Ess Three

I'll join you... In my opinion 9" wide looks stupid...sticking out past the arches and buffing everywhere...never mind even considering a 10" width... As you say, the performance will be nill, the handling destroyed...all round, a really daft idea.

One of the best I've ever driven is a Honda Integra Trpe-R...incredible drive...drives like a RWD car...brilliant fun. But the one that stands head and shoulders above the rest as the 'best' would be a current shape 911 C4S...that took my breath away...I just didn't realise you could feel so at one with a car...I was expecting great things, having driven a few Porsches before, I expected it to feel special...but nothing could prepare me for exactly how special it was. Incredible car...the first time I have ever properly driven a car and felt it was laughing at my meagre attempt to find out what it could do. The only car I've had a proper drive of (hours of driving) that's honestly left me speechless. Fantastic...and worth every penny.

The part numbers - and the cast in identifiers - do indeed start with 051, but that menans very little...the suffix is enough to tell you it's adifferent revision, and the revision can be as little as a change in manufacturer to a complete re-design. I can assure you, an ABF head is considerably different to a KR/PL head. The inlet ports are different, the combustion chambers are different, the exhaust ports are different, the valves are different lengths, the valves are physically smaller on the ABF but offer the same actual open area (seat is nearer the edge), the retainers are differerent (VR6 type) whilst the followers and springs are tha same. When you actually explore the differences, there are in fact significant differences...not major perhaps, but enough to provide significantly different results compared to a KR. I would beg to differ... As standard the ABF is slightly better - or perhaps is's better to say, slightly more efficient. When re-worked correctly the ABF tends to provide a 'better' finished product by virtue of it's more efficient starting point. There are not major differences between the heads alone...but in my experience a re-worked ABF will tend to make more torque than a reworked KR head with most things being equal...granted, a lot of this will be down to the more efficient manifolding / injectors / managememt of the ABF. In pure power terms, there is little between the two...but again, normally, the ABF will match the earlier engines in power but be running more efficiently and with lower emissions....a mildy sorted ABF (head work, re-worked manifolds, mild cam / cams and mapping) will run 190+ BHP & about 160 lb-ft with standard or better emmissions and still running the cat. But, in general, people who know what they are doing (of which I don't claim to be one!) have agreed that there are advantages with the ABF over the earlier designs. If there were not, why would VW have engineered it?

You rang? All this B.S about re-maps being undetectable by the dealer is exactly that...pure B.S. Pure fiction. All you have to do is hook up a VAG 1551 or VAG-com and look at the requested boost...if it says 2300mb or so, it's chipped...if it says 1100 ish, it's not. Mine is APR code...and I can tell it's there...and i'm no Audi Tech! I can do it and tell straight away...and have been able to do so on each and every chipped 1.8T I've tried it on...so I'm damn sure the dealer will be able to tell, if they choose to look. At that point your mate's warranty on anything Audi decide is related to the 'chip' is invalid. That being said, things like MAF sensors and Coil Packs - which go on them - are not direcly related to the re-map, so you should be OK. I've had the Coil Pack recall done under warranty, and 2 MAFs changed under warranty whilst being re-mapped. I don't think I could swing a knackered turbo or bent con-rods though! It's a risk...yes. But one that I was happy to take...I've had mine well tweaked for over 2 years now and had no related problems. As for power: Jabbasport = 280BHP...dream on! On a standard ECU and injectors, the injectors max out at around 275-280 BHP...that is to say they simply cannot flow enough fuel to deliver that sort of power and the 'injector on' times are constantly on at high revs, so the solenoids are not getting the chance to switch off before being asked to switch back on...not god. 280 BHP from an S3 will involve cats, exhaust, airbox, IC mods (probably a FMIC as the astandard ICs are crap) and a lot of boost...I run way more than a simple chip will allow (about 1.2-1.3 bar @ 6000) and I'm not even close to 280 BHP...maybe just over 270, but certainly not 280. The little K04 simply cannot move enough air at high revs to make big power when using a standard managememt system. Change to Motec, or DTA or similar and you may get it... Regardless of this...don't be caught up in the world of silly power claims or silly rolling road print outs...look for a reputable tuner offering decent power and torque gains and no horror stories. This, to me, means either AmD or APR....and maybe REVO is you are prepared to be sensible with the boost settings! ...and don't believe every rolling road print out you see!

That's cracking torque from a G40! That'll be really nice to drive...always having an instant response. I guess torque is where the 1.8Ts have an obvious advantage, with the little low lag turbos and the ability ro make crazy torque, they score on the low down torque front. 332 lb-ft @ 4000RPM...nice!

Absolutely! There's nothing worse than a 0-60 optimised gearbox..many of the French hot hatches play that game...2nd goes on forever! Here's an example: A chipped S3 hits 60 about a second slower than a chipped Impreza Turbo...so, it's a lot slower then? Well, the S3 hits 57MPH at the rev cut in 2nd...go to third to hit 60. The Impreza hits over 60 in second. Look at the 0-80 times and the S3 is a worthy adversary... Out on the road there is little in it...a different driving style for the S3...but actual performance is much more equal than the 0-60 would suggest. When you start factoring in the additional gear of the S3 vs the earlier Imprezas, and the lower torque peak of the 1.8T...as long as you learn where to shift to maximise the power / torque you have, the S3 can quite easily keep a modified Impreza behind it. But according to the 0-60, it's all over by 60MPH.

That depends upon what you consider to be obvious? :lol: Mk3 16v is nice and strong (comparitively), 02A, cable change etc...

It's funny reading the replies... Some people want to fit longer gears to stay in them longer and make best use of the torque, others want short ratios to make use of top end power...horses for courses etc...

I guess it depends on whether you want a really good fast road box...or one that'll hit a good 0-60. Very rarely are the two the same. Personally, I'll pass on having an over lengthy 2nd just to hit 60 in a good time...the 0-60 is an overrated measurement anyway and has no bearing on a genuine fast road box from a drivers point of view. If you want to use VAG parts to keep the cost down...look for a box with a nice set of well spaced ratios.....and try to find something that does 20MPH / 1000revs in 5th...that's been proved to be about optimal for a road going fast road box in a car that likes to rev. To that end I'd suggest the following: Mk3 16v GTI box - cable change 3.94 FD ..gives well spaced ratios and gearing of 20MPH / 1000 revs in top using 215/40/16 tyres. Also suggest an LSD...Quaife or similar.

At the end of the day, they are different beasts. The ITR is a true drivers car...one where you have to be 100% committed all the time...when you are there is NOTHING that comes close, for the type of car. The VR6 is a far bettrer all rounder...of that there is no doubt. The meaty torque of the VR6 even in NA form makes it a far better prospect to live with each day. Again though, Honda never pretended the ITR was a straight line car...however, on a track and in the hands of a skilled driver the driving experience is unrivalled this side of about 60K Revving to 9000 takes some getting used to...driving it likle a rear wheel drive car also takes some getting used to...set it up for a corner, late apax, lift off oversteer and then steer with the throttle! fantastic! It's just so adjustable on the limit...not fast in a straight line...but bloody quick on a track wet or dry. I regelarly used to put in lap times up with the fastest 10% of the Imprezas round Knockhill...despite only having a standard NA 1.8 engine, standard brakes and FWD! (Ok, I was on slicks a lot...but don't tell anyone!!) I have never worked as hard in a car in my life...blister on the left hand from changing gear...sweating like never before...feet burning from the heat coming through the firewall...but what a buzz. It took me nearly 2 years to be able to get 100% out of my ITR...anything less isn't giving the chassis credit... To see a properly driven ITR lap a circuit is an expreience. I did a trackday with my manager in his Series 1 GT3 911..we did 1 x 20 mins session in the GT3 and 5 x 20 min sessions in the ITR...I couldn't get hiom out of it! Excellent fun. But back on public roads, I'd take the VR6 for everyday use... You just can't drive an ITR properly on the road...you can't 'push the envelope' far enough to make it make sense...I tried. I wrote mine off. Not pretty. It was the best car i've ever driven, bar none. For the 5 % of it's life it was on the track. However, I don't live on a racetrack, and there's the other 95% of the time to consider...I didn't buy another. Back to torque and VAG...

From personal experience, on a standing start the ITR is a match up to about 80MPH where the torque of the VR6 shows...there's not much in it, but a VERY good driver has to work hard to stay in front of an average driver in a good going VR6 Corrado. In saying that, an ITR is capable of putting in consistantly quicker 1/4 mile times...but it takes more skill to do so in the ITR. Through the gears they are reasonable well matched...again the ITR driver has to be very good to stay ahead...he has to really know how to work the VTEC lump. In gear flexibility, the VR6 wins everywhere...hell, my ex g/f had an Ibiza Cupra Sport 16v which used to eat my ITR on in gear flexibility!...so the VR6 makes it look too easy. You have to be busier than a one armed wallpaper hanger in the ITR to keep up...and that's not a sign of flexibility, now is it? ITR has better brakes. Everywhere. It murders the VR6 Corrado standard vs standard...ITRs have awesome brakes! Handling...the ITR wins. It has lighter weight, stiffer chassis, better inherent suspension design, better damping, better steering...it's just in a league of it's own. The driver of the VR6 Corrado has to drive out of his skin to stay with an averagely driven ITR on the twisty stuff..and against a well driven ITR they have no hope. But, factor everything in together and the picture is less clear...the Corrado VR6 is better at some things, the ITR better at others. Personally, with me driving, I was quicker point to point in the ITR regardelss of how good the Corrado VR6 is... But the Corrado is the better car if you are a bit tired, or not in the mood to set 'personal bests' each time you go out. But when you are in the mood...the ITR is the best car I've ever driven. Period.

On the 5 stud set up, you can get away with 5mm spacers on standard bolts...but personally, I'd be inclined to get longer bolts for those too. The problem seems to be that many of the longer bolts are only available in 1 longer length...and although fitting bolts that are very long won't cause problems with the rear mounts, if the bolts are too long and your car has ABS, you can screw the bolts too far through and they end up hitting the ABS sensor rings behind the hub...tighten even further and you bend the sensor rings. This can cause problems with the ring hitting the ABS pick-ups, damage the pick-ups and also cause a lot of noise! The answer appears to be to have the bolts turned down in a lathe to the length of the original bolts + the width of the spacer. That way you have a perect fit... Not ideal if you don't have access to a lathe / local machine shop though! To give you some idea of how long a lot of the 'longer' bolts are...they are fine for both 16mm and 20mm spacers...so using them on 5mm spacers gives you an extra 11-15mm extra to find room for behind the front hub. With regard to spacers in 5mm, 6mm and 8mm widths, as has already been mentioned, they can cause vibrations as they are not true hub-centric spacers in that they don't provide the correct height of raised hub centre to ensure the wheels stay correctly centred whilst they are tightened up. 10mm spacers are hub-centric, and that's the minimum I'd fit...because at least you know they aren't going to cause you any grief.

Hmm...odd. My last Golf had one...an early 8v with no ABS... Can't ever remember seeing it on the current Golf and it's got ABS... Must have another look.

Spot on! And that value of 35-30mm should include any spacers you happen to run, if you want optimum handling without the negative effects of tramilning, excessive bump steer etc. So a standard Speedline (6.52 x 15") ET43 with a 10mm spacer to fill the arches a bit (if you must!) will give an equivelant offset of ET33 - still OK. ...and don't go mad of tyre width either! Too wide and a lot of the Corrados' fluency is lost. ...and as a side note: 9" x 16" don't handle well...and wheels sticking out past the arch don't handle well!!

Anything lower than about 25mm and you should adjust the rear brake compensator. The normal reason people don't find problems with locking rear brakes is that the rear callipers are usually that caked in crap thet they are partially seized! With nice and free callipers and decent discs and pads, you can quite easily lock the rear end if you brake too deeply into a corner. I don't believe the ABS equipped cars have this valve though, do they?

I have an S3 and will testify that they are easy to tune...you'll get 260BHP for way under £1000...and superb torque. Personally, I think the S3 is better built, better finished and looks better...the seats are also much nicer to spend long periods of time in....the seats sit too high in the Golf, and they can't match the comfort of the Recaros. The Interior of the S3 is far more appealing to my eyes and I prefer the understated exterior looks of the Audi. The R32 looks a bit 'Max Power' for me...nice to drive though...a bit sharper than a standard S3, but add a set of H&R springs and set the suspension up a bit more aggressively on the S3 and the difference evaporates somewhat. The R32 sounds SOOOOoooo much better though...the S3's nasty sounding, soulless 1.8T just can't come close to the V6 (The 1.8T sounds like a Dyson!)....the R32 loves to be revved - the S3 dies at about 5000RPM - even with a chip! The S3 is deceptively quick though...in a lazy sort of way...but I actually prefer the linear power delivery of the R32!! For the same money, you'll get a higher spec S3 with more toys, or a newer R32...I guess it all comes down to personal taste from there...on the road I very much doubt that anyone on here will be noticably quicker in either car compared to the other...neither of them are chuckable, they both weigh too much! You just get used to the driving style...slower in, use the drive and blast out of the turns...driving it like a decent Corrado just doesn't work - you'll understeer off the road! The other car you could consider is the Leon Cupra R...but since all that torque and FWD cause traction problems, I would stick to one of the two you have listed....The Leon's not built as well as the R32 or S3 either. As to which one...different cars for different people...both good in their own right...it all comes down to personal taste. I was lucky enough to buy my S3 new and added all the toys I wanted...I had a close look at an R32 when it first came out since I'm more a VW man than an Audi man... Still got my S3 though...the R32 is good, it's not good enough to make me swap my S3 for, despite prefering it's NA power delivery. The choice is yours though...

It sure is Joe... If it's Superchiped, it'll normally have a Superchips sticker on the EPROM, if it's AmD'd it'll have a carrier / protection board onto the main board, with the EPROM into that...also the little shiny covered section over the EPROM will be missing with an AmD chip fitted to facilitate the height of the carrier board & EPROM. Good to hear you're happy with the diff!

Keep taking the pills mate! What's the weathewr like in your bubble today anyway? Never been left standing by any 16v Polo Roddy...and well you know it.

To be honest...the cat doesn't rob any power on the ABF. I've tested the standard cat and a Milltek high flow sports cat for a Corrado VR6...no power gains or losses on my Mk3 GTI 16v...and you can see straight through the Milltek. Comparing my results to some cars with the cat removed...there's nothing to be gained by removing it, power wise. Less hassle mind, if you don't need it for the MOT!

But we're not talking about that nose heavy slug of a VR6 Golf...one of the worst handling cars I've ever had the missfortune to drive...now are we? We're comparing the 16v to the Corrado. ...and I own a Corrado too, as well as the GTI, so I can speak impartially.

heh-heh... Not a can of worms..more an opportunity for meaningful dialogue! I stand corrected on the ABS issue...I thought it was only VR6's that has ABS. So, back to handling... Even with corner wieghted set-ups...the Golf GTI 16v has the advantage of more castor than a non VR6 Corrado...unless someone's going to tell me the 8vs, 16vs and G60s had the 'plus' front suspension! More castor = better self centering and more negative camber on turn in...therefore the basic chassis geometry of the Mk3 Golf gives it an advantage if the rest of the set up is optimised to suit. Furthermore... Every generation of VW chassis desing gets stiffer...the A4 chassis (Mk4 Golf and it's derivatives) was significantly stiffer than the A3 chassis (mk3 etc), which was in turn a hell of a lot stiffer than the A2 chassis upon which the corrado was based. From there it's simple physics that says it is easier to get the suspension to work effectively if it's mounted on a solid platform (the chassis). Surely then, a Mk3 GTI 16v vs a Corrado 16v using simialar suspension components and settings but leaving the basics alone (hubs, track, subframes etc) gives the advantage to the Mk3? That's what I find in practice. Which brings us back to what Henny said...when properly set up weight distribution is taken care of if you are going that far. ..but track, non-adjustable suspension geometry (castor) and chassis stiffness are unaffected...advantage Mk3. At the end of the day...a quick car is a car in which the driver feels comfortable enough and confident enough to extract it's best performance...some cars feel better to different drivers. And besides...I'm not going to get much by the way of aggreement in the Corrado forum, now am I? :D

...don't forget there's also the differences in the weight distribution, centre of gravity and aerodynamics... :mrgreen: ...I'll get my coat... DtM. No need to get your coat. I have fetched it for you! :wink: You are of course correct...there are many factors to consider...with pros and cons for each! To be honest, the aerodynamics don't really affect either car much below about 70-80MPH...so on back roads neither has an advantage. On Autobahns the better aerodynamics of the more modern Golf lead it to have a faster top speed...the Corrado's cdA is not great...it's too angular! Centre of gravity...yes...excellent point...but: With both car's lowered and uprated for fast road use / trackday use, the fact that the front suspension angles are so far out of spec (bottom arms end up pointing upwards on both cars) that any previous handling advantage is 'spoiled' by the lowering...and although the Corrado will always have a lower centre of gravity than the Golf...the advantage is negated by the lack of inherent chassis roll resistance caused by lowering too far! In this instance, the better set up car is faster round the circuit...regardless of which it is. Weight distribution: The Corrado has a heavier back end...better on the road, I think. On the track however, the technique of trail braking in order to unsettle the rear in order to get it to 'rotate' and counter understeer present on both cars, is easier to master if the rear carries less weight. Ever driven a 205 GTI? :wink: For this, I find the Golf easier to get to tail slide...so the weight distribution advantage the Corrado has on certain roads / circumstances CAN dissappear and the balance tip to the Mk3 Golf - depending upon driving style.

Standard form the Corrado is a far superior car to drive. Modified...it's a different story as both become very comparable...driver confidence and ability comes into play then. I'm sure we've all got stories to illustrate that point: There isn't a Corrado in my area that'll stick with my Golf in the twisties...VR6 Corrado, G60, 16v or otherwise... I'm sure a certain moderator will confirm that... :lol: I also have problems with VR6s (Golfs less so that Corrados) in a straight line...I have the edge to about 60-70...then the torque of the VR6 shows itself.... Not surprising that a Golf VR6 can't stick with a well driven and well sorted Corrado on the bends...they are awful to hustle...far too front heavy. Strange...!

Valid point... But larger, more powerful brakes and ABS give the Golf GTI 16v driver a confidence edge over a driver of a Corrado 16v (Corrado 16v's don't have ABD...do they?)

I beg to differ! :wink: A standard Corrado vs a standard Mk3 Golf GTI 16v...I agree, the Corrado is the better handling car. But judging by the age of most of the cars we are speaking about...and bearing in mind that most owners will have modified the suspension in some way...the advantage is lost. Mk3 GTI & Corrado...weigh a similar amount. Corrado runs lots of negative camber as standard...about -1.5 degrees, from memory. The Golf runs none. Give the Golf GTI the same amound of neg camber and the Corrado's advantage is lost. ...all the rest of the suspension is fairly common...both bear back ends, both similar front ends (suspension wise)...in fact...comparing a 16v Corrado to a Mk3 GTI 16v, the Golf had an advantage as it has the 'plus' suspension geometry as standard...I don't believe the 16v Corrado does...only the VR6. A Corrado 16v vs a Mk3 Golf GTI both on identical suspension kits, both well set up...both with standard engines...the Golf will be quicker purely on power...there will be nothing in the handling. The handling will be as near to identical as any normal human can tell...and the Golf has more power, a better gearbox (lower ratios) and better brakes (288 x 25 with bigger calipers)....so it'll be quicker.