0-80 calibrated testing - Continued! :)

Currently reading:
0-80 calibrated testing - Continued! :)

G

Gaz

Guest
The VW 1.9tdi engine is no match for the 1.8t petrol! And please dont mention Skodas again your killing me :)

Why are you deleting my threads by the way?
 
I will take the deletion of threads a sign of victory! :) Thanks
 
but we are talking normally aspirated petrol vs turbo diesel here gaz, a petrol turbo will p*ss a turbo diesel really but diesel is catching up.

Dan

dantag.jpg

But my dreams they aren't as empty, As my conscience seems to be...
 
my mate currently has a tdi golf it is running just over 200bhp, it destroys normal gti's and insurance is half as much as well as the mpg being more than twice that of a gti. you cant argue with that comparison
 
Ive been in a golf GTTDI special edition thing, you can spin the wheels going into 4th when its dry, not 100% sure but can you do that in a normal golf gti?

KeithR
 
If you look at one of my posts earlier (if it hasnt been deleted) then you will see that I said "equivalent" so turbo for turbo but then again a normally aspirated engine will still beat a turbo diesel. Take for example the new golf - the 2.0 GT diesel is slower than the 2.0 GT petrol. But Back to the point im trying to make which is for a performance orientated car get a Petrol turbo.
 
But.....

A remapped Skoda Fabia VRs is very comparable to the Clio sport 172.

A £300 upgrade and the Fabia VRSis taken to 180bhp and has the following statistics

RUN 1 (PRE TUNING)

mph s g ft
10 1.00 0.53 6
20 1.96 0.52 26
30 3.28 0.39 77
40 4.57 0.35 144
50 6.45 0.25 268
60 8.42 0.21 428


RUN 2 (POST TUNING)

mph s g ft
10 0.94 0.52 6
20 1.88 0.54 25
30 3.00 0.37 69
40 4.05 0.40 123
50 5.57 0.26 223
60 7.18 0.27 354

The 0-60 of the Clio Sport is circa 7.2s but the 30-70 is 6.6s whereas the torque of the VRS gets it there in 6.1. It doesn't seem much but that 0.5s at 60-70 will be some 30ft.

Indeed a 1.8T will be very comparable if its the 180bhp, but the when its in the heavier Golf for instance it definently isn't as its only got 150bhp.

The remapping on the Golf adds 45bhp to it for £400, so again its a very easy car to tune and gives a good return.

What you want to be aware of though, is that to get any additional power out of your n/a Clio is going to be very hard and expensive to do.

So modern diesels are not the chugging smoke screens of yesteryear, they are both powerful, quick and have the added bonus of being economical and cheaper to insure in most cases.
 
Golf GTi's can be revo chipped to 270BHP now argue with that :) (and thats just by chipping, no other mods!)
 
I guy I sit next to at work has one of those dude, its half a second slower to 80 he says than a normal gti.

Dan

dantag.jpg

But my dreams they aren't as empty, As my conscience seems to be...
 
Re: But.....

and how do u tell wat bhp model u have. look at the TDI badge the more red letters the FASTER it goes WOOOOOO

Smee

2597smeetag1.jpg
 
Re: But.....

You missed the point once more.

The Golf GTi 1.8T 150 petrol v Golf GTTDi 150 1.9TDi
0-60 both 8.5s
Top speed of the 1.8T is 134 and the 1.9TDi is 131.

The Golf can have 45bhp added to it as can the GTTDi and they give very similar figures.

Whichever your preference - either is better than n/a by a long way
 
Re: But.....

hmmmm back to the point, feel like im working with monkeys here :) please read my posts before you post an argument.

MY POINT (I WILL DO IT IN BOLD SO MAYBE YOU WONT MISS IT THIS TIME, WORK WITH ME PEOPLE) IS IF YOU WANT A CAR FOR A PERFORMANCE PERSPECTIVE (ESPECIALLY FOR TUNING) GET A PETROL TURBO! CARAVANERS GO DIESEL!
 
Re: But.....

I have just posted up the statistics to completely prove otherwise!

Please argue your point with intelligence rather than resorting to abuse.
 
Re: But.....

You cant compare a tuned/modded car to a stock and call it fair now can you! And I cant believe any one would be as silly to say a VW 1.9tdi will out perform a VW 1.8t in the modding arena :) all it would win at is, how heavy a caravan it could pull!
 
Re: But.....

Gaz. the fabia vRS i'm buying does 0-60 in 8 seconds. it has 130bhp standard. a mere £300 spent on angel tuning bumps me right up to 170bhp and 405nM of torque. Now go look up what a petrol would cost to live with, insure etc if it had 170bhp, a turbo, and 405nM or torque. lets just say that a porsche boxster doesn't even hve that much torque!

i currently drive a 120bhp 1.8 N/A petrol that costs £800 to insure, to add 45bhp would cost me over a grand to do, and then theres the insurance! tell me why its better to tune the petrol when the turbodiesel will cost only £300 to tune, and insurance will cost me, £820.

Buzz (formerly LightWarrior)
The champion of the Bravo 1.4
 
Re: But.....

Please refer to my point stated numerous times in this forum before stating your dribble you pleb (o and if u check 0-60 on a fabia its 9.3seconds matey). Thanks
 
Re: But.....

not after a £300 remap matey

Buzz (formerly LightWarrior)
The champion of the Bravo 1.4
 
Re: But.....

Gaz - I'm a little disappointed chap. At one point you were making some sense and I'm not going to get involved in the petrol vs diesel discussion but the personal abuse really isn't on. I say this to EVERYONE, let's let people make their point and agree to differ. Personal abuse shows a lack of intelligence and completely turns people away from any sensible point you may be making.

Playtiome ended, let's get back to school.

"What's the word on the street Huggy Bear? ;)"
1344sig.jpg

http://www.billhicks.com/
http://www.geocities.com/ozrictentacles_web/

Abarth Valve Caps ;)
Bonnet Lifters
Personalised High Level Brake Light
Starsky Cardigan :)
 
Re: But.....

Both the 1.8T and the 1.9TDI are stock "150"bhp cars.

The Golf GTI "180" is the 150 with a different engine map. It canonly be taken up by another 15bhp.

The 180 1.8T in the Audi TT is different to the Golf and CAN be taken up higher.

BOTH the stock 150 1.8T AND the 150tdi can be taken to 195 quite easily without any further modification and then beyond that to extremes with modification. Thus the two vehicles are very comparable. Where do you not think the comparison is?

And once more, please just submit your technical facts, not sarcastic comments.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top