Re: R32 - What do you know?

TransFixed wrote in message news:...

Not quite true. If you were to launch from idle (which Auto Motor & Sport probably did when they measured a slow 6.8 secs 0-62 for the Golf R32/8.5 sec for the Golf GTI 1.8T..), then the torque band would have an effect trough 1st gear. However, for the fastest time 0-60 you launch at a much higher rpm. Once you get to the top of 1st, you shift so that the engine speed in 2nd is well above peak torque, and right around peak power. Same for 3rd if you need that to reach 60. Torque is good for in gear acceleration, f.ex 40-60 in 5th, etc, but for acceleration from 0, power is what counts, since the engine should be kept around peak power at all times. Good examples are the two Golf GTI's on the market: The Golf GTI 1.8T has 150bhp. So does the Golf GTI TDI. However, the TDI version has approx. 50% more torque. They weigh the same. Interestingly, their 0-62 times are exactly the same: 8.5 secs. When it comes to in gear times, the TDI is better, naturally. Another example is the Peugeot concept sports cars, the Ace and the Spades. They share the shame body. They weigh exactly the same. They have the same peak power, but the diesel engined car has twice the torque of the gas engined one. Still, 0-60 times are the same, because the engines are kept around peak power during this run, not getting down into the low rpm range where the diesel makes more torque (and thus power). I was watching an interview with one of the guys designing the Toyota F1 engine. The interviewer asked about the power figures and the torque figures, making it clear that he thought max torque was the far more important. The Toyota guy almost laughed and said that torque was VERY low, but who cares, peak hp was everything. It is, as long as you have the correct gear ratios for the given speed. On cars with a CVT, peak torque means nothing when it comes to max acceleration (both

0-60) and in gear, since the tranny will keep the engine at max power at all times (and thus, providing max torque at the wheels for the given speed).

Espen

86 Golf GTI

There's a simple reason for not having the Golf name on the cars in the US -- Golf is a "funny" word, with many connotations which one wouldn't want associated with their car. If I had a higher-performance car, like a V6 GTI, I wouldn't want it named Golf. A bit too delicate, pretentious, 'poofy', etc. I guarantee that if the GTI was marketed as a Golf in US, sales would suffer.

Just think about your average American golfer -- 1) a bit overweight and bloated (not a good image for a fast car); 2) completely homogeneous -- all white, mid-level semi-professionals, all with the same obligatory mid-range designer shirts and clubs (not characteristics a car manufacturer wants to put forward if they want to stand out from the crowd)...

I could go >example, the Russian Chevy importer decided to put Corvette badges on

The older one did. Starting with the 2002 model (like mine) they have 180 Hp and 177 Ft. Lbs.

I agree. I just don't put badging high on my list of things for both VWoA *and* VWAG to fix.

No, but it explains why they tend to avoid hatchbacks, regardless of make, model, or trim level. This is a problem that VWoA has to face, how do they convince American buyers, who didn't like hatches to begin with, to buy a hatch obviously based on an econo-car platform?

On one hand, I agree with you. The idea of a fun, sporty car that can take all the good points of a less expensive variant and expand on them sounds great. On the other hand, it's difficult to convince American buyers that a variant spawned from a less expensive car can be worthwhile. All they see is an econo-car in fancy clothes. Ford's SVT Focus (which has great handling) and all the sporty variants of Mazda's Protege' are examples of this.

And that is how many other magazines measure, and how most mature people drive who want to keep their clutch and transmission for more than a year.

You cannot always achieve that, in every car. For example, the XT has a huge gap between 1st and 2nd. No way you can get to peak power in 2nd from 1st without slipping the clutch yet again.

You are right, but you are comparing two totally different engines that have very different torque bands not just in terms of where they are located, but also how wide they are. The problem with the Diesel is that you have all that nice torque down low, but you can't rev the engine to 3 times that rpm. On the other hand, if you take two engines that have the same rev bands, and add a ton of torque to one of them at

75% the rpm of max hp, you surely will see that in 0-60 numbers unless you tend to replace your clutch after every start.

The XT (versus the normally aspirated one) has 43% more torque at

3600rpm, 38% more at 4000rpm, but only 27% more torque (or peak hp) at 5600rpm. Sure, instead of saying "entire torque band" I should have more carefully said "some of the torque band" or so. However, the bottom line is since the gearing is not close enough to stay within a narrow power band, you will make use of some of the band below 5600rpm, and the torque (or hp) there is closer to 40% more in the turbo version vs. 27% at peak hp. [The second point I made was that the gearing is also very different. And I am only talking about the manual, the AT is different altogether.]

BTW, in the US the GTI has 180hp @ 5500, and 173lbs-ft 1950-5000. The TDI is the weak one with 90hp@3750 and 155lbs-ft at 1900. So, for the TDI, not even a factor of 2 in rpm between peak torque and peak hp, vs. almost a factor of 3 for the gas turbo. Meanwhile, the torque of the GTI does not drop of, thus giving twice the peak hp of the TDI.

- D.

Some good points, but if really a problem, they would be true in a list of other countries as well, like England, and nobody else is having an issue with the name Golf, or shy away from the Golf GTI for that matter. I seem to remember that Golf (the sport) is quite popular in the US. A car named Golf should be welcomed by the millions of golfers, at least... VWOA actually thought the name Golf would be a problem back in the

70's, and rebadged the Golf I as Rabbit, but later used the correct name for the Mk2 cars, so the name couldn't be that bad after all. BTW, rabbit means coward in a number of European languages, so that name wouldn't work too well over here.

Espen

86 Golf GTI

Absolutely right. I was looking at an Auto Motor & Sport Test from fall 2001.

Espen

86 Golf GTI

I don't get it. If that's what you think, why did you just post

as response to my:

- D.

"Matt B." schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:VwGab.6505$v%5.3406@fed1read02...

You got the Golf IV GTI in Germany with a 5Cy. machine ;)

cu Jan