a very quick x6

Kenai said:
Given a 240bhp R32 with a 6 speed box takes over 9 seconds to do the 60-100mph dash, i'm just very doubtful a 1.8T with a 5 speed box running 200-210bhp is going to manage it a second faster than that.

I'd expect to see it take more like 11 seconds.
Click to expand...

However, the r32 is definately heavier and 4wd has more power losses both of which do no do it much favour in a 60-100mph time.
but yea, a leon cupra R (225bhp) does it in 9 seconds so 8 is quite... optimistic for the golf.
 
Sin_Chase said:
But you did not come in here linking BMW official stats and saying WHOA it's so fast for what it is, did you?

No, you came in here baffled about how it walked your....Golf, as if that was some achievement to be in awe of.
Click to expand...

here is a quote from my original post. you clearly have not got the first clue about what youre posting about, get off the bandwagon and read the posts!

> you did not come in here linking BMW official stats and saying WHOA it's so fast for what it is, did you?
not only was it amazing to see such performance from a car to big but regardless of fuel, amazing that it was such a small engine
Click to expand...

> No, you came in here baffled about how it walked your....Golf, as if that was some achievement to be in awe of

wrong again, good thing they gave you today off work because you dont seem to be able to comprehend anything. if you read the posts, my car was ahead of his, i last looked down at the clocks and saw 5.6krpm in 5th and even after that i couldnt get rid of him at all so i backed off because the speeds were getting silly
 
jon.bda said:
Dyno's prove lots, but they ain't consistent. Did the 180+ car do 160 on the same dyno or a different one?
:)
Click to expand...

exactly the same dyno, the same dyno it had its mapping finished on, the mapper was actually the dyno operator on the day

purely down to weather

rolling roads really arnt a tool for figuring out engine output
 
What is so amazing about a car going at a speed it is capable of?

Your post came across as it being amazing because of the comparison with your Golf. Fact is it could have been much much slower than you are claiming.
 
Cristian said:
However, the r32 is definately heavier and 4wd has more power losses both of which do no do it much favour in a 60-100mph time.
but yea, a leon cupra R (225bhp) does it in 9 seconds so 8 is quite... optimistic for the golf.
Click to expand...

a friend of mine has a 225 cupra, when it was almost standard i had raced his car dozens of times and there was very little difference, not until well into three figure speeds

ill see if i can get the video up, it aint the best but its something
 
Matt82 said:
a friend of mine has a 225 cupra, when it was almost standard i had raced his car dozens of times and there was very little difference, not until well into three figure speeds

ill see if i can get the video up, it aint the best but its something
Click to expand...

I feel an ST/M3 comparison coming on...
 
Matt82 said:
i may as well be speaking to my dog
Click to expand...

I would rather you did as opposed to posting here.

Matt82 said:
i think it may have been beyond 140 when i backed off wondering why the 4x4 wouldnt go away
Click to expand...

Might of been quite as amazing as you make out if you were in something which was genuinely quick and shocking if an X6 could not only keep up, but sail past.

But that's not the story is it? No, it's your tuned Golf that could not leave an X6 so the story is somewhat less salivating. Even if your Golf is running the power you claim, the X6 is still more powerful so I do not see how this is an amazing thing to behold?
 
Last edited:
Yes yes, I look like an utter berk for questioning the AMAZINGNESS of a drag between a Golf of unspecified power output (but not stock) via out-of-the box tuning and an X6.

Boo on me.
 
Matt82 said:
should be interesting to see. ive got a squiffy video that looks about 8s, i could do a vagcom run tonight, but fox would be nothing without his sarcasm so you know a quip about "anyone can type numbers into excel" would follow, making the whole discussion about the golf pointless
Click to expand...

Because your numbers are ridiculous and your posts border on fantasy.

It takes BMW 306bhp from a twin turbo 3 litre engine to get a 3 Series from 60-100 in 7.4 seconds yet here is you trying to tell us your old Golf 1.8T 150bhp is almost as quick.

Then when you get pulled up on it, you whinge.
 
Matt82 said:
the changes to my car are just the software and a couple of very basic breathing changes, "thinking out side the box" changes that i cant say ive even seen much discussion about on forums etc
Click to expand...

Why so secretive on the changes?

Care to spill the beans so other owners could benefit? I'm always open to tinkering with my engine if I think it will be genuinely worth it.
 
[TW]Fox;19258592 said:
Because your numbers are ridiculous and your posts border on fantasy.

It takes BMW 306bhp from a twin turbo 3 litre engine to get a 3 Series from 60-100 in 7.4 seconds yet here is you trying to tell us your old Golf 1.8T 150bhp is almost as quick.

Then when you get pulled up on it, you whinge.
Click to expand...

seeing as youre so vocal about the subject, how would you suggest the mods/gains be verified?
 
Go to the OCuK RR day and run it.

There will be enough points of comparisons in the sheer numbers attending to get a reasonable feel for the 'accuracy' of the dyno.

Make sure to run with a shroud though, can't let the classified tuning secrets out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom