i wouldn't bother - it will have you wondering why you ever bought a mk3!!!! esp as they have a 2.0 16v that makes more power than your 2.8 V6!!!!
What you smoking some kind of weed.......... I have 3 MK3 and a MK4 1.8T and by far the most usable fun car to drive all day long is the VR MK3. OK the fuel usage is usually around the 27/28 mpg mark but the handling and cornering ablilty is way better than the MK4. I scared my self ****les in the MK4 when the back end stepped out at 80mph with out warning in the wet The mk3 would never do that. The MK3 VR has the usual ARB's spring and shocks and that make the car, I have just about finished doing the same to the MK4 so i should now be able to bench mark the two and see which one's best.... I still can't get used to the higher seat height in the MK4 its like you sit on it not in it.... much prefer the MK3 driving position........
and people joke about the mk3 weight, the mk4 weight is beyond a joke my basically standard abf matches the straight line pace of a remapped ko3s mk4 (claimed 212bhp) i suppose, with a load of work, the mk4 would be great too
yes, talk to rado phil from this board about it. we even swapped cars, youre going nine tenths in the mk4, i fully expected the turbo to be quicker, but the mk3 was still staying nicely ahead. the mk3 actually pulled away initially due to the mk4's lag. the gap started to close slowly once we got to pretty much the top of 4th lol
Absolutely every single thing you posted was about the cars, and not the engine. We are talking about engines, not the chassis when refeering to something being a good powerplant.
Yeah from low down, but if you're comparing the 0-60 or whatever it was above, surely both people would be launching at 4K, thus when the clutch is released, there is no lag on the turbo side, iots already spinning at the corrects peed.
when comparing the weight you need to know how that wieght was gained, ie what one person calls kerb another may not, - we had to do all this in crash testing. normally the kerb for tesing is full fluids, ie oil and coolant and gearbox oil etc, then a 90% full tank of fuel, some also include the front passengers, at 80kg or 88kg each, also the mk4 isnt too bad to drive, i quite like mine, its not as dynamic as my mk1, but it beter on a long drive, and the diesel engines not too shabby either.
If i launched at 4k in my mk3 - I would still be sat there wheel spinning from the last time I tried it!!! with a mk4 I think they have better grip from a standstill to do that
WTF... My post was an answer to the quote attached .......... SMart Ar$e I would have expected a bit better observation.....
ahaha fair enough, I only read the first line. Doh. That said, I'd also still disagree with you. The VR engine weighs a ton, produces the piddliest power ever for a 2.8 litre engine and is mostly stuck in a Mk3 Chassis, whichever way you look at it, standard to standard the Mk4 is better. Weight distribution with the Mk4 surely must be far superior, braking definately is, and dampers are improved on the Mk4. Put new dampers on a Mk3 then yeah, it'll handle better than a Mk4, but do the same to the Mk4 and the Mk3 shows its age. Do work to either, and differences start to show.
no, there were no standing starts involved. launch a diesel 20vt at 4krpm? i didnt get sheryl's to 60 in 6.3 by launching at 4k lol you still remember how they deliver their power dont you? these were a couple quick runs coming away from roundabouts
So let me get this straight you are saying a standard MK3 VR is not as good as a standard MK4 1.8t ........ Right which model year are you talking about, there are IMO vast differences between them and this shall make a difference to the outcome of any back to back test.
Matt - So it was a diesel against an ABf, erm OK. Thats comparing apples to oranges. VR6T - No I'm saying the chassis and handling on the Mk3 VR is not as good as the chassis and handling on the Mk4. I'm also saying a Mk4 K03s produces more Bhp within the displacement than the VR, as well as higher peak torque. The main point was ABF vs Mk4 though, and for the same 1.8-1.8 the ABF doesnt get a look in, as although it has more linear torque, its rubbish. The point was the 1.8T engine is one of the best VW ever made, and this is echoed in the magazines also, due to its durability, power, weight and adapability. They are putting these in Lotus Elises now and making 4 sec 0-60 machines!!!! Back to the VR, its a crappy engine considering its displacement.
exactly my thoughts. id rather have a 1.8T over a VR anyday. a big heavy engine with a weasel like 170hp in a big fat car is never a good idea.
how ironic when the mk4 is much heavier, a vr with a probable 190bhp from std, a few mods like your 1.8T, get it around the 200bhp mark and with the weight difference i imagine one would show your car up
