big engines with n/a power are 10x better to drive than things with boost imo coz the power is always there and you only need to move your toe down about a centimetre to get effortless power

225bhp on boost, 40+mpg off boost, bit of a no brainer over the vr6 to me.

Don't get me wrong, my work car (that I badly need out of hibernation when I've got some money) is a V6, and having the torque there all the way up is great, but it comes at so many costs. Economy's a bit rough (though streets ahead of most things its size), and a big, heavy, engine coupled with front wheel drive is always going to invite dodgy handing round for tea.

there not even proper v6s! id still own one at some point though

Six cylinders, V configuration, narrow angle or not that sounds like a V6 to me.

p.s. I wasn't saying that your comment was unfounded Rich, I was just interested as to why you think mk2 VRs are no good as I like them! I was more thinking about the "OMG vr6 engines are shiiiiteee LOLLLLL!!!!1111" comments.

my mate bought one for a considerable sum, basically had to rebuild it, ended up killing my mk3 vr to put the engine in his.

big engines with n/a power are 10x better to drive than things with boost imo coz the power is always there and you only need to move your toe down about a centimetre to get effortless power

225bhp on boost, 40+mpg off boost, bit of a no brainer over the vr6 to me.

Don't get me wrong, my work car (that I badly need out of hibernation when I've got some money) is a V6, and having the torque there all the way up is great, but it comes at so many costs. Economy's a bit rough (though streets ahead of most things its size), and a big, heavy, engine coupled with front wheel drive is always going to invite dodgy handing round for tea.

I'm assuming you mean a 225bhp G?

as fast as i no doubt imagine it is [and I'm sure its mentally fast, if you catch it at the right revs when you need the power], in my experience theres nothing better than putting your foot down [not caring at what rpm youre at], hearing an orchestra, thinking your not going that fast then realising youre in the triple figures +

more pistons = more goodness

I'm assuming you mean a 225bhp G?

No he means a 1.8T

even so, i prefer n/a power

is it that you prefer it beacuse you have never driven otherwise?^^

its called personal preference mate

i bet uv never driven a car with boost

how can you not like it!

with a decent suspension setup and poly engine mounts and decent tyres the cars handle fantastic compared to standard...

that's not really saying much tho mate, standard is shocking for a 'performance' hatch, but i agree with the muscle hatch tag rather than some thing like hot hatch. but i'd say owning one is some thing totally different to going out in one

but i fully agree with you on the noise, mine had an induction kit and it was verging on orgasmic, but the torque? it just felt lazy to me, lots of noise but not much else, it pulled well but compared to the car i had swapped it for which had about 30bhp less (and i'd imagine a lot less torque?) it felt gutless, i've been in another since and it was the same, the noise gave you a sense of power but that was it. and any go it had was lost in the bends, when you have a diesel A2 (think that's right? the ugly little Audi) stuck on your arse and at times taking you on the bends its embarrassing, and i was far from driving like a pussy... he did compliment me on the noise tho

the engine mounts are what suprises you, the amout of torque you loose thru the shit standard ones..

but i'm not getting one now, changed my mind need am going for something spanish with 20 valves and a turbo...

rolling maintenance of a mk3 and the fact a close mate has a spare K03s and K04 lying about...

i bet uv never driven a car with boost

how can you not like it!

dont get me wrong, it is fun - in a straight line

but for actually driving i PERSONALLY prefer n/a cars

how is that so hard to believe?

Edited 1 July, 200917 yr by doug

Yeah true about mine being in a Corrado and of course its the 2.9 version, I didnt think there would be that much difference between the 2.9 and the 2.8 though. I was merely saying that they can be genuinely quick if driven properly. When I first got it I was wondering what all the fuss was about as I was trying to drive it like I would the G and of course its a compeltely different engine with a very different character in a completely different car. Once you get to know the lump you can get the best out of them. So many people are quick to slate the VR's because of all the stuff they read on forums rather than experience. Having said that I've never had a go in a Golf Vr so couldnt comment which is why I said for the OP to go and drive one. To me thats that best way of making your mind up!

like i said i think my main disappointment came from how bad the chassis was rather than the engine, if you put a good engine in a shit chassis its still gonna be a shit chassis and its hard to get the best out of an engine when its in a shit chassis. i'm guessing the 2.9 must be a quicker engine tho because there's no way i would of described the 2.8 as 'genuinely quick', although the mk3 might be heavier than the corrado? and the 20bhp less must make some difference.

like you say tho its best he goes and tests one himself, that way he knows what he's getting.

Yeah true about mine being in a Corrado and of course its the 2.9 version, I didnt think there would be that much difference between the 2.9 and the 2.8 though. I was merely saying that they can be genuinely quick if driven properly. When I first got it I was wondering what all the fuss was about as I was trying to drive it like I would the G and of course its a compeltely different engine with a very different character in a completely different car. Once you get to know the lump you can get the best out of them. So many people are quick to slate the VR's because of all the stuff they read on forums rather than experience. Having said that I've never had a go in a Golf Vr so couldnt comment which is why I said for the OP to go and drive one. To me thats that best way of making your mind up!

like i said i think my main disappointment came from how bad the chassis was rather than the engine, if you put a good engine in a shit chassis its still gonna be a shit chassis and its hard to get the best out of an engine when its in a shit chassis. i'm guessing the 2.9 must be a quicker engine tho because there's no way i would of described the 2.8 as 'genuinely quick', although the mk3 might be heavier than the corrado? and the 20bhp less must make some difference.

like you say tho its best he goes and tests one himself, that way he knows what he's getting.

power varies on engine, obdII 2.8's are 185bhp... 5 less than the rado...

@ OP...get someone who has owned one a while to take you out, they'll show you whats possible...

power varies on engine, obdII 2.8's are 185bhp... 5 less than the rado...

i thought the odb1 was 170 ish?

yep, but in the mk3 you get both engines... so a later spec mk3 will have the 15 extra ponies...

unfortunately the VR6 isn't a off the mark speed monster. the reason the VR6 came about is in the mid 90's vw saw a drop in the GTI hot hatch sales because everyone was buying big BMW cruise machines. so they made the big engined VR6 golf. don't get me wrong, its got some go! but its was meant to get in on the motorway mileage munching business men market. would still love to own one just for the noise tho :-D

The golf vr6 is ugly, rusts and too many bad examples out there.

In my opinion GET the Corrado VR6 its one of the best cars I've owned, 190bhp lots of torque and 0-60 in 6.4 seconds and quarter mile 15 secs !! Genuinly a quick car, even faster than a Audi TT 225 for example and forget when people say cars with V6 engines are slow off the mark or crap handling, they obviously have been misled. The Corrado VR6 was voted one of the best front wheel drive cars in evo magazine also.

A few of these vids might change your mind to get a Corrado instead, first up old Top Gear compares the Corrado VR6 to Calibra, Ford probe, Prelude etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZm-KWGDWC4

Motorweek review (the Americans had less bhp and torque in their VR6)

and forget when people say cars with V6 engines are slow off the mark or crap handling, they obviously have been misled.

your getting the wrong end of the stick mate, no ones said the corrardo is crap handling. this is a thread about mk3 golf's, that's why people are saying they handle shit because mk3 golfs vr6's do and that's more to do with the chassis than the engine tbh.

also as has been pointed out in this thread they had a few different power out puts on the vr6 engine, so comparing the 190bhp one in a corrado to say an earlier mk3 golf with only 170bhp isn't really a fair comparison, if there's that much difference in bhp then how much difference is there in the torque?

i had a mk3 vr6 so there was no missleading going on just personal experiance and it was slow off the mark (compared to the much less powerful mk2 16v i had before it) and the handling was crap (compared to just about every other vw i've owned ).

by the way you have probably the best user name i've ever seen

I enjoyed my mk3 VR6...... only cost me £300 lol

the engine from that car is in my brothers 5 door mk2 Golf now

as people have already said mpg ain't great...... 30 to 33 on a long run I got..... never checked the mpg round town (best not to)

prefer the mk3 VR6 over the mk2 GTI 16v to be honest....... yes, people will slag me for saying that, but that's my honest opinion

driving the mk2 GTI 16v fast felt like I was REALLY thrashing it, like it was doing it damage

driving the mk3 VR6 fast felt like it was how the car was mean't to be driven..... engine felt like it would go beyond the rev limiter..... nearly through it off the road a couple of times as I thought I was going slower than I really was

deffo easier the drive quickly in a mk3 VR6 than in my 2wd Sapphire Cosworth

Never owned one myself,but a mate had a mulberry highline which oddly had a GTi interior and spec (stolen recovered).

It did go well,and it did sound good,but you had to give it some beans to do so.

Not the best car in the world,felt heavy and vague to use otherwise,but enjoyable enough none the less.

there not even proper v6s! id still own one at some point though

Six cylinders, V configuration, narrow angle or not that sounds like a V6 to me.

not really a full V more of a webbed one, even ze germans relise this hence the R which the word that it is in german roughly translates to inline... so its midway from inline to a v configuration

For many years,I've had no interest in engines over two litres in capacity,so I've not looked into the VR6 myself.

But I've been told the bores are vertical and i know it has one cylinder head (six inlet ports on the front,six exhaust ports on the back),though i dont know how the cams are laid out (two valves per cylinder).

So it is more an in-line than V, just staggered. Not that that's a bad thing - BMW have done okay with the in-line six cylinder arrangement,its just that a straight six wouldn't have fitted in VW's transverse engine bays.

Am i correct in believing it was a first,VW's invention?

And is someone gonna strap a set of six bike carbs along the front of one,and tell me what it sounds like..?

ITBs its been bored to a 3l though but its essenctially a vr6 >>>

Edited 6 July, 200917 yr by rogers

imo the vr6 engine has never been much cop, for the size, weight, mpg, output and tuneablity. for me 1.8t wins hands down everytime.

the 20vt is a great engine, good mpg off boost, highly tuneable and a good drive. anyone saying they prefer a vr to a 1.8t they've clearly never driven either.

i did my whole 1.8t conversion including buying the engine and box and turbo for under £1500 and i'm pushing 270bhp, how much would you have to spend to get that from a vr6?

i like the mk3 shape and more modern interior over the mk2, mk2 and 3 chassis are 90% the same. i do agree when production moved from germany to spain in the late 80's near the end of the mk2 era and the start of the mk3 the build quality was wank!

vr6 is noise and a standard 1.8t with a map will wet on it.

does the vr benefit much from a twin turbo ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ko3ZQWoh1fQ i think thats just fire crackers in his zorst

Edited 6 July, 200917 yr by Ian.Southall