Anyone up for a Polo R?

[Sharkie]

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.

Actually the engineering that goes into it is exactly the same .... ... you can do the the same to a Polo (and I thought about doing it) but its not worth the time, effort and $$$ ...

[break]

Actually the engineering that goes into it is exactly the same .... ... you can do the the same to a Polo (and I thought about doing it) but its not worth the time, effort and $$$ ...

Indeed, but if those benefits were part of a factory FWD setup with a 140kw car you could imagine that would be a more than ample setup that would see little benefit from AWD once you factor in the weight increase.

As I've said all along, factor FWD isn't a bad thing at these power levels so long as it's done properly.

[firdausasri]

In a way Sharkie is right on the traction issues. The Polo chassis tracks ain't enough to compliment high power game. If you compare the same power R53 MCS and Polo GTI, surely I'd put my money on MCS for traction and driveability. If the same chassis and have it AWD, the Polo GTI traction will improve up to a point especially putting the power down cleaner but AWD turn-in crisp just can't out game the FR cars.