Chipped MkV GTI vs. R32

In response to Volkswagen's amusing "Pre-Pimped" GTI MkV ad-campaign, one of our bright interns pointed out that half the fun of owning a VW is modifying it. He would know - he had a Mk3 GTI that he lowered. And he knew he'd earn brownie points from me, because I've had two VWs with so many modifications that a simple list of the upgrades would crash this Web server.

It didn't take long for me to wonder: if our Four Seasons GTI is so quick, what would a chipped MkV be like?

As I pondered that question, Koni showed up at our editorial offices to tell us of a new kit that they developed with Eibach. The kit consists of Koni's acclaimed FSD shocks and a pair of Eibach Pro lowering springs.

I asked Koni for a kit, and headed straight for our favorite VW shop, Next Level Tuning, in Greensburg, PA. In just a few hours, they had installed the Koni/Eibach kit, re-flashed the ECU with custom APR programming, and installed a boost gauge.

I slowly drove out of the shop, and then laid 200 feet of tire up the hill.

THE APR PROGRAMMING

Whereas the stock ECU programming keeps the turbo's boost to around 11 psi, the APR 93-octane program allows up to about 19 psi. The biggest gains are mostly in the midrange - at very high rpms, the turbo can't move enough air to maintain the boost levels. Even as the engine nears redline, however, boost is higher in 93-octane mode than in stock mode.

When stock, the GTI scrambled for traction in first gear; now it simply ignited the front tires. Full throttle in second-gear was now a traction challenge - not that you felt it through the steering wheel, as torque steer remained minimal.
Read Article

Shredmo - 12/6/2007 2:31:53 PM

+1 Boost

I may be wrong, but I believe the way they measure octane is different between the states and Europe.

In Colorado, USA you can even purchase 85 octane. Still it is not on the same scale as what you are talking about. I have seen octane as high as 94 at regular gas stations in other parts of the USA.

Shredmo - 12/6/2007 3:10:59 PM

+1 Boost

Found this on the internets...
The RON method of octane measurement is not used in the United States. In the US, a different method entirely is used, called the CLC method. The number that results from this method is the average of the RON octane number and the MON octane number, so (RON + MON)/2 = CLC octane number. This is the number that you will find printed on a yellow label on gas pumps in the United States. 91 RON octane is equivalent to 87 CLC octane. http://www.type2.com/bartnik/octane.htm

Bmw8ter - 12/7/2007 9:07:25 AM

+1 Boost

The US uses the RON and MON, the only difference between us and some European countries is that we use an average of the 2 numbers, whereas some places just use the RON. So, that "OH so better petrol", with the 98 octane rating, is a 93 rating in the U.S....sad but true. Unless you're using legitimate racing fuel, you're pumping the same 'ole crap everyone else is pumping.

Obliv - 12/6/2007 1:45:13 PM

+1 Boost

Come to California...highest we get here at the pump is 91 :(

KillBot - 12/6/2007 1:59:15 PM

+3 Boost

Who cares about the frigging octane, focus, this article is about a GTI vs R32. I say R32 all day, just because the car has much more potential. I used to own a GLI and I really liked the car, but as in most fwd vehicles, is you can only put so much hp under the hood and keep the fronts from burning through 1st and 2nd. With the R32's improved awd system, this car could easily handle another 100 ponies. Where as the GTI can't.

Killbot

izfuney - 12/6/2007 2:37:08 PM

0 Boost

Its not the AWD in the R32 that people compain about its the choice of engines ... the 2.0 FSI is really sweet and as the article mentions, with as little as $500 investment you can get some big performance upgrades .. Not so with the narrow angle V6.

izfuney - 12/6/2007 2:43:20 PM

0 Boost

My bad .. its $800 ( sigh ! how prices have increased)
Nevertheless .. the R32 would so much sweeter if it had the 2.0 T engine ..( and charged a smaller premium ;) )

Shredmo - 12/6/2007 2:58:31 PM

+1 Boost

IIRC, VW was trying to utilize a 3.6L motor originally, but it wouldn't fit. Personally, in a car like this, I'd prefer the smaller motor, especially when they can get this much power out of it (2.0t).

KillBot - 12/6/2007 3:20:43 PM

+1 Boost

so then, we are all in agreement, awd with more power(a tweeked 2.0T) I think that some more ponies can easily be squeaked outa the 6, but whatever.

TimmyG - 12/6/2007 4:00:18 PM

+2 Boost

A turbo always has cheaper modding potential - apart from my 1st car, all 4 subsequent cars have been turbo charged (R33 Skyline, Audi 1.8T S-line, Golf GTi [MkIV, I know it was crap, I bought it cos it was cheap] and an Evo 9).

I've driven an MkIV R32 and I thought the car was great, such linear response obviously because I'm used to turbo lag! The article highlighted the flaw though - you can't get the power down only through the front wheels - so to me this is a flawed exercise.

I personally would never buy another FWD car, only AWD or RWD (with a limited slip diff).

TimmyG - 12/6/2007 4:01:27 PM

+1 Boost

p.s. the flaw I was talking about is obviously about the GTI, I know the R32 is AWD.