Mk6 Golf Acceleration & Performance Data

[REXman]

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...

There is no confusion.

[Corey_R]

REXman - drop it mate. Firstly, you keep claiming that APR's acceleration claims are off and they need to change their claims. Please show me where on their Golf R page they have made any acceleration claims. That's right, they haven't. So just drop it.

And as for "too many people" haven't made their advertised claims, since the only claim they made is engine dyno figures, and we're yet to see anyone perform engine dynos, that's a little hard to prove. Yes, dave_r's wheel dyno was down. Yet his stock dyno was through the roof. But that's one person.

Next up, again, check your facts. I didn't say when I did a 13.6 that it had a 13.4 in it - Sammy did. You know - someone with some actual experience in this - instead of you, with ZERO tuning experience in the cars we're discussing. All you do is simply sit here trying to discredit everything because you once had a few Subaru's and Skylines.

We've now had several people with Stage 1 cars perform 0 to 100's in ~4.8 seconds. We've also got many happy customers from APR, as well as some from GIAC, and even BPS.

Now either you PUT UP or SHUT UP. Don't continue to sit there and do nothing but keep on telling everyone that they cannot be achieving what they HAVE been achieving.

[Fab_R]

well said....sorry REXman but you are becoming like a real old whining mole.....

[Beena]

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.

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.

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

Sorry mate, but I can't find apr's claims anywhere!? I thought the just claimed power and torque?

I bought my tune off the back of Fab_R's GTech numbers, i knew the exact equipment that recorded the results and did my own research in to the accuracy of it. I also drove the car immediately after the tune to be sure that it was what I was expecting - it was. This was before paying for it.

[Beena]

Just to add another little fact, I've got data from guys in the eu using a PerformanceBox on a stage 1 R getting 4.8s 0-100 and 13.3 400m.
Seems to be the norm for a Stg1 - regardless of the equipment used to test...

We also have the case of Australian motoring mags getting 5.37s/13.65@165.7km/h using a PerformanceBox with a stock car.
Is it so hard to believe that 4.8s could be done with a tune?

If a full Stage II+ can only get 5.0s 0-100, why are we wasting our time? I'm happy with Fab's figures and their accuracy. No one has yet shown me any properly collected evidence that the Gtechs are inaccurate, only to the contrary. If anything, the wider evidence suggests they read slow!

RexMan - maybe it's time to enjoy your car and leave this angle alone...

[Fab_R]

Just to add another little fact, I've got data from guys in the eu using a PerformanceBox on a stage 1 R getting 4.8s 0-100 and 13.3 400m.
Seems to be the norm for a Stg1 - regardless of the equipment used to test...

We also have the case of Australian motoring mags getting 5.37s/13.65@165.7km/h using a PerformanceBox with a stock car.
Is it so hard to believe that 4.8s could be done with a tune?

If a full Stage II+ can only get 5.0s 0-100, why are we wasting our time? I'm happy with Fab's figures and their accuracy. No one has yet shown me any properly collected evidence that the Gtechs are inaccurate, only to the contrary. If anything, the wider evidence suggests they read slow!

RexMan - maybe it's time to enjoy your car and leave this angle alone...

Cheers Beena

With my best time on a 18 deg early morning being 4.26 using GTech that day.

Vbox on my car at least was reading 2 / tenths slower consistently with all my runs...
For arguments sake, its a 4.46 car, which i'm stoked with to be honest.

I will be getting to the next street meet providing there is cooler conditions.

Hopefully, with some under 13 second time for the 1/4 which I'm sure are in my R.

[Beena]

Out of interest - what was the model of VBox you were using?

[Sammy125TDi]

Cheers Beena

With my best time on a 18 deg early morning being 4.26 using GTech that day.

Vbox on my car at least was reading 2 / tenths slower consistently with all my runs...
For arguments sake, its a 4.46 car, which i'm stoked with to be honest.

I will be getting to the next street meet providing there is cooler conditions.

Hopefully, with some under 13 second time for the 1/4 which I'm sure are in my R.

For the sake of this thread, please run a 12.

[REXman]

REXman - drop it mate. Firstly, you keep claiming that APR's acceleration claims are off and they need to change their claims. Please show me where on their Golf R page they have made any acceleration claims. That's right, they haven't. So just drop it.

They have made power claims which ARE OFF. Dave_R got HALF the stated numbers (an acheivement of 17 at the wheels.. far from the 51 CLIAMED at the engine.

And as for "too many people" haven't made their advertised claims, since the only claim they made is engine dyno figures, and we're yet to see anyone perform engine dynos, that's a little hard to prove. Yes, dave_r's wheel dyno was down. Yet his stock dyno was through the roof. But that's one person.

And you have run a 13.6.. someone might run a 13.3.. but IT CLEARLY no 12 second car. Claim debunked.

Next up, again, check your facts. I didn't say when I did a 13.6 that it had a 13.4 in it - Sammy did. You know - someone with some actual experience in this - instead of you, with ZERO tuning experience in the cars we're discussing. All you do is simply sit here trying to discredit everything because you once had a few Subaru's and Skylines.

I didnt say YOU SAID it would run a 13.6.. I said I SAID it had a 13.4 in it. But the angry blinkers wouldnt have let you see that.

As for a few subarus and skylines?

I have had 4 WRXs (3 of them brand new) all stage 2 going off this stage bull****. I have had a NISSAN SSS with aggressive CAMS TBE air intake tune, I have had a SS V8 ute (2002) model. I have had just a V6 Commodore, 2001 model back in 2001, white one.I have had a Skyline that I worked all virtually from while the car was stock. More power than any STG 2 maybe even stg 3 and below. Bigger TURBO, BIG **** off FMIC from micks metalcraft, GTR Fuel Pump, Power FC (a PROPER replacement computer - not some flash tune you get in an email) 425horsepower and it weighd about 1350KG's. That car ran 12 second quarters. And I did everything myself in stages so I have learnt all about gains from vehicles and different types of cars. I know the combustion engine very well. I know the drag strip very well.

We've now had several people with Stage 1 cars perform 0 to 100's in ~4.8 seconds. We've also got many happy customers from APR, as well as some from GIAC, and even BPS.

No you havent. You have had FAB with a STG 2+ with all the extras done to itrun a 5.0. A 5.0. NOT a 4.2. Not a 4.7. A mother friggin 5.0. And he has THE LOT installed on his car.

Now either you PUT UP or SHUT UP. Don't continue to sit there and do nothing but keep on telling everyone that they cannot be achieving what they HAVE been achieving.

Really?

People - in a 1500KG(+options - nearly none are stock) car, with a 175 odd kilowatts at the wheels (stg 1) (Dave got 167 -lets just go off the best example I have read about) and a 3000rpm launch.. you reckon 12's? Even better you reckon a 4.7?

FABs car got a 5.0 with a VBOX. He might not like to suck it up and accept his STAGE 2+ car isnt going to come close to beating a HAYABUSA or a Ferrari.. but it is the way it is.

And Im sorry but I have plenty of experience with a lot of cars - not just mine - my friends also - Porsches, and other cars like 180sx's - AMG 4WDs that have been worked.. Just dont keep feeding the bull**** and keep it on point.

I obviously know a ton more about this than you.

[REXman]

Just to add another little fact, I've got data from guys in the eu using a PerformanceBox on a stage 1 R getting 4.8s 0-100 and 13.3 400m.
Seems to be the norm for a Stg1 - regardless of the equipment used to test...

We also have the case of Australian motoring mags getting 5.37s/13.65@165.7km/h using a PerformanceBox with a stock car.
Is it so hard to believe that 4.8s could be done with a tune?

If a full Stage II+ can only get 5.0s 0-100, why are we wasting our time? I'm happy with Fab's figures and their accuracy. No one has yet shown me any properly collected evidence that the Gtechs are inaccurate, only to the contrary. If anything, the wider evidence suggests they read slow!

RexMan - maybe it's time to enjoy your car and leave this angle alone...

A Stg 2 is ONLY getting 5.0.. Are you serious?? Thats quicker than an M3.

LMAO this is exactly what I want GOLF owners NOT doing. Seeing all these claims, and thinking the are driving a weapon cause of what they read.

Beena maybe you need to read some more, and maybe work on some more cars and track them at the quarter mile to see what you can achieve in real life.

Im not leaving any angles.. cause Im taling straight up the truth. I have had some people who obviously have some real world experience back me up. That is all that needs to be said.

To those not interested in what I say.. please.. enjoy your porsche eaters.. let me know how your runs go.