1.4 Rover Vs 2.0 Golf GTi

[Angus]

Who'd have believed it??

Got some literature from Rover that said their 1.4 engine was faster at accelerating than a 2.0 GTi Golf

Looked it up on Topgear.

Apparently the Rover does 0-60 in 10s and the Golf in 11s.

Still a bit sceptical mind!!

[Spunkey]

2.0 Golf GTI 0-60 in 11secs?? WTF??

my missus 1.4 Civic does it in about 12

[Skii]

Yup - the 2.0 engine is a complete waste of metal. Considering the 1.8 Turbo and the V5 (2.3) will do 0-60 in 8 seconds.

[sparky191]

Yeah GTI - NOT should be on the back of it.

[3Dfx]

2.0 Golf GTI 0-60 in 11secs?? WTF??

As a GTI driver lets clarify a few things

what mk engine are you talking about?

Golf mk3 (92-98) GTI 8v = 10.3 manufacturers figures (8.7 capable)
Golf mk4 (98-Present GTI 8v = 10.5 manufacturers figures (9.0 capable)

The theres the Golf GTI 16v mk3 (93-98) which I own = 8.0secs (manufacturers figures)

....

I recently raced a MG ZR 105, which uses the Rover 1.4 103PS engine and ... HAHAHAHAHA its slow as hell... its NOT .. I repeat NOT faster than a 8v OR a 16v.


....

And all those dissing the GTI.... whos ACTUALLY drove/owned one?

If you have you'd realise neither are "slow" cars...

mk 3 GTI 8v = 8.7
mk3 GTI 16v = 8.0
mk3 VR6 = 7.3
mk4 GTI 8v = 9.0
mk4 GTI 20v = 8.9
mk4 GTI 20vT 150Bhp = 8.5
mk4 GTI 1.8T 180Bhp = 7.9
mk4 V5 = 8.0
mk4 V6 4Motion = 7.3
mk4 R32 = 6.6


Those are the manufacturers figures because the VW uses half a tank of petrol AND a PASSENGER to test it with... they also dont rev the car as hard as they could (like MG & Citroen) do.

[DR]

Google is good isn't it 3dfx

[Richie]

3dfx - all the figures stated are manufacturer figures including the Rover's figures so you cant say "9.0sec capable" cause the rover could well be "8 sec capable".... Compare like for like.


p.s. the way they do thet test (passenger and 1/2 tank) is the norm for every manufacturer but then you have to take into account the weight of the passenger and the size of the tank cause 1/2 of 50 litres is ot the same as 1/2 of 70.... Going from here it starts getting ridiculous.


The MK4 Golf is a lardy POS performance wise IMHO. A MK1 GTi beat the current GTi over a 1/5th of a mile on Sun night on Top Gear.

[[GSV]Trig]

So let me get this right, you need a V6 Golf to beat my 2Ltr Cav to 60.....


/dons flame suit

[Zak33]

Originally posted by [GSV]Trig
So let me get this right, you need a V6 Golf to beat my 2Ltr Cav to 60.....


/dons flame suit

Trig....you have one of the finest engines made in all of history.

VW are DREAMING if they think they will EVER match it mate

I have driven every Golf GTi from Mk 1 1.6 through Mk2 1.8 8v and 16v and Mk3 2.0 8v (yeuch) trough Mk 3 16v

There are Astra 1.6's that are provably faster than a Mk 3 Gti 8v.

In fact my Zafira Diesel would probably tear it a new A hole

Hey.....VW make some amazing power units.....their TDi units own the world, even PSA ....

the 5v turbo units are sublime.

V5 and VR6 arejust heavenly....

but a red top Vauxhall unit ...Trig...that just aint fair mate.

[3Dfx]

Google is good isn't it 3dfx

... 1.4 Rover's are NOT fast...and if I farted on one it would fall apart.

What car tested the 1.4 MG ZR and quoted 10.5secs not 9.8 or whatever MG said... HAHAHA 9.8 for a 1.4 with 105Bhp and still weighs over a tonne.

HAHAHA what were they smoking?

My brothers Rover 1.1i is a 60Bhp car = 0-60mph = 17secs-ish

Are u telling me by adding 40Bhp your gonna knock over 7secs off the nought to 60 time? u joking?

tell u what. Get in a mk3 or mk2 or even a mk4 8v and race a 1.4 MG ZR or Rover 25...

Oh and btw... the 1.4 cant even accelerate after 60mph so its total waste of time..

[3Dfx]

Id just like to say that the Astra 2.0 16v that was used in the early mk3 Astra GSI 16v's is an AWESOME engine... if thats the one used in the Cav's too, then yes its a VERY high performance engine.

BUT, it has a fault. the cylinder head can become paurus and can f*ck the engine up totally.... but apart from that... its excellent.

[Angus]

you're quite sensitive about your golf aren't you 3dfx?

[Butuz]

Golfs are just too fat nowadays. I mean look at the R32 - you need to shove in 240 odd BHP in order to get it to break sub 10 seconds 0-60

(exageration btw before you all bite my balls off)

Old golfs rock! - my m8 just picked up a mark 2 (i think, i aint up on golfs) white cabrio, white leather interior etc, yum

Wesa goin cruizing bo- pick up dem ladieez

Butuz

[5lab]

Are u telling me by adding 40Bhp your gonna knock over 7secs off the nought to 60 time? u joking?

yes. if you nearly double the power of a car, its likely to go nearly twice as quick.

with vtec/vvti i wouldnt be supprised if a 1.4 could get there quickly - the old r5 gtt had a 1.4 block and they were bloody nippy

[Ethos]

Parents had a mk2 8v for a while until the engine blew.... wasn't very impressed with the performance. Got a nice Beemer now

[[GSV]Trig]

Originally posted by 3Dfx
BUT, it has a fault. the cylinder head can become paurus and can f*ck the engine up totally.... but apart from that... its excellent.

Yup thats the engine, the C20XE and yes they did have porous head problems, until Vaux got a bad name from it and went to some cos something or other company, they redesigned the head for use with turbos initially but they were used on the XE's without....
And it doesnt totally f*ck the engines as you put it, the fault was the oil/water ways, one of them was only about 5mm from the other and oil would seep thru over time and you;d end up with oil in your water, a fault easily rectified mite I add...

Just admit that the Golf no longer deserves the GTi badge as it is now under powered (Damned EU regs) for its weight (Too many toys) and the whole Golf GTi thing is now for sensible people that want to think they drive a sports car....