I think several people have answered that question already! OK, this reminds me of arguing with you over mk2/mk3 car weights, in the end it turned out your only dig at a mk2 was it would likely come off worse in a crash....well, your clutching at straws again, the fuel consumption isn't that bad - plenty of people getting 30mpg on motorway runs, 300 miles to a tank. It drinks more petrol undeniably but for me, that extra performance far outweighs it (it's more than marginal - read toyotec's post, he knows a LOT more than you) - and i'm not interested in your little pre-arranged races, they mean nothing in terms of car comparison. Plus, if fuel economy is an issue, you don't buy a performance car, full stop. Anyway, I've seen this topic covered a few times, always the same result...
so in short, your happy to pay silly fuel bills for only-just-better-than-16v-performance when in reality, you could have 300bhp if you went else where lol
Of course theres many other options for more bang per buck, the 20vt for example, but wasnt the original debate - Mk3 16v or Mk3 VR6 ?!?
you cant get many cars with 20vt with a few grand tho, not yet i dont think. in terms of bang per buck, the 16v has to win hands down lol
there is somebody whos posted in this thread who paid less for a tidy VR6 than most people pay for a mk3 valver.
no, my dads better than yours, so there i drove a VR mk3 once and, as i'm sure i've said before, i really wasn't impressed by the low down urge-seemed to only really get going above 4k. however, when all's said and done (will it ever be?!) a vr is quicker, and if you want that benefit along with the noise you pay for it-if you think it isn't worth it, fair enough, i can agree to an extent, but for some the VR is the only way to have a mk3-and that i can understand too.
pmsl at this thread, excellent stuff the debate will always burn, which is quicker, which is less fuel etc etc, each to their own mine gets me from point A to point B, and reasonably quickly if i want it to, my valver drinks fuel, but then i tend to live in the 4-7k zone all the time lol
they are good and flexible and quick, but does it justify the fuel??! nah, in all seriousness, they are great and they sound awesome. i think we can lay this can of worms to rest lol
See mr gti's sig. 1997, 120K ish, good spec with aircon as for price its not my car, so thats not for me to say......
Well i want expecting such response when i posted this thread. My mind isnt fully made up but i kind of slightly favour the valver only becuase ive not owned and worked on a v6. I'll have to look at see whats out there.
If you wanna know what a VR can do with subtle mods or full on S/C with 300bhp or Turbo conversions then pop on over to VR6OC as there are some fine examples there. Plus the majority of them will get upwards of 250 miles to the tank. As has been said every car will drink petrol if you push them hard its just that the VR has 2 more cyclinders to burn the petrol quicker and the noise just makes you drive it hard. And for the people who say that there is no pull under 4k then yes thats true, but spend about 1k on a Schrick manifold and it brings the torque down to about 2k and makes the car very drivable indeed. Or if you have the money the about 2.5k will get a supercharger for a very progressive power delivery
250 a tank when supercharged, id bet good money they dont do that STANDARD. http://www.auto-journals.com/content/ventovr61.html thats the site of one of the writers for evo mag, someone put a couple VR6 ventos on there. average of 18mpg, my friends e46 M3 gets more than that and he hammers it all over the place the only good thing about VR6 fuel consumption is its comedy value lol thats the best one i heard all day mate, 250 a tank from a tuned vr....
http://www.clubgti.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=3593&highlight=vr6+mpg http://www.clubgti.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=94086&highlight=vr6+mpg 32mpg, at best, driving like a nun on a motorway. for the sake of 20bhp. its a lovely engine, but does that just justify the fuel it hammers through
Planning to sell it for around 500. Totally standard, pretty good condition aside from a few small rust spots here and there, nothing major though. Slight damage to the passenger door where some ****er broke into it back in october. Never broken down on me either. Not bad considering I only paid 750 for it nearly 4 years ago.
As said, my mk2 VR has the mk3 16v final drive and it's an equal match up to *cough* mph to a 225bhp/250lb/ft Focus ST as we had a bit of a burn up with one of our salesman last week along our preffered road test 'track' With the 3.68 FD 80 mph is about 3500rpm so hardly 'buzzy' on the motorway. Yep,set of Dougherty 268 cams (250 from USA) 6 branch manifold and a CAI has given my 2.8 VR 211bhp : 197 lb/ft - I agree for a 2800cc 6 cylinder engine, just over 200bhp is a bit pants, when you look at things like the E36 M3 3.0 + 3.2 motors giving 280+ bhp. I was always a 16v fan but after 4 yrs of Valver power in my mk2 I wanted something different, very pleased with the VR.. even if it's a thirsty barsteward.
all you boys talking of mpg i dont get it.if you want economy get a 1043cc polo if not buy a gti or a vr6 and drive it for the fun of it and when the fuel light comes on stick in some fuel and carry on .i bet if you walked to the shop once in a while and had a vr6 instead of drive there in your gti it would work its self out at the same mpg .I know not many of us lot are loaded but come on a few mpg here and there aint gonna bother your wallet is it? i bet any one of us could drive a gti hard enough to get naff all to the gallon i have had mine down to about 14 in my mk4 turbo when giving it a good back lane flogging. End of rant.........
Well said - I dawdled along the M5 on the inside lane the other week in busy traffic at a steady 50 mph in the VR - I got the MFA up to 34mpg! However , it was mind numbingly boring.
