Mk6 Golf Acceleration & Performance Data

[Corey_R]

Lets leave the theoretical discussions out of this thread please.
This thread is for posting figures (measured) not for seat of the pants or hypotheticals.

As for your comments RD415, you should maybe check out last year's Motor Hot Tuner Challenge to see what a correctly setup R is capable of around a track...
Either way, no point arguing about this particular case as it's not the topic of this thread.

[Ideo]

Glad you had a blast playing. I'm not a Porsche fan by any stretch of the imagination, but the Golf R doesn't have a chance.

Don't take my word for it (not that anybody bothers to listen anyway) just look up the Porsches for yourself and see their regularly achieved times times for 0-100kph. That's what I did before responding to your comments.

964 C4 is around 5.5, 993 C2 is around 5.9-6.1 from the figures I have.

The C4 may not have been in best form. The C2 is very similar to the claimed times for the Golf R.

Don't see what the issue is. It would not stand a chance against a later model or even a 964 turbo. It was more just a bit of a reminisce over a fun weekend.

Getting back to the point of this, after the dyno day (157.7kw) I'm interested to see the quarter mile time. I'm thinking of doing that soon, then in about 6 months time doing a dyno run on the same day and a run at WSID post chipping, just to see what the improvements really give.

ETA Corey - I thought I clicked on the Observations thread. I'll leave it now. My mistake.

[Fab_R]

Glad you had a blast playing. I'm not a Porsche fan by any stretch of the imagination, but the Golf R doesn't have a chance.

Don't take my word for it (not that anybody bothers to listen anyway) just look up the Porsches for yourself and see their regularly achieved times times for 0-100kph. That's what I did before responding to your comments.

Sorry rd415, but you are wrong.

[Beena]

Sorry rd415, but you are wrong.

Love it! No room for movement there.
(I'd tend to agree too...)

[rd415]

Sorry rd415, but you are wrong.

How So !!!!!
Which bit is wrong - the bit about nobody bothers to listen
- the bit about looking up Porsche acceleration 0-100 kph for the specific Porsches spoken about
- the bit about the comment was a STOCK Golf R - there was no mention of any form of tuned Golf R (Corey_R)
Can't see anywhere where my comments can be considered as wrong - none except the listening bit are personal - the rest taken straight from a simple google search on the two versions of Porsches.

Anyway, the whole thing is to enjoy driving and the Golf R is a classy great little car - it's a pity prejudeces and being one-eyed gets in the way. I have as much fun driving my 1924 Dodge at 40mph as driving the Golf R at much greater speeds, it's just a different form of driving.

[Corey_R]

Seriously... next person to post on this R vs old Porsches topic gets an infraction.

[dave_r]

hahah...what about new ones

[Ideo]

So, I was running alongside a 1993 Corvette ZR1...

Do you think doing a WSID run pre and post tune is worthwhile, or are there a few too many variables?

[Corey_R]

My point is that this thread is not meant to be about personal opinions, or theories, or questions etc. It's meant to be about data. Got questions, taking to the questions thread. Got observations, same thing.

What to know which car is faster, take it to the strip or the track, get some data, come here and post results!

[masev]

Very well said Corey...