Golf/Rabbit MK1 difference Euro/US engine

Actually due to the design of the axle & the fact that the weight is shifting it does lift. Just not off the ground completely. If your tires are sliding your handling is suffering & you are defeating the purpose entirely so what is the point????

Craig

Reply to
Craig
Loading thread data ...

Reply to
Jim Behning

So you want to add more weight to compensate for the poor choice in engines??? So in other words make your horsepower to weight ratio even worse????

Reply to
Craig

I was talking about the 1.8t!! Did you follow the link! And I agree the vr6 is a no no for that chassis (maybe if you put one in the back too).

SFC

"Craig" schreef in bericht news:DwWxk.12796$ snipped-for-privacy@read1.cgocable.net...

Reply to
SFC

Another gimmick that looks cool but creates more problems than it solves. This type of setup is a pain in the ass because you can never perefctly balance the engines. So what ends up happening is one engine is always pushing or pulling the other.

VW actually tried this on the MK1 Scirocco back in the day.

Craig

Reply to
Craig

No the real question is this. How much does a 1.8 weigh? How much does a V or W engine weigh? Is it just 50 pounds difference? Does moving a

50 pound battery to the back the equivalent of 100 pounds of weight shift? Is there any way to make a very front weight biased car like a more neutral balanced car? When I am feeling strong I can pick up a 1.8 and move it around. Ok, maybe I can't pick it up but I can drag it around. I have no experience with the 6 cylinder engines to know how much they weigh. Can it be than much more if it can still fit in the engine bay?

If you want good handl>So you want to add more weight to compensate for the poor choice in

Reply to
Jim Behning

Ok heres are the curb weights of a 2002 jetta with VR6 & 1.8T. Obviously there are differences with options etc. Basically you are looking at a

100lbs difference give or take.

2002 Volkswagen Jetta VR6 = 1428kgs, 3150 lbs

2002 Volkswagen Jetta 1.8T = 1378kgs, 3037lbs

Thats just the difference in the two engines. How much each engine weighs is anyones guess. Once again it depends on which engine code & accessories you install. forget about balancing a MK1 chassis. Not realistic. I tried on my

1981 Scirocco & it worked out ok but more time & money spent than performance gained. I went as far as a compete fiberglass bront end, fiberglass dash & moving heavey items like battery & gas tank closer to the back. Minimal gains.

I think my next toy is going to be a Porsche 924. The original "Scirocco" seriosly. A much better layout & still uses MK1 chassis parts.

Craig

Reply to
Craig

Wasn't that tried before...............2 engines, one in the rear and one in the front? Powerful all wheel drive! lol Probably problems with synchronizing power while accelerating which could be handled by computers nowadays.

I agree that power to weight should be matched! But like I said to the OP in one of the first replies..............make sure your brakes can handle your vehicle engine modifications!

BTW That 1.8t engine looks good in that Scirocco!

Reply to
dave AKA vwdoc1

That the stickiest wheel/tire combo on a stock suspension (which, in the testing, was 205-13)is least inclined to slide, and thus most likely to attain the lateral G-force that lifts a rear wheel. Which is not contrary to what you're saying, so I wonder why so many question marks. I never said that lifting a rear wheel was desirable, only that it's doable with a 1.7L stocker.

Reply to
nutso fasst

What??

Reply to
Craig

Yes, that's it.

Reply to
nutso fasst

ok then. 7

Reply to
Craig

Reply to
Jim Behning

I agree 100%. They are lacking in power which is easily corrected. They are however a great platform to start building a nice car & parts are cheap when compared to most porsches.

formatting link
Craig

Reply to
Craig

As a 944 owner, I would love to have a 924 to play with. (a 944 is basically a 924 with a wider track, fender flares, and a "real" Porsche engine - it's basically half of a 928's V-8.) Unfortunately, that "real" Porsche engine has parts that cost real money. I think a 924 with a 1.8T swapped in would be the feline's posterior.

nate

Craig wrote:

Reply to
Nate Nagel

OK here you can play with this 924! ;-)

formatting link
I only see one of these on occasion and it ain't bad, except the "rarity" of parts compared to VWs. ;-)

Just a strange design, engine in the front and transmission (transaxle) in the rear. Large driveshaft running down the tunnel of the car to power the transaxle I prefer the 911 or even the 914 over the 924.........but to each their own! ;-)

JMHO

Reply to
dave AKA vwdoc1

It's missing a pedal!

The design actually makes a lot of sense. Hanging the trans out back allows the weight to be evenly distributed front/rear. The other way to do this, of course, would be with a mid-engine design, but the 944 has a much higher polar moment of inertia for a little more stability.

I do like 914s as well - still have one stashed in my parents' barn. I'd like to get rid of it, frankly... I'm just never going to get to it. A trade for some Stude parts or a driveable Mk1 Scirocco would be exceptionally welcome.

nate

Reply to
Nate Nagel

Thats why its so cheap!!! LOL

Reply to
Craig

Yep the reason is clear now! It must not run well with that pedal missing!

BTW I will keep my A4 Quattro as my most balanced vehicle. Although my Audi 4000S would run much better with the 1.8t engine or g60 engine in it, it does not handle as well at the A4Q! ;-)

"Craig" wrote

Reply to
dave AKA vwdoc1

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.