Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Volkswagon GTI 1.8t vs VR6

1235

Comments

  • I read both. I think the SCC one in less biased. They were very fair (for a Honda mag)
    They liked the engine and interior in the VW better. They liked the tranny and suspension better in the Civic. The exterior is really up to taste. In the end they said the Civic is a great deal for all out performance, but if you want more of a car there is no way you could speed the difference on the Civic to make the interior as nice.
  • ramonramon Posts: 825
    SCC is not truly a Honda mag...tho it has project civics. However they have a lot of othe project cars. Yes I was questioning the mag's review not your integrity. You're prolly reading it and maybe accepting face value of the magazine. On the other hand you didn't like SCC's comment on that similar review because it was not in favour of a Golf? Can I assume you own a Golf then?
    SCC reviews alot of different cars from US made Ford Focus even Cougars! to VW Golfs to Japanese Nissan Sentras. So I can dare say that they have a wide array of cars to choose from and not biased to certain continental make vehicles.
    Coming from Stats background, I tend to require more evidence and not take things as is....
  • Numbers don't tell me enough. I used to look at stats, but now go 80% by feel. I know that SCC is not a Honda mag, but every article about a non-honda car, they compare it to a honda. In the spring I plan to buy a '01 GTI GLS. I think it is the best street car made. I own a '91 Sentra SER and previously owned a '94 Integra GSR. I race a '97 GSR and have not run into a VR6 or 1.8T powered car that can even stay close on an autox track. (a TT is the closest I have seen.)
    I think the VW is a more grown up car. I like the quaility of interior and it feels like BMW 318ti with a good motor.
  • alfaromeoalfaromeo Posts: 210
    You can look forward to your new car then... because that's exactly what your gonna get! (refering to your last three lines...)
  • Back in 1992 I purchased a new VW Corrado VR6. It was an amazingly smooth yet powerful engine. At the time it was called a "pocket rocket'. I had the vehicle for 4 years with absolutely NO problems. A friend of mine, a Porsche owner couldn't believe the power and crisp handling this machine had. I loved it too! Can anyone tell me how the VR6 GTI handles? I know the engine will be amazing,but wondering if anyone owns or has test driven one, preferably with 16-17''wheels?....thanks so much for any info...i'm so hyped about getting a new VW!
  • gtirodgtirod Posts: 1
    I've had my 96' GTI VR6 for 2 years now and it's been completely reliable. I wanted real performance from the engine, so I spent $600 on a set of cams and a chip and the sucker pulls to 7000 rpm! The chip is VAG tool compliant and the cams are regrinds (factory stamps still visible).
    Toss on an exhaust system and you've got a great sounding, fast VW.
    I'm selling it for a Jetta VR6 because the family requires a 4 door.... :-)
  • eetoreetor Posts: 10
    VW Golf 1.8T (Sat the 9th) and GTI 1.8T at www.automotive-review.com
  • I don't know if anyone has taken a look at the torque curve of the 1.8 turbo engine. A typical turbo engine doesn't have much torque between idle and 1500rpm; then torque curve climbs steeply from 1500rpm, and peak out at somewhere between 2000rpm to 2500rpm, then it slowly declines to redline.

    I have no idea what kind of rpms you typically run when starting from a stop light in daily driving. My guess is that unless you rev the engine and dump the clutch (and finding yourself making the boat payment for the trasmission mechanic), the 1.8t would be worse than the base 2.0 in getting you through the first couple hundred feet or so crossing the intersection and going through the first half of the street block due to the smaller displacement and the restricted exhaust system that spins up the turbo.

    All chipping accomplishes is introducing more exhaust restriction (higher pressure turbo) and moving the torque curve to the upper right; that is, getting better peak output at the expense of extending the dead zone between idle and when turbo kicks in. I suppose a car with performance characteristics like that would be very useful when they start installing stop lights every few miles on the 75mph free way.

    For what it's worth, I currently drive a 2.8L inline 6, probably not fundamentally all that different from the VR6; it turns over at about 3000rpm when the car is travelling at 90mph. In city driving, the revs are mostly between idle and 1700rpm; ie. mostly in the dead zone if it were a turbo. Of course a small dislacement I4 would rev higher.
  • can anyone tell me if it is possible to get the "luxury" options from the gti glx in the gti 1.8t? if so how much extra would it cost? i like the vr6 options but want the 1.8t motor.
  • judasjudas Posts: 217
    Brightness, anyone that never breaks 1500 rpms when theyre driving probably isnt in the market for a performance car. Really, I don't know anyone that shifts at 1500 rpms, or 1700 for that matter. Especially 4 cylinders, they're not meant to live in the idle-1500 range, most people shift in the 2500-3000 range.

    Increasing the boost on the 1.8T does not shift the torque curve to the right and up, in increases power over virtually they entire rev range. There's going to be slightly increased lag due to it making a lot more boost and that boost taking a little longer to be generated. It's not enough to be an issue.

    "the 1.8t would be worse than the base 2.0 in getting you through the first couple hundred feet or so crossing the intersection and going through the first half of the street block due to the smaller displacement and the restricted exhaust system that spins up the turbo."

    You've obviously never driven both of these cars, if you had you wouldn't be making statements like this. It's also obvious that you don't know much about cars, specifically the VW's which you are attempting to expound upon. The 1.8T makes 155 lb/ft from 1750-4200 rpms (It doesnt peak around 2000 or 2500 and then decline to redline, why make general comments about turbo engines power output when you can make specific ones about the car you're talking about?). The 2.0 makes 122 lb/ft @ 2600 rpms. So how exactly is the 2.0 going to be faster in the first couple hundred feet? Care to retract that careless, uninformed, incorrect statement? The 1.8T not only makes a lot more torque, it makes it at a lot lower rpm.

    If you don't know what you're talking about, don't talk.
  • "Increasing the boost on the 1.8T does not shift
    the torque curve to the right and up, in increases
    power over virtually they entire rev range.
    There's going to be slightly increased lag due to
    it making a lot more boost and that boost taking a
    little longer to be generated. "

    That "little longer to be generated" effect is precisely the result of torque curve being shifted to the right and up; what else can possibly be happening? somehow the engine stopped spinning up after adding turbo? that delay in time corresponds to the shift in torque curve.


    "The 1.8T makes 155
    lb/ft from 1750-4200 rpms (It doesnt peak around
    2000 or 2500 and then decline to redline, why make
    general comments about turbo engines power output
    when you can make specific ones about the car
    you're talking about?). "

    Don't mean to be insulting, but do you know anything about IC engines aside from quoting from VW brochure? Engines don't have perfectly flat torque curve tops like an idealized line on digital computer. VW simply choose to market its product with the given spec, which is quite consistent with the generalized picture of turbo engines I described. Notice I said _slowly_ declining to redline; that slow decline does not adversely affect performance much in the mid to high rev range (which is indeed the advantage of turbo-charged engines, the good mid to high rev range performance). What does concern me is the left side of the torque curve, which falls off precipitiously below 1750rpm.

    Of course the 1.8t can beat 2.0 NA if you rev up the engine for a dump-clutch start, which my original post readily acknowledged, but dumping clutch is not a feasible way of driving for regular use. The 2.0 engine has much more torque off idle than the 1.8t, which is not only smaller but also has to work against the turbo exhaust restriction before it's spooled up.

    As for shifting point, what percentage of the time in your daily driving are you at or near your shifting point? Not to mention that the overwhelming majority of buyers buy automatic transmission. I'm not talking about enthusiast driving here, but the car's ability to get out of its own way off idle. When joe average driver lets the brake go at the street light and step on the gas, initially the 1.8t is probably making less power than the 1.7 liter in Honda Civic thanks to the back pressure created by the turbo (made worse if you chip it to high-pressure turbo).

    BTW, I've no intention to comment on you as a person.
  • ramonramon Posts: 825
    well do becareful with all thease chips as apparently alot of companies are not telling you how chipping can adversely affect your lil' K03 turbo found in the golf 1.8t. Try measuring the temperature before the turbo. It is very very hot! Hot air will cause your engine to detonate. YOu don't want that to happen to your golf while trying to out run a Civic!

    Anyone tried turboing a 2.0 golf?
  • judasjudas Posts: 217
    What percentage of the time are you under 1500 rpms, which is the only place the 2.0 could possibly have more torque? Do you realize how long it takes to get above 1500 rpms, even in moderate throttle applications? It's far far less than the 'hundreds of feet' you think the 2.0 will be ahead of the 1.8T. 1500 rpms is not a 'rev dump clutch start.' Unless you drive like a grandma, which it sounds like you do.

    "Not to mention that the overwhelming majority of buyers buy automatic transmission. I'm not talking about enthusiast driving here"

    Who gives a rats patoot what the majority of people buy? Why someone would buy a performance automobile with a slush box is beyond me. I don't care what they think. If you want to talk about automatic 4 bangers go somewhere else. Regardless, the auto 1.8T would still get off the line quicker because when you give it the gas the rpms are going to surge up to right where the 1.8 is making much more power than the 2.0.

    'Engines don't have perfectly flat torque curve tops like an idealized line on digital computer."

    I don't recall saying they did.

    "but do you know anything about IC engines aside from quoting from VW brochure?"

    I've driven both of these cars, have you?

    Virtually ALL modifications increase high end at the expense of low end. Exhausts. Intakes. Cams. Do you really think people that want 200+ HP out of their GTi, Golf, Passat, whatever, care if it's lacking under 1500 rpms?
  • Anyone who believes the 2.0 to be faster than the 1.8T in any street/highway/race application, has indulged in illegal substances for much too long.
  • ramonramon Posts: 825
    ....unless the turbo is broken. hehehe....
  • ...unless the 1.8t doesn't have any tires...
  • ramonramon Posts: 825
    the 2.0l has alot of stickers and banners.... and a big spoiler at the rear. =)
  • ...And if the 2.0L has a fire extinguisher mounted to the windshield pillar, stock seats replaced with imitation recaros, and a chrome yellow shift knob from Pep Boys, it will waste the 1.8T (lol)
  • I purchased a GTI VR6 in May 2000. I got the car for invoice + $500 (around $21K) and purchased it on a 3 year, 12,000 mile lease, with $3900 down payment. My repayments are $369/month + Tax. I think I got a really bad deal on the lease, can anyone verify how much a month they pay on a similar kind of lease deal? Also, any ideas of what I can do to renegotiate the lease - the dealer doesn't seem interested!

    Thanks in advance, Mike.
  • I've owned a 2001 GTI 1.8T black with black leather for about a month now, and I absolutely love it. I test drove both the VR6 and the 1.8T, and while the 6 had a great sound and noticeably more torque, I decided on the 1.8T for a few reasons. First, it's way cheaper. Better on gas. Easily upgradeable (40hp with just a chip?!). Lighter. Yadda yadda yadda.

    The Vr6 is a great car if you don't want to do a lot to make it faster, becuase it's going to cost you a gang of money to squeeze a lot more performance out of it. But for about 3 grand on the 1.8T, you can put a bigger K04 Turbo, chip, exhaust and a few other things on it to make it ridiculously faster.

    Also, the Vr6 has goodies/gadgets you can't get on the 1.8T, but I don't miss them much. Automatic rain-sensing wipers, dark wood trim (nice!), auto climate control...but you can get the leather package including heated seats on the turbo, for about $1000 more (that's what I got).

    And so far, I'm not missing the extra power. On the freeway, the car is excellent. The power is available at all times, and 110 is easily reached without even trying (although you can definitely hear the engine getting it's rev-on). Nobody passes me on the highway. :) On the street, the car also pulls nicely, and I've surprised many a lowered Civic or unsuspecting Mustang owner (is it because I don't have "VR6" showing on the back?) That's another thing, they opted to keep the "1.8T" off the back of the GTI's, but kept it on the Golfs, so folks think you have 2000's 115 hp GTI. A real sleeper!
  • You are paying too much, especially with US$3,900 down. Howver once you have signed the lease, it is usually set in stone (not always). Your payments should be around US$260-310/month with a 12000 mile, 3 year lease with 3,900 down.
  • OK so I'm ashamed to admit this:last year I purchased a '00 GTi Gls, not the 1.8t and am severely regretting not waiting for the 1.8t. What can I do to my vehicle to make up for its "lack of performance?" Please someone help.
  • Either turn it into a 2.0 T, or go the Super Charger direction.
  • Sup people

    I Just purchased a Jetta 1.8T (yes I test drove the VR6 and decided to go with 1.8T)

    Break in period: Does anyone have a good solid answer on this? I am having so much fun with it, however I keep it under 81mph and not go over 4k rpm. Comments ???

    Chip upgrade: Ok there is no real data here from real people who have experience the difference and what are the effects of having this chip on the following:
    - Gas millege
    - Temparature of the engine
    - noises
    - boost
    - manufacture warranty (including extended warranty)

    Comments??suggestions??

    8er

    Neo
  • I'm going to be buying a car within the next 2 months. I've narrowed my choices down to two cars. A 2001 Golf GLS 1.8T or a 1997 GTI VR6. I'm sure everyone knows all about the 1.8T. I've driven a 1.8T Passat and that is one sweet engine. As for the VR6 GTI, absolutely no compaints either. I know the owner of the '97 GTI VR6 very well (my friend's father, a car collector, who's about to buy a brand new ruby red Audi TT) and I know that he's treated the GTI like one of his own kids. He wouldn't even let my friend drive it because he takes care of it that much. It's got 60kms (36k miles) in about 4 years, which is less than average and it has power everything and leather seats. I'm sure both are equally reliable but the '97 GTI would save me about $5K or more, plus it's a V6! I'm still looking into exactly how much the 2001 Golf GLS 1.8T will cost me (through a connection), as well as insurance costs, but I'd like to hear what other people think about my two choices. Any suggestions?
  • ramonramon Posts: 825
    if u're not planning to mod your car, then the GTi Vr6 would be a good buy. Try knocking a few more thousands off since u're his son's friend. Also you save on some taxes too!
  • I finally found a 1.8 GTI black/black leather and Monroof sound. Dealer is asking for 21500 which is about MSRP. I got that price after negotiating for more than 2 hours. Asking price was $25500.
    HE pretends that the car is very scarse in the Bay ARea (SAn FRancisco), which happens to be true since no other dealer seems to have it.
    Am I getting a good deal paying flat out MSRP?
    Thanx!
  • damn i was countin on gettin a 1.8T for cheap cuz of the fact that few people were buyin hatchbacks at that price... ah well ill have to settle for used ones. BTW people keep citing that if u chip the 1.8T theres more turbo lag. the Audi TT has no turbo lag even though it uses the same engine and turbo. HMMMM
  • Yikes, that's quite a painful price. I was at a dealer a couple weeks ago and basically asked about the same deal, GTI 1.8T with leather and Monsoon sound (cause it seems impossible to find one without it) and they quoted me MSRP initially. However, after about 2 minutes of negotiation I got the dealer to go down to $20,350 - to be honest, I didn't even try. He asked how much was I looking to pay, I said 20K, and he came back with $20,350. I was actually rather surprised, but then I'm in Texas, the land of trucks, trucks, and more trucks. Blegh. So I imagine the demand for a sporty hatchback isn't all that great. I plan on going to another dealer and seeing what kind of price I can get when I really try to haggle. ; ) I'd recommend you keep looking around.
  • ramonramon Posts: 825
    21500 is quite a bit of money for a hatchback. But if you think it's fair, then go for it. isn't it near the Celica GTS' price range?
This discussion has been closed.