GTI 1.8 Turbo or VR6
zareh_...@my-deja.com
In a few days I'm going to buy a 2000 GTI, but cant make up my mind
between which engine I'd want, the 1.8 turbo or the VR6, can anyone
give me some feedback as to what they think of these two?'
PS, my previous car was a '99 Mitsubishi GST, its dead (long story) -
but I'm curious to know which engine would perform better then the
GST...
Thanks
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
corn fed
the 1.8t is a much lighter engine, and is highly tunable. for an extra
$2500~3000 for a K4 turbo upgrade, manifold, chip, exhaust, and other
bits, you can get 240+ hp. you could get the same thing out of the vr6,
but you'd probably spend more money, and the front end of the car would
still be 300 lbs heavier than with the 1.8t. Even with a $500 chip, you
can have better-than VR6 power (180hp vs 178) with a lighter overall
package. you do the math.
Ben Randolph
corn fed wrote:
>
> for an extra
> $2500~3000 for a K4 turbo upgrade, manifold, chip, exhaust, and other
> bits, you can get 240+ hp.
how much did the gti-vr6 guys get out of their $3500 supercharger? was
it +100HP?
> and the front end of the car would
> still be 300 lbs heavier than with the 1.8t.
can we have a little proof for the 300#, please? the weight differences
between engine weights are more on the order of 100-150#.
> Even with a $500 chip, you
> can have better-than VR6 power (180hp vs 178) with a lighter overall
> package. you do the math.
what about spending that $500 on the vr6? you could put an exhast on,
have more power, and STILL have a warranty.
people are so quick to jump on the 1.8t bandwagon. sure its a good
engine, and has great potential, but people that buy new cars like
warranties too. youve got to weight ALL the options, not just
hypotheical numbers from some performance upgrades.
ben randolph
92 16v gti
corn fed
vr6 warranty either. the bottom line is the 1.8t is capable of the same
power as the vr6 and it is AT LEAST 100-150lbs lighter, weight which is
suspended IN FRONT of the front wheels. Ask any autocrosser what that
does to performance, turn in, steering response, and transitioning
between turns. The vr6 is a great motor, but the 20v 1.8t is just a
little bit better.
i'd love to see what VW/AUDI could do with a 30v 3.2t vr6. 300+ stock
hp anyone?
- Olaf (93 corrado slc)
warranty). Vr6 golf laptimes (around a road-race track) would stomp the 1.8t
car. Buy the vr6 (+ chip) and start annoying 5.0 mustangs.
- Olaf (93 corrado slc)
Stephen Leung
like it should be cheaper than spending $3000 to supercharge my 2.0L Y2K
Jetta and I get about the same performance.
Steve
corn fed wrote:
--
*************************************
* Stephen Leung *
* ssl...@mac.com *
* http://fcbcfv.dyndns.org/~ssleung *
* ICQ 16081971 *
*************************************
- Olaf (93 corrado slc)
john...@usa.com
I don't know about the latest models, but in 1996 I was at a Porsche
Club drivers' school with a 1984 A1 GTI that I had just bought the
previous week for $850.
I had replaced the strut cartridges and rear shocks with Napa's best
(Monroe built) gas shocks, cut 1 coil out of the front springs and 2
coils out of the rear springs. I also stacked a stock Jetta rear sway
bar (from the parts yard) on top of the stock GTI bar. I had a bone
stock engine with just over 200,000 miles on it and a 1 year old 2.25"
cat back exhaust system installed by the previous owner. Stock swivel
single outlet manifold and original stock catalytic converter.
Another instructor at this event had a relatively new A3 Golf GTI VR6. I
think it was a 1995 model with about 15,000 miles. He had some
aftermarket sway bars, sport shocks (I think it was Bilsteins) and
lowered sport springs.
The A1 was consistently 1/2 to 1 second a lap faster than the VR6. We
couldn't believe this, and we even drove each other's car for one
session each just to see if it was cars or drivers. I was over 1 1/2
second slower driving his car and he was about 1 1/4 second faster in my
car (and about 1/4 to 1/2 second faster than I was in my own car).
The VR6 had awesome straight line speed, but was very ill mannered in
the corners compared to the A1. Also, the VR6 was eating front tires at
a voracious rate.
I think that each generation of Golf/Jetta/GTI (at least through the
A3's) has been less well balanced than the previous generation, and I
think the VR6 exacerbates the problem with that big motor hanging out
past the front wheels.
I haven't driven either engine in the current models, so I couldn't tell
you if this has continued.
If I were you, I'd definitely take both out for a spirited test drive
before committing my money. I think the choice is probably between
straight line speed and acceleration (VR6 strong points) and balance and
handling (1.8t is probably stronger here).
Marty Leisure
Cheaper than 3k? try at least 5k. I say sell the 2.0 jetta and start
shopping for a y2k 1.8t jetta. M.
Ben Randolph
Stephen Leung wrote:
>
> Anyone know where I can get a 1.8t engine and how much it runs? It seems
> like it should be cheaper than spending $3000 to supercharge my 2.0L Y2K
> Jetta and I get about the same performance.
motors w/ electricals seem to be going for the 3500-5000 range, then you
have to fit it into your car somehow.
to have someone do it for you, you would probably need a five figure
bank account.
ben
Ben Randolph
corn fed wrote:
>
> Ben: i dont think a $3500 supercharger is going to do any good for the
> vr6 warranty either.
im just giving a price comparison. people make it seem like a turbo
upgrade is as easy as changing your air filter. and that 180hp "is a
chip away"...when in reality, thats 500 bucks soneone could have put
toward a vr6, with comparable performance in bone stock configuration.
> it is AT LEAST 100-150lbs lighter, weight which is
> suspended IN FRONT of the front wheels.
actually, not really. its weight on top of (and some of it behind) the
front wheels. and you can ask any drag racer what that does for
traction.
but that aside (cause its not my point), with a normal "stret tuned"
suspension on the vr6, most people wont know the difference between the
two cars. prople like %75 of this NG....the guys that "just want a
little more" out of their car, but are afraid to do anything really
drastic. and suspension is also something that wont void any
warranties. for some people, warranties matter ALOT. im just making
sure all sides get a fair hearing. dont count the 6 out just yet. we
have to look no farther than the a4's to see that there is a market for
a v6 over a 4 cyl turbo.
Henry C. Barta
: In a few days I'm going to buy a 2000 GTI, but cant make up my mind
: between which engine I'd want, the 1.8 turbo or the VR6, can anyone
: give me some feedback as to what they think of these two?'
Well, seems like so many people are touting the 1.8T that I've got
to speak up for the VR6. Unfortunately, I have no experience
driving the 1.8T so I can't do a side by side comparison... But I
won't let that stop me from speculating. :)
The VR6 has gobs of low end torque and stays strong as the RPMs
climb. I find it a very drivable engine. As far as autocross, I've
had it on a track once. After competing in our Miata, the GTI felt
like a nose heavy pig. But this is probably not a fair comparison
since my skills were developed with a RWD car. It might be that the
lighter weight of the 1.8T would provide advantages on the
autocross course. But the turbo may not help. Throttle lag and/or
having the turbo kick in at the wrong time does not help lap
times.
I have no need or desire to provide more horses. They're already
there. I'm satisfied with the factory rubber (Michelin, I hear the
Goodyear tires are not so good.) I would like a stiffer suspension,
and if I were going to autocross regularly, I would probably invest
in springs, shocks and a stiffer front sway bar. Maybe later.
If I had the decision to make today, I would drive both if
possible. If not I would choose the VR6 for power or the 1.8T if
fuel consumption was a concern.
Just my not so humble opinion.
--
Hank Barta White Oak Software Inc.
hba...@wwa.com Predictable Systems by Design.(tm)
Beautiful Sunny Winfield, Illinois
Morpheus
of the water---STOCK, why not blow a 5.0 and get 450HP at the RearWheels for
$1,500....by the way when the hell is VW going to wake up and drop all wheel
drive on to their cars?
Don't get me wrong-I love my '83 GTi, but it nor any other car will beat me in
my LX coupe, I will destroy VR6's every day...sorry.
Erkin AYDIN
stock 1.8T. So if you want to calculate how much you can spend on the 1.8T
before you spend enough to put a supercharger in a VR6 take that into
consideration.
Second the Garret chip gives the 1.8T Golf 193HP and 238 lb-ft for $500.
There is no way you can get that much torque no matter how many chips or
pipes you put in the VR6.
Third the VR6 is discontinued all over the world except for the US. When the
204 HP V6 on the 6-speed Golf 4Motion comes to the US let me know. Then I
will trade in my GTI 1.8T for the atmospheric engine.
Erkin...
corn fed <aly...@fedex.com> wrote in message
news:38F53CBF...@fedex.com...
> WHATEVER! The 1.8, with a chip, is much lighter, and has flat out
> better performance than the heavier v-6! Even if they were the same
> weight, the chipped turbo would put out more power and torque!
>
> Ask *any* racer: LIGHTER IS BETTER. PERIOD.
CHRIS86VW
>> still be 300 lbs heavier than with the 1.8t.
>
>can we have a little proof for the 300#, please? the weight differences
>between engine weights are more on the order of 100-150#.
Official numbers from VW, I checked yesterday at work.
a 1999 New Jetta VR6 weighed about 70 lbs more then a 2K 1.8T. A 2K VR6
weighed 167 lbs more then a 2K 1.8T. I don't know where the differnce came
from for 99 and 2K but that is what the VW info said. I am almost positive
that the weight for the 99 is for a New JEtta, I didnt' even think of that till
now, I will check again tomorrow at work.
chris
chris86vw@aol
CHRIS86VW
>
Your correct. it makes it much much better then a VR6. Someone said 180HP for a
chipped 1.8T, in a NB yes, in a Golf/Jetta 193 HP and 238 ft/lbs of torque.
chris
chris86vw@aol
CHRIS86VW
So does the 1.8T, the torque was under-rated so it wouldn't put pressure on the
VR6 sales. Check out Garretts site for the before and after on the 1.8T chip
in the Golf.
chris
chris86vw@aol
VWMikeLVW
>a
>chipped 1.8T, in a NB yes, in a Golf/Jetta 193 HP and 238 ft/lbs of torque.
>
Why not get the 1.8T and do a turbo upgrade? Not the little K04 hairdryer, but
like a T3/T4 with ceramic ball bearing option. Do some 3" exhaust...etc...you
will be a bit more than an annoyance to those mustangs. The old Turbo Rabbits
have a better power to weight ratio than the new 345hp Corvettes...The problem
with the new cars is that they're all so heavy If you want an incredibly fast
VW, you're really going to have to use a lighter chassis to begin with.
Mike
http://www.geocities.com/vwmikel/
corn fed
Ben Randolph
corn fed wrote:
>
> WHATEVER! The 1.8, with a chip, is much lighter, and has flat out
> better performance than the heavier v-6! Even if they were the same
> weight, the chipped turbo would put out more power and torque!
i heard you the first two times. sadly, i fear your comprehensive
skills failed you when you were reading my posts. i could try to spell
it out, but this is getting amusing.
i find many people can talk the talk, but very few actually walk the
walk. in the past year, the number of 1.8t "fist shakers" has exploded
in this NG. ("oh yeah, well...if i had a chipped 1.8t, i would've waxed
your ass")
getting off topic, the other favorite "fist-shakers" group of mine is
the euro-only car. "if i had an s3, you wouldnt want to race me"
anyway, to speak your language, my friend, WHATEVER! i could probably
count on one hand the chipped 1.8t owners in this NG, and i actually
only know of one. he happens to work at a VW dealer, and probably gets
by as far as his warranty is concerned.
> Ask *any* racer: LIGHTER IS BETTER. PERIOD.
oh...so THATS the secret!
(BTW, i also find there are alot of people here who do all their racing
with their keyboards.)
getting back to the original topic, lets try not to be so damned closed
minded. if you even *peek* through *one* eyelid, you might learn to see
something in a way you apparently cant fathom as of now. the original
poster wanted opinions on the two engines. i simply tried to remind you
(him, and everyone else) that not everyone wants what YOU want out of a
car. for that person, perhaps 180hp is enough. perhaps that person
isnt as much of a "car guy" as the rest of us, and he would really like
a nice long warranty to take care of all his worries. for that person,
the vr6 makes sense, plain as day.
everybody is different, buddy. deal with it.
ben randolph
92 16v gti
PS...for those counting, thats my attempt #3...will there be a #4? stay tuned.
Ben Randolph
CHRIS86VW wrote:
>
> a 1999 New Jetta VR6 weighed about 70 lbs more then a 2K 1.8T. A 2K VR6
> weighed 167 lbs more then a 2K 1.8T.
thanks chris. did you happen to note the options of the cars? i would
imagine even something like leather could have a pretty sizable impact
on weight. or doesnt VW account for that in their specs?
Stewart Akerman
wrote:
> getting back to the original topic...the original poster
> wanted opinions on the two engines.
Amen. If the original poster is still with us...
The June 1999 Car&Driver presented a Honda Civic Si vs. Volkwagen New
Beetle GLS 1.8T. They said in part,
"In the twisties, the turbo, as with most turbos, requires more driver
technique. As you squeeze down the throttle in the middle of a turn,
you get naturally aspirated torque at first, supplemented within a few
heartbeats with turbo torque. If you're near the limit, the swelling
boost serves to widen the arc, which means you'll probably have to pull
back on the throttle to hold your exit line. Small turbos like this
don't come on with a bang, so they're manageable. They can be quick, as
this car surely is. But the imprecision of the waiting-then lifting to
trim back the surplus torque-makes the mind frown."
Road and Track in the March 1999 issue did a GTI/Civic-Si comparo, so
there is a place to get a viewpoint of the VR6 in a Golf IV.
Stewart
Dave Nuzzo
(Morpheus) writes:
>ANNOYING is the key word there, a five speed LX would still blow all of you
>out
>of the water---STOCK, why not blow a 5.0 and get 450HP at the RearWheels for
>$1,500....by the way when the hell is VW going to wake up and drop all wheel
>drive on to their cars?
Don't want to get off topic, but could you please tell me where you can get a
supercharger for $1,500 that will deliver an ADDITIONAL 260RWHP PLEASE!!!!
(Cause it just AIN'T gonna happen).
On topic, I can't really tell why you are trying to compare a 5.0 to a GTI?
These are two completely different animals, trust me. And I did see an AWD
Passatt at the dealer the other day, is this scheduled for the GTI anytime
soon?
Dave Nuzzo
85 VW GTI
93 Mustang GT
GO HOKIES!!!
http://members.aol.com/hokiegt/index.html
chu...@hotmail.com
the big honda ads and you'll understand all that they are about. Same with
EC, crap rag pushing garbage mods that are advertised.
Back to what is being suggested by you Stewart is that the turbo causes the
car to become difficult to drive on a track. Hmmm, sound's more like
operator error to me.
corn fed
First of all, the chip is not detectable by the dealer unless they
physically open and inspect the ECU or dyno the car and discover the
added power. some people get a second ECU so they can switch them out
before taking the car in for service.
Secondly, the 1.8t GTI is about $3400 less at base price than the VR6
GTI.
With the $500 Garret chip and a second stock ECU call the 1.8t about
$2500 less than the VR6. $2500 to spend on: a trip to europe, proven
performance mods such as exhaust, larger/better tires&wheels, a car
cover, suspension upgrades, maybe take an advanced drivers school such
as skip barbers or bob bondurant, upgrade the stereo maybe. maybe
there's even some money for a nice 1.8T t-shirt or some new sunglasses.
But, say you wanted to go with what i guess you are saying is the "safe"
route (shouldnt you be driving a honda?) and get a stock VR6. Also,
because of the warranty paranoia, you will leave it absolutely bone
stock for its lifetime. Then you have a car which:
- weighs 100-150lbs more, the vast majority of which is suspended in
*front* of the front wheels of an already nose-heavy car
- doesnt handle as well (more understeer)
- eats up front tires (due to the extra weight)
- costs at *least* $2500 more,
- has 19 less horsepower
- has 57 less pound-feet of torque
Yeah, ben that sounds like a real solid decision you are recommending.
oh, sorry, you arent recommending it, you are just saying it is an
alternative.
what i'm saying is, its the poorer alternative.
then you say, "oh, yeah? well, its an alternative for brain-dead
neophytes who cant read a tire pressure guage and have no hope of
learning! how many times do i have to say it? I'll say it again, if
you want me to..."
ben, let me give you an alternative:
rec.autos.hondas.accord.bone.stock.warranty.intact.thankyouverymuch
> ben randolph
> 92 16v gti
>
corn fed
the reason why the fan base of 1.8t cars is "exploding" is because it is
very exciting for us long-time VW fans to finally have a kick-ass,
highly tunable, lightweight motor for our cars. I built my own
euro-spec '76 GTi back in the day, which had about 110hp from a
carburated 1.6 motor. In a 1900lb A1 chassis, that motor/car absolutely
shocked most of my ~3500lb. camaro and mustang-driving buddies. It was
watching their incredulous expressions in my rear-view mirror as they
struggled to keep up that I learned that, yes, lighter is better.
regards,
Alyssa
corn fed
RAGTOP
to the 1.8t still hard to belive that much extra hp from just a
chip.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
corn fed
Eric
Ben Randolph <bxr...@psu.edu> wrote in message
news:38F548C6...@psu.edu...
>
>
> corn fed wrote:
> >
> > WHATEVER! The 1.8, with a chip, is much lighter, and has flat out
> > better performance than the heavier v-6! Even if they were the same
> > weight, the chipped turbo would put out more power and torque!
>
> i heard you the first two times. sadly, i fear your comprehensive
> skills failed you when you were reading my posts. i could try to spell
> it out, but this is getting amusing.
Indeed. :)
> i find many people can talk the talk, but very few actually walk the
> walk. in the past year, the number of 1.8t "fist shakers" has exploded
> in this NG. ("oh yeah, well...if i had a chipped 1.8t, i would've waxed
> your ass")
That's funny. "Fist-shakers." Conjures an image of an old man on his
porch, yelling at the kids to get off his lawn.
> getting off topic, the other favorite "fist-shakers" group of mine is
> the euro-only car. "if i had an s3, you wouldnt want to race me"
Hmmm, I'm sorta there - I dream of Euro-only cars, and wish to heck that VAG
would grace us with their kindness in bringing over S3's and 4M Passats with
manual trannies, etc.
Bench-racing a Euro-only car? The folks in the Honduh group love to do that
with Japan-only cars. Blech.
> > Ask *any* racer: LIGHTER IS BETTER. PERIOD.
>
> oh...so THATS the secret!
>
> (BTW, i also find there are alot of people here who do all their racing
> with their keyboards.)
Bingo! Racing costs money. No matter what kind of racing you do. Even
stoplight-racing costs money - especially if you get the "blue-light
special." :) Having done a small amount of racing at Alfa Club events,
with all three of my cars, I CAN say that lighter is easier to flog around
the track. My 80q is a beast, but does a pretty good job, and has better
track manners than my very light (in comparison) MkI Scirocco. But the
Scirocco gets pushed a lot harder. If that thing was RWD, I know I could
whip some of those V6 Alfa pansies. LOL! <j/k>
Cornfed has a small point - over in the Audi group, they are comparing the
A6 4.2 V8 to the 2.7TT - and folks seem to like the lighter 2.7TT for
performance.
> getting back to the original topic, lets try not to be so damned closed
> minded. if you even *peek* through *one* eyelid, you might learn to see
> something in a way you apparently cant fathom as of now. the original
> poster wanted opinions on the two engines. i simply tried to remind you
> (him, and everyone else) that not everyone wants what YOU want out of a
> car. for that person, perhaps 180hp is enough. perhaps that person
> isnt as much of a "car guy" as the rest of us, and he would really like
> a nice long warranty to take care of all his worries. for that person,
> the vr6 makes sense, plain as day.
There is the guy that's mid-way - the guy who wants to leave it a stocker
until the warranty is up, then chip, dip and whip it afterwards. :) Or,
the guy who wants 1.8L fuel economy off-boost, something *approaching* VR6
HP on-boost. For *those* guys, the 1.8T might be the choice, but as you
say...
> everybody is different, buddy. deal with it.
Yup. The current bench racer might be tomorrow's chipped demon. You never
know. ;)
> PS...for those counting, thats my attempt #3...will there be a #4? stay
tuned.
Awww, heck. Go for #4! Fourth time's a charm, right? Ohhh, that's third
time. Hmmmm.
:)
Eric
RAGTOP
Erkin AYDIN
numbers on GTI figures. There is no GLS VR6 Golf. But on Jetta's you have a
lot more chance to have a cheaper VR6. So if the comparison is on the
Jetta's you are right.
Erkin...
CHRIS86VW <chri...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000413215301...@ng-cn1.aol.com...
> >First of all the stock VR6 is about $2-3k (+ Tax) more expensive than the
> >stock 1.8T. So if you want to calculate how much you can spend on the
1.8T
> >before you spend enough to put a supercharger in a VR6 take that into
> >consideration.
>
>
> Acutally about 700 bucks to be exact. Sicker on my car was 21,050, I
think.
> And I had the luxury and cold weather package. My friend got a GLS VR6
with
> the luxuary package minus the cold weather package and it was only 21.500
and
> my cold weather package was 250 so that makes about a 700 difference for
> similarly equipped Jetta GLS 1.8T and VR6.
>
> chris
> chris86vw@aol
Erkin AYDIN
still 12 HP short. Plus the torque difference will be around 40lb-ft in
favor of the 1.8T.
So even if you chip the VR6 there is no way it is gong to be comparable with
a chipped 1.8T. I wish somebody had real performance numbers on these cars
and peaople could be talking facts rather then assumptions but that is all I
have so far too...
Erkin...
- Olaf (93 corrado slc) <olaf.b...@intel.com> wrote in message
news:8d5rdh$a...@news.or.intel.com...
>
> Dude, the VR6 guys can go buy a Garret chip too?!
> You'll need to spend AT LEAST the same $$ on a 1.8t as it costs to buy the
> VR6 - to go as fast as a vr6...get it ? A 1.8t turbo is a small turbo
> motor. The big reason Vw using this engine is for fuel economy (turbo for
> some passing power) and to get around certain European tax / tariffs for
> displacements over 2 L. The 1.8t has huge performance potential, but is
will
> cost you more like $6-8000.00 (don't forget labor), to really have a vr6
> stomper. Garret stuff is great... but get over this miracle chip thing...
Ben Randolph
>
> Hmmm, I'm sorta there - I dream of Euro-only cars, and wish to heck that VAG
> would grace us with their kindness in bringing over S3's and 4M Passats with
> manual trannies, etc.
but theres a difference between a dreamer and a fist shaker. i'd love
an s3 just as much as the next guy, but i cant own one, and couldnt
afford it even if the opportunity was there. so im not gonna threaten
people with this car thats thousands of miles away that i couldnt own
for years anyway, cause its a waste of my time, and....
> Bench-racing a Euro-only car? The folks in the Honduh group love to do that
> with Japan-only cars. Blech.
...the folks in the honda group do that kind of stuff. nuff said.
> Cornfed has a small point - over in the Audi group, they are comparing the
> A6 4.2 V8 to the 2.7TT - and folks seem to like the lighter 2.7TT for
> performance.
its obvious that the lighter car will perform better. cornfed seems to
think i am arguing against that, hence the ever so slight chuckle i get
when i read the latest rants. im tempted to keep playing with ol'
cornie, but throwing alka-seltzer to the seagulls just gets old after a
while.
what cornfed apparently doesnt realize is that some people are willing
to sacrifice some performance for refinement and a warranty. some
people are willing to spend the extra cash up front so they dont have to
change chips every time they go to the dealer. thats why audi and VW
can sell their 2.8's along side their turbo cars, and the 4.2 A6 along
side of the 2.7.
its along the lines of: whats the better E30: M3 or 325is?
and ho! whats this? theres the S4 that has the best of both worlds.
why didnt VW just slap a big ass turbo onto the 20v and call it a day?
why go and redesign the 30v to accommodate a couple turbos? answer:
refined power and a warranty. (ive also heard you can get a
factory/dealer chip thats covered under the warranty)
another thing i just though of...what ever happened to that "other" 4
cylinder VW engine that was "only a few hundred bucks away from 180hp".
not trying to start another argument, kids. just food for thought.
> There is the guy that's mid-way - the guy who wants to leave it a stocker
> until the warranty is up, then chip, dip and whip it afterwards. :) Or,
> the guy who wants 1.8L fuel economy off-boost, something *approaching* VR6
> HP on-boost. For *those* guys, the 1.8T might be the choice, but as you
> say...
i totally agree. perhaps the original poster is that kind of guy. if
thats the case, then id say go for the turbo. or perhaps he's even an
all out performance guy and is willing to shell out the big bucks. if
thats the case, then it might come back to the vr6, depending on the
actual use of the car. sure, the only replacement for displacement is a
turbo, but replace that turbo with a bigger turbo and more displacement,
and well...you get the point. anyway, i am just trying to make sure all
the options and all of the pro/cons are voiced. i hesitate to even
repeat that again...but what can i say, im a sucker for the less
fortunate.
> Awww, heck. Go for #4!
ehh...i just dont have the time to sit down and do cornfed justice. but
the thing is, theres no point to it and i would just be repeating myself
anyway. and i happen to realize that people stop paying attention to
you when you say [or argue] the same thing over and over again. but
there's no argument here. thats the funny part. thats why *i'm* still
here.
going to college and getting out of my "sheltered youth" has really
shown me that everyone is different, and thats okay. everyone has
different needs, everyone has different ideas, and everyone makes
different choices.
and what do you know, some people choose the vr6, and some people choose
a chipped 1.8t. its really just that easy.
unfortunately, i have also realized that there is an inverse
relationship between those who can accept the "everybody is different"
attitude, and those who have the "my way is the right way" attitude.
call them stubborn, call them selfish if you will. i tend to refrain
from name calling and just laugh at them. its the pure ignorance that
gets me the most. i guess you can chalk it up to the "the more you
know, the less you know you know" phenomenon.
getting back to VW's...personally, if i had the choice, i wouldnt buy
either car. i dont like the way the new gti's look to begin with, and
they are all heavy pigs, so i wouldnt consider either one. the turbo
isnt anything special in stock form, chipping it to marginally better
performance than the vr6 is pointless, and a big turbo conversion isnt
something i would be itching to do on a new car that i just bought.
and heres the part i find funny. funny cause nobody stopped to ask what
i think: i love the vr6. i think its a great engine...strong and
pretty light for its small package, and it deserves to be the top of the
line engine. but...its just not a racer's engine. because of its
weight, its size, and its less than optimal design (specifically the
head) a 4 cyl turbo engine (what was that, ben?) is the way to go for
performance.
thats why i drive a 16v...thats why i would turbo it instead of doing a
vr6 conversion. thats why instead of spending 20 grand on a new car
that i sorta liked, i would choose to spend half that and make my car
perfect *FOR ME*. (light, powerful, good handling)
and if i had 10 grand to spend on my gti...
throwing another monkey wrench into things, the only other VW (of any
vintage) i would buy other than a 16v gti is an SLC. everything in this
world isnt cut and dry (like vr6 *OR* 1.8t) and i think that with the
VR6, the SLC is one of the best all around vehicles on the road today.
fairly inexpensive, excellent weight distribution, excellent handling,
decent mildly tuned power to weight, refined feel...its got it all. its
a car you can take to the track, take to the "twisties", take the SO out
for an expensive dinner (with valet, ect.), or take on a long road trip.
so anyway, in conclusion, i think darwin is doing a good job over there
in the african savannah with the lions and gazelles and whatnot...but
god damn, he's gotta start thinking about some of the other mammals too.
Ben Randolph
Ben Randolph wrote:
>
> and ho! whats this? theres the S4 that has the best of both worlds.
> why didnt VW just slap a big ass turbo onto the 20v and call it a day?
^^^^
obvious typo.
ben
- Olaf (93 corrado slc)
(friends) and was left completely unimpressed. Fast the first several
hundred feet yes, then they just run out of top end...and on the freeway
they're frightening. At a track event last year i was pulling away on every
straight from a guy in his 5.0 Capri ...he came up to me later a started
asking what kind of "golf" i was driving....anyway, enjoy that thing...
- Olaf (93 corrado slc)
Dude, the VR6 guys can go buy a Garret chip too?!
You'll need to spend AT LEAST the same $$ on a 1.8t as it costs to buy the
VR6 - to go as fast as a vr6...get it ? A 1.8t turbo is a small turbo
motor. The big reason Vw using this engine is for fuel economy (turbo for
some passing power) and to get around certain European tax / tariffs for
displacements over 2 L. The 1.8t has huge performance potential, but is will
cost you more like $6-8000.00 (don't forget labor), to really have a vr6
CHRIS86VW
>> a 1999 New Jetta VR6 weighed about 70 lbs more then a 2K 1.8T. A 2K VR6
>> weighed 167 lbs more then a 2K 1.8T.
>
>thanks chris. did you happen to note the options of the cars? i would
>imagine even something like leather could have a pretty sizable impact
>on weight. or doesnt VW account for that in their specs?
Those weights were for two base GLS one VR6 and one 1.8T. Steel wheels, no
leather, and manual trans. The GLX was significatly heavier then the GLS VR6
becuase of the leather, larger wheels ( which are really heavy) and power
options galore.
chris
chris86vw@aol
CHRIS86VW
CHRIS86VW
>to the 1.8t still hard to belive that much extra hp from just a
>chip.
>
It isnt' the fact that it is a chip, it is the fact that the chip controls the
operation of the turbo. It is the same as going to an older turbo car and just
turning a nut or a screw on the wastegate. Just today they are electronically
controlled. It really is very very simple.
chris
chris86vw@aol
CHRIS86VW
and correct myself I figured someone would chip in, sorry if I came of snotty
or anything, I am a sedan guy and dont' even think about golfs. Honestly I work
at a dealer and the only new ones I see are the ones that belong to the
detailer and the GTI GLX sitting in the entrance driveway for the last 3 weeks.
They just dont' sell at all. I thnk I have only worked on like 3 and I know
exactly which ones they are.
chris
chris86vw@aol
CHRIS86VW
>
Funny thing is if I remember correctly the Jetta GLX weighs more then the base
Passat 1.8T. According to the book the 1.8T Passat is much lighter then my 93
Passat GLX also, by like 200 lbs, that is with my Passat weighed at the track
not VW numbers.
chris
chris86vw@aol
corn fed
as a young child, such as yourself, i too dreamed of a world where
everybody *could* be right, and how wrong answers were no longer wrong,
but just "different." College was indeed a time of wonder and
discovery. The bottom line is: there is no bottom line. In your
intolerance of my opinion that the 1.8t is the better motor and a better
choice for anybody considering a new GTI, you fall into your own trap.
All I ever expressed was an opinion, and I chose to back that opinion up
with some facts. The original poster is free to look at the facts
supporting my opinion, and decide that those facts simply do not apply
to him. Others, such as yourself, would tend to disagree with that
choice and agree with me, yet still proffering that some certain people
may see things differently if they have different needs. I agree with
you that they might do that. Lots of people walk into Honduh
dealerships every day. Because they have different needs than you and
I. Are they wrong? Are they just different? I have an opinion about
that; do you? People who attend this newsgroup are more likely to be
tuner-oriented than the type of person on whose behalf you seem to be
speaking. My original, and subsequent remarks were made with a
tuner-oreinted audience in mind. And yet, I am somehow lesser than you
because I stick to my guns and back up my opinion with more facts. I am
glad that you've been amused, for life is but a grand parade of lights
and colors and sounds and one should be amused with at least some of
it. I could go on but you seem locked in your assesment of me, so, so
be it.
With regard to what you refer to as "darwin", but what I can only take
you to mean as natural selection (an observation of mr.D, not the man
himself), my suggestion is that the best place to start any thinning of
the herd is right in front of your local Honduh dealership.
Burton Hanks
is better. no doubt the v6 is a smooth powerful motor, but the 1.8t is
very sweet. not a bit of lag, very powerful (HUGE torque!) and the car
is very tossable. vr6 is a fat dog compared to 1.8t.
-Burton H.
2000 NB GLS 1.8t, garrett chip, custom 2.5" exhaust inc. random tech
hi-flo cat and dynomax muffler, autotech light sway bar (rear only),
H&Rs/Billstein Sports, 18x8.5 MOMO Racer wheels, and a bunch of other
bits too numerous to mention. (Next mod is t-3/t-4 ceramic turbo
hybrid, APR manifold, and reprogram the garrett. they say 250+hp and
almost 300 ft. lbs. torque!)
Erkin AYDIN wrote:
>
> The garret chip on the VR6 only gives you 7HP getting you up to 181. You are
> still 12 HP short. Plus the torque difference will be around 40lb-ft in
> favor of the 1.8T.
>
> So even if you chip the VR6 there is no way it is gong to be comparable with
> a chipped 1.8T. I wish somebody had real performance numbers on these cars
> and peaople could be talking facts rather then assumptions but that is all I
> have so far too...
>
> Erkin...
>
> - Olaf (93 corrado slc) <olaf.b...@intel.com> wrote in message
> news:8d5rdh$a...@news.or.intel.com...
> >
Dave Nuzzo
<olaf.b...@intel.com> writes:
>asking what kind of "golf" i was driving....anyway, enjoy that thing...
>- Olaf (93 corrado slc)
Olaf, I'd believe that. You were probably at a comparable HP level as that
Capri also. The early carbed 5.0's didn't put out much more than 160 BHP. I'd
put my money on the Corrado anyday to an older Capri (unless it had a built up
motor). Handling, hands down to the Corrado, unless once again quite a bit of
suspension work was done. (big $$)
Is your Corrado stock? Just curious what kind of HP those things put out. Oh
and one more question, how long were those straights? Just curious, and I'll
agree with you that the STOCK 5.0's do run out of steam alot earlier in the RPM
band than the 4's and VR6's. A stock 5.0 will run out of power at 5k rpms.
Ben Randolph
really is. when i checked my email this morning, i had quite a few
messages, most of them were "returned mail" from a single multiple
recipient message that i did NOT send. it was obvious someone had
attempted to mail bomb me, and looking no father then the to full
headers of these messages, i easily found out that the message
originated from cornfed. (of course, i had a hunch anyway) it seems
the latest troll in the VW newsgroup couldnt handle the fact that
someone could possible think differently than he/she, and decided to try
and sign my email address up to about 20 spam type mailing lists.
abridged proof is below. i snipped alot of stuff, but if somebody is
really that interested in the details, i can provide. this first snip
of headers is from an email cornie sent me earlier this week:
-----------------
Received: from fedex.com (p83.amax2.dialup.sfo1.flash.net
[209.30.144.83])
Newsgroups: rec.autos.makers.vw.watercooled
To: Ben Randolph <bxr...@psu.edu>
Subject: Re: GTI 1.8 Turbo or VR6
-----------------
the next one is the header from one of the "returned mail" messages i
got.
-----------------
Return-Path: <bxr...@psu.edu>
Received: from psu.edu (p81.amax2.dialup.sfo1.flash.net [209.30.144.81])
To: aw...@jetsonville.co
Subject: (no subject)
-----------------
note the initial "received" servers. (i snipped all the other path
servers) i cross checked some of the other cornfed messages, and all
the servers were either amax1, 2, or 3, ovbiously on different dialup
connections. (the p**)
apparently, not only is cornfed so out of control that he/she decided i
needed to get mail bombed, he/she did a very poor job of it. jesus man,
at least use a different server to send the message. a friend's
computer, one at the local library, ect. it crossed my mind that
perhaps i should go through the trouble of bitching at fedex and
flash.net, and hormel too just for good measure, but i just dont have
the time or patience. i would do that for someone i dislike.
and i dont dislike you cornfed, i just feel sorry for you.
and i would feel sorry for mommy when her fedex email account gets
yanked.
but the funny thing is, i get this email account for free. i get all my
internet access for free. at ridiculous speeds. mailbombing me doesnt
really do any good, cause im a big enough person to just laugh it off.
and it wasnt even a *good* mailbomb. half the email addresses were
incorrect anyway. you really cant do *anything* right, can you?
cornfed, of all the people ive had disagreements with in this NG, NOBODY
has become so enraged and so distraught that they decided to go out of
their way to make my life outside of the NG just a little more
difficult. most just walk away, and some have enen gone to the measures
of blocking my address. but never a mailbomb...im actually flattered
that you would take a little extra time out of your day just for me.
<ben blows corn fed a kiss> perhaps you want me to play your little
game and retaliate, but ive got better things to do. perhaps you want
me to threaten your person? again, thats a waste of my time, and even
though i am *sure* there is a NG member or two in your small cormer of
the world ready and willing to pay you a surprise visit, i think thats
just a waste of the NG resouce, and a waste of everybody's time.
sadly, i have no doubt you will find a general dialike and distrust from
all the NG members now. we may disagree, but thats why we come here.
if everone agreed, we wouldnt have anything to talk about. we all read
this NG for the same reason, and we all look out for each other.
mailbombing is analagous to slashing someones tires, or keying their
hood. you DONT do it. period.
Hairybarbr
LoL..This has been the most entertaining thread on this group for a long time.
Pretty funny stuff here! Mail bombs and Molitovs. What's next?
Dave
Rabbit 2.0 16v
Passat Wagon v6
- Olaf (93 corrado slc)
2000 vr6 golf and a 2000 1.8t car and then come tell us about how "fast"
1.8t is
Tullio
>
> >dose anyone have the web sight for this famous pill you can add
> >to the 1.8t still hard to belive that much extra hp from just a
> >chip.
> >
Not THAT simple. Eurpoean Car had an article about boosting the HP in
the 1.8T last issue. It's a quite complicated chip and apparently hard
to program so it doesn't go into fault mode. From this article and some
others I've read, it sounds like tuners are having a hard time making
more than 180 hp without some additional hardware changes.
There are some chips available to boost HP. Some are going to be better
programmed than others. I don't know of any that will produce over 180
hp without additional hardware changes (plus, you have to use the
hardware that goes with that chip).
Todd Kuzma
Tullio's Big Dog Cyclery
LaSalle, IL 815-223-1776
http://www.tullios.com
Raleigh-Schwinn-Specialized
Bianchi-Waterford-Heron
GT/Dyno-Burley-Co-Motion
- Olaf (93 corrado slc)
Ben,
hang in there... "corn fed" will never have the money to buy ANY of the cars
in this thread that claims to understand.... it impossible to argue with
ignorance. I like this link, (frendly & knowledgeable).
http://www.egroups.com/list/vwautox/info.html
Eric
news:38F6AC2C...@fedex.com...
> Ben,
<snip>
What a load of crap. Tell you what - when you actually do something, get
back with us.
Jeez, I almost fell for it, too.
Thanks for the reality check, Ben.
Eric
corn fed
LOL
Orange Guy
LOL!!!
CHRIS86VW
>> >to the 1.8t still hard to belive that much extra hp from just a
>> >chip.
>> >
>> It isnt' the fact that it is a chip, it is the fact that the chip controls
>the
>> operation of the turbo. It really is very very simple.
>
>Not THAT simple. Eurpoean Car had an article about boosting the HP in
>the 1.8T last issue. It's a quite complicated chip and apparently hard
>to program so it doesn't go into fault mode. From this article and some
>others I've read, it sounds like tuners are having a hard time making
>more than 180 hp without some additional hardware changes.
>
>There are some chips available to boost HP. Some are going to be better
>programmed than others. I don't know of any that will produce over 180
>hp without additional hardware changes (plus, you have to use the
>hardware that goes with that chip).
>
Actually it really IS that SIMPLE. Yes on the new ones their is the problem
with drive by wire. But on the ealrly A4s and Passats, it really was just a
matter of working the fuel and timing maps like any other chip and also telling
the wastegate not to open till it reaches a certain maniflold pressure, in this
case it happens to be 1 bar. The drive by wire was the tricky part not the
part that has to do with increasing the boost. And the original poster seemed
skeptical on the numbers you get with a chip and wanted to know if was that
easy to get those numbers with just a chip, not if the chip iteself was easy to
make.
And if you did a bit of research you will notice that they are only limited to
180 on the NB. The Golf/Jetta, Passat and A4 all come with better injectors,
higher FPR, bigger turbo, and better exhuasts. No other hardware is needed on
the Golf/Jetta and you get 193 Hp and 238 ft/lbs of torque with the chip alone.
chris
chris86vw@aol
qwerty
opinions than home training but here it goes anyway..... (p.s. for those
that don't know...'home training' means manners, respect, etc... 'Things
that should have been learned at home')
I chose the VR6 over the 1.8t.....yep I did.
You're probably hearing from the only person in this thread who put their
money where their mouth is. My reasons revolve around the basic principle
that I'm more of an OEM guy than a tuner. I wanted 174hp out-of-the-box
rather than 150hp. I also wanted all those bells and whistles that come with
the GLX package. Why?...because I like them. I like my rain sensing wipers
(I live in the Pacific NW where it rains more than it doesn't). I like my
heated seats (feels wonderful on the lower back). I like the lumbar support
(again...feels great on the lower back). I like my 'stock' Monsoon sound
system (I'm no audiophile but do apreciate a decent sounding system). I like
my leather interior (Oh, heaven forbid somebody who likes leather). I like
my 16 inch Montreal wheels (they look nice to me). I like the trip computer
(just for the toy factor if nothing else). I like the climate control (well
sort of...I still dial it up and down just like a manual system because what
I consider comfortable changes).
Now, what the GLX package offered me was respectable power and all the bells
and whistles in one stock package. I probably could have optioned up a 1.8t
to include most of the bells and whistles but some are GLX only (16" wheels,
trip computer, climate control, etc...). But that's not my point. My point
is...the GLX/VR6 package gave me what I wanted in an OEM package. Am I an
idiot for making that choice? Well of course I don't think so nor do I
regret the decision.
What about the 1.8t being a $495 chip away from 193hp? Well, truthfully, on
that point I am a little envious. However, do I think voiding my 2yr/24,000
bumper-bumper and 10yr/100000 drivetrain warrenty worth 19 more hp than the
VR6? For me...no. I have the money to buy what I want. I work for a major,
major Pacific NW software company. And I've slept under my lab bench way too
many times during a beta push or other dev cycle to feel ashamed for being
well paid. And what I want is peace of mind, a decent amount of performance,
all the bells and whistles and in a VW (my second VW by the way). And I want
it all under warranty.
Can the dealer 'detect' a modified ECU? You bet your ass they can if they
care to. How? Why? Don't they have to crack the ECU to see the solder job?
Nope. Put a standard shop scanner on the ECU access port and drive the car
around the block. That's it...no dynometer, no cracking the case. So many
variables and timings will be out of spec it wont be funny. Why?...because
that's how the chip works. It's a modification of the factory spec. My guess
as to why all the anecdotes reagrding this chip and that chip passing under
the dealer's notice is probaly because the dealer is operating a business
rather than the VW investigation police. You bring it in for your scheduled
maintainence and that's what you get. You bring it in because you just blew
a gasket, they should check your ECU if they're not completely incompetent.
Well, why dont I just swap ECUs before bringing it in? Because your factory
backup ECU is not going to have any trouble codes stored in its memory that
will explain or even indicate the last moments before the incedent. Now to
my 'Software Test Engineer' mind... That's suspicious all in its self and
would make me put that vehicle under a microscope. But like I said, the
dealer is running a business, not the FBI. His job is to make money not to
look for chip jobs. But as soon as your chip job is the difference between
him eating a warranty repair or not....Look out.
For the record though...I do plan on a few suspension upgrades. Springs,
shocks, swaybars and upper tie bar. I do want to tighten up the handling
quite a bit.
Now...if I should "Rod" my VR6....
If I add...
1) AMS or Z-Engineering Supercharger
2) Cams
3) Exhaust
4) maybe a bore job
5) and a "CUSTOM" Garrett chip to tie it all together (if I'm spending this
kind of money why use an off the shelf chip designed around assumed baseline
variables?)
Can I break the 300+hp barrier with my 'heavy fat ass' VR6? Can the 1.8t
break that +300hp barrier?
Hiletroy
00 GTI GLX
Flash Red-Black Interior (gorgeous)
Eric <ri...@campquake.com.trimit> wrote in message
news:8d83tn$dig$1...@starbug.oit.pdx.edu...
CHRIS86VW
>care to. How? Why? Don't they have to crack the ECU to see the solder job?
>Nope. Put a standard shop scanner on the ECU access port and drive the car
>around the block. That's it...no dynometer, no cracking the case. So many
>variables and timings will be out of spec it wont be funny. Why?...because
>that's how the chip works. It's a modification of the factory spec. My guess
>as to why all the anecdotes reagrding this chip and that chip passing under
>the dealer's notice is probaly because the dealer is operating a business
>rather than the VW investigation police. You bring it in for your scheduled
>maintainence and that's what you get. You bring it in because you just blew
>a gasket, they should check your ECU if they're not completely incompetent.
>Well, why dont I just swap ECUs before bringing it in? Because your factory
>backup ECU is not going to have any trouble codes stored in its memory that
>will explain or even indicate the last moments before the incedent. Now to
>my 'Software Test Engineer' mind... That's suspicious all in its self and
>would make me put that vehicle under a microscope. But like I said, the
>dealer is running a business, not the FBI. His job is to make money not to
>look for chip jobs. But as soon as your chip job is the difference between
>him eating a warranty repair or not....Look out.
They only way VW is gonna find out if you have a chip or not is if it says it
on the top of the pring out from the scanner. AMS is a bunch of morons for
doing this. Garretts chips say nothing across the top, and a dealer is not
gonna waste there time and money testing a car to see if it has a chip. If you
don't belive me I am a tech at a VW dealer and we could all care less if the
car has a chip. Dealers make so much money off warranty stuff why do they want
to void your warranty then piss you off so you never come back. All this fear
of chipping cars is such BS. We don't care if it is there, in fact I have a
chip in my Passat VR6, I am gettting one for my 1.8T JEtta, you better believe
my VR6 swap is gonna get one when it is done, another tech is getting one for
his VR6 Passat, one of the service writers is getting one for his NEw VR6
Jetta, and the service MANAGER is gonna get one for his wifes 1.8T Passat if
he likes how my Jetta feels with a chip. Do I need to say again that we dont'
care iff you chip it.
>If I add...
>1) AMS or Z-Engineering Supercharger
>2) Cams
>3) Exhaust
>4) maybe a bore job
>5) and a "CUSTOM" Garrett chip to tie it all together (if I'm spending this
>kind of money why use an off the shelf chip designed around assumed baseline
>variables?)
All but the exhaust and the chip will put you in a worse postion then the 1.8T
owner with a chip.
>Can I break the 300+hp barrier with my 'heavy fat ass' VR6? Can the 1.8t
>break that +300hp barrier?
>
Both engines can break 300Hp easily, The 1.8T can do if for much cheaper too.
There are plenty of A4s running around with 300HPwith strictly bolt on stuff.
The fact of the matter is that all the stuff on a 1.8T cna be simply put back
to stock. A VR6 can not be if you add a SC or a turbo, cams or bore it out.
The only thing from the list you can undo without detecting is the Z
engineering SC since it truly is just bolt on.
chris
chris86vw@aol
qwerty
than just joining the pitchfork and torches mob. This I can respect.
Am I qualified?... I think so. Reagrding the ECU, my Software Test Engineer
skills would probably scare some of you guys. Looking for anomolies and
deviations from spec is what we're all about. Comparing known input with
resulted output and analyzing same to see if it is or isn't what it should
be....or running sample data through every possible code path and analyzing
the output with a very critical eye. If a telltale string of ascii accross
the top of your printout is the only way a shop can or can not tell if the
ECU is or isn't out of spec....I blame the analyzer equipment and analysis
skills of the tester/mechanic. Now, I'm neither a chip tuner guru nor a shop
mechanic but I do believe I know what I'm talking about in regards to
computer hardware and software and its interrelation...I should hope so,
they pay me well to know what I'm talking about. Now an ECU is no desktop OS
but will probably come to that in the near future (Let's start a thread on
this...this has some real potential). But the basic logic is applicable to
both. Now what all of this was/is to qualify is....Should a tech link a
laptop to the ECU access port and have an appropriate software application
to monitor/sample said output...Could that data be compared to known results
for a factory ECU? For example...is the sampled spark advance for this RPM,
load octane rating what we'd expect? maybe/maybe not. Is the boost of the
turbo within spec or off the scale for this RPM/load? The list goes on and
on. Point being...the same methods that a tuner like Garrett used to map and
tweak an ECU (analyzing output data in relation to known baselines or specs)
will fingerprint a modified ECU. Unless there is some sort of stealth
subroutine running in the ECU to report false/modified data to the access
port....you're not invisible to those who care to look.
Please....Please...will a tuner step forward and give a qualified response
to this. I don't know if it's in a tuner's best interest to reply to this
but there's got to be an honest one reading this NG.
I agree regarding the dealer not being overly concerned about a chip. I
wouldn't expect a dealer to make a stand on that issue unless it is the
difference between making or losing money. You and I both know that the
bottom line is what's important at your dealership just as it is in any
profitable business. All decisions one way or the other are biased toward
what makes the most financial sense.
> >as to why all the anecdotes reagrding this chip and that chip passing
under
> >the dealer's notice is probaly because the dealer is operating a business
> >rather than the VW investigation police.
[snip]
> >But like I said, thedealer is running a business, not the FBI. His job is
to make
> >money not to look for chip jobs. But as soon as your chip job is the
difference
> >between him eating a warranty repair or not....Look out.
Would I chip my VR6? At this time...no. +7hp just doesn't make it worth it.
My personal cost/benefit analysis just can't justify cost vs risk for 7hp.
If I got the +43hp that the 1.8t gets...I'd do it. Of this point I am
envious (as stated in original post).
I think you may have missed my track change about rodding the VR6. Actually
upon re-reading my post with a fresh mind I see I didn't signal that turn as
well as I could. That section wasn't supposed to be a VR6 vs 1.8t point.
Nor was it it assuming reversability to stock. It was about "rodding" a VR6.
The last question about the 1.8t wasn't rhetoric either, it was just a
question...Can the 1.8t break the +300hp barrier? You say it can.
Regarding VR6 vs 1.8t: I think I explained why I chose what I chose. And I
didn't do it by bastardizing one over the other. Is one more "rodable" than
the other? I think that's been demonstrated very well. Is one "better" than
the other? That really depends on your criteria.
Ok....rhetoric aside.....let's talk shop.
Somehow I got to think that if both engines are inducted, turbo or SC (I'm
biased toward SC), and appropriate supporting mods were done to balance it
out to better take advantage of induction... That extra liter and extra 2
cylinders has to have some merit. It just doesn't add up otherwise.
Hiletroy
00 GTI GLX
CHRIS86VW <chri...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000416142329...@ng-cp1.aol.com...
Carter Fields
kind of driving will you be doing? Any racing?
I have the VR6 and I'm glad I got it (wouldn't trade for a 1.8T). Why?
First, the VR6 has better low-end torque. Even though the 1.8T (with
chip) has nice (higher) torque figures, you still need to rev it higher
than the VR6 to accomplish the same pull for regular around-town
driving. This lower powerband makes the VR6 more pleasant to drive (I
constantly found myself having to rev the 1.8T to 3,000 rpm to get the
same acceleration around town as the VR6 did in under 2,500
rpm...granted, though, this was with an unchipped 1.8T).
To get gains over 180hp for the 1.8T with chip, you have to do extensive
modifications...ones that most people aren't willing or able to do. So
you should really only compare the 1.8T with 180hp (chip) and not the
other 220hp+ scenerios you read about (unless you are a fanatic).
My personal opinion is that normally aspirated engines are more reliable
than forced-induction engines. The 1.8T is relatively new, so it's hard
to tell how this engine will last...but I've had friends with Mitsubishi
Eclipse turbos, Saab turbos, and Volvo turbos blow out on them between
60k-100k miles. Also, who knows what other stresses are on the engine.
For these reasons (mostly the low torque issue), I got the VR6. Although
I like to drag race people here and there, I really take more pleasure in
driving around town without going above 2,500 rpm. The VR6 pulls so
nicely. I doubt you could get that with the 1.8T. But if you are
looking for better numbers...like if you are constantly racing...then the
1.8T may be the place to go. It is a lighter and better balanced car
(arguably by a small margin). It will probably be slightly faster in
acceleration due to the larger power and less weight. Lastly, it's about
$3,000 cheaper.
-Carter
zareh_...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> In a few days I'm going to buy a 2000 GTI, but cant make up my mind
> between which engine I'd want, the 1.8 turbo or the VR6, can anyone
> give me some feedback as to what they think of these two?'
>
> PS, my previous car was a '99 Mitsubishi GST, its dead (long story) -
> but I'm curious to know which engine would perform better then the
> GST...
>
> Thanks
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
Carter Fields
issues...what about Audi "chipping" their TT to get 220hp? Won't that do wonders
to a warranty based on your argument?
-Carter
Ben Randolph
>
> Dealers make so much money off warranty stuff why do they want
> to void your warranty then piss you off so you never come back.
i used to read the c-list a few years back, and there were more than a
few events where dealers would refuse to work on cars because they had
chips. even to the point where they would blame absolutely ridiculous
things on the chip, or just plain deny service. perhaps your dealership
isnt that strict (or stupid, as is the case), but its definitely
something to consider. not everyone's local VW dealer is a "friendly"
local VW dealer.
> All this fear
> of chipping cars is such BS. We don't care if it is there, in fact I have a
> chip in my Passat VR6, I am gettting one for my 1.8T JEtta, you better believe
> my VR6 swap is gonna get one when it is done, another tech is getting one for
> his VR6 Passat, one of the service writers is getting one for his NEw VR6
> Jetta, and the service MANAGER is gonna get one for his wifes 1.8T Passat if
> he likes how my Jetta feels with a chip.
but everyone you mentioned are employees at your dealer. its a little
different than non employees with chips. you may work at a dealership
that has their heads screwed on right, but there are plenty of others
that see anything non-stock as evil.
what happens when the warranty work is paying out alot less than you
could get from the same cash job. my buddy is a tech and i have gotten
the impression that some warranty work is just shit, and almost not
worth it. and cash jobs ALWAYS pay more than equivalent type warranty
work. its alot easier to (ahem) fudge the labor units.
and who's to say the dealer isnt gonna turn their backs when something
catastrophic happens. im sure VW isnt willing to warranty a whole
engine at the drop of a hat. and a chip is just one more place they can
say "sorry, this isnt covered under warranty." money is money, and a
business needs money to stay in business. that IS the bottom line.
im not saying the chip is evil, im just saying youve got to weigh your
options after considering all the circumstances. shit, if i had a 1.8t,
the first damn thing i would do to it is chip it. (course, then again,
i wouldnt have a 1.8t in the first place, cause they shoved em into
boats anyway)
> Both engines can break 300Hp easily
"easily" is pretty subjective.
> The 1.8T can do if for much cheaper too.
"much cheaper" is probably not the case, but i dont think price is
necessarily the issue when you are looking for that much HP.
> There are plenty of A4s running around with 300HPwith strictly bolt on stuff.
lots of *expensive* bolt on stuff. TAP's 300hp "kit" for the A4 tips
the scales at almost 7 grand. granted, some of that stuff is probably a
little on the silly side (800 for an exhaust) but its still not "cheap".
http://www.tap1.com/Modifications_by_Model/A4_turbo/a4_turbo.html
i think that the tuneability of the turbo has been blown a little out of
proportion. its probably because you can indeed get to +/-200hp
relatively "cheap" and "easy". adding 1/3 more power for under a grand
is up there with nitrous in terms of bang/buck, but after that, things
get a little more expensive and a little harder. one thing that does
make the tuning easier is the fact that most of the mods are cumulative.
if you were going to turbo a vr6 or whatever, you basically have to do
it all at once.
RAGTOP
responsive don't know how much power people are looking for but
for an every day driver i think 1.8t is the way to go. would i
put a chip in it yes but not the day i got it i will wait a
couple thousand miles and see if i got stuck with a lemon. as
far as being boats i do understand that statement. VW is selling
the crap out of these cars and everyone i talk to that has one
loves them. As soon as the dealer finds me a 4dr blue and gray i
will buy it and for 500 bucks i will chip it and cut off that
factory exhaust should be a nice sleeper. I think you get good
bang for your buck with these cars. Speaking of warrenty work
the last couple of new cars i bought the only warranty work i
had done was cheap trim falling off this was on a 95 sub. had 85
trooper for 12 years it never saw a dealer for crap. 165,00
trouble free miles i mean nonthing.hopefully i can get the same
out of my new VW time will tell. enought from me
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Ben Randolph
Carter Fields wrote:
>
> But Ben, regarding using normally aspirate engines to get around warranty
> issues...what about Audi "chipping" their TT to get 220hp? Won't that do
> wonders to a warranty based on your argument?
but the TT uses quite a bit more than just a chip to get 225 (or 220 or
whatever HP it gets). audi decided that beefing up the engine internals
was also necessary. quite different than the 180 HP TT engine which is
*supposedly* the same as the 150hp engine, just chipped. (does the
180HP TT have two IC's?)
FYI, i think i read somewhere that you can chip your S4 from the
dealership under full warranty.
ben
Ben Randolph
Carter Fields wrote:
>
> My two cents: First, answer some questions...is money an issue? What
> kind of driving will you be doing? Any racing?
i think the "racing" argument sorta breaks down here. lets face it, no
matter what engine you get in your A4 VW, its still gonna be a heavy
car. for street driving, where you shouldnt be driving at the limit
anyway, handling issues due to the relatively small differeneces in
engine weight arent really going to be that apparent. when driving in
the "twisties", it is often the acceleration out of the corners, rather
than getting max speed between corners that is the most sought after
sensation. no clear cut winner there. for autocrossing, stock classes
are ALWAYS easier to become competitive than whatever class a chipped
turbo car would live in. of course, if you are autocrossing to have fun
rather than to be the fastest car out there (like most of us), that will
end up being a non-issue. for instance, i find myself comparing my
direct times to my friend's times, and other cars in different clases,
more than worring where my pax time falls in the grand scheme of
things.in drag racing, things dont become interesting till you at least
break into the 14's (and even thats not really a head turner), so a few
tenths here or there aint gonna impress nobody. road racing is another
non-issue. nobody is going to take their brand new car out on the
track, and those who do are the .01% exceptinos to this whole discussion
anyway.
> I have the VR6 and I'm glad I got it (wouldn't trade for a 1.8T). Why?
> First, the VR6 has better low-end torque. Even though the 1.8T (with
> chip) has nice (higher) torque figures, you still need to rev it higher
> than the VR6 to accomplish the same pull for regular around-town
> driving.
a big turbo amplifies this situation with more lag, ect. for some
people, its not an issue. for someone like you, its a big issue. its
easy to play the numbers game, but it doesnt always give a clear cut
answer. is 193hp better than 172? like all things, it depends. why
did BMW offer a 325e and a 325i? same reasoning.
> My personal opinion is that normally aspirated engines are more reliable
> than forced-induction engines. The 1.8T is relatively new, so it's hard
> to tell how this engine will last.
its not that new. dunno what kind of miles have been put on various
A4's, but i would bet its pretty significant. i dont necessarily think
the technology factor is an issue. compare what you got for a $200 CD
head unit 5 years ago, and one that costs $200 today. the same goes for
pretty much anything. and there shouild be plenty of info backing up
the 150hp turbo in that regard.
of course, there probably is very little long term data on chipped cars.
but if the 180hp TT engine is indeed a chipped version of the 150hp
engine, then throwing the aftermarket chipped turbo engines in that
category is probably a safe assumption. and most likely audi would not
have chipped to 180hp if they weret positive it would be reliable. the
point: reliability of chipped and bolt-on turbo cars probably wont be a
problem. modifying to 240/whatever HP, OTOH, might cause some big
problems. but...who knows for sure.
> But if you are
> looking for better numbers...like if you are constantly racing...then the
> 1.8T may be the place to go.
again, i think the racing argument can only be loosely applied here. if
you want a racecar, you shouldnt be looking to buy an A4 vw in the first
place. there are plenty of ways to get a much better performing car for
much less money, and still have all the "little things".
subjective feel, on the other hand, is a better way to ask the question.
do YOU like the way the vr6 drives overall better than the 1.8t?
drive em. thats the only way to tell.
CHRIS86VW
>First, the VR6 has better low-end torque. Even though the 1.8T (with
>chip) has nice (higher) torque figures, you still need to rev it higher
>than the VR6 to accomplish the same pull for regular around-town
>driving.
Atually the numbers for torque are pretty close, if you look at any dyno chart
for the 1.8T you will see that the numbers are pretty close, VW just didn't
publish higher numbers to protect the VR6.
>This lower powerband makes the VR6 more pleasant to drive (I
>constantly found myself having to rev the 1.8T to 3,000 rpm to get the
>same acceleration around town as the VR6 did in under 2,500
>rpm...granted, though, this was with an unchipped 1.8T).
>
I actualy prefer my 1.8t for around town then my VR6 Passat. It has a decent
CR so it still has power when you aren't on boost.
>To get gains over 180hp for the 1.8T with chip, you have to do extensive
>modifications.
We have already cleared this up, with just a chip on anycar other then the NB
all you are looking at HP numbers in the 190s and torque close to 240 ft/lbs.
With just a chip and exhaust on a Golf or Jetta you are already over 200HP and
even more torque.
>My personal opinion is that normally aspirated engines are more reliable
>than forced-induction engines
They are not more reliable if you take car of the equipment. And this can be
done with no other work by you then having a turbo timer installed. The worst
enemy of a turbo is just shutting it off while it is hot. Maybe your friends
didnt' treat there cars right, but there are also plenty of eclipse, Saab, and
Volvo owners that have seen well into 100K miles on there turbos.
>The 1.8T is relatively new,
New? It has been in cars for the last 5 years, and of course tested for a few
years before that. Even then they have had turbos, and 5 valve heads before,
and the block is based on there standard 4 cylinder they have been using for
years. It is just a compilation of old technology.
According to audis site the turbo itself is good for 1.8 bar. Yeah the motor
may not take it up, I think the biggest concern people have with chipping the
car is the turbo. I would honestly be more concerened with my trans.
I am glad you chose the VR, it is a great engine, and I have two of my own (93
Passat and A2 swap in progress) besides my 1.8T. They are completly different,
if even sounds better in stock form then the 1.8T, that is unless you get on
boost, nothing beats that whine.
chris
chris86vw@aol
