how shiney is your car?

[Will]

Originally posted by angi73
Not to point fingers at all:elephant: but isnt the 1.8 turbo as used by VAG widely regarded as one of the most uncharismatic engines available. They do it in 150bhp tune as well as 180 and 225 too dont they? Doesnt do it for me chaps. Made me laugh some of the mk4 gti's too, i mean they put a gti badge on one with an 2ltr 8v lump, my 1.8 focus easily outpaces that. what where they thinking, just diluting the brand IMHO. Havent sampled a mk 5 golf, but mk4's are nearly always just too heavy and sloppy. Save for the R32, i would guess, wouldnt mind one of those! a mate had a mk2 16v gti, last of the line in white with bbs rims. That was pretty damm nice, until he twatted it... fool

Uncharismatic, not sure really, on the plus side the 1.8T is a very tunable lump (like most petrol turbos I guess), on the down side it gets a bit coarse at high revs. Until the 2.0FSI engines though the 1.8T was the only lump to have if you wanted something fairly fast and you didn't want a big capacity lump, because the old 2.0 was shite as you say, and the VR5 only has the same power as the 1.8T anyway (150bhp - the state of tune most VAG 1.8Ts come in, or at least 150bhp is the most common stated output of the 1.8T).

The mk4 Golf GTI with the 2.0 8v engine was an abomination and an absolute shame to the GTI badge, 115bhp I ask you! Our ancient K reg 2.0 Passat estate had the same engine and the same power! IIRC the 2.0 GTI was only sold in the UK, nowhere else was silly enough to badge a car that slow GTI (the GTI badged mk4 2.0 is actually just a 2.0 Highline with a different badge I think, the details in the owners manual of some 2.0 'GTI's even says Highline instead of GTI...shows it was just a bit of poor badge engineering by VW UK).

 

[angi73]

the v5's sound nice, must be quite a smooth torquey engine, probably a bit heavier than the 1.8 too.

I'll given the 1.8 its due though, its a very versatile and reliable engine. Must be nice if you have a 150bhp version that it can easily be tuned with minimal stresses.

yeah, the cossie yb is a classic example of a tunatble turbo motor, still widely used, dirt cheap to buy and tune for lots of power. People seem to put them in absolutely anything, with 200 to 550 bhp, mad

still, i wouldnt really want a focus St170 because its reported to be a lacking any real grunt, and not sure about the RS, that much power/tourque through the front wheels just seems wrong. Im just dreaming here......

Mind you, some golfs, seats etc put more. I have driven a Volvo v70 T5 a couple of times, 250bhp through front wheels which was kidof fun, but the tourque steer was attrocious, and as i remember it has a brake switch rather than pedal.

 

[PBirkett]

Originally posted by angi73
Not to point fingers at all:elephant: but isnt the 1.8 turbo as used by VAG widely regarded as one of the most uncharismatic engines available. They do it in 150bhp tune as well as 180 and 225 too dont they?

Depends what you want from an engine. If you want an engine that is endlessly revvy and noisy, then yeah, sure, the 1.8 T is "uncharasmatic".

However, if you want a petrol engined car that is very easily tunable, returns pretty good fuel economy considering its performance, and has bags of torque for a petrol engine, then you cannot go wrong.

Made me laugh some of the mk4 gti's too, i mean they put a gti badge on one with an 2ltr 8v lump, my 1.8 focus easily outpaces that.

Agreed, blatant misuse of the badge. However my dad had one of those, and you are kidding yourself if you think your Focus will easily outpace it. In absolute terms there may be a tiny difference, in the real world, the Golf's easy driving torque probably makes it quicker. The handling is pants though. Even if the 1.8 Focus is quicker (and it may well be), a properly driven 2.0 Golf would not be "easy" to outpace by a 1.8 Focus.

i wouldnt really want a focus St170 because its reported to be a lacking any real grunt, and not sure about the RS,

The ST170 is barely any quicker than a standard 2.0 Zetec, and yet costs nearly double the amount to insure. I got quotes on the ST170 and RS and the RS was only £30 more per year to insure.

The pick of the Focus range IMO is probably the TDCI, but even that is well off the pace of the best VAG TDI's.

 

[Jimmy Noodles]

I've got a lexus IS200 with a few mods in black. Just waiting until I get my bonnet resprayed b4 I polish it. I will be using maguires 3 stage polish which seems to come highly recomended by the owners club

 

[angi73]

Agreed paul, i wanted a TDCI origionally, but the reasle values are just too strong, they were new when i got my focus, and as much as im sure id love the torque i think that i the responsiveness and being able to rev my 1.8 makes it more fun even though a tdci would slaugter it at in gear acceleration, sounds much nicer than any diesel too.

you are right when you say that my focus wouldnt be THAT much quicker. But it still would be, the focuses handling is streets ahead, partly due to indepent suspension all round and a less rolly polly setup and of course simple weight. You'd be surprised by the 1.8 at times, they have been dynod at 125 stock too. Of course a well driven underpowered car can beat a poorly driven more powerfull car in any case. I made a few mods such as porting the throttle body and fitting a larger st170 intake with k&n panel filter that have made the throttle response much better, great fun.

I know 0-60 is far from evrything, but autocar list the 1.8 focus as 9.5 and the golf as something like 10.5 or even 11- 12 if i remember correctly. people do und4erestimate the advantages of having 8 large vales though, lends itself to having more torque as i have been led to believe

Now i am just proving that we are all anoraks!

 

[Graham C]

Well, since you ask, my 405 Turbodiesel is covered in kak, since I have been using it for visits to the tip, after fitting a new kitchen [the sort of activity that makes money, not pissing it down a drain..]

Still, I have to go to Wakefield next week, so I shall get the Armenian car valeters in Rotherham to breath on it. Last time I was there it was £12 for a full BJ. Well smart too..

 

[I-S]

I suppose you could say that the 4G63 engine in my galant is "tuneable". As low as ~100bhp with low-octane fuels in the american market, and as high as 320bhp in the Evo VIII FQ320 (with the aid of a couple of turbos, intercooling and other gubbins).

The range of engines was something that really put me off the passat, and still puts me off VAG cars. I'd look seriously at the Superb if it weren't for the lack of a decent engine (the 2.8 is WAY too thirsty for the power/speed, the 2.5 TDI sounds like a tractor (the 1.9 is way smoother, and I'd still not), the old 2.0 will struggle with a car that big, and the 1.8T isn't naturally aspirated (I dislike turbos)).

Shortlist for my next motor includes new legacy 2.0 and 2.5, BMW 523i, Lexus GS300 and IS200. All great engines...

 

[MO!]

Originally posted by Graham C
so I shall get the Armenian car valeters in Rotherham to breath on it. Last time I was there it was £12 for a full BJ.

I wouldn't call simply breathing on it a full BJ!

£12 seems cheap for head though

 

[PBirkett]

Originally posted by angi73
Agreed paul, i wanted a TDCI origionally, but the reasle values are just too strong, they were new when i got my focus, and as much as im sure id love the torque i think that i the responsiveness and being able to rev my 1.8 makes it more fun even though a tdci would slaugter it at in gear acceleration, sounds much nicer than any diesel too.

Agreed. I love my car, but sometimes miss the franticness of a multivalve petrol engine. Then again though, I am well used to having LOADS of torque at almost any speed now, I would not go back.

I know 0-60 is far from evrything, but autocar list the 1.8 focus as 9.5 and the golf as something like 10.5 or even 11- 12 if i remember correctly. people do und4erestimate the advantages of having 8 large vales though, lends itself to having more torque as i have been led to believe

I dont like 0-60 times, they arent really a true indication of a cars real world performance. Even my old Micra 1.4 was nearly as quick as your Focus would have been from 0-60, but the Micra would take absolutely ages to get to 100. Why was it good from 0-60? Because the car was designed to hit 60 in 2nd, for a good 0-60. In gear times are far more useful in most circumstances, 30-70 is also decent.

Even so, my car can do 0-60 in 8.2 seconds, 0-100 in 24.4, 30-70 in 7.6 seconds according to Autocar, but ultimately, if I'd been buying a car based on its 0-60 time, it wouldnt have been this one.

 

[penance]

My bikes nice and shiny clean thanks to autoglym.

Oh, and it'll eat yer cars for breakfast

 

[angi73]

yes, i have to change to third to get to sixty, 2nd takes you to about 55, 60 can be done but the soft cut rev limter just cuts in. sours nicely to 100 and well beyond though. found that against a 1.6 fiesta that was reputadedlt "tuned", nothing in it to about 70, but then i left him for dead. That was only once, still irresponsible. the road hadnt been opened yet though, so semed a good idea

seemly silly really, here i am talking in terms like this about my "cooking" hatch, and dont i love it, i think id better shut up for the guys with the real machinery now......

I like the idea of chipping a common rail diesel such as the fabia/tdci, yet more tourque and some more top end!

 

[Saab]

now then Paul,you know only too well the owner of the Autocar test car has denied knowing it was tuned,he said he was sold it as standard.If it was,Skoda UK were to blame,and they denied it as well,and anyway,its a good enough tale to wind the Golf boys up with their lard buckets I am at AMD this saturday with a load of Golfs,will see what happens with the standard cars on the rollers,every time this has happened tmk the Skodas have been averaging 10bhp more)

and the Golf Anniversary is slower than the VRS by a long shot.Unless i drove a dicky one

btw,drove a TT V6 last wek,worst car I have ever driven,simply horrid,for 30k that is

 

[PBirkett]

Paul,you know only too well the owner of the Autocar test car has denied knowing it was tuned,he said he was sold it as standard

He may well not have known, but I still say the performance figures of it are too good for a car of its weight and power. Members of briskoda seem fairly convinced it was chipped.

Having said that, I may be wrong, in which case, the VRS performs EXTREMELY well for a car of its weight and power (being more or less equal to a Civic Type R, which IIRC is nearly 200kg lighter and has nearly 20 bhp more).

Golf Anniversary is slower than the VRS by a long shot.

It definitely shouldnt be slower by a long shot, considering it uses the same engine and has the same power output, and probably weighs more or less the same weight.

Either it was ****ed, or not run in, or maybe both! I maintain that the cars should be pretty close (even if the VRS might have a slight edge). I think there is a tendency with car owners, a bit like hifi owners, to exagerrate the differences between different products. Theres no way either car would whoop the other.

Having said that, I do like the Octy VRS. I would have got one if it wasnt for the fact I didnt need a car that big, could do without the expensive insurance (its about 70% more to insure than the Fabia), and needed good fuel economy. Although in retrospect, judging by reports, the Fabia vRS is not doing as well as I thought in this respect, and the Octavia going off peoples reports on briskoda, has better fuel economy than I expected. It is still less economical than the Fabia though, but not by as much as I expected.

Nevertheless, I still think for everyday driving the Fabia probably does me just as well as the Octavia would of.

drove a TT V6 last wek,worst car I have ever driven

You obviously havent driven a Ford Escort Diesel then

Seriously though, I think the Audi TT is a tarts car. I liked it at first, but quickly tired of the shape. I much prefer the far more masculine looking Nissan 350 Z

 

[julian2002]

my p reg rover 400 diesel is covered in devon seagull sh*t, rust and strange off colour patches. it does 0-60 eventually (well in 10 ish seconds) rattles, squeaks and judders alarmingly at over 90 mph but has just turned in nearly 60 mpg! this last thing and the fact that i can run it on chip fat durning the summer pursuaded me to chop in my 4 liter v8 gas guzzler.

cheers


julian

 

[Robbo]

Thats great economy! What with oil prices an all this stuff about fuel protests, I reckon your car switch was a smart move!

 

[analoguekid]

PBirkett,

Interested to know how you are sure you are getting 145bhp, have you had it dyno'd?

I have run a 5 door 150bhp GTI turbo for 3 years(as co car) great fun, at same time my wife also had (as co cars) 5 door Golf 2.0 gti, and agree with all thats said, felt like a completely different car from my golf, she then had a Bora V5 (170bhp)Turbo was quicker up to about 100mph then V5 left it for dead, although bora had standard susp and was a bit floaty at high speed.

I currently have Audi A4 Avant Sport 130TDI, fantastic, midrange (229lbft as is 6 speed box, five speeder only has 210) great seats looks fantastic and whiloe not being tha fastest or best handling car I have owned, it is one of the comfiest and has nice snob appeal, my wife is currently driving MINI cooper S this car is an absolute hoot and I feel priveledged to have to such nice company cars to choose from so no worries from us re running costs, the downside is we can't always have something thta is a little left field, (ie no skodas, as no one else would want them if we left company and they had to go in pool), we also cannot modify them (without risking our jobs), but the upside is we are running both these cars (tax etc), for probably less than PB is spending monthly on his Skoda.

Just about to go out and do some clean and polish, use All autoglym and have done for 20 years, shampoo, resin polish, and then High gloss polish, also use wonderwheels and Rain X (or equivelant) for rain dispersal on windows really works. Have considered trying Zymol and may do when Autoglym runs out, as also claim back from expenses, money spent on cleaning products.

Paul

 

[Robbo]

I gave mine the full Autoglym treatment yesterday and it has come up superbly. I need to buy some new stuff for next time so am thinking about Zymol.

Has anybody had their car treated with Diamondbrite? Several years without needing to polish the car sounds like a good idea to me!

 

[midlifecrisis]

Originally posted by Robbo
I gave mine the full Autoglym treatment yesterday and it has come up superbly. I need to buy some new stuff for next time so am thinking about Zymol.

Has anybody had their car treated with Diamondbrite? Several years without needing to polish the car sounds like a good idea to me!

Had the family Volvo T5 Diamondbrited when first bought it - complete waste of money. Doesn't either preserve the shine of toughen resistancce to scratches.

What I'd like is some means of getting tree resin off the paint too - sets like concrete. T-Cut will eventually get it off, but that's pretty brutal and still leaves a trace. I've tried various folk-remedies off the Net like smearing butter on it, to no avail...

 

[I-S]

Try Autoglym Intensive Tar remover.

Do you think we should try for sponsorship chaps?

 

[tones]

Originally posted by midlifecrisis
Had the family Volvo T5 Diamondbrited when first bought it - complete waste of money. Doesn't either preserve the shine of toughen resistancce to scratches.

The only thing that will prevent scratches is something hard, which means something that crosslinks chemically to give a hard tough film, like the car's original paint itself (these days generally urethanes or acrylics). You simply will not get that out of a tin. Similarly, you have to remember that nothing is going to prevent the main damage agent to car paint films - light. UV radiation eventually demolishes all polymer chains, no matter how much UV absorber you put in either the polish or the paint, and that's why the shine dulls - the surface layer perishes, and polishing takes that surface layer away. For best performance, buy a dark colour - the pigments absorb UV much better. The most disastrous are metallics - the aluminium flakes act like mirrors and reflect the light around the film. However, in the UK, these factors aren't as great a problem as they are in Oz, where the light intensity does wonders for your car's paintwork.