J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

Had a go tonight with one of these, up to 85/90 it didnt pull away, after that I bottled it and started worrying about my licence and it was pulling away by then anyway, surprising my car is a 1988 Golf GTI 8v with the usual bolt ons, rolling road at 118 bhp last year. I suppose he could have been playing but judging by the smell coming from it I suspect not. They always seem to have a go, a 180 wasnt very quick, the 225 tonight was quicker but I would have thought it should have utterly destroyed me.

None of the VAG 1.8 turbo engined cars seem to have much of an edge over my old banger until silly speeds, but then again they done rattle much !

Mick

iTrader: (1)

There was one holding up traffic on my way to work this morning!
38 mph in a 50 limit aaaaggghhhhh! I would have overtaken apart from the fact I was 6 cars back and obviously we were all bunched up!

Hairdressers

Mick

SiDHEaD

i hate it when the traffics all bunched so u cant make it from far back

But obviously not as much as i hate tossers who cant do the speedlimit on non-dangerous roads!!! Some old fossil tonite doing 35 in a 60!! Impreza dipped lights = can't see for shiiit, stuck behind for ages!!

Andy

Midmotorsteve

He was playing or not racing if it was the 225, 180..not that quick but quicker than an 8v golf, buckets of torque. my old audi had the same 8v engine as the golf and i had it custom chipped at AMD, car was loads slower than my current MR2, MR2's Identical straight line performance to the 180TT or new red I GTI 1.8T raced many..I can't keep with the 225 on a straight however.

foz01

TT is a heavy car!


not all driven by hairdressers by the way, heres mine being given some
Oh and its got 270bhp by the way

http://www.evoposters.net/cars/jpeg1

click on the movie

black knight

i'm impressed.

not much room for error.

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

Nah, mine was identical in performance to the 180 I had a go with and he was most unimpressed when he couldnt just breeze past (2 lane road I hasten to add). 225 was quicker than the Golf, Im not daft but it took until 85 before he made any distance, after this point I backed of anyway (bit scared) and I had no chance due to more power and better aerodynamics, but up to 80, very little in it. I must say of the six GTI's I have had this is the quickest apart from the 1.9 MK1 I had. I reckon if you work out the power to weight between my golf at say 120 bhp/tonne a 180 bhp TT isnt far off being a tonne and a half, plus the 4wd losses.

As for the MR2, if its a new one, quick car, I had a T5 until sept and one surprised me, mine was quicker but by very little and not until higher speeds, I expected to murder it !

Impressed with the donuts, TT isnt a car you immediately associate as a hooligans car, not exactly hairdressers either, I always associate them with city boys in shirts with cufflinks and different colour collars.

MooseRacer

Not much in it between a 225 TT and a golf? mmm, methinks he wasn't trying

XT

Don't get me wrong but a car from Ingolstadt MUST have 5 cylinders.

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

No, he must have been worried about my fragile ego !

You dont get to over a ton unless you are trying, the Diablo that I had a blast with last year was most definitely messing about with me, this wasnt, it stunk like burnt matches.

I did say it was quicker, however I expected a pasting which didnt come until 85 mph. A TT weight about a tonne and a half, the Golf just under a tonne so 225 bhp is twice the power (based on standard which mine isnt) to move 1.5 times the weight, however drivetrain losses are more than double than mine so if you reason it out the advantage is not as great as you may think.

TT 0 to 60 is about 6.5 seconds, a MK2 GTI 8 valve is 8.3 seconds
standard and mine has a little more power than standard. On the road the difference is not as much as I imagined it would be.

The TT may however secure you a nights passion with a nice lady, an aged GTI generally just gets you nicked.

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

Oh and XT, good point, however quick the TT may (or may not) be, they sound poo compared to the the 5 cyl Audis, I had a an Audi 100 2.0, not quick (not as slow as I thought it would be though) but once I removed the Cat (H reg) it sounded wonderfull

golfliam

sorry mate but i used to have an AMD 8v (130 bhp) and there is no way he was trying even though it is a heavy car

as for the 1.8T GO drive a chipped one even with the tiny K03 its good for approx 200bhp and 220+ lbs torque....the 150 bhp is basicly a detuned 1.8T. Lots tuning options for this engine, seems to have become the engine of choice for swaps if you read any of the VW / Golf mags....

XT

I have the 2.2 Coupe Quattro.
waiting for the RS2 lump and gearbox....

XT

and as regarding the sound, there's just a big bore pipe from the manifold till the backbox, which by the way, is as restricted as a volvo estate...
i just love the burble of a 5 cylinder engine. Only the scooby sound can compare to that

MooseRacer

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

CC, its a MK2 Golf, not a MK1 and besides, MK1 Golfs are quick, even standard a 1.8 8v is still a quick decent handling car, there arent many standard ones about now and I know of several that will destroy a TT with ease.

I dont really think TT owners know how to 'play', 225 bhp doesent confer enough of an advantage to just half heartedly put your foot down, an M3, TVR or 911 has enough to do this but not a TT.

golfliam

a 180 golf annervisary was 3 seconds faster around a track than a mk2....and even faster again than a mk1...

225 bhp is more than anough to see of a mk2 or 1

Boyakasha

iTrader: (2)

I think there are some dreamers on here

Oh, did I tell you about me wasting a Maclaren F1 last night in my CTR. There was nothing in it up to 200mph then he pulled out a cars length on me due to my car not being as aerodynamic

iguana

golfliam
posted Friday, February 07, 2003 00:16

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a 180 golf annervisary was 3 seconds faster around a track than a mk2....and even faster again than a mk1...

225 bhp is more than anough to see of a mk2 or 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------



Yeah but remember that litle thing called power 2 weight ratio, a T225 weights 1400kg & has 164hp/tonne a standard 1.8T Golf is 1235kg & 123 hp/tonne as standard (180bhp aniversary is heavyer 1300kg i think) and as standard sub 1011kg 16v mk2 is 127/hp tonne. (Evo figs & I can't find mk2 8v figs)

Now its very easy to get a Mk2 16v engine to 160 bhp which if my maths is correct is still a better power 2 weight ratio that the 180bhp mk4. Then if like me you tweek the Mk2 a bit more ie konis & eibach antiroll bars and give the engine some lumpy cams and a few other internal bits you get 175/180 bhp. Then if some of the interior is binned you have 900kg so same power as the Mk4 aniversary but 400kg lighter & 500kg lighter than a 225TT.

And then you have a TT & M4 Golf eating Mk2 golf (proved on many a trackday)for less than the 1st years depreciation on a TT or new Mk4 Golf.

And even a bog standard Mk2 8v if its in good condition and preferably with a decent suspension kit is pretty much identical performance on the road with the 150bhp 1.8T Golf.

golfliam

He said he kept with a 225TT with 118 bhp not 160....

CraigH

And power to weight is irrelevant at highish speed.

225 TTs do 0-100 in about 16 secs - probably 10secs faster at least than a 118hp GTI. GTI 0-60 in 8 secs - so 8 secs slower 60-100 than a 225 tt. That's a big difference.

If it was a 225 he wasn't trying or was just in 6th.

CC

agree with CraigH

come off it jacko , u must be wacko if u seriously think ure (standardish?) 1.8v golf is the match of a 225bhp TT lmao!!

foz01

mine does the ton in 14.3

I'll get me coat

M3 Evo

Come off it - the GTi has NO chance.

225bhp TT is more than a match for the WRX in a straight line. Would you now claim you can keep up with a scooby?

Midmotorsteve

I haven't been to AmD since selling my Audi but approx a year ago they had a TT cab demo car 320 bhp!! they can be made to fly, I regularly race old GTIs in my MR2 and waste them easily, I have no chance with the twin pipe TT. Fact of life a blown 2litre ish engine will produce such a wide flat torque curve a normally aspirated 2 litre doesn't have a chance unless its straped to a skate board. Normally aspirated old golfs can be tuned up to the standard of any japanese standard normally aspirated engine of the same capacity, but they will loose the low down grunt thats responsible for golfs feeling fast. i.e 158bhp and 173bhp mr2, 1/4 mile time for the 158bhp version is 1.6 seconds LESS than the 173bhp version reason more low down torque in the 158bhp version makes it a faster car.

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

Oh well I suppose I was wrong, I am not a dreamer and I am fully in charge of my faculties, I am well aware that my Golf is not the measure of everything on the road (Far from it)

I didnt say I stayed with it, I said I was surprised it didnt dissapear more quickly, once up to speed (80 ish) it was quite clear I was getting wasted as the extra power really showed itself. The good thing about TT's is that if you miss one, another three will be along any minute !

As for the thing about the MK4 1.8T, what you say bears out my experience on the road, same with an Octavia 1.8T (150), dead heat against that (my mates car)

I will get something else soon (Golf becomes track day car) so thats why I am so interested in the relative performance. We bought a Sharan TDi (115) and that will absolutley dust a TT...........

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

MK4 anniversary was 3 whole seconds quicker round a track than a MK2, so with tyres 40 mm wider, another 60 BHP and nearly twenty years of chassis development, it only managed to better the MK2 by 3 seconds !

Veracocha

Yeah but the old R-33 skyline was faster than the R-34 round a track and same with F-40 and F-50. That is a one dimensional way to look at it!

CC

he was playing. they are fast as in 150mph 6secs 0-60mph fast. mk.1 golfs aren't!

end of....

[Edited by CC - 2/5/2003 11:52:10 PM]