Corrado v's Scirocco

[vag6 0]

Ive been looking at the new Scirocco and was wondering how come the Corrado VR6 which was designed c1992 has 190bhp and the new Scirocco 16 years on can only muster up 200bhp. What would happen in a drag?

[Jim 2]

I can tell you for a fact that at 80MPH plus, the Scirocco leaves the Corrado for dead.

 

We had the chance to try this in Germany on some quiet Autobahn - a lightly modded VR6 and a stock (new) Scirocco. We both put the hammer down (I was in the Scirocco) and we literally left the VR6 for dead.

 

Not sure about from a standing start though!

[Jon_vr6 1]

New engines always have the edge!

[Jim Bowen 1]

in a race....

 

Corrado owner would approach the car, the fob wouldn't unlock it, he'd try the key and something would break inside the door. After 2hrs and a broken door card he would be sitting in his saggy seat with worn bolsters and ready to start the car.

 

He'd put the key in the ignition, go to turn it and that would either break or the car wouldn't start, another 1hr later and the car is started.

 

Corrado driver wouldn't have any choice about opening the windows, sunroof or adjusting the hot air blowers as all that would be broken.

 

When finally ready to set off i don't know what else would happen, hopefully the corrado would win and not run out of petrol, drop all its coolant or develop a misfire.

 

Oh and the corrado wouldn't be able to race at night

[Jon_vr6 1]

The corrado driver would look the coolest though, sciroccos are everywhere now they arnt unique enough! Id choose my corrado anyday for the footdown noise and the smile it puts on my face... a scirocco wont do that.

[Critical_Mass 10]

My question is, with a 2.9 V6 engine under the bonnet, why didnt VW give the VR6 more then 190bhp. Was it a case of not being able to get more power out of it OR were they holding it back performance wise?

[Yandards 0]

I can tell you for a fact that at 80MPH plus, the Scirocco leaves the Corrado for dead.

 

We had the chance to try this in Germany on some quiet Autobahn - a lightly modded VR6 and a stock (new) Scirocco. We both put the hammer down (I was in the Scirocco) and we literally left the VR6 for dead.

 

Not sure about from a standing start though!

 

Not quite true Jim, if the VR is dropped down a cog or two we kept up with the rocco (and we tested that too), but if both the VR and rocco were in 5th/6th then the wider (and more of it) torque band of the newer engine really shinned through. Both engines put out roughly the same amount of go, and given they are both 'sports' coupes then the gearing will be set-up for sporty handling, they weigh about the same too so as such the only real difference will be in when the engines produce peak power/torque and the nature of those curves.

 

Although this really is a bit of a dodgy comparison given that the newer engine is modern turbocharged unit and current design ensures no real noticable turbo lag and it gains the nice wide torque curve that can only really be had from using forced induction.

 

As for the VRs power output, I think VW pushed it as hard as they could in the corrado, you only need to look at the extras on say an R32 which still 'only' makes 250bhpish with an extra 12 valves, variable valve timing, a modern engine management system and another .3 litres displacement; all on a powerplant designed 10 years after the VR was first used.

[Leonard 0]

My question is, with a 2.9 V6 engine under the bonnet, why didnt VW give the VR6 more then 190bhp. Was it a case of not being able to get more power out of it OR were they holding it back performance wise?

 

It was meant to come with a from of the VSR as standard but the Corrado was already costing too much so that idea was canned.

 

Also the VR6 engine is quite old so 190 bhp out of 2.9L was a fair old chunk of power way back in the days of 1992!

 

Edited to add. If the VR had come with a 6 speed box then it should easily be as fast as the new Scirocco in a straight line.

 

Matt

[Toad 0]

As for the VRs power output, I think VW pushed it as hard as they could in the corrado, you only need to look at the extras on say an R32 which still 'only' makes 250bhpish with an extra 12 valves, variable valve timing, a modern engine management system and another .3 litres displacement; all on a powerplant designed 10 years after the VR was first used.

 

I agree... Despite people complaining about ovalised bores and timing chain issues, the VR6 is a good solid reliable engine. It's a big capacity to force into a small space, and the fact that there are several high bhp forced induction units going strong at the moment goes to show that it's quite a versatile engine.

 

Overall it's made to a higher standard than the 4 cylinder engines before it, and the Motronic engine management was a good step up from Digifant.

 

With regard to the Scirroco/Corrado/Autobahn experience. I can also say that, a turboed VR, a new Scirroco and a standard VR scampered away from my 16v fairly well. Although mine was still pulling at 130 when the exit started looming. :)

[davidwort 0]

That 2L turbo FSI engine is a great unit, I wouldn't be surprised if they put out over the VW spec of 200bhp and I bet back to back on a rolling road you'd see approaching 20bhp difference at the wheels between it and a healthy VR6, not surprised they can pull away from Corrado on the road.

Ever since the early 150bhp 20VT, VW have been putting out very flat torque curves from their 4 pot engines, it seems to be the way all manufacturers are going for al lsorts of reasons, RIP the 6 cylinder :(

[Henny 0]

the 2.0 TFSI 200bhp engine in the new 'rocco is the same as the one in my missus' new A3 cabrio... it's a sweet engine, and it gets much, much better as a few miles get under it's belt...

 

My missus' one only has 4,000 miles on it, even so, you can definitely feel the difference from when we picked it up with only delivery milage on it... It's not as fast or as brutal as my G60 is, but with the DSG gearbox, the throttle pedal becomes a true accelerator... push to how much acceleration you want, and hold it there to keep the same amount of shove in your back all the way up to 6th gear (and way, way past the speed limit! :oops: ) it's definitely faster than a VR6, isn't all that far off my G60, and is sooooooo much easier to drive with the DSG gearbox...

 

It's just a shame that the new 'rocco isn't that little bit more special... yeah, it looks OK, but only OK... compare a MKI golf and a MKI 'rocco, then do the same with a MKII golf and a MKII 'rocco, and a MKIII golf and a 'rado.... now do it with a MKVI golf and a MKIII 'rocco... see what I mean? There's none of the "wow" factor that the old 'roccos and 'rado had... you could shove a Golf badge on the back, and most people wouldn't know any different... :?

 

Meh, anyway, that's my tuppence worth... :tongue: :lol:

[mark* 0]

My question is, with a 2.9 V6 engine under the bonnet, why didnt VW give the VR6 more then 190bhp. Was it a case of not being able to get more power out of it OR were they holding it back performance wise?

 

they held it back due to emissions and tax regulations (same question posted on a different forum) both golf and corrado initially had around 220bhp(?) might be mistaken by that figure tho. 2.8 BMW has that power, but vw decided to lower the output as the cars were aimed at a different market. thus making them less expensive by removing almost 30% of that total power.

 

eediots were'nt they!

[Cnut 0]

When my dad was running a MK5 Golf GTI we decided to have alittle comparision with my Corrado VR6. Once the turbo spooled up he was gone but as soon as the VR6 was in it's element (4000rpm+) I started inching on him, above 90mph I started catching up at an even faster rate. The VR6 really came into it's own above 80mph from what I experienced.

[HiAsAKite 0]

PhilK and I had a 'scientific' test between my (std) VR with 160,000 miles on and his CupraR revealed that whilst the CupraR was quicker, there wasn't a huge amount between them... (maybe a 1/2 car length or so 10mph-70?)...

 

Very subjective, and completely at the whim how gentle (or not) we felt like being with out gear changes but it gives an indication. - to see a real difference you need a big difference in power..

[The_Dude 0]

Take the turbo off the Rocco or put one on the Rado, that'll even things out again. :lol:

[vag6 0]

I've been looking at http://www.scirocconet.co.uk/forum and as with most turbo cars If you spend a little you get a lot. An extra 50 to 60 bhp for only £800. Not bad but I'm sure it still doesnt sound as good as the VR6.

[Jim 2]

Despite being an excellent drive, the soundtrack from that engine is exceptionally dull unfortunately. You can barely hear the turbo it's all so silenced and there is no exhaust note to speak of. You could be driving a 1.6l naturally aspirated 4 cylinder engine to be honest.

 

I'm sure with some mods it can sound better - but not much compares to the VR6 IMHO!

[rajarella 0]

So a FI vr6 would be more than a match for most of these modern hot hatches/Coupes?

[mark* 0]

oh yeah!! FI vr's are the way forward

[fla 9]

Bringing modernising into the game but following a 'trend' so to speak, i'm sure some of our 24V family (Ziderapple, renshaw, KIPVR, Griff et al) would leave the rocco behind.

[vwdeviant 0]

With regards the "lost" 30-or-so Hp of the VR engine (or any VW engine) VW have a history of "restricting" their engines to increase longevity...

 

Case in point are Air-cooled 1600's, they can make over 100Hp with not a lot of work (Mild head Porting, Cam, Carbs, Exhaust) but only made 54HP out the box, mostly down to a restrictive exhaust and carb set up... BUT properly maintained in stock form will do many 100,000 miles...

 

With better engine management and Turbo systems they have extended the power/torque envelope a bit, but as we have seen they're still pretty conservative!

 

VW as a company are historically about longevity of product Bug/Bus/Early Golfs prove this.

 

As to the "new" Rocco's styling... no longer a "hand-built Coupe" so really can't be compere to Rocco's and Rados... It's basically a Mk6Golf "Sportsback"

[wigit 0]

i think the corrado was a car that was a head of its time in the performance stakes, i've seen a few rado owners on scirocco forums so thought i'd join in the fun, i've got a mk3 and have this debate over progress over the years not being massive, however, the mk3 does return 35-40mpg, Vag6 makes reference to power gains and mine dyno'd 267bhp and 405Nm with 7,500 miles on the clock after a remap, engine note will never have that V6 tone, all be it love the turbo whine, i don't get any trouble from golf r32s anymore :D

[skinnyman9000 0]

Can the new breed 4 pot engines be made to sound nice?

 

A friend of mine has recently bought (well, given by his parents) a 200bhp 07 plate TT. Yes its comfortable, yes its well built, yes its fast, but its so bloody boring! Whats the point in going fast if it doesnt FEEL fast? He can hit 130ish without you even noticing it, which is pointless in my opinion. I would imagine that the new rocco feels roughly the same.

 

Whereas another friend of mine sold his mk4 golf for a 05 plate Focus RS, now that is much more fun. You can feel and hear everything. Hearing the turbo spool up and dump out the wastegate is much more satisfying than driving the TT.

 

Although i guess people wouldnt buy a rocco/TT for the fast turbo type feeling, thats what mid 90's Jap motors are for.

[wigit 0]

its a weird engine as power delivery is very linear and feels more like a non turbo, it aint gonna be a v6 classic but sounds better than out K04 equipped GTI, i bought if for how it goes and how it handles and that it does not bankrupt me in fuel bills for the 20k plus it will be doing, v6 would not be an option for me