Mk2 spec
-
- Sponsor
- Posts: 2305
- Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2004 7:35 am
- Location: Saffron Walden, Essex
Mk2 spec
I've been looking around to try and find the performance spec of a 1043cc 4 speed 1985 Polo C. I imagine it'd not going to be great, but I'd just like to know what it can do out of curiosity Anyone know the torque, bhp, 0-60 and top speed of this car?
-
- New
- Posts: 15
- Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 12:52 am
Well, Standard is ment to be 45 bhp, Mine RRed at 43.7 at the fly, with a blowing exhaust and a screwed up mixture. This was also on a RR that is suspected to be a little bit out as nearly every one else complained about getting below standard figures with tuned up cars.
Top speed wise - I don't know, My sppedo goes up to 100mph, Mine goes off that, But estimated about 105 mph?
Top speed wise - I don't know, My sppedo goes up to 100mph, Mine goes off that, But estimated about 105 mph?
-
- Sponsor
- Posts: 2305
- Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2004 7:35 am
- Location: Saffron Walden, Essex
Cheers for that, good start
Another couple of things I could do with knowing, firstly the weight of the car (although I guess I could find it out easily enough myself if I could be bothered..) and secondly where the red line would be if it were fitted with a rev counter.. if anybody would be so kind
Another couple of things I could do with knowing, firstly the weight of the car (although I guess I could find it out easily enough myself if I could be bothered..) and secondly where the red line would be if it were fitted with a rev counter.. if anybody would be so kind
ahhh yesss... the red line.... LOL... there is no red line, it jus keeps GOIN AND GOING!! past 8k, iv only done it once, sounded as if she was gonna pop.... and the weight has got to be under 900KG??
they say the 1.0 will do 60 in 3 weeks... or more like 17secs.... but iv had 13secz in the wet, whilst spinnin a bit in 1st,
u got to do it ur self, there are no real accurate specs on cars.
they say the 1.0 will do 60 in 3 weeks... or more like 17secs.... but iv had 13secz in the wet, whilst spinnin a bit in 1st,
u got to do it ur self, there are no real accurate specs on cars.
-
- Sponsor
- Posts: 2305
- Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2004 7:35 am
- Location: Saffron Walden, Essex
- bstardchild
- Moderator
- Posts: 3057
- Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 9:53 pm
- Location: Norfolk - "Its just Black & Dirty"
-
- Sponsor
- Posts: 2305
- Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2004 7:35 am
- Location: Saffron Walden, Essex
-
- Sponsor
- Posts: 2305
- Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2004 7:35 am
- Location: Saffron Walden, Essex
-
- Bling Bling Diamond Member
- Posts: 5184
- Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2003 1:15 am
- Location: Birmingham! Enjoys: The pseudo-G-Smiles provided by a 1.6 Megane Sport valver...
- Contact:
Wow.... it gained 100kg from mk2 to mk3 O_O
Figures i have for mk3 - 0-60 in a molecule under 20 secs, max of around 91mph. Downhill max somewhere in the fog beyond the ton Max "reccomended" continual engine speed = 6300... do your own maths for that, top gear could be anything from 15.5 thru 16.8, 17.6, 19.6, 20.4 or 21.2 (the last one being high 5 speed, the two before that 3+E).
Mk2 probably a bit quicker off the mark thanks to the lower weight, top speed might be a squidge lower on the flat though thanks to slightly less aerodynamic bodywork.
Figures i have for mk3 - 0-60 in a molecule under 20 secs, max of around 91mph. Downhill max somewhere in the fog beyond the ton Max "reccomended" continual engine speed = 6300... do your own maths for that, top gear could be anything from 15.5 thru 16.8, 17.6, 19.6, 20.4 or 21.2 (the last one being high 5 speed, the two before that 3+E).
Mk2 probably a bit quicker off the mark thanks to the lower weight, top speed might be a squidge lower on the flat though thanks to slightly less aerodynamic bodywork.
-
- Sponsor
- Posts: 2305
- Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2004 7:35 am
- Location: Saffron Walden, Essex
Ah, excellent, decent figures to go on
I'm not quite sure how the mk2 is any less aerodynamic than the mk3 though.. I'd certainly doubt it'd take more than 1 mph or so off the top speed, anyway.. although I would imagine the fuel injected engines on the mk3s would give them a bit of a speed advantage..
Anyway, cheers for that, very useful stuff
I'm not quite sure how the mk2 is any less aerodynamic than the mk3 though.. I'd certainly doubt it'd take more than 1 mph or so off the top speed, anyway.. although I would imagine the fuel injected engines on the mk3s would give them a bit of a speed advantage..
Anyway, cheers for that, very useful stuff
-
- Platinum Member
- Posts: 1116
- Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 9:04 pm
- Location: Manchester Drives: '83 GL Classic
The front ends a bit squarer on the mk2 which makes it slightly less aerodynamic (but not much) You're In luck. I have in front of me here (thanks to optima21) a VW motoring magazine dated Feburary 1986 with a road test uf your car. Heres their own stats fot it:
0-40mph 9.4
0-50mph 13.1
0-60mph 18.4
0-70mph 25.8
3rd gear 30-50 10.3
4th gear 30-50 14.5
4th gear 50-70 25.8
Done with 2 people in car and 3/4 tank of petrol
Top gearing: 16.8mph per 1000rpm
max speed 88mph
Max hp 45bhp @ 5600rpm
Max torque: 54.6lbft @ 3600 rpm
kerb weight: 1610lbs (about 730Kg)
Hope that helps!
0-40mph 9.4
0-50mph 13.1
0-60mph 18.4
0-70mph 25.8
3rd gear 30-50 10.3
4th gear 30-50 14.5
4th gear 50-70 25.8
Done with 2 people in car and 3/4 tank of petrol
Top gearing: 16.8mph per 1000rpm
max speed 88mph
Max hp 45bhp @ 5600rpm
Max torque: 54.6lbft @ 3600 rpm
kerb weight: 1610lbs (about 730Kg)
Hope that helps!
-
- Sponsor
- Posts: 2305
- Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2004 7:35 am
- Location: Saffron Walden, Essex
-
- Platinum Member
- Posts: 1116
- Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 9:04 pm
- Location: Manchester Drives: '83 GL Classic