Engine torque only affects acceleration in your imagination. It's all about wheel torque, which is basically determined by gearing.
Also, if you think any FWD car will start out by BEATING an AWD car..... There's no hope.
All I know is that the increase from 109/210 to 149-263 was ****ing awesome and another 50 of each would give me a massive boner. Gearing on mine is meh until 3rd but spaced nicely, would redline at 140 so it's all good.
Actually 4WD is crap for launching unless the surface is already greasy and slippy, such as here (This is where I got mine tuned and will be getting my car tuned yet further) - this is a well known fact.
I'd wager than if you take 2 identical cars, the FWD would win.
The Leon is a stock 150bhp diesel where as the Golf (is a 4motion) is the 130 with a chip which gives I'd estimate about 165-170bhp (so MORE than the Leon)
Weight difference is fairly small..guess which wins..
You're comparing with the 4Motion system (which is like 90% FWD biased). Additionally the cars are really weak.. And 4Motion is heavy compared to that power.
Get in cars with 250 hp+, and it's a different story. The grip advantage from a REAL, rear-biased AWD system outweighs the weight advantage in a 0-60.
4motion IIRC uses Hadlex diffs (not sure been a long time since I was into the inner workings of chassis etc) which are front biased until wheel spin is detected (IE full throttle start) where it can then direct power to wheel with most grip at most 60 or 70% to the rear.
Since the R32 we're comparing to and what my Golf may one day become both have under 250bhp (thus by your own argument proving FWD in this situation would be at least as good as) I'll stick with FWD. Besides on the road where clutches are expensive I'm less likely to fry mine by slipping it like a granny just to keep it from bogging down.
rasmus is right.
in those fairly low power ranges the difference is small, yes. as soon as the power output increases you'll struggle to put it all down just via the front wheels.
you don't even need to go much farther than 200hp. have a look at the audi figures for example. as long as they are trustworthy (which i hope they are) the awd models take quite some tenths less to break through the 60mph barrier.
Do you think that the AWD of the R32 might not also help it quite a lot? FWD certainly isn't ideal for putting down power to the front wheels. The M3 would certainly demolish it.
While rolling, in gear, in the powerband, I could agree a *very* tuned diesel could probably match quite a sporty petrol. But the second you get out of that powerband, and have to change gear, the petrol will just pull away.
Remember the GTi you posted is still FWD, and that the MK5 is a heavy beast...
As mentioned above in regards to 4wd vs 2wd, it would be little difference in 0-60 time, 6-6.5 seconds is achievable with both the R32 and tuned up golf. Not only that but a 145bhp Bora hands down beat a Golf GTI to 60(both were FWD in that case)...heavy or not it's got an extra 50bhp so proves what I've been called crazy for wanting to do is more than possible.
As proven in the other video 2 similar cars, the FWD which has less power wins and also the manufacturer figures for 2.0TDI 4motions (as well as all the other 4motions in the VW range) are about 0.3-0.4 seconds slower for the 4wd...other manufacturers may of course vary...engine size, weight, quality of gearbox dependant on drivetrain - sometimes if you spec 4wd you must take the flappy paddle gearbox).
A well tuned Diesel has a powerband from about 1800-4500(limiter is between that an 5100 normally), mine pulls to the redline with only a small letup after about 4700..then again I'm fat so what do I know.
I've pulled my Dyno chart from my service pack (which is lost under a bunch of socks lmao) which reads as follows:
Max power (149.724 @ 3848)
Max Torque (264.90 @ 2098)
Looking at the graphs (they are confusing :sadbanana) Power trails off at 4150
Torque trails off at...uh...just under 3000 which I guess is where the BHP take over. So between 2098 and 4100 is power band, redline is at 5000. Small powerband I agree but easy to stay between considering that from 20-45 in 2nd, 30-65 in 3rd, 60-85 in 4th and from 70-120 in 5th...so from 0-60 which is what most of drags are (away from lights in 40 and 50 zones where going over 60 is both dangerous and dumb) would be fine.
Only possible drawback is the fact I need to change to 3rd to get to 60 where as an R32 may not. Then on the other hand it's not like we race to EXACTLY 60.
NEXT BUY IF I CAN. Mine doesn't have the Trip Computer but if I could get it retro-fitted it'd save me having to buy seperate gauges and shows exactly my fuel, oil temp (important) and boost pressure! YIPPIE.
I'd love that in my Jetta. Unfortunately it doesn't come in the North American versions. (Atleast in 2000~ versions.. the European ones had some neat things)
@ S14 - If your searching for power, have you considered a decat? A good exhaust place could cut out the cat, and weld in a new section for ~£50, and a metal recycling place will give you ~£35 for the old cat... £15 for +5BHP isn't to be sniffed at.
The car has to have a cat when it's produced under the Construction & Use regulations, but a cat isn't required to pass the MOT (for a diesel, at least).
Not if you mess with other things it won't pass MOT
If you're lucky it will pass with only the decat, but other mods like a chip will certainly make it fail :/
It's not like putting a turbo on it is more reasonable at all, that's not what I said LOL.
Yes, it will... MOT's (for diesels) in the UK don't test actual emissions, just visible smoke - a decat will give a little more smoke, but still nothing near enough to fail, even remapped / chipped / whatever.
For a petrol though (where emissions are tested) then you might get away without a cat, but you probably wont.
Whoever told you it costs that much was having you on. Maybe 1,100, but never 11k. The last turbo I ordered was for a 05 Ford Focus (someone forgot to put in the new panel filter). It was about 800 notes brand new, direct from Garrett. If VW are claiming it is 11k then they are lying to you.
Secondly, about FWD/RWD/AWD. FWD is always the slowest, it is just a fact of life. I can break traction in a 60HP van with nice sticky tyres on dry asphalt. So now I've got on the standard wheels with cheap rubber again, I regularly spin up the front wheels. You'll struggle to get that to happen in a RWD or AWD vehicle with the same power. Which costs time off the line. A good drive can compensate for a lot of inherent flaws with a vehicle and drive through them. But that isn't you.
I run catless, but that is only because I needed a new front section quickly at it was £35 for sans cat, or 70 with cat and wait a day. I went sans cat.
just to add a little thought of mine. higher hp fwd cars are stupid imo. i once drove around a nissan maxima 3.5 which is under 300 hp and thats even way to much for an fwd. i mean u floor it,the steering wheel starts to pull left and right like crazy its more work than in a drift car!!! i hated it so much.. end of story.
not that i really care what the village idiot has to say but since when has an r32 ever had any less than 280hp? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_Skyline#R32 (the model that people actually care about that is)