Faster than a Golf R32??? !!!

[oxfordpaul 0]

Really funny coincidence today...had been to look at buying a Golf R32 to replace 2 cars, one being my VR6. I was in the VR on the way back on the motorway and saw an R32 steaming up the outside lane. Needless to say I put my foot down and we had about 15 miles of outside lane fun! Thing was when I dropped into 4th and floored it, I created a reasonable gap between the two of us so i'm sure the Corrado must be quicker at higher speeds than the R32?? And when I pulled into the middle lane he couldn't gain anything on me and this was right up to speeds I would rather not mention... I was so chuffed as it made me realise how great the VR is and mine cost me £4k compared to £20k for the R32... Thinking of getting a remap done at AMD - anyone any thoughts on whether this is worthwhile?

[VR6 0]

On paper, 240 vs 190ish the R32 will come off better. Off the line, 4wd vs 2wd, the R32 will come off better.

 

Suppose it comes down to gearing really but I would've said once they get going they should be fairly even because the R will lose power through the drivetrain losses.

[corradovr6sc 0]

I'm sure the corrado is quite a bit better aerodynamically than the golf which would tell at high speeds but I don't think the r32 is that quick in standard form. As for the remap I wouldn't bother unless your going to do quite a few mods beforehand. Chipping a standard engine isn't worthwhile imo.

[PhatVR6 0]

no surprise really, R32's aren't that much quicker than a golf Vr.

 

drivetrin losses......no, I'm pig sick of people saying that, funnily enough, people who don't have 4wd........weight, yes, it's alot of heavy sstuff to be carrying around when you aren't using it..

[VR6 0]

But once you're off the line and assuming traction isn't an issue, what's the point of powering all 4 wheels?

[dr_mat 0]

You don't drive those extra wheels all the time, afaik the diffs deal with all that.

But the biggest part of the hit is twisting all those extra driveshafts, albeit from the wheel end, rather than from the engine end.

No idea what the real world stats come out at, but from what I've heard the R32 is pretty heavy and none too streamlined and that alone will make a huge different to performance. Power/weight is what counts at low speed and power/drag factor at high speed.

The R32 is aroung 1.5 tons.. (Ok the Corrado is no lightweight, but still!)

[fast x 0]

sorry mate but i think the driver of the R32 was't even trying!!!!!! cos put a mini cooper s or and clio 182 or cupra r against a c vr6 a see whos is going to loose...

 

the corrado now is more like a clasic car with a bit of power and the new cars out there well they are as quick as fuck....

 

or unless u gave a good beating to yr rrado...

[MoonlightVR 0]

Sorry mate, I disagree. I've dueled with several R32s in my time - one was Guy Hartley's (pre-AmD treatment) and they can't get past a well driven C VR. My experiences are just as oxfordpaul has found.

[Joe M 0]

sorry mate but i think the driver of the R32 was't even trying!!!!!! cos put a mini cooper s or and clio 182 or cupra r against a c vr6 a see whos is going to loose...

 

Beat a few clio 172/182's and cupra r's on the road and track. Clio was quick off the line but once moving the vr was quicker (the clios did have the edge on a wet track though). Never came up against a mini.

[potatonet 0]

I have a G60, read mods below, against an R32 its fairly even, at higher speeds they pull up on me but thats those 2 extra cylinders, higher speeds being over 100 mph. my car can take them till then though, trust me my buddy has one, its heavy like a tree though, 3400 lbs 1550 kg for you other folks. my car weighs 2600 after some slight modifications, power to weight ratio in an R32 is about 14 lbs per 1 hp. in my car its about the same just slightly lower, I have 190 hp, just dyno'd (rolling road) it yesterday. I have 215 torque so thats why I beat him till 100, once his extra hp starts working for him his car pulls away, only normally at higher speeds. I could see how a VR C could keep up with an R32 however the VR c is heavier than the G60.

 

Fast x, you can not compare a mini cooper S to a corrado, they weigh as much as a stock G60 and have 4 more hp, power to weight on these is 16.4 lbs per 1 hp. on a corrado VR6 (euro model) it is 14.7 lbs per 1 hp. corrado VR6 would scream on a mini cooper S, as would a modded G60. the R32 was trying, could have been that the driver wasnt the best, but a corrado VR6 should be able to keep up with an R32, 600 lbs makes a big difference.

[olly elworthy 0]

sorry mate but i think the driver of the R32 was't even trying!!!!!! cos put a mini cooper s or and clio 182 or cupra r against a c vr6 a see whos is going to loose...

 

the corrado now is more like a clasic car with a bit of power and the new cars out there well they are as quick as ****....

 

or unless u gave a good beating to yr rrado...

 

i have beaten a clio 182 in a mk2 golf 8v that i have built for my brother,

2 ltr pack c head cam etc around castle combe no problem,,,

this is a proper road car too, leather interior etc,, clio 182`s arent that quick,,,

 

last pic is on the coastdown lap so no comments about not being near the apex cone please,,, :lol:

[dinkus 10]

So either way, there's not a lot in it, so keep the C and you'll look far cooler doing it :D

 

If you wanna go all-out then you could get your Corrado fully sound-deadened (few hundred quid for some Dynamat), get Phat to put an R32 engine and Synchro in for you, some huge brakes, all the suspension replaced, have a dash transplant fitted (and or just spruce it up with some DDI gauges) and get climatronic in there.

 

Your C will still look far cooler than any R32, beat pretty much anything on the road, look and feel very modern and should see you change from £15k...

 

Problem solved :D

[potatonet 0]

agreed 8)

[oxfordpaul 0]

sorry mate but i think the driver of the R32 was't even trying!!!!!! cos put a mini cooper s or and clio 182 or cupra r against a c vr6 a see whos is going to loose...

 

 

...Great to see this thread caused so much interest...I don't agree with the above at all though fast x. I have a good friend with Cooper S and off the line they are almost neck and neck. However after about 80mph the Corrado gains and increases the gap thereafter. I must say my VR seems particularly lively with 125k miles on it compared to my brother's car which has 80k (unless his is underperforming for some reason). I do cane my car but it's designed to take a beating and runs better for it i think! Anyhow, as Dinkus said, the Rado is far cooler than the R32 so I'm sticking with it.

[Dr Forinor 0]

Anyhow, as Dinkus said, the Rado is far cooler than the R32 so I'm sticking with it.

 

Without a doubt!!! :D

[Neil L. 0]

Just a little diversion in topic , - this annoying git in work is always going on about his Cavaliar SRi (Redtop 16v-2L) will tune my 1994 VR raddo. Being a more mature C owner, i dont get too wound up about this and tend to ignore the tw-t. Ive heared these engines are good (Cosworth?) but how would it fair against my VR?

[veeDuB_Rado 0]

note...its a cavalier lol

[dinkus 10]

It's still just a 2l engine in something that weighs the same, if not more than a C...

 

If it had a sodding Garrat turbo strapped to the side and COSWORTH stamped in the cam-cover then I'd be a bit more concerned.

 

The 2l turbos do shift fairly well, but I dunno if you ever got those in a Cav...

[sciroccotune 0]

don’t think that an SRI is much over 150 bhp.... so I don’t think so... Even if he was pushing out 190 his car must be much heavier..

 

As for r32 beating I think its easily possible, most people that drive both don’t think that there is much in it and the raddo must be a tad lighter/more aerodynamic than a 32...

[Rob_B 0]

they did do a 4x4 cav turbo. hate to say it but they are pretty nippy. did the turbo engines have anything to do with cosworth then? not a massive vaux expert thank the lord!!!

[trev-b 0]

Neither the Vauxhall XE "red top" engine or the turbo version had anything to do with Cosworth although it is regarded as a rather good lump. Go out and smoke the chav Neil L!

[Jim 1]

I thought i'd have a pop at a Cavalier 4x4 Turbo one day in my G60 (which was putting out 207BHP/187lbft) and it left me like I was standing still.. I was lost for words!

 

Be very wary of them.. obviously some good tuning potential in them, and they do look VERY bog standard and sleeper provided they haven't been beaten with the chav stick of modification!

[fast x 0]

sorry guys if i was a bit harsh on the comment but a lot of mine friends drive top end cars like R32 cupra r 225 and bmw 330 ci s even a 300 zx v6 tt nissan.

 

and when i meet them on the motorways ummmm they do kill me from time to time but when i do cane the vr well that becomes a different matter............

 

but u lot have to admit it that 240 bhp and 225 from a brand new engine and new technology is way better than only 190????? i could be wrong.

 

but still i love the corrado in every way. thanks for the dicussion.

[vr6to182cup 0]

before i post my comment id like to say a little about my background.

i work t k-tek performace tuning and have worked there 7 years, i know a fair deal about cars and performance. up until feb i owned a vr6 corrado but was instructed by a very good friend at autocar magazine to purchase a 182 cup, his exact words were 'this is the best car i have ever driven' of course i laughed but agreed to test drive one. when i got in it i was astonished. it was amazing. and true to his word, an exceptionl car.

now down to the business. we tested the car 0-62 and 0-100 and it was considerably quicker than an r32 (of which i almost brought, and still love) the 0-60 time will really astonish people, it was 6 seconds flat. now correct me if im wrong (which i know im not becuase i have had my old car tested many times) the vr6 is around 8ish to 60 and 19secs to 100. sorry guys but a 182 really does destroy the vr6. and as for that man with the 8v golf! HA what a load of rubbish. the best gti ever is the new one and that cracks 0-60 in just under 7 secs! the quickest older golfs do it in well over 8 secs! anyway. i dont like to upset anyone, just thought id put across my opinion and the facts!

 

Oh one more thing, pop down to k-tek coz we tune vws too, had my vr6 at 240bhp if anyones interested in getting bits.

[Trig 0]

now correct me if im wrong (which i know im not becuase i have had my old car tested many times) the vr6 is around 8ish to 60

 

Your wrong.

 

VR6 quoted times range from 6.2 to 6.9 as a standard. Not that these times mean that much anyway.