Golf VR6

[Dum-Dum]

Don't buy one, they are nowhere near as fast as you'd think from the way VAG owners bang on about them. Majorly disappointed with the one I saw tonight even though it looked and sounded gorgeous.

There is a story here but I'm not going to publicly incriminate myself.

[Curt]

The fact that they're not the fastest thing in the world isn't going to be news to anyone... But it's not the point. They sound amazing and take forced induction very well.

[Danny2009]

I've been in one that was stripped and had a supercharger bolted to it sounded amazing but to say it was apparently mid 300hp I wasn't impressed in the slightest

[procta]

I have heard that they are not quick, my mot tester had a VR6 lump dropped in a mk2 golf, he dropped it back out and fitted a 1.8. He said the VR6 engine was a heavy lady garden.

[ginge191]

There is a story here but I'm not going to publicly incriminate myself.

More back seat bum fun dum-dum??

[THE_Liam]

I've driven a few, I considered one when I bought the Skoda. I loved them, decent handling, smooth ride, refined, massively torquey and smooth, and their not slow. Not exactly fast though, a '6 wouldn't be left behind despite having 800cc less and 2 cylinders less, mainly because mk3s are so weighty. They are just a nice drive, and the sound is amazing

Only thing that put me off was a mate having one and with 50-60mph 30 mile trips to work he was averaging 29mpg driven gently :o

[C.A.R.]

Suppose they're alright when fitted into the Ford Galaxy!

As said, it's all about the noise and the shove rather than outright pace - which has always been better from the smaller capacity turbocharged engines which obviously rev higher.

[Midnightclub]

They sound nice.. but that's about it.. aren't great on fuel and don't really make much power for a 2.8

Mates old one was dyno'd at 190hp and my old '6 would still keep ahead until at least 125+ (private runway obv) but past that and it just has the extra power

[THE_Liam]

The 2.9 in the Corrado was actually a far better engine, 192bhp and keener to rev as well.

[ozonehostile]

I wasn't impressed with the 201bhp from such a huge engine, guy at work has a mk4 vr6 (on audi rims and stretched tyres, naturally) and apart from nice motorway cruising (if you don't care about mpg) I can't really see why you would want to own one. Not very quick off the line, not great handling, not great on petrol, not great looking, not the best sounding v6 imo.

The whole car is just Meh

Buy a Nissan 350z for the same money

[Dum-Dum]

Gotta say I wasnt gonna use my 6 as a comparrison but as some of you have mentioned it would of anhialated it even with its apparent 30bhp less. TBH it just made me miss my GTi6 as I reckon the 6 sounds better.

Spoke to the lad afterwards and asked him what was in his and he said it was a 2.8 V6 with exhaust induction and a flywheel and when I told him mine was "just a crappy diesel" and I was down about 40bhp through a monster boost leak and f*cked injectors (I'm struggling to pass 3500rpm) it was like I'd shot his puppy, look on the poor lads face, thought he might cry. Id only expected him to have a 8v GTi.

Don't get me wrong it was definitely quicker but quicker like your nan is quicker on her mobility scooter than on her zimmer frame, not like your nan on the shopper bus fast.

[THE_Liam]

Must've been a bit poorly if a '6 would annihilate it, in my experience of driving both there's very little between them.

[Craigus]

They are so under powered for what they are. with a 4 cylinder 1.8t s3 making 225bhp and the 6 cylinder 2.8 vr6 making 175bhp.

[Tom]

Sounds nice, and an interesting engine design, but thats about it.

[THE_Liam]

It's old technology though, 2 valves per cylinder. Compare it to a 2.8 Cologne V6 with 150bhp, an M30 12v 3.0 with 188bhp, a Mercedes 3.0 12v straight 6 with 177bhp, an Audi 2.8 12v V6 from the 80 with 170bhp, it isn't that bad at all, a 5 valve per cylinder turbocharged 1.8 is unsurprisingly more powerful.

Controversial view but for me it's not about the actual power, it's more about how powerful it feels, and a VR6 at 2k revs feels like it can pull a house down.

[Toms306]

Don't think I've heard anyone say they're fast as standard? And I've been to plenty of VAG meets in the past lol.

As above though, it's old tech, it's gonna be slow and thirsty, but I must admit they do sound good, and have decent lower end torque.

Plus their SMF is useful for replacing the DMF on later VAG's.

[Ruan]

It's hardly that old, it's significantly newer than the XU design...

And to put it into perspective - 3.2l 24v VR6 produces 235hp, 1.8l 20vT produces 225hp... Torque is pretty similar too, not saying the 3.2 isn't a good engine, I'm sure it's got a tooty soundtrack, but the fact an engine with just over half the displacement with a simple turbocharger can produce pretty much the same performance... Especially when you remember how sodding heavy the 3.2 will be!

[THE_Liam]

How much would the 3.2 produce with a blower though? 300bhp easily?

[Lwilliams]

How much would the 3.2 produce with a blower though? 300bhp easily?

Same engine

Im looking at one soon, hoping around August not 800 bhp though

[THE_Liam]

How much would the 3.2 produce with a blower though? 300bhp easily?

Same engine

As what?

[Lwilliams]

How much would the 3.2

That 3.2 vr6 one that the topic is about

Never mind scratch that I forgot to add link.... doh

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24EVpjKCkdw

[THE_Liam]

How much would the 3.2

That 3.2 vr6 one that the topic is about

I think it was the 2.8 VR6 mate.

[Lwilliams]

How much would the 3.2

That 3.2 vr6 one that the topic is about

I think it was the 2.8 VR6 mate.

I just seen the 3.2 and instantly thought of that video since you was asking about the 3.2 with a blower

[Dum-Dum]

f*ck it why are 406 V6 engines so cheap on ebay!!!!!11

[THE_Liam]

f*ck it why are 406 V6 engines so cheap on ebay!!!!!11

Buy Pete's coupe, it's a right stunner!

[Jimmyboycheck]

I would still have one for the sound

[Curt]

This^^