UK-POLOS.NET - THE VW Polo Forum

Tahrey1043 wrote:
now you're making my head swim

too many conflicting nombres, not enough proof of what's going on... it hurts, mummy...

*calculates*

16.9 * 4.267 / 4.0625 = 17.75 *strokes chin* a-hmm...

though i could swear blind thats backwards to what you argued with me before! (that they were actually higher than i thought )

Mother Fcuker! You cant accuse me of confusing people with too many numbers! Thats sooooo "the pot calling the kettle black" as they old saying goes...

As for your recalections of previos arguments lets not go there...

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

what was the question again......

The 3+e goes well enough and considering a 1093 isn't going to be a ball of fire anyway the payback in terms of economy far outweighs any (if any) performance deficit. The engine fitted to the Jetta is a GG8, whereas a non-FE is a GG, difference being amongst others higher compression and more torque to help pull the gearing.

17.7 on a 1.3 4 speed? Afaik 1.0 and 1.3 share boxes


Ho hum, will there ever be a definitive answer?!

nuttinnew wrote: 17.7 on a 1.3 4 speed? Afaik 1.0 and 1.3 share boxes

Sometimes they do yeah, For late mk2s and mk3s though the usual 1.0 one has 4.267:1 final drive and the usual 1.3 one has a final drive of 4.063:1. But the gear ratios are the same. The 1.3 one can occasionally be found in the 1.0 but never the other way round.

I wouldnt mind a 1093 c formel e for a runabout. But there isnt too many left now since the last ones that had this engine were about A reg wernt they? And are they not supposed to run on 98RON 4 star? (cos of the compression ratio) What goods a runabout if I cant put the cheap stuff in?

But there were mk2 Formel Es, first with 3+e then with the 4+e.

Cheap runabout? Why didn't we get mk2/3 diesels Though on that subject Seat Terra vans can be picked up cheaply enough...

Not too many numbers gaz, too many conflicting ones (twas only a bit of levity anyway!)
Still I'm pretty certain it was you that before told me i was up the garden path in thinking that a 1.3 was turning around 17.6 to the thousand in 4th, and it was the 1.0 doing that instead...... mek yer mind oop dude!

there should be a definitive answer somewhere as its all factual stuff not ephemeral after all. the gearbox will have a fixed set of ratios and overall gearing, as mass produced metal gears tend to have identical numbers of teeth. and there's only *so* much variation one size of tyre can have. perhaps I should email VW to settle this!

i'd be surprised at the formel needing 98 ron.... 95 perhaps (when most cars pre-unleaded were happy with between 89 and 93)

Well it says 98RON in the book. And I can remember charles holding telling me about his at the polo show only liking good old fashined 4 star (which be 98RON)

As for your uncertainty I can safely say that "I dont realllllly knooooow" in the style of mavis from coronation street. But one thing is certain: You are up the garden path!

The Jetta needs 98, pinks like a bar.....bie convention otherwise no matter what you do.

The 3+e goes well enough and considering a 1093 isn't going to be a ball of fire anyway the payback in terms of economy far outweighs any (if any) performance deficit.

No, but it'll be quicker than my 1043 and I noticed a massive improvement going from the original 4 speed box to a close ratio 5 speed (from a 1043 mk2 saloon). Dread to think what it'd be like with even wider ratios than the original box..

It should be ok, the Jetta weighs at least 100kg more than a Polo

and dancing with the fairies too

que?

"up the garden path and away dancing with the fairies"

all of which isnt getting the Q answered - but apparently metz's 1L pulled 101.1mph @ 6082rpm on tyres no more than 1% different from mine - 16.62mph/1000.... any idea what gear James would have rollered it in? 4th?

(yeah, 101mph even with 42bhp, methinks somethings a-cock there!)