver) "I would like to add that 8v torque was responsible for the first ever leap year and the fall of the berlin wall" the authority has spoken, this thread can now be locked. .... Cya at the next meet dan
If we think about it rationally. How much power did vw quote for the vr6? Ie bhp and torque. I think matt82's 16v got rr'd at 172bhp? and 145+lbsft? I was under the impression a standard vr was around 170bhp but a bit more torque than the 16v? Not sure, mind!
my vr is standard apart from induction kit and exhaust - stats are in my sig vw quoted 174bhp and 170lb/ft i think. they're very torquey.
why debate it? because it's the question of the thread??!! lol yeah, my 16v is extremely hard to drive round town.... don't know how I ever get round it!!! If you want torque buy a diesel chugger...... if you want fun get a 16v.... I don't know anyone that has a 16v that wishes they got an 8v.....
arn't the Golf VR known for always showing more power than was quoted standard? probably to do with the VAG politics etc
one thing the 16v deffo has got over the vr6 though as standard is handling. the first time i drove my vr6 the extra weight in the nose was VERY noticeable so for chucking around corners it aint really ideal
wouldn't surprise me.... probably to make the 2.9 in the corrado seem more desirable. the same is with the mk3 16v though... i wouldn't be surprised if most of those roaded at 160bhp+... they didn't want to overquote to make the 2.8 seem pointless, etc, etc most vw's seem to be underquoted for some reason maybe it's to make audi's seem better
probably why the 16v is still called a GTI!!!! but then... a mk4 2.0 8v...mmm ok scrub that comment, VW don't care what they slap a GTI badge on!!!!
i concur. i know someone who recently put a 94 rover through an mot. had the usual issues but also a ton of rot (ie subframe barely attached to the car haha) as for the vr6, i knew a guy with a very healthy, close to standard, one (filter, exhaust etc). raced that a million times. standing starts, all sorts. on a standing start (and i must have said this a million times too) the vr6 was damn hard to match (read as impossible). with a much better low down delivery, he could launch with much fewer revs, get moving and avoid wheelspin. with the 16v you need a million more revs and run the risk of wheelspinning or overly strainging the clutch. after 1st gear there was basically nothing in it. with a less healthy vr6, mine has shown that 16v can be quicker than a vr6. on a give n take b road (ie no standing starts) its even closer, much of a muchness. but then 16v doesnt drink like a fish. on the downside 16v is impossible to drive around town (just cannot do it) and doesnt have the vr6 sound ps 8v has more torque
I don't like the way you have to rev it to 14,500rpm before it gets going whereas the much easier round town 8v doesn't even need to be started to pull away swiftly. Vr6's do -3mpg. And that's on a long run.
not having to start the engine is what gives the 8v impecible mpg (around town) the 16v actually has negitive torque (not quite as negitive as veetek)
