any vr6 swapped S2's or CQ's out there?

[Jamo]

when you say the vr6 hhad its days in the 90's, those were 12v's!!!!!!!!!!!


24v will outlfow the 12v by epic amounts

Your most likely right but what has happened is the tuning scene really has shifted to the 1.8t engines as the common transplant.

They even put them in Lotus cars.

The willingness to use the VR6 really has really gone,

In the 90's it was get a VR6 into the car, now it's get a 1.8t in it

Golf MK2 owners now shift between the R32 and 1.8t lump

[my2000apb]

Your most likely right but what has happened is the tuning scene really has shifted to the 1.8t engines as the common transplant.

They even put them in Lotus cars.

The willingness to use the VR6 really has really gone,

In the 90's it was get a VR6 into the car, now it's get a 1.8t in it

Golf MK2 owners now shift between the R32 and 1.8t lump

there were very few cars that came with VR over there right? im pretty much using a thicker walled r32 motor, 2.8L / r32 head combo


so i can boost more than 3.2L and more power and not blow up

[pixsaudisex2]

Must admit i suppose its the no substitue for cc, an if you have plenty to play with.

[Mcstiff]

Your most likely right but what has happened is the tuning scene really has shifted to the 1.8t engines as the common transplant.

They even put them in Lotus cars.

The willingness to use the VR6 really has really gone,

In the 90's it was get a VR6 into the car, now it's get a 1.8t in it

Golf MK2 owners now shift between the R32 and 1.8t lump

I think the "T" is important in chronology here; nobody was doing VR6Ts in the 90's save HPA (they may have in 99).

1998 saw our tuning clientele expanding at an exponential rate. Our quest for more power landed us into a lifetime friendship with our technical partners at HGP, Germany. Together, we expanded their concept for a twin turbo V6 into what we offer around the world today. Showcased across all three RGT cars this last year, our collective efforts have raised the expectation of Volkswagen performance potential on a global scale.

Since it seems the VR is not as common perhaps you guys will skip directly to the new I5s.

[my2000apb]

cc? displacement or credit card ahaha

[pixsaudisex2]

cc? displacement or credit card ahaha

Bit a both,,,

[my2000apb]

Bit a both,,,

what project doesnt love lots of both

[GazzaG60]

the biggest factors are

1. fuel
2. insurance.

Jamo is correct VRT over heren is not common. its lots of work, a non standard engine config and we get ripped off for fuel.

as the insurance to quote on a mk4 golf v6 turbo conversion or a modded 1.8t. the 1.8t is probly the only insurable option.

[my2000apb]

the biggest factors are

1. fuel
2. insurance.

Jamo is correct VRT over heren is not common. its lots of work, a non standard engine config and we get ripped off for fuel.

as the insurance to quote on a mk4 golf v6 turbo conversion or a modded 1.8t. the 1.8t is probly the only insurable option.

ok yeah def forgot about fuel pricing, its $$$$$$ over there


but for insurance, do you have to declare to insurance company a motor swap or a turbokit?

[Mcstiff]

Is a 500hp VR6T really going to use more fuel than a 500 HP 1.8T?

[my2000apb]

yeah the vrt will use more fuel even out of boost because it stillneeds to keep 2.8L stoich rather than 1.8L


obv. it takes fuel to make power but the vr will use more out of boost just as if you drove both NA


esp. as its prob easier to stay out of boost in the 1.8t as the 500 hp turbo on a 1.8 is def bigger and laggier than the "smaller" vr turbo

[Jamo]

Is a 500hp VR6T really going to use more fuel than a 500 HP 1.8T?

Yeah the 1.8T is an ultra efficient engine, in standard form it will do 40 mpg

[my2000apb]

yes jamo for sure



the 2.8L is over 50% larger in displacement over the 1.8t


theres almost no way, other than mpg only style tuning, to make a 2.8 as efficient as a 1.8

[Jamo]

If your building a 500 bhp car, whilst economy will be a concern it can't be the primary factor. My car is 500 bhp and does 28 mpg at present.

[Mcstiff]

yeah the vrt will use more fuel even out of boost because it stillneeds to keep 2.8L stoich rather than 1.8L

This is at ~1 BAR (sea level idle). At 1 BAR the 2.8 should make more power than the 1.8 (more fuel = more power cp).

Moving off idle lets say your at 1.5 BAR in your 1.8T this brings you to ~2.7L of air and x_CHP. Lets say your at lambda=1 so 2.7/14.7= 0.184 L of fuel per 4 cyl.

Now in the VRT to, approximately, match this 2.7 L of air your <1 BAR. For the sake of this discussion; lambda=1 so 2.8/14.7= 0.190 L of fuel per 6 cyl.

My point is that to do a unit of work your going to need a unit of fuel.

Obviously this is not 100% accurate (mass of air and vol of fuel) and technical differences between the engines could have an impact.