Know anyone with a VXR8?

[Kevin Bacon 5]

VW Corrado 2.9V6 - Biggest pile of golf **** ever - its not even made by Volkswagen - it was made by karman in a shed based on a mundane nk3 golf with a **** engine thats nearly 3 litres and produces a feeble 174 or something bhp

 

And you guys are saying that most of the comments are fair?

 

The engine was revolutionary for the time, and the Corrado is still raved over by some of the most respected car magazines out there.. a 15 year old Cavalier or Corsa aint going to be getting the same kind of love.

 

He has a point though, 190hp from 2.9 is indeed sheeeeeite :lol:

 

I totally see where you're coming from with the warm glow of satisfaction when someone likes your car, but if they don't like it, I don't understand why you take it to heart so much. You didn't design and produce the Corrado, so why is that criticism in any way a reflection on you?

 

If you painted something from scratch and I said it was crap, you would be well within your rights to whip me, kick me and call me betty because I would be insulting your own creativity and skill.

 

I dunno, I just don't understand it :shrug: . If someone called my Corrado crap to my face I'd just laugh and agree with them :lol: I mean, it's an old car and riddled with design flaws, you've got to take it at face value :D

 

But I love it and I love what i've done to it, it's what *I* wanted to do and that's all that matters. I couldn't really care less what other people think of it tbh, and all this probing into other people's forums and pasting their negative comments into ours is a bit sad really isn't it?

 

Oh, and RE the original crux of all this..... the VAG person was wrong, the VXR8 is a Holden Commodore, not a Vectra, chalky versus Cheesy! But why someone with a 400+ V8 car that practically every motorhead loves should so easily take offense from a dull VAG car owner is a mystery. He needs to calm down a tad.

[The_Dude 0]

Says it all...

[Jonny777 0]

I think one smiley sums up this thread.

 

:camp:

[dgtvr6 0]

Can't you all just agree to disagree?

 

i disagree :lol:

 

Surely someone must agree with something??

 

Fair enough if you wish to disagree with that though

[big ben 10]

i agree that we all disagree :scratch:

[ziderapple 0]

Can't you all just agree to disagree?

 

meh :sleeping:

[Toad 0]

But as others have said on the thread - arguing about crap like this on the net is a waste of time and no matter who "wins" we're all still losers ;) So I'll shut up now ;)

 

But that's the point. It's just not worth worrying about. What's the point in getting uppity in an internet forum, talking bollocks about something noone will care about in 10 years? Or making statements for the sake of it?

 

I barely struggled to entuse myself enough to write that sentance, and then I wavered because I might be contradicting myself.

 

well written Jim, i wish i had put my feelings into good words like that!! i just get angry :nuts:

 

:camp:

[big ben 10]

i would imagine i will care for the same things in 10 years, my car, my mrs and football.... and i would say it will probly still be a corrado to 8)

 

edit: oh, and toad you are :camp:

[Fanjita 1]

He has a point though, 190hp from 2.9 is indeed sheeeeeite :lol:

 

Actually you say that mate, I was doing a bit of number crunching (sad I know :lol: ), just seeing what the BHP/litre is on each engine. I used 187 BHP for the VR6 and 137 BHP for the 16v 2.0, which I'd say is a good standard power for a 16v 2 Litre - I had an 02 Astra SRi 2.0 16v once and that had around 134 BHP which I considered good.

 

So anyway, the BHP/Litres are:

16v: 69.1

vr6: 65.4

 

I'm not sure if there are any rules on number of cylinders and not just displacement, but I'd say the difference isn't that drastic. Can we really say the VR6's power output is shite? I mean compared to today's cars yeah it's deffo less than the BMW 6 cyl lumps and Audi etc, but surely they're really squeezing them now?

 

That's just my 2 pennies worth anyway

Opinions welcome :D

Jim

 

Edit -

I just did a bit more looking, and I know yank cars are generally poop anyway, but seriously!!?? -

1993 Chevrolet Camaro

Brief specs:

FR 6 cylinder 3350 cc 160.0 bhp/162.2 PS 1470 kg

 

Oh dear.....

[ziderapple 0]

Duh!!!

 

Its a well know fact that the VR could of have 300bhp but it was mapped to provide a sound that makes any petrolhead smile like a goon and said things like "f*ck yeah" :luvlove:

[Kevin Bacon 5]

He has a point though, 190hp from 2.9 is indeed sheeeeeite :lol:

 

Actually you say that mate, I was doing a bit of number crunching (sad I know :lol: ), just seeing what the BHP/litre is on each engine. I used 187 BHP for the VR6 and 137 BHP for the 16v 2.0, which I'd say is a good standard power for a 16v 2 Litre - I had an 02 Astra SRi 2.0 16v once and that had around 134 BHP which I considered good.

 

So anyway, the BHP/Litres are:

16v: 69.1

vr6: 65.4

 

I'm not sure if there are any rules on number of cylinders and not just displacement, but I'd say the difference isn't that drastic. Can we really say the VR6's power output is ****? I mean compared to today's cars yeah it's deffo less than the BMW 6 cyl lumps and Audi etc, but surely they're really squeezing them now?

 

That's just my 2 pennies worth anyway

Opinions welcome :D

Jim

 

Edit -

I just did a bit more looking, and I know yank cars are generally poop anyway, but seriously!!?? -

1993 Chevrolet Camaro

Brief specs:

FR 6 cylinder 3350 cc 160.0 bhp/162.2 PS 1470 kg

 

Oh dear.....

 

Yeah I was only jesting mate :D The VR6's output is not far off it's competitors of the time at all.

 

For example:-

 

E36 BMW 325i 24V - 192hp

E36 BMW 328i 24V - 204hp IIRC?

Merc C280 - 194hp

Sierra XR4i 2.9 - 150hp :lol:

 

In any engine, power output is obviously directly proportional to the amount of fuel and air burned. If you look at any engine from the 80s and 90s that had a restrictive cylinder head, such as the VR6, Chrysler V8 (the 3.5l Range Rover / TVR one), 8V Golf GTI etc etc, the specific output is low for the capacity. Especially the Rover V8! 150hp from 3.5l!!!

And with the arrival of Cat converters meaning engines had to run 14.7:1 air fuel ratio (otherwise the cat doesn't work) and very mild cam profiles, power was further restricted.

 

And also, in the 90s Germany's car insurance premiums were based on engine power and anything over 200hp was clobbered heavily, hence VW, BMW, Merc etc detuning their motors. Take the 328i and VR6 engines for example. They've both been proven to make 230hp by simply derestricting their intakes 8)

 

So when we laugh at an engine's output for it's size, we have to remember that motor makers are victims of circumstance. They all design their engines to be powerful, but then have detune them again to meet emissions and noise regulations. The only exceptions are the very poorly designed engines, such as the Rover V8 and Ford Sierra's V6, which will never be powerful unless you turbo them.

 

Inevitabley Honda's 100+hp per litre VTEC motor has to get a mention and is why people laugh at big engines making small power outputs. That makes it's power from revs, no other reason. Not saying that's a bad thing, it's just the direction Honda took, but it's unfair to compare an engine that revs to 9000rpm to one that tops out at 6500rpm, imo.

 

Anyway, it's all good engineering practice and gives us the wide variety of engines we have today :salute: Imagine if all cars had to have Toyota Prius engines :pukeright:

[ozowen 2]

This has been a good read. Putting in my two pence worth; and staying true to the Corrado at least our car has a unique shape. Yes it might have been put together using other platforms; but name any main stream car that hasn't been crossed decked. God even some exotica use common parts on them. I don't think the corsa has ever look good infact I don't think i have ever gone WOW on any Vauxhall some have got a "thats nice". Then on the VAG front we have our beloved, any of the Audi RSs', R8, we have the best CC in the EOS, Veyron, where are Vauxhalls supercars?. Yes we pay a premium for this pleasure but lets have a count of MK2 Golfs still active as opposed to MK2 Astras.

 

As for our engine, it is just lazy but sounds oh so nice :luvlove:

[coullstar 0]

Standard VR engine is a bit like the women on those sex phone lines. Sounds great and gets you all excited but in reality its a bit of a mare!!!

[Kevin Bacon 5]

Putting in my two pence worth; and staying true to the Corrado at least our car has a unique shape. Yes it might have been put together using other platforms; but name any main stream car that hasn't been crossed decked.

 

The Corrado certainly is uniquely shaped. It bears no resemblance to anything else in the VAG stable and that's a trick VW missed with the new Scirocco, which just looks like a MK5 Golf that an Elephant sat on.

 

And unlike VW's current efforts, which are just 'same old, same old' products falling off the end of an endless production line, the Corrado has an organic, penned by a human hand look about it. The new Scirocco looks like an automated CAD program designed it.

[The_Dude 0]

I think we're doing Vauxhalls a disservice here. I mean, you only have to look at an Astra mk2 to see its a classic. Such an amazing car in fact, that Daewoo decided to make a carbon copy 10 years later. What greater honour could you have than selling your design to a Korean washing machine company? Its almost on a par with the Lotus 7 and Caterham. :lol:

[ozowen 2]

The Corrado certainly is uniquely shaped. It bears no resemblance to anything else in the VAG stable and that's a trick VW missed with the new Scirocco, which just looks like a MK5 Golf that an Elephant sat on.

 

And unlike VW's current efforts, which are just 'same old, same old' products falling off the end of an endless production line, the Corrado has an organic, penned by a human hand look about it. The new Scirocco looks like an automated CAD program designed it.

 

Like the elephant quote, and I totally agree they did miss the boat, to be honest I would probably still buy the Golf over the Scirocco

[ozowen 2]

I think we're doing Vauxhalls a disservice here. I mean, you only have to look at an Astra mk2 to see its a classic. Such an amazing car in fact, that Daewoo decided to make a carbon copy 10 years later.

 

Never a truer word; which could be good for Vauxhall designers as in 30 years when all Astra mk2 are square metal masses we will be able to mavel at the Daewoo to remind us what they looked like :norty:

[Kevin Bacon 5]

I think we're doing Vauxhalls a disservice here. I mean, you only have to look at an Astra mk2 to see its a classic. Such an amazing car in fact, that Daewoo decided to make a carbon copy 10 years later.

 

And what about the MK1 Vectra clone; the Daewoo Espero (sp?) :lol:

I remember driving a 2.0i 16V Espero from Ipswich to Horsham once, which is all of about 110 miles, and it burned a whole tank of fuel - one way :shock:

:lol:

 

Vauxhall aren't all bad though :D

 

I like the XE red top engine, I like the 3.0 GSi engine, I like the Lotus Carlton, the VX220 Turbo and the Monaro. Other than that, yeah, bland old ham sandwiches.

 

to be honest I would probably still buy the Golf over the Scirocco

 

And me and I'd also take the MK5 GTI over a MK6. The MK6 is really, really bland looking car, especially from the back.

[Fanjita 1]

He has a point though, 190hp from 2.9 is indeed sheeeeeite :lol:

 

Actually you say that mate, I was doing a bit of number crunching (sad I know :lol: ), just seeing what the BHP/litre is on each engine. I used 187 BHP for the VR6 and 137 BHP for the 16v 2.0, which I'd say is a good standard power for a 16v 2 Litre - I had an 02 Astra SRi 2.0 16v once and that had around 134 BHP which I considered good.

 

So anyway, the BHP/Litres are:

16v: 69.1

vr6: 65.4

 

I'm not sure if there are any rules on number of cylinders and not just displacement, but I'd say the difference isn't that drastic. Can we really say the VR6's power output is ****? I mean compared to today's cars yeah it's deffo less than the BMW 6 cyl lumps and Audi etc, but surely they're really squeezing them now?

 

That's just my 2 pennies worth anyway

Opinions welcome :D

Jim

 

Edit -

I just did a bit more looking, and I know yank cars are generally poop anyway, but seriously!!?? -

1993 Chevrolet Camaro

Brief specs:

FR 6 cylinder 3350 cc 160.0 bhp/162.2 PS 1470 kg

 

Oh dear.....

 

Yeah I was only jesting mate :D The VR6's output is not far off it's competitors of the time at all.

 

For example:-

 

E36 BMW 325i 24V - 192hp

E36 BMW 328i 24V - 204hp IIRC?

Merc C280 - 194hp

Sierra XR4i 2.9 - 150hp :lol:

 

In any engine, power output is obviously directly proportional to the amount of fuel and air burned. If you look at any engine from the 80s and 90s that had a restrictive cylinder head, such as the VR6, Chrysler V8 (the 3.5l Range Rover / TVR one), 8V Golf GTI etc etc, the specific output is low for the capacity. Especially the Rover V8! 150hp from 3.5l!!!

And with the arrival of Cat converters meaning engines had to run 14.7:1 air fuel ratio (otherwise the cat doesn't work) and very mild cam profiles, power was further restricted.

 

And also, in the 90s Germany's car insurance premiums were based on engine power and anything over 200hp was clobbered heavily, hence VW, BMW, Merc etc detuning their motors. Take the 328i and VR6 engines for example. They've both been proven to make 230hp by simply derestricting their intakes 8)

 

So when we laugh at an engine's output for it's size, we have to remember that motor makers are victims of circumstance. They all design their engines to be powerful, but then have detune them again to meet emissions and noise regulations. The only exceptions are the very poorly designed engines, such as the Rover V8 and Ford Sierra's V6, which will never be powerful unless you turbo them.

 

Inevitabley Honda's 100+hp per litre VTEC motor has to get a mention and is why people laugh at big engines making small power outputs. That makes it's power from revs, no other reason. Not saying that's a bad thing, it's just the direction Honda took, but it's unfair to compare an engine that revs to 9000rpm to one that tops out at 6500rpm, imo.

 

Anyway, it's all good engineering practice and gives us the wide variety of engines we have today :salute: Imagine if all cars had to have Toyota Prius engines :pukeright:

 

I wasn't sure if you were joking!!

Trouble is I heard the same from a friend when I was chatting down the pub, so two was enough to make me think about it :lol:

 

Thanks for the write up there mate, good bit of info. I'd be very interested to know what you know about getting a VR engine to breathe? I am trying to get the best idea of mods I can do, with a limited budget for real decent power gains. All whilst keeping it under the N/A category.

 

I will drop you a PM :)