Conference terri::cars_uk

    Well I read that there is going to be a new top of the range Golf.
    The 160bhp 1.8 8v G-Lader model (NOTE : *NOT* the vile RALLYE) but a 
    norma looking Golf with 4WD and LHD only to start with.   Cost near 20,000
    pounds !!!!!!!!!
    
    Grant

    No they don't sell a 5 door 16v Golf in the UK, but they do in Europe!
    
    I blame the marketing men - (A sports car's gorra 'ave 2 doors, innit?, 
    
    come the revolution etc, .....)
    
    Jeff K.

    I thought the 3 door .v. 5 door was to do with body rigidity ...
    the 3 door body is more rigid and will accept the stiffer suspension
    set up, where as the 5 door body will flex (and the doors will no longer
    shut properly).

 Mark

    I was in a VW dealership in january looking at 16V GTI's and asked
    about 5 doors...the sales bod said they where being released here
    "later this year"
    
    	Tim

    
    Sunday Times said this weekend that 8v supercharged Golf imminent.
    Has Corraro (sp?) engine & running gear. Quicker than 16v, wider
    torque band.
    
    Colin Osborne

    Re . 1
    
    See this weeks Autocar and motor for a full review on the Gti G60.
    
    LHD only, 8v g60 gives 160 bhp, the 16v g60 gives a mammoth 210bhp.
    The 16v valve version is called the Golf limited edition.
    
    
    Lots of info on spec. etc etc. - expected price of the G60 8v in the
    U.K.is to be �17,000
    
    
    Rich
    

    re-1
    
    Yes I am intrested.  My mail address is Grant Taylor @RDL 1E.
    
    Thanks
    Grant

    
    I drove a G60 Corrado recently, and was certainly very impressed.
    Its chassis balance was very good, though it would torque steer
    under provocation. Performance was certainly very strong, and it
    would still accelerate hard from an indicated 180 (kph, of course!) 
    Very well built, roomy, rather like a Golf with a bit of character
    in fact... And I loved the rear spoiler - Pose factor Nine!
            
    Bi||.                 

    RE 3 or 4
    
    The Volkswagen Golf 16V, according to my January 1990 price list it is
    available in 5 doors circa � 14,500...
    
    Andy
    

    Re the G60 Golf, Autocar and Motor say that it takes the supercharger 
    0.4 sec to give useful boost from flooring the accelerator and another
    0.4 sec to give max boost.
    
    Whilst the power band looks impressive, one of the three main reasons
    for my switch from an Escort RS Turbo to a 16V Golf was throttle response.
    Turbo/G-lader lag is not a problem if you drive fast all the time - I 
    don't, but I do like pretty much instant response (albeit by dropping 2 
    gears) to enable me to overtake as soon as I see a safe gap.
    
    Give me a GTI Engineering 16V any day.
    
    BTW my other two reasons for switching were, handling and better build
    quality.         

Then again, if you want a *real* 16v, go for the 309 GTI 16v.

160 hp without any tricky bits. 5 doors not an option yet though.
Chassis/balance/steering simply the best, build quality not up to VW, although
the important things are very solid.

BTW, the 309 GTI 8v was voted by Autocar as the best fast hatchback for 1989.

    Another plus..
    
    The 309 Gti is the most reliable car I've ever owned, although I've
    never owned a VW, the list does include Vauxhall, Ford, Peugeot,
    Renault and Lancia. The wooden spoon going to the Ford (XR3i).
    
    I think the new styling on the 309 is an improvement too (its still
    pretty ugly though...)

    What about a GTE 16V. You now get ABS as standard with NO additional
    cost........And unlike some of the other slower GTIs you will
    certainly need it!!!!!!
    
    And before you all start on about handling you should try out
    the car with an Irmscher Suspension Kit and you'll find it
    hard (no pun intended) to beat.

    
    I don't understand .-1......
    
    If this is a fast GTI, why would you need the longer stopping distance
    that ABS gives you?
    
    :-o
    
    JK

I echo .14's note.

I think he meant, that with a fast GTi, he would need the incredible
arrogance that ABS gives you!

What does he mean by fast anyway. Does he always travel at 135 mph ?

I find that on the motorway, I am always being overtaken by Astra L's and
Ford Escort 1.3L's. Does that mean they should have anti lock brakes in
preference to Renault 5 GT Turbos and Peugeot 205 GTi's ??

Mark.

    Re: GTE 16v
    
    One of my earlier statement, was that the car should not be replaced in
    the near future. I have heard and seen pictures in Auto Express, about
    the new ASTRA coming out soon, for this reason alone, the GTE is a
    non-starter, even though I do like it !
    
    Raj

    
    
    Re; Golf 8v G60 supercharger
    
    Just what the heck is a supercharger? how does it work? where does
    it fit into the engine?  What advantages
    
    Why are they using supercahrgers all of a sudden? They have been
    around since 1930's, so whats make VW use one now?
    
                                            
    

    Technically a 'turbocharger' is a supercharger as well, but for this
    discussion it is different.
    
    The G60 supercharger is belt driven off the crank shaft.  Turbos are
    driven by exhaust gases.  The direct drive of a supercharger allows
    more torque at a lower rpm and quicker than a turbo.  There is also no
    concern about the extreme temps that a turbo generates.
    
    On the Corrado the supercharger is hung off the front side of the
    engine.  They don't have the G60 Golfs over here yet, but I would have
    to assume it's in the same location.
    
    I can't explain why they went with a supercharger instead of a turbo. 
    Exclusivity may be part of it (the only other supercharged car around
    now is the MR2).  Basically it should provide better low end response
    while still adding power higher up in the rev range.
    
    Dave

VW have a different policy to Audi.  VW seem to believe that turbochargers give
unnaceptable turbo lag plus some reliability problems.  Audi have been using 
turbos for years.  .18 is correct in that superchargers give a faster response
but they consume power since they are driven from the crankshaft rather than
from the waste exhaust gas.

Mike.

>> they [superchargers] consume power since they are driven from the crankshaft
>> rather than the wast exhaust gas.

Surely a turbocharger adds some resistance to the flow of exhaust gas?  It must
do, or it would be the world's first 100% energy-efficient machine!  This also
consumes power as the engine must push the exhaust gases out with greater force.
As to which consumes the most power...?

A turbo, methinks, is a turbine driven by the flow of exhaust gas, which drives
another turbine forcing air into the carb / inlet manifold.  Correct?

Does a supercharger do the same, but driven from the crankshaft?

I know superchargers were used in 1920s motor racing, but as engines became more
advanced the benefits a supercharger gave were outweighed by the power it
consumed so they fell into disuse.

Personally, I'd rather have a switch on the dash marked "Nitro Injector"; even
if it wasn't connected to anything, it would worry the passengers...

Scott

    I always understood that the difference between a turbocharger and
    supercharger were that the turbo cuts in a xxxx revs and cuts out
    at xxxx revs, whereas a supercharger doesnt cut out, it's just there.
    
    Right?
    
    re;-1
    
    Scott, why just have the switch - get the injector unit. Then watch
    their faces before and after ;-)
    
    Lewis.

    Turbocharger ... driven by exhaust waste gasses.
    Supercharger ... driven off the crankshaft.

    The idea of both is to increase pressure at the inlet manifold.
    The turbocharger drives the compressor using the waste energy from 
    the flow of exhaust gasses through the exhaust manifold, the supercharger
    drives the compressor directly from the engine.

  Mark

I imagine that turbochargers do take some power from the engine by reducing
the efficiency of the exhaust, but that is predominantly a high revs effect and
one of the biggest advantages of the turbo is the increase in midrange torque.
The power loss is less than with a supercharger and the device is easier to
install - it's a cheap fix for more power which is the main reason it's so
popular.

A supercharger gives better low range performance as already observed.

I suspect that superchargers fell into disuse because engines were developed
capable of running at high rpm which gave power more efficiently.  The modern
revival is to combat turbo lag and unreliability, but perhaps also to be
different for the sake of marketing.

Mike

    
    Whats the lag difference between a supercharger and a turbocharger?
    Anyone know if the G60 has more BHP on the wheels than the 16v?

    re: .24

    I thought that supercharger = no lag.

    re: .23

    I can't believe that a turbocharger is cheaper than a supercharger.
    The turbocharger requires extensive exhaust manifolding, the supercharger
    just links to the crank with a belt. I imagine that the compressor part
    is about the same for both.

    I think that superchargers aren't used as extensively as turbochargers
    because they cost more to run in terms of petrol.


 Mark

There is a supercharger available for (amongst others) the 3.5/3.9 litre Rover
engine used in Land Rovers, Range Rovers and TVRs.

The firm that sells it advertises that you can "easily" move it from one engine
to the next when you change cars - I doubt you could do that with any turbo
units I've heard of.

/. Ian .\

    re: a few back,
      The supercharger can be setup so that you can disconnect it. Just
    like an aircon compressor, an electric clutch will do it. On some old
    cars the supercharger was in line with the crankshaft but still had to
    be cut in with a mechanical clutch (eg: the "blower" Bentleys and some
    early Morgans had the supercharger sticking out in front of the
    radiator). 
      I thought some mob were building cars with a supercharger AND a
    turbo. The idea being you'd get the best of both worlds, no lag, good
    low speed response and more efficiency at high speed. All you need
    is the right control unit to cut the right one in when appropriate.
    Sort of like the old dual ignition systems, one running off a coil and
    the other off a magneto.
      Re: 20's cars and rev range. Remember that your average engine of the
    20's/30's revved out at maybe 2000rpm or 3000rpm. Could it be that
    the introduction of higher revving engines reduced the need for super
    charging?
    						John Gillings, Sydney CSC  

This months CAR quoted 25% more BHP than a Golf 16V, and 40% more than a
standard GTi.

The main im,provement is apparently in flexibility. However the Astra GTE 16V,
has similar flexibility, and better performance.

Mark.

    
    For cars that have problems getting away from the lights, and don't
    start pulling until over 4500 appears on the counter (ie 16v thingies)
    a super-charger would be nice.  (why didn't they bring it to the
    uk ???)
    
    It would also be useful for those poor people with Integrales, who
    seem to have problems with 2CV's until the turbo cut's in...  ;-)
    
    Nigel

    re a few back
    
    Willy Koeing (Sp?) does Ferrari Testarossa's With a Supercharger
    + 2 Turbochargers for 710bhp and 210mph!!!!!!!!!
    
    Grant
    
    P.S just think what he could do to a Diabblo (sp?) VT!!! (Base 492bhp
    compared to the Ferarri's 390bhp.
    
    Grant

    Group B Lancia Delta S4's had Supercharger and Turbocharger, generating
    up to 470bhp when rallied, well over 550bhp for motorcross.
    
    
    John

    Does anybody have any information on the durability of Golf 16v
    engines ? and especially if there are "critical" mileages - I seem
    to remember 40'000 Km was critical on first series GTI's - something
    to do with cylinder head gaskets.                        
    
    Paul
    

    
    Ours is coming up to 60,000 km and 3 years old.
    
    Replacements to date : two bulbs + 1 screen washer bottle top.
    
    I guess if they're able to get 210 bhp out of the same block by bolting
    one of them G-Lader watch-a-mes on, this one ought to be fairly
    bullet-proof. 
    
    Iain.

    Good news, And what about the price of services ? My brother paid
    only SFr 200.-- (� 80) for the first 15'000Km service on his (Oil
    change and checks). I am wondering though what the others might
    cost - 30'000, 45'000, 60'000, 75'000 etc...
    
    Paul

>>only SFr 200.-- (� 80) for the first 15'000Km service on his (Oil change and 
checks)


WOW!! �80 for an oil change...

...i'll have two!		:-)


...art

I'll let you know in a few days. I've just had a 95,000 km service on my 8V
in Switzerland. Oil, all filters, new rear brakes, head gasket, steam clean,
fan belt, wipers, wiper fluid etc... I had the service done 3 weeks ago,
the guy is going to bill me beginning of April when he's worked out the cost!

This was the first time that I've ever had a car serviced and I was amazed at
how thorough they were - everything seems to have been checked.

Now, how heavy is that bill going to be..?

    If you went into that kind of exercise not knowing what the bill
    was likely to be you probably couldn't afford it!

	Re .36. There's only one thing more thorough than a service
	of this type and that's the thoroughness with which the bill
	is 'carried out'.

	-John (who swears he'd still be charged for windscreen washer fluid
	on a pushbike)

RE: -.1, -.2

I agree! Switzerland has a whole different way of working to the UK - nobody
discusses price; they trust their supplier and fork out...!

I hope that I don't get burnt this time - if I do then I'm definitely going
to the next few (pre-winter) services myself!

Steve

    My last service was quit

	Anyone got a workshop manual for a 1990 Golf I could borrow
	for an hour or so?

	JJ.