MK3 Polo GT
Posted: Sun Apr 10, 2005 8:35 pm
just a quick question, how quick r these 0-60? 
UK-POLOS.NET - THE VW Polo Forum
Probably the Worlds greatest Polo resource
https://www.uk-polos.net/
MK3 Polo GT
Page 1 of 2
Posted: Sun Apr 10, 2005 9:01 pm
Around 10 seconds standard i think (not 100%)
Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 12:54 am
Official VW figure is 11.1 iirc, but that's with what they call a 'half load!!' 
Somewhere between 10 and 10.5 is probably more realistic!!
Somewhere between 10 and 10.5 is probably more realistic!!
Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 4:51 am
Depends on the conditions and how good you are! Don't bank on anything less than 12, though I daresay 10 is possible - missing the spare tyre and all seats but the driver's, and with great skill.
Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 8:53 am
damn 11.1.....half the cars in a 1993 copy of auto car are faster now 
Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 10:22 am
Don't bank on anything less than 12?!!
But the quoted figure is 11.1 with a half loaded car!!
Yes it does depend how good you are, but then you could say that about any car's 0-60 time. I'm sure I could make a 4 second car take 20 seconds if I wanted to!!
10 is perhaps a bit optimistic from a standard GT, but 10.5 is probably quite realistic.
Would be interesting to find out for sure tho!!
But the quoted figure is 11.1 with a half loaded car!!
Yes it does depend how good you are, but then you could say that about any car's 0-60 time. I'm sure I could make a 4 second car take 20 seconds if I wanted to!!
10 is perhaps a bit optimistic from a standard GT, but 10.5 is probably quite realistic.
Would be interesting to find out for sure tho!!
Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 10:26 am
It's the same with the Mk4 16V - quoted figure is around 10.5 iirc, but every independant test brings it out at about 9.6 or something!! 
The Mk5 GTI on the other hand is something like 8.6 quoted, and gets pretty much that on independant tests.
I can only assume VW have seen the light and stopped running the tests with a half load.
The Mk5 GTI on the other hand is something like 8.6 quoted, and gets pretty much that on independant tests.
I can only assume VW have seen the light and stopped running the tests with a half load.
Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 1:15 pm
I was reading the mk5 polo manual and the performance figures they got for the gti were indeed with half load and petrolSteve_O wrote: The Mk5 GTI on the other hand is something like 8.6 quoted, and gets pretty much that on independant tests.
I can only assume VW have seen the light and stopped running the tests with a half load.
Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 8:50 pm
Well for example I think if you were to ask someone with the driving skill of the more local parts of my nuclear family to get the 1.0 up to speed quick-as, you'd be looking at more than 30 secs 0-60, vs 20 to 21 secs official.... it may be a half loaded car, but the guys doing the test know the vehicle and where the best shift points are, etc. Plus it'll have been tuned properly (not over and above the stated power, but it will be running perfectly).
Then again with the right application of motor/gear/tyre abuse you could get it there in 19...
Anyway, 11 secs may not be stonking (it'll still pee on me ashtray tho, and that feels amply rapid - for now) but it's what you do with the speed that also counts. The GT will, by comparison to a good deal of those "faster" modern motors, be a couple hundred kilos lighter, and so be able to out-brake and out-corner them on the same tyres, given appropriate attention to the suspension and brake setup.
(I'm remembering the story of how a 1.0 mk2 easily loses a 1.4 mk4 down twisty back lanes, despite being obviously outclassed in a straight-line race - cant say I can get the vaux down particular lanes much quicker than i managed it in the polo, despite it sitting on much beefier tyres and having a fair whack more oomph, because it's noticably heavier and a bit less chuckable... not masses, but it makes a small difference to how hard i can comfortably push it into some corners, that would have been previously taken flat-out or with slight lift-off)
Then again with the right application of motor/gear/tyre abuse you could get it there in 19...
Anyway, 11 secs may not be stonking (it'll still pee on me ashtray tho, and that feels amply rapid - for now) but it's what you do with the speed that also counts. The GT will, by comparison to a good deal of those "faster" modern motors, be a couple hundred kilos lighter, and so be able to out-brake and out-corner them on the same tyres, given appropriate attention to the suspension and brake setup.
(I'm remembering the story of how a 1.0 mk2 easily loses a 1.4 mk4 down twisty back lanes, despite being obviously outclassed in a straight-line race - cant say I can get the vaux down particular lanes much quicker than i managed it in the polo, despite it sitting on much beefier tyres and having a fair whack more oomph, because it's noticably heavier and a bit less chuckable... not masses, but it makes a small difference to how hard i can comfortably push it into some corners, that would have been previously taken flat-out or with slight lift-off)
Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 9:08 pm
HMMM so what your saying is..if i shed a few lbs i will be able to out perform those blastid chavs !!....to the gym!!
Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 9:16 pm
Lol yes - you've never played Gran Turismo, have you! Simple physics, geeza.
Most cost effective first mod for most cars in the game(s) is the stage 1 weight reduction! Cheap as a new ROM chip, but doesn't just help the acceleration - the braking and cornering also benefit more than you'd think shedding a "mere" 25 to 100 kilos (removing seats & soundproofing, etc) would!
Even only half-filling the tank and cutting down on the pies can have a small beneficial effect.... I swear I cut a minute off my journey to the Belfry every time I tidied the car out
Most cost effective first mod for most cars in the game(s) is the stage 1 weight reduction! Cheap as a new ROM chip, but doesn't just help the acceleration - the braking and cornering also benefit more than you'd think shedding a "mere" 25 to 100 kilos (removing seats & soundproofing, etc) would!
Even only half-filling the tank and cutting down on the pies can have a small beneficial effect.... I swear I cut a minute off my journey to the Belfry every time I tidied the car out
Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 9:20 pm
i weigh 18 stone so theres no wonder why the 8stone yoof was faster than me
Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 9:36 pm
lol especially if he did it in a coupe
more aero friendly, no big ass roofbox welded onto the arse of the car...
but you are right anyway... 10st = 140lb = 63kg difference......
why do you think i bought a big silver tub? to hide me growing buttcakes and mask the weight differential!
more aero friendly, no big ass roofbox welded onto the arse of the car...
but you are right anyway... 10st = 140lb = 63kg difference......
why do you think i bought a big silver tub? to hide me growing buttcakes and mask the weight differential!
Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 10:13 pm
hahahaha...I will just drive the car naked from now on..my trainers alone must weigh a few pounds.
Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 9:12 pm
when mine was half stripped- no rear seats, belts, spare wheel, empty boot, no ice or anyhting, we did a 0-60 run of 8.9 as the highest we got and that was using a stopwatch. now i have all my interior back in, quickest i could get was 9.8 soo....... but dont take those figures as accurate cos like i said that was me, a mate and a stop watch