NormanCoal

I've got exactly what you need, will drop you a pm Chris

you want a full OBD2 loom, from fusebox? PM me if so, I have one

Can I have the drivers door handle please - if you can pm me payment details, many thanks

I have one if you still need one?

I tunnel and rear section being grafted into a MK2 isn't that common, but certainly not unheard of either - I guess 10 years ago, G60 syncro's commanded a big price, if you could find one... I do recall the VR6*6*4 - isnt that a blue rallye tho, owned by a Scottish chap?

Coming right up sir, give me a few days :lol: No links, but I got the spot weld idea from a car I saw at Stealth years ago. IIRC it was a MK2 Golf G60 body welded onto a Rallye Floor, or something along those lines. It also had Audi A4 door handles, which was cutting edge back then :D On the ramp, you just wouldn't know, it all looked factory underneath and Vince explained that the owner sent the car over to Holland for it to be done, but I forget the details of the company now, it was 10 years ago. I'm not saying that is bull$hit, but bearing in mind you are desribing a factory available G60 syncro (a rallye floorpan - or rear half as that is all that is different between a G60 and rallye - I'd be very surprised if that was actually made from a rallye and a G60. I do like the idea of a MK4/5 chassis with a corrado body tho

The O2S box is a vw replicate of the Gemini box's - I've had/have one of each, and there is very little between the designs aside from the obvious difference of the straighter cut gearset (3-6) that the Gemini box has. Ideally, if you are using this on a forced induction car, you'd want to find one of the rarer diesel versions of the O2S, as it will get the FD high enough to make better use of the gears then. It is quite easy to get around the speedo drive issue btw, the O2S is based out of an O2A after all

Dont get me wrong, the gains that you've got with your engine are very good, the horsepower figures are excellent (this is not about your engine or the power its got), I'd just like to know what the facts are (and that goes for the 268's as well)

That hasn't really explained anything though, it just compounds what we already know. Why not share with us the scientific reasoning to support your sceptism and then can judge for ourselves whether or not to agree with you. I guess you must mean the power gains being unrealistic for the amount of extra air / fuel the cams allow into the cylinders? If you look at any of the popular American 115 degree lobe centred, 11+mm lift cams (Schimmel 263, Autotech 262, DSR256 etc etc), they all seem to give good results and 90% of users report tangible gains which they can "feel", so I don't see the purpose of this fly in the ointment post tbh. It's not like people are losing power, the plots speak for themselves. Adding more fuel and timing to extra air counts as one change in my book. You can't exactly bolt a turbo on as 1 variable and dyno it without the corresponding hardware and electrical changes to go with it. You get a lot of people questioning Dyno figures, but they never have the opposing evidence to back up the dispute. If you have read what I have written, I'm not questionning the dyno results, they are what they are. What I am saying specifically, is the following On any given engine, for a single modification to be atttributed with X power gain, then a comparison must be made with that single change. In this case, I have not seen any figures to suggest that the 263 cams ALONE are capable of giving x horsepower. That means that there are no figures to show a standard component engine once having being optimised (or mapped) giving a horsepower figure of X, and then once a single modification has been made, the car was remapped and figure Y was acheived. The crux of what I am asking is that ever since these 263 cams have come to the fore, they have magically claimed to be better than the 268 grinds that used to be popular before - they may well be better, but I'd like to see some results based on the above.

I was hoping that wasnt going to be the case, as it stands, the gains are quantifiable in that engine post cam installation, but scientifically the cams can't have the whole gain attributed to them....if I can find a pair of 263's at a reasonable price, then I'll see about getting some power figures from the same engine on the same day

so in this case the engine had been previously been mapped to 192 as standard component engine - ie, when the cams went in, that was the only change?

I have a lot of scepticism for those 263 power gains results, and let me explain why - the headline figure of 26bhp gain by fitting just the 263’s is all well and good, and indeed proven on a set of rollers, but the scientific comparison isn’t quite there in my opinion. The headline figure gains are only applicable when you are only changing one variable at a time – so the question is, was the prior engine output figure of circa 190 from a standard ecu map or one that had been previously optimised? (I am leaving out the other part of the discussion, regarding torque curves and area under the graph) The same obviously applies to the 268 cams. If I had a set of 263’s available, I would be able to test these out on my own engine, power run with a mapped 268 setup, and then again with a mapped 263 setup, but as I don’t, I can’t, pity! I’m sure that I have asked this question before, but there was no answer to my recollection, be nice to see some concrete answers

I run a Fidanza in my daily, and its not too light for daily use at all - having said that, mine is NA, the same probably wouldnt apply with FI, especially in conjunction with anything other than a standard clutch

In 1997 from engine number 217,001 they went to the singlex upper chain - it is possible that you have a got a 2.9 engine from the factory like this, but they are pretty rare as they were only fitted to VR6 syncro passats and Golfs at this time (Corrado's long being out of production)

I'm really suprised that you guys havent gone for the MK4 style rear brakes, the bearing setup is so much better, and all the parts are available from VW models

I have an outer chain wheel (the small one) at home I can check, but prob wont be till tonight

There's one thing that I havent seen mentioned in here (unless I missed it), and that is that cars are not the highest producers of gases that are harmful to the planet. Perhaps this is going slightly off topic, but all my readings around the subject regarding the most powerful of cars now produced, they are so small in % terms when viewed as part of the car industry, that there is little or negligable effect from them. Personally, I would like to see our Government move Road Fund licence away from a payable fee and onto petrol as has been mentioned. Also, regarding the MOT and it being easy to identify those that are not legally on the road from this standpoint, it cannot be hard to adopt a system similar to that used by the Germans that is easily identified on both the front and rear plates. A good by-product of this would be to stop all the stupid plates that are more and more common, spelling (or not as is more common) words etc

With regards to the timing being out 180 degrees on that timing mark, I'm pretty certain that the Bentley states it can be in one of two positions, being 180 degrees from each other. Pity its at home cos I'd like to see what it says. I'd like to see a definitive answer to this from somewhere, v curious now

I know this is at a slight tangent to your original post, but I'm now curious about this. Regarding what is written above, to which I can understand perfectly, I can see where you are coming from, but I'm pretty certain that isnt true - be interesting to see whether it is or not though

ah, ok, with you now. as long as the driveshafts are compatible with the wishbones, then I have never experienced a problem in that sense. So VR shafts with what you have fitted should be perfectly fine - perhaps a cv issue, if its more obvious on lock, usually clicking, then it would indicate an outer normally

the different shafts (VR6 and 16v) allow the CV's to be swapped (as you already know), but the noise you are experiencing is because the VR shafts are longer than the 16v ones, and I should think you are compressing the joints too much. This is assuming that you are using corrado 16v wishbones and not those from a MK3 4 stud which look near identical, but give a wider track (by 16mm or so)

If you follow the described timing procedures, then there are two positions for the intermediate shaft, but considering that the only job that shaft does is drive the oil pump, I fail to see any reason why it would make any difference at all in where it is when doing the timing. To the best of my knowledge, as long as the bottom and top end are timed correctly, there will be no difference - the cam(s) to crank timing is either correct or wrong. It can easily be checked though, and without the gearbox coming off

Nope, the two are not interchangeable - the fitment on the pedal is different also, tho you can change the pedal if you so wish. Also, the lines will interchange between the two types of cylinder

A Golf VR rad is taller than the 'rado one, and wont locate in the same place for that reason

The V5 box will bolt straight onto a VR6 block, I've done it myself, no mods at all to the box If you are wanting to do it for the lower gearing of the V5 box, then let me give you a word of warning, the 3.94 final drive is a touch too short for the VR, you will be forever changing gear, and motorway speeds are a headache!