R32 Engine weight vs 1.8t

[supersix 0]

Hi Guys

 

So i have an R32 lump and ecu with all the looms etc ready to go in my garage but i cant help but wonder if the 1.8T is a better option in terms of weight and handling?

 

My R32 always suffered from understeer and thats someting i love about my G60..it doesnt have any! If theres not alot in it ill likely stick with the R32 conversion as nang per buck its cheaper as i already have it, but if anyone has any first hand experience with either that would be sweet!

 

cheers

 

Pete

[Wastegate86 0]

depends what your driving style is like

if you just want to go fast then iv heard alot better things about the BAM 20vt (light and very tunable)

but if you want something comftable and dependable go for the R32

the R32 will earn you alot more scene points too as its less common :lol:

[supersix 0]

Im a bit a hooligan round the twistys hence my phobia of sticking a v6 upfront but ive never driven the rado vr6 for comparism,

 

I love the g60 but after stage4 i dont really see the point in throwing money at it,

 

Pete

[swiftkid 1]

Well the 1.8t will obviously be lighter but the big thing to remember is that the power from the 1.8t is at maximum boost from a turbo, whereas the r32 has power right throught the range so none of this turbo lag. The R32 engine is also suprisingly slightly lighter than the VR6 engine, you could always think about getting a carbon fibre bonnet to lighten the front end up as the standard bonnet weighs an absolute tonne!

 

There was a thread on here somewhere i found with weight comparisons between a few engines, if you do a search you should be able to find it.

[Kevin Bacon 5]

VR6 engine weight isn't really an issue once the usual shortcomings of the car in general are addressed, such as decent engine mounts, decent suspension, ARBs etc etc.

 

You can get some ludicrous cornering speeds out of a well modded VR :D

[bananawhip 0]

I can't say I ever experience any real understeer in mine, unless I induce it with a big load of right foot! :)

 

Lift-off oversteer caught me out when I changed from a valver which probably weighs about upfront as a g60, VR does pendulum a bit more but it's easily controlled and loads of fun. Tractions good with weight over the front wheels too

 

If weight is that much of a concern then you can easily save 10kg by popping a LW battery in

 

I'd say R32 for the win :clap:

[Erny 0]

I noticed the difference in weight up front when I put a vr in mine to replace the valver, but it's not as bad as you would expect, can always move a bit of weight to the boot

[supersix 0]

well after phoning about the place as i can service a car and thats about it, the prices for ropping in my 3.2 lump are alot more than that of the 1.8t. I gues 4 pot vs 6 pot,

Gonna have to sell the BB RS's i have to help pay for a 1.8t i think, gutted, I love the g60 but its just not enough,

 

Pete

[Rob_B 0]

well after phoning about the place as i can service a car and thats about it, the prices for ropping in my 3.2 lump are alot more than that of the 1.8t. I gues 4 pot vs 6 pot,

Gonna have to sell the BB RS's i have to help pay for a 1.8t i think, gutted, I love the g60 but its just not enough,

 

Pete

 

if you love the G60, you wouldn't be dissappointed putting a 1.8t in. boost is addictive!

the thing i find with the G60 (or the 1.8t) is they are alot more raw than the VR. The VR is a very smooth engine (as is the R32). Ive driven NA VR's and while they are quick, they never really threw me up the road the same way the G60 did. I dare say that a turbo VR is much more fun but ive not been in one yet (always a willing passenger if anyone is offering! :grin: ).

I dont think the weight difference would be a problem either way. putting the 1.8t in is a piece of p*ss though.

 

where abouts are you anyway? it would be worth seeing if someone could take you for a ride to help you decide

[Kevin Bacon 5]

I dare say that a turbo VR is much more fun but ive not been in one yet (always a willing passenger if anyone is offering! :grin: ).

 

They are nothing like a standard VR at all, they are complete animals :D

 

The stock engine is too laid back and the gearing is too tall, so it does tend to feel underwhelming. It's a deceptive engine though as you do travel faster than you think, it just doesn't feel it :D R32s are the same. A good initial punch in the kidney around 2K rpms, but from there they feel a bit flat.

[Rob_B 0]

I dare say that a turbo VR is much more fun but ive not been in one yet (always a willing passenger if anyone is offering! :grin: ).

 

They are nothing like a standard VR at all, they are complete animals :D

 

The stock engine is too laid back and the gearing is too tall, so it does tend to feel underwhelming. It's a deceptive engine though as you do travel faster than you think, it just doesn't feel it :D R32s are the same. A good initial punch in the kidney around 2K rpms, but from there they feel a bit flat.

 

That is exactly what i think about them. The speedo says you are going fast (its does go round pretty quick) but the bum says different I think.

my 1.8t feels much rawer. it wants to throw you down the road and gives you a good kick up the bum when you put your foot down. its only mild numbers (247bhp and 250lb/ft) but its alot more exciting.

the VR turbo is a stonking piece of kit. i would love a mk4 r32 turbo.

The only problem with the 1.8t, is when its in standard guise i.e a mk4 golf, its not very exciting. im running mine on standalone and its worlds apart!

[Kevin Bacon 5]

That is exactly what i think about them. The speedo says you are going fast (its does go round pretty quick) but the bum says different I think.

my 1.8t feels much rawer. it wants to throw you down the road and gives you a good kick up the bum when you put your foot down. its only mild numbers (247bhp and 250lb/ft) but its alot more exciting.

the VR turbo is a stonking piece of kit. i would love a mk4 r32 turbo.

The only problem with the 1.8t, is when its in standard guise i.e a mk4 golf, its not very exciting. im running mine on standalone and its worlds apart!

 

Standalone - Top man. You have full control of the tune :D I wouldn't have it any other way, especially on an engine like the 1.8T. VAG's way of controlling boost is bloody horrible. As soon as it gets a whiff of potential wheel spinage, it's cuts the boost and closes the throttle :? And that N75, it does my head in. One second you get your lovely stock boost (all 8psi of it whoo hooo!), then it cuts, then it's back, and so on..... so you just get this weird surgey feeling to the acceleration.

 

They are quick low down though, very. The boost comes in nice and low and gives you a good feeling of acceleration. Every time I jump in the missus's Polo (MK7 GTI Turbo) I think, Fun me this is quicker than my VRT!!! It's deceptive though as you say because obviously the Polo isn't faster, it just feels it occasionally :D

[herisites 0]

I drove my mates A3 1.8T a couple of years back when I'd not long had my VR. It felt rapid round town and on small roads but as soon as I got on a road where I could put the foot down it was as flat as a witches tit :|

 

And for the record, R32's aren't smooth in a corrado platform, smooth when cruising about but everywhere else it's quite harsh really unless a lot of time and efford is put in to making it more refined, I just chucked mine in and wired it up! :lol:

[Rob_B 0]

Standalone - Top man. You have full control of the tune :D I wouldn't have it any other way, especially on an engine like the 1.8T. VAG's way of controlling boost is bloody horrible. As soon as it gets a whiff of potential wheel spinage, it's cuts the boost and closes the throttle :? And that N75, it does my head in. One second you get your lovely stock boost (all 8psi of it whoo hooo!), then it cuts, then it's back, and so on..... so you just get this weird surgey feeling to the acceleration.

 

They are quick low down though, very. The boost comes in nice and low and gives you a good feeling of acceleration. Every time I jump in the missus's Polo (MK7 GTI Turbo) I think, Fun me this is quicker than my VRT!!! It's deceptive though as you say because obviously the Polo isn't faster, it just feels it occasionally :D

 

the difference between a stock 1.8t and the standalone version is night and day! i would say that a generic remap probably isn't as aggressive as mine either.

i get 20psi around 2500rpm and it just goes!

when you are up this way Kev give me shout and you can have a go, see what you think

[Kevin Bacon 5]

That sounds a lot more like my cup of tea! I love simple turbo engines, I hate nannied ones. Just gimme my boost, now please! :D

20 psi at 2500rpm is awesome. Is it a K04 you're using?

 

I used to work at Norwich Union and travelled up the A140 every day, so I wonder if our pathes ever crossed? LOL! It was 2003 to 2005, but yeah, if I'm that way again I'll give you a shout!

[Rob_B 0]

That sounds a lot more like my cup of tea! I love simple turbo engines, I hate nannied ones. Just gimme my boost, now please! :D

20 psi at 2500rpm is awesome. Is it a K04 you're using?

 

I used to work at Norwich Union and travelled up the A140 every day, so I wonder if our pathes ever crossed? LOL! It was 2003 to 2005, but yeah, if I'm that way again I'll give you a shout!

 

they may have crossed at some point, but ive got a crap memory!

im using a K03s on mine. its MBE management with a pretty standard engine. the turbo is running at its absolute max though!

I was going to upgrade to the K04 but im not prepared to sacrifice my low down power for about 20bhp of top end power. i think my set up is perfect for my car, exactly how the car should always have been!

sorry to the OP, but this should encourage you to get the conversion done, you wont regret it!

[supersix 0]

Im no stranger to boost as my 3.2 was supercharged at 440 bhp, i still have all the kit but it wont fit on the engine in the rado and ive already had the low compression pistons removed, One of the reasons i want the 3.2 lump in there is they are fit and forget engines really, MAF's can go but thats about it, Gonna send the loom off and do the rest at home i think,

 

This vid is just messing about on the dyno, We ran 440 bhp and 400 lb/ft could have seen near 500 but i opted for the smaller pulley as i got 400 bhp and 400 lb/ft out of the 2.8 i had before and blew it (dodgey fueling)

 

 

Pete