Just wondering what the big fuss is with VR6 engines and conversions? I just don't understand, for a start it's not really a "special" engine, it's just one of the larger VAG engines ever fitted as a standard option. From a 2.8 you'd expect more than 175bhp @ 5800rpm and 172.6ft.lbs @ 4200rpm. Aside from the noise I just don't see why this was once the "daddy" of conversions or even engine choice especially considering how much equivalent BMW and Japanese engines outperform it and still return decent mpg. Even the 2.0 16v ABF lump seems evenly matched without the high running costs. So aside from the "noise" what is so special??
been wondering that myself for years. never been in a MK2 VR but would like to though as everyone raves about them. Some one was saying on here that they went to a VR6 rolling road day and his KR with 200k on the clock put out more power than two VR6's that were there?? a 1.8 16v putting out more power than a 2.8 V6?? they seem pretty heavy/thirsty and underpowered to me
Try to get 172lbft N/A from a 1.8 or a 2.0 then you would understand. With Modifications 172lbft can increase to almost 200lbft and even more if its a 2.9 varient. With boost...well thats a differnet story altogther.
well we would all love a 300bhp engine, but the convo here must be about stock as you can make any engine decent with enough thrown at it!!
guys there is a LOT more to a engine than just BHP and Torque figures!!!!!!!!!!! it is no use just compairing figures when you dont understand the relevance and how they effect the performance of a engine. having high HP is only useful if you can access the power by having the power available throughout the rev range. have a look at GVKs thread about why he changed from a VERY well speced 9A/KR hybrid 2.0 16v to a VR6 http://www.clubgti.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=123&page=17 You can see from the dyno prints he has put up that at the point when a 16v comes on cam at 4000rpm which is when everyone says the 16v takes off it the VR6 is already producing 30odd HP more. Compare the torque graph where at NO point is the 16v even close , look at where the 16v makes it peak torque and how rapid the decline in torque is once 6000rpm has been reached. the VR is producing its peak at 5300 but it is nearly making that from 4100 so that 1200 rpm of over 180lbs torque and at the same point over 30hp more than the 16v throughout the same range. yes 0-60 a STANDARD VR6 isnt much faster than a STANDARD mk3 GTI 16v but what the hell is 0-60 - who does 0-60 runs anyway. a VR is about 1s+ quicker over a quarter of a mile but that doesnt show the whole story as you need 3/4 mile to show how much a VR will pull away from a 16v over 100mph. In real driving terms ie 50-90 in 5th or 30-70 in 3rd 60-110 in 4th the in gear acceleration of a VR would whoop a 16v. A VR delivers more power FAR lower down the rev range and what really makes a VR seem slower is its incredibly tall gears. a 2.9 rado VR6 which is rated at 192hp is faster 30-70 through gears (5.7s) than a Sierra RS500 230hp (6s) and 50-70 in 5th (8.1s for corrado) vs 10.1s for cosworth.... thats before strapping a charger or turbo to it!
^^^ good point well made, but then if we all worked on that logic we would all be sticking in 150 PD engine's in not VR's would we not?
LOL not quite, diesel drivers LOVE to comment on there torque but the problem with a diesel is yes they do have large amounts of torque but it is only available over 2000rpm and they have relatively lower amounts of HP. Torque gives you the push that gets you moving but ultimately HP keeps you going. also poor old and new diesels still sound umm no where near as good as a petrol equivelent. In all fairness though i do believe PD conversions will become more common once the price of the engines and the availability improves... a PD150 with a 6sp box and remap would go very well in a mk2.
try and keep up with a pd car in a stock valver, unless you keep it around 6k it's a nightmare for fun a vr6 mk2 is a seriously good combination, not great if you worry about fuel bills tho
VR6 mk2 does seem way to go.. thinking it easier and cheaper now to buy a whole mk3 VR car slap the engine/box/wiring + any other bits into a mk2 shell, sell off engine/box/wiring from mk2, sell left over mk3 interior/panels etc and have a conversion pretty much for free :-) I cant comment on a mk2VR as i have not YET had the pleasure but i imagine one with a low ratio box and slip diff to be SOOOOO much fun
the vr6 has a much more flexible power delivery, youd expect it to for being 40% bigger than an abf/9a. but in anything other than a mk2, or in a mk3 with a blower (which itself is quite pointless) i dont think the performance gain justifys the running cost if its an everyday car seeing as my mk3 16v easily matched a mk3 2.9 the other week and i bet his was drinking fuel faster than youd be able to pour it
well the engine swaps available seem to be ABF/VR6/1.8T each has its own merits i suppose, do you mean different brand of car prof or as in what other engine options are there at the vr6 price??
I think a lot also comes down to your preferred driving style. The VR is much more relaxed compared with the rather more frantic 16v's. One small point from me is something that normally gets missed, and that is how hard you can actually drive these cars on the road. I had a standard Mk 2 8v for a bit, it was great because you could thrash it all the time without getting into too much trouble with the law, and the scenery. Everything happens at lower speeds, so in effect you can drive the car harder, which as a result means you have to put more effort in to go faster. This can be very satisfying in its own way.
