whats he real 0to60 ?

[mariovr6 0]

ok ive always wondered why ever mag has different 0to60 times for corrado's ??

as ive got a vr6 just wondered what its ment to be as new?

ive seen some say 6.7 some and some 7.4 ?? what is it ?? the older ones still had cat's so it cant be that?

whats faster the coil back type like mine or the distrib one?

i tried 3 0-60 the other day using 1st and 2nd and got 7.42 .... 7.42...7.34?? mind you i was worried bout the bald tyre its bad ..

[dinkus 10]

It's going to be around 7 seconds, which is good enough.

 

There's very little point in measuring it to a thousandth of a second because it all depends on the driver, air temperature, age and type of your tyres, how shagged your engine is, the last time you changed your oil, etc...

[Tekara 0]

6.5 - 6.7 seems to be what the 2.9 is meant to do, dont know precisely. 7.4 sound more like the US 2.8 version.

[coolrado 0]

didnt vw use a certain amount of ballast when doing the 0-60 runs that they published?

im sure someone told me thats why vw used to beat other manufacturers cars who had quoted quicker 0-60 as they ran them with no ballast and a nearly empty tank.

[Kevin Bacon 5]

6.9 is the factory handbook figure and you're not going to get any slower than that tbh....

 

Evo magazine recorded a 6.2 to 60 and I've seen other mags quote numbers in the mid 6s......so for arguments sake, lets say it'll do it 6.5, which looking at other FWD hatches with the same power seems about right.

 

VW's test is with passenger ballast (one person), luggage ballast (2 cases), half a tank of fuel and 2 runs in each direction to account for inclines and wind direction. The average of the 4 is then your official time.

[mariovr6 0]

thats why i asked they all seem wrong?

in top gear mag in the index it said 6. but in the same mag it then says 7 . something?

do they run these tests in the fastet way to 60 ie 1st and 2nd at full revs or in 1st 2nd and 3rd? think mune would take aweek if time up to 3rd at lower revs!!!

[Kevin Bacon 5]

Does it really matter? 0-60 is for pub talk....

 

The 0-60 test is done using the lowest gear that 60 is attainable in, which is 2nd in the VR's case.

[mariovr6 0]

yep your right it is pub talk but here's the reason

years back i always wanted a corrado

and in some mags it said the 1.8 16v was faster to 60 then the g60 ??

and now i have a vr6 im still seeing all the times aint the same!!!

 

i think cars are changing now coz if what i read was right the new astra will ave 250bhp?? i pray it dont !!! lol

[dr_mat 0]

Vaxhaull have had the 2.0 turbo for some time, that had 200+ bhp even back in 1995. Of course, knowing how crap their chassis' were, they opted to only make it available with the 4x4 kit..

 

But I agree - the "average" car is now much more powerful than ever before, and much better equipped, and actually costs LESS than cars did ten years ago.

 

But what does all that mean? It means we expect more for our money now. The car industry has matured to the extent that there's really only a few car makers now. The rest is badge engineering. This at least means that there is a uniform level of quality, with a little bit of room for flair still.

 

But none of that matters when you get down the pub with your mates: you still should quote the fastest 0-60 time you've ever seen for your car, which for the VR6 has to be EVO's 6.4 seconds... ;)

[Kevin Bacon 5]

6.2 actually, with a 146 Vmax!

 

The Astra VXR is said to be 237bhp. The Focus ST will have Volvo's old 5 pot turbo lump (because they're financially strapped) and the Golf 5 makes do with a very linear 200bhp turbo engine, which AmD can chip to 240bhp (if their figures are to be believed).

 

Apparently the Focus ST is 10 seconds quicker round the Nurburgring than the Focus RS....and it was engineered to be a softer, more mature hot hatch!!

 

Anyway, the VR will remain to hold it's own because in the grand scheme of things, 0.5 of a second here and there is nothing in the real world and these modern hatches need all this power to heave their bloated frames around.

[dr_mat 0]

The VR holds it's own because of it's rarity and it's chassis feel, mostly.

In pure performance terms it's been exceeded, but by little enough that it's other qualities keep it ahead, IMHO.

[Kevin Bacon 5]

Holds it's own in straight acceleration aswell....as I can testify, numbers are only half the story.... out there on the roads, it's a different one.

[GIXXERUK 0]

the manufacturers figures are always higher on the 0-60 and lower ontop end speed because they have to be achievable

otherwise people would be complaining so they are not a true representation of the cars ability

in a nutshell - ignore them

[Bobbywhacker 0]

did hear a story that Peugeot used to raise their published 0-60 times in order to bring down the insurance groups.. i.e. slower car=lower group. But the cars' were normally 0.5s quicker in reality.

 

Dunno if that's true though, perhaps that's what Reliant do aswell lol

[NickVR6 0]

Id like some clarification on the g60 vs 1.8 16v too. im a bit of an anorak on car mag figures have collected them since i was 7! Dads fault, starting with the old road tester with handle bar mistache in an original tvr griffith.

 

Anyway, every mag i have has the g60 slower to 60 then the 16v!? Whats on thre then? Is it gearing, weight, waht is it? Having friven both theres no comp, especially lower down the rev range, and 139bhp vs 160 even bigger torque diff, surely somethings wrong?

 

Agree all pub chat really. I love my vr, real world mid range is where its at, and no having to change down three gears to waft past people.

[NickVR6 0]

When its not missfiring that is!

[swfblade 0]

in my "VW Corrado 1991 Users Handbook" it states the following:

 

G60: 0-100kph 8.3 Seconds.

1.8 16v: 0-100kph 9.1 Seconds.

 

obviously 100kph is roughly 62mph.

 

Hope this helps ;)

[monVR6 0]

Autocar quotes 0-60 for the VR6 in 6.4secs - but the figures that means most is the 30-70 through the gears - for the VR - that's 5.7secs. To put that in perspective, Autocar quotes the following other 30-70s: Renault Sport Clio 182 - 5.8secs. Golf R32 - 6.3secs. Astra 2.0 Turbo Coupe - (old shape) 6.3secs. Porsche Boxster S - 5.5 secs. The VR is well up there!!!

[thorpey 0]

g60=8.9 sec (alot of power lost through transmission)

1.8 16v = 8.5sec

2.0 16v=9.2sec

vr6=6.4sec

[W3RKD 0]

g60=8.9 sec (alot of power lost through transmission)

1.8 16v = 8.5sec

2.0 16v=9.2sec

vr6=6.4sec

 

how did you work that out then as both the 16v / g60 run o2a gearbox's ... with very simular ratios ...

[Joe M 0]

That g60 time came from a magazine and it was later found that it had a dodgy gearbox, it was a long term test car. Cant remember what magazine though.

[vr6storm 0]

That g60 time came from a magazine and it was later found that it had a dodgy gearbox, it was a long term test car. Cant remember what magazine though.

 

Autocar was the mag......and also if memory serves me right their lhd G60 needed a new g/box within its first few months