Im toying with the idea of getting a VR6 as my new work hack. I currently own a CL (that i got given) and the 75BHP, skinny tyres and boat like handling are slowly killing me. I ideally want a car with similar performance to my 205 but without the reliability issues and the VR seems to fit the bill. Im not after spending much money and all the cars within my sort of price range (1500 - 2000) seem to have mega miles. do milages of 150k Plus worry these sort of motors. I know the 4 pots would only consider this run in but to the VRs fair the same ? Any comments/opinions/suggestions welcome Many thanks Jamie
If you want to actually get a Mk3 then I'd consider the 16v aswell, of course this shouldn't turn into a debate on 16v vs. 12v but you should definitely consider it. If you want handling then the 16v is the way to go, the VR is a bit... nose heavy. PM me about your CL though, my project bells are ringing.
I got a (what I think) great nick late reg VR highline in your price range with 90K on it. It took patience and also the willingness to gamble on ebay <gulp> I waited for months before I saw the right one. Totally standard and accepting that it was an 11yr old car so would have the odd niggle. Fuel consumption is poor in stop go traffic - my max is something like 32mpg on a long open road drive. So if that's going to bother you then maybe avoid. I just put the petrol in and try not to look at the cost. I don't think the handling is as bad as people say I only really drive quickly in straight lines tho. I noticed last night that it is quite possible to get wheel spin at 45mph I think mecahnically the big thing is the timing chains. At 150K I would think that would be way at the top of my list of things to get checked/changed. In fact I'm sifting through my pile of receipts to see if mine has been done. I've got a mk3 8v (only air-con different) too which is quick enough off the lights and holds it own and certainly would be fine for a commuter car. Not had a 16V (yet ) and I'm sure it has it's particular merits. I suppose you just have to think do you just want the VR (my way of looking at it and hang the practicalities) or your heart ruling your head and there are more practical commuter cars.
I agree too the 16v is lighter! and handles better but you can't go wrong with a vr. plus if in the near future you fancy alittle bit more of that devils! power......jst go turbo or a simple supercharger set up
Does this come from direct experience or are you just recycling, as usual, a piece of common mis-interepation?... The MK3 VR6 handles just fine. Yes, the 16v may a lighter lump, but the handling isn`t that greatly different.
The VR6 also has completely different wishbones, ARB's, Spring rates (front and rear) so the whole set up of the car is different. Anyone that has had a look at one will realise it has been designed and built completely differently. The only reason why in standard form the VR may not have as sharp a setup as a 16v is because they were designed to do 2 completely differnt things. The VR was designed to sit on an autobahn at 100 mph all day, everyday. You don't want too tight a front end on it for that sort of life. It has little to do with the weight of the engine imo. But hey, lets all roll out the same mis-interepation as shaz...!
As a VR6 owner (ok in a mk2) my first words are if you're concerned about costs, i'd have a think as they're a fairly thirsty engine, need more oil and spark plugs than a 16v (the cost does add up long term). Plus in that price bracket they'll get on certain miles and might need new timing chains or like mine the gasket starts to give way. I love the VR6 engine, but mpg is a lot lower than my mk4 1.8T
Luckily, the internet allows myths to perpetuate and those who misinform, to fade away in anonymity. Its the best place for opinions and the worst place for accurate technical info.
I should have got a pug, but instead I bought a Mk1 Scirocco Storm. In my opinion the first Scirocco is one of the best handling cars, but then I've not driven the 306 so maybe I'm missing out?
Fantastic comment. Having owned a VR6 Highline and driven a Mk3 16v, i can say theres barely a difference in standard form in the handling department. The VR6 is about, what, 60kg heavier at the most (gearboxes have naff all difference after all, both 02A), and sits the tiniest margin forward comapred to the valver. Most people wouldnt know the difference, apart from the way the VR6 sounds and pulls when you press the loud pedal. If you can find a well looked after VR6, and can afford the running costs, then its the best option in my opinion. Parkers Stats on the Mk3 Surprisingly, a GL is as heavy as a Vr6.
drive an old renault 19 16v....if you can find one, and it will out handle most mk3's down a back road. will fall apart too though and look c rap
Take some VR6 advice with a pinch of salt; having read people slate a mk2 with a VR6 engine saying can't see anything special, boat anchor, low power output for size... blah blah...glad I followed those who had a Mk2 Vr6 as i love the VR6 engine! Noise and character! Makes me smile that engine!
front wishbones are the same, so are the rear springs (in fact the whole rear end from what ive seen) front springs and dampers are different. not sure about the arb at the front though im sure once you have the vr on coilovers etc it goes round corners just fine
