2.0 16v standard performance figures!

[kuksool 0]

I found one corrado site stating the 2.0 16v version of the corrado pulls a slow 9.2 sec to 60 is this true????

[Linus Van Pelt 0]

Take it with a pinch of salt m'lad, this is about what the owners manual says it does, but I have no idea how they arrive at this figure.

 

For one, there's way too many different human variables to take into account. You've got the drivers reaction time, clutch control and power delivery, the familiarity with the car, the art of using a cable change gear box :wink:, changing gear at the optimum revs, etc...

 

Other reviews have it closer to 8 sec, and from my own personal experience I'd say this was about right.

 

The main issue here is the gear ratios, since you have to be in 3rd to hit 60. Some cars (mentioning no brands) actually fudge the ratios so that you can reach 60 in 2nd to make them look faster than they really are.

 

However, 0-60 is only indicative of one thing, the TLGP (traffic light grand prix).

 

The figures you really want to take notice of (imho) are the in-gear 30-50, 40-70, and all that sort of stuff (like overtaking). This is where you'll find the tools you need for most real world driving scenarios...

 

DtM.

[kuksool 0]

how long have you owned your 2.016v then how do you find it. Ever driven a mk3 gti 8v how does it compare performance wise as im bored of mk3 8v on the daily commute and im looking for something with a bit more ommmpphhh

 

was considering a vr6 but the insurance is the only off putter i like to keep my insurance below £1000 if poss and the vr6 is about £1200 fully comp!!!!

 

Scott

[Linus Van Pelt 0]

how long have you owned your 2.016v then how do you find it. Ever driven a mk3 gti 8v how does it compare performance wise as im bored of mk3 8v on the daily commute and im looking for something with a bit more ommmpphhh

 

was considering a vr6 but the insurance is the only off putter i like to keep my insurance below £1000 if poss and the vr6 is about £1200 fully comp!!!!

 

Scott

 

Hey Scott,

 

I've owned it for just over two years now. Before that I did have a Mk3 Golf... but it was the 1.4 with a jaw dropping 60 bhp

 

I've no idea what the difference in power would be... I think 16V engines are generally better than 8V if you're doing motorway driving... :?:

 

I was originally intending to get a Mk3 16V GTi, but test drove the C and bought it on the spot (without test driving the GTi :lol:).

 

I would say that the single defining characteristic for the Corrado over the Golf (irrespective of the engine) is that the handling of the C is much better.

 

For this reason it's easier to drive the C and make it 'feel' faster than the equivalent Golf (and the lower driving position and extra torque helps I think too).

 

Can't remember the last time I had to brake for a roundabout

 

If you're anywhere near me, I'd be happy to take you for a spin (metaphorically speaking).

 

DtM.

[markTTC 0]

Just to add my tuppence to the thread, I agree with DTM - I had a MK2 8V GTi before the C, the car felt great just pottering around town in because of the low down torque, but the 2.0 16V Corrado just blows it into next week performance wise out on the open road Some people reckon the 2.0 16V is sluggish, but I reckon with a drilled airbox and a Stainless exhaust it's an absolute cracker of an engine. I've never believed the 0 - 60 times quoted for the car, it's certainly feels quicker than 9 secs to 60, I would say more like 8 - 8.5.

 

Keeeching!

 

Cheers

 

Mark

[kuksool 0]

cheers guys

 

appreciate all the info on the c, you will be glad you never drove the mk3 gti 8v performance wise anyways... reliability is very good but the 0-60 on the mk3 is like 10.2 or 9.9 and i can quite believe it!!!!

 

i think im gonna go and test drive a 2.016v raddo when one pops up in my area am i right in saying its pretty much the same lump as the mk3 gti 16v ?????

 

would appreciate a spin (metaphorically) but im in suffolk :(

 

scott

[markTTC 0]

The Corrado 2.0 16V engine is different to the MK3 Golf 16V, not sure why :? The Corrado 2.0 16V is the 9A engine used in the Passat (136 BHP). I think the MK3 Golf 16V gave a better BHP than that, but I don't have the figures to hand. The Golf 16V would be quicker in the straight bits, the Corrado would catch it up on the twisties :wink:

[kuksool 0]

mark

 

just had a look at your raddo mate very nice!!!!

 

those wheels always look good on VW and even better on a raddo!

 

when was the 2.0 16v raddo stopped production wise are there any 96 platers out there or even 95's!!!!!

 

Scott

[markTTC 0]

Thanks for the nice comments kuksool :D. Yeah I reckon the wheels suit the Corrado nicely - they look like something VW would have chosen to go on the car, and they look very similar to the VW anniversary wheels fitted to late spec MK3 Golfs.

 

I think the 2.0 16V stopped production in 1995, but you'll find some 1996 examples around because they would have been sitting around in dealers waitng to be registered. If you can find one of those then that would be really cool - a P plate Corrado 8)

 

Cheers

 

Mark

[aposegil 0]

Personally im a big fan of the 9A block as most on here will tell you and very easy engine to get 160-170bhp with a bit of tweeking

 

but then i cant comment about the standard unit as ive never driven one

[vr6storm 0]

The Corrado 2.0 16V engine is different to the MK3 Golf 16V, not sure why :? The Corrado 2.0 16V is the 9A engine used in the Passat (136 BHP). I think the MK3 Golf 16V gave a better BHP than that, but I don't have the figures to hand. The Golf 16V would be quicker in the straight bits, the Corrado would catch it up on the twisties :wink:

 

 

2.0 16v Corrado =136bhp

2.0 16v Golf 3 GTi=150bhp

[vr6storm 0]

 

when was the 2.0 16v raddo stopped production wise are there any 96 platers out there or even 95's!!!!!

 

Scott

 

 

give you a rough idea of what happened when etc.....years/reg's are approximate

 

89F-plate to 92J-plate...................1.8 16v Corrado

89F-plate to 90H-plate..................1.8 8v G60 Corrado(lhd-only)

91H-plate to 92K-plate.................1.8 8v G60 Corrado(rhd)

92J-plate to 96P-plate..................2.0 16v Corrado

92K-plate only*...........................2.9 VR6 Corrado Campaign (6-only)

92K*-plate to 96P-plate................2.9 VR6 Corrado

94M-plate to 96P-plate.................2.0 8v Corrado

95M-plate to 96P-plate.................2.9 VR6 Corrado storm

 

*-some early press pictures did show the VR6 wearing J-plates....but AFAIK the Corrado VR6 was launched on 1/08/92

all Corrado production stopped in JUN/JUL 95 :wink:

[kuksool 0]

thanks everyone and vr6storm for the detailed info im well gutted now only because i wasnt in the know as there was a campaign vr6 for sale 10 miles from house for £5k with full vw sh and only 65k on the clock

 

DOH!!!!!!!! :mad:

 

 

i guess these will be most desired in years to some with corrado nutters!!!

[Ess Three 0]

The Golf 16V would be quicker in the straight bits, the Corrado would catch it up on the twisties :wink:

 

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.

[dazzyvr6 0]

nothing to do with brakes...only the driver

[aposegil 0]

again i cant comment in standard form but i do know of a 2L 16v modified golf mkIII im my area that gave it some one night and i tell you he was no where near me :D

 

The only thing giving me a run for my money was his mate vr golf again modified but that was only on the straight bits on cornering the hate the fact they cant keep up with me

 

oh well cant win them all lol

[Linus Van Pelt 0]

...there will be nothing in the handling.

 

...don't forget there's also the differences in the weight distribution, centre of gravity and aerodynamics... :mrgreen:

 

...still, it makes a change from the obligatory VR6 vs G60 debate we usually get on here :lol: :roll: :silly:

 

...I'll get my coat...

 

DtM.

[aposegil 0]

...there will be nothing in the handling.

 

...still, it makes a change from the obligatory VR6 vs G60 debate we usually get on here :lol: :roll: :silly:

 

DtM.

 

couldnt agree more :D :wink:

[kuksool 0]

are we scarpping the bottom now by going into aerodynamics and centre of gravity just a thought mind you but are we saying that you have to modify a raddo2.016v to get near a standard golf 16v on a straight....

 

but on a track both standard ver of these cars the raddo would come out top!!!!!

 

Scott :twisted:

[Ess Three 0]

nothing to do with brakes...only the driver

 

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?)

[Kevin Bacon 5]

are we scarpping the bottom now by going into aerodynamics and centre of gravity just a thought mind you but are we saying that you have to modify a raddo2.016v to get near a standard golf 16v on a straight....

 

but on a track both standard ver of these cars the raddo would come out top!!!!!

 

Scott :twisted:

 

:lol: You'll soon learn that we tend to go off on tangents here, such is the nature of conversation.....but eventually the original queries are answered!

 

0 - 60 - Just take the average of 3 or 4 different readings you've seen.

 

2.0 16V engines - The Corrado/Passat got the bored out 1800 engine, whereas the Golf and some Audis get the 'tall block' engine which has a very different bottom end. The tall-block is not as keen and rev-happy as the Corrado 2.0, such is the nature of long throw cranks.

 

Handling - Ess_three is very knowledgeable on suspension etc and also has a Corrado, so he knows what he's talking about. At the end of the day, the Corrado shares most of it's running gear from the Golf and Passat, so handling is going to be similar. It's just that the Corrado came with a MUCH stiffer setup out of the box and more agressive geometry settings.

 

K

[Ess Three 0]

again i cant comment in standard form but i do know of a 2L 16v modified golf mkIII im my area that gave it some one night and i tell you he was no where near me :D

 

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:

 

 

The only thing giving me a run for my money was his mate vr golf again modified but that was only on the straight bits on cornering the hate the fact they cant keep up with me

 

oh well cant win them all 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...!

[Ess Three 0]

...there will be nothing in the handling.

 

...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.

[stoph-16v 0]

2.0 16v Corrado has ABS m8!

 

Does anyone here have a STD 16v Golf and a piece of straight track near Brum? We can go and find out for deffinite!

 

:twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

[Kevin Bacon 5]

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!

 

I think the Corrado's drag coefficient is 0.32 or 0.30, which is less than the Golf's 0.34. Golfs are like bricks at high speed.....you really feel the drag reigning in that speed.....not with the Corrado.. Just keeps going until the engine runs out of puff.

 

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

 

Not everybody drops their car so that the driveshafts are pointing at the sky. Your average 30mm drop will not reduce suspension travel enough to throw default Geo' settings out. What some people forget is the VW 020 and 02A diff has a mild and partial diff lock afforded by thrust cones and springs behind the CV Flanges. These delicate thrust cones break when the car is lowered to excess, losing another handling advantage.

 

Also, Corrado seats are a lot lower than Golf seats, so the dead mass is a lot lower to the ground.

 

Ever driven a 205 GTI? :wink:

 

Yes, used to have a 1.9. Fabulous cars, but the Golf is more mallable and forgiving on the road and the track.

 

K