VW Golf R Does Quarter-Mile in 9.5 Secs
Discussion
When you see the effort it took for the Norris Evo to go <9secs (shortened wheelbase, effectively a ground-up racecar build), it's seriously impressive that the Golf doesn't require such drastic modification.
ETA - the Norris 200sx never managed a <11secs run with its "680bhp", which makes me even more in awe of the Golf.
ETA - the Norris 200sx never managed a <11secs run with its "680bhp", which makes me even more in awe of the Golf.
Edited by C70R on Thursday 27th July 17:36
Nanook said:
Other than the obvious, less mass, what benefit does shortening the wheel base make on the strip?
Something with a longer wheel base is going to be able to put the power down better.
I wasn't suggesting that the SWB was purely about speed, but it was a (very drastic) weight-saving effort to get rid of the rear doors. It was more to illustrate that we're definitely not comparing apples with apples when talking about the (very impressive) Norris car.Something with a longer wheel base is going to be able to put the power down better.
ETA - I'm actually struggling to find anything about Cosworths (Escorts or Sierras - not transplanted Cossie lumps) going quicker than this 9.58. I'd have assumed, given the time they've been tuned for, we'd be <9secs in a few cases...
Edited by C70R on Thursday 27th July 17:42
C70R said:
Escy said:
The most impressive thing is how a Golf with 780bhp and a sub 10 second 1/4 mile looks and sounds so boring.
And all the other 4cyl drag cars sounded great?https://youtu.be/IW_hFkLD2_k
I think the underlying point the cynics are making (me included) is there's nothing new here. Fast hatches have been doing this for decades.
SuperchargedVR6 said:
Impressive but look at it writhing it's way up the strip on drag radials. Not really a street car is it? I'll take the modern trickery thanks....and full interior....and street tyres.
It was very impressive in 2006, and that's kind of my point. Baumgartner's MR2 was very lairy, but he was (to my knowledge at least) the first person to get the MR2 Turbo to run a sub 10sec 1/4 mile. The point I was addressing was the idea that to get those sorts of numbers from a 2ltr 4 cylinder Turbo is somehow groundbreaking when in reality it's been done many many times with much less sophisticated machinery. Don't get me wrong, it's still bloody impressive it's just nothing new.
Nanook said:
Other than the obvious, less mass, what benefit does shortening the wheel base make on the strip?
Something with a longer wheel base is going to be able to put the power down better.
Indeed, there are relatively few benefits of a shorter wheelbase. Weight is one, fun is the other. The shorter the car, the more it moves around when sufficient power is added to the equation.Something with a longer wheel base is going to be able to put the power down better.
In regulated racing, most people build cars to the upper end of the wheelbase limit - the longer the car, the more power can be applied at the rear wheels. Chassis dynamics and tuning comes into it at this point, and with a short wheelbase car you no longer use a wheelie bar as a wheelie bar (gets a bit complicated from here).
KarlMac said:
C70R said:
Escy said:
The most impressive thing is how a Golf with 780bhp and a sub 10 second 1/4 mile looks and sounds so boring.
And all the other 4cyl drag cars sounded great?https://youtu.be/IW_hFkLD2_k
I think the underlying point the cynics are making (me included) is there's nothing new here. Fast hatches have been doing this for decades.
I guess this is my point - I'm shocked that some people can be so blase about an incredible feat. It looks stock outside (even down to the wheels), and the brief interior glimpse makes it look like it's just rolled out of the factory. That absolutely can't be said about any of the other super-fast hatches I've seen in this thread.
C70R said:
Decades? Have they really?
I guess this is my point - I'm shocked that some people can be so blase about an incredible feat. It looks stock outside (even down to the wheels), and the brief interior glimpse makes it look like it's just rolled out of the factory. That absolutely can't be said about any of the other super-fast hatches I've seen in this thread.
I have more respect for the original design that gives a reliable 300-400hp and perhaps 150k miles reliable service than some chump who gets 700hp with no guarantee whatsoever. Just seems like a cheap way to get headlines. I guess this is my point - I'm shocked that some people can be so blase about an incredible feat. It looks stock outside (even down to the wheels), and the brief interior glimpse makes it look like it's just rolled out of the factory. That absolutely can't be said about any of the other super-fast hatches I've seen in this thread.
C70R said:
When you see the effort it took for the Norris Evo to go <9secs (shortened wheelbase, effectively a ground-up racecar build), it's seriously impressive that the Golf doesn't require such drastic modification.
ETA - the Norris 200sx never managed a <11secs run with its "680bhp", which makes me even more in awe of the Golf.
His current evo is track car first, drag car second. That 9secs was with track suspension set up just with the rear wing removed. Which makes his 8.9 even more astonishing. The size of the turbo he's using now with a supercharger on the inlet will be an absolute monster 1200bhp+ he said it'll be. I believe the shortening of the wheelbase was to do with handling and being more agile rather than drag car weight saving. Even then to be under 10secs in a golf road car is ridiculously quickETA - the Norris 200sx never managed a <11secs run with its "680bhp", which makes me even more in awe of the Golf.
Edited by C70R on Thursday 27th July 17:36
Escy said:
The most impressive thing is how a Golf with 780bhp and a sub 10 second 1/4 mile looks and sounds so boring.
I'm going to expand on my previous point. I am really impressed by it although the videos were boring. It looks really easy to drive, it launched with no drama, the traction control looks very well set-up. The gear changes are automatic and quick, barely required any steering input. It looks like such a well set-up car I think my Gran could do a 10 second pass in it. It also looks like it has the potential to be a useable car still, perhaps something that could be driven on the roads regularly, it doesn't even look like it's set-up as a drag car.The fact it looks so competent is what makes it a bit boring to watch in my opinion. I think the same opinion is often made about the standard car being so good it's boring. It doesn't sound good. I don't think VW have ever made a decent sounding 4 pot.
Edited by Escy on Friday 28th July 00:26
RizzoTheRat said:
Civic Type R, Focus RS and presumably a few others are making similar or more power in standard tune as a Golf R, are the Golfs that much more tuneable or just have more a "scene" of people in to tuning them? I'm guessing AWD helps the popularity too.
More of a "scene" thing I think. I can remember people widely tuning Mk4 Golf 1.8Ts with big turbos and whatnot.hondansx said:
a) What is different about the standard Golf R's engine which makes it so apparently capable?
Different to what? It's predecessor, or other 4 pot engines in general? The Golf R engine is modern, but not quite in the same league as AMG's 4 pot turbo. It has a forged steel crank, forged rods, 4 bolt mains and, surprisingly, cast pistons but modern castings are leagues ahead of the crumbly 80s cast pistons. It has variable lift and duration on both cams - VTEC style, two sets of lobes. It has a rather nice IHI turbo with electronic actuator, a rather nice gearbox factory rated to 600nm and 8 injectors - 4 direct and 4 port.
I guess the main benefit is direct injection and couple that with E85, cylinder temps are much lower and timing can be advanced.
hondansx said:
b) Does it benefit from general improvement in engine tech, or does the Golf R engine have unique, world-first innovations?
General improvement in quality/strength I would say.hondansx said:
b) How over-engineered is the rest of the drivetrain from the factory to deal with such big power, if at all?
The DQ500 gearbox for starters. 600nm factory rating for starters (it can handle a lot more with an uprated clutch pack) and the latest gen Haldex. It won't last long running 780hp/600+lbft torque though. hondansx said:
Otherwise, what is to be impressed by? You can bolt a turbo to any car and make big power. The question is how long it lasts. There are only a select few engines in history that are genuinely landmark. I'm interested to know if the Golf's is one of them.
Such as? They are just bits of moving metal and all engines will blow up if not tuned properly, or crap parts used. And that is the difference now compared to 20 years ago.....decent engine calibration.MikeyMike said:
SuperchargedVR6 said:
Impressive but look at it writhing it's way up the strip on drag radials. Not really a street car is it? I'll take the modern trickery thanks....and full interior....and street tyres.
It was very impressive in 2006, and that's kind of my point. Baumgartner's MR2 was very lairy, but he was (to my knowledge at least) the first person to get the MR2 Turbo to run a sub 10sec 1/4 mile. The point I was addressing was the idea that to get those sorts of numbers from a 2ltr 4 cylinder Turbo is somehow groundbreaking when in reality it's been done many many times with much less sophisticated machinery. Don't get me wrong, it's still bloody impressive it's just nothing new.
What is 'new' is the fact you take a humdrum Golf, bolt a couple of things onto it, remap it and then race (and probably beat) a Ferrari up the track. You could not do that so easily, or cheaply 20 years ago.
Edited by SuperchargedVR6 on Friday 28th July 10:52
C70R said:
I wasn't suggesting that the SWB was purely about speed, but it was a (very drastic) weight-saving effort to get rid of the rear doors. It was more to illustrate that we're definitely not comparing apples with apples when talking about the (very impressive) Norris car.
ETA - I'm actually struggling to find anything about Cosworths (Escorts or Sierras - not transplanted Cossie lumps) going quicker than this 9.58. I'd have assumed, given the time they've been tuned for, we'd be <9secs in a few cases...
Have a look in Malta ;-)ETA - I'm actually struggling to find anything about Cosworths (Escorts or Sierras - not transplanted Cossie lumps) going quicker than this 9.58. I'd have assumed, given the time they've been tuned for, we'd be <9secs in a few cases...
Edited by C70R on Thursday 27th July 17:42
C70R said:
mwstewart said:
Amazing for the outlay.
Agreed. Is it possible to quicker for £50k in a (relatively new/civilised) road-legal car?I can't understand the mentality of someone who would try and pick holes in such an epic achievement.
To get well into the 9's is a great achievement.
SuperchargedVR6 said:
What is 'new' though? BMW made 1500hp 4 pot Turbos for F1 in the 80s, but it last minutes running that kind of boost. The internal combustion engine is ancient, so nothing will ever be new that's powered by them. The only thing stopping people making insanely powerful 4 cylinder engines is money.
It reaches a point where it comes down to definition of a 4 cylinder engine that's been modified from relatively humble beginnings, or one that's been built with a sole purpose from concept stage.A 4000 horsepower 4 cylinder was built about 10 years ago, but many would say it doesn't count as it started life as something else (an Arias block designed for Top Fuel at the time). It also ran on nitromethane, which dictated custom parts from top to bottom (similar to the stuff in my Corvette). When all was said and done, it was a Top Fuel engine split in half - half the displacement, half the power. It was an interesting technical exercise but it could never be described as a 4 cylinder by birth.
In terms of high output 4 cylinder power plants that started life as factory motors, Cosworth 2.0 lumps were making 600 or so horsepower a while back, as were their Japanese peers. The engine used in the Golf that started this thread, is nothing new in terms of its output for a 4 banger - the point that's been raised by a few chaps, is that the manner in which is puts its power down, is the more impressive part.
To run mid 9's in a configuration that looks stock, and more importantly doesn't appear to be difficult to drive, takes a lot of engineering under the skin. The belief that drag racing merely requires lots of power, is quite short sighted. There's never been a problem making power, but it's a very different thing to make it durable and streetable. The guys running 8.9 in similar combinations (call them the 2.0 AWD fraternity) are often giving the guardrail and centre line equal attention on a run, and that's on slicks and with some drastic weight reduction going on.
Fair play to those involved with the Golf - you could perhaps go quicker in something else for less money, but not in such a civilized manner.
TameRacingDriver said:
RizzoTheRat said:
Civic Type R, Focus RS and presumably a few others are making similar or more power in standard tune as a Golf R, are the Golfs that much more tuneable or just have more a "scene" of people in to tuning them? I'm guessing AWD helps the popularity too.
More of a "scene" thing I think. I can remember people widely tuning Mk4 Golf 1.8Ts with big turbos and whatnot.Mandalore said:
^^
I think its fairly obvious that too many people seem to think the Golf R is some magical new shiny development the like of which was never been seen before,, when in realty its just a newer technology version of the same tried and tested 4pot AWD family car that the Japs have been punting out for over years.
Its also absolutely true that writing a post comparing a superbike to a 4 seat car and then getting offended when people point out (the obvious) that a bike isn't a car, is enough to make the Pope think 'mincer'.
it seems to be more reliably tuneable than the jap stuff though, everyone I know who put 500bhp through an a evo engine had countless problemsI think its fairly obvious that too many people seem to think the Golf R is some magical new shiny development the like of which was never been seen before,, when in realty its just a newer technology version of the same tried and tested 4pot AWD family car that the Japs have been punting out for over years.
Its also absolutely true that writing a post comparing a superbike to a 4 seat car and then getting offended when people point out (the obvious) that a bike isn't a car, is enough to make the Pope think 'mincer'.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff