NewBeetle.org Forums banner

1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Based on my torque/HP/ curves and transmission/differential ratios and weight calculations between the 1.8 T and 2.5, there should be NO real difference in terms of real life acceleration between the 2 cars.In fact the numbers say this: the 2.5 should have the edge between 2 5000 and 3 500 RPM though that advantage is killed by the larger space between the second and third gears on the 2.5. THE FORMER INDICATES WHY THE 2.5 SHOWS POORLY IN THE 0-60 MPH COMPARE TO THE 1.8t.Add to this that testers shifts at readline ( almost nobody do this in daily driving) and you begin to understand why Road & Track shows a figure of 9.1 seconds to 60 m.p.h. ( on the heavier 2006 Jetta).

What it all means is this: testing procedures in magazines don't show real life acceleration potential. In the case of the 2.5 these procedures (extremly high rev shifting) + the
higher 2/3 gear gap on the 2.5 gives the edge to the 1.8T. However, on real street driving (shiftig between 3000 and 4000 rpm) and seat of the pants feeling, the 2.5 is for sure as fast as the 1.8T. That is why owners of the 2.5 feels it IS as fast as the 1.8T but magazines says the contrary...

I'm waiting to confirm this as I will compare my 1.8T to a test of the 2.5 at my dealer... Come back to you on this...

My numbers also tells me that the 2. 5 equipped with a GIAC chip and minor intake/exhaust modifications should do almost as weel as the VR6 in real street driving acceleration,which says a lot!
 

·
flyin hawaiian-
Joined
·
176 Posts
im the owner of a 2006 2.5 and also have driven the 1.8 turbo and the 2.5 IS as fast, it has incredible pull in 2nd and 3rd gear
 

·
Delightfully Tacky
Joined
·
1,526 Posts
Pierre Racine said:
Based on my torque/HP/ curves and transmission/differential ratios and weight calculations between the 1.8 T and 2.5, there should be NO real difference in terms of real life acceleration between the 2 cars.In fact the numbers say this: the 2.5 should have the edge between 2 5000 and 3 500 RPM though that advantage is killed by the larger space between the second and third gears on the 2.5. THE FORMER INDICATES WHY THE 2.5 SHOWS POORLY IN THE 0-60 MPH COMPARE TO THE 1.8t.Add to this that testers shifts at readline ( almost nobody do this in daily driving) and you begin to understand why Road & Track shows a figure of 9.1 seconds to 60 m.p.h. ( on the heavier 2006 Jetta).

What it all means is this: testing procedures in magazines don't show real life acceleration potential. In the case of the 2.5 these procedures (extremly high rev shifting) + the
higher 2/3 gear gap on the 2.5 gives the edge to the 1.8T. However, on real street driving (shiftig between 3000 and 4000 rpm) and seat of the pants feeling, the 2.5 is for sure as fast as the 1.8T. That is why owners of the 2.5 feels it IS as fast as the 1.8T but magazines says the contrary...

I'm waiting to confirm this as I will compare my 1.8T to a test of the 2.5 at my dealer... Come back to you on this...

My numbers also tells me that the 2. 5 equipped with a GIAC chip and minor intake/exhaust modifications should do almost as weel as the VR6 in real street driving acceleration,which says a lot!
if road and track or any of the car testing magazines tested cars in a real world fashion you would have 0-60 times of ZZZzzzzzz and geeze this is slow

those people know what they are doing driving those cars and can drive anything to its full potential..

the 2.5 should be dead even with the 1.8..if you have anything done to the 1.8 though i think it would be a different story
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
To test a car acceleration in a real world condition environment means this: reproduce traffic passing on the road/street. That means 30 to 50mph, 50 to 70 mph etc. The magazines were doing this years ago. It wasn't popular since much of the idiotic readers are hunting for the lowest numbers - even if it's meaningless in most instances - and sport car manufacturers didn't like it either because it often showed their cars loosing on that front compare to more sedate automobiles. So they got back to academic and stupid procedures: find the optimum RPM at which one must release the clutch - whit tires spinning in smoke, but not too much - and shifting at redline (which is NOT good for cars with high torque/medium HP). Secondly, since most people don't do their full stops (especially 2 guys racing on the street...) this magazine procedure is meaningless in MOST instances. Since when have you release the clutch at 4 500 rpm and make the tires smoke to death for 100 feet and shifted at 6 200 in secong and third? I didn't even did it fort he last 5 years and,believe me, I'm a fast and furious kind of driver!

Yes, magazines know what that do: putting the lowest numbers to get the morons go "wow...' and have their car advertisers happy with the low numbers... But EVERY car engineer will tell you that these numbers are meaningless in most instances. Why do you think Road & Track drop the 5 mph to 60 mph acceleration test they did years ago? Ask them...Too realistic, morons/sport cars manufacturers not happy...

Thirdly, this procedure give the hihg rev/high hp/high rpm torque cars an edge over high torque/ low hp (like the 2.5) cars.

The 06 Beetle guy who first reply to my post proves my point...
 

·
Everett Street in May
Joined
·
3,205 Posts
Hey, mines big.... oh, I mean faster than yours...:blahblah:

Only two things affect a car's "capabilities":

1) Torque. Torque puts a car in motion. More torque will move the dead weight faster.

2) Horsepower. Horsepower keeps a car in motion and with the gearing/wind drag/weight/CPU programing combinations, determines how fast the car will ultimately go. Example is that the 1.8t are limited by the CPU to 128mph. The car can, from an engineering standpoint, go faster.

Now, that being said, the new 2.5l n/a engines are fantastic. Congrats to VW for taking the tried and true reliability of a n/a 4-cylindar engine and giving it some punch..:bigthumb:

I do agree that a stock 2.5l and a stock non-"Turbo S" 1.8t will drive and perform just about equal. The Turbo component is what would separate the two, aside from the suspension and gearing. The turbo engine will make a sharper power curve and have more power closer to the higher end than the non-turbo.

Put them on both on a straight 1/4 mile, and it would be close. Put them both on a road course, and the 1.8t will pull away from the 2.5l very quickly.

Now, put a turbo on the 2.5l and it's "see ya" time.. No replacement for displacement...(well, kind of.)..:wink2:

It's all good peeps, that's why we each like our VW's so much....TechnoTrix'd...:wave3:
 

·
Everett Street in May
Joined
·
3,205 Posts
wawalker said:
:D Anyday you want to race your stock 2.5L vs. my stock 1.8T for pinks just let me know. I could use an NBC in the summer months!;)
Bad Bill, bad... :whip: Trying to sneak that Turbo "S" of yours into the mix....:lol:

You rascal you....TechnoTrix'd....:wave3:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
542 Posts
Very interesting, thanks Pierre Racine! I was considering the 2.5 and 1.8t to upgrade from my 2.0 Bug... from what I understand the Turbo S is largly just a 1.8t variant engine with some tweaked software...

So I was looking at a 1.8t comparison to the 2.5, and from what I have heard the thumbs up goes to the 1.8t over the 2.5. Having driven the 1.8t, it may still do what I want better, faster times out of the gate so to speak.

The 2.0 starts off well in 1 and 2 gear, but craps out when you try to go from say 30-50 mph in 3 and 4th gears... the 1.8t does not. So how was your comparison to the 2.5 and 1.8T?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19 Posts
Based on my torque/HP/ curves and transmission/differential ratios and weight calculations between the 1.8 T and 2.5, there should be NO real difference in terms of real life acceleration between the 2 cars.In fact the numbers say this: the 2.5 should have the edge between 2 5000 and 3 500 RPM though that advantage is killed by the larger space between the second and third gears on the 2.5. THE FORMER INDICATES WHY THE 2.5 SHOWS POORLY IN THE 0-60 MPH COMPARE TO THE 1.8t.Add to this that testers shifts at readline ( almost nobody do this in daily driving) and you begin to understand why Road & Track shows a figure of 9.1 seconds to 60 m.p.h. ( on the heavier 2006 Jetta).

What it all means is this: testing procedures in magazines don't show real life acceleration potential. In the case of the 2.5 these procedures (extremly high rev shifting) + the
higher 2/3 gear gap on the 2.5 gives the edge to the 1.8T. However, on real street driving (shiftig between 3000 and 4000 rpm) and seat of the pants feeling, the 2.5 is for sure as fast as the 1.8T. That is why owners of the 2.5 feels it IS as fast as the 1.8T but magazines says the contrary...

I'm waiting to confirm this as I will compare my 1.8T to a test of the 2.5 at my dealer... Come back to you on this...

My numbers also tells me that the 2. 5 equipped with a GIAC chip and minor intake/exhaust modifications should do almost as weel as the VR6 in real street driving acceleration,which says a lot!
So what did you find?
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Top