Look at the results, look at the top 5 or so, and then research what they've done to their cars. Or better still, at the next event, keep track of the good times done on the track and have a chat with the owners.
I'm sure the bloke that runs the quickest mk2 on his massive front slicks and teeny back wheels would struggle on a track pretty badly
I agree - drag racing is a very specialised version of fast with particular requirements. My cup of tea is hillclimbs, sprints and the odd trackday, where corner performance is every bit as important as straight line shove. I agree with Gary in that ring performance is a good measure of general 'fast' and if his Mk2 VR6 is good there then its a good indicator of ability. But I sat in with Revo Kev in a standard 150hp "valver" cordoba and we totally disppeared from Bill in his Ibiza, running 350hp at the time. And Bills no mug. Point being, the ring is also a very specialist arena where local knowledge counts for more than engine or chassis ability. Some interesting facts from standard VW specifications: 2L 8V - 118hp - 16.9cc to make every hp 2.8 12V VR - 172hp - 16.2cc 2.9 12V VR - 187hp - 15.5cc 2.8 24V VR - 201hp - 13.9cc 3.2 24V VR R32 - 238hp - 13.44cc 2L 16V - 150hp - 13.2cc 3.6 24V Passat - 276hp - 13.04cc 3.2 24V VR TT - 247hp - 12.95cc 1.8 16V - 139hp - 12.81cc (ta Neal !) 3.6 24V Passat R36 - 295hp - 12.2cc As standard, the valver is more efficient an engine than even an R32 lump. Its bettered only by some very modern and serious engines. Thats how good a basic building block it is for modifications.
Yep drag racing is a very specialised area but it does, give a direct indication of how "fast" a car is. It doesn't do anything else except to put into practice, how 'fast' a certain amount, or otherwise, of horsepower translates into the actual performance of the car. I agree that a better test does also involve corners....so if we were to choose a standardised circuit to compare cars on, then the Nurburgring is as good a choice as any other - after all it is very long so it has a wide variety of different kinds of corners. Once we get into on road factors such as day-to-day practicality, noise, fuel economy, emissions, etc then you've kinda moved away from merely being interested in performance (but once again its fair enough). It is up to the individual to decide what is important for them, different people have different factors and this is why there is such a variety of cars out there. With the layers of opinion and misinformation on the internet, you need to make your own minds up on things rather than follow, often innocently misguided, advice. For some people VR6 will be great, for others 16V fits the bill.
to continue - we have seen loads of 2L valvers make 180hp - possible with minimal cost - thats 11.1cc / hp. Assuming we are talking about 2.8 VRs - how many make 252hp with minimal mods ?
The VR6 has inherent design weaknesses (related to its unique head design) which restricts its breathing and compared to the 16V engine, doesn't make as much horsepower per cc. They did get round this issue (with the Schrick manifold) but it was too costly to implement into production. It was designed to offer refinement where the 4 cylinder had basically, run out of capacity (there's issues with making a 4 cyl smooth above around 2 litres, without the use of balancer shafts), not strictly performance (although being nigh on 3 litres is obviously going to help). With time, and with modifications, its overcome these production weaknesses. True it costs more to modify a VR6. Remind me, what are the goalposts on this thread again?
How to get 180-200hp in a Mk2 golf was the question...ooops, gone a bit off topic LOL tell you what, valvers are crap gutless rev monsters, stick a VR6 in it !
It might have gone off topic BUT Its all been very interesting!! The original question was what to do with a 1.9 8v with an aim of 180-200bhp and an open mind. SO FAR 16v 2.0 seems to be the fave but limited to about 180bhp with out lots of cash. VR6 has its fans. Seems a cheap way to the target power but at the expense of weight. having said that a figure of about 40kgs crops up - which isnt much in the real world!! Other people like honda and vauxhall lumps... hmmm no thanks - I'd buy a honda if I wanted one hehehe Alex
so, for a 2v per cylinder especially inefficient engine, the 12v VR isnt so bad then? from your figures above, it betters the 2L 8v. I'm suprised and not in equal measures that you have used the above to illustrate your point, we all agree that the 12v vr lump is an ineffective air pump - the headline figures do not show their best side, you and I both know that its the area under the graph that illustrates what an engine is about - when you gave the specs for your engine, you know doubt wanted to be able to have 'driveability' not about peak power, in fact if I recall correctly, you have debated before about increasing the size of your TB's to 48mm to increase the power, but have raised concerns about the adverse effects elsewhere. So, with specific comparison to a 2L 16v with circa 180bhp, the VR has its mertis when comparing power and torque. And, all of this discussion is completely without merit if the matter of gearing is not mentioned, if you wanted a good A/B road tool with trackday use thrown in for good measure, a standard VR box is next to useless (but great on the autobahn ), a standard MK2 16v box (ratio wise) being much better suited to the nature of a GTI type of car We could go on and on regarding this subject, probably forever and a day, we all have different criteria in mind when we make our choices and we are all different, its a good job really, can you imagine us all with Lime Pickle Ibiza's or dodgy Jetta's?
all very sensible Mr Coal - apart from getting rid of Sheryl, silly silly boy most of us have to put up with synchro gearboxes so pukka rev monsters are out - mine is built for midrange but has the advantage it will still go to 9K when I need to - the problem going higher is that the gearbox wont change gear thats why I never went to 48's - dont need more top end as I couldn't use it - 247 and with a 5K operating window isn't bad though so I shouldn't complain I have been planning a 1.4 turbo based on a 2L block and very short stroke - 1.4 turbo as I would be allowed to run it in 2L atmo class in racing - revving to 10K would net 350-400hp - problem with this plan is I couldn't change gear........so would need to add 4.5K to the project for a decent dog box.......bummer
lucky man (although you dont need one with a 95 crank) - I need one in my life soon, with a plate diff for driving on the grass fast - problem is, a motorbike or a gearbox.......
