golf vr6 and this forum
- Thread starter 86JR
- Start date
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
Ok , I had a VR6 brand new ( R346VRB ) whatever year that was , rattled from every corner from day one , misfired everytime it rained which took about 6 visit and 2 dealers to fix , leaked oil from day 1 , engine replaced at 55k mailes due to bottom end failure
other than that it was great ( well it handled crap and was no fun but .... )
other than that it was great ( well it handled crap and was no fun but .... )
Associate
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 2,464
- Location
- Tinternet
I've got one which has H&R coilovers, Eibach ARB's, and Powerflex bushes and it does go ok. It is nose heavy though, and doesn't really like the bumps. The engine is a peach, however. 
I used to run a Highline vr6 which was fine really, although I didn't really fully appreciate it at the time. The stock suspension is very soft which makes for a comfortable ride but not really sporty, my father kept asking why I had an "old man's car"
I replaced the suspension and ARBs to liven up the handling, exhaust to hear the pleasant sounds better and fitted mk4 style lights and bigger alloys to improve the aesthetics. It let me down once in 3 years of ownership, where a weld on the clutch pedal broke leaving the pedal on the floor and clutch engaged which was a bit poor but cheaply fixed.
The biggest problem was really the gearbox. The massive throw on the lever didn't bother me too much, but being a 5-speed there was quite a jump between gears. Somehow I always seemed to want gear 2.5 when trying to overtake on a B-road - 3rd didn't have enough grunt and 2nd was a bit aggressive to select at speed. Maybe that was just user error though
I replaced the suspension and ARBs to liven up the handling, exhaust to hear the pleasant sounds better and fitted mk4 style lights and bigger alloys to improve the aesthetics. It let me down once in 3 years of ownership, where a weld on the clutch pedal broke leaving the pedal on the floor and clutch engaged which was a bit poor but cheaply fixed.
The biggest problem was really the gearbox. The massive throw on the lever didn't bother me too much, but being a 5-speed there was quite a jump between gears. Somehow I always seemed to want gear 2.5 when trying to overtake on a B-road - 3rd didn't have enough grunt and 2nd was a bit aggressive to select at speed. Maybe that was just user error though
It won't sit well against most comparable (i.e. 6-pot) BM's imo.
Yes, I suppose I am but thats only because, to my mind, VW don't match BMW in so many areas.
Were VW to come up with a car that was generally regarded to be better than its equivalent BMW I'm sure I'd check it out to see what the fuss is about.
VW make good but, imo, bland cars that are a very long way from "The Ultimate Driving machine" which tbh, M cars apart , the same can be said for much of the BMW range - I always found that tag absurd.
Having driven a coupe of VR6's, I'm sure the following are true
1. The Golf VR6 has just enough ability to be driven hard and have some fun in.
2. The Golf VR6 in comparison to a lot of other cars handles much worse.
The key thing is that for a lot of people in most of these cases as long as their car is exploitable, Better Handling != considerably more 'fun'..
I always find the majority of those that are so obsessed with the theoretical handling of their cars in relation to others and have the opinion that any lesser handling car is 'poor', 'dire', 'totally flawed' almost always are quite inept at driving themselves.
Case in point, I've got a friend who ironically drives what is a well regarded car on here, and he is amazingly vocal about how he's got the most balanced car 'ever', and laughably when he's taken me for a spirited drive, he was using all these cliches like "Wow, you can really feel the suspension getting the balance just right there, it's like the cars talking to me through the wheel" when he's going around a corner 30% slower then the rest of us do, telling me that only in "the ultimate driving machine" could you get throught there at that speed..
One of the first things I learnt growing up when hanging around with my brothers mates (all die-hard boy-racers of old) is that a lot of cars are quite exploitable to the point that the driver almost always makes the biggest difference, coupled with the experience of going between cars that where heralded as legendary chassis status to what are considered 'dire', and seeing that it translated to almost nothing on the road with equal fun being had, throwing the cars around.. There has been absolutely no experience in my life of normal road cars since that has remotely negated this either..
1. The Golf VR6 has just enough ability to be driven hard and have some fun in.
2. The Golf VR6 in comparison to a lot of other cars handles much worse.
The key thing is that for a lot of people in most of these cases as long as their car is exploitable, Better Handling != considerably more 'fun'..
I always find the majority of those that are so obsessed with the theoretical handling of their cars in relation to others and have the opinion that any lesser handling car is 'poor', 'dire', 'totally flawed' almost always are quite inept at driving themselves.
Case in point, I've got a friend who ironically drives what is a well regarded car on here, and he is amazingly vocal about how he's got the most balanced car 'ever', and laughably when he's taken me for a spirited drive, he was using all these cliches like "Wow, you can really feel the suspension getting the balance just right there, it's like the cars talking to me through the wheel" when he's going around a corner 30% slower then the rest of us do, telling me that only in "the ultimate driving machine" could you get throught there at that speed..
One of the first things I learnt growing up when hanging around with my brothers mates (all die-hard boy-racers of old) is that a lot of cars are quite exploitable to the point that the driver almost always makes the biggest difference, coupled with the experience of going between cars that where heralded as legendary chassis status to what are considered 'dire', and seeing that it translated to almost nothing on the road with equal fun being had, throwing the cars around.. There has been absolutely no experience in my life of normal road cars since that has remotely negated this either..
Last edited:
Wasn't the VR6 in the Golf a 2.7 (2.9 in the Corrado IIRC) and didn't the Golf have all of 170hp? Whilst it might be a nice smooth v6, it's hardly going to set anyone's hair on fire with that level of performance. Always wondered why people rated the engine so much and called it a gem.
Despite the 'underpowered' engine, the Golfs Power to weight was just about 20bhp more then the Civic VTi if parkers is to be believed, it certainly didn't handle as well in the corners, but it wasn't hopeless either..
I dont think anyone is of the opinion the VR6 was an awesome engine, just that (especially the 2.9 in the corrado) as a whole it made for a pretty nippy car..
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 5,060
- Location
- The remittance desk
It was a decent 'hot hatch' 15 years ago, but nothing else. The Clio Williams and (as mentioned above) the Civic VTi were significantly better, the main reason being that the front of the Golf is simply too heavy to handle as well. The VR6 was neither nowt nor something. Too heavy, especially at the front, to be a proper hot hatch, not as powerful as the 200SX/MR2 Turbo/Assorted Jap stuff to be a proper thrashing nutter machine/GT, not comfy enough to be a decent mile muncher with potential to thrash. There were so many better cars on the market.