difference between cabby and hard top
Posted
#799421
(In Topic #95940)
Settled In
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
mine is a 1.8 GTi
cheers
<a href="Login to a private Photobucket.com album"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v679/vw_golf_nutter/horses/mk1ocsig.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>
Posted
Local Hero
on a like for like basis, the tin top is quicker in every possible respect.
Posted
Local Hero
....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.
Posted
Settled In
do you still have the figures? wots 0-60 and top speed on both?
<a href="Login to a private Photobucket.com album"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v679/vw_golf_nutter/horses/mk1ocsig.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>
Posted
Local Hero
You not talking to Steve anymore ?
DubPartz
Posted
Local Hero
including top speed.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.
Posted
Settled In
DubPartz said
You not talking to Steve anymore ?
yeah but he doesnt know off the top of his head
<a href="Login to a private Photobucket.com album"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v679/vw_golf_nutter/horses/mk1ocsig.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>
Posted
Local Hero
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 !
DubPartz
Posted
Old Timer
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!
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!
Posted
Settled In
Cabbys are for lords and tin tops for laaaaaads!
1983 1.5 GX FOR SALE! pm for details.
Posted
Local Hero
wooders said
including top speed.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.
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.
Posted
Local Hero
not the same shape when doing a ton though.
Posted
Local Hero
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.
Posted
Local Hero
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.
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.
0 guests and 0 members have just viewed this: None.