Mk3 8v tuning - what have you done?

Discussion in 'Engines' started by mr.brown, Dec 21, 2003.

  1. TheSecondComing Forum Addict

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2003
    Likes Received:
    47
    Location:
    Any given gutter, any given day.
    When you say "slightly downhill", do you mean "vertical"?
     
  2. Jimbob Forum Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2003
    Likes Received:
    0
    but are all way too under powered for the weight of the car (brick?)

    im lucky enough to have bought a car with a mint engine, just fitted a p&p head, 4 branch manifold and a gti system aswell. for a 1.6, it goes. wish i cud get a rr readout but i ave decided not to bother as money is tight and the 2.0 16v is nearly ready to go in :lol: but, theres no point in arguing about it, especially on a topic thats nothing to do with it, we just have to spend a day actually racing all these different cars/engine specs. the results would be good info for other people to.
     
  3. DarrenH Forum Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2003
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Northeast Kent
    according to some figures ive got, the suxo vtr has a book speed of 118mph. which is just about fine for a 1.6 90bhp.

    doing a genuine 145mph is gonna require a slippery body shape and about 180-190bhp

    aahh the trusty old "its a goodun" factor. heart warming, everyones engine is just a bit better than anyone elses, just because its theirs. :lol:
    Edited by: 0ddball
     
  4. drew Forum Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2003
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Ah... somebody who knows what they're talking about!

    As far as the 'driver' business is concerned. I saw two 1.8 mk2 drivers outsprint two mk3 8v GTIs at santa pod in 1998. Power to weight ratio is virtually identical. Quite interesting really.

    But some people just don't believe the results of sprints do they? New cars are always faster, after all....

    Cheers,

    Drew.
     
  5. Jimbob Forum Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2003
    Likes Received:
    0
    :clap: and because it was re built 10k miles before i bought it! :lol::p
     
  6. mr.brown

    mr.brown Paid Member Paid Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2003
    Likes Received:
    97
    Location:
    Sunny Surrey
    Enough FFS.

    Thanks for all the replies BTW.
     
  7. S1MMA Forum Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2003
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    anyone know the mph per 1000rpm for a saxo VTR then? can someone registered on a saxo forum ask pls as I'm interested to know what it is now.

    If it's 20mph per 1000rpm, then 145 is going to be 7250rpm

    If it's 22.5mph per 1000rpm, then 145 is going to be 6444.44rpm

    If it's 25mph per 1000rpm (which is very unlikely), then 145 is going to be 5800rpm.

    What does a saxo VTR rev to also?

    EDIT: I had a look on the saxo sport forum and one guy said the rev limiter on a VTR is:

    link is:

    http://www.saxosportsclub.co.uk/forum/posts.asp?threadid=126 978&forumid=5

    So it would have to have at least 23.38mph per 1000rpm in 5th to pull an indicated 145mph. It's not likely to have that, but it's not impossible to have a stretched 5th gear I suppose.

    EDIT AGAIN:

    Oh one of the guys on the said saxo forum has worked out the max speeds in each gear using the 6200rpm rev limit which works out to:

    Link: http://www.saxosportsclub.co.uk/forum/posts.asp?threadid=126 090&forumid=1

    Nice to clear that one up then. It makes the 5th gear 22.565mph per 1000rpm which is similar to a mk3 8v.

    Edited by: S1MMA
     
  8. S1MMA Forum Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2003
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    United Kingdom
  9. mark_vr6 Forum Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bollox
     
  10. drew Forum Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2003
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    The mk3 is actually one of the most aerodynamic cars there is at .30 CD (mk1 golf is .40 btw)

    It's very difficult to do much better and still retain a practical shape. The mk4 dropped to .32 (or rose I guess ;) )

    Remember that coefficient of drag is a ratio though, so frontal area is important, the frontal area of a mk3 golf is likely to be 20-30% more than a Saxo.

    Cheers,

    Drew.
     
  11. Jimbob Forum Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2003
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  12. RoyF18 Forum Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2003
    Likes Received:
    8
    Location:
    Scotland
    Is that not a reasonable price for giving a 115bhp engine an increase to 198bhp? (does that include supplying the turbo etc?)

    Chris - yeah I'm happy with the 1.9 results, it's a nice engine. With a bit more foresight I would've gone 2.0-2.1 but I'm happy for now :)
     
  13. Dubplate Forum Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2003
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Pretty sure it was 8v's they were comparing but i remember seeing on top gear quite a few years back when they raced an 8v mk2 golf with a 120+k miles against an 8v with about 50k and the 120+k example beat the lesser milage 8v by over a good cars length proving the car becomes quicker once the engine is well and truly run in. Now wouldnt this be the case with the mk3 8v's and thats why people are getting different results on their performance figures....only a thought... :)
     
  14. chrismc Forum Junkie

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2003
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes it does, 10.5:1 versus 10:1 for the AGG..They are all quoted at 115BHP though! I was also under the impression that they all have identical 82.5x92.8mm Bore/Stroke giving them all 1984cc capacity??

    The difference is all in the combustion chamber. Headgaskets, Pistons,Rods & crank are all identical!!

    These engines are actually quite torquey in standard form, but the mk3s' biggest enemy is weight IMO.

    You can even feel it in a VR6. Very lethargic up to 3500RPM then it starts to overcome it & away it goes. (Some of this is also down to the VRs lack of low down Torque, but its not noticeable in a mk2 with a VR conversion!)_
    Edited by: chrismc
     
  15. G60Dub

    G60Dub Forum Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2003
    Likes Received:
    29
    Location:
    Angus
    Hi ChrisMC,
    How much did you have taken off your flywheel? Do you not have to have the whole bottom end balanced for longevity?
     
  16. chrismc Forum Junkie

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2003
    Likes Received:
    0
    I believe the standard flywheel weighs arond 6kgs & mine was taken to 4 or 4.5...nothing extreme anyway..

    The bottom end was balanced when the engine was built, & the flywheel was dynamically balanced to 8000RPM after...

    As I am only using the standard 6500RPM limit I dont envisage any problems [:D]
     
  17. Manny New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2004
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  18. Manny New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2004
    Likes Received:
    0
    sorry havnt quite got the hang of this qoute thing, Dave....whats "HIC"...........which company is that?

    im paying 1800 on my mk3 8v and iv'e just turned 25...thats crap..
     
  19. Jimbob Forum Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2003
    Likes Received:
    0
    I rang HIC the other day for a quote, i was told that they have just had to pay out a massive personal injury claim of sorts so they may not be able to live up to thier known excellent rates for a bit. This may just be with younger drivers though (im 20)

    HIC = Herts insurance consultants.
    Ring 08451290290 ;)
     
  20. Dave-in-Herts Forum Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2003
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    As it says above Herts Insurance Consultants, be aware that its TPFT not FC, your is prob FC for your age and that price isn't it?
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice