Anniversary 1.8T is 1279kg. VRS is 1375kg.

Anniversary 1.8T is 1279kg. VRS is 1375kg.

 

sorry, but google again

 

 

No way on earth an Anni can be lighter than a vRS

 

The anni has 6spd box (30+kg heavier than a O2J)

 

The Anni has good quality leather seats (I'm guessing there's another 10Kg of weight in its interior)

Incorrect on both, & the Anni came with special cloth Recaro seats as standard, leather was a very rarely chosen option. I've known many Anni's from my membership of uk-mkivs.net, & only ever heard of 2 with leather seats.

http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/reviews/facts-and-figures/skoda/octavia/vrs-2001/21293/

http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/reviews/facts-and-figures/volkswagen/golf/hatchback-1997/23250/

The cloth seats are still heavier than the vRS seat

 

I pretty sure Parkers are quoting the wet curb weight, not the dry (which is the one that is commonly used)

 

Honestly, Golfs are heavier

 

you can feel it when driving them eg the Anni feels nibbler but heavier / more solid

It's there in black & white dude.

As for the seats. I replaced the drivers seat bolster on both cars, & the VRS seat was noticeably heavier, & had me swearing much more.

I'm not being derogatory about the VRS it really is great car, & way more practicle than a Golf, but there it ends.

My Anni was IMO a superior car in both performance, equipment & build quality to my VRS. I have to say both cars were troublefree during my ownership, & a credit to VAG.

 

 

These days the mk 1 VRS is a bargain car to buy, & a no brainer really,  but the Anniversary still commands top money especially the TDI's

In snow_munchers defence the TDI Aniversary is heavier than the VRS.

http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/reviews/facts-and-figures/volkswagen/golf/hatchback-1997/23251/

A while back (when working for a former employer) I spent an afternoon googling curb weights of vag cars (yes, i was that bored)

 

Made it more interesting by playing with torquestats.com at the same time

(out of interest - that link should open torquestats and calculate the 0-60 time of a vrs given the wet weight from parkers (which includes weight of driver + full fuel tank) - you'll see its a little optimistic in its calculations)

 

You've got to remember though these 'facts' are all from the internet, so are probably about as reliable as a politicians pledge

The 150BHP Golf has the K03 turbo rather than K03S I think.

But it's mostly software I suspect.

 

The KO3S (left - 8 blade compressor wheel) vs KO3 (right- 12 blade compressor wheel)

src: SCN

 

audi-sport.net: The facts about the K03 Turbo!

Straying off subject slightly maybe some one could shed some light on the K04. I owned a 225bhp S3 for a short time, & it never felt as quick as any of the stage one 1.8T's  I've owned (2 Revo &  2 ECU Evolution ), furthermore one of my neighbours has a really nice 225bhp LCR now which again doesn't feel as quick to me?? Why the hell is that?

Because the smaller turbo spools up quicker making it feel quicker in low to mid range rpm.

The bigger turbo can flow more air top end though so is capable of more power at the expense of low end performance.

 

The smaller turbo is a better option up to the point were it goes off the compressor map and the efficiency goes to pot. So for 210-220bhp the K03s is technically a better choice for throttle response but heat starts to become an issue. 

Edited 11 July, 201312 yr by Frisco

Makes sense. :clap:

I gotta say that I would never of been driving at the high end for any sustained period to gain any benefit from the K04, it's always just short blasts for me so stage 1 would be my preferred option.

I was pretty dissapointed with the S4 for pin you back in your seat performance, but it did handle great, as did my A3 Quattro stage 1 which really did pin you back. No torque steer was a joy too.

KO3 vs KO4

Because everyone can read compressor maps and that thread is a very complicated way to answer a simple question

Incorrect on both, & the Anni came with special cloth Recaro seats as standard, leather was a very rarely chosen option. I've known many Anni's from my membership of uk-mkivs.net, & only ever heard of 2 with leather seats.

http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/reviews/facts-and-figures/skoda/octavia/vrs-2001/21293/

http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/reviews/facts-and-figures/volkswagen/golf/hatchback-1997/23250/

using parkers to back yourself is a bad move dude they arent a reliable source. ive seen weights from 1300-1375

 

muncher makes sense to me :yes:

I certainly don't have an axe to grind either way as I don't own either car anymore. The Anni was vastly superior to both of the mkiv red i GTi's I'd owned previously & IMO the VRS, but I really did enjoy my VRS & wouldn't hesitate to have another. Maybe until someone can come up with a definitive answer we can all just agree to differ.

Back to the big port heads on the AGU, do people put the larger port heads on an AUQ bottom end or are the gains not worth the effort?

It's not needed unless you need the extra flow ie you are running big power.

 

The small ports are not a restriction on the standard setup and there are advantages to them at lower rpms

It was proven on a dyno, runing big ports with ko3 or k04-001/02x loss of 15hp.

Im with Paul, having owned both Anniversary and Vrs, the anni was better in the twisties but i have an estate vrs so hatchback should be better, again build quality etc was better in the Anni but for the money and practcality the Vrs is aesome (hence my purchase)

My Anni

My Vrs