VR6 Handling issues

[double-6s 0]

must try and remember to post all my thoughts at once......

 

so because the rado is loosely based on a golf platform, we can interchange their performance / characteristics??

don't really think so. imo that is more possible these days (golf, leon, skoda etc) but not back then. totally different cars mate (imo)

 

rant over

[Trig 0]

LOL - double-6s, you do realise you can edit previous posts to avoid posting three times in a row! :lol:

 

Oh and I don't think a G60 would have any problems up against the pug either... ;)

[double-6s 0]

yeah i just realised that mate! DOH! sometimes wonder how the f*ck i got my degree!!! :) EDIT: that has taken me fekin weeks to suss out!!! LOL

 

was just reading back through Kev's thread about my 'bold' statement made without 'proof'.....

is it not just as 'bold' to have a contrary opinion that is not backed up by 'proof'?

 

lol :) :) :)

 

2nd EDIT: i love this forum. so many different opinions - its all good :)

[Rpmayne 0]

Just been checking a few stats out on the Pug 1.9Gti and Mk2 Golf 16v;

 

Kerb weight (Kg):

 

Golf = 907 & Pug = 875 so diff. = 32

 

Power to weight (bhp/tonne):

 

Golf = 151 & Pug = 149 so diff. = 2

 

Quarter mile (sec):

 

Golf = 16.2 & Pug = 16.3 so diff. = 0.1

 

I know the accuracy of these figures is going to be questioned but they all seem to tie up to the fact that they're almost identical.

 

If chassis design comes into it, surely the Pug being made of metal similar to the gauge of tin foil is going to make it a tad unpredictable? :wink:

 

Bibliography:

http://www.globalcar.com/datasheet/Peug ... GTi1.9.htm

http://www.globalcar.com/datasheet/Volk ... GTi16v.htm

[Kevin Bacon 5]

LOL, you gotta love these monthly disputes that flare up on here :-) And the levels of exaggeration always reach ridiculous levels too.

 

I got the numbers wrong, so cheers for smartening those up Mr Mayne although the MK2 is defo more than 907kg! Closer to 950....but as you've shown, the differences are almost negligable in the real world and only hair splitters will enjoy analysing those in any detail.

 

Double 6s, of course they're all the same. Do you really think the designers are given a blank cheque with the blank peice of paper? The only difference is the Germans use better quality materials and that 205 suspension you seem so proud of is actually a german design dating back to the first world war :-)

[double-6s 0]

wow, how personally do you lot take these things!

proud of?? like f*ck!

i just have the ability to have unbiased thought mate :)

 

Rpmayne, it is common knowledge that pug chassis designers were the nuts during late 80s.

 

come on guys, pick your toys up, vw chassis engineers have never exactly been the cream

 

(now barricaded in flat with enough food for 2 weeks) :)

[double-6s 0]

Double 6s, of course they're all the same. Do you really think the designers are given a blank cheque with the blank peice of paper? quote]

 

carbage mate :)

 

absolute bunkum :)

[DanA 0]

 

Power to weight (bhp/tonne):

Golf = 151 & Pug = 149 so diff. = 2

 

 

Surely those power to weight ratios can't be right ? A VR is 156

[Kevin Bacon 5]

Yes but a VR weighs 1210Kg!! 190bhp into 1210kg = 157, 139bhp into 907kg (for arguments sake) = 153

 

And no one is taking things personally Double 6s..... easy to suggest that and pretend it's all a joke and you're unbiased in front of a keyboard.....:-)

 

I'm also unbiased but I just happen think you're talking a steaming pile about the 205 in comparison to a Rado ;-)

[double-6s 0]

excellent. it would be very boring if we all thought the same.

who's pretending anything is a joke mate? like you, i have the courage of my convictions, thats all dude :)

 

what i say is what i feel mate - live or via the interweb. i hope i am unbiased - the corrado is clearly the best car in the world. no argument there ;)

[dr_mat 0]

IMHO, having had a brief drive in a 1.9 GTi 205 a couple of years back, it's a great buggy, and is certainly a lot more "raw" than the VR will ever be (no PAS??), and it's certainly fast too. Side by side? Probably not a lot in it, whether it's twisty or not.

 

In high speed corners I suspect the Corrado's relative stability will allow the driver a little more confidence and therefore a little more speed. Low speed corners and I think the 205's sheer low rev grunt and wider tyres (compared to the weight they're carrying) might help it along quite a bit, but hey, it's not really relevant now.

 

Both are past classics. Mostly past, anyway.. :)

 

The big drawback with the 205 1.9 GTi was the pathetic turning circle. Going to the shops meant a three point bloody turn just to get into a parking space. Frankly I'd rather have that Corrado practicality and smoothness every time! :)

[Will 0]

Seems to have all kicked off in here then!! - haven't been on since this since this morning.

 

I've had both cars - 205 (ages 17-22) and VR (22-24). Bought the VR6 as an UPGRADE from the 205 so definitely see at as much the better car overall (Looks, build quality etc etc, etc, etc, but it's ok to miss certain things about a previous car I reckon.

 

The c's essentially a chassis designed at the same as the pug with similar suspension and a lot more weight. What could possibly make it handle better?? Not that that's a bad thing because the 205's one of the best handling cars around IMO.

My flatmate from Uni's owned a MKII 16v for years and loves it to bit but ask him which car is fastest on a twisty road (he's driven mine a lot), and he'll painfully admit it's the pug.

 

I love the c to bits and wouldn't part with it but that doesn't mean i'll let that cloud my judgement (if I can help it).

 

Finally. The talk about BHP per ton is surely only relevant when talking about accel?? - and there can be no arguement there!!

[double-6s 0]

me too. every time. the C is undoubtedly the better car.

both tools though in my book

[Rick 0]

Have to agree with double-6 and will.

 

Given the choice (assuming the cars are both in decent condition) I would prefer to own a corrado over a 205 gti, no doubt. However, for sheer handling, particularly round the twisties, the 205 (either one) is the better car in this respect. It would be quicker round twisty country roads.

[Trig 0]

It would be quicker round twisty country roads.

 

Well the one I drove wasn't.

 

Completely agree with the turning circle comment as well, they really were a nightmare for that.

 

The only way I can see the 205 being faster around bends than the VR is when 205 drivers couldn't give crap about whether their car survives a high speed corner or not and give it everything it's got. I have mate who still owns his 1.6 GTI and he fully admits that my car is faster under any conditions.

[Rick 0]

Think you might be getting the wrong end of the stick.

 

Talking about handling (how the car grips, feels, steering response, feedback, body control etc even how it brakes). As a result of its handling characteristics it will, in most circumstances, be quicker around twisty country roads than a corrado, speed is not really the issue its the handling that the thread is talking about. Not talking about racing a mate, one will always try harder than the other.

 

Long sweeping bends the c vr6 would kill a 205 because it has much more acceleration, lower weight and nimbleness not such a factor.

[Trig 0]

double-6s started the discussion with this...

 

i'm no traitor, i love my C, but a 205gti would slay a C round the twisties. it's more agile and they have very well set-up chassis. peugeot used to know their sh*t in the old days (imo) :)

 

What we are talking about is which car is faster on twisty roads, handling being a contributing factor in this. I own a VR6 and my bro used to own a 1.9GTI.

 

IMO & in my experience driving both cars (not racing a mate) around Cornish country roads I conclude that the C is faster. You said the 205 would be quicker, have you driven one?

[iow_corrado_g60 0]

i feel both cars are quick ive only been in a 205 for about 5mins passenger seat and it felt rapid to me thats all i can say but when i slap my foot down in my c feels more refined because of its better build quality then i look at the speedo and think fook 50 - 125 in1/2 mile of road or when i took an integra type-r thats when i think my car is bloody quick!

[dr_mat 0]

I would say that round a tight racetrack the GTi would have an advantage. The VR isn't supposed to be a balls out track car, it's a GT car, which is why this argument is pointless.. :)

[Rick 0]

Dr-mat you talk sense. That is a good way to describe the difference.

 

The thread was more focussed on handling issues not speed. The comparrison on a country road was made to describe how well the 205 handles.

[Kevin Bacon 5]

LOL, this is still going then :-)

 

It's all academical and subjective anyway. If a Rado and 205 both covered an independantly selected A to B route, (the B660 is as good 'testy' road incidentally and one Evo use regularly) in exactly the same time, then the winner would be decided purely on subjectivity, i.e. which one felt the most satisfy to steer. Hell the Rado could even cover the ground quicker, but if it wasn't as satisfying as the same trip in the 205, then the Rado would lose - in that driver's opinion.

 

I think that's what we're getting at here, but failing to use the words "in my opinion" enough.... :-)

[double-6s 0]

and how did we end up saying a vr6 rado is quicker than a 1.6 pug gti?

 

no sh*t sherlock!!! :)

[Will 0]

I'd third that. The VR6 was designed to be very good in pretty much every area.

EVO (for) still to be bettered for all round ability and appeal - (against) errr.

 

It's a very good handling car, great on motorways, fast in a straight line, refined, comfortable and looks damn cool (IMO) - that's what makes it's appeal so unique.

 

The 205 on the other hand was primarily designed to drive and handle fantastically well on the typical B-road. That's why it's hateful to drive on the motorway, (twitchy, loud and more importantly, bloody dangerous!)

 

From my experience the difference isn't really apparent on fast sweeping curves. On a track like the Top Gear one the 205 would be easily beaten due to the C's extra grunt. It's on the really twisty stuff that the Pug is in a league of its own IMO - i.e. changing direction quickly - and that's primarily down to the weight advantage.

 

But hey, like I said it's possible I have a prob with my VR!

Only reason I mentioned the 205 in the first place is 'cause (1), it's the only other car I've owned and (2), it's IMO a benchmark for FWD cars of the era (although I haven't driven them all personally of course!)

[double-6s 0]

absolutely. (IMO) ;)

 

just one thing, the best handling cars (IMO) do often seem to be the ones that bite back really badly past the limit, and deposit you in a hedge (a la pug) (IMO) :)

 

so unlike me, you need to be a super-human racing driver machine with an extremely large pooortion of testicles (i got that bit sorted :) ) IMO !

[double-6s 0]

kevHaywire, is academical a word?? :) lol