Mk6 Golf Acceleration & Performance Data

[Corey_R]

Yeah mate...
2.078, 8.774 - 79.60, 13.617 - 99.27


I'll definitely be out there again at some point, but I have the Stage II+ going now (DP, FMIC, HPFP, minus CAI at this point... got something in the works though). It won't be for a few weeks though cause I'm just too busy at this point.

[XXR32XX]

Sammy needs a bigger turbo and with some mods on the way the Wooduck R will only get quicker. To the 12's...

[wooduck]

Sammy needs a bigger turbo and with some mods on the way the Wooduck R will only get quicker. To the 12's...

Welcome XXR32XX and what is your ride.

[MurphyTheElf]

I'm guessing an R32.....

[Sammy125TDi]

Yeah mate...
2.078, 8.774 - 79.60, 13.617 - 99.27

Ok. Here's the breakdown. Your run was almost identical to my 13.6. My stats were 2.091, 8.831@80.50, 13.670@102.1

Compared to wooduck's R
So your 60's are the same. 1/100th slower. 1/8th track you were 2/10ths and 3mph slower. Full track you were 3/10ths behind and 4mph slower. You would have crossed the line 2 lengths behind.

The times and speeds suggest Corey's R was certainly down on power on the night. Mine was not performing well enough to be a yardstick between the two R's.

[Corey_R]

Yep Sammy, that's a good breakdown.

[Sammy125TDi]

Yep Sammy, that's a good breakdown.

For the final MPH of your run Corey. it is a VERY quick time. I was running the same MPH and only getting mid to low 14's.

[REXman]

Sammy's GTI is Stage II (intake, exhaust, tune). So you missed that.

Also this quote:


So BEFORE it was broken, 13.8 to 13.9
When I was there and it was broken, 14+
When it was fixed (Wednesday night this week) 13.6

So you missed that too.

REXman - seriously mate, I've been trying to bite my tongue, but you're an intelligent guy, surely you realise that between a hot night and a cold night, there is going to be differences in times. I really shouldn't have to explain that. I got a 13.6 on a warm and humid night (~29) and whilst you said the time was good, you have still been stating that APR needs to change their claims. Wooduck gets a 13.3 on a much cooler night and you state "this tune must be alright.."

I'm not trying to take away from anyone's times here. I haven't met Wooduck yet, but I've met Sammy and he's a great guy. I've also got a lot of respect for GIAC's tunes. But a 0.3 second difference in a 13 to 14 second run between two nights is well and truely within the margins of error for "weather differences".

You can be as bitchy as 14 year old school girl if that's what your into, but the facts speak for themselves.

He ran a better time cause he had bad (see: broken) engine mounts.

Not cause he ran in nicer weather.

And as for missing the exhaust etc.. He only just mentioned that he had that and a tune. After I replied.

[Corey_R]

Whatever REXman. Just do everyone a favour - if you're going to "summarise the facts", at least look them up first and save everyone the confusion...

[REXman]

And yes, I do believ APR claims are off. The car is not a 4,7 sec to a hundred nor is it a 12 sec car stock.

I een said to you when you got a 13.6, that it should have a 13.4 in it. And there you go someone got a 13.33.

It still a LONG way from 12s.

And too many people have NOT achieved the advertised claims. That's why I'm a bit sleptical at best, about some of the tuners claims.

I can honestly say there is no way the stg 1 is a 4,7 sec car. I drove your stg 1 back to back with my stocka and the difference was minor. It was there but just like the g tech reckoned, it was. 0.3 difference to a stocka.

That is if you trust the gtech.

But APR Is claiming that otherwise. And the shown track times show otherwise again.