Jump to content

VRS vs Audi TT 3.2 / Golf R32


Recommended Posts

erm,

id say 4wd ftw from standing!

Yes, better traction.

but...

R32 as standard has 157 ps/tonne

Audi TT 3.2 Quattro and the A3 3.2 Quattro have 161 ps/tonne

The vRS as standard has 135 ps/tonne and remapped to about 215bhp with no other mods 161 ps/tonne.

This theoretical 161 ps/tonne re-mapped vRS, once rolling, would have less drivetrain losses than either Quattro or R32 & so prob slightly quicker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My Mk1 octy vrs has revo map to approx 210bhp/232 lb/ft and no other mods.

On the move it will see off (just) an A4 3.0tdi quattro 233. I know this as fact. This gives some idea of the performance available once on the move but we must remember the rs is frontwheel drive only and against the R32/TT 3.2 it is going to struggle for traction off the line, when everyone is 'trying'.

A BMW 330i (230bhp) give more or less the same acceleration as mine upto silly speed (sorry officer), but again has the edge from a standing start.

FWD is poo in this respect.Even if traction off the line were not a problem i think a rs with similar power figures to mine will struggle to reach 60 much quicker than high sixes.

Just my two penneth. Love my car tho'.

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Community Partner

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to BRISKODA. Please note the following important links Terms of Use. We have a comprehensive Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.