[CBZS]

Continuing on the theme that I dont beleive my car is running quite right, I had a quick drag up an abandoned road with my mates mk3 2.0 gti cabriolet (0-60 10.5) which has the same engine as the MKIV 2.0 gti but is a heavier car.

Well to cut a long story short I got beat, not by an awful lot prob about half a second to 80, but I believe his car should be prob a second slower than mine to this speed.

It does pull through the revs just not as much as I expected.

Anybody in a pd115 raced a current 2.0gti? how did it hold up cos I expect one of these to beat me currently and dont think they should.

Any ideas what could be wrong and do you lot think there is anything wrong? Gona have it remapped in a fortnight and dont wanna have this done if there is something wrong with it []

 

[M15_DST]

I raced the mk 3 gti and I have a 115 I kept with it neither of us seemed to be going anywhere if the road was a little longer I think he might of had the edge

 

[chrisf70]

The book figures are slightly better for the TDI but in the real world I would expect the petrol to stay with the TDI, there's a lot of torque in the 2.0 for a petrol. Having had a TDI Bora and now the GTI you don't get the same shunt in the back at take off with the 2.0, but in real terms the 2.0 gives better prolonged and smooth acceleration.

 

[CBZS]

If it was a standard mk3 gti I could understand that as they are a bit lighter than the cabriolet and have a 0-60 of 9.8 secs, however with me getting beat by the heavier cabriolet which I used to beat in my last car (0-60 10.2 secs) I have convinced myself there is something wrong with my car [:'(] worst thing is it had a vw service before I bought it 3 weeks ago, so if there is nothing wrong with it I'm very disappointed in the performance of the 115. In mine the lower end of the revs pulls better than the higher end[:S]

 

[vrooooom]

Silly question.

How much fuel were the two cars carrying??? If ones got a nearly empty tank and ones got a full tank then thats a lot of a weight difference!!

PLus how many pps in the cars, and any other stuff in the boot??

 

[CBZS]

One person in each car, bout half a tank of fuel in each, sub and amp in the back of the cabriolet, empty boot in mine.

The cabriolet is definatly the heavier car

Anyone got a vid of a 0-100 in a 115?

 

[Craig_C]

Got a 2.0 (2001). Had a play with one recently and he was going nowhere fast (i'm gaining). I had a bout 70ish% fuel and my usual 40 tonne breakdown bag in the boot. Granted I'm only 12 stone and he could have been a rugby player who knows. He's probably OK, up to about 3 thousand revs but then needs another 42 gear changes within 4 seconds. (I'm on thin ice, I know)

Also, just yesterday a 1.6 mark IV was left on motorway as well. He was loosing ground all the way up to 90 then he gave up - nice of him to flash though which you don't often get. I was talking with someone on here recently (sorry, can't remember who now), and they've got a 1.6 16V which seems to produce figures not much short of the 2.0 on paper. As has probably been said many a time, I dunno where VW get those figures 1/2 the time (same goes for the non-turbo 1.8's which definately, absolutely cannot shake me) - don't care what split second to 60 or the like that VW have here.

Have a shot in a remapped 150 (I was lucky for a shot in Matt's) My car wouldn't stand a chance. That's a whole lottta whoopass.

Got a 2.0 (2001). Had a play with one recently and he was going nowhere fast (i'm gaining). I had a bout 70ish% fuel and my usual 40 tonne breakdown bag in the boot. Granted I'm only 12 stone and he could have been a rugby player who knows. He's probably OK, up to about 3 thousand revs but then needs another 42 gear changes within 4 seconds. (I'm on thin ice, I know)

Also, just yesterday a 1.6 mark IV was left on motorway as well. He was loosing ground all the way up to 90 then he gave up - nice of him to flash though which you don't often get. I was talking with someone

Was having a bit of fun with a Mark 5 2.0 at heathrow the other day and he wasn't going anywhere fast either. Couldn't see where the hell I was going though as he seemed to be using the James Bond 'Smokescreen' system when flooring it (sorry, cheap shot, probably the last straw!!). I reckon he must have been having probs though, as I wouldn't expect to keep up with a new 2.0 diesel he didn't look to heavy either he was trying though as my new black tinted windcsreen demonstrates (I'm going!). Can't remember the badge though. Suppose he got the last laugh when he looked at his MPG.

BTW, my car is standard with the usual shitty suspension as well. Not that you can do much with the 2.0 lump anyway I hear.

My car isn't what I'd call fast, but it's not as slow as some would think. Still think there's no subsitute for cylinder capacity. I'm talking non turbo's here. Would have loved a IV diesel, but they were just out of $$ range at the time.

I **THINK** VW have something like the 1.6 quicker to 60 than the diesel (I'm talking mark 5 here), and again, I'll be VERY suprised if the diesel didn't kick it's butt. (Just an example of the figures compared to real world) Someone will be along to confirm/dismiss - be interested to hear.

Cheers,

Craig.

 

[Craig_C]

Sorry about the messed up post, Dunno what happened, but you should be able to decipher!

 

[CBZS]

Cheers for that, I would expect a mk4 2.0 to be very even with a PD115, very similar weight and power output, more torque in the diesel more revs in the petrol.

But I still wouldnt expect to get beat by a mk3 2.0 cab, if it was even I could have accepted it but surely I shouldnt have been left?

 

[chrisf70]

I wouldn't have thought the MK3 cab was that much heavier than a MK4 possibly the same weight, and all cars have different tolerences after a few years use different wear and tear. Possibly enough to give different performance. Maybe your PD115 has not been opened up enough by it's past owners and is a bit tight, sooted up etc.

You say you've had it recently serviced, how about a good tuning session to make sure that it is running at it's optimum?

 

[CBZS]

A tuning session sounds like what I need although its still under the warranty I got from the dealer so I could take it back there but may find it hard to prive somethings not quite right...'well just come with me whilst I race my mate up the bypass to prove its not quite as fast as it should be[]'

Where could I have a tuning session done? I am in Wigan and so dubsport is local. Is it worth me cleaning the MAF? Its not lumpy through the revs just does not pull well above 3k, but not so bad as to struggle up a hill or similar.

Had a quick bash at a 0-60 just now and could only get into the low 11's (trusty passenger with stopwatch method[:^)]) anybody tried timing there PD115, and where do people find it best to change gear?

Cheers fellas

 

[Craig_C]

I don't know much about the 115PD, but I would have thought that's not too bad?? Not even sure exactly what they quote for mine - be high tens/low elevens as well no doubt - there won't be much in it - not enough to leave one or the other standing at the lights say. I wouldn't get too hung up about this TBH. You'll be there or thereabouts that figure I would think - depending if the air is dry and cold or you've had full breakfast before hand [] etc etc.

It's amazing though isn't it, if your trying a little 0-60 on your own, you think 'there's no way that took a whole 11 secs'. Until someone times you and wipes the smile. 115 and even a bit more isn't that much in a car this weight anyway. At least you can do things with your engine, I'm sort of stuck - unless anyone knows otherwise (I mean without 3.5k kit)

You mention MAF, anyone know any other sort of DIY 'cleaning' type jobs that can get better performance (just a small gain I'm talking about). Must admit my car is 4 (had it 6 months) and it's probably clogged as well. Would a better air filter be noticable??

Cheers,

Craig.

 

[CBZS]

FYI mate the PD115 has a book time of 10 secs dead to 60, the 2.0 GTI 10.2 seconds, when evo mag tested them themsevles using proper equipment they both came out even quicker than above IIRC.

A second to 60 is more than you'd think, if you run a quater mile at santa pod or similar and only get beat by half a second it seems like your 3 weeks behind.

 

[Stevoraith]

A PD115 should comfortable beat a mkIV 2.0, would have thought a mkIII cab would be about the same weight and therefor performance.

When looking for my car I was offered a superb deal on a new 2.0 so I drove my 1.4 Clio, followed by a 2.0, followed by a 110 TDI back to back on the same route.

The 2.0 felt so close to the Clio performance wise it was spooky. The 110 was in a different league. The 115 I eventually bought was an improvement again.

Get it remapped then no pesky 2.0 will ever bother you again!

 

[wallacel]

Get it remapped then no pesky 2.0 will ever bother you again!

Your spot on there, its completely transformed my car [H][H]

 

[matt747]

I've driven both and imo there is no comparison. The 115TDI (being a diesel) doesn't rev hard but neither did the 2.0...infact it was quite coarse at >4000rpm. Each model has the same power output but the TDI has 210lb/ft of torque whereas the 2.0 has 125lb/ft. Hence the 115TDI is much quicker in the mid range. VWDriver has tested both models and even the 0-60 sprint was almost a second quicker in the TDI.

 

[CBZS]

Sorry to drag this post from the dead but theres nothing more annoying
than finding a post describing the same problems as your having without
it reaching a conclusion at the end.

The fault was with my MAF and my advice to anybody who's PD diesel
doesnt pull nice and hard all the way to the red line is get yourself a
new maf. Mullered the 2.0 as soon as I got it changed, now with the
remap I see what all the fuss is about with these performance diesels,
even suprised me what I can keep up with from a rolling start, and its
awesome on the motorway till it tops out.

Smokes like a trooper now though, even more than I thought it would, worries me slightly [:|]

 

[maxGTI]

"I dunno where VW get those figures 1/2 the time (same goes for the non-turbo 1.8's which definately, absolutely cannot shake me) - don't care what split second to 60 or the like that VW have here."

I have read in some motoring journal from way back, that VW always do their performance testing with 2 adults on board and a full tank of fuel. This is to represent real world conditions apparently. As a result, some of the time, the performance figures are conservative. The official 0-100km/h (62mph) in a 1.8T Anni is 7.9s. However, Car and Driver magazine (in the US) have done 0-60mph in 6.5s in the same car. There is only one adult in the car when this magazine is testing but I wouldn't know how much fuel would be in the tank (probably very little to come up with such figures).

~ Maxie

 

[GTIJASE]

Figures, figures!!

Every car is pretty much different, some cars stock are above the BHP the manufacturers put out and some less. I was in a Civic Type R the other day that was extremely dissapointing.

I have a friend with a PD115 and I must say off the mark I did pull away. Plus he is about 10 stone, me 15 stone rugby bloke.

You could tell he was caning it due to the Batman-like smoke effect out the back!!! Sometimes I think mine has been remapped as it keeps up with cars it really shouldn't according to this website.