Anyone up for a Polo R?

[break]

I'm all for ~140kw of twincharged AWD drivetrain *if* they can price it accordingly.

If they think they are going to compete up around the $40k mark with the WRX/MPS/Golf GTI they are shooting themselves in the foot.

However, if they can get it nicely between a new Polo GTI and the Golf GTI in terms of both price and performance, I can see a market for it against the ~$35k price cars such as the XR5, Clio Sport, Ralliart Lancer etc.

[Sharkie]

I'm all for ~140kw of twincharged AWD drivetrain *if* they can price it accordingly.

If they think they are going to compete up around the $40k mark with the WRX/MPS/Golf GTI they are shooting themselves in the foot.

However, if they can get it nicely between a new Polo GTI and the Golf GTI in terms of both price and performance, I can see a market for it against the ~$35k price cars such as the XR5, Clio Sport, Ralliart Lancer etc.

I'd buy a new Polo R AWD with 140kw over any of those anyday .... including the Golf GTI ...

Traction and low weight is KING !!

[break]

I'd buy a new Polo R AWD with 140kw over any of those anyday .... including the Golf GTI ...

Traction and low weight is KING !!

AWD doesn't equal low weight.

An AWD system in the Polo will likely take the weight up (depending on the use of center diff or not) anywhere from 80-150kg. So based on current polo weight, we could be looking anywhere between ~1280kg to ~1350kg (only 50kg lighter than a WRX) based on the assumption that the new Polo isn't any heavier than the existing model.

It may be a case of the AWD system weight and power loss through the drivetrain *may* make the Polo R slower than a Polo GTI if they don't give it a big enough power/torque increase over the Polo GTI.

[Sharkie]

AWD doesn't equal low weight.

An AWD system in the Polo will likely take the weight up (depending on the use of center diff or not) anywhere from 80-150kg. So based on current polo weight, we could be looking anywhere between ~1280kg to ~1350kg (only 50kg lighter than a WRX) based on the assumption that the new Polo isn't any heavier than the existing model.

It may be a case of the AWD system weight and power loss through the drivetrain *may* make the Polo R slower than a Polo GTI if they don't give it a big enough power/torque increase over the Polo GTI.

Not of you add extra power to it. FWD and lots of power = no traction

AWD and lots of power = still traction.

IF my Polo GTI (with over 170kw) had AWD, I'd still be driving it ....

Edit: traction offsets weight provided you don't add too much weight ....

As an example ....

A3 2.0TFSI 0-100km/h in 7.2s
A3 2.0TFSI Quattro 0-100km/h in 7.1s even with adding almost 200kg in weight .....

and these 2 have the same 147kw/280NM engine

[break]

Not of you add extra power to it. FWD and lots of power = no traction

AWD and lots of power = still traction.

IF my Polo GTI (with over 170kw) had AWD, I'd still be driving it ....

Edit: traction offsets weight provided you don't add too much weight ....

As an example ....

A3 2.0TFSI 0-100km/h in 7.2s
A3 2.0TFSI Quattro 0-100km/h in 7.1s even with adding almost 200kg in weight .....

and these 2 have the same 147kw/280NM engine

FWD traction can be resolved in a number of ways, and the current Polo GTI doesn't have the diff or suspension setup to adequately cope with the power of a tuned 1.8T. That said, it's easily achievable with some work, and you can get some reasonable traction out of FWD cars if setup correctly.

Hell, look at the Focus RS with it's E-diff setup. It puts 224kw to the ground through the front wheels fine, so why on earth are we struggling with the 150-170kw we can extract from a K03s?

I'd also be skeptical of how the balance and poise of the car will be changed with the weight, because nothing would be worse than a small car that feels 'heavy' for its size.

Put simply, FWD isn't the issue. Suspension/diff are far bigger issues than the drivetrain on a Polo

[Sharkie]

Put simply, FWD isn't the issue. Suspension/diff are far bigger issues than the drivetrain on a Polo

Nope, cant agree, APR's development Polo had a LSD (Pelequin) and trick suspension as well as 215-40-17s semi-slicks and it still had issues putting the power down .....

You'd be spending $10K+ on those and still have issues.

AWD is the easiest way to get greatly improved traction ......

EDIT: And more (UK figures)

Scirrocco R FWD 199kw manual 0-100 in 6s
Golf R AWD 199kw manual 0-100 in 5.7s despite a 200kg weight disadvantage ..... and you can bet they spent some time on the Scirrocco's suspension and diff ......

[break]

Scirrocco R FWD 199kw manual 0-100 in 6s
Golf R AWD 199kw manual 0-100 in 5.7s despite a 200kg weight disadvantage ..... and you can bet they spent some time on the Scirrocco's suspension and diff ......

0-100km/h is all well and good, but look at 20-120km/h, look at lap times, those give a far clearer idea of overall 'performance' than 0-100km/h.

Hell, even look at standing 1/4 mile and standing 1km. Particularly at the terminal speed achieved in those.

You can disagree all you want, but fact is you haven't been in a well sorted FWD and until you do judgment should be reserved on what is 'best' for a small turbo car.

Yes, AWD and RWD will always be superior in traction to FWD, hand down.

What I'm saying is a well sorted FWD at the power levels we are talking is more than capable, and *may* well result in better overall performance, balance, handling, and drivability than AWD.

Edit: For example, I owned a MY05 WRX WRP10. It was dyno'd at 140.3kw @ all fours in stock form, and also ran 5.7s to 100km/h and 13.7s down the 1/4 stock. In contrast, my Polo GTI with GIAC only is around the 120-125kw @ front wheels, but feels stronger in the 20-120km/h zone, even though it's somewhere around 0.5s slower to 100km/h thanks to the traction issues. I would even bet that the terminal speed down the 1/4 would be similar even though my Polo would be slower across the distance. Fix that traction (suspension, diff) and you'll see those figures get much closer.

Then tell me how often you take advantage of a blistering 0-100, as opposed to the rolling acceleration? I very much doubt most people here would find stand still launch acceleration more useful than on the roll acceleration.

[Sharkie]

You can disagree all you want, but fact is you haven't been in a well sorted FWD and until you do judgment should be reserved on what is 'best' for a small turbo car.

Mate, Ive built a MK1 1800 16V Turbo FWD that ran a 12.3s 400m at 198km/h (at 1200m above sea-level where the air is thin) and spent more than 6 months just on the suspension alone .... yet to see any Australian FWD Golf do this .....

http://www.vwwatercooled.org.au/newf...?do=view&g=265

So I know a little bit about what it takes to make a FWD car go and go well ..... and AWD is just so much easier .... when you've actually built a FWD VW that can do that then come back and tell me all about it ....

As much as I loved my MK1 (and the Polo) I'd take a 200kg hit in weight and AWD anyday .....

[break]

Mate, Ive built a MK1 1800 16V Turbo FWD that ran a 12.3s 400m at 198km/h (at 1200m above sea-level where the air is thin) and spent more than 6 months just on the suspension alone .... yet to see any Australian FWD Golf do this .....

So I know a little bit about what it takes to make a FWD car go and go well ..... and AWD is just so much easier .... when you've actually built a FWD VW that can do that then come back and tell me all about it ....

So how do you compare the traction needs of a lighter, MUCH more powerful FWD (I haven't looked at your thread yet, but I'm assuming we're talking 230-250fwkw based on the terminal speed). That's double the power of most of the Polo GTI's here with chips and little else.

The traction needs of both are very, VERY different and can't be compared in the real world.

[noone]

You can disagree all you want, but fact is you haven't been in a well sorted FWD and until you do judgment should be reserved on what is 'best' for a small turbo car.

Sharkie sold his car due to the traction limitations from memory.

There was a good tuned cars test where the Rennhaus R32 had the best apex speed out of a number of tuned vehicles.

I had my car holding amazing traction under acceleration, cornering and in the wet. Unfortunately this also meant the drive was uncomfortable for daily driving on Sydney roads.

AWD Polo would be pretty cool, cant see it happening unless its going to be the next big thing for tuner boys (then it should be 2.5T).