0 to 60 in a GTI 8v 2.0

0-60 in std mk3 8v?



"baldrick, fetch the sundial...."

 

you'll be as white as the driven snow then

 

It's amazing how many mk3 owners insist their car is quicker than the figures indicate.

0-62 is 10.1 secs
0-60 is about 9.5

Apart from the mk4 2.0 and 1.8 20v (non-turbo) all other Golf GTIs have 0-60s under 9 secs.

It's slow.

Cheers,

Drew.

 

Oh bugger wrong thread (MK3 thats that nasty heavy Golf aint it? )

 

I've got one and they are slow.

Wouldn't pull your foreskin back

 

Yeah, whenever you see a line of cars tootling along in front there's likely to be a mk 3 8V in front

 

Thats bollox, the mk2 8v gti is not in a different league of performance to the mk3 8v, and isnt in the 8 second bracket to 60. If it is, then the mk3 isnt leagues behind.

Mk3 8v's are slow, but they're about the same as a mk2 8v so that must be slow too!

EDIT: what i'm trying to say is if a mk2 8v has a sub 9 second 0-60, a mk3 8v must have a sub 10 second 0-60. The 8v being in the late 8 seconds and the mk3 in the mid 9s. I actually think the mk2 would be probably be in the early 9s and the mk3 in the mid 9s.
Edited by: S1MMA

 

Yeah? Whatever.

I've seen 1.8 Mk2 Drivers show the mk3 GTI 8v the way home at Santa Pod on a 1/4 mile.

The mk3 8v was and still is a disgrace to the badge. The mk2 8v has virtually the same power and weighs 200kg less, go figure.

GTI's should have a power/weight ratio of about 130bhp/tonne. The mk3 is barely over 100.

Same goes for the mk4 2.0 and 1.8 20v. Everywhere else in europe these cars were badged just '2.0' and '1.8'. Only in the UK did they get a GTI badge. That's called badge engineering.

Draw your own conclusions.

Cheers,

Drew.

 

my mk2 digi just creeps under 8 secs for the 60, it has with a 16V box which gives a slight increase methinks. But 9 secs is rubbish, we're being wound up here

 

Dont want to get in an argument here, but just because a 1.8 driver beat a mk3 8v on the 1/4 mile doesnt mean they are faster. was the driver tuned? was the gti shagged? was the rection time the same, did they change gear at the same speed? So a lot of differences in driver ability and state of tune of car can cause a huge difference.

Have u driven a mk3 8v for 35000 miles to have this informed opinion of them anyway? As I have.

Lastly, the weight of a mk3 8v gti is actually 1080kg, 1060kg is stated in the brochure. I didnt know that a mk2 8v weighed 880kg, thats news to me. Get your facts straight before u make mistakes in future.

P.S. a mk2 16v weighs 1111kg, whilst a mk3 16v weighs 1181kg. You mk1 and mk2 boys think the mk3s weigh about 1400kg, which is a common misconception that I would like to correct here.

So to conclude, the mk3 8v is slow. Its performance is on par with a megane coupe 2.0 8v with 115bhp as I posted on another thread. There is nothing between those 2 cars. The figures for the megane are in autocar and read:

Megane 2.0 8v, autocar test:

0-60 : 9.2
0-100 : 28.2
30-70 : 8.9

it has 115bhp, 124lb/ft torque and weighs 1045, which is nearly the same as a mk3 8v (mk3 weighs about 35kg more).

Take it or leave it as far as i'm concerned. Don't take advice about a mk3 from a mk1 or mk2 boy who has probably never driven one and only wants to make derogatory comments about them.
Edited by: S1MMA

 

Oh, really? Would you like to read that sentence back? And we are taking about about standard cars with comparable driver skills with cars in good condition.

Er, in a word, no. More like 980kg. The mk2 8v weighs 940. (The mk1 weighs 840 btw). Where are you getting your figures from? (don't say the owners manual because I've got a set)

Cheers,

Drew.
Edited by: drew

 

yeah, sorry, you're the one with the perfect/best engineered/fastest/most comfortable/most airodynamic/best handling/best condition car on the earth arent you? I forgot how perfect the mk1 golf is.

Oh, i just forgot again. And again. and again...........

nice one.

 

Are you withdrawing that previous statement which sounds more accurate than the posts on this thread, from my experienced opinion?????

 

I'm starting to feel sorry for the poor mk3 8V - it can't be that bad - cannit?

 

Yes it can!!!

I don't even find my Mk4 1.8T that quick or much fun to drive, so I can only imagine how terribly slow those 35K miles have been for SIMMA!

Alan

P.S. Oh and SIMMA before you spend 10 minutes of your day writing a reply with some fiqures to quote, 1. I am only having a laugh and 2. I don't care!

 

I think that might be a slight exaggeration, which appears to be a propensity of mk3 8v drivers....

Erm, I said it was slow, and a bit lacklustre. Sounds about the same to me. Although it is slightly less sarcastic, I'll admit.

The mk3 is a great car, but it's just not very fast that's all. I've had one, and a 16v and two mk1s (1.6/1.8) and two mk2s (8 and 16v) a mk4 150 1.8T, and I did an average about 15-20k in each, so I think I'm qualified to have an opinion.
Cheers,

Drew.
Edited by: drew

 

G40 AL the miles have gone very slow, you are right. But at least i'm not sh1tting myself everytime i boot my car cos the charger is going to detonate into 2000 pieces.

not to mention the fantastic build quality of the mk3 polo! HAHAHA!!!
Edited by: S1MMA

 

Hey look! I finally got the last word on something!

Cheers,

Drew.

EDIT. Oops, no I didn't!
Edited by: drew

 

agreed drew