New Golf 1.4 does 0-60 in 7.9!!
14 February 2006, 11:44 AM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Scoobynet
Posts: 5,387
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New Golf 1.4 does 0-60 in 7.9!!
0-60 in 7.9 isnt bad for a 1.4 Golf! It is turbocharged AND supercharged however... seems like an interesting way to do things, but probably be very torquey to drive (at all revs) I would imagine
http://www.channel4.com/4car/gallery...06_page_3.html
http://www.channel4.com/4car/gallery...06_page_3.html
14 February 2006, 01:20 PM
#6
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Scoobynet
Posts: 5,387
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by kammy
whats the freaking point?
You can that power from an N/A 1.8 VTEC thats not agressive (Honda Civic 1.8 VTEC.)
Silly IMHO.
You can that power from an N/A 1.8 VTEC thats not agressive (Honda Civic 1.8 VTEC.)
Silly IMHO.
a) quite quick
b) very nice to drive because there should be a very good spread of torque and no turbo lag
c) economical - smaller engines turbocharge well, and with the SC there wont be the usual lag problems you usually get with turbo'd cars.
14 February 2006, 02:02 PM
#8
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Kent
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds good, and is a lot more economical than a 1.8 NA too, figures of around 40MPG were being mentioend at one point, which means you get a good, torquey, sporty drive from a 1.4 (cheaper tax) with good fuel economy, pretty good going!!
Honda's 1.8 is revvy and weak unless you're thrashing it, which for what is essentially an everyday car makes it the less desirable option.
If its a success, can see the configuration appearing in a few other cars.
Honda's 1.8 is revvy and weak unless you're thrashing it, which for what is essentially an everyday car makes it the less desirable option.
If its a success, can see the configuration appearing in a few other cars.
14 February 2006, 02:13 PM
#9
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Kent
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
14 February 2006, 03:27 PM
#11
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 825
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree with some of the points above but..
a) I mentioned the 1.8 VTEC of the top of my head. Its economical and cheap to produce. The torque is ok on the family type VTECs, type-rs etc are far more aggressively camed.
b) Tax? Hell your only going to save £30 every six months which will be offset
by making sure the Turbo & Super charger are running right.
c) Renault 5 GT turbo, 1.4 turbo the fun of the lag is what makes it
Anyways its a no from me.
a) I mentioned the 1.8 VTEC of the top of my head. Its economical and cheap to produce. The torque is ok on the family type VTECs, type-rs etc are far more aggressively camed.
b) Tax? Hell your only going to save £30 every six months which will be offset
by making sure the Turbo & Super charger are running right.
c) Renault 5 GT turbo, 1.4 turbo the fun of the lag is what makes it
Anyways its a no from me.
14 February 2006, 09:49 PM
#14
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: From Kent to Gloucestershire to Berkshire
Posts: 2,905
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The point is to have turbo-charged power levels without the lag of a turbo.
To get 170PS out of a supercharged 1.4, you'd require a powerful supercharger that would take a lot of power to make it work, potentially inefficient and not that great to drive. To get 170PS out of a turbocharged 1.4, you'd probably end up with as much lag and slow spool as a TD04'd Impreza - i.e. you actually need to be in the right gear (otherwise you're stuck with just a low compresion 1.4 engine), and wouldn't have the initial response. By fitting both, you get the low down response from the supercharger, and the mid-high range power of the turbo.
OK, enthusiasts may enjoy the lag of a R5 turbo, but (a) as standard they weren't that near 170PS (b) family man probably doesn't enjoy the lag and (c) your laggy R5 turbo would lose in a lot of real world situations as the non-laggy car had already started accelerating.
Kammy - your "more family oriented VTECs" don't tend to produce 170bhp from a 1.8, IIRC. I'm also pretty certain that no standard 1.8 VTEC produces best part of 180lbft of torque, certainly not at "normal" revs.
However, do agree that a £60/year tax saving (if that's what it amounts to) is pretty irrelevant in the grand scheme of running a £17k performance car with German main dealer servicing costs!
To get 170PS out of a supercharged 1.4, you'd require a powerful supercharger that would take a lot of power to make it work, potentially inefficient and not that great to drive. To get 170PS out of a turbocharged 1.4, you'd probably end up with as much lag and slow spool as a TD04'd Impreza - i.e. you actually need to be in the right gear (otherwise you're stuck with just a low compresion 1.4 engine), and wouldn't have the initial response. By fitting both, you get the low down response from the supercharger, and the mid-high range power of the turbo.
OK, enthusiasts may enjoy the lag of a R5 turbo, but (a) as standard they weren't that near 170PS (b) family man probably doesn't enjoy the lag and (c) your laggy R5 turbo would lose in a lot of real world situations as the non-laggy car had already started accelerating.
Kammy - your "more family oriented VTECs" don't tend to produce 170bhp from a 1.8, IIRC. I'm also pretty certain that no standard 1.8 VTEC produces best part of 180lbft of torque, certainly not at "normal" revs.
However, do agree that a £60/year tax saving (if that's what it amounts to) is pretty irrelevant in the grand scheme of running a £17k performance car with German main dealer servicing costs!
14 February 2006, 09:52 PM
#15
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: From Kent to Gloucestershire to Berkshire
Posts: 2,905
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PS I seen to remember a certain *****(?If I remember his first name right) Koenig producing road cars with this technology - I'm sure he did a super- and twin-turbo charged Ferrari Testarossa, with some rather mental power and torque figures too. In peak tune, think Veyron levels of power etc only 15 years or so earlier.
14 February 2006, 10:22 PM
#16
Its a big boost 1.4 motor tamed for normal people, i.e. those who dont appreciate a 20 minute wait for boost before having our head severed.
You cant compared modern tech with the old school turbos, I would imagine its a combined unit controlled by clever electronics, built with longevity in mind, not a low compression Uno Motor with the smallest turbo available and an elastic band to control boost.
What we notice most with old school turbos is the boost coming, in, the whistles and psst noises, you know its a turbo, I bet this just feels like a very torquey big capacity N/A engine. I fully expect this kind of thing to be bolted onto the diesels as well, if you can allow boost/fuel to provide performance, it stands to reason that this setup will be very efficient when driven by people who drive normally and dont obsess about 0-60 time, most just want some overtaking urge every 3rd Tuesday.
You cant compared modern tech with the old school turbos, I would imagine its a combined unit controlled by clever electronics, built with longevity in mind, not a low compression Uno Motor with the smallest turbo available and an elastic band to control boost.
What we notice most with old school turbos is the boost coming, in, the whistles and psst noises, you know its a turbo, I bet this just feels like a very torquey big capacity N/A engine. I fully expect this kind of thing to be bolted onto the diesels as well, if you can allow boost/fuel to provide performance, it stands to reason that this setup will be very efficient when driven by people who drive normally and dont obsess about 0-60 time, most just want some overtaking urge every 3rd Tuesday.
14 February 2006, 11:07 PM
#17
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: There is only one God - Elvis!
Posts: 8,328
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by hades
PS I seen to remember a certain *****(?If I remember his first name right) Koenig producing road cars with this technology - I'm sure he did a super- and twin-turbo charged Ferrari Testarossa, with some rather mental power and torque figures too. In peak tune, think Veyron levels of power etc only 15 years or so earlier.
http://www.qv500.com/koenigtestarossap1.php
http://www.koenig-specials.com/
15 February 2006, 09:59 AM
#19
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: £1.785m reasons not to be here :)
Posts: 6,095
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Dream Weaver
The tax saving may only be £60 a year, but when you run 3 or 4 cars it all adds up 
Hardly fortunes
15 February 2006, 11:10 AM
#22
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 528
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does seem a bit of an odd thing to do. How on earth are they only getting a 0-60 time of 7.9secs when the Citroen, pah, C2 VTS has only 125bhp and does a 0-60 in 8secs, oh and costs £12K to boot and has an MPG of 40 according to Parkers anyway.
15 February 2006, 11:13 AM
#23
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: £1.785m reasons not to be here :)
Posts: 6,095
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Frosty The Snowman
Does seem a bit of an odd thing to do. How on earth are they only getting a 0-60 time of 7.9secs when the Citroen, pah, C2 VTS has only 125bhp and does a 0-60 in 8secs, oh and costs £12K to boot and has an MPG of 40 according to Parkers anyway.
15 February 2006, 11:15 AM
#24
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: £1.785m reasons not to be here :)
Posts: 6,095
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Gastro
.......its also lighter than an equivalent N/A engine - so handling/balance is much easier to achieve.
15 February 2006, 11:27 AM
#25
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 528
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Diablo
Weight - the Golf is one heavy car.
15 February 2006, 12:40 PM
#26
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sunny Aberdeen
Posts: 700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Frosty The Snowman
Yep I suppose that's going to do it. The price is stupid though, can't see how they can justify it considering there are cars like the Citroen which is £5K less.
15 February 2006, 12:55 PM
#27
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by Diablo
Yes, to £180 or £240
Hardly fortunes
Hardly fortunes
As for the 1.4 - I'd go for it. If you have the same power and performance as a larger cc engine but with substantially lower running costs then it's a bit of a no-brainer.
Dave
15 February 2006, 06:25 PM
#28
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 783
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And it will not be long before the 1.9 "cooking" 4wd version comes out???
Technology must go down this track? What do you think?
1.9 supercharged turbo, nice one!!
Technology must go down this track? What do you think?
1.9 supercharged turbo, nice one!!
Last edited by aggs; 15 February 2006 at 09:08 PM.
15 February 2006, 08:12 PM
#29
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: From Kent to Gloucestershire to Berkshire
Posts: 2,905
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by hutton_d
That's a £300 to £400 increase in base salary. (Assuming 40% etc). Several *little* savings like this all add up .... if you don't believe me work a few out. A 'for instance'. I have, amongst other things, mixed nuts on my brekkie. Changed where they came from - saved £300 pa .... (so another £500 on my base ...).
As for the 1.4 - I'd go for it. If you have the same power and performance as a larger cc engine but with substantially lower running costs then it's a bit of a no-brainer.
Dave
As for the 1.4 - I'd go for it. If you have the same power and performance as a larger cc engine but with substantially lower running costs then it's a bit of a no-brainer.
Dave
I'm probably saving a lot more than you as I have no nuts at all on my brekkie.
Not that I'm saying this engine is necessarily a bad thing - I'm all for people trying something different, if only to see what the technology is capable of.
15 February 2006, 11:22 PM
#30
Scooby Regular
Hey I never said 3 to 4 new cars, i'm talking a few classic/track cars. £300 may not be much to the 10 bob millionaire's on Scoobynet, but its quite a bit to the average Joe in the street.
I was running 3 cars until recently, joint value of about £12k and the running costs were hard work, tax, MOT, etc etc
I was running 3 cars until recently, joint value of about £12k and the running costs were hard work, tax, MOT, etc etc