R32 Golf Kill
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Honolulu Hawaii
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 1999 30th Anniversary Pontiac T/A
Engine: LS1
Transmission: T-56
Axle/Gears: 3.42
R32 Golf Kill
I caught a redlight w/ a blue, brand new golf R32, hadn't seen one before, and looked over n gave him a thumbs up.. typical euro-trashricer flicks me off, starts revving. (his car was full w/ four people) Light turns green, i dump the clutch, and jump out ahead of him, by 50 mph ive got some noticable distance on him, but not much, he was pretty close, when I shut down... then he does the typical fly by w/ hazards.
Im not too sure how fast they are supposed to run, but it was one of the most fun races ive had in a while. (heh, ive raced like 3 times in my life)
On second thought, maybe he was a really ****ty driver... idk.
Im not too sure how fast they are supposed to run, but it was one of the most fun races ive had in a while. (heh, ive raced like 3 times in my life)
On second thought, maybe he was a really ****ty driver... idk.
Last edited by 91RSHawaii; 10-31-2004 at 04:31 PM.
#2
Supreme Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: cali
Posts: 1,764
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 84z, 65 elcamino
Engine: l69 and a hyped up sbc in the camino
Transmission: t5 m21
Axle/Gears: 373s 411s
well lets see he had 4 people u had 1 and u barely won i ont know if he had only him in the car you might be bowing down rite about now
#6
http://www.caranddriver.com/article....rticle_id=8006
0-60 in 6.4 Similar to 1.8T golf
240 horses at 6250 rpm 236lbft from 2800-3200 rpm.
3400lbs, 300 heavier than VR6
capable of .90 g on skidpad so Iroc's beware, this thing will run with you if not beat you stock. LOL
moves good. but L98 should walk it
0-60 in 6.4 Similar to 1.8T golf
240 horses at 6250 rpm 236lbft from 2800-3200 rpm.
3400lbs, 300 heavier than VR6
capable of .90 g on skidpad so Iroc's beware, this thing will run with you if not beat you stock. LOL
moves good. but L98 should walk it
#7
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 1988 Pontiac Trans Am
Engine: 5.0L Fuel Injection
Transmission: Automatic 4speed /w OVerdrive
The R32 is a Fat heavy AWD VR6. Aparently VW made a big hype about them however people with a Chipped 1.8T have been known to school these overpriced GTI wannabes.
Trending Topics
#8
Originally posted by Orr89RocZ
http://www.caranddriver.com/article....rticle_id=8006
0-60 in 6.4 Similar to 1.8T golf
240 horses at 6250 rpm 236lbft from 2800-3200 rpm.
3400lbs, 300 heavier than VR6
capable of .90 g on skidpad so Iroc's beware, this thing will run with you if not beat you stock. LOL
moves good. but L98 should walk it
http://www.caranddriver.com/article....rticle_id=8006
0-60 in 6.4 Similar to 1.8T golf
240 horses at 6250 rpm 236lbft from 2800-3200 rpm.
3400lbs, 300 heavier than VR6
capable of .90 g on skidpad so Iroc's beware, this thing will run with you if not beat you stock. LOL
moves good. but L98 should walk it
One over thing they have that no stock thirdgen does...... fantastic brakes!
#9
TGO Supporter
yeah nothing to ride home about, my friend beat one pretty gppd and he runs mid 14s to low at the track. from a light and a roll.
i also agree they seem quite expensive also.
i also agree they seem quite expensive also.
#10
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Honolulu Hawaii
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 1999 30th Anniversary Pontiac T/A
Engine: LS1
Transmission: T-56
Axle/Gears: 3.42
hehe, well i had a pretty ****ty launch, (broken torque arm bushing) and ive driven stick for less than two months.. so granted my car couldve hammered him harder, but it was interesting to race such a hyped up car, and realize that its ***** arent as huge as the pricetag.
anyone else have any experience racing these?
anyone else have any experience racing these?
#11
Supreme Member
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 9,550
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Car: 91 Camaro Vert
Engine: 02 LS1, HX40
Transmission: 2002 LS1 M6
my 2000 jetta with the same VR6 was faster.
mostly because, the golf looks small, but with the AWD, leather, ect... that comes with the R32, it weighs 3200+ lbs... in otherwords, our 3rdgens are about the same weight.
it has somthing like 240-250 horses and 245-255 TQ... they're slightly under rated from VW.
if you're intrested in motors, look into the VR6 and the W8 that VW has, they're very intresting designs.
mostly because, the golf looks small, but with the AWD, leather, ect... that comes with the R32, it weighs 3200+ lbs... in otherwords, our 3rdgens are about the same weight.
it has somthing like 240-250 horses and 245-255 TQ... they're slightly under rated from VW.
if you're intrested in motors, look into the VR6 and the W8 that VW has, they're very intresting designs.
#13
Supreme Member
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 9,550
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Car: 91 Camaro Vert
Engine: 02 LS1, HX40
Transmission: 2002 LS1 M6
Originally posted by Orr89RocZ
Its 7 grand more than base VR6!
Its 7 grand more than base VR6!
the VR6 is a engine.
you can get it in several cars.
do you mean the GTI?
#18
Supreme Member
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 9,550
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Car: 91 Camaro Vert
Engine: 02 LS1, HX40
Transmission: 2002 LS1 M6
Originally posted by Mcdamit
Thats heavier then my iroc---------- im not worried nice power four a 4 banger stock
Thats heavier then my iroc---------- im not worried nice power four a 4 banger stock
VR6 = V6.
and since its a MODERN motor, compared to, i donno, what they designed in the early 80s, it ends up making just as much power, STOCK, as..... say a TPI V8.
#20
Supreme Member
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 9,550
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Car: 91 Camaro Vert
Engine: 02 LS1, HX40
Transmission: 2002 LS1 M6
Originally posted by stu
Just because it's modern, doesn't mean it's hightech. coughLS1cough. The NSX has basically had the same motor for the last 15 years.
Just because it's modern, doesn't mean it's hightech. coughLS1cough. The NSX has basically had the same motor for the last 15 years.
now go research the motor. look at the variable intake tract length plastic intake. the valve train, hell the whole motor has so many nice design details id take me all day do describe them all.
it is a modern, hightech production motor.
#26
Supreme Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: CT
Posts: 2,839
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: Mustang
Engine: Bolt Ons
Transmission: Stock
Axle/Gears: 3.73
I wouldnt call an LS1 high tech, but then again DOHC motors have now been around for a LONG time. I would soon enough say a motor is more technologically advanced by the computer than the actual workings of the motor, merely because everything out today has more or less been out for many years now. Nothing wrong with a non high tech motor, some of the fastest have carbs!!!
#28
Supreme Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: CT
Posts: 2,839
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: Mustang
Engine: Bolt Ons
Transmission: Stock
Axle/Gears: 3.73
Originally posted by stu
I know, I was just giving you guys a hard time. I hope no one else comes in here trying to defend the LS1 (not saying that you are 25th).
I know, I was just giving you guys a hard time. I hope no one else comes in here trying to defend the LS1 (not saying that you are 25th).
#29
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally posted by 25thmustang
just saying in my eyes most engines have been around and repeated so many times, they just arent modern or that high tech anymore!
just saying in my eyes most engines have been around and repeated so many times, they just arent modern or that high tech anymore!
#30
Originally posted by 25thmustang
...just saying in my eyes most engines have been around and repeated so many times, they just arent modern or that high tech anymore!
...just saying in my eyes most engines have been around and repeated so many times, they just arent modern or that high tech anymore!
I mean, the 2004 Z06 has proven to run high 11's naturally aspirated from the factory.... yet I never seen the 'High Tech' LT5 run those numbers, stock.
#32
Originally posted by Orr89RocZ I am sure it has tho
But still though, the Z06 dominates the ZR1.... even with it's pre-historic pushrods.
#33
Supreme Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: CT
Posts: 2,839
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: Mustang
Engine: Bolt Ons
Transmission: Stock
Axle/Gears: 3.73
Originally posted by Street Lethal
I hear what you're saying 25, but then you have to ask yourself.... does it really even matter?
I mean, the 2004 Z06 has proven to run high 11's naturally aspirated from the factory.... yet I never seen the 'High Tech' LT5 run those numbers, stock.
I hear what you're saying 25, but then you have to ask yourself.... does it really even matter?
I mean, the 2004 Z06 has proven to run high 11's naturally aspirated from the factory.... yet I never seen the 'High Tech' LT5 run those numbers, stock.
#34
Some people i know driven both the LS6 Z06 and the LT5 ZR1's and say they are about the same. They like the Lt5 cuz it revs higher but Z06 is lighter buy like 300 pounds. LOL Your right, most Zr1's are mid high 12's with the later 93-95 versions being the quicker. The Z06 is faster and i dont think a Zr1 could break 11's stock after reading up on some ZR1 forums.
#35
Supreme Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: cali
Posts: 1,764
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 84z, 65 elcamino
Engine: l69 and a hyped up sbc in the camino
Transmission: t5 m21
Axle/Gears: 373s 411s
for all out performance you cant beat a carb the fastest cars will always be running carbs. thats why theyre making ls1 manifolds that bolt on to carbs instead of fi altho id rather have fi just for the gas mileage and part throttle. but ft will always be won by the carb
#36
Supporter/Moderator
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 13,355
Likes: 0
Received 427 Likes
on
329 Posts
Car: '90 RS
Engine: 377 LSX
Transmission: Magnum T56
Originally posted by jocww
for all out performance you cant beat a carb the fastest cars will always be running carbs. thats why theyre making ls1 manifolds that bolt on to carbs instead of fi altho id rather have fi just for the gas mileage and part throttle. but ft will always be won by the carb
for all out performance you cant beat a carb the fastest cars will always be running carbs. thats why theyre making ls1 manifolds that bolt on to carbs instead of fi altho id rather have fi just for the gas mileage and part throttle. but ft will always be won by the carb
As a side note. In the world of IC engines only engines with overhead valves are considered "high performance". That does not mean that engines do not have tons of technology poured into them. It is just a word that designates certain spark ignition engines. A 100hp DOHC motor is considered high performance but a 700HP LS1 is not. Whpo would have figured. The LS1 was ahead of its time really. Only now are other car comapanies able to duplicate certian desing and performance features of the LS1. They started development in 1991 I beleive. To put this in perspective, ford now uses the LS1 intake (A slightly different version) and the HEMI is almost a carbon copy of the LS1. It only took them 7+ years to get there and in the end they all had to copy it.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post