I've often thought my VRs was pretty much as quick at my old 3.2 TT and my brief early morning play with a 225 TT reinforced that view. (There's nothing between the 225 and the 3.2 as I recall from my TT days!)

I followed him away from the lights and up a slip road onto a dual carriageway. He hoofed it and so did I and from a standing start upto 70mph there was nothing in it. Obviously as soon as we hit 70mph we both eased off, - other early morning traffic was already starting to get busy.

The two cars should be fairly evenly matched I reckon if, as I suspect, my VRs is putting out nearer 220 bhp. If it was only putting out nearer 200bhp the 225 should have had a noticeable edge. Also if my VRs was only putting out 200bhp it wouldn't feel as quick as my old 3.2 TT.

TT 225 - 225bhp - 1485kg = 145.24bhp per ton

TT V6 - 250bhp - 1520kg = 165.11 per ton

VRs - 197bhp - 1470kg = 136.17bhp per ton

Anyway, by no means a scientific test, and there are obviously other factors involved but an interesting comparision I thought...

has nobody had a new vrs on a rolling road?

has nobody had a new vrs on a rolling road?

Plenty of people on ukmivs have had their GTIs on the rolling road prior to being re-mapped and it seems the 2.0T puts out anything between 210bhp and about 230bhp. Of course some of the rolling roads may be ambitious in their readings but surely not all of them.

It's probably something to doing with the fact that in Germany there is either a higher tax or insurance bracket (not sure which?) for cars over 200psi (or 197 bhp) hence that is the official VAG quoted figure. They must just add a few extra ponies for good measure.

I would have thought the TT would get the power down much better than the RS could.

I would have thought the TT would get the power down much better than the RS could.

In the wet it would defo make a big difference but in the dry I'm not so sure it would unless you get into a situation where you are pushing into a bend hard enough to understeer in which case the TT from experience acts more like it's on rails.

I don't think the quattro system is permenant 4WD - it feathers the power into the rear when you need it (like when you start to understeer). It's something like 90:10 under normal conditions I think but I'm not sure.

That may be so but surely you still have 4 tyres vs the 2 of the RS and I know how lively mine gets when you give it a boot full.

it seems the 2.0T puts out anything between 210bhp and about 230bhp.

I'm surprised that the vRS only keeps up with the TT - my old Scooby used to leave them well behind and I assumed the vRS was quicker than that (especially after the Scooby transmission losses are taken into account)

Chris

your figures are slightly out

3.2TT = 165.1bhp/ton (246bhp and 1490Kg)

225 = 150.85bhp/ton (221bhp and 1465Kg)

vRS = 142.85bhp/ton (200bhp and 1400Kg)

in any condition if launched properly the TT will be well away from the vRS everytime. on the move i'd say the vRS and the 225 would be the same as although the TT has a slightly better power/weight it has slightly higher transmission losses.

Your vRS will feel quicker because it's turbo and small capacity so quite revvy compared to the V6 in your TT which will have been quite lazy.

I doubt your car is 220bhp standard however a difference of 25bhp between the cars in question would hardly be noticable on the road especially when the highest speed hit was 70mph.

As Bengie said if the TT had have launched properly from the standing start he would have had a significant advantage.

Can i point out, that BHP / tonne is not the best way to compare figures.

WHP / tonne is the only way IMO

My old fabia vRS was 120 WHP / tonne. unknown tranny loss

My current Volvo T5 is 172 WHP / tonne. 15% tranny loss

My guess would be as follows:

3.2TT = 132.08Whp/ton (246bhp and 1490Kg) 20% tranny loss [auto]

225 = 138.56Whp/ton (221bhp and 1465Kg) 18% tranny loss [manual]

vRS = 121.42bhp/ton (200bhp and 1400Kg) 15% tranny loss

What do you think?

I was up against a VRS in my 2.5 V6 GSI vectra and the VRS was embarracing me...........

So I traded it in for one!!

People have said "as long as you can put up with the badge" but vauxhalls aint exactly great are they?

It would be interesting to see graphs for power/torque of 1.8 20vT (225) vs 2.0 TFSI (197).

The MKII octy feels significantly faster than a MKI - moreso than I would imagine for a 20 bhp incease (and given the new car must be heavier).

they must be quite different as the 2.0 TFSI(200bhp) A4 is a second faster to 60 than my 1.8 20vT(190bhp)

they may have other differences but im guessing the new engine has much better power and torque spread across the rev range

they must be quite different as the 2.0 TFSI(200bhp) A4 is a second faster to 60 than my 1.8 20vT(190bhp)

they may have other differences but im guessing the new engine has much better power and torque spread across the rev range

For a difference of 1 sec on the 0-60 I would expect gearing is playing a part and would suprised if there isn't a gearchange less on the 2.0T.

Seems to me all theses cars are very much of a muchness.Hardly anything between any of them 0-60,mid range,top end

has nobody had a new vrs on a rolling road?

I believe that in a couple of weeks, three different vRS's are going on a rolling road, the first totally bog standard and then again after being remapped, then one with a remap + Milltek cat-back exhaust and finally one with stage II remap + Milltek turbo back exhaust. Should be interesting as to what figures they throw up!.

For a difference of 1 sec on the 0-60 I would expect gearing is playing a part and would suprised if there isn't a gearchange less on the 2.0T.

yeah was thinking that too eddy, i cant remember what mph i hit in 2nd

The Octy TFSi hits just over 60 in 2nd

HTH

The Octy TFSi hits just over 60 in 2nd

HTH

Is that going in the redline?

My octy 1 (5 speed) got to 60 in 2nd but MK2 (6 speed, closer box) I'm sure needs a change - one of the reasons I *guessed* that the 0-60 times are not so different...

Is that going in the redline?

My octy 1 (5 speed) got to 60 in 2nd but MK2 (6 speed, closer box) I'm sure needs a change - one of the reasons I *guessed* that the 0-60 times are not so different...

:confused:

I floor it, it hits past 60 in second, didnt really look where the revs were, but i guess when it didnt go any faster, it had hit the limiter.

but i guess when it didnt go any faster, it had hit the limiter

:eek::eek::eek:

There was a 0-60 vid up a few weeks back - that needed a change to 3rd.

:eek::eek::eek:

There was a 0-60 vid up a few weeks back - that needed a change to 3rd.

Where was that, I don't recall seeing it?.

:eek::eek::eek:

There was a 0-60 vid up a few weeks back - that needed a change to 3rd.

It's simple, they do just over 60 in second gear. It really is that simple.

You have one yourself - try it.

It's simple, they do just over 60 in second gear. It really is that simple.

You have one yourself - try it.

Is that 60 on the speedo or GPS because mine wont hit 60 (GPS measured) until well into the red!.

It's simple, they do just over 60 in second gear. It really is that simple.

You have one yourself - try it.

I take it to the redline from time to time, but as I can't have one eye on speedo, one eye on tach and one eye on the road all at the same time I can't be 100% sure, but I'd say I was 90% that 60 is not possible without going into the red. And I just don't wanna go into the red

Although I've not any articles myself, I've heard of reports here of Autocar getting 6.6 to 60 from a vRS - I reckon that was doing what you do. Add about a half second for a gearchange and you get near as dammit official figures.