s1m0n

Not in a Corrado, the experience I have with this phenomenon is in a vehicle with a current (i.e. very modern) system that incorporates active torque distribution. It can be brought on by fitting wheels and/or tyres of a differing weight to the stock OEM parts to a vehicle whose dampers are 'tiring' (i.e. 20-30k miles), and is usually most apparent when one wheel (NSF) is going over sharp bumps/ripples. It can be quite umm character forming as the resultant pump cycling basically means you have almost no breaking... Unusual in a Corrado though, because the system is kind of basic and 'old fashioned' and therefore hard to confuse (because it's a dumb system...). Is the vehicle completely standard? I would look at the ABS sensors but also dampers, ball joints, bushes, bump-stops, basically all the 'wheel control' stuff. Cheers Simon

I've not tried it using the 8v steering arms but my gut feel is that they would be too short (or insufficient thread would be left) So I would say VR6: - Hubs Wishbones Ball joints Drive shafts (including CV's of course) Steering arms Roll bar & drop links I've not tried to screw VR steering arms into an 8v rack but I think the screw mounts are the same. You know you can use MK3 16v and MK3 VR6 parts too right? More about (and cheaper) than Corrado VR parts. My wide track MK2 Golf is a mix of MK3 Golf 16v (drive shafts, wishbones, hubs, steering arms, rack) , MK3 Golf VR6 (rear beam) & Corrado VR6 (brakes & speedline wheels). Cheers Simon

Cd: 0.32 Frontal area: 1.81 m2 Cda: 0.58 Not if you have a Gemini :norty:

I would be very surprised if he's still using the DBW, I'd say he's swapping sensors / making mechanical mods to allow the 12v sensors / TB to be used. It will be interesting to see how he intends to incorporate cam control. But fair play to the guy for working it all out / making it work. I'd be surprised if the stock variable cam control simply "switches off" when the engine is up to temp, it would be a waste of all that engineering time / money if so. The R32 engine is still "just" an engine Kev, ME7 is a very cool system but torque is still torque and bhp is still torque times rpm! Most of ME7's "coolness" factor comes from getting the power they do while meeting Euro 4 (or is it Euro 5 now? I loose track of the bureaucratic emissions BS). As long as you can optimise the ign & fueling it will make the power, OK it may not be quite as "foolproof" as the stock system, the knock control would not be so good so you'd have to leave a little more "headroom", no ESP or any of those other irritating "protect me from myself" nanny devices would function either :lol: hmmm sounds like a "win" to me! BTW How's your VRt running, did I read you junked the DTA in favour of a return to OBD2? I owe you some tuning info too don't I! I must dig that out and mail it over Cheers Simon

Don't know the weights for a G60 or VR6 but the following corner weights may help someone: - MKII Golf Gti (late 8v) 1/4 tank of fuel, full interior, 15" alloy with 195/50/15 tyre on passenger seat F 304 299 (603) R 193 199 (392) 995kg total MKII Golf GTD (late) 1/3 tank of fuel, stripped out back F 305 315 (621) R 164 168 (332) 952.5kg total MKII Scirocco 16v conversion (KR) 1/4 tank of fuel, stock interior F 308 302 (610) R 162 178 (340) 950kg total Don't have the corners for the Corrado, just the total: - Corrado 16v (early KR) 1/3 tank of fuel, stock interior, sunroof 1150kg total All weights from proper scales Cheers Simon

A stronger rear bar will improve your turn-in at the expense of greater lift-off oversteer On a C with stock suspension I don't think you'd need em, others may disagree. Aligned to what spec though... It's very well getting it aligned BUT 90% of the places can't work the kit, 9% Don't set it to the right spec's (or set it generically within the envelope) leaving 1% that a) know their kit. And b) know how to set a VR6 up! Which seems to suggest that the "laser alignment" is wrong, do you know what settings they used? What tyres are you running? (the difference between "budget" and "excellent" is not just £££) What tyre pressures are you running? (has a big effect) Shame you kept the stock VR dampers, they were/are built to a budget, a small one... You have replaced ALL the rubber parts in the suspension, right? Cheers Simon

I have these on mine, starting from the original (very sh4gged) pair: - 1) GSF new std - big improvement over the originals 2) GSF new std but turned through 90deg - slight but noticeable improvement over "1" 3) R32 (OE) - Another slight improvement over "2" As for NVH, the R32/TT bush does transmit a little more but I feel it's acceptable considering the improvements, I think it's less harsh than poly and one hopes they will last better than poly. (cheaper as well) IIRC they slotted into the cross-member without problems BUT I can't really say exactly which type of cross-member as mine is a bit of a "mix" of parts. Cheers Simon

I have a complete 05 Audi front cross-member sitting in my lock-up, all ally and electronic steering assistance, I "won" a brand new set of 5x112 8x17 pro race 2's on flea bay for really silly money then the cross-member for £10 :lol: so I thought I'd have a "play"... The 03- and MK5 stuff uses a bolt in bearing carrier, it's quite nice! As for retro-fit, there are some issues to overcome but I've been too busy to give it any attention so far... Sorry, not much help Cheers Simon

There are several ways to do it, I do it this way, tyre diameter*pie*revs/1056*gear*FD Your 215/45/16 comes back as having a 23.61 diameter, so, 23.61*3.1416*1000/1056*3.77*3.94 will give you the speed in first gear at 1000 rpm (I make it 4.72) I usually use a spreadsheet so I can get a nice little graph to overlay onto my dyno plot Cheers Simon

What tyres are you running

Just been on VAG CAT and checked the teeth: - 1st - 34/9 = 3.77 2nd - 36/17 = 2.12 3rd - 34/25 = 1.36 4th - 33/36 = 0.92 5th - 33/46 = 0.72 FD - 71/18 = 3.94 And it's listed for the B3 so looks like Techtonics have it right and I was wrong about 4th! Cheers Simon

Not sure that's correct, I have a CHA, taken from a turbo diesel B3, my understanding is ratio's as follows: - CHA 1st - 3.78, 2nd - 2.12, 3rd - 1.36, 4th - 1.09, 5th - 0.72, FD - 3.94 As for fitting, yea any 4cyl C that has an 02A - No problem Cheers Simon

:D yea, though I would imagine there are not a large number of people who have tried "plus" on a 4cyl, and even less who have compared "like with like" i.e. they may have "plus" but they are running coil-overs or something which is hardly comparing apples with apples. I think I know what you mean by "edge-ier" (technical term lol...) and I am inclined to agree but with the caveat that "edginess" can be engineered in and out of both the 4 and 5 stud systems. Back in the 90's I worked for Spax and in the course of the two years I was there I carried out a number of fairly extreme software (Mitchell) and hardware (MK2 Scirocco) suspension experiments, one of which was to hack off the top of the front strut mounts and replace em with two pieces of 5mm angle-iron that I'd machined multiple holes in to take the top mounts. I then made up and fitted some coil-overs that had a bigger than standard clevis (the part that mounts to the up-right), this enabled me to change the angle (viewed from the front) of the strut without effecting the camber. Over the course of several weeks (I had a 56 mile a day commute) I experimented with a very wide range of strut angles, as I changed the angle on the car I then "ran" those angles in the computer in order to get some kind of correlation between the simulation and real world. To cut a (very) long story short, it was my eventual conclusion that top mount position had quite a big influence (in both a positive and negative way) on steering "feel" and that VW's setting were/are actually quite good compromises (yea, shocking I know... lol), in the end I ended up with a strut angle that gave a scrub radius of about 4mm as I felt this gave the kind of "feel" I wanted. But please bear in mind that this was combined with other changes, not least of which was the caster increased to 5.5deg! Keyword here of course - "I wanted" Cheers Simon Just for info then, the MK2 Scirocco spec: - KR(1.9lt), 2Y, plate type LSD, engine and box re-located circa 40mm left (and 20mm back), track increased by 15mm, custom drive-shafts, 5.5deg caster, 1/2deg neg camber, 0 toe, 4mm scrub, 325lb springs, custom valved Bilstein mono-tube's, 7x15 wheels, 195/50/15 tyres.

So it would seem that given the same track (+/- a couple of mm) the plus axle wishbone length change is to compensate for the ball joint being "kicked out" about 15mm compared to the 4 stud up-right. Interesting they use the through bolt roll bar fitting (another thing I did not know!). Cheers Simon

This is line with my experiences, I have a stock VR, a stock 9A both with refreshed (stock) bushes & dampers and an early (no sunroof) KR (now ABF). I am evolving the KR/ABF and I keep swapping back and forth between em to see what the effect's of the "mods" are, it's been quite an interesting process. It's my opinion that the plus set-up works better with the lighter 4cyl up front (compared to a VR), I'm not running this now but for quite some time I just ran all the stock parts I took off the MK3 ABF i.e. the complete MK3 rear beam & complete "plus" front end but with a very cheap and nasty "lowering" spring kit and tired old Yoko's. I think I will be getting the tape measure out at the weekend, it would be interesting to have some actual numbers off cars! Cheers Simon

This thread is throwing up some interesting information! I put B3 4 stud wishbones, drive shafts, steering arms & up-rights onto a C last year, when I compared the B3 4 stud wishbone to a plus axle wishbone I felt they were very similar in size and (IIRC) placed the ball-joint about 16mm further out (each side), I remember "raving" to my g/f about "32mm wider front track...". What track does your service manual give for the 4 stud B3? Cheers Simon

This is starting to get interesting (if somewhat off topic) I was wondering where these number are from as they differ a little from what I was able to obtain From a Corrado Handbook: - 16v - F 1427 / R 1422 (6x15 ET35) G60 - F1433 / R 1428 (6x15 ET35 or 6.5x15 ET33) From Carfolio: - KR 16v - F 1429 / R 1422 9A 16v - F 1435 / R 1428 ABV - F 1425 / R 1380 (which I always took to be an error, I'm feeling a walk outside with a tape measure in the morning!) PG - F 1435 / R 1428 And just for interest, MK3 "plus" from my 16v handbook: - 16v - F1450 / R 1434 (6x15 ET38) VR6 - F1450 / R 1434 (6.5x15 ET43) So the Passat plus axle car's came with an ET35 wheel? That's interesting because everything I've seen/read suggested that they only used ET38/ET43 on plus axle Corrado is 1084mm, B3 is 1106mm & MK3 is 1116mm so yea B3 almost the same as MK3 Agreed With the greatest respect, I cannot accept this statement. If the C was designed as a 4cyl why is the "VR notch" incorporated into the right hand frame rail (for instance). It's like me saying the C was designed to be Syncro because all the little brake line clearance "notches" are in the rear frame rails and it has a "big tunnel". In reality it may simply be that all the body notches and clearances were "carried over" from the B3 but having said that, (if top mount width is so important) why use the "narrow" 1084mm MK2 Golf top mount position when pretty much the rest of the shell is B3 which has 1106mm top mounts... Do you understand the effect of moving the top mounts in and out (and I don't mean on camber)? Having the (top) mounts closer together increases the KPI (& scrub radius), it also has an effect on dynamic camber gain (loss) but at the dimensions we are dealing with it's slight, finally it decreases the effective spring & damper (wheel) rate but this would be somewhat negated buy the greater wheel offset (less leverage) and of course, they changed the rate's anyway. As for "feel" yes, an ABV is a very different "feel" to a PG, KR, 2E or 9A, have you tried "plus" in a C with a 4 cyl engine? Comparing the C to the MK3 (let's leave the B3 for now) one is a "sporty" low volume coupe the other VW's main "breadwinner", it does not seem too much of an assumption to say they were designed with differing goals? Cheers Simon

You can definitely hear the difference compared to a stock box but it's not intrusive, I don't have all the factory soundproofing either, it's a "nice" noise, makes you feel good about spending all that money lol... (I found the original invoice the other day... It's a BIG number!) Do you mean 3rd to 5th? I did not think they had any of the "full kits" available (i.e. 1st & 2nd)? Mine (is a "full kit") has a 3.9 FD but looking at the ratio's (on the group buy) I think mine are slightly different, 2.7 - 1st, 1.8 - 2nd, 1.45 - 3rd, 1.15 - 4th, 0.89 - 5th & 0.75 - 6th. I know mine gives about 42, 63, 78, 98, 126 & 150 @ 6500 rpm on 195/45/16's. Performance is ummm "sprightly" :) surprisingly little wheel spin but I do have an Torsen type diff fitted Cheers Simon

If you want to go "plus axle" don't be afraid to explore MK3 parts, all the VR's & 16v are "plus", some 8v Gti parts can also be used but you have to get busy with the tape measure to make sure what you have is what you need... This gives you a much greater "parts bin" to pick from (and discourages the scrapping of VR Corrados!) edit - And make sure you match drive shafts, having the "wrong" ones will result in CV failures. Cheers Simon

:lol: do you think that will help...?

Laughing... It's a production car of course it's compromised (a "bodge" if you will), you want engineering purity go buy a McLaren (but even that was compromised!). You don't need to widen the turrets to change the track as long as your geometry takes this fact into account, hence my original statement "...they did not just bolt on wider wishbones, drive shafts and steering arms!". Having said that they pushed the ball joint just about as far as they could (outwards) and still had to fit an ET43 wheel to retain a negative scrub radius. So in a way I do agree with your comment but not really for your reasons. VW's front engine / FWD geometry (indeed all manufacturers front engine / FWD platforms that I'm aware of) is based around having negative scrub radius, this is generally regarded as being a positive thing for various reasons. Fitting low ET wheels and / or spacers reduces and / or removes this negative scrub this is not "dangerous" per sae just umm less "pleasant" shall we say. It's a bit of a generalisation but moving the bottom ball joint outwards helps compensate for the fact the top ball joint (mount) has not moved. Scrub radius is a product of wheel centreline and KPI. KPI is produced by the upper and lower ball joints, where a line projected through the upper and lower ball joints intersects (at ground level) with a line through the centre of the wheel you get a scrub radius, either positive, zero or negative. Cheers Simon

Hi there, Well to answer your questions about the rear beam go over to http://www.clubgti.com they are building a database on beam widths (and other stuff) I think they have dimensions for a MK3 VR beam (which is what I use) but not sure about a C beam. As for the front, VR's are wider (16mm is coming to mind but that could be anything lol..) BUT they did not just bolt on wider wishbones, drive shafts and steering arms! The "Plus Axle" is a complete re-engineered solution, they moved the bottom ball joint out at far as possible (not to mention moving it forward) to change the way the front behaves in roll (etc) then used a wheel with a greater ET (ET43 IIRC v's 35/33 for the 16v and G60), The effect of the greater ET means the track increase is not as immediately obvious, fit "regular" ET35's to a plus axle car to see what I mean. As for front and rear track, it's a FWD car, all things being equal wider front track helps turn-in, grip & handling. Go over to the Seat forum and read posts by RobT and Badger Bill on widening their Ibiza's and the reasoning behind the mods (and their effect). I say these two in particular because they race and by definition are only only interested in "mods" that have a measurable effect. Of course if you just wish to widen the rear for "style" reasons... Do whatever you want lol their are plenty of spacers on gay-bay Cheers Simon

I did think you were running a 25mm rear (I guess that should really be "additional" 25mm rear), your spring rates make a lot of sense now and I agree about not up-rating the front, in fact I (generally) disconnect the front as I feel it gives better traction. I run 325 front / 225 rear on mine (ABF/Gemini 6MT/Quaife, with the front bar removed) that's with a MK3 VR6 rear beam (stock bar only), wide-track front with re-valved double adjustable Koni's. I have some single adjustable Ohlins monotubes that I'm going to get re-valved and try this year (when I get time...) but first I want to try some R32 front hubs and get the MK4 rear hubs/brakes on! Cheers Simon

Is that for two or four springs? Most of the German spring makers charge about £60 per 60mm / 2 1/4" ID "race" spring. So if it's for four that's about "right". You could just order what you want from Spax/Gaz/Falkner, price is about half that of the German stuff, just check the length of what you have on the back now and order a pair the same length but a little softer, see how it goes, if you don't like it just chuck em on flea bay and try again Cheers Simon

What bar(s) do you run with those rates? Cheers Simon