WHO SAID GOLFS AREN'T FAST!!!!
27 July 2003, 03:44 AM
#93
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote
-----
And, of course, you're both experienced road testers who can achieve consistent results all the time are you? Which publication do you work for?
Gearing makes fack-all difference to through-the-gears acceleration test so that's unlikely to be the reason.
Ian.
UnQuote
-------
Blah, blah, blah.... Gearing DOES make a difference, I can't believe you have the cheek to say it doesn't! Hmmmm... Impreza RA gearing has nothing to do with its acceleration..... I'm beginning to wonder whether you ever had a Cav Turbo!!!
I don't need to work for a magazine, in fact in various other threads you criticise the testing criteria of magazines.... you can't have it both ways mate, either magazines test properly, or they don't! The fact I don't work for a magazine is of little consequence to how I can test a cars speed.
I'm quite a capable driver, in fact, my day job consists of me driving a white estate Vauxhall Omega 3.2 V6.... and I'll leave the rest to your imagination..... do you think that might qualify me?
-----
And, of course, you're both experienced road testers who can achieve consistent results all the time are you? Which publication do you work for?
Gearing makes fack-all difference to through-the-gears acceleration test so that's unlikely to be the reason.
Ian.
UnQuote
-------
Blah, blah, blah.... Gearing DOES make a difference, I can't believe you have the cheek to say it doesn't! Hmmmm... Impreza RA gearing has nothing to do with its acceleration..... I'm beginning to wonder whether you ever had a Cav Turbo!!!
I don't need to work for a magazine, in fact in various other threads you criticise the testing criteria of magazines.... you can't have it both ways mate, either magazines test properly, or they don't! The fact I don't work for a magazine is of little consequence to how I can test a cars speed.
I'm quite a capable driver, in fact, my day job consists of me driving a white estate Vauxhall Omega 3.2 V6.... and I'll leave the rest to your imagination..... do you think that might qualify me?
27 July 2003, 05:55 AM
#94
BANNED
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Your home is worthless.You can't afford to run your car.Your job is on the line.Schadenfreude rules.
Posts: 4,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
quote: "my day job consists of me driving a white estate Vauxhall Omega 3.2 V6.... " Do you do the airport run for a local private hire mini-cab firm?
Getting back on topic why bother with a Golf? If I was in the market for a VAG car I'd buy one of the cheaper and better variants on offer from Seat or Skoda. VW have really screwed up with the MKIV golf letting their partners in the other VAG companies show them how to do it. Also it's a pretty poor show when you can whip a companies new generation car with one from 2 generations ago (thinking of the time I annoyed the hell out of a 150GTI driver with my old Mk2 16V- he couldn't believe how much faster the old girl was-lol)
Getting back on topic why bother with a Golf? If I was in the market for a VAG car I'd buy one of the cheaper and better variants on offer from Seat or Skoda. VW have really screwed up with the MKIV golf letting their partners in the other VAG companies show them how to do it. Also it's a pretty poor show when you can whip a companies new generation car with one from 2 generations ago (thinking of the time I annoyed the hell out of a 150GTI driver with my old Mk2 16V- he couldn't believe how much faster the old girl was-lol)
27 July 2003, 11:51 AM
#95
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blah, blah, blah.... Gearing DOES make a difference, I can't believe you have the cheek to say it doesn't!
You're sadly ignorant of basic car physics so your attitude is understandable. Read my post again, looking out carefully for where I mention through-the-gears (not "in-gear") and then go away and have a careful think about it.
Hmmmm... Impreza RA gearing has nothing to do with its acceleration..... I'm beginning to wonder whether you ever had a Cav Turbo!!!
Are you calling me a liar?
I don't need to work for a magazine, in fact in various other threads you criticise the testing criteria of magazines.... you can't have it both ways mate, either magazines test properly, or they don't!
No, I just said standing start test results are very variable (?)
I'm quite a capable driver, in fact, my day job consists of me driving a white estate Vauxhall Omega 3.2 V6.... and I'll leave the rest to your imagination..... do you think that might qualify me?
LOL!!! Oh, I'm sorry ... if you'd only said from the start you drove such a monster as the Omega 3.2 V6 (Estate!) then I would never have called your driving ability into question.
(That's the funniest thing I've read all year
)
Ian.
[Edited by droid42 - 7/27/2003 11:52:01 AM]
You're sadly ignorant of basic car physics so your attitude is understandable. Read my post again, looking out carefully for where I mention through-the-gears (not "in-gear") and then go away and have a careful think about it.
Hmmmm... Impreza RA gearing has nothing to do with its acceleration..... I'm beginning to wonder whether you ever had a Cav Turbo!!!
Are you calling me a liar?
I don't need to work for a magazine, in fact in various other threads you criticise the testing criteria of magazines.... you can't have it both ways mate, either magazines test properly, or they don't!
No, I just said standing start test results are very variable (?)
I'm quite a capable driver, in fact, my day job consists of me driving a white estate Vauxhall Omega 3.2 V6.... and I'll leave the rest to your imagination..... do you think that might qualify me?
LOL!!! Oh, I'm sorry ... if you'd only said from the start you drove such a monster as the Omega 3.2 V6 (Estate!) then I would never have called your driving ability into question.
(That's the funniest thing I've read all year
)Ian.
[Edited by droid42 - 7/27/2003 11:52:01 AM]
27 July 2003, 01:31 PM
#96
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CavT (or should I say "officer" 
) ... the gearing of the Cav. Turbo above 80mph is extremely unfavourable compared to the 330Ci ... the 330 manages 100mph in 3rd gear whereas the Cav manages significantly less (84'ish). I can guarantee the 330 in 3rd gear will whup the Cav in 4th ...
Ian.
) ... the gearing of the Cav. Turbo above 80mph is extremely unfavourable compared to the 330Ci ... the 330 manages 100mph in 3rd gear whereas the Cav manages significantly less (84'ish). I can guarantee the 330 in 3rd gear will whup the Cav in 4th ...Ian.
27 July 2003, 01:35 PM
#97
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ahaha! Wow CavT - your words are most awe inspiring.
Either way a manual 330i would beat a Cav Turbo no probs - and that especially mean after 80mph where the 330i comes into its own. To suggest otherwise is plain silly.
Either way a manual 330i would beat a Cav Turbo no probs - and that especially mean after 80mph where the 330i comes into its own. To suggest otherwise is plain silly.
27 July 2003, 03:46 PM
#99
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"So it's settled then..... Despite Liams ramblings the standard Golf is in fact 150 bhp.... and if you want 180 buy an anniversary..
Appology accepted...."
Ramblings lol....
the current 1.8T comes in 150 and 180 versions - diff is about £1000
I thought they had dropped the 150 version altogether and only sold the 180 version now (no its not an anniversary model) like they do in the states...
The mistake i made was asumming it was just different boost -
when they are both chipped the difference is about 5 - 10 bhp
(per Jabba sport not me) even the 150 will produce 240 lbs of torque, just over less revs. The K03 sport is more or less a K04 so it holds onto the power better hence the higher bhp figure
Don't know why they bother selling 2 versions - seems a bit daft to me
But forget all that if u want proper power get jabba's big turbo kit.....
Appology accepted...."
Ramblings lol....
the current 1.8T comes in 150 and 180 versions - diff is about £1000
I thought they had dropped the 150 version altogether and only sold the 180 version now (no its not an anniversary model) like they do in the states...
The mistake i made was asumming it was just different boost -
when they are both chipped the difference is about 5 - 10 bhp
(per Jabba sport not me) even the 150 will produce 240 lbs of torque, just over less revs. The K03 sport is more or less a K04 so it holds onto the power better hence the higher bhp figure
Don't know why they bother selling 2 versions - seems a bit daft to me
But forget all that if u want proper power get jabba's big turbo kit.....
28 July 2003, 02:35 PM
#100
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Drive by Wire 150 BHP 1.8T's have the K03 sport turbo where the earlier 150 BHP had the older K03. Difference is around 5 bhp unchipped and 10 BHP chipped. So K03 sport turbo 1.8t's are around 155 ish (hence the 156bhp leon with the identical setup)
28 July 2003, 05:57 PM
#101
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, he has an auto. Regardless of what speed a Cav Turbo can do in third, only a muppet would actually hold onto that gear until the last dying rev, as the Torque peak on 3rd is around 5500RPM, which would mean I would have long since changed gear before I hit the limiter in 3rd, to nicely come onto boost in 4th.
Am I calling you a liar? Its a bit like you rubbishing my claim on a standard Cav Turbo versus a 330ci isn't it? Once a Cav Turbo has gotten over its weight and got upto speed, then it really does perform well. And, just to add a little more into the mix, it also had a 4WD to 2WD switch, which releases approximately 13% more power because the rear diff ceases to sap power, which, cunningly enough, once the car was up to speed, said switch was flicked!
Am I calling you a liar? Its a bit like you rubbishing my claim on a standard Cav Turbo versus a 330ci isn't it? Once a Cav Turbo has gotten over its weight and got upto speed, then it really does perform well. And, just to add a little more into the mix, it also had a 4WD to 2WD switch, which releases approximately 13% more power because the rear diff ceases to sap power, which, cunningly enough, once the car was up to speed, said switch was flicked!
29 July 2003, 08:14 PM
#102
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, he has an auto.
Sigh ... well that's why you beat him then isn't it? Very convenient to fail to mention that first time wasn't it
Regardless of what speed a Cav Turbo can do in third, only a muppet would actually hold onto that gear until the last dying rev, as the Torque peak on 3rd is around 5500RPM,
Only a muppet thinks that the ideal change-up point is necessarily related to peak torque rather than peak power. Had it occurred to you that, even though peak torque (power?) occurs at 5500rpm, the torque being delivered to the driven wheels at, say, 6000rpm in 3rd, is still much greater than the torque at the driven wheels at peak at the same speed in 4th? I'll give you a clue ... gear ratios are torque multipliers ...
Or did you mean peak power
which would mean I would have long since changed gear before I hit the limiter in 3rd, to nicely come onto boost in 4th.
See above.
Am I calling you a liar? Its a bit like you rubbishing my claim on a standard Cav Turbo versus a 330ci isn't it?
No, it's nothing like the same. I didn't once call into question the fact that you "beat" your friend driving his 330, however I was pointing out that there must be another reason for this other than the Cav Turbo being quicker above 80mph (which simply isn't the case). The first reason I suggested was down to the test not being scientific but it turns out that the reason is that one car had the significant advantage of a manual gearbox over an auto. I really can't believe you failed to mention that first as it's extremely relevant.
You simply suggested that I was lying about ever having owned a Cav. Turbo. Very different.
Once a Cav Turbo has gotten over its weight and got upto speed, then it really does perform well.
Getting over its weight has nothing to do with anything. A car has just as much mass to accelerate it at high speed as it does at low speed. At high speed, wind resistance starts to play a big part and therefore so does absolute power (rather than power-to-weight ratio), which is why I'm so certain that the more powerful car has the advantage, despite a little extra weight.
And, just to add a little more into the mix, it also had a 4WD to 2WD switch, which releases approximately 13% more power because the rear diff ceases to sap power, which, cunningly enough, once the car was up to speed, said switch was flicked!
A FWD manual Cav Turbo still wouldn't be quicker than a manual 330Ci so that's irrelevant. I hadn't even started to consider transmission losses ...
Ian.
Sigh ... well that's why you beat him then isn't it? Very convenient to fail to mention that first time wasn't it
Regardless of what speed a Cav Turbo can do in third, only a muppet would actually hold onto that gear until the last dying rev, as the Torque peak on 3rd is around 5500RPM,
Only a muppet thinks that the ideal change-up point is necessarily related to peak torque rather than peak power. Had it occurred to you that, even though peak torque (power?) occurs at 5500rpm, the torque being delivered to the driven wheels at, say, 6000rpm in 3rd, is still much greater than the torque at the driven wheels at peak at the same speed in 4th? I'll give you a clue ... gear ratios are torque multipliers ...
Or did you mean peak power
which would mean I would have long since changed gear before I hit the limiter in 3rd, to nicely come onto boost in 4th.
See above.
Am I calling you a liar? Its a bit like you rubbishing my claim on a standard Cav Turbo versus a 330ci isn't it?
No, it's nothing like the same. I didn't once call into question the fact that you "beat" your friend driving his 330, however I was pointing out that there must be another reason for this other than the Cav Turbo being quicker above 80mph (which simply isn't the case). The first reason I suggested was down to the test not being scientific but it turns out that the reason is that one car had the significant advantage of a manual gearbox over an auto. I really can't believe you failed to mention that first as it's extremely relevant.
You simply suggested that I was lying about ever having owned a Cav. Turbo. Very different.
Once a Cav Turbo has gotten over its weight and got upto speed, then it really does perform well.
Getting over its weight has nothing to do with anything. A car has just as much mass to accelerate it at high speed as it does at low speed. At high speed, wind resistance starts to play a big part and therefore so does absolute power (rather than power-to-weight ratio), which is why I'm so certain that the more powerful car has the advantage, despite a little extra weight.
And, just to add a little more into the mix, it also had a 4WD to 2WD switch, which releases approximately 13% more power because the rear diff ceases to sap power, which, cunningly enough, once the car was up to speed, said switch was flicked!
A FWD manual Cav Turbo still wouldn't be quicker than a manual 330Ci so that's irrelevant. I hadn't even started to consider transmission losses ...
Ian.
30 July 2003, 01:51 PM
#103
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blah, blah, blah... in answer to the majority of your reply.Yes, I said Torque instead of power.... shoot me!
And curse me for not mentioning it was an auto..... curse you for not considering it earlier
Whatever your technical analysis of a Cav Turbo, I think you overrate the 330Ci. What of your opinion on a Porsche Boxster (not the S version) over a standard Cav Turbo? I feel we would disagree once more!
And curse me for not mentioning it was an auto..... curse you for not considering it earlier
Whatever your technical analysis of a Cav Turbo, I think you overrate the 330Ci. What of your opinion on a Porsche Boxster (not the S version) over a standard Cav Turbo? I feel we would disagree once more!
30 July 2003, 02:16 PM
#104
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 898
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So K03 sport turbo 1.8t's are around 155 ish (hence the 156bhp leon with the identical setup)
07 December 2003, 11:29 PM
#108
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Spec C - 12.5 @ 110(340/350)
Posts: 2,314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All silver GTI does not mean 150 Turbo, thats the 2.0 8v! Silver GT and red i indicates Turbo!
[Edited by bluenose172 - 7/12/2003 11:30:09 PM]
[Edited by bluenose172 - 7/12/2003 11:30:09 PM]
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Uncle Creepy
Other Marques
43
27 December 2015 04:02 PM