i've just completed a mk2 vr6 conversion which had a abf conversion in before that which went well on the mk2 gearbox but it was nowhere near the vr in any area it would eat the old engine even with the standard tall gearing. it picks up from tick over you can leave it in top at 30mph and it'll out accelerate my mates 205 1.6 gti when he's going through the gears the handling is exactly the same as when it had the abf in it, and driving 12miles to work every day its doing 28mpg at a steady 60-70mph on a roads if you really thrash it then it goes down to about 23mpg but thats not bad for a 2.8 when my mates 328 coupe is doing that max and the the conversion has only cost me 1000 but i have done all the work oh and the noise you can't judge a mk2 vr6 intill you've driven one its so much better than i thought it would be
Exactly dude, most who comment on these things have never driven them. Internet keyboard warriors tbh....
Well said Gary Everyone who's been in my car has been mightily impressed with it...the looks on their faces when it's nailed around a tight corner is classic...they all expect it to understeer into the nearest tree at the slightest whiff of enthusiastic cornering.
Not bigging myself up at all, but if you read the first days report of my ring trip ( p28 of my members motors thread), you'll see that I had a great lap of the Nurburgring folllowing and being followed by a Porsche 996 GT3.
Agreed, I've never driven a mk2 VR6 conversion. I'm not saying it's not fun or anything like that, that isn't my point. My original point is the fact for a 2.8/2.9 it's nothing special compared to other engine manufacturers, yet people on this forum always seem to have VW blinkers on and think the VR6 is the dog's danglies. For an engine that size with the performance and "poor" mpg I don't see it as anything amazing. I'm interested in cars that have pretty good performance and still return decent mpg and other running costs. I know people wouldn't start putting V-Tecs or Red Tops in their mk1's, mk2's etc. But there are far superior engines out there without the high running costs. The more I've been looking into other cars the more I've realised what an awesome selection is actually out there. Internet keyboard warrior or not, I think I still have a valid point.
There's been a Honda vtech engined mk1 around, really good car - saw a red top 20xe engine in a mk2 Golf at the 'ring.
So what's your suggestion, given that a non-VW engine will need custom manifold(s), driveshafts, extensive work to get the gearshift installed, probably standalone ECU, custom wiring, etc etc? If you take these items into consideration and price it up, you'll see why the VR6 isn't such a bad idea. And what with it being the biggest (or not far off) engine put into a transverse engine, FWD, VW, its the natural choice if you're after capacity. Yes there's the R32 too (and R36) but these are much more expensive to buy and less readily available.
Did you also know that Mercedes use a VR6 in their Vito? So when they had the whole engineering input to be able to design their own engine, and install it, they chose the VW VR6.
speedy, did you ever get your abf to run right though? im not saying a mk2 vr6 is fast, but i remember speaking to you loads of times before about your abf that wouldnt do this or that
yer i did get it running properly in the end made 168hp on the dyno so must of been both the knock sensors were knackered which kept knocking the timing back when the lambda was plugged in, when the lambda wasn't plugged in obivously it overfuelled and didn't knock the timing back the vr rules, some people are just v6 people i've always loved v6's since my dad had a mondeo st24 pants car but sounded lovely
Matt did you get the suspension guide link I sent you? I just fitted my suspension today, lookin nice and low now! only took about hour and half. Later this week I am attempting an ABF conversion, should be amusing.
en route to the 'ring the mk2 VR did 33.6mpg @ 80-90 mph Average for 1772 miles trip, including the 33laps of the Nordschleife 25mpg.
I haven't really got any suggestions I was just interested in what was so special about the VR6. From what I've read it comes down to 2 points: 1. The noise 2. The largest available engine back in it's day. If one was building a kit car perhaps, I would seriously doubt anyone would even consider a VR6 lump? They make sense being fitted to mk2's as most people like to use parts from across the VAG range for conversions due to the ease of the conversion. I'm not suggesting people go out and fit V-Tec's to their Golfs or anything like that I was merely interested in what the big fuss is/used to be about the VR6 So as an engine, it's certainly not one of the best is it in terms of performance, it is however practical to use would you agree?
Not sure if there is a massive "fuss" about it - its certainly not like there's hysteria about the particular engine or something. But there's an acceptance (well, before 1.8T engine conversions came along) that it was the best engine conversion around.....because before the 1.8T, it was the highest power (190bhp in the Corrado 2.9, back in 1993 or so???) VW engine available. You could say the same thing about 1.8T conversions, these days? Or you could say there was a lot of discussion about the W12 mid engined special that VW constructed last year, the amount of discussion was more/less in proportion with the % power gain over a standard car. I think you've pretty much summed up the pros and cons of the VR6 conversion. From a personal point of view - (and bear in mind this in into a Mk1 Golf) - I was going to keep FWD and transverse engine, anything else would have needed MAJOR work. So, I simply looked at the largest capacity possible. Looked at V8s, they simply don't fit transverse (well, not strictly true, there's a conversion in USA based on a drivetrain from a transverse engined V8 Yank). V6 - lots of issues with engine width and fitting components around it. VR6 - ingenious design come up by VW, which solved many of the issues to do with transverse layout - namely, the exhaust manifold exits on one side, the overall package length is small enough to fit, and the capacity is much higher than any 4 cylinder can achieve (considering 2nd order vibrations, which place a top limit to around 2 litres without balancer shafts). So from an engineering point of view, it solves all the problems/restrictions imposed by FWD transverse configuration. That its a little pricey to buy parts for; or isn't that tunable without forced induction, are side issues.
