VW Golf VS Cobalt SS/SC
03-18-2006, 02:22 AM
#51
Senior Member
Join Date: 09-16-05
Location: UNDER YOUR BED
Posts: 13,309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Blainestang
The key phrase here is "with a chip." The 1.8T's and 2.0T's are nothing to write home about stock, but I think everyone's in agreement that they pick up some serious power from minimal mods... like a chip.
The GTI's are the fat kids out of the compact cars. A 99-04 mustang GT weighs less ( approx 3100 lbs ), and that things chugging around a 260hp V8!!
03-18-2006, 02:34 AM
#52
Banned
Join Date: 03-02-06
Location: Cali
Posts: 1,187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 1BADSS/SC
Gotta remember though that our cars respond just as well, if not better to similar mods.
HAHAHA, show me a Cobalt that gets 60hp and 80+tq with just a chip.
03-18-2006, 02:21 PM
#53
Senior Member
Join Date: 09-16-05
Location: UNDER YOUR BED
Posts: 13,309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 280Z1977
HAHAHA, show me a Cobalt that gets 60hp and 80+tq with just a chip.
Not only that, but our cars weigh sooo much less. They are going to have better gains from mods because they weigh a lot less. Less weight translates to less HP needed to make the car move quicker. Youre forgetting a very basic formula from physics that is applicable to everything:
F ( force ) = M (mass) x A ( acceleration)
The higher the mass ( aka weight ), the more force it takes to accelerate that object. Sure you can add 60 horses, but youre still chugging around that extra 400 lbs. In reality, your gains are much less than what you think. Id say a chipped GTI would probably be an even race between the SS/SC. I mean, the GTI has a 0-60 of 7.1sec, ours have a 0-60 of 5.9-6.1sec. Thats a huge difference in acceleration especially since they both have about equal HP. So really, that 60 HP additive doesnt mean sh*t.
03-18-2006, 02:54 PM
#54
Banned
Join Date: 03-02-06
Location: Cali
Posts: 1,187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 1BADSS/SC
There are no chips, therefore I couldnt show you. They dont even know the computer codes, so we cant even fully tune our vehicles yet. Besides that, we dont need 60hp to get huge gains. Look at what a simple CAI did for Tofu ( -.05 sec off 1/4mi resulting in a 1/4mi of 14.1 sec ). I would love to see a GTI respond that well to just 10-15 horses.
Not only that, but our cars weigh sooo much less. They are going to have better gains from mods because they weigh a lot less. Less weight translates to less HP needed to make the car move quicker. Youre forgetting a very basic formula from physics that is applicable to everything:
F ( force ) = M (mass) x A ( acceleration)
The higher the mass ( aka weight ), the more force it takes to accelerate that object. Sure you can add 60 horses, but youre still chugging around that extra 400 lbs. In reality, your gains are much less than what you think. Id say a chipped GTI would probably be an even race between the SS/SC. I mean, the GTI has a 0-60 of 7.1sec, ours have a 0-60 of 5.9-6.1sec. Thats a huge difference in acceleration especially since they both have about equal HP. So really, that 60 HP additive doesnt mean sh*t.
Not only that, but our cars weigh sooo much less. They are going to have better gains from mods because they weigh a lot less. Less weight translates to less HP needed to make the car move quicker. Youre forgetting a very basic formula from physics that is applicable to everything:
F ( force ) = M (mass) x A ( acceleration)
The higher the mass ( aka weight ), the more force it takes to accelerate that object. Sure you can add 60 horses, but youre still chugging around that extra 400 lbs. In reality, your gains are much less than what you think. Id say a chipped GTI would probably be an even race between the SS/SC. I mean, the GTI has a 0-60 of 7.1sec, ours have a 0-60 of 5.9-6.1sec. Thats a huge difference in acceleration especially since they both have about equal HP. So really, that 60 HP additive doesnt mean sh*t.
You have to consider it is much easier for a 15sec car to lose .05 or whatever then for a 14 second car to do it. Then there is gearing, wheel/tire size, etc. I like your enthusiasm though.
03-19-2006, 02:10 AM
#56
Senior Member
Join Date: 06-19-05
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 1BADSS/SC
Gotta remember though that our cars respond just as well, if not better to similar mods. Of course, weighing 400lbs less probably makes a big difference
The GTI's are the fat kids out of the compact cars. A 99-04 mustang GT weighs less ( approx 3100 lbs ), and that things chugging around a 260hp V8!!
The GTI's are the fat kids out of the compact cars. A 99-04 mustang GT weighs less ( approx 3100 lbs ), and that things chugging around a 260hp V8!!
Originally Posted by 1BADSS/SC
There are no chips, therefore I couldnt show you. They dont even know the computer codes, so we cant even fully tune our vehicles yet. Besides that, we dont need 60hp to get huge gains. Look at what a simple CAI did for Tofu ( -.05 sec off 1/4mi resulting in a 1/4mi of 14.1 sec ). I would love to see a GTI respond that well to just 10-15 horses.
Not only that, but our cars weigh sooo much less. They are going to have better gains from mods because they weigh a lot less. Less weight translates to less HP needed to make the car move quicker. Youre forgetting a very basic formula from physics that is applicable to everything:
F ( force ) = M (mass) x A ( acceleration)
The higher the mass ( aka weight ), the more force it takes to accelerate that object. Sure you can add 60 horses, but youre still chugging around that extra 400 lbs. In reality, your gains are much less than what you think. Id say a chipped GTI would probably be an even race between the SS/SC. I mean, the GTI has a 0-60 of 7.1sec, ours have a 0-60 of 5.9-6.1sec. Thats a huge difference in acceleration especially since they both have about equal HP. So really, that 60 HP additive doesnt mean sh*t.
Not only that, but our cars weigh sooo much less. They are going to have better gains from mods because they weigh a lot less. Less weight translates to less HP needed to make the car move quicker. Youre forgetting a very basic formula from physics that is applicable to everything:
F ( force ) = M (mass) x A ( acceleration)
The higher the mass ( aka weight ), the more force it takes to accelerate that object. Sure you can add 60 horses, but youre still chugging around that extra 400 lbs. In reality, your gains are much less than what you think. Id say a chipped GTI would probably be an even race between the SS/SC. I mean, the GTI has a 0-60 of 7.1sec, ours have a 0-60 of 5.9-6.1sec. Thats a huge difference in acceleration especially since they both have about equal HP. So really, that 60 HP additive doesnt mean sh*t.
Secondly, you proved your own point wrong by bringing in F=ma. Sure, 400 lb is a lot of added weight, but if you really want to look at physics here (without going into ridiculous detail), we'll do a little comparo of that 15hp CAI for the Cobalt, and the 60hp Chip for the GTI.
What's important with regard to F=ma is inherently power-to-weight, because rearrange the formula and you've got a=F/m, essentially, a=Power/Weight.
Now, let's see how much Power per Lb. each car gains with those mods.
Cobalt:
15hp/2800 lb = .00536 hp / lb
GTI:
60hp/3300 lb = .0182 hp / lb
So, while the GTI weighs more, it's extra weight does not come anywhere close to outweighing the gains of the chip compared to the gains of the CAI. In fact, the GTI essentially still gained ~3.5 times the horsepower that the Cobalt did. This makes sense of course because a boost increase should generally result in a greater gain than a CAI, but disproves the suggestion that "that 60hp additive doesn't mean sh*t."
03-20-2006, 01:44 AM
#58
Senior Member
Join Date: 09-16-05
Location: UNDER YOUR BED
Posts: 13,309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First of all, youre using the formula all wrong. Everything in the formula for velocity is measured in the metric system, not american measurements.
Second of all, youre forgetting that the GTI has the same HP stock, yet runs a 1/4mi of 15.5 sec. Yea, thats cuz ITS HEAVIER. That means that its going to need LOTS more HP to keep up. Now think of it this way.
OK, so @ equal HP one has a 1/4mi of 14.6 and the other 15.5. Ok, now what % difference is that in terms of performance? OK, 15.5-14.6=0.9 sec. Now, lets see what % that is of the 15.5sec 1/4mi: 0.9/15.5=.058 which equals 5.8%.
That means that the stock Cobalt has a 1/4mi that is 5.8% better than the stock GTI. Ok, so that means that the GTI is 5.8% SLOWER than the SS/SC. Lets now analyze how an increase in HP will affect the 1/4mi.
Now, from what we know, we know that 15hp on the SS/SC can decrease the 1/4mi by about -.2 to -.3. Ok, so lets apply that to the GTI:
so an extra 60 HP= -.8 to -1.2 sec
Heres the kicker though:
We know that, all things remain constant, that the GTI is 5.8% slower, therefore, it will respond 5.8% less to upgrades soooooo:
0.8(.058)=0.75 and 1.2(.058)=1.13
and heres the result:
15.5-0.75 = 14.75 and 15.5-1.13 = 14.37sec
Now realistically, these numbers are based on common sense, and if all things remain constant. There are other factors of course that should be taken into consideration, however, the GTI is 5.8% slower regardless stock, therefore it in theory will respond 5.8% less than the SS because of WEIGHT.
Unless anyone has anything more intellegent to offer in terms of proof, besides hearsay, Im going to say that a SS/SC with a CAI should give a chipped GTI a good run, and it would be a drivers race.
Second of all, youre forgetting that the GTI has the same HP stock, yet runs a 1/4mi of 15.5 sec. Yea, thats cuz ITS HEAVIER. That means that its going to need LOTS more HP to keep up. Now think of it this way.
OK, so @ equal HP one has a 1/4mi of 14.6 and the other 15.5. Ok, now what % difference is that in terms of performance? OK, 15.5-14.6=0.9 sec. Now, lets see what % that is of the 15.5sec 1/4mi: 0.9/15.5=.058 which equals 5.8%.
That means that the stock Cobalt has a 1/4mi that is 5.8% better than the stock GTI. Ok, so that means that the GTI is 5.8% SLOWER than the SS/SC. Lets now analyze how an increase in HP will affect the 1/4mi.
Now, from what we know, we know that 15hp on the SS/SC can decrease the 1/4mi by about -.2 to -.3. Ok, so lets apply that to the GTI:
so an extra 60 HP= -.8 to -1.2 sec
Heres the kicker though:
We know that, all things remain constant, that the GTI is 5.8% slower, therefore, it will respond 5.8% less to upgrades soooooo:
0.8(.058)=0.75 and 1.2(.058)=1.13
and heres the result:
15.5-0.75 = 14.75 and 15.5-1.13 = 14.37sec
Now realistically, these numbers are based on common sense, and if all things remain constant. There are other factors of course that should be taken into consideration, however, the GTI is 5.8% slower regardless stock, therefore it in theory will respond 5.8% less than the SS because of WEIGHT.
Unless anyone has anything more intellegent to offer in terms of proof, besides hearsay, Im going to say that a SS/SC with a CAI should give a chipped GTI a good run, and it would be a drivers race.
03-20-2006, 01:55 AM
#59
Senior Member
Join Date: 09-16-05
Location: UNDER YOUR BED
Posts: 13,309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 280Z1977
ahhh... if only racing was that simple. You have to consider it is much easier for a 15sec car to lose .05 or whatever then for a 14 second car to do it. Then there is gearing, wheel/tire size, etc. I like your enthusiasm though.
You have to consider it is much easier for a 15sec car to lose .05 or whatever then for a 14 second car to do it. Then there is gearing, wheel/tire size, etc. I like your enthusiasm though.Im comparing a SS/SC with a CAI vs a GTI with a chip.
03-20-2006, 01:56 AM
#60
Senior Member
Join Date: 09-16-05
Location: UNDER YOUR BED
Posts: 13,309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ozcaN
you do relize a chiiped gti is 252hp/303lb-ft
03-20-2006, 03:35 AM
#61
Banned
Join Date: 03-02-06
Location: Cali
Posts: 1,187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 1BADSS/SC
First of all, youre using the formula all wrong. Everything in the formula for velocity is measured in the metric system, not american measurements.
Second of all, youre forgetting that the GTI has the same HP stock, yet runs a 1/4mi of 15.5 sec. Yea, thats cuz ITS HEAVIER. That means that its going to need LOTS more HP to keep up. Now think of it this way.
OK, so @ equal HP one has a 1/4mi of 14.6 and the other 15.5. Ok, now what % difference is that in terms of performance? OK, 15.5-14.6=0.9 sec. Now, lets see what % that is of the 15.5sec 1/4mi: 0.9/15.5=.058 which equals 5.8%.
That means that the stock Cobalt has a 1/4mi that is 5.8% better than the stock GTI. Ok, so that means that the GTI is 5.8% SLOWER than the SS/SC. Lets now analyze how an increase in HP will affect the 1/4mi.
Now, from what we know, we know that 15hp on the SS/SC can decrease the 1/4mi by about -.2 to -.3. Ok, so lets apply that to the GTI:
so an extra 60 HP= -.8 to -1.2 sec
Heres the kicker though:
We know that, all things remain constant, that the GTI is 5.8% slower, therefore, it will respond 5.8% less to upgrades soooooo:
0.8(.058)=0.75 and 1.2(.058)=1.13
and heres the result:
15.5-0.75 = 14.75 and 15.5-1.13 = 14.37sec
Now realistically, these numbers are based on common sense, and if all things remain constant. There are other factors of course that should be taken into consideration, however, the GTI is 5.8% slower regardless stock, therefore it in theory will respond 5.8% less than the SS because of WEIGHT.
Unless anyone has anything more intellegent to offer in terms of proof, besides hearsay, Im going to say that a SS/SC with a CAI should give a chipped GTI a good run, and it would be a drivers race.
Second of all, youre forgetting that the GTI has the same HP stock, yet runs a 1/4mi of 15.5 sec. Yea, thats cuz ITS HEAVIER. That means that its going to need LOTS more HP to keep up. Now think of it this way.
OK, so @ equal HP one has a 1/4mi of 14.6 and the other 15.5. Ok, now what % difference is that in terms of performance? OK, 15.5-14.6=0.9 sec. Now, lets see what % that is of the 15.5sec 1/4mi: 0.9/15.5=.058 which equals 5.8%.
That means that the stock Cobalt has a 1/4mi that is 5.8% better than the stock GTI. Ok, so that means that the GTI is 5.8% SLOWER than the SS/SC. Lets now analyze how an increase in HP will affect the 1/4mi.
Now, from what we know, we know that 15hp on the SS/SC can decrease the 1/4mi by about -.2 to -.3. Ok, so lets apply that to the GTI:
so an extra 60 HP= -.8 to -1.2 sec
Heres the kicker though:
We know that, all things remain constant, that the GTI is 5.8% slower, therefore, it will respond 5.8% less to upgrades soooooo:
0.8(.058)=0.75 and 1.2(.058)=1.13
and heres the result:
15.5-0.75 = 14.75 and 15.5-1.13 = 14.37sec
Now realistically, these numbers are based on common sense, and if all things remain constant. There are other factors of course that should be taken into consideration, however, the GTI is 5.8% slower regardless stock, therefore it in theory will respond 5.8% less than the SS because of WEIGHT.
Unless anyone has anything more intellegent to offer in terms of proof, besides hearsay, Im going to say that a SS/SC with a CAI should give a chipped GTI a good run, and it would be a drivers race.
, was high school physics really that hard for you???
Originally Posted by 1BADSS/SC
No, its not easier for a 15 sec car to lose .5 sec. Its going to be harder because its heavier, thats the reason its a 15 sec car @ 200 horses, and not a 14sec car @ 200 horses. Not only that, but were talking about a GTI with just a chip, not a GTI with slicks, upgraded gearing, wheels, and whatever else u mentioned.
Im comparing a SS/SC with a CAI vs a GTI with a chip.
Im comparing a SS/SC with a CAI vs a GTI with a chip.
03-20-2006, 12:45 PM
#62
Senior Member
Join Date: 09-16-05
Location: UNDER YOUR BED
Posts: 13,309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 280Z1977
, was high school physics really that hard for you???Guess so.
Its very simple: The GTI is 5.8% slower than the SS/SC, therefore it will respond 5.8% less to HP upgrades. Do the comparison to a vehicle with equal HP, like a mustang GT, which has 260 horses aswell. That runs a 14.1 1/4mi avg, and weighs 200 lbs less than a GTI. Because of this, it can be concluded that the GTI is obviously going to be slightly slower. Therefore, if a GT can run a 14.1, then a GTI @ 260 HP will more than likely run a 1/4mi anywhere between 14.2-14.5 roughly.
Now, you cant tell me that a GTI with 260 horses, that weighs 200 lbs more than a mustang GT is going to run a better 1/4mi than a Mustang GT with 260 HP V8, and weighs 200 lbs. less. Its nonsensical to think otherwise.
03-20-2006, 03:13 PM
#65
Senior Member
Join Date: 09-16-05
Location: UNDER YOUR BED
Posts: 13,309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HERES PROOF THAT IM CORRECT, AND EVERY NOOB ARGUING WITH ME IS WRONG:
http://forums.fourtitude.com/zerothread?id=1664266
GO TO THIS GTI FORUM AND TELL ME IM WRONG. YOU CANT CUZ IM RIGHT, AND MY FORMULA IS DEAD ON. And in case you cant read, this guy has MORE MODS than just a CHIP.
As for that highschool physics comment, take your ignorant statements with your uber GED highschool drop out intellegence level and shove it.
PWNED
http://forums.fourtitude.com/zerothread?id=1664266
GO TO THIS GTI FORUM AND TELL ME IM WRONG. YOU CANT CUZ IM RIGHT, AND MY FORMULA IS DEAD ON. And in case you cant read, this guy has MORE MODS than just a CHIP.
As for that highschool physics comment, take your ignorant statements with your uber GED highschool drop out intellegence level and shove it.
PWNED
03-20-2006, 04:38 PM
#67
Senior Member
Join Date: 05-03-05
Location: canandaigua, New York
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yeah, some kid in school told me the new golf would destroy a cobalt.. and cobalts are barely pushing 200 whp. i laughed and told him it must be magic that most of the cobalts on here are pushing 215whp stock then he told me his friends ss/sc couldn't touch his old Grand Am with the Ram air i just laughed at him and showed him stats
then he told me his friends ss/sc couldn't touch his old Grand Am with the Ram air i just laughed at him and showed him stats
03-20-2006, 05:37 PM
#68
Senior Member
Join Date: 09-16-05
Location: UNDER YOUR BED
Posts: 13,309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ozcaN
i though this argument was about the 2.0t gti?
Regardless of all this, the engine size wasnt really specified at all, I just picked the 2.0l for an example.
03-20-2006, 07:21 PM
#69
Senior Member
Join Date: 06-19-05
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 1BADSS/SC
First of all, youre using the formula all wrong. Everything in the formula for velocity is measured in the metric system, not american measurements.
Second of all, youre forgetting that the GTI has the same HP stock, yet runs a 1/4mi of 15.5 sec. Yea, thats cuz ITS HEAVIER. That means that its going to need LOTS more HP to keep up. Now think of it this way.
OK, so @ equal HP one has a 1/4mi of 14.6 and the other 15.5. Ok, now what % difference is that in terms of performance? OK, 15.5-14.6=0.9 sec. Now, lets see what % that is of the 15.5sec 1/4mi: 0.9/15.5=.058 which equals 5.8%.
That means that the stock Cobalt has a 1/4mi that is 5.8% better than the stock GTI. Ok, so that means that the GTI is 5.8% SLOWER than the SS/SC. Lets now analyze how an increase in HP will affect the 1/4mi.
Now, from what we know, we know that 15hp on the SS/SC can decrease the 1/4mi by about -.2 to -.3. Ok, so lets apply that to the GTI:
so an extra 60 HP= -.8 to -1.2 sec
Heres the kicker though:
We know that, all things remain constant, that the GTI is 5.8% slower, therefore, it will respond 5.8% less to upgrades soooooo:
0.8(.058)=0.75 and 1.2(.058)=1.13
and heres the result:
15.5-0.75 = 14.75 and 15.5-1.13 = 14.37sec
Now realistically, these numbers are based on common sense, and if all things remain constant. There are other factors of course that should be taken into consideration, however, the GTI is 5.8% slower regardless stock, therefore it in theory will respond 5.8% less than the SS because of WEIGHT.
Unless anyone has anything more intellegent to offer in terms of proof, besides hearsay, Im going to say that a SS/SC with a CAI should give a chipped GTI a good run, and it would be a drivers race.
Second of all, youre forgetting that the GTI has the same HP stock, yet runs a 1/4mi of 15.5 sec. Yea, thats cuz ITS HEAVIER. That means that its going to need LOTS more HP to keep up. Now think of it this way.
OK, so @ equal HP one has a 1/4mi of 14.6 and the other 15.5. Ok, now what % difference is that in terms of performance? OK, 15.5-14.6=0.9 sec. Now, lets see what % that is of the 15.5sec 1/4mi: 0.9/15.5=.058 which equals 5.8%.
That means that the stock Cobalt has a 1/4mi that is 5.8% better than the stock GTI. Ok, so that means that the GTI is 5.8% SLOWER than the SS/SC. Lets now analyze how an increase in HP will affect the 1/4mi.
Now, from what we know, we know that 15hp on the SS/SC can decrease the 1/4mi by about -.2 to -.3. Ok, so lets apply that to the GTI:
so an extra 60 HP= -.8 to -1.2 sec
Heres the kicker though:
We know that, all things remain constant, that the GTI is 5.8% slower, therefore, it will respond 5.8% less to upgrades soooooo:
0.8(.058)=0.75 and 1.2(.058)=1.13
and heres the result:
15.5-0.75 = 14.75 and 15.5-1.13 = 14.37sec
Now realistically, these numbers are based on common sense, and if all things remain constant. There are other factors of course that should be taken into consideration, however, the GTI is 5.8% slower regardless stock, therefore it in theory will respond 5.8% less than the SS because of WEIGHT.
Unless anyone has anything more intellegent to offer in terms of proof, besides hearsay, Im going to say that a SS/SC with a CAI should give a chipped GTI a good run, and it would be a drivers race.
First, rather than waste my time explaining how wrong or just plain ridiculous most of those arguments and calculations are, I'll just remind you that my point was merely to show in a very basic way, how ridiculous it was for you to say that adding 60hp to the GTI "doesn't mean crap," which it seems you have agreed with now, saying that the chipped GTI vs. the Cobalt "would be a driver's race."
Originally Posted by 1BADSS/SC
HERES PROOF THAT IM CORRECT, AND EVERY NOOB ARGUING WITH ME IS WRONG:
http://forums.fourtitude.com/zerothread?id=1664266
GO TO THIS GTI FORUM AND TELL ME IM WRONG. YOU CANT CUZ IM RIGHT, AND MY FORMULA IS DEAD ON. And in case you cant read, this guy has MORE MODS than just a CHIP.
As for that highschool physics comment, take your ignorant statements with your uber GED highschool drop out intellegence level and shove it.
PWNED
http://forums.fourtitude.com/zerothread?id=1664266
GO TO THIS GTI FORUM AND TELL ME IM WRONG. YOU CANT CUZ IM RIGHT, AND MY FORMULA IS DEAD ON. And in case you cant read, this guy has MORE MODS than just a CHIP.
As for that highschool physics comment, take your ignorant statements with your uber GED highschool drop out intellegence level and shove it.
PWNED
I've never seen someone get so excited about something that is so meaningless and useless. This is like if I posted a clip of a dog taking a dump and said "therefore, the Cobalt is faster."
03-20-2006, 10:56 PM
#70
Banned
Join Date: 03-02-06
Location: Cali
Posts: 1,187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 1BADSS/SC
No that has nothing to do with physics. It has to do with a mathmatical hypothesis based on the theory that all things will remain constant performance wise in both vehicles.
Its very simple: The GTI is 5.8% slower than the SS/SC, therefore it will respond 5.8% less to HP upgrades. Do the comparison to a vehicle with equal HP, like a mustang GT, which has 260 horses aswell. That runs a 14.1 1/4mi avg, and weighs 200 lbs less than a GTI. Because of this, it can be concluded that the GTI is obviously going to be slightly slower. Therefore, if a GT can run a 14.1, then a GTI @ 260 HP will more than likely run a 1/4mi anywhere between 14.2-14.5 roughly.
Now, you cant tell me that a GTI with 260 horses, that weighs 200 lbs more than a mustang GT is going to run a better 1/4mi than a Mustang GT with 260 HP V8, and weighs 200 lbs. less. Its nonsensical to think otherwise.
Its very simple: The GTI is 5.8% slower than the SS/SC, therefore it will respond 5.8% less to HP upgrades. Do the comparison to a vehicle with equal HP, like a mustang GT, which has 260 horses aswell. That runs a 14.1 1/4mi avg, and weighs 200 lbs less than a GTI. Because of this, it can be concluded that the GTI is obviously going to be slightly slower. Therefore, if a GT can run a 14.1, then a GTI @ 260 HP will more than likely run a 1/4mi anywhere between 14.2-14.5 roughly.
Now, you cant tell me that a GTI with 260 horses, that weighs 200 lbs more than a mustang GT is going to run a better 1/4mi than a Mustang GT with 260 HP V8, and weighs 200 lbs. less. Its nonsensical to think otherwise.
Originally Posted by 1BADSS/SC
Heres the kicker though:
We know that, all things remain constant, that the GTI is 5.8% slower, therefore, it will respond 5.8% less to upgrades soooooo:
We know that, all things remain constant, that the GTI is 5.8% slower, therefore, it will respond 5.8% less to upgrades soooooo:
03-20-2006, 11:45 PM
#71
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: 01-04-06
Location: Oconomowoc, WI
Posts: 1,402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Blainestang
I've never seen someone get so excited about something that is so meaningless and useless. This is like if I posted a clip of a dog taking a dump and said "therefore, the Cobalt is faster."
03-21-2006, 12:33 AM
#72
Senior Member
Join Date: 09-16-05
Location: UNDER YOUR BED
Posts: 13,309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Blainestang
First, rather than waste my time explaining how wrong or just plain ridiculous most of those arguments and calculations are, I'll just remind you that my point was merely to show in a very basic way, how ridiculous it was for you to say that adding 60hp to the GTI "doesn't mean crap," which it seems you have agreed with now, saying that the chipped GTI vs. the Cobalt "would be a driver's race."
Congratulations, you posted a link to a thread about MKIII GTI's (as opposed to MKV GTI's) with VR6 engines. Not only are they not the 2.0t's in question, they aren't even 1.8t's and aren't even turbo'd, so chips don't mean jack on these cars.
I've never seen someone get so excited about something that is so meaningless and useless. This is like if I posted a clip of a dog taking a dump and said "therefore, the Cobalt is faster."
Congratulations, you posted a link to a thread about MKIII GTI's (as opposed to MKV GTI's) with VR6 engines. Not only are they not the 2.0t's in question, they aren't even 1.8t's and aren't even turbo'd, so chips don't mean jack on these cars.
I've never seen someone get so excited about something that is so meaningless and useless. This is like if I posted a clip of a dog taking a dump and said "therefore, the Cobalt is faster."
AS I SAID BEFORE, A CHIPPED GTI IS GOING TO BE ABOUT EQUAL TO AN SS/SC WITH A CAI.
WHY? BECAUSE IT CANNOT BE FASTER THAN A MUSTANG GT WHEN THE GT WEIGHS 200 LBS LESS, HAS THE SAME EXACT HP, AND HAS AN AVG 1/4mi OF 14.1 SEC.
03-21-2006, 12:46 AM
#73
Banned
Join Date: 03-02-06
Location: Cali
Posts: 1,187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 1BADSS/SC
Do you honestly think that 60 HP is going to preform some miracle and shave 1.5 sec off its 1/4mi? Sh*t, if thats the case, Ill slap 60 horses on my SS and ill get a 1/4mi of 13.1. Hell, why stop there, ill slap on 100 horses and get a 1/4mi of 12.1 sec. Lets see, so @ 300 horses Ill have a 12.1 1/4mi. DAMN, a couple more horses, and Ill be close to a Ford GT's 1/4mi.
AS I SAID BEFORE, A CHIPPED GTI IS GOING TO BE ABOUT EQUAL TO AN SS/SC WITH A CAI.
WHY? BECAUSE IT CANNOT BE FASTER THAN A MUSTANG GT WHEN THE GT WEIGHS 200 LBS LESS, HAS THE SAME EXACT HP, AND HAS AN AVG 1/4mi OF 14.1 SEC.
AS I SAID BEFORE, A CHIPPED GTI IS GOING TO BE ABOUT EQUAL TO AN SS/SC WITH A CAI.
WHY? BECAUSE IT CANNOT BE FASTER THAN A MUSTANG GT WHEN THE GT WEIGHS 200 LBS LESS, HAS THE SAME EXACT HP, AND HAS AN AVG 1/4mi OF 14.1 SEC.
03-21-2006, 01:22 AM
#74
Senior Member
Join Date: 06-19-05
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 1BADSS/SC
Do you honestly think that 60 HP is going to preform some miracle and shave 1.5 sec off its 1/4mi? Sh*t, if thats the case, Ill slap 60 horses on my SS and ill get a 1/4mi of 13.1. Hell, why stop there, ill slap on 100 horses and get a 1/4mi of 12.1 sec. Lets see, so @ 300 horses Ill have a 12.1 1/4mi. DAMN, a couple more horses, and Ill be close to a Ford GT's 1/4mi.
AS I SAID BEFORE, A CHIPPED GTI IS GOING TO BE ABOUT EQUAL TO AN SS/SC WITH A CAI.
WHY? BECAUSE IT CANNOT BE FASTER THAN A MUSTANG GT WHEN THE GT WEIGHS 200 LBS LESS, HAS THE SAME EXACT HP, AND HAS AN AVG 1/4mi OF 14.1 SEC.
AS I SAID BEFORE, A CHIPPED GTI IS GOING TO BE ABOUT EQUAL TO AN SS/SC WITH A CAI.
WHY? BECAUSE IT CANNOT BE FASTER THAN A MUSTANG GT WHEN THE GT WEIGHS 200 LBS LESS, HAS THE SAME EXACT HP, AND HAS AN AVG 1/4mi OF 14.1 SEC.
OK, first, my ONLY argument was that your suggestion that the 60hp gain for a chipped GTI "doesn't mean crap" is a ridiculous suggestion, nothing more.
Now, for the fun of it, I'll pick apart this retarded post.
First, you say that the chip's 60hp gain couldn't result in a ~1.5 second time reduction. Then, you say that it would be a driver's race with an SS/SC with intake. That's funny, you quoted a time of 14.1 for the SS/SC and an original time for the GTI of 15.5. Hmmm... isn't that a difference of 1.4 seconds? Interesting...
Then, you use your Mustang GT example. Hmmm... sounds good at first. Too bad you make a lot of bad assumptions and, therefore, ruin the comparison.
1) Based on another members post, a chipped 2.0t GTI makes ~252whp. The GT makes only ~230.
2) YOU say that GT's weigh 200lbs LESS than a GTI, but in actuality, 99-04 GT's weigh 50lbs MORE than GTI's.
So, not only does the GTI actually make MORE power, but it also weighs LESS. In addition to that, it has MUCH more aggressive gearing than the highway-geared Mustang.
All of this adds up to a VERY good possibility that a chipped GTI could drop significantly more than 1.0 seconds off of it's original time (quoted by YOU) of 15.5.
Cliffnotes: 1BadSS/SC tries to prove me wrong on an argument I never made, and ends up with a paper-thin argument where he gets most of the facts wrong and even contradicts himself.
03-21-2006, 01:26 AM
#75
Banned
Join Date: 03-02-06
Location: Cali
Posts: 1,187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Blainestang
OK, first, my ONLY argument was that your suggestion that the 60hp gain for a chipped GTI "doesn't mean crap" is a ridiculous suggestion, nothing more.
Now, for the fun of it, I'll pick apart this retarded post.
First, you say that the chip's 60hp gain couldn't result in a ~1.5 second time reduction. Then, you say that it would be a driver's race with an SS/SC with intake. That's funny, you quoted a time of 14.1 for the SS/SC and an original time for the GTI of 15.5. Hmmm... isn't that a difference of 1.4 seconds? Interesting...
Then, you use your Mustang GT example. Hmmm... sounds good at first. Too bad you make a lot of bad assumptions and, therefore, ruin the comparison.
1) Based on another members post, a chipped 2.0t GTI makes ~252whp. The GT makes only ~230.
2) YOU say that GT's weigh 200lbs LESS than a GTI, but in actuality, 99-04 GT's weigh 50lbs MORE than GTI's.
So, not only does the GTI actually make MORE power, but it also weighs LESS. In addition to that, it has MUCH more aggressive gearing than the highway-geared Mustang.
All of this adds up to a VERY good possibility that a chipped GTI could drop significantly more than 1.0 seconds off of it's original time (quoted by YOU) of 15.5.
Cliffnotes: 1BadSS/SC tries to prove me wrong on an argument I never made, and ends up with a paper-thin argument where he gets most of the facts wrong and even contradicts himself.
Now, for the fun of it, I'll pick apart this retarded post.
First, you say that the chip's 60hp gain couldn't result in a ~1.5 second time reduction. Then, you say that it would be a driver's race with an SS/SC with intake. That's funny, you quoted a time of 14.1 for the SS/SC and an original time for the GTI of 15.5. Hmmm... isn't that a difference of 1.4 seconds? Interesting...
Then, you use your Mustang GT example. Hmmm... sounds good at first. Too bad you make a lot of bad assumptions and, therefore, ruin the comparison.
1) Based on another members post, a chipped 2.0t GTI makes ~252whp. The GT makes only ~230.
2) YOU say that GT's weigh 200lbs LESS than a GTI, but in actuality, 99-04 GT's weigh 50lbs MORE than GTI's.
So, not only does the GTI actually make MORE power, but it also weighs LESS. In addition to that, it has MUCH more aggressive gearing than the highway-geared Mustang.
All of this adds up to a VERY good possibility that a chipped GTI could drop significantly more than 1.0 seconds off of it's original time (quoted by YOU) of 15.5.
Cliffnotes: 1BadSS/SC tries to prove me wrong on an argument I never made, and ends up with a paper-thin argument where he gets most of the facts wrong and even contradicts himself.