freddy_t 0 Posted September 18, 2006 looking at buying a corrado however i can only afford to insure a 16v. the knowledge base claims they do 0-60 in 10.2 seconds?? Sounds a little suspect to me. Coming from a 200bhp Ibiza cupra I dont think that kind of pace will satisfy my needs, please tell me its wrong? Many thanks fred. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
2corrados 0 Posted September 18, 2006 hi fred I have a vr6 and a 16v(2l) Whilst the vr6 is awesome, the 16v is no slouch. 10.2 does sound a bit slow, but what they lack in performance they more than make up for in handling and grin inducing fun Have fun and find the right one Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Goldie 2 Posted September 18, 2006 Couldnt confirm the time but i had a one and it was no flyer. You had a quote for a VR or G60? i found there wasnt that much difference. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jim 1 Posted September 18, 2006 Obviously a 136BHP Corrado 2.0 16v isn't going to touch a 200BHP Cupra.. if you want similar power you might want to consider a VR6. But if you're really thinking about a 2.0 16v and you want a little extra power, pick up KR cams from a 1.8 16v and get them fitted. Brings the power up by approx 15BHP and makes it a much more exciting drive. I previously owned a 200BHP Corrado G60 and whilst the 2.0 16v isn't anywhere near as quick, I still find it gives me plenty of grins whenever I feel like giving it some welly :) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freddy_t 0 Posted September 18, 2006 Cheers guys! Nah norwich union wouldnt touch me on a vr or g60 until I turn 22. However elephant gave me a decent quote on a g60. The only thing stopping me going with elephant is im half way through a year with norwich union and dont want to loose out 6months claim free driving also I can protect my no claims with norwich union in march! Its tricky a G60 would obviously satisfy my adrenaline needs however my 50 mile a day commute is pushing me towards a 16v Do corrados really handle as well as I hear? My ibiza was poor (as standard) but my mark 1 and 2 golfs were awesome. What do you guys think? Many thanks fred. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Critical_Mass 10 Posted September 18, 2006 The only thing stopping me going with elephant is im half way through a year with norwich union and dont want to loose out 6months claim free driving also I can protect my no claims with norwich union in march! I'd personally hold out for a little longer (i know its hard not to :lol:) but you'd get another years no claims under your belt and it'll go towards a better premium for a G or a VR. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jim 1 Posted September 18, 2006 Yes - Corrado's do handle well. Put into perspective the age (and consequently don't expect something with the capability of something new with 4WD) but i'd be surprised if you were not genuinely impressed with how well the Corrado grips! Worth pointing out btw (with regards fuel economy) on motorway cruising on a recent road trip to Germany, the VR6's in the convoy always bested my valver by a few MPG.. best I ever managed was about 33-34MPG whilst the VR's were hitting high 30's... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phil K 0 Posted September 18, 2006 tbh I thought the book figure for the 2.0 16V was closer to 7.3 seconds but maybe I'm making it up :? Anyone? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomB 0 Posted September 18, 2006 I'm agreeing with Phil K here, I'm sure it was more along the 7-8 second line than 10. Ultimately, you also have to consider relative weights as well, as I'm guessing that the Cupra with all of its safety kit (airbags, pah! :-) ) will weight in a couple of hundred KGs more than a 'rado. My first 'rado was a 2l 16v and I loved it, it was chuckable, fun, and not slow by any stretch... Cheers, Tom Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bcstudent 0 Posted September 19, 2006 I have a feeling the time looks bad because you have to use third gear to reach 60mph in a 2.0 16v. I'm sure they're shorter geared than the 1.8 16v. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Walesy 0 Posted September 19, 2006 I think the 8v is something like 10. I would have though it will depend on what type of car you're used to , whether a valver will feel quick. If you've driven a 'quick' car before you may be a bit let down by it. My wife now regrets buying a valver and wants a VR6 :roll: Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mistrall 0 Posted September 19, 2006 i did here that it was 9 somewere but i would go with the 7-8 seconds also Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nocrap 0 Posted September 19, 2006 tbh I thought the book figure for the 2.0 16V was closer to 7.3 seconds but maybe I'm making it up :? Anyone? Might not be as quick as that but its certainly quicker than 10, i think it might have actually been somwhere on here that said after retests 0 - 60 came in at about 8.5 seconds Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CazzaVR 0 Posted September 19, 2006 There seems to be several different 0-60 times for the 2.0 16v. Reckon it's around 8.5. My vRS is around 7.5 secs and it would have the valver for breakfast. Also worth noting that after having a KR inlet cam fitted, I can hit 60mph in second, which will obviously reduce the time a little. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
