The STD Mk3 VR6 is faster in striaght line than a STD 16v Mk3. With average driving you would get 7.4secs to 60 in the VR6 and with careful driving after understanding how this engine develops torque you can get it to 7.0secs. The best a STD 16v MK3 would do would be 7.8secs with careful driving. Modification can help the 16v but the same can be said for the VR6. And yes it does burn more fuel. But so does a E320 vs a E200. A 16v can rev higher (to 6900revs limit) but that does not make up for the fact that its torque is only 130lbft@4600rpm peak vs the 170lbft@3800 of the VR6 with 80% available from 2000revs. Thats is one reason if, I were VAG, to give a VR6 car taller 3.39 diff. Because it can pull it. If you were to modify and put in a lower diff like a 16v one (3.68) you would get more axle torque and even have traction problems but you still would rip up to 140mph quick. By the time a 16v was to get to this the VR6 would parked at home Also by gearing the motor taller (because it has the low down grunt) you can have quieter motorway cruising speeds A really carfully modified MK3 16v could do 170ish bhp and 150lbft of torque and would feel lively. But a carfully modified VR6 2.8 would push around 200bhp and 200lbft again from low revs. You would have to Turbo/Supercharge your 16v if you wanted to match that! And how much would that cost you in a MK3 as you would have to pass MOT with a cat and a low 0.2% CO? I pesonally love valvers but not matter how you look at it the MK3 16v will always be the car that is placed between the dead 8v (sorry owners) and the more vocal and faster VR6
lol however you are forgetting the most critical factor here...the driver and if indeed they can drive lol
Not really the figures given when tested by me. Hence the "average driver" and "driven carefully" results. I am a valver man but the VR6 is the quicker car.
By putting the back seats down in my valver and removing the ashtray there isnt a VR that can come close to me.
To the guy who started the thread, for decent valver money you get an avg to poor vr6 as you say you aint flush so i would go valver . The mk3 valver are still cheap to run compared to many a modern car
there is no denying, and i dont think anyone has denied, the fact that the vr6 is a fair bit quicker to 60 and off the line in general. the figures say so and ive see it myself in real life, the vrS can launch nicely with fewer revs so just get off the line better so lets say theyre a tiny bit quicker overall and they sound nicer, my question is, does that warrent the hugely increased fuel bill i think that is the difference between the 2 engines.
Much heavier, more so front end heavy, effecting handling, another plus point for the valver. In reference to a point made earlier on with the revving from the valver compaired to a VR, I raced a 1.8T mk4 on the A1 a a couple of weekends ago (I hope he is on here, from Nottingham) from a roundabout and I was pulling away from him, What I noticed was him changing gear when I was hitting 6k but with me going to the 7k redline, this is what allowed me to pull away.
maybe the boy wants his engine to live a few more miles or maybe he cant drive, on paper arent they supposed to be very close i think the mk3 is quicker to 60 on paper than the mk4
I always get 250 miles out of my tank, and i don't always hang about. Plus thats stop start driving. I have seen 300miles on motorway runs
yawn, yawn, it all been said before. Fact the VR is quicker, off the line, top end, mid range, in gear in fact in every way proven. And all you valver boys know it really you're just trying to soften the blow to your self by saying 'well its only a little bit quicker' If you have to ask about fuel consumption then you can't afford one, yes they drink petrol like any car if you boot it. If you modded a valve to the same power I bet that would have a similar consumption rate? Any way back to the point, if you're worried about cost get a 16v if you want a smoother more powerful car that sounds ace and are not too bothered about stopping every 250 miles to re fil then get a VR
that concludes the party political broadcast from the man who has just discovered the joys of 6 cylinders party.... and for all this about "nose heavy" yes of course the engine is heavier, but I think you'll find the spring and probably damper rates are different to 4 cylinder cars.
proven how? ive proven differently, my 16v has been quicker than a fair few VR6s, and the ones that have been quicker have only been marginally so. again... does that justify 50% more fuel consuption, just to be marginally quicker (and having a passenger sat over the front wheels)?
How do you know these VR's your "racing", are actually being driven properly hard? The one you were bragging about the other day, I've been told, sounded like a bag of spanners. You have some people in "the know" telling you otherwise and you still argue. Your only comeback is to say is it worth the extra fuel bill.....well, yes it is. Get your ABF producing 170lbs/ft of torque and tell me what the fuel consupmption is.
cos they were pre arranged little chases, what more do you want, playing for keeps? lol to get mine to 170lbft (increase of ... 20lbft i recon (if i rely on my RR print from stealth...) im sure id have to go upto 2.8, like a vr6, and in that case id probably end up with pants mpg. saying that, i used to have an MR2 turbo with in the region of 300bhp and similar lbft, the fuel consumption on that was on par with a VR lol they drink so much, yet dont deliver the goods (apart from in sound terms) for the amount of fuel being dumped into it, id expect a shed load more power
You've got people that actually know what they're talking about telling you otherwise, people that have owned both cars telling you the VR is better and you still persist. I'll leave you to sit in your little bubble
i dont doubt that the vr6 generally quicker etc but the margin is small and it makes you wonder whether its worth the extra petrol costs. if i was putting that much petrol into my car, id want a lot more performance
