New golf announced.... wow

[Sean Ford]

Brett,
You know better than that. You can't possibly compare two completely
different cars and wonder why one is not significantly faster using a
single time/distance measurement.

Of course, the disparity is due to different gearing and engine
characteristics.

Excuse my ignorance, but I thought the 200's had 5-speeds not 6-speeds?
Isn't the Golf using a Haldex system as opposed to the older quattro
system? A pressurized 5-cylinder is going to behave differently than an
atmospheric V6. Period.

Personally, I'm not thrilled with the R32, it goes the wrong way in the
light vs. might argument in my opinion. Bring on the GTI 337 in
standard guise for '03; I dig a hot 1.8t with 6-speed and sport
suspension.

--- Brett Dikeman <brett at cloud9.net> wrote:
> At 10:13 PM +0100 7/22/02, alan pritchard wrote:
>
> >the new model produces an impressive 240 bhp from its 3.2-litre V6
> engine.
> >
>
> Ok, so that means its fast as greased lightning, right folks?
>
> >
> >The deep growl of the engine is accompanied by
> >impressively strong performance - 0 to 62 mph takes only 6.4 seconds
>
> Whoa there, wait a second.  My 200q20v in stock form, with 217 hp and
> a bunch of turbo lag is only slightly slower than that.
>
> Someone please explain to me how this thing, which has got to weigh
> significantly less than an S4tt, takes exactly a half second more to
> get up to speed?  I don't think the extra 2mph is accounting for the
> rift here.
>
>    Both have 6-speeds, both have AWD...torque curves etc are surely
> different, but 6.4 sec is NOT impressive in the -slightest- for such
> a small car with so much instant-on power.
>
> Where's the beef?  I mean, it looks cool, but...


=====
Sean Ford
audi_92_100CS at yahoo.com
http://community.webshots.com/user/seanmford
'92 Audi 100CS 5-spd non-q
'01 Triumph Daytona 955i
'89 Suzuki Katana 600

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com