# 2003 vr6 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times?



## silvrvr6 (Nov 6, 2002)

When will this car be in car magazines tested? what are the 0-60 times of the vr6 (200hp) and the 1.8t (180hp) and also the 1/4 mile time?
WHich one of these cars faster stock,,,, im not going to void my 60k warrenty by getting a chip.
thanks .


----------



## Mr. Potato Head (Aug 12, 2002)

*Re: 2003 vr6 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times? (silvrvr6)*

no chip, VR6 is faster.


----------



## JoeM29 (May 31, 2001)

*Re: 2003 vr6 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times? (Mr. Potato Head)*

stock for stock the vr is faster, but you also have to take into the fact of comfort and ride quality, after driving a 1.8t i would, never even consider it even if it had 400hp, that tranny is garbage,
joe


----------



## SRGTI (Dec 21, 2001)

*Re: 2003 vr6 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times? (Mr. Potato Head)*

*Duplicate * 


[Modified by SRGTI, 1:09 PM 11-12-2002]


----------



## SRGTI (Dec 21, 2001)

*Re: 2003 vr6 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times? (Mr. Potato Head)*

The bark coming from your engine might be deceiving you..








Sounds fast, but not quite.
On the other hand, the 1.8T sounds like a lawnmower, but IS slightly faster.
Oh, I almost forgot, off the line YES VR6 WILL blow my doors off but cruising on the street or highway, don't even try..








BTW: Before ordering my GTI I did test drive both engines, but at the end like everything in live one goes with whatever floats one's boat.








Also what are the chances of encountering a Non-Chipped 1.8T..


----------



## Integrale (Aug 1, 1999)

*Re: 2003 vr6 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times? (SRGTI)*

quote:[HR][/HR]The bark coming from your engine might be deceiving you..








Sounds fast, but not quite.
On the other hand, the 1.8T sounds like a lawnmower, but IS slightly faster.
Oh, I almost forgot, off the line YES VR6 WILL blow my doors off but cruising on the street or highway, don't even try..








BTW: Before ordering my GTI I did test drive both engines, but at the end like everything in live one goes with whatever floats one's boat.








Also what are the chances of encountering a Non-Chipped 1.8T..







[HR][/HR]​You're joking right? Stock 1.8T quicker than a stock 24V? If anything, at cruising speeds is where you'll be left behind...by a long way. Even chipped, it'll be very close and I'd still put my money of the 24V at high speeds.


[Modified by Integrale, 10:15 AM 11-12-2002]


----------



## JoeM29 (May 31, 2001)

*Re: 2003 vr6 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times? (Integrale)*

lets not turn this into another 1.8t vs. vr6 its common sense the vr is only 75 - 100 lbs heaver and has 20 hp more, also, dont let the "higher" rpm pull of the vr decieve you, the 1.8t may FEEl like it is making more power low but that is just because of the lumpy, graby power band, the vr is refined and makes power all the time, both are great cars, it just depends on if you want to have the "cheaper" low end model, or the "cheap" luxury car the drives just as nice as many mid 30k cars, drive both and you will know what you want
joe


----------



## zerind (Feb 16, 1999)

*Re: 2003 vr6 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times? (SRGTI)*

Hmm, I owned a chipped/exhaust 1.8t GTI... and I can honestly say you must be inhaling some pretty good fumes man.

quote:[HR][/HR]The bark coming from your engine might be deceiving you..








Sounds fast, but not quite.
On the other hand, the 1.8T sounds like a lawnmower, but IS slightly faster.
Oh, I almost forgot, off the line YES VR6 WILL blow my doors off but cruising on the street or highway, don't even try..








BTW: Before ordering my GTI I did test drive both engines, but at the end like everything in live one goes with whatever floats one's boat.








Also what are the chances of encountering a Non-Chipped 1.8T..







[HR][/HR]​


----------



## VR6PAYNE (Oct 23, 2001)

*Re: 2003 vr6 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times? (silvrvr6)*

Stock for stock, the 24v is faster. If the 1.8t is chipped and the 24v is stock, the 1.8t is a bit quicker (especially from a roll, i witness this first hand) untill you get to speeds in triple digits, then the 24v will pass the 1.8t. The vr6 sounds sweet, but i do like the pshhhhhhhh from the 1.8t http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif .


----------



## BadassVW (Oct 16, 2002)

*Re: 2003 vr6 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times? (VR6PAYNE)*

At the end of the day "there's no replacement for displacement". It might cost an arm and a leg for that FI/Nitrous install but... a 2.8 Liter motor has the potential to burn more fuel and therefore generate more power...period. 
For drag racing I would favor a turbo with it's body-shot acceleration.
It's hard to beat a chip'd turbo for on-the-cheap power gains... The turbo power band is like a screeming six-year old with Turrett's.
For everyday driving and long distance work a larger displacement NA motor (IMHO) provides a much more useable powerband. Look at the DYNO numbers on a GIAC chip'd 24V VR6 and see what is does to the Torque curve... forget the peak increase, look at the RPM band. Imagine what happens when cams become available!!! Just spoke with DSR today and they said it will be some time before they start cranking them out. I would be willing to bet that a chip'd/cammed 24V VR6 will pull away from a chip'd 1.8T (suspension/tires/gearing all equivalent) in just about any scenario. The slight difference in vehicle weight will not be a factor.
Just remember... It's all good


----------



## M this 1! (May 17, 2000)

*Re: 2003 vr6 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times? (BadassVW)*

how many times are you guys going to talk about this CRAP?
it doesn't matter, and if you think it does, go to the track and find out yourself. 
this comparison is the biggest waste of space on here.


----------



## Mr. Potato Head (Aug 12, 2002)

*Re: 2003 vr6 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times? (M this 1!)*

quote:[HR][/HR]how many times are you guys going to talk about this CRAP?[HR][/HR]​Probably as long as some new guy comes in and asks a question that hasn't been asked during his stay here at the Tex.
I am sure that SRGTI does not realize we are not talking about the 12v in here. Like the guys with 94 passats and 97 GTI's. They don't realize there is a difference.


----------



## SRGTI (Dec 21, 2001)

*Re: 2003 vr6 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times? (Integrale)*

Yes, I'm joking.


----------



## SRGTI (Dec 21, 2001)

*Re: 2003 vr6 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times? (M this 1!)*

quote:[HR][/HR]how many times are you guys going to talk about this CRAP?
it doesn't matter, and if you think it does, go to the track and find out yourself. 
this comparison is the biggest waste of space on here. [HR][/HR]​As many times as there are (new or old)VR6's that MUST reassure themselves that they have the best engine(Which to a certain extent is true, I'll give you some credit), but are not confident enough to not be bothered by "ignorant" comments from people like me who just like to spice things up every once in a while.








And YES it's a waste of space.
BTW:My appology if someone might have felt disrespected.


----------



## SRGTI (Dec 21, 2001)

*Re: 2003 vr6 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times? (Mr. Potato Head)*

quote:[HR][/HR]Probably as long as some new guy comes in and asks a question that hasn't been asked during his stay here at the Tex.
I am sure that SRGTI does not realize we are not talking about the 12v in here. Like the guys with 94 passats and 97 GTI's. They don't realize there is a difference.[HR][/HR]​Dear *Mr. Potato Head*, I'm not new, you might Assume I'm new. Yes I do know how to read(Give me some credit.







). I know this is THE 24v VR6 forum. They? Who's they?







On a final note: I drove both 1.8T and yes YOUR 24v VR6, before ordering my GTI.


----------



## dmkozak (Aug 22, 2001)

*Re: 2003 vr6 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times? (SRGTI)*

I am sorry you are offended, but, clearly in reading your first post, you made some statements which greatly reduced your credablility. First, you imply a stock 1.8T is faster, altho maybe not off the line, than a stock 24v VR6. Now, looking at this, your comment is suspect. While, on the surface the VR6 weighs about 100 lbs more than the 1.8T, and the VR6 has a good ten plus percent more HP, the VR6 should be faster than the 1.8T. But, when you factor in the differences between the 6 speed close ratio 24v gearbox and the 5 speed 1.8T gearbox, you'll see the 24v VR6 is noticeably faster than a 1.8T. Maybe not to you, but then again I don't know your experience with automotive subtle differences. I do know you bought a 1.8T, and, it is very much human nature to reinforce our purchases (after all isn't this what auto magazines do best), so most people in your position would post something about how there's so little difference the smart people buy the less expensive, virtually the same 1.8T.
Also, you indicated how few un-chipped 1.8T's exist. Really, do you know how many 1.8T GTI's have been sold by VW in NorAm? Do you know how many chips have been sold? If you talk to Upsolute, APR and GIAC, they'll all tell you only a small percentage of these cars are sold to enthusiasts who purchase chips. There's probably a lot more un-chipped 1.8T's than you think.


----------



## SRGTI (Dec 21, 2001)

*Re: 2003 vr6 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times? (dmkozak)*

Words of wisdom... http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Onearmedmidget (May 3, 2002)

*Re: 2003 vr6 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times? (dmkozak)*

Yeah my 1.8t is never going to see a chip, same with my bro's we didn't buy it for straight line or autoxing we bought it for a great sporty everyday car with utility. I also got auto so the best my 1.8t will see is 15.5 in the 1/4mile which is fine by me


----------



## vwericvw (Apr 25, 2002)

*Re: 2003 vr6 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times? (silvrvr6)*

well, no magazine times yet, but I just ran my 2003 gti 24v vr6 with just an AEM CAI and 3000miles on the odometer and got a 15.5 at 91mph with a crappy 2.5 60' ft time. With a good 2.2 60' ft time i should be down to about a 14.9 - 15.1. 
JoeM29 with a 24v with a GIAC chip and intake ran a 14.4 at 96mph i think. 
ERiC


----------



## planetmn (May 10, 2002)

*Re: 2003 vr6 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times? (vwericvw)*

Here are the official numbers from VW. Are they accurate, who knows, but at least heres some data and not this "Mine is faster." "No mine is." "No, mine is, mommy, he says my car isn't fast." crap.
Also, keep in mind that there are a lot of factors in the speed, not the least of which is driver ability.
http://www.vw.com/gti/tech.htm
http://www.vw.com/jetta/tech.htm
[edit]Oh, and btw, according to VW, the 1.8t is faster 0-60 than the VR6 in manual form, slower in automatic.[/edit]
-dave


[Modified by planetmn, 9:47 AM 11-15-2002]


----------



## SRGTI (Dec 21, 2001)

*Re: 2003 vr6 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times? (planetmn)*

Thank you *Mr.Planetmn*. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif








Anybody else care to counterproof these facts?...


----------



## silvrvr6 (Nov 6, 2002)

*Re: 2003 vr6 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times? (planetmn)*

7.7 to 60 for the 2003 vr6 thats a joke!!!!!!!!!!!
the 174hp in road and track got a 6.8.
ill wait for a real car magazine test.


----------



## SRGTI (Dec 21, 2001)

*Re: 2003 vr6 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times? (silvrvr6)*

And the 1.8T got 6.5 in Car & Driver.....


----------



## tegage (Aug 12, 2002)

*Re: 2003 vr6 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times? (silvrvr6)*

Here is a source that claims 0-60 in 6.7 seconds. They didn't indicate how they arrived at the number, however.
http://www.modernracer.com/vwgtivr6200.html


----------



## bradleyland (Aug 25, 2002)

*Re: 2003 vr6 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times? (silvrvr6)*

Suffice it to say that each car is equally potent. There is no clear answer on this subject and it's been beaten to death. I'm not trying to rag on your post, I'm just saying that both the VR6 and the 1.8T are capable of putting up good "numbers". 
Numbers do not a favorite make! If you are sitting around fantasizing about what car you'd own if you had all the money in the world, you look at numbers in the back of some magazine and pick the highest one. In real life, you go and test drive the cars and pick the one you like. 
Those who life their lives a quarter of a mile at a time are the only ones who should be concerned with the "numbers".


----------



## ralphieboy (Oct 1, 2002)

*Re: 2003 vr6 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times? (planetmn)*

quote:[HR][/HR]Here are the official numbers from VW. Are they accurate, who knows, but at least heres some data and not this "Mine is faster." "No mine is." "No, mine is, mommy, he says my car isn't fast." crap.
Also, keep in mind that there are a lot of factors in the speed, not the least of which is driver ability.
http://www.vw.com/gti/tech.htm
http://www.vw.com/jetta/tech.htm
[edit]Oh, and btw, according to VW, the 1.8t is faster 0-60 than the VR6 in manual form, slower in automatic.[/edit]
-dave

[Modified by planetmn, 9:47 AM 11-15-2002][HR][/HR]​Bravo planetman for the valuable point of reference!







http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Mr. Potato Head (Aug 12, 2002)

quote:[HR][/HR]Dear *Mr. Potato Head*, I'm not new, you might Assume I'm new. Yes I do know how to read(Give me some credit.







). I know this is THE 24v VR6 forum. They? Who's they? 







On a final note: I drove both 1.8T and yes YOUR 24v VR6, before ordering my GTI.








[HR][/HR]​Well, I tried to help you. If you are NOT NEW then you ARE silly for asking this question when it has been asked four million times. THEY are all the people who come in here asking questions about the 12v (which since you obviously don't know about them I see that you ARE in fact new to this forum). You drove MY GTI? Nuh, uh.


----------



## SRGTI (Dec 21, 2001)

*Re: 2003 vr6 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times? (Mr. Potato Head)*

quote:[HR][/HR]Well, I tried to help you. If you are NOT NEW then you ARE silly for asking this question when it has been asked four million times. THEY are all the people who come in here asking questions about the 12v (which since you obviously don't know about them I see that you ARE in fact new to this forum). You drove MY GTI? Nuh, uh.[HR][/HR]​No I have not driven your GTI, but if it's stock it must drive EXACTLY the SAME way as the 24v VR6 that I test drove.


----------



## Mr. Potato Head (Aug 12, 2002)

*Re: 2003 vr6 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times? (SRGTI)*

it's not stock. since you are new i will let you not knowing that slide this time. try to remember who your daddy is.


----------



## Integrale (Aug 1, 1999)

*Re: 2003 vr6 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times? (Mr. Potato Head)*

quote:[HR][/HR]it's not stock. since you are new i will let you not knowing that slide this time. try to remember who your daddy is.







[HR][/HR]​LOL


----------



## sonicGLI (Sep 23, 2002)

*Re: 2003 vr6 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times? (SRGTI)*

quote:[HR][/HR]Thank you *Mr.Planetmn*. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif








Anybody else care to counterproof these facts?...








[HR][/HR]​Well, yes. They aren't faqs. Don't you know that MANY times auto companies post low #'s for 0-60 or 1/4 times? Remember, the auto industry is regulated (heavily in the states) on performance numbers. The higher the numbers, the possibility of higher taxes/penalties from the government. To put it into perspective, we all know that the 1.8t and the VR6 are both MUCH better performers than VW "claims" on their technical data. This is also the reason that many companies don't openly post performance data.
I believe it's either Japan or China (maybe both?) that have the same issue... except at a much higher extreme. For street use they are actually limited to a certain amount of horsepower (something like 260hp... it's been a long time since I read about it in R&T). So car companies over there list really low #'s for HP and performance times just so they can still sell the cars there. And we all know that there are some sweet cars over there


----------



## Mr. Potato Head (Aug 12, 2002)

*Re: 2003 vr6 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times? (sonicGLI)*

i think you mean high times.


----------



## Golf 2 Slow GLS (Aug 7, 2001)

*Re: 2003 vr6 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times? (silvrvr6)*

A chipped 1.8t is faster than a stock and probably faster than a chipped 24V VR6. Look at my time, I think that tells the story.










[Modified by Golf 2 Slow GLS, 3:03 PM 11-19-2002]


----------



## BadassVW (Oct 16, 2002)

*Re: 2003 vr6 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times? (ralphieboy)*



> http://www.vw.com/gti/tech.htm
> http://www.vw.com/jetta/tech.htm
> 
> I have a question about gear ratio's (and final drive ratio(s)?) on the 6 Speed...
> ...


----------



## planetmn (May 10, 2002)

*Re: 2003 vr6 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times? (BadassVW)*

The first Final ratio is for gears 1-4, the second for gears 5,6 and reverse, so the overall ratio (gearxfinal) is going in the correct direction.
-dave


----------



## Golf 2 Slow GLS (Aug 7, 2001)

*Re: 2003 vr6 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times? (BadassVW)*

Well there you go. The are very close stock and according to this, the 1.8t is faster stock vs stock.








I remember seeing a dyno for a stock 1.8t and 24V VR6 and the VR6 only made like 8 more hp at the wheels.


[Modified by Golf 2 Slow GLS, 5:43 PM 11-19-2002]


----------



## sonicGLI (Sep 23, 2002)

*Re: 2003 vr6 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times? (Golf 2 Slow GLS)*

quote:[HR][/HR]Well there you go. The are very close stock and according to this, the 1.8t is faster stock vs stock.








I remember seeing a dyno for a stock 1.8t and 24V VR6 and the VR6 only made like 8 more hp at the wheels.

[Modified by Golf 2 Slow GLS, 5:43 PM 11-19-2002][HR][/HR]​Must've been a 12V


----------



## Golf 2 Slow GLS (Aug 7, 2001)

*Re: 2003 vr6 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times? (sonicGLI)*

Last time I checked the 24 V had 200 hp. And the car they tested had 200 hp. If it was a 12V it would have had 174 hp. So no, it was a 24v!!! Look at it for yourself!!!


----------



## dmkozak (Aug 22, 2001)

*Re: 2003 vr6 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times? (SRGTI)*

quote:[HR][/HR]And the 1.8T got 6.5 in Car & Driver.....







[HR][/HR]​Um, actually, that was C&D testing a 25th Anniversary edition with 6 speed. It was a Euro car here for display purposes. May be a 337 might test the same. But, certainly a 5 speed wide ratio won't be as fast.


----------



## Golf 2 Slow GLS (Aug 7, 2001)

*Re: 2003 vr6 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times? (dmkozak)*

Why not? It is lighter and has smaller rims. It could be just as fast. The 337s chipped tend to be slower than normal 1.8ts from what I have seen. Hell, my auto 4 speed is as fast as some of the 5 speeds and the auto robs some power.
Now that I look, the regular 1.8t did run 0-60 in 6.5 in C&D in the 3/02 issue. You are full of BS! It had the 5 speed. The Turbo S ran it in 6.7, so the base 1.8t was quicker than the Turbo S to 60. The 337 should be on par with the Turbo S. Isn't mag racing fun? 
quote:[HR][/HR]And the 1.8T got 6.5 in Car & Driver.....








Um, actually, that was C&D testing a 25th Anniversary edition with 6 speed. It was a Euro car here for display purposes. May be a 337 might test the same. But, certainly a 5 speed wide ratio won't be as fast.[HR][/HR]​


[Modified by Golf 2 Slow GLS, 10:39 PM 11-19-2002]


----------



## gizmopop (Feb 6, 2000)

*Re: 2003 vr6 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times? (Golf 2 Slow GLS)*

quote:[HR][/HR]Why not? It is lighter and has smaller rims. It could be just as fast. The 337s chipped tend to be slower than normal 1.8ts from what I have seen. Hell, my auto 4 speed is as fast as some of the 5 speeds and the auto robs some power.
Now that I look, the regular 1.8t did run it in 6.5 in C&D in the 3/02 issue. You are full of BS! It had the 5 speed. The Turbo S ran it in 6.7, so the base 1.8t was quicker than the Turbo S to 60. The 337 should be on par with the Turbo S. Isn't mag racing fun? 
And the 1.8T got 6.5 in Car & Driver.....








Um, actually, that was C&D testing a 25th Anniversary edition with 6 speed. It was a Euro car here for display purposes. May be a 337 might test the same. But, certainly a 5 speed wide ratio won't be as fast.

[Modified by Golf 2 Slow GLS, 9:31 PM 11-19-2002]

[Modified by Golf 2 Slow GLS, 9:35 PM 11-19-2002][HR][/HR]​Mag racing is fun, but you neglected to say that the Turbo S in that particular comparo posted a 15.0 1/4 mile time while the GTI 1.8T did a 15.3. the Turbo S is heavier than the GTI 1.8T too.(the 337 is lighter than the regular 1.8t GTI)(0-60 is also a time to speed measurement, not time to distance) 
It may be true that the automatic robs more power, but it is also true that the computer handles the shift points for you, meaning that when chipped the auto is going to provide more consistent performance than the manual due to driver.
What does this all mean? That particular car did that particular time on that particular day. The Beetle Turbo S and the GTI 1.8T were not tested on the same day, and I'm not sure they were tested by the same driver.
Anyway, nobody has tested the North American 24V yet, I think it will be capable of posting similar times to a BMW 330, meaning low 6 sec 0-60 and high to mid 14s 1/4 mile.


----------



## Golf 2 Slow GLS (Aug 7, 2001)

*Re: 2003 vr6 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times? (gizmopop)*

Yes, but the regular 1.8t had a trap speed of 94... which was as fast if not faster that the Turbo S. I don't have the mag here in front of me but 94 is a good trap!
And while the auto will be more consistent performance doens't make it any faster then making a good run with stick.
I doubt the 24V will be in the 14s stock, especially the mid 14s. I just really doubt it. Only time will tell for sure but I would bank on it running low 15s like the 1.8t.
quote:[HR][/HR]Why not? It is lighter and has smaller rims. It could be just as fast. The 337s chipped tend to be slower than normal 1.8ts from what I have seen. Hell, my auto 4 speed is as fast as some of the 5 speeds and the auto robs some power.
Now that I look, the regular 1.8t did run it in 6.5 in C&D in the 3/02 issue. You are full of BS! It had the 5 speed. The Turbo S ran it in 6.7, so the base 1.8t was quicker than the Turbo S to 60. The 337 should be on par with the Turbo S. Isn't mag racing fun? 
And the 1.8T got 6.5 in Car & Driver.....








Um, actually, that was C&D testing a 25th Anniversary edition with 6 speed. It was a Euro car here for display purposes. May be a 337 might test the same. But, certainly a 5 speed wide ratio won't be as fast.

[Modified by Golf 2 Slow GLS, 9:31 PM 11-19-2002]

[Modified by Golf 2 Slow GLS, 9:35 PM 11-19-2002]
Mag racing is fun, but you neglected to say that the Turbo S in that particular comparo posted a 15.0 1/4 mile time while the GTI 1.8T did a 15.3. the Turbo S is heavier than the GTI 1.8T too.(the 337 is lighter than the regular 1.8t GTI)(0-60 is also a time to speed measurement, not time to distance) 
It may be true that the automatic robs more power, but it is also true that the computer handles the shift points for you, meaning that when chipped the auto is going to provide more consistent performance than the manual due to driver.
What does this all mean? That particular car did that particular time on that particular day. The Beetle Turbo S and the GTI 1.8T were not tested on the same day, and I'm not sure they were tested by the same driver.
Anyway, nobody has tested the North American 24V yet, I think it will be capable of posting similar times to a BMW 330, meaning low 6 sec 0-60 and high to mid 14s 1/4 mile.[HR][/HR]​



[Modified by Golf 2 Slow GLS, 2:22 AM 11-20-2002]


----------



## sonicGLI (Sep 23, 2002)

*Re: 2003 vr6 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times? (Golf 2 Slow GLS)*

quote:[HR][/HR]
I doubt the 24V will be in the 14s stock, especially the mid 14s. I just really doubt it. Only time will tell for sure but I would bank on it running low 15s like the 1.8t.[HR][/HR]​No need to wait for "time" there are people in the VR6 forum with slips to prove otherwise already


----------



## Golf 2 Slow GLS (Aug 7, 2001)

*Re: 2003 vr6 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times? (sonicGLI)*

I have not seen any. I saw one guy that ran a 14.2 but he was not stock. 
And are we mag racing or drag racing now? If we are drag racing a stock 1.8t ran a 14.5. I believe the owner goes by the name of Cashmonkey. I believe there are stock 5 speed 1.8T autos running 15.1's and I may have seen a 14.9 from somone but I am not 100% sure about the 14.9..... but I can find out if needed.

quote:[HR][/HR]
I doubt the 24V will be in the 14s stock, especially the mid 14s. I just really doubt it. Only time will tell for sure but I would bank on it running low 15s like the 1.8t.
No need to wait for "time" there are people in the VR6 forum with slips to prove otherwise already







[HR][/HR]​
[Modified by Golf 2 Slow GLS, 12:37 PM 11-20-2002]


[Modified by Golf 2 Slow GLS, 4:08 PM 11-20-2002]


----------



## gizmopop (Feb 6, 2000)

*Re: 2003 vr6 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times? (Golf 2 Slow GLS)*

quote:[HR][/HR]I have not seen any. I saw one guy that ran a 14.2 but he was not stock. 
And are we mag racing or drag racing now? If we are drag racing a stock 1.8t ran a 14.5. I believe the owner goes by the name of Cashmonkey. 
I doubt the 24V will be in the 14s stock, especially the mid 14s. I just really doubt it. Only time will tell for sure but I would bank on it running low 15s like the 1.8t.
No need to wait for "time" there are people in the VR6 forum with slips to prove otherwise already









[Modified by Golf 2 Slow GLS, 12:37 PM 11-20-2002][HR][/HR]​ Which brings us back to the point I made in my previous post, that particular car did that particular time on that particular day,(and I now add) with that particular driver. You can't basically state for fact that the GTI 1.8T is quicker than the Turbo S or vice versa, In those comparos the Turbo S got to the 1/4 mile first even though the GTI trapped higher, and you've stated that someone with a stock GTI 1.8T pulled a 14.5 1/4. That tells me the driver is the important figure in the equation.
Ideally the GTI 1.8T should have been the VW to represent in the "4 wedges and a bubble" comparo. The only thing you can state for fact is that Car and Driver hates VWs.
(need proof? read the current issue, you'll find 2 references to the "lowly or plebian" Golf in there(in the weapons of distraction comparo amd the review of the big lincoln SUV))
I based my 24v performance estimates on the fact the 12v vr6s are capable of running low 15s 1/4 stock. with 26 hp and 15 torque increase and no significant weight increase the 24v should be able to run faster times, of course the gearing change could affect times also.


----------



## Damir (Jan 31, 2002)

*Re: 2003 vr6 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times? (gizmopop)*

You guys are funny sometimes.
Here is the deal...
What's quicker, RSX-S or GTI 1.8T? 
...Driver's race
What's quicker, GTI 24V or GTI 1.8T?
...Driver's race
It all depends on the track, really. Not to mention temp. the driver, humidity, gas, elevation, e.t.c...
But, in the end, VR6 24V SHOULD BE a little quicker than the 1.8T especially on highway runs. I had no problems with the 174hp VR6's when I was stock, and when I got chipped it's a joke. 
Power to both great engines, I say. 
My next GTI would prolly be a VR.


----------



## RUSH Geddy Alex Neil (Nov 1, 2002)

*Re: 2003 vr6 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times? (silvrvr6)*

Go to http://www.modernracer.com/vwgtivr6200.html
That site lists the 24v VR6 GTI's from 2002 and 2003 as having a 0-60 time of 6.7 seconds. Not too shabby. We are not too far from the time when GTI's will break the six second barrier 0-60 (I hope).
Top speed is listed as 146, although i'm not sure if that's governed or not.


----------



## Golf 2 Slow GLS (Aug 7, 2001)

*Re: 2003 vr6 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times? (Damir)*

A drivers race yes, but one car will still be faster than the other. And you would think/hope it is the more expensive 24V but from the looks of things that is not the case. 
The 1.8t has numbers out there that are faster than the 24V. Until the 24V posts better numbers than the 1.8t, the 1.8t is king of speed in my book.


----------



## Golf 2 Slow GLS (Aug 7, 2001)

*Re: 2003 vr6 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times? (gizmopop)*

I agree with just about everything you said. But.... I don't think the 337 is faster than a base 1.8t as a previous poster said. They are very close and I would give the nod to the base 1.8t. Until I see a 24V post some good numbers mag racing and drag racing, the 1.8t is still king of speed in my book.
quote:[HR][/HR]
Which brings us back to the point I made in my previous post, that particular car did that particular time on that particular day,(and I now add) with that particular driver. You can't basically state for fact that the GTI 1.8T is quicker than the Turbo S or vice versa, In those comparos the Turbo S got to the 1/4 mile first even though the GTI trapped higher, and you've stated that someone with a stock GTI 1.8T pulled a 14.5 1/4. That tells me the driver is the important figure in the equation.
Ideally the GTI 1.8T should have been the VW to represent in the "4 wedges and a bubble" comparo. The only thing you can state for fact is that Car and Driver hates VWs.
(need proof? read the current issue, you'll find 2 references to the "lowly or plebian" Golf in there(in the weapons of distraction comparo amd the review of the big lincoln SUV))
I based my 24v performance estimates on the fact the 12v vr6s are capable of running low 15s 1/4 stock. with 26 hp and 15 torque increase and no significant weight increase the 24v should be able to run faster times, of course the gearing change could affect times also.[HR][/HR]​


----------



## Damir (Jan 31, 2002)

*Re: 2003 vr6 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times? (Golf 2 Slow GLS)*

quote:[HR][/HR]A drivers race yes, but one car will still be faster than the other. And you would think/hope it is the more expensive 24V but from the looks of things that is not the case. 
The 1.8t has numbers out there that are faster than the 24V. Until the 24V posts better numbers than the 1.8t, the 1.8t is king of speed in my book.







[HR][/HR]​How many 24VR's are on the road today?
How many 24VR's are on the road today, that are modded?
How many 24VR's are there in general compared to all 1.8T's....?
Too many 1.8T owners really do believe the "The 1.8T Can Never Rule!!"


----------



## VR6PAYNE (Oct 23, 2001)

*Re: 2003 vr6 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times? (Golf 2 Slow GLS)*

Didn't joe run a 14.4 at 96 mph with just 3 mods on his 24v? This is alot better than a 1.8t with the same excact mods. When there are more 24v out there with decent drivers, you will see better times that the 1.8t stock. From the way it looks like, the 24v might be able to run neck and neck against a bmw 330 stock.


----------



## spoolinGTI (Nov 15, 2000)

*Re: 2003 vr6 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times? (VR6PAYNE)*

[email protected] for a 24v is better than a 1.8t with same mods? Your comment is not that clear, but just for arguements sake, a 1.8t with just chip can hit that time and trap....
So whats your point?
BTW, a 24v can run neck and neck with a stock 330...all depending on mods, just like any other car....
Ken


----------



## dmkozak (Aug 22, 2001)

*Re: 2003 vr6 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times? (Golf 2 Slow GLS)*

quote:[HR][/HR] But.... I don't think the 337 is faster than a base 1.8t [HR][/HR]​Probably because you don't understand the effects of gearing.


----------



## VR6PAYNE (Oct 23, 2001)

*Re: 2003 vr6 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times? (spoolinGTI)*

I was stating that the 1.8t's around herewhere i live with a intake, exhaust and chip, run an average of 14.7.


----------



## Golf 2 Slow GLS (Aug 7, 2001)

*Re: 2003 vr6 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times? (dmkozak)*

What in the hell are you talking about you a$$! The 337 weighs more and has heavier wheels. All the gearing in the world isn't going to help it!
quote:[HR][/HR] But.... I don't think the 337 is faster than a base 1.8t 
Probably because you don't understand the effects of gearing.[HR][/HR]​


----------



## Golf 2 Slow GLS (Aug 7, 2001)

*Re: 2003 vr6 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times? (VR6PAYNE)*

Not around here.








1.8ts with just a chip run mid 14s where I am from. Some run low 14s with just a chip.


----------



## dmkozak (Aug 22, 2001)

*Re: 2003 vr6 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times? (Golf 2 Slow GLS)*

quote:[HR][/HR]What in the hell are you talking about you a$$! The 337 weighs more and has heavier wheels. All the gearing in the world isn't going to help it![HR][/HR]​Probably because you don't understand the effects of gearing.


----------



## Golf 2 Slow GLS (Aug 7, 2001)

*Re: 2003 vr6 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times? (dmkozak)*

You are so so so stupid!









Ok, look at the base 5 speed. Shorter gearing in 1st gear would not help it at all because it would just fry the tires even easier than it does now. (a taller 1st would help on street tires with chipped cars) The other 4 gears are spaced close enough that a closer geared trans would probably not help it at all. Look at the times my 4 speed auto is running! My has taller gears that the 5 speed yet still pulls almost the same times. Plus it has less power to the ground because it is an auto. Turbos engines like ours do not need closely spaced gearing because they are not peaking high rpm engines like a Celica or S2000. This is especially true when chipped.
Why not give a car a 7 speed trans? Hell, why not a 12 speed trans. That should make it faster if more is better. That way it can have close gearing and short gearing for off the line plus a nice low overdrive for good m.p.g. Guess what, this does not work! You know why? Because it takes you time to shift. It also takes a short amount of time for the turbo to spool back up. That is why more is not always better. That is why my 4 speed is just as fast (actaully faster than any 5 speed auto I have seen with the same mods) as a 5 speed auto.
And like I said before, the 337 has those big ass heavy wheels! It is not going to be faster off the line than a normal 1.8t on 16s! Large wheels kills your 60ft! Besides, I really don't think the 6 speeds gearing is that much shorter. I think it has a tall overdrive but other than that the gearing is not that far off from the base 5 speed. 
Do you get it? This is why the 337 is not faster than base 1.8t and may be even slower.

quote:[HR][/HR]What in the hell are you talking about you a$$! The 337 weighs more and has heavier wheels. All the gearing in the world isn't going to help it!
Probably because you don't understand the effects of gearing.[HR][/HR]​



[Modified by Golf 2 Slow GLS, 12:47 PM 11-25-2002]


----------



## Mr. Potato Head (Aug 12, 2002)

*Re: 2003 vr6 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times? (Golf 2 Slow GLS)*

Actually Golf2Slow, the 337 has a lower curb weight than the normal GTI. Also, the 6 speed does not have a tall overdrive compared to the 5 speed. In fact, 6th works out to the same final ratio as 5th on the 5 speed. So yes, the 6 speed does have a lot shorter gears; enough to add in another gear.
This topic of the transmission and it's gearing has been discussed. Everybody knows that the 6 speed is not necessary on our cars. You are wrong on all accounts.
quote:[HR][/HR]You are so so so stupid!








Ok, look at the 5 speed. Shorter gearing in 1st gear would not help it at all because it would just fry the tires even easier than it does now. The other 4 gears are spaced close enough that a closer geared trans would not help it at all. Look at the times my 4 speed auto is running! My has taller gears that the 5 speed yet still pulls almost the same times. Plus it has less power to the ground because it is an auto. Turbos engines like ours do not need closely spaced gearing because they are not peaking high rpm engines like a Celica or S2000. This is especially true when chipped.
Why not give a car a 7 speed trans? Hell, why not a 12 speed trans. That should make it faster if more is better. That way it can have close gearing and short gearing for off the line plus a nice low overdrive for good m.p.g. Guess what, this does not work! You know why? Because it takes you time to shift. It also takes a short amount of time for the turbo to spool back up. That is why more is not always better. That is why my 4 speed is just as fast (actaully faster than any 5 speed auto I have seen with the same mods) as a 5 speed auto.
And like I said before, the 337 has those big ass heavy wheels! It is not going to be faster off the line than a normal 1.8t on 16s! Besides, I really don't think the 6 speeds gearing is that much shorter. I think it has a tall overdrive but other than that the gearing is not that far off from the base 5 speed. 
Do you get it? This is why the 337 is not faster than base 1.8t and may be even slower.

What in the hell are you talking about you a$$! The 337 weighs more and has heavier wheels. All the gearing in the world isn't going to help it!
Probably because you don't understand the effects of gearing.

[Modified by Golf 2 Slow GLS, 12:39 PM 11-25-2002]

[Modified by Golf 2 Slow GLS, 12:44 PM 11-25-2002][HR][/HR]​


----------



## Golf 2 Slow GLS (Aug 7, 2001)

*Re: 2003 vr6 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times? (Mr. Potato Head)*

The normal 1.8t weighs 2932. What does the 337 weigh? I don't remember the exact number but it was around 3000 lbs. Does anyone have the exact weight?
Which gears on the 6 speed are shorter? Is 1st shorter? If yes, how much shorter? If the overdrive is the same on both cars and 1st gear is very close or the same, then the extra gear just makes the ratios closer.
And what exactly am I wrong about other than the overdrive issue? 
quote:[HR][/HR]Actually Golf2Slow, the 337 has a lower curb weight than the normal GTI. Also, the 6 speed does not have a tall overdrive compared to the 5 speed. In fact, 6th works out to the same final ratio as 5th on the 5 speed. So yes, the 6 speed does have a lot shorter gears; enough to add in another gear.
This topic of the transmission and it's gearing has been discussed. Everybody knows that the 6 speed is not necessary on our cars. You are wrong on all accounts.
[HR][/HR]​

[Modified by Golf 2 Slow GLS, 1:14 PM 11-25-2002]


----------



## planetmn (May 10, 2002)

*Re: 2003 vr6 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times? (Golf 2 Slow GLS)*

Golf,
My god, why are you so pissed off? Before you start spewing more crap not backed up by numbers or hard facts, do some research. I posted links above with the gear ratios and final drive ratios.
In terms of heavy wheels. Alloy is stiffer than rubber, so with larger wheels you will get less flex. This will make a difference, as will gear ratios, and most importantly AS WILL THE DRIVER.
All right, now i'm going to enjoy my grapefruit with brown sugar on it.
-dave


----------



## bradleyland (Aug 25, 2002)

*Re: 2003 vr6 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times? (planetmn)*

ALERT: I think we have some confusion regarding gearing terminology here. I'm pretty sure that some of you are saying the same thing. To clear it up, everyone answer the following question:
Which is the shorter gear:
A) 4.46
B) 3.76


----------



## Golf 2 Slow GLS (Aug 7, 2001)

*Re: 2003 vr6 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times? (bradleyland)*

A
quote:[HR][/HR]ALERT: I think we have some confusion regarding gearing terminology here. I'm pretty sure that some of you are saying the same thing. To clear it up, everyone answer the following question:
Which is the shorter gear:
A) 4.46
B) 3.76[HR][/HR]​


----------



## vwericvw (Apr 25, 2002)

*Re: 2003 vr6 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times? (Golf 2 Slow GLS)*

The answer is A, the higher the number the shorter the gear is. Check the chart man:








The new 24v gti and the 337 have 6th gears almost identical to the *5th* gear of the 02' 1.8t. This means closer ratios for the 6 speed. 1st through 5th on the 337 are shorter than the same gears on a 1.8t. Then the 6th gear is the same as the 1.8t 5th. 
So lets get it straight, the 6speed tranny does NOT have an overdrive 6th gear. Overdrive is a mileage gear. Ever notice when you turn overdrive OFF on an auto car that it won't switch into the highest gear? Thats because overdrive is to save gas.
In case anyone is having trouble with the chart, look at the ratio number and the higher the number means the shorter the gear.
ERiC


----------



## gizmopop (Feb 6, 2000)

*Re: 2003 vr6 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times? (Golf 2 Slow GLS)*

quote:[HR][/HR]The normal 1.8t weighs 2932. What does the 337 weigh? I don't remember the exact number but it was around 3000 lbs. Does anyone have the exact weight?
Which gears on the 6 speed are shorter? Is 1st shorter? If yes, how much shorter? If the overdrive is the same on both cars and 1st gear is very close or the same, then the extra gear just makes the ratios closer.
And what exactly am I wrong about other than the overdrive issue? 
Actually Golf2Slow, the 337 has a lower curb weight than the normal GTI. Also, the 6 speed does not have a tall overdrive compared to the 5 speed. In fact, 6th works out to the same final ratio as 5th on the 5 speed. So yes, the 6 speed does have a lot shorter gears; enough to add in another gear.
This topic of the transmission and it's gearing has been discussed. Everybody knows that the 6 speed is not necessary on our cars. You are wrong on all accounts.
[Modified by Golf 2 Slow GLS, 1:14 PM 11-25-2002][HR][/HR]​Where are you getting your info from? The 337 is lighter from factory than any other MKIV GTI. Those 18 inch BBS RCs are lighter than the 16s and 17s on other GTIs. What the 6 speed does is make the car better for autocross. You can't even go by 0-60 because the 337 doesn't hit 60 in 2nd gear(if you love your car it doesn't),(as previously mentioned however, the 25th anniversary(337 to North America) does 0-62 mph in 6.5 secs and the 1/4 in 15.0 flat) requiring a shift to 3rd. 
Anyway I don't think any of the 24Vs have been out long enough to be sufficiently broken in for their optimum runs...(any former Vr6 owner will tell you they run much harder after 10,000 miles







)
BTW I will have Exact weight from my 337 after lunch time.


----------



## Golf 2 Slow GLS (Aug 7, 2001)

*Re: 2003 vr6 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times? (vwericvw)*

Nice chart!


----------



## Golf 2 Slow GLS (Aug 7, 2001)

*Re: 2003 vr6 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times? (gizmopop)*

Cool, because I can't seen to find it. Hmm, maybe I did find it. The weight of the 25th is 2908. Is the 337 the same? If so, I was wrong.


[Modified by Golf 2 Slow GLS, 6:07 PM 11-25-2002]


----------



## gizmopop (Feb 6, 2000)

*Re: 2003 vr6 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times? (Golf 2 Slow GLS)*

The weight of the 337 is 2857 lbs.


----------



## Golf 2 Slow GLS (Aug 7, 2001)

*Re: 2003 vr6 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times? (gizmopop)*

Where did you get this number? I have people telling me that the GTI weighs 2800 lbs but I got the 2932 from a published source.


----------



## BoraGLI (Oct 14, 2002)

*Re: 2003 vr6 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times? (Golf 2 Slow GLS)*

It does not matter if 1.8T was 1 full second faster than the 24V VR6, it lacks the "CLASS" just like Golf2Slow. It is nice to hear his and other's ideas but his words are lacking something.


----------



## JohnnyQuest (Apr 9, 2002)

*Re: 2003 vr6 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times? (Golf 2 Slow GLS)*

quote:[HR][/HR]The normal 1.8t weighs 2932. What does the 337 weigh? I don't remember the exact number but it was around 3000 lbs. Does anyone have the exact weight?
Which gears on the 6 speed are shorter? Is 1st shorter? If yes, how much shorter? If the overdrive is the same on both cars and 1st gear is very close or the same, then the extra gear just makes the ratios closer.
And what exactly am I wrong about other than the overdrive issue? 
Actually Golf2Slow, the 337 has a lower curb weight than the normal GTI. Also, the 6 speed does not have a tall overdrive compared to the 5 speed. In fact, 6th works out to the same final ratio as 5th on the 5 speed. So yes, the 6 speed does have a lot shorter gears; enough to add in another gear.
This topic of the transmission and it's gearing has been discussed. Everybody knows that the 6 speed is not necessary on our cars. You are wrong on all accounts.
[Modified by Golf 2 Slow GLS, 1:14 PM 11-25-2002][HR][/HR]​
Wow....what a lively discussion. I just have one question for you, have you driven a 24v VR6? Every friend of mine with a 1.8t says my car feels stronger, even my friend with a chipped 1.8t who's probably pushing 200+ bhp says my car, from the factory, is strong. My friend Mike, who formally owned a MK III GTI VR6 with intake and exhaust, has driven my car and says my car from the factory is stronger than his old GTI. 
Someone mentioned that it's a new motor, and there's not alot of people running 24v motors that are broke in (more than 10k miles). I think that has alot to do with it. Mine has 11800 miles, and I won't take it to a drag strip. I do intend to autocross it though, even though it's nose heavy I think the torque and the low 1-2 gearing will be a plus. But I think as more people mod and race their 24v cars you'll see some impressive times, especially once the car is chipped and the rev limit raised.
So...my last comment is this. Don't believe everything you read and don't believe all the numbers you see in the magazines. Just because a car in Car and Driver can slalom at 66 mph doesn't make it a sports car. And just because a car is fast doesn't mean it has good brakes or skidpad numbers. Go to a dealer, drive a 1.8t, then drive a VR6 24v. If you're lucky, find someone that will take you on an open road or track and show you the throttle response and pick-up at 80 mph. 
As a GLI owner, I can say with confidence that on the open highway I'll pull on a stock 1.8t. My car makes power all the way to redline, a stock 1.8t doesn't. And unless it's Jetta vs. Jetta, I have an aerodynamic advantage as well.
So...enough said. Much love to all that drive VW, Audi, and Porsche.....








J


----------



## spoolinGTI (Nov 15, 2000)

*Re: 2003 vr6 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times? (BoraGLI)*

Oh goddddd....please shut up with that class shiet......everyone is arguing about performance and this idiot comes on with his cocky statement.....
Repeat after me BoraGLI, ......"Its still just a VW, just like everyone else's car that Im arguing with"......lol
Ken


----------



## Mr. Potato Head (Aug 12, 2002)

*Re: 2003 vr6 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times? (JohnnyQuest)*

quote:[HR][/HR] And unless it's Jetta vs. Jetta, I have an aerodynamic advantage as well.
[HR][/HR]​I would hardly consider .01 of drag less than the Golf a sufficient make up for the Jetta's 143 lb ass. I know that weight does not matter much at high speed but the difference is extremely negligable and I think you would be hard pressed to find RELIABLE and ACCURATE info regarding the Jetta having a higher stock top speed than the GTI. IF it does it is like .05 MPH.


----------



## JohnnyQuest (Apr 9, 2002)

*Re: 2003 vr6 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times? (Mr. Potato Head)*

quote:[HR][/HR] And unless it's Jetta vs. Jetta, I have an aerodynamic advantage as well.

I would hardly consider .01 of drag less than the Golf a sufficient make up for the Jetta's 143 lb ass. I know that weight does not matter much at high speed but the difference is extremely negligable and I think you would be hard pressed to find RELIABLE and ACCURATE info regarding the Jetta having a higher stock top speed than the GTI. IF it does it is like .05 MPH.[HR][/HR]​I picked up that bit of info from an article in European Car. The article was a comparo of a stock 5sp vr6 jetta, a new beatle turbo s 6sp and a modified GTI 1.8t with a quaife sequential gearbox. They talked at length about 1/4 mile times, and how the 6sp is a little slower because of the time it takes to shift to another gear, but one thing they mentioned is that the GTI with the sequential gearbox would only have the advantage over the Jetta early on, and that's because the Jetta has better aerodynamics. They also mentioned that in the Speedvision touring car championships they clocked various cars on the back straight of one of the racetracks during practice, and the Jetta with a 16v motor was running higher top-end speed then alot of the competition, including acura integras and BMW 3-series cars, because of their better aerodynamics.
The article was from this year, I think about 4 months ago, if you want to look it up on their website or anything.....








J


----------



## Vortexrider (May 20, 2002)

*FACE IT ALREADY, the VR6, although a great engine IS NOT*

faster than the 1.8t. You guys split hairs and dissect the #s but have yet to come up with any objective data that the VR^ with its 200hp is any faster than the 1.8T.
IT IS NOT. Here is the only test of the new 200hp that I have seen and 0-60 is 6.7seconds which is a hair slower than the fastest 1.8t run in C&D. That was a base 1.8T that did 6.5, not the 337. I said this a long time ago that the VR6 was not faster and got a whole bunch of sh$%. A fact is a fact but you small weiner schnitzel morons take it personally. THe people here like myself just started a simple conversation about perfromance 3s and morons like Potatohead starts with his mach rhetoric diatribes about how the 1.8t is not in the same league as the VR6.
I laugh because there is not evidence except the fact that the 1.8t puts out faster times. Nothing personal, just the #s. 6.7 seconds is the fastest tested time so far and still slower. SORRY. Plus if the new VR6 were so exceptional, don't you think all the car magazines would have tested it by now? Nobody seems to care about it because it is not as remarkable as you guys think. The 1.8t is the more remarkable engine if you figure in the performance to cost and 4 cyclinder aspects. 
http://www.modernracer.com/vwgtivr6200.html


----------



## bradleyland (Aug 25, 2002)

*Re: FACE IT ALREADY, the VR6, although a great engine IS NOT (Vortexrider)*

I find it a silly bit of irony that you would accuse everyone here of taking things personally and at the same time call us "small weiner schnitzel morons". It has been my experience that those who resort to name calling are themselves, feeling somewhat... deficient. Good day.


----------



## JohnnyQuest (Apr 9, 2002)

*Re: FACE IT ALREADY, the VR6, although a great engine IS NOT (Vortexrider)*

quote:[HR][/HR]faster than the 1.8t. You guys split hairs and dissect the #s but have yet to come up with any objective data that the VR^ with its 200hp is any faster than the 1.8T.
IT IS NOT. Here is the only test of the new 200hp that I have seen and 0-60 is 6.7seconds which is a hair slower than the fastest 1.8t run in C&D. That was a base 1.8T that did 6.5, not the 337. I said this a long time ago that the VR6 was not faster and got a whole bunch of sh$%. A fact is a fact but you small weiner schnitzel morons take it personally. THe people here like myself just started a simple conversation about perfromance 3s and morons like Potatohead starts with his mach rhetoric diatribes about how the 1.8t is not in the same league as the VR6.
I laugh because there is not evidence except the fact that the 1.8t puts out faster times. Nothing personal, just the #s. 6.7 seconds is the fastest tested time so far and still slower. SORRY. Plus if the new VR6 were so exceptional, don't you think all the car magazines would have tested it by now? Nobody seems to care about it because it is not as remarkable as you guys think. The 1.8t is the more remarkable engine if you figure in the performance to cost and 4 cyclinder aspects. 
http://www.modernracer.com/vwgtivr6200.html[HR][/HR]​Your logic seems flawed. Just because the auto publications are not burning the tires off of a GLI or GTI VR6 each month doesn't mean it's not quick or insignificant. When the 1.8t went to 180 hp you didn't see every car mag re-testing it either.
These arguements are silly. If you read through the posts you'll see that most of the time it's the 1.8t drivers bashing the VR6, not the other way around. I have alot of respect for the engine, it's a great piece of technology. I do however find it amusing that most of the turbo guys think that their cars in stock form will beat a stock VR6. People have posted their dyno runs and their 1/4 mile times, and still the turbo crowd accuses VW of false advertisement. And in almost every case of VR6 bashing I've asked the "dis-believer" if he/she has even driven a VW with a 24v VR6, and not one person has answered me. 
With that, I wish everyone a happy holiday weekend. Like my sig says, life's too short. 
P.S. Several of my friends as well as my own sister drive 1.8t VWs. None of them bash my car because I don't bash theirs.








J


----------



## bakersfield_gti (Jul 13, 2002)

*Re: FACE IT ALREADY, the VR6, although a great engine IS NOT (Vortexrider)*

How many 1.8Ts do i have to spank?
okay, from now on, im filming every one i come across.
who cares what numbers it puts out, a 1.8T still gets spanked in the end.
SPIIZZZAANKKED!

quote:[HR][/HR]faster than the 1.8t. You guys split hairs and dissect the #s but have yet to come up with any objective data that the VR^ with its 200hp is any faster than the 1.8T.
IT IS NOT. Here is the only test of the new 200hp that I have seen and 0-60 is 6.7seconds which is a hair slower than the fastest 1.8t run in C&D. That was a base 1.8T that did 6.5, not the 337. I said this a long time ago that the VR6 was not faster and got a whole bunch of sh$%. A fact is a fact but you small weiner schnitzel morons take it personally. THe people here like myself just started a simple conversation about perfromance 3s and morons like Potatohead starts with his mach rhetoric diatribes about how the 1.8t is not in the same league as the VR6.
I laugh because there is not evidence except the fact that the 1.8t puts out faster times. Nothing personal, just the #s. 6.7 seconds is the fastest tested time so far and still slower. SORRY. Plus if the new VR6 were so exceptional, don't you think all the car magazines would have tested it by now? Nobody seems to care about it because it is not as remarkable as you guys think. The 1.8t is the more remarkable engine if you figure in the performance to cost and 4 cyclinder aspects. [HR][/HR]​


----------



## VR6PAYNE (Oct 23, 2001)

*Re: FACE IT ALREADY, the VR6, although a great engine IS NOT (Vortexrider)*

acutrally according to this website, the gti 1.8t is faster than a 24 vr6 gti, but the jetta gli is faster than the jetta 1.8t. Also according to this a tiptronic 1.8t gti is faster than a 12v gti. If you believe this, you need to get your head checked.


----------



## Vortexrider (May 20, 2002)

*All RHETORIC AND NO PROOF. I supplied the only actual*

data that shows a VR6 6.7 second time which is SLOWER than the fastest 1.8t time that you can find on the internet. Like I said. the VR is a fine engine but not faster by any considerable amount if at all. You guys are pathetic how you take speculative wishful thinking and want others to take it as truth when there is no objective figures you can present. I laugh at all. 
Even if the VR6 runs 0-60 in 6.2 sec which it doesn't thus far, it still isn't considerably faster and it is a driver's race. What does that say about the remarkable little 1.8t engine that could. LMFAO


----------



## JohnnyQuest (Apr 9, 2002)

*Re: All RHETORIC AND NO PROOF. I supplied the only actual (Vortexrider)*

quote:[HR][/HR]data that shows a VR6 6.7 second time which is SLOWER than the fastest 1.8t time that you can find on the internet. Like I said. the VR is a fine engine but not faster by any considerable amount if at all. You guys are pathetic how you take speculative wishful thinking and want others to take it as truth when there is no objective figures you can present. I laugh at all. 
Even if the VR6 runs 0-60 in 6.2 sec which it doesn't thus far, it still isn't considerably faster and it is a driver's race. What does that say about the remarkable little 1.8t engine that could. LMFAO[HR][/HR]​Ummm....what?








Did you read my last post? Have you driven a 24v VR6? According to Edmunds:
03 Jetta GLS 1.8t 3037 lbs 180 hp 173 ft/lb torque
03 Jetta GLI VR6 3179 lbs 200 hp 195 ft/lb torque
So, which car is quicker to 60? to 80? to 100 mph? It depends on the driver, but my bet is the turbo is _quicker_ .It has one less gear to shift and it's peak torque comes on at 1950 rpms. Which car is faster? Well, they both have speed governors, but let's pretend they don't. And lets say they both have 17s and identical aerodynamics. My bet is the VR6 is faster, simply because it makes more power, and it's power peak is at 6200 rpm versus the 1.8t's 5500 rpm power peak. But it's also possible that the Jetta could be drag limited, that neither motor could hit redline in top gear. In that case, which engine do you think could achieve the higher top speed? My bet is the one that makes the most power. Then there's the weight issue. Again, the 142 lb difference may hurt in a drag race, but shouldn't hurt the car at all at top speed. 
So, some cars are quick. Some are fast. Some people like apples, others oranges. I like both.








J


----------



## JohnnyQuest (Apr 9, 2002)

*Re: FACE IT ALREADY, the VR6, although a great engine IS NOT (Vortexrider)*

Just another quick question that perhaps you or someone else can answer. I hang out in the 24v forum mainly because I own one, and want to stay informed of any problems, performance trends, and to answer any questions that my fellow 24v owners may have, for comparative maintenance so to speak. Although I recognize your right to view and post anywhere on Vw Vortex, I'm just curious why you choose to hang out in the 24v forum. You don't own one, haven't even answered my question as to whether or not you've driven one, so why do frequent it so much? Just wondering, cause I don't think I've ever stepped foot in the 1.8t forum. And if I did, I don't think I would tell anyone how inadequate their car was. To me, this forum is all about helping each other out and being constructive, and so far none of your posts that I have seen have been that constructive. But hey, it's a free country and your should post whatever you see fit, that is if credibility isn't important to you.








J


----------



## bakersfield_gti (Jul 13, 2002)

*Re: All RHETORIC AND NO PROOF. I supplied the only actual (Vortexrider)*

errr, data schmata, I dont need data, shoot, i got data parked infront of my house! bring your 1.8t over here and ill show you who is faster! hahah dont get butt hurt, just givin you a friendly smack over the head..























quote:[HR][/HR]data that shows a VR6 6.7 second time which is SLOWER than the fastest 1.8t time that you can find on the internet. Like I said. the VR is a fine engine but not faster by any considerable amount if at all. You guys are pathetic how you take speculative wishful thinking and want others to take it as truth when there is no objective figures you can present. I laugh at all. 
Even if the VR6 runs 0-60 in 6.2 sec which it doesn't thus far, it still isn't considerably faster and it is a driver's race. What does that say about the remarkable little 1.8t engine that could. LMFAO[HR][/HR]​


----------



## spoolinGTI (Nov 15, 2000)

*Re: All RHETORIC AND NO PROOF. I supplied the only actual (bakersfield_gti)*

please someone, take up his challenge...if I was in CA, Id be right there waiting to run you, just to make a point for this arguement.
Btw, Ive witnessed a GLI with AEM CAI run against two Si's, one with i/h/e, the other with i/h/test pipe. And ya know what. It was so close, that the GLI was 50/50 that night.
I know driver has alot to factor in, and I dont know the kid with the GLI that well(met him that night), but all the runs were done in the highway starting around 2nd gear all the way to 120+. 
Ken


----------



## sonicGLI (Sep 23, 2002)

*Re: FACE IT ALREADY, the VR6, although a great engine IS NOT (JohnnyQuest)*

quote:[HR][/HR] Although I recognize your right to view and post anywhere on VW Vortex, I'm just curious why you choose to hang out in the 24v forum. You don't own one, haven't even answered my question as to whether or not you've driven one, so why do frequent it so much? [HR][/HR]​I'll try to answer it, 'cause I think it's a straight forward answer.
To this day I have yet to set foot in the 1.8t forum just to try and make myself feel better by saying I could whip up on all of them. "His" posts are pretty black -n- white to me, he's obviously feeling inadequate and feels he needs to hang around this forum to bash on the stupid choices all of us VR6 owners obviously made by purchasing VR6's. "He" just can't STAND the fact that there are people out there who would have the audacity to prefer any other car on the road but the one he chose to purchase.
Short answer? "Close-minded; one-track-mind; still-have-my-baby-blanky-syndrome"
I've said a million times (like most VR6 owners have, WITHOUT having to bash 1.8t's) that the 1.8t is a great little engine. I find the amount of 1.8t owners (at least here at the Vortex) who act like this to be astounding. Instead of being compadres with their fellow Dub owners and being true automotive enthusiasts, they feel they need to prove something and insist on starting arguments/battles with fellow Dub owners. <<shakes head>>
My post may sound a little rough, but it's proven time and time again by forum members at the Vortex







http://****************.com/smile/emthdown.gif 


[Modified by sonicGLI, 10:53 PM 11-29-2002]


----------



## 1fastdub (Sep 26, 2001)

*Re: 2003 vr6 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times? (SRGTI)*

quote:[HR][/HR]The bark coming from your engine might be deceiving you..








Sounds fast, but not quite.
On the other hand, the 1.8T sounds like a lawnmower, but IS slightly faster.
Oh, I almost forgot, off the line YES VR6 WILL blow my doors off but cruising on the street or highway, don't even try..








BTW: Before ordering my GTI I did test drive both engines, but at the end like everything in live one goes with whatever floats one's boat.








Also what are the chances of encountering a Non-Chipped 1.8T..







[HR][/HR]​with my 12v i walked on my friends 337 on the freeway and off the line and through every gear. so i hope the 24v would do the same.


----------



## vwericvw (Apr 25, 2002)

*Re: FACE IT ALREADY, the VR6, although a great engine IS NOT (Vortexrider)*

quote:[HR][/HR]faster than the 1.8t. You guys split hairs and dissect the #s but have yet to come up with any objective data that the VR^ with its 200hp is any faster than the 1.8T.
IT IS NOT. Here is the only test of the new 200hp that I have seen and 0-60 is 6.7seconds which is a hair slower than the fastest 1.8t run in C&D. A fact is a fact but you small weiner schnitzel morons take it personally. THe people here like myself just started a simple conversation about perfromance 3s and morons like Potatohead starts with his mach rhetoric diatribes about how the 1.8t is not in the same league as the VR6.
I laugh because there is not evidence except the fact that the 1.8t puts out faster times. Nothing personal, just the #s. 6.7 seconds is the fastest tested time so far and still slower. SORRY. 
*The 1.8t is the more remarkable engine if you figure in the performance to cost and 4 cyclinder aspects.*
http://www.modernracer.com/vwgtivr6200.html[HR][/HR]​HAHA, hey vortexrider, how does it feel to be JoeM29's bizatch?








He ran a 14.4 @ 96mph with just a chip and AEM intake. And he lives in NJ, so why don't you go run him? I don't see any times in your sig, hmmm wonder why. My 15.5 time in my sig isn't great or anything, but thats because it was my first time at the track and I only got 3 runs. But hey at least I have something to show. And the 0-60mph time on that site probably isn't even real.
Oh, and _remarkable_ is how you describe the 1.8t? Its just another turbo engine. I can't wait until the _remarkable_ Neon SRT starts hitting the streets and smokings chipped 1.8ts in stock form. Its not remarkable, its called low compression, and boost on an otherwise *slow* motor.
Considering the VR6 motor is pretty much the only one of its kind I would say its more remarkable and unique than the 1.8t, but i don't refer to my engine as remarkable








Have fun keeping your car above 2000rpms so it doesn't drive like a daewoo.








ERiC
Oh and here are a couple things from the CAR&DRIVER website that show some interesting things.
"This Jetta ran from 0 to 60mph in 7.7 seconds. Our last Jetta GLX, however, was quicker at 6.9 seconds, the same time scored by Ford's new 200-hp SVT Contour. The Integra GS-R, though, was 0.7 second slower than this new Jetta." 
.8 seconds difference in the same exact car shows magazine inconsistency.


----------



## FLdude (Aug 22, 2002)

*Re: FACE IT ALREADY, the VR6, although a great engine IS NOT (vwericvw)*

I OWN a 24V vr6.. i think it is smoother running than the 1.8T. The 1.8T seems to be faster at the strip. I think it has to do with the 6 speed in the new VR6's and it is lighter and has a turbo. 
If I put a turbo on my VR6 i'll smoke any 1.8 out there.
I would like to run a 1.8 on a high speed interstate run through the mountiains.. The VR6 6 speed would definitly rule there.
I just liked the 6 cyl better.. i have driven many 4cyl's and are just tired of them. Plus i think my VR6 will live longer than the turbo 4.
It's all what you like.. if I wanted a drag car I sure as hell would not have purchased a front wheel drive VW.. I would have got a camaro or vette. everyone can say what they want but ain't no replacement for displacement. 
What also really gets me is when people compare cars of 2 diff classes.. a dude in a 5.7L camero says he can beat me. Well no SH#$T you should be able to kick my ass. Now play fair and bring out your 200hp V6 camero..
As far as the 1.8T.. if you got it and like it good, if you beat me off the line.. well good for you.. at least your not driving a damn riced out honda.


----------



## danskii (Sep 11, 2002)

*Re: FACE IT ALREADY, the VR6, although a great engine IS NOT (FLdude)*

WHO CARES?! Anyways my ferrari is faster than your vr6's and 1.8t's ahahaha just kidding but you get the point... buy a ferrari or maybe a used f1 car.


----------



## VRC-YA (Sep 2, 2001)

*Re: FACE IT ALREADY, the VR6, although a great engine IS NOT (Vortexrider)*

Hey vortexrider...how far are you from Morris County. I'm down for a friendly race and I have a 12V...mods in my sig. Whenever you want http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Integrale (Aug 1, 1999)

*Re: All RHETORIC AND NO PROOF. I supplied the only actual (Vortexrider)*

quote:[HR][/HR]data that shows a VR6 6.7 second time which is SLOWER than the fastest 1.8t time that you can find on the internet. Like I said. the VR is a fine engine but not faster by any considerable amount if at all. You guys are pathetic how you take speculative wishful thinking and want others to take it as truth when there is no objective figures you can present. I laugh at all. 
Even if the VR6 runs 0-60 in 6.2 sec which it doesn't thus far, it still isn't considerably faster and it is a driver's race. What does that say about the remarkable little 1.8t engine that could. LMFAO[HR][/HR]​Just wondering if you ever took basic math in high school?? Or are you now taking it? 0.3 seconds to 60 also translates to faster in gear times, faster to-top end times, faster high speed acceleration times. If you want to insist on 0-60 then please, just sell your 1.8T and get a large displacement V8 drag type car. 
Fact of the matter is (and for some really strange reason, I type in English yet you still have a hard time understanding) VR6 owners aren't quite as interested in beating Hondas and Integras...they generally buy them for entirely different reasons. The fact that it's still quicker stock, sounds great, and feels better really burns you up right? LMAO.


----------



## Vortexrider (May 20, 2002)

*Like I said, I think the VR6 is a fine engine and wouldn't be averse to*

buying one in the future but where , WHERE do you have any proof that it is faster than the 1.8t to 60 or in the 1/4 mile. I am yet to see any objective data and have supplied the only site that had a 0-60 time. 
You guys are ridiculous in that you cannot just fathom the idea of the 1.8t being a hair quicker simply because it "shouldn't be that way". I could give a rat's ass about this guy or that guy did this to a 1.8t blah blah blah. Independent testing is the only thing I will accept and none of you can show me anything to the contrary. LMAO. YOU ALL KNOW I AM RIGHT ABOUT THIS AND YOU HAVE NO PROOF THAT THE 200HP VR6 IS ACTUALLY FASTER THAN THE LITTLE 4 BANGER 1.8T.


----------



## omeezy (Aug 27, 2002)

*Re: Like I said, I think the VR6 is a fine engine and wouldn't be averse to (Vortexrider)*

well i spoke with the chief editor of Motor Trend the other day. he said that they just finished testing the jetta GLI in a 3 way comparo and it will be in the Feb issue. He also mentioned that his personal preferance would be for the 1.8t because though the vr6 is *definately* the quicker car, the 1.8t feels quicker.
He said that the comparison was between the mazda 6 and some other car i don't remember. Though he wouldn't tell me how the Jetta ranlked up he did say that the jetta "placed well" so I'm not sure what that means.


----------



## omeezy (Aug 27, 2002)

*Re: Like I said, I think the VR6 is a fine engine and wouldn't be averse to (omeezy)*

OH and by the way I'm SoCal and i welcome any of you mildly modifiied 1.8's who think the 24v is a push over to step up to me so we can settle it once and for all. Personally, i've eaten many turbo, how many of you can say the same about a 24v?


----------



## JohnnyQuest (Apr 9, 2002)

*Re: Like I said, I think the VR6 is a fine engine and wouldn't be averse to (Vortexrider)*

quote:[HR][/HR]buying one in the future but where , WHERE do you have any proof that it is faster than the 1.8t to 60 or in the 1/4 mile. I am yet to see any objective data and have supplied the only site that had a 0-60 time. 
You guys are ridiculous in that you cannot just fathom the idea of the 1.8t being a hair quicker simply because it "shouldn't be that way". I could give a rat's ass about this guy or that guy did this to a 1.8t blah blah blah. Independent testing is the only thing I will accept and none of you can show me anything to the contrary. LMAO. YOU ALL KNOW I AM RIGHT ABOUT THIS AND YOU HAVE NO PROOF THAT THE 200HP VR6 IS ACTUALLY FASTER THAN THE LITTLE 4 BANGER 1.8T. [HR][/HR]​Did anyone notice Vortexrider still hasn't answered any of my questions?








According to you the only way a 24v can be faster is through independent testing. Get past this, because it will never happen. None of the auto pubs will line up a turbo GTI, a VR6 GTI, a turbo Jetta and a GLI and see which one is faster. And even though everyone loves to do it, you can't compare the 0-60 time of a GTI tested in March of last year to a GLI tested in November of this year. Different locations, different elevations, different temperatures, different drivers, different test equipment......from a scientific standpoint, you can not compare these numbers. So the only way to settle this is for you to find someone in your regional forum who owns a 24v and go with them to a legal drag racing event. Even then, it's two different drivers, but maybe in a drag race you'll realize the 24v VR6 is no push over. 
So, the ball is in your court. Find someone to race you. You insist that you're right but the same reason that makes you right also makes you wrong, there isn't enough data out there!! So race a VR6 and let us know how you do. I suggest you race each other, then switch cars to compensate for driver skill issues.
And if you haven't figured it out yet, your credibility in the 24v forum is sinking fast......and no matter what you aren't going to convince any of us that our 24v cars are slower than a stock 1.8t. And even if you did, what do you expect? All of us to take our cars back to the dealers where we bought them? "Uh, excuse me sir/madam, I think I made a mistake. Some guy on the Internet says my car isn't as fast as the turbo, so I want a turbo now." Again, you aren't being contructive, and it's hurting your credibility.
J


----------



## RVs021.8T (Oct 11, 2001)

*Re: FACE IT ALREADY, the VR6, although a great engine IS NOT (FLdude)*

quote:[HR][/HR]
If I put a turbo on my VR6 i'll smoke any 1.8 out there.
.[HR][/HR]​Go away.
Did you just figure than out?


----------



## GLIGuyNH (Mar 19, 2002)

*Re: FACE IT ALREADY, the VR6, although a great engine IS NOT (RVs021.8T)*

_"Can't we all just get along ???_ *Rodney King*








I'm just going to continue driving my GLI around the city, wave & honk at all the other 1.8T's and VR6's on the road and be proud and happy to drive my dub.


----------



## JohnnyQuest (Apr 9, 2002)

*Re: FACE IT ALREADY, the VR6, although a great engine IS NOT (RVs021.8T)*

quote:[HR][/HR]
If I put a turbo on my VR6 i'll smoke any 1.8 out there.
.
Go away.
Did you just figure than out?







[HR][/HR]​What? Another 1.8t owner posting non-constructive comments? Are you saying that he doesn't have the right to post his comments? After all, he is a 24v owner posting in the 24v forum, if anyone has the right to post his comments I would say he does.
To the topic moderator: IMO this topic should be locked so that we can all get on with our lives. It's obvious that no one has any 0 to 60 or 1/4 mile data for the 24v, and all this topic is doing is making people be ugly to each other. 
J


----------



## Vortexrider (May 20, 2002)

*Re: FACE IT ALREADY, the VR6, although a great engine IS NOT (JohnnyQuest)*

There is actually a 0-60 test on the 200hp vr but none of you guys who own the car will EVER accept any test that may show a slower time than the 1.8t.
That is the bottom line. You guys will say that it does'nt count because xy and Z and that the VR is faster because that is the way it is suppose to be, blah blah blah. Like I said, even if it puts out better #s it will only be by a fraction and not a considerable difference if at all. Speed is not subjective it is a constant thing and whether or not the VR6 "feels or sounds" faster is not the point. #s don't lie. The WRX for that matter doesn't feel faster than the Vr6 but it is considerably faster. You guys are so dissillusioned and obviously ssssssssoooooooooooooooooooooo sensitive to this topic that I am LMFAO. Bottom line is that the VR6 IS NOT ANY FASTER and at best equal to the smaller engine. Hell, even the R32 is not pushing out 0-60 times in under 6 seconds. Therefore the same argument, is the R32 worth the $ for so little performance improvement (excluding the 4 wheel drive aspect)?


----------



## Mr. Potato Head (Aug 12, 2002)

*Re: FACE IT ALREADY, the VR6, although a great engine IS NOT (Vortexrider)*

Except we don't have a turbo. You keep leaving that part out. The 4 banger is NOT as fast as the VR6. The 4 banger is almost as fast as the VR6 when the 4 banger has a turbo. Why is this even an issue? We chose two more cylinders for the smooth nice engine, you chose a turbo because you like to play Ricky Racer. So what?


----------



## VRC-YA (Sep 2, 2001)

*Re: FACE IT ALREADY, the VR6, although a great engine IS NOT (Vortexrider)*

Excatly what Potatoe said...I chose my VR cause of the way it drives on the highway and smoothness of a V6 engine. Me and my cousin used to switch cars cause I loved the way the boost kicked in and it ripped throught the gears. My cousin loved the way my car felt smooth in every gear and how it scared the poop out of him on the highway cause it wouldn't stop climbing. In my personal preference I would rather have a 6 over any 4. Vortex Rider is right in some parts as if the VR6 does win it wouldn't be by much. Just like when they compared the 12V and 150hp 1.8T. The VR6 got the jump but the turbo kicked in nicely making it a close race. Obviously the VR would end up pulling away cause of the 2 extra cylinder but it was close. But know one has really done test on the VR6's like they do with the 1.8T's. When they do comparisons its always 1.8T against other 4 bangers. Turbo and N/A are two different styles of driving. Some people choose the VR6 for the more refined engine and choose to go whenever they feel they want to everytime they step on the gas pedal. Or the boost and the easy tunability of the 1.8T...Other than that, I've asked if you wanted to race me for fun? I'll show you what a 12V can do...


----------



## JohnnyQuest (Apr 9, 2002)

*Re: FACE IT ALREADY, the VR6, although a great engine IS NOT (Vortexrider)*

quote:[HR][/HR]There is actually a 0-60 test on the 200hp vr but none of you guys who own the car will EVER accept any test that may show a slower time than the 1.8t.
That is the bottom line. You guys will say that it does'nt count because xy and Z and that the VR is faster because that is the way it is suppose to be, blah blah blah. Like I said, even if it puts out better #s it will only be by a fraction and not a considerable difference if at all. Speed is not subjective it is a constant thing and whether or not the VR6 "feels or sounds" faster is not the point. #s don't lie. The WRX for that matter doesn't feel faster than the Vr6 but it is considerably faster. You guys are so dissillusioned and obviously ssssssssoooooooooooooooooooooo sensitive to this topic that I am LMFAO. Bottom line is that the VR6 IS NOT ANY FASTER and at best equal to the smaller engine. Hell, even the R32 is not pushing out 0-60 times in under 6 seconds. Therefore the same argument, is the R32 worth the $ for so little performance improvement (excluding the 4 wheel drive aspect)?[HR][/HR]​Your link to that webpage at Modern Racer is just a snapshot view of the car, not a road test. No where on that page did they state where they got that number from or if they tested the car themselves. They could have gotten that number from VW, who always lists 0-60 times very conservatively. The fact that they don't list a 1/4 mile time leads me to believe that they did not test the vehicle. The webpage at Modern Racer.com isn't enough evidence IMO.
Secondly, your statement that the WRX doesn't feel faster than a VR6 is not true. My friend has had his WRX almost a year, I've driven it numberous times and have ridden with him numerous times, it's an entirely different animal and shouldn't even be included in your comparison. Other than the turbo lag in first gear when you first start out, it's way, way faster than my VR6. OMG, are you surprised that I said something was faster than a VR6? Next you're gonna tell me that you can beat a WRX, right?
You said "even if it puts out better #s it will only be by a fraction and not a considerable difference if at all." But then you say "#s don't lie." You're contradicting yourself, you can't have it both ways. Either the numbers don't lie and the VR6 cars with more power and torque are faster than the turbos or they're not. Even if it's a fraction, it's still a difference.
You still have not answered any of my questions from earlier in this thread, and you've done nothing to add credence to your arguement. And when you use terms like LMFAO you're only making yourself look worse.
You're gonna have to come up with some better logic, some better data, or some verifiable numbers from the drag race I suggested to you in order to convince anyone here that your car is as fast or faster than ours. And even if you do somehow find data to support your claim, don't expect any of us to stay awake at night, cry in our beer, or jump out of a window because you proved us wrong. When that happens, maybe you can go over to the TDI forum and convince those people that your car gets better gas milage then theirs.
J


----------



## VRC-YA (Sep 2, 2001)

*Re: FACE IT ALREADY, the VR6, although a great engine IS NOT (Mr. Potato Head)*

Race me...I don't care if I win or lose. Its a VW anywayz...I'll even go meet you.


----------



## sonicGLI (Sep 23, 2002)

*Re: FACE IT ALREADY, the VR6, although a great engine IS NOT (VRC-YA)*

Since Vortexrider has been hell-bent on the articles from "modernracer.com" I emailed them and asked if they actually did testing on the '03 1.8T and VR6. This was their reply:
"Hi,
The VW GTI 1.8T (the new one with the 180 hp engine), was tested by 
Road and Track earlier this year in hot and humid conditions. They 
managed a 0-60 time of 6.5 seconds.
The 0-60 figure for the 200 hp VR6 is just a conservative estimate 
based on its power-to-weight ratio. It is probably quicker...
Mash
-- 
http://www.ModernRacer.com"
AFAIK R&T never tested the 1.8T @ 6.5 to 60mph... it was C&D who got that figure. I could be wrong about that, but I don't recall R&T ever getting those #'s. So this is good evidence of the reliability of modernracer.com... they don't even test the cars! They just rape figures out of magazines!








So there are your "hard figures" Vortexrider. Notice he said that they are only estimating the VR6 and even stated that it is "probably quicker". I'm betting these guys from modernracer.com have never even sat in a new 200hp VR6.

















[Modified by sonicGLI, 1:02 AM 12-2-2002]


----------



## omeezy (Aug 27, 2002)

*Re: FACE IT ALREADY, the VR6, although a great engine IS NOT (JohnnyQuest)*

Have you noticed that Vortexrider and the rest of his little Turbo Trio continue to talk ****t but have yet to respond to any of the 3 challenges that myself and 2 other 24valvers have made. We've repeatedly said " if you think your car is faster come prove it to us" but the turbo boys have yet to respond. any ideas why this could be??? I mean if your soo confident in your beliefs and your car's potential then shouldn't you be willing and eager to step up to the plate?


----------



## JohnnyQuest (Apr 9, 2002)

*Re: FACE IT ALREADY, the VR6, although a great engine IS NOT (sonicGLI)*

quote:[HR][/HR]Since Vortexrider has been hell-bent on the articles from "modernracer.com" I emailed them and asked if they actually did testing on the '03 1.8T and VR6. This was their reply:
"Hi,
The VW GTI 1.8T (the new one with the 180 hp engine), was tested by 
Road and Track earlier this year in hot and humid conditions. They 
managed a 0-60 time of 6.5 seconds.
The 0-60 figure for the 200 hp VR6 is just a conservative estimate 
based on its power-to-weight ratio. It is probably quicker...
Mash
-- 
http://www.ModernRacer.com"
AFAIK R&T never tested the 1.8T @ 6.5 to 60mph... it was C&D who got that figure. I could be wrong about that, but I don't recall R&T ever getting those #'s. So this is good evidence of the reliability of modernracer.com... they don't even test the cars! They just rape figures out of magazines!








So there are your "hard figures" Vortexrider. Notice he said that they are only estimating the VR6 and even stated that it is "probably quicker". I'm betting these guys from modernracer.com have never even sat in a new 200hp VR6.
















[Modified by sonicGLI, 1:02 AM 12-2-2002][HR][/HR]​Wow.....nice work! I rest my case. 








J


----------



## Vortexrider (May 20, 2002)

*LOL, you people are really pathetic*

Like I said, I wouild expect the Vr6 to be faster than the 1.8t but I think VW surprised evn themselves when the the 1.8t posted such good times. On the VW website they did a side by side comparison and actually still had a faster 1.8t time to 60 over the 200hp. Regardless, I don't see the Vr pulling off a 0-6-mph time of less than 6.2-6.3 at best. Point being that VW should have made the VR a considerablely faster car and not one in par with the cheaper 1.8t. 
Same holds true for the R32. Many of you guys here are hipocrits becasue you guys will be saying the same thing about your VR6 versus the R32. Many if not 99% of you couldn't justify the price difference for a negligable amount of more performance if any. Case Closed shut the fu$# up and you still havent shown better #s other than you wishful thinking. LMFAO


----------



## Integrale (Aug 1, 1999)

*Re: LOL, you people are really pathetic (Vortexrider)*

quote:[HR][/HR]Like I said, I wouild expect the Vr6 to be faster than the 1.8t but I think VW surprised evn themselves when the the 1.8t posted such good times. On the VW website they did a side by side comparison and actually still had a faster 1.8t time to 60 over the 200hp. Regardless, I don't see the Vr pulling off a 0-6-mph time of less than 6.2-6.3 at best. Point being that VW should have made the VR a considerablely faster car and not one in par with the cheaper 1.8t. 
Same holds true for the R32. Many of you guys here are hipocrits becasue you guys will be saying the same thing about your VR6 versus the R32. Many if not 99% of you couldn't justify the price difference for a negligable amount of more performance if any. Case Closed shut the fu$# up and you still havent shown better #s other than you wishful thinking. LMFAO




























[HR][/HR]​Come on...tell is the truth....you just couldn't afford a VR6...ttt. 
And I think your car has a rev limiter to prevent you from going over 60...
Oh...and just once in a while, stop your pathetic broken record rambling and JUST TRY to answer some questions people here ask you. Because you're avoiding them...and you know what that means....


[Modified by Integrale, 12:01 AM 12-2-2002]


----------



## Max2GTI (Sep 25, 2002)

*Re: LOL, you people are really pathetic (Integrale)*

In a 1.8T can it hit 60 in 2nd? I think my VR6 can't which will effect the 0-60 times considerable. I also don't get this "This magazine said this or this website said that' crap. Most cases mags are wrong. Point 2. Who in the hell races 0-60 in real life







. In a real life race against a stock GTI VR6 and GTI 1.8T the VR6 will win because of 1) more hp 2)Better smoother power band 3)Better gearing 4)no turbo heat soak! I see no 1.8T beats 24V VR6 stories around here. I am next to a long open stretch of I95


----------



## bakersfield_gti (Jul 13, 2002)

*Re: Like I said, I think the VR6 is a fine engine and wouldn't be averse to (Vortexrider)*

Is me spanking you good enough evidence?
bring it!









quote:[HR][/HR]buying one in the future but where , WHERE do you have any proof that it is faster than the 1.8t to 60 or in the 1/4 mile. I am yet to see any objective data and have supplied the only site that had a 0-60 time. 
You guys are ridiculous in that you cannot just fathom the idea of the 1.8t being a hair quicker simply because it "shouldn't be that way". I could give a rat's ass about this guy or that guy did this to a 1.8t blah blah blah. Independent testing is the only thing I will accept and none of you can show me anything to the contrary. LMAO. YOU ALL KNOW I AM RIGHT ABOUT THIS AND YOU HAVE NO PROOF THAT THE 200HP VR6 IS ACTUALLY FASTER THAN THE LITTLE 4 BANGER 1.8T. [HR][/HR]​


----------



## bakersfield_gti (Jul 13, 2002)

*Re: Like I said, I think the VR6 is a fine engine and wouldn't be averse to (omeezy)*

YAH! me and omeezy will spank you at the same time, bring it!









quote:[HR][/HR]OH and by the way I'm SoCal and i welcome any of you mildly modifiied 1.8's who think the 24v is a push over to step up to me so we can settle it once and for all. Personally, i've eaten many turbo, how many of you can say the same about a 24v?[HR][/HR]​


----------



## bakersfield_gti (Jul 13, 2002)

*Re: FACE IT ALREADY, the VR6, although a great engine IS NOT (GLIGuyNH)*

yes i agree with this guy..
i do it every day, but if a 1.8T wants to race, ill gladly show them who is boss.
I have noticed that all VR6 owners are really cool with one another, but 99% of the 1.8Ts i come across in town have gave me attitude. Only one 1.8T guy was cool. The rest acted and drove like honda owners.

quote:[HR][/HR]_"Can't we all just get along ???_ *Rodney King*








I'm just going to continue driving my GLI around the city, wave & honk at all the other 1.8T's and VR6's on the road and be proud and happy to drive my dub.







[HR][/HR]​

[Modified by bakersfield_gti, 2:44 AM 12-2-2002]


----------



## milo (Feb 19, 2002)

*Re: FACE IT ALREADY, the VR6, although a great engine IS NOT (bakersfield_gti)*

quote:[HR][/HR]yes i agree with this guy..
i do it every day, but if a 1.8T wants to race, ill gladly show them who is boss.
I have noticed that all VR6 owners are really cool with one another, but 99% of the 1.8Ts i come across in town have gave me attitude. Only one 1.8T guy was cool. The rest acted and drove like honda owners.

_"Can't we all just get along ???_ *Rodney King*








I'm just going to continue driving my GLI around the city, wave & honk at all the other 1.8T's and VR6's on the road and be proud and happy to drive my dub.









[Modified by bakersfield_gti, 2:44 AM 12-2-2002][HR][/HR]​I have to agree that allot of 1.8t owners do act like Honda owners.







I have a 1.8t myself and have meet several of these owners. Later


----------



## JohnnyQuest (Apr 9, 2002)

*Re: LOL, you people are really pathetic (Vortexrider)*

quote:[HR][/HR]Like I said, I wouild expect the Vr6 to be faster than the 1.8t but I think VW surprised evn themselves when the the 1.8t posted such good times. On the VW website they did a side by side comparison and actually still had a faster 1.8t time to 60 over the 200hp. Regardless, I don't see the Vr pulling off a 0-6-mph time of less than 6.2-6.3 at best. Point being that VW should have made the VR a considerablely faster car and not one in par with the cheaper 1.8t. 
Same holds true for the R32. Many of you guys here are hipocrits becasue you guys will be saying the same thing about your VR6 versus the R32. Many if not 99% of you couldn't justify the price difference for a negligable amount of more performance if any. Case Closed shut the fu$# up and you still havent shown better #s other than you wishful thinking. LMFAO




























[HR][/HR]​Is there anyone moderating this topic? Doesn't calling us all "pathetic" and telling us, in our own forum, to "shut the fu$# up" justify this person's removal from the Vortex? He's yet to provide us with any credible evidence or any constructive opinions or wisdom, all he's done is thrown insults. 
This is exactly the kind of thing that happened in the Golf IV/Jetta IV forum before they dropped the hammer and got things under control. 
Think it's time to notify a moderator......
J


----------



## Mhyrr (Jul 12, 1999)

*Re: LOL, you people are really pathetic (JohnnyQuest)*

all hotheads please calm down and reread the forum rules. 
Violations include: namecalling, attacking other users, swearing.
So don't do it.
And lets not turn this into another interminable 1.8T vs. VR6 engine debate..
they're both great engines and stand well independently.


----------



## sonicGLI (Sep 23, 2002)

*Re: LOL, you people are really pathetic (Mhyrr)*

quote:[HR][/HR]all hotheads please calm down and reread the forum rules. 
Violations include: namecalling, attacking other users, swearing.
So don't do it.
And lets not turn this into another interminable 1.8T vs. VR6 engine debate..
they're both great engines and stand well independently.[HR][/HR]​ http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## JohnnyQuest (Apr 9, 2002)

*Re: LOL, you people are really pathetic (Mhyrr)*

Thank you.








J


----------



## RVs021.8T (Oct 11, 2001)

*Re: FACE IT ALREADY, the VR6, although a great engine IS NOT (JohnnyQuest)*

quote:[HR][/HR]
If I put a turbo on my VR6 i'll smoke any 1.8 out there.
.Go away.
Did you just figure than out?








What? Another 1.8t owner posting non-constructive comments? Are you saying that he doesn't have the right to post his comments? After all, he is a 24v owner posting in the 24v forum, if anyone has the right to post his comments I would say he does.
J[HR][/HR]​If you think the comment he made is constructive in anyway and makes any sense to this argument...you are








I hate this argument more than anyone. And I can say I've driven all of the above. 12V, 24V, 1.8T, chipped 1.8T...and they are all good. But to even bring a "turbo VR6" in the argument is retarded period.


----------



## VRC-YA (Sep 2, 2001)

*Re: LOL, you people are really pathetic (Vortexrider)*

Would you please answer the questions that some people kindly asked? Some of them live in Cali but for me and any other person that lives in Jersey would like 1 friendly race. Win or Lose, I don't care. I need a good challenge and I just have a 12V with three simple mods. Oh I get it...your goin' to get all the bolt on's so then you can say you've beaten all stock 24Valvers. Oh I see...


----------



## BoraGLI (Oct 14, 2002)

*Re: 2003 vr6 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times? (spoolinGTI)*

First of all, Ken, you are the one who is making cocky statements. You want to call someone idiot? watch your previous posts/language and think again. Yes this is a performance thread (not class) which talks about the same 1.8T vs 24V-V6 comparison everyone else does but it is not a 1.8T forum either!!! And once again, I enjoy reading the performance data from everybody but you suck at presenting yours. Please don't make me repeat myself again. AND, I am seeing increasingly more 1.8T owners posting to this thread than 24V owners. I guess they feel they have to prove something...
quote:[HR][/HR]Oh goddddd....please shut up with that class shiet......everyone is arguing about performance and this idiot comes on with his cocky statement.....
Repeat after me BoraGLI, ......"Its still just a VW, just like everyone else's car that Im arguing with"......lol
Ken[HR][/HR]​


----------



## BoraGLI (Oct 14, 2002)

*Re: LOL, you people are really pathetic (Vortexrider)*

I thought I justified the price diference in my first post on this thread, but who listens? When I justify it then I get the blame for changing the subject.
quote:[HR][/HR]Like I said, I wouild expect the Vr6 to be faster than the 1.8t but I think VW surprised evn themselves when the the 1.8t posted such good times. On the VW website they did a side by side comparison and actually still had a faster 1.8t time to 60 over the 200hp. Regardless, I don't see the Vr pulling off a 0-6-mph time of less than 6.2-6.3 at best. Point being that VW should have made the VR a considerablely faster car and not one in par with the cheaper 1.8t. 
Same holds true for the R32. Many of you guys here are hipocrits becasue you guys will be saying the same thing about your VR6 versus the R32. Many if not 99% of you couldn't justify the price difference for a negligable amount of more performance if any. Case Closed shut the fu$# up and you still havent shown better #s other than you wishful thinking. LMFAO





























[HR][/HR]​


----------



## Vortexrider (May 20, 2002)

*Re: LOL, you people are really pathetic (BoraGLI)*

LOL, I am far from rich, but I can "afford" to drove any car up to around $50,000 and still choose to drive the 1.8t. Cars are a very poor investment an I rather put my money to work for me. Plus the difference between the 1.8t and the VR6 is tit $ in that I ride 3 racing bikes that are $5000 a piece. I know that sounds obnoxious, but you brought up what I "can't afford". 
Still, based on the old Vr 6 numbers and current projections of the VR6 and the R32, I don't see this "dramatic" performance difference that you guys purport. The 2 cars are simply so close in performance #s that I get a kick out of your little weiner schnitzel comments that "Oh, the VR6 is soooooooooooooooo much more this or that" when the #s don't support it. 
I originally asked a question (legitimate) about this topic a while back and was curious of why and how the 1.8t was able to put out such close #s and at the time faster #s than the 12v and all you guys slammed me. Now I could give a rat's ass what you say or think and am still awaiting objective data that the VR6 is a better performer other than your rhetoric and wishful statments. 
As far as 0-60 and 1/4 times not being the only important aspects, I think top end performance is the useless measure as if you dirve at 140 mph regularly on the highway you are an idiot. Not one of you do that with any regularity and don't even lie to me about it. Yes, the Vr6 will be faster top end but the 2 are so close that I just love a sleeper engine and the 1.8t is one of the best. Seriously, why doesn't VW make the VR6 a clear performance winner? I don;t get it.


----------



## gizmopop (Feb 6, 2000)

*Re: LOL, you people are really pathetic (Vortexrider)*

quote:[HR][/HR]
 Still, based on the old Vr 6 numbers and current projections of the VR6 and the R32, I don't see this "dramatic" performance difference that you guys purport. The 2 cars are simply so close in performance #s that I get a kick out of your little weiner schnitzel comments that "Oh, the VR6 is soooooooooooooooo much more this or that" when the #s don't support it. 
I originally asked a question (legitimate) about this topic a while back and was curious of why and how the 1.8t was able to put out such close #s and at the time faster #s than the 12v and all you guys slammed me. Now I could give a rat's ass what you say or think and am still awaiting objective data that the VR6 is a better performer other than your rhetoric and wishful statments. [HR][/HR]​Maybe this can answer your question...the 12V in the mkIV makes 174 hp and 181 lb/ft of torque at 3200 rpm. the 1.8T(2002) makes 180 hp and 174 lb/ft torque at 1950 rpm. the numbers are very close but the 1.8t makes its torque peak(or how quickly your engine revs to hp peak) at 1250 rpm sooner than the VR6 does. So basically this match up in a straight up acceleration run, is a drivers race stock for stock with a slight nod to the turbo because of its powerband and it weighs a little bit less( i'm not even going to get into gearing).
The reason why people like the VR6 is for all the rest of the times when you aren't necessarily racing. The 1.8t is still a turbo engine and however little lag it may have, the lag is still there, it sucks to be driving normally and then you step on it and have to wait for the turbo spool up. Don't get me wrong, the 1.8T is more than willing to launch off the line, but that isn't how most of us drive all day. 
I'll state it again, I have yet to see a North American 24V being tested by a nationally known source(ie Road and Track, Car and Driver,Motor Trend..)...say what you want about car magazines but they at least use professional means to collect their data( I know someone before mentioned a website testing the 24v, but i don't know where, how, or with what equipment they tested...)


----------



## Integrale (Aug 1, 1999)

*Re: LOL, you people are really pathetic (Vortexrider)*

quote:[HR][/HR] LOL, I am far from rich, but I can "afford" to drove any car up to around $50,000 and still choose to drive the 1.8t. Cars are a very poor investment an I rather put my money to work for me. 
[HR][/HR]​How about investing in some grammer lessons instead?
quote:[HR][/HR]
"Oh, the VR6 is soooooooooooooooo much more this or that" when the #s don't support it.
[HR][/HR]​No one is saying it's so much faster except you thinking it...take a deep breath and say to yourself..."it's okay, the VR6 is quicker is than my 1.8T but it's okay, I'll be okay." Say it few times and you'll be more relaxed I assure you.
quote:[HR][/HR]
Now I could give a rat's ass what you say or think and am still awaiting objective data that the VR6 is a better performer other than your rhetoric and wishful statments. 
[HR][/HR]​I franlkly don't think anyone gives a rat's ass what you think either...your objective data is what we're all waiting for also. We'll wait...we have plenty of time and it's become an entertainment factor for us now.
quote:[HR][/HR]
As far as 0-60 and 1/4 times not being the only important aspects, I think top end performance is the useless measure as if you dirve at 140 mph regularly on the highway you are an idiot. 
[HR][/HR]​Who said 140? No one here did but you. And I suppose going full throttle to 60 all the time is realistic, useful driving technique right? Is that what you do at every traffic light? Like I said, you must have a built in rev limiter at 60 on your car. Of course, we NEVER accelerate from 30 or 20 or 40 mph do we? We always start from 0...and end up at 60. 
quote:[HR][/HR]Seriously, why doesn't VW make the VR6 a clear performance winner? I don;t get it.[HR][/HR]​It has...you're the only one here that doesn't see it. LMFAO.


[Modified by Integrale, 4:08 PM 12-2-2002]


----------



## vwericvw (Apr 25, 2002)

*Re: (Vortexrider)*

quote:[HR][/HR]Now I could give a rat's ass what you say or think and am still awaiting objective data that the VR6 is a better performer other than your rhetoric and wishful statments. 
As far as 0-60 and 1/4 times not being the only important aspects, I think top end performance is the useless measure as if you dirve at 140 mph regularly on the highway you are an idiot. Not one of you do that with any regularity and don't even lie to me about it.[HR][/HR]​If you could give a rat's ass as to what people in this forum think then why do you continue to post here so frequently?? 
And the fact is that 0-60 and quarter mile times are not everything. Trap speed in the quarter mile is far less dependent on driver skill and in gear acceleration tests are much more prevelant during everyday driving. The 1.8t hits 60mph in second gear and the 24v only hits around 58mph so that would hurt 0-60mph times but what that doesn't show is the 24v walking the 1.8t after it shifts into 3rd, 4th, 5th, and most importantly the 6th gear you don't have. Oh and by the way if someone races a 1.8t we have a huge gearing advantage for rolling starts. The 1.8t 3rd gear is just barely shorter than the 24v 4th gear.
Oh and top end is very prevelant in the real world. On a road trip from north to south florida I NEVER had to get out of 6th gear unless my rpms dropped below 1500 or so due to a traffic accident or something.
And the 24v and awp 1.8t engines are dynoing right around the same hp and torque. The reason that *I* picked the 24v over the 1.8t was because I like the power delivery of the vr6 soo much better and the 02J 5-speed in the 1.8t doesn't come close to the smoothness and refinement of the 02M 6-speed in the 24v. Thats what it came down to. I think my 24v was about 2000-2500 more than a 1.8t. The 6-speed alone was worth that.
ERiC


[Modified by vwericvw, 1:09 AM 12-3-2002]


----------



## vwericvw (Apr 25, 2002)

*Re: (Vortexrider)*

[Modified by vwericvw, 1:32 AM 12-4-2002]


----------



## VRC-YA (Sep 2, 2001)

*Re: LOL, you people are really pathetic (Vortexrider)*

So what if the performance figures are close! Its either you want a 1.8 TURBO or a V6. You either like the way boost feels and gets you to point A & B quick or you like a rev happy, smooth riding V6 thats quick enuff to take out a few cars by surprise. I'm not here to argue what engine is better and what not. Both are great engines for two different people. I just asked for a race and never got an answer so...leave it at that. If it makes the turbo guys feel better I almost got spanked by an Eclipse turbo Tonight. Lucky we were at a roll and my gears are long. Other than that he started creeping up and we had to slow down cause of cars in front of us. But boy did he had a hard time. At least he was cool about it and said not bad for a VR and then took off with the turbo spooling http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Nikon101 (Feb 7, 2002)

*Re: LOL, you people are really pathetic (VRC-YA)*

Damn this is so old!!!!







Seriously isn't this the 4th or 5th thread comparing the two just in the 24V forum? I like coming into all the different forums just to see what's going on and check up on anything new. Why do people feel like they have to prove themselves? How about we all just get along since we all drive a Veedub and are happy with it. BTW i weighed my car at the track and it was 2850 with half a tank with no stripping whatsoever.







Lets all be friends!!!!


----------



## Vortexrider (May 20, 2002)

*Integrale, first off my mistakes were typos and have nothing to do with*

GRAMMAR. Not Grammer. LOL If you are going to question my intelligence, at least have the sense to ensure you know how to spell the word in which is suppose to be a major dig at me. 
As far as this topic, it is old and tired but you guys simply cannot face the fact that the 1.8t is an essentially equal performer. You see, the VR is suppose to be faster and the little 4 banger has nothing to lose. You guys apparently do.


----------



## JohnnyQuest (Apr 9, 2002)

*Re: Integrale, first off my mistakes were typos and have nothing to do with (Vortexrider)*

quote:[HR][/HR]GRAMMAR. Not Grammer. LOL If you are going to question my intelligence, at least have the sense to ensure you know how to spell the word in which is suppose to be a major dig at me. 
As far as this topic, it is old and tired but you guys simply cannot face the fact that the 1.8t is an essentially equal performer. You see, the VR is suppose to be faster and the little 4 banger has nothing to lose. You guys apparently do. [HR][/HR]​If this this is so old and tired, why do you keep dragging it on? Did you not read the comment from the topic moderator? I guess you didn't because you continue to insult people.....
Will you tell us once and for all why you feel it is necessary to convince each and every one of us that the 1.8t is an equal performer to the VR6? None of us feel the need to go to the 1.8t forum and tell everyone that our cars are faster than the 1.8t. You still never answered my question....have you ever driven a 24v car with the 6 speed? 
You also said
"Still, based on the old Vr 6 numbers and current projections of the VR6 and the R32, I don't see this "dramatic" performance difference that you guys purport. The 2 cars are simply so close in performance #s that I get a kick out of your little weiner schnitzel comments that "Oh, the VR6 is soooooooooooooooo much more this or that" when the #s don't support it. "
Who is the one purporting (?) that the 24v has a dramatic performance difference? Seems like the consensus in this thread has been that the 1.8t performance is close, but not equal to or better than the 24v and since there is no data to support either argument some people have offered to settle this on the drag strip (legally I presume). And I don't recall anyone claiming that the 24v was soooooooo much of anything, someone might have used that in conjuction with the word smooth, but what do you care? Right?
Lastly, you say the numbers don't support "it". What numbers are you referring to? The conservative numbers listed at VW of America's website? We already established that the data at modernracer.com is not accurate and there hasn't been any other tests of the GTI VR6 or GLI as of yet. So, what "numbers" are you referring to?
You've still done nothing to improve your credibility or convince any of us that your position in this argument is the correct one. Keep trying though, as you can tell by the number of hits on this thread your futile attempts are quite amusing.
J


----------



## vwericvw (Apr 25, 2002)

*Re: Integrale, first off my mistakes were typos and have nothing to do with (Vortexrider)*

quote:[HR][/HR]GRAMMAR. Not Grammer. LOL If you are going to question my intelligence, at least have the sense to ensure you know how to spell the word in which is suppose to be a major dig at me. 
As far as this topic, it is old and tired but you guys simply cannot face the fact that the 1.8t is an essentially equal performer. You see, the VR is suppose to be faster and the little 4 banger has nothing to lose. You guys apparently do. [HR][/HR]​Its not really that the vr6 is supposed to be *faster*. Is the v6 passat faster than the 1.8t? Nope, I actually think the 1.8t is faster in that case around town, but not on the highway. So how does VW justify the higher price tag of the v6 passat? Refinement, smoothness, and highway power are why people buy the v6 over the 1.8t. The vr6 has the same appeal. In fact, it has more appeal over the 1.8t because of the better 6-speed tranny. When they made the 24v vr6 with 200hp over the 12v 174 vr6 they actually kinda did the same thing with the 1.8t. Except with the 1.8t they kept it under wraps more. They changed the turbo to a hybrid type for better high rpm power and it actually makes around 190-200hp at the crank according to most of the awp 1.8t dynos. 
Why don't you answer me this vortexrider, why do I keep seeing 337 owners in the classifieds section wanting to trade their car for a new 24v vr6 gti? I never see it the other way around








ERiC


----------



## bakersfield_gti (Jul 13, 2002)

*blah*









that guy must have gotten spanked by a 24v.
thats why he is so pissy.
like i said before, i have data chilling outside, any stock or mildly moded 1.8T can bring it. I didnt get my car to be a race car, but im tired of everyone thinking the VR6 is the slower one. I have to explain to people every weekend that the VR6 is the better performer of the two GTIs. Every weekend im cruzin around and some hothead 1.8T tries to mess with me and i just leave them behind, but if a VR6 rolls up they say whats up and we play around and wave as we go our ways. Its mostly the 1.8T jettas. Wish they would just leave me alone.








what do you guys think about the tuboS bettle? Think it can spank a 24v GTI?


----------



## Mhyrr (Jul 12, 1999)

*Re: blah (bakersfield_gti)*

People on *both sides* of this argument need to calm down quite a bit. 
Next, its not very productive for owners of a different engine *cough*1.8T*cough* to come into another form and bring belligerence with them..
That being said.. the 1.8T vs. VR6 argument has been done countless times, and well, both engines are great! Here's my two cents on the topic. I've owned a cammed 12v VR6 as well as my current 1.8T, which I might add, has the same gearing advantages as the 24v VR6 since I have the same tranny as all of you guys. I will say that my current car would easily outpace my old 12v. I've only raced a 24v in chipped mode, which isn't what this thread is really talking about.
Here's the *long answer*:
God how I miss the sound of the VR6. I very much don't miss having all that weight in front of the front axle. Stock for stock, the two engines are in fact *very* close in straightline performance, with the only real advantage of the VR6 being gearing - the MQ350 is even shorter than a 3.94 R&P! The 1.8T has some lag which isn't very fun, however the size of the turbo minimalizes it. If you like twisties, the 1.8T is definitely the way to go; the weight difference IS noticeable and quite significant. In the 90's, the VR6 was really labeled as VWs true performance engine. Now, VW really has two high performance contenders - the 1.8T and the VR6. They both have their pros and cons.
*Short Answer* : If I wanted a car that was stock or I wanted to really build a ridiculous 400+ hp turbo motor, I'd take the 24v VR6. Everything in between is 1.8T territory in one form or another (chipped through APR Stage 3)
Now, I'll leave it open a little longer, but any more blatant attacks from either side and this'll get locked. So lets get back to the civilized discussion aspect of it. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## mark4 (Aug 4, 2001)

*Re: blah (Mhyrr)*

I can abstain from this thread no longer
quote:[HR][/HR] So lets get back to the civilized discussion aspect of it. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif [HR][/HR]​Re: 1.8T vs v6
Is there really any more to discuss








Yes, they are both good.
The end
Back to the topic
I have had a neck and neck at the lights 'challenge' with a 225bhp Audi S3. That car has been tested to hit 60 in 6.2 sec (manufactures claim 6.6 to 62). I have a miltek and chip, dynoed at 229bhp (no not my fat ass, but the 4motion) and there was *nothing* in it. Both cars have 150kg extra weight disadvantage over FWD versions - so I would guess you would be getting a similar figure if not less with mods - wheel spin permitting.
0-60 It's a 6 second car. 6.0 or 6.9 who really cares when it comes down to driving, it certainly 'feels' fast thanks to all that lovely torque- but the driver certainly has some influence on this figure. 
1/4 mile - who cares - but it's not fast enough, is it?
now, please,please,please lock this thread mr (1.8Towning) moderator


----------



## gizmopop (Feb 6, 2000)

*Re: blah (mark4)*

True, just be glad VW gives you a choice. Remember Ford/Mazda with the Probe/MX-6, it started as a turbo 4, then they switched to a V6, and now they don't even sell them anymore... Same thing happened at mitsubishl/dodge with the eclipse/talon although the talon doesn't exist, dodge does sell a V6 stratus.


----------



## JohnnyQuest (Apr 9, 2002)

*Re: blah (bakersfield_gti)*

quote:[HR][/HR]








that guy must have gotten spanked by a 24v.
thats why he is so pissy.
like i said before, i have data chilling outside, any stock or mildly moded 1.8T can bring it. I didnt get my car to be a race car, but im tired of everyone thinking the VR6 is the slower one. I have to explain to people every weekend that the VR6 is the better performer of the two GTIs. Every weekend im cruzin around and some hothead 1.8T tries to mess with me and i just leave them behind, but if a VR6 rolls up they say whats up and we play around and wave as we go our ways. Its mostly the 1.8T jettas. Wish they would just leave me alone.








what do you guys think about the tuboS bettle? Think it can spank a 24v GTI?
[HR][/HR]​Again, depends on the race....the NB turbo s has horrendous aerodynamics, at least compared to the jetta and GTI....not sure of the weight, but I think it's heavier as well?
I can't wait to see that Feb issue of Motor Trend that supposedly will have a road test of the GLI in it.....every since I've got my car I've been waiting to see the numbers (which isn't everything) and hear their thoughts and subjective ratings on the car. One thing that always seems interesting to me, everyone including the car pubs love to point out that the stock vw suspensions, even the "sport" ones are soft. Yet, in another thread about ESP owners with 24v/ESP equipped cars tried to make the ESP work, tried to get the car out of control, and most said it just won't do it. So, even though the suspension is still "soft" (I preffer the word compliant), doesn't the addition of ESP in our vehicles enhance their handling? I've pushed my car in mountain curves pretty hard, glancing down and seeing 80 mph in a sweeper, expecting to hear tire squeal and preparing to correct, but it never happened.....it leaned some, and just hung on, and hung on way longer that I expected.....so, I'm curious what Motor Trend will have to say about the handling of the GLI and how it compares to the other cars....such as the Mazda 6.
J


----------



## BORA20VT (Dec 7, 2001)

*Re: blah (JohnnyQuest)*

This whole argument of who is better is really getting ridiculous. And I couldn't agree with Mhyrr more. Although I'd go as far to say, I'd take a 200whp 24V over a 200whp 1.8T...which in both cases would mean a full bolt on car (1.8T with K03). In any application from 200-300MAX I'd stick with a 1.8T for Cost purposes. Anything over 300hp I'd take the 24V. I love my 1.8T, but I miss my 1995 12Valve as well as my 95 modded N/A M3. A 6 cylinder has much more soul and character, that is not an opinion....its felt by too many people, and I now declare it a FACT







.
I'm really interested in the 24V being that I have a deposit down on a Deep Blue Metallic R32....and for who ever is interested I'm working with a reputable shop in the development for an R32 Turbo kit....and my car will be the one they model it after. So I'll be saying good bye to the 1.8T family sometime next year if all goes as planned. The 1.8T is a great motor, fun to work on and almost an unbeatable bang for the buck....but I will admit I miss a 6!! 
Having said that I'm not sure who'd be faster stock for stock...but my money is on the 24V...sorry guys







looking at the few 24V dyno's its clear the car is really handicapped by its redline...alowing it to rev to 7200-7300rpm really lets the car do its thing. Which brings me to my next topic...
I don't have a stock 1.8T...but I'm willing and eager to accept ANY challenge from a fellow dubber in a stock OR Modded 24V...I'd rather race one with at least a chip and intake.....we'll do it from a roll on the highway. Again this is friendly, I'm not doing this to prove any points but for my own research...I also want a ride and if you're cool enough to let me take if for a spin http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif to ya. This is the closest I can come to feeling my upcoming R32...so anyone locally up for it?? let me know guys....again. I'm extending the challenge in a friendly non "whos car is better" fashion. Just tell me WHEN and WHERE....and we'll make it happen... http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif
Peter


----------



## dmkozak (Aug 22, 2001)

*Re: FACE IT ALREADY, the VR6, although a great engine IS NOT (JohnnyQuest)*

quote:[HR][/HR]Since Vortexrider has been hell-bent on the articles from "modernracer.com" I emailed them and asked if they actually did testing on the '03 1.8T and VR6. This was their reply:
"Hi,
The VW GTI 1.8T (the new one with the 180 hp engine), was tested by 
Road and Track earlier this year in hot and humid conditions. They 
managed a 0-60 time of 6.5 seconds.

AFAIK R&T never tested the 1.8T @ 6.5 to 60mph... it was C&D who got that figure. I could be wrong about that, but I don't recall R&T ever getting those #'s. So this is good evidence of the reliability of modernracer.com... they don't even test the cars! They just rape figures out of magazines!








So there are your "hard figures" Vortexrider. [HR][/HR]​Now, just to make sure I remembered correctly, I checked the C&D web site. They tested the Euro 25th Anniv GTI (180 hp 1.8T, 6 speed tranny, in Euro trim) which was in the U.S. for display purposes. This European 25th Anniv model is what got 0-60 in 6.5 sec. If the 337 was just as fast as the Euro 25th Anniv, then C&D should be able to get the 337 to 60mph in 6.5 sec. But, I haven't seen a U.S. car as fast as it's Euro counterpart, so, I'd guess C&D couldn't get the 337 as fast a time as it got the Euro 25th Anniv. And, is it fair we can agree the 1.8T - 5 speed GTI isn't as fast/quick as the 337? If we can agree on this, then we can agree the 5 speed 1.8T GTI can't reach 60mph in 6.5 sec.
Now that we've established a 5 speed 1.8T GTI can't reach 60mph in 6.5 sec, I guess we have to wait for some one to actually test the 24V.
Oh, can we also agree that people who post the 1.8T can hit 60mph in 6.5 sec are posting incorrect information? And, that people who post incorrect information can not be relied on?


[Modified by dmkozak, 10:44 PM 12-3-2002]


----------



## Vortexrider (May 20, 2002)

*Christ, HERE WE GO AGAIN*

Once again, you guys try to prove me wrong with false and wishful thinking statements. The 1.8t was actually tested by C & D in an article called Desert Foxes (Comparison). Here is the link genius. I know of what I speak and do not speak of what I do not know. LMAO Fools
P.S. The 1.8t GTI pulled .86 in the skidpad test in this article if you decide to read on. I think it is silly that it was the best performer other than the skidpad but got 3rd. I think they penalized VW because it was not a new deisign. Best performer on average in the testing and the "most luxurious" but 3rd place. However the 0-60 figures are not subjective, they are real (fast that is).
http://www.caranddriver.com/xp/Cara...s/2002/march/200203_comparo_foxes.xml?&page=2

[Modified by Vortexrider, 1:19 AM 12-4-2002]


[Modified by Vortexrider, 1:23 AM 12-4-2002]


----------



## omeezy (Aug 27, 2002)

*Re: blah (BORA20VT)*

Damn Bora, i wish i lived in CT because i would love to take you up on your offer. All the 1.8t guys here in california are all talk and no action. Someone please meet up with Bora20vt and run him. So we can get a picture of how the 2 comapare against each other.


----------



## Nikon101 (Feb 7, 2002)

*Re: blah (omeezy)*

MAG RACING MAKES ME MAD!!!!!!!!!!! That's all this thread has been, stupid mag racing. If you want to prove a point don't use something a magazine said!!!!


----------



## vwericvw (Apr 25, 2002)

*Re: blah (Mhyrr)*

quote:[HR][/HR]I've owned a cammed 12v VR6 as well as my current 1.8T, which I might add, has the same gearing advantages as the 24v VR6 since I have the same tranny as all of you guys. I will say that my current car would easily outpace my old 12v.[HR][/HR]​Not that I don't believe you, but the 1.8t can be deceiving as to how fast it is. I drove a friends 337 and was impressed, alot of it is gears. This was when I had my 97' GTi vr6 with p-chip, intake, cat-back. A few weeks later we went at it with my 97' vr and I rolled on him pretty good. 
I was surprised, but I just kept on inching by. Thats one of the reasons I think my 24v will blow away a stock 1.8t.

ERiC


----------



## TRBNIUM (Oct 2, 2001)

*Re: blah (vwericvw)*

OK, I've been on the Vortex for a little while and don't stray much from the 1.8T and Mk IV forum so I thought I'd take and stroll and...viola', I land smack in the middle (end?) of this heated debate.
I have a 1.8T, but what lured me to a VW in the first place was my buddy's Mk III VR6 GTI and more recently my cousin's Mk IV VR6 Jetta. At that time I was driving a stock 1G Eclipse GSX and was truly amazed with the performance, power delivery, and EXTREMELY sexy/soothing/stirring exhaust note. Not since hearing a Suzuki TL-R with Yoshimura pipes was I ever so entranced (sorry for the obscure motorcycle reference).
But I decided to go with 1.8T instead. Why? Performance _potential_. Dollar-for-dollar I don't believe anything can beat a turbo car with performance modifications given an equal amount spent on a naturally aspirated car. Just one of the benefits of having a turbo.








Now of course there's something to be said for the other side too. VW has been on a trend toward the upscale part of the market and the VR6 is the perfect vehicle to showcase a smooth, quality car. A 4-cylinder doesn't appeal to some people even if equipped with a turbocharger.
That said, if anybody would like to engage in some 1.8T vs VR6 competition feel free to meet me at Route 66, Byron Raceway, or Great Lakes Dragaway in the spring. Then after we settle THAT debate we can both beat up on some ricers.
Happy modding!


----------



## dmkozak (Aug 22, 2001)

*Re: Christ, HERE WE GO AGAIN (Vortexrider)*

quote:[HR][/HR]I know of what I speak and do not speak of what I do not know. LMAO Fools[HR][/HR]​If you truly "know of what you speak", how do you explain C&D getting the same 0-60 time for a 1.8T/5speed as for the Euro 25th Anniv with stickier tires, stiffer springs, stiffer shocks and a close ratio 6 speed which can hit 60 in 2nd? Since you "know of what you speak", please explain this to me.


----------



## Vortexrider (May 20, 2002)

*Re: Christ, HERE WE GO AGAIN (dmkozak)*

You see, I put the link out there that PROVES you were WRONG and you cannot accept it. Unbelievable. Serioiusly. Are you doubting the article? Yes, I do think that the cars perform alike. You are wrong, accept it and move on. LMFAO Read the article again.


----------



## Mr. Potato Head (Aug 12, 2002)

*Re: Christ, HERE WE GO AGAIN (Vortexrider)*

Instead of posting a link to an article which none of us had anything to do with, including you, why don't you get your happy ass in your car and answer the challenges that have been given to you.
You probably don't even have a VW.


----------



## VR6PAYNE (Oct 23, 2001)

*Re: Christ, HERE WE GO AGAIN (Vortexrider)*

But as i said before your link says a gli is faster than a gls 1.8t. So it really doesn't make that much sense that the 1.8t gti would be faster than a 24v vr6 gti. Plus they never tested the 24v, didn't you read the other thread. The proof you are showing is not valid and this topic should be put to a rest.


----------



## Mhyrr (Jul 12, 1999)

*Re: Christ, HERE WE GO AGAIN (Vortexrider)*

Locked. Done. Over.
Its sad that a few people have to ruin a discussion for everyone else.
Vortexrider, *grow up* and learn to accept the amazing fact that there are some people in the world that may *shudder* not agree with you.
Other arguing parties, just grow up.
Everyone else, sorry.


----------

