lesser models that are said to be Better
Discussion
I was reading the other day in a car magazine how the v8 R8 I'd a better car than the v10. The article was discussing chassis balance and how the v8 has a better weight distribution and a chassis originally engineered for that particular engine.
What I don't get is how the average driver would be making adequate use of these chassis dynamics on the road. I'd argue the power would be a far more noticeable improvement and sway the consumer towards the v10 being the better car. Buy what do we know.
Is it just a case of someone forcing their misguided opinions on us?
as per the 205 thread, I've always thought the 1.9 was the better car, yet there its debate to say otherwise.
What other misguided opinions are out there?
What I don't get is how the average driver would be making adequate use of these chassis dynamics on the road. I'd argue the power would be a far more noticeable improvement and sway the consumer towards the v10 being the better car. Buy what do we know.
Is it just a case of someone forcing their misguided opinions on us?
as per the 205 thread, I've always thought the 1.9 was the better car, yet there its debate to say otherwise.
What other misguided opinions are out there?
I've only driven the R8 V10 but as it didn't feel unbalanced and as the V10 sounds so great I find it difficult to believe that the V8 could be in any way better.
One that is frequently trotted out is that the 8-valve version of the Mk2 VW Golf GTI is more torquey and I've even heard people claim that it accelerates better than the 16-valve GTI. I'll hold my hands up and say that I've only looked at the data and not driven the cars in question but a quick study of the torque curves proves that the 16v out torques the 8v at almost every point in the rev range.
I suppose you could argue that the 8v Golf is marginally easier to own as it doesn't need super unleaded and might be immune to certain mechanical maladies that affect the 16 valver (I can't remember if I've read that the 16v needs a bit more looking after).
Within my own experience, I've heard people describe the Rover K-series powered Caterhams as better balanced than those with the bigger, heavier 2.0-litre Vauxhall engine (HPC?). My own experience was that the K felt a little weedy and the HPC seemed more willing to do whatever I wanted, whether that was accelerating really quickly or to swing the tail round to turn in a confined space.
One that is frequently trotted out is that the 8-valve version of the Mk2 VW Golf GTI is more torquey and I've even heard people claim that it accelerates better than the 16-valve GTI. I'll hold my hands up and say that I've only looked at the data and not driven the cars in question but a quick study of the torque curves proves that the 16v out torques the 8v at almost every point in the rev range.
I suppose you could argue that the 8v Golf is marginally easier to own as it doesn't need super unleaded and might be immune to certain mechanical maladies that affect the 16 valver (I can't remember if I've read that the 16v needs a bit more looking after).
Within my own experience, I've heard people describe the Rover K-series powered Caterhams as better balanced than those with the bigger, heavier 2.0-litre Vauxhall engine (HPC?). My own experience was that the K felt a little weedy and the HPC seemed more willing to do whatever I wanted, whether that was accelerating really quickly or to swing the tail round to turn in a confined space.
I think its a fairly subjective thing really. It greatly depends on the criteria required by the user.
Ie the R8 V8 and V10, where will this make a difference, at 10/10ths on a circuit, or is it better to think of its real world differences like sound and instant ooomph.
Regards the mk2, i have owned several of each and it again depends what you want from it. I loved the mk2 8v even if it was a little slower on paper, as its didn't have to be revved so hard to have a laugh in it, and could short shift and still progress fairly quickly. Whereas, the 16v felt more at home way up in the revs, which i just didn't feel comfortable doing on a day to day basis as i preferred being a bit kinder to it.
I think in some cases the lesser model can be more fun because often they have the chassis dynamics of the top models but without the more powerful engine, which (in my experience is more fun) as its more about carrying speed and enjoying the chassis, without the accompanying concern for your licence and safety.
Ie the R8 V8 and V10, where will this make a difference, at 10/10ths on a circuit, or is it better to think of its real world differences like sound and instant ooomph.
Regards the mk2, i have owned several of each and it again depends what you want from it. I loved the mk2 8v even if it was a little slower on paper, as its didn't have to be revved so hard to have a laugh in it, and could short shift and still progress fairly quickly. Whereas, the 16v felt more at home way up in the revs, which i just didn't feel comfortable doing on a day to day basis as i preferred being a bit kinder to it.
I think in some cases the lesser model can be more fun because often they have the chassis dynamics of the top models but without the more powerful engine, which (in my experience is more fun) as its more about carrying speed and enjoying the chassis, without the accompanying concern for your licence and safety.
But again, it depends what you want it for, both have the same interiors, and yes the 225 would be quicker in a race, but id pick the V6 for the engine note, and for the body tweeks that set it apart. I think with the TT its hard as they are pretty numb to drive in both guises and the 1.8T is a boring engine both to drive and listen to.
Justin Cyder said:
The body tweaks are front bumper, rear valance and that's about it. As an ex owner, I'd take the 225 anyday & to say it's boring is pretty subjective. I'd argue that once you've stuck a Miltek & a stage one remap on it, it's anything but. Horses for courses.
Ive also owned one and other 1.8T'd cars, and just found the engines flat and characterless compared to a decent N/A engine. It's not helped by the numb steering feel either. Although it was great as it did everything it was supposed to and was very hard to get it to come unstuck in an unpredictable way. As you say subjective though.
McHaggis said:
The 1.6 Mk1 MX5 is rated better than the 1.8....
... In the same vein as Golfs... Quoted by people who bought a 1.6. An early (93, 94) 1.8 has exactly the same revvy characteristic, a better chassis, and a very noticeable chunk of power over a 1.6.
People who claim differently are usually two-bit classic car dealers and people who have no mechanical knowledge.
Autocar recently said that the recently released 208 1.2 VTI was better than the GTI despite it being an economy car. Apparently, the engine sounded sweeter, and because it's slower can be enjoyed for more of the time. And with that tiny, lightweight engine up front, the handling was much more balanced.
I remember seeing a few comments that the Mk6 (?) Fiesta Zetec S was a better steer than the ST from the same range - similar reasons to above.
Not sure I agree with the MX5 comment; yes the engine is supposed to be a little sweeter to rev, but then the 1.8 did come with a higher spec too... bigger brakes, more chassis re-inforcement and lets face it neither are particularly quick. Same things could be said for the Mk2 Golf GTI too.
I remember seeing a few comments that the Mk6 (?) Fiesta Zetec S was a better steer than the ST from the same range - similar reasons to above.
Not sure I agree with the MX5 comment; yes the engine is supposed to be a little sweeter to rev, but then the 1.8 did come with a higher spec too... bigger brakes, more chassis re-inforcement and lets face it neither are particularly quick. Same things could be said for the Mk2 Golf GTI too.
snotrag said:
... In the same vein as Golfs... Quoted by people who bought a 1.6.
An early (93, 94) 1.8 has exactly the same revvy characteristic, a better chassis, and a very noticeable chunk of power over a 1.6.
People who claim differently are usually two-bit classic car dealers and people who have no mechanical knowledge.
It may be the case this is said because the 1.6 lends itself a little better to the common turbocharging.An early (93, 94) 1.8 has exactly the same revvy characteristic, a better chassis, and a very noticeable chunk of power over a 1.6.
People who claim differently are usually two-bit classic car dealers and people who have no mechanical knowledge.
You hear of more big power 1.6's, 1.8's are usually a fairly conservative 200bhp Supercharger set-up. There are plenty of 240bhp+ 1.6 turbo examples around.
I have driven both, and I would say the 1.6 is more happy to rev, in saying that. The 1.6 I drive is a Jap, and the 1.8's have been UK models. Not sure if that makes any diff.
Gingernuts said:
But again, it depends what you want it for, both have the same interiors, and yes the 225 would be quicker in a race, but id pick the V6 for the engine note, and for the body tweeks that set it apart. I think with the TT its hard as they are pretty numb to drive in both guises and the 1.8T is a boring engine both to drive and listen to.
I agree, i wouldnt have either but if i had to it would be tha 3.2, 4 pots are ok in hatches and small cars but in larger cars and coupes they are souless, the 205 xs was reported on here as being better than both gti's, as for the golf argument, family had both back in the day and the 16v was better all round, didnt really matter though the 205 gti made them both look s
te.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff