davycc wrote: » [...] nice fun car for somebody
joujoujou wrote: » Nice indeed. Sadly it's white.
Ded_Zebra wrote: » So you actually thing the GTI is going to be faster to 100km/h and 1/4 mile than a 20v levin. Not sure if you are trolling or have no comprehension of what an extra 40bhp per ton is going to be like in terms of a race. The golf has 113 bhp per 1000kg and the levin has 160bhp per 1000kg. Get over yourself :rolleyes:
Jesus. wrote: » Would those Levin's feel a bit lame by today's standards or would they still feel pokey?
davycc wrote: » plenty quick enough for a cheap to run daily driver IMO.
davycc wrote: » That puny figure of 113bhp is from the only the little 8 valves stats ,ya may want to review your train of thought on your next reply if your basing your entire debate on the wrong engine entirely . :eek: I am well aware what an extra 40bhp/ton feels like thanks:D Im not into trolling at all just stating my own findings from my own real world on the road 1st hand experience..That 160bhp often quoted for 20v 4ages is on jap fuel etc and for whatever reason they seem loose a lot of power here and 125-140bhp on irish fuel is more likely to be witnessed at any of the rolling roads around the country.. Hondas Vtec & Mitsubishis Mivec models seem lees affected by the Irish juice and make the power on the Rolling Roads that they should.. Now for the best part..VW 1.8 KR 16v engines have 140bhp stock and many will actually gain a little MORE power as the miles rack up and only really loosen up after 100k miles too:cool: not quiet the +40bhp/ton real world advantage you were confused enough to be claiming initially. now sorry Im not trying to wind yourself or any other Toyota peeps up..ive a lot of respect for Toyotas myself. (AE86 my fav Toyota btw:cool:) Here are 2 links to the full impartial Autotest reviews of the then brand new 1986 Golf GTI16v and the 1984 Corolla GT Coupe:http://www.flickr.com/photos/triggerscarstuff/3058015767/in/set-72157610074563428/http://retrorides.proboards.com/thread/49359 the measly underpowered old slow Panzer-Tank golf is still quicker than than the much loved AE86s in every stat:D
Ded_Zebra wrote: » This will be my last post on the matter as it has got wildly off topic. That link that you posted says that the 0-60mph time for the golf is 8 seconds (really good info on those pages btw, where did you get them and do they have the same thing for lots of cars). That 8 seconds I'm sure is the time for a perfect launch and 1 person in the car. In this video the launch is terrible, the gear changes are quite slow and there are 2 people in the car. It's hard to tell but I make the 0-100kmh time to be about 7-7.5 seconds. If it got a good launch and 1 person it would be faster again. Now until you can show me conclusive proof that the GTI is faster I'm going to go on thinking that the Levin is Yea I wish I had a proper online source for scans of old car reviews like the 2 Autocars I linked ,such thorough testing back in the days.I only found the 2 links from some random flukey googling;) About the Golf 16vs time of 8.0 was when brand new with delivery mileage..they honestly open up and get a fair bit quicker with age and higher mileage,i thought most petrolheads would have known this .I dont think mid to low 7sec would be unheard of now either:cool: Please watch the 1st minute or so of this vid for an eyeopener even if its Quentin fecking-smug-git Wilson My old golf was in Wicklow town last I heard keep an eye out for her for me please:) I would love her back on my driveway.. Im sorry to yourself and everybody else reading for taking it off topic too but felt I had little choice at the time:p
tuxy wrote: » Is the super strut suspension still the main thing to look out for when buying an ae111? I know it used to be very expensive to replace.
bear1 wrote: » Is this thread now about 0-100 times?
DeFinch89 wrote: » Its all good bangernomics sense we all know quick 0-100kph times sells cars
bladespin wrote: » I doubt you'll ever see a good 0-100kph time here tbh.
Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: » There have been plenty of fast cars here, I remember an e39 540i and a jag XK anyway.
bladespin wrote: » Fast as compared to what??? A 5 sec 0-60 time is good but not fast. A 540i wouldn't be fast IMO, nice though, don't remember the XK, it wold be closer to what I'd consider fast(ish) though you can get an awful lot faster for a bangernomic budget than that; if fast is the main priority. Off topic though.
bear1 wrote: » I'm generally curious, but if 5sec to 60mph is good then what do you consider fast?
Ded_Zebra wrote: » In this video the launch is terrible, the gear changes are quite slow and there are 2 people in the car. It's hard to tell but I make the 0-100kmh time to be about 7-7.5 seconds.
Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: » A veyron perhaps? :P
