G60 and G40 engines.

[6n16v 0]

At the end of the day, if you put a G60 engine into a car the same weight as a G40 polo without fettling either engine, the G60 powered car would crap all over the polo. Fettle them both the same amount, and again, the G60 would win...

 

Have a look at a torque curve from a G40 and a G60 engine and ignore the BHP figures, that'll tell you why they bothered making a G60 engine in the first place... 8)

 

 

All very interesting..... you say about torque etc.... yes a 1.8 would have more torque than a 1.8 fair enough.. but they take a day and a half to get to the redline.. 5.5k . the 1.3 motor would have been 6.0k and halfway throu the next gear!

[polog40racer 0]

Right, ive had both a Corrado G60 and two Polo G40's.

 

I consider the Corrado the better car in all exceptions apart from one - RAW FUN! The polo is a supercharged shopping car, that keeps you on your toes alot of the time. The Corrado is sublime in every department but its just missing that raw edge that the polo has. But the corrado was never designed to have a rawness to it, it was designed to be 'the ultimate driving machine' - stolen from BMW adverts. IMO.

 

 

G40's rev alot quicker than their big brothers. It like being a kid isn't it, always running about, never stopping, sooo much energy. The Corrado is more like us now, we'd rather drive than run anywhere and energy... its not like the old days I tell thee now.

 

A g40 is more a 0-100mph car. CC's count in the 100+mph game and the corrado wins.

 

 

Going back to the original 1st post. The power figures are all wrong. A G60 charger, chip, pulley on a G40 engine would not touch 190+bhp. It would need cam, headwork, intercooler to achieve that. Do the same in a Corrado G60 and your touching 230+bhp. But the Polo would also be alot more unreliable, since its revving the G60 charger alot harder (i know, my mate has blown two G60 chargers up now on his polo.)

Put a bigger charger (say lysholm) on the G60 and it'll produce the equivalent of what the Polo has done with a G60 charger.

So it doesn't show up the 1.8 G60 nor makes it silly. The Polo was designed to be lightweight so it doesn't need a big nor powerful engine to be quick as it relys on PTW. The Corrado is a heavy car (comparatively) and requires the same conducive increase in cc/power to maintain a good PTW.

 

 

Personally for an everyday car, I'd rather have a Corrado G60. For a weekend toy, a Polo G40 with a wishbone conversion.

[veeDuB_Rado 0]

Going back to the original 1st post. The power figures are all wrong. A G60 charger, chip, pulley on a G40 engine would not touch 190+bhp. It would need cam, headwork, intercooler to achieve that. Do the same in a Corrado G60 and your touching 230+bhp. But the Polo would also be alot more unreliable, since its revving the G60 charger alot harder (i know, my mate has blown two G60 chargers up now on his polo.)

Put a bigger charger (say lysholm) on the G60 and it'll produce the equivalent of what the Polo has done with a G60 charger.

So it doesn't show up the 1.8 G60 nor makes it silly. The Polo was designed to be lightweight so it doesn't need a big nor powerful engine to be quick as it relys on PTW. The Corrado is a heavy car (comparatively) and requires the same conducive increase in cc/power to maintain a good PTW.

 

 

6n16v

you have just been....corradowned :lol: :-P

or probably polowned lol

il just shut up now as i have no idea of what 1.6bar or whatever it means

[bristolbaron 10]

Right, ive had both a Corrado G60 and two Polo G40's.

 

I consider the Corrado the better car in all exceptions apart from one - RAW FUN! The polo is a supercharged shopping car, that keeps you on your toes alot of the time. The Corrado is sublime in every department but its just missing that raw edge that the polo has. But the corrado was never designed to have a rawness to it, it was designed to be 'the ultimate driving machine' - stolen from BMW adverts. IMO.

 

 

G40's rev alot quicker than their big brothers. It like being a kid isn't it, always running about, never stopping, sooo much energy. The Corrado is more like us now, we'd rather drive than run anywhere and energy... its not like the old days I tell thee now.

 

A g40 is more a 0-100mph car. CC's count in the 100+mph game and the corrado wins.

 

 

Going back to the original 1st post. The power figures are all wrong. A G60 charger, chip, pulley on a G40 engine would not touch 190+bhp. It would need cam, headwork, intercooler to achieve that. Do the same in a Corrado G60 and your touching 230+bhp. But the Polo would also be alot more unreliable, since its revving the G60 charger alot harder (i know, my mate has blown two G60 chargers up now on his polo.)

Put a bigger charger (say lysholm) on the G60 and it'll produce the equivalent of what the Polo has done with a G60 charger.

So it doesn't show up the 1.8 G60 nor makes it silly. The Polo was designed to be lightweight so it doesn't need a big nor powerful engine to be quick as it relys on PTW. The Corrado is a heavy car (comparatively) and requires the same conducive increase in cc/power to maintain a good PTW.

 

 

Personally for an everyday car, I'd rather have a Corrado G60. For a weekend toy, a Polo G40 with a wishbone conversion.

 

What he said! [except about owning two G40's!]

[6n16v 0]

Right, ive had both a Corrado G60 and two Polo G40's.

 

I consider the Corrado the better car in all exceptions apart from one - RAW FUN! The polo is a supercharged shopping car, that keeps you on your toes alot of the time. The Corrado is sublime in every department but its just missing that raw edge that the polo has. But the corrado was never designed to have a rawness to it, it was designed to be 'the ultimate driving machine' - stolen from BMW adverts. IMO.

 

I agreee with you on this one totally.

 

 

 

 

G40's rev alot quicker than their big brothers. It like being a kid isn't it, always running about, never stopping, sooo much energy. The Corrado is more like us now, we'd rather drive than run anywhere and energy... its not like the old days I tell thee now.

 

A g40 is more a 0-100mph car. CC's count in the 100+mph game and the corrado wins.

 

I aggree with this too to an extent.

 

 

Going back to the original 1st post. The power figures are all wrong. A G60 charger, chip, pulley on a G40 engine would not touch 190+bhp. It would need cam, headwork, intercooler to achieve that.

 

This I dont aggree with , I've helped friends in germany setup thier G40's totally bog standard engines apart from a a ported G60 charger, 65MM pulley exhaust. Chip.the guys were stumbling at around 186 hp ( mainly due to using modified g40 chip and standard map sensor). but after we installed a bigger map sensor and gave is a full remap from scratch is produced 205 HPand 190 lb of torque....AFR was spot on through the range and not running rich like most G60 converted polos run.

Bearing in mind it wasnt Just 1 G40 I helped to setup , its about 6. all produced similar power give or take a couple of HP.

 

 

Do the same in a Corrado G60 and your touching 230+bhp.

 

Ok , But do the same in a polo eg , intercooler, modified head etc pistons . and we are looking at 215hp -220hp + and over 200 ft lb of torque. These arnt figures that I'm pulling off my head, Ive seen these.

 

 

But the Polo would also be alot more unreliable, since its revving the G60 charger alot harder (i know, my mate has blown two G60 chargers up now on his polo.)

 

Yes I aggree with you on this one. They dont last very long at all on th g60 convered polos.

 

 

 

Put a bigger charger (say lysholm) on the G60 and it'll produce the equivalent of what the Polo has done with a G60 charger.

So it doesn't show up the 1.8 G60 nor makes it silly.

 

 

OK, the original discussion was using the same supercharger and modifications on each car, chip , pulley and modified g40 charger (bigger map sensor on the G40 because is has trouble with extra boost)

 

Unfortunately I have not had the oppertunity to fit a lysholm type charger to the g40 engine as some guys in germany may have trouble passing the TUV. I'm not 100% sure how the testing etc works.

They are more efficient than the g60 charger , even in ported form so I could only assume it will make even more power.. similar to what a 1.8 g60 engine would make up to a point.

 

 

To 200 hp The polo engine matches the 1.8 corrado in power and maybe down 10ft lb odd in in torque due to the smaller capacity etc.

OK

 

Now .... 1.8 G60 will be making and extra 40 hp from stock (160hp) to make 200hp and an extra 40 ft lb.

 

The polo on the other hand will be making an extra 87hp and 89 ft lb from 113 hp + 111 ftlb or 115 hp and ft lb 112 if using a series 1 g40

 

 

Surely its not rocket science but would you expect the bigger engine to reap more gains? ..even ignoring the actual figures .. and just going by percentage increase!

 

 

 

The Polo was designed to be lightweight so it doesn't need a big nor powerful engine to be quick as it relys on PTW. The Corrado is a heavy car (comparatively) and requires the same conducive increase in cc/power to maintain a good PTW.

 

Yes I agree with you on this.. but the original discussion was comparing the engines an gains for modifications stated.

 

 

 

Personally for an everyday car, I'd rather have a Corrado G60. For a weekend toy, a Polo G40 with a wishbone conversion.

 

Yes I would too! I'm getting old now and i need my comfort. but a modified g40 if definately more fun!

 

P.S by the way this is not a stab at your points... so please do not take any comment personally, this is a forum for good disscussion

[dub envy 0]

I'd still much rather have a G40 and a VR6... sod having 2 supercharged vw's to blow up on me regularly....

 

edit: 215 - 220bhp from those few mods????

[polog40racer 0]

The G60 G-lader can push more air into the engine. On a small CC Polo, its alot of air from the G60 therefore more power. The G60 on a Corrado has to fill a larger capacity. Essentially the flow rates between a G40 on a 1.3 and a G60 on a 1.8 are the same.

 

Lke I said, put something that puts the same amount of air in that a G60 charger can do on a polo, onto a 1.8 engine and it'll so you similar increases.

 

I can't disagree with you on your power claims for the ones you've setup. if you've done it then fair play.

Mine is an 55mm pullied Eaton M45 converted 1308cc engine with 40mm Jenvey throttlebodies on DTA management.

 

Im about to get another Corrado at long last, albeit with a 1.8T put in.

[6n16v 0]

The G60 G-lader can push more air into the engine. On a small CC Polo, its alot of air from the G60 therefore more power. The G60 on a Corrado has to fill a larger capacity. Essentially the flow rates between a G40 on a 1.3 and a G60 on a 1.8 are the same

 

Lke I said, put something that puts the same amount of air in that a G60 charger can do on a polo, onto a 1.8 engine and it'll so you similar increases.

 

I think you are somewhat confused , it has nothing to do with changing the flow rates etc.....

 

 

It boils down to the fact that the 1.8 G60 is no way as efficient than the polo engine.... Yes , Manifold pressure will be higher due to full cylinders etc. but it uses the extra air and fueling efficiently within the engine compared with the 1.8 G60 . Using identicle CFM produced by the blower.

 

Example

Take high compression motors for instance.. you could run a standard charger with standard pulley etc.. but run high compression ,... but still get as much power as a chipped and pulle'd car....... but we wont get into that discussion :)

 

 

 

 

I can't disagree with you on your power claims for the ones you've setup. if you've done it then fair play.

Mine is an 55mm pullied Eaton M45 converted 1308cc engine with 40mm Jenvey throttlebodies on DTA management.

 

Nice Spec. alot of germans run the eatons , but again dont really take them much further other than just by adding the eaton charger.

It will be interesting to see what power it will make. 230-245hp Is achiveable with the correct setup as a guestimate. whats the full spec if you dont mind me asking.

 

Im about to get another Corrado at long last, albeit with a 1.8T put in.

[R1-Jay 0]

it all depends on what dyno you take the cars on.

 

As a relevant post, my R1 kicks out 168bhp at the rear wheel on a very true and ungenerous dyno, put it on another and it could easily show 190bhp, maybe the same for cars, put a g60 on a ungenerous one and a g40 on a generous one and the results will look the same!

[polog40racer 0]

The G60 G-lader can push more air into the engine. On a small CC Polo, its alot of air from the G60 therefore more power. The G60 on a Corrado has to fill a larger capacity. Essentially the flow rates between a G40 on a 1.3 and a G60 on a 1.8 are the same

 

Lke I said, put something that puts the same amount of air in that a G60 charger can do on a polo, onto a 1.8 engine and it'll so you similar increases.

 

I think you are somewhat confused , it has nothing to do with changing the flow rates etc.....

 

 

It boils down to the fact that the 1.8 G60 is no way as efficient than the polo engine.... Yes , Manifold pressure will be higher due to full cylinders etc. but it uses the extra air and fueling efficiently within the engine compared with the 1.8 G60 . Using identicle CFM produced by the blower.

 

 

No im not confused, what i was saying was that the specific rate, sorry bad wording, volume (CFM) of air being pushed through each is the same. I.E.

 

The G40 produces enough volume to fill the 1272cc engine satis.

 

The G60 produces enough volume to fill the 1780cc engine satis.

 

The 1.3 G40 has a X-flow engine whereas the 1.8 G60 has not, since it is a derivative of the 1.8 mk2 Golf GTi 8v engine. So yes the Polo is more efficient flow wise, albeit basically.. honestly, a Polo head is actually a shocking design!

 

Oh, ive since this is soo sidetracked now, what is the original argument? Ive completely forgotton why this is so important?

[Polo Classic 0]

I guess the pic is of Karls old 180 bhp big valve std cammed G40.

 

If you do the math of rpm, final drive and tire size it is not far off. I've had around 205 kmh in my G40 @ around 5700 rpm. It will happily hit the 8000 rpm revlimit in 3rd. I do have slightly shorter gearing than the std ATV box though.

 

Corrado G60 for pleasent sporty and comfortable cruising, Polo G40 for all out fun drive(e.g no comfort)

[Jim 2]

Oh, ive since this is soo sidetracked now, what is the original argument? Ive completely forgotton why this is so important?

 

I think we all haven't quite worked that one out yet either mate!

[gsbellew 0]

LoL, this thread has gone a bit mad alltogether.

 

Now that I have a G60 as well as the G40 (another charger to worry about :roll: ) I'll be able to make a better comparison. :D

[gsbellew 0]

I guess the pic is of Karls old 180 bhp big valve std cammed G40.

 

If you do the math of rpm, final drive and tire size it is not far off. I've had around 205 kmh in my G40 @ around 5700 rpm. It will happily hit the 8000 rpm revlimit in 3rd. I do have slightly shorter gearing than the std ATV box though.

 

Corrado G60 for pleasent sporty and comfortable cruising, Polo G40 for all out fun drive(e.g no comfort)

 

Don't think its Karls car, that pic has been on my pc for five years at least, it came off one of the early G40 sites thats long gone now.

[rmn 0]

This is a great thread, i see Gearoid(gsbellew) is up to it again! :lol:

but he is converted to the g60 now

 

as for the g40, a great little car, has a few shortfalls, like the brakes, gearoid nearly parked his in the boot of my vr6 on at least one ocassion.

 

as for the high speed ability, well they are well up for a bit of high speed use, the more you rev it the harder it is on the charger within reason? no?

the g40 i think it has been said is a more robust unit so should take more abuse than a g60, but all i know is that the little red polo(gearoid's) and the grey on(alex brothers) are little rockets, i just wouldnt like to be in a tip in one :lol:

as for top speed, you can do 135 anyway, but would you want to???? :lol:

[Polo Classic 0]

This is a great thread, i see Gearoid(gsbellew) is up to it again! :lol:

but he is converted to the g60 now

 

as for the g40, a great little car, has a few shortfalls, like the brakes, gearoid nearly parked his in the boot of my vr6 on at least one ocassion.

:lol:

 

Brakes are not a problem on G40's, as long as you have a LHD one. They actually stop on a shorter distance from 100 or 80 kmh than a Porsche 911 Turbo of the same year. Only around 20 cm less, but that is still shorter ;)

[rmn 0]

:lol: shame Gearoid's one is right hand drive then

Its not that they are bad, but they are based on the suspension/brakes of the mk1 gti.

Still i like them, but they are a little nuts

[Henny 0]

rmn, they aren't MKI GTI suspension, MKIs had wishbones... they're based on MKI POLO suspension... Dunno about the brakes though, but the ones I test drove before deciding to buy J-DUB were just bloody scarey on the handling and brakes side of things... :|

[gsbellew 0]

The brakes consist of 239mm vented up front (basically mk1 GTI) and drums at the back, the main problem with the polo brakes is the pedel feel, due to the restricted space in the engine bay on the RHD models on the drivers side resulting in a small brake servo, incedently this was the reason for the mk2 G40 not being made in RHD, back in those days the RHD polo had no servo at all and it was deemed too dangerous to sell G40 powered cars with non assisted brakes, but I degress so back on to the topic.

 

Polo brakes are reasonable if the drums are adjusted properly, the only difference between the LHD and RHD brake setups is the servo size, so it just means on the RHD ones the pedel needs to be pressed that bit harder.

 

The suspension is actully Audi 50 based as is the chassis, with the addition of rose jointed front track control arms, a thicker rear axle with an anti roll bar and lowered and uprated springs.

[Henny 0]

isn't the Audi 50 essentially just a MKI polo? (genuine question, I always thought they were, but I don't actually know... )

[rmn 0]

The brakes consist of 239mm vented up front (basically mk1 GTI) and drums at the back, the main problem with the polo brakes is the pedel feel, due to the restricted space in the engine bay on the RHD models on the drivers side resulting in a small brake servo, incedently this was the reason for the mk2 G40 not being made in RHD, back in those days the RHD polo had no servo at all and it was deemed too dangerous to sell G40 powered cars with non assisted brakes, but I degress so back on to the topic.

 

Polo brakes are reasonable if the drums are adjusted properly, the only difference between the LHD and RHD brake setups is the servo size, so it just means on the RHD ones the pedel needs to be pressed that bit harder.

 

The suspension is actully Audi 50 based as is the chassis, with the addition of rose jointed front track control arms, a thicker rear axle with an anti roll bar and lowered and uprated springs.

 

So what your saying Gearoid is that the brakes are mk1 golf, the suspension is mk1 polo and the engine is more powerful than a mk2 8v.......hmmmmmmm not a good combination :lol:

@Henny, Gearoid is a die hard polo boy anyway

 

The thing is that G40's are cool but i think they are lethal little cars.

Great city cars due to the size, but hitting 130 on a (private) motorway i think is a little mad

[gsbellew 0]

isn't the Audi 50 essentially just a MKI polo? (genuine question, I always thought they were, but I don't actually know... )

 

The Audi 50 was launched before the mk1 polo, 30th August 1974, the Polo was launched in Germany in 1975 and the UK in 1976 as a budget version of the Audi, it outsold the Audi so in 1978 the Audi ceased production and the Polo carried on. Technically they are the same car under different badges.

[aposegil 0]

woh what a thread lol

 

well first of all the entire brakes thing on a polo is the same as any standard VW, they should always be fitted with bigger set than whats on your version!!!!! It’s like when I got my 16v corrado brakes on that where crap and put G60 on there and fine and now im upto S2’s im laughing

 

My brother has a G40, which off course came with 239 but now he is running 256mm and I cant tell you what a difference it makes!!! and weve changed the master cylinder to 21mm and thats sorted out 90% of the pedal feel and movement so doesnt take much to get them to brake how they should and he can break aswell as me in my corrado.

 

As for suspension once fitted with new bushes new anti roll bar and coilovers I would easily run circles round you guys in corrado’s even he could keep up with me as ive got the coilovers and the fatter anti roll bars the only thing that was different is mine feels more sure footed just down to the weight of the car which gives you more confidence otherwise im never going to try lose a G40 of my arse pushing it round corners because they will be right on it at the end of it. Just to give you a example before we went on holiday my brother showed me his new level of confidence of pushing the little polo round a round about we use to test limits (believe it or not this is on private land lol so please don’t anyone out there go doing it on public roads its wrong!!!!!) anyhow I crap myself as he had the silly thing sideway!!! All four wheels scretching and all he could do was just smile and calmly say to me “what you think hey? Impressive isnt it” lol I couldn’t help but laugh lol

 

So basically this is all stuff that comes standard and like everyone knows standard stuff is not upto abuse we can give it

 

Ok now where down to the engines.

 

All I can say is that the G40 lump is a cracking engine feels and pulls a lot better than any G60 ive ever driven and it’s the perfect fun car as people have mentioned and my brothers standard lump just air filter and exhaust on there and dreading when we chip and pully’s it as people say transform the pulling of the car completely and the stupid little things is quick enough as it is lol.

 

He used to regulary leave my mates old corrado 2L 16v (rmn on the forum owns it now and he will tell you that corrado is not slow!!! easily match or beat a vr performance wise) until it got upto 90mph+ and ive been in it when its cruising at 120mph (clocks showing so im guessing slightly lower) and I still think it’s a cracking car.

 

Only two things ive got against it a bit to small for me and ride isnt the best doesn’t help that the H&R coilovers has the car about 13cms of the ground but its still smooth until you hit a pot hole but then mines like that aswell lol

 

In the end of the day comparing a g40 to a g60 can never been done its like comparing a 16v to a vr one was built for reviness and fun the other for luxury and smoothness

[gsbellew 0]

So what your saying Gearoid is that the brakes are mk1 golf, the suspension is mk1 polo and the engine is more powerful than a mk2 8v.......hmmmmmmm not a good combination :lol:

@Henny, Gearoid is a die hard polo boy anyway

 

The thing is that G40's are cool but i think they are lethal little cars.

Great city cars due to the size, but hitting 130 on a (private) motorway i think is a little mad

 

That just about sums it up Richard, More power than an 8v and worse brakes than my mk1 Caddy :shock:

 

It should be interesting when comparing the G40 to the G60, I've been driving Polo's for the past 8 years so I'm probably just well used to the brakes and handling :lol:

[Henny 0]

gsbellew, thanks for clearing that up about the A50/MKI Polo... I always wondered... 8)