difference between cabby and hard top

obviously i know the main difference! lol.. i was just wondering what the performance figures are for both so i can compare.

mine is a 1.8 GTi

cheers

on a like for like basis, the tin top is quicker in every possible respect.

....except top speed. There was a thread a couple months back. I looked up the specs (only place I could find was in Practical Classics Buyers Guide listing) and they listed the same top speed.

do you still have the figures? wots 0-60 and top speed on both?

You not talking to Steve anymore ?

paul_c said

….except top speed. There was a thread a couple months back. I looked up the specs (only place I could find was in Practical Classics Buyers Guide listing) and they listed the same top speed.

including top speed.

DubPartz said

You not talking to Steve anymore ?

yeah but he doesnt know off the top of his head

vw_golf_nutter said

DubPartz said

You not talking to Steve anymore ?

yeah but he doesnt know off the top of his head

Shame on him !

Id' quote tip top 1.6 and 1.8 figures off the top of my head, but dunno when it comes to the rag top.

Apparently they are 12% heavier than the tin top with most of the wight being over the back wheels - which in my opinion is no bad thing!  I've always thought the Jetta outhandled the Golf so weight at the back can't be a bad thing.

Working in my head that would make the tin top 1800 about 130bhp per metric ton and the cabby about 115/120bhp per metric ton.  Puts both of them over the magic 100bhp/ton figure.  Can't see there being much difference in road/fast road use and I'd suspect track times would be similar too as I'd have thought you can plant a cabby harder into a bend before it starts waiving it's inside near rear wheel in the air.

Infact I'd say that as we 4-wheel drifted across the wrong side of the road comping out of the tunnel chasing that Corrado Storm the other night that even on tyred dampers, it felt more planted than a hard top!

Cabbys are for lords and tin tops for laaaaaads!

wooders said

paul_c said

….except top speed. There was a thread a couple months back. I looked up the specs (only place I could find was in Practical Classics Buyers Guide listing) and they listed the same top speed.

including top speed.

I imagine that Practical Classics don't simply make up a top speed, so it would have been researched reasonably well and correct figures. Anyway:

1.8 GTI hatchback     116mph     0-60 in 8.3 secs
1.8 GTI cabriolet       116mph      0-60 in 9.1 secs
(for comparison, 1.6 GTI hatch - 110mph, 0-60 in 9.0 secs, 1.6 GTI Scirocco Mk1 115mph, 0-60 in 8.9 secs)

Same engine, same gearing, same shape (aerodynamics) = same top speed.

not the same shape when doing a ton though.

wooders said

not the same shape when doing a ton though.

If anything, the cabby would be more aerodynamic. Ever wondered why a rain drop has a teardrop shape? A fluid changes its shape to the most aerodynamic form when its subject to drag.

that has not passed my attention, though to be fair, it is only the roof that moves. the car doesn't turn raindrop shaped. i'd be quite surprised if the floppies and tin tops gave the same top speeds from the box.
 as for performance figures in mags, some are a bit hit and miss. some mags will do their own stats and use factory figures where they have none of their own. on the day they do their own testing, it may be raining/hot/cold/gail force etc… i find vw's figures to be relatively good, and maybe a little on the conservative side.