2004 R32 Vs. 1990 G60

[ZackM8 0]

OK so heres the deal some good for nothing rich punk jsut bought a R32 I was wondering how my rado matchs up agianst it, for those of you who don't know I have a pretty heavily modded g60 now which pumps out about 240-245 horses (hasnt been dynoed since recent mods) .... I know that 3.2 puts out a solid 240 hp, but how heavy is that thing? Like most vr6 a4 4-motions, it has to be pretty damn heavy, Just want to know If any of you boys have driven one compared to your rado or not, I'm pretty sure I can outcorner him, as hes not a very good driver, and 80-140 I think I should be quicker. All in all jsut need others opinions before I go out and race it

[Scott 0]

You'll get your Butt kicked.... off the line it should be pretty much equal but once the Golf gets up to 60/70mph its torque from the 3.2 will pull it ahead....

 

A VR6 would have a tough time against one I would have thought.............

[dr_mat 0]

power/weight suggests that the G60 will beat the R32, simply because they have similar power and the G60 is lighter, PLUS the R32 is carrying around all that 4x4 drive train.

But that 4x4 drive train means the R32 will get off the line or out of a tight bend with MUCH more power on the ground than your FWD G60...

Swings, meet roundabouts.

[MoonlightVR 0]

IMO a well tuned, say 200 odd bhp G60 will trouble a VR6 pretty comprehensively, unless you're doing over 120mph (on the track of course :roll: ) where the 2.9 is really singing!

 

I've duelled with several standard R32s and they can't get past my VR :D Just ask Guy Hartley, he was driving his standard R32 at the time :D His is throwing out 300+bhp now so I think I'll be letting him past :lol:

 

In my experience the performance of my C and the R32 is pretty much identical, so if your G60 is genuinely pumping out as much as you claim you'll see off the R32. Whether it will in the upper rev ranges or not I'm not sure as these VR derivatives tend to be very strong top end unlike forced induction.

[Scott 0]

I have never raced a R32 so I have no idea if my VR6 would keep with one - but I have totally annilated a V6 4 motion though.... :lol:

[Valver 0]

As stated, the 4x4 running gear although great for traction off the line, accounts for some serious drivetrain losses. I've seen power graphs for an AMD chipped 4motion, before 218bhp, after 239bhp (R32 territory!) but it was only putting down 150ish at the wheels!!! Drivetrain losses were about 80-90bhp!! :shock: :shock:

 

...a lighter, well specced 2wd G60 would give an R32 a run for it's money I reckon?... :mrgreen: :wink:

[PhatVR6 0]

Do I have to point out (YET AGAIN) that the 4WD ONLY works when traction is lost at the front wheels....therefore it's not really a loss, as it would only have been lost to wheelspin if the 4wd wasn't there.

 

4 motion and Syncro is NOT full time 4WD.

[dr_mat 0]

But even if there's no drive going through the rear wheels, Phat, you're still having to turn all those extra drive shafts and stuff. You might be turning them by hauling the car along from the front, but they still represent drag on the rear wheels, don't they?

*That* is why you still lose power, even if your 4wd is not full-time.

[Kevin Bacon 5]

I've duelled with several standard R32s and they can't get past my VR :D Just ask Guy Hartley, he was driving his standard R32 at the time :D

 

But aren't you the chap with a standard VR producing 212bhp though? :wink:

 

Standard VRs giving standard power won't worry an R32 too much.

 

As for the 4WD debate, as Phat said, the Haldex system is a not a proper permanent quattro style 4x4 system, so the frictional losses will be minimal.

 

However, the rear wheels still turn the rear diff, even with no drive from the propeller shaft and the obviously there will be a small weight penalty as a driven independant rear axle setup is a lot heavier than a 2WD torsion beam setup.

 

In the real world, it makes such a small difference. My Mates Subaru still pisses all over me and my mate off the line and our cars and have all got similar power and torque. It's the 4x4 that enables him to put all of the power down get away first.

[MoonlightVR 0]

I've duelled with several standard R32s and they can't get past my VR :D Just ask Guy Hartley, he was driving his standard R32 at the time :D

 

But aren't you the chap with a standard VR producing 212bhp though? :wink:

 

Standard VRs giving standard power won't worry an R32 too much.

 

 

Fair point! :oops:

But I don't think the diffence between a R32 and a standard C VR will be that great would it? Ceratinly will make the driver of the new R32 raise their eyebrow at the performance of the 10 odd year old vintage VW :D

[Kevin Bacon 5]

Dunno mate, I've only had a minor brush with one on a motorway when it was standard and they seemed reasonably well matched in the high speed pace department. From standstill and accelerating from low speeds, I think the R32 would pull air first. 3.2, 6 speed and 4WD helps!

[MoonlightVR 0]

You're probably right mate, but it would still be reasonably close. Unlike the Celica GT Turbo Jap crap that totally destroyed me last week :oops: Had a mentally loud dump valve! He didn't have the noise all to himself though, VR's with K&Ns are VERY LOUD :lol: :lol:

[dr_mat 0]

One thing I've noticed - the Schrick changes the sound of the VR6 subtlely. It loses that gruff, asynchronous sort of sound (which I loved!), probably a result of the unequal length runners, meaning the overall induction length is the same for each bank of cylinders, unlike the OE inlet..

Shame, but it's still worth every penny... :)

[Kevin Bacon 5]

You guarantee he's sunk a lot of cash into that, but then they were never slow coaches to begin with!

[MoonlightVR 0]

You guarantee he's sunk a lot of cash into that, but then they were never slow coaches to begin with!

 

Sure thing mate. Not many cars can comprehensively losea C VR, but this one did. It was quite shocking! It must have had 300+ bhp! But no class :lol:

[Kevin Bacon 5]

A friend of a friend's Vauxhall VX220 Turbo quite comprehensively wasted me too. There's fast, and there's *FAST*, LOL! Those things are manic. Clarkson's analogy of the Elise being a Wasp and VX being a Hornet is spot-on.

 

*Everything* about it is full-on and in-your-face like life has been sped-up 50%. It's not a relaxing car to drive at all.

[CoxyLaad 0]

frictional losses of 90bhp?? eh? I can turn the shafts with my hands, so what does that make me?

Mr T?

[PhatVR6 0]

Nor, Mr C

 

And I'm Mr H (see avatar) :lol:

[dr_mat 0]

Coxylaad that includes all the drivetrain losses, so gearbox, diffs, driveshafts, wheel bearings, dragging brakes, CV joints, etc etc.

Actually one weird thing - do four-wheel dynos automatically link the speed of all four rollers? If not, the 4x4 system will always be active on a Synchro setup, cos otherwise the back wheels would slow down..

[vr6corrado 0]

I had a duel with one a while back - posted on here at the time and I was ahead and stayed ahead til about 70 at which point I backed off and this was from nearly standstill. So I'd say a standard VR can at least keep up with an R32 around town - unless my VR also has a mutant engine.

[spud 0]

my bro has a standard R32 which is pretty quick, I'll have to compare it to my VR. While I was on holiday he took my VR out for a spin and said that there didn't seem to be that much difference performance wise... but then he's always complaining that his R32 is too slow, compared to his previous cars it's probably the slowest car he's owned :roll:

[ZackM8 0]

well the verdit is in, in 15 years Volkswagen still hasn't managed to out do itself. I was very dissapointed with the R32s power, although it could have been the kid driving, It didn't seem to have any more pull the a VR6 rado at over 120, the car did beat me out of the hole but once I hit third I got up and left him, the R32 does pull hard over 120 as it did make up a bit of ground but nothing more then a vr6 rado, All in all they are jsut to heavy and there weight/power ratio isn't very impressive, cars are jsut too heavy these days. Anyone runnng a G60 with 215-225 BHP range should have no problems with one of these r32s, you should leave it pretty easily.... IF its bone stock!! If not im not sure, but there youi have it, I got a video of the race but it came out pretty shitty im gunna try to lighten it up, if it comes out better ill post it up

[vr6corrado 0]

Sorry to go a little off topic but had a run in with a V reg WRX last night from standstill - left me well behind from standstill and sounded fantastic too - but once the speeds were up there wasn't much in it.

[Kevin Bacon 5]

ZackM8 - The R32 isn't all that quick for sure but it's the usual VW method of selling us short. Take the new MK5 Gti for example. 2.0 FSi turbo, 200 bhp. Is that all? In a big heavy car? FFS, Vauxhall are putting that power in an 800Kg roadster. Wake up VW........

 

Of all the current crop of Hot hatches, I would buy the Focus RS without question. The R32 is nice and way better built but it's just lacking and the 6 speed kills it's potential. Having said that, you can extract a LOT of power out of the R32 lump and no other hot hatch will be as smooth and tractable.

 

VR6corrado - My mate has a 2000 WRX with 232 bhp and they are very rapid off the line. I can lose him quite easily at motorway speeds though and as for cornering, he he, he stands no chance. Those things understeer like buggery :lol:

[vr6corrado 0]

VR6corrado - My mate has a 2000 WRX with 232 bhp and they are very rapid off the line. I can lose him quite easily at motorway speeds though and as for cornering, he he, he stands no chance. Those things understeer like buggery :lol:

 

Yes Kev I overtook him eventually but didn't push too hard. Incidentally I overtook one of those big Jeep Cherokee's on the motorway today and I was impressed by its sheer grunt considering how much they must weigh.